Los 


A-s  1  1 0  c ;  a 


«  LtOrar> 

Examir>»' 
s,  Califc 


HISTORY 
FOR  READY  REFERENCE 

FROM  THE  BEST 
HISTORIANS,  BIOGRAPHERS,  AND  SPECIALISTS 

THEIR  OWN   WORDS  IN   A  COMPLETE 

SYSTEM  OF  HISTOEY 

FOR  ALL  USES,   EXTENDING  TO   ALL   COUNTRIES  AND   SUBJECTS, 

AND  REPRESENTING  FOR  BOTH  READERS  AND   STUDENTS  THE  BETTER  AND 

NEWER   LITERATURE    OF    HISTORY    IN    THE 

ENGLISH  LANGUAGE 

BY 

J.  N.  LARNED 

WITH  NUMEROUS  HISTORICAL  MAPS  FROM  ORIGINAL  STUDIES  AND  DRAWINGS  BY 

ALAN   C.  REILEY 

REVISED  AND  ENLARGED  EDITION 

IN  SIX  VOLUMES 


VOLUME  II— ELECTRICAL  to  GERUSIA 


SPRINGFIELD,    MASS. 

THE  C.  A.  NICHOLS  CO.,  PUBLISHERS 
1901 


OopnuoHT,  1894, 
BY  J.  N.  LAKNED. 

COPTEIOHT,    1901, 

BT  J.  N.  LARNBD. 


The  Riverside  Prets,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  TJ.  8,  A, 
Printed  by  H.  O.  Houghton  &  Company. 


College 
Ubrarv 


/    - 


LIST  OF   MAPS. 

Map  of  Europe  at  the  close  of  the  Tenth  Century To  follow  page  1048 

Map  of  Europe  in  1768 To  follow  page  IIU 

Four  maps  of  France,  A.  D.  1154,  1180,  1314  and  1360, To  follow  page  1200 

Two  maps  of  Central  Europe,  A.  D.  843  and  888 On  page  1437 

Map  of  Germany  at  the  Peace  of  Westphalia To  follow  page  1519 

Maps  of  Germany,  A.  D.  1815  and  1866;  of  the  Netherlands,  1830-1839;  and 

of  the  ZoUverein To  follow  page  1576 


LOGICAL  OUTLINES,  IN  COLORS. 

English  history,       To  follow  page    807 

French  history To  follow  page  1188 

German  history, To  follow  page  1463 


1158206 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


Franklin. 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY  AND    IN- 
VENTION.—That  amber  when  rubbed  attracts 
light  bodies  was  known   in  tlie  earliest  tinips. 
"It  is  the  one  single  experiment  in  electricity 
which  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  remotest 
antiquity.  .  .   .  The  power  of  certain  fishes,  nota- 
bly what  is  known  as  the  'torpedo,'  to  produce 
electricity,  was  known  at  an  early  period,  and 
was  commented  on  by  Pliny  and  Aristotle."     Un- 
til the  16th  century  there  was  no  scientific  study 
of  these  phenomena.    "Dr.  Gilbert  can  justly  be 
called  the  creator  of   the  science  of  electricity 
and   magnetism.     His  experiments  were  prodi- 
gious in  number.  ...  To  him  we  are  indebted 
for  the  name   '  electricity,'  which  he  bestowed 
upon   the   power  or  property  which  amber  ex- 
hibited in  attracting  light  bodies,  borrowing  the 
name  from  the  substance  itself,  in  order  to  de- 
fine one  of  its  attributes.  .  .  .  This  application 
of  experiment  to  the  study  of  electricity,  begvui 
by  Gilbert  three  hundred  years  ago,  was  indus- 
triously pursued  by  those  who  came  after  hini, 
and  the  nest  two  centuries  witnessed  a  rapid 
development  of  science.     Among  the  earlier  stu- 
dents of   this  period  were  the  English  philoso- 
pher, Robert  Boyle,  and  the  celebrated   burgo- 
master of  Magdeburg,  Otto  von  Gucricke.    The 
latter  first  noted  the    sound    and   light   accom- 
panymg  electrical  excitation.     These  were  after- 
wards independently  discovered  by  Dr.  Wall,  an 
Englishman,  who  made  the  somewhat  prophetic 
observation,  '  This  light  and  crackling  seems  in 
some  degree  to  represent  thunder  and  lightning.' 
Sir  Isaac  Newton  made  a  few  experiments  in 
electricity,  which  he  exhibited  to  the  Royal  So- 
ciety. .  .  .  Francis  Hawksbee  was  an  active  and 
useful  contributor  to  experimental  investigation, 
and  he  also  called  attention  to  the  resemblance 
between  the  electric  spark  and  lightning.     The 
most  ardent  student  of  electricity  in  the  early 
years  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  Stephen 
Gray.    He  performed  a  multitude  of  experiments, 
nearly  all  of  which  added  something  to  the  rapidly 
accumulating  stock  of  knowledge,  but  doubtless 
his  most  important  contribution  was  his  discovery 
of  the  distinction  between  conductors  and  non- 
conductors. .  .  .  Some  of  Gray's  papers  fell  into 
the  hands  of  Dufay,  an  officer  of  the  French 
army,  who,  after  several  years'  service,  had  re- 
signed his  post  to  devote  himself  to  scientific 
pursuits.  .  .  .  His  most  important  discovery  was 
the  existence  of  two  distinct  species  of  electricity, 
which  he  named  'vitreous'  and  'resinous.'  ... 
A  very  important  advance  was  made  in  1745  in 
the  invention  of  the  Leyden  jar  or  phial.     As 
has  so  many  times  happened  in  the  history  of 
scientific  discovery,  it  seems  tolerably  certain 
that  this  interesting  device  was  hit  upon  by  at 
least  three  persons,  working  Independently  _  of 
each  other.     One  Cuueus,  a  monk  named  Kleist, 
and  Professor  Muschenbroeck,  of  Leyden,  are  all 
accredited  with  the  discovery.  ...  Sir  William 
Watson  perfected  it  by  adding  the  outside  metal- 
lic coating,  and  was  by  its  aid  enabled  to  fire 
gunpowder    and    other    inflammables." — T.    C. 
Mendenhall,  A  Century  of  Electricity ,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1745-1747. — Franklin's  identification 
of  Electricity  with  Lightning.— "  In  1745  Mr. 
Peter  Collinson  of  the  Royal  Society  sent  a 
[Leyden]  jar  to  the  Library  Society  of  Philadel- 
phia, with  instructions  how  to  use  it.  This  fell 
into  the  hands  of  Benjamin  Franklin,  who  at 
once  began  a  series  of   electrical   experiments 


On  March  28,  1747,  Franklin  began  his  fanwua 
letters  to  Collinson.  ...  In  these  letters  he  pro- 
pounded the  single-fluid  theory  of  electricity, 
and  referred  all  electric  phenomena  to  its  accu- 
mulation in  bodies  in  quantities  more  than  their 
natural  share,  or  to  its  being  withdrawn  from 
them  so  as  to  leave  them  minus  their  proper  por- 
tion."    Meantime,    numerous  experiments  with 
the  Leyden  jar  had  convinced  Franklin  of  the 
identity  of  lightning  and  electricity,  and  he  set 
about  the  demonstration  of  the  fact.     "The  ac- 
count given  by  Dr.  Stuber  of  Philadelphia,  an 
intimate  personal  friend  of  Franklin,  and  pub- 
lished in  one  of  the  earliest  editions  of  the  works 
of  the  great  philosopher,  is  as  follows :  —  '  The 
plan  which  he '  had  originally  proposed  was  to 
erect  on  some  high   tower,   or  other  elevated 
place,  a  sentry-box,  from  which  should  rise  a 
pointed  iron  rod,  insulated  by  being  fixed  in  a 
cake  of  resin.     Electrified  clouds  passing  oyer 
this  would,  he  conceived,  impart  to  it  a  portion 
of  their  electricity,  which  would  be  rendered  evi- 
dent to  the  senses  by  sparks  bemg  emitted  when 
a  key,  a  knuckle,  or  other  conductor  was  pre- 
sented to  it.     Philadelphia  at  this  time  offered 
no  opportunity  of  trying  an  experiment  of  this 
kind.     Whilst  Franklin  was  waiting  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  spire,  it  occurrred  to  him  that  he  might 
have  more  ready  access  to  the  region  of  clouds 
by  means  of  a  common  kite.     He  prepared  one 
by  attaching  two  cross-sticks  to  a  silk  handker- 
chief, which  would  not  suffer  so  much  from  the 
rain  as  paper.     To  his  upright  stick  was  fixed 
an  iron  point.     The  string   was,   as  usual,  of 
hemp,  except  the  lower  end,   which  was  silk. 
Where  the  hempen  string  terminated,  a  key  was 
fastened.     With  this  apparatus,  on  the  appear- 
ance of  a  thunder-gust   approaching,   he  went 
into   the  common,  accompanied  by  his  son,  to 
whom  alone  he  communicated  his  intentions,  well 
knowing  the  ridicule  which,  too  generally  for 
the  interest  of  science,  awaits  unsuccessful  ex- 
periments in  philosophy.      He  placed  himself 
under  a  shed  to  avoid  the  rain.     His  kite  was 
raised.     A  thunder-cloud    passed    over   it.     No 
signs  of  electricity   appeared.     He   almost  de- 
spaired of  success,  when  suddenly  he  observed 
the  loose  fibres  of  his  string  move  toward  an 
erect  position.     He  now  pressed  his  knuckle  to 
the  key,  and  received  a  strong  spark.     How  ex- 
quisite must  his  sensations  have  been  at  this 
moment!     On  his  experiment  depended  the  fate 
of  his  theory.     Doubt  and  despair  had  begun  to 
prevail,  when  the  fact  was  ascertained  in  so  clear 
a  manner,  that  even  the  most  incredulous  could 
no    longer    withhold    their    assent.     Repeated 
sparks  were  drawn  from  the  key,  a  phial  was 
charged,  a  shock  given,  and  all  the  experiments 
made  which  are  usually   performed  with  elec- 
tricity.'    And  thus  the  identity  of  lightning  and 
electricity  was  proved.  .  .  .  Franklin's  proposi- 
tion to  erect  lightning  rods  which  would  convey 
the  lightning  to  the  ground,  and  so  protect  the 
buildings  to  which  they  were  attached,   found 
abundant  opponents.  .  .  .  Nevertheless,  public 
opinion  became  settled  .  .  .  that  they  did  pro- 
tect buildings.  .  .  .  Then  the  philosophers  raised 
a  new  controversy  as  to  whether  the  conductors 
should  be  blunt  or  pointed ;  Franklin,  Cavendish, 
and  Watson  advocating  points,  and  Wilson  blunt 
ends.  .  .  .  The   logic  of  experiment,  however, 
showed  the  advantage  of  pointed  conductors;  and 
people  persisted  then  in  preferring  them,  as  they 

797 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


Galvani  and 
Volta. 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


have  done  ever  since." — P.  Benjamin,  The  Age  of 
Electricity,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1753-1820. — The  beginnings  of  the 
Electric  Telegraph. — "The  first  actual  sugges- 
tion of  an  electric  telegraph  was  made  in  an 
anonymous  letter  published  in  the  Scots  Maga- 
zine at  Edinburgh,  February  17th,  1753.  The 
letter  is  initialed  '  C.  M.,'  and  many  attempts 
have  been  made  to  discover  the  author's  identity. 
.  .  .  The  suggestions  made  in  this  letter  were 
that  a  set  of  twenty -six  wires  should  be  stretched 
upon  insulated  supports  between  the  two  places 
which  it  was  desired  to  put  in  connection,  and  at 
each  end  of  every  wire  a  metallic  ball  was  to  be 
suspended,  having  under  it  a  letter  of  the  alpha- 
bet inscribed  upon  a  piece  of  paper.  .  .  .  The 
message  was  to  be  read  off  at  the  receiving  sta- 
tion by  observing  the  letters  which  were  succes- 
sively attracted  by  their  corresponding  balls,  as 
soon  as  the  wires  attached  to  the  latter  received 
a  charge  from  the  distant  conductor.  In  1787 
Monsieur  Lomond,  of  Paris,  made  the  very  im- 
portant step  of  reducing  the  twenty-six  wires  to 
one,  and  indicating  the  different  letters  by  various 
combinations  of  simple  movements  of  an  indi- 
cator, consisting  of  a  pith-ball  suspended  by 
means  of  a  thread  from  a  conductor  in  contact 
with  the  wire.  ...  In  the  year  1790  Chappe, 
the  inventor  of  the  semaphore,  or  optico-mechan- 
ical  telegraph,  which  was  in  practical  use  pre- 
vious to  the  introduction  of  the  electric  telegraph, 
devised  a  means  of  communication,  consisting  of 
two  clocks  regulated  so  that  the  second  hands 
moved  in  unison,  and  pointed  at  the  same  Instant 
to  the  same  figures.  ...  In  the  early  form  of 
the  apparatus,  the  exact  moment  at  which  the 
observer  at  the  receiving  station  should  read  off 
the  figure  to  which  the  hand  pointed  was  indi- 
cated by  means  of  a  sound  signal  produced  by 
the  primitive  method  of  striking  a  copper  stew- 
pan,  but  the  inventor  soon  adopted  the  plan  of 
giving  electrical  signals  instead  of  sound  sig- 
nals. ...  In  1795  Don  Francisco  Salva  .  .  . 
suggested  .  .  .  that  instead  of  twenty-six  wires 
being  used,  one  for  each  letter,  six  or  eight  wires 
only  should  be  employed,  each  charged  by  a 
Leyden  jar,  and  that  different  letters  should  be 
formed  by  means  of  various  combinations  of  sig- 
nals from  these.  .  .  .  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  Francis) 
Ronalds  .  .  .  took  up  the  subject  of  telegraphy 
in  the  year  1816,  and  published  an  account  of 
his  experiments  in  1833,"  based  on  the  same  idea 
as  that  of  Chappe.  .  .  .  "Ronalds  drew  up  a 
sort  of  telegraphic  code  by  which  words,  and  some- 
times even  complete  sentences,  could  be  trans- 
mitted by  only  three  discharges.  .  .  .  Ronalds 
completely  proved  the  practicability  of  his  plan, 
not  only  on  [a]  short  underground  line,  .  .  .  but 
also  upon  an  overhead  line  some  eight  miles  in 
length,  constructed  by  carrying  a  telegraph  wire 
backwards  and  forwards  over  a  wooden  frame- 
work erected  in  his  garden  at  Hammersmith. 
.  .  .  The  first  attempt  to  employ  voltaic  electric- 
ity in  telegraphy  was  made  by  Don  Francisco 
Salva,  wliose  frictional  telegraph  has  already 
been  referred  to.  On  the  14th  of  May,  1800,  Salva 
read  a  paper  on  '  Galvanism  and  its  application 
to  Telegraphy  '  before  the  Academy  of  Sciences 
at  Barcelona,  in  which  he  described  a  number  of 
experiments  which  he  had  made  in  telegraphing 
over  a  line  some  310  metres  in  length.  ...  A 
few  years  later  he  applied  the  then  recent  dis- 
covery of  the  Voltaic  pile  to  the  same  purpose, 


the  liberation  of  bubbles  of  gas  by  the  decompo- 
sition of  water  at  the  receiving  station  being  the 
method  adopted  for  indicating  the  passage  of  the 
signals.  A  telegraph  of  a  very  similar  character 
was  devised  by  Sommering,  and  described  in  a 
paper  communicated  by  the  inventor  to  the 
Munich  Academy  of  Sciences  in  1809.  Sommer- 
ing used  a  set  of  thirty-five  wires  corresponding 
to  the  twenty-five  letters  of  the  German  alphabet 
and  the  ten  numerals.  .  .  .  Oersted's  discovery 
of  the  action  of  the  electric  current  upon  a  sus- 
pended magnetic  needle  provided  a  new  and 
much  more  hopeful  method  of  applying  the  elec- 
tric current  to  telegraphy.  The  great  French 
astronomer  Laplace  appears  to  have  been  the 
first  to  suggest  this  application  of  Oersted's  dis- 
covery, and  he  was  followed  shortly  afterwards 
by  Ampere,  who  in  the  year  1830  read  a  paper 
before  the  Paris  Academy  of  Sciences. " —  G.  W. 
De  Tunzelmann,  Electricity  in  Modern  Life, 
ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1786-1800. — Discoveries  of  Galvani 
and  Volta.  —  "The  fundamental  experiment 
which  led  to  the  discovery  of  dynamical  elec- 
tricity [1786]  is  due  to  Galvani,  professor  of  anat- 
omy in  Bologna.  Occupied  with  investigations 
on  the  influence  of  electricity  on  the  nervous  ex- 
citability of  animals,  and  especially  of  the  frog, 
he  observed  that  when  the  lumbar  nerves  of  a 
dead  frog  were  connected  with  the  crural  mus- 
cles by  a  metallic  circuit,  the  latter  became 
briskly  contracted.  .  .  .  Galvani  had  some  time 
before  observed  that  the  electricity  of  machines 
produced  in  dead  frogs  analogous  contractions, 
and  he  attributed  the  phenomena  first  described 
to  an  electricity  inherent  in  the  animal.  He  as- 
sumed that  this  electricitj',  which  he  called  vital, 
fluid,  passed  from  the  nerves  to  the  muscles  byi 
the  metallic  arc,  and  was  thus  the  cause  of  con- 
traction. This  theory  met  with  great  support,  ( 
especially  among  physiologists,  but  it  was  not 
without  opponents.  The  most  considerable  of 
these  was  Alexander  Volta,  professor  of  physics 
in  Pavia.  Galvani's  attention  had  been  exclu- 
sively devoted  to  the  nerves  and  muscles  of  the 
frog ;  Volta's  was  directed  upon  the  connecting 
metal.  Resting  on  the  observation,  which  Gal- 
vani had  also  made,  that  the  contraction  is  more 
energetic  when  the  connecting  arc  is  composed  of 
two  metals  than  where  there  is  only  one,  Volta 
attributed  to  the  metals  the  active  part  in  the 
phenomenon  of  contraction.  He  assumed  that  the 
disengagement  of  electricity  was  due  to  their 
contact,  and  that  the  animal  parts  only  ofiiciated 
as  conductors,  and  at  the  same  time  as  a  very 
sensitive  electroscope.  By  means  of  the  then 
recently  invented  electroscope,  Volta  devised 
several  modes  of  showing  the  disengagement  of 
electricity  on  the  contact  of  metals.  ...  A  mem- 
orable controversy  arose  between  Galvani  and 
Volta.  The  latter  was  led  to  give  greater  exten- 
sion to  his  contact  theory,  and  propounded  the 
principle  that  when  two  heterogeneous  sub- 
stances are  placed  in  contact,  one  of  them  always 
assumes  the  positive  and  the  other  the  negative 
electrical  condition.  In  this  form  Volta's  theory 
obtained  the  assent  of  the  principal  philosophers 
of  his  time." — A.  Ganot,  Elementary  Treatise  on 
P/iysici ;  tr.  by  Atkinson,  bk.  10,  ch.  1. — Volta's 
theory,  however,  though  somewhat  misleading, 
did  not  prevent  his  making  what  was  probably 
the  greatest  step  in  the  science  up  to  this  time, 
in  the  invention  (about  1800)  of  the  Voltaic  pile, 


798 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


Oersted 
and  Ampere. 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


the  first  generator  of  electrical  energy  by  chemi- 
cal means,  and  the  forerunner  of  the  vast  number 
of  types  of  the  modern  "battery." 

A.  D.  1810-1890.  — The  Arc  light.— "The 
earliest  instance  of  applying  Electricity  to  the 
production  of  light  was  in  1810,  by  Sir  Hum- 
phrey Davy,  who  found  that  when  the  points  of 
two  carbon  rods  whose  other  ends  were  connected 
by  wires  with  a  powerful  primary  battery  were 
brought  into  contact,  and  then  drawn  a  little  way 
apart,  the  Electric  current  still  continued  to  jump 
across  the  gap,  forming  what  is  now  termed  an 
Electric  Arc.  .  .  .  Various  contrivances  have 
been  devised  for  automatically  regulating  the 
position  of  the  two  carbons.  As  early  as  1847,  a 
lamp  was  patented  by  Staite,  in  which  the  car- 
bon rods  were  fed  together  by  clockwork.  .  .  . 
Similar  devices  were  produced  by  Poucault  and 
others,  but  the  first  really  successful  arc  lamp 
was  Serrin's,  patented  in  1857,  which  has  not  only 
itself  survived  until  the  present  day,  but  has  had 
its  main  features  reproduced  in  many  other 
lamps.  .  .  .  The  JablochkofE  Candle  (1876),  in 
which  the  arc  was  formed  between  the  ends  of  a 
pair  of  carbon  rods  placed  side  by  side,  and  sepa- 
rated by  a  layer  of  insulating  material,  which 
slowly  consumed  as  the  carbons  burnt  down,  did 
good  service  in  accustoming  the  public  to  the  new 
illuminant.  Since  then  the  inventions  by  Brush, 
Thomson-Houston,  and  others  have  done  much  to 
bring  about  its  adoption  for  lighting  large  rooms, 
streets,  and  spaces  out  of  doors." — J.  B.  Verity, 
Electricity  up  to  Date  for  Light,  Power,  and  Trac- 
tion, ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1820-1825. — Oersted,  Ampfere,  and  the 
discovery  of  the  Electro-Magnet. — "There  is 
little  chance  .  .  .  that  the  discoverer  of  the  mag- 
net, or  the  discoverer  and  inventor  of  the  mag- 
netic needle,  will  ever  be  known  by  name,  or 
that  even  the  locality  and  date  of  the  discovery 
will  ever  be  determined  [see  CoMP.\ss].  .  .  .  The 
magnet  and  magnetism  received  their  first  scien- 
tific treatment  at  the  hands  of  Dr.  Gilbert.  Dur- 
ing the  two  centuries  succeeding  the  publication 
of  his  work,  the  science  of  magnetism  was  much 
cultivated.  .  .  .  The  development  of  the  science 
went  along  parallel  with  that  of  the  science  of 
electricity  .  .  .  although  the  latter  was  more 
'  fruitful  in  novel  discoveries  and  unexpected  ap- 
plications than  the  former.  It  is  not  to  be  imag- 
ined that  the  many  close  resemblances  of  the  two 
classes  of  phenomena  were  allowed  to  pass  un- 
noticed. .  .  .  There  was  enough  resemblance  to 
suggest  an  intimate  relation  ;  and  the  connecting 
link  was  sought  for  by  many  eminent  philoso- 
phers during  the  last  years  of  the  eighteenth  and 
the  earlier  years  of  the  present  century. " — T.  C. 
Mendenhall,  A  Century  of  Electricity,  ch.  3. — 
"The  effect  which  an  electric  current,  flowing  in 
a  wire,  can  exercise  upon  a  neighbouring  com- 
pass needle  was  discovered  by  Oersted  in  1820. 
This  first  announcement  of  the  possession  of 
magnetic  properties  by  an  electric  current  was 
followed  speedily  by  the  researches  of  Ampfere, 
Arago,  Davy,  and  by  the  devices  of  several  other 
experimenters,  including  De  la  Rive's  floating 
battery  and  coil,  Schweigger's  multiplier,  Cum- 
ming's  galvanometer,  Faraday's  apparatus  for 
rotation  of  a  permanent  magnet.  Marsh's  vibrat- 
ing pendulum  and  Barlow's  rotating  star-wheel. 
But  it  was  not  until  1835  that  the  electromagnet 
was  invented.  Arago  announced,  on  25th  Sep- 
tember 1820,  that  a  copper  wire  uniting  the  poles 


of  a  voltaic  cell,  and  consequently  traversed  by 
an  electric  current,  could  attract  iron  filings  to 
itself  laterally.  In  the  same  communication  he 
described  how  he  had  succeeded  in  communicat- 
ing permanent  magnetism  to  steel  needles  laid  at 
right  angles  to  the  copper  wire,  and  how,  on 
showing  this  experiment  to  Ampere,  the  latter 
had  suggested  that  the  magnetizing  action  would 
be  more  intense  if  for  the  straight  copper  wire 
there  were  substituted  one  wrapped  in  a  helix, 
in  the  centre  of  which  the  steel  needle  might  be 
placed.  This  suggestion  was  at  once  carried  out 
by  the  two  philosophers.  '  A  copper  wire  wound 
in  a  helix  was  terminated  by  two  rectilinear  por- 
tions which  could  be  adapted,  at  will,  to  the  op- 
posite poles  of  a  powerful  horizontal  voltaic  pile ; 
a  steel  needle  wrapped  up  in  paper  was  intro- 
duced into  the  helix. '  '  Now,  after  some  minutes' 
sojourn  in  the  helix,  the  steel  needle  had  received 
a  sufliciently  strong  dose  of  magnetism.'  Arago 
then  wound  upon  a  little  glass  tube  some  short 
helices,  each  about  2^  inches  long,  coiled  altern- 
ately right-handedly  and  left-handedly,  and 
found  that  on  introducing  into  the  glass  tube  a 
steel  wire,  he  was  able  to  produce  '  consequent 
poles '  at  the  places  where  the  winding  was  re- 
versed. AmpSre,  on  October  23rd,  1820,  read  a 
memoir,  claiming  that  these  facts  confirmed  his 
theory  of  magnetic  actions.  Davy  had,  also,  in 
1820,  surrounded  with  temporary  coils  of  wire 
the  steel  needles  upon  which  he  was  experiment- 
ing, and  had  shown  that  the  flow  of  electricity 
around  the  coil  could  confer  magnetic  power 
upon  the  steel  needles.  .  .  .  The  electromagnet, 
in  the  form  which  can  first  claim  recognition  ... 
was  devised  by  William  Sturgeon,  and  is  described 
by  him  in  the  paper  which  he  contributed  to  the 
Society  of  Arts  in  1825."— S.  P.  Thompson,  The 
Electromagnet,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1825-1874.- The  Perfected  Telegraph. 
— "  The  European  philosophers  kept  on  groping. 
At  the  end  of  five  years  [after  Oersted's  discov- 
ery], one  of  them  reached  an  obstacle  which  he 
made  up  his  mind  was  so  entirely  insurmountable, 
that  it  rendered  the  electric  telegraph  an  impossi- 
bility for  all  future  time.  This  was  [1825]  Mr. 
Peter  Barlow,  fellow  of  the  Royal  Society,  who 
had  encountered  the  question  whether  the  length- 
ening of  the  conducting  wire  would  produce  any 
effect  in  diminishing  the  energy  of  the  current 
transmitted,  and  had  undertaken  to  resolve  the 
problem.  .  .  .  '  I  found  [he  said]  such  a  consid- 
erable diminution  with  only  200  feet  of  wire  as 
at  once  to  convince  me  of  the  impracticability  of 
the  scheme.'.  .  .  The  year  following  the  an- 
nouncement of  Barlow's  conclusions,  a  young 
graduate  of  the  Albany  (N.  Y.)  Academy  —  by 
name  Joseph  Henry  —  was  appointed  to  the  pro- 
fessorship of  mathematics  in  that  institution. 
Henry  there  began  the  series  of  scientific  investi- 
gations which  is  now  historic.  .  .  .  Up  to  that 
time,  electro-magnets  had  been  made  with  a 
single  coil  of  naked  wire  wound  spirally  around 
the  core,  with  large  intervals  between  the  strands. 
The  core  was  insulated  as  a  whole :  the  wire  was 
not  insulated  at  all.  Professor  Schweigger,  who 
had  previously  invented  the  multiplying  galvano- 
meter, had  covered  his  wires  with  silk.  Henry 
followed  this  idea,  and,  instead  of  a  single  coil  of 
wire,  used  several.  .  .  .  Barlow  had  said  that 
the  gentle  current  of  the  galvanic  battery  became 
so  weakened,  after  traversing  200  feet  of  wire, 
that  it  was  idle  to  consider  the  possibility  of 


799 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY.       ne  Telegraph.       ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


making  it  pass  over  even  a  mile  of  conductor  and 
then  affect  a  magnet.  Henry's  reply  was  to 
point  out  that  the  trouble  lay  in  the  way  Bar- 
low's magnet  was  made.  .  .  .  Make  the  magnet 
so  that  the  diminished  current  will  exercise  its 
full  effect.  Instead  of  using  one  short  coil, 
through  which  the  current  can  easily  slip,  and 
do  nothing,  make  a  coil  of  many  turns  ;  that  in- 
creases the  magnetic  field :  make  it  of  fine  wire, 
and  of  higher  resistance.  And  then,  to  prove 
the  truth  of  his  discovery,  Henry  put  up  the 
first  electro-magnetic  telegraph  ever  constructed. 
In  the  academy  at  Albany,  in  1831,  he  suspended 
1,060  feet  of  bell-wire,  with  a  battery  at  one  end 
and  one  of  his  magnets  at  the  other;  and  he 
made  the  magnet  attract  and  release  its  armature. 
The  armature  struck  a  bell,  and  so  made  the 
signals.  Annihilating  distance  in  this  way  was 
only  one  part  of  Henry's  discovery.  He  had 
also  found,  that,  to  obtain  the  greatest  dynamic 
effect  close  at  hand,  the  battery  should  be  com- 
posed of  a  very  few  cells  of  large  surface,  com- 
bined with  a  coil  or  coils  of  short  coarse  wire 
around  the  magnet, —  conditions  just  the  reverse 
of  those  necessary  when  the  magnet  was  to  be 
worked  at  a  distance.  Now,  he  argued,  suppose 
the  magnet  with  the  coarse  short  coil,  and  the 
large-surface  battery,  be  put  at  the  receiving 
station ;  and  the  current  coming  over  the  line  be 
used  simply  to  make  and  break  the  circuit  of  that 
local  battery.  .  .  .  This  is  the  principle  of  the 
telegraphic  'relay.'  In  1835  Henry  worked  a 
telegraph-line  in  that  way  at  Princeton.  And 
thus  the  electro-magnetic  telegraph  was  com- 
pletely invented  and  demonstrated.  There  was 
nothing  left  to  do,  but  to  put  up  the  posts,  string 
the  lines,  and  attach  the  instruments." — P.  Ben- 
jamin, The  Age  of  Electricity,  ch.  11. — "At  last 
we  leave  the  territory  of  theory  and  experiment 
and  come  to  that  of  practice.  '  The  merit  of  in- 
venting the  modern  telegraph,  and  applying  it 
on  a  large  scale  for  public  use,  is,  beyond  all 
question,  due  to  Professor  Morse  of  the  United 
States. '  So  writes  Sir  David  Brewster,  and  the 
best  authorities  on  the  question  substantially 
agree  with  him.  .  .  .  Leaving  for  future  con- 
sideration Morse's  telegraph,  which  was  not  in- 
troduced until  five  years  after  the  time  when  he 
was  impressed  with  the  notion  of  its  feasibilit}', 
we  may  mention  the  telegraph  of  Gauss  and 
Weber  of  Gottingen.  In  1833,  thej'  erected  a 
telegraphic  wire  between  the  Astronomical  and 
Magnetical  Observatory  of  Gottingen,  and  the 
Physical  Cabinet  of  the  University,  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  intelligence  from  the  one  locality  to 
the  other.  To  these  great  philosophers,  however, 
rather  the  theory  than  the  practice  of  Electric 
Telegraphy  was  indebted.  Their  apparatus  was 
so  improved  as  to  be  almost  a  new  invention  by 
Steinhill  of  Munich,  who.  In  1837  .  .  .  succeeded 
in  sending  a  current  from  one  end  to  the  other  of 
a  wire  36,000  feet  in  length,  the  action  of  which 
caused  two  needles  to  vibrate  from  side  to  side, 
and  strike  a  bell  at  each  movement.  To  Stein- 
hill the  honour  is  due  of  having  discovered  the 
important  and  extraordinary  fact  that  the  earth 
might  be  used  as  a  part  of  the  circuit  of  an 
electric  current.  The  introduction  of  the  Elec- 
tric Telegraph  into  England  dates  from  the  same 
year  as  that  in  which  Steinhill's  experiments 
took  place.  William  Fothergill  Cooke,  a  gentle- 
man who  held  a  commission  in  the  Indian  army, 
returned  from   India  on   leave  of  absence,  and 


afterwards,  because  of  his  bad  health,  resigned 
his  commission,  and  went  to  Heidelberg  to  study 
anatomy.  In  1836,  Professor  Monke,  of  Heidel- 
berg, exhibited  an  electro-telegraphic  experiment, 
'  in  which  electric  currents,  passing  along  a  con- 
ducting wire,  conveyed  signals  to  a  distant  station 
by  the  deflexion  of  a  magnetic  needle  enclosed 
in  Schweigger's  galvanometer  or  multiplier. ' .  .  . 
Cooke  was  so  struck  with  this  experiment,  that 
he  immediately  resolved  to  apply  it  to  purposes 
of  higher  utility  than  the  illustration  of  a  lecture. 
...  In  a  short  time  he  produced  two  telegraphs 
of  different  construction.  When  his  plans  were 
completed,  he  came  to  England,  and  in  February, 
1837,  having  consulted  Faraday  and  Dr.  Roget 
on  the  construction  of  the  electric-magnet  em- 
ployed in  a  part  of  his  apparatus,  the  latter  gen- 
tleman advised  him  to  apply  to  Professor  Wheat- 
stone.  .  .  .  The  result  of  the  meeting  of  Cooke 
and  Wheatstone  was  that  thej'  resolved  to  unite 
their  several  discoveries;  and  in  the  month  of 
May  1837,  they  took  out  their  first  patent  '  for 
improvements  in  giving  signals  and  sounding 
alarms  in  distant  places  by  means  of  electric  cur- 
rents transmitted  through  metallic  circuits.' .  .  . 
By-and-by,  as  might  probably  have  been  antici- 
pated, difficulties  arose  between  Cooke  and 
Wheatstone,  as  to  whom  the  main  credit  of  intro- 
ducing the  Electric  Telegraph  into  England  was 
due.  .  .  .  Mr.  Cooke  accused  Wheatstone  (with 
a  certain  amount  of  justice,  it  should  seem)  of 
entirely  ignoring  his  claims ;  and  in  doing  so  Mr. 
Cooke  appears  to  have  rather  exaggerated  his 
own  services.  Most  will  readily  agree  to  the 
wise  words  of  Sir.  Sabine :  '  It  was  once  a  popu- 
lar fallacy  in  England  that  Jlessrs.  Cooke  and 
Wheatstone  were  the  original  inventors  of  the 
Electric  Telegraph.  The  Electric  Telegraph  had, 
properly  speaking,  no  inventor;  it  grew  up  as 
we  have  seen  little  by  little. " — H.  J.  Nicoll,  Oreat 
Movements,  pp.  434-429. — "In  the  latter  part  of 
the  year  1833,  Samuel  F.  B.  Morse,  an  American 
artist,  while  on  a  voyage  from  France  to  the 
United  States,  conceived  the  idea  of  an  electro- 
magnetic telegraph  which  should  consist  of  the 
following  parts,  viz:  A  single  circuit  of  con- 
ductors from  some  suitable  generator  of  elec- 
tricity ;  a  system  of  signs,  consisting  of  dots  or 
points  and  spaces  to  represent  numerals ;  a  method 
of  causing  the  electricity  to  mark  or  imiirint 
these  signs  upon  a  strip  or  ribbon  of  paper  by 
the  mechanical  action  of  an  electro-magnet  oper- 
ating upon  the  paper  by  means  of  a  lever,  armed 
at  one  end  with  a  pen  or  pencil ;  and  a  method  of 
moving  the  paper  ribbon  at  a  uniform  rate  by 
means  of  clock-work  to  receive  the  characters. 
...  In  the  autumn  of  the  year  1835  he  con- 
structed the  first  rude  working  model  of  his  in- 
vention. .  .  .  The  first  public  exhibition  .  .  . 
was  on  the  2d  of  September,  1837,  on  which  oc- 
casion the  marking  was  successfully  effected 
through  one  third  of  a  mile  of  wire.  Immediately 
afterwards  a  recording  instrument  was  con- 
structed .  .  .  which  was  subsequently  employed 
upon  the  first  experimental  line  between  Wash- 
ington and  Baltimore.  This  line  was  constructed 
in  1843-44  under  an  appropriation  by  Congress, 
and  was  completed  by  May  of  the  latter  year. 
On  the  27th  of  that  month  the  first  despatch  was 
transmitted  from  Washington  to  Baltimore.  .  .  . 
The  experimental  line  was  originally  constructed 
with  two  wires,  as  Morse  was  not  at  that  time 
acquainted  with  the  discovery  of  Steinheil,  that 


800 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY.        ^«  Dynamo.        ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERT. 


the  earth  might  be  used  to  complete  the  circuit. 
Accident,  liowever,  soon  demonstrated  this  fact. 
.  The   following  year  (1845)  telegraph  lines 
began  to  be  built  over  other  routes.  ...  In  Oc- 
tober, 1851,  a  convention  of  deputies  from  the 
German    States    of  Austria,    Prussia,    Bavaria, 
Wurtemberg  and  Saxony,  met  at  Vienna,  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  a  common  and  uniform 
telegraphic  system,  under  the  name  of  the  Ger- 
man-Austrian Telegraph  Union.     The  various 
systems  of  telegraphy  then  in  use  were  subjected 
to  the  most  thorough  examination  and  discussion. 
The  convention  decided  with   great  unanimity 
that  the  Morse  system  was  practically  far  superior 
to  all  others,  and  it  was  accordingly  adopted. 
Prof.    Steinheil,   although  himself  ...  the  in- 
ventor of  a  telegraphic  system,  with  a  magna- 
nimity that  does  him  high  honor,  strongly  urged 
upon  the  convention  the  adoption  of  the  Ameri- 
can system.".  .  .  The  first  of  the  printing  tele- 
graphs was  patented   in   the   United   States  by 
Royal  E.  House,  in  1846.     The  Hughes  printing 
telegraph,    a  remarkable  piece  of  mechanism, 
was  patented  by  David  E.  Hughes,  of  Kentucky, 
in  1855.      A  system  known  as  the  automatic 
method,  in  which  the  signals  representing  letters 
are  transmitted  over  the  line  through  the  instru- 
mentality   of    mechanism,    was    originated    by 
Alexander  Bain  of  Edinburgh,  whose  first  patents 
were  taken  out  in  1846.     An  autographic  tele- 
graph, transmitting  despatches  in  the  reproduced 
hand-writing  of  the  sender,  was  brought  out  in 
1850,  by  F.  C.  Bakewell,  of  London.     The  same 
result  was  afterwards  accomplished  with  varia- 
tions of  method  by  Chas.  Cros,  of  Paris,  Abbe 
Caseli,   of    Florence,   and  others;  but  none  of 
these    inventions    has    been    extensively    used. 
"  The  possibility  of  making  use  of  a  single  wire 
for  the    simultaneous  transmission  of    two  or 
more  communications  seems  to  have  first  sug- 
gested  itself   to   Jloses   G.   Farmer,  of  Boston, 
about  the  year  1852."     The  problem  was  first 
solved  with  partial  success  by  Dr.  Gintl,  on  the 
line  between  Prague  and  Vienna,  in  1853,  but 
more  perfectly  by  Carl  Frischen,  of  Hanover,  in 
the  following   year.     Other  inventors   followed 
in  the  same  field,  among  them  Thomas  A.  Edison, 
of  New  Jersey,  who  was  led  by  his  experiments 
finally,  in  1874  to  devise  a  system  "which  was 
destined  to  furnish  the  basis  of  the  first  practical 
solution  of  the  curious  and  interesting  problem 
of  quadruplex  telegraphy.  "—G.  B.  Prescott,  Elec- 
tricity and  the  Electric  Telegraph,  ch.  29-40. 

A.  D.  1831-1872.— Dynamo-Electrical  Ma- 
chines, and  Electric  Motors.—  "  The  discovery 
of  induction  by  Faraday,  in  1831,  gave  rise  to 
the  construction  of  magneto-electro  machines. 
The  first  of  such  machines  that  was  ever  made 
was  probably  a  machine  that  never  came  into 
practical  use,  the  description  of  which  was  given 
in  a  letter,  signed  '  P.  M. , '  and  directed  to  Fara- 
day, published  in  the  Philosophical  Magazine  of 
2nd  August,  1832.  We  learn  from  this  descrip- 
tion that  the  essential  parts  of  this  machine  were 
six  horse-shoe  magnets  attached  to  a  disc,  which 
rotated  in  front  of  six  coils  of  wire  wound  on 
bobbins."  Sept.  3rd,  1832,  Pixii  constructed  a 
machine  in  which  a  single  horse-shoe  magnet 
was  made  to  rotate  before  two  soft  iron  cores, 
wound  with  wire.  In  this  machine  he  introduced 
the  commutator,  an  essential  element  in  all  mod- 
ern continuous  current  machines.  "Almost  at 
the  same  time,  Ritchie,  Saxton,  and  Clarke  con- 


structed similar  machines.     Clarke's  is  the  best 
known,   and  is  still  popular  in   the  small    and 
portable  '  medical '  machines  so  commonly  sold. 
.  .  .  A    larger   machine  [was]  constructed   by 
Stohrer  (1843),  on  the  same  plan  as  Clarke's,  but 
with  six  coils  instead  of  two,   and  three  com- 
pound magnets  instead  of  one.  .  .  .  The  machines, 
constructed  by  Nollet  (1849)  and  Shepard  (1856) 
had  still  more  magnets   and   coils.      Shepard'a 
machine  was  modified   by  Van  Malderen,   and 
was  called  the  Alliance  machine.  ...  Dr.  Wer- 
ner Siemens,  while  considering  how  the  inducing 
effect  of   the  magnet  can   be  most  thoroughly 
utilised,  and  how  to  arrange  the  coils  in  the  most 
efficient  manner  for  this  purpose,  was  led  in  1857 
to  devise  the  cylindrical  armature.  .  .  .  Sinste- 
deninl851  pointed  out  that  the  current  of  the 
generator  may  itself   be  utilised  to  excite   the 
magnetism  of  the  field  magnets.  .  .  .  Wilde  [in 
1863]  carried  out  this  suggestion  by  using  a  small 
steel  permanent  magnet  and  larger  electro  mag- 
nets. .  .  .  The  next  great  improvement  of  these 
machines  arose  from  the  discovery  of  what  may 
be  called  the  dynamo-electric   principle.     This 
principle  may  be  stated  as  follows:  —  For  the 
generation  of  currents   by  magneto-electric  in- 
duction it  is   not   necessary  that   the    machine 
should  be  furnished  with  permanent  magnets; 
the  residual  or  temporary  magnetism  of  soft  iron 
quickly  rotating  is  sufficient  for  the  purpose.  .  .  . 
In  1867  the  principle  was  clearly  enunciated  and 
used    simultaneously,    but    independently,    by 
Siemens   and    by   Wheatstone.  ...  It  was   in 
February,  1867,  that  Dr.  C.  W.  Siemens'  clas- 
sical paper  on  the  conversion  of  dynamical  into 
electrical  energy  without  the  aid  of  permanent 
magnetism  was  read  before  the  Royal  Society. 
Strangely   enough,   the  discovery   of   the   same 
principle  was  enunciated  at  the  same  meeting  of 
the    Society  by   Sir  Charles   Wheatstone.  .  .  . 
The  starting-point  of  a  great  improvement   in 
dynamo-electric  machines,  was  the  discovery  by 
Pacinotti  of  the  ring  armature  ...  in  1860.  .  .  . 
Gramme,  in  1871,  modified  the  ring  armature, 
and  constructed  the  first  machine,  in  which  he 
made  use  of  the  Gramme  ring  and  the  dynamic 
principle.      In    1872,    Hefner-Alteneck,   of    the 
firm  of  Siemens  and  Halske,  constructed  a  ma- 
chine in  which  the  Gramme  ring  is  replaced  by 
a  drum  armature,  that  is  to  say,  by  a  cylinder 
round   which   wire   is  wound.   .  .  .  Either   the 
Pacinotti-Gramme  ring  armature,  or  the  Hefner- 
Alteneck  drum  armature,   is  now   adopted  by 
nearly  all  constructors  of   dynamo-electric  ma- 
chines, the  parts  varying  of  course  in  minor  de- 
tails."    The  history   of   the   dynamo   since   has 
been  one  of  a  gradual  perfection  of  parts,  result- 
ing in  the  production  of  a  great  number  of  types, 
which  can  not  here  even  be  mentioned. — A.  R. 
von  Urbanitzky,  Electricity  in  the  Service  of  Man, 
pp.  227-242.— S.  P.  Thompson,  Dynamo  Electrical 
Machines.— Electric     Motors.— "It    has    been 
known  for  forty  years  that  every  form  of  elec- 
tric motor  which  operated  on  the  principle  of 
mutual  mechanical  force  between  a  magnet  and 
a  conducting  wire  or  coil  could  also  be  made  to 
act  as  a  generator  of  induced  currents  by  the  re- 
verse operation  of  producing  the  motion  mechan- 
ically.    And  when,  starting  from  the  researches 
of  Siemens,  Wilde,  Nollet,  Holmes  and  Gramme, 
the  modem  forms  of  magneto-electric  and  dyna- 
mo-electric machines  began  to  come  into  com- 
mercial use,  it  was  discovered  that  any  one  or 


51 


801 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


Light 
and  Locomotion. 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


the  modern  machines  designed  as  a  generator  of 
currents  constituted  a  far  more  efficient  electric 
motor  than  any  of  the  previous  forms  which  had 
been  designed  specially  as  motors.  It  required 
no  new  discovery  of  the  law  of  reversibility  to 
enable  the  electrician  to  understand  this;  but  1o 
convince  the  world  required  actual  experiment." 
— A.  Guillemin,  Ekctvicity  and  Magnetum,  pt.  2. 
ch.  10.  sect.  3. 

A.  D.  1835-1889.— The  Electric  Railway.— 
"Thomas  Davenport,  a  poor  blacksmith  of  Bran- 
don, Vt.,  constructed  what  might  be  termed  the 
first  electric  railway.  The  invention  was  crude 
and  of  little  practical  value,  but  the  idea  was 
there.  In  1835  he  exhibited  in  Springfield,  Mass. , 
a  small  model  electric  engine  running  upon  a 
circular  track,  the  circuit  being  furnished  by  pri- 
mary batteries  carried  in  the  car.  Three  years 
later,  Robert  Davidson,  of  Aberdeen,  Scotland, 
began  his  experiments  in  this  direction.  .  .  .  He 
constructed  quite  a  powerful  motor,  which  was 
mounted  upon  a  truck.  Forty  battery  cells,  car- 
ried on  the  car,  furnished  power  to  propel  the 
motor.  The  battery  elements  were  composed  of 
amalgamated  zinc  and  iron  plates,  the  exciting 
liquid  being  dilute  sulphuric  acid.  This  locomo- 
tive was  run  successfully  on  several  steam  rail- 
roads in  Scotland,  the  speed  attained  was  four 
miles  an  hour,  but  this  machine  was  afterwards 
destroyed  by  some  malicious  person  or  persons 
while  it  was  being  taken  home  to  Aberdeen.  In 
1849  Moses  Farmer  exhibited  an  electric  engine 
which  drew  a  small  car  containing  two  persons. 
In  1851,  Dr.  Charles  Grafton  Page,  of  Salem, 
Mass, ,  perfected  an  electric  engine  of  consider- 
able power.  On  April  29  of  that  year  the  engine 
was  attached  to  a  car  and  a  trip  was  made  from 
Washington  to  Bladensburg,  over  the  Baltimore 
and  Ohio  Railroad  track.  The  highest  speed  at- 
tained was  nineteen  miles  an  hour.  The  electric 
power  was  furnished  by  one  hundred  Grove  cells 
carried  on  the  engine.  .  .  .  The  same  year, 
Thomas  Hall,  of  Boston,  Mass.,  built  a  small 
electric  locomotive  called  the  Volta.  The  current 
was  furnished  by  two  Grove  battery  cells  which 
were  conducted  to  the  rails,  thence  through  the 
wheels  of  the  locomotive  to  the  motor.  This  was 
the  first  instance  of  the  current  being  supplied 
to  the  motor  on  a  locomotive  from  a  stationary 
source.  It  was  exhibited  at  the  Charitable  Me- 
chanics fair  by  him  in  1860.  ...  In  1879,  Messrs. 
Siemen  and  Halske,  of  Berlin,  constructed  and 
operated  an  electric  railway  at  the  Industrial  Ex- 
position. A  third  rail  placed  in  the  centre  of 
the  two  outer  rails,  supplied  the  current,  which 
■was  taken  up  into  the  motor  through  a  slid- 
ing contact  under  the  locomotive.  ...  In  1880 
Thomas  A.  Edison  constructed  an  experimental 
road  near  his  laboratory  in  Menlo  Park,  N.  J. 
The  power  from  the  locomotive  was  transferred 
to  the  car  by  belts  running  to  and  from  the  shafts 
of  each.  The  current  was  taken  from  and  re- 
turned through  the  rails.  Early  in  the  year  of 
1881  the  Lichterfelde,  Germany,  electric  railway 
■was  put  into  operation.  It  is  a  third  rail  sj'stem 
and  is  still  running  at  the  present  time.  This 
may  be  said  to  be  the  first  commercial  electric 
railway  constructed.  In  1883  the  Daft  Electric 
Co.  equipped  and  operated  quite  successfully  an 
electric  system  on  the  Saratoga  &  Mt.  McGregor 
Railroad,  at  Saratoga,  N.  Y."  During  the  next 
five  or  six  years  numerous  electric  railroads, 
more  or  less  experimental,  were  built.     ' '  Octo- 


ber 31,  1888,  the  Council  Bluffs  &  Omaha  Rail- 
way and  Bridge  Co.  was  first  operated  by  elec- 
tricity, they  using  the  Thomson-Houston  sys- 
tem. The  same  year  the  Thomson-Houston  Co. 
equipped  the  Highland  Division  of  the  Lynn  & 
Boston  Horse  Railway  at  Lynn,  Mass.  Horse 
railways  now  began  to  be  equipped  with  electric- 
ity all  over  the  world,  and  especially  in  the 
United  States.  In  February,  1889,  tlie  Thomson- 
Houston  Electric  Co.  had  equipped  the  line  from 
Bowdoiu  Square,  Boston,  to  Harvard  Square, 
Cambridge,  of  the  West  End  Railway  with  elec- 
tricity and  operated  twenty  cars,  since  which  time 
it  has  increased  its  electrical  apparatus,  until  now 
it  is  the  largest  electric  railway  line  in  the  world." 
— E.  Trevert,  Electric  Railway  Engineering, 
a  pp.  A. 

A.  D.  1841-1880.— The  Incandescent  Elec- 
tric Light. —  "AVhile  the  arc  lamp  is  well  adapted 
for  hghting  large  areas  requiring  a  powerful, 
diffused  light,  similar  to  sunlight,  and  hence  is 
suitable  for  outdoor  illumination,  and  for  work- 
shops, stores,  public  buildings,  and  factories, 
especially  those  where  colored  fabrics  are  pro- 
duced, its  use  in  ordinary  dwellings,  or  for  a 
desk  light  in  offices,  is  impractical,  a  softer, 
steadier,  and  more  economical  light  being  re- 
quired. Various  attempts  to  modify  the  arc- 
light  by  combining  it  with  the  incandescent  were 
made  in  the  earlier  stages  of  electric  lighting. 
.  .  .  The  first  strictly  incandescent  lamp  was  in- 
vented in  1841  by  Frederick  de  Molyens  of  Chel- 
tenham, England,  and  was  constructed  on  the 
simple  principle  of  the  incandescence  produced 
by  the  high  resistance  of  a  platinum  wire  to  the 
passage  of  the  electric  current.  In  1849  Petrie 
employed  iridium  for  the  same  purpose,  also 
alloys  of  iridium  and  platinum,  and  iridium  and 
carbon.  In  1845  J.  W.  Starr  of  Cincinnati  first 
proposed  the  use  of  carbon,  and,  associated  with 
King,  his  English  agent,  produced,  through  the 
financial  aid  of  the  philanthropist  Peabody,  an 
incandescent  lamp.  ...  In  all  these  early  ex- 
periments, the  battery  was  the  source  of  electric 
supply;  and  the  comparatively  small  current  re- 
quired for  the  incandescent  light  as  compared 
with  that  required  for  the  arc  light,  was  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  former.  .  .  .  Still,  no  sub- 
stantial progress  was  made  with  either  sj'stem 
till  the  invention  of  the  dynamo  resulted  in  the 
practical  development  of  both  systems,  that  of 
the  incandescent  following  that  of  the  arc.  Among 
the  first  to  make  incandescent  lighting  a  prac- 
tical success  were  Sawyer  and  Man  of  New  York, 
and  Edison.  For  a  long  time,  Edison  experi- 
mented with  platinum,  using  fine  platinum  wire 
coiled  into  a  spiral,  so  as  to  concentrate  the  heat, 
and  produce  incandescence;  the  same  current 
producing  only  a  red  heat  when  the  wire,  whether 
of  platinum  or  other  metal,  is  stretched  out.  .  .  . 
Failing  to  obtain  satisfactory  results  from  plati- 
num, Edison  turned  his  attention  to  carbon,  the 
superiority  of  which  as  an  incandescent  illumin- 
ant  had  already  been  demonstrated;  but  its 
rapid  consumption,  as  shown  by  the  Reynier 
and  similar  lamps,  being  unfavorable  to  its  use 
as  compared  with  the  durability  of  platin^um  and 
iridium,  the  problem  was,  to  secure  the  superior 
illumination  of  the  carbon,  and  reduce  or  pre- 
vent its  consumption.  As  this  consumption  ivas 
due  chiefly  to  oxidation,  it  was  questionable 
whether  the  superior  illumination  were  not  due 
to  the  same  cause,   and  whether,  if  the   carbon 


802 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY.       The  Telephone        ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERY. 


■were  inclosed  in  a  glass  globe,  from  which  oxy- 
gen was  eliminated,  the  same  illumination  could 
be  obtained.     Another  diflSculty  of  equal  mag- 
nitude was  to  obtain  a  sufficiently   perfect  va- 
cuum, and  maintain  it  in  a  hermetically  sealed 
globe  inclosing  the  carbon,  and  at  the  same  time 
maintain  electric  connection  with  the  generator 
through  the  glass  by  a  metal  conductor,  subject 
to  expansion  and  contraction  different  from  that 
of  the  glass,  by  the  change  of  temperature  due 
to  the  passage  of  the  electric  current.     Sawyer 
and  Man  attempted  to  solve  this  problem  by  fill- 
ing the   globe   with   nitrogen,    thus  preventing 
combustion  by  eliminating  the  oxygen.  .  .  .  The 
results  obtained  by  this  method,  which  at  one 
time  attracted  a   great  deal   of   attention,  were 
not  sufficiently  satisfactory  to  become  practical; 
and  Edison  and  others  gave  their  preference  to 
the  vacuum  method,  and  sought  to  overcome  the 
difficulties  connected  with  it.     The  invention  of 
the  mercurial  air  pump,  with  its  subsequent  im- 
provements, made  it  possible  to  obtain  a   suf- 
ficiently perfect   vacuum,  and   the  difficulty  of 
introducing  the  current  into  the  interior  of  the 
globe  was  overcome  by  imbedding  a  fine  plati- 
num wire  in  the  glass,  connecting  the   inclosed 
carbon  with  the  external  circuit ;  the  expansion 
and  contraction  of  the  platinum  not   differing 
sufficiently  from  that  of  the  glass,  in  so  fine  a 
wire,  as  to  impair  the  vacuum.  .   .   .  The  car- 
bons made  by  Edison  under  his  first  patent  in 
1879,  were  obtained  from  brown  paper  or  card- 
board.  .  .  .  They  were  very  fragile  and  short- 
lived,  and  consequently  were  soon  abandoned. 
In   1880  he  patented  the  process  which,  with 
some  modifications,  he  still  adheres  to.     In  this 
process  he  uses  filaments  of  bamboo,  which  are 
taken  from  the  interior,  fibrous  portion  of  the 
plant."— P.  Atkinson,  Elements  of  Electric  Light- 
ing, ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1854-1866.— The  Atlantic  Cable.— 
' '  Cyrus  Field  .  .  .  established  a  company  in 
America  (in  1854),  which  .  .  .  obtained  the  right 
of  landing  cables  in  Newfoundland  for  fifty  years. 
Soundings  were  made  in  1856  between  Ireland 
and  Newfoundland,  showing  a  maximum  depth 
of  4,400  metres.  Having  succeeded  after  several 
attempts  in  laying  a  cable  between  Nova  Scotia 
and  Newfoundland,  Field  founded  the  Atlantic 
Telegraph  Company  in  England.  .  .  .  The  length 
of  the  .  .  .  cable  [used]  was  4,000  kilometres, 
and  was  carried  by  the  two  ships  Agamemnon 
and  Niagara.  The  distance  between  the  two  sta- 
tions on  the  coasts  was  2,640  kilometres.  The 
laying  of  the  cable  commenced  on  the  7th  of 
August,  1857,  at  Valentia  (Ireland) ;  on  the  third 
day  the  cable  broke  at  a  depth  of  3,660  metres,and 
the  expedition  had  to  return.  A  second  expedi- 
tion was  sent  in  1858;  the  two  ships  met  each 
other  half-way,  the  ends  of  the  cable  were  joined, 
and  the  lowering  of  it  commenced  in  both  direc- 
tions; 149  kilometres  were  thus  lowered,  when  a 
fault  in  the  cable  was  discovered.  It  had,  there- 
fore, to  be  brought  on  board  again,  and  was  broken 
during  the  process.  After  it  had  been  repaired, 
and  when  476  kilometres  had  been  already  laid, 
another  fault  was  discovered,  which  caused 
another  breakage ;  this  time  it  was  impossible  to 
repair  it,  and  the  expedition  was  again  unsuccess- 
ful, and  had  to  return.  In  spite  of  the  repeated 
failures,  two  ships  were  again  sent  out  in  the 
same  year,  and  this  time  one  end  of  the  cable 
was  landed  in  Ireland,  and  the  other  at  New- 


foundland.    The  length  of  the  sunk  cable  was 
3,745  kilometres.     Field's  first  telegram  was  sent 
on  the  7th  of  August,  from  America  to  Ireland. 
The   insulation  of   the   cable,  however,  became 
more  defective  every  day,  and  failed  altogether 
on  the  1st  of  September.     From  the  experience 
obtained,  it  was  concluded  that  it  was  possible 
to  lay  a  trans- Atlantic  cable,  and  the  company, 
after  consulting  a  number  of  professional  men, 
again  set  to  work.  .  .  .  The  Great  Eastern  was 
employed  in  laying  this  cable.     This  ship,  which 
is  211  metres  long,  25  metres  broad,  and  16  metres 
in  height,  carried  a  crew  of  500  men,  of  which 
120  were  electricians  and  engineers,  179  mechan- 
ics and  stokers,  and  115   sailors.     The  manage- 
ment of  all  affairs  relating  to  the  laying  of  the 
cable  was  entrusted  to  Canning.     The  coast  cable 
was  laid  on  the  31st  of  July,  and  the  end  of  it 
was  connected  with  the  Atlantic  cable  on  the  23rd. 
After  1,326  kilometres  had  been  laid,  a  fault  was 
discovered,  an  iron  wire  was  found  stuck  right 
across  the  cable,  and  Canning  considered  the  mis- 
chief to  have  been  done  with  a  malevolent  pur- 
pose.    On  the  2nd  of  August,  2,196  kilometres 
of  cable  were  sunk,  when  another  fault  was  dis- 
covered.    While  the  cable  was  being  repaired  it 
broke,  and  attempts  to  recover  it  at  the  time  were 
all  unsuccessful ;  in  consequence  of  this  the  Great 
Eastern  had  to  return  without  having  completed 
the  task.     A  new  company,  the  Anglo-American 
Telegraph  Company,  was  formed  in  1866,  and  at 
once  entrusted  Messrs.  Glass,  Elliott  and  Com- 
pany with   the   construction  of  a  new  cable  of 
3,000  kilometres.     Different  arrangements  were 
made  for  the  outer  envelope  of  the  cable,  and 
the  Great  Eastern  was  once  more  equipped  to 
give  effect  to  the  experiments  which  had  just 
been  made.     The  new  expedition  was  not  only 
to  lay  a  new  cable,  but  also  to  take  up  the  end  of 
the  old  one,  and  join  it  to  a  new  piece,  and  thus 
obtain  a  second  telegraph  line.  The  sinking  again 
commenced  in  Ireland  on  the  13th  of  July,  1866, 
and  it  was  finished  on  the  27th.     On  the  4th  of 
August,  1866,  the  Trans- Atlantic  Telegraph  Line 
was  declared   open."— A.    R.   von   Urbanitzky, 
Electricity  in  the  Service  of  Man,  pp.  767-768. 

A.  D.  1876-1892.— The  Telephone.- "The 
first  and  simplest  of  all  magnetic  telephones  is  the 
Bell  Telephone. "  In  "  the  first  form  of  this  instru- 
ment, constructed  by  Professor  Graham  Bell,  in 
1876.  .  .  a  harp  of  steel  rods  was  attached  to  the 
poles  of  a  permanent  magnet.  .  .  .  When  we  sing 
into  a  piano,  certain  of  the  strings  of  the  instru- 
ment are  set  in  vibration  sympathetically  by  the 
action  of  the  voice  with  different  degrees  of 
amplitude,  and  a  sound,  which  is  an  approxima- 
tion to  the  vowel  uttered,  is  produced  from  the 
piano.  Theory  shows  that,  had  the  piano  a 
much  larger  number  of  strings  to  the  octave,  the 
vowel  sounds  would  be  perfectly  reproduced. 
It  was  upon  this  principle  that  Bell  constructed 
his  first  telephone.  The  expense  of  constructing 
such  an  apparatus,  however,  deterred  Bell  from 
making  the  attempt,  and  he  sought  to  simplify 
the  apparatus  before  proceeding  further  in  this 
direction.  After  many  experiments  with  more 
or  less  unsatisfactory  results,  he  constructed  the 
instrument  .  .  .  which  he  exhibited  at  Philadel- 
phia in  1876.  In  this  apparatus,  the  transmitter 
was  formed  by  an  electro-magnet,  through  which 
a  current  flowed,  and  a  membrane,  made  of  gold- 
beater's skin,  on  which  was  placed  as  a  sort  of 
armature,    a    piece    of    soft    Iron,   which  thus 


803 


ELECTRICAL  DISCOVERT. 


ELEUSINIAN  MYSTERIES. 


vibrated  in  front  of  the  electromagnet  ■when  the 
membrane  was  thrown  into  sonorous  vibration. 
...  It  is  quite  clear  that  when  we  speak  into  a 
Bell  transmitter  only  a  small  fraction  of  the 
energy  of  the  sonorous  vibrations  of  the  voice 
can  be  converted  into  electric  currents,  and  that 
these  currents  must  be  extremely  weak.  Edison 
applied  himself  to  discover  some  means  by 
which  lie  could  increase  the  strength  of  these  cur- 
rents. Elisha  Gray  had  proposed  to  use  the  varia- 
tion of  resistance  of  a  fine  platinum  wire  attached 
to  a  diaphragm  dipping  into  water,  and  hoped 
that  the  variation  of  extent  of  surface  in  contact 
would  so  vary  the  strength  of  current  as  to  re- 
produce sonorous  vibrations;  but  there  is  no 
record  of  this  experiment  having  been  tried. 
Edison  proposed  to  utilise  the  fact  that  the  resist- 
ance of  carbon  varied  under  pressure.  He  had 
independently  discovered  this  peculiarity  of  car- 
bon, but  it  had  been  previously  described  b}' 
Du  Moncel.  .  .  .  The  first  carbon  transmitter  was 
constructed  in  1878  by  Edison.  "^ — W.  H.  Preece, 
and  J.  Maier,  The  Telephoiu.,  ch.  3—1. — In  a  pam- 
phlet distributed  at  the  Columbian  Exposition, 
Chicago,  1893,  entitled  "Exhibit  of  the  American 
Bell  Telephone  Co."  the  following  statements  are 
made:  "At  the  Centennial  Exposition,  in  Phila- 
delphia, in  1876,  was  given  the  first  general  pub- 
lic exhibition  of  the  telephone  by  its  inventor, 
Alexander  Graham  Bell.  To-day,  seventeen  years 
later,  more  than  half  a  million  instruments  are  in 
daily  use  in  the  United  States  alone,  six  hundred 
million  talks  by  telephone  are  held  every  year,  and 
the  human  voice  is  carried  over  a  distance  of  twelve 
hundred  miles  without  loss  of  sound  or  syllable. 
The  first  use  of  the  telephone  for  business  pur- 
poses was  over  a  single  wire  connecting  only  two 
telephones.  At  once  the  need  of  general  inter- 
communication made  itself  felt.  In  the  cities 
and  larger  towns  exchanges  were  established  and 
all  the  subscribers  to  any  one  exchange  were 
enabled  to  talk  to  one  another  through  a  central 
office.  Means  were  then  devised  to  connect  two 
or  more  exchanges  by  trunk  lines,  thus  affording 
means  of  communication  between  all  the  sub- 
scribers of  all  the  exchanges  so  connected.  This 
■work  has  been  pushed  forward  until  now  have 
been  gathered  into  what  may  be  termed  one 
great  exchange  all  the  important  cities  from 
Augusta  on  the  east  to  Milwaukee  on  the  west, 
and  from  Burlington  and  Buffalo  on  the  north  to 
Washington  on  the  south,  bringing  more  than 
one  half  the  people  of  this  country  and  a  much 
larger  proportion  of  the  business  interests,  within 
talking  distance  of  one  another.  .  .  .  The  lines 
which  connect  Chicago  with  Boston,  via  New 
York,  are  of  copper  wire  of  extra  size.  It  is 
about  one  sixth  of  an  inch  in  diameter,  and 
■weighs  435  pounds  to  the  mile.  Hence  each  cir- 
cuit contains  1,044,000  pounds  of  copper.  .  .  . 
In  the  United  States  there  are  over  a  quarter  of  a 
million  exchange  subscribers,  and  .  .  .  these  make 
use  of  the  telephone  to  carry  on  600,000,000  con- 
versations annually.  There  is  hardly  a  city  or 
town  of  5,000  inhabitants  that  has  not  its  Tele- 
phone Exchange,  and  these  are  so  knit  together 
by  connecting  lines  that  intercommunication  is 
constant."  The  number  of  telephones  in  use  in 
the  United  States,  on  the  20th  of  Becember  in 
each  year  since  the  first  introduction,  is  given  as 
follows:  1877,  5,187;  1878,  17.567;  1879,  52,517; 
1880,  123,380;  1881,  180,592;  1882,  237,728;  1883, 
298,580;  1884,  325,574;  1885,  330,040;  1886,  353,- 


518;  1887,380,277;  1888,  411,511;  1889,444,861; 
1890,  483,790;  1891,  512,407;  1892,  552,720. 

ELEPHANT,  Order  of  the.— A  Danish  order 

of  knighthood  iu.stituted  in  1693  by  King  Chris- 
tian V. 

ELEPHANTINE.  See  Egypt:  The  Old 
Empire  and  the  Middle  Empiee. 

ELEUSINIAN  MYSTERIES,  The.— 
Among  the  ancient  Greeks.  "  the  mysteries  were 
a  source  of  faith  and  hope  to  the  initiated,  as  are 
the  churches  of  modern  times.  Secret  doctrines, 
regarded  as  holy,  and  to  be  kept  with  inviolable 
fidelity,  were  handed  down  in  these  brother- 
hoods, and  no  doubt  ■n^ere  fondly  believed  to 
contain  a  saving  grace  by  those  ■n-ho  were  ad- 
mitted, amidst  solemn  and  imposing  rites,  under 
the  veil  of  midnight,  to  hear  the  tenets  of  the 
ancient  faith,  and  the  promises  of  blessings  to 
come  to  those  who,  with  sincerity  of  heart  and 
pious  trust,  took  the  obligations  upon  them. 
The  Eleusinian  mysteries  were  the  most  impos- 
ing and  venerable.  Their  origin  extended  back 
into  a  mythical  antiquity,  and  they  were  among 
the  few  forms  of  Greek  worship  which  were 
xinder  the  superintendence  of  hereditary  priest- 
hoods. Thirlwall  thinks  that  '  they  were  the  re- 
mains of  a  worship  which  preceded  the  rise  of 
the  Hellenic  mythology  and  its  attendant  rites, 
grounded  on  a  view  of  Nature  less  fanciful,  more 
earnest,  and  better  fitted  to  awaken  both  philo- 
sophical thought  and  religious  feeling. '  This  con- 
clusion is  still  further  confirmed  by  the  moral 
and  religious  tone  of  the  poets, —  such  as  jEschy- 
lus, —  whose  ideas  on  justice,  sin  and  retribution 
are  as  solemn  and  elevated  as  those  of  a  Hebre'W 
prophet.  The  secrets,  whatever  they  were,  were 
never  revealed  in  express  terms ;  but  Isocrates 
uses  some  remarkable  expressions,  when  speak- 
ing of  their  importance  to  the  condition  of  man. 
'Those  who  are  initiated,'  says  he  'entertain 
sweeter  hopes  of  eternal  life ' ;  and  how  could 
this  be  the  case,  unless  there  were  imparted  at 
Eleusis  the  doctrine  of  eternal  life,  and  some 
idea  of  its  state  and  circumstances  more  compati- 
ble with  an  elevated  conception  of  the  Deity  and 
of  the  human  soul  than  the  vague  and  shadowy 
images  which  haunted  the  popular  mind.  The 
Eleusinian  communion  embraced  the  most  emi- 
nent men  from  every  part  of  Greece, —  statesmen, 
poets,  philosophers,  and  generals;  and  when 
Greece  became  a  part  of  the  Roman  Empire,  the 
greatest  minds  of  Rome  drew  instruction  and 
consolation  from  its  doctrines.  The  ceremonies 
of  initiation  — which  took  place  every  year  in  the 
early  autumn,  a  beautiful  season  in  Attica  —  were 
a  splendid  ritual,  attracting  visitors  from  every 
part  of  the  world.  The  processions  moving  from 
Athens  to  Eleusis  over  the  Sacred  Way,  some- 
times numbered  twenty  or  thirty  thousand  peo- 
ple, and  the  exciting  scenes  were  well  calculated 
to  leave  a  durable  impression  on  susceptible 
minds.  .  .  .  The  formula  of  the  dismissal,  after 
the  initiation  'U'as  over,  consisted  in  the  mysteri- 
ous words  '  konx,'  '  ompa.x ' ;  and  this  is  the  only 
Eleusinian  secret  that  has  illuminated  the  world 
from  the  recesses  of  the  temple  of  Demeter  and 
Persephone.  But  it  is  a  striking  illustration  of 
the  value  attached  to  these  rites  and  doctrines, 
that,  in  moments  of  extremest  peril  —  as  of  im- 
pending shipwreck,  or  massacre  by  a  victorious 
enemj', —  men  asked  one  another,  '  Are  you  in- 
itiated ? '  as  if  this  were  the  anchor  of  their  hopes 


804 


ELEUSINIAN  MYSTERIES. 


ELTEKEH. 


for  another  life. " — C.  C.  Felton,  Greece,  Ancient 
and  Modern,  c.  2,  led.  10. — "  The  Eleusinian  mys- 
teries continued  to  be  celebrated  during  the  whole 
of  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century,  till  they 
were  put  an  end  to  by  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple at  Eleusis,  and  by  the  devastation  of  Greece 
in  the  invasion  of  the  Goths  under  Alaric  in  395  " 
(see  Goths:  A.  D.  395).— W.  Smith,  Mte  to  Oih- 
bon's  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ck.  25. 

Also  in  :  R.  Brown,  ne  Great  Dionysiak  Myth, 
ch.  6,  sect.  2. — J.  J.  I.  von  DoUinger,  The  Gentile 
and  the  Jeic,  hk.  3  (v.  1). — See,  also,  Eleusis. 

ELEUSIS. — Eleusis  was  originally  one  of 
the  twelve  confederate  townships  into  which 
Attica  was  said  to  have  been  divided  before  the 
time  of  Theseus.  It  "  was  advantageously  situ- 
ated [about  fourteen  miles  N.  W.  of  Athens]  on 
a  height,  at  a  small  distance  from  the  shore  of 
an  extensive  bay,  to  which  there  is  access  only 
through  narrow  channels,  at  the  two  extremities 
of  the  island  of  Salamis :  its  position  was  import- 
ant, as  commanding  the  shortest  and  most  level 
route  by  land  from  Athens  to  the  Isthmus  by  the 
pass  which  leads  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Cerata 
along  the  shore  to  Megara.  .  .  .  Eleusis  was 
built  at  the  eastern  end  of  a  low  rocky  hill,  which 
lies  parallel  to  the  sea-shore.  .  .  .  The  eastern 
extremity  of  the  hill  was  levelled  artificially  for 
the  reception  of  the  Hierum  of  Ceres  and  the 
other  sacred  buildings.  Above  these  are  the 
traces  of  an  Acropolis.  A  triangular  space  of 
about  500  yards  each  side,  lying  between  the  hill 
and  the  shore,  was  occupied  by  the  town  of 
Eleusis.  .  .  .  To  those  who  approached  Eleusis 
from  Athens,  the  sacred  buildings  standing  on 
the  eastern  extremity  of  the  height  concealed  the 
greater  part  of  the  town,  and  on  a  nearer  ap- 
proach presented  a  succession  of  magnificent  ob- 
jects, well  calculated  to  heighten  the  solemn 
grandeur  of  the  ceremonies  and  the  awe  and  rev- 
erence of  the  MystiE  in  their  initiation.  ...  In 
the  plurality  of  enclosures,  in  the  magnificence 
of  the  pyla;  or  gateways,  in  the  absence  of  any 
general  symmetry  of  plan,  in  the  small  auxiliary 
temples,  we  recognize  a  great  resemblance  be- 
tween the  sacred  buildings  of  Eleusis  and  the 
Egyptian  Hiera  of  Thebes  and  Philaj.  And  this 
resemblance  is  the  more  remarkable,  as  the  De- 
meter  of  Attica  was  the  Isis  of  Egypt.  We  can- 
not suppose,  however,  that  the  plan  of  all  these 
buildings  was  even  thought  of  when  the  worship 
of  Ceres  was  established  at  Eleusis.  They  were 
the  progressive  creation  of  successive  ages.  .  .  . 
Under  the  Roman  Empire  ...  it  was  fashion- 
able among  the  higher  order  of  Romans  to  pass 
some  time  at  Athens  in  the  study  of  philosophy 
and  to  be  initiated  in  the  Eleusinian  mysteries. 
Hence  Eleusis  became  at  that  time  one  of  the 
most  frequented  places  in  Greece ;  and  perhaps 
it  was  never  so  populous  as  under  the  emperors 
of  the  first  two  centuries  of  our  sera.  During  the 
two  following  centuries,  its  mysteries  were  the 
chief  support  of  declining  polytheism,  and  almost 
the  only  remaining  bond  of  national  union  among 
tiie  Greeks ;  but  at  length  the  destructive  visit  of 
the  Goths  in  the  year  396,  the  extinction  of 
paganism  and  the  ruin  of  maritime  commerce, 
left  Eleusis  deprived  of  every  source  of  pros- 
perity, except  those  which  are  inseparable  from 
its  fertile  plain,  its  noble  bay,  and  its  position  on 
the  road  from  Attica  to  the  Isthmus.  .  .  .  The 
village  still  preserves  the  ancient  name,  no  further 
altered  than  is  customary   in   Romaic   conver- 


sions."—  W.  M.    Leake,   Topography  of  Athens, 
V.  2 ;   2'he  Demi,  sect.  5. 

ELGIN,  Lord. — The  Indian  administration 
of.     See  IsDix:  A.  D.  1862-1876. 

ELIS. —  Elis  was  an  ancient  Greek  state, 
occupying  the  country  on  the  western  coast  of 
Peloponnesus,  adjoining  Arcadia,  and  between 
Messenia  at  the  south  and  Achaia  on  the  north. 
It  was  noted  for  the  fertility  of  its  soil  and  the 
rich  yield  of  its  fisheries.  But  Elis  owed  greater 
importance  to  the  inclusion  within  its  territory 
of  the  sacred  groimd  of  Olympia,  where  the  cele- 
bration of  the  most  famous  festival  of  Zeus  came 
to  be  established  at  an  early  time.  The  Elians 
had  acquired  Olympia  by  conquest  of  the  city 
and  territory  of  Pisa,  to  which  it  originally  be- 
longed, and  the  presidency  of  the  Olympic  games 
was  always  disputed  with  them  by  the  latter. 
Elis  was  the  close  ally  of  Sparta  down  to  the  year 
B.  C.  421,  when  a  bitter  quarrel  arose  between 
them,  and  Elis  suffered  heavily  in  the  wars 
which  ensued.  It  was  afterwards  at  war  with 
the  Arcadians,  and  joined  the  jEtolian  League 
against  the  Achaian  League.  The  city  of  Elis 
was  one  of  the  most  splendid  in  Greece ;  but  little 
now  remains,  even  of  ruins,  to  indicate  its  de- 
parted glories.     See,  also,  Oltmpic  Gambs. 

ELISII,  The.     See  Lygians. 

ELIZABETH,    Czarina  of   Russia,  A.   D. 

1741-1761 Elizabeth,   Queen   of  Bohemia, 

and  the   Thirty  Years  War.     See  Germany: 
A.  D.    1618-1620;   1620;   1621-1623;   1631-1632, 

and   1648 Elizabeth,    Queen    of    England, 

A.  D.  1558-1603 Elizabeth  Farnese,  Queen 

of  Spain.     See   Italy:   A.    D.    171.5-1735;   and 
Spalx:  a.  D.  1713-1725,  and  1726-1731. 

ELIZABETH,  N.  J.— The  first  settlement 
of.     See  New  Jersey:  A.  D.  1664-1067. 

ELK  HORN,  OR  PEA  RIDGE,  Battle  of. 
See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1862  (Janc- 
AEY — March  :  IVIissouri — Arkansas). 

ELKWATER,  OR  CHEAT  SUMMIT, 
Battle  of.  See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1861  (August — December:  West  Virginia). 

ELLANDUM,  Battle  of.— Decisive  victory 
of  Ecgberht,  the  West  Saxon  king,  over  the 
Mercians,  A.  D.  823. 

ELLEBRI,  The.  See  Ireland,  Tribes  of 
Early'  Celtic  inhabitants. 

ELLENBOROUGH,  Lord,  The  Indian  ad- 
ministration of.     See  India:  A.  D.  1836-1845. 

ELLICE  ISLANDS.     See  Polynesi.4. 

ELLSWORTH,  Colonel.  See  United 
States  of  Aju.  :  A.  D.  1861  (jVIay  :  Virginia). 

ELMET. — A  small  kingdom  of  the  Britons 
which  was  swallowed  up  in  the  English  king- 
dom of  Northumbria  early  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury. It  answered,  roughly  speaking,  to  the 
present  West-Riding  of  Yorkshire.  .  .  .  Leeds 
' '  preserves  the  name  of  Loidis,  by  which  Elmet 
seems  also  to  have  been  known." — J.  R.  Green, 
The  Making  of  Eng. ,  p.  254. 

ELMIRA,  N.  Y.  (then  Newtown).— Gen. 
Sullivan's  Battle  with  the  Senecas.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1779  (August — 
September). 

ELSASS.     See  Alsace. 

ELTEKEH,  Battle  of.— A  victory  won  by 
the  Assyrian,  Sennacherib,  over  the  Egyptians, 
before  the  disaster  befel  his  army  which  is 
related  in  2  Kings  xix.  35.  Sennacherib's  own 
account  of  the  battle  has  been  found  among  the 


805 


ELTEKEH. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  449-547. 


Assyrian    records. — A.   H.  Sayce,    Fresh    Light 
from  tile  Ancient  Monumentg,  ch.  6. 

ELUSATES,  The.    See  Aquitatne,  Tribes 

OF  ANCIENT. 

ELVIRA,  Battle  of  (1319).  SeeSPADj:  A.  D. 
1273-1460. 

ELY,  The  Camp  of  Refuge  at.  See  Eng- 
land: A.  D.  1069-1071. 

ELYMAIS.     See  Elam. 

ELYMEIA.     See  Macedonia. 

ELYMIANS,  The.  See  Sicily:  Eaelt  en- 
habitants. 

ELYSIAN  FIELDS.    See  Canabt  Islands. 

ELZEVIRS.  See  Printing:  A.  D.  1617- 
1680. 

EMANCIPATION,  Catholic.  SeelKBLAHo: 
A.  D.  1811-1839. 

EMANCIPATION,  Compensated ;  Pro- 
posal of  President  Lincoln.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1862  (March). 

EMANCIPATION,  Prussian  Edict  of.  See 
Germany:  A.  D.  1807-1808. 

EMANCIPATION  PROCLAMATIONS, 
President  Lincoln's.  See  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1862  (September),  and  1863  (Janu- 
ary). 

EMANUEL,  King  of  Portugal,  A.  D.  1495- 

1521 Emanuel  Philibert,  Duke   of  Savoy, 

A.  D.  1553-1.580. 

EMBARGO  OF  1807,  The  American.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1804-1809,  and 
1808. 

EMERICH,  King  of  Hungary,  A.  D.  1196- 
1204. 

EMERITA  AUGUSTA. —A  colony  of 
Roman  veterans  settled  in  Spain,  B.  C.  27,  by  the 
emperor  Augustus.  It  is  identified  with  modern 
Merida,  in  Estremadura. — C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of 
tlte  Romans,  ch.  34,  note. 

EMESSA.—  Capture  by  the  Arabs  (A.  D. 
636).  See  Mahometan  Conquest:  A.  D.  632- 
639. 

EMIGRES  OF  THE  FRENCH  REVO- 
LUTION. See  France  :  A.  D.  1789  (July- 
August),  (August — October)  ;  1789-1791 ;  1791 
(July— September)  :  and  1791-1792. 

EMITES,  The.  See  Jews  :  Early  Hebrew. 

EMMAUS,  Battle  of.  — Defeat  of  a  Syrian 
army  under  Gorgias  by  Judas  Maccaboeus,  B.  C. 
166. — Josephus,  Antiq.  of  the  Jews,  bk.  12,  ch.  7. 


EMMENDINGEN,  Battle  of.  SeeFRANCE-. 
A.  D.  1796  (April — October). 

EMMET  INSURRECTION,  The.  See 
Ireland  :  A.  D.  1801-1803. 

EMPEROR.— A  title  derived  from  the 
Roman  title  Imperator.     See  Imperator. 

EMPORIA,  The.  See  Carthage,  The 
Dominion  of. 

ENCOMIENDAS.  See  Slavery,  Modern  : 
OP  the  Indians  ;  also,  Repartimientos. 

ENCUMBERED  ESTATES  ACT,  The. 
See  Ireland:  A.  D.  1843-1848. 

ENCYCLICAL  AND  SYLLABUS  OF 
1864,  The.     See  Papacy:  A.  D.  1864. 

ENCYCLOPAEDISTS,  The.  —  "  French 
literature  had  never  been  so  brilliant  as  in  the 
second  half  of  the  18th  century.  BufEon,  Diderot, 
D'Alembert,  Rousseau.  Duclos,  Condillac,  Hel- 
vetius,  Holbach,  Raynal,  Condorcet,  Mably,  and 
many  others  adorned  it,  and  the  '  Encyclopaedia,' 
which  was  begun  in  1751  under  the  direction  of 
Diderot,  became  the  focus  of  an  intellectual  in- 
fluence which  has  rarely  been  equalled.  The 
name  and  idea  were  taken  from  a  work  published 
by  Ephraim  Chambers  in  Dublin,  in  1728.  A 
noble  preliminary  discourse  was  written  by 
D'Alembert ;  and  all  the  best  pens  in  France  were 
enlisted  in  the  enterprise,  which  was  constantly 
encouraged  and  largely  assisted  by  Voltaire. 
Twice  it  was  suppressed  by  authority,  but  the 
interdict  was  again  raised.  Popular  favour  now 
ran  with  an  irresistible  force  in  favour  of  the 
philosophers,  and  the  work  was  brought  to  its 
conclusion  in  1771." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of 
Eng.  in  the  18th  Century,  ch.  20  (».  5). 

Also  in  :  J.  Morley,  Diderot  and  the  Encyclo- 
pedists, ch.  5  (ii  1).— E.  J.  Lowell,  The  Eve  of  tlie 
French  ReDolution,  ch.  16. 

ENDICOTT,  John,  and  the  Colony  of 
Massachusetts  Bay.  See  Massachusetts; 
A.  D.  1623-1629,  and  after. 

ENDIDJAN,  Battle  of  (1876).  See  Russia: 
A.  D.  1859-1876. 

ENGADINE,  The.  See  Switzerland: 
A.  D.  1396-1499. 

ENGEN,  Battle  of  (1800).  See  France: 
A.  D.  1800-1801  (May— February). 

ENGERN,  Duchy  of.  See  Saxony:  The 
Old  Duciiy. 

ENGHIEN,  Due  d',  The  abduction  and 
execution  of.     See  France:  1804-1805. 


ENGLAND. 


Before  the  coming  of  the  English. — The 
Celtic  and  Roman  periods.     See  Britain. 

A.  D.  449-547. — The  three  tribes  of  the  Eng- 
lish conquest. — The  naming  of  the  country. — 

"It  was  by  .  .  .  three  tribes  [from  Northwestern 
Germany],  the  Saxons,  the  Angles,  and  the  Jutes, 
that  southern  Britain  was  conquered  and  colo- 
nized in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  according 
to  the  most  ancient  testimony.  ...  Of  the 
three,  the  Angli  almost  if  not  altogether  pass 
away  into  the  migration:  the  Jutes  and  the 
Saxons,  although  migrating  in  great  numbers, 
had  yet  a  great  part  to  play  in  their  own  homes 
and  in  other  regions  besides  Britain ;  the  former 
at  a  later  period  in  the  train  and  under  the  name 
of  the  Danes ;  the  latter  in  German  history  from 
the   eighth   century   to  the   present  day." — W. 


Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  England,  «.  1,  ch.  8. — 
"Among  the  Teutonic  settlers  in  Britain  some 
tribes  stand  out  conspicuously ;  Angles,  Saxons, 
and  Jutes  stand  out  conspicuously  above  all. 
The  Jutes  led  the  way ;  from  the  Angles  the  land 
and  the  united  nation  took  their  name ;  the  Sax- 
ons gave  us  the  name  by  which  our  Celtic  neigh- 
bours have  ever  known  us.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  confine  the  area  from  which  our  fore- 
fathers came  to  the  space  which  we  should  mark 
on  the  map  as  the  land  of  the  continental  Angles, 
Saxons,  and  Jutes.  So  great  a  migration  is 
always  likely  to  be  swollen  by  some  who  are 
quite  alien  to  the  leading  tribe ;  it  is  always  cer- 
tain to  be  swollen  by  many  who  are  of  stocks 
akin  to  the  leading  tribe,  but  who  do  not  actually 
belong  to  it.     As  we  in  Britain  are  those  who 


806 


yjp- 


0         ^   CO 

a-: 

-  5"  c  a  0  . 
«  ^  -s  q 


3  0 

=  S 
a,  . 


2| 


0  K  t 
0  *;    p 


iSWdS^   i2 


o 
"be 


C3 


OS 

o 


.it 

c  5  K 

0  w  ic  S 
t;  *  ~  3 


S  -i 


•°   •"  I  - 


-^  o 

CO  ^- 

K  = 

.S  .3 


=    § 


=■8    1 
£?  "C    ^ 


a 

3 

a 

a  1 

3      3 

c 

s 

"to 
a 

"3 
a 

.S 

1 

T3 

-     M 

g 

U 

s^-l 

i 

1 

u 

^ 

f^ 

■S    a 

1 

"5) 
1 

1  i 

t^ 

0 

.a 

i 

-^ 

o    ^ 

S" 

a" 

A 

c 

Q.  to 

T3     to 

l 

5 

1 

a 

■^ 

g  g 

3 

■a 

1 

S. 

■a  1 

t 

1 

b 

a 

•a  2 

s 

c 

i 

s  J 


3  „ 


g  a 

■"  I 

o  ^ 

•s  a 


o    -g 


3     ■= 


.g 


>   -3 


S    > 


-a    e    1    o 

■c  •"  a  » 


i  I 


2=1 
2   =    ; 


1    I 


I  5 


a  E- 
e 


SI. 


«? 

'.', 


■Si 

ct    i 


^ 

E 

b] 

■o 

flj 

*£ 

•a 

a 

ii 

o 

<a 

a 

d 

2 

o 

1 

"3 

■3 

i 

"H 

n 

1 

bo 

g 
a 

1 

1 

.2 

"o 

■o 

2 

'o 

1 

3 

s 

Si 

> 

1 

a 

s 

-o 

3 

3 

u 

.a 

W) 

1 

a 

l_ 

"3 

S 

— 

o 

£ 

3 

^ 

3 

t>l 

o 

-6 

^ 

1 

i 

Ss 

Q 

•  ■ 

e 

i 

3 
1 

a 

s 

■| 

1 

■s 

1 

B 

o 

&•  a 


.B  o 

'I  a 

I  ° 

■3  ■? 


B     = 


Ml 

w  1 


3i  '<; 

3  a 


I 


a  -S" 
If 


j3  ^ 

♦^  O 

•3  i 

"  I 

*  i 

"S  a 

•a  g 

■a  E 


f  I 
o    5 


3| 


.2     S 
.3    >. 

I    I 


I   0  S 

I-    w    S 

51  ?  a 


•s  s 


B    ' 


C)S£ 


II 


M      2    g 


?■    £    .3 


8^ 

CD  « 

■a  a 

si 


i    2 


J3 

a 

to 

T3 

s 

I 

2 

'v 

S 

a 

s" 

_g 

I 

C3 

o 

& 

fc 

to 

£= 

§ 

Z 

13 

d 

g. 

3 

1 

1 

•3 

S 

3 

1 

R 

1- 

6 

^ 

£ 

z 

M 

tJ 

fc 

s 

« 

1 

c 

f- 

fe 

l_ 

S 

t 

o 

a 

o 

_a 

o 

?f 

c 

> 

E 

M 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 
o 

■3 

3 

II 


5  ' 

a    u 


■a  8 


.a  £ 


'  si-- 

■s  „       >•■ 

■  3  =    S    S 

«  -5  I    I 

w  -g   £  .a 


J^ 


•a  ^ 

a.    a 
» 

.3 


I   11 
^   c:   -d 

I  I  I 


to  S 

S    a 
S    E 


li 
il 


r 

0   0  g 


I  .3 

c    " 
to    ^ 


a 


to   "^ 


1 1 


c   ^    S 

'^  -o  in 

-  «*  1 

=      P      Eo    to 
P    i:     p     c 

I    i  '3    o 

I*       C       u       K 

£  CM, 

3    ?    -   T 


;  ?  e 


It] 


n^V  ! 


a  6 


-r     to     ce 

=    =>    t. 


M    -     o 
=    -    E 

s  e  i 


p  >" 

i  I 

1  = 

i  a 


g-  2 
S    I- 


^    i  S  I 


^  I  t    ^ 

§     i*     6     " 
1^2-1 


II 


C 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  449-547. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  449-473. 


stayed  beliind  at  the  time  of  the  second  great 
migration  of  our  people  [to  America],  so  1  ven- 
ture to  look  on  all  our  Low-Dutch  kinsfolk  on 
the  continent  of  Europe  as  those  who  stayed 
behind  at  the  time  of  the  first  great  migration  of 
our  people.  Our  special  hearth  and  cradle  is 
doubtless  to  be  found  in  the  immediate  march- 
land  of  Germany  and  Denmark,  but  the  great 
common  home  of  our  people  is  to  be  looked  on 
as  stretching  along  the  whole  of  that  long  coast 
where  various  dialects  of  the  Low-Dutch  tongue 
are  spoken.  If  Angles  and  Saxons  came,  we 
know  that  Frisians  came  also,  and  with  Frisians 
as  an  element  among  us,  it  is  hardly  too  bold  to 
claim  the  whole  Netherlands  as  in  the  widest 
sense  Old  England,  as  the  land  of  one  part  of  the 
kinsfolk  who  stayed  behind.  Through  that 
whole  region,  from  the  special  Anglian  corner 
far  into  what  is  now  northern  France,  the  true 
tongue  of  the  people,  sometimes  overshadowed 
by  other  tongues,  is  some  dialect  or  other  of 
that  branch  of  the  great  Teutonic  family  which 
is  essentially  the  same  as  our  own  speech.  From 
Flanders  to  Sleswick  the  natural  tongue  is  one 
which  differs  from  English  only  as  tlie  historical 
events  of  fourteen  hundred  years  of  separation 
have  inevitably  made  the  two  tongues  —  two  dia- 
lects, I  should  rather  say,  of  the  same  tongue  — 
to  differ.  From  these  lands  we  came  as  a  people. 
That  was  our  first  historical  migration.  Our 
remote  forefathers  must  have  made  endless 
earlier  migrations  as  parts  of  the  great  Aryan 
body,  as  parts  of  the  smaller  Teutonic  body. 
But  our  voyage  from  the  Low-Dutch  mainland 
to  the  isle  of  Britain  was  our  first  migration  as  a 
people.  .  .  .  Among  the  Teutonic  tribes  which 
settled  in  Britain,  two,  the  Angles  and  the 
Saxons,  stood  out  foremost.  These  two  be- 
tween them  occupied  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
the  land  that  was  occupied  at  all.  Each  of  these 
two  gave  its  name  to  the  united  nation,  but  each 
gave  it  on  different  lips.  The  Saxons  were  the 
earlier  invaders ;  they  had  more  to  do  with  the 
Celtic  remnant  which  abode  in  the  land.  On 
the  lips  then  of  the  Celtic  inhabitants  of  Britain, 
the  whole  of  the  Teutonic  inhabitants  of  Britain 
were  known  from  the  beginning,  and  are  known 
still,  as  Saxons.  But,  as  the  various  Teutonic 
settlements  drew  together,  as  they  began  to  have 
common  national  feelings  and  to  feel  the  need  of 
a  common  national  name,  the  name  which  they 
chose  was  not  the  same  as  that  by  which  their 
Celtic  neighbours  called  them.  They  did  not 
.  call  themselves  Saxons  and  their  land  Saxony ; 
they  called  themselves  English  and  their  land 
England.  I  used  the  word  Saxony  in  all  serious- 
ness ;  it  is  a  real  name  for  the  Teutonic  part  of 
Britain,  and  it  is  an  older  name  than  the  name 
England.  But  it  is  a  name  used  only  from  the 
outside  by  Celtic  neighbours  and  enemies;  it 
was  not  used  from  the  inside  by  the  Teutonic 
people  themselves.  In  their  mouths,  as  soon  as 
they  took  to  themselves  a  common  name,  that 
name  was  English ;  as  soon  as  they  gave  their 
land  a  common  name,  that  name  was  England. 
.  .  .  And  this  is  the  more  remarkable,  because 
the  age  when  English  was  fullj'  established  as 
the  name  of  the  people,  and  England  as  the  name 
of  the  land,  was  an  age  of  Saxon  supremacy,  an 
age  when  a  Saxon  state  held  the  headship  of 
England  and  of  Britain,  when  Saxon  kings  grew 
step  by  step  to  be  kings  of  the  English  and  lords 
of  the   whole  British  island.     In  common  use 


then,  the  men  of  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries 
knew  themselves  by  no  name  but  English." — 
E.  A.  Freeman,  The  Eiiylish  People  in  its  Three 
Homes  (Lectures  to  American  Audiences,  pp.  30- 
31,  and  45-47). — See  Angles  and  Jutes,  and 
Saxons. 

A.  D.  449-473. — The  Beginning  of  English 
history. — The  conquest  of  Kent  by  the  Jutes. 
— "In  the  year  449  or  450  a  band  of  warriors 
was  drawn  to  the  shores  of  Britain  by  the  usual 
pledges  of  land  and  pay.  The  warriors  were 
Jutes,  men  of  a  tribe  which  has  left  its  name  to 
Jutland,  at  the  extremity  of  the  peninsula  that 
projects  from  the  shores  of  North-Germany,  but 
who  were  probably  akin  to  the  race  that  was 
fringing  the  opposite  coast  of  Scandinavia  and 
settling  in  the  Danish  Isles.  In  three  '  keels ' — 
so  ran  tlie  legend  of  their  conquest  —  and  with 
their  Ealdormen,  Hengest  and  Horsa,  at  their 
head,  these  Jutes  landed  at  Ebbsfleet  in  the  Isle 
of  Thanet.  "With  the  landing  of  Hengest  and 
his  war-band  English  history  begins.  ...  In 
the  first  years  that  followed  after  their  landing. 
Jute  and  Briton  fought  side  by  side;  and  the 
Picts  are  said  to  have  been  scattered  to  the  winds 
in  a  great  battle  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Britain. 
But  danger  from  the  Pict  was  hardly  over  when 
danger  came  from  the  Jutes  themselves.  Their 
numbers  probably  grew  fast  as  the  news  of  their 
settlement  in  Thanet  spread  among  their  fellow 
pirates  who  wei'e  haunting  the  charmel ;  and  with 
the  increase  of  their  number  must  have  grown 
the  difficulty  of  supplying  them  with  rations  and 
pay.  The  dispute  which  rose  over  these  ques- 
tions was  at  last  closed  by  Hengest's  men  with  a 
threat  of  war."  The  threat  was  soon  executed; 
the  forces  of  the  Jutes  were  successfully  trans- 
ferred from  their  island  camp  to  the  main  shore, 
and  the  town  of  Durovernum  (occupying  the  site 
of  modern  Canterbury)  was  the  first  to  experience 
their  rage.  "The  town  was  left  in  blackened 
and  solitary  ruin  as  the  invaders  pushed  along 
the  road  to  London.  No  obstacle  seems  to  have 
checked  their  march  from  the  Stour  to  the  Med- 
way."  At  Aylesford  (A.  D.  455),  the  lowest  ford 
crossing  the  Medway,  "  the  British  leaders  must 
have  taken  post  for  the  defence  of  AVest  Kent; 
but  the  Chronicle  of  the  conquering  people  tells 
.  .  .  only  that  Horsa  fell  in  the  moment  of  vic- 
tory; and  the  flint-heap  of  Horsted  which  has 
long  preserved  his  name  .  .  .  was  held  in  after- 
time  to  mark  his  grave.  .  .  .  The  victory  of 
Aylesford  was  followed  by  a  political  change 
among  the  assailants,  whose  loose  organization 
around  ealdormen  was  exchanged  for  a  stricter 
union.  Aylesford,  we  are  told,  was  no  sooner 
won  than  '  Hengest  took  to  the  kingdom,  and 
^Ue,  his  son.'.  .  .  The  two  kings  pushed  for- 
ward in  457  from  the  Medway  to  the  conquest  of 
AVest  Kent."  Another  battle  at  the  passage  of 
the  Cray  was  another  victory  for  the  invaders, 
and,  "  as  the  Chronicle  of  their  conquerors  tolls 
us,  the  Britons  '  forsook  Kent-land  and  fled  with 
much  fear  to  London.'.  .  ,  If  we  trust  British 
tradition,  the  battle  at  Crayford  was  followed  by 
a  political  revolution  in  Britain  itself.  ...  It 
would  seem  .  .  .  that  the  Romauized  Britons  rose 
in  revolt  under  Aurelius  Ambrosianus,  a  descend- 
ant of  the  last  Roman  general  who  claimed  the 
purple  as  an  Emperor  in  Britain.  .  .  .  The  revo- 
lution revived  for  a  while  the  energy  of  the  prov- 
ince." The  Jutes  were  driven  back  into  the  Isle 
of  Thanet,  and  held  there,  apparently,  for  some 


80 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  449-473. 


The  Saxons. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  547-633. 


years,  with  the  help  of  the  strong  fortresses  of 
Richborough  and  Reculver,  guarding  the  two 
mouths  of  the  inlet  which  then  parted  Thanet 
from  the  mainland.  "  lu  465  however  the  petty 
conflicts  which  had  gone  on  along  the  shores  of 
the  Wantsum  made  way  for  a  decisive  struggle. 
.  .  .  The  overthrow  of  the  Britons  at  Wipped's- 
fleet  was  so  terrible  that  all  hope  of  preserving 
the  bulk  of  Kent  seems  from  this  moment  to  have 
been  abandoned;  and  ...  no  further  struggle 
disturbed  the  Jutes  in  its  conquest  and  settlement. 
It  was  only  along  its  southern  shore  that  the 
Britons  now  held  their  ground.  ...  A  final  vic- 
tory of  the  Jutes  in  473  may  mark  the  moment 
when  they  reached  the  rich  pastures  which  the 
Roman  engineers  had  reclaimed  from  Romney 
Marsh.  .  .  .  With  this  advance  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Weald  the  work  of  Hengest's  men  came  to 
an  end ;  nor  did  the  Jutes  from  this  time  play  any 
important  part  in  the  attack  on  the  island,  for 
their  after-gains  were  limited  to  the  Isle  of  Wiglit 
and  a  few  districts  on  the  Southampton  Water." 
— J.  R.  Green,  The  Making  of  England,  cli.  1. 

Also  in:  J.  M.  Lappenberg,  Eist.  of  Eng. 
under  the  Anglo-Saxon  Kings,  r.  1.  pj).  67-101. 

A.  D.  477-527. — The  conquests  of  the  Sax- 
ons.— The  founding  of  the  kingdoms  of  Sus- 
sex, .Wessex  and  Essex. — "Whilst  the  Jutes 
were  conquering  Kent,  their  kindred  took  part  in 
the  war.  Ship  after  ship  sailed  from  the  North 
Sea,  filled  with  eager  warriors.  The  Saxons  now 
arrived  —  Ella  and  his  three  sons  landed  in  the 
ancient  territory  of  the  Regni  (A.  D.  477-491). 
The  Britons  were  defeated  with  great  slaughter, 
and  driven  into  the  forest  of  Andreade,  whose 
extent  is  faintly  indicated  by  the  wastes  and 
commons  of  the  Weald.  A  general  confederacy 
of  the  Kings  and  '  Tyrants '  of  the  Britons  was 
formed  against  the  invaders,  but  fresh  reinforce- 
ments arrived  from  Germany ;  the  city  of  Andre- 
ades-Ceastre  was  taken  by  storm,  all  its  inhabit- 
ants were  slain  and  the  buildings  razed  to  the 
ground,  so  that  its  site  is  now  entirely  unknown. 
From  this  period  the  kingdom  of  the  South  Sax- 
ons was  established  in  the  person  of  Ella;  and 
though  ruling  only  over  the  narrow  boundary  of 
modem  Sussex,  he  was  accepted  as  the  first  of 
the  Saxon  Bretwaldas,  or  Emperors  of  the  Isle  of 
Britain.  Encouraged,  perhaps,  by  the  good  tid- 
ings received  from  Ella,  another  band  of  Saxons, 
commanded  by  Cerdic  and  his  son  Cynric,  landed 
on  the  neighbouring  shore.Jn  the  modern  Hamp- 
shire (A.  D.  494).  At  first  they  made  but  little 
progress.  They  were  opposed  by  the  Britons; 
but  Geraint,  whom  the  Saxon  Chroniclers  cele- 
brate for  his  nobility,  and  the  British  Bards  extol 
for  his  beauty  and  valour,  was  slain  (A.  D.  501). 
The  death  of  the  Prince  of  the  '  Woodlands  of 
Dyfnaint,'  or  Damnonia,  may  have  been  avenged, 
but  the  power  of  the  Saxons  overwhelmed  all 
opposition ;  and  Cerdic,  associating  his  son  Cyn- 
ric In  the  dignity,  became  the  King  of  the  terri- 
tory wliich  he  gained.  Under  Cynric  and  his 
son  Ceaulin,  the  Saxons  slowly,  yet  steadily, 
gained  ground.  The  utmost  extent  of  their  do- 
minions towards  the  North  cannot  be  ascertained ; 
but  they  had  conquered  the  town  of  Bedford: 
and  it  was  probably  in  consequence  of  their  geo- 
graphical position  (A.  D.  571)  with  respect  to  the 
countries  of  the  Middle  and  East  Saxons,  that 
the  name  of  the  West  Saxons  was  given  to  this 
colony.  The  tract  north  of  the  Thames  was  soon 
lost;  but  on  the  south  of  that  river  and  of  the 


Severn,  the  successors  of  Cerdic,  Kings  of  Wes- 
sex, continued  to  extend  their  dominions.  The 
Hampshire  Avon,  which  retains  its  old  Celtic 
name,  signifying  '  the  Water, '  seems  at  first  to 
have  been  their  boundary.  Beyond  this  river, 
the  British  princes  of  Damnonia  retained  their 
power;  and  it  was  long  before  the  country  as  far 
as  the  Exe  became  a  Saxon  March-land,  or  bor- 
der. About  the  time  that  the  Saxons  under  Cer- 
dic and  Cynric  were  successfully  warring  against 
the  Britons,  another  colony  was  seen  to  establish 
itself  in  the  territory  or  kingdom  which,  from  its 
geographical  position,  obtained  the  name  of  East 
Saxon}' ;  but  whereof  the  district  of  the  Middle 
Saxons,  now  Jliddlesex,  formed  a  part.  London, 
as  you  well  know,  is  locally  included  in  Middle 
Saxony ;  and  the  Kings  of  Essex,  and  the  other 
sovereigns  who  afterwards  acquired  the  country, 
certainly  possessed  many  extensive  rights  of  sover- 
eignty in  the  city.  Yet,  I  doubt  much  whether 
London  was  ever  incorporated  in  any  Anglo- 
Saxon  kingdom ;  and  I  think  we  must  view  it  as 
a  weak,  tributary,  vassal  state,  not  very  well 
able  to  resist  the  usurpations  of  the  supreme 
Lord  or  Suzerain,  ^Escwin,  or  Ercenwine,  who 
was  the  first  King  of  the  East  Saxons  (A.  D.  527). 
His  son  Sleda  was  married  to  Ricola,  daughter 
to  Ethelbert  of  Kent,  who  afterwards  appears  as 
the  superior,  or  sovereign  of  the  country;  and 
though  Sleda  was  King,  yet  Ethelbert  joined  in 
all  important  acts  of  government.  This  was  the 
fate  of  Essex  —  it  is  styled  a  kingdom,  but  it 
never  enjoyed  any  political  independence,  being 
always  subject  to  the  adjoining  kings." — F.  Pal- 
grave,  Hist,  of  the  Anglo  Saxons,  cli.  3. — "The 
descents  of  [the  West  Saxons],  Cerdic  and  Cyn- 
ric, in  495  at  the  mouth  of  the  Itchen,  and  a 
fresh  descent  on  Portchester  in  501,  can  have 
been  little  more  than  plunder  raids;  and  though 
in  508  a  far  more  serious  conflict  ended  in  the 
fall  of  5,000  Britons  and  their  chief,  it  was  not 
till  514  that  the  tribe  whose  older  name  seems  to 
have  been  that  of  the  Gewissas,  but  who  were  to 
he  more  widely  known  as  the  West  Saxons,  actu- 
ally landed  with  a  view  to  definite  conquest." — 
J.  R.  Green,  The  Making  of  England,  ch.  3. — 
' '  Tlie  greatness  of  Sussex  did  not  last  beyond 
the  days  of  its  founder  .lElle,  the  first  Bretwalda. 
Whatever  importance  Essex,  or  its  offshoot,  Mid- 
dlesex, could  claim  as  containing  the  great  city 
of  London  was  of  no  long  duration.  We  soon 
find  London  fluctuating  between  the  condition 
of  an  independent  commonwealth,  and  that  of  a 
dependency  of  the  Jlercian  Kings.  Verj'  differ- 
ent was  the  destiny  of  the  third  Saxon  Kingdom. 
Wessex  has  grown  into  England,  England  into 
Great  Britain,  Great  Britain  into  the  United 
Kingdom,  the  United  Kingdom  into  the  British 
Empire.  Every  prince  who  has  ruled  England 
before  and  since  the  eleventh  century  [the  inter- 
val of  the  Danish  kings,  Harold,  son  of  Godwine, 
and  William  the  Conqueror,  who  were  not  of  the 
West  Saxon  house]  has  had  the  blood  of  Cerdic 
the  West  Saxon  in  his  veins.  At  the  close  of  the 
sixth  century  Wessex  had  risen  to  high  import- 
ance among  the  English  Kingdoms,  tliough  the 
days  of  its  permanent  supremacy  were  still  far 
distant." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Norman 
Conq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  3,  sect  1. 

A.  D.  547-633. — The  conquests  of  the  An- 
gles.— The  founding  of  their  kingdoms. — 
"  Northwards  of  the  East  Saxons  was  established 
the  kingdom  of  the  East  Angles,  in  which  a 


808 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  547-633. 


The  Angles. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  597-685. 


northern  and  a  southern  people  (Northfolc  and 
Suthfolc)  were  distinguished.  It  is  probable 
that,  even  during  the  last  period  of  the  Roman 
sway,  Germans  were  settled  in  this  part  of 
Britain;  a  supposition  that  gains  probability 
from  several  old  Saxon  sagas,  which  have  refer- 
ence to  East  Anglia  at  a  period  anterior  to  the 
coming  of  Hengest  and  Horsa.  The  land  of  the 
Gyrwas,  containing  1,200  hides  .  .  .  comprised 
the  neighbouring  marsh  districts  of  Ely  and 
Huntingdonshire,  almost  as  far  as  Lincoln.  Of 
the  East  Angles  Wehwa,  or  Wewa,  or  more  com- 
monly his  son  Ufla,  or  Wuffia,  from  whom  his 
race  derived  their  patronymic  of  Uffings  or 
Wuffings,  is  recorded  as  tlie  first  king.  The 
neighbouring  states  of  Jlercia  originated  in  the 
marsh  districts  of  the  Lindisware,  or  inhabitants 
of  Lindsey  (Lindesig),  the  northern  part  of  Lin- 
colnshire. With  these  were  united  the  Middle 
Angles.  This  kingdom,  divided  by  the  Trent 
into  a  northern  and  a  southern  portion,  gradually 
extended  itself  to  the  borders  of  Wales.  Among 
the  states  which  it  comprised  was  the  little  king- 
dom of  the  Hwiccas,  conterminous  with  the  later 
diocese  of  Worcester,  or  the  counties  of  Glouces- 
ter, Worcester,  and  a  part  of  Warwick.  This 
state,  together  with  that  of  the  Hecanas,  bore 
the  common  Germanic  appellation  of  the  land  of 
the  Magesa;tas.  .  .  .  The  country  to  the  north  of 
the  Humber  had  suffered  the  most  severely  from 
the  inroads  of  the  Picts  and  Scots.  It  became 
at  an  early  period  separated  into  two  British 
states,  the  names  of  which  were  retained  for 
some  centuries,  viz, :  Deifyr  (Deora  rice),  after- 
wards Latinized  into  Deira,  extending  from  the 
Humber  to  the  Tyne,  and  Berneich  (Beorna 
rice),  afterwards  Bernicia,  from  the  Tyne  to  the 
Clyde.  Here  also  the  settlements  of  the  German 
races  appear  anterior  to  the  date  given  in  the 
common  accounts  of  the  first  Anglian  kings  of 
those  territories,  in  the  middle  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury."— J.  M.  Lappenberg,  Hist,  of  Eng.  iinder 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Kings  (Thorpe),  ii.  1,  pp.  113-117. 
— The  three  Anglian  kingdoms  of  Northumber- 
land, Mercia  and  East  Anglia,  "are  altogether 
much  larger  than  the  Saxon  and  Jutish  King- 
doms, so  you  see  very  well  why  the  land  was 
called  'England'  and  not  'Saxony.'.  .  .  'Sax- 
onia  '  does  occur  now  and  then,  and  it  was  really 
an  older  name  than  'Anglia,' but  it  soon  went 
quite  out  of  use.  .  .  .  But  some  say  that  there 
were  either  Jutes  or  Saxons  in  the  North  of  Eng- 
land as  soon  or  sooner  than  there  were  in  the 
south.  If  so,  there  is  another  reason  why  the 
Scotch  Celts  as  well  as  the  Welsh,  call  us  Saxons. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  there  may  have  been  some 
small  Saxon  or  Jutish  settlements  there  very 
early,  but  the  great  Kingdom  of  Northumber- 
land was  certainly  founded  by  Ida  the  Angle  in 
547.  It  is  more  likely  that  there  were  some  Teu- 
tonic settlements  there  before  him,  because  the 
Chronicle  does  not  say  of  him,  as  it  does  of  Hen- 
gest, Cissa  and  Cerdic,  that  he  came  into  the 
land  by  the  sea,  but  only  that  he  began  the 
Kingdom.  .  .  .  You  must  fully  understand  that 
in  the  old  times  Northumberland  meant  the 
whole  land  north  of  the  Humber,  reaching  as 
far  as  the  Firth  of  Forth.  It  thus  takes  in  part 
of  what  is  now  Scotland,  including  the  city  of 
Edinburgh,  that  is  Eadwinesburh,  the  town  of 
the  great  Northumbrian  King  Eadwine,  or  Ed- 
win [Edwin  of  Deira,  A.  D.  617-633].  .  .  .  You 
must  not  forget  that  Lothian  and  all  that  part  of 


Scotland  was  part  of  Northumberland,  and  that 
the  people  there  are  really  English,  and  still 
speak  a  tongue  which  has  changed  less  from  the 
Old-English  than  the  tongue  of  any  other  part  of 
England.  And  the  real  Scots,  the  Gael  in  the 
Highlands,  call  the  Lowland  Scots  'Saxons,' 
just  as  much  as  they  do  the  people  of  England 
itself.  This  Northumbrian  Kingdom  was  one  of 
the  greatest  Kingdoms  in  England,  but  it  was 
often  divided  into  two,  Beornicia  [or  Bernicia] 
and  Deira,  the  latter  of  which  answered  pretty 
nearly  to  Yorkshire.  The  chief  city  was  the  old 
Roman  town  of  Eboracum,  which  in  Old-English 
is  Eoforwic,  and  which  we  cut  short  into  York. 
York  was  for  a  long  time  the  greatest  town  in 
the  North  of  England.  There  are  now  many 
others  much  larger,  but  York  is  still  the  second 
city  in  England  in  rank,  and  it  gives  its  chief 
magistrate  the  title  of  Lord-Mayor,  as  London 
does,  while  in  other  cities  and  towns  the  chief 
magistrate  is  merely  the  Mayor,  without  any 
Lord.  .  .  .  The  great  Anglian  Kingdom  of  the 
Mercians,  that  is  the  Marchmen,  the  people  on 
the  march  or  frontier,  seems  to  have  been  the 
youngest  of  all,  and  to  have  grown  up  gradually 
by  joining  together  several  smaller  states,  includ- 
ing all  the  land  which  the  West  Saxons  had  held 
north  of  the  Thames.  Such  little  tribes  or  states 
were  the  Lindesfaras  and  the  Gainas  in  Lincoln- 
shire, the  Magessetas  in  Herefordshire,  the  Hwic- 
cas in  Gloucester,  Worcester,  and  part  of  War- 
wick, and  several  others.  .  .  .  When  Mercia 
was  fully  joined  under  one  King,  it  made  one  of 
the  greatest  states  in  England,  and  some  of  the 
Mercian  Kings  were  very  powerful  princes.  It 
was  chiefly  an  Anglian  Kingdom,  and  the  Kings 
were  of  an  Anglian  stock,  but  among  the  Hwic- 
cas and  in  some  of  the  other  shires  in  southern 
and  western  Mercia,  most  of  the  people  must 
really  have  been  Saxons." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Old 
English  Hist,  for  Children,  ch.  5. 

A.  D.  560.— Ethelbert  becomes  king  of  Kent. 

A.  D.  593. — Ethelfrith  becomes  king  of 
Northumbria. 

A.  D.  597-685. — The  conversion  of  the  Eng- 
lish.—  "It  happened  that  certain  Saxon  chil- 
dren were  to  be  sold  for  slaves  at  the  market- 
place at  Rome ;  when  Divine  Providence,  the  great 
clock-keeper  of  time,  ordering  not  only  hours, 
but  even  instants  (Luke  ii.  38),  to  his  own 
honour,  so  disposed  it,  that  Gregory,  afterwards 
first  bishop  of  Rome  of  that  name,  was  present 
to  behold  them.  It  grieved  the  good  man  to  see 
the  disproportion  betwixt  the  faces  and  fortunes, 
the  complexions  and  conditions,  of  these  children, 
condemned  to  a  servile  estate,  though  carrying 
liberal  looks,  so  legible  was  ingenuity  in  their 
faces.  It  added  more  to  his  sorrow,  when  he 
conceived  that  those  youths  were  twice  vassals, 
bought  by  their  masters,  and  '  sold  under  sin ' 
(Rom.  vii.  14),  servants  in  their  bodies,  and 
slaves  in  their  souls  to  Satan ;  which  occasioned 
the  good  man  to  enter  into  further  inquiry  with 
the  merchants  (which  set  them  to  sale)  what  they 
were  and  whence  they  came,  according  to  this 
ensuing  dialogue: — Gregory. — '  Whence  come 
these  captives  ? '  Merchants. — '  From  the  isle  of 
Britain.'  Gregory. — '  Are  those  islanders  Chris- 
tians?' Merchants. — 'O  no,  tliey  are  Pagans.' 
Gregory.— 'It  is  sad  that  the  author  of  darkness 
should  possess  men  with  so  bright  faces.  But 
what  is  the  name  of  their  particular  nation?' 
Merchants. — '  They  are  called  Angli.'    Gregory. 


809 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  597-685. 


Christianity.  '       ENGLAND,  6TH  CENTURY. 


— 'And  well  may,  for  their  "angel  like  faces"; 
it  becometh  such  to  be  coheirs  witli  tlie  angels 
in  heaven.  In  what  province  of  England  did 
they  live?'  Merchants. — 'In  Deira.'  Gregory. 
— '  They  are  to  be  freed  de  Dei  ira,  "  from  the 
anger  of  God."  How  call  ye  the  king  of  that 
country  ?  '  Merchants.  —  '  Ella. '  Gregory. — 
'  Surely  hallelujah  ought  to  be  sung  in  his  king- 
dom to  the  praise  of  that  God  who  created  all 
things. '  Thus  Gregory's  gracious  heart  set  the 
i  sound  of  every  word  to  the  time  of  spiritual 
goodness.  Nor  can  his  words  be  justly  censured 
for  levity,  if  we  consider  how,  in  that  age.  the 
elegance  of  poetry  consisted  in  rhythm,  and  the 
eloquence  of  prose  in  allusions.  And  which  was 
the  main,  where  liis  pleasant  conceits  did  end, 
there  his  pious  endeavours  began;  which  did 
not  terminate  in  a  verbal  jest,  but  produce  real 
effects,  which  ensued  hereupon." — Thomas  Ful- 
ler, The  Church  History  of  Britain,  bk.  2,  sect. 
1. —  In  590  the  good  Gregory  became  Bishop 
of  Rome,  or  Pope,  and  six  years  later,  still  re- 
taining the  interest  awakened  in  him  by  the 
captive  English  youth,  he  dispatched  a  band  of 
missionary  monks  to  Britain,  with  their  prior, 
Augustine,  at  their  head.  Once  they  turned 
back,  affrighted  by  what  they  heard  of  the 
ferocity  of  the  new  heathen  possessors  of  the 
once-Christian  island  of  Britain ;  but  Gregory 
laid  his  commands  upon  them  again,  and  in  the 
spring  of  597  they  crossed  the  channel  from  Gaul, 
landing  at  Ebbsfleet,  in  tlie  Isle  of  Thanet,  where 
the  Jutish  invaders  had  made  their  first  land- 
ing, a  century  and  a  half  before.  They  found 
Ethelbert  of  Kent,  the  most  powerful  of  the 
English  kings  at  that  time,  already  prepared  to 
receive  them  with  tolerance.  If  not  with  favor, 
through  the  influence  of  a  Christian  wife  — 
queen  Bertha,  of  the  royal  family  of  the  Franks. 
The  conversion  and  baptism  of  the  Kentish  king 
and  court,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  new  faith 
by  great  numbers  of  the  people  followed  quickly. 
In  November  of  the  same  year,  597,  Augustine 
returned  to  Gaul  to  receive  his  consecration  as 
"Archbishop  of  the  English,"  establishing  the 
See  of  Canterburj',  with  the  primacy  which  has 
remained  in  it  to  the  present  day.  The  East 
Saxons  were  the  next  to  bow  to  the  cross  and  in 
604  a  bishop,  Mellitus,  was  sent  to  London. 
This  ended  Augustine's  work  —  and  Gregory's  — 
for  both  died  that  year.  Then  followed  an  in- 
terval of  little  progress  in  the  work  of  the  mis- 
sion, and,  afterwards,  a  reaction  towards  idolatry 
which  threatened  to  destroy  it  altogether.  But 
just  at  this  time  of  discouragement  in  the  south, 
a  great  triumph  of  Christianity  was  brought 
about  in  Northumberland,  and  due,  there,  as  in 
Kent,  to  the  influence  of  a  Christian  queen. 
Edwin,  the  king,  with  many  of  his  nobles  and 
his  people,  were  baptised  on  Easter  Eve,  A.  D. 
627,  and  a  new  center  of  missionary  work  was 
established  at  York.  There,  too,  an  appalling 
reverse  occurred,  when  Northumberland  was 
overrun,  in  633,  by  Penda,  the  heathen  king  of 
Mercia ;  but  the  kingdom  rallied,  and  the  Chris- 
tian Church  was  reestablished,  not  wholly,  as  be- 
fore, under  the  patronage  and  rule  of  Rome,  but 
partly  by  a  mission  from  the  ancient  Celtic 
Church,  which  did  not  acknowledge  the  suprem- 
acy of  Rome.  In  the  end,  however,  the  Roman 
forms  of  Christianity  prevailed,  throughout 
Britain,  as  elsewhere  in  western  Europe.  Before 
the  end  of  the  7th  century  the  religion  of  the 


Cross  was  established  firmly  in  all  parts  of  the 
island,  the  South  Saxons  being  the  latest  to  re- 
ceive it.  In  the  8th  century  English  missionaries 
were  laboring  zealously  for  the  conversion  of 
their  Saxon  and  Frisian  brethren  on  the  con- 
tinent.— G.  F.  Maclear,  Conversion  of  the  West  : 
The  English. 

Also  in:  The  Venerable  Bede,  Ecclesiastical 
History. — H.  Soames,  The  Anglo  Saxon  Church. 
— R.  C.  Jenkins,  Canterbury,  ch.  2. 

End  of  the  6th  Century. —  The  extent,  the 
limits  and  the  character  of  the  Teutonic  con- 
quest.— "  Before  the  end  of  the  6th  century  the 
Teutonic  dominion  stretched  from  the  German 
ocean  to  the  Severn,  and  from  the  English  Chan- 
nel to  the  Firth  of  Forth.  The  northern  part  of 
the  island  was  still  held  by  Picts  and  Scots,  Celtic 
tribes,  whose  exact  ethnical  relation  to  each 
other  hardly  concerns  us.  And  the  whole  west 
side  of  the  island,  including  not  only  modern 
Wales,  but  the  great  Kingdom  of  Strathclyde, 
stretching  from  Dumbarton  to  Chester,  and  the 
great  peninsula  containing  Cornwall,  Devon  and 
part  of  Somerset,  was  still  in  the  hands  of  inde- 
pendent Britons.  The  struggle  had  been  a  long 
and  severe  one,  and  the  natives  often  retained 
possession  of  a  defensible  district  long  after  the 
surrounding  country  had  been  occupied  by  the 
invaders.  It  is  therefore  probable  that,  at  the 
end  of  the  6tli  century  and  even  later,  there  may 
have  been  within  tlie  English  frontier  inaccessible 
points  where  detached  bodies  of  Welshmen  still 
retained  a  precarious  independence.  It  is  proba- 
ble also  that,  within  the  same  frontier,  there  stiU 
were  Roman  towns,  tributary  to  the  conquerors 
rather  than  occupied  by  them.  But  by  the  end 
of  the  6th  century  even  these  exceptions  must 
have  been  few.  The  work  of  the  Conquest,  as  a 
whole,  was  accomplished.  The  Teutonic  settlers 
had  occupied  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  terri- 
tory which  they  ever  were,  in  the  strictest  sense, 
to  occupy.  The  complete  supremacy  of  the 
island  was  yet  to  be  won;  but  that  was  to  be 
won,  when  it  was  won,  by  quite  another  process. 
The  English  Conquest  of  Britain  differed  in  sev- 
eral important  respects  from  every  other  settle- 
ment of  a  Teutonic  people  within  the  limits  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  .  .  .  Though  the  literal  ex- 
tirpation of  a  nation  is  an  impossibilitj',  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Celtic  inhabitants 
of  those  parts  of  Britain  which  had  become 
English  at  the  6th  century  had  been  as  nearly 
extirpated  as  a  nation  can  be.  The  women  would 
doubtless  be  largely  spared,  but  as  far  as  the  male 
sex  is  concerned,  we  may  feel  sure  that  death, 
emigration  or  personal  slavery  were  the  only 
alternatives  which  the  vanquished  found  at  the 
hands  of  our  fathers.  The  nature  of  the  small 
Celtic  element  in  our  language  would  of  itself 
prove  the  fact.  Nearl_y  every  Welsh  word  which 
has  found  its  way  into  English  expresses  some 
small  domestic  matter,  such  as  women  and  slaves 
would  be  concerned  with." — E.  A.  Freeman, 
Hist,  of  the  Korman  Conquest  of  Eng.,  ch.  3,  sect. 
1. — "A  glance  at  the  map  shows  that  the  mass 
of  the  local  nomenclature  of  England  begins 
with  the  Teutonic  conquest,  while  the  mass  of 
the  local  nomenclature  of  France  is  older  than 
the  Teutonic  conquest.  And,  if  we  turn  from 
the  names  on  the  map  to  the  living  speech  of 
men,  there  is  the  most  obvious,  but  the  most  im- 
portant, of  all  facts,  the  fact  that  Englishmen 
speak  English  and  that  Frenchmen  speak  French. 


810 


ENGLAND,  6TH  CENTURY. 


The  Conquest. 


ENGLAND.  A.  D.  655. 


That  is  to  say,  in  Gaul  the  speech  of  Rome  lived 
through  tlie  Teutonic  conquest,  while  in  Britain 
it  perished  in  the  Teutonic  conquest,  if  it  had 
not  passed  away  before.  And  behind  this  is  the 
fact,  very  much  less  obvious,  a  good  deal  less 
important,  but  still  very  important,  that  in  Gaul 
tongues  older  than  Latin  live  on  only  in  corners 
as  mere  survivals,  while  in  Britain,  while  Latin 
has  utterly  vanished,  a  tongue  older  than  Latin 
still  lives  on  as  the  common  speech  of  an  appre- 
ciable part  of  the  land.  .Here  then  is  the  final 
result  open  to  our  own  eyes.  And  it  is  a  final 
result  which  could  not  have  come  to  pass  unless 
the  Teutonic  conquest  of  Britain  had  been  some- 
thing of  an  utterly  different  character  from  the 
Teutonic  conquest  of  Gaul — unless  the  amount  of 
change,  of  destruction,  of  havoc  of  every  kind, 
above  all,  of  slaugliter  and  driving  out  of  the  ex- 
isting inhabitants,  had  been  far  greater  in  Britain 
than  it  was  in  Gaul.  If  the  Angles  and  Saxons  in 
Britain  had  been  only  as  the  Goths  in  Spain,  or 
even  as  the  Franks  in  Gaul,  it  is  inconceivable 
that  the  final  results  should  have  been  so  utterly 
different  in  the  two  cases.  There  is  the  plain 
fact:  Gaul  remained  a  Latin-speaking  land;  Eng- 
land became  a  Teutonic-speaking  land.  The  ob- 
vious inference  is  that,  while  in  Gaul  the  Teu- 
tonic conquest  led  to  no  general  displacement  of 
the  inhabitants,  in  England  it  did  lead  to  such  a 
general  displacement.  In  Gaul  the  Pranks  simply 
settled  among  a  subject  people,  among  whom 
they  themselves  were  gradually  merged ;  in 
Britain  the  Angles  and  Sa.\ons  slew  or  drove  out 
the  people  whom  they  found  in  the  land,  and 
settled  it  again  as  a  new  people." — E.  A.  Free- 
man, The  Englinh  People  in  its  Three  Homes 
{Lectures  to  American  Audiences),  pp.  114-115. — 
"Almost  to  the  close  of  the  6th  century  the 
English  conquest  of  Britain  was  a  sheer  dispos- 
session of  the  conquered  people ;  and,  so  far  as 
the  English  sword  in  these  earlier  daj'S  reached, 
Britain  became  England,  a  land,  that  is,  not  of 
Britons,  but  of  Englishmen.  There  is  no  need 
to  believe  that  the  clearing  of  the  land  meant  the 
general  slaughter  of  the  men  who  held  it,  or  to 
account  for  such  a  slaughter  by  supposed  differ- 
ences between  the  temper  of  the  English  and 
those  of  other  conquerors.  .  .  .  The  displace- 
ment of  the  conquered  people  was  only  made 
possible  by  their  own  stubborn  resistance,  and 
by  the  slow  progress  of  the  conquerors  in  the 
teeth  of  it.  Slaughter  no  doubt  there  was  on  the 
battle-field  or  in  towns  like  Anderida,  whose  long 
defence  woke  wrath  in  their  besiegers.  But  for 
the  most  part  the  Britons  cannot  have  been 
slaughtered;  they  were  simply  defeated  and 
drew  back." — J.  R.  Green,  17te  Making  of  Eng- 
land, eh.  4.  —  The  view  strongly  stated  above,  as 
to  the  completeness  of  the  erasure  of  Romano- 
British  society  and  influence  from  the  whole  of 
England  except  its  southwestern  and  north- 
western counties,  by  the  English  conquest,  is 
combated  as  strongly  by  another  less  prominent 
school  of  recent  historians,  represented,  for  ex- 
ample, by  j\Ir.  Henry  C.  Coote  (The,  Romans  of 
Britain)  and  by  Mr.  Charles  H.  Pearson,  who 
says:  "We  know  that  fugitives  from  Britain 
settled  largely  during  the  5th  century  in  Armor- 
ica  and  in  Ireland ;  and  we  may  perhaps  accept 
the  legend  of  St.  Ursula  as  proof  that  the  flight, 
in  some  instances,  was  directed  to  the  more  civil- 
ized parts  of  the  continent.  But  even  the  pious 
story  of  the  11,000  virgins  is  sober  and  credible 


by  the  side  of  that  history  which  assumes  that 
some  million  men  and  women  were  slaughtered 
or  made  homeless  by  a  few  ship-loads  of  con- 
querors. " —  C.  H.  Pearson,  Hist,  of  Eng.  during 
the  Early  and  Middle  Ages,  v.  1,  ch.  6. —  The 
opinion  maintained  by  Prof.  Freeman  and  Mr. 
Green  (and,  no  less,  by  Dr.  Stubbs)  is  the  now 
generally  accepted  one. 

7th  Century. — The  so-called  "  Heptarchy." 
— "  The  old  notion  of  an  Heptarchy,  of  a  regu- 
lar system  of  seven  Kingdoms,  united  under  the 
regular  supremacy  of  a  single  over-lord,  is  a 
dream  which  has  passed  away  before  the  light  of 
historic  criticism.  Tlie  English  Kingdoms  in 
Britain  were  ever  fluctuating,  alike  in  their 
number  and  in  their  relations  to  one  another. 
The  number  of  perfectly  independent  states  was 
sometimes  greater  and  sometimes  less  than  the 
mystical  seven,  and,  till  the  beginning  of  the 
ninth  century,  the  whole  nation  did  not  admit 
the  regular  supremacy  of  any  fixed  and  per- 
manent over-lord.  Yet  it  is  no  less  certain  that, 
among  the  mass  of  smaller  and  more  obscure 
principalities,  seven  Kingdoms  do  stand  out  in  a 
marked  way,  seven  Kingdoms  of  which  it  is 
possible  to  recover  something  like  a  continuous 
history,  seven  Kingdoms  which  alone  supplied 
candidates  for  the  dominion  of  the  whole  island.  '* 
These  seven  kingdoms  were  Kent,  Sussex,  Essex, 
Wessex,  East  Anglia,  Northumberland  and  Mer- 
cia. — E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Norman  Conq. 
of  Eng.,  ch.  3.— "After  the  territorial  boundaries 
had  become  more  settled,  there  appeared  at  the 
commencement  of  the  seventh  century  seven  or 
eight  greater  and  smaller  kingdoms.  .  .  .  Histo- 
rians have  described  this  condition  of  things  as 
the  Heptarchy,  disregarding  the  early  disappear- 
ance of  Sussex,  and  the  existence  of  still  smaller 
kingdoms.  But  this  grouping  was  neither  based 
upon  equality,  nor  destined  to  last  for  any 
length  of  time.  It  was  the  common  interest  of 
these  smaller  states  to  withstand  -the  sudden  and 
often  dangerous  invasions  of  their  western  and 
northern  neighbours;  and,  accordingly,  which- 
ever king  was  capable  of  successfully  combating 
the  common  foe,  acquired  for  the  time  a  certain 
superior  rank,  which  some  historians  denote  by 
the  title  of  Bretwalda.  By  this  name  can  only 
be  understood  an  actual  and  recognized  tempo- 
rary superiority ;  first  ascribed  to  JElla  of  Sussex, 
and  later  passing  to  Northumbria,  until  Wessex 
finally  attains  a  real  and  lasting  supremacy.  It 
was  geographical  position  which  determined  these 
relations  of  superiority.  The  small  kingdoms  in 
the  west  were  shielded  by  the  greater  ones  of 
Northumberland,  Mercia  and  Wessex,  as  though 
by  crescent-shaped  forelands — which  in  their 
struggles  with  the  Welsh  kingdoms,  with  Strath- 
clyde  and  Cumbria,  with  Picts  and  Scots,  were 
continually  in  a  state  of  martial  activity.  And 
so  the  smaller  western  kingdoms  followed  the 
three  warlike  ones ;  and  round  these  Anglo-Saxon 
history  revolves  for  two  whole  centuries,  until  in 
Wessex  we  find  a  combination  of  most  of  the 
conditions  which  are  necessary  to  the  existence  of 
a  great  State." — R.  Gneist,  Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Con- 
stitution, ch.  3. 

A.  D.  617. — Edwin  becomes  king  of  North- 
umbria. 

A.  D.  634. — 0sv7ald  becomes  king  of  North- 
umbria. 

A.  D.  655. — Oswi  becomes  king  of  Northum- 
bria. 


811 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  670. 


The  Danes. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  855-880. 


A.  D.  670. — Egfrith  becomes  king  of  North- 
umbria. 

A.  D.  688.— Ini  becomes  king  of  the  West 
Saxons. 

A.  D.  716.  —  Ethelbald  becomes  king  of 
Mercia. 

A.  D.  758. — Offa  becomes  king  of  Mercia. 

A.  D.  794. — Cenwulf  becomes  king  of  Mercia. 

A.  D.  800. — Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Ecgberht. 

A.  D.  800-836. — The  supremacy  of  Wessex. 
— The  first  king  of  all  the  English. — "And  now 
I  have  come  to  the  reigu  of  Ecgberht,  the  great 
Bretwalda.  He  was  an  ^theling  of  the  blood  of 
Cerdic,  and  he  is  said  to  have  been  the  son  of 
Ealhmund,  and  Ealhmund  is  said  to  have  been 
an  Uuder-king  of  Kent.  For  the  old  line  of  the 
Kings  of  Kent  had  come  to  an  end  and  Kent  was 
now  sometimes  under  "Wessex  and  sometimes 
under  Mercia.  .  .  .  Wlien  Beorhtric  died  in  800, 
he  [Ecgbei'ht]  was  chosen  King  of  the  West- 
Saxons.  He  reigned  until  836,  and  in  that  time 
he  brought  all  the  English  Kingdoms,  and  the 
greater  part  of  Britain,  more  or  less  under  his 
power.  The  southern  part  of  the  island,  all 
Kent,  Sussex,  and  Essex,  he  joined  on  to  his  own 
Kingdom,  and  set  his  sons  or  other  .(Ethelings  to 
reign  over  them  as  his  Under-kings.  But  Nor- 
thumberland, Mercia,  and  East-Auglia  were  not 
brought  so  completely  under  his  power  as  this. 
Their  Kings  submitted  to  Ecgberht  and  acknowl- 
edged him  as  their  over-lord,  but  they  went  on 
reigning  in  their  own  Kingdoms,  and  assembling 
their  own  Wise  Men,  just  as  they  did  before. 
They  became  what  in  after  times  was  called  his 
'vassals,' what  in  English  was  called  being  his 
'  men. ' .  .  .  Besides  the  English  Kings,  Ecgberht 
bi'ought  the  Welsh,  both  in  Wales  and  in  Corn- 
wall, more  completely  under  his  power.  ...  So 
King  Ecgberht  was  Lord  from  the  Irish  Sea  to 
the  German  Ocean,  and  from  the  English  Chan- 
nel to  the  Firth  of  Forth.  So  it  is  not  wonderful 
if,  in  his  charters,  he  not  only  called  himself  King 
of  the  West-Saxons  or  King  of  the  West-Saxons 
and  Kentishman,  but  sometimes  '  Rex  Anglorum,' 
or  'King  of  the  English.'  But  amidst  all  this 
glory  there  were  signs  of  great  evils  at  hand. 
The  Danes  came  several  times." — E.  A.  Free- 
man, Old  English  Hist,  for  Children,  ch.  7. 

A.  D.  836.— Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Ethelwulf. 

A.  D.  855-880.— Conquests  and  settlements 
of  the  Danes. — The  heroic  struggle  of  Alfred 
the  Great. — The  "  Peace  of  Wedmore  "  and 
the  "  Danelaw." — King  Alfred's  character  and 
reign. — "  The  Danish  invasions  of  England  .  .  . 
fall  naturally  into  three  periods,  each  of  which 
finds  its  parallel  in  the  course  of  the  English  Con- 
quest of  Britain.  .  .  .  We  first  find  a  period  in 
which  the  object  of  the  invaders  seems  to  be 
simple  plunder.  They  land,  they  harry  the  coun- 
try, they  fight,  if  need  be,  to  secure  their  booty, 
but  whether  defeated  or  victorious,  they  equally 
return  to  their  ships,  and  sail  away  with  what 
they  have  gathered.  This  period  mcludes  the 
time  from  the  first  recorded  invasion  [A.  D.  787] 
till  the  latter  half  of  the  ninth  century.  Next 
conies  a  time  in  which  the  object  of  the  North- 
men is  clearly  no  longer  mere  plunder,  but  settle- 
ment. ...  in  the  reign  of  Ethelwulf  the  son  of 
Ecgberht  it  is  recorded  that  the  heathen  men 
wintered  for  the  first  time  in  the  Isle  of  Sheppey 
[A.  D.  855].     This  marks  the  transition  from  the 


first  to  the  second  period  of  their  invasions.  .  .  • 
It  was  not  however  till  about  eleven  years  from 
this  time  that  the  settlement  actually  began. 
Meanwhile  the  sceptre  of  the  West-Saxons  passed 
from  one  hand  to  another.  .  .  .  Four  sons  of 
Ethelwulf  reigned  in  succession,  and  the  reigns 
of  the  first  three  among  them  [Ethelbald,  A.  D. 
858,  Ethelberiit,  860,  Ethelred,  866]  make  up  to- 
gether only  thirteen  years.  In  the  reign  of  the 
third  of  these  princes,  Ethelred  I.,  the  second 
period  of  the  invasions  fairly  begins.  Five  years 
were  spent  by  the  Northmen  in  ravaging  and  con- 
quering the  tributary  Kingdoms.  Northumber- 
land, still  disputed  between  rival  Kings,  fell  an 
easy  prey  [867-869],  and  one  or  two  puppet 
princes  did  not  scruple  to  receive  a  tributary 
crown  at  the  hands  of  the  heathen  invaders.  They 
next  entered  IVIercia  [868],  they  seized  Notting- 
ham, and  the  West-Saxon  King  hastening  to  the 
relief  of  his  vassals,  was  unable  to  dislodge  them 
from  that  stronghold.  East  Anglia  was  completely 
conquered  [866-870]  and  its  King  Eadmund  died 
a  martyr.  At  last  the  full  storm  of  invasion 
burst  upon  Wessex  itself  [871].  King  .iEthelred, 
the  first  of  a  long  line  of  West-Saxon  hero-Kings, 
supported  by  his  greater  brother  .iElfred  [Alfred 
the  Great]  met  the  invaders  in  battle  after  battle 
with  varied  success.  He  died  and  .iElfred  suc- 
ceeded, in  the  thick  of  the  struggle.  In  this  year 
[871],  the  last  of  Ethelred  and  the  first  of 
iElfred,  nine  pitched  battles,  besides  smaller  en- 
gagements, were  fought  with  the  heathens  on 
West-Saxon  ground.  At  last  peace  was  made ; 
the  Northmen  retreated  to  London,  within  the 
Jlercian  frontier;  Wessex  was  for  the  moment 
delivered,  but  the  supremacy  won  by  Ecgberht 
was  lost.  For  a  few  years  Wesse.x  was  subjected 
to  nothing  more  than  temporary  incursions,  but 
Northumberland  and  part  of  Mercia  were  system- 
atically occupied  by  the  Northmen,  and  the  land 
was  divided  among  them.  ...  At  last  the  North- 
men, now  settled  in  a  large  jaart  of  the  island, 
made  a  second  attempt  to  add  Wessex  itself  to 
their  possessions  [878].  For  a  moment  the  land 
seemed  conquered ;  jElfrcd  himself  lay  hid  in  the 
marshes  of  Somersetshire ;  men  might  well  deem 
that  the  Empire  of  Ecgberht  and  the  Kingdom  of 
Cerdic  Itself,  had  vanished  for  ever.  But  the 
strong  heart  of  the  most  renowned  of  Englishmen, 
the  saint,  the  scholar,  the  hero,  and  the  lawgiver, 
carried  his  people  safely  through  this  most  terri- 
ble of  dangers.  Within  the  same  year  the  Dragon 
of  Wessex  was  again  victorious  [at  the  battle  of 
Ethandun,  or  Edington],  and  the  Northmen  were 
driven  to  conclude  a  peace  which  Englishmen, 
fifty  years  sooner,  would  have  deemed  the  lowest 
depth  of  degradation,  but  which  might  now  bo 
fairly  looked  upon  as  honourable  and  even  as 
triumphant.  By  the  terms  of  the  Peace  of  Wed- 
more  the  Northmen  were  to  evacuate  Wessex  and 
the  part  of  Mercia  south-west  of  Watling-Street; 
they,  or  at  least  their  chiefs,  were  to  submit  to 
baptism,  and  they  were  to  receive  the  whole  land 
beyond  Watling-Street  as  vassals  of  the  West- 
Saxon  King.  .  .  .  The  exact  boundary  started 
from  the  Thames,  along  the  Lea  to  its  source, 
then  right  to  Bedford  and  along  the  Ouse  till  it 
meets  Watling-Street,  then  along  Watling-Street 
to  the  Welsh  border.  See  'jElfred  and  Guthrum's 
Peace,'  Thorpe's  'Laws  and  Institutes,'  i.  153. 
This  frontier  gives  London  to  the  English ;  but  it 
seems  that  .Alfred  did  not  obtain  full  possession 
of  London  till  886."    The  territory  thus  conceded 


812 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  855-880.       Alfred  tli«  Great.       ENGLAND,  A.  D.  855-880. 


to  the  Danes,  -wliicli  included  all  northeastern 
England  from  the  Thames  to  the  Tyne,  was 
thenceforth  known  by  the  name  of  the  Danelagh 
or  Danelaw,  signifying  the  country  subject  to 
the  law  of  the  Danes.  The  Peace  of  Wedmore 
ended  the  second  period  of  the  Danish  invasions. 
The  third  period,  which  was  not  opened  until  a 
full  century  later,  embraced  tlie  actual  conquest 
of  the  whole  of  England  by  a  Danish  king  and  its 
temporary  annexation  to  the  dominions  of  the 
Danish  crown.- — E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Nor- 
man Conq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  2,  with  foot-note. — "Now 
that  peace  was  restored,  and  the  Danes  driven  out 
of  his  domains,  it  remained  to  be  seen  whether 
Alfred  was  as  good  a  ruler  as  he  was  a  soldier. 
.  .  .  What  did  he  see  ?  The  towns,  even  London 
itself,  pillaged,  ruined,  or  burnt  down;  the  mon- 
asteries destroyed ;  the  people  wild  and  lawless ; 
Ignorance,  rougluiess,  insecurity  everywhere.  It 
is  almost  incredible  with  what  a  brave  heart  he 
set  himself  to  repair  all  this ;  how  his  great  and 
noble  aims  were  still  before  him ;  how  hard  he 
strove,  and  how  much  he  achieved.  First  of  all 
he  seems  to  have  sought  for  helpers.  Like  most 
clever  men,  he  was  good  at  reading  characters. 
He  soon  saw  who  would  be  true,  brave,  wise 
friends,  and  he  collected  these  around  him.  Some 
of  them  he  fetched  from  over  the  sea,  from  France 
and  Germany ;  our  friend  Asser  from  Wales,  or, 
as  he  calls  his  country,  'Western  Britain,'  while 
England,  he  calls  '  Saxony.'  He  says  he  first  saw 
Alfred  '  in  a  royal  vill,  which  is  called  Dene  '  in 
Sussex.  '  He  received  me  with  kindness,  and 
asked  me  eagerly  to  devote  myself  to  his  service, 
and  become  his  friend ;  to  leave  everything  which 
I  possessed  on  the  left  or  western  ban  k  of  the 
Severn,  and  promised  that  he  would  give  more 
than  an  equivalent  for  it  in  his  own  dominions. 
I  replied  that  I  could  not  rashly  and  incautiously 
promise  such  things ;  for  it  seemed  to  be  unjust 
that  I  should  leave  those  sacred  places  in  which 
I  had  been  bred,  educated,  crowned,  and  ordained 
for  the  sake  of  any  earthly  honour  and  power, 
unless  upon  compulsion.  Upon  this  he  said,  "If 
you  cannot  accede  to  this,  at  least  let  me  have 
your  service  in  part;  spend  six  months  of  the 
year  with  me  here,  and  the  other  six  months 
in  Britain. "  '  And  to  this  after  a  time  Asser  con- 
sented. What  were  the  principal  things  he  turned 
his  mind  to  after  providing  for  the  defence  of  his 
kingdom,  and  collecting  his  friends  and  counsel- 
lors about  him  ?  Law  —  j  ustice  —  religion  — ■  edu- 
cation. He  collected  and  studied  the  old  laws  of 
his  nation ;  what  he  thought  good  he  kept,  what 
he  disapproved  he  left  out.  He  added  others, 
especially  the  ten  commandments  and  some  other 
parts  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Then  he  laid  them 
all  before  his  Witan,  or  wise  men,  and  with  their 
approval  published  them.  .  .  .  The  state  of  jus- 
tice in  England  was  dreadful  at  this  time.  .  .  . 
Alfred's  way  of  curing  this  was  by  inquiring  into 
all  cases,  as  far  as  he  possibly  could,  himself;  and 
Asser  says  he  did  this  '  especially  for  the  sake  of 
the  poor,  to  whose  interest,  day  and  night,  he  ever 
was  wonderfully  attentive ;  for  in  the  whole  king- 
dom the  poor,  besides  him,  had  few  or  no  pro- 
tectors.'.  .  .  When  he  found  that  the  judges  had 
made  mistakes  through  ignorance,  he  rebuked 
them,  and  told  them  they  must  either  grow  wiser 
or  give  up  their  posts ;  and  soon  the  old  earls  and 
other  judges,  who  had  been  unlearned  from  their 
cradles,  began  to  study  diligently.  .  .  .  For  re- 
viving and  spreading  religion  among  his  people 


he  used  the  best  means  that  he  knew  of ;  that  is, 
he  founded  new  monasteries  and  restored  old 
ones,  and  did  his  utmost  to  get  good  bishops  and 
clergymen.  For  his  own  part,  he  strove  to  prac- 
tise in  all  ways  what  he  taught  to  others.  ,  .  . 
Education  was  in  a  still  worse  condition  than 
everything  else.  .  .  .  All  the  schools  had  been 
broken  up.  Alfred  says  that  when  he  began  to 
reign  there  were  very  few  clergymen  south  of  the 
Humber  who  could  even  understand  the  Prayer- 
book.  (That  was  still  in  Latin,  as  the  Roman 
missionaries  had  brouglit  it.)  And  south  of  the 
Tliames  he  could  not  remember  one.  His  first 
care  was  to  get  better-educated  clergy  and  bish- 
ops. And  next  to  get  the  laymen  taught  also. 
.  .  .  He  founded  monasteries  and  schools,  and 
restored  the  old  ones  which  had  been  ruined.  He 
iiad  a  school  in  his  court  for  his  own  children  and 
the  children  of  his  nobles.  But  at  the  very  out- 
set a  most  serious  difficulty  confronted  Alfred. 
Where  was  he  to  get  books  ?  At  this  time,  as  far 
as  we  can  judge,  there  can  only  have  been  one, 
or  at  most  two  books  in  the  English  language  — 
the  long  poem  of  CaBdmon  about  the  creation  of 
the  world,  &c.,  and  the  poem  of  Beowulf  about 
warriors  and  fiery  dragons.  There  were  many 
English  ballads  and  songs,  but  whether  these  were 
written  down  I  do  not  know.  There  was  no  book 
of  history,  not  even  English  history ;  no  book  of 
geography,  no  religious  books,  no  philosophy. 
Bede,  who  had  written  so  many  books,  had  writ- 
ten them  all  in  Latin.  ...  So  when  they  had  a 
time  of  '  stillness  '  the  king  and  his  learned  friends 
set  to  work  and  translated  books  into  English; 
and  Alfred,  who  was  as  modest  and  candid  as  he 
was  wise,  put  into  the  preface  of  one  of  his  trans- 
lations tliat  he  hoped,  if  any  one  knew  Latin  bet- 
ter than  he  did,  that  he  would  not  blame  him,  for 
he  could  but  do  according  to  his  ability.  .  .  . 
Beside  all  this,  he  had  a  great  many  other  occu- 
pations. Asser,  who  often  lived  with  him  for 
months  at  a  time,  gives  us  an  account  of  his  busy 
life.  Notwithstanding  his  infirmities  and  other 
hindrances,  '  he  continued  to  carry  on  the  govern- 
ment, and  to  exercise  hunting  in  all  its  branches; 
to  teach  his  workers  in  gold  and  artificers  of  all 
kinds,  his  falconers,  hawkers,  and  dog-keepers; 
to  build  houses,  majestic  and  good,  beyond  all 
the  precedents  of  his  ancestors,  by  his  new  me- 
chanical inventions;  to  recite  the  Saxon  books 
(Asser,  being  a  Welshman,  always  calls  the  Eng- 
lish, Saxon),  and  especially  to  learn  by  heart  the 
Saxon  poems,  and  to  make  others  learn  them ;  he 
never  desisted  from  studying  most  diligently  to 
the  best  of  his  ability ;  he  attended  the  mass  and 
other  daUy  services  of  religion ;  he  was  frequent 
in  psalm-singing  and  prayer;  ...  he  bestowed 
alms  and  largesses  on  both  natives  and  foreigners 
of  all  countries ;  he  was  affable  and  pleasant  to 
all,  and  curiously  eager  to  investigate  things  un- 
known.' " — M.  J.  Guest,  Lectures  on  the  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  led.  9. — "It  is  no  easy  task  for  anyone 
who  has  been  studying  his  [Alfred's]  life  and 
works  to  set  reasonable  bounds  to  their  reverence, 
and  enthusiasm,  for  the  man.  Lest  the  reader 
should  think  my  estimate  tainted  with  the  pro- 
verbial weakness  of  biographers  for  their  heroes, 
let  them  turn  to  the  words  in  which  the  earliest, 
and  the  last  of  the  English  historians  of  that  time, 
sum  up  the  character  of  Alfred.  Florence  of 
Worcester,  writing  in  the  century  after  his  death, 
speaks  of  him  as  '  that  famous,  warlike,  victorious 
king ;  the  zealous  protector  of  widows,  scholars. 


813 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  855-880. 


Alfred  the  Great. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  955. 


orphans  and  the  poor ;  skilled  in  the  Saxon  poets ; 
affable  and  liberal  to  all ;  endowed  with  prudence, 
fortitude,  justice,  and  temperance;  most  patient 
under  the  infirmity  which  he  daily  suffered;  a 
most  stern  inquisitor  in  executing  justice;  vigi- 
lant aud  devoted  in  the  service  of  God.'  Mr. 
Freeman,  in  his  '  History  of  the  Norman  Con- 
quest,' has  laid  down  the  portrait  in  bold  aud  last- 
ing colours,  in  a  passage  as  truthful  as  it  is  elo- 
quent, which  those  who  are  familiar  with  it  will 
be  glad  to  meet  again,  while  those  who  do  not 
know  it  will  be  grateful  to  me  for  substituting 
for  any  poor  words  of  my  own.  '  Alfred,  the 
unwilling  author  of  these  great  changes,  is  the 
most  perfect  character  in  history.  He  is  a  sin- 
'gular  instance  of  a  prince  who  has  become  a  hero 
of  romance,  who,  as  such,  has  had  countless  im- 
aginary exploits  attributed  to  him,  but  to  wliose 
character  romance  has  done  no  more  than  justice, 
and  who  appears  in  exactly  the  same  light  in  his- 
tory and  in  fable.  No  other  man  on  record  has 
ever  so  thoroughly  united  all  the  virtues  both  of 
tlie  ruler  and  of  the  private  man.  In  no  other 
man  on  record  were  so  many  virtues  disfigured 
by  so  little  alloy.  A  saint  without  superstition, 
a  scbolar  without  ostentation,  a  warrior  all  whose 
wars  were  fought  in  the  defence  of  his  country, 
a  conqueror  whose  laurels  were  never  stained  by 
cruelty,  a  prince  never  cast  down  by  adversity, 
never  lifted  up  to  insolence  in  the  day  of  triumph 
—  there  is  no  other  name  in  history  to  compare 
with  his.  Saint  Lewis  comes  nearest  to  him  in 
the  union  of  a  more  than  monastic  piety  with  the 
highest  civil,  military,  and  domestic  virtues. 
Both  of  them  stand  forth  in  honourable  contrast 
to  the  abject  superstition  of  some  other  royal 
saints,  who  were  so  selfishly  engaged  in  the  care 
of  their  own  souls  that  they  refused  either  to 
raise  up  heirs  for  their  throne,  or  to  strike  a  blow 
on  behalf  of  their  peoijle.  But  even  in  Saint 
Lewis  we  see  a  disposition  to  forsake  an  immedi- 
ate sphere  of  duty  for  the  sake  of  distant  and 
unprofitable,  however  pious  and  glorious,  under- 
takings. The  true  duties  of  the  King  of  the 
French  clearly  lay  in  France,  and  not  in  Egypt 
or  Tunis.  No  such  charge  lies  at  the  door  of  the 
great  King  of  the  West  Saxons.  With  an  inquir- 
ing spirit  whicli  took  in  the  whole  world,  for 
purposes  alike  of  scientific  inquiry  and  of  Chris- 
tian benevolence,  Alfred  never  forgot  that  his 
first  duty  was  to  his  own  people.  He  forestalled 
our  own  age  in  sending  expeditions  to  explore 
the  Northern  Ocean,  aud  in  sending  alms  to  the 
distant  Churches  of  India;  but  he  neither  forsook 
his  crown,  like  some  of  his  predecessors,  nor  neg- 
lected his  duties,  like  some  of  his  successors. 
Tlie  virtue  of  Alfred,  like  the  virtue  of  Washing- 
ton, consisted  in  no  marvellous  displays  of  super- 
human genius,  but  in  the  simple,  straightfor- 
ward discharge  of  the  duty  of  the  moment.  But 
Washington,  soldier,  statesman,  and  patriot,  like 
Alfred,  has  no  claim  to  Alfred's  further  characters 
of  saint  and  scholar.  William  the  Silent,  too,  has 
nothing  to  set  against  Alfred's  literary  merits; 
ind  in  his  career,  glorious  as  it  is,  there  is  an  ele- 
ment of  intrigue  and  cliicanery  utterly  alien  to 
the  noble  simplicity  of  both  Alfred  and  Washing- 
ton. The  same  union  of  zeal  for  religion  and 
learning  witli  the  highest  gifts  of  the  warrior  and 
the  statesman  is  found,  on  a  wider  field  of  action, 
in  Charles  the  Great.  But  even  Charles  cannot 
aspire  to  the  pure  glory  of  Alfred.  Amidst  all 
lihe  splendour  of  conquest  and  legislation,  we  can- 


not be  blind  to  an  alloy  of  personal  ambition,  of 
personal  vice,  to  occasional  unjust  aggressions 
and  occasional  acts  of  cruelty.     Among  our  own 
later  princes,  the  great  Edward  alone  can  bear 
for  a  moment  the  comparison  with  his  glorious 
ancestor.     And,  when  tried  by  such  a  standard, 
even  the  great  Edward  fails.     Even  in  him  we  do 
not  see  the  same  wonderful  union  of  gifts  and 
virtues  which  so  seldom  meet  together;  we  can- 
not acquit  Edward  of  occasional  acts  of  violence, 
of  occasional  recklessness  as  to  means ;  we  can- 
not attribute   to  him   the  pure,  simple,   almost 
childlike  disinterestedness  which  marks  the  char- 
acter of  Alfred.'     Let  Wordsworth,  on  behalf  of 
the  poets  of  England,  complete  the  picture : 
'  Behold  a  pupil  of  the  monkish  gown. 
The  pious  Alfred,  king  to  justice  dear  ! 
Lord  of  the  harp  and  liberating  spear ; 
Mirror  of  princes  !    Indigent  renown 
Might  range  the  starry  ether  for  a  crown 
Equal  to  his  deserts,  who,  like  the  year. 
Pours  forth  his  bounty,  like  the  day  doth  cheer. 
And  awes  like  night,  with  mercy -tempered  frown. 
Base  from  this  noble  miser  of  his  time 
No  moment  steals ;  pain  narrows  not  his  cares  — 
Though  small  his  kingdom  as  a  spark  or  gem, 
Of  Alfred  boasts  remote  Jerusalem, 
And   Christian  India,  through  her  widespread 

clime. 
In  sacred  converse  gifts  with  Alfred  shares. 
— Thos.  Hughes,  Alfred  the  Great,  ch.  24. 

Also  m:  R.  Pauli,  Life  of  Alfred  the  Qreat. — 
Asser,  Life  of  Alfred. — See,  also,  Normans,  and 
Education,  Medieval. 

A.  D.  901. — Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Edward,  called  The  Elder. 

A.  D.  925. — Accession  of  the  'West  Saxon 
king  Ethelstan. 

A.  D.  938. — The  battle  of  Brunnaburgh. — 
Alfred  the  Great,  dying  in  901,  was  succeeded  by 
his  son,  Edward,  and  Edward,  in  turn,  was  fol- 
lowed, A.  D.  925,  by  his  son  Athelstane,  or  ^th- 
alsten.  In  the  reign  of  Athelstane  a  great  league 
was  formed  against  him  by  the  Northumbrian 
Danes  with  the  Scots,  with  the  Danes  of  Dulilin 
and  with  the  Britons  of  Strathclyde  and  Cumbria. 
Athelstane  defeated  the  confederates  in  a  mighty 
battle,  celebrated  in  one  of  the  finest  of  Old- 
English  war-songs,  and  also  in  one  of  the  Sagas 
of  the  Norse  tongue,  as  the  Battle  of  Brunna- 
burgh  or  Brunanburh,  but  the  site  of  which  is 
unknown.  ' '  Five  Kings  and  seven  northern 
larls  or  earls  fell  in  the  strife.  .  .  .  Constantlne 
the  Scot  fled  to  tlie  north,  mourning  his  fair- 
haired  son,  who  perished  in  the  slaughter.  Anlaf 
[or  Olaf,  the  leader  of  the  Danes  or  Ostmen  of 
Dublin],  with  a  sad  and  scattered  remnant  of  his 
forces,  escaped  to  Ireland.  .  .  .  The  victory  was 
so  decisive  that,  during  the  remainder  of  the 
reign  of  Athelstane,  no  enemy  dared  to  rise  up 
against  him;  his  supremacy  was  acknowledged 
without  contest,  and  his  glory  extended  to  dis- 
tant realms." — F.  Palgrave,  Hist,  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxons,  ch.  10. —  Mr.  Skene  is  of  opinion  that 
the  battle  of  Brunnaburgh  was  fought  at  Aid- 
borough,  near  York. — W.  F.  Skene,  Celtic  Scot- 
land, ».  1,  p.  357. 

A.  D.  940. — Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Edmund. 

A.  D.  946. — Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Edred. 

A.  D.  955.-  -Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Edwig. 


814 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  958. 


The  Witenagemot. 


ENGLAND,  A.  D.  958. 


A.  D.  958.— Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Edgar. 

A.  D.  958. — Completed  union  of  the  realm. 
Increase  of  kingly  authority. — Approach  to- 
wards feudalism.— Rise  of  the  Witenagemot. 
—Decline  of  the   Freemen. —  ' Before  Alfred's 
son  Edward  died,  the  whole  of  Mercla  was  in- 
corporated with  his  immediate  dominions.     The 
way  in  which  the  thing  was  done  was  more  re- 
markable than  the  thing  itself.    Like  the  Romans, 
he  made  the  fortified  towns  the  means  of  uphold- 
ing his  power.     But  unlike  the  Romans,  he  did 
not  garrison  them  with  colonists  from  amongst 
his  own  immediate  dependents.     He  filled  them, 
as  Henry  the  Fowler  did  afterwards  in  Saxony, 
with  free  townsmen,  whose  hearts  were  at  one 
with  their  fellow  countrymen  around.      Before 
he  died  in  924,  the  Danish  chiefs  in  the  land  be- 
yond the  Humber  had  acknowledged  his  over- 
lordship,  and  even  the  Celts  of  Wales  and  Scot- 
land had  given  in  their  submission  In  some  form 
which  they  were  not  likely  to  interpret  too  strictly. 
His  son  and  his  two  grandsons,  Athelstan,  Ed- 
mund,   and    Edred   completed    the    work,    and 
when  after  the  short  and  troubled  interval  of 
Edwy's  rule  in  Wessex,  Edgar  united  the  undi- 
vided realm  under  his  sway  in  958,  he  had  no  in- 
ternal  enemies  to  suppress.      He   allowed   the 
Celtic  Scottish  King  who  had  succeeded  to  the 
inlieritance  of  the  Pictish  race  to  possess  the  old 
Northumbrian  land  north  of  the  Tweed,  where 
they   and   their  descendants  learned  the  habits 
and  speech  of  Englishmen.     But  he  treated  him 
and  the  other  Celtic  kings  distinctly  as  his  in- 
feriors, though  it  was  perhaps  well  for  him  that 
he  did  not  attempt  to  impose  upon  them  any 
very   tangible   tokens  of  his  supremacy.     The 
story  of  his  being  rowed  by  eight  kings  on  the 
Dee  is   doubtless  only  a  legend  by  which   the 
peaceful  king  "was  glorified  in  the  troubled  times 
which  followed.    Such  a  struggle,  so  successfully 
conducted,  could  not  fail  to  be  accompanied  by 
a  vast  increase  of  that  kingly  authority  which 
had  been  on  the  growth  from  the  time  of  its  first 
establishment.     The  hereditary  ealdormen,  the 
representatives  of  the   old  kingly   houses,   had 
passed  away.     The  old  tribes,  or  —  where  their 
limitations  had  been  obliterated  by  the  tide  of 
Danish  conquest,  as  was  the  case  in  central  and 
northern  England  —  the  new  artificial  divisions 
which  had  taken  their  place,  were  now  known  as 
shires,  and  the  very  name  testified  that  they  were 
regarded  only  as  parts  of  a  greater  whole.     The 
shire  mote  still  continued  the  tradition  of  the  old 
popular  assemblies.     At  its  head  as  presidents  of 
its   deliberations  were   the   ealdorman  and   the 
bishop,  each  of  them  owing  their  appointment  to 
the  king,  and  it  was   summoned  by  the  shire- 
reeve  or  sheriff,  himself  even  more  directly  an 
officer  of  the  king,  whose  business  it  was  to  see 
that  all  the  royal  dues  were  paid  within  the  shire. 
In  the  more  general  concerns  of  the  kingdom, 
the  king  consulted  with  his  Witan,  whose  meet- 
mgs  were  called  the  Witenagemot,  a  body,  which, 
at  least  for  all  ordinary  purposes,  was  composed 
not  of   any  representatives  of  the   shire-motes, 
but  of  his  own  dependents,  the  ealdormen,  the 
bishops,  and  a  certain  number  of  thegns  whose 
name,   meaning  '  servants ',  implied  at  least  at 
first,  that  they  either  were  or  had  at  one  time  been 
in  some  way  in  the  employment  of  the  king.  .  .  . 
The  necessities  of  war  .  .   .  combined  with  the 
sluggishness  of  the  mass  of  the  population  to 


favour  the   growth  of  a  military  force,  which 
would  leave  the  tillers  of  the  soil  to  their  own 
peaceful  occupations.     As  the  conditions  which 
make  a  standing  army  possible  on  a  large  scale 
did  not  yet  exist,  such  a  force  must  be  afforded 
by  a  special  class,   and  that  class  must  be  com- 
posed of  those  who  either  had  too  much  land  to 
till  themselves,  or,  having  no  land  at  all,  were  re- 
leased from  the  bonds  which  tied  the  cultivator 
to  the  soil,  in  other  words,  it  must  be  composed 
of  a  landed  aristocracy  and  its  dependents.     In 
working  out  this  change,  England  was  only  aim- 
ing at  the  results  which  similar  conditions  were 
producing  on  the  Continent.     But  just  as  the 
homogeneousness  of  the  population  drew  even 
the  foreign  element  of  the  church  into  harmony 
with  the  established  institutions,  so  it  was  with 
the  military  aristocracy.     It  grouped  itself  round 
the  king,  and  it  supplemented,  instead  of  over- 
throwing,   the    old    popular    assemblies.     Two 
classes  of  men,  the  eorls  and  the  gesiths,  had  be'en 
marked  out  from  their  fellows  at  the  time  of  tlie 
conquest.      The  thegn  of  Edgar's  day  differed 
from  both,  but  he  had  some  of  the  distinguish- 
ing marks  of  either.     He  was  not  like  the  gesith, 
a  mere  personal  follower  of  the  king.    He  did  not, 
like  the  eorl,  owe  his  position  to  his  birth.     Yet 
his  relation  to  the  king  was  a  close  one,  and  he 
had  a  hold  upon  the  land  as  firm  as  that  of  thfe 
older  eorl.     He  may,  perhaps,  best  be  described 
as  a  gesith,  who  had  acquired  the  position  of  an 
eorl  without  entirely  throwing  off  his  own  charac- 
teristics. .  .  .  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Jhe 
change  began  in  the  practice  of  granting  special 
estates  in  the  folkland,or  common  undivided  land, 
to  special  persons.     At  first  this  land  was  doubt- 
less held  to  be  the  property  of  the  tribe.     [This  is 
now  questioned  by  VinogradofE  and  others.     See 
FoLCLAND.]  .  .  .  When  the  king  rose  above  the 
tribes,  he  granted  it  himself  with  the  consent  of  his 
Witan.     A  large  portion  was  granted  to  churcKes 
and  monasteries.     But  a  large  portion  went  in 
privates  estates,  or  book  land,  as  it  was  called, 
from  the  book  or  charter  which  conveyed  tRem 
to  the  king's  own  gesiths,  or  to  members  of  His 
own  family.     The  gesith  thus  ceased  to  be  a  mere 
member  of  the  king's  military  household.     He 
became  a  landowner  as  well,  with  special  duties 
to  perform  to  the  king.  ...  He  had  special  juris- 
diction given  him  over  his  tenants  and  serfs,  ex- 
empting him  and  them  from  the  authority  of  the 
hundred  mote,  though  they  still  remained,  except 
in  very  exceptional  cases,  under  the  authority  of 
the  shire  mote.  .  .  .  Even  up  to  the  Norman  con- 
quest this  change  was  still  going  on.    To  the  end, 
indeed,  the   old   constitutional  forms  were   not 
broken  down.    The  hundred  mote  was  not  aban- 
doned, where  freemen  enough  remained  to  fill  it. 
Even  where  all  the  land  of  a  hundred  had  passed 
under  the  protection  of  a  lord  there  was  little  out- 
ward change.  .    .    .    There  was  thus  no  actual 
breach  of  continuity  in  the  nation.     The  thegn- 
hood  pushed  its  roots  down,  as  it  were,  amongst 
the  free  classes.     Nevertheless  there  was  a  dan- 
ger of  such  a  breach  of  continuity  coming  about. 
The  freemen  entered  more  and  more  largely  into 
a  condition   of   dependence,    and    there   was   a 
great   risk  lest  such  a  condition  of  dependence 
should  become  a  condition  of  servitude.     Here 
and  there,  by  some  extraordinary  stroke  of  luck, 
a  freeman  niight  rise  to  be  a  thegn.     But  the  con- 
dition of  the  class  to  which  he  belonged  was  de- 
teriorating every  dav.     The  downward  progress 


815 


ENGLAND,   A.   D.   958.         Danish  Conquest.        ENGLAND,   A.   D.   1016-1042. 


to  serfdom  was  too  easy  to  take,  and  by  large 
masses  of  the  population  it  was  already  taken. 
Below  the  increasing  numbers  of  the  serfs  was  to 
be.  found  the  lower  class  of  slaves,  who  were  ac- 
tually the  property  of  their  masters.  The  Witcn- 
agemot  was  in  reality  a  select  body  of  thegns,  if 
the  bishops,  who  held  their  lands  in  much  the 
same  way,  be  regarded  as  thegns.  In  was  rather 
an  inchoate  House  of  Lords,  than  an  inchoate  Par- 
liament, after  our  modern  ideas.  It  was  natural 
that  a  body  of  men  which  united  a  great  part  of 
the  wealth  with  almost  all  the  influence  in  the 
kingdom  should  be  possessed  of  high  constitu- 
tional powers.  The  Witenagemot  elected  the 
king,  though  as  yet  they  always  chose  him  out 
of  the  royal  family,  which  was  held  to  have  sprung 
from  the  god  Woden.  There  were  even  cases  in 
which  they  deposed  unworthy  kings." — S.  R. 
Gardiner  and  J.  B.  Mulliuger,  Introd.  to  the  Study 
of  Em/.  Hist.,  pt.  1,  ch.  2.  sect.  16-31. 

A.  D.  975. — Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Edward,  called  The  Martyr. 

A.  D.  979. — Accession  of  the  West  Saxon 
king  Ethelred,  called  The  Unready. 

A.  D.  979-1016. —  The  Danish  conquest. — 
"Then  [A.  D.  979]  commenced  one  of  the  longest 
and  most  disastrous  reigns  of  the  Saxon  kings, 
with  the  accession  of  Ethelred  II.,  justly  styled 
Ethelred  the  Unready.  The  Northmen  now  re- 
newed their  plundering  and  conquering  expedi- 
tions against  England;  while  England  had  a 
worthless  waverer  for  her  ruler,  and  many  of  her 
chief  men  turned  traitors  to  their  king  and  coun- 
try. Always  a  laggart  in  open  war,  Ethelred 
tried  in  1001  the  cowardly  and  foolish  policy  of 
buying  off  the  enemies  whom  he  dared  not  en- 
counter. The  tax  called  Dane-gelt  was  then 
levied  to  provide  '  a  tribute  for  the  Danish  men 
on  account  of  the  great  terror  which  they  caused.' 
To  pay  money  thus  was  In  effect  to  hire  the 
enemy  to  renew  the  war.  In  1003  Ethelred  tried 
the  still  more  weak  and  wicked  measure  of  rid- 
ding himself  of  his  enemies  by  treacherous  mas- 
sacre. Great  numbers  of  Danes  were  now  living 
in  England,  intermixed  with  the  Anglo-Saxon 
population.  Ethelred  resolved  to  relieve  himself 
from  all  real  or  supposed  danger  of  these  Scan- 
dinavian settlers  taking  part  with  their  invading 
kinsmen,  by  sending  secret  orders  throughout 
his  dominions  for  the  putting  to  death  of  every 
Dane,  man,  woman,  and  child,  on  St.  Brice's 
Day,  Nov.  13.  This  atrocious  order  wa.s  exe- 
cuted only  in  Southern  England,  that  is,  in  the 
West-Saxon  territories;  but  lai-ge  numbers  of  the 
Danish  race  were  murdered  there  while  dwelling 
in  full  security  among  their  Saxon  neighbours. 
.  .  .  Among  the  victims  was  a  royal  Danish 
lady,  named  Gunhilde,  who  was  sister  of  Sweyn, 
king  of  Denmark,  and  who  had  man-ied  and  set- 
tled in  England.  .  .  .  The  news  of  tlie  massacre 
of  St.  Brice  soon  spread  over  the  Continent,  ex- 
citing the  deepest  indignation  against  the  English 
and  their  king.  Sweyn  collected  in  Denmark  a 
larger  fleet  and  army  than  the  north  had  ever  be- 
fore sent  forth,  and  solemnly  vowed  to  conquer 
England  or  perish  in  the  attempt.  He  landed  on 
the  south  coast  of  Devon,  obtained  possession  of 
Exeter  by  the  treachery  of  its  governor,  and  then 
marched  through  western  and  southern  England, 
marking  every  shire  with  fire,  famine  and  slaugh- 
ter; but  he  was  unable  to  take  London,  which 
was  defended  against  the  repeated  attacks  of  the 
Danes  with  strong  courage  and  patriotism,  such 


as  seemed  to  have  died  out  in  the  rest  of  Sason 
England.  In  1013,  the  wretched  king  Ethelred 
fled  the  realm  and  sought  shelter  in  Normandy. 
Sweyn  was  acknowledged  king  in  all  the  northern 
and  western  shires,  but  he  died  in  1014,  while  his 
vow  of  conquest  was  only  partly  accomplished. 
The  English  now  sent  for  Ethelred  back  from 
Normandy,  promising  loyalty  to  him  as  their 
lawful  king,  '  ijrovided  he  would  rule  over  them 
more  justly  than  he  had  done  before.'  Ethelred 
willingly  promised  amendment,  and  returned  to 
reign  amidst  strife  and  misery  for  two  years 
more.  His  implacable  enemy,  Sweyn,  was  in- 
deed dead;  but  the  Danish  host  which  Sweyn 
had  led  thither  was  still  in  England,  under  the 
command  of  Sweyn's  sou,  Canute  [or  Cnut],  a 
prince  equal  in  military  prowess  to  his  father, 
and  far  superior  to  him  and  to  all  other  princes 
of  the  time  in  statesmanship  and  general  ability. 
Ethelred  died  in  1016,  while  the  war  with  Canute 
was  yet  raging.  Ethelred's  son,  Edmund,  sur- 
named  Ironside,  was  chosen  king  by  the  great 
council  then  assembled  in  London,  but  great  num- 
bers of  the  Saxons  made  their  submission  to 
Canute.  The  remarkable  personal  valour  of  Ed- 
mund, strongly  aided  by  the  bravery  of  his  faith- 
ful Londoners,  maintained  the  war  for  nearly  a 
year,  when  Canute  agreed  to  a  compromise,  by 
which  he  and  Edmund  divided  the  land  between 
them.  But  within  a  few  months  after  this,  the 
royal  Ironside  died  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin, 
and  Canute  obtained  the  whole  realm  of  the 
English  race.  A  Danish  dynasty  was  now  [A.  D. 
1016]  established  in  England  for  three  reigns." — 
Sir  E.  S.  Creasy,  Hist,  of  Etuj.,  v.  1,  ch.  5. 

Also  in:  J.  M.  Lappenberg,  Eng.  under  the 
Anglo-Saxon  Kings,  v.  2,  pp.  151-333. — See,  also, 
Malden,  and  Ass.yndun,  Battles  of. 

A.  D.  1016. — Accession  and  death  of  King 
Edmund  Ironside. 

A.  D.  1016-1042. — The  Reign  of  the  Danish 
kings.  —  "Cnut's  rule  was  not  as  terrible  as 
might  have  been  feared.  He  was  perfectly  un- 
scrupulous in  striking  down  the  treacherous  and 
mischievous  chieftains  who  had  made  a  trade  of 
Ethelred's  weakness  and  the  country's  divisions. 
But  he  was  wise  and  strong  enough  to  rule,  not 
by  increasing  but  by  allaying  those  divisions. 
Resting  his  power  upon  his  Scandinavian  king- 
doms beyond  the  sea,  upon  his  Danish  country- 
men in  England,  and  his  Danish  huscarles,  or 
specially  trained  soldiers  in  his  service,  he  was 
able,  without  e  veu  the  appearance  of  weakness,  to 
do  what  in  him  lay  to  bind  Dane  and  Englishman 
together  as  common  instruments  of  Ms  power. 
Fidelity  counted  more  with  him  than  birth.  To 
bring  England  itself  into  unity  was  beyond  his 
power.  'The  device  which  he  hit  upon  was 
operative  onlj'  in  hands  as  strong  as  his  own. 
There  were  to  be  four  great  earls,  deriving  their 
name  from  the  Danish  word  jarl,  centralizing  the 
forces  of  government  in  Wessex,  in  Mercia,  in 
East  Anglia,  and  in  Northumberland.  With 
Cnut  the  four  were  officials  of  the  highest  class. 
They  were  there  because  he  placed  them  there. 
They  would  cease  to  be  there  if  he  so  willed  it. 
But  it  could  hardly  be  that  it  would  always  be 
so.  Some  day  or  another,  unless  a  great  catas- 
trophe swept  away  Cnut  and  his  creation,  the 
earldoms  would  pass  into  territorial  sovereignties 
and  the  divisions  of  England  would  be  made  evi- 
dent openly." — S.  R.  Gardiner  and  J.  B.  Mul- 
linger,  Int.  to  tfie  Study  of  Eng.  Hist.,  ch.  3,  sect. 


816 


ENGLAND,  1016-1042. 


7?ie  last  Saxoji  King. 


ENGLAND,  1043-1066. 


25. — "He  [Canute]  ruled  nominally  at  least,  a 
larger  European  dominion  than  any  English  sov- 
ereign has  ever  done ;  and  perhaps  also  a  more 
homogeneous  one.  No  potentate  of  the  time  came 
near  him  except  the  king  of  Germany,  the  em- 
peror, with  whom  he  was  allied  as  an  equal. 
The  king  of  the  Norwegians,  the  Danes,  and  a 
great  part  of  the  Swedes,  was  in  a  position  to 
found  a  Scandinavian  empire  with  IJritain  an- 
nexed. Canute's  division  of  his  dominions  on  his 
death-bed,  showed  that  he  saw  this  to  be  impos- 
sible; Norway,  for  a  century  and  a  half  after 
his  strong  hand  was  removed,  was  broken  up 
amongst  an  anarchical  crew  of  piratic  and  blood- 
thirsty princes,  nor  couid  Denmark  be  regarded 
as  likely  to  continue  united  with  England.  The 
English  nation  was  too  much  divided  and  de- 
moralised to  retain  hold  on  Scandinavia,  even  if 
the  condition  of  the  latter  had  allowed  it.  Hence 
Canute  determined  that  during  his  life,  as  after 
his  death,  the  nations  should  be  governed  on 
their  own  principles.  .  .  .  The  four  nations  of 
the  English,  Northumbrians,  East  Angles,  Mer- 
cians and  West  Saxons,  might,  each  under  their 
own  national  leader,  obey  a  sovereign  who  was 
strong  enough  to  enforce  peace  amongst  them. 
The  great  earldoms  of  Canute's  reign  were  per- 
haps a  nearer  approach  to  a  feudal  division  of 
England  than  anything  which  followed  the  Nor- 
man Conquest.  .  .  .  And  the  extent  to  which 
this  creation  of  the  four  earldoms  affected  the 
history  of  the  next  half-century  cannot  be  ex- 
aggerated. The  certain  tendency  of  such  an 
arrangement  to  become  hereditary,  and  the  cer- 
tain tendency  of  the  hereditary  occupation  of 
great  fiefs  ultimately  to  overwhelm  the  royal 
power,  are  well  exemplified.  .  .  .  The  Norman 
Conquest  restored  national  unity  at  a  tremendous 
temporary  sacrifice,  just  as  the  Danish  Conquest 
in  other  ways,  and  by  a  reverse  process,  had 
helped  to  create  it." — W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hut.  of 
Eng.,  ch.  7,  sect.  77.— Canute  died  in  1035.  He 
was  succeeded  by  his  two  sons,  Harold  Barefoot 
(1035-1040)  and  Harthacnute  or  Hardicanute 
(1040-1042),  after  which  the  Saxon  line  of  kings 
was  momentarily  restored.  —  E.  A.  Freeman, 
Hist,  of  the  Norman  Conq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1035. — Accession  of  Harold,  son  of 
Cnut. 

A.  D.  1040. — Accession  of  Harthacnut,  or 
Hardicanute. 

A.  D.  1042. — Accession  of  Edv^ard  the 
Confessor. 

A.  D.  1042-1066.— The  last  of  the  Saxon 
kings. — "The  love  which  Canute  had  inspired 
by  his  wise  and  conciliatory  rule  was  dissipated 
by  the  bad  government  of  his  sons,  Harold  and 
Harthacnut,  who  ruled  in  turn.  After  seven 
years  of  misgovemment,  or  rather  anarchy,  Eng- 
land, freed  from  the  hated  rule  of  Harthacnut 
by  his  death,  returned  to  its  old  line  of  kings, 
and  '  all  folk  chose  Edward  [surnamed  The  Con- 
fessor, son  of  Etheired  the  Unready]  to  king,'  as 
was  his  right  by  birth.  Not  that  he  was,  accord- 
ing to  our  ideas,  the  direct  heir,  since  Edward, 
the  son  of  Edmund  Ironside,  stUl  lived,  an  exile 
in  Hungary.  But  the  Saxons,  by  choosing  Ed- 
ward the  Confessor,  reasserted  for  the  last  time 
their  right  to  elect  that  one  of  the  hereditary  line 
who  was  most  available.  With  the  reign  of 
Edward  the  Confessor  the  Norman  Conquest 
really  began.  We  have  seen  the  connection  be- 
tween England   and  Normandy  begun  by  the 


marriage  of  Etheired  the  Unready  to  Emma  the 
daughter  of  Richard  the  Fearless,  and  cemented 
by  the  refuge  offered  to  the  English  exiles  in  the 
court  of  the  Norman  duke.  Edward  had  long 
found  a  home  there  in  Canute's  time.  .  .  . 
Brought  up  under  Norman  influence,  Edward 
had  contracted  the  ideas  and  sympathies  of  ^s 
adopted  home.  On  his  election  to  the  English 
throne  the  French  tongue  became  the  language 
of  the  court,  Norman  favourites  followed  in  his 
train,  to  be  foisted  into  important  offices  of  State 
and  Church,  and  thus  inaugurate  that  Norman- 
iziug  policy  which  was  to  draw  on  the  Norman 
Conquest.  Had  it  not  been  for  this,  William 
would  never  have  had  any  claim  on  England." 
The  Normanizing  policy  of  king  Edward  roused 
the  opposition  of  a  strong  English  party,  headed 
by  the  great  West-Saxon  Earl  Godwine,  who 
had  been  lifted  from  an  obscure  origin  to  vast 
power  in  England  by  the  favor  of  Canute,  and 
whose  son  Harold  held  the  earldom  of  East 
Anglia.  "Edward,  raised  to  the  throne  chiefly 
through  the  influence  of  Godwine,  shortly  mar- 
ried his  daughter,  and  at  first  ruled  England 
leaning  on  the  assistance,  and  almost  over- 
shadowed by  the  power  of  the  great  earl."  But 
Edward  was  Norman  at  heart  and  Godwine  was 
thoroughly  English;  whence  quarrels  were  not 
long  in  arising.  They  came  to  the  crisis  in  1051, 
by  reason  of  a  bloody  tumult  at  Dover,  provoked 
by  insolent  conduct  on  the  part  of  a  train  of 
French  visitors  returning  home  from  Edward's 
Court.  Godwine  was  commanded  to  punish  the 
townsmen  of  Dover  and  refused,  whereupon  the 
king  obtained  a  sentence  of  outlawry,  not  only 
against  the  earl,  but  against  his  sons.  "God- 
wine, obliged  to  bow  before  the  united  power  of 
his  enemies,  was  forced  to  fly  the  land.  He 
went  to  Flanders  with  his  son  Swegen,  while 
Harold  and  Leofwine  went  to  Ireland,  to  be  well 
received  by  Dermot  king  of  Leinster.  Many 
Englishmen  seem  to  have  followed  him  in  his 
exile:  for  a  year  the  foreign  party  was  triumph- 
ant, and  the  first  stage  of  the  Norman  Conquest 
complete.  It  was  at  this  important  crisis  that 
William  [Duke  of  Normandy],  secure  at  home, 
visited  his  cousin  Edward.  .  .  .  Friendly  rela- 
tions we  may  be  sure  had  existed  between  the 
two  cousins,  and  if,  as  is  not  improbable,  Wil- 
liam had  begun  to  hope  that  he  might  some  day 
succeed  to  the  English  throne,  what  more  favour- 
able opportunity  for  a  visit  could  have  been 
found?  Edward  had  lost  all  hopes  of  ever  hav- 
ing any  children.  .  .  .  William  came,  and  it 
would  seem,  gained  all  that  he  desired.  For  this 
most  probably  was  the  date  of  some  promise  on 
Edward's  part  that  William  should  succeed  him 
on  his  death.  The  whole  question  is  beset  with 
difliculties.  The  Norman  chroniclers  alone  men- 
tion it,  and  give  no  dates.  Edward  had  no  right 
to  will  away  his  crown,  the  disposition  of  which 
lay  with  King  and  Witenagemot  (or  assembly  of 
Wise  Men,  the  grandees  of  the  country),  and  his 
last  act  was  to  reverse  the  promise,  if  ever  given, 
in  favour  of  Harold,  Godwine 's  son.  But  were 
it  not  for  some  such  promise,  it  is  hard  to  see 
liow  William  could  have  subsequently  made  the 
Normans  and  the  world  believe  in  the  sacredness 
of  his  claim.  .  .  .  William  returned  to  Nor- 
mandy; but  next  year  Edward  was  forced  to 
change  his  policy."  Godwine  and  his  sons  re- 
turned to  England,  with  a  fleet  at  their  backs; 
London  declared   for  them,  and  the  king  sub- 


52 


817 


ENGLAND,  1042-1066. 


Claims  of 
William  of  Normandy. 


ENGLAND,  1066. 


mitted  himself  to  a  reconciliation.  "  The  party 
of  Godwine  once  more  ruled  supreme,  and  no 
mention  was  made  of  the  gift  of  the  crown  to 
William,  Godwine,  indeed,  did  not  long  sur- 
vive his  restoration,  but  dying  the  year  after, 
1053,  left  his  son  Harold  Earl  of  the" West-Sax- 
ons and  the  most  important  man  in  England." 
King  Edward  the  Confessor  lived  yet  thirteen 
years  after  this  time,  during  which  period  Earl 
Harold  grew  continually  in  influence  and  con- 
spicuous headship  of  the  English  party.  In  1063 
It  was  Harold's  misfortune  to  be  shipwrecked  on 
the  coast  of  France,  and  he  was  made  captive. 
Dnke  William  of  Normandy  intervened  in  his 
behalf  and  obtained  his  release;  and  "then,  as 
the"  price  of  his  assistance,  extorted  an  oath  from 
Harold,  soon  to  be  used  against  him.  Harold,  it 
is  said,  became  his  man,  promised  to  marry  Wil- 
liam's daughter  Adela,  to  place  Dover  at  once  in 
William's  hands,  and  support  his  claim  to  the 
English  throne  on  Edward's  death.  By  a  strata- 
gem of  William's  the  oath  was  unwittingly 
taken  on  holy  relics,  hidden  by  the  duke  under 
the  table  on  which  Harold  laid  hands  to  swear, 
whereby,  according  to  the  notions  of  those  days, 
the* oath  was  rendered  more  binding."  But  two 
years  later,  when  Edward  the  Confessor  died, 
the  English  Witenagemot  chose  Harold  to  be 
king,  disregarding  Edward's  promise  and  Har- 
old's oath  to  the  Duke  of  Normandy. — A.  H. 
Johnson,  T/w  Normans  in  Europe,  cli.  10  and  13. 

Also  in:  E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the.  Norman 
Cong.  ofEnf/.,  eh.  7-10.— J.  R.  Green,  Tlie  Gonq. 
of  Eng.,  eh.  10. 

A.  D.  io66.  —  Election  and  coronation  of 
Harold. 

A.  D.  io66  (spring  and  summer). — Prepara- 
tions of  Duke  \A/illiam  to  enforce  his  claim  to 
the  English  crown. — On  receiving  news  of  Ed- 
^vard's  death  and  of  Harold's  acceptance  of  the 
crown,  Duke  William  of  Normandy  lost  no  time 
In  demanding  from  Harold  the  performance  of 
the  engagements  to  which  lie  had  pledged  him- 
self by  his  oath.  Harold  answered  that  the  oath 
had  no  binding  effect,  by  reason  of  the  compul- 
sion under  which  it  was  given ;  that  the  crown  of 
England  was  not  his  to  bestow,  and  that,  being 
tibe  chosen  king,  he  could  not  marry  without 
consent  of  the  Witenagemot.  When  the  Duke 
had  this  reply  he  proceeded  vrith  vigor  to  secure 
from  his  own  knights  and  barons  the  support  he 
would  need  for  the  enforcing  of  his  rights,  as  he 
deemed  them,  to  the  sovereignty  of  the  English 
reslm.  A  great  parliament  of  the  Norman 
barons  was  held  at  Lillebonne,  for  the  consider- 
ation of  the  matter.  "  In  this  memorable  meet- 
ing there  was  much  diversity  of  opinion.  The 
Duke  could  not  command  his  vassals  to  cross  the 
sea;  their  tenures  did  not  compel  them  to  such 
service.  William  could  only  request  their  aid  to 
fight  his  battles  in  England:  many  refused  to 
engage  in  this  dangerous  expedition,  and  great 
debates  arose.  .  .  .  William,  who  could  not  re- 
store order,  withdrew  into  another  apartment: 
and,  calling  the  barons  to  him  one  by  one,  he 
argued  and  reasoned  with  each  of  these  sturdy 
vassals  separately,  and  apart  from  the  others. 
He  exhausted  all  the  arts  of  persuasion; — their 
present  courtesy,  he  engaged,  should  not  be 
turned  into  a  precedent,  .  .  .  and  the  fertile 
fields  of  England  should  be  the  recompense  of 
their  fidelity.  Upon  this  prospect  of  remuner- 
ation, the  barons  assented.  .  .  .  William  did  not 


confine  himself  to  his  own  subjects.  All  the 
adventurers  and  adventurous  spirits  of  the  neigh 
bouring  states  were  invited  to  join  his  standard. 
.  .  .  To  all,  such  promises  were  made  as  should 
best  incite  them  to  the  enterprise  —  lands, — 
liveries, —  money, —  according  to  their  rank  and 
degree ;  and  the  port  of  St.  Pierre-sur-Dive  was 
appointed  as  the  place  where  all  the  forces  should 
assemble.  William  had  discovered  four  most 
valid  reasons  for  the  prosecution  of  his  offensive 
warfare  against  a  neighbouring  people:  —  the 
bequest  made  by  his  cousin; — the  perjury  of 
Harold ;  —  the  expulsion  of  the  Normans,  at  the| 
instigation,  as  he  alleged,  of  Godwin;  —  and, 
lastl)',  the  massacre  of  the  Danes  by  Ethclred  on 
St.  Brice's  Day.  The  alleged  perjury  of  Harold 
enabled  William  to  obtain  the  sanction  of  the 
Papal  See.  Alexander,  the  Roman  Pontiff,  al- 
lowed, nay,  even  urged  liim  to  punish  the  crime, 
provided  England,  when  conquered,  should  be 
held  as  the  fief  of  St.  Peter.  .  .  .  Hildebrand, 
Archdeacon  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  afterwards 
the  celebrated  Pope  Gregory  VII.,  greatly  as- 
sisted by  the  support  which  he  gave  to  the  decree. 
As  a  visible  token  of  protection,  the  Pope  trans- 
mitted to  William  the  consecrated  banner,  the 
Gonfauon  of  St.  Peter,  and  a  precious  ring.  In 
which  a  relic  ofthe  chief  of  the  Apostles  was 
enclosed."— Sir  F.  Palgrave,  Ilist.  of  Normandy 
and  Eng.,  v.  3,  pp.  300-303.— "  William  con- 
vinced, or  seemed  to  convince,  all  men  out  of 
England  and  Scandinavia  that  his  claim  to  the 
English  crown  was  just  and  holy,  and  that  it 
was  a  good  work  to  help  him  to  assert  it  in  arms. 
.  .  .  William  himself  doubtless  thought  his  own 
claim  the  better;  he  deluded  himself  as  he  de- 
luded others.  But  we  are  more  concerned  with 
William  as  a  statesman ;  and  if  it  be  statesman- 
ship to  adapt  means  to  ends,  whatever  the  ends 
may  be,  if  it  be  statesmanship  to  make  men 
believe  the  worse  cause  is  the  better,  then  no 
man  ever  showed  higher  statesmanship  than 
William  showed  In  his  great  pleading  before  all 
Western  Christendom.  .  .  .  Others  had  claimed 
crowns ;  none  had  taken  such  pains  to  convince 
all  mankind  that  the  claim  was  a  good  one. 
Such  an  appeal  to  public  opinion  marks  on  one 
side  a  great  advance." — E.  A.  Freeman.  William 
the  Conqueror,  eh.  6. 

A.  D.  io66  (September). — The  invasion  of 
Tostig  and  Harold  Hardrada  and  their  over- 
throw at  Stamford  Bridge. — "Harold  [the 
English  king],  as  one  of  his  misfortunes,  had  to 
face  two  powerful  armies,  in  distant  parts  of  the 
kingdom,  almost  at  the  same  time.  Rumours 
concerning  the  intentions  and  preparations  of  the 
Duke  of  Normandy  soon  reached  England.  Dur- 
ing the  greater  part  of  the  summer,  Harold,  at 
the  head  of  a  large  naval  and  military  force,  had 
been  on  the  watch  along  the  English  coast.  But 
months  passed  away  and  no  enemy  became  visi- 
ble. William,  it  was  said,  had  been  apprised  of 
the  measures  which  had  been  taken  to  meet  him. 
.  .  .  Many  supposed  that,  on  various  grounds, 
the  enterprise  had  been  abandoned.  Provisitjns 
also,  for  so  great  an  army,  became  scarce.  The 
men  began  to  disperse;  and  Harold,  disbanding 
the  remainder,  returned  to  London.  But  the 
news  now  came  that  Harold  Hardrada,  king  of 
Norway,  had  landed  in  the  north,  and  was  ravag- 
ing the  country  in  conjunction  with  Tostig, 
Harold's  elder  brother.  This  event  came  from 
one  of  those  domestic  feuds  which  did  so  much 


818 


ENGLAND,  1066. 


Battle  of  Sentac. 


ENGLAND,  1066. 


at  this  juncture  to  weaken  the  power  of  the 
English.  Tostig  had  exercised  his  authority  in 
Northumbria  [as  earl]  in  the  most  arbitrary  man- 
ner, and  liad  perpetrated  atrocious  crimes  in 
furtherance  of  his  objects.  The  result  was  an 
amount  of  disaffection  which  seems  to  have  put 
it  out  of  the  power  of  liis  friends  to  sustain  him. 
He  had  married  a  daughter  of  Baldwin,  count  of 
Flanders,  and  so  became  brother-in-law  to  the 
duke  of  Normandy.  His  brother  Harold,  as  he 
affirmed,  had  not  done  a  brother's  part  towards 
him,  and  he  was  more  disposed,  in  consequence, 
to  side  with  the  Norman  than  with  the  Saxon 
in  the  approaching  struggle.  The  army  with 
which  he  now  appeared  consisted  mostly  of  Nor- 
wegians and  Flemings,  and  their  avowed  object 
was  to  divide  not  less  than  half  the  kingdom  be- 
tween them.  .  .  .  [The  young  Mercian  earls 
Edwin  and  Morcar]  summoned  their  forces  .  .  . 
to  repel  the  invasion  under  Tostig.  Before  Har- 
old could  reach  the  north,  they  hazarded  an 
engagement  at  a  place  named  Fulford,  on  the 
Ouse,  not  far  from  Bishopstoke.  Their  meas- 
ures, however,  were  not  wisely  taken.  They 
were  defeated  with  great  loss.  The  invaders 
seem  to  have  regarded  this  victory  as  deciding 
the  fate  of  that  part  of  the  kingdom.  They  ob- 
tained hostages  at  York,  and  then  moved  to 
Stamford  Bridge,  where  they  began  the  work  of 
dividing  the  northern  parts  of  England  between 
them.  But  in  the  midst  of  these  proceedings 
clouds  of  dust  were  seen  in  the  distance.  The 
first  thought  was,  that  the  multitude  which 
seemed  to  be  approaching  must  be  friends.  But 
the  illusion  was  soon  at  an  end.  The  dust  raised 
was  by  the  march  of  an  army  of  West  Saxons 
under  the  command  of  Harold." — R.  Vaughan, 
Bevolutions  of  Eng.  Hist.,  bk.  3,  ch.  1. — "Of  the 
details  of  that  awful  day  [Sept.  25,  1066]  we 
have  no  authentic  record.  We  have  indeed  a 
glorious  description  [in  the  Heimskringla  of 
Snorro  Sturleson],  conceived  in  the  highest  spirit 
of  the  warlike  poetry  of  the  North ;  but  it  is  a 
description  which,  when  critically  examined, 
proves  to  be  hardly  more  worthy  of  belief  than 
a  battle-piece  in  the  Iliad.  ...  At  least  we  know 
that  the  long  struggle  of  that  day  was  crowned 
by  complete  victory  on  the  side  of  England. 
The  leaders  of  the  invading  host  lay  each  man 
read)'  for  all  that  England  had  to  give  him,  his 
seven  feet  of  English  ground.  There  Harold  of 
Norway,  the  last  of  the  ancient  Sea-Kings, 
yielded  up  that  flery  soul  which  had  braved  death 
in  so  many  forms  and  in  so  many  lands.  .  .  . 
There  Tostig,  the  son  of  Godwine,  an  exile  and 
a  traitor,  ended  in  crime  and  sorrow  a  life 
which  had  begun  with  promises  not  less  bright 
than  that  of  his  royal  brother.  .  .  .  The  whole 
strength  of  the  Northern  army  was  broken;  a 
few  only  escaped  by  flight,  and  found  means  to 
reach  the  ships  at  Riccall." — E.  A.  Freeman, 
Hist,  of  the  Norman  Conq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  14,  sect.  4. 
A.  D.  io66  (October). — The  Norman  invasion 
and  battle  of  Senlac  or  Hastings. —  The  battle 
of  Stamford-bridge  was  fought  on  Monday,  Sept. 
25,  A.  D.  1066.  Three  days  later,  onthe  Thursday, 
Sept.  28,  William  of  Normandy  landed  his  more 
formidable  army  of  invasion  at  Pevensey,  on  the 
extreme  southeastern  coast.  The  news  of  Wil- 
liam's landing  reached  Harold,  at  York,  on  the 
following  Sunday,  it  is  thought,  and  his  victori- 
ous but  worn  and  wasted  army  was  led  instantly 
back,  by  forced  marches,  over  the  route  it  had 


traversed  no  longer  than  the  week  before.  Wait- 
ing at  London  a  few  days  for  fresh  musters  to 
join  him,  the  English  king  set  out  from  that  city 
Oct.  12,  and  arrived  on  the  following  day  at  a 
point  seven  miles  from  the  camp  which  his  an- 
tagonist had  entrenched  at  Hastings.  Meantime 
the  Normans  had  been  cruelly  ravaging  the  coast 
country,  by  way  of  provoking  attack.  Harold 
felt  himself  driven  by  the  devastation  they  com- 
mitted to  face  the  issue  of  battle  without  wait- 
ing for  a  stronger  rally.  "Advancing  near 
enough  to  the  coast  to  check  William's  ravages, 
he  intrenched  himself  on  the  hill  of  Senlac,  a  low 
spur  of  the  Sussex  Downs,  near  Hastings,  in  a 
position  which  covered  London,  and  forced  the 
Norman  army  to  concentrate.  With  a  host  sub- 
sisting by  pillage,  to  concentrate  is  to  starve,  and 
no  alternative  was  left  to  William  but  a  decisive 
victory  or  ruin.  Along  the  higher  ground  that 
leads  from  Hastings  the  Duke  led  his  men  in  the 
dim  dawn  of  an  October  morning  to  the  mound  of 
Telham.  It  was  from  this  point  that  the  Nor- 
mans saw  the  host  of  the  English  gathered  thickly 
behind  a  rough  trench  and  a  stockade  on  the 
height  of  Senlac.  Marshy  ground  covered  their 
right.  ...  A  general  charge  of  the  Norman  foot 
opened  the  battle ;  in  front  rode  the  minstrel 
Taillefer,  tossing  his  sword  in  the  air  and  catch- 
ing it  again  while  he  chanted  the  song  of  Roland. 
He  was  the  first  of  the  host  who  struck  a  blow, 
and  he  was  the  first  to  fall.  The  charge  broke 
vainly  on  the  stout  stockade  behind  which  the 
English  warriors  plied  axe  and  javelin  with 
fierce  cries  of  '  Out,  Out,'  and  the  repulse  of  the 
Norman  footmen  was  followed  by  the  repulse  of 
the  Norman  horse.  Again  and  again  the  Duke 
rallied  and  led  them  to  the  fatal  stockade.  .  .  . 
His  Breton  troops,  entangled  in  the  marshy 
ground  on  his  left,  broke  in  disorder,  and  a  cry 
arose,  as  the  panic  spread  through  the  army, 
that  the  Duke  was  slain.  '  I  live,'  shouted  Wil- 
liam as  he  tore  off  his  helmet,  '  and  by  God's  help 
will  conquer  yet.'  Maddened  by  repulse,  the 
Duke  spurred  right  at  the  standard ;  unhorsed, 
his  terrible  mace  struck  down  Gj'rth,  the  King's 
brother,  and  stretched  Leofwine,  a  second  of 
Godwine's  sons,  beside  him;  again  dismounted, 
a  blow  from  his  hand  hurled  to  the  ground  an 
unmannerly  rider  who  would  not  lend  him  his 
steed.  Amid  the  roar  and  tumult  of  the  battle 
he  turned  the  flight  he  had  arrested  into  the 
means  of  victor}'.  Broken  us  the  stockade  was 
by  his  desperate  onset,  the  shield-wall  of  the 
warriors  behind  it  still  held  the  Normans  at  bay, 
when  William  by  a  feint  of  flight  drew  a  part  of 
the  English  force  from  their  post  of  vantage. 
Turning  on  his  disorderly  pursuers,  the  Duke 
cut  them  to  pieces,  broke  through  the  abandoned 
line,  and  was  master  of  the  central  plateau,  while 
French  and  Bretons  made  good  their  ascent  on 
either  flank.  At  three  the  hill  seemed  won,  at 
six  the  fight  still  raged  around  the  standard, 
where  Harold's  hus-carls  stood  stubbornly  at 
bay  on  the  spot  marked  afterward  by  the  high 
altar  of  Battle  Abbey.  An  order  from  the  Duke 
at  last  brought  his  archers  to  the  front,  and  their 
arrow-flight  told  heavily  on  the  dense  masses 
crowded  around  the  King.  As  the  sun  went 
down,  a  shaft  pierced  Harold's  right  eye ;  he  fell 
between  the  royal  ensigns,  and  the  battle  closed 
with  a  desperate  melee  over  his  corpse." —  J.  R. 
Green,  A  Short  History  of  the  English  People,  ch. 
2,  sect.  4. 


819 


ENGLAND,  1066. 


Spoils  of  the 
Conquest. 


ENGLAND,  1067-1087. 


Also  in  :  E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Norman 
Conq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  15,  sect.  4. — E.  S.  Creasy, 
Fifteen  Deeinve  Battles  of  the  World,  ch.  8. — Wace, 
Boman  de  Ron  ;  trans,  by  Sir  A.  Malet. 

A.  D.  1066-1071. — The  Finishing  of  the  Nor- 
man Conquest. —  "It  must  be  well  understood 
that  this  great  victory  [of  Senlac]  did  not  make 
Duke  William  King  nor  put  him  in  possession  of 
the  whole  land.  He  still  held  only  part  of  Sus- 
sex, and  the  people  of  the  rest  of  the  kingdom 
showed  as  yet  no  mind  to  submit  to  him.  If 
England  had  had  a  leader  left  like  Harold  or 
Gyrth,  William  might  have  had  to  fight  as  many 
battles  as  Cnut  had,  and  that  with  much  less 
chance  of  winning  in  the  end.  For  a  large  part 
of  England  fought  willingly  on  Cnut's  side, 
while  William  had  no  friends  in  England  at  all, 
except  a  few  Norman  settlers.  William  did  not 
call  himself  King  till  he  was  regularly  crowned 
more  than  two  months  later,  and  even  then  he 
had  real  possession  only  of  about  a  third  of  the 
kingdom.  It  was  more  than  three  years  before 
he  had  full  possession  of  all.  Still  the  great 
fight  on  Senlac  none  the  less  settled  the  fate  of 
England.  For  after  that  fight  William  never 
met  with  any  general  resistance.  .  .  .  During* 
the  year  1067  William  made  no  further  con- 
quests; all  western  and  northern  England  re- 
mained unsubdued;  but,  except  in  Kent  and 
Herefordshire,  there  was  no  fighting  in  any  part 
of  the  land  which  had  really  submitted.  The 
ne.xt  two  years  were  the  time  in  which  all  Eng- 
land was  really  conquered.  The  former  part  of 
1068  gave  him  the  West.  The  latter  part  of  that 
year  gave  him  central  and  northern  England  as 
far  as  Yorkshire,  the  extreme  north  and  north- 
west being  still  unsubdued.  The  attempt  to  win 
Durham  in  the  beginning  of  1069  led  to  two  re- 
volts at  York.  Later  in  the  year  all  the  north 
and  west  was  again  in  arms,  and  the  Danish  fleet 
[of  King  Swegen,  in  league  with  the  English 
patriots]  came.  But  the  revolts  were  put  down 
one  by  one,  and  the  great  winter  campaign  of 
1069-1070  conquered  the  still  imsubdued  parts, 
ending  with  the  taking  of  Chester.  Early  in 
1070  the  whole  land  was  for  the  first  time  in 
William's  possession;  there  was  no  more  fight- 
ing, and  he  was  able  to  giye  his  mind  to  the 
more  peaceful  part  of  his  schemes,  what  we  may 
call  the  conquest  of  the  native  Church  by  the 
appointment  of  foreign  bishops.  But  in  the 
summer  of  1070  began  the  revolt  of  the  Fenlaud, 
and  the  defence  of  Ely,  which  lasted  till  the 
autumn  of  1071.  After  that  William  was  full 
King  everywhere  without  dispute.  There  was 
no  more  national  resistance ;  there  was  no  revolt 
of  any  large  part  of  the  country.  .  .  .  The  con- 
quest of  the  land,  as  far  as  lighting  goes,  was 
now  finished." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Short  Mist,  of 
the  Norinan  Conq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  8,  sect.  9y  ch.  10, 
sect.  16. 

A.  D.  1067-1087.— The  spoils  of  the  Con- 
quest.— "  The  Norman  army  .  .  .  remained  con- 
centrated around  London  [in  the  winter  of  1067], 
and  upon  the  southern  and  eastern  coasts  nearest ' 
Gaul.  The  partition  of  the  wealth  of  the  invaded 
territory  now  almost  solely  occupied  them.  Com- 
missioners went  over  the  whole  extent  of  country 
in  which  the  army  had  left  garrisons ;  they  took 
an  exact  inventory  of  property  of  every  kind, 
public  and  private,  carefully  registering  every 
particular.  ...  A  close  inquiry  was  made  into 
the  names  of  all  the  English  partisans  of  Harold, 


who  had  either  died  in  battle,  or  survived  the  de- 
feat, or  by  involuntary  delays  had  been  prevented 
from  joining  the  royal  standard.  All  the  prop- 
erty of  these  three  classes  of  men,  lands,  reve- 
nues, furniture,  houses,  were  confiscated;  the 
children  of  the  first  class  were  declared  forever 
disinlierited ;  the  second  class,  were,  in  like  man- 
ner, whoUj'  dispossessed  of  their  estates  and 
property  of  every  kind,  and,  says  one  of  the 
Norman  writers,  were  only  too  grateful  for  being 
allowed  to  retain  their  lives.  Lastly,  those  who 
had  not  taken  up  arms  were  also  despoiled  of  all 
they  possessed,  for  having  had  the  intention  of 
taking  up  arms ;  but,  by  special  grace,  they  were 
allowed  to  entertain  the  hope  that  after  many 
long  years  of  obedience  and  devotion  to  the  for- 
eign power,  not  they,  indeed,  but  their  sons, 
might  perhaps  obtain  from  their  new  masters 
some  portion  of  their  paternal  heritage.  Such 
was  the  law  of  the  conquest,  according  to  the 
unsuspected  testimony  of  a  man  nearly  con- 
temporary with  and  of  the  race  of  the  conquer- 
ors [Richard  Lenoir  or  Noirot,  bishop  of  Ely  in 
the  13th  century].  The  immense  product  of  this 
universal  spoliation  became  the  pay  of  those  ad- 
venturers of  every  nation  who  had  enrolled  under 
the  banner  of  the  duke  of  Normandy.  .  .  . 
Some  received  their  pay  in  money,  others  had 
stipulated  that  they  should  have  a  Saxon  wife, 
and  William,  says  the  Norman  chronicle,  gave 
them  in  marriage  noble  dames,  great  heiresses, 
whose  husbands  had  fallen  in  the  battle.  One, 
only,  among  the  knights  who  had  accompanied 
the  conqueror,  claimed  neither  lands,  gold,  nor 
wife,  and  would  accept  none  of  the  spoils  of  the 
conquered.  His  name  was  Guilbert  Fitz-Rich- 
ard :  he  said  that  he  had  accompanied  his  lord  to 
England  because  such  was  his  duty,  but  that 
stolen  goods  had  no  attraction  for  him." — A. 
Thierry,  Hist,  of  the  Conq.  of  Eng.  by  the  Nor- 
mans, bk.  4. — "Though  many  confiscations  took 
place,  in  order  to  gratify  the  Norman  army,  yet 
the  mass  of  property  was  left  in  the  hands  of  its 
former  possessors.  Offices  of  high  trust  were 
bestowed  upon  Englishmen,  even  upon  those 
whose  family  renown  might  have  raised  the  most 
aspiring  thoughts.  But,  partly  through  the  in- 
solence and  injustice  of  AVilliam's  Norman  vas- 
sals, partly  through  the  suspiciousness  natural 
to  a  man  conscious  of  having  overturned  the 
national  government,  his  yoke  soon  became  more 
heavy.  The  English  were  oppressed ;  they  re- 
belled, were  subdued,  and  oppressed  again.  .  .  . 
An  extensive  spoliation  of  property  accompanied 
these  revolutions.  It  appears  by  the  great  na- 
tional survey  of  Domesday  Book,  completed  near 
the  close  of  the  Conqueror's  reign,  that  the  ten- 
ants in  capite  of  the  crown  were  generally  for- 
eigners. .  .  .  But  inferior  freeholders  were  much 
less  disturbed  in  their  estates  than  the  higher. 
.  .  .  The  valuable  labours  of  Sir  Henry  Ellis,  in 
presenting  us  with  a  complete  analysis  of  Domes- 
day Book,  afford  an  opportunity,  by  his  list  of 
mesne  tenants  at  the  time  of  the  survey,  to  form 
some  approximation  to  the  relative  numbers  of 
English  and  foreigners  holding  manors  under  the 
immediate  vassals  of  the  crown.  .  .  .  Though  I 
will  not  now  affirm  or  deny  that  they  were  a 
majority,  they  [the  English]  form  a  large  pro- 
portion of  nearly  8,000  mesne  tenants,  who  are 
summed  up  by  the  diligence  of  Sir  Henry  Ellis. 
.  .  .  This  might  induce  us  to  suspect  that,  great 
as  the  spoliation  must  appear  in  modern  times, 


820 


ENGLAND,  1067-1087. 


The  Camp  of 
Refuge. 


ENGLAND,  1085-1086. 


and  almost  completely  as  the  nation  was  excluded 
from  civil  power  in  the  commonwealth,  there  is 
some  exaggeration  in  the  language  of  those 
writers  who  represent  them  as  universally  re- 
duced to  a  state  of  penury  and  servitude.  And 
this  suspicion  may  be  in  some  degree  just.  Yet 
those  writers,  and  especially  the  most  English  in 
feeling  of  them  all,  M.  Thierry,  are  warranted  by 
the  language  of  contemporarjf  authorities." — H. 
Hallam,  The  MUhUe  Ages.  eh.  8,  pt.  3.—"  By 
right  of  conquest  William  claimed  nothing.  He 
had  come  to  take  his  crown,  and  he  had  unluckily 
met  with  some  opposition  in  taking  it.  The 
crown-lands  of  King  Edward  passed  of  course 
to  his  successor.  As  for  the  lands  of  other  men, 
in  William's  theory  all  was  forfeited  to  the  crown. 
The  lawful  heir  had  been  driven  to  seek  his  king- 
dom in  arms;  no  Eugli.shman  had  helped  him; 
many  Englishmen  had  fought  against  him.  All 
then  were  directly  or  indirectly  traitors.  The 
King  might  lawfully  deal  with  the  lands  of  all 
as  his  own.  .  .  .  After  the  general  redemption  of 
lands,  gradually  carried  out  as  William's  power 
advanced,  no  general  blow  was  dealt  at  English- 
men as  such.  .  .  .  Though  the  land  had  never 
seen  so  great  a  confiscation,  or  one  so  largely  for 
the  behoof  of  foreigners,  yet  there  was  nothing 
new  in  the  thing  itself.  .  .  .  Confiscation  of  land 
was  the  every-day  punishment  for  various  public 
and  private  crimes.  .  .  .  Once  granting  the 
original  wrong  of  his  coming  at  all  and  bringing 
a  host  of  strangers  with  him,  there  is  singularly 
little  to  blame  in  the  acts  of  the  Conqueror." — 
E.  A.  Freeman,  William  the  Conqueror,  pp.  102- 
104,  126. — "After  each  effort  [of  revolt]  the  royal 
hand  was  laid  on  more  heavily :  more  and  more 
land  changed  owners,  and  with  the  change  of 
owners  the  title  changed.  The  complicated  and 
unintelligible  irregularities  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
tenures  were  exchanged  for  the  simple  and  uni- 
form feudal  theory.  ...  It  was  not  the  change 
from,  alodial  to  feudal  so  much  as  from  confusion 
to  order.  The  actual  amount  of  dispossession 
was  no  doubt  greatest  in  the  higher  ranks." — W. 
Stubbs.  Coihit.  Hist,  of  Eiirj.,  ch.  9,  sect.  95. 

A.  D.  1069-1071. — The  Camp  of  Refuge  in 
the  Fens. — "In  the  northern  part  of  Cambridge- 
shire there  is  a  vast  extent  of  low  and  marshy 
land,  intersected  in  every  direction  by  rivers.  All 
the  waters  from  the  centre  of  England  which  do 
not  flow  into  the  Thames  or  the  Trent,  empty 
themselves  into  these  marshes,  which  in  the  lat- 
ter end  of  autumn  overflow,  cover  the  land,  and 
are  charged  with  fogs  and  vapours.  A  portion 
of  this  damp  and  swampy  country  was  then,  as 
now,  called  the  Isle  of  Ely ;  another  the  Isle  of 
Thorney,  a  third  the  Isle  of  Croyland.  This  dis- 
trict, almost  a  moving  bog,  impracticable  for  cav- 
alry and  for  soldiers  heavily  armed,  had  more 
than  once  served  as  a  refuge  for  the  Saxons  in 
the  time  of  the  Danish  conquest;  towards  the  close 
of  the  year  1069  it  became  the  rendezvous  of  sev- 
eral bands  of  patriots  from  various  quarters,  as- 
sembling against  the  Normans.  Former  chief- 
tains, now  dispossessed  of  their  lands,  succes- 
sively repaired  hither  with  their  clients,  some  by 
land,  others  by  water,  by  the  mouths  of  the  rivers. 
They  here  constructed  entrenchments  of  earth  and 
wood,  and  established  an  extensive  armed  station, 
which  took  the  name  of  the  Camp  of  Refuge. 
The  foreigners  at  first  hesitated  to  attack  them 
amidst  their  rushes  and  willows,  and  thus  gave 
them  time  to  transmit  messages  in  every  direction. 


at  home  and  abroad,  to  the  friends  of  old  England. 
Become  powerful,  they  undertook  a  partisan  war 
by  land  and  by  sea,  or,  as  the  conquerors  called 
it,  robbery  and  piracy." — A.  Thierry,  Hist,  of  the 
Cong,  of  Eng.  by  the  Kormans,  bk.  4. — "  Against 
the  new  t3'ranny  the  free  men  of  the  Danelagh 
and  of  Northumbria  rose.  If  Edward  the  de- 
scendant of  Cerdic  had  been  little  to  them,  Wil- 
liam the  descendant  of  Rollo  was  still  less.  .  .  . 
So  they  rose,  and  fought ;  too  late,  it  may  be,  and 
without  unity  or  purpose ;  and  they  were  worsted 
by  an  enemy  who  had  both  unity  and  purpose; 
whom  superstition,  greed,  and  feudal  discipline 
kept  together,  at  least  in  England,  in  one  compact 
body  of  unscrupulous  and  terrible  confederates. 
And  theirs  was  a  land  worth  fighting  for  —  a  good 
land  and  large :  from  Humber  mouth  inland  to  the 
Trent  and  merry  Sherwood,  across  to  Chester  and 
the  Dee,  round  by  Leicester  and  the  five  burghs 
of  the  Danes ;  eastward  again  to  Huntingdon  and 
Cambridge  (then  a  poor  village  on  the  site  of  an 
old  Roman  town) ;  and  then  northward  again  into 
the  wide  fens,  the  land  of  the  Girvii,  where  the 
great  central  plateau  of  England  slides  into  the 
sea,  to  form,  from  the  rain  and  river  washings  of 
eight  shires,  lowlands  of  a  fertility  inexhausti- 
ble, because  ever-growing  to  this  day.  Into  those 
fens,  as  into  a  natural  fortress,  the  Anglo-Danish 
noblemen  crowded  down  instinctively  from  the 
inland  to  make  their  last  stand  against  the  French. 
.  .  .  Most  gallant  of  them  all,  and  their  leader  in 
the  fatal  struggle  against  William,  was  Hereward 
the  Wake,  Lord  of  Bourne  and  ancester  of  that 
family  of  Wake,  the  arms  of  whom  appear  on  the 
cover  of  this  book." — C.  Kingsley,  Hereward  the 
Wake,  Prelude. — The  defence  of  the  Camp  of  Ref- 
uge was  maintained  until  October,  1071,  when 
the  stronghold  is  said  to  have  been  betrayed  by 
the  monks  of  Ely,  who  grew  tired  of  the  disturb- 
ance of  their  peace.  But  Hereward  did  not  sub- 
mit. He  made  his  escape  and  various  accounts 
are  given  of  his  subsequent  career  and  his  fate. 
— E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Norman  Conq.  of 
Eng.,  ch.  20,  sect.  1. 

Also  in:  C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist., 
first  series,  c.  8. 

A.  D.  1085-1086. — The  Domesday  Survey 
and  Domesday  Book. — "The  distinctive  char- 
acteristic of  the  Norman  kings  [of  England]  was 
their  exceeding  greed,  and  the  administrative 
system  was  so  directed  as  to  insure  the  exaction 
of  the  highest  possible  imposts.  From  this  bent 
originated  the  great  registration  that  William 
[the  Conqueror]  caused  to  be  taken  of  all  lands, 
whether  holden  in  fee  or  at  rent;  as  well  as  the 
census  of  the  entire  population.  The  respective 
registers  were  preserved  in  the  Cathedral  of 
Winchester,  and  by  the  Norman  were  designated 
'le  grand  role,'  '  le  role  royal,'  'le  role  de  AVin. 
Chester';  but  by  the  Saxons  were  termed  'the 
Book  of  the  Last  Judgment,' '  Doomesdaege  Boc,' 
'Doomsday  Book.'" — B.  Fischel,  The  '"English 
Constitution,  ch.  1. — For  a  different  statement 
see  the  following:  "The  recently  attempted 
invasion  from  Denmark  seems  to  have  impressed 
the  king  with  the  desirability  of  an  accurate 
knowledge  of  his  resources,  military  and  fiscal, 
both  of  which  were  based  upon  the  land.  The 
survey  was  completed  in  the  remarkably  short 
space  of  a  single  year  [1085-1086].  In  each 
shire  the  commissioners  made  their  inquiries  by 
the  oaths  of  the  sheriffs,  the  barons  and  their 
Norman  retainers,  the  parish  priests,  the  reeves 


821 


ENGLAND,  1085-1086. 


Domesday 
Survey, 


ENGLAND,  1087-1135. 


and  six  ceorls  of  each  township.  The  result  of 
their  labours  was  a  minute  description  of  all  the 
lands  of  the  kingdom,  with  the  exception  of  the 
four  northern  counties  of  Northumberland,  Cum- 
berland, Westmoreland  and  Durham,  and  part 
of  what  is  now  Lancashire.  It  enumerates  the 
tenauts-in-chief,  under  tenants,  freeholders,  vil- 
leins, and  serfs,  describes  the  nature  and  obliga- 
tions of  the  tenures,  the  value  in  the  time  of  King 
Eadward,  at  the  conquest,  and  at  the  date  of  the 
survey,  and,  which  gives  the  key  to  the  whole 
inquiry,  informs  the  king  whether  any  advance 
in  the  valuation  could  be  made.  .  .  .  The  returns 
were  transmitted  to  Winchester,  digested,  and 
recorded  in  two  volumes  which  liave  descended 
to  posterity  under  the  name  of  Domesday  Book. 
The  name  itself  is  probably  derived  from  Domus 
Dei,  the  appellation  of  a  chapel  or  vault  of  the 
cathedral  at  Winchester  in  which  the  survey  was 
at  first  deposited." — T.  P.  Taswell-Langmead, 
English  Const.  Hist.,  c7i.  2. — "Of  the  motives 
which  induced  the  Conqueror  and  his  council  to 
undertake  the  Survey  we  have  very  little  relia- 
ble information,  and  much  that  has  been  written 
on  the  subject  savours  more  of  a  deduction  from 
the  result  than  of  a  knowledge  of  the  immediate 
facts.  We  have  the  statement  from  the  Char- 
tulary  of  St.  Mary's,  Worcester,  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Commissioners  by  the  king  himself 
to  make  the  Survey.  We  have  also  the  heading 
of  the  '  Inquisitio  Eliensis '  which  purports  to 
give,  and  probably  does  truly  give,  the  items  of 
the  articles  of  inquiry,  which  sets  forth  as  fol- 
lows: L  What  is  the  manor  called?  IL  Who 
held  it  in  the  time  of  King  Edward  1  III.  Who 
now  holds  it '?  IV.  How  many  hides  ?  V.  What 
teams  are  there  in  demesne  ?  VI.  What  teams 
of  the  men?  VIL  What  villans?  VIIL  What 
cottagers?  IX.  What  bondmen?  X.  What  free- 
men and  what  sokemen  ?  XI.  What  woods  ? 
XII.  What  meadow  ?  XIII.  What  pastures  ? 
XIV.  What  mills  ?  XV.  What  fisheries  ?  XVL 
What  is  added  or  taken  away  ?  XVII.  What 
the  whole  was  worth  together,  and  what  now  ? 
XVIII.  How  ranch  each  freeman  or  sokeman 
bad  or  has  ?  All  this  to  be  estimated  three  times, 
viz.  in  the  time  of  King  Edward,  and  when 
King  William  gave  it,  and  how  it  is  now,  and  if 
more  can  be  had  for  it  than  has  been  had.  This 
document  is,  I  think,  the  best  evidence  we  have 
of  the  form  of  the  inquiry,  and  it  tallies  strictly 
with  the  form  of  the  various  returns  as  we  now 
have  them.  .  .  .  All  external  evidence  failing, 
we  arc  driven  back  to  the  Record  itself  for  evi- 
dence of  the  Conqueror's  intention  in  framing  it, 
and  anyone  who  carefully  studies  it  will  be  driven 
to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  it  was  framed 
and  designed  in  the  spirit  of  perfect  equity. 
Long  before  the  Conquest,  in  the  period  between 
the  death  of  Alti'ed  and  that  of  Edward  the  Con- 
fessor, the  kingdom  had  been  rapidly  declining 
into  a  state  of  disorganisation  and  decay.  The 
defence  of  the  kingdom  and  the  administration 
of  justice  and  keeping  of  the  peace  could  not  be 
maintained  by  the  king's  revenues.  The  tax  of 
Danegeld,  instituted  by  Ethelred  at  first  to  buy 
peace  of  the  Danes,  and  afterwards  to  maintain 
the  defence  of  the  kingdom,  had  more  and  more 
come  to  be  levied  unequally  and  unfairly.  Tlie 
Church  had  obtained  enormous  remissions  of  its 
liability,  and  its  possessions  were  constantly  in- 
creasing. Powerful  subjects  had  obtained  further 
remission,  and  the  tax  had  come  to  be  irregularly 


collected  and  was  burdensome  upon  the  smaller 
holders  and  their  poor  tenants,  while  the  nobility 
and  the  Church  escaped  witli  a  small  share  in 
the  burden.  In  short  the  tax  had  come  to  be 
collected  upon  an  old  and  uncorrected  assess- 
ment. It  had  probably  dwindled  in  amount,  and 
at  last  had  been  ultimately  remitted  by  Edward 
the  Confessor.  Anarchy  and  confusion  appears 
to  have  reigned  throughout  the  realm.  The  Con- 
queror was  threatened  with  foreign  invasion, 
and  pressed  on  all  sides  by  complaints  of  unfair 
taxation  on  the  part  of  his  subjects.  Estates 
had  been  divided  and  subdivided,  and  the  inci- 
dence of  the  tax  was  unequal  and  unjust.  He 
had  to  face  the  ditflculties  before  him  and  to 
count  the  resources  of  his  kingdom  for  its  defence, 
and  the  means  of  doing  so  were  not  at  hand.  In 
this  situation  his  masterly  and  order-loving  Nor- 
man mind  instituted  this  great  inquiry,  but 
ordered  it  to  be  taken  (as  I  maintain  the  study  of 
the  Book  will  show)  in  the  most  public  and  open 
manner,  and  with  the  utmost  impartiality,  with 
the  view  of  levying  the  taxes  of  the  kingdom 
equally  and  fairly  upon  all.  The  articles  of  his 
inquiry  show  that  he  was  prepared  to  study  the 
resources  of  his  kingdom  and  consider  the  lia- 
bility of  his  subjects  from  every  possible  point 
of  view." — Stuart  Moore,  On  tJie  Study  of  Domes- 
day Book  (Domesday  Studies,  v.  1). — "  Domesdaj^ 
Book  is  a  vast  mine  of  materials  for  the  social  and 
economical  history  of  our  country,  a  mine  almost 
inexhaustible,  and  to  a  great  extent  as  yet 
unworked.  Among  national  documents  it  is 
unique.  There  is  nothing  that  approaches  it  in 
interest  and  value  except  the  Landuamabok,  which 
records  the  names  of  the  original  settlers  in  Ice- 
land and  the  designations  they  bestowed  upon 
the  places  where  they  settled,  and  tells  us  how 
the  island  was  taken  up  and  apportioned  among 
them.  Such  a  document  for  England,  describ- 
ing the  way  in  which  our  forefathers  divided  the 
territory  they  conquered,  and  how  '  they  called 
the  lands  after  their  own  names,'  would  indeud 
be  priceless.  But  the  Domesday  Book  does,  in- 
directly, supply  materials  for  the  history  of  the 
English  as  well  as  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  for  it 
records  not  only  how  the  lands  of  England  were 
divided  among  the  Norman  host  which  con- 
quered at  Senlac,  but  it  gives  us  also  the  names 
ot  the  Saxon  and  Danish  holders  who  possessed  the 
lands  before  the  great  battle  which  changed  all 
the  future  history  of  England,  and  enables  us  to 
trace  the  extent  of  the  transfer  of  the  laud  from 
Englishmen  to  Normans ;  it  shows  how  far  the 
earlier  owners  were  reduced  to  tenants,  and  by 
its  enumeration  of  the  classes  of  population  — 
freemen,  sokemen,  villans,  cottiers,  and  slaves 
—  it  indicates  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  earlier 
conquests.  Thus  we  learn  that  in  the  West  of 
England  slaves  were  numerous,  while  in  the  East 
they  were  almost  unknown,  and  hence  we  gather 
that  in  the  districts  first  subdued  the  British 
population  was  exterminated  or  driven  off,  while 
in  the  West  it,,was  reduced  to  servitude. " — I.  Tay- 
lor, Domesday  Surmvals  (Domesday  Studies,  v.  1). 

Also  in:  E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Norman 
Conquest,  cU.  31-23  and  app.  A  in  v.  5. — W.  de 
Gray  Birch,  Domesday  Book. — F.  W.  Maitland, 
Domesday  Book  (Diet.  Pol.  Econ.). 

A.  D.  1087-1135. —  The  sons  of  the  Con- 
queror and  their  reigns.  —  William  the  Con- 
queror, when  he  died,  left  Normandy  and  Maine 
to  his  elder   son  Robert,  the  English  crown  to 


822 


ENGLAND,  1087-1135. 


Sons  of 
the  Conqueror. 


ENGLAND,  1087-1135. 


his  stronger  son,  William,  culled  Rufus,  or  tlie 
Red,  and  only  a  legacy  of  £5,000  to  his  third  son, 
Heury,  called  Beauclerc,  or  The  Scholar.  The 
Conqueror's  half-brother,  Odo,  soon  began  to 
persuade  the  Norman  barons  in  England  to  dis- 
place William  Rufiis  and  plant  Robert  on  the 
English  throne.  "The  claim  of  Robert  to  suc- 
ceed his  father  in  England,  was  supported  by 
the  respected  rights  of  primogeniture.  But  the 
Anglo-Saxon  crown  had  always  been  elective. 
.  .  .  Primogeniture  .  .  .  gave  at  that  time  no 
right  to  the  crown  of  England,  independent  of 
the  election  of  its  jiarliamentary  assembly.  Hav- 
ing secured  this  title,  the  power  of  Rufus  rested 
on  the  foundation  most  congenial  with  the  feel- 
ings and  institutions  of  the  nation,  and  from  their 
partiality  received  a  ijopular  support,  which  was 
soon  experienced  to  be  impregnable.  The  dan- 
ger compelled  the  king  to  court  his  people  by 
promises  to  diminish  their  grievances;  which 
drew  30,000  knights  spontaneously  to  his  ban- 
ners, hapijy  to  have  got  a  sovereign  distinct 
from  hated  Normandy.  The  invasion  of  Robert, 
thus  resisted  by  the  English  people,  effected 
nothing  but  some  temporary  devastations.  .  .  . 
The  state  of  Normandy,  under  Robert's  adminis- 
tration, for  some  time  furnished  an  ample  field 
for  his  ambitious  uncle's  activity.  It  continued 
to  exhibit  a  negligent  government  in  its  most 
vicious  form.  .  .  .  Odo's  politics  only  facilitated 
the  reannexation  of  Normandy  to  England.  But 
tliis  event  was  not  completed  in  William's  reign. 
When  he  retorted  the  attempt  of  Robert,  by  an 
invasion  of  Normandy,  the  great  barons  of  both 
countries  found  themselves  endangered  by  the 
conflict,  and  combined  their  interest  to  persuade 
their  resjx-ctive  sovereigns  to  a  fraternal  i)acifi- 
cation.  The  most  important  article  of  their  re- 
conciliation provided,  that  if  either  should  die 
without  issue,  the  survivor  should  inherit  his 
dominions.  Hostilities  were  then  abandoned; 
mutual  courtesies  ensued ;  and  Robert  visited 
England  as  his  brother's  guest.  The  mind  of 
William  the  Red  King,  was  east  in  no  common 
mould.  It  had  all  the  greatness  and  the  defects 
of  the  chivalric  character,  in  its  sti-oug  but  rudest 
state.  Impetuous,  daring,  original,  magnani- 
mous, and  munificent ;  it  was  also  harsh,  tyran- 
nical, and  selfish;  conceited  of  its  own  powers, 
loose  in  its  moral  principles,  and  disdaining  con- 
sequences. .  .  .  While  Lanfranc  lived,  William 
had  a  counsellor  whom  he  respected,  and  whose 
good  opinion  he  was  careful  to  preserve.  .  .  . 
The  death  of  Lanfranc  removed  the  only  man 
whose  wisdom  and  influence  could  have  melior- 
ated the  king's  ardent,  but  undisciplined  tem- 
per. It  was  his  misfortune,  on  this  event,  to 
choose  for  his  favourite  minister,  an  able,  but  an 
xmprinciplcd  man.  .  .  .  The  minister  advised 
the  king,  on  the  death  of  every  prelate,  to  seize 
all  his  temporal  possessions.  .  .  .  The  great  reve- 
nues obtained  from  this  violent  innovation, 
tempted  both  the  king  and  his  minister  to  in- 
crease its  productiveness,  by  deferring  the  nom- 
ination of  every  new  prelate  for  an  indefinite 
period.  Thus  he  kept  many  bishoprics,  and 
among  them  the  see  of  Canterbury,  vacant  for 
some  years ;  till  a  severe  illness  alarming  his  con- 
science, he  suddenly  appointed  Anselm  to  the 
dignity.  .  .  .  His  disagreement  with  Anselm 
soon  began.  The  prelate  injudiciously  began 
the  battle  by  asking  the  king  to  restore,  not  only 
the  possessions  of  his  see,  which  were  enjoyed 


by  Lanfranc  —  a  fair  request  —  but  also  the  lands 
which  had  before  that  time  belonged  to  it ;  a  de- 
mand that,  after  so  many  years  alteration  of  prop- 
erty, could  not  be  complied  with  without  great 
disturbance  of  other  persons.  Ansel  m  also  exacted 
of  the  king  that  in  all  things  which  concerned 
the  church,  his  counsels  should  be  taken  in  pref- 
erence to  every  other.  .  .  .  Though  Anselm,  as 
a  literary  man,  was  an  honour  and  a  benefit  to 
his  age,  yet  his  monastic  and  studious  habits 
prevented  him  from  having  that  social  wisdom, 
that  knowledge  of  human  nature,  that  discreet 
use  of  his  own  virtuous  firmness,  and  that  mild 
management  of  turbulent  power,  which  might 
have  enabled  him  to  have  exerted  much  of  the 
influence  of  Lanfranc  over  the  mind  of  his  sov- 
ereign. .  .  .  Anselm,  seeing  the  churches  and 
abbeys  oppressed  in  their  property,  by  the  royal 
orders,  resolved  to  visit  Rome,  and  to  concert 
with  the  pope  the  measures  most  adapted  to 
overawe  the  king.  .  .  .  William  threatened, 
that  if  he  did  go  to  Rome,  he  would  seize  all  the 
possessions  of  the  archbishopric.  Anselm  de- 
clared, that  he  would  rather  travel  naked  and  on 
foot,  than  desist  from  his  resolution;  and  he 
went  to  Dover  with  his  pilgrim's  staff  and  wal- 
let. He  was  searched  before  his  departure,  that 
he  might  carry  away  no  money,  and  was  at  last 
allowed  to  sail.  But  the  king  immediately  exe- 
cuted his  threat,  and  sequestered  all  his  lands 
and  property.  This  was  about  three  years  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  reign.  .  .  .  Anselm  continued 
in  Italy  till  William's  death.  The  possession  of 
Normandy  was  a  leading  object  of  William's 
ambition,  and  he  gradually  attained  a  prepon- 
derance in  it.  His  first  invasion  compelled  Robert 
to  make  some  cessions;  these  were  increased  on 
his  next  attack:  and  when  Robert  determined 
to  join  the  Crusaders,  he  mortgaged  the  whole 
of  Normandy  to  William  for  three  years,  for 
10,000  marks.  He  obtained  the  usual  success  of 
a  powerful  invasion  in  Wales.  The  natives  were 
overpowered  on  the  plains,  but  annoyed  the  in- 
vaders in  their  mountains.  He  marched  an  army 
against  Malcolm,  king  of  Scotland,  to  punish  his 
incursions.  Robert  advised  the  Scottish  king  to 
conciliate  William ;  Malcolm  yielded  to  his  coun- 
.sel  and  accompanied  Robert  to  the  English  court, 
but  on  his  return,  was  treacherously  attacked  by 
Mowbray,  the  earl  of  Northumbria,  and  killed. 
William  regretted  the  perfidious  cruelty  of  the 
action.  .  .  .  Tlie  government  of  William  appears 
to  have  been  beneficial,  both  to  England  and 
Normandy.  To  the  church  it  was  oppressive. 
.  .  .  He  had  scarcely  reigned  twelve  years,  when 
he  fell  by  a  violent  death."  He  was  hunt- 
ing with  a  few  attendants  in  the  New  Forest. 
"It  happened  that,  his  friends  dispersing  in 
pursuit  of  game,  he  was  left  alone,  as  some 
authorities  intimate,  with  Walter  Tyrrel,  a  noble 
knight,  whom  he  had  brought  out  of  France, 
and  admitted  to  his  table,  and  to  whom  he  was 
much  attached.  As  the  sun  was  about  to  set,  a 
stag  passed  before  the  king,  who  discharged  an 
arrow  at  it.  .  .  .  At  the  same  moment,  another 
stag  crossing,  Walter  TyiTel  discharged  an  arrow 
at  it.  At  this  precise  juncture,  a  shaft  struck 
the  king,  and  buried  itself  in  his  breast.  He 
fell,  without  a  word,  upon  the  arrow,  and  ex- 
pired on  the  spot.  ...  It  seems  to  be  a  ques- 
tionable point,  whether  Walter  Tyrrel  actually 
shot  the  king.  That  opinion  was  certainly  the 
most  prevalent  at  the  time,  both  here  and  in 


823 


ENGLAND,  1087-1135. 


Reign  of  Stephen. 


ENGLAND.  1135-1154. 


France.  .  .  .  None  of  the  authorities  intimate  a 
belief  of  a  purposed  assassination ;  and,  tlierefore. 
It  would  be  unjust  now  to  impute  it  to  any  one. 
.  .  .  Henry  was  hunting  in  a  different  part  of 
the  New  Forest  when  Kufus  fell.  ...  He  left 
the  body  to  the  casual  charity  of  the  passing 
rustic,  and  rode  precipitately  to  Winchester,  to 
seize  the  royal  treasure.  .  .  .  He  obtained  the 
treasure,  and  proceeding  hastily  to  London,  was 
on  the  following  Sunday,  the  third  day  after 
"William's  death,  elected  king,  and  crowned.  .  .  . 
He  began  his  reign  by  removing  the  unpopular 
agents  of  his  unfortunate  brother.  He  recalled 
Anselm,  and  conciliated  the  clergy.  He  grati- 
fied the  nation,  by  abolishing  the  oppressive  ex- 
actions of  the  previous  reign.  He  assured  many 
benefits  to  the  barons,  and  by  a  charter,  signed 
on  the  day  of  his  coronation,  restored  to  the  peo- 
ple tlieir  Anglo-Saxon  laws  and  privileges,  as 
amended  by  his  father ;  a  measure  which  ended 
the  pecuniary  oppressions  of  his  brother,  and 
which  favoured  tlie  growing  liberties  of  the  na- 
tion. The  Conqueror  had  noticed  Henry's  ex- 
panding intellect  very  early ;  had  given  him  the 
best  education  which  the  age  could  supply.  .  .  . 
He  became  the  most  learned  monarch  of  his  day, 
and  acquired  and  deserved  the  surname  of  Beau- 
clerc,  or  fine  scholar.  No  wars,  no  cares  of 
state,  could  afterwards  deprive  him  of  his  love 
of  literature.  The  nation  soon  felt  the  impulse 
ftnd  the  benefit  of  their  sovereign's  intellectual 
taste.  He  acceded  at  the  age  of  33,  and  gratified 
the  nation  by  marrying  and  crowning  Mathilda, 
daughter  of  the  sister  of  Edgar  Etheling  by  Mal- 
colm the  king  of  Scotland,  who  had  been  waylaid 
and  killed. " — S.  Turner,  Jlist.  of  England  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  v.  1,  ch.  5-6.  —  The  Norman 
lords,  hating  the  "English  ways"  of  Henry,  were 
soon  in  rebellion,  undertaking  to  put  Robert  of 
Normandy  (who  had  returned  from  the  Crusade) 
in  his  place.  The  quarrel  went  on  till  the  battle 
of  Tenchebray,  1106,  in  which  Robert  was  de- 
feated and  taken  prisoner.  He  was  imprisoned 
for  life.  The  duchy  and  the  kingdom  were 
again  united.  The  war  in  Normandy  led  to  a 
war  with  Louis  king  of  France,  who  had  es- 
poused Robert's  cause.  It  was  ended  by  the 
battle  of  Bremule,  1119,  where  the  French  suf- 
fered a  bad  defeat.  In  Henry's  reign  all  south 
Wales  was  conquered;  but  the  north  Welsh 
princes  held  out.  Another  expedition  against 
them  was  preparing,  when,  in  1135,  Henry  fell 
ill  at  the  Castle  of  Lions  in  Normandy,  and  died. 
— E.  A.  Freeman,  The  reign  of  William  Rufus 
and  accession  of  Henry  I. 

Also  in  :  Sir  F.  Palgrave,  Hist,  of  Normandy 
and  Eng. ,  v.  4. 

A.  D.  113S-1154.— The  miserable  reign  of 
Stephen. — Civil  war,  anarchy  and  wretched- 
ness in  England. — The  transition  to  heredi- 
tary monarchy. —  After  the  death  of  William 
the  Conqueror,  the  English  throne  was  occupied 
in  succession  by  two  of  his  sons,  William  II.,  or 
William  Rufus  (1087-1100),  and  Henry  I.,  or 
Henry  Beauclerk  (1100-1135).  The  latter  out- 
lived his  one  legitimate  son,  and  bequeathed  the 
crown  at  his  death  to  his  daughter,  Matilda, 
widow  of  the  Emperor  Henry  V.  of  Germany  and 
now  wife  of  Geoffrey,  Count  of  Anjou.  This 
latter  marriage  had  been  very  unpopular,  both 
in  England  and  Normandy,  and  a  strong  party 
refused  to  recognize  the  Empress  Matilda,  as  she 
was  commonly  called.     This  party  maintained 


the  superior  claims  of  the  family  of  Adela, 
daughter  of  William  the  Conqueror,  who  had 
married  the  Earl  of  Blois.  Naturally  their  choice 
would  have  fallen  upon  Theobald  of  Blois,  the 
eldest  of  Adela's  sons ;  but  his  more  enterpris- 
ing younger  brother  Stephen  supplanted  him. 
Hastening  to  England,  and  winning  the  favour 
of  the  citizens  of  London,  Stephen  secured  the 
royal  treasure  and  persuaded  a  council  of  peers 
to  elect  him  king.  A  most  grievous  civil  war 
ensued,  which  lasted  for  nineteen  terrible  years, 
during  which  long  period  there  was  anarchy  and 
great  wretchedness  in  England.  "The  land  was 
filled  with  castles,  and  the  castles  with  armed 
banditti,  who  seem  to  have  carried  on  their  ex- 
tortions under  colour  of  the  military  commands 
bestowed  by  Stephen  on  every  petty  castellan. 
Often  the  very  belfries  of  churches  were  fortified. 
On  the  poor  lay  the  burden  of  building  these 
strongholds;  the  rich  suffered  in  their  donjeons. 
Many  were  starved  to  death,  and  these  were  the 
happiest.  Others  were  flung  into  cellars  filled 
with  reptiles,  or  hung  up  by  the  thumbs  till  they 
told  where  their  treasures  were  concealed,  or 
crippled  in  frames  which  did  not  suffer  them  to 
move,  or  held  just  resting  on  the  ground  by 
sharp  iron  collars  round  the  neck.  The  Earl  of 
Essex  used  to  send  out  spies  who  begged  from 
door  to  door,  and  then  reported  in  what  houses 
wealth  was  still  left ;  the  alms-givers  were  pres- 
ently seized  and  imprisoned.  The  towns  that 
could  no  longer  pay  the  blackmail  demanded 
from  them  were  burned.  .  .  .  Sometimes  the 
peasants,  maddened  by  misery,  crowded  to  the 
roads  that  led  from  a  field  of  battle,  and  smote 
down  the  fugitives  without  any  distinction  of 
sides.  The  bishops  cursed  vainly,  when  the  very 
churches  were  burned  and  monks  robbed.  '  To 
till  the  ground  was  to  plough  the  sea;  the  earth 
bare  no  corn,  for  the  land  was  all  laid  waste  by 
such  deeds,  and  men  said  openly  that  Christ  slept, 
and  his  saints.  Such  things,  and  more  than  we 
can  say,  suffered  we  nineteen  winters  for  our  sins' 
(A.  8.  Chronicle).  .  .  .  Many  soldiers,  sickened 
with  the  unnatural  war,  put  on  the  white  cross 
and  sailed  for  a  nobler  battle-field  iu  the  East." 
As  Matilda's  son  Henry  —  afterwards  Henry  II. 
—  grew  to  manhood,  the  feeling  in  his  favor 
gained  strength  and  his  party  made  head  against 
the  weak  and  incompetent  Stephen.  Finally,  in 
1153,  peace  was  brought  about  under  an  agree- 
ment "that  Stephen  should  wear  the  crown  till 
his  death,  and  Henry  receive  the  homage  of  the 
lords  and  towns  of  the  realm  as  laeir  apparent." 
Stephen  died  the  next  year  and  Henry  came  to 
the  throne  with  little  further  dispute. — C.  H. 
Pearson,  Hist,  of  Eng.  during  the  Early  and 
Middle  Ages,  ch.  28. — "  Stephen,  as  a  king,  was 
an  admitted  failure.  I  cannot,  however,  but 
view  with  suspicion  the  causes  assigned  to  his 
failure  by  often  unfriendly  chroniclers.  That 
their  criticisms  had  some  foundation  it  would  not 
be  possible  to  deny.  But  in  the  first  place,  had 
he  enjoyed  better  fortune,  we  should  have  heard 
less  of  his  incapacity,  and  in  the  second,  these 
writers,  not  enjoying  the  same  stand-point  as 
ourselves,  were,  I  think,  somewhat  inclined  to 
mistake  effects  for  causes.  .  .  .  His  weakness 
throughout  his  reign  .  .  .  was  due  to  two  causes, 
each  supplementing  the  other.  Th&sewere  —  (1) 
the  essentially  unsatisfactory  character  of  his 
position,  as  resting,  virtually,  on  a  compact  that 
he  should  be  king  so  long  only  as  he  gave  satis- 


824 


ENGLAND,  1135-1154. 


Reign  of  Stephen. 


ENGLAND,  1135-1154. 


faction  to  those  who  had  placed  him  on  the 
throne;  (2)  the  existence  of  a  rival  claim,  hang- 
ing over  him  from  the  first,  like  the  sword  of 
Damocles,  and  affording  a  lever  by  which  the 
malcontents  could  compel  him  to  adhere  to  the 
original  understanding,  or  even  to  submit  to 
further  demands.  .  .  .  The  position  of  his  op- 
ponents throughout  his  reign  would  seem  to 
have  rested  on  two  assumptions.  The  first,  that 
a  breach,  on  his  part,  of  the  'contract'  justi- 
fied ipso  facto  revolt  on  theirs ;  the  second,  that 
their  allegiance  to  the  king  was  a  purely  feudal 
relation,  and,  as  such,  could  be  thrown  off  at  any 
moment  by  performing  the  famous  diffidatio. 
This  essential  feature  of  continental  feudalism 
had  been  rigidly  excluded  by  the  Conqueror. 
He  had  taken  advantage,  as  is  well  known,  of 
his  position  as  an  English  king,  to  extort  an 
allegiance  from  his  Norman  followers  more  abso- 
lute than  he  could  have  claimed  as  their  feudal 
lord.  It  was  to  Stephen's  peculiar  position  that 
was  due  the  introduction  for  a  time  of  this  per- 
nicious principle  into  England.  .  .  .  Passing 
now  to  the  other  point,  the  existence  of  a  rival 
claim,  we  approach  a  subject  of  great  interest, 
the  theory  of  the  succession  to  the  English  Crown 
at  what  may  be  termed  the  crisis  of  transition 
from  the  principle  of  election  (within  the  royal 
house)  to  that  of  hereditary  right  according  to 
feudal  rules.  For  the  right  view  on  this  sub- 
ject, we  turn,  as  ever,  to  Dr.  Stubbs,  who,  with 
his  usual  sound  judgment,  writes  thus  of  the 
Norman  period: — 'The  crown  then  continued  to 
be  elective.  .  .  .  But  whilst  the  elective  prin- 
ciple was  maintained  in  its  fulness  where  it  was 
necessary  or  possible  to  maintain  it,  it  is  quite 
certain  that  the  right  of  inheritance,  and  inherit- 
ance as  primogeniture,  was  recognized  as  co- 
ordinate. .  .  .  The  measures  taken  by  Henry  I. 
for  securing  the  crown  to  his  own  children, 
whilst  they  prove  the  acceptance  of  the  heredi- 
tary principle,  prove  also  the  importance  of 
strengthening  it  by  the  recognition  of  the  elec- 
tive theory. '  Mr.  Freeman,  though  writing  witli 
a  strong  bias  in  favour  of  the  elective  theory,  is 
fully  justified  in  his  main  argument,  namely, 
that  Stephen  'was  no  usurper  in  the  sense  in 
which  the  word  is  vulgarly  used.'  He  urges, 
apparently  with  perfect  truth,  that  Stephen's 
offence,  in  the  eyes  of  his  contemporaries,  lay  in 
his  breaking  his  solemn  oath,  and  not  in  his  sup- 
planting a  riglitful  heir.  And  he  aptly  suggests 
that  the  wretchedness  of  his  reign  may  have 
hastened  the  growth  of  that  new  belief  in  the 
divine  right  of  the  heir  to  the  throne,  which  first 
appears  under  Henry  H.,  and  in  the  pages  of 
William  of  Newburgh.  So  far  as  Stephen  is 
concerned  the  case  is  clear  enough.  But  we 
have  also  to  consider  the  Empress.  On  what  did 
she  base  her  claim  ?  I  think  that,  as  implied  in 
Dr.  Stubbs'  words,  she  based  it  on  a  double,  not 
a  single,  ground.  She  claimed  the  kingdom  as 
King  Henry's  daughter  ('regis  Henrici  filia'), 
but  slie  claimed  it  further  because  the  succession 
had  been  assured  to  her  by  oath  ('  sibi  juratum ') 
as  such.  It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  oath 
in  question  can  in  no  way  be  regarded  in  the 
light  of  an  election.  .  .  .  'The  Empress  and  her 
partisans  must  have  largely,  to  say  the  least, 
based  their  claim  on  her  riglit  to  the  throne  as 
her  father's  heir,  and  .  .  .  she  and  they  appealed 
to  the  oath  as  the  admission  and  recognition  of 
that  right,  rather  than  as  partaking  in  any  way 


whatever  of  the  character  of  a  free  election.  .  .  . 
The  sex  of  the  Empress  was  the  drawback  to  her 
claim.  Had  her  brother  lived,  there  can  be  little 
question  that  he  would,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
have  succeeded  his  father  at  his  death.  Or 
again,  had  Henry  II.  been  old  enough  to  suc- 
ceed his  grandfather,  he  would,  we  may  be  sure, 
have  done  so.  .  .  .  Broadly  speaking,  to  sum  up 
the  evidence  here  collected,  it  tends  to  the  belief 
that  the  obsolescence  of  the  right  of  election  to 
the  English  crown  presents  considerable  analogy 
to  tliat  of  canonical  election  in  the  case  of  Eng- 
lish bishoprics.  In  both  cases  a  free  election  de- 
generated into  a  mere  assent  to  a  choice  already 
made.  We  see  the  process  of  cliange  already  in 
full  operation  when  Henry  I.  endeavours  to  ex- 
tort beforehand  from  the  magnates  their  assent 
to  his  daughter's  succession,  and  when  they  sub- 
sequently complain  of  this  attempt  to  dictate  to 
them  on  the  subject.  We  catch  sight  of  it  again 
when  his  daughter  bases  her  claim  to  the  crown, 
not  on  any  free  election,  but  on  her  rights  as  her 
father's  heir,  confirmed  by  the  above  assent. 
We  see  it,  lastly,  when  Stephen,  though  owing 
his  crown  to  election,  claims  to  rule  by  Divine 
right  ('Dei  gratia'),  and  attempts  to  reduce  that 
election  to  nothing  more  than  a  national  '  assent ' 
to  his  succession.  Obviously,  the  whole  ques- 
tion turned  on  whether  the  election  was  to  be 
held  first,  or  was  to  be  a  mere  ratification  of  a 
choice  already  made.  ...  In  comparing  Stephen 
with  his  successor  the  difference  between  their 
circumstances  has  been  insufficiently  allowed  for. 
At  Stephen's  accession,  thirty  years  of  legal  and 
financial  oppression  had  rendered  unpopular  the 
power  of  the  Crown,  and  had  led  to  an  im- 
patience of  official  restraint  which  opened  the 
path  to  a  feudal  reaction;  at  the  accession  of 
Henry,  on  the  contrary,  the  evils  of  an  enfeebled 
administration  and  of  feudalism  run  mad  had 
made  all  men  eager  for  the  advent  of  a  strong 
king,  and  had  prepared  them  to  welcome  the  in- 
troduction of  his  centralizing  administrative  re- 
forms. He  anticipated  the  position  of  the  house 
of  Tudor  at  the  close  of  the  Wars  of  the  Roses, 
and  combined  with  it  the  advantages  which 
Charles  II.  derived  from  the  Puritan  tyranny. 
Again,  Stephen  was  hampered  from  the  first  by 
his  weak  position  as  a  king  on  sufferance,  whereas 
Henry  came  to  his  work  unhampered  by  com- 
pact or  concession.  Lastly,  Stephen  was  con- 
fronted throughout  by  a  rival  claimant,  who 
formed  a  splendid  rallying-point  for  all  the  dis- 
content in  his  realm ;  but  Henry  reigned  for  as 
long  as  Stephen  without  a  rival  to  trouble  him ; 
and  when  he  found  at  length  a  rival  in  his  own 
son,  a  claim  far  weaker  than  that  which  had 
threatened  his  predecessor  seemed  likely  for  a 
time  to  break  his  power  as  effectually  as  the 
followers  of, the  Empress  had  broken  that  of 
Stephen.  He  may  only,  indeed,  have  owed  his 
escape  to  that  elficient  administration  which 
years  of  strength  and  safety  had  given  him  the 
time  to  construct.  It  in  no  way  follows  from 
these  considerations  that  Henry  was  not  superior 
to  Stephen;  but  it  does,  surely,  suggest  itself 
that  Stephen's  disadvantages  were  great,  and 
that  had  he  enjoyed  better  fortune,  we  might 
have  heard  less  of  his  defects." — J.  H.  Round, 
Geoffrey  de  Mandeville,  ch.  1. 

Also  in  ;  Mrs.  J.  R.  Green,  Henry  the  Second, 
ch.  1. — See,  also.  Standard,  Battle  of  thb 
(A.  D.  1137). 


825 


ENGLAND,  1154-1189. 


First  of  the 
Angevin  Kings. 


ENGLAND,  1162-1170. 


A.  D.  1154-1189.— Henry  II.,  the  first  of  the 
Angevin  kings  (Plantagenets)  and  his  empire. 
—  Henry  II.,  who  came  to  the  English  throne  on 
Stephen's  death,  was  aheady,  by  the  death  of 
his  father,  Geoffrey,  Count  of  Anjou,  the  head 
of  the  great  house  of  Anjou,  in  France.  From 
his  fatlier  he  inherited  Anjou,  Touraine  and 
Maine ;  through  his  motlier,  ]\Iatilda,  daughter 
of  Henry  I.,  he  received  the  dukedom  of  Nor- 
mandy as  well  as  the  kingdom  of  England ;  by 
marriage  witli  Eleanor,  of  Aquitaine,  or  Guienne, 
he  added  to  his  empire  the  princely  domain 
which  included  Gascony,  Poitou,  Saintonge, 
Perigord,  Limousin,  Angoumois,  with  claims 
of  suzerainty  over  Auvergne  and  Toulouse. 
"Henry  found  himself  at  twenty-one  ruler  of 
dominions  such  as  no  king  before  him  had  ever 
dreamed  of  uniting.  He  was  master  of  both 
sides  of  the  English  Channel,  and  by  his  alliance 
with  his  uncle,  the  Covmt  of  Flanders,  he  had 
command  of  the  French  coast  from  the  Scheldt 
to  the  Pyrenees,  while  his  claims  on  Toulouse 
would  carry  him  to  the  shores  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean. His  subjects  told  with  pride  how  '  his 
empire  reached  from  the  Arctic  Ocean  to  the 
Pyrenees ' ;  there  was  no  monarch  save  the  Em- 
peror himself  who  ruled  over  such  vast  domains. 
.  .  .  His  aim  [a  few  years  later]  seems  to  have 
been  to  rival  in  some  sort  the  Empire  of  the  West, 
and  to  reign  as  an  over-king,  with  sub-kings  of 
his  various  provinces,  and  England  as  one  of 
them,  around  him.  He  was  connected  with  all 
the  great  ruling  houses.  .  .  .  England  was  forced 
out  of  her  old  isolation ;  her  interest  in  the  world 
without  was  suddenly  awakened.  Englisli  schol- 
ars thronged  the  foreign  universities;  English 
chroniclers  questioned  travellers,  scholars,  am- 
bassadors, as  to  what  was  passing  abroad.  The 
influence  of  English  learning  and  English  state- 
craft made  itself  felt  all  over  Europe.  Never, 
perhaps,  in  all  the  history  of  England  was  there 
a  time  when  Englishmen  played  so  great  a  part 
abroad. "  The  king  who  gathered  tliis  wide,  in- 
congruous empire  under  his  sceptre,  by  mere 
circumstances  of  birth  and  marriage,  proved 
strangely  equal,  in  many  respects,  to  its  great- 
ness. "  He  was  a  foreign  king  who  never  spoke 
the  Englisli  tongue,  who  lived  and  moved  for  the 
most  part  in  a  foreign  camp,  surrounded  with  a 
motley  host  of  Brabangons  and  hirelings.  ...  It 
was  under  the  rule  of  a  foreigner  such  as  this, 
however,  that  the  races  of  conquerors  and  con- 
quered in  England  first  learnt  to  feel  that  they 
were  one.  It  was  by  his  power  that  England, 
Scotland  and  Ireland  were  brought  to  some  vague 
acknowledgement  of  a  common  suzerain  lord,  and 
the  foundations  laid  of  the  United  Kingdom  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  It  was  he  who  abol- 
ished feudalism  as  a  system  of  government,  and 
left  it  little  more  than  a  system  of  land  tenure.  It 
was  he  who  defined  the  relations  established  be- 
tween Church  and  State,  and  decreed  that  in  Eng- 
land churchman  as  well  as  baron  was  to  be  held 
under  the  Common  Law.  .  .  .  His  reforms  estab- 
lished the  judicial  system  whose  main  outlines 
have  been  preserved  to  our  own  day.  It  was 
through  his  '  Constitutions '  and  his  '  Assizes '  that 
It  came  to  pass  that  over  all  the  world  the  English- 
speaking  races  are  governed  by  English  and  not 
by  Roman  law.  It  was  by  his  genius  for  govern- 
ment that  the  servants  of  the  royal  household 
became  transformed  into  Ministers  of  State.  It 
w  as  he  who  gave  England  a  foreign  policy  which 


decided  our  continental  relations  for  seven  hun- 
dred years.  The  impress  which  the  personality 
of  Henry  II.  left  upon  his  time  meets  us  wherever 
we  turn." — Mrs.  J.  R.  Green,  Henry  the  Second, 
ch.  1-2. — Henry  II.  and  his  two  sons,  Richard  I. 
(Coeur  de  Lion),  and  John,  are  distinguished, 
sometimes,  as  the  Angevin  kings,  or  kings  of 
the  House  of  Anjou,  and  sometimes  as  the  Plan- 
tagenets, the  latter  name  being  derived  from  a 
boyish  habit  ascribed  to  Henry's  father,  Coimt 
Geoffrey,  of  "adorning  his  cap  witli  a  sprig  of 
'  plantagenista, '  the  broom  which  in  early  sum- 
mer makes  the  open  country  of  Anjou  and  JIaine 
a  blaze  of  living  gold."  Richard  retained  and 
ruled  the  great  realm  of  his  father;  but  John 
lost  most  of  his  foreign  inheritance,  including 
Normandy,  and  became  the  unwilling  benefac- 
tor of  England  by  stripping  her  kings  of  alien 
interests  and  alien  powers  and  bending  their 
necks  to  Magna  Charta. — K.  Norgate,  England 
under  the  Angerin  Kings. 

Also  ik  :  W.  Stubbs,  The  Early  Plantagenets. 
— See,  also,  Aquitaine  (Guienne):  A.  D.  1137- 
1152;  Ireland:  A.  D.  1109-1175. 

A.  D.  1162-1170. —  Conflict  of  King  and 
Church. — The  Constitutions  of  Clarendon. — 
Murder  of  Archbishop  Becket. —  "Archbishop 
Theobald  was  at  first  the  King's  chief  favourite 
and  adviser,  but  his  health  and  his  intiuence  de- 
clining, Becket  [the  Archdeacon  of  Canterbury] 
was  found  apt  for  business  as  well  as  amusement, 
and  gradually  became  intrusted  with  the  exer- 
cise of  all  the  powers  of  the  crown.  .  .  .  The 
exact  time  of  his  appointment  as  Chancellor  has 
not  been  ascertained,  the  records  of  the  transfer 
of  the  Great  Seal  not  beginning  till  a  subsequent 
reign,  and  old  biographers  being  always  quite 
careless  about  dates.  But  he  certainly  had  this 
dignitj' soon  after  Henry's  accession.  .  .  .  Becket 
continued  Chancellor  till  the  year  1162,  without 
any  abatement  in  his  favour  with  the  King,  or 
in  the  power  which  he  possessed,  or  in  the 
energy  he  displayed,  or  in  the  splendour  of  his 
career.  ...  In  April,  1161,  Archbishop  Theo- 
bald died.  Henry  declared  that  Becket  should 
succeed, — no  doubt  counting  upon  his  co-opera- 
tion in  carrying  on  the  policy  hitherto  pursued 
in  checking  the  encroachments  of  the  clergy  and 
of  the  see  of  Rome.  .  .  .  The  same  opinion  of 
Becket's  probable  conduct  was  generally  enter- 
tained, and  a  cry  was  raised  that  '  the  Church 
was  in  danger.'  The  English  bishops  sent  a 
representation  to  Henry  against  the  appointment, 
and  the  electors  long  refused  to  obey  his  man- 
date, saying  that  '  it  was  indecent  that  a  man 
who  was  rather  a  soldier  than  a  priest,  and  who 
had  devoted  himself  to  hunting  and  falconry  in- 
stead of  the  study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  should 
be  placed  in  the  chair  of  St.  Augustine. "... 
The  universal  expectation  was,  that  Becket 
would  now  attempt  the  jsart  so  successfully 
played  by  Cardinal  Wolsey  in  a  succeeding  age ; 
that,  Chancellor  and  Archbishop,  he  would  con- 
tinue the  minister  and  personal  friend  of  the 
King ;  that  he  would  study  to  support  and  ex- 
tend all  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  which  he 
himself  was  to  exercise ;  and  that  in  the  palaces 
of  which  he  was  now  master  he  would  live  with 
increased  magnificence  and  luxury.  .  .  .  Never 
was  there  so  wonderful  a  transformation. 
Whether  from  a  predetermined  purpose,  or  from 
a  sudden  change  of  inclination,  he  immediately 
became  in  every  respect  an  altered  man.  Instead 


826 


JDNGLAND,   1163-1170.         nenry  U.  and  Becket.         ENGLAND,  1162-1170. 


of  the  stately  and  fastidious  courtier,  was  seen 
the  humble  and  squalid  penitent.     Next  his  skin 
he  wore  hair-cloth,   populous  with  vermin;  he 
lived  upon  roots,  and  his  drink  was  water,  ren- 
dered nauseous  by  an  infusion  of   fennel.     By 
way  of  further  penance  and   mortification,   he 
frequently  inflicted  stripes  on  his  naked   back. 
.  .  .  He  sent  the  Great  Seal  to  Henry,  in  Nor- 
mandy, with  this  short  message,  'I  desire  that 
you  will  provide  yourself  with  another  Chan- 
sellor,  as  I  find  myself  hardly  sufiicient  for  the 
duties  of  one  office,  and  much  less  of  two.'    The 
fond  patron,  who  had  been  so  eager  for  his  eleva- 
tion,   was    now    grievously    disappointed    and 
alarmed.  ...  He  at  once  saw  that  he  had  been 
deceived  in  his  choice.  .  .  .  The  grand  struggle 
which  the  Church  was  then  making  was,  that  all 
churchmen  should   be  entirely  exempted  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  secular  courts,  whatever 
crime  they  might  have  committed.  .  .  .   Henry, 
thinking  that  he  had  a  favourable  opportunity 
for  bringing  the  dispute  to  a  crisis,  summoned 
an  assembly  of  all  the  prelates  at  Westminster, 
and  himself  put  to   them  this  plain  question: 
'Whether  they  were  willing  to  submit  to  the 
ancient  laws  and  customs    of    the    kingdom?' 
'Their  reply,  framed  by  Becket,    was:  '  We  are 
willing,  saving  our  own  order.'.  .  .  The  King, 
seeing  what  was  comprehended  in  the  reserva- 
tion, retired  with  evident  marks  of  displeasure, 
deprived  Becket  of  the  government  of  Eye  and 
Berkhamstead,  and  all  the  appointments  which 
he  held  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown,  and  uttered 
threats  as  to  seizing  the  temporalities  of  all  the 
bishops,  since  they  would  not  acknowledge  their 
allegiance  to  him  as  the  head  of  the  state      The 
legate  of  Pope  Alexander,  dreading   a  breach 
with  so  powerful  a  prince  at  so  unseasonable  a 
juncture,  advised  Becket  to  submit  for  the  mo- 
ment; and  he  with  his  bretliren,  retracting  the 
saving  clause,  absolutely  promised  '  to  observe 
the  laws  and  customs   of   the   kingdom.'      To 
avoid  all  future  dispute,  Henry  resolved  to  fol- 
low up  his  victory  by  having  these  laws  and 
customs,  as  far  as  the  Church  was  concerned,  re- 
duced into  a  code,  to  be  sanctioned  by  the  legis- 
lature, and  to  be  specifically  acknowledged  by 
all   the  bishops.     'This   was  the  origin   of    the 
famous  'Constitutions  of  Clarendon.'"    Becket 
left  the  kingdom  (1164).     Several  years  later  he 
made  peace  with  Henry  and  returned  to  Canter- 
bury; but  soon  he  again  displeased  the  King, 
who  cried  in  a  rage,  '  Who  will  rid  me  of  this 
turbulent  priest? '     Four  knights  who  were  pres- 
ent immediately  went  to  Canterbury,  where  they 
slew  the  Archbishop  in  the  cathedral  (December 
29,  1170).     "The  government  tried  to  justify  or 
palliate  the  murder.     The  Archbishop  of  York 
likened  Thomas  a  Becket  to  Pharaoh,  who  died 
by  the  Divine  vengeance,  as  a  punishment  for 
his  hardness  of  heart;  and  a  proclamation  was 
issued,  forbidding  any  one  to  speak  of  Thomas 
of  Canterbury  as  a  martyr :  but  the  feelings  of 
men  were  too  strong  to  be  checked  by  authority ; 
pieces  of  linen  which  had  been  dipped  in  his 
blood  were  preserved  as  relics ;  from  the  time  of 
his  death  it  was  believed  that  miracles  were 
worked  at  his  tomb ;  thither  flocked  hundreds  of 
thousands,  in  spite  of  the  most  violent  threats  of 
punishment;  at  the  end  of  two  years  he  was  can- 
onised at  Rome ;  and,  till  the  breaking  out  of  the 
Reformation.    St.    Thomas  of    Canterbury,    for 
pilgrimages  and  prayers,  was  the  most  distin- 


guished Saint  in  England. "— Lord   Campbell, 
Livesofthe  Lord  Chancellors,  ch.  3.— "What  did 
Henry  IL  propose  to  do  with  a  clerk  who  was 
accused  of  a  crime  ?  .   .  .   Without  doing  much 
violence  to  the  text,  it  is  possible  to  put  two  dif- 
ferent  interpretations  upon  that  famous  clause 
in   the   Constitutions  of  Clarendon  which  deals 
with  criminous  clerks.  .  .  .  According  to  what 
seems  to  be  the  commonest  opinion,  we  might 
comment  upon  tliis  clause  in  some  such  words 
as  these :— Offences  of  which  a  clerk  may  be  ac- 
cused are  of  two  kinds.     They  are  temporal  or 
they  are  ecclesiastical.     Under  the  former  head 
fall  murder,  robbery,  larceny,  rape,  and  the  like; 
under  the  latter,  incontinence,  heresy,  disobedi- 
ence to  superiors,  breach  of  rules  relating  to  the 
conuuct   of    divine   service,    and   so   forth.  _   If 
charged  with  an  offence  of  the  temporal  kind, 
the  clerk  must  stand  his  trial  in  the  king's  court ; 
his  trial,  his  sentence,  will  be  like  that  of  a  lay- 
man.    For  an  ecclesiastical  offence,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  will  be  tried  in  the  court  Christian. 
The  king  reserves  to  his  court  the  right  to  decide 
what  offences  are  temporal,  what  ecclesiastical; 
also  he  asserts  the  right  to  send  delegates  to  super- 
vise the  proceedings  of  the  spiritual  tribunals. 
.  .   .   Let  us  attempt  a  rival  commentary.     The 
author  of  this  clause  is  not  thinking  of  two  dif- 
ferent classes  of  offences.     The  purely  ecclesi- 
astical offences  are  not  in  debate.     No  one  doubts 
that  for  these  a  man  will  be  tried  in  and  punished 
by  the  spiritual  court.     He  is  thinking  of  the 
grave   crimes,  of  murder  and   the  like.      Now 
every  such  crime  is  a  breach  of  temporal  law, 
and  it  is  also  a  breach  of  canon  law.     The  clerk 
who  commits   murder  breaks  the  king's  peace, 
but  he  also  infringes  the  divine  law,  and  —  no 
canonist  will  doubt  this  — ought  to  be  degraded. 
Very  well.     A  clerk  is  accused  of  such  a  crime. 
He  is  summoned  before  the  king's  court,  and  he 
is  to  answer  there  —  let  us  mark  this  word  re- 
spondere  —  for  what   he  ought  to  answer  for 
there.    What  ought  he  to  answer  for  there  ?    The 
breach  of  the  king's  peace  and  the  felony.    When 
he  has  answered,  .  .  .  then,  without  any  trial,  he 
is  to  be  sent  to  the  ecclesiastical  court.     In  that 
court  he  will  have  to  answer  as  an  ordained  clerk 
accused  of  homicide,  and  in  that  court  there  will 
be  a  trial  (res  ibi  tractabitur).     If  the  spiritual 
court  convicts  him  it  will  degrade  him,   and 
thenceforth  the  church  must  no  longer  protect 
him.     He  will  be  brought  back  into  the  king's 
court,  .  .  .  and  having  been  brought  back,  no 
longer  a  clerk  but  a  mere  layman,  he  will  be 
sentenced  (probably  without  any  further  trial)  to 
the  layman's  punishment,  death  or  mutilation. 
The  scheme  is  this:  accusation  and  plea  in  the 
temporal  court;  trial,  conviction,  degradation,  in 
the  ecclesiastical  court;  sentence  in  the  temporal 
court  to  the  layman's  punishment.     This  I  be- 
lieve to  be  the  meaning  of  the  clause."— F.  W. 
Maitland,  Henry  11.  and  the   Criminous   Clerks 
{English  Ristmeal  Review,  April,  1892),  pp.  224- 
326._Xhe  Assize  of  Clarendon,  sometimes  con- 
fused with  the  Constitutions  of  Clarendon,  was 
an  important  decree  approved  two  years  later. 
It  laid  down   the   principles  on  which  the  ad- 
ministration of   justice  was  to  be  carried   out, 
in  twenty-two  articles  drawn  up  for   the  use 
of  the   judges. —  Mrs.  J.  R.  Green,  Henry  the 
Second,  ch.  5-6.— "It  may  not  be  without  -n- 
Btruction  to  remember  that   the  Constitutions 
of  Clarendon,  which  Becket   spent  his  life  in 


827 


ENGLAND,  1163-1170. 


Richard  Cosur  de 
Lion. 


ENGLAND,  1205-1213. 


opposing,  and  of  which  his  death  procured  the 
suspension,  are  now  incorporated  in  the  English 
law,  and  are  regarded,  without  a  dissentient 
voice,  as  among  tlie  wisest  and  most  necessary 
of  English  institutions;  that  the  especial  point 
for  which  he  surrendered  his  life  was  not  the  in- 
dependence of  the  clergy  from  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  Crown,  but  the  personal  and  now 
forgotten  question  of  the  superiority  of  the  see 
of  Canterbury  to  the  see  of  York." — A.  P.  Stan- 
ley, Historiail  Memorials  of  Canterbury,  p.  124. 

Also  in  :  W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist  of  Eng. ,  ch. 
12,  sect.  139-141.— The  same,  Select  Charters,  pt. 
4. — J.  C.  Robertson,  Becket. — J.  A.  Giles,  Life 
and  Letters  of  Tliomas  A  Becket. — R.  H.  Froude, 
Hist,  of  the  Contest  between  ArcJtbisJiop  Thomas  a 
Becket  and  Henry  II.  (Remains,  pt.  3,  v.  2). — J.  A. 
Froude,  Life  and  Times  of  Thomas  Becket. —  C. 
H.  Pearson,  Hist,  of  England  during  the  Early 
and  Middle  Ages,  v.  1,  ch.  29. — ^  See,  also.  Benefit 
OP  Clergy,  and  Jury.  Tri.'VL  by. 

A.  D.  1 189. — Accession  of  King  Richard  I. 
(called  Coeur  de  Lion). 

A.  D.  1189-1199.  —  Reign  of  Richard  Coeur 
de  Lion. —  His  Crusade  and  campaigns  in 
France. — "The  Third  Crusade  [see  Crusades: 
A.  D.  1188-1193],  undertaken  for  the  deliver- 
ance of  Palestine  from  the  disasters  brought 
upon  the  Crusaders'  Kingdom  by  Saladin,  was 
the  first  to  be  popular  in  England.  .  .  .  Richard 
joined  the  Crusade  in  the  very  first  year  of  his 
reign,  and  every  portion  of  his  subsequent  career 
was  concerned  with  its  consequences.  Neither 
in  the  time  of  William  Rufus  nor  of  Stephen 
had  the  First  or  Second  Crusades  found  England 
sufficiently  settled  for  such  expeditions.  .  .  . 
But  the  patronage  of  the  Crusades  was  a  heredi- 
tary distinction  in  the  Angevin  family  now  reign- 
ing in  England :  they  had  founded  the  kingdom 
of  Palestine ;  Henry  IL  himself  had  often  pre- 
pared to  set  out;  and  Richard  was  confidently 
expected  by  the  great  body  of  his  subjects  to  re- 
deem the  family  pledge.  .  .  .  Wholly  inferior 
in  statesmanlike  qualities  to  his  father  as  he  was, 
the  generosity,  munificence,  and  easy  confidence 
of  his  character  made  him  an  almost  perfect  rep- 
resentative of  the  chivalry  of  that  age.  He  was 
scarcely  at  all  in  England,  but  his  fine  exploits 
both  by  land  and  sea  have  made  him  deservedly 
a  favourite.  The  depreciation  of  him  which  is  to 
be  found  in  certain  modern  books  must  in  all 
fairness  be  considered  a  little  mawkish.  A  King 
who  leaves  behind  him  such  an  example  of  ap- 
parently reckless,  but  really  prudent  valour,  of 
patience  under  jealous  ill-treatment,  and  perse- 
verance in  the  face  of  extreme  difliculties,  shin- 
ing out  as  the  head  of  the  manhood  of  his  day, 
far  above  the  common  race  of  kings  and  emper- 
ors,^ such  a  man  leaves  a  heritage  of  example 
as  well  as  glory,  and  incites  posterity  to  noble 
deeds.  His  great  moral  fault  was  his  conduct  to 
Henry,  and  for  this  he  was  sufficiently  punished ; 
but  his  parents  must  each  bear  their  share  of  the 
blame.  .  .  .  The  interest  of  English  affairs  dur- 
ing Richard's  absence  languishes  under  the  ex- 
citement which  attends  his  almost  continuous 
campaigns.  .  .  .  Both  on  the  Crusade  and  in 
France  Richard  was  fighting  the  battle  of  the 
Plouse  which  the  English  had  very  deliberately 
placed  upon  its  throne ;  and  if  the  war  was  kept 
oft  its  shores,  if  the  troubles  of  Stephen's  reign 
were  not  allowed  to  recur,  the  country  had  no 
right  to  complain  of  a  taxation  or  a  royal  ransom 


which  times  of  peace  enabled  it,  after  all,  to  bear 
tolerably  well.  .  .  .  The  great  maritime  position 
of  the  Plantagenets  made  these  sovereigns  take 
to  the  sea." — M.  Burrows,  Commentaries  on  the 
Hist,  of  England,  bk.  1,  ch.  18. — Richard  "was  a 
bad  king ;  his  great  exploits,  his  military  skill,  his 
splendour  and  extravagance,  his  poetical  tastes, 
his  adventurous  spirit,  do  not  serve  to  cloak  his 
entire  want  of  sympathy,  or  even  consideration 
for  his  people.  He  was  no  Englishman.  .  .  . 
His  ambition  was  that  of  a  mere  warrior." — 
W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  sect.  150  (v.  1). 

Also  en:  K.  Norgate,  England  under  the  An- 
gerin  Kings,  v.  2,  ch.  7-8. 

A.  D.  1 199. — Accession  of  King  John. 

A.  D.  1205. — The  loss  of  Normandy  and  its 
effects. —  In  1303  Philip  Augustus,  king  of 
France,  summoned  John  of  England,  as  Duke  of 
Normandy  (therefore  the  feudal  vassal  of  the 
French  crown)  to  appear  for  trial  on  certain  grave 
charges  before  the  august  court  of  the  Peers  of 
France.  John  refused  to  obey  the  summons ;  his 
French  fiefs  were  declared  forfeited,  and  the 
armies  of  the  French  king  took  possession  of  them 
(see  France:  A.  D.  1180-1224).  This  proved 
to  be  a  lasting  separation  of  Normandy  from 
England,  —  except  as  it  was  recovered  moment- 
arily long  afterwards  in  the  conquests  of  Henry 
V.  "The  Norman  barons  had  had  no  choice 
but  between  John  and  Philip.  For  the  first 
time  since  the  Conquest  there  was  no  competitor, 
son,  brother,  or  more  distant  kinsman,  for  their 
allegiance.  John  could  neither  rule  nor  defend 
them.  Bishops  and  barons  alike  welcomed  or 
speedily  accepted  their  new  lord.  The  families 
that  had  estates  on  both  sides  of  the  Channel 
divided  into  two  branches,  each  of  which  made 
terms  for  itself;  or  having  balanced  their  inter- 
ests in  the  two  kingdoms,  threw  in  their  lot  with 
one  or  other,  and  renounced  what  they  could  not 
save.  Almost  immediately  Normandy  settles 
down  into  a  quiet  province  of  France.  .  .  .  For 
England  the  result  of  the  separation  was  more 
important  still.  Even  within  the  reign  of  John 
it  became  clear  that  the  release  of  the  barons 
from  their  connexion  with  the  continent  was  all 
that  was  wanted  to  make  them  Englishmen. 
With  the  last  vestiges  of  the  Norman  inherit- 
ances vanished  the  last  idea  of  making  England  a 
feudal  kingdom.  The  Great  Charter  was  won 
by  men  ^vho  were  maintaining,  not  the  cause  of 
a  class,  as  had  been  the  case  in  every  civil  war 
since  1070,  but  the  cause  of  a  nation.  From  the 
year  1203  the  king  stood  before  the  English 
people  face  to  face." — W.  Stubbs,  Constitutional 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  12,  sect.  152.— See  France: 
A.  D.  1180-1334. 

A.  D.  1205-1213. — King  John's  quarrel  with 
the  Pope  and  the  Church. — On  the  death,  in 
1205,  of  Archbishop  Hubert,  of  Canterbury,  who 
had  long  been  chief  minister  of  the  crown,  a 
complicated  quarrel  over  the  appointment  to  the 
vacant  see  arose  between  the  monks  of  the  cathe- 
dral, the  suffragan  bishops  of  the  province.  King 
John,  and  the  powerful  Pope  Innocent  III.  Pt>pe 
Innocent  put  forward  as  his  candidate  the  after- 
wards famous  Stephen  Langton,  secured  his 
election  in  a  somewhat  irregular  way  (A.  D. 
1207),  and  consecrated  him  with  his  own  hands. 
King  John,  bent  on  filling  the  primacy  with  a 
creature  of  his  own,  resisted  the  papal  acticjn 
with  more  fury  than  discretion,  and  proceeded 
to  open  war  with  the   whole  Church.     "The 


828 


ENGLAND,  1305-1213. 


King  John 
and  Magna  Carta. 


ENGLAND.  1315. 


monks  of  Canterbury  were  driven  from  their 
monastery,  and  wfien,  in  the  following  year,  an 
interdict  which  the  Pope  had  intrusted  to  the 
Bishops  of  London,  Ely  and  Worcester,  was 
published,  his  hostility  to  the  Church  became  so 
extreme  that  almost  all  the  bishops  fled ;  the 
Bishops  of  Winchester,  Durham,  and  Norwich, 
two  of  whom  belonged  to  the  ministerial  body, 
being  the  only  prelates  left  in  England.  The  in- 
terdict was  of  the  severest  form;  all  services 
of  the  Church,  with  the  exception  of  baptism 
and  extreme  unction,  being  forbidden,  while  the 
burial  of  the  dead  was  allowed  only  in  unconse- 
crated  ground ;  its  effect  was  however  weakened 
by  the  conduct  of  some  of  the  monastic  orders, 
who  claimed  exemption  from  its  operation,  and 
continued  their  services.  The  king's  anger  knew 
no  bounds.  The  clergy  were  put  beyond  the 
protection  of  the  law ;  orders  were  issued  to  drive 
them  from  their  benefices,  and  lawless  acts  com- 
mitted at  their  expense  met  with  no  punishment. 
.  .  .  Though  acting  thus  violently,  John  showed 
the  weakness  of  his  character  by  continued  com- 
munication with  the  Pope,  and  occasional  fitful 
acts  of  favour  to  the  Church ;  so  much  so,  that, 
in  the  following  year,  Langton  prepared  to  come 
over  to  England,  and,  upon  the  continued  ob- 
stinacy of  the  king.  Innocent,  feeling  sure  of  his 
final  victory,  did  not  shrink  from  issuing  his 
threatened  excommunication.  John  had  hoped 
to  be  able  to  exclude  the  knowledge  of  this  step 
from  the  island  .  .  .  ;  but  the  rumour  of  it  soon 
got  abroad,  and  its  effect  was  great.  ...  In  a 
state  of  nervous  excitement,  and  mistrusting  his 
nobles,  the  king  himself  perpetually  moved  to 
and  fro  in  his  kingdom,  seldom  staying  more  than 
a  few  da3'S  in  one  place.  None  the  less  did  he 
continue  his  old  line  of  policy.  ...  In  1211  a 
league  of  excommunicated  leaders  was  formed, 
including  ail  the  princes  of  the  North  of  Europe ; 
Ferrand  of  Flanders,  the  Duke  of  Brabant,  John, 
and  Otho  [John's  Guelphic  Saxon  nephew,  who 
was  one  of  two  contestants  for  the  imperial 
crown  in  Germany],  were  all  members  of  it, 
and  it  was  chiefly  organized  by  the  activity  of 
Reinald  of  Dammartin,  Count  of  Boulogne.  The 
chief  enemy  of  these  confederates  was  Philip  of 
Prance ;  and  John  thought  he  saw  in  this  league 
the  means  of  revenge  against  his  old  enemy.  To 
complete  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  two 
parties.  Innocent,  who  was  greatly  moved  by  the 
description  of  the  disorders  and  persecutions  in 
England,  declared  John's  crown  forfeited,  and 
Intrusted  the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence  to 
Philip.  In  1213  armies  were  collected  on  both 
sides.  Philip  was  already  on  the  Channel,  and 
John  had  assembled  a  large  army  on  Barham- 
down,  not  far  from  Canterbury."  But,  at  the 
last  moment,  when  the  French  king  was  on  the 
eve  of  embarking  his  forces  for  the  invasion  of 
England,  John  submitted  himself  abjectly  to 
Pandulf,  the  legate  of  the  Pope.  He  not  only 
surrendered  to  all  that  he  had  contended  against, 
but  went  further,  to  the  most  shameful  extreme. 
"On  the  loth  of  May,  at  Dover,  he  formally  re- 
signed the  crowns  of  England  and  Ireland  into  the 
hands  of  Pandulf,  and  received  them  again  as 
the  Pope's  feudatory." — J.  P.  Bright,  Hist,  of 
Em/.  (Med.),  v.  1,  pp.  130-134. 

Also  m:  C.  H.  Pearson,  Hint,  of  Stiff,  during 
the  Early  and  Middle  Ages,  v.  2,  ch.  2.— E.  F. 
Henderson,  Select  Hist.  Doc's  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
bk.  4,  no.  5. — See,  also,  BoDvufBS,  Battle  of. 


A.  D.  1206-1230. — Attempts  of  John  and 
Henry  III.  to  recover  Anjou  and  Maine.     See 

Anjou:  A.  D.  1206-1443. 

A.  D.  1215. —  Magna  Carta.  —  "It  is  to  the 
victory  of  Bouvines  that  England  owes  her  Great 
Charter  [see  Bouvines].  .  .  .  John  sailed  for 
Poitou  with  the  dream  of  a  great  victory  which 
should  lay  Philip  [of  France]  and  the  barons 
alike  at  his  feet.  He  returned  from  his  defeat  to 
find  the  nobles  no  longer  banded  together  in 
secret  conspiracies,  but  openly  united  in  a  defin- 
ite claim  of  liberty  and  law.  The  author  of  this 
great  change  was  the  new  Archbishop  [Lang- 
ton]  whom  Innocent  had  set  on  the  throne  of 
Canterbury.  ...  In  a  private  meeting  of  the 
barons  at  St.  Paul's,  he  produced  the  Charter  of 
Henry  I. ,  and  the  enthusiasm  with  which  it  was 
welcomed  showed  the  sagacity  with  which  the 
Primate  had  chosen  his  ground  for  the  coming 
struggle.  All  hope,  however,  liung  on  the  for- 
tunes of  the  French  campaign ;  it  was  the  victory 
at  Bouvines  that  broke  the  spell  of  terror,  and 
within  a  few  days  of  the  king's  landing  the  bar- 
ons again  met  at  St.  Edmundsbury.  ...  At 
Christmas  they  presented  themselves  in  arms  be- 
fore the  king  and  preferred  their  claim.  The  few 
months  that  followed  showed  John  that  he  stood 
alone  in  the  land.  ...  At  Easter  the  barons 
again  gathered  in  arms  at  Brackley  and  renewed 
their  claim.  '  Why  do  they  not  ask  for  my 
kingdom?  '  cried  John  in  a  burst  of  passion ;  but 
the  whole  country  rose  as  one  man  at  his  refusal. 
London  threw  open  her  gates  to  the  army  of  the 
barons,  now  organized  under  Robert  Fitz-Walter, 
'  the  marshal  of  the  army  of  God  and  the  holy 
Church.'  The  example  of  the  capital  was  at 
once  followed  by  Exeter  and  Lincoln ;  promises 
of  aid  came  from  Scotland  and  Wales ;  the  north- 
ern nobles  marched  hastily  to  join  their  comrades 
in  London.  With  seven  horsemen  in  his  train 
John  found  himself  face  to  face  with  a  nation  in 
arms.  .  .  .  Nursing  wrath  in  his  heart  the  tyrant 
bowed  to  necessity,  and  summoned  the  barons  to 
a  conference  at  Runnymede.  An  island  in  the 
Thames  between  Staines  and  Windsor  had  been 
chosen  as  the  place  of  conference :  the  king  en- 
camped on  one  bank,  while  the  barons  covered  the 
marshy  flat,  still  known  by  the  name  of  Runny- 
mede, on  the  other.  Their  delegates  met  in 
the  island  between  them.  .  .  .  The  Great  Charter 
was  discussed,  agreed  to,  and  signed  in  a  single 
day  [June  15,  A.  D.  1215].  One  copy  of  it  still 
remains  in  the  British  Museum,  injured  by  age 
and  fire,  but  with  the  royal  seal  still  hanging 
from  the  brown,  shriveled  parchment." — J.  R. 
Green,  Short  Hist,  of  the  English  Peojjle,  ch.  3, 
sect.  3-3. — "As  this  was  the  first  effort  towards  a 
legal  government,  so  is  it  beyond  comparison  the 
most  important  event  in  our  history,  except  that 
Revolution  without  which  its  benefits  would  have 
been  rapidly  annihilated.  The  constitution  of 
England  has  indeed  no  single  date  from  which 
its  duration  is  to  be  reckoned.  The  institutions 
of  positive  law,  the  far  more  important  changes 
which  time  has  wrought  in  the  order  of  society, 
during  six  hundred  years  subsequent  to  the 
Great  Charter,  have  undoubtedly  lessened  its 
direct  application  to  our  present  circumstances. 
But  it  is  still  the  key-stone  of  English  liberty. 
All  that  has  since  been  obtained  is  little  more 
than  as  confirmation  or  commentary.  .  .  The  es- 
sential clauses  of  Magna  Charta  are  those  which 
protect  the  personal  "liberty  and  property  of  all 


829 


ENGLAND,  1215. 


Magna  Carta. 


ENGLAND,  1215. 


freemen,  by  giving  security  from  arbitrary  im- 
prisonment and  arbitrary  spoliation.  '  No  free- 
man (says  tlie  29th  chapter  of  Henry  IIL's 
charter,  which,  as  the  existing  law,  I  quote  in 
preference  to  tliat  of  John,  the  variations  not  be- 
ing very  material)  shall  be  taken  or  imprisoned, 
or  be  disseised  of  his  freehold,  or  liberties,  or  free 
customs,  or  be  outlawed,  or  e.xiled,  or  any  other- 
wise destroyed ;  nor  will  we  pass  upon  him,  nor 
send  upon,  but  by  lawful  judgment  of  his  peers, 
or  by  the  law  of  the  land.  We  will  sell  to  no 
man,  we  will  not  deny  or  delay  to  any  man,  jus- 
tice or  right.'  It  is  obvious  that  these  words, 
interpreted  by  any  honest  court  of  law,  convey 
an  ample  security  for  the  two  main  rights  of  civil 
society. " — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages,  ch.  8,  pt. 
3. — "  The  Great  Charter,  although  drawn  up  in 
the  form  of  a  royal  grant,  was  really  a  treaty  be- 
tween the  king  and  his  subjects.  ...  It  is  the 
collective  people  who  really  form  the  other  high 
contracting  party  in  the  great  capitulation, —  the 
three  estates  of  the  realm,  not,  it  is  true,  arranged 
in  order  according  to  their  profession  or  rank, 
but  not  the  less  certainly  combined  in  one  national 
purpose,  and  securing  by  one  bond  the  interests 
and  rights  of  each  other,  severally  and  all  to- 
gether. .  .  .  The  barons  maintain  and  secure 
the  right  of  the  whole  people  as  against  them- 
selves as  well  as  against  their  master.  Clause  by 
clause  the  rights  of  the  commons  are  provided 
for  as  well  as  the  rights  of  the  nobles.  .  .  .  The 
knight  is  protected  against  the  compulsory  exac- 
tion of  his  services,  and  the  horse  and  cart  of  the 
freeman  against  the  irregular  requisition  even  of 
the  sheriff.  .  .  .  The  Great  Charter  is  the  first 
great  public  act  of  the  nation,  after  it  has  realised 
its  own  identity.  .  .  .  The  whole  of  the  consti- 
tutional history  of  England  is  little  more  than  a 
commentary  on  Magna  Carta.  "  —  W.  Stubbs, 
Constitutiomil  Hist.  ofEng.,  ch.  12,  sett.  155. — The 
following  is  the  text  of  Magna  Carta:  "John, 
by  the  Grace  of  God,  King  of  England,  Lord  of 
Ireland,  Duke  of  Normandy,  Aquitaine,  and 
Count  of  Anjou,  to  his  Archbishops,  Bishops, 
Abbots,  Earls,  Barons,  Justiciaries,  Foresters, 
Sheriffs,  Governors,  Officers,  and  to  all  Bailiffs, 
and  his  faithful  subjects,  greeting.  Know  ye, 
that  we,  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  for  the  sal- 
vation of  our  soul,  and  the  souls  of  all  our  an- 
cestors and  heirs,  and  unto  the  honour  of  God 
and  the  advancement  of  Holy  Church,  and 
amendment  of  our  Realm,  by  advice  of  our  ven- 
erable Fathers,  Stephen,  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, Primate  of  all  England  and  Cardinal  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Church ;  Henry,  Archbishop  of 
Dublin ;  William,  of  London ;  Peter,  of  Winches- 
ter ;  Jocelin,  of  Bath  and  Glastonbury ;  Hugh,  of 
Lincoln;  Walter,  of  Worcester ;  William,  of  Cov- 
entry; Benedict,  of  Rochester — Bishops:  of  Mas- 
ter Paudulph,  Sub-Deacon  and  Familiar  of  our 
Lord  the  Pope ;  Brother  Aymeric,  Master  of  the 
Knights-Templars  in  England ;  and  of  the  noble 
Persons,  William  Marescall,  Earl  of  Pembroke; 
William,  Earl  of  Salisbury;  William,  Earl  of 
Warren;  William,  Earl  of  Arundel;  Alan  de 
Galloway,  Constaljle  of  Scotland;  Warin  Fitz- 
Gterald,  Peter  FitzHerbert,  and  Hubert  de  Burgh, 
Seneschal  of  Poitou ;  Hugh  de  Neville,  Matthew 
FitzHerbert,  Thomas  Basset,  Alan  Basset,  Philip 
of  Albiney,  Robert  de  Roppell,  John  JIareschal, 
John  FitzHugh,  and  others,  our  liegemen,  have, 
in  the  first  place,  granted  to  God,  and  by  this  our 
present  Charter  confirmed,  for  us  and  our  heirs 


forever: — i.  That  the  Church  of  England  shall 
be  free,  and  have  her  whole  rights,  and  her  liber- 
ties inviolable ;  and  we  will  have  them  so  ob- 
served, that  it  may  appear  thence  that  the  free- 
dom of  elections,  which  is  reckoned  chief  and 
indispensable  to  the  English  Church,  and  which 
we  granted  and  confirmed  by  our  Charter,  and 
obtained  the  confirmation  of  the  same  from  our 
Lord  the  Pojje  Innocent  III.,  before  the  discord 
between  us  and  our  barons,  was  granted  of  mere 
free  will;  which  Charter  we  shall  observe,  and 
we  do  will  it  to  be  faithfully  observed  by  our 
heirs  for  ever.  2.  We  also  have  granted  to  all 
the  freemen  of  our  kingdom,  for  us  and  for  our 
heirs  for  ever,  all  the  underwritten  liberties,  to 
be  had  and  holden  by  them  and  their  heirs,  of  us 
and  our  heirs  for  ever:  If  any  of  our  earls,  or 
barons,  or  others,  who  hold  of  us  in  chief  by 
military  service,  shall  die,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
death  his  heir  shall  be  of  full  age,  and  owe  a  re- 
lief, he  shall  have  his  inheritance  by  the  ancient 
relief  —  that  is  to  say,  the  heir  or  heirs  of  an  earl, 
for  a  whole  earldom,  by  a  hundred  pounds ;  the 
heir  or  heirs  of  a  baron,  for  a  whole  barony,  by 
a  hundred  pounds ;  the  heir  or  heirs  of  a  knight, 
for  a  whole  knight's  fee,  by  a  hundred  shillings 
at  most;  and  whoever  oweth  less  shall  give  less, 
according  to  the  ancient  custom  of  fees,  3.  But 
if  the  heir  of  anj'  such  shall  be  under  age,  and 
shall  be  in  ward,  when  he  comes  of  age  he  shall 
have  his  inheritance  without  relief  and  without 
fine.  4.  The  keeper  of  the  land  of  such  an  heir 
being  under  age,  shall  take  of  the  land  of  the 
heir  none  but  reasonable  issues,  reasonable  cus- 
toms, and  reasonable  services,  and  that  without 
destruction  and  waste  of  his  men  and  his  goods ; 
and  if  we  commit  the  custody  of  any  such  lands 
to  the  sheriff,  or  any  other  who  is  answerable  to 
us  for  the  issues  of  the  land,  and  he  shall  make 
destruction  and  waste  of  the  lauds  which  he  hath 
in  custody,  we  will  take  of  him  amends,  and  the 
land  shall  be  committed  to  two  lawful  and  dis- 
creet men  of  that  fee,  who  shall  answer  for  the 
issues  to  us,  or  to  him  to  whom  we  shall  assign 
them;  and  if  we  sell  or  give  to  any  one  the  cus- 
tody of  any  such  lands,  and  he  therein  make  de- 
struction or  waste,  he  shall  lose  the  same  custody, 
which  shall  be  committed  to  two  lawful  and  dis- 
creet men  of  that  fee,  who  shall  in  like  manner 
answer  to  us  as  aforesaid.  5.  But  the  keeper,  so 
long  as  he  shall  have  the  custody  of  the  land, 
shall  keep  up  the  houses,  parks,  warrens,  ponds, 
mills,  and  other  things  pertaining  to  the  land,  out 
of  the  issues  of  the  same  land ;  and  shall  deliver 
to  the  heir,  when  he  comes  of  full  age,  his  whole 
land,  stocked  with  ploughs  and  carriages,  accord- 
ing as  the  time  of  wainage  shall  require,  and  the 
issues  of  the  land  can  reasonably  bear.  6.  Heirs 
shall  be  married  without  disparagement,  and  so 
that  before  matrimony  shall  be  contracted,  those 
who  are  near  in  blood  to  the  heir  shall  have  notice. 
7.  A  widow,  after  the  death  of  her  husband, 
shall  forthwith  and  without  difficulty  have  her  / 
marriage  and  inheritance ;  nor  shall  she  give  any- 
thing for  her  dower,  or  her  marriage,  or  her  in- 
heritance, which  her  husband  and  she  held  at  the 
day  of  his  death;  and  she  may  remain  in  the 
mansion  house  of  her  husband  forty  days  after 
his  death,  within  which  time  her  dower  shall  be 
assigned.  8.  No  widow  shall  be  distrained  to 
marry  herself,  so  long  as  she  has  a  mind  to  live 
without  a  husband;  but  yet  she  shall  give  se- 
curity that  she  will  not  marry  without  our  assent. 


830 


ENGLAND,  1215. 


Magna  Carta. 


ENGLAND,  1215. 


if  she  hold  of  us ;  or  ■without  the  consent  of  the 
lord  of  whom  she  holds,  if  she  hold  of  another, 
9.  Neither  we  nor  our  bailiffs  shall  seize  any  land 
or  rent  for  any  debt  so  long  as  the  chattels  "of  the 
debtor  are  sufficient  to  pay  the  debt ;  nor  shall 
the  sureties  of  the  debtor  be  distrained  so  long 
as  the  principal  debtor  has  sufficient  to  pay  the 
debt ;  and  if  the  principal  debtor  shall  fail  in  the 
payment  of  the  debt,  not  having  wherewithal  to 
pay  it,  then  the  sureties  shall  answer  the  debt ; 
and  if  they  will  they  shall  have  the  lands  and 
rents  of  the  debtor,  until  they  shall  be  satisfied 
for  the  debt  which  they  paid  for  him,  unless  the 
principal  debtor  can  show  himself  acquitted 
thereof  against  the  said  sureties.  10.  If  anyone 
have  borrowed  anything  of  the  Jews,  more  or 
less,  and  die  before  the  debt  be  satisfied,  there 
shall  be  no  interest  paid  for  that  debt,  so  long  as 
the  heir  is  under  age,  of  whomsoever  he  may 
hold ;  and  if  the  debt  falls  into  our  hands,  we  will 
only  take  the  chattel  mentioned  in  the  deed.  11. 
And  if  any  one  shall  die  indebted  to  the  Jews,  bis 
wife  shall  have  her  dower  and  pay  nothing  of 
that  debt ;  and  if  the  deceased  left  children  under 
age,  they  shall  have  necessaries  provided  for 
them,  according  to  the  tenement  of  the  deceased ; 
and  out  of  the  residue  the  debt  shall  be  paid, 
saving,  however,  the  service  due  to  the  lords,  and 
In  like  manner  shall  it  be  done  touching  debts 
due  to  others  than  the  Jews.  12.  No  scutage  or 
aid  shall  be  imposed  in  our  kingdom,  unless  by 
the  general  council  of  our  kingdom ;  except  for 
ransoming  our  person,  making  our  eldest  son  a 
knight,  and  once  for  marrying  our  eldest  daugh- 
ter; and  for  these  there  shall  be  paid  no  more 
than  a  reasonable  aid.  In  like  manner  it  shall  be 
concerning  the  aids  of  the  City  of  London.  13. 
And  the  City  of  London  shall  have  all  its  ancient 
liberties  and  free  customs,  as  well  by  land  as  by 
water:  furthermore,  we  will  and  grant  that  all 
other  cities  and  boroughs,  and  towns  and  ports, 
shall  have  all  their  liberties  and  free  customs.  14. 
And  for  holding  the  general  council  of  the  king- 
dom concerning  the  assessment  of  aids,  except  in 
the  three  cases  aforesaid,  and  for  the  assessing  of 
scutages,  we  shall  cause  to  be  summoned  the 
archbishops,  bishops,  abbots,  earls,  and  greater 
barons  of  the  realm,  singly  by  our  letters.  And 
furthermore,  we  shall  cause  to  be  summoned 
generally,  by  our  sheriffs  and  bailiffs,  all  others 
who  hold  of  us  in  chief,  for  a  certain  day,  that  is 
to  say,  forty  days  before  their  meeting  at  least, 
and  to  a  certain  place ;  and  in  all  letters  of  such 
summons  we  will  declare  the  cause  of  such  sum- 
mons. And  summons  being  thus  made,  the  busi- 
ness shall  proceed  on  the  day  appointed,  accord- 
ing to  the  advice  of  such  as  shall  be  present, 
although  all  that  were  summoned  come  not.  15. 
We  will  not  for  the  future  grant  to  any  one  that 
he  may  take  aid  of  his  own  free  tenants,  unless 
to  ransom  his  body,  and  to  make  his  eldest  son  a 
knight,  and  once  to  marry  his  eldest  daughter; 
and  for  this  there  shall  be  only  paid  a  reasonable 
aid.  16.  No  man  shall  be  distrained  to  perforin 
more  service  for  a  knight's  fee,  or  other  free  tene- 
ment, than  is  due  from  thence.  17.  Common 
pleas  shall  not  follow  our  court,  but  shall  be 
holden  in  some  place  certain.  18.  Trials  upon 
the  Writs  of  Novel  Disseisin,  and  of  j\Iort  d'an- 
cestor,  and  of  Darrein  Presentment,  shall  not  be 
taken  but  in  their  proper  counties,  and  after  this 
manner :  We,  or  if  we  should  be  out  of  the  realm, 
our  chief  justiciary,  will  send  two   justiciaries 


through  every  county  four  times  a  year,  who, 
with  four  knights  of  each  county,  chosen  by  the 
county,  shall  hold  the  said  assizes  in  the  county 
on  the  day,  and  at  the  place  appointed.  19. 
And  if  any  matters  cannot  be  determined  on  the 
day  appointed  for  holding  the  assizes  in  each 
county,  so  many  of  the  knights  and  freeholders 
as  have  been  at  the  assizes  aforesaid  shall  stay  to 
decide  them  as  is  necessary,  according  as  there  is 
more  or  less  business.  26.  A  freeman  shall  not 
be  amerced  for  a  small  offence,  but  only  accord- 
ing to  the  degree  of  the  offence ;  and  for  a  great 
crime  according  to  the  heinousness  of  it,  saving 
to  him  his  contenement ;  and  after  the  same  man- 
ner a  merchant,  saving  to  him  his  merchandise. 
And  a  villein  shall  be  amerced  after  the  same 
manner,  saving  to  him  his  wainage,  if  he  falls 
under  our  mere}-;  and  none  of  the  aforesaid 
amerciaments  shall  be  assessed  but  by  the  oath  of 
honest  men  in  the  neighbourhood.  21.  Earls  and 
barons  shall  not  be  amerced  but  by  their  peers, 
and  after  the  degree  of  the  offence.  22.  No 
ecclesiastical  person  shall  be  amerced  for  his  lay 
tenement,  but  according  to  the  proportion  of  the 
others  aforesaid,  and  not  according  to  the  value 
of  his  ecclesiastical  benefice.  23.  Neither  a  town 
nor  any  tenant  shall  be  distrained  to  make  bridges 
or  embankments,  unless  that  anciently  and  of 
right  they  are  bound  to  do  it.  24.  No  sheriff, 
constable,  coroner,  or  other  our  bailiffs,  shall  hold 
"Pleas  of  the  Crown."  25.  All  counties,  hun- 
dreds, wapentakes,  and  trethings,  shall  stand  at 
the  old  rents,  without  any  increase,  except  in  our 
demesne  manors.  26.  If  any  one  holding  of  us 
a  lay  fee  die,  and  the  sheriff,  or  our  bailiffs,  show 
our  letters  patent  of  summons  for  debt  which  the 
dead  man  did  owe  to  us,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the 
sheriff  or  our  bailiff  to  attach  and  register  the 
chattels  of  the  dead,  found  upon  his  lay  fee,  to 
the  amount  of  the  debt,  by  the  view  of  lawful 
men,  so  as  nothing  be  removed  until  our  whole 
clear  debt  be  paid ;  and  the  rest  shall  be  left  to 
the  executors  to  fulfil  the  testament  of  the  dead ; 
and  if  there  be  nothing  due  from  him  to  us,  all 
the  chattels  shall  go  to  the  use  of  the  dead,  sav- 
ing to  his  wife  and  children  their  reasonable 
shares.  27.  If  any  freeman  shall  die  intestate, 
his  chattels  shall  be  distributed  by  the  hands  of 
his  nearest  relations  and  friends,  by  view  of  the 
Church,  saving  to  every  one  his  debts  which  the 
deceased  owed  to  him.  28.  No  constable  or 
bailiff  of  ours  shall  take  corn  or  other  chattels  of 
any  man  unless  he  presently  give  him  money  for 
it,  or  hath  respite  of  payment  by  the  good-will 
of  the  seller.  29.  No  constable  shall  distrain  any 
knight  to  give  money  for  castle-guard,  if  he  him- 
self will  do  it  in  his  person,  or  by  another  able 
man,  in  case  he  cannot  do  it  through  any  reason- 
able cause.  And  if  we  have  carried  or  sent  him 
into  the  army,  he  shall  be  free  from  such  guard 
for  the  time  he  shall  be  in  the  army  by  our  com- 
mand. 30.  No  sheriff  or  bailiff  of  ours,  or  any 
other,  shall  take  horses  or  carts  of  any  freeman 
for  carriage,  without  the  assent  of  the  said  free- 
man. 31.  Neither  shall  we  nor  our  bailiffs  take 
any  man's  timber  for  our  castles  or  other  uses, 
unless  by  the  consent  of  the  owner  of  the  timber. 
32.  We  will  retain  the  lands  of  those  convicted 
of  felony  only  one  year  and  a  day,  and  then  they 
shall  be  delivered  to  the  lord  of  the  fee.  33.  All 
kydells  (wears)  for  the  time  to  come  shall  be  put 
down  in  the  rivers  of  Thames  and  Medway,  and 
throughout   all  England,  except  upon  the  sea- 


831 


ENGLAND,  1315. 


Magna  Carta. 


ENGLAND,  1315. 


coast.  34.  The  writ  which  is  called  prmcipe,  for 
the  future,  shall  not  be  miuie  out  to  any  one,  of 
any  tenement,  whereby  a  freeman  may  lose  his 
court.  35-  There  shall  be  one  measure  of  wine 
and  one  of  ale  through  our  whole  realm;  and 
one  measure  of  corn,  that  is  to  say,  the  London 
quarter ;  and  one  breadth  of  dyed  cloth,  and  rus- 
sets, and  haberjeets,  that  is  to  say,  two  ells  within 
the  lists ;  and  it  shall  be  of  weights  as  it  is  of 
measures.  36.  Nothing  from  henceforth  shall  be 
given  or  taken  for  a  writ  of  inquisition  of  life  or 
limb,  but  it  shall  be  granted  freely,  and  not  de- 
nied. 37.  If  any  do  hold  of  us  by  fee-farm,  or 
by  socage,  or  bj'  burgage,  and  he  hold  also  lands 
of  any  other  by  knight's  service,  we  will  not 
have  the  custody  of  the  heir  or  land,  which  is 
holden  of  another  man's  fee  by  reason  of  that 
fee-farm,  socage,  or  burgage ;  neither  will  we 
have  the  custody  of  the  fee-farm,  or  socage,  or 
burgage,  unless  knight's  service  was  due  to  us 
out  of  the  same  fee-farm.  We  will  not  have  the 
custody  of  an  heir,  nor  of  any  land  which  he 
holds  of  another  by  knight's  service,  by  reason 
of  any  petty  serjeanty  by  which  he  holds  of  us, 
by  the  service  of  paying  a  Itnife,  an  arrow,  or  the 
like.  38.  No  bailiff  from  henceforth  shall  put 
any  man  to  his  law  upon  his  own  bare  saying, 
without  credible  witnesses  to  prove  it.  39.  No 
freeman  shall  be  taken  or  imprisoned,  or  disseised, 
or  outlawed,  or  banished,  or  any  ways  destroyed, 
nor  will  we  pass  upon  him,  nor  will  we  send 
upon  him,  unless  by  the  lawful  judgment  of  his 
peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land.  40.  We  will 
sell  to  no  man,  we  will  not  deny  to  any  man, 
either  justice  or  right.  41.  All  merchants  shall 
have  safe  and  secure  conduct,  to  go  out  of,  and 
to  come  into  England,  and  to  stay  there  and  to 
pass  as  well  by  land  as  by  water,  for  buying  and 
selling  by  the  ancient  and  allowed  customs,  with- 
out any  unjust  tolls;  except  in  time  of  war,  or 
when  they  are  of  any  nation  at  war  with  us. 
And  if  there  be  found  any  such  in  our  land,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  war,  they  shall  be  attached, 
without  damage  to  their  bodies  or  goods,  until  it 
be  known  unto  us,  or  our  chief  justiciary,  how 
our  merchants  be  treated  in  the  nation  at  war 
with  us;  and  if  ours  be  safe  there,  the  others 
shall  be  safe  in  our  dominions.  42.  It  shall  be 
larwful,  for  the  time  to  come,  for  any  one  to  go 
out  of  our  kingdom,  and  return  safely  and  se- 
curely by  land  or  by  water,  saving  his  allegiance 
to  us ;  unless  in  time  of  war,  by  some  short  space, 
for  the  common  benefit  of  the  realm,  except 
prisoners  and  outlaws,  according  to  the  law  of 
the  land,  and  people  in  war  with  us,  and  mer- 
chants who  shall  be  treated  as  is  above  mentioned. 
43.  If  any  man  hold  of  any  escheat,  as  of  the 
honour  of  Wallingford,  Nottingham,  Boulogne, 
Lancaster,  or  of  other  escheats  which  be  in  our 
hands,  and  are  baronies,  and  die,  his  heir  shall 
give  no  other  relief,  and  perform  no  other  service 
to  us  than  he  would  to  the  baron,  if  it  were  in 
the  baron's  hand;  and  we  will  hold  it  after  the 
same  manner  as  the  baron  held  it.  44.  Those 
men  who  dwell  without  the  forest  from  hence- 
forth shall  not  come  before  our  justiciaries  of 
the  forest,  upon  common  summons,  but  such  as 
are  impleaded,  or  are  sureties  for  any  that  are  at- 
tached for  something  concerning  the  forest.  45. 
We  will  not  make  any  justices,  constables,  sher- 
iffs, or  bailiffs,  but  of  such  as  Imow  the  law  of 
the  realm  and  mean  duly  to  observe  it.  46.  All 
barons  who  have  founded  abbeys,  which  they 


hold  by  charter  from  the  kings  of  England,  or  by 
ancient  tenure,  shall  have  the  keeping  of  them, 
when  vacant,  as  they  ought  to  have.  47.  All 
forests  that  have  been  made  forests  in  our  time 
shall  forthwith  be  disforested ;  and  the  same  shall 
be  done  with  the  water-banks  that  have  been 
fenced  in  by  us  in  our  time.  48.  All  evil  cus- 
toms concerning  forests,  warrens,  foresters,  and 
warreners,  sheriffs  and  their  officers,  water-banks 
and  their  keepers,  shall  forthwith  be  inquired 
into  in  each  county,  by  twelve  sworn  knights  of 
the  same  county,  chosen  by  creditable  persons  of 
the  same  county ;  and  within  forty  days  after  the 
said  inquest  be  utterly  abolished,  so  as  never  to  be 
restored :  so  as  we  are  first  acquainted  therewith, 
or  our  justiciary,  if  we  should  not  be  in  England. 
49.  We  will  immediately  give  up  all  hostages 
and  charters  delivered  unto  us  by  our  English 
subjects,  as  securities  for  their  keeping  the  peace, 
and  yielding  us  faithful  service.  50.  We  will 
entirely  remove  from  their  bailiwicks  the  rela- 
tions of  Gerard  de  Atheyes,  so  that  for  the  future 
they  shall  have  no  bailiwick  in  England ;  we  will 
also  remove  Engelard  de  Cygony,  Andrew,  Peter, 
and  Gyon,  from  the  Chancery ;  Gyon  de  Cygony, 
Geoffrey  de  Martyn,  and  his  brothers;  Philip 
Mark,  and  his  brothers,  and  his  nephew,  Geoffrey, 
and  their  whole  retinue.  51.  As  soon  as  peace  is 
restored,  we  will  send  out  of  the  kingdom  all 
foreign  knights,  cross-bowmen,  and  stipendiaries, 
who  are  come  with  horses  and  arms  to  the  mol- 
estation of  our  people.  52.  If  any  one  has  been 
dispossessed  or  deprived  by  us,  without  the  law- 
ful judgment  of  his  peers,  of  his  lands,  castles, 
liberties,  or  right,  we  will  forthwith  restore  them 
to  him ;  and  if  any  dispute  arise  upon  this  head, 
let  the  matter  be  decided  by  the  five-and-twenty 
barons  hereafter  mentioned,  for  the  preservation 
of  the  peace.  And  for  all  those  things  of  which 
any  person  has,  without  the  lawful  judgment  of 
his  peers,  been  dispossessed  or  deprived,  either  by 
our  father  King  Henry,  or  our  brother  King 
Richard,  and  which  we  have  in  our  hands,  or  are 
possessed  by  others,  and  we  are  bound  to  warrant 
and  make  good,  we  shall  have  a  respite  till  the 
term  usually  allowed  the  crusaders;  excepting 
those  things  about  which  there  is  a  plea  depend- 
ing, or  whereof  an  inquest  hath  been  made,  by  our 
order  before  we  undertook  the  crusade ;  but  as  soon 
as  we  return  from  our  expedition,  or  if  perchance 
we  tarry  at  home  and  do  not  make  our  expedi- 
tion, we  will  immediately  cause  full  justice  to  be 
administered  therein.  53.  The  same  respite  we 
shall  have,  and  in  the  same  manner,  about  ad- 
ministering justice,  disafforesting  or  letting  con- 
tinue the  forests,  which  Henry  our  father,  and 
our  brother  Richard,  have  afforested;  and  the 
same  concerning  the  wardship  of  the  lands  which 
are  in  another's  fee,  but  the  wardship  of  which 
we  have  hitherto  had,  by  reason  of  a  fee  held  of 
us  by  knight's  service ;  and  for  the  abbeys  founded 
in  any  other  fee  than  our  own,  in  which  the  lord 
of  the  fee  says  he  has  a  right ;  and  when  we  re- 
turn from  our  expedition,  or  if  we  tarry  at  home, 
and  do  not  make  our  expedition,  we  will  immedi- 
ately do  full  justice  to  all  the  complainants  in 
this  behalf.  54.  No  man  shall  be  taken  or  im- 
prisoned upon  the  appeal  of  a  woman,  for  the 
death  of  any  other  than  her  husband,  55.  All 
unjust  and  illegal  fines  made  by  us,  and  all  amer- 
ciaments imposed  unjustly  and  contrary  to  the 
law  of  the  land,  shall  be  entirely  given  up,  or 
else  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  five-and-twenty 


832 


ENGLAND,  1215. 


MagTia  Carta. 


ENGLAND,  1215. 


barons  hereafter  mentioned  for  the  preservation 
of  the  peace,  or  of  the  major  part  of  them,  to- 
gether with  the  aforesaid  Stephen,  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  if  he  can  be  present,  and  others 
whom  he  shall  think  fit  to  invite ;  and  if  he  can- 
not be  present,  the  business  shall  notwithstanding 
go  on  without  him ;  but  so  that  if  one  or  more 
of  the  aforesaid  five-and-twenty  barons  be  plain- 
tiffs in  the  same  cause,  they  shall  be  set  aside 
as  to  what  concerns  this  particular  affair,  and 
others  be  chosen  in  their  room,  out  of  the  said 
five-and-twenty,  and  sworn  by  the  rest  to  decide 
the  matter.  56.  If  we  have  disseised  or  dis- 
possessed the  Welsh  of  any  lands,  liberties,  or 
other  things,  without  the  legal  judgment  of  their 
peers,  either  in  England  or  in  Wales,  they  shall 
be  immediately  restored  to  them ;  and  if  any  dis- 
pute arise  upon  this  head,  the  matter  shall  be 
determined  in  the  Marches  by  the  judgment  of 
their  peers;  for  tenements  in  England  according 
to  the  law  of  England,  for  tenements  in  Wales 
according  to  the  law  of  Wales,  for  tenements  of 
the  Marches  according  to  the  law  of  the  Marches : 
the  same  shall  the  Welsh  do  to  us  and  our  sub- 
jects. 57.  As  for  all  those  things  of  which  a 
Welshman  hath,  without  the  lawful  judgment  of 
his  peers,  been  disseised  or  deprived  of  by  King 
Henry  our  father,  or  our  brother  King  Richard, 
and  wliich  we  either  have  in  our  hands  or  others 
are  possessed  of,  and  we  are  obliged  to  warrant 
it,  we  shall  have  a  respite  till  the  time  generally 
allowed  the  crusaders;  excepting  those  things 
about  which  a  suit  is  depending,  or  whereof  an 
inquest  has  been  made  by  our  order,  before  we 
undertook  the  crusade :  but  when  we  return,  or 
if  we  stay  at  home  without  performing  our  ex- 
pedition, we  will  immediately  do  them  full  jus- 
tice, according  to  the  laws  of  the  Welsh  and  of 
the  parts  before  mentioned.  58.  We  will  with- 
out delay  dismiss  the  son  of  Llewellin,  and  all 
the  Welsh  hostages,  and  release  them  from  the 
engagements  they  have  entered  into  with  us  for 
the  preservation  of  the  peace.  59.  We  will  treat 
■with  AJe.xander,  King  of  Scots,  concerning  the 
restoring  his  sisters  and  hostages,  and  his  right 
and  liberties,  in  the  same  form  and  manner  as  we 
shall  do  to  the  rest  of  our  barons  of  England ;  un- 
less by  the  charters  which  we  have  from  his 
father,  William,  late  King  of  Scots,  it  ought  to 
be  otherwise ;  and  this  shall  be  left  to  the  deter- 
mination of  his  peers  in  our  court.  60.  All  the 
aforesaid  customs  and  liberties,  which  we  have 
granted  to  be  holden  in  our  kingdom,  as  much  as 
it  belongs  to  us,  all  people  of  our  kingdom,  as 
well  clergy  as  laity,  shall  observe,  as  far  as  they 
are  concerned,  towards  their  dependents.  61. 
And  whereas,  for  the  honour  of  God  and  the 
amendment  of  our  kingdom,  and  for  the  better 
quieting  the  discord  that  has  arisen  between  us 
and  our  barons,  we  have  granted  all  these  things 
aforesaid ;  willing  to  render  them  firm  and  last- 
ing, we  do  give  and  grant  our  subjects  the 
underwritten  security,  namely  that  the  barons 
may  choose  five-and-twenty  barons  of  the  king- 
dom, whom  they  think  convenient;  who  shall 
take  care,  with  all  their  might,  to  hold  and  ob- 
serve, and  cause  to  be  observed,  tne  peace  and 
liberties  we  have  granted  them,  and  by  this  our 
present  Charter  confirmed  in  this  manner ;  that  is 
to  say,  that  if  we,  our  justiciary,  our  bailiffs,  or 
any  of  our  officers,  shall  in  any  circumstance 
have  failed  in  the  performance  of  them  towards 
any  person,  or  shall  have  broken  through  any  of 
53 


these  articles  of  peace  and  security,  and  the 
offence  be  notified  to  four  barons  chosen  out  of 
the  five-and-twenty  before  mentioned,  the  said 
four  barons  shall  repair  to  us,  or  our  justiciary, 
if  we  are  out  of  the  realm,  and,  laying  open  the 
grievance,  shall  petition  to  liave  it  redressed 
without  delay ;  and  if  it  be  not  redressed  by  us, 
or  if  we  should  chance  to  be  out  of  the  realm,  if 
it  should  not  be  redressed  by  our  justiciary  within 
forty  days,  reckoning  from  the  time  it  has  been 
notified  to  us,  or  to  our  justiciary  (if  we  should 
be  out  of  the  realm),  the  four  barons  aforesaid 
shall  lay  the  cause  before  the  rest  of  the  five-and- 
twenty  barons ;  and  the  said  five-and-twenty  bar- 
ons, together  with  the  community  of  the  whole 
kingdom,  shall  distrain  and  distress  us  in  all  the 
ways  in  which  they  shall  be  able,  by  seizing  our 
castles,  lands,  possessions,  and  in  any  other  man- 
ner they  can,  till  the  grievance  is  redressed,  ac- 
cording to  their  pleasure ;  saving  harmless  our 
own  person,  and  the  persons  of  our  Queen  and 
children;  and  when  it  is  redressed,  they  shall  be- 
have to  us  as  before.  And  any  person  whatsoever 
in  the  kingdom  may  swear  that  he  will  obey  the 
orders  of  the  five-and-twenty  barons  aforesaid  in 
the  execution  of  the  premises,  and  will  distress 
us,  jointly  with  them,  to  the  utmost  of  his  power ; 
and  we  give  public  and  free  liberty  to  any  one 
that  shall  please  to  swear  to  this,  and  never  vf ill 
hinder  any  person  from  taking  the  same  oath. 
62.  As  for  all  those  of  our  subjects  who  will  not, 
of  their  own  accord,  swear  to  join  the  five-and- 
twenty  barons  in  distraining  and  distressing  us, 
we  will  issue  orders  to  make  them  take  the  same 
oath  as  aforesaid.  And  if  any  one  of  the  five- 
and-twenty  barons  dies,  or  goes  out  of  the  king- 
dom, or  is  hindered  any  other  way  from  carrying 
the  things  aforesaid  into  execution,  the  rest  of 
the  said  five-and-twenty  barons  may  choose  an- 
other in  his  room,  at  their  discretion,  who  shall  be 
sworn  in  like  manner  as  the  rest.  In  all  things 
that  are  committed  to  the  execution  of  these  five- 
and-twenty  barons,  if,  when  they  are  all  assem- 
bled together,  they  should  happen  to  disagree 
about  any  matter,  and  some  of  them,  when  sum- 
moned, will  not  or  cannot  comCj  whatever  is 
agreed  upon,  or  enjoined,  by  the  major  part  of 
those  that  are  present  shall  be  reputed  as  firm 
and  valid  as  if  all  the  five-and-twenty  bad  given 
their  consent ;  and  the  aforesaid  five-and-twenty 
shall  swear  that  all  the  premises  they  shall  faith- 
fully observe,  and  cause  with  all  their  power  to 
be  observed.  And  we  will  procure  nothing  from 
any  one,  by  ourselves  nor  by  another,  whereby 
any  of  these  concessions  and  liberties  may  be  re- 
voked or  lessened ;  and  if  any  such  thing  shall 
have  been  obtained,  let  it  be  null  and  void; 
neither  will  we  ever  make  use  of  it  either  by 
ourselves  or  any  other.  And  all  the  ill-will,  in- 
dignations, and  rancours  that  have  arisen  be- 
tween us  and  our  subjects,  of  the  clergy  and 
laity,  from  the  first  breaking  out  of  the  dissen- 
sions between  us,  we  do  fully  remit  and  forgive : 
moreover,  all  trespasses  occasioned  by  the  said 
dissensions,  from  Easter  in  the  sixteenth  year  of 
our  reign  till  the  restoration  of  peace  and  tran- 
quillity, we  hereby  entirely  remit  to  all,  both 
clergy  and  laity,  and  as  far  as  in  us  lies  do  fully 
forgive.  We  have,  moreover,  caused  to  be  made 
for  them  the  letters  patent  testimonial  of  Stephen, 
Lord  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Henry,  Lord 
Archbishop  of  Dublin,  and  the  bishops  aforesaid, 
as  also  of  Master  Pandulph,  for  the  security  and 


833 


ENGLAND,  1315. 


The  Barons'  War. 


ENGLAND,  1316-1274. 


concessions  aforesaid.  63.  Wherefore  we  ■will 
and  firmly  enjoin,  that  the  Church  of  England 
lu'  free,  and  that  all  men  in  our  kingdom  have 
and  hold  all  the  aforesaid  liberties,  rights,  and 
concessions,  truly  and  peaceably,  freely  and 
quietly,  fully  and  wholly  to  themselves  and  their 
heirs,  of  us  and  our  heirs,  in  all  things  and  places, 
for  ever,  as  is  aforesaid.  It  is  also  sworn,  as 
well  on  our  part  as  on  the  part  of  the  barons, 
that  all  the  things  aforesaid  shall  be  observed  in 
good  faith,  and  without  evil  subtilty.  Given 
under  our  hand,  in  the  presence  of  the  witnesses 
above  named,  and  many  others,  in  the  meadow 
called  Runingmede,between  Windsor  and  Staines, 
the  15th  day  of  June,  in  the  17th  year  of  our 
reign." — W.  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  pt.  5.- — Old 
South  Leaflets,  Oeneral  Series,  no.  5. 

Also  in:  E.  F.  Henderson,  Select  Hist.  Doc's 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  bk.  1,  no.  7. — C.  H.  Pearson, 
Ilist.  of  Eiig.  dining  the  Early  and  Middle  Ages, 
r.  2,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1216-1274. — Character  and  reign  of 
Henry  III. —  The  Barons'  War. —  Simon  de 
Montfort  and  the  evolution  of  the  English  Par- 
liament.— King  John  died  October  17,1316.  "His 
legitimate  successor  was  a  child  of  nine  years 
of  age.  For  the  first  time  since  the  Conquest  the 
personal  government  was  in  the  hands  of  a  minor. 
In  that  stormy  time  the  great  Earl  of  Pembroke 
undertook  the  government,  as  Protector.  ...  At 
the  Council  of  Bristol,  with  general  approbation 
and  even  with  that  of  the  papal  legate,  Magna 
Charta  was  confirmed,  though  with  the  omission 
of  certain  articles.  .  .  .  After  some  degree  of 
tranquillity  had  been  restored,  a  second  confirma- 
tion of  the  Great  Charter  took  place  in  the  autumn 
of  1317,  with  the  omission  of  the  clauses  referring 
to  the  estates,  but  with  the  grant  of  a  new  charta 
de  foresta,  introducing  a  vigorous  administration 
of  the  forest  laws.  In  9  Henry  III.  JIagna  Charta 
was  again  confirmed,  and  this  is  the  form  in 
which  it  afterwards  took  its  place  among  the  stat- 
utes of  the  realm.  Two  years  later,  Henry  III. 
personally  assumes  the  reins  of  government  at 
the  Parliament  of  Oxford  (1327),  and  begins  his 
rule  without  confirming  the  two  charters.  At  first 
the  tutorial  government  still  continues,  which  had 
meanwhile,  even  after  the  death  of  the  great  Earl 
of  Pembroke  (1219),  remained  in  a  fairly  orderly 
condition.  The  first  epoch  of  sixteen  years  of 
this  reign  must  therefore  be  regarded  purely  as 
a  government  by  the  nobility  imder  the  name  of 
Henry  III.  The  regency  had  succeeded  in  remov- 
ing the  dominant  influence  of  the  Roman  Curia 
by  the  recall  of  the  papal  legate,  Pandulf,  to  Rome 
(1331),  and  in  getting  rid  of  the  dangerous  foreign 
mercenary  soldierj'  (1334).  .  .  .  With  the  dis- 
graceful dismissal  of  the  chief  justiciary,  Hubert 
de  Burgh,  there  begins  a  second  epoch  of  a  per- 
sonal rule  of  Henry  III.  (1333-1353),  which  for 
twenty  continuous  years,  presents  the  picture  of 
a  confused  and  undecided  struggle  between  the 
king  and  his  foreign  favourites  and  personal  ad- 
herents on  the  one  side,  and  the  great  barons,  and 
with  tliem  soon  the  prelates,  on  the  other.  .  .  . 
In  31  Henry  III.  the  King  finds  himself,  in  con- 
sequence of  pressing  money  embarrassments, 
again  compelled  to  make  a  solemn  confirmation 
of  the  charter,  in  which  once  more  the  clauses  re- 
lating to  the  estates  are  omitted.  Shortly  after- 
wards, as  had  happened  just  one  hundred  years 
previously  in  France,  the  name  '  parliamentum  ' 
occurs  for  the  first  time  (Chron.  Dunst.,  1344; 


Matth.  Paris,  1246),  and  curiously  enough,  Henry 
III.  himself,  in  a  writ  addressed  to  the  Sheriff  of 
Northampton,  designates  with  this  term  the  as- 
sembly which  originated  the  Magna  Charta.  .  .  . 
The  name  'parliament,'  now  occurs  more  fre- 
quently, but  does  not  supplant  the  more  definite 
terms  concilium,  colloquium,  etc.  In  the  mean- 
while the  relations  with  the  Continent  became 
complicated,  in  consequence  of  the  family  con- 
nections of  the  mother  and  wife  of  the  King,  and 
the  greed  of  the  papal  envoys.  .  .  .  From  the 
year  1344  onwards,  neither  a  chief  justice  nor  a 
chancellor,  nor  even  a  treasurer,  is  appointed,  but 
the  administration  of  the  country  is  conducted  at 
the  Court  by  the  clerks  of  the  offices." — R.  Gneist, 
Hist,  of  t!w  English  Const..  i>.  1,  pp.  313-321.— 
' '  Nothing  is  so  hard  to  realise  as  chaos ;  and  noth- 
ing nearer  to  chaos  can  be  conceived  than  the  gov- 
ernment of  Henry  III.  Henry  was,  like  all  the 
Plantagenets,  clever ;  like  very  few  of  them,  he 
was  devout ;  and  if  the  power  of  conceiving  a  great 
policy  would  constitute  a  great  King,  he  would 
certainly  have  been  one.  ...  He  aimed  at  mak- 
ing the  Crown  virtually  independent  of  the  barons. 
.  .  .  HisconnexiouwithLouis  IX.,  whose  brother- 
in-law  he  became,  was  certainly  a  misfortune  to 
him.  In  France  the  royal  power  had  during  the 
last  fifty  years  been  steadily  on  the  advance ;  in 
England  it  had  as  steadily  receded ;  and  Henry 
was  ever  hearing  from  the  other  side  of  the  Chan- 
nel maxims  of  government  and  ideas  of  royal  au- 
thority which  were  utterly  inapplicable  to  the 
actual  state  of  his  own  kingdom.  This,  like  a 
premature  Stuart,  Henry  was  incapable  of  per- 
ceiving ;  a  King  he  was,  and  a  King  he  would  be, 
in  his  own  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  evident  that 
with  such  a  task  before  him,  he  needed  for  the 
most  shadowy  chance  of  success,  an  iron  strength 
of  will,  singular  self-control,  great  forethought 
and  care  in  collecting  and  husbanding  his  re- 
sources, a  rare  talent  for  administration,  the  sa- 
gacity to  choose  and  the  self-reliance  to  trust  his 
counsellors.  And  not  one  of  these  various  quali- 
ties did  Henry  possess.  .  .  .  Henry  had  imbibed 
from  the  events  and  the  tutors  of  his  early  child- 
hood two  maxims  of  state,  and  two  alone :  to  trust 
Rome,  and  to  distrust  the  barons  of  England. 
.  .  .  He  filled  the  placesof  trust  and  power  about 
himself  with  aliens,  to  whom  the  maintenance  of 
Papal  influence  was  like  an  instinct  of  self-pre- 
servation. Thus  were  definitely  formed  the  two 
great  parties  out  of  whose  antagonism  the  War 
of  the  Barons  arose,  under  whose  influence  the  re- 
lations between  the  crown  and  people  of  England 
were  remodelled,  and  out  of  whose  enduring  con- 
flict rose,  indirectly,  the  political  principles  which 
contributed  so  largely  to  bring  about  the  Re- 
formation of  the  English  Church.  The  few  years 
which  followed  the  fall  of  Hubert  de  Burgh  were 
the  heyday  of  Papal  triumph.  j\jid  no  triumph 
could  have  been  worse  used.  .  .  .  Thus  was  the 
whole  country  lying  a  prey  to  the  ecclesiastical 
aliens  maintained  by  the  Pope,  and  to  the  lay 
aliens  maintained  by  the  King,  .  .  .  when  Simon 
de  Montfort  became  .  .  .  inseparably  intermixed 
with  the  course  of  our  history.  ...  In  the  year 
1358  opened  the  first  act  of  the  great  drama 
which  has  made  the  name  of  Simon  de  Mont- 
fort immortal.  .  .  .  The  Barons  of  England, 
at  Leicester's  suggestion,  liad  leagued  for  the 
defence  of  their  rights.  Tliey  appeared  armed 
at  the  Great  Council.  .  .  .  They  required  as  the 
condition   of    their  assistance  that    the    general 


834 


ENGLAND,   1316-1374. 


Simon  de  Monffort. 


ENGLAND,  1316-1274. 


reformation  of  the  realm  should  be  entrusted 
to  a  Commission  of  twenty-four  members,  half 
to  be  chosen  by  tlie  crown,  and  half  by  tliem- 
selves.  For  the  election  of  this  body,  prima- 
rily, and  for  a  more  explicit  statement  of  griev- 
ances, the  Great  Council  was  to  meet  again  at 
Oxford  on  the  11th  of  June,  1358.  When  the 
Barons  came,  tliey  appeared  at  the  head  of  thc-ir 
retainers.  The  invasion  of  the  Welsh  was  the 
plea ;  but  the  real  danger  was  nearer  home.  They 
seized  on  tlie  Cinque  Ports ;  the  unrenewed  truce 
with  France  was  the  excuse ;  they  remembered 
too  vividly  King  John  and  his  foreign  mercena- 
ries. They  then  presented  their  petition.  This 
was  directed  to  the  redress  of  various  abuses. 
...  To  each  and  every  clause  the  King  gave  his 
inevitable  assent.  One  more  remarkable  encroach- 
ment was  made  upon  the  royal  prerogative ;  the 
election  in  Parliament  of  a  chief  justiciar.  .  .  . 
The  chief  justiciar  was  the  first  officer  of  the 
Crown.  He  was  not  a  mere  chief  justice,  after 
the  fashion  of  the  present  day,  but  the  representa- 
tive of  tlie  Crown  in  its  high  character  of  the 
fountain  of  justice.  .  .  .  But  the  point  upon 
which  the  barons  laid  the  greatest  stress,  from  the 
beginning  to  the  end  of  their  struggle,  was  the 
question  of  the  employment  of  aliens.  That  the 
strongest  castles  and  the  fairest  lands  of  England 
should  be  in  the  hands  of  foreigners,  was  an  in- 
sult to  the  national  spirit  which  no  free  people 
could  fail  to  resent.  .  .  .  England  for  the  Eng- 
lish, the  great  war  cry  of  the  barons,  went  home 
to  the  heart  of  the  humblest.  .  .  .  The  great 
question  of  the  constitution  of  Parliament  was  not 
heard  at  Oxford ;  it  emerged  into  importance  when 
the  struggle  grew  fiercer,  and  the  barons  found 
it  necessary  to  gather  allies  round  them.  .  .  . 
One  other  measure  completed  the  programme  of 
the  barons ;  namely,  the  appointment,  already  re- 
ferred to,  of  a  committee  of  twenty-four.  .  .  . 
It  amounted  to  placing  the  crown  under  the  con- 
trol of  a  temporary  Council  of  Regency  [see  Ox- 
ford, Provisions  op].  .  .  .  Part  of  the  barons' 
work  was  simple  enough.  The  justiciar  was 
named,  and  the  committee  of  twenty-four.  To 
expel  the  foreigners  was  less  easy.  Simon  de 
Montfort,  himself  an  alien  by  birth,  resigned  the 
two  castles  which  he  held,  and  called  upon  the 
rest  to  follow.  They  simply  refused.  .  .  .  But 
the  barons  were  in  arras,  and  prepared  to  use 
them.  The  aliens,  with  their  few  English  sup- 
porters, fled  to  Winchester,  where  the  castle  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  foreign  bishop  Aymer.  They 
were  besieged,  brought  to  terms,  and  exiled.  The 
barons  were  now  masters  of  the  situation.  .  .  . 
Among  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  which 
passed  to  the  Oxford  Commission  not  the  least 
valuable,  for  the  hold  which  it  gave  on  tlie  gen- 
eral government  of  the  country,  was  the  right  to 
nominate  the  sheriffs.  In  1361  the  King,  who 
had  procured  a  Papal  bull  to  abrogate  the  Pro- 
visions of  O.xford,  and  an  army  of  mercenaries 
to  give  the  bull  effect,  proceeded  to  expel  the 
sheriffs  who  had  been  placed  in  office  by  the 
barons.  The  reply  of  the  barons  was  most  memo- 
rable ;  it  was  a  direct  appeal  to  the  order  below 
their  own.  They  summoned  three  knights  elected 
from  each  county  in  England  to  meet  them  at  St. 
Albans  to  discuss  the  state  of  the  realm.  It  was 
clear  that  the  day  of  the  House  of  Commons 
could  not  be  far  distant,  when  at  such  a  crisis  an 
appeal  to  the  knights  of  the  shire  could  be  made, 
and  evidently  made  with  success.    For  a  moment. 


in  this  great  move,  the  whole  strength  of  the 
barons  was  united ;  but  differences  soon  returned, 
and  against  divided  counsels  the  crown  steadily 
prevailed.  In  June,  1262,  we  find  peace  restored. 
The  more  moderate  of  the  barons  had  acquiesced 
in  the  terms  offered  by  Henry;  Montfort,  who 
refused  them,  was  abroad  in  voluntary  exile.  .  .  . 
Suddenly,  in  July,  the  Earl  of  Gloucester  died, 
and  the  sole  leadership  of  the  barons  passed  into 
the  hands  of  Montfort.  With  this  critical  event 
opens  the  last  act  in  the  career  of  the  great  Earl. 
In  October  he  returns  privately  to  England.  The 
whole  winter  is  passed  in  the  patient  reorganising 
of  the  party,  and  the  preparation  for  a  decisive 
struggle.  Montfort,  fervent,  eloquent,  and  de- 
voted, swayed  with  despotic  influence  the  hearts 
of  the  younger  nobles  (and  few  in  those  days  lived 
to  be  grey),  and  taught  them  to  feel  that  the  Pro- 
visions of  Oxford  were  to  them  what  tlie  Great 
Charter  had  been  to  their  fathers.  They  were 
drawn  together  with  an  unanimity  unknown  be- 
fore. .  .  .  They  demanded  the  restoration  of  the 
Great  Provisions.  The  King  refused,  and  in  Maj', 
1363,  the  barons  appealed  to  arms.  .  .  .  Henry, 
with  a  reluctant  hand,  subscribed  once  more  to 
the  Provisions  of  Oxford,  with  a  saving  clause, 
however,  that  they  should  be  revised  in  the  coming 
Parliament.  On  the  9tli  of  September,  accord- 
ingly. Parliament  was  assembled.  .  .  .  The  King 
and  the  barons  agreed  to  submit  their  differences 
to  the  arbitration  of  Louis  of  France.  .  .  .  Louis 
IX.  had  done  more  than  any  one  king  of  France 
to  enlarge  the  royal  prerogative ;  and  Louis  was 
the  brother-in-law  of  Henry.  His  award,  given 
at  Amiens  on  the  23d  of  January,  1364,  was,  as 
we  should  have  expected,  absolutely  in  favour 
of  the  King.  The  whole  Provisions  of  Oxford 
were,  in  his  view,  an  invasion  of  the  royal  power. 
.  .  .  The  barons  were  astounded.  .  .  .  They  at 
once  said  that  the  question  of  the  employment 
of  aliens  was  never  meant  to  be  included.  .  .  . 
The  appeal  was  made  once  again  to  the  sword. 
Success  for  a  moment  inclined  to  the  royal  side, 
but  it  was  only  for  a  moment ;  and  on  the  memora- 
ble field  of  Lewes  the  genius  of  Leicester  pre- 
vailed. .  .  .  With  tlie  two  kings  of  England  and 
of  the  Romans  prisoners  in  his  hands,  Montfort 
dictated  the  terms  of  the  so-called  Mise  of  Lewes. 
.  .  .  Subject  to  the  approval  of  Parliament,  all 
differences  were  to  be  submitted  once  more  to 
French  arbitration.  .  .  .  On  the  33d  of  June  the 
Parliament  met.  It  was  no  longer  a  Great  Coun- 
cil, after  the  fashion  of  previous  assemblies:  it 
included  four  knights,  elected  by  each  English 
county.  This  Parliament  gave  such  sanction  as 
it  was  able  to  the  exceptional  authority  of  Mont- 
fort, and  ordered  that  until  the  proposed  arbitra- 
tion could  be  carried  out,  the  King's  council  should 
consist  of  nine  persons,  to  be  named  by  the  Bishop 
of  Chichester,  and  the  Earls  of  Gloucester  and 
Leicester.  The  effect  was  to  give  Simon  for  the 
time  despotic  power.  .  .  .  It  was  at  length  agreed 
that  all  questions  whatever,  the  employment  of 
aliens  alone  excepted,  should  be  referred  to  the 
Bishop  of  London,  the  justiciar  Hugh  le  Despen- 
ser,  Charlesof  Anjou,  andthe  Abbotof  Bee.  If  on 
any  point  they  could  not  agree,  the  Archbishop 
of  Rouen  was  to  act  as  referee.  ...  It  was  .  .  . 
not  simply  the  expedient  of  a  revolutionary  chief 
in  difficulties,  but  the  expression  of  a  settled  and 
matured  policy,  when,  in  December  1364,  [Mont- 
fort] issued  in  the  King's  name  the  ever-memora- 
ble writs  which  summoned  the  first  complete  Par 


835 


ENGLAND,  1216-1274. 


Edivard  I. 


ENGLAND,  1275-1S95. 


Hament  which  ever  met  in  England.  The  earls, 
barons,  and  bishops  received  their  summons  as 
of  course ;  and  with  them  the  deans  of  cathedral 
churches,  an  unprecedented  number  of  abbots 
and  priors,  two  knights  from  every  shire,  and  two 
citizens  or  burgesses  from  every  city  or  borough 
in  England.  Of  their  proceedings  we  know  but 
little ;  but  they  appear  to  have  appointed  Simon 
de  Montfort  to  the  office  of  Justiciar  of  England, 
and  to  have  thus  made  him  in  rank,  what  he  had 
before  been  in  power,  the  first  subject  in  the 
realm.  .  .  .  Montfort .  .  .  had  now  gone  so  far, 
he  had  exercised  such  extraordinary  powers,  he 
had  done  so  many  things  which  could  never  really 
be  pardoned,  that  perhaps  bis  only  chance  of 
safety  lay  in  the  possession  of  some  such  office  as 
this.  It  is  certain,  moreover,  that  something 
which  passed  in  this  Parliament,  or  almost  exactly 
at  the  time  of  its  meeting,  did  cause  deep  oifence 
to  a  considerable  section  of  the  barons.  .  .  .  Diffi- 
culties were  visibly  gathering  thicker  around  him, 
and  he  was  evidently  conscious  that  disaffection 
was  spreading  fast.  .  .  .  Negociations  went  for- 
ward, not  very  smoothly,  for  the  release  of  Prince 
Edward.  They  were  terminated  in  May  by  his 
escape.  It  was  the  signal  for  a  royalist  rising. 
Edward  took  the  command  of  the  Welsli  border ; 
before  the  middle  of  June  he  had  made  the  bor- 
der his  own.  On  the  29th  Gloucester  opened  its 
gates  to  him.  He  had  many  secret  friends.  He 
pushed  fearlessly  eastward,  and  surprised  the  gar- 
rison of  Kenilworth,  commanded  by  Simon,  the 
Earl's  second  son.  The  Earl  himself  lay  at  Eves- 
ham, awaiting  the  troops  which  his  son  was  to 
bring  up  from  Kenilworth.  .  .  .  Ou  the  fatal 
field  of  Evesham,  fighting  side  by  side  to  the  last, 
fell  the  Earl  himself,  his  eldest  son  Henry,  De- 
spenser  the  late  Justiciar,  Lord  Basset  of  Dray- 
ton, one  of  his  firmest  friends,  and  a  host  of  minor 
name.  With  them,  to  all  appearance,  fell  the 
cause  for  which  they  had  fought." — Simon  de 
Montfort  (Quarterly  Eev.,  Jan.,  1866). — See 
Parliament,  The  English  :  Early  Stages  of 
ITS  Evolution.  —  "Important  as  this  assembly 
[the  Parliament  of  1264]  is  in  the  history  of  the 
constitution,  it  was  not  primarily  and  essentially 
a  constitutional  assembly.  It  was  not  a  gene- 
ral convention  of  the  tenants  in  chief  or  of  the 
three  estates,  but  a  parliamentary  assembly  of  the 
supporters  of  the  existing  government." — W. 
Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  14,  sect.  177  (e.  2). 

Also  in  :  The  same,  Tlie  Early  Plantagenets. 
— G.  W.  Prothero,  Life  of  Simon  de  Montfort,  ch. 
11-12.— H.  Blaauw,  The  Barons'  War.^Q.  H. 
Pearson,  England,  Early  and  Middle  Ages,  v.  2. 

A.  D.  1271. —  Crusade  of  Prince  Edvyard. 
See  Crusades:  A.  D.  1270-1271. 

A.  D.  1272. — Accession  of  King  Edward  I. 

A.  D.  1275-1295. — Development  of  Parlia- 
mentary representation  under  Edward  I. — 
"  Happilj',  Earl  Simon  [de  Montfort]  found  a 
successor,  and  more  than  a  successor,  in  the 
king's  [Henry  III. 's]  son.  .  .  .  Edward  I.  stood 
on  the  vantage  ground  of  the  throne.  .  .  .  He 
could  do  that  easily  and  without  effort  wliich 
Simon  could  only  do  laboriously,  and  with  the 
certainty  of  rousing  opposition.  Especially  was 
this  the  case  with  the  encouragement  given  by 
the  two  men  to  the  growing  aspirations  after 
parliamentary  representation.  Earl  Simon's  as- 
semblies were  instruments  of  warfare.  Edward's 
assemblies  were  invitations  to  peace.  .  .  .  Barons 
and  prelates,  knights  and  townsmen,  came  to- 


gether only  to  support  a  king   who  took  the 
initiative  so   wisely,   and   who,   knowing    what 
was  best  for  all,  sought  the  good  of  his  kingdom 
without  thought  of  his  own  ease.     Yet  even  so, 
Edward  was  too  prudent  at  once  to  gather  to- 
gether such  a  body  as  that  which  Earl  Simon 
had   planned.     He  summoned,   indeed,    all   the 
constituent  parts  of  Simon's  parliament,  but  he 
seldom  summoned  them  to  meet  in  one  place  or 
at  one  time.     Sometimes  the  barons  and  [irelates 
met  apart   from  the  townsmen  or  the  knights, 
sometimes  one   or  the  other  class  met  entirely 
alone.  ...  In  this  way,  during  the  first  twenty 
years  of  Edward's  reign,  the  nation  rapidly  grew 
in   that  consciousness  of   national   unity  which 
would  one  day  transfer  the  function  of  regulation 
from  the  crown   to   the   representatives  of   the 
people." — S.  R.  Gardiner  and  J.  B.  Mullinger, 
Int.  to  the  Study  of  Eng.  Hist.,  ch.  4,  sect.  17.— 
"  In  1264  Simon  de  Montfort  had  called  up  from 
both  shires  and  boroughs  representatives  to  aid 
him  in  the  new  work  of  government.     That  part 
of  Earl  Simon's  work  had  not  been  lasting.     The 
task  was  left  for  Edward  I.  to  be  advanced  by 
gradual  safe  steps,  but  to  be  thoroughly  com- 
pleted, as  a  part  of  a  definite  and  orderly  arrange- 
ment, according  to  which  the  English  parliament 
was  to  be  the  perfect  representation  of  the  Three 
Estates  of  the  Realm,  assembled  for  purposes  of 
taxation,  legislation  and  united  political  action. 
.   .  .  Edward's  first  parliament,  in  1275,  enabled 
him  to  pass  a  great  statute  of  legal  reform,  called 
the   Statute   of  Westminster   the   First,  and  to 
exact  the  new  custom  on  wool ;  another  assem- 
bly, the  same  year,  granted  him  a  fifteenth.  .  .  . 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  commons  of  either 
town  or  county  were  represented.  ...  In  1283, 
when  the  expenses  of  the  Welsh  war  were  be- 
coming heavy,  Edwaixl  again  tried  the  plan  of 
obtaining  money  from  the  towns  and  counties  by 
separate  negotiation ;  but  as  that  did  not  provide 
him  with  funds  sufficient  for   his   purpose,   he 
called  together,  early  in  1283,  two  great  assem- 
blies, one  at  York  and  another  at  Northampton, 
in  which  four  knights  from  each  shire  and  four 
members  from  each  city  and  borough  were  or- 
dered to  attend;  the  cathedral  and  conventual 
clergy  also  of  the  two  provinces  were  represented 
at  the  same  places  by  their  elected  proctors.     At 
these  assemblies  there  was  no  attendance  of  the 
barons;  they  were  with  the  king  in  Wales;  but 
the  commons  made  a  grant  of  one-thirtieth  on 
the  understanding  that  the  lords  should  do  the 
same.     Another  assembly  was  held  at  Slire  wsbury 
tlie  same  year,  1283,  to  witness  the  trial  of  David 
of  Wales ;  to  this  the  bishops  and  clergy  were  not 
called,  but  twenty  towns  and  all  the  counties 
were  ordered  to  send  representatives.     Anotlier 
step   was  taken   in  1290:   knights  of  the  shire 
were  again  summoned ;  but  still  much  remained 
to  be  done  before  a  perfect  parliament  was  con- 
stituted.    Counsel  was  wanted   for  legislation, 
consent  was   wanted   for   taxation.     The   lords 
were  summoned  in  May,  and  did  their  work  in 
June  and  July,  granting  a  feudal  aid  and  passing 
the   statute    'Quia  Emptores,'  but  the   knights 
only  came  to  vote  or  to  promise  a  tax,  after  a 
law  had  been  passed ;  and  the  towns  were  again 
taxed   by   special   commissions.     In   1294,  .   .  . 
under  the  alarm  of  war  with  France,  an  alarm 
which  led  Edward  into  several  breaches  of  con- 
stitutional law,  he  went  still  further,  assembling 
the  clergy  by  their  representatives  in  August, 


836 


ENGLAND.  1275-1295. 


Parliamentary 
Representation. 


ENGLAND,  1375-1295. 


and  the  shires  by  their  representative  knights  in 
October.     The  next  year,  1295,  witnessed  the 
first  summoas  of  a  perfect  and  model  parliament; 
the  clergy  represented  by  their  bishops,  deans, 
archdeacons,   and  elected  proctors ;    tlie   barons 
summoned   severally   in   person   by   tlie    lying's 
special  writ,  and   the   commons  summoned   by 
writs  addressed  to  the  sheriffs,  directing  them  to 
send  up  two  elected  Ivnights  from  eacli  shire,  two 
elected  citizens  from  each  city,  and  two  elected 
burghers    from    each    borough.     The   writ    by 
which  the  prelates  were  called  to  this  parliament 
contained   a    famous   sentence   taken   from   the 
Roman  law,  '  That  whicli  touches  all  should  be 
approved  by  all,'  a  ma.xim  jvliich  might  serve  as 
a  motto  for  Edward's  constitutional  scheme,  how- 
ever slowly  it  grew  upon  him,  now  permanently 
and  consistently   completed." — W.  Stubbs,   The 
Early  Plantagenets,    cli.    10. — "Comparing   the 
history  of  the  following  ages  with  that  of  the 
past,  we  can  scarcely  doubt  that  Edward  had  a 
definite  idea  of  government  before  his  eyes,  or 
that  that  idea  was  successful  because  it  approved 
itself  to  the  genius  and  grew  out  of  the  habits  of 
the  people.     Edward    saw,   in  fact,    what  the 
nation  was  capable  of,  and  adapted  his  constitu- 
tional reforms  to  that  capacity.     But  althougli 
we  may  not  refuse  him  the  credit  of  design,  it 
may  still  be  questioned  whether  the  design  was 
altogether  voluntary,  whether  it  was  not  forced 
upon  him  by  circumstances  and  developed  by  a 
series  of  careful  experiments.  .  .  .  The  design, 
as  interpreted  by  the  result,  was  tlie  creation  of 
a  national   parliament,   composed   of  the   tliree 
estates.  .  .  .  This  design  was  perfected  in  1295. 
It  was  not  the  result  of  compulsion,  but  tlie  con- 
summation of  a  growing  policy.  .  .   .  But  the 
close  union  of  1295  was  followed  by  tlie  compul- 
sion of  1297:  out  of  tlie  organic  completeness  of 
the  constitution  sprang  the  power  of  resistance, 
and  out  of  the  resistance  the  victory  of  the  prin- 
ciples, wliich  Edward  might  guide,  but  which 
he  failed  to  coerce. " — W.  Stubbs,  Constitutional 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.   15,  sect.  244  and  ch.  14,  sect. 
180-182.— The   same.    Select    Charters,   pt.    7.— 
"The  13th  century  was  above  all  tilings  the  age 
of  the  lawyer  and  tlie  legislator.     The  revived 
study  of  Roman  law  had  been  one  of  the  greatest 
results  of    the  intellectual    renaissance  of    the 
twelfth  century.     The  enormous  growth  of  the 
universities  in  the  early  part  of  the  thirteenth 
century  was  in  no  small  measure  due  to  the  zeal, 
ardour  and  success  of  their  legal  faculties.     Prom 
Bologna  there   flowed   all   over  Europe  a  great 
impulse  towards  the   systematic   and   scientific 
study    of    the   Civil    Law  of    Rome.   .  .   .  The 
northern  lawyers  were  inspired  by  their  emula- 
tion of  the  civilians  and  canonists  to  look  at  the 
rude  chaos  of  feudal  custom  with  more  critical 
eyes.     They  sought  to  give  it  more  system  and 
method,  to  elicit  its  leading  principles,  and  to  co- 
ordinate  its  clashing  rules   into   a  harmonious 
body  of  doctrine  worthy  to  be  put  side  by  side 
with  the  more  pretentious  edifices  of  the  Civil 
and  Canon  Law.     In  this  spirit  Henry  de  Brac- 
ton  wrote  the  first  systematic  exposition  of  Eng- 
lish law  in  the  reign  of  Henry  III.     The  judges 
and  lawyers  of  the  reign  of  Edward  sought  to 
put  the  principles  of  Bracton  into  practice.     Ed- 
ward himself  strove  with   no  small   success  to 
carry  on  the  same  great  work  by  new  legislation. 
.  .  .  His  well-known  title  of  the  '  English  Jus- 
tinian' is  not  so  absurd  as  it  appears  at  first 


sight.     He  did  not  merely  resemble  Justinian  in 
being  a  great  legislator.     Like  the  famous  codifier 
of  the  Roman  law,  Edward  stood  at  the  end  of  a 
long  period  of  legal  development,  and  sought  to 
arrange  and  systematise  what  had  gone  before 
him.     Some  of  his  great  laws  arc  almost  in  form 
attempts  at  the  systematic  codification  of  various 
branches  of  feudal   custom.  .  .  .  Edward  was 
greedy  for  power,  and  a  constant  object  of  his 
legislation  was  the  exaltation  of  the  royal  pre- 
rogative.    But  he  nearly  always  took  a   broad 
and  comprehensive  view  of  his  authority,  and 
thoroughly  grasped  the  truth  that  the  best  in- 
terests of  king  and  kingdom  were  identical.     He 
wished  to  rule  the  state,  but  was  willing  to  take 
his  subjects  into  partnership  with  him,  if  they  in 
return  recognised  his  royal  rights.  .  .   .  The  same 
principles  which   influenced  Edward  as  a   law- 
giver stand  out  clearly  in  his  relations  to  every 
class  of  his  subjects.  ...  It  was  the  greatest 
work  of  Edward's  life  to  make  a  permanent  and 
ordinarj'  part  of  the  machinery  of  English  gov- 
ernment, what  in  his  father's  time  had  been  but 
the  temporary  expedient  of  a  needy  taxgatherer 
or  the  last  despairing  effort  of  a  revolutionary 
partisan.     Edward  I.  is  —  so  much  as  one  man 
can  be  —  the  creator  of  the   historical   English 
constitution.     It  is  true  that  the  materials  were 
ready  to  his  hand.     But  before  he  came  to  the 
throne  the  parts  of  the  constitution,  though  al- 
ready roughly  worked  out,  were  ill-defined  and 
ill-understood.     Before    his  death  the   national 
council  was  no  longer  regarded  as  complete  un- 
less it  contained  a  systematic  representation  of 
the  three  estates.     All  over  Europe  the  thirteenth 
century  saw  the  establishment  of  a  system  of 
estates.     The  various  classes  of  the  community, 
which  had  a  separate  social  status  and  a  common 
political  interest,  became  organised  communities, 
and  sent  their  representatives  to  swell  the  council 
of  the  nation.     By  Edward's  time  there  had 
already  grown  up  in   England  some  rough  an- 
ticipation of  the  three  estates  of  later  history. 
...  It  was  with  no  intention  of  diminishing  his 
power,  but  rather  with  the  object  of  enlarging 
it,  that  Edward  called  the  nation  into  some  sort 
of  partnership   with  him.     The  special  clue  to 
this  aspect  of  his  policy  is  his  constant  financial 
embarrassment.     He   found   that  he   could   get 
larger  and  more  cheerful  subsidies  if  he  laid  his 
financial  condition  before  the  representatives  of 
his  people.  .  .  .  The  really  important  thing  was 
that  Edward,  like  Montfort,  brought  shire  and 
borough  representatives  together  in  a  single  es- 
tate, and  so  taught  the  country  gentry,  the  lesser 
landowners,  who,  in  a  time  when  direct  partici- 
pation in   politics  was  impossible  for  a  lower 
class,  were  the  real  constituencies  of  the  shire 
members,  to  look  upon  their  interests  as  more  in 
common  with  the  traders  of  lower  social  status 
than  with  the  greater  landlords  with  whom  in 
most  continental  countries  the  lesser  gentry  were 
forced  to  associate  their  lot.     The  result  strength- 
ened the  union  of  classes,  prevented  the  growth 
of  the  abnormally  numerous  privileged  nobility 
of  most  foreign  countries,   and  broadened  and 
deepened  the  main  current  of  the  national  life." 
— T.  F.  Tout,  Edward  th4;  First,  ch.  7-8.— "There 
was  nothing  in  England  which  answered  to  the 
'third  estate  '  in  France  —  a  class,  that  is  to  say, 
both  isolated  and  close,  composed  exclusively  of 
townspeople,  enjoying  no  commerce  with  the 
rural  population  (except  such  as  consisted  in  the 


837 


ENGLAND,  1275-1295. 


Papal  pretensions 
resisted. 


ENGLAND,  1306-1393. 


reception  of  fugitives),  and  at  once  detesting  and 
dreading  the  nobility  by  whom  it  was  surrounded. 
In  England  the  contrary  was  the  case.  The 
townsfolk  and  the  other  classes  in  each  county 
were  thrown  together  upon  numberless  occasions ; 
a  long  period  of  common  activity  created  a  cor- 
dial understanding  between  the  burghers  on  the 
one  hand  and  their  neighbours  the  knights  and 
landowners  on  the  other,  and  finally  prepared 
the  way  for  the  fusion  of  the  two  classes." — £. 
Boutmy,  The  English  Constitution,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1279. —  The  Statute  of  Mortmain. — 
' '  For  many  years  past,  the  great  danger  to  the 
balance  of  power  appeared  to  come  from  the 
regular  clergy,  who,  favoured  by  the  success  of 
the  mendicant  orders,  were  adding  house  to  house 
and  field  to  field.  Never  dying  out  like  families, 
and  rarely  losing  by  forfeitures,  the  monasteries 
might  well  nigh  calculate  the  time,  when  all  the 
soil  of  England  should  be  their  own.  .  .  .  Ac- 
cordingly, one  of  the  first  acts  of  the  barons 
under  Henry  III.  had  been  to  enact,  that  no  fees 
should  be  aliened  to  religious  persons  or  corpo- 
rations. Edward  re-enacted  and  strengthened 
this  by  various  provisions  in  the  famous  Statute 
of  Mortmain.  The  fee  illegally  aliened  was  now 
to  be  forfeited  to  the  chief  lord  under  the  King ; 
and  if,  by  collusion  or  neglect,  the  lord  omitted 
to  claim  his  right,  the  crown  might  enter  upon 
it.  Never  was  statute  more  unpopular  with  the 
class  at  whom  it  was  aimed,  more  ceaselessly 
eluded,  or  more  effectual." — C.  II.  Pearson,  Hist, 
of  Enrihnid  during  tlie  Early  and  Middle  Ages, 
1).  3,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1282-1284.— Subjugation  of  Wales. 
See  Wales;  A.  D.  1283-1284. 

A.  D.  1290-1305.— Conquest  of  Scotland  by 
Edward  I.     See  Scotland  :  A.  D.  1290-1305. 

A.  D.  1297. — TheConfirmatio  Chartarum  of 
Edward  I. — "It  was  long  before  the  King 
would  surrender  the  right  of  taking  talliages 
without  a  parliamentary  grant.  In  order  to 
carry  on  his  extensive  wars  he  was  in  constant 
need  of  large  sums  ot  money,  which  he  raised  by 
arbitrary  exactions  from  all  classes  of  his  sub- 
jects, lay  and  clerical."  The  disputes  and  the 
resistance  to  which  these  exactions  gave  rise 
grew  violent  in  1397,  and  Edward  was  at  length 
persuaded  to  assent  to  what  was  called  the  "Con- 
firmatio  Chartarum  " —  confirmation  of  the  Great 
Charter  and  the  Charter  of  Forests.  "The  Con- 
firmatio  Chartarum.  which,  although  a  statute, 
is  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  a  charter,  was  passed 
on  the  10th  of  October,  1397,  in  a  Parliament  at 
which  knights  of  the  shire  attended  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Commons,  as  well  as  the  la_y 
and  clerical  baronage.  .  .  .  The  Confirmatio 
Chartarum  was  not  merely  a  re-issue  of  Magna 
Charta  and  the  Charter  of  the  Forest,  .  .  .  but 
the  enactment  of  a  series  of  new  provisions.  .  .  . 
By  the  5th  section  of  this  statute  the  King  ex- 
pressly renounced  as  precedents  the  aids,  tasks, 
and  prises  before  taken.  .  .  .  The  exclusive  right 
of  Parliament  to  impose  taxation,  though  often 
infringed  by  the  illegal  exercise  of  prerogative, 
became  from  this  time  an  axiom  of  the  Constitu- 
tion."— T.  P.  Taswell-Langmead,  English  Consti- 
tution/il  Histori/,  ch.7. 

14th  Century.— The  founding  of  manufac- 
tures and  trade.  See  Flanders  :  A.  D.  1333- 
1837,  and  TjiA')n,  Medi.eval. 

A.  D.  1306-1303. — Resistance  to  the  Pope. 
—"For  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  succeeding 


838 


the  Conquest,  the  right  of  nominating  the  arch- 
bishops, bishops,  and  mitred  abbots  had  been 
claimed  and  e.\ercised  by  the  king.  This  right 
had  been  specially  confirmed  by  the  Constitu- 
tions of  Clarendon,  which  also  provided  that  the 
revenues  of  vacant  sees  should  belong  to  the 
Crown.  But  .lohn  admitted  all  the  Papal  claims, 
surrendering  even  his  kingdom  to  the  Pope,  and 
receiving  it  back  as  a  fief  of  the  Holy  See.  By 
the  Great  Charter  the  Church  recovered  its  liber- 
ties; the  right  of  free  election  being  specially 
conceded  to  the  cathedral  chapters  and  the  re- 
ligious houses.  Every  election  was,  however, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Pope,  who  also 
claimed  a  right  of  veto  on  institutions  to  the 
smaller  church  benefices.  .  .  .  Under  Henry  III. 
the  power  thus  vested  in  the  Pope  and  foreign 
superiors  of  the  monastic  orders  was  greatly 
abused,  and  soon  degenerated  into  a  mere  chan- 
nel for  draining  money  into  the  Roman  excheq- 
uer. Edward  1.  firmly  withstood  the  exactions 
of  the  Pope,  and  reasserted  the  independence  of 
both  Church  and  Crown.  ...  In  the  reign  of 
the  great  Edward  began  a  series  of  statutes 
passed  to  check  the  aggressions  of  the  Pope  and 
restore  the  independence  of  the  national  church. 
The  first  of  the  series  was  passed  in  1306-7.  .  .  . 
This  statute  was  confirmed  under  Edward  III. 
in  the  4th,  and  again  in  the  5th  year  of  his  reign ; 
and  in  the  25th  of  his  reign  [A.  D.  1351],  roused 
'  by  the  grievous  complaints  of  all  the  commons 
of  his  realm,'  the  King  and  Parliament  passed 
the  famous  Statute  of  Provisors,  aimed  directly 
at  the  Pope,  and  emphatically  forbidding  his 
nominations  to  English  benefices.  .  .  .  Three 
years  afterwards  it  was  found  necessary  to  pass 
a  statute  forbidding  citations  to  the  court  of 
Home  —  [the  prelude  to  the  Statute  of  Praemu- 
nire, described  below].  ...  In  1389,  there  was 
an  expectation  that  the  Pope  was  about  to  at- 
tempt to  enforce  his  claims,  by  excommunicating 
those  who  rejected  them.  .  .  .  The  Parliament 
at  once  passed  a  highly  penal  statute.  .  .  .  Mat- 
ters were  shortly  afterwards  brought  to  a  crisis 
by  Boniface  IX.,  wlio  after  declaring  the  stat- 
utes enacted  by  the  English  Parliament  null  and 
void,  granted  to  an  Italian  cardinal  a  prebendal 
stall  at  Wells,  to  which  the  king  had  already 
presented.  Cross  suits  were  at  once  instituted 
by  the  two  claimants  in  the  Papal  and  English 
courts.  A  decision  was  given  by  the  latter,  in 
favour  of  the  king's  nominee,  and  the  bishops, 
having  agreed  to  support  the  Crown,  were  forth- 
with excommunicated  by  the  Pope.  The  Com- 
mons were  now  roused  to  the  highest  pitch  of 
indignation," — -and  the  final  great  Statute  of 
Praemunire  was  passed,  A.  D.  1393.  "The  firm 
and  resolute  attitude  assumed  by  the  country 
caused  Boniface  to  yield;  'and  for  the  moment,' 
observes  Mr.  Froude,  'and  indeed  forever  under 
this  especial  form,  the  wave  of  papal  encroach- 
ment was  rolled  back.'" — T.  P.  'Taswell-Lang- 
mead, Eng.  Const.  Hist.,  ch.  11.— "The  great 
Statute  of  Provisors,  passed  in  1351,  was  a  very 
solemn  expression  of  the  National  determination 
not  to  give  way  to  the  pope's  usurpation  of  pat- 
ronage. .  .  .  All  persons  procuring  or  accepting 

papal  promotions  were  to  be  arrested In 

1352  the  purchasers  of  Provisions  were  declared 
outlaws;  in  1365  another  act  repeated  the  prohi- 
bitions and  penalties ;  and  in  1390  the  parliament 
of  Richard  II.  rehearsed  and  confirmed  the  stat- 
ute.    By  this  act,  forfeiture  and  banishment  were 


ENGLAND,  iaa6-ia93. 


Edward  IIT. 
and  his  ivars. 


ENGLAND,  1333-1380. 


decreed  against  future  transgressors. "  The  Stat- 
ute of  Praemunire  as  enacted  finally  in  1393,  pro- 
vided that  "all  persons  procuring  in  the  court  of 
Rome  or  elsewhere  such  translations,  processes, 
sentences  of  excommunication,  bulls,  instru- 
ments or  other  things  which  touch  the  king,  his 
crown,  regality  or  realm,  should  suffer  the  pen- 
alties of  prajmunire" — which  included  imprison- 
ment and  forfeiture  of  goods.  ' '  The  name  prae- 
munire which  marks  this  form  of  legislation  is 
taken  from  the  opening  word  of  the  writ  by 
which  the  sheriff  is  charged  to  summon  tlie  de- 
linquent."— W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Emj.,  ch. 
19,  sect.  715-71G. 

A.  D.  1307. — Accession  of  King  Edward  IL 

A.  D.  1310-1311. — The  Ordainers. — "  At  the 
parliament  which  met  in  JIarch  1310  [reign  of 
Edward  IL]  a  new  scheme  of  reform  was  pro- 
mulgated, which  was  framed  on  the  model  of 
that  of  1258  and  the  Provisions  of  Oxford.  It 
was  determined  that  the  task  of  regulating  the 
affairs  of  the  realm  and  of  the  king's  household 
should  be  committed  to  an  elected  body  of  twenty- 
one  members,  or  Ordainers,  the  chief  of  whom 
was  Archbishop  Winchelsey.  .  .  .  The  Ordain- 
ers were  empowered  to  remain  in  office  until 
Michaelmas  1311,  and  to  make  ordinances  for  the 
good  of  the  realm,  agreeable  to  the  tenour  of  the 
king's  coronation  oath.  The  w-hole  administra- 
tion of  the  kingdom  thus  passed  into  their  hands. 
.  .  .  The  Ordainers  immediately  on  their  appoint- 
ment issued  six  articles  directing  the  observance 
of  the  charters,  the  careful  collection  of  the  cus- 
toms, and  the  arrest  of  the  foreign  merchants; 
but  the  great  body  of  the  ordinances  was  re- 
served for  the  parliament  which  met  in  August 
1311.  The  famous  document  or  statute  known 
as  the  Ordinances  of  1311  contained  forty- 
one  clauses,  all  aimed  at  existing  abuses." — W. 
Stubbs.  Jlie  Early  PlantcKjenets,  ch.  13. 

A.  D.  1314-1328. — Bannockburn  and  the  re- 
covery of  Scottish  independence.  See  Scot- 
land: A.  D.  1314;  1314-1328. 

A.  D.  1327. — Accession  of  King  Edward  III. 

A.  D.  1328. — The  Peace  of  Northampton 
with  Scotland.     See  Scotland;  A.  D.  1328. 

A.  D.  1328-1360. — The  pretensions  and  wars 
of  Edward  IIL  in  France.  See  France;  A.  D. 
1328-1339;  and  1337-1360. 

A.  D.  1332-1370. — The  wars  of  Edward  III. 
with  Scotland.  See  Scotland:  A.  D.  1333- 
1333,  and  1333-1370. 

A.  D.  1333-1380.— The  effects  of  the  war  in 
France. — "A  period  of  great  wars  is  generally 
favourable  to  the  growth  of  a  nobility.  Men 
who  equipped  large  bodies  of  troops  for  the 
Scotch  or  French  wars,  or  who  had  served  with 
distinction  in  them,  naturally  had  a  claim  for  re- 
ward at  the  hands  of  their  sovereign.  .  .  .  The 
13th  century  had  broken  up  estates  all  over  Eng- 
land and  multiplied  families  of  the  upper  class; 
the  14tli  century  was  consolidating  properties 
again,  and  establishing  a  broad  division  between 
a  few  powerful  nobles  and  the  mass  of  tlie  com- 
munity. But  if  the  gentry,  as  an  order,  lost  a 
little  in  relative  importance  by  the  formation  of 
a  class  of  great  nobles,  more  distinct  than  had 
existed  before,  the  middle  classes  of  England,  its 
merchants  and  yeomen,  gained  very  much  in  im- 
portance by  the  war.  Under  the  firm  rule  of 
the  '  King  of  the  Sea,'  as  his  subjects  lovingly 
called  Edward  III.,  our  commerce  expanded. 
Englishmen  rose  to  an  equality  with  the  mer- 


chants of  the  Hanse  Towns,  the  Genoese,  or  the 
Lombards,  and  England  for  a  time  overflowed 
with  treasure.  The  first  period  of  war,  ending 
with  the  capture  of  Calais,  secured  our  coasts; 
the  second,  terminated  by  the  peace  of  Bretigny, 
brought  the  plunder  of  half  France  into  the 
English  markets ;  and  even  when  Edward's  reign 
had  closed  on  defeat  and  bankruptcy,  and  our 
own  shores  were  ravaged  by  hostile  fleets,  it  was 
still  possible  for  private  adventurers  to  retaliate 
invasion  upon  the  enemy.  .  .  .  The  romance  of 
foreign  conquest,  of  fortunes  lightly  gained  and 
lightly  lost,  influenced  English  enterprise  for 
many  years  to  come.  .  .  .  The  change  to  the  lower 
orders  during  the  reign  arose  rather  from  the 
frequent  pestilences,  which  reduced  the  num- 
ber of  working  men  and  made  labour  valu- 
able, than  from  any  immediate  participation  in 
the  war.  In  fact,  English  serfs,  as  a  rule,  did 
not  serve  in  Edward's  armies.  They  could  not 
be  men-at-arms  or  archers  for  want  of  training 
and  equipment ;  and  for  the  work  of  light-armed 
ti-oops  and  foragers,  the  Irish  and  Welsh  seem  to 
have  been  preferred.  The  opportunity  of  the 
serfs  came  with  the  Black  Death,  while  districts 
were  depopulated,  and  everywhere  there  was  a 
want  of  hands  to  till  the  fields  and  get  in  the 
crops.  The  immediate  effect  was  unfortunate. 
.  .  .  The  indifference  of  late  years,  when  men 
were  careless  if  their  villans  stayed  on  the  prop- 
erty or  emigrated,  was  succeeded  by  a  sharp  in- 
quisition after  fugitive  serfs,  and  constant  legis- 
lation to  bring  them  back  to  their  masters.  .  .  . 
The  leading  idea  of  the  legislator  was  that  the 
labourer,  whose  work  had  doubled  or  trebled  in 
value,  was  to  receive  the  same  wages  as  in  years 
past ;  and  it  was  enacted  that  he  might  be  paid 
in  kind,  and,  at  last,  that  in  all  cases  of  con- 
tumacy he  should  be  imprisoned  without  the  op- 
tion of  a  fine.  .  .  .  The  French  war  contributed 
in  many  ways  to  heighten  the  feeling  of  English 
nationality.  Our  trade,  our  language  and  our 
Church  received  a  new  and  powerful  influence. 
In  the  early  years  of  Edward  III.'s  reign,  Italian 
merchants  were  the  great  financiers  of  England, 
farming  the  taxes  and  advancing  loans  to  the 
Crown.  Gradually  the  instinct  of  race,  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Pope,  and  geographical  position, 
contributed,  with  the  mistakes  of  Edward's 
policy,  to  make  France  the  head,  as  it  were, 
of  a  confederation  of  Latin  nations.  Genoese 
ships  served  in  the  French  fleet,  Genoese  bow- 
men fought  at  Crecy,  and  English  privateers 
retorted  on  Genoese  commerce  throughout  the 
course  of  the  reign.  In  1376  the  Commons  peti- 
tioned that  all  Lombards  might  be  expelled  the 
kingdom,  bringing  amongst  other  charges  against 
them  that  they  were  French  spies.  The  Floren- 
tines do  not  seem  to  have  been  equally  odious, 
but  the  failure  of  the  great  firm  of  the  Bardi  in 
1345,  chiefly  through  its  English  engagements, 
obliged  Edward  to  seek  assistance  elsewhere ;  and 
he  transfen'ed  the  privilege  of  lending  to  the 
crown  to  the  merchants  of  the  rising  Hanse 
Towns." — C.  H.  Pearson,  Eng.  Hist,  in  the  Four- 
teenth Century,  ch.  9. — "We  may  trace  the  destruc- 
tive nature  of  the  war  with  France  in  the  notices 
of  adjoining  parishes  thrown  into  one  for  want 
of  sufficient  inhabitants,  '  of  i^eople  impoverished 
by  frequent  taxation  of  our  lord  the  king,'  until 
they  had  fled,  of  churches  allowed  to  fall  into 
ruin  because  there  were  none  to  worship  within 
their  walls,  and  of  religious  houses  extinguished 


839 


ENGLAND,  1333-1380. 


The  Black  Death. 


ENGLAND,  1350-1400. 


because  the  monks  and  nuns  had  died,  and  none 
had  been  found  to  supply  their  places.  ...  To 
the  poverty  of  the  country  and  the  consequent 
inability  of  the  nation  to  maintain  the  costly 
wars  of  Edward  III.,  are  attributed  the  enact- 
ments of  sumptuary  laws,  which  were  passed 
because  men  who  spent  much  on  their  table  and 
dress  were  unable  '  to  help  their  liege  lord '  in 
the  battle  field."— W.  Denton,  JSng.  in  the  15th 
Century,  int.,  pt.  2. 

A.  D.  1348-1349.— The  Black  Death  and  its 
effects.— "The  plague  of  1349  .  .  .  produced 
in  every  country  some  marked  social  changes. 
...  In  England  the  effects  of  the  plague  are 
historically  prominent  chiefly  among  the  lower 
classes  of  society.  The  population  was  dimin- 
ished to  an  extent  to  which  it  is  impossible  now 
even  to  approximate,  but  which  bewildered  and 
appalled  the  writers  of  the  time ;  whole  districts 
were  thrown  out  of  cultivation,  whole  parishes 
depopulated,  the  number  of  labourers  was  so 
much  diminished  that  on  the  one  hand  the  surviv- 
ors demanded  an  extravagant  rate  of  wages,  and 
even  combined  to  enforce  it,  whilst  on  the  other 
hand  the  landowners  had  to  resort  to  every  anti- 
quated claim  of  service  to  get  their  estates  culti- 
vated at  all ;  the  whole  system  of  farming  was 
changed  in  consequence,  the  great  landlords  and 
the  monastic  corporations  ceased  to  manage  their 
estates  by  farming  stewards,  and  after  a  short 
interval,  during  which  the  lands  with  the  stock 
on  them  were  let  to  the  cultivator  on  short  leases, 
the  modern  system  of  letting  was  introduced, 
and  the  permanent  distinction  between  the  farmer 
and  the  labourer  established. " — W.  Stubbs,  Const. 
Hist,  of  En(j.,  ch.  16,  sect.  359.— "On  the  first  of 
August  1348  the  disease  appeared  in  the  seaport 
towns  of  Dorsetshire,  and  travelled  slowly  west- 
wards and  northwards,  through  Devonshire  and 
Somersetshire  to  Bristol.  In  order,  if  possible, 
to  arrest  its  progress,  all  intercourse  with  the 
citizens  of  Bristol  was  prohibited  by  the  authori- 
ties of  the  county  of  Gloucester.  These  pre- 
cautions were  however  taken  in  vain ;  the  Plague 
continued  to  Oxford,  and,  travelling  slowly  in 
the  same  measured  way,  reached  London  by  the 
first  of  November.  It  appeared  in  Norwich  on 
the  first  of  January,  and  thence  spread  north- 
wards. .  .  .  The  mortality  was  enormous.  Per- 
haps from  one-third  to  one-half  the  population 
fell  victims  to  the  disease.  Adam  of  Monmouth 
says  that  only  a  tenth  of  the  population  survived. 
Similar  amplifications  are  found  in  all  the  chroni- 
clers. We  are  told  that  60,000  persons  perished 
in  Norwich  between  January  and  July  1349.  No 
doubt  Norwich  was  at  that  time  the  second  city 
in  the  kingdom,  but  the  number  is  impossible. 
...  It  is  stated  that  in  England  the  weight  of 
the  calamity  fell  on  the  poor,  and  that  the  higher 
classes  were  less  severely  affected.  But  Edward's 
daughter  Joan  fell  a  victim  to  it  and  three  arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury  perished  in  the  same  year. 
.  .  .  All  contemporary  writers  inform  us  that  the 
immediate  consequence  of  the  Plague  was  a 
dearth  of  labour,  and  excessive  enhancement  of 
wages,  and  thereupon  a  serious  loss  to  the  land- 
owners. To  meet  this  scarcity  the  king  issued  a 
proclamation  directed  to  the  sheriffs  of  the  several 
counties,  which  forbad  the  payment  of  higher 
than  the  customary  wages,  under  the  penalties  of 
amercement.  But  the  king's  mandate  was  every 
where  disobeyed.  .  .  .  Many  of  the  labourers 
were  thrown  into  prison:  many  to  avoid  punish- 


ment fled  to  the  forests,  but  were  occasionally 
captured  and  fined ;  and  all  were  constrained  to 
disavow  under  oath  that  they  would  take  higher 
than  customary  wages  for  the  future. " — J.  E.  T. 
Rogers,  Hist,  of  Agriculture  and  Prices  in  Eng., 
V.  1,  c7i.  15.      See  Black  Death. 

Also  in  :  F.  A.  Gasquet,  The  Great  Pestilence. 
— W.  Longman,  Edward  III.,  v.  1,  ch.  16. — A, 
Jessop,  The  Coming  of  the  Friars,  itc,  ch.  4-5, 

A.  D.  1350-1400. — Chaucer  and  his  relations 
to  English  language  and  literature. —  "At  the 
time  when  the  conflict  between  church  and  state 
was  most  violent,  and  when  Wyclif  was  begin- 
ning to_draw  upon  himself  the  eyes  of  patriots, 
there  was  considerable  talk  at  the  English  court 
about  a  young  man  named  Geoffrey  Chaucer, 
who  belonged  to  the  king's  household,  and  who 
both  by  his  personality  and  his  connections  en- 
joyed the  favor  of  the  royal  family.  .  .  .  On 
many  occasions,  even  thus  early,  he  had  ap- 
peared as  a  miracle  of  learning  to  those  about 
him  —  he  read  Latin  as  easily  as  French;  he 
spoke  a  more  select  English  than  others;  and 
it  was  known  that  he  had  composed,  or,  as  the 
expression  then  was,  'made,'  many  beautiful  Eng- 
lish verses.  The  young  poet  belonged  to  a  well- 
to-do  middle-class  family  who  had  many  far- 
reaching  connections,  and  even  some  influence 
with  the  court.  .  .  .  Even  as  a  boy  he  may  have 
heard  his  father,  John  Chaucer,  the  vintner  of 
Thames  Street,  London,  telling  of  the  marvelous 
voyage  he  had  made  to  Antwerp  and  Cologne  in 
the  brilliant  suite  of  Edward  III.  in  1338.  "When 
a  youth  of  sixteen  or  seventeen,  Geoffrey  served 
as  a  page  or  squire  to  Elizabeth,  duchess  of 
Ulster,  first  wife  of  Lionel,  duke  of  Clarence,  and 
daughter-in-law  of  the  king.  He  bore  arms 
when  about  nineteen  years  of  age,  and  went  to 
France  in  1359,  in  the  army  commanded  by 
Edward  III.  .  .  .  This  epoch  formed  a  sort  of 
'  Indian  summer '  to  the  age  of  chivalry,  and  its 
spirit  found  expression  in  great  deeds  of  war  as 
well  as  in  the  festivals  and  manners  of  the  court. 
The  ideal  which  men  strove  to  realize  did  not 
quite  correspond  to  the  spirit  of  the  former  age. 
On  the  whole,  people  had  become  more  worldly 
and  practical,  and  were  generally  anxious  to 
protect  the  real  interests  of  life  from  the  un- 
warranted interference  of  romantic  aspirations. 
The  spirit  of  chivalry  no  longer  formed  a  funda- 
mental element,  but  only  an  ornament  of  life  — 
an  ornament,  indeed,  which  was  made  much  of, 
and  which  was  looked  upon  with  a  sentiment 
partaking  of  enthusiasm.  ...  In  the  midst  of 
this  outside  world  of  motley  pomp  and  throbbing 
life  Geoffrey  could  observe  the  doings  of  high 
and  low  in  various  situations.  He  was  early 
initiated  into  court  intrigues,  and  even  into  many 
political  secrets,  and  found  opportunities  of 
studying  the  human  type  in  numerous  indi- 
viduals and  according  to  the  varieties  developed 
by  rank  in  life,  education,  age,  and  sex.  .  .  . 
Nothing  has  been  preserved  from  his  early  writ- 
ings. .  .  .  The  fact  is  very  remarkable  that  from 
the  first,  or  at  least  from  a  very  early  period, 
Chaucer  wrote  in  the  English  language  —  how- 
ever natural  this  may  seem  to  succeeding  ages 
in  'The  Father  of  English  Poetry.'  The  court 
of  Edward  III.  favored  the  language  as  well  as 
the  literature  of  France ;  a  considerable  number 
of  French  poets  and  '  menestrels '  were  in  the 
service  and  pay  of  the  English  king.  Queen 
Philippa,  in  particular,  showing  herself  in  this  a 


840 


ENGLAND,  1350-1400. 


Chaitcer. 


ENGLAND,  1360-1414. 


true  daughter  of  her  native  Hainault,  formed 
the  centre  of  a  society  cultivating  the  French 
language  and  poetry.  She  had  in  her  personal 
service  Jean  Froissart,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
representatives  of  that  language  and  poetry ;  like 
herself  he  belonged  to  one  of  the  most  northern 
districts  of  the  French-speaking  territory;  he 
had  made  himself  a  great  name,  as  a  prolific  and 
clever  writer  of  erotic  and  allegoric  trifles,  be- 
fore he  sketched  out  in  his  famous  chronicle  the 
motley-colored,  vivid  picture  of  that  eventful 
age.  We  also  see  in  this  period  young  English- 
men of  rank  and  education  trj'ing  their  flight  on 
the  French  Parnassus.  .  .  .  To  these  Anglo- 
French  poets  there  belonged  also  a  Kentishman  of 
noble  family,  named  John  Gower.  Though  some 
ten  years  the  senior  of  Chaucer,  he  had  probably 
met  him  about  this  time.  They  were  certainly 
afterwards  very  intimately  acquainted.  Gower 
.  .  .  had  received  a  very  careful  education,  and 
loved  to  devote  the  time  he  could  spare  from  the 
management  of  his  estates  to  study  and  poetry. 
His  learning  was  in  many  respects  greater  than 
Chaucer's.  He  had  studied  the  Latin  poets  so 
diligently  that  he  could  easily  express  himself  in 
their  language,  and  he  was  equally  good  at 
writing  French  verses,  which  were  able  to  pass 
muster,  at  least  in  England.  .  .  .  But  Chaucer 
did  not  let  himself  be  led  astray  by  examples 
such  as  these.  It  is  possible  that  he  would  have 
found  writing  in  French  no  easy  task,  even  if  he 
had  attempted  it.  At  any  rate  his  bourgeois 
origin,  and  the  seriousness  of  his  vocation  as 
poet,  threw  a  determining  weight  into  the  scale 
and  secured  his  fidelity  to  the  English  language 
with  a  commendable  consistency." — B.  Ten 
Brink,  Hist,  of  English  Literature,  bk.  4,  ch.  4 
(».  2,  pt.  1). — "English  was  not  taught  in  the 
schools,  but  French  only,  until  after  the  acces- 
sion of  Richard  II.,  or  possibly  the  latter  years 
of  Edward  III.,  and  Latin  was  always  studied 
through  the  French.  Up  to  this  period,  then,  as 
there  were  no  standards  of  literary  authority, 
and  probably  no  written  collections  of  estab- 
lished forms,  or  other  grammatical  essays,  the 
language  had  no  fixedness  or  uniformity,  and 
hardly  deserved  to  be  called  a  written  speech. 
.  .  .  From  this  Babylonish  confusion  of  speech, 
the  influence  and  example  of  Chaucer  did  more 
to  rescue  his  native  tongue  than  any  other  single 
cause ;  and  if  we  compare  his  dialect  with  that 
of  any  writer  of  an  earlier  date,  we  shall  find 
that  in  compass,  flexibility,  expressiveness,  grace, 
and  all  the  higher  qualities  of  poetical  diction, 
he  gave  it  at  once  the  utmost  perfection  which 
the  materials  at  his  hand  would  permit  of.  The 
English  writers  of  the  fourteenth  century  had  an 
advantage  which  was  altogether  peculiar  to  their 
age  and  country.  At  all  previous  periods,  the 
two  languages  had  co-existed,  in  a  great  degree 
independently  of  each  other,  with  little  tendency 
to  intermix ;  but  in  the  earlier  part  of  that  cen- 
tury, they  began  to  coalesce,  and  this  process 
was  going  on  with  a  rapidity  that  threatened  a 
predominance  of  the  French,  if  not  a  total  ex- 
tinction of  the  Saxon  element.  .  .  .  When  the 
national  spirit  was  aroused,  and  Impelled  to  the 
creation  of  a  national  literature,  the  poet  or  prose 
writer,  in  selecting  his  diction,  had  almost  two 
whole  vocabularies  before  him.  That  the  syntax 
should  be  English,  national  feeling  demanded ; 
but  French  was  so  familiar  and  habitual  to  all 
who  were  able  to  read,  that  probably  the  scholar- 


ship of  the  day  would  scarcely  have  been  able  to 
determine,  with  respect  to  a  large  proportion  of 
the  words  in  common  use,  from  which  of  the 
two  great  wells  of  speech  they  had  proceeded. 
Happily,  a  great  arbiter  arose  at  the  critical  mo- 
ment of  severance  of  the  two  peoples  and  dia- 
lects, to  preside  over  the  division  of  the  common 
property,  and  to  determine  what  share  of  the 
contributions  of  France  should  be  permanently 
annexed  to  the  linguistic  inheritance  of  English- 
men. Chaucer  did  not  introduce  into  the  Eng- 
lish language  words  which  it  had  rejected  as  aliens 
before,  but  out  of  those  which  had  been  already 
received,  he  invested  the  better  portion  with  the 
rights  of  citizenship,  and  stamped  them  with 
the  mint-mark  of  English  coinage.  In  this  way, 
he  formed  a  vocabulary,  which,  with  few  ex- 
ceptions, the  taste  and  opinion  of  succeeding 
generations  has  approved ;  and  a  literary  diction 
was  thus  established,  which,  in  all  the  qualities 
required  for  the  poetic  art,  had  at  that  time  no 
superior  in  the  languages  of  modern  Europe 
The  soundness  of  Chaucer's  judgment,  the  nicety 
of  his  philological  appreciation,  and  the  delicacy 
of  his  sense  of  adaptation  to  the  actual  wants  of 
the  English  people,  are  sufficiently  proved  by 
the  fact  that,  of  the  Romance  words  found  in  his 
writings,  not  much  above  one  hundred  have  been 
suffered  to  become  obsolete,  while  a  much  larger 
number  of  Anglo-Saxon  words  employed  by 
him  have  passed  altogether  out  of  use.  ...  In 
the  three  centuries  which  elapsed  between  the 
Conquest  and  the  noon-tide  of  Chaucer's  life,  a 
large  proportion  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  dialect  of  re- 
ligion, of  moral  and  Intellectual  discourse,  and  of 
taste,  had  become  utterly  obsolete,  and  unknown. 
The  place  of  the  lost  words  had  been  partly  sup- 
plied by  the  importation  of  Continental  terms; 
but  the  new  words  came  without  the  organic 
power  of  composition  and  derivation  which  be- 
longed to  those  they  had  supplanted.  Conse- 
quently, they  were  incapable  of  those  modifica- 
tions of  form  and  extensions  of  meaning  which 
the  Anglo-Saxon  roots  could  so  easily  assume, 
and  which  fitted  them  for  the  expression  of  the 
new  shades  of  thought  and  of  sentiment  born  of 
every  hour  in  a  mind  and  an  age  like  those  of 
Chaucer." — G.  P.  Marsh,  Origin  and  Hist,  oftlie 
Eng.  Lang.,  lect.  9. 

Also  in  :  T.  R.  Lounsbury,  Studies  in  Chaucer. 
— A.  W.  Ward,  Chaumr. — W.  Godwin,  Life  of 
Geoffrey  Chaucer. 

A.  D.  1360-1414. — The  Lollards. — "The  Lol- 
lards were  the  earliest  '  Protestants '  of  England. 
They  were  the  followers  of  John  Wyclif,  but  be- 
fore his  time  the  nickname  of  Lollard  had  been 
known  on  the  continent.  A  little  brotherhood  of 
pious  people  had  sprung  up  in  Holland,  about 
the  year  1300,  who  lived  in  a  half-monastic  fashion 
and  devoted  themselves  to  helping  the  poor  in  the 
burial  of  their  dead;  and,  from  the  low  chants 
they  sang  at  the  funerals  —  lollen  being  the  old 
word  for  such  singing  —  they  were  called  Lol- 
lards. The  priests  and  friars  hated  them  and 
accused  them  of  heresy,  and  a  Walter  Lollard, 
probably  one  of  them,  was  burnt  in  1323  at  Co- 
logne as  a  heretic,  and  gradually  the  name  became 
a  nickname  for  such  people.  So  when  Wyclif 's 
'  simple  priests '  were  preaching  the  new  doctrines, 
the  name  already  familiar  in  Holland  and  Ger- 
many, was  given  to  them,  and  gradually  became 
the  name  for  that  whole  movement  of  religious 
reformation  which  grew  up  from  the  seed  Wyclif 


841 


ENGLAND,  1360-1414. 


^^'!/cl^Jfe  mid  the 
Lollards, 


ENGLAND,  1360-1414. 


sowed." — B.  Herford,  Story  of  Religion  in  Eiig.,ch. 
16.— "A  turning  point  arrived  in  the  history  of 
the  reforming  party  at  tlie  accession  of  the  house 
of  Lancaster.  King  Henry  the  Fourth  was  not 
only  a  devoted  son  of  the  Church,  but  he  owed 
his  success  in  no  slight  measure  to  tlie  assistance 
of  the  Churchmen,  and  above  all  to  that  of  Arch- 
bishop Arundel.  It  was  felt  that  the  new  dy- 
nasty and  the  hierarchy  stood  or  fell  together. 
A  mixture  of  religious  and  political  motives 
led  to  tlie  passing  of  the  well-known  statute 
'  De  hseretico  comburendo '  in  1401  and  thencefor- 
ward Lollardy  was  a  capital  offence." — R.  L. 
Poole,  Wydiffeaiul  Movements  for  Reform,  ch.  8. — 
"The  abortive  insurrection  of  the  Lollards  at  the 
commencement  of  Henry  V.'s  reign,  under  the 
leadership  of  Sir  John  Oldcastle,  had  the  effect 
of  adding  to  the  penal  laws  already  in  existence 
against  the  sect. "  This  gave  to  Lollardy  a  political 
character  and  made  the  Lollards  enemies  against 
the  State,  as  is  evident  from  the  king's  proclama- 
tion in  which  it  was  asserted  ' '  that  the  insurgents 
intended  to  '  destroy  him,  his  brothers  and  several 
of  the  spiritual  and  temporal  lords,  to  confiscate 
the  possessions  of  the  Church,  to  .secularize  the 
religious  orders,  to  divide  the  realm  into  confed- 
erate districts,  and  to  appoint  Sir  John  Old- 
castle president  of  the  commonwealth.'" — T.  P. 
Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist,  {ith  ed.), 
ch.  11. — "The  early  life  of  Wycliffe  is  obscure. 
...  He  emerges  into  distinct  notice  in  1360, 
ten  years  subsequent  to  the  passing  of  the  first 
Statute  of  Provisors,  having  then  acquired  a 
great  Oxford  reputation  as  a  lecturer  in  divinity. 
.  .  .  He  was  a  man  of  most  simple  life;  aus- 
tere in  appearance,  with  bare  feet  and  russet 
mantle.  As  a  soldier  of  Christ,  he  saw  In  his 
Great  Master  and  his  Apostles  the  patterns  whom 
he  was  bound  to  imitate.  By  the  contagion  of 
example  he  gathered  about  him  other  men  who 
thought  as  he  did;  and  gradually,  under  his  cap- 
taincy, these  '  poor  priests  '  as  they  were  called 
—  vowed  to  poverty  because  Christ  was  poor  — 
vowed  to  accept  no  benefice  .  .  .  spread  out  over 
the  country  as  an  army  of  missionaries,  to  preach 
the  faith  which  they  found  in  the  Bible  —  lo 
preach,  not  of  relics  and  of  indulgences,  but  of 
repentance  and  of  the  grace  of  God.  They  car- 
ried with  them  copies  of  the  Bible  which  Wycliffe 
had  translated,  .  .  .  and  they  refused  to  recognize 
the  authority  of  the  bishops,  or  their  right  to 
silence  them.  If  this  had  been  all,  and  perhaps 
if  Edward  III.  had  been  succeeded  by  a  prince 
less  miserably  incapable  than  his  grandson  Rich- 
ard, AVycliffe  might  have  made  good  his  ground ; 
the  movement  of  the  parliament  against  the  pope 
might  have  united  in  a  common  stream  with  the 
spiritual  move  against  the  church  at  home,  and 
the  Reformation  have  been  antedated  by  a  cen- 
tury. He  was  summoned  to  answer  for  himself 
before  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  1377. 
Ho  appeared  in  court  supported  by  the  presence 
of  John  of  Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lanca.ster,  the  elilest 
of  Edward's  surviving  sous,  and  the  authorities 
were  unable  to  strike  him  behind  so  powerful  a 
shield.  But  the  '  poor  ]3riests '  had  other  doc- 
trines. .  .  .  His  [Wycliffe's]  theory  of  property, 
and  his  study  of  the  character  of  Christ,  had  led 
him  to  the  near  confines  of  Anabaptism."  The 
rebellion  of  Wat  Tyler,  which  occurred  in  1381, 
east  odium  upon  all  such  opinions.  "  So  long  as 
Wycliffe  lived,  his  own  lofty  character  was  a 
guarantee  for  the  conduct  of  his  immediate  dis- 


ciples ;  and  although  his  favour  had  far  declined, 

a  party  in  the  state  remained  attached  to  him, 
with  sufficient  influence  to  prevent  the  adoption 
of  extreme  measures  against  the  'poor  priests.' 
.  .  .  They  were  left  \mmolested  for  the  next 
twenty  years.  .  .  .  On  the  settlement  of  the  coun- 
try under  Henry  IV.  they  fell  under  the  general 
ban  which  struck  down  all  parties  who  had  shared 
in  the  late  disturbances." — J.  A.  Froude,  Mist, 
if  Eng.,  ch.  6. — "Wycliffe's  translation  of  the 
Bible  itself  created  a  new  era,  and  gave  birth  to 
what  may  be  said  never  to  have  existed  till  then 
—  a  popular  theology.  ...  It  is  difficult  in  our 
day  to  imagine  the  impression  such  a  book  must 
have  produced  in  an  age  which  lunl  scarcely  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  popular  literature,  and  which 
had  been  accustomed  to  regard  the  Scriptures  as 
the  special  property  of  the  learned.  It  was  wel- 
comed with  an  enthusiasm  which  could  not  be 
restrained,  and  read  with  avidity  both  by  priests 
and  laymen.  .  .  .  The  homely  wisdom,  blended 
with  eternal  truth,  wliich  has  long  since  enriched 
our  vernacular  speech  with  a  multitude  of  prov- 
erbs, could  not  thenceforth  be  restrained  in  its 
circulation  by  mere  pious  awe  or  time-honoured 
])rejudicc.  Divinity  was  discussed  in  ale-houses. 
Popular  preachers  made  war  upon  old  prejudices, 
and  did  much  to  shock  that  sense  of  reverence 
which  belonged  to  an  earlier  generation.  A  new 
school  had  arisen  with  a  theology  of  its  own,  warn- 
ing the  people  against  the  delusive  preacliing  of 
the  friars,  and  asserting  loudly  its  own  claims  to 
be  true  and  evangelical,  on  the  ground  that  it 
possessed  the  gospel  in  the  English  tongue.  Ap- 
pealing to  such  an  authority  in  their  favour,  the 
eloquence  of  the  new  teachers  made  a  marvellous 
impression.  Their  followers  increased  with  ex- 
traordinary rapidity.  By  the  estimate  of  an  op- 
ponent they  soon  numbered  half  the  population, 
and  you  could  hardly  see  two  persons  in  the  street 
but  one  of  them  was  a  Wycliffite.  .  .  .  They 
were  supported  by  the  powerful  influence  of  John 
of  Gaunt,  who  shielded  not  only  AVycliffe  him- 
self, but  even  the  most  violent  of  the  fanatics. 
And,  certainly,  whatever  might  have  been  Wy- 
cliffe's own  view,  doctrines  were  promulgated  by 
his  reputed  followers  that  were  distinctly  sub- 
versive of  authority.  John  Ball  fomented  the  in- 
surrection of  Wat  Tyler,  by  preaching  the  natural 
equality  of  men.  .  .  .  But  the  popularity  of  Lol- 
lardy was  short-lived.  The  extravagance  to 
which  it  led  soon  alienated  the  sympathies  of  the 
people,  and  the  sect  fell  off  in  numbers  almost  as 
rapidly  as  it  had  risen." — J.  Gairdner,  Studies  in 
Eng.  JIisi.,t-2. — "Wyclif  .  .  .  was  not  without 
numerous  followers,  and  the  Lollardism  which 
sprang  out  of  his  teaching  was  a  living  force  in 
England  for  some  time  to  come.  But  it  was  weak 
through  its  connection  with  suliversive  social  doc- 
trines. He  liimself  stood  aloof  from  such  doc- 
trines, but  he  could  not  prevent  his  followers 
from  mingling  in  the  social  fray.  It  was  perhaps 
their  merit  that  they  did  so.  The  established  con- 
stitutional order  was  but  another  name  for  op- 
pression and  wrong  to  the  lower  classes.  But  as 
yet  the  lower  classes  were  not  sufficiently  ad- 
vanced in  moral  and  political  training  to  make  it 
safe  to  entrust  them  with  the  task  of  righting 
their  own  wrongs  as  they  would  have  attempted 
to  right  them  if  they  hatl  gained  the  mastery.  It 
had  nevertheless  become  impossible  to  leave  the 
peasants  to  be  once  more  goaded  by  suffering  into 
rebellion.     The  attempt,  if  it  had  been  made,  to 


842 


ENGLAND,  1360-1414. 


Richard  II.  and 
Wat  Tijler. 


ENGLAND,  1381. 


enforce  absolute  labour-rents  was  tacitly  aban- 
doned, and  gra<lually  during  the  next  century  the 
mass  of  the  villeins  passed  into  the  position  of 
freemen.  For  the  moment,  nobles  and  prelates, 
landowners  and  clergy,  banded  themselves  to- 
gether to  form  one  great  party  of  resistance.  The 
church  came  to  be  but  an  outwork  of  the  baron- 
age." — S.  R.  Gardiner  and  J.  B.  Mullinger, /«J7W?. 
to  the  Study  of  Eiuj.  Hist.,  pt.  1,  ch.  5,  sect.  14-15. 

Also  in:  L.  Sergeant,  John  Wyclif. — G.  Lech- 
ler,  John  Wtclif  and  his  English  Precursors. — See, 
also,  BonEMiA;  A.  D.  1405-1415,  and  Begdines. 

A.  D.  1377. — Accession  of  King  Richard  II. 

A.  D.  1377-1399. — The  character  and  reign 
of  Richard  II. — "  Richard  II.  was  a  far  superior 
man  to  many  of  the  weaker  kings  of  England ; 
but  being  self-willed  and  unwarlike,  he  was  un- 
fitted for  the  work  which  the  times  required. 
Yet,  on  a  closer  inspection  than  the  traditional 
view  of  the  reign  has  generally  encoin-aged,  we 
cannot  but  observe  that  the  finer  qualities  which 
came  out  in  certain  crises  of  his  reign  appear 
to  have  frequently  influenced  his  conduct:  we 
know  tliat  he  was  not  an  immoral  man,  that  he 
was  an  excellent  husband  to  an  excellent  wife, 
and  that  he  had  devoted  friends,  willing  to  lay 
down  their  lives  for  him  when  there  was  nothing 
whatever  left  for  them  to  gain.  .  .  .  Richard, 
who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  purple  quite  as 
much  as  Edward  II.,  was  kept  under  restraint 
by  his  uncles,  and  not  being  judiciously  guided 
in  the  arts  of  government,  fell,  like  his  proto- 
type, into  the  hands  of  favourites.  His  brilliant 
behaviour  in  the  insurrection  of  1381  indicated 
much  more  tlian  mere  possession  of  the  Plantage- 
net  courage  and  presence  of  mind.  He  showed 
a  real  sympathy  with  the  villeins  who  had  un- 
deniable grievances.  .  .  .  His  instincts  were  un- 
doubtedly for  freedom  and  forgiveness,  and  there 
is  no  proof,  nor  even  probability,  that  he  in- 
tended to  use  the  villeins  against  his  enemies. 
His  early  and  happy  marriage  with  Anne  of 
Bohemia  ought,  one  might  think,  to  have  saved 
him  from  the  vice  of  favouritism ;  but  he  was  at 
least  more  fortunate  than  Edward  II.  in  not  being 
cast  under  the  spell  of  a  Ga  veston.  When  we  con- 
sider the  effect  of  such  a  galling  government  as 
that  of  his  uncle  Gloucester,  and  his  cousin  Derby, 
afterwards  Henry  IV.,  who  seems  to  have  been 
pushing  Gloucester  on  from  the  first,  we  can 
hardly  be  surprised  that  he  should  require  some 
friend  to  lean  upon.  The  reign  is,  in  short,  from 
one,  and  jjerliaps  the  truest,  point  of  view,  a  long 
duel  between  the  son  of  the  Black  Prince  and  the 
sou  of  John  of  Gaunt.  One  or  other  of  them  must 
inevitably  perish.  A  handsome  and  cultivated 
youth,  who  showed  himself  at  fifteen  every  inch 
a  king,  who  was  married  at  sixteen,  ami  led  his 
own  army  to  Scotland  at  eighteen,  required  a 
diflercnt  treatment  from  that  which  he  received. 
He  was  a  man,  and  should  have  been  dealt  with 
as  such.  His  lavish  and  reprehensible  grants  to 
his  favourites  were  made  the  excuse  for  Glou- 
cester's violent  interference  in  1380,  but  there  is 
good  ground  for  believing  that  the  movement 
was  encouraged  by  the  anti-Wicliffite  party, 
which  had  taken  alarm  at  the  sympathy  with  the 
Reformers  shown  at  this  time  by  Richard  and 
Anne. " —  M.  Burrows,  Commentaries  on  the  His- 
tory of  England,  hk.  3,  ch.  5. 

Also  in:  J.  R.  Green,  Hist,  of  tlis  English 
People,  bk.  4,  ch.  4  {v.  1). — C.  H.  Pearson,  English 
Hist,  in  the  \i.th  Cent'y,  ch.  10-13. 


A.  D.  1381.— Wat  Tyler's  Rebellion.— '•  In 

June  1381  there  broke  out  in  England  the  for- 
midable insurrection  known  as  Wat  Tyler's  Re- 
bellion. The  movement  seems  to  have  begun 
among  the  bondmen  of  Essex  and  of  Kent ;  but 
it  spread  at  once  to  the  counties  of  Sussex, 
Hertford,  Cambridge,  Suffolk  and  Norfolk 
The  peasantry,  armed  with  bludgeons  and  rusty 
swords,  first  occupied  the  roads  by  which  pil- 
grims went  to  Canterbury,  and  made  every  one 
swear  that  he  would  be  true  to  king  Richard 
and  not  accept  a  king  named  John.  This,  of 
course,  was  aimed  at  the  government  of  John  of 
Gaunt  [Duke  of  Lancaster],  ...  to  whom  the 
people  attributed  every  grievance  they  had  to 
complain  of.  The  principal,  or  at  least  the  im- 
mediate cause  of  offence  arose  out  of  a  poll-tax 
which  had  been  voted  in  the  preceding  year. " — 
J.  Gairdner,  Houses  of  Lancaster  and  York,  ch.  3. 
— The  leaders  of  the  insurgents  were  Wat  the 
Tyler,  who  had  been  a  soldier,  John  Ball,  a  priest 
and  preacher  of  democratic  and  socialistic  doc- 
trines, and  one  known  as  Jack  Straw.  They  made 
their  way  to  Loudou.  "  It  ought  to  have  been 
easy  to  keep  them  out  of  the  city,  as  the  only 
approach  to  it  was  by  London  Bridge,  and  the 
mayor  and  chief  citizens  proposed  to  defend  it. 
But  the  Londoners  generally,  and  even  three  of 
the  aldermen,  were  well  inclined  to  the  rebels, 
and  declared  that  they  would  not  let  the  gates  be 
shut  against  their  friends  and  neighbours,  and 
would  kill  the  mayor  himself  if  he  attempted  to 
do  it.  So  on  the  evening  of  Wednesday,  June 
13,  the  insurgents  began  to  stream  in  across  the 
bridge,  and  next  morning  marched  their  whole 
body  across  the  river,  and  proceeded  at  once  to 
the  Savoy,  the  splendid  palace  of  the  Duke  of 
Lancaster.  Proclamation  was  made  that  any 
one  found  stealing  the  smallest  article  would  be 
beheaded ;  and  the  place  was  then  wrecked  and 
burned  with  all  the  formalities  of  a  solemn  act 
of  -justice.  Gold  and  silver  plate  was  shattered 
with  battle-axes  and  thrown  into  the  Thames; 
rings  and  smaller  jewels  were  brayed  in  mortars; 
silk  and  embroidered  dresses  were  trampled  un- 
der feet  and  torn  up.  Then  the  Temple  was 
burned  with  all  its  muniments.  The  jjoet  Gower 
was  among  the  lawyers  who  had  to  save  their 
lives  by  flight,  and  he  passed  several  nights  in 
the  woods  of  Essex,  covered  with  grass  and 
leaves  and  living  on  acorns.  Then  the  great 
house  of  the  Hospitallers  at  Clerkenwell  was  de- 
stroyed, taking  seven  days  to  burn. "  The  young 
king  (Richard  II.)  and  his  court  and  council  had 
taken  refuge  in  the  Tower.  The  insurgents  uow 
threatened  to  storm  their  stronghold  if  the  king 
did  not  come  out  and  speak  to  them.  The  king 
consented  and  appointed  a  rendezvous  at  Mile 
End.  He  kept  the  appointment  and  met  his 
turbulent  subjects  with  so  much  courage  and 
tact  and  so  many  promises,  that  he  persuaded  a 
great  number  to  disperse  to  their  homes.  But 
while  this  pacific  interview  took  place,  Wat 
Tyler,  John  Ball,  and  some  400  of  their  followers 
burst  into  the  Tower,  determined  to  find  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbur}'  and  the  Lord  Treas- 
urer, Sir  Robert  de  Hales,  who  were  the  most 
obnoxious  ministers.  "  So  great  was  the  general 
consternation  that  the  soldiers  dared  not  raise  a 
hand  while  these  ruffians  searched  the  different 
rooms,  not  sparing  even  the  king's  bedroom, 
running  spears  into  tlie  beds,  asked  the  king's 
mother  to  kiss  them,  and  played  insolent  jokes 


843 


ENGLAND,  1381. 


Oppression  of  the 
Peasantry. 


ENGLAND,  1399-1471. 


on  the  chief  officers.  Unhappily  they  were  not 
long  in  finding  the  archbishop,  who  had  said 
mass  in  the  chapel,  and  was  kneeling  at  the  altar 
in  expectation  of  their  approach."  The  Lord 
Treasurer  was  also  found,  and  both  he  and  the 
archbishop  were  summarily  beheaded  by  the 
mob.  "Murder  now  became  the  order  of  the 
day,  and  foreigners  were  among  the  chief  vic- 
tims; thirteen  Flemings  were  dragged  out  of 
one  church  and  beheaded,  seventeen  out  of 
another,  and  altogether  it  is  said  400  perished. 
Many  private  enmities  were  revenged  by  the 
London  rabble  on  this  day."  On  the  next  day, 
June  15,  the  king,  with  an  armed  escort,  went  to 
the  camp  of  the  insurgents,  at  Smithfield,  and 
opened  negotiations  with  Tyler,  offering  suc- 
cessively three  forms  of  a  new  charter  of  popu- 
lar rights  and  liberties,  all  of  which  were  re- 
jected. Finally,  Tyler  was  invited  to  a  personal 
conference,  and  there,  in  the  midst  of  the  king's 
party,  on  some  provocation  or  pretended  provo- 
cation in  his  words  or  bearing,  the  popular 
leader  was  struck  from  his  horse  and  killed. 
King  Richard  immediately  rode  out  before  the 
ranks  of  the  rebels,  while  they  were  still  dazed 
by  the  suddenness  and  audacity  of  the  treacher- 
ous blow,  crying  "  I  will  be  your  leader;  follow 
me."  The  thoughtless  mob  followed  and  soon 
found  itself  surrounded  by  bodies  of  troops 
whose  courage  had  revived.  The  king  now 
commanded  the  trembling  peasants  "to  fall  on 
their  knees,  cut  the  strings  of  their  bows,  and 
leave  the  city  and  its  neighbourhood,  under  pain 
of  death,  before  nightfall.  This  command  was 
instantly  obeyed."  Meantime  and  afterwards 
there  were  many  lesser  risings  in  various  parts 
of  the  country,  all  of  which  were  suppressed, 
with  such  rigorous  prosecutions  in  the  courts 
that  1,500  persons  are  said  to  have  suffered 
judicially. — C.  H.  Pearson,  Eng.  Hist,  in  the 
Fourteenth  Century,  ch.  10. — The  AVat  Tyler  in- 
surrection proved  disastrous  in  its  effect  on  the 
work  of  Church  reform  which  Wyclif  was  then 
pursuing.  "Not  only  was  the  power  of  the 
Lancastrian  party,  on  which  Wyclif  had  re- 
lied, for  the  moment  annihilated,  but  the  quarrel 
between  the  Baronage  and  Church,  on  which  his 
action  had  hitherto  been  grounded,  was  hushed 
in  the  presence  of  a  common  danger.  Much  of 
the  odium  of  the  outbreak,  too,  fell  on  the  Re- 
former. .  .  .  John  Ball,  who  had  figured  in  the 
front  rank  of  the  revolt,  was  claimed  as  one  of 
his  adherents.  .  .  .  Whatever  belief  such  charges 
might  gain,  it  is  certain  that  from  this  moment 
all  plans  for  the  reorganization  of  the  Church 
were  confounded  in  the  general  odium  which  at- 
tached to  the  projects  of  the  socialist  peasant 
leaders." — J.  R.  Green,  Short  Hist,  of  the  Emj. 
People,  ch.  5,  sect.  3. — "When  Parliament  as- 
sembled it  proved  itself  as  hostile  as  the  crown 
to  the  conceding  any  of  the  demands  of  the 
people ;  both  were  faithful  to  all  the  records  of 
history  in  similar  cases ;  they  would  have  belied 
all  experience  if,  being  victorious,  they  had  con- 
sented to  the  least  concession  to  the  vanquished. 
The  upper  classes  I'epudiated  the  recognition  of 
the  rights  of  the  poor  to  a  degree,  which  in  our 
time  would  be  considered  sheer  insanity.  The 
king  had  annulled,  by  proclamatiou  to  the  sher- 
iffs, the  charters  of  manumission  which  he  had 
granted  to  the  insurgents,  and  this  revocation 
was  warmly  approved  by  both  Lords  and  Com- 
mons, who,  not  satisfied  with  saying  that  such 


enfranchisement  could  not  be  made  without  their 
consent,  added,  that  they  would  never  give  that 
consent,  even  to  save  themselves  from  perishing 
altogether  in  one  day.  There  was,  it  is  true,  a 
vague  rumour  about  the  propriety  and  wisdom 
of  abolishing  villanage;  but  the  notion  was 
scouted,  and  the  owners  of  serfs  showed  that 
they  neither  doubted  the  right  by  which  they 
held  their  fellow -creatures  in  a  state  of  slavery, 
nor  would  hesitate  to  increase  the  severity  of  the 
laws  affecting  them.  They  now  passed  a  law 
by  which  '  all  riots  and  rumours,  and  other  such 
things  were  turned  into  high  treason ' ;  this  law 
was  most  vaguely  expressed,  and  would  proba- 
bly involve  those  who  made  it  in  inextricable 
difficulties.  It  was  self-apparent,  that  this  Par- 
liament acted  under  the  impulses  of  panic,  and 
of  revenge  for  recent  injuries.  ...  It  might  be 
said  that  the  citizens  of  the  municipalities  wrote 
their  charters  of  enfranchisement  with  the  very 
blood  of  their  lords  and  bishops;  j-et,  during 
the  worst  days  of  oppression,  the  serfs  of  the 
cities  had  never  suffered  the  cruel  excesses  of 
tyranny  endured  by  the  country  people  till  the 
middle  of  the  fifteenth  century.  And,  neverthe. 
less,  the  long  struggles  of  the  townships,  despite 
the  bloodshed  and  cruelties  of  the  citizens,  are 
ever  considered  and  narrated  as  glorious  revolu- 
tions, whilst  the  brief  efforts  of  the  peasants  for 
vengeance,  which  were  drowned  in  their  own 
blood,  have  remained  as  a  stigma  flung  in  the 
face  of  the  country  populations  whenever  they 
utter  a  word  claiming  some  amelioration  in  their 
condition.  Whence  the  injustice?  The  bour- 
geoisie was  victorious  and  successful.  The 
rural  populations  were  vanquished  and  trampled 
upon.  The  bourgeoisie,  therefore,  has  had  its 
poets,  historians,  and  flatterers,  whilst  the  poor 
peasant,  rude,  untutored,  and  ignorant,  never 
had  a  lyre  nor  a  voice  to  bewail  his  lamentable 
sorrows  and  sufferings." — Prof.  De  Vericour, 
Wat  Tyler  {Royal  Hist.  Soc,  Transactions,  n.  «., 

II.  2). 

Also  in:  G.  Lechler,  John  Wiclif,  ch.  9,  sect. 
3. — C.  Knight,  Pojnilar  Hist,  of  England,  v.  3, 
ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1383. — The  Bishop  of  Norwich's  Cru- 
sade in  Flanders.     See  Flanders:  A.  D.  1383. 

A.  D.  1388. — The  Merciless  or  Wonderful 
Parliament.  See  Pakllament,  The  Wonder- 
ful. 

A.  D.  1399. — Accession  of  King  Henry  IV. 

A.  D.  1399-1471. —  House  of  Lancaster. — 
This  name  is  given  in  English  history  to  the 
family  which  became  royal  in  the  person  of 
Henry  of  Bolingbroke,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  who 
deposed  his  cousin,  Richard  II.,  or  forced  him  to 
abdicate  the  throne,  and  who  was  crowned  king 
(Henry  IV.),  Oct.  11,  1399,  with  what  seemed  to  be 
the  consent  of  the  nation.  He  not  only  claimed 
to  be  the  next  in  succession  to  Richard,  but  he  put 
forward  a  claim  of  descent  through  his  mother, 
more  direct  than  Richard's  had  been,  from  Henry 

III.  "In  point  of  fact  Henry  was  not  the  next 
in  succession.  His  father,  John  of  Gaunt  [or 
John  of  Ghent,  in  which  city  he  was  born],  was 
the  fourth  son  of  Edward  III.,  and  there  were 
descendants  of  that  king's  third  son,  Lionel  Duke 
of  Clarence,  living.  ...  At  one  time  Richard 
himself  had  designated  as  his  successor  the  noble- 
man who  really  stood  next  to  him  in  the  line  of 
descent.  This  was  Roger  Mortimer,  Earl  of 
March,  the  same  who  was  killed  by  the  rebels  in 


844 


ENGLAND,  1399-1471. 


Hotspur 
and  Henry  V. 


ENGLAND,  1431-1453. 


Ireland.  This  Roger  had  left  a  son  Edmund  to 
inherit  his  title,  but  Edmund  was  a  mere  child, 
and  the  inconvenience  of  another  minority  could 
not  have  been  endured." — J.  Gairdner,  Houses  of 
Lancaster  and  York,  ch.  2. — As  for  Henry's  pre- 
tensions through  his  mother,  they  were  founded 
upon  what  Mr.  Gairdner  calls  an  "idle  story," 
that  "the  eldest  son  of  Henry  IH.  was  not  king 
Edward,  but  his  brother  Edmund  Crouchback. 
Earl  of  Lancaster,  who  was  commonly  reputed 
the  second  son ;  and  that  this  Edmund  had  been 
purposely  set  aside  on  account  of  his  personal 
deformity.  The  plain  fact  of  the  matter  was 
that  Ednumd  Crouchback  was  six  years  younger 
than  his  brother  Edward  I.  ;  and  that  his  sur- 
name Crouchback  had  not  the  smallest  reference 
to  personal  deformity,  but  only  implied  that  he 
wore  the  cross  upon  his  back  as  a  crusader."  Mr. 
Wylie  (Hist,  of  Eng.  under  Henry  IV.,  v.  1,  cli.  1) 
represents  that  this  latter  claim  was'put  forward 
under  the  advice  of  the  leading  jurists  of  the 
time,  to  give  the  appearance  of  a  legitimate  suc- 
cession ;  whereas  Henry  took  his  real  title  from 
the  will  and  assent  of  the  nation.  Henry  IV.  was 
succeeded  by  his  vigorous  son,  Henry  V.  and  he 
in  turn  by  a  feeble  son,  Henry  VI.,  during  whose 
reign  England  was  torn  by  intrigues  and  fac- 
tions, ending  in  the  lamentable  civil  wars  known 
as  the  "Wars  of  the  Roses,"  the  deposition  of 
Henry  VI.  and  the  acquisition  of  the  throne  by 
the  "  House  of  York,"  in  the  persons  of  Edward 
IV.  and  Richard  III.  It  was  a  branch  of  the 
House  of  Lancaster  that  reappeared,  after  the 
death  of  Richard  III.  in  the  royal  family  better 
known  as  the  Tudors. 

A.  D.  1400-1436. — Relations  vyith  Scotland. 
See  Scotland:  A.  D.  1400-143(1. 

A.  D.  1402-1413. — Owen  Glendower's  Rebel- 
lion in  Wales.     See  Wales:  A.  D.  1403-1413. 

A.  D.  1403. — Hotspur's  Rebellion. —  The  earl 
of  Northumberland  and  his  son,  Henry  Percy, 
called  "  Hotspur,"  had  performed  great  services 
for  Henry  IV.,  in  establishing  and  niaiutatning 
him  upon  the  throne.  ' '  At  the  outset  of  his  reign 
their  opposition  would  have  been  fatal  to  him ; 
their  adhesion  ensured  his  victory.  He  had  re- 
warded them  with  territory  and  high  offices  of 
trust,  and  they  had  by  faithful  services  ever 
since  increased  their  claims  to  gratitude  and  con- 
sideration. .  .  .  Both  father  aud  son  were  high- 
spirited,  passionate,  suspicious  men,  who  enter- 
tained an  exalted  sense  of  their  own  services  and 
could  not  endure  the  shadow  of  a  slight.  Up  to 
this  time  [early  in  1403]  not  a  doubt  had  been 
cast  ou  their  fidelity.  Northumberland  was  still 
the  king's  chief  agent  in  Parliament,  his  most 
valued  commander  in  the  field,  his  Mattathias. 
It  has  been  thought  that  Hotspur's  grudge  against 
the  king  began  with  the  notion  that  the  release 
of  his  brother-in-law,  Edmund  Mortimer  [taken 
prisoner,  the  year  before,  by  the  Welsh],  had 
been  neglected  by  the  king,  or  was  caused  by 
Henry's  claim  to  deal  with  the  prisoners  taken 
at  Homildon;  the  defenders  of  the  Percies  al- 
leged that  they  had  been  deceived  by  Henry  in 
the  first  instance,  and  only  needed  to  be  per- 
suaded that  Richard  lived  in  order  to  desert  the 
king.  It  is  more  probable  that  they  suspected 
Henry's  friendship,  and  were  exasperated  by  his 
compulsory  economies.  .  .  .  Yet  Henry  seems 
to  have  conceived  no  suspicion.  .  .  .  Northum- 
berland and  Hotspur  were  writing  for  increased 
forces  [for  the  war  with  Scotland].  ...  On  the 


10th  of  July  Henry  had  reached  Northampton- 
shfre  on  his  way  northwards;  on  the  17th  he 
heard  that  Hotspur  with  his  uncle  the  earl  of 
Worcester  were  in  arms  in  Shropshire.  They 
raised  no  cry  of  private  wrongs,  but  proclaimed 
themselves  the  vindicators  of  national  right :  their 
object  was  to  correct  the  evils  of  the  adminis- 
tration, to  enforce  the  employment  of  wise  coun- 
sellors, and  the  proper  expenditure  of  public 
money.  .  .  .  The  report  ran  like  wildfire  through 
the  west  that  Richard  was  alive,  and  at  Chester. 
Hotspur's  army  rose  to  14,000  men,  and  not  sus- 
pecting the  strength  and  promptness  of  the  king, 
he  sat  down  with  his  uncle  and  his  prisoner,  the 
carl  of  Douglas,  before  Shrewsbury.  Henry 
showed  himself  equal  to  the  need.  From  Burton- 
on-Trent,  where  on  July  17  he  summoned  the 
forces  of  the  shires  to  join  him,  he  marched  into 
Shropshire,  and  offered  to  parley  with  the  In- 
surgents. The  earl  of  AVorcester  went  between 
the  camps,  but  he  was  either  an  impolitic  or  a 
treacherous  envoy,  and  the  negotiations  ended  in 
mutual  exasperation.  On  the  21st  the  battle  of 
Shrewsbury  was  fought;  Hotspur  was  slain; 
Worcester  was  taken  aud  beheaded  two  days 
after.  The  old  earl,  who  may  or  may  not  have 
been  cognizant  of  his  son's  intentions  from  the 
first,  was  now  marching  to  his  succour.  The 
carl  of  Westmoreland,  his  brother-in-law,  met 
him  and  drove  him  back  to  Warkworth.  But  all 
danger  was  over.  On  the  11th  of  August  he 
met  the  king  at  York,  and  submitted  to  him." 
—  W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  cli.  18,  sect. 
633. 

Also  in:  J.  H.  Wylie,  Hist,  of  Eng.  under 
Henry  IV.,  11.  1,  ch.  35. — W.  Shakespeare,  King 
Henry  IV.,  pt.  1. 

A.  D.  1413. — Accession  of  King  Henry  V. 

A.  D.  1413-1422. — Parliamentary  gains  un- 
der Henry  V. —  "What  the  sword  had  won  the 
sword  should  keep,  said  Henry  V.  on  his  acces- 
sion ;  but  what  was  meant  by  the  saying  has  its 
comment  In  the  fact  that,  in  the  year  which  wit- 
nessed his  victory  at  Agincourt,  he  yielded  to  the 
House  of  Commons  the  most  liberal  measure  of 
legislation  which  until  then  it  had  obtained. 
The  dazzling  splendour  of  his  conquests  In 
Prance  had  for  the  time  cast  into  the  shade  every 
doubt  or  question  of  his  title,  but  the  very  ex- 
tent of  those  gains  upon  the'French  soil  estab- 
lished more  decisively  the  worse  than  uselessness 
of  such  acquisitions  to  the  English  throne.  The 
distinction  of  Henry's  reign  in  constitutional  his- 
tory will  always  be,  that  from  it  dates  that  power, 
indispensable  to  a  free  and  limited  monarchy, 
called  Privilege  of  Parliament;  the  shield  and 
buckler  under  which  all  the  battles  of  liberty 
and  good  government  were  fought  in  the  after 
time.  Not  only  were  its  leading  safeguards  now 
obtained,  but  at  once  so  firmly  established,  that 
against  the  shock  of  incessant  resistance  in  later 
years  they  stood  perfectly  unmoved.  Of  the 
awful  right  of  impeachment,  too,  the  same  is  to 
be  said.  It  was  won  in  the  same  reign,  and  was 
never  afterwards  lost." — J.  Forster,  Hist,  and 
Biog.  Essays,  r.  1,  ^).  307. 

A.  D.  1415-1422. — Conquests  of  Henry  V.  in 
France.  See  France:  A.  D.  1415;  and  1417- 
1432. 

A.  D.  1422.— Accession  of  King  Henry  'VI. 

A.  D.  1431-1453.— Loss  of  English  conquests 
and  possessions  in  France.  See  Fkauce  :  A.  D. 
1431-1453,  and  Aquitaine  :  A.  D.  1360-1453. 


845 


ENGLAND,  1450. 


Effects  of 
Wars  in  France. 


ENGLAND,  1455. 


A.  D.  1450. — Cade's  Rebellion. — A  formida- 
ble rebellion  broke  out  iu  Kent,  luuler  the  leader- 
ship of  one  Jack  Cade,  A.  I).  1450.  Overtaxation, 
the  bad  management  of  the  council,  the  extortion 
of  the  subordinate  officers,  the  injustice  of  the 
king's  bench,  the  abuse  of  the  right  of  purvey- 
ance, the  "enquestes"  and  amercements,  and  the 
illegitimate  control  of  elections  were  the  chief 
causes  of  the  rising  of  1450,  "  The  rising  was 
mainly  political,  only  one  complaint  was  econom- 
ical, not  a  single  one  was  religious.  We  find 
not  a  single  demand  for  new  legislation.  .  .  . 
The  movement  was  by  no  means  of  a  distinctly 
plebeian  or  disorderly  character,  but  was  a  general 
and  organized  rising  of  the  people  at  large.  It 
was  a  political  upheaval.  We  find  no  trace  of 
socialism  or  of  democracy.  .  .  .  The  commons  in 
1450  arose  against  Lancasterand  in  favor  of  York. 
Their  rising  was  the  first  great  struggle  in  the 
Wars  of  the  Roses." — Kriehn,  Rising  in  1450, 
Ch.  IV.,  VII. — Cade  and  his  rebels  took  pos- 
session of  London ;  but  they  were  beaten  in  a 
battle  and  forced  to  quit  the  city.  Cade  and  some 
followers  continued  to  be  turbulent  and  soon 
afterwards  he  was  killed. — J.  Gairdner,  Houses  of 
Lancaster  and  York,  ch.  1,  sect.  6. 

Also  in:  C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist., 
3d  series,  c.  7. 

A.  D.  1455. — Demoralized  state  of  the  nation. 
— Effects  of  the  wars  in  France. — "  The  whole 
picture  of  the  times  is  very  depressing  on  the 
moral  if  not  on  the  material  side.  There  are  few 
more  pitiful  episodes  in  history  than  the  whole 
tale  of  the  reign  of  Henry  VI. ,  the  most  unselfish 
and  well-intentioned  king  that  ever  sat  upon  the 
English  throne  —  a  man  of  whom  not  even  his 
enemies  and  oppressors  could  find  an  evil  word 
to  say ;  the  troubles  came,  as  they  confessed,  '  all 
because  of  his  false  lords,  and  never  of  him. '  We 
feel  that  there  must  have  been  something  wrong 
with  the  heart  of  a  nation  that  could  see  unmoved 
the  meek  and  holy  king  torn  from  wife  and  child, 
sent  to  wander  in  disguise  up  and  down  the  king- 
dom for  which  he  had  done  his  poor  best,  and 
finally  doomed  to  pine  for  five  years  a  prisoner 
in  the  fortress  where  he  had  so  long  held  his  royal 
Court.  Nor  is  our  first  impression  concerning 
the  demoralisation  of  England  wrong.  Every 
line  that  we  read  bears  home  to  us  more  and  more 
the  fact  that  the  nation  had  fallen  on  evil  times. 
First  and  foremost  among  the  causes  of  its  moral 
deterioration  was  the  wretched  French  War,  a 
war  begun  in  the  pure  spirit  of  greed  and  ambi- 
tion,—  there  was  not  even  the  poor  excuse  that 
had  existed  in  the  time  of  Edward  III. —  carried 
on  by  the  aid  of  hordes  of  debauched  foreign 
mercenaries  .  .  .  and  persisted  in  long  after  it 
had  become  hopeless,  partly  from  misplaced  na- 
tional pride,  partly  because  of  the  personal  in- 
terests of  the  ruling  classes.  Thirty-five  years 
of  a  war  that  was  as  unjust  as  it  was  unfortunate 
had  both  soured  and  demoralised  the  nation.  .  .  . 
When  the  final  catastrophe  came  and  the  fights 
of  Formigny  [or  Fourmigny]  and  Chatillou  [Cas- 
tillon]  ended  the  chapter  of  our  disasters,  the 
nation  began  to  cast  about  for  a  scapegoat  on 
whom  to  lay  the  burden  of  its  failures.  ...  At 
first  the  imfortunate  Suffolk  and  Somerset  had 
the  responsibility  laid  upon  them,  A  little  later 
the  outcry  became  more  bold  and  fixed  upon  the 
Lancastrian  dynasty  itself  as  being  to  blame  not 
only  for  disaster  abroad,  but  for  want  of  govern- 
ance at  home.     If  King  Henry  had  understood 


the  charge,  and  possessed  the  wit  to  answer  it,  he 
might  fairly  have  replied  that  his  subjects  must 
fit  the  burden  upon  their  own  backs,  not  upon 
his.  The  war  had  been  weakly  conducted,  it  was 
true ;  but  weakly  because  the  men  and  money  for 
it  were  grudged.  ...  At  home,  the  bulwarks  of 
social  order  seemed  crumbling  away.  Private 
wars,  riot,  open  highway  robbery,  murder,  abduc- 
tion, armed  resistance  to  the  law,  prevailed  on  a 
scale  that  had  been  unknown  since  the  troublous 
times  of  Edward  II. —  we  might  almost  say  since 
the  evil  days  of  Stephen.  But  it  was  not  the 
Crown  alone  that  should  have  been  blamed  for 
the  state  of  the  realm.  The  nation  had  chosen  to 
impose  over-stringent  constitutional  checks  on  the 
kingly  power  before  it  was  ripe  for  self-govern- 
ment, and  the  Lancastrian  house  sat  on  the  throne 
because  it  had  agreed  to  submit  to  those  checks. 
If  the  result  of  the  experiment  was  disastrous, 
both  parties  to  the  contract  had  to  bear  their  share 
of  the  responsibility  But  a  nation  seldom  allows 
that  it  has  been  wrong ;  and  Henry  of  Windsor 
had  to  serve  as  a  scapegoat  for  all  the  mis- 
fortunes of  the  realm,  because  Henry  of  Boling- 
broke  had  committed  his  descendants  to  the 
unhappy  compact.  Want  of  a  strong  central 
government  was  undoubtedly  the  complaint  under 
which  England  was  labouring  in  the  middle  of 
the  15th  century,  and  all  the  grievances  against 
which  outcry  was  made  were  but  symptoms  of 
one  latent  disease.  .  .  .  All  these  public  troubles 
would  have  been  of  comparatively  small  impor- 
tance if  the  heart  of  the  nation  had  been  sound. 
The  phenomenon  which  makes  the  time  so  de- 
pressing is  the  terrible  decay  in  private  morals 
since  the  previous  century.  .  .  .  There  is  no  class 
or  caste  in  England  which  comes  well  out  of  the 
scrutiny.  The  Church,  which  had  served  as  the 
conscience  of  the  nation  in  better  times,  had  be- 
come dead  to  spiritual  things.  It  no  longer  pro- 
duced  either  men  of  .saintly  life  or  learned  theolo- 
gians or  patriotic  statesmen.  .  .  .  The  baronage 
of  England  had  often  been  unruly,  but  it  had 
never  before  developed  the  two  vices  which  dis- 
tinguished it  in  the  times  of  the  Two  Roses  —  a 
taste  for  indiscriminate  bloodshed  and  a  turn  for 
political  apostacy.  .  .  .  Twenty  years  spent  in 
contact  with  French  factions,  and  in  command 
of  the  godless  mercenaries  who  formed  the  bulk 
of  the  English  armies,  had  taught  our  nobles 
lessons  of  cruelty  and  faithlessness  such  as  they 
had  not  before  imbibed.  .  .  .  The  knights  and 
squires  showed  on  a  smaller  scale  all  the  vices  of 
the  nobility.  Instead  of  holding  together  and 
maintaining  a  united  loyalty  to  the  Crown,  they 
bound  themselves  by  solemn  sealed  bonds  and  the 
reception  of  '  liveries '  each  to  the  baron  whom 
he  preferred.  This  fatal  system,  by  which  the 
smaller  landholder  agreed  on  behalf  of  himself 
and  his  tenants  to  follow  his  greater  neighbour 
in  peace  and  war,  had  ruine'd  the  military  system 
of  England,  and  was  quite  as  dangerous  as  the 
ancient  feudalism.  ...  If  the  gentry  constituted 
themselves  the  voluntary  followers  of  the  baron- 
age, and  aided  their  employers  to  keep  England 
unhappy,  the  class  of  citizens  and  burgesses  took 
a  very  different  line  of  conduct.  If  not  actively 
mischievous,  they  were  _solidly  inert.  They  re- 
fused to  entangle  themselves  in  politics  at  all. 
They  submitted  impassively  to  eaclijruler  in  turn, 
when  they  had  ascertained  that  their  own  persons 
and  property  were  not  endangered  by  so  doing. 
A  town,  it  has  been  remarked,  seldom  or  never 


846 


ENGLAND,  1455. 


Waisiif  the  Roses. 


ENGLAND,  1455-1471. 


stood  a  siege  during  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  for 
no  town  ever  refused  to  open  its  gates  to  any  com- 
mander with  an  adequate  force  who  asked  for 
entrance." — C.  W  Oman,  Witririck  the  Kiiig- 
inaker,  clt.  1. 

A.  D.  1455-1471. — The  Wars  of  the  Roses. 
— Beginning  with  a  battle  fouglit  at  St.  Albans 
on  the  23d  of  Ma}',  1455,  England  was  kept  in  a 
pitiable  state  of  civil  war,  with  short  intervals  of 
troubled  peace,  during  thirty  years.  The  im- 
mediate cause  of  trouble  was  in  the  feebleness  of 
King  Henry  VI.,  who  succeeded  to  the  throne 
while  an  infant,  and  whose  mind,  never  strong, 
gave  way  under  the  trials  of  his  position  when 
he  came  to  manhood.  The  control  of  the  gov- 
ernment, thus  weakly  commanded,  became  a  sub- 
ject of  strife  between  successive  factions.  The 
final  leaders  in  such  contests  were  Queen  Marga- 
ret of  Anjou,  the  energetic  consort  of  the  help- 
less king  (with  the  king  himself  sometimes  in  a 
condition  of  mhid  to  cooperate  with  her),  on  one 
side,  and,  on  the  other  side,  the  Duke  of  York, 
who  traced  his  lineage  to  Edward  III.,  and  who 
had  strong  claims  to  the  throne  if  Henry  should 
leave  no  heir.  The  battle  at  St.  Albans  was  a  vic- 
tory for  the  Yorkists  and  placed  them  in  power 
for  the  next  two  years,  the  Duke  of  York  being 
named  Protector.  In  1456  the  king  recovered  so 
far  as  to  resume  the  reigns  of  government,  and 
in  1459  there  was  a  new  rupture  between  the 
factions.  The  queen's  adherents  were  beaten  in 
the  battle  of  Bloreheath,  Sept.  23d  of  that  year ; 
but  defections  in  the  ranks  of  the  Yorkists  soon 
obliged  the  latter  to  disperse  and  their  leaders, 
York,  Warwick  and  Salisbury,  fled  to  Ireland 
and  to  Calais.  In  June,  1460,  the  earls  of  War- 
wick, Salisbury  and  JIarch  (the  latter  being  the 
eldest  son  of  the  Duke  of  York)  returned  to  Eng- 
land and  gathered  an  army  speedily,  the  city  of 
London  opening  its  gates  to  them.  The  king's 
forces  were  defeated  at  Northampton  (July  10) 
and  the  king  taken  prisoner.  A  parliament  was 
summoned  and  assembled  in  October.  Then  the 
Duke  of  York  came  over  from  Ireland,  took  pos- 
session of  the  royal  palace  and  laid  before  parlia- 
ment a  solemn  claim  to  the  crown.  After  much 
discussion  a  compromise  was  agreed  upon,  under 
which  Henry  YI.  should  reign  undisturbed  dur- 
ing his  life  and  the  Duke  of  York  should  be  his 
undisputed  successor.  This  was  embodied  in  an 
act  of  parliament  and  received  the  assent  of  the 
king ;  but  queen  Margaret  who  had  retired  into 
the  north,  refused  to  surrender  the  rights  of  her 
infant  son,  and  a  strong  party  sustained  her. 
The  Duke  of  York  attacked  these  Lancastrian 
forces  rashly,  at  Wakefield,  Dec.  30,  1460,  and 
was  slain  on  the  field  of  a  disastrous  defeat.  The 
queen's  army,  then,  marching  towards  London, 
defeated  the  Earl  of  Warwick  at  St.  Albans,  Feb. 
17,  1461  (the  second  battle  of  the  war  at  that 
place),  and  recovered  possession  of  the  person  of 
the  king.  But  Edward,  Earl  of  ^Nlarch  (now  be- 
come Duke  of  York,  by  the  death  of  his  father), 
who  had  just  routed  a  Lancastrian  force  at  Mor- 
timer's Cross,  in  Wales,  joined  his  forces  with 
those  of  Warwick  and  succeeded  in  occupying 
London,  which  steadily  favored  his  cause.  Call- 
ing together  a  council  of  lords,  Edward  persuaded 
them  to  declare  King  Henry  deposed,  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  broken  the  agreement  made 
with  the  late  Duke  of  York.  The  next  step  was 
to  elect  Edward  king,  and  he  assumed  the  royal 
title  and  state  at  once.     The  new  king  lost  no 


time  in  marching  northwards  against  the  army 
of  the  deposed  sovereign,  wiiich  lay  near  York. 
On  the  27th  of  March  the  advanced  division  of 
the  Lancastrians  was  defeated  at  Ferrybridge, 
and,  two  days  later,  their  main  body  was  almost 
destroyed  in  the  fearful  battle  of  Towton,  —  said 
to  have  been  the  bloodiest  encounter  that  ever 
took  place  on  English  soil.  King  Henry  took 
refuge  in  Scotland  and  Queen  Margaret  repaired 
to  France.  In  1464  Henry  reappeared  in  the 
north  with  a  body  of  Scots  and  refugees  and 
there  were  risings  in  his  favor  in  Northumber- 
land, which  the  Yorkists  crushed  in  the  succes- 
sive battles  of  Hedgeley  Moor  and  Hexham. 
The  Yorkist  king  (Edward  IV.)  now  reigned 
without  much  disturbance  until  1470,  when  he 
quarreled  with  the  powerful  Earl  of  Warwick  — 
the  "king-maker,"  whose  strong  hand  had  placed 
him  on  the  throne.  Warwick  then  passed  to  the 
other  side,  offering  his  services  to  Queen  Marga- 
ret and  leading  an  expedition  which  sailed  from 
Ilartleur  in  September,  convoyed  by  a  French 
fleet.  Edward  found  himself  unprepared  to  re- 
sist the  Yorkist  risings  which  welcomed  War- 
wick and  he  fled  to  Holland,  seeking  aid  from 
his  brother-in-law,  the  Duke  of  Burgundy.  For 
nearly  six  months,  the  kingdom  was  in  the  hands 
of  Warwick  and  the  Lancastrians ;  the  unfor- 
tunate Henry  VI.,  released  from  captivity  in 
the  Tower,  was  once  more  seated  on  the  throne. 
But  on  the  14th  of  March,  1471,  Edward  reap- 
peared in  England,  landing  at  Ravenspur,  pro- 
fessing that  he  came  only  to  recover  his  dukedom 
of  York.  As  he  moved  southwards  he  gathered 
a  large  force  of  supporters  and  soon  reassumed 
the  royal  title  and  pretensions.  London  opened 
its  gates  to  him,  and,  on  the  14th  of  April  —  ex- 
actly one  month  after  his  landing  —  he  defeated 
his  opponents  at  Barnet,  where  Warwick,  "the 
king-maker  " —  the  last  of  the  great  feudal  barons 
—  was  slain.  Henry,  again  a  captive,  was  sent 
back  to  the  Tower.  But  Henry's  dauntless  queen, 
who  landed  at  Weymouth,  with  a  body  of  French 
allies  on  the  very  day  of  the  disastrous  Barnet 
fight,  refused  to  submit.  Cornwall  and  Devon 
were  true  to  her  cause  and  gave  her  an  army 
with  which  she  fought  the  last  battle  of  the  war 
at  Tewksbury  on  the  4th  of  May.  Defeated  and 
taken  prisoner,  her  young  son  slain  —  whether  in 
the  battle  or  after  it  is  unknown  —  the  long  con- 
tention of  Margaret  of  Anjou  ended  on  that 
bloody  field.  A  few  days  later,  when  the  tri- 
umphant Yorkist  King  Edward  entered  London, 
his  poor,  demented  Lancastrian  rival  died  sud- 
denly and  suspiciously  in  the  Tower.  The  two 
parties  in  the  long  contention  had  each  assumed 
the  badge  of  a  rose  —  the  Yorkists  a  white  rose, 
the  Lancastrians  a  red  one.  Hence  the  name  of 
the  AVars  of  the  Roses.  "As  early  as  the  time  of 
John  of  Ghent,  the  rose  was  used  as  an  heraldic 
emblem,  and  when  he  married  Blanche,  the 
daughter  of  the  Duke  of  Lancaster,  he  used  the 
red  rose  for  a  device.  Edmund  of  Langley,  his 
brother,  the  fifth  son  of  Edward  HI.,  adopted 
the  white  rose  in  opposition  to  him ;  and  their 
followers  afterwards  maintained  these  distinc- 
tions in  the  bloody  wars  of  the  fifteenth  century. 
There  is,  however,  no  authentic  account  of  the 
precise  period  when  these  badges  were  first 
adopted." — Mrs.  Hookham,  Life  and  Times  of 
Margaret  of  Anjou,  v.  2,  ch.  1. 

Also  in:  J.  Gairdner,  Houses  of  Lancaster  and 
York.  —  Sir    J.    Ramsay,    Lancaster   and    York. 


847 


ENGLAND,  1455-1471. 


Effects  of  the 
Wars  of  the  Roses. 


ENGLAND,  U61-1485. 


— C.  AV.  Oman,  Warwick,  tlie  King-maker,  cU- 
5-17. — See,  also,  Towton,  Barnet,  and  Tbwks- 

BURY. 

The  effects  of  the  Wars  of  the  Roses.— "It 

Is  astonishing  to  observe  tlie  rapidity  with  wliicli 
it  [the  Englisli  nation]  had  settled  down  to  order 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  after  so  many  years 
of  civil  dissension.  It  would  lead  us  to  infer  that 
those  wars  were  the  wars  of  a  class,  and  not  of 
the  nation ;  and  that  the  effects  of  them  have  been 
greatly  exaggerated.  With  the  single  exception 
of  Cade's  rebellion,  they  had  nothing  in  common 
with  the  revolutions  of  later  or  earlier  times. 
They  were  not  wars  against  classes,  against  forms 
of  government,  against  the  order  or  the  institu- 
tions of  the  nation.  It  was  the  rivalry  of  two 
aristocratic  factions  struggling  for  superiority, 
neither  of  them  hoping  or  desiring,  whichever  ob- 
tained the  upper  hand,  to  introduce  momentous 
changes  in  the  State  or  its  administration.  The 
main  body  of  the  people  took  little  interest  in  the 
struggle ;  in  the  towns  at  least  there  was  no  inter- 
mission of  epiployment.  The  war  passed  over 
the  nation,  ruffling  the  surface,  toppling  down 
higli  cliffs  Iiore  and  there,  washing  away  ancient 
landmarks,  attracting  the  imagination  of  the  spec- 
tator by  the  mightiness  of  its  waves,  and  the 
noise  of  its  thunders ;  but  the  great  body  below 
the  surface  remained  unmoved.  No  famines, 
no  plagues,  consequent  on  the  intermittance  of 
labour  caused  by  civil  war,  are  recorded ;  even 
the  prices  of  land  and  provisions  scarcely  varied 
more  than  they  have  been  known  to  do  in  times 
of  profoundest  peace.  But  the  indirect  and  silent 
operation  of  these  conflicts  was  much  more  re- 
markable. It  reft  into  fragments  the  confeder- 
ated ranks  of  a  powerful  territorial  aristocracy, 
which  had  hitherto  bid  defiance  to  the  King,  how- 
ever popular,  however  energetic.  Henceforth 
the  position  of  the  Sovereign  in  the  time  of  the 
Tudors,  in  relation  to  all  classes  of  the  people, 
became  very  different  from  what  it  had  been: 
the  royal  supremacy  was  no  longer  a  theory,  but 
a  fact.  Another  class  had  sprung  up  on  the  de- 
cay of  the  ancient  nobility.  The  great  towns 
had  enjoyed  uninterrupted  tranquility,  and  even 
flourished,  under  the  storm  that  was  scourging 
the  aristocracy  and  the  rural  districts.  Their 
population  had  increased  by  numbers  whom  fear 
or  the  horrors  of  war  had  induced  to  find  shelter 
behind  stone  walls.  The  diminution  of  agricul- 
tural labourers  converted  into  soldiers  by  the 
folly  of  their  lords  had  turned  corn-lands  into 
pasture,  requiring  less  skill,  less  capital,  and  less 
labour." — J.  S.  Brewer,  The  Reiyn  of  Henry  VIII. , 
V.  1,  c/t.  2. — "Those  who  would  estimate  the 
condition  of  England  aright  should  remember 
that  the  War  of  the  Roses  was  only  a  repetition 
on  a  large  scale  of  those  private  wars  which  dis- 
tracted almost  every  county,  and,  indeed,  by 
taking  away  all  sense  of  security,  disturbed  al- 
most every  manor  and  every  class  of  society 
during  tlie  same  century.  .  .  .  The  lawless  con- 
dition of  English  society  in  the  15tli  century  re- 
sembled that  of  Ireland  in  as  recent  a  date  as 
the  beginning  of  the  19th  century.  ...  In  both 
countries  women  were  carried  off,  sometimes  at 
night;  tliey  were  first  violated,  then  dragged  to 
the  altar  in  their  night-dress  and  compelled  to 
marry  their  captors.  .  .  .  Children  were  seized 
and  thrown  into  a  dungeon  until  ransomed  by 
their  parents." — W.  Denton,  Enyland  in  the  15<A 
Century,  ch.  3. — "The  Wars  of  the  Roses  which 


filled  the  second  half  of  the  15th  century  fur- 
nished the  barons  with  an  arena  in  which  their 
instincts  of  violence  had  freer  play  than  ever;  it 
was  they  who,  under  the  pretext  of  dynastic  in- 
terests which  had  ceased  to  exist,  of  their  own 
free  choice  prolonged  the  struggle.  Altogether 
unlike  the  Italian  condottieri,  tlie  English  barons 
showed  no  mercy  to  their  own  order;  they 
massacred  and  exterminated  each  other  freely, 
wliile  they  were  careful  to  spare  the  common- 
alty. Whole  families  were  extinguished  or  sub- 
merged in  the  nameless  mass  of  the  nation,  and 
their  estates  by  confiscation  or  escheat  helped 
to  swell  the  royal  domain.  AVheu  Henry  VII. 
liad  stifled  the  last  movements  of  rebellion  and 
had  punished,  through  the  Star  Chamber,  those 
nobles  who  were  still  suspected  of  maintaining 
armed  bands,  the  baronage  was  reduced  to  a  very 
low  ebb;  not  more  than  twenty-nine  lay  peers 
were  summoned  by  the  king  to  his  first  Parlia- 
ment. The  old  Norman  feudal  nobility  existed 
no  longer ;  the  heroic  barons  of  the  great  charter 
barely  survived  in  the  persons  of  a  few  doubtful 
descendants ;  their  estates  were  split  up  or  had 
been  forfeited  to  the  Crown.  A  new  class  came 
forward  to  fill  the  gap,  that  rural  middle  class 
which  was  formed  ...  by  the  fusion  of  the 
knights  with  the  free  landowners.  It  had  already 
taken  the  lead  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  it 
was  from  its  ranks  that  Henry  VII.  chose  nearly 
all  the  new  peers.  A  peerage  renewed  almost 
throughout,  ignorant  of  the  habits  and  traditions 
of  the  earlier  nobility,  created  in  large  batches, 
closely  dependent  on  the  monarch  who  had  raised 
it  from  little  or  nothing  and  who  had  endowed  it 
with  his  bounty  —  this  is  the  phenomenon  which 
confronts  us  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century. " 
— E.  Boutmy,  The  English  Conistitution,  eh-.  5. 

A.  D.  1461. — Accession  of  King  Edward  IV. 

A.  D.  1461-1485.— House  of  York.— The 
House  of  York,  which  triumphed  in  the  Wars  of 
the  Roses,  attaining  the  throne  in  the  person  of 
Edward  IV.  (A.  D.  1461),  derived  its  claim  to  the 
crown  through  descent,  in  the  female  line,  from 
Lionel,  Duke  of  Clarence,  the  third  son  of  Ed- 
ward III.  (the  second  son  who  lived  to  manhood 
and  left  children) ;  while  the  House  of  Lancaster 
traced  its  lineage  to  John  of  Gaunt,  a  younger 
son  of  the  same  king  Edward  III.,  but  the  line 
of  Lancastrian  succession  was  through  males. 
"Had  the  crown  followed  the  course  of  heredi- 
tary succession,  it  would  have  devolved  on  the 
posterity  of  Lionel.  .  .  .  By  the  decease  of  that 
prince  without  male  issue,  his  possessions  and 
pretensions  fell  to  his  daughter  Philippa,  who 
by  a  singular  combination  of  circumstances  had 
married  Roger  Mortimer  earl  of  March,  the  male 
rc]:iresentative  of  the  powerful  baron  who  was 
attainted  and  executed  for  the  murder  of  Ed- 
ward II.,  the  grandfather  of  the  duke  of  Clar- 
ence. Tlie  son  of  that  potent  delinquent  had 
been  restored  to  his  honours  and  estates  at  an  ad- 
vanced period  in  the  reign  of  Edward  III.  .  .  . 
Edmund,  his  grandson,  had  espoused  Philippa 
of  Clarence.  Roger  Mortimer,  the  fourtli  in  de- 
scent from  the  regicide,  was  lord  lieutenant  of 
Ireland  and  wils  considered,  or,  according  to 
some  writers,  declared  to  be  heir  of  tlie  crown  in 
the  early  part  of  Richard's  reign.  Edmund  Mor- 
timer, earl  of  March,  in  whom  the  hereditary 
claim  to  the  crown  was  vested  at  the  deposition 
of  Richard,  was  then  only  an  infant  of  ten  years 
of  age.  .  .  .  Dying  without   issue,    the  preten- 


848 


ENGLAND,  1461-1485. 


Richard  III. 


ENGLAND,  1483-1485. 


sioDS  to  the  crown,  which  he  inherited  througli 
the  duke  of  Clarence,  devolved  on  his  sister  Anne 
Mortimer,  who  esjioused  Richard  of  York  earl 
of  Cambridge,  the  grandson  of  Edward  III.  by 
his  fourth  [fifth]  son  Edmimd  of  Langley  duke 
of  York. "  Edward  IV.  was  the  grandson  of  this 
Anne  Mortimer  and  Richard  of  York. — Sir  J. 
Mackintosh,  Hist.  ofEng.,  v.  l,pp.  338-339.— The 
House  of  York  occupied  the  throne  but  twenty - 
four  years.  On  the  death  of  Edward  IV.,  in 
1483,  tlie  crown  was  secured  by  his  brother, 
Ricliard,  duke  of  Gloucester,  who  caused  Ed- 
ward's two  sons  to  be  murdered  in  the  Tower. 
The  elder  of  these  murdered  pi'inces  is  named  in 
the  list  of  English  kings  as  Edward  V.  ;  but  he 
cannot  be  said  to  have  reigned.  Richard  III. 
was  overthrown  and  slain  on  Bosworth  field  in 
1485. 

A.  D.  1471-1485.— The  New  Monarchy. — 
The  rise  of  Absolutism  and  the  decline  of  Par- 
liamentary government. — "If  we  use  the  name 
of  the  New  Monarchy  to  express  the  character 
of  the  English  sovereignty  from  the  time  of 
Edward  IV.  to  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  it  is  because 
the  character  of  the  monarchy  during  this  period 
was  something  wholly  new  in  our  history.  There 
is  no  kind  of  similarity  between  the  kingship  of 
the  Old  Englisli,  of  the  Norman,  the  Angevin, 
or  the  Plautageuet  sovereigns,  and  the  kingship 
of  the  Tudors.  .  .  .  Wliat  the  Great  Rebellion  in 
its  final  result  actually  did  was  to  wipe  away 
every  trace  of  tlie  New  Monarchy,  and  to  take 
up  again  the  thread  of  our  political  development 
just  where  it  had  been  snapped  by  the  Wars  of 
the  Roses.  .  .  .  The  founder  of  the  New  Mon- 
archy was  Edward  IV.  .  .  .  While  jesting  with 
aldermen,  or  dallying  with  his  mistresses,  or 
idling  over  the  new  pages  from  the  printing 
press  [Caxton's]  at  Westminster,  Edward  was 
silently  laying  the  foundations  of  an  absolute 
rule  which  Henry  VII.  did  little  more  than  de- 
velop and  consolidate.  The  almost  total  discon- 
tinuance of  Parliamentary  life  was  in  itself  a 
revolution.  Up  to  this  moment  the  two  Houses 
had  pla3'ed  a  part  which  became  more  and  more 
prominent  in  the  government  of  the  realm.  .  .  . 
Under  Henry  VI.  an  important  step  in  constitu- 
tional progress  had  been  made  by  abandoning 
the  old  form  of  presenting  the  requests  of  the 
Parliament  in  the  form  of  petitions  which  were 
subsequently  moulded  into  statutes  by  the  Royal 
Councils;  the  statute  itself,  in  its  final  form,  was 
now  presented  for  the  royal  assent,  and  the 
Crown  was  deprived  of  its  former  privilege  of 
modifying  it.  Not  only  does  this  progress  cease, 
but  the  legislative  activity  of  Parliament  itself 
comes  abruptly  to  an  end.  .  .  .  The  necessity 
for  summoning  the  two  Houses  had,  in  fact,  been 
removed  by  the  enormous  tide  of  wealth  which 
the  confiscation  of  the  civil  war  poured  into  the 
royal  treasury.  ...  It  was  said  that  nearly  a  fifth 
of  the  land  had  passed  into  the  royal  possession  at 
one  period  or  another  of  the  civil  war.  Edward 
added  to  his  resources  by  trading  on  a  vast  scale. 
.  .  .  The  enterprises  he  had  planned  against 
France  .  .  .  enabled  Edward  not  only  to  increase 
his  hoard,  but  to  deal  a  deadly  blow  at  liberty. 
Setting  aside  the  usage  of  loans  sanctioned  by 
the  authority  of  Parliament,  Edward  called  be- 
fore him  the  merchants  of  the  city  and  requested 
from  each  a  present  or  benevolence  in  propor- 
tion to  the  need.  Their  compliance  with  his 
prayer  was  probably  aided  by  his   popularity 

^*  849 


with  the  merchant  class ;  but  the  system  of  be- 
nevolence was  soon  to  he  developed  into  the 
forced  loans  of  Wolsey  and  the  ship-money  of 
Charles  I." — J.  R.  Green,  8/iort  Hist,  of  the  Eng. 
People,  ch.  6,  sect.  3. 

Also  in  :  W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  ch. 
18,  sect.  696. 

A.  D.  1474. — Treaty  with  the  Hanseatic 
League.     See  Hansa  Towns. 

A.  D.  1476. — Introduction  of  Printing  by 
Caxton.     See  Printing,  &c.  :  A.  D.  1476-1491. 

A.  D.  1483-1485. — Murder  of  the  young  king, 
Edward  V. — Accession  of  Richard  III. — The 
battle  of  Bosworth  and  the  fall  of  the  House 
of  York.— On  the  death  of  Edward  IV.,  in  1483, 
his  crafty  and  unscrupulous  brother,  Richard, 
Duke  of  Gloucester,  gathered  quickly  into  his 
hands  the  reins  of  power,  proceeding  with  con- 
summate audacity  and  ruthlessness  to  sweep 
every  strong  rival  out  of  his  path.  Contenting 
himself  for  a  few  weeks,  only,  with  the  title  of 
Protector,  he  soon  disputed  the  validity  of  his 
brother  Edward's  marriage,  caused  an  obsequi- 
ous Parliament  to  set  aside  the  young  sons  whom 
the  latter  had  left,  declaring  them  to  be  illegiti- 
mate, and  placed  the  crown  on  his  own  head. 
The  little  princes  (King  Edward  V.,  and  Rich- 
ard, Duke  of  York),  immured  in  the  Tower, 
were  murdered  presently  at  their  uncle's  com- 
mand, and  Richard  III.  appeared,  for  the  time, 
to  have  triumphed  in  his  ambitious  villainy. 
But,  popular  as  he  made  himself  in  many  cun- 
ning ways,  his  deeds  excited  a  horror  which 
united  Lancastrians  with  the  party  of  York  in  a 
common  detestation.  Friends  of  Henry,  Earl  of 
Richmond,  then  in  exile,  were  not  slow  to  take 
advantage  of  this  feeling.  Henry  could  claim 
descent  from  the  same  John  of  Gaunt,  son  of 
Edward  III.,  to  whom  the  House  of  Lancaster 
traced  its  lineage;  but  his  family- — the  Beau- 
forts —  sprang  from  the  mistress,  not  the  wife, 
of  the  great  Duke  of  Lancaster,  and  had  only 
been  legitimated  by  act  of  Parliament.  The 
Lancastrians,  however,  were  satisfied  with  the 
royalty  of  his  blood,  and  the  Yorkists  were 
made  content  by  his  promise  to  marry  a  daugh- 
ter of  Edward  IV.  On  this  understanding  being 
arranged,  Henry  came  over  from  Brittany  to 
England,  landing  at  Milford  Haven  on  the  7th 
or  8th  of  August,  1485,  and  advancing  through 
Wales,  being  joined  by  great  numbers  as  he 
moved.  Richard,  who  had  no  lack  of  courage, 
marched  quickly  to  meet  him,  and  the  two 
forces  joined  battle  on  Bosworth  Field,  in  Leices- 
tershire, on  Sunday,  Aug.  21.  At  the  outset  of 
the  fighting  Richard  was  deserted  by  a  large 
division  of  his  army  and  saw  that  his  fate  was 
sealed.  He  plunged,  with  despairing  rage,  into 
the  thickest  of  the  struggle  and  was  slain.  His 
crowned  helmet,  which  he  had  worn,  was  found 
by  Sir  Reginald  Bray,  battered  and  broken,  under 
a  hawthorn  bush,  and  placed  on  the  head  of  his 
rival,  who  soon  attained  a  more  solemn  corona- 
tion, as  Henry  VII. — C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from 
Eng.  Hist.,  3d  Series,  c.  19-20. — "I  must  record 
my  impression  that  a  minute  study  of  the  facts 
of  Richard's  life  has  tended  more  and  more  to 
convince  me  of  the  general  fidelity  of  the  por- 
trait with  which  we  have  been  made  familiar  by 
Shakespeare  and  Sir  Thomas  More.  I  feel  quite 
ashamed,  at  this  day,  to  think  how  I  mused  over 
this  subject  long  ago,  wasting  a  great  deal  of 
time,  ink  and  paper,  in  fruitless  efforts  to  satisfy 


ENGLAND,  1483-1485. 


The  I'udors. 


ENGLAND,  1487-1497. 


even  my  own  raind  that  traditional  blacli  was 
real  historical  white,  or  at  worst  a  kind  of  grey. 
.  .  .  Both  the  character  and  personal  appearance 
of  Richard  IIL  have  furnished  matter  of  contro- 
versy. But  with  regard  to  the  former  the  day 
has  now  gone  by  when  it  was  possible  to  doubt 
tlie  evidence  at  least  of  his  principal  crime;  and 
that  he  was  regarded  as  a  tyrant  by  his  subjects 
seems  almost  equally  indisputable.  At  the  same 
time  he  was  not  destitute  of  better  qualities. 
...  As  king  he  seems  really  to  have  studied 
his  country's  welfare,  passed  good  laws,  endeav- 
oured to  put  an  end  to  extortion,  declined  the 
free  gifts  offered  to  him  by  several  towns,  and 
declared  he  would  rather  have  the  hearts  of  his 
subjects  than  their  money.  His  munificence 
was  especially  shown  in  religious  foundations. 
.  .  .  His  hypocrisy  was  not  of  the  vulgar  kind 
which  seeks  to  screen  habitual  baseness  of  motive 
by  habitual  affectation  of  virtue.  His  best  and 
his  worst  deeds  were  alike  too  well  known  to  be 
either  concealed  or  magnified;  at  least,  soon 
after  he  became  king,  all  doubt  upon  the  subject 
must  have  been  removed.  .  .  .  His  ingratiating 
manners,  together  with  the  liberality  of  his  dis- 
position, seem  really  to  have  mitigated  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  the  alarms  created  by  his  fitful 
deeds  of  violence.  The  reader  will  not  require 
to  be  reminded  of  Shakespeare's  portrait  of  a 
murderer  who  could  cajole  the  woman  whom  he 
had  most  exasperated  and  made  a  widow  into 
marrying  himself.  That  Richard's  ingenuity 
was  equal  to  this  extraordinary  feat  we  do  not 
venture  to  assert ;  but  that  he  had  a  wonderful 
power  of  I'eassuring  those  whom  he  had  most  in- 
timidated and  deceiving  those  who  knew  him 
best  there  can  be  veiy  little  doubt.  .  .  .  His 
taste  in  building  was  magnificent  and  princely. 
.  .  .  There  is  scarcely  any  evidence  of  Richard's 
[alleged]  deformity  to  be  derived  from  original 
portraits.  The  number  of  portraits  of  Richard 
which  seem  to  be  contemporary  is  greater  than 
might  have  been  expected.  .  .  .  The  face  in  all 
the  portraits  is  a  remarkable  one,  full  of  energy 
and  decision,  yet  gentle  and  sad-looking,  sug- 
gesting the  idea  not  so  much  of  a  tyrant  as  of  a 
mind  accustomed  to  unpleasant  thoughts.  No- 
where do  we  find  depicted  the  warlike  hard- 
favoured  visage  attributed  to  him  by  Sir  Thomas 
More.  .  .  .  With  such  a  one  did  the  long  reign  of 
the  Plantagenets  terminate.  The  fierce  spirit 
and  the  valour  of  the  race  never  showed  more 
strongly  than  at  the  close.  The  Middle  Ages, 
too,  as  far  as  England  was  concerned,  may  be 
said  to  have  passed  away  with  Richard  III." — 
J.  Gairdner,  Hist07-y  of  the  Life  and  Reign  of 
Richard  The  Third,  introd.  and  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1485. — Accession  of  King  Henry  VII. 

A.  D.  1485-1528.— The  Sweating  Sickness. 
See  Sweating  Sickness. 

A.  D.  1485-1603.— The  Tudors.— The  Tudor 
family,  which  occupied  the  English  throne  from 
the  accession  of  Henry  VII. ,  1485,  until  the  death 
of  Elizabeth,  1003,  took  its  name,  but  not  its 
royal  lineage,  from  Sir  Owen  Tudor,  a  handsome 
Welsh  chieftain,  who  won  the  heart  and  the 
hand  of  the  young  widow  of  Henry  V.,  Cather- 
ine of  France.  The  eldest  son  of  that  marriage, 
made  Earl  of  Richmond,  married  in  his  turn 
Margaret  Beaufort,  great-granddaughter  to  John 
of  Gaunt,  or  Ghent,  who  was  one  of  the  sons  of 
Edward  HI.  From  this  latter  union  came  Henry 
of  Richmond,  as  he  was  known,  who  disputed 


the  crown  with  Richard  III.  and  made  his  claim 
good  on  Bosworth  Field,  where  the  hated  Rich- 
ard was  killed.  Henry's  pretensions  were  based 
on  the  royal  descent  of  his  mother  —  derived, 
however,  through  John  of  Gaunt's  mistress  — 
and  the  dynasty  which  he  founded  was  closely 
related  in  origin  to  the  Lancastrian  line.  Henry 
of  Richmond  strengthened  his  hold  upon  the 
crown,  though  not  his  title  to  it,  by  marrying 
Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Edward  IV.,  thus  join- 
ing the  white  rose  to  the  red.  He  ascended  the 
throne  as  Henry  VII.,  A.  D.  1485;  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son,  Henry  VIII.,  in  1509,  and  the 
latter  by  his  three  children,  in  order  as  follows: 
Edward  VL,  1547;  Mary,  1553;  Elizabeth,  1558. 
The  Tudor  family  became  extinct  on  the  death 
of  Queen  Ehzabetii,  inl603.  "They  [the  Tudors] 
reigned  in  England,  without  a  successful  rising 
against  them,  for  upwards  of  a  hundred  years; 
but  not  more  by  a  studied  avoidance  of  what 
might  so  provoke  the  country,  than  by  the  most 
resolute  repression  of  every  effort,  on  the  part  of 
what  remained  of  the  peerage  and  great  families, 
to  make  head  against  the  throne.  They  gave 
free  indulgence  to  their  tyranny  only  within  the 
circle  of  the  court,  while  they  unceasingly 
watched  and  conciliated  the  temper  of  the  people. 
The  work  they  had  to  do,  and  which  by  more 
scrupulous  means  was  not  possible  to  be  done, 
was  one  of  paramount  necessity ;  the  dynasty 
uninterruptedly  endured  for  only  so  long  as  was 
requisite  to  its  thorough  completion ;  and  to  each 
individual  sovereign  the  particular  task  might 
seem  to  have  been  specially  assigned.  It  was 
Henry's  to  spurn,  renounce  and  utterly  cast  off, 
the  Pope's  authority,  without  too  suddenly  re- 
volting the  people's  usages  and  habits ;  to  arrive 
at  blessed  results  by  ways  that  a  better  man 
might  have  held  to  be  accursed;  during  the 
momentous  change  in  progress  to  keep  in  neces- 
sary check  both  the  parties  it  affected ;  to  perse- 
cute with  an  equal  hand  the  Romanist  and  the 
Lutheran ;  to  send  the  Protestant  to  the  stake  for 
resisting  Popery,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  to  the 
scaffold  for  not  admitting  himself  to  be  Pope; 
while  he  meantime  plundered  the  monasteries, 
hunted  down  and  rooted  out  the  priests,  alienated 
the  abbey  lands,  and  glutted  himself  and  his 
creatures  with  that  enormous  spoil.  It  was 
Edward's  to  become  the  ready  and  undoubting 
instrument  of  Cranmer's  design,  and,  with  all 
the  inexperience  and  more  than  the  obstinacy  of 
youth,  so  to  force  upon  the  people  his  compro- 
mise of  doctrine  and  observance,  as  to  render 
possible,  even  perhaps  unavoidable,  his  elder 
sister's  reign,  It  was  Mary's  to  undo  the  effect 
of  that  precipitate  eagerness  of  the  Reformers, 
by  lighting  the  fires  of  Smithfield ;  and  oppor- 
tunely to  arrest  the  waverers  from  Protestantism, 
by  exhibiting  in  their  excess  the  very  worst  vices, 
the  cruel  bigotry,  the  hateful  intolerance,  the 
spiritual  slavery,  of  Rome.  It  was  Elizabeth's 
finally  and  forever  to  uproot  that  slavery  from 
amongst  us,  to  champion  all  over  the  world  a 
new  and  nobler  faith,  and  immovably  to  estab- 
lish in  England  the  Protestant  religion." — J. 
Forster,  Ilist.  and  Biog.  Essays,  pp.  331-323. 

Also  in  :  S.  R.  Gardiner  and  J.  B.  Mullinger, 
Introd.  to  the  Study  of  Eng.  Hist.,  ch.  6.— C.  E. 
Moberly,  The  Early  tudors. 

A.  D.  1487-1497. — The  Rebellions  of  Lam- 
bert Simnel  and  Perkin  Warbeck. —  Although 
Henry  VII.,  soon  after  he  attained  the  throne, 


850 


ENGLAND,  1487-1497. 


ENGLAND,  15TH-16TH  CENTURIES. 


married  Elizabeth  of  York,  daughter  of  Edward 
IV.,  and  thus  united  the  two  rival  houses,  the 
Yorkists  were  discontented  with  his  rule.  "With 
the  help  of  Margaret  of  Burgundy,  Edward  IV. 's 
sister,  and  James  IV.  of  Scotland,  they  actually 
set  up  two  impostors,  one  after  the  other,  to 
claim  the  throne.  There  was  a  real  heir  of  the 
House  of  York  still  alive  —  young  Edward,  Eai-1 
of  Warwick  [son  of  the  Duke  of  Clarence,  brother 
to  Edward  IV.],  .  .  .  and  Henry  had  taken  the 
precaution  to  keep  him  in  the  Tower.  But  in 
1487  a  sham  Earl  of  Warwick  appeared  in  Ire- 
land, and  being  supported  by  the  Earl  of  Kildare, 
was  actually  crowned  in  Dublin  Cathedral. 
Henry  soon  put  down  the  imposture  by  showing 
the  real  earl  to  the  people  of  London,  and  defeat- 
ing the  army  of  the  pretended  earl  at  Stoke, 
near  Newark,  June,  1487.  He  proved  to  be 
a  lad  named  Lambert  Simnel,  the  son  of  a 
joiner  at  Oxford,  and  he  became  a  scullion  in 
the  king's  kitchen."  In  1493  another  pretender 
of  like  character  was  brought  forward.  "A 
young  man,  called  Perkin  Warbeck,  who  proved 
afterwards  to  be  a  native  of  Tournay,  pretended 
that  he  was  Richard,  Duke  of  York,  the  younger 
of  the  two  little  princes  in  the  Tower,  and  that 
he  had  escaped  when  his  brother  Edward  V.  was 
murdered.  He  persuaded  the  king  of  France 
and  Margaret  of  Burgundy  to  acknowledge  him, 
and  was  not  only  received  at  the  foreign  courts, 
but,  after  failing  in  Ireland,  he  went  to  Scotland, 
where  James  IV.  married  him  to  his  own  cousin 
Catharine  Gordon,  and  helped  him  to  invade 
England  in  1496.  The  invasion  was  defeated 
however,  by  the  Earl  of  Surrey,  and  then  Perkin 
went  back  to  Ireland,  where  the  people  had  re- 
volted against  the  heavy  taxes.  There  he  raised 
an  army  and  marched  to  Exeter,  but  meeting  the 
king's  troops  at  Taunton,  he  lost  courage,  aud 
fled  to  the  Abbey  of  Beaulieu,  where  he  was 
taken  prisoner,  and  sent  to  the  Tower  in  1497. " 
In  1501  both  Perkin  Warbeck  and  the  young 
Earl  of  Warwick  were  executed. — A.  B.  Buckley, 
Hist,  of  Enfj.  for  Beginners,  ch.  13. 

Also  in:  J.  Gairdner,  Story  of  Perkin  War- 
beck (app.  to  Life  of  RieJiard  III.). — C.  M.  Yonge, 
Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist.,  3(?  series,  c.  21  and  24. 
— J.  Gairdner,  Henry  VII.,  ch.  4  and  7. 

I5th-i6th  Centuries. — The  Renaissance. — 
Life  in  "Merry  England." — Preludes  to  the 
Elizabethan  Age  of  literature. — "Toward  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  century  .  .  .  commerce  and 
the  woollen  trade  made  a  sudden  advance,  and  such 
an  enormous  one  that  corn-fields  were  changed 
into  pasture-lands,  '  whereby  the  inhabitants  of 
the  said  town  (JIancliester)  have  gotten  and  come 
into  riches  aud  wealthy  livings,'  so  that  in  1553, 
40,000  pieces  of  cloth  were  exported  in  English 
ships.  It  was  already  the  England  which  we  see 
to-day,  a  land  of  meadows,  green,  intersected  by 
hedgerows,  crowded  with  cattle,  abounding  in 
ships,  a  manufacturing,  opulent  land,  with  a 
people  of  beef-eating  toilers,  who  enrich  it  while 
they  enrich  themselves.  They  improved  agricul- 
ture to  such  an  extent,  that  iu  half  a  century  the 
produce  of  an  acre  was  doubled.  They  grew  so 
rich,  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Charles 
I.  the  Commons  represented  three  times  the 
wealth  of  the  Upper  House.  The  ruin  of  Ant- 
werp by  the  Duke  of  Parma  sent  to  England 
'  the  third  part  of  the  merchants  and  manufac- 
turers, who  made  silk,  damask,  stockings,  taf- 
fetas, and  serges.'    The  defeat  of  the  Armada 


and  the  decadence  of  Spain  opened  the  seas  to 
their  merchants.  The  toiling  hive,  who  would 
dare,  attempt,  explore,  act  in  unison,  and  always 
with  profit,  was  about  to  reap  its  advantages 
and  set  out  on  its  voyages,  buzzing  over  the 
universe.  At  the  base  and  on  the  summit  of 
society,  in  all  ranks  of  life,  in  all  grades  of  human 
condition,  this  new  welfare  became  visible.  .  .  . 
It  is  not  when  all  is  good,  but  when  all  is  better, 
that  they  see  the  bright  side  of  life,  and  are 
tempted  to  make  a  holiday  of  it.  This  is  why  at 
this  period  they  did  make  a  holiday  of  it,  a  splen- 
did show,  so  like  a  picture  that  it  fostered  paint- 
ing in  Italy,  so  like  a  representation,  that  it 
produced  the  drama  in  England.  Now  that  the 
battle-axe  and  sword  of  the  civil  wars  had  beaten 
down  the  independent  nobility,  and  the  abolition 
of  the  law  of  maintenance  had  destroyed  the  petty 
royalty  of  each  great  feudal  baron,  the  lords 
quitted  their  sombre  castles,  battlemented  for- 
tresses, surrounded  by  stagnant  water,  pierced 
with  narrow  windows,  a  sort  of  stone  breast- 
plates of  no  use  but  to  preserve  the  life  of  their 
masters.  They  flock  into  new  palaces,  with 
vaulted  roofs  and  turrets,  covered  with  fantastic 
and  manifold  ornaments,  adorned  with  terraces 
and  vast  staircases,  with  gardens,  fountains,  stat- 
ues, such  as  were  the  palaces  of  Henry  VIII.  and 
Elizabeth,  half  Gothic  and  half  Italian,  whose 
convenience,  grandeur,  and  beauty  announced 
already  habits  of  society  and  the  taste  for  pleas- 
ure. They  came  to  court  and  abandoned  their 
old  manners;  the  four  meals  which  scarcely  suf- 
ficed their  former  voracity  were  reduced  to  two ; 
gentlemen  soon  became  refined,  placing  their 
glory  in  the  elegance  and  singularity  of  their 
amusements  and  their  clothes.  .  .  .  To  vent  the 
feelings,  to  satisfy  the  heart  and  eyes,  to  set  free 
boldly  on  all  the  roads  of  existence  the  i)ack  of 
appetites  and  instincts,  this  was  the  craving 
which  the  manners  of  the  time  betrayed.  It  was 
'  merry  England,'  as  they  called  it  then.  It  was 
not  yet  stern  and  constrained.  It  expanded 
widely,  freely,  and  rejoiced  to  find  itself  so  ex- 
panded. No  longer  at  court  only  was  the  drama 
found  but  iu  the  village.  Strolling  companies  be- 
took themselves  thither,  and  the  country  folk 
supplied  any  deficiencies  when  necessary.  Shak- 
speare  saw,  before  he  depicted  them,  stupid  fel- 
lows, carpenters,  joiners,  bellow-menders,  play 
Pyramus  and  Thisbe,  represent  the  lion  roaring 
as  gently  as  possible,  and  the  wall,  by  stretching 
out  their  hands.  Every  holiday  was  a  pageant,  in 
which  townspeople,  workmen,  and  children  bore 
their  parts.  ...  A  few  sectarians,  chiefly  in  the 
towns  and  of  the  people,  clung  gloomily  to  the 
Bible.  But  the  court  and  the  men  of  the  world 
sought  their  teachers  and  their  heroes  from  pagan 
Greece  and  Rome.  About  1490  they  began  to 
read  the  classics ;  one  after  the  other  they  trans- 
lated them ;  it  was  soon  the  fashion  to  read  them 
in  the  original.  Elizabeth,  Jane  Grey,  the  Duch- 
ess of  Norfolk,  the  Countess  of  Arundel,  many 
other  ladies,  were  conversant  with  Plato,  Xeno- 
phon,  and  Cicero  in  the  original,  and  appreciated 
them.  Gradually,  by  an  insensible  change,  men 
were  raised  to  the  level  of  the  great  and  liealthy 
minds  who  had  freely  handled  ideas  of  all  kinds 
fifteen  centuries  ago.  They  comprehended  not 
only  their  language,  but  their  thought ;  they  did 
not  repeat  lessons  from,  but  held  conversations 
with  them;  they  were  their  equals,  aud  found 
iu  them  intellects  as  manly  as  their  own.  .  .  . 


851 


ENGLAND,  16TH  CENTURY.       Renaissance.       ENGLAND,  16TH  CENTURY. 


Across  the  train  of  hooded  schoolmen  and  sordid 
cavillers  the  two  adult  and  thinking  ages  were 
united,  and  the  moderns,  silencing  the  infantine 
or  snuffling  voices  of  the  middle-age,  conde- 
scended only  to  converse  with  the  noble  ancients. 
They  accepted  their  gods,  at  least  they  understand 
them,  and  keep  them  by  their  side.  In  poems, 
festivals,  tapestries,  almost  all  ceremonies  they 
appear,  not  restored  by  pedantry  merely,  but 
kept  alive  by  sympathy,  and  glorified  by  the 
arts  of  an  age  as  flourishing  and  almost  as  pro- 
found as  that  of  their  earliest  birth.  After  the 
terrible  night  of  the  middle-age,  and  the  dolorous 
legends  of  spirits  and  the  damned,  it  was  a  de- 
light to  see  again  Olympus  shining  upon  us  from 
Greece ;  its  heroic  and  beautiful  deities  once  more 
ravishing  the  heart  of  men,  they  raised  and  in- 
structed this  young  world  by  speaking  to  it  the 
language  of  passion  and  genius ;  and  the  age  of 
strong  deeds,  free  sensuality,  bold  invention,  had 
only  to  follow  its  own  bent,  iu  order  to  discover 
in  them  the  eternal  promoters  of  liberty  and 
beauty.  Nearer  still  was  another  paganism,  that 
of  Italy ;  the  more  seductive  because  more  mod- 
ern, and  because  it  circulates  fresh  sap  in  an 
ancient  stock;  the  more  attractive,  because  more 
sensuous  and  present,  with  its  worship  of  force 
and  genius,  of  pleasure  and  voluptuousness.  .  .  . 
At  that  time  Italy  clearly  led  in  every  thing,  and 
civilisation  was  to  be  drawn  thence  as  from  its 
spring.  What  is  this  civilisation  which  is  thus 
imposed  on  the  whole  of  Europe,  whence  every 
science  and  every  elegance  comes,  whose  laws 
are  obeyed  in  every  court,  in  which  Surrey,  Sid- 
ney, Spenser,  Shakspeare  sought  their  models 
and  their  materials  ?  It  was  pagan  in  its  elements 
and  its  birth;  in  its  language,  which  is  but 
slightly  different  from  Latin ;  in  its  Latin  tradi- 
tions and  recollections,  which  no  gap  has  come 
to  interrupt;  in  its  constitution, whose  old  munic- 
ipal life  first  led  and  absorbed  the  feudal  life ; 
in  the  genius  of  its  race,  in  which  energy  and  en- 
joyment always  abounded." — H.  A.  Taine,  Hist, 
of  English  Literature,  bk.  3,  ch.  1  (v.  1). — "The 
intellectual  movement,  to  which  we  give  the 
name  of  Renaissance,  expressed  itself  in  England 
mainly  through  the  Drama.  Other  races  in  that 
era  of  quickened  activity,  when  modern  man  re- 
gained the  consciousness  of  his  own  strength  and 
goodliness  after  centuries  of  mental  stagnation 
and  social  depression,  threw  their  energies  into 
the  plastic  arts  and  scholarship.  The  English 
found  a  similar  outlet  for  their  pent-up  forces  iu 
the  Drama.  The  arts  and  literature  of  Greece 
and  Rome  had  been  revealed  by  Italy  to  Europe. 
Humanism  had  placed  the  present  once  more  in 
a  vital  relation  to  the  past.  The  navies  of  Por- 
tugal and  Spain  had  discovered  new  continents 
beyond  the  ocean ;  the  merchants  of  Venice  and 
Genoa  had  explored  the  farthest  East.  Coperni- 
cus had  revolutionised  astronomy,  and  the  tele- 
scope was  revealing  fresh  worlds  beyond  the  sun. 
The  Bible  had  been  rescued  from  the  mortmain 
of  the  Church ;  scholars  studied  it  in  the  language 
of  its  authors,  and  the  people  read  it  in  their  own 
tongue.  In  this  rapid  development  of  art,  litera- 
ture, science,  and  discovery,  the  English  had 
hitherto  taken  but  little  part.  But  they  were 
ready  to  reap  what  other  men  had  sown.  Unfa- 
tigued  by  the  labours  of  the  pioneer,  unsophisti- 
cated by  the  pedantries  and  sophistries  of  the 
schools,  in  the  freshness  of  their  youth  and  vig- 
our, they  surveyed  the  world  unfolded  to  them. 


For  more  than  half  a  century  they  freely  enjoyed 
the  splendour  of  this  spectacle,  until  the  struggle 
for  political  and  religious  liberty  replunged  them 
in  the  hard  realities  of  life.  During  that  event- 
ful period  of  spiritual  disengagement  from  ab- 
sorbing cares,  the  race  was  fully  conscious  of  its 
national  importance.  It  had  shaken  off  the  shack- 
les of  oppressive  feudalism,  the  trammels  of 
ecclesiastical  tyranny.  It  had  not  yet  passed 
under  the  Puritan  yoke,  or  felt  the  encroachments 
of  despotic  monarchy.  It  was  justly  proud  of 
the  Virgin  Queen,  with  whose  idealised  person- 
ality the  people  identified  their  newly  acquired 
sense  of  greatness.  .  .  .  What  iu  those  fifty  years 
they  saw  with  the  clairvoyant  eyes  of  artists,  the 
poets  wrote.  And  what  they  wrote,  remains  im- 
perishable. It  is  the  portrait  of  their  age,  the 
portrait  of  an  age  in  which  humanity  stood  self- 
revealed,  a  miracle  and  marvel  to  its  own  admir- 
ing curiosity.  England  was  iu  a  state  of  transi- 
tion when  the  Drama  came  to  perfection,  That 
was  one  of  those  rare  periods  when  the  past  and 
the  future  are  both  coloured  by  imagination,  and 
both  shed  a  glory  on  the  present.  The  medieval 
order  was  in  dissolution ;  the  modern  order  was 
in  process  of  formation.  Yet  the  old  state  of 
things  had  not  faded  from  memory  and  usage ; 
the  new  had  not  assumed  despotic  sway.  Men 
stood  then,  as  it  were,  between  two  dreams  —  a 
dream  of  the  past,  thronged  with  sinister  and 
splendid  reminiscences;  a  dream  of  the  future, 
bright  with  unlimited  aspirations  and  indefinite 
hopes.  Neither  the  retreating  forces  of  the  Mid- 
dle Ages  nor  the  advancing  forces  of  the  modern 
era  pressed  upon  them  with  the  iron  weight  of 
actuality.  The  brutalities  of  feudalism  had  been 
softened ;  but  the  chivalrous  sentiment  remained 
to  inspire  the  Surreys  and  the  Sidneys  of  a  milder 
epoch.  .  .  .  What  distinguished  the  English  at 
this  epoch  from  the  nations  of  the  South  was 
not  refinement  of  manners,  sobriety,  or  self-con- 
trol. On  the  contrary  they  retained  an  unenvi- 
able character  for  more  than  common  savagery. 
.  .  .  Erasmus  describes  the  filth  of  their  houses, 
and  the  sicknesses  engendered  in  their  cities  by 
bad  ventilation.  What  rendered  the  people 
superior  to  Italians  and  Spaniards  was  the  firm- 
ness of  their  moral  fibre,  the  sweetness  of  their 
humanity,  a  more  masculine  temper,  less  vitiated 
instincts  and  sophisticated  intellects,  a  law-abid- 
ing and  religious  conscience,  contempt  for  treach- 
ery and  baseness,  intolerance  of  political  or 
ecclesiastical  despotism  combined  with  fervent 
love  of  home  and  country.  They  were  coarse, 
but  not  vicious;  pleasure-loving,  but  not  licen- 
tious ;  violent,  but  not  cruel ;  luxurious  but  not 
effeminate.  Machiavelli  was  a  name  of  loathing 
to  them.  Sidney,  Essex,  Raleigh.  More,  and 
Drake  were  popular  heroes ;  and  whatever  may 
be  thought  of  these  men,  they  certainly  counted 
no  Marquis  of  Pescara,  no  Duke  of  Valentino,  no 
Malatesta  Baglioni,  no  Cosimo  de'  Medici  among 
them.  The  Southern  European  type  betrayed  it- 
self but  faintly  in  politicians  like  Richard  Crom- 
well and  Robert  Dudley.  .  .  .  Affectations  of 
foreign  vices  were  only  a  varnish  on  the  surface 
of  society.  The  core  of  the  nation  remained 
sound  and  wholesome.  Nor  was  the  culture 
which  the  English  borrowed  from  less  unsophisti- 
cated nations,  more  than  superficial.  The  inci- 
dents of  Court  gossip  show  how  savage  was  the 
life  beneath.  Queen  Elizabeth  spat,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  her  nobles,  at  a  gentleman  who  had  dis- 


852 


ENGLAND,  16TH  CENTURY.        Henry  vil. 


ENGLAND,  1513. 


pleased  her;  struck  Essex  on  the  cheek;  drove 
Burleigh  blubbering  from  her  apartment.  Laws 
in  merry  England  were  executed  with  uncom- 
promising severity.  Every  township  had  its 
gallows ;  every  village  its  stocks,  whipping-post 
and  pillory.  Here  and  there,  heretics  were 
burned  upon  the  market-place;  and  the  block 
upon  Tower  Hill  was  seldom  dry.  .  .  .  Men  and 
women  who  read  Plato,  or  discussed  the  elegan- 
cies of  Petrarch,  suffered  brutal  practical  jokes, 
relished  the  obscenities  of  jesters,  used  the  gross- 
est language  of  the  people.  Carrying  farms 
and  acres  on  their  backs  in  the  shape  of  costly 
silks  and  laces,  they  lay  upon  rushes  filthy  witli 
the  vomit  of  old  banquets.  Glittering  in  suits 
of  gilt  and  jewelled  mail,  they  jostled  with 
town-porters  in  the  stench  of  the  bear-gardens, 
or  the  bloody  bull-pit.  The  church  itself  was 
not  respected.  The  nave  of  old  S.  Paul's  became 
a  rendezvous  for  thieves  and  prostitutes.  ...  It 
is  ditficult,  even  bj'  noting  an  infinity  of  such 
characteristics,  to  paint  the  many-coloured  incon- 
gruities of  England  at  that  epoch.  Yet  in  the 
midst  of  this  confusion  rose  cavaliers  like  Sid- 
ney, philosophers  like  Bacon,  poets  like  Spenser ; 
men  in  whom  all  that  is  pure,  elevated,  subtle, 
tender,  strong,  wise,  delicate  and  learned  in  our 
modern  civilisation  displayed  itself.  And  the 
masses  of  the  people  were  still  in  harmony  with 
these  high  strains.  Thej'  formed  the  audience  of 
Shakspere.  They  wept  for  Desdemona,  adored 
Imogen,  listened  with  Jessica  to  music  in  the 
moon-light  at  Belmont,  wandered  with  Rosalind 
through  woodland  glades  of  Arden.  Such  was 
the  society  of  which  our  theatre  became  the  mir- 
ror." — J.  A.  Symonds,  Shakspere's  Predecessors 
in  the  English  Dramd,  ch.  3,  sect.  1,  2,  and  5. 

A.  D.  1497. — Cabot's  discovery  of  the  North 
American  Continent.  See  America:  A.  D. 
1497. 

A.  D.  1498. — Voyage  and  discoveries  of 
Sebastian  Cabot. — Ground  of  English  claims 
in  the  New  World.     See  America;  A.  D.  1498. 

A.  D.  1502. — The  marriage  which  brought 
the  Stuarts  to  the  English  throne.  See  Scot- 
land: A.  D.  1502. 

A.  D.  1509. — The  character  and  reign  of 
Henry  VII. — "  As  a  king,  Bacon  tells  us  that  he 
was  'a  wonder  for  wise  men.'  Few  indeed  were 
the  councillors  that  shared  his  confidence,  but 
the  wise  men,  competent  to  form  an  estimate  of 
his  statesmanship,  had  but  one  opinion  of  his 
consummate  wisdom.  Foreigners  were  greatly 
struck  with  the  success  that  attended  his  policy. 
Ambassadors  were  astouislied  at  the  intimate 
knowledge  he  displayed  of  the  affairs  of  their 
own  countries.  From  the  most  unpropitious 
beginnings,  a  proscribed  man  and  an  exile,  he 
had  won  his  way  in  evil  times  to  a  throne  beset 
with  dangers ;  he  had  pacified  his  own  country, 
cherished  commerce,  formed  strong  alliances  over 
Europe,  and  made  his  personal  influence  felt  by 
the  rulers  of  France,  Spain,  Italy,  and  tlie  Nether- 
lands as  that  of  a  man  who  could  turn  the  scale 
in  matters  of  the  highest  importance  to  their  own 
domestic  welfare.  .  .  .  From  first  to  last  his 
policy  was  essentially  his  own ;  for  though  he 
knew  well  how  to  choose  the  ablest  councillors,  he 
asked  or  took  their  advice  only  to  such  an  extent 
as  he  himself  deemed  expedient.  .  .  .  No  one 
can  understand  his  reign,  or  that  of  his  son,  or, 
we  might  add,  of  his  granddaughter  Queen 
Elizabeth,   without  appreciating  the  fact  that. 


however  well  served  with  councillors,  the  sover- 
eign was  in  those  days  always  his  own  Prime 
Minister.  .  .  .  Even  the  legislation  of  the  reign 
must  be  regarded  as  in  large  measure  due  to 
Henry  himself.  We  have  no  means,  it  is  true, 
of  knowing  how  much  of  it  originated  in  his  own 
mind ;  but  that  it  was  all  discussed  with  him  in 
Council  and  approved  before  it  was  passed  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe.  For  he  never 
appears  to  have  put  the  royal  veto  upon  any  Bill, 
as  constitutional  usage  both  before  and  after  his 
days  allowed.  He  gave  his  assent  to  all  the 
enactments  sent  up  to  him  for  approval,  though 
he  sometimes  added  to  them  provisos  of  his 
own.  And  Bacon,  who  knew  the  traditions  of 
those  times,  distinctly  attributes  the  good  legis- 
lation of  his  days  to  the  king  himself.  '  In  that 
part,  both  of  justice  and  policy,  which  is  the  most 
durable  part,  and  cut,  as  it  were,  in  brass  or 
marble,  the  making  of  good  laws,  he  did  excel.' 
This  statement,  with  but  slight  variations  in  the 
wording,  appears  again  and  again  throughout 
the  Historj';  and  elsewhere  it  is  said  that  he 
was  the  best  lawgiver  to  this  nation  after  Edward 
I.  .  .  .  The  parliaments,  indeed,  that  Henry 
summoned  were  only  seven  in  number,  and  sel- 
dom did  any  one  of  them  last  over  a  year,  so  that 
during  a  reign  of  nearly  twenty-four  years  many 
years  passed  away  without  a  Parliament  at  all. 
But  even  in  those  scanty  sittings  many  Acts 
were  passed  to  meet  evils  that  were  general  sub- 
jects of  complaint.  .  .  .  He  could  scarcely  be 
called  a  learned  man,  yet  he  was  a  lover  of  learn- 
ing, and  gave  his  children  an  excellent  educa- 
tion. His  Court  was  open  to  scholars.  .  .  .  He 
was  certainly  religious  after  the  fashion  of  his 
day.  .  .  .  His  religious  foundations  and  bequests 
perhaps  do  not  necessarily  imply  anything  more 
than  conventional  feeling.  But  we  must  not 
everlook  the  curious  circumstance  that  he  once 
argued  with  a  heretic  at  the  stake  at  Canterbury 
and  got  him  to  renounce  his  heresy.  It  is  melan- 
choly to  add  that  he  did  not  thereupon  release 
him  from  the  punishment  to  which  he  had  been 
sentenced ;  but  the  fact  seems  to  show  that  he 
was  afraid  of  encouraging  insincere  conversions 
by  such  leniency.  During  the  last  two  or  three 
years  of  the  15th  century  there  was  a  good  deal 
of  procedure  against  heretics,  but  on  the  whole, 
we  are  told,  rather  by  penances  than  by  fire. 
Henry  had  no  desire  to  see  the  old  foundations 
of  the  faith  disturbed.  His  zeal  for  the  Church 
was  recognised  by  no  less  than  three  Popes  in  his 
time,  who  each  sent  him  a  sword  and  a  cap  of 
maintenance.  .  .  .  To  commerce  and  adventure 
he  was  always  a  good  friend.  By  his  encourage- 
ment Sebastian  Cabot  sailed  from  Bristol  and  dis- 
covered Newfoundland  —  The  New  Isle,  as  it 
at  first  was  called.  Four  years  earlier  Columbus 
had  first  set  foot  on  the  great  western  continent, 
and  had  not  his  brother  been  taken  by  pirates  at 
sea,  it  is  supposed  that  he  too  might  have  made 
his  great  discovery  under  Henry's  patronage." — 
.las.  Gairdner,  Henry  the  Seventh,  eh.  13. 

Also  IN:  Lord  Bacon,  Hist,  of  the  Reign  of  King 
Henry  VIL 

A.  D.  1509.— Accession  of  King  Henry  VIII. 

A.  D.  1511-1513.— Enlisted  in  the  Holy 
League  of  Pope  Julius  II.  against  France.  See 
Italy:  A.  D.  1511)- 1.513. 

A.  D.  1513. — Henry's  invasion  of  France. — 
The  victory  of  the  Battle  of  the  Spurs.  See 
France-  A.  D.  1513-1515. 


853 


ENGLAND,  1513-1529. 


Wolsey,  Henry  VIII. 
and  the  Divorce. 


ENGLAND,  1527-1534. 


A.  D.  1513-1529. — The  ministry  of  Cardinal 
Wolsey.— From  1513  to  1529,  Thomas  Wolsey, 
who  became  Archbishop  of  York  in  1514,  and 
Cardinal  in  1515,  was  the  minister  who  guided 
the  policy  of  Henry  VIII.,  so  far  as  that  head- 
strong and  absolute  monarch  could  be  guided  at 
all.  "England  was  going  through  a  crisis  po- 
litically, socially,  and  intellectually,  when  Wol- 
sey undertook  the  management  of  affairs.  .  .  . 
We  must  regret  that  he  put  foreign  policy  in  the 
first  place,  and  reserved  his  constructive  meas- 
ures for  domestic  affairs.  .  .  .  Yet  even  here  we 
may  doubt  if  the  measures  of  the  English  Refor- 
mation would  have  been  possible  if  WoLsey's 
mind  had  not  inspired  the  king  and  the  nation 
with  a  heightened  consciousness  of  England's 
power  and  dignity.  Wolsey's  diplomacy  at  least 
tore  away  all  illusions  about  Pope  and  Emperor, 
and  the  opinion  of  Europe,  and  taught  Henry 
VIII.  the  measure  of  his  own  strength.  It  was 
impossible  that  Wolsey's  i)owerful  liand  should 
not  leave  its  impression  upon  everything  which 
it  touched.  If  Henry  VIII.  inherited  a  strong 
monarchy,  Wolsey  made  the  basis  of  monarch- 
ical power  still  stronger.  .  .  .  Wolsey  saw  in 
the  royal  power  the  only  possible  means  of  hold- 
ing England  together  and  guiding  it  through  the 
dangers  of  impending  change.  .  .  .  Wolsey  was 
in  no  sense  a  constitutional  minister,  nor  did  he 
pa}'  much  heed  to  constitutional  forms.  Parlia- 
ment was  only  summoned  once  during  the  time 
that  he  was  in  office,  and  then  he  tried  to  brow- 
beat Parliament  and  set  aside  its  privileges.  In 
his  view  the  only  function  of  Parliament  was  to 
grant  money  for  the  king's  needs.  The  king- 
should  say  how  much  he  needed,  and  Parliament 
ought  only  to  advise  how  this  sum  might  be 
most  conveniently  raised.  .  .  .  He  was  unwise 
in  his  attempt  to  force  the  king's  will  upon  Par- 
liament as  an  unchangeable  law  of  its  action. 
Henry  VIII.  looked  and  learned  from  Wolsey's 
failure,  and  when  he  took  the  management  of 
Parliament  into  his  own  hands  he  showed  him- 
self a  consummate  master  of  that  craft.  .  .  .  He 
was  so  skilful  that  Parliament  at  last  gave  him 
even  the  power  over  the  purse,  and  Hemy,  with- 
out raising  a  murmur,  imposed  taxes  which 
Wolsey  would  not  have  dared  to  suggest.  .  .  . 
Where  Wolsey  would  have  made  the  Crown  in- 
dependent of  Parliament,  Henry  VIII.  reduced 
Parliament  to  be  a  willing  instrument  of  the 
royal  will.  .  .  .  Henry  .  .  .  clothed  his  despot- 
ism with  the  appearance  of  paternal  solicitude. 
He  made  the  people  think  that  he  lived  for  them, 
and  that  their  interests  were  his,  whereas  Wolsey 
endeavoured  to  convince  the  people  that  the  king 
alone  could  guard  their  interests,  and  that  their 
only  course  was  to  put  entire  confidence  in  him. 
Henry  saw  that  men  were  easier  to  cajole  than 
to  convince.  ...  In  spite  of  the  disadvantage 
of  a  royal  education,  Henry  was  a  more  thorough 
Englishman  than  Wolsey,  though  Wolsey  sprang 
from  the  people.  It  was  Wolsey's  teaching, 
however,  that  prepared  Henry  for  liis  task.  The 
king  who  could  use  a  minister  like  Wolsey  and 
then  throw  him  away  when  he  was  no  longer 
useful,  felt  that  there  was  no  limitation  to  his 
self-sufficiency.  .  .  .  For  politics  in  the  largest 
sense,  comprising  all  the  relations  of  the  nation 
at  home  and  abroad,  Wolsey  had  a  capacity 
which  amounted  to  genius,  and  it  is  doubtful  if 
this  can  be  said  of  any  other  Englishman.  .  .  . 
Taking  England  as  he  found  her,  he  aimed  at  de- 


veloping all  her  latent  possibilities,  and  leading 
Europe  to  follow  in  her  train.  ...  He  made 
England  for  a  time  the  centre  of  European  poli- 
tics, and  gave  her  an  influence  far  higher  than 
she  could  claim  on  material  grounds.  ...  He 
was  indeed  a  political  artist,  who  worked  with  a 
free  hand  and  a  certain  touch.  ...  He  was, 
though  he  knew  it  not,  fitted  to  serve  England, 
but  not  to  serve  the  English  king.  He  had  the 
aims  of  a  national  statesman,  not  of  a  royal  ser- 
vant. Wolsey's  misfortune  was  that  his  lot  was 
cast  on  days  when  the  career  of  a  statesman  was 
not  distinct  from  that  of  a  royal  servant." — M. 
Creighton,  C'ln-diiml  Wolsey,  cfi.  8  and  11. 

Also  in  :  J.  S.  Brewer,  T/ie  Reign  of  Henry 
VIII.— 3.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  Eng.  from  the  Fall 
of  Wolsey,  ch.  1-3. — G.  Cavendish,  Life  of  Wolsey. 

A.  D.  1514. — Marriage  of  the  king's  sister 
with  Louis  XII.  of  France.  SeeFR.vNCE:  A.  D. 
1513-1515. 

A.  D.  1516-1517. — Intrigues  against  France. 
SeeFn.iNCE:  A.  D.  l.jlG-1517. 

A.  D.  1519.— Candidacy  of  Henry  'VIII.  for 
the  imperial  crown.   See  Germany;  A.  D.  1519. 

A.  D.  1520-1521. — Rivalry  of  the  Emperor 
and  the  French  King  for  the  English  alliance. 
See  France:  A.  I).  1520-1523. 

A.  D.  1525. — The  king  changes  sides  in 
European  politics  and  breaks  his  alliance  with 
the  Emperor.     See  France:  A.  D.  1525-1520. 

A.  D.  1527. — New  alliance  with  France  and 
Venice  against  Charles  V. — Formal  renuncia- 
tion of  the  claim  of  the  English  kings  to  the 
crown  of  France.    See  Italy:  A.  D.  1527-1529. 

A.  D.  1527-1534.— Henry  Vlll.  and  the  Di- 
vorce question. — The  rupture  with  Rome. — 
Henry  VIII.  "owed  his  crown  to  the  early  death 
of  his  brother  Arthur,  whose  widow,  Catharine 
of  Aragon,  the  daughter  of  Ferdinand,  and  con- 
sequently the  aunt  of  Charles  V.  [emperor], 
Henry  was  enabled  to  marry  through  a  dispen- 
sation obtained  by  Henry  VII.  from  Pope  Julius 
II. , — marriage  with  the  wife  of  a  deceased  brother 
being  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  the  Chui-ch. 
Henry  was  in  his  twelfth  year  when  the  marriage 
was  concluded,  but  it  was  not  consummated  until 
the  death  of  his  father.  .  .  .  The  question  of 
Henry's  divorce  from  Catharine  soon  became  a 
subject  of  discussion,  and  the  effort  to  procure 
the  anmdling  of  the  marriage  from  the  pope  was 
prosecuted  for  a  number  of  years.  Henry  pro- 
fessed, and  perhaps  with  sincerity,  that  he  had 
long  been  troubled  with  doubts  of  the  validity  of 
the  marriage,  as  being  contrary  to  the  divine 
law,  and  therefore  not  within  the  limit  of  the 
pope's  dispensing  power.  The  death  of  a  num- 
ber of  his  children,  leaving  only  a  single  daugh- 
ter, Mary,  had  been  interpreted  by  some  as  a 
mark  of  tlie  displeasure  of  God.  At  the  same 
time  the  English  people,  in  the  fresh  recollection 
of  the  long  dynastic  struggle,  were  anxious  on 
account  of  the  lack  of  a  male  heir  to  the  throne. 
On  the  queen's  side  it  was  asserted  that  it  was 
competent  for  the  pope  to  authorize  a  marriage 
with  a  brother's  widow,  and  that  no  doubt  could 
possibly  exist  in  the  present  case,  since,  accord- 
ing to  her  testimony,  her  marriage  with  Arthur 
had  never  been  completed.  The  eagerness  of 
Henry  to  procure  the  divorce  increased  with  his 
growing  passion  for  Anne  Boleyn.  The  negotia- 
tions with  Rome  dragged  slowly  on.  Catharine 
was  six  years  older  than  himself,  and  had  lost 
her  charms.     He  was  enamored  of  this  young 


854 


ENGLAND,  1527-1534. 


Sir  Thomas  More. 


ENGLAND,  1539-1535. 


English  girl,  fresh  from  the  court  of  Prance.  He 
resolveci  to  break  the  marriage  bond  with  the 
Spanish  princess  wlio  liad  been  his  faithful  wife 
for  nearly  twenty  years.  It  was  not  without 
reason  that  the  king  became  more  and  more  in- 
censed at  the  dilatory  and  vacillating  course  of 
the  pope.  .  .  .  Henry  determined  to  lay  the 
question  of  the  validity  of  his  marriage  before  the 
universities  of  Europe,  and  this  he  did,  making 
a  free  use  of  bribery  abroad  and  of  menaces  at 
home.  Meantime,  he  took  measures  to  cripple 
the  authority  of  the  pope  and  of  the  clergy  in 
England.  In  these  proceedings  he  was  sustained 
by  a  popular  feeling,  the  growth  of  centuries, 
against  foreign  ecclesiastical  interference  and 
clerical  control  in  civil  affairs.  The  fall  of  "Wol- 
sey  was  the  effect  of  his  failure  to  procure  the 
divorce,  and  of  the  enmity  of  Anne  Boleyn  and 
her  family.  ...  In  order  to  convict  of  treason 
this  minister,  whom  he  had  raised  to  the  highest 
pinnacle  of  power,  the  king  did  not  scruple  to 
avail  himself  of  the  ancient  statute  of  prajmunire, 
which  Wolsey  was  accused  of  having  trans- 
gressed by  acting  as  the  pope's  legate  in  England 
—  it  was  dishonestly  alleged,  without  the  royal 
license.  Early  in  1531  the  king  charged  the 
whole  body  of  the  clergy  with  having  incurred 
the  penalties  of  the  same  law  by  submitting  to 
"Wolsey  in  his  legatine  character.  Assembled  in 
convocation,  they  were  obliged  to  implore  his 
pardon,  and  obtained  it  only  in  return  for  a  large 
sum  of  money.  In  their  petition  he  was  styled. 
In  obedience  to  his  dictation,  '  The  Protector  and 
Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  and  Clergy  of  Eng- 
land," to  which  was  added,  after  long  debate,  at 
the  suggestion  of  Archbishop  Warham  — '  as  far 
as  is  permitted  by  the  law  of  Christ.'  The 
Church,  prostrate  though  it  was  at  the  feet  of 
the  despotic  king,  showed  some  degree  of  self- 
respect  in  inserting  this  amendment.  Parliament 
forbade  the  introduction  of  papal  bulls  into  Eng- 
land. The  king  was  authorized  if  he  saw  fit,  to 
withdraw  the  annats  —  first-fruits  of  benefices — • 
from  the  pope.  Appeals  to  Rome  were  forbid- 
den. The  retaliatory  measures  of  Henry  did  not 
move  the  pope  to  recede  from  his  position.  On 
or  about  January  35,  1533,  the  king  was  privately 
married  to  Anne  Boleyn.  ...  In  1534  Henry 
was  conditionally  excommunicated  by  Clement 
VII.  The  papal  decree  deposing  him  from  the 
throne,  and  absolving  his  subjects  from  their 
allegiance,  did  not  follow  until  1538,  and  was 
issued  by  Paul  III.  Clement's  bull  was  sent 
forth  on  the  33  of  March.  On  the  33  of  Novem- 
ber Parliament  passed  the  Act  of  Supremacy, 
without  the  qualifying  clause  which  the  clergy 
had  attached  to  their  vote.  The  king  was,  more- 
over, clothed  with  full  power  and  authority  to 
repress  and  amend  all  such  errors,  heresies,  and 
abuses  as  '  by  any  manner  of  spiritual  authority 
or  jurisdiction  ought  or  may  lawfully  be  re- 
formed.' Thus  a  visitatorial  function  of  vast  ex- 
tent was  recognized  as  belonging  to  him.  In 
1533  convocation  was  driven  to  engage  not  'to 
enact  or  promulge  or  put  in  execution '  any 
measures  without  the  royal  license,  and  to  promise 
to  change  or  to  abrogate  any  of  the  '  provincial 
constitutions '  which  he  should  judge  inconsistent 
with  his  prerogative.  The  clergy  were  thus 
stripped  of  all  power  to  make  laws.  A  mixed 
commission,  which  Parliament  ordained  for  the 
revision  of  the  whole  canon  law,  was  not  ap- 
pointed in  this  reign.     The  dissolution  of   the 


king's  marriage  thus  dissolved  the  union  of  Eng- 
land with  the  papacy." — G.  P.  Fisher,  History  of 
tlie  Christian  Church,  period  8,  cli.  6. 

Also  in:  J.  S.  Brewer,  The  Reirjn  of  Henry 
VIIL,  V.  3,  ch.  37-35.— J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of 
Eiijj.,  V.  1,  ch.  3.— S.  H.  Burke,  Hist.  Portraits 
oft/ie  Tudor  Dynasty,  v.  1,  ch.  8-35. — J.  Lingard, 
Hi.'it.  of  Eng.,  -v.  6,  ch.  3.— T.  E.  Bridgett,  Life 
and  Writings  of  Sir  T.  More. 

A.  D.  1529-1535.  —  The  execution  of  Sir 
Thomas  More.— On  the  35th  of  October,  1539, 
the  king,  by  delivering  the  great  seal  to  Sir 
Thomas  More,  constituted  him  Lord  Chancellor. 
In  making  this  appointment,  Henry  "hoped  to 
dispose  his  chancellor  to  lend  his  authority  to  the 
projects  of  divorce  and  second  marriage,  which 
now  agitated  the  king's  mind,  and  were  the  main 
objects  of  his  policy.  .  .  .  To  pursue  this  subject 
through  the  long  negotiations  and  discussions 
which  it  occasioned  during  six  years,  would  be 
to  lead  us  far  from  the  life  of  sir  Thomas  More. 
.  .  .  All  these  proceedings  terminated  in  the  sen- 
tence of  nullity  in  the  case  of  Henry's  marriage 
with  Catherine,  pronounced  by  Craumer,  the  es- 
pousal of  Anne  I5oleyn  by  the  king,  and  the  re  ■ 
jection  of  the  papal  jurisdiction  by  the  kingdom, 
which  still,  however,  adhered  to  the  doctrines  ot 
the  Roman  catholic  church.  The  situation  of 
More  during  a  great  part  of  these  memorable 
events  was  embarrassing.  The  great  offices  to 
which  he  was  raised  by  the  king,  the  personal 
favour  hitherto  constantly  shown  to  him,  and  the 
natural  tendency  of  his  gentle  and  quiet  disposi- 
tion, combined  to  disincline  him  to  resistance 
against  the  wishes  of  his  friendly  master.  On 
the  other  hand,  his  growing  dread  and  horror  of 
heresy,  with  its  train  of  disorders;  his  belief  that 
universal  anarchy  would  be  the  inevitable  result 
of  religious  dissension,  and  the  operation  of  seven 
years'  controversy  for  the  Catholic  church,  in 
heating  his  mind  on  all  subjects  involving  the  ex- 
tent of  her  authority,  made  hira  recoil  from  de- 
signs which  were  visibly  tending  towards  dis- 
union with  the  Roman  pontiff.  .  .  .  Henry  used 
every  means  of  procuring  an  opinion  favourable 
to  his  wishes  from  his  chancellor,  who  excused 
himself  as  unmeet  for  such  matters,  having  never 
professed  the  study  of  divinity.  .  .  .  But  when 
the  progress  towards  the  marriage  was  so  far  ad- 
vanced that  he  saw  how  soon  the  active  co-opera- 
tion of  a  chancellor  must  be  required,  he  made 
suit  to  'his  singular  dear  friend,'  the  duke  of 
Norfolk,  to  procure  his  discharge  from  this  office. 
The  duke,  often  solicited  by  More,  then  obtained, 
by  importunate  suit,  a  clear  discharge  for  the 
chancellor.  .  .  .  The  liing  directed  Norfolk,  when 
he  installed  his  successor,  to  declare  publicly, 
that  his  majesty  had  with  pain  yielded  to  the 
prayers  of  sir  'Thomas  More,  by  the  removal  of 
such  a  magistrate.  ...  It  must  be  owned  that 
Henry  felt  the  weight  of  this  great  man's  opinion, 
and  tried  every  possible  means  to  obtain  at  least 
the  appearance  of  his  spontaneous  approbation. 
.  .  .  The  king  .  .  .  sent  the  archbisliop  of  Can- 
terbury, the  chancellor,  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  and 
Cromwell,  to  attempt  the  conversion  of  More. 
Audley  reminded  More  of  the  king's  special  favour 
and  many  benefits.  More  admitted  them;  but 
modestly  added,  that  his  highness  had  most 
graciously  declared  that  on  this  matter  More 
should  be  molested  no  more.  When  in  the  end 
they  saw  that  no  persuasion  could  move  him,  they 
then  said,  '  that  the  king's  highness  had  given 


855 


ENGLAND,  1529-1535. 


Geneais  of  the 
Church  of  England. 


ENGLAND,   1531-1563. 


them  In  commandment,  if  they  could  by  no  gen- 
tleness win  him,  in  the  king's  name  witli  ingrati- 
tude to  charge  him,  that  never  was  servant  to  his 
master  so  villainous,  nor  subject  to  his  prince  so 
traitorous  as  he.' .  .  .  By  a  tyrannical  edict,  mis- 
called a  law,  in  the  same  session  of  1533-4,  it 
was  made  high  treason,  after  the  1st  of  May,  1534, 
by  writing,  print,  deed,  or  act,  to  do  or  to  pro- 
cure, or  cause  to  be  done  or  procured,  anything 
to  the  prejudice,  slander,  disturbance,  or  deroga- 
tion of  the  king's  lawful  matrimony  with  queen 
Anne.  If  the  same  offences  were  committed  by 
words,  they  were  only  misprision.  The  same  act 
enjoined  all  persons  to  take  an  oath  to  maintain 
the  whole  contents  of  the  statute,  and  an  obsti- 
nate refusal  to  make  such  oath  was  subjected  to 
the  penalties  of  misprision.  .  .  .  Sir  T.  More  was 
summoned  to  appear  before  these  commissioners 
at  Lambeth,  on  Monday  the  13th  of  April,  1534. 
.  .  .  After  having  read  the  statute  and  the  form 
of  the  oath,  he  declared  his  readiness  to  swear 
that  he  would  maintain  and  defend  the  order  of 
succession  to  the  crown  as  established  by  parlia- 
ment. He  disclaimed  all  censure  of  those  who 
had  imposed,  or  on  those  who  had  taken,  the 
oath,  but  declared  it  to  be  impossible  that  he 
should  swear  to  the  whole  contents  of  it,  without 
offending  against  his  own  conscience.  .  .  .  He 
never  more  returned  to  his  house,  being  commit- 
ted to  the  custody  of  the  abbot  of  Westminster, 
in  which  he  continued  four  days ;  and  at  the  end 
of  that  time  he  was  conveyed  to  the  Tower  on 
Friday  the  17th  of  April,  1534.  ...  On  the  6th 
of  May,  1535,  almost  immediately  after  the  defeat 
of  every  attempt  to  practise  on  his  firmness,  More 
was  brought  to  trial  at  Westminster,  and  it  will 
scarcely  be  doubted,  that  no  such  culprit  stood 
at  any  European  bar  for  a  thousand  years.  .  .  . 
It  is  lamentable  that  the  records  of  the  proceed- 
ings against  such  a  man  should  be  scanty.  We 
do  not  certainly  know  the  specific  offence  of 
which  he  was  convicted.  ...  On  Tuesday,  the 
6th  of  July  (St.  Thomas's  eve),  1535,  sir  Thomas 
Pope,  'his  singular  good  friend,'  came  to  him 
early  with  a  message  from  the  king  and  council, 
to  say  that  he  should  die  before  nine  o'clock  of 
the  same  morning.  .  .  .  The  lieutenant  brought 
him  to  the  scaffold,  which  was  so  weak  that  it 
was  ready  to  fall,  on  which  he  said,  merrily, 
'  Master  lieutenant,  I  pray  you  see  me  safe  up, 
and  for  my  coming  down  let  me  shift  for  myself. ' 
When  he  "laid  his  head  on  the  block  he  desired 
the  executioner  to  wait  till  he  had  removed  his 
beard,  for  that  had  never  offended  his  highness." 
— Sir  J.  Mackintosh,  Sir  T/ws.  More  {Cabinet 
Cyclop.  :  Eminent  British  Statesmen,  v.  1). 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Historical  Biogra- 
phies, eh.  3. — T.  E.  Bridgett,  Life  and  Writings 
■  of  Sir  Thomas  More,  ch.  12-34.— S.  H.  Burke, 
Hist.  Portraits  of  the  TucJor  Dynasty,  v.  1,  ch.  29. 

A.  D.  1531-1563. — The  genesis  of  the  Church 
of  England. — "Henry  VIII.  attempted  to  con- 
stitute an  Anghcan  Church  differing  from  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  on  the  point  of  the 
supremacy,  and  on  that  point  alone.  His  success 
in  this  attempt  was  extraordinary.  The  force  of 
his  character,  the  singularly  favorable  situation 
in  which  he  stood  with  respect  to  foreign  powers, 
the  immense  wealth  which  the  spoliation  of  the 
abbeys  placed  at  his  disposal,  and  the  support  of 
that  class  which  still  halted  between  two  opinions, 
enabled  him  to  bid  defiance  to  both  the  extreme 
parties,  to  burn  as  heretics  those  who  avowed 


the  tenets  of  the  Reformers,  and  to  hang  as 
traitors  those  who  owned  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  But  Henry's  system  died  with  him.  Had 
his  life  been  prolonged,  he  woidd  have  found  it 
difficult  to  maintain  a  position  assailed  with  equal 
fury  by  all  who  were  zealous  either  for  the  new 
or  for  the  old  opinions.  The  ministers  who  held 
the  royal  prerogatives  in  trust  for  his  infant  son 
could  not  venture  to  persist  in  so  hazardous  a 
policy ;  nor  could  Elizabeth  venture  to  return  to 
it.  It  was  necessary  to  make  a  choice.  The 
government  must  either  submit  to  Rome,  or 
must  obtain  the  aid  of  the  Protestants.  The 
government  and  the  Protestants  had  only  one 
thing  in  common,  hatred  of  the  Papal  power. 
The  English  reformers  were  eager  to  go  as  far  as 
their  brethren  on  the  Continent.  They  unani- 
mously condemned  as  Antichristian  numerous 
dogmas  and  practices  to  which  Henry  had  stub- 
bornly adhered,  and  which  Elizabeth  reluctantly 
abandoned.  Many  felt  a  strong  repugnance  even 
to  things  indifferent  which  had  formed  part 
of  the  polity  or  ritual  of  the  mystical  Babylon. 
Thus  iSishop  Hooper,  who  died  manfully  at 
Gloucester  for  his  religion,  long  refused  to  wear 
the  episcopal  vestments.  Bishop  Ridley,  a  mar- 
tyr of  still  greater  renown,  pulled  down  the 
ancient  altars  of  his  diocese,  and  ordered  the 
Eucharist  to  be  administered  in  the  middle  of 
churches,  at  tables  which  the  Papists  irreverently 
termed  oyster  boards.  Bishop  Jewel  pronounced 
the  clerical  garb  to  be  a  stage  dress,  a  fool's  coat, 
a  relique  of  the  Amorites,  and  promised  that  he 
would  spare  no  labour  to  extirpate  such  degrad- 
ing absurdities.  Archbishop  Grindal  long  liesi- 
tated  about  accepting  a  mitre  from  dislike  of 
what  he  regarded  as  the  mummery  of  consecra- 
tion. Bishop  Parkhurst  uttered  a  fervent  prayer 
that  the  Church  of  England  would  propose  to 
herself  the  Church  of  Zurich  as  the  absolute 
pattern  of  a  Christian  community.  Bishop 
Ponet  was  of  opinion  that  the  word  Bishop  should 
be  abandoned  to  the  Papist,  and  that  the  chief 
officers  of  the  purified  church  should  be  called 
Superintendents.  When  it  is  considered  that 
none  of  these  prelates  belonged  to  the  extreme 
section  of  the  Protestant  party,  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that,  if  the  general  sense  of  that  party 
had  been  followed,  the  work  of  reform  would 
have  been  carried  on  as  unsparingly  in  England 
as  in  Scotland.  But,  as  the  government  needed 
the  support  of  the  Protestants,  so  the  Protestants 
needed  the  protection  of  the  government.  Much 
was  therefore  given  up  on  both  sides:  an  union 
was  effected ;  and  the  fruit  of  that  union  was  the 
Church  of  England." — Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  ch.  1. — "The  Reformation  in  England  was 
singular  amongst  the  great  religious  movements 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  It  was  the  least  heroic 
of  them  all  —  the  least  swayed  by  religious  pas- 
sion, or  moulded  and  governed  by  spiritual  and 
theological  necessities.  From  a  general  point  of 
view,  it  looks  at  first  little  more  than  a  great 
political  change.  The  exigencies  of  royal  pas- 
sion, and  the  dubious  impulses  of  statecraft, 
seem  its  moving  and  really  powerful  springs. 
But,  regarded  more  closely,  we  recognise  a  sig- 
nificant train  both  of  religious  and  critical  forces 
at  work.  The  lust  and  avarice  of  Henry,  the 
policy  of  Cromwell,  and  the  vacillations  of  the 
leading  clergy,  attract  prominent  notice;  but 
there  may  be  traced  beneath  the  surface  a  wide- 
spread evangelical  fervour  amongst  the  people, 


856 


ENGLAND,  1531-1563. 


Tfie  Monasteries. 


ENGLAND,  1535-1539. 


and,  above  all,  a  genuine  spiritual  earnestness 
and  excitement  of  thought  at  the  universities. 
These  higher  influences  preside  at  the  first  birth 
of  the  movement.  They  are  seen  in  active  oper- 
ation long  before  the  reforming  task  was  taken 
up  by  the  Court  and  the  bishops." — J.  Tulloch, 
Rational  Theology  and  Christian  Philosophy  in 
Eng.  in  the  Vith  Century,  v.  1,  ch.  2.  —  "The 
miserable  fate  of  Anne  Boleyn  wins  our  com- 
passion, and  the  greatness  to  which  her  daughter 
attained  has  been  in  some  degree  reflected  back 
upon  herself.  Had  she  died  a  natural  death,  and 
had  she  not  been  the  mother  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
we  should  have  estimated  her  character  at  a  very 
low  value  indeed.  Protestantism  might  still, 
with  its  usual  unhistorical  partizanship,  have 
gilded  over  her  immoralities ;  but  the  Church  of 
England  must  ever  look  upon  Anne  Boleyn  with 
downcast  eyes  full  of  sorrow  and  shame.  By 
the  influence  of  her  charms,  Henry  was  induced 
to  take  those  steps  which  ended  in  setting  the 
Church  of  England  free  from  an  uncatholic  yoke : 
but  that  such  a  result  should  be  produced  by 
such  an  influence  is  a  fact  which  must  constrain 
us  to  think  that  the  land  was  guilty  of  many 
sins,  and  that  it  was  these  national  sins  wliich 
prevented  better  instruments  from  being  raised 
up  for  so  righteous  an  object." — J.  H.  Blunt, 
T?ie  Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  pp. 
197-198. — "Cranmer's  work  might  never  have 
been  carried  out,  there  might  have  been  no  Eng- 
lish Bible,  no  Ten  Articles  or  'Institution,'  no 
reforming  Primers,  nor  Proclamations  against 
Ceremonies,  had  it  not  been  for  the  tact,  bold- 
ness and  skill  of  Thomas  Crumwell,  who  influ- 
enced the  King  more  directly  and  constantly 
than  Cranmer,  and  who  knew  how  to  make  his 
influence  acceptable  by  an  unprincipled  confisca- 
tion and  an  absurd  exaggeration  of  the  royal 
supremacy.  Crumwell  knew  that  in  his  master's 
heart  there  was  a  dislike  and  contempt  of  the 
clergy.  .  .  .  It  is  probable  that  Crumwell's  policy 
was  simply  irreligious,  and  only  directed  towards 
preserving  his  Influence  with  the  King;  but  as 
the  support  of  the  reforming  part  of  the  nation 
was  a  useful  factor  in  it,  he  was  thus  led  to  push 
forward  religious  information  in  conjunction 
with  Cranmer.  It  has  been  before  said  that 
purity  and  disinterestedness  are  not  to  be  looked 
for  in  all  the  actors  in  the  English  Reformation. 
To  this  it  may  be  added  that  neither  in  the  move- 
ment itself  nor  in  those  who  took  part  in  it  is  to 
•  be  found  complete  consistency.  This,  indeed,  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at.  Men  were  feeling  their 
way  along  untrodden  paths,  without  any  very 
clear  perception  of  the  end  at  which  they  were 
aiming,  or  any  perfect  understanding  of  the 
situation.  The  King  had  altogether  misappre- 
hended the  meaning  of  his  supremacy.  A  host 
of  divines  whose  views  as  to  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  secular  and  the  spiritual  had  been  con- 
fused by  the  action  of  the  Popes,  helped  to  mis- 
lead him.  The  clergy,  accustomed  to  be  crushed 
and  humiliated  by  the  Popes,  submitted  to  be 
crushed  and  humiliated  by  the  King ;  and  as  the 
tide  of  his  autocratic  temper  ebbed  and  flowed, 
yielded  to  each  change.  Hence  there  was  action 
and  reaction  throughout  the  reign.  But  in  this 
there  were  obvious  advantages  for  the  Church. 
The  gradual  process  accustomed  men's  thoughts 
to  a  reformation  which  should  not  be  drastic  or 
iconoclastic,  but  rather  conservative  and  deliber- 
ate."— G.  G   Perry,  Hist,  of  the  Refm'mation  in 


Eng.,  ch.  5. — "With  regard  to  the  Church  of 
England,  its  foundations  rest  upon  the  rock  of 
Scripture,  not  upon  the  character  of  the  King  by 
whom  they  were  laid.  This,  however,  must  be 
affirmed  in  justice  to  Henry,  that  mixed  as  the 
motives  were  which  first  induced  him  to  disclaim 
the  Pope's  authority,  in  all  the  subsequent  meas- 
ures he  acted  sincerely,  knowing  the  importance 
of  the  work  in  which  he  had  engaged,  and  prose- 
cuting it  sedulously  and  conscientiously,  even 
when  most  erroneous.  That  religion  should 
have  had  so  little  influence  upon  his  moral  con- 
duct will  not  appear  strange,  if  we  consider 
what  the  religion  was  wherein  he  was  trained 
up;  —  nor  if  we  look  at  the  generality  of  men 
even  now,  under  circumstances  immeasurably 
more  fortunate  than  those  in  which  he  was  placed. 
Undeniable  proofs  remain  of  the  learning,  ability, 
and  diligence,  with  wliich  he  applied  himself  to 
the  great  business  of  weeding  out  superstition, 
and  yet  preserving  what  he  believed  to  be  the 
essentials  of  Christianity  untouched.  This  praise 
(and  it  is  no  light  one)  is  his  due:  and  it  is  our 
part  to  be  thankful  to  that  all-ruling  Providence, 
which  rendered  even  his  passions  and  his  vices 
subservient  to  tliis  important  end. " — R.  Southey, 
The  Book  of  the  Church,  ch.  13, 

A.  D.  1535-1539. — The  suppression  of  the 
Monasteries. —  "The  enormous,  and  in  a  great 
measure  ill-gotten,  opulence  of  the  regular  clergy 
had  long  since  excited  jealousy  in  every  part  of 
Europe.  ...  A  writer  much  inclined  to  par- 
tiality towards  the  monasteries  says  that  tliey 
held  [in  England]  one-fifth  part  of  the  kingdom ; 
no  insignificant  patrimony.  ...  As  they  were 
in  general  exempted  from  episcopal  visitation, 
and  intrusted  with  the  care  of  their  own  disci- 
pline, such  abuses  had  gradually  prevailed  and 
gained  strength  by  connivance  as  we  may  natu- 
rally expect  in  corporate  bodies  of  men  leading 
almost  of  necessity  useless  and  indolent  lives, 
and  in  whom  very  indistinct  views  of  moral  ob- 
ligations were  combined  with  a  great  facility  of 
violating  them.  The  vices  that  for  many  ages 
had  been  supposed  to  haunt  the  monasteries,  had 
certainly  not  left  their  precincts  in  that  of  Henry 
VIII.  Wolsey,  as  papal  legate,  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  Fox,  bishop  of  Hereford,  a  favourer  of 
the  Reformation,  commenced  a  visitation  of  the 
professed  as  well  as  secular  clergy  in  1523,  in 
consequence  of  the  general  complaint  against 
their  manners.  .  .  .  Full  of  anxious  zeal  for 
promoting  education,  the  noblest  part  of  his 
character,  he  obtained  bulls  from  Rome  sup- 
pressing many  convents  (among  which  was  that 
of  St.  Frideswide  at  Oxford),  in  order  to  erect 
and  endow  a  new  college  in  that  university,  his 
favourite  work,  which  after  his  fall  was  more 
completely  established  by  tlie  name  of  Christ 
Church.  A  few  more  were  afterwards  extin- 
guished through  his  instigation;  and  thus  the 
prejudice  against  interference  with  this  species 
of  property  was  somewhat  worn  off,  and  men's 
minds  gradually  prepared  for  the  sweeping  con- 
fiscations of  Cromwell  [Thomas  Cromwell,  who 
succeeded  Wolsey  as  chief  minister  of  Henry 
VIII.].  The  king  indeed  was  abundantly  willing 
to  replenish  his  exchequer  by  violent  means, 
and  to  avenge  himself  on  those  who  gainsayed 
his  supremacy ;  but  it  was  this  able  statesman 
who,  prompted  both  by  the  natural  appetite  of 
ministers  for  the  subjects'  money  and  by  a  secret 
partiality  towards  the  Reformation,  devised  and 


857 


ENGLAND,  1535-1539. 


Anne  Boleyn 
and  her  Successors, 


ENGLAND,   1536-1543. 


carried  on  with  complete  success,  if  not  with  tlie 
utmost  prudence,  a  measure  of  no  inconsiderable 
hazard  and  difficulty.  ...  It  was  necessar}',  by 
exposing  the  gross  corruptions  of  monasteries, 
both  to  intimidate  the  regular  clergy,  and  to 
excite  popular  indignation  against  them.  It 
is  not  to  be  doubted  that  in  the  visitation  of 
these  foundations,  under  the  direction  of  Crom- 
well, as  lord  vice-gerent  of  the  king's  ecclesias- 
tical supremacy,  many  things  were  done  in  an 
arbitrary  manner,  and  much  was  unfairly  repre- 
sented. Yet  the  reports  of  these  visitors  are  so 
minute  and  specific  that  it  is  rather  a  prepos- 
terous degree  of  incredulity  to  reject  their  testi- 
mony whenever  it  bears  hard  on  the  regulars. 
.  .  .  The  dread  of  these  visitors  soon  induced  a 
number  of  abbots  to  make  surrenders  to  "the 
king ;  a  step  of  very  questionable  legality.  But 
in  the  next  session  the  smaller  convents,  whose 
revenues  were  less  than  £200  a  j'ear,  were  sup- 
pressed by  act  of  parliament,  to  the  number  of 
376,  and  their  estates  vested  in  the  crown.  This 
summary  spoliation  led  to  the  great  northern  re- 
bellion soon  afterwards,"  headed  by  Robert 
Ask,  a  gentleman  of  Yorkshire,  and  assuming 
the  title  of  a  Pilgrimage  of  Grace. — H.  Hallam, 
Const.  Hist,  of  Eiig.,  ch.  2. — "Far  from  benefit- 
ing the  cause  of  the  monastic  houses,  the  im- 
mediate effect  of  the  Pilgrimage  of  Grace  was  to 
bring  ruin  on  those  monasteries  which  had  as 
yet  been  spared.  For  their  complicity  or  alleged 
complicity  in  it,  twelve  abbots  were  hanged, 
drawn  and  quartered,  and  their  houses  were 
seized  by  the  Crown.  Every  means  was  em- 
ployed by  a  new  set  of  Commissioners  to  bring 
about  the  surrender  of  others  of  the  greater  ab- 
beys. The  houses  were  visited,  and  their  pre- 
tended relics  and  various  tricks  to  encourage  the 
devotion  of  the  people  were  exposed.  Sur- 
renders went  rapidly  on  during  the  years  1537 
and  1538,  and  it  became  necessary  to  obtain  a 
new  Act  of  Parliament  to  vest  the  property  of 
the  later  surrenders  in  the  Crown.  .  .  .  Nothing, 
indeed,  can  be  more  tragical  than  the  way  in 
which  the  greater  abbej's  were  destroyed  on 
manufactured  charges  and  for  imaginary  crimes. 
These  houses  had  been  described  in  the  first  Act 
of  Parliament  as  '  great  and  honourable,'  wherein 
'religion  was  right  well  kept  and  observed.' 
Yet  now  they  were  pitilessly  destroyed.  A  reve- 
nue of  about  £131,607  is  computed  to  have 
thus  come  to  the  Crown,  while  the  movables  are 
valued  at  £400,000.  How  was  this  vast  sum  of 
money  expended?  (1)  By  the  Act  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  greater  monasteries  the  King  was 
empowered  to  erect  six  new  sees,  with  their 
deans  and  chapters,  namely,  Westminster,  Ox- 
ford, Chester,  Gloucester,  Bristol  and  Peterbor- 
ough. ...  (2)  Some  monasteries  were  turned 
into  collegiate  cimrches,  and  many  of  the  ab- 
bey churches  .  .  .  were  assigned  as  parish 
churches.  (3)  Some  grammar  schools  were 
erected.  (4)  A  considerable  sum  is  said  to  have 
been  spent  in  making  i-oads  and  in  fortifying  the 
coasts  of  the  Channel.  (5)  But  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  monastic  i)roperty  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  nobility  and  gentry,  either  by  pur- 
chase at  very  easy  rates,  or  by  direct  gift  from 
the  Crown.  .  .  .  The  monks  and  nuns  ejected 
from  the  monasteries  had  small  jiensions  assigned 
to  them,  which  are  said  to  have  been  regularly 
paid;  but  to  many  of  them  the  sudden  return 
into  a  world  with  which  they  had  become  utterly 


unacquainted,  and  in  which  they  had  no  part  to 
play,  was  a  terrible  hardship,  .  .  ,  greatly  in- 
creased by  the  Six  Article  Law,  which ".  .  . 
made  the  marriage  of  the  secularized  'religious' 
illegal  under  heavy  penalties." — G.  G.  Perry, 
Hist,  of  the  Reformation  in  Eng.,  ch.  4.  —  "The 
religious  bodies,  instead  of  uniting  in  their  com- 
mon defence,  seem  to  have  awaited  singly  their 
fate  with  the  apathy  of  despair.  A  few  houses 
only,  through  the  agency  of  their  friends,  sought 
to  purchase  the  royal  favour  with  offers  of 
money  and  lands;  but  the  rapacity  of  the  king 
refused  to  accept  a  part  when  the  wliole  was  at 
his  mercy." — J.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  •».  6, 
ch.  4. — Some  of  the  social  results  of  the  suppres- 
sion "  may  be  summed  up  in  a  few  words.  The 
creation  of  a  large  class  of  poor  to  whose  poverty 
was  attached  the  stigma  of  crime;  the  division 
of  class  from  class,  the  rich  mounting  up  to 
place  and  power,  the  poor  sinking  to  lower 
depths;  destruction  of  custom  as  a  check  upon 
the  exactions  of  landlords ;  the  loss  by  the  poor 
of  those  foundations  at  schools  and  universities 
intended  for  their  children,  and  the  passing  away 
of  ecclesiastical  tithes  into  the  hands  of  lay 
owners." — P.  A.  Gasquet,  Henry  VIIT.  and  the 
English  Mon/istcries,  v.  2,  p.  523. 

A.  D.  1536-1543. — Trial  and  execution  of 
Anne  Boleyn. — Her  successors,  the  later  wives 
of  Henry  VIII. — Anne  Boleyn  had  been  secretly 
married  to  tlie  king  in  January,  1533,  and  had 
been  crowned  on  Whitsunday  of  tliat  year. 
"The  princess  Elizabeth,  the  only  surviving 
child,  was  born  on  the  7th  of  September  following. 
.  .  .  The  death  of  Catherine,  which  happened  at 
Kimbolton  on  the  39th  of  January,  1536,  seemed 
to  leave  queen  Anne  in  undisturbed  possession 
of  her  splendid  seat. "  But  the  fickle  king  had 
now  "cast  his  affections  on  Jane  Seymour,  the 
daughter  of  Sir  John  Seymour,  a  young  lady 
then  of  the  Queen's  bed-chamber,  as  Anne  her- 
self had  been  in  that  of  Catherine."  Having 
lost  her  charms  in  the  eyes  of  the  lustful  despot 
who  had  wedded  her,  her  influence  was  gone  — 
and  her  safety.  Charges  were  soon  brought 
against  the  unfortunate  woman,  a  commission 
(her  own  father  included  in  it)  appointed  to  in- 
quire into  her  alleged  misdeeds,  and  "on  the 
10th  of  May  an  indictment  for  high  treason 
was  found  by  the  grand  jury  of  Westminster 
against  the  Lady  Anne,  Queen  of  England ; 
Henry  Norris,  groom  of  the  stole;  Sir  Francis 
Weston  and  William  Brereton,  gentlemen  of 
the  privy  chamber;  and  Mark  Smeaton,  a  per- 
former on  musical  instruments,  and  a  person  '  of 
low  degree,'  promoted  to  be  a  groom  of  the  cham- 
ber for  his  skill  in  the  fine  art  which  he  professed. 
It  charges  the  queen  with  having,  by  all  sorts  of 
bribes,  gifts,  caresses,  and  impure  blandishments, 
which  are  described  with  unblushing  coarseness 
in  the  barbarous  Latinity  of  the  indictment, 
allured  these  members  of  the  ro3'al  household 
into  a  course  of  criminal  connection  with  her, 
which  had  been  carried  on  for  three  years.  It 
included  also  George  Boleyn  viscount  Rochford, 
the  brother  of  Anne,  as  enticed  b}'  the  same  lures 
and  snares  with  the  rest  of  the  accused,  so  as  to 
have  become  the  accomplice  of  his  sister,  by 
sharing  her  treachery  and  infidelity  to  the  king. 
It  is  hard  to  believe  that  Anne  could  have  dared 
to  lead  a  life  so  unnaturally  dissolute,  without 
such  vices  being  more  early  and  very  generally 
known  in  a  watchful  and  adverse  court.     It  Is 


858 


ENGLAND,  1536-1543. 


The  Six  Articles. 


ENGLAND,   1547-1553. 


still  more  improbable  that  she  should  in  every 
instance  be  the  seducer.  .  ,  .  Norris,  Weston, 
Breretou,  and  Snieaton  were  tried  before  a  com- 
mission of  oyer  and  terminer  at  Westminster, 
on  the  12th  of  May,  two  days  after  the  bill 
against  tWm  was  found.  They  all,  except  Smea- 
ton,  firmly  denied  their  guilt  to  the  last  moment. 
On  Smeaton's  confession  it  must  be  observed  that 
we  know  not  how  it  was  obtained,  how  far  it  ex- 
tended, or  what  were  the  conditions  of  it,  .  .  . 
On  the  13th  of  May,  the  four  commoners  were 
condemned  to  die.  Their  sentence  was  carried 
into  effect  amidst  the  jilaiuts  of  the  bystanders. 
.  .  .  On  the  15th  of  May,  queen  Anne  and  her 
brother  Rochford  were  tried."  The  place  of 
trial  was  in  the  Tower,  "which  concealed  from 
the  public  eye  whatever  might  be  wanting  in 
justice."  Condemnation  duly  followed,  and  the 
unhappy  queen  was  executed  May  19,  1536.  The 
king  lost  little  time  in  wedding  Jane  Seymour. 
"  She  died  in  childbed  of  Edward  VL  on  the  13th 
of  October,  1537.  The  next  choice  made  by  or 
for  Henry,  who  remained  a  widower  for  the 
period  of  more  than  two  years,"  was  the  "  princess 
Anne,  sister  of  the  duke  of  Cleves,  a  considerable 
prince  on  the  lower  Rhine.  .  .  .  The  pencil  of 
Ilolbein  was  employed  to  paint  this  lady  for  the 
king,  who,  pleased  by  the  execution,  gave  the 
flattering  artist  credit  for  a  faithful  likeness.  He 
met  her  at  Dover,  and  almost  immediately  be- 
trayed his  disappointment.  Without  descending 
into  disgusting  particulars,  it  is  necessary  to  state 
that,  though  the  marriage  was  solemnised,  the 
king  treated  the  princess  of  Cleves  as  a  friend." 
At  length,  by  common  action  of  an  obsequious 
parliament  and  a  more  obsequious  convocation 
of  the  church,  the  marriage  was  declared  to  be 
annulled,  for  reasons  not  specified.  The  consent 
of  the  repudiated  wife  was  "insured  by  a  liberal 
income  of  £3,000  a  year,  and  she  lived  for  16 
years  in  England  with  the  title  of  princess  Anne 
of  Cleves.  .  .  .  This  annulment  once  more  dis- 
played the  triumph  of  an  English  lady  over  a 
foreign  princess."  The  lady  who  now  captivated 
the  brutally  amorous  monarch  was  lady  Catherine 
Howard,  niece  to  the  duke  of  Norfolk,  who  be- 
came queen  on  the  8th  of  August,  1540.  In  the 
following  November,  the  king  received  such  in- 
formation of  lady  Catherine's  dissolute  life  before 
marriage  "as  immediately  caused  a  rigid  inquiry 
into  her  behaviour.  .  .  .  The  confessions  of 
Catherine  and  of  lady  Rochford,  upon  which 
they  were  attainted  in  parliament,  and  executed 
in  the  Tower  on  the  14th  of  February,  are  not 
said  to  have  been  at  any  time  questioned.  .  .  . 
On  the  10th  of  July,  1543,  Henry  wedded  Cathe- 
rine Parr,  the  widow  of  Lord  Latimer,  a  lady  of 
mature  age,"  who  survived  him. — Sir  J.  Mackin- 
tosh, Hist,  of  Eng.  (L.  C.  C),  v.  2,  ch.  7-8. 

Also  in:  P.  Friedmann,  Anne  Boleyn. — H.  W. 
Herbert,  3{emoira  of\  Henry  VIII.  and  his  Six 
Wives. 

A.  D.  1539. — The  Reformation  checked. — 
The  Six  Articles. — "  Yielding  to  the  pressure 
of  circumstances,  he  [Henry  VIH.]  had  allowed 
the  Reformers  to  go  further  than  he  really  ap- 
proved. The  separation  from  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  absorption  by  the  Crown  of  the  powers 
of  the  Papacy,  the  unity  of  authority  over  both 
Church  and  State  centrad  in  himself,  had  been 
his  objects.  In  doctrinal  matters  he  clung  to  the 
Church  of  which  he  had  once  been  the  champion. 
He  had   gained  his  objects  because  he  had  the 


feeling  of  the  nation  with  him.  In  his  eagerness 
he  liad  even  countenanced  some  steps  of  doctrinal 
reform.  But  circumstances  had  changed.  .  .  . 
Without  detriment  to  his  position  he  could  follow 
his  natural  inclinations.  He  listened,  therefore, 
to  the  advice  of  the  reactionary  party,  of  which 
Norfolk  was  the  head.  They  were  full  of  bitter- 
ness against  the  upstart  Cromwell,  and  longed  to 
overthrow  him  as  they  had  overthrown  AVolsey. 
The  first  step  in  their  triumph  was  the  bill  of  the 
Six  Articles,  carried  in  the  Parliament  of  1539. 
These  laid  down  and  fenced  roimd  with  extra- 
ordinary severity  tlie  chief  points  of  the  Catholic 
religion  at  that  time  questioned  by  the  Protest- 
ants. The  bill  enacted,  first,  'that  the  natural 
body  and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  were  present  in 
the  Blessed  Sacrament, '  and  that  '  after  consecra- 
tion there  remained  no  substance  of  bread  and 
wine,  nor  any  other  but  the  substance  of  Christ ' ; 
whoever,  by  word  or  writing,  denied  this  article 
was  a  heretic,  and  to  be  burned.  Secondly,  the 
Communion  in  both  kinds  was  not  necessary,  both 
body  and  blood  being  present  in  each  element; 
thirdly,  priests  might  not  marry ;  fourthly,  vows 
of  chastity  by  man  or  woman  ought  to  be  ob- 
served; fifthly,  private  masses  ought  to  be  con- 
tinued ;  sixthly,  auricular  confession  must  be  re- 
tained. Whoever  wrote  or  spoke  against  these 
.  .  .  Articles,  on  the  first  offence  his  property  was 
forfeited ;  on  the  second  offence  he  was  a  felon, 
and  was  put  to  death.  Under  this  '  whip  with 
six  strings  '  the  kingdom  continued  for  the  rest 
of  the  reign.  The  Bishops  at  first  made  wild 
work  with  it.  Five  hundred  persons  are  said  to 
have  been  arrested  in  a  fortnight ;  the  king  had 
twice  to  interfere  and  grant  pardons.  It  is  be- 
lieved that  only  twenty-eight  persons  actually 
suffered  death  under  it." — J.  F.  Briglit,  Hist,  of 
Eiig.,  ■».  3,  p.  411. 

Also  in:  J.  H.  Blunt,  Meformation  of  the  Ch. 
of  Eng.,  V.  1,  ch.  8-9. — S.  H.  Burke,  Men  and 
Women  of  the  Eng.  Reformation,  v.  2,  pp.  17-34. 

A.  D.  1542-1547. — Alliance  with  Charles  V. 
against  Francis  I. — Capture  and  restoration  of 
Boulogne. — Treaty  of  Guines.  See  Fkance: 
A.  D.  1533-1547. 

A.  D.  1544-1548. —  The  wooing  of  Mary 
Queen  of  Scots.  See  Scotland:  A.  D.  1544- 
1548. 

A.  D.  1547. — Accession  of  King  Edward  VI. 

A.  D.  1547-1553. —  The  completing  of  the 
Reformation. — Henry  VIII.,  dying  on  the  38th 
of  January,  1547,  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Ed- 
ward,—  child  of  Jane  Seymour, —  then  only  nine 
years  old.  By  the  will  of  his  father,  the  young 
king  (Edward  VI.)  was  to  attain  his  majority  at 
eighteen,  and  the  government  of  his  kingdom,  in 
the  meantime,  was  entrusted  to  a  body  of  sixteen 
executors,  with  a  second  body  of  twelve  coun- 
cillors to  assist  with  their  advice.  "But  the  first 
act  of  the  executors  and  counsellors  was  to  de- 
part from  the  destination  of  the  late  king  in  a 
material  article.  No  sooner  were  tliey  met,  than 
it  was  suggested  that  the  government  would  lose 
its  dignity  for  want  of  some  head  who  might 
represent  the  royal  majesty."  The  suggestion 
was  opposed  by  none  except  the  chancellor, 
Wriothesley, — soon  afterwards  raised  to  the 
peerage  as  Earl  of  Southampton.  "It  being 
therefore  agreed  to  name  a  protector,  the  choice 
fell  of  course  on  the  Earl  of  Hertford  [afterwards 
Duke  of  Somerset],  who,  as  he  was  the  king's 
maternal  uncle,   was  strongly   interested  in  his 


859 


ENGLAND,  1547-1553. 


Edward  VI.  and 
the  Reformed  Church. 


ENGLAND,  1553. 


safety."  The  protector  soon  manifested  an  am- 
bition to  exercise  liis  almost  royal  authority  with- 
out any  constraint,  and,  having  found  means  to 
remove  his  principal  opponent,  Southampton, 
from  the  chancellorship,  and  to  send  him  into 
disgrace,  he  procured  a  patent  from  the  infant 
king  which  gave  him  unbounded  power.  With 
this  power  in  his  hand  he  speedily  undertook  to 
carry  the  work  of  church  reform  far  beyond  the 
intentions  of  Henry  VIII.  "The  extensive  au- 
thority and  imperious  character  of  Henry  had 
retained  the  partisans  of  both  religions  in  sub- 
jection; but  upon  his  demise,  the  hopes  of  the 
Protestants,  and  the  fears  of  the  Catholics  began 
to  revive,  and  the  zeal  of  these  parties  produced 
every  where  disputes  and  animosities,  the  usual 
preludes  to  more  fatal  divisions.  The  protector 
had  long  been  regarded  as  a  secret  partisan  of  the 
reformers;  and  being  now  freed  from  restraint, 
he  scrupled  not  to  discover  his  intention  of  cor- 
recting all  abuses  in  the  ancient  religion,  and  of 
adopting  still  more  of  the  Protestant  innovations. 
He  took  care  that  all  persons  intrusted  with  the 
king's  education  should  be  attached  to  the  same 
principles;  and  as  the  young  prince  discovered 
a  zeal  for  every  kind  of  literature,  especially  the 
theological,  far  beyond  his  tender  j'ears,  all  men 
foresaw,  in  the  course  of  his  reign,  the  total  abo- 
lition of  the  Catholic  faith  in  England ;  and  they 
early  began  to  declare  themselves  in  favour  of 
those  tenets  which  were  likely  to  become  in  the 
end  entirely  prevalent.  After  Southliampton's 
fall,  few  members  of  the  council  seemed  to  retain 
any  attachment  to  the  Romish  communion ;  and 
most  of  the  counsellors  appeared  even  sanguine 
in  forwarding  the  progress  of  the  reformation. 
The  riches  which  most  of  them  bad  acquired 
from  the  spoils  of  the  clergy,  induced  them  to 
widen  the  breach  between  England  and  Rome ; 
and  by  establishing  a  contrariety  of  speculative 
tenets,  as  well  as  of  discipline  and  worship,  to 
render  a  coalition  with  the  mother  church  alto- 
gether impracticable.  Their  rapacity,  also,  the 
chief  source  of  their  reforming  spirit,  was  excited 
by  the  prospect  of  pillaging  the  secular,  as  they 
had  already  done  the  regular  clerg)-;  and  they 
knew,  that  while  any  share  of  the  old  principles 
remained,  or  any  regard  to  the  ecclesiastics,  they 
could  never  hope  to  succeed  in  that  enterprise. 
The  numerous  and  burdensome  superstitions 
with  which  the  Romish  church  was  loaded  had 
thrown  many  of  the  reformers,  by  the  spirit  of 
opposition,  into  an  enthusiastic  strain  of  devo- 
tion ;  and  all  rites,  ceremonies,  pomp,  order,  and 
extreme  observances  were  zealously  proscribed 
by  them,  as  hindrances  to  their  spiritual  contem- 
plations, and  obstructions  to  their  immediate  con- 
verse with  heaven." — D.  Hume,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
V.  3,  cA.  34.—"  'This  year'  [1547]  says  a  con- 
temporary, 'the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  [Cran- 
mer]  did  eat  meat  openly  in  Lent  in  the  hall  of 
Lambeth,  the  like  of  which  was  never  seen  since 
England  was  a  Christian  country. '  This  signifi- 
cant act  was  followed  by  a  rapid  succession  of 
sweeping  changes.  The  legal  prohibitions  of 
Lollardry  were  removed ;  the  Six  Articles  were 
repealed;  a  royal  injunction  removed  all  pictures 
and  images  from  the  churches;  priests  were  per- 
mitted to  marry ;  the  new  communion  which  had 
taken  the  place  of  the  mass  was  ordered  to  be 
administered  in  both  kinds,  and  in  the  English 
tongue;  an  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
the  Liturgy,  which  with  slight  alterations  is  still 


used  in  the  Church  of  England,  replaced  the 
missal  and  breviary,  from  which  its  contents  are 
mainly  drawn;  a  new  catechism  embodied  the 
doctrines  of  Cranmer  and  his  friends ;  and  a  Book 
of  Homilies  compiled  in  the  same  sense  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  read  in  churches.  .  .  .The  power  of 
preaching  was  restricted  by  the  issue  of  licenses 
only  to  the  friends  of  the  Primate.  .  .  .  The 
assent  of  the  nobles  about  the  Court  was  won  by 
the  suppression  of  chantries  and  religious  guilds, 
and  by  glutting  their  greed  with  the  last  spoils 
of  the  Church.  German  and  Italian  mercenaries 
were  introduced  to  stamp  out  the  wider  popular 
discontent  which  broke  out  in  the  East,  in  the 
West,  and  in  the  Midland  counties.  .  .  .  The 
rule  of  the  upstart  nobles  who  formed  the  Coun- 
cil of  Regency  became  simply  a  rule  of  terror. 
'The  greater  part  of  the  people,' one  of  their 
creatures,  Cecil,  avowed,  '  is  not  in  favour  of 
defending  this  cause,  but  of  aiding  its  adversa- 
ries, the  greater  part  of  the  nobles  who  absent 
themselves  from  court,  all  the  bishops  save  three 
or  four,  almost  all  the  judges  and  lawyers, 
almost  all  the  justices  of  the  peace,  the  priests 
who  can  move  their  flocks  any  way;  for  the 
whole  of  the  commonalty  is  in  such  a  state 
of  irritation  that  it  will  easily  follow  any  stir 
towards  change. '  But  with  their  triumph  over 
the  revolt,  Cranmer  and  his  colleagues  advanced 
yet  more  boldly  in  the  career  of  innovation.  .  .  . 
The  Forty-two  Articles  of  Religion,  which  were 
now  [1552]  introduced,  though  since  reduced  by 
omissions  to  thirty-nine,  have  remained  to  this 
day  the  formal  standard  of  doctrine  in  the 
English  Church." — J.  R.  Green,  Short  Hist,  of 
the  Eng.  People,  ch.  7,  sect.  1. 

Also  in  :  J.  Strype,  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  bk. 
2.-6.  Burnet,  Hist,  of  the  Ref  of  Ch.  of  Eng.,  v. 
2,  bk.  1.— L.  Von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  bk.  2, 
ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1548. — First  Act  for  encouragement 
of  Newfoundland  fisheries.  See  Newfound- 
land: A.  D.  1501-1578. 

A.  D.  1553. — The  right  of  succession  to  the 
throne,  on  the  death  of  Edward  VI. — "If 
Henry  VII.  be  considered  as  the  stock  of  a  new 
dynasty,  it  is  clear  that  on  mere  principles  of 
hereditary  right,  the  crown  would  descend,  first, 
to  the  issue  of  Henry  VIII. ;  secondly,  to  those 
of  [his  elder  sister]  Margaret  Tudor,  queen  of 
Scots;  thirdly,  to  those  of  [his  younger  sister] 
Mary  Tudor,  queen  of  France.  The  title  of  Ed- 
ward was  on  all  principles  equally  undisputed; 
but  Mary  and  Elizabeth  might  be  considered  as 
excluded  by  the  sentence  of  nullity,  which  had 
been  pronounced  in  the  case  of  Catharine  and  in 
that  of  Anne  Boleyn,  both  which  sentences  had 
been  confirmed  in  parliament.  They  had  been 
expressly  pronounced  to  be  illegitimate  children. 
Their  hereditary  right  of  succession  seemed  thus 
to  be  taken  away,  and  their  pretensions  rested 
solely  on  the  conditional  settlement  of  the  crown 
on  them,  made  by  their  father's  will,  in  pursu- 
ance of  authority  granted  to  him  by  act  of  par- 
liament. After  Elizabeth  Henry  had  placed  the 
descendants  of  Mary,  queen  of  France,  passing 
by  the  progeny  of  his  eldest  sister  JIargaret. 
Mary  of  Prance,  by  her  second  marriage  with 
Charles  Brandon,  duke  of  Suffolk,  had  two 
daughters, — lady  Prances,  who  wedded  Henry 
Grey,  marquis  of  Dorset,  created  duke  of  Suf- 
folk; and  lady  Elinor,  who  espoused  Henry 
Clifford,  earl  of  Cumberland.     Henry  afterwards 


860 


ENGLAND,  1553. 


Queen  Mary. 


ENGLAND,  1555-1558. 


settled  the  crown  by  his  will  on  the  heirs  of  these 
two  ladies  successively,  passing  over  his  nieces 
themselves  in  silence.  Northumberland  obtained 
the  hand  of  lady  Jane  Grey,  the  eldest  daughter 
of  Grey  duke  of  Suffolk,  by  lady  Frances  Bran- 
don, for  lord  Guilford  Dudley,  the  admiral's  son. 
The  marriage  was  solemnised  in  May,  1553,  and 
the  fatal  right  of  succession  claimed  by  the 
house  of  Suffolk  devolved  on  the  excellent  and 
unfortunate  lady  Jane." — ^Sir  J.  Mackintosh,  His- 
tory of  England,  v.  2,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1553.— Accession  of  Queen  Mary. 

A.  D.  1553. — The  doubtful  conflict  of  relig- 
ions.— "  Great  as  was  the  number  of  those  whom 
conviction  or  self  interest  enlisted  under  the  Prot- 
estant banner,  it  appears  plain  that  the  Refor- 
mation moved  on  with  too  precipitate  a  step  for 
the  majority.  The  new  doctrines  prevailed  in 
London,  in  many  large  towns,  and  in  the  eastern 
counties.  But  in  the  north  and  west  of  Eng- 
land, the  body  of  the  people  were  strictly  Catho- 
lics. The  clergy,  though  not  very  scrupulous 
about  conforming  to  the  innovations,  were  gen- 
erally averse  to  most  of  them.  And,  in  spite  of 
the  church  lands,  I  imagine  that  most  of  the 
nobility,  if  not  the  gentry,  inclined  to  the  same 
persuasion.  .  .  .  An  historian,  whose  bias  was 
certainly  not  unfavourable  to  protestantism 
[Burnet,  iii.  190,  196]  confesses  that  all  endeav- 
ours were  too  weak  to  overcome  the  aversion  of 
the  people  towards  reformation,  and  even  inti- 
mates that  German  troops  were  sent  for  from 
Calais  on  account  of  the  bigotry  with  which  the 
bulk  of  the  nation  adhered  to  the  old  supersti- 
tion. This  is  somewhat  an  humiliating  admis- 
sion, that  the  protestant  faith  was  imposed  upon 
our  ancestors  by  a  foreign  army.  ...  It  is  cer- 
tain that  the  re-establishment  of  popery  on 
Mary's  accession  must  have  been  acceptable  to  a 
large  part,  or  perhaps  to  the  majority,  of  the  na- 
tion."— H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  1,  ch. 
2. — "Eight  weeks  and  upwards  passed  between 
the  proclaiming  of  Mary  queen  and  the  Parlia- 
ment by  her  assembled ;  during  which  time  two 
religions  were  together  set  on  foot,  Protestant- 
ism and  Popery ;  the  former  hoping  to  be  con- 
tinued, the  latter  labouring  to  be  restored.  .  .  . 
No  small  justling  was  there  betwixt  the  zealous 
promoters  of  these  contrary  religions.  The  Prot- 
estants had  possession  on  their  side,  and  the  pro- 
tection of  the  laws  lately  made  by  King  Edward, 
and  still  standing  in  free  and  full  force  unrepealed. 
.  .  .  The  Papists  put  their  ceremonies  in  execu- 
tion, presuming  on  the  queen's  private  practice 
and  public  countenance.  .  .  .  Many  which  were 
neuters  before,  conceiving  to  which  side  the 
queen  inclined,  would  not  expect,  but  prevent 
her  authority  in  alteration:  so  that  superstition 
generally  got  ground  in  the  kingdom.  Thus  it 
is  in  the  evening  twilight,  wherein  light  and 
darkness  at  first  may  seem  very  equally  matched, 
but  the  latter  within  little  time  doth  solely  pre- 
vail."— T.  Fuller,  Church  Hist,  of  Britain,  bk.  8, 
sect.  1,  IT  5. 

Also  in  :  J.  H.  Blunt,  Reformation  of  the  Ch. 
of  Eng.,  V.  1,  ch.  8-9. 

A.  D.  1554. — Wyat's  Insurrection. —  Queen 
Mary's  marriage  with  Philip  of  Spain  was  op- 
posed with  great  bitterness  of  popular  feeling, 
especially  in  London  and  its  neighborhood.  Ris- 
ings were  undertaken  in  Kent,  Devonshire,  and 
the  Midland  counties,  intended  for  the  frustra- 
tion of  the  marriage  scheme ;  but  they  were  ill- 


planned  and  soon  suppressed.  That  in  Kent, 
led  by  Sir  Thomas  Wyat,  threatened  to  be  for- 
midable at  first,  and  the  Queen's  troops  retreated 
before  it.  Wyat,  however,  lost  his  opportunity 
for  securing  London,  by  delays,  and  his  followers 
dispersed.  He  was  taken  prisoner  and  executed. 
"Four  hundred  persons  are  said  to  have  suf- 
fered for  this  rebellion." — D.  Hume,  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  ch.  36. 

A.  D.  1555-1558. — The  restoration  of  Roman- 
ism. —  The  persecution  of  Protestants  by 
Queen  Mary. — "An  attempt  was  made,  by  au- 
thority of  King  Edward's  will,  to  set  aside  both 
his  sisters  from  the  succession,  and  raise  Lady 
Jane  Grey  to  the  throne,  wlio  had  lately  been 
married  to  one  of  Northumberland's  sons.  This 
was  Northumberland's  doing;  he  was  actuated 
by  ambition,  and  the  other  members  of  the  gov- 
ernment assented  to  it,  believing,  like  the  late 
young  King,  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  pre- 
servation of  the  Protestant  faith.  Cranmer  op- 
liosed  the  measure,  but  yielded.  .  .  .  But  the 
principles  of  succession  were  in  fact  well  ascer- 
tained at  that  time,  and,  what  was  of  more  con- 
sequence, they  were  established  in  public  opinion. 
Nor  could  the  intended  change  be  supported  on 
the  ground  of  religion,  for  popular  feeling  was 
decidedly  against  the  Reformation.  Queen  Mary 
obtained  possession  of  her  rightful  throne  with- 
out the  loss  of  a  single  life,  so  completely  did  the 
nation  acknowledge  her  claim ;  and  an  after  in- 
surrection, rashly  planned  and  worse  conducted, 
served  only  to  hasten  the  destruction  of  the  Lady 
Jane  and  her  husband.  ...  If  any  person  may 
be  excused  for  hating  the  Reformation,  it  was 
Mary.  She  regarded  it  as  having  arisen  in  this 
country  from  her  mother's  wrongs,  and  enabled 
the  King  to  complete  an  iniquitous  and  cruel 
divorce.  It  bad  exposed  her  to  inconvenience, 
and  even  danger,  under  her  father's  reign,  to 
vexation  and  restraint  under  her  brother;  and, 
after  having  been  bastardized  in  consequence  of 
it,  .  .  .  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  deprive  her 
of  the  inheritance,  because  she  continued  to  pro- 
fess the  Roman  Catholic  faith.  .  .  .  Had  the  re- 
ligion of  the  country  been  settled,  she  might 
have  proved  a  good  and  beneficent,  as  well  as 
conscientious,  queen.  But  she  delivered  her  con- 
science to  the  direction  of  cruel  men;  and,  be- 
lieving it  her  duty  to  act  up  to  the  worst  prin- 
ciples of  a  persecuting  Church,  boasted  that  she 
was  a  virgin  sent  by  God  to  ride  and  tame  the 
people  of  England.  .  .  .  The  people  did  not 
wait  till  the  laws  of  King  Edward  were  repealed ; 
the  Romish  doctrines  were  preached,  and  in  some 
places  the  Romish  clergy  took  possession  of  the 
churches,  turned  out  the  incumbents,  and  per- 
formed mass  in  jubilant  anticipation  of  their  ap- 
proaching triumph.  What  course  the  new  Queen 
would  pursue  had  never  been  doubtful ;  and  as 
one  of  her  first  acts  had  been  to  make  Gardiner 
Chancellor,  it  was  evident  that  a  fiery  persecu- 
tion was  at  hand.  Many  who  were  obnoxious 
withdrew  in  time,  some  into  Scotland,  and  more 
into  Switzerland  and  the  Protestant  parts  of 
Germany.  Cranmer  advised  others  to  fly;  but 
when  his  friends  entreated  him  to  preserve  him- 
self by  the  like  precaution,  he  replied,  that  it  was 
not  fitting  for  him  to  desert  his  post.  .  .  .  The 
Protestant  Bishops  were  soOn  dispossessed  of 
their  sees ;  the  marriages  which  the  Clergy  and 
Religioners  had  contracted  were  declareil  unlaw- 
ful, and  their  children  bastardized.     The  heads 


861 


ENGLAND,  1555-1558. 


Queen  Elizabeth. 


ENGLAND,  1558-1588. 


of  the  reformed  Clergy,  having  been  brought 
forth  to  hold  disputations,  for  the  purpose  rather 
of  intimidating  than  of  convincing  them,  had 
been  committed  to  different  prisons,  and  after 
these  preparatories  the  fiery  process  began." — R. 
Southey,  Book  of  the  Church,  ch.  14.—"  The  total 
number  of  those  who  suffered  in  this  persecution, 
from  the  martyrdom  of  Rogers,  in  February, 
1555,  to  September,  1558,  vphen  its  last  ravages 
were  felt,  is  variously  related,  in  a  manner  suf- 
ficiently different  to  assure  us  that  the  relaters 
were  Independent  witnesses,  who  did  not  borrow 
from  each  other,  and  yet  sufficiently  near  to  at- 
test the  general  accuracy  of  their  distinct  state- 
ments. By  Cooper  they  are  estimated  at  about 
290.  According  to  Burnet  they  were  284.  Speed 
calculates  them  at  274.  The  most  accurate  ac- 
count is  probably  that  of  Lord  Burleigh,  who, 
in  his  treatise  called  '  The  Execution  of  Justice 
in  England,'  reckons  the  number  of  those  who 
died  in  that  reigu  by  imprisonment,  torments, 
famine  and  fire,  to  be  near  400,  of  which  those 
who  were  burnt  alive  amounted  to  290.  From 
Burnet's  Tables  of  the  separate  years,  it  is  ap- 
parent that  the  persecution  reached  its  full  force 
in  its  earliest  year." — Sir  J.  Mackintosh,  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  1).  2,  ch.  11. — "Though  Pole  and  Mary 
could  have  laid  their  hands  on  earl  and  baron, 
linight  and  gentleman,  whose  heresy  was  no- 
torious, although,  in  the  queen's  own  guard, 
there  were  many  who  never  listened  to  a  mass, 
they  durst  not  strike  where  there  was  danger  that 
they  would  be  struck  in  return.  .  .  .  They  took 
the  weaver  from  his  loom,  the  carpenter  from 
his  workshop,  the  husbandman  from  his  plough ; 
they  laid  hands  on  maidens  and  boys  '  who  had 
never  heard  of  any  other  religion  than  that  which 
they  were  called  on  to  abjure';  old  men  totter- 
ing into  the  grave,  and  children  whose  lips  could 
but  just  lisp  the  articles  of  their  creed;  and  of 
these  they  made  their  burnt-offerings ;  with  these 
they  crowded  their  prisons,  and  when  filth  and 
famine  killed  them,  they  flung  them  out  to  rot." 
— J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  34. —  Queen 
Mary's  marriage  with  Philip  of  Spain  and  his 
arbitrary  disposition,  "  while  it  thoroughly  alien- 
ated the  kingdom  from  Mary,  created  a  prejudice 
against  the  religion  which  the  Spanish  court  so 
steadily  favoured.  .  .  .  Many  are  said  to  have 
become  Protestants  under  Mary  who,  at  her 
coming  to  the  throne,  had  retained  the  contrary 
persuasion." — H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng., 
V.  1,  ch.  3. 

Also  in  :  J.  Collier,  Ecclesiastical  Hist,  of  6t. 
B.,  pt.  3,  hk.  5. — J.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  o.  7, 
ch.  3-3.— J.  Fox,  Book  of  Martyrs.— P.  Heylyn, 
Ecclesia  Restaurata,  v.  3. — J.  Strype,  Memorials 
of  Granmer,  bk.  3. 

A.  D.  1557-1559. — Involved  by  the  Spanish 
husband  of  Queen  Mary  in  vsrar  with  France. 
— Loss  of  Calais.  See  France:  A.  D.  1547- 
1559. 

A.  D.  1558. — Accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

A.  D.  1558-1588.— The  Age  of  Elizabeth : 
Recovery  of  Protestantism. —  "The  education 
of  Elizabeth,  as  well  as  her  interest,  led  her  to 
favour  the  reformation;  and  she  remained  not 
long  in  suspense  with  regard  to  the  party  which 
she  should  embrace.  But  though  determined  In 
her  own  mind,  she  resolved  to  proceed  by  gradual 
and  secure  steps,  and  not  to  imitate  the  example 
of  Mary,  in  encouraging  the  bigots  of  her  party 
to  make  Immediately  a  violent  invasion  on  the 


established  religion.  She  thought  it  requisite, 
however,  to  discover  such  symptoms  of  her  in- 
tentions as  might  give  encouragement  to  the 
Protestants,  so  much  depressed  by  the  late  violent 
persecutions.  She  immediately  recalled  all  the 
exiles,  and  gave  liberty  to  the  prisoners  wlio  were 
confined  on  account  of  religion.  .  .  .  Elizabeth 
also  proceeded  to  exert,  in  favour  of  the  reform- 
ers, some  acts  of  power,  which  were  authorized 
by  the  extent  of  royal  prerogative  during  that 
age.  Finding  that  the  Protestant  teachers,  irri- 
tated by  persecution,  broke  out  in  a  furious  at- 
tack on  the  ancient  superstition,  and  that  the 
Romanists  replied  with  no  less  zeal  and  acrimony, 
she  published  a  proclamation,  by  which  she  in- 
hibited all  preaching  without  a  special  licence; 
and  though  she  dispensed  with  these  orders  in 
favour  of  some  preachers  of  her  own  sect,  she 
took  care  that  they  should  be  the  most  calm  and 
moderate  of  the  party.  She  also  suspended  the 
laws,  so  far  as  to  order  a  great  part  of  the  serv- 
ice, the  litany,  the  Lord's  ])rayer,  the  creed,  and 
the  gospels,  to  be  read  in  English.  And,  having 
first  published  injunctions  that  all  churches 
should  conform  themselves  to  the  practice  of  her 
own  chapel,  she  forbad  the  host  to  be  any  more 
elevated  in  her  presence:  an  innovation  which, 
however  frivolous  it  may  appear,  implied  the 
most  material  consequences.  "These  declarations 
of  her  intentions,  concurring  with  preceding  sus- 
picions, made  the  bishops  foresee,  with  certainty, 
a  revolution  in  religion.  They  therefore  refused 
to  officiate  at  her  coronation;  and  it  was  with 
some  difficulty  that  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle  was  at 
last  prevailed  on  to  perform  the  ceremony.  .  .  . 
Elizabeth,  though  she  threw  out  such  hints  as 
encouraged  the  Protestants,  delayed  the  entire 
change  of  religion  till  the  meeting  of  the  Parlia- 
ment, which  was  summoned  to  assemble.  The 
elections  had  gone  entirely  against  the  Catholics, 
who  seem  not  indeed  to  have  made  any  great 
struggle  for  the  superiority;  and  the  Houses 
met,  in  a  disposition  of  gratifying  the  queen  in 
every  particular  which  she  could  desire  of  them. 
.  .  .  The  first  bill  brought  into  Parliament,  with 
a  view  of  trying  their  disposition  on  the  head  of 
religion,  was  that  for  suppressing  the  monasteries 
lately  erected,  and  for  restoring  the  tenths  and 
first-fruits  to  the  queen.  This  point  being  gained 
without  much  difficulty,  a  bill  was  next  intro- 
duced, annexing  the  supremacy  to  the  crown; 
and  though  the  queen  was  there  denominated 
governess,  not  head,  of  the  church,  it  conveyed 
the  same  extensive  power,  which,  under  the 
latter  title,  had  been  exercised  by  her  father  and 
brother.  .  .  .  By  this  act,  the  crown,  without  the 
concurrence  either  of  the  Parliament  or  even  of 
the  convocation,  was  vested  with  the  whole 
spiritual  power;  might  repress  all  heresies,  might 
establish  or  repeal  all  canons,  might  alter  every 
point  of  discipline,  and  might  ordain  or  abolish 
any  religious  rite  or  ceremony.  ...  A  law  was 
passed,  confirming  all  the  statutes  enacted  in 
King  Edward's  time  with  regard  to  religion ;  the 
nomination  of  bishops  was  given  to  the  crown 
without  any  election  of  the  chapters.  ...  A 
solemn  and  public  disputation  was  held  during 
this  session,  in  presence  of  Lord  Keeper  Bacon, 
between  the  divines  of  the  Protestant  and  those 
of  the  Catholic  communion.  The  champions  ap- 
pointed to  defend  the  religion  of  the  sovereign 
were,  as  in  all  former  instances,  entirely  tri- 
umphant ;  and  the  popish  disputants,  being  pro- 


862 


ENGLAND,  1558-1588. 


Qtieen  Elizabeth. 


ENGLAND,  1558-1603. 


nounced  refractory  and  obstinate,  were  even  pun- 
i.slR'd  by  imprisonment.  Emboldened  by  tliis 
victory,  the  Protestants  ventured  on  the  last  and 
most  important  step,  and  brought  into  Parlia- 
ment a  bill  for  abolishing  the  mass,  and  re-estab- 
lishing the  liturgy  of  King  Edward.  Penalties 
were  enacted  as  well  against  those  who  departed 
from  this  mode  of  worship,  as  against  those  who 
absented  themselves  from  the  church  and  the 
sacraments.  And  thus,  in  one  session,  without 
any  violence,  tumult,  or  clamour,  was  the  whole 
system  of  religion  altered,  on  the  very  commence- 
ment of  a  reign,  and  by  the  will  of  a  young 
woman,  whose  title  to  the  crown  was  by  many 
thought  liable  to  great  objections." — D.  Hume, 
mst.  of  England,  eh.  38,  pp.  375-380  (v.  3).— 
"Elizabeth  ascended  the  throne  much  more  in 
the  character  of  a  Protestant  champion  than  her 
own  convictions  and  inclinations  would  have  dic- 
tated. She  was,  indeed,  the  daughter  of  Ann 
Boleyn,  whom  by  this  time  the  Protestants  were 
beginning  to  regard  as  a  martyr  of  the  faith ;  but 
she  was  also  the  child  of  Henry  VHL ,  and  the 
heiress  of  his  imperious  will.  Soon,  however, 
she  found  herself  Protestant  almost  in  her  own 
despite.  The  Papacy,  in  the  first  pride  of  suc- 
cessful reaction,  offered  her  only  the  alternative 
of  submission  or  excommunication,  and  she  did 
not  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  choose  the  latter. 
Then  commenced  that  long  and  close  alliance  be- 
tween Catholicism  and  domestic  treason  which  is 
so  differently  judged  as  it  is  approached  from 
the  religious  or  the  political  side.  These  semi- 
nary priests,  who  in  every  various  disguise  come 
to  England,  moving  secretly  about  from  manor- 
house  to  manor-house,  celebrating  the  rites  of  the 
Church,  confirming  the  wavering,  consoling  the 
dying,  winning  back  the  lapsed  to  the  fold,  too 
well  acquainted  with  Elizabeth's  prisons,  and 
often  finding  their  way  to  her  scaffolds, —  what 
are  they  but  the  intrepid  missionaries,  the  self- 
devoted  heroes,  of  a  proscribed  faith  ?  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Queen  is  excommunicate,  an  evil 
woman,  with  whom  it  is  not  necessary  to  keep 
faith,  to  depose  whom  would  be  the  triumph  of 
the  Church,  whose  death,  however  compassed, 
its  occasion :  how  easy  to  weave  plots  under  the 
cloak  of  religious  intercourse,  and  to  make  the 
unity  of  the  faith  a  conspiracy  of  rebellion !  The 
next  heir  to  the  throne,  Mary  of  Scotland,  was  a 
Catholic,  and,  as  long  as  she  lived,  a  perpetual 
centre  of  domestic  and  European  intrigue :  plot 
succeeded  plot,  in  which  the  traitorous  subtlety 
was  all  Catholic  —  the  keenness  of  discovery,  the 
watchfulness  of  defence,  all  Protestant.  Then, 
too,  the  shadow  of  Spanish  supremacy  began  to 
cast  itself  broadly  over  Europe:  the  unequal 
struggle  with  Holland  was  still  prolonged:  it 
was  known  that  Philip's  dearest  wish  was  to  re- 
cover to  his  empire  and  the  Church  the  island 
kingdom  which  had  once  unwillingly  accepted 
his  rule.  It  was  thus  the  instinct  of  self-defence 
which  placed  Elizabeth  at  the  head  of  the  Protest- 
ant interest  in  Europe:  she  sent  PhiUp  Sidney 
to  die  at  Zutphen :  her  sailor  buccaneers,  whether 
there  were  peace  at  home  or  not,  bit  and  tore  at 
everything  Spanish  upon  the  southern  main :  till 
at  last,  1588,  Philip  gathered  up  all  his  naval 
strength  and  hurled  the  Armada  at  our  shores. 
'Afflavit  Dens,  et  dissipati  sunt.'  The  valour 
of  England  did  much ;  the  storms  of  heaven  the 
rest.  Mary  of  Scotland  had  gone  to  her  death 
the  year  before,  and  her  son  had  been  trained  to 


hate  his  mother's  faith.  There  could  be  no  ques- 
tion any  more  of  the  fixed  Protestantism  of  the 
English  people." — C.  Beard,  Hibbert  Lectures, 
1883  ;   Tlie  Reformation,  lect.  9. 

A.  D.  1558-1598.— The  Age  of  Elizabeth: 
The  Queen's  chief  councillors. — "Sir  William 
Cecil,  afterwards  Lord  Burleigh,  already  officially 
experienced  during  three  reigns,  though  still 
young,  was  the  queen's  chief  adviser  from  first  to 
last  —  that  is  to  say,  till  he  died  in  1598.  Philip 
n. ,  who  also  died  in  that  year,  was  thus  his 
exact  contemporary ;  for  he  mounted  the  Span- 
ish throne  just  when  Elizabeth  and  her  minister 
began  their  work  together.  He  was  not  long  in 
discovering  that  there  was  one  man,  possessed  of 
the  most  balanced  judgment  ever  brought  to 
the  head  of  English  affairs,  who  was  capable  of 
unwinding  all  his  most  secret  intrigues ;  and,  in 
fact,  the  two  arch-enemies,  the  one  in  London 
and  the  other  in  Madrid,  were  pitted  against  each 
other  for  forty  years.  Elizabeth  had  also  the 
good  sense  to  select  the  wisest  and  most  learned 
ecclesiastic  of  his  day,  Matthew  Parker,  for  her 
Primate  and  chief  adviser  in  Church  ailairs.  It 
should  be  noted  that  both  of  these  sages,  as  well 
as  the  queen  herself,  had  been  Conformists  to  the 
Papal  obedience  under  JIary  —  a  position  far  from 
heroic,  but  not  for  a  moment  to  be  confused  with 
that  of  men  whose  philosophical  indifference  to 
the  questions  which  exercised  all  the  highest 
minds  enabled  them  to  join  in  the  persecution  of 
Romanists  and  Anglicans  at  different  times  with 
a  sublime  Impartiality.  ...  It  was  under  the 
advice  of  Cecil  and  Parker  that  Elizabeth,  on 
coming  to  the  throne,  made  her  famous  settle- 
ment or  Establishment  of  religion. " — M.  Burrows, 
Commentaries  on  the  Hist,  of  England,  bk.  2,  ch.  17. 

A.  D.  1558-1603.— The  Age  of  Elizabeth: 
Parliament.  —  "The  house  of  Commons,  upon  a 
review  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  was  very  far,  on  the 
one  hand,  from  exercising  those  constitutional 
rights  wliich  have  long  since  belonged  to  it,  or 
even  those  which  by  ancient  precedent  they  might 
have  claimed  as  their  own;  yet,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  not  quite  so  servile  and  submissive  an 
assembly  as  an  artful  historian  has  represented 
it.  If  many  of  its  members  were  but  creatures 
of  power,  .  .  .  there  was  still  a  considerable 
party,  sometimes  carrying  the  house  along  with 
them,  who  with  patient  resolution  and  inflexible 
aim  recurred  in  every  session  to  the  assertion  of 
that  one  great  privilege  which  their  sovereign 
contested,  the  right  of  parliament  to  inquire  into 
and  suggest  a  remedy  for  every  public  mischief 
or  danger.  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  minis- 
ters, such  as  Knollys,  Hatton,  and  Robert  Cecil, 
not  only  sat  among  the  commons,  but  took  a  very 
leading  part  in  their  discussions ;  a  proof  that  the 
influence  of  argument  could  no  more  be  dispensed 
with  than  that  of  power.  This,  as  I  conceive, 
will  never  be  the  case  in  any  kingdom  where  the 
assembly  of  the  estates  is  quite  subservient  to  the 
crown.  Nor  should  we  put  out  of  consideration 
the  manner  in  which  the  commons  were  com- 
posed. Sixty-two  members  were  added  at  differ- 
ent times  by  Elizabeth  to  the  representation ;  as 
well  from  places  which  had  in  earlier  times  dis- 
continued their  franchise,  as  from  those  to  which 
it  was  first  granted ;  a  very  large  proportion  of 
them  petty  boroughs,  evidently  under  the  in- 
fluence of  the  crown  or  peerage.  The  ministry 
took  much  pains  with  elections,  of  which  many 
proofs    remain.      The    house    accordingly  was 


863 


ENGLAND,  1558-1603. 


Tlie  Elizabethan 
Age  in  Literature. 


ENGLAND,  1558-1603. 


filled  with  placemen,  civilians,  and  common  law- 
yers grasping  at  preferment.  The  slavish  tone 
of  these  persons,  as  we  collect  from  the  minutes 
of  D'Ewes,  is  strikingly  contrasted  by  the  man- 
liness of  independent  gentlemen.  And  as  the 
house  was  by  no  means  very  fully  attended,  the 
divisions,  a  few  of  which  are  recorded,  running 
from  200  to  350  in  the  aggregate,  it  may  be  per- 
ceived that  the  court,  whose  followers  were  at 
hand,  would  maintain  a  formidable  influence. 
But  this  influence,  however  pernicious  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  parliament,  is  distinguishable  from 
that  exertion  of  almost  absolute  prerogative 
which  Hume  has  assumed  as  the  sole  spring  of 
Elizabeth's  government,  and  would  never  be  em- 
ployed till  some  deficiency  of  strength  was  ex- 
perienced in  the  other." — H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist, 
of  Eng.,  cli.  5. 

A.  D.  1558-1603.— The  Age  of  Elizabeth: 
Literature. — "The  age  of  Elizabeth  was  dis- 
tinguished bej'ond,  perhaps,  any  other  in  our 
history  by  a  number  of  great  men,  famous  in 
different  ways,  and  whose  names  have  come  down 
to  us  with  unblemished  honours:  statesmen, 
warriors,  divines,  scholars,  poets,  and  philoso- 
phers; Raleigh,  Drake,  Coke,  Hooker,  and — high 
and  more  sounding  still,  and  still  more  frequent 
in  our  mouths  —  Shakespear,  Spenser,  Sidney, 
Bacon,  Jonson,  Beaumont,  and  Fletcher,  men 
whom  fame  has  eternised  in  her  long  and  last- 
ing scroll,  and  who,  by  their  words  and  acts, 
were  benefactors  of  their  country,  and  ornaments 
of  human  nature.  Their  attainments  of  different 
kinds  bore  the  same  general  stamp,  and  it  was 
sterling;  what  they  did  had  the  mark  of  their 
age  and  country  upon  it.  Perhaps  the  genius  of 
Great  Britain  (if  I  may  so  speak  without  offence 
or  flattery)  never  shone  out  fuller  or  brighter,  or 
looked  more  like  itself,  than  at  this  period.  Our 
writers  and  great  men  had  something  in  them 
that  savoured  of  the  soil  from  which  they  grew : 
they  were  not  French ;  they  were  not  Dutch,  or 
German,  or  Greek,  or  Latin;  they  were  truly 
English.  They  did  not  look  out  of  themselves 
to  see  what  they  should  be;  they  sought  for 
truth  and  nature,  and  found  it  in  themselves. 
There  was  no  tinsel,  and  but  little  art ;  they  were 
not  the  spoilt  children  of  affectation  and  refine- 
ment, but  a  bold,  vigorous,  independent  race  of 
thinkers,  with  prodigious  strength  and  energy, 
with  none  but  natural  grace,  and  heartfelt,  un- 
obtrusive delicacy.  .  .  .  For  such  an  extraor- 
dinary combination  and  development  of  fancy 
and  genius  many  causes  may  be  assigned ;  and 
we  may  seek  for  the  chief  of  them  in  religion, 
in  politics,  in  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  the 
recent  difEusion  of  letters,  in  local  situation,  and 
in  the  character  of  the  men  who  adorned  that 
period,  and  availed  themselves  so  nobly  of  the 
advantages  placed  within  their  reach.  .  .  .  The 
first  cause  I  shall  mention,  as  contributing  to 
this  general  effect,  was  the  Reformation,  which 
had  just  then  taken  place.  This  event  gave  a 
mighty  impulse  and  increased  activity  to  thought 
and  inquiry,  and  agitated  the  inert  mass  of  ac- 
cumulated prejudices  throughout  Europe.  .  .  . 
The  translation  of  the  Bible  was  the  chief  engine 
in  the  great  work.  It  threw  open,  by  a  secret 
spring,  the  rich  treasures  of  religion  and  moral- 
ity, which  had  been  there  locked  up  as  in  a  shrine. 
It  revealed  the  visions  of  the  prophets,  and  con- 
veyed the  lessons  of  inspired  teachers  (such  they 
were  thought)  to  the  meanest  of  the  people.     It 


gave  them  a  common  interest  in  the  common 
cause.  Their  hearts  burnt  within  them  as  they 
read.  It  gave  a  mind  to  the  people,  by  giving 
them  common  subjects  of  thought  and  feeling. 
.  .  .  The  immediate  use  or  application  that  was 
made  of  religion  to  subjects  of  imagination  and 
fiction  was  not  (from  an  obvious  ground  of  sep- 
aration) so  direct  or  frequent  as  that  which  was 
made  of  the  classical  and  romantic  literature. 
For  much  about  the  same  time,  the  rich  and  fas- 
cinating stores  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  mythol- 
ogy, and  those  of  the  romantic  poetry  of  Spain 
and  Italy,  were  eagerly  explored  by  the  curious, 
and  thrown  open  in  translations  to  the  admiring 
gaze  of  the  vulgar.  .  .  .  What  also  gave  an  un- 
usual impetus  to  the  mind  of  man  at  this  period, 
was  the  discovery  of  the  New  World,  and  the 
reading  of  voyages  and  travels.  Green  islands 
and  golden  sands  seemed  to  arise,  as  by  enchant- 
ment, out  of  the  bosom  of  the  watery  waste,  and 
invite  the  cupidity,  or  wing  the  imagination  of 
the  dreaming  speculator.  Fairyland  was  realised 
in  new  and  unknown  worlds.  .  .  .  Again,  the 
heroic  and  martial  spirit  which  breathes  in  our 
elder  writers,  was  yet  in  considerable  activity  in 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  The  age  of  chivalry  was 
not  then  quite  gone,  nor  the  glory  of  Europe  ex- 
tinguished forever.  .  .  .  Lastly,  to  conclude  this 
account :  What  gave  a  unity  and  common  direc- 
tion to  all  these  causes,  was  the  natural  genius 
of  the  country,  which  was  strong  in  these  writers 
in  proportion  to  their  strength.  We  are  a  nation 
of  islanders,  and  we  cannot  help  it,  nor  mend 
ourselves  if  we  would.  We  are  something  in 
ourselves,  nothing  when  we  try  to  ape  others. 
Music  and  painting  are  not  our  forte :  for  what 
we  have  done  in  that  way  has  been  little,  and 
that  borrowed  from  others  with  great  difficulty. 
But  we  may  boast  of  our  poets  and  philosophers. 
That's  something.  We  have  had  strong  heads 
and  sound  hearts  among  us.  Thrown  on  one 
side  of  the  world,  and  left  to  bustle  for  ourselves, 
we  have  fought  out  many  a  battle  for  truth  and 
freedom.  That  is  our  natural  style ;  and  it  were 
to  be  wished  we  had  in  no  instance  departed 
from  it.  Our  situation  has  given  us  a  certain 
cast  of  thought  and  character;  and  our  liberty 
has  enabled  us  to  make  the  most  of  it.  We  are 
of  a  stiff  clay,  not  moulded  into  every  fashion, 
with  stubborn  joints  not  easily  bent.  We  are 
slow  to  think,  and  therefore  impressions  do  not 
work  upon  us  till  they  act  In  masses.  .  .  .  We 
may  be  accused  of  grossuess,  but  not  of  flimsi- 
ness;  of  extravagance,  but  not  of  affectation;  of 
want  of  art  and  refinement,  but  not  of  a  want  of 
truth  and  nature.  Our  literature,  in  a  word,  is 
Gothic  and  grotesque;  unequal  and  irregular; 
not  cast  in  a  previous  mould,  nor  of  one  uniform 
texture,  but  of  great  weight  in  the  whole,  and  of 
incomparable  value  in  the  best  parts.  It  aims 
at  an  excess  of  beauty  or  power,  hits  or  misses, 
and  is  either  very  good  indeed,  or  absolutely 
good  for  nothing.  This  character  applies  in  par- 
ticular to  our  literature  in  the  age  of  Elizabeth, 
which  is  its  best  period,  before  the  introduction 
of  a  rage  for  French  rules  and  French  models." — 
W.  Hazlitt,  Lectures  on  the  Literature  of  tlie  Age 
of  Elizabeth,  led.  1. — "Humanism,  before  it 
moulded  the  mind  of  the  English,  had  already 
permeated  Italian  and  French  literature.  Classi- 
cal erudition  had  been  adapted  to  the  needs  of 
modern  thought.  Antique  authors  had  been  col- 
lected, printed,  aimotated,  and  translated.     They 


864 


i 


ENGLAND,  1558-1603. 


Supremacy 
and  Uniformity. 


ENGLAND,  1559. 


■were  fairly  mastered  in  the  south,  and  assimilated 
to  the  style  of  the  vernacular.  By  these  means 
much  of  the  learning  popularised  by  our  poets, 
essayists,  and  dramatists  came  to  us  at  second- 
hand, and  bore  the  stamp  of  contemporary 
genius.  In  like  manner,  the  best  works  of 
Italian,  French,  Spanish,  and  German  literature 
were  introduced  into  Great  Britain  together  with 
the  classics.  The  age  favoured  translation,  and 
English  readers  before  the  close  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  were  in  possession  of  a  cosmopolitan 
library  in  their  mother  tongue,  including  choice 
specimens  of  ancient  and  modern  masterpieces. 
These  circumstances  sufficiently  account  for  the 
richness  and  variety  of  Elizabethan  literature. 
They  also  help  to  explain  two  points  which  must 
strike  every  student  of  that  literature  —  its  native 
freshness,  and  its  marked  unity  of  style.  Eliza- 
bethan literature  was  fresh  and  native,  because  it 
was  the  utterance  of  a  youthful  race,  aroused 
to  vigorous  self-consciousness  under  conditions 
which  did  not  depress  or  exhaust  its  energies. 
The  English  opened  frank  eyes  upon  the  dis- 
covery of  the  world  and  man,  which  had  been 
efEected  by  the  Renaissance.  They  were  not 
wearied  with  collecting,  collating,  correcting, 
transmitting  to  the  press.  All  the  hard  work  of 
assimilating  the  humanities  had  been  done  for 
them.  They  had  only  to  survey  and  to  enjoy,  to 
feel  and  to  express,  to  lay  themselves  open  to 
delightful  influences,  to  con  the  noble  lessons  of 
the  past,  to  thrill  beneath  the  beauty  and  the 
awe  of  an  authentic  revelation.  Criticism  had 
not  laid  its  cold,  dry  finger  on  the  blossoms  of 
the  fancy.  The  new  learning  was  still  young 
enough  to  be  a  thing  of  wonder  and  entrancing 
joy." — J.  A.  Symonds,  A  Comparison  of  Mliza- 
bethan  with,  Victorian  Poetry  {Fortnightly  Rev., 
1).  45,  p.  56). 

A.  D.  1559. — The  Act  of  Supremacy,  the 
Act  of  Uniformity,  and  the  Court  of  High  Com- 
mission.— "When  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament 
met  in  January  1559,  Convocation,  of  course, 
met  too.  It  at  once  claimed  that  the  clergy  alone 
had  authority  In  matters  of  faith,  and  proceeded 
to  pass  resolutions  in  favour  of  Transubstantia- 
tlon,  the  Mass,  and  the  Papal  Supremacy.  The 
bishops  and  the  Universities  signed  a  formal 
agreement  to  this  effect.  That  in  the  constitution 
of  the  English  Church,  Convocation,  as  Convo- 
cation, has  no  such  power  as  this,  was  proved  by 
the  steps  now  taken.'  The  Crown,  advised  by 
the  Council  and  Parliament,  took  the  matter  in 
hand.  As  every  element,  except  the  Roman,  had 
been  excluded  from  the  clerical  bodies,  a  consul- 
tation was  ordered  between  the  representatives 
of  both  sides,  and  all  preaching  was  suspended 
till  a  settlement  had  been  arrived  at  between  the 
queen  and  the  Three  Estates  of  the  realm.  The 
consultation  broke  up  on  the  refusal  of  the  Roman- 
ist champions  to  keep  to  the  terms  agreed  upon ; 
but  even  before  it  took  place  Parliament  restored 
the  Royal  Supremacy,  repealed  the  laws  of  Mary 
affecting  religion,  and  gave  the  queen  by  her 
own  desire,  not  the  title  of  '  Supreme  Head,'  but 
'  Supreme  Governor, '  of  the  Church  of  England. " 
— M.  Burrows,  Commentaries onthe Hist,  of  Eng., 
Ik.  2,  eh.  17. — This  first  Parliament  of  Elizabeth 
passed  two  memorable  acts  of  great  importance 
in  English  history, —  the  Act  of  Supremacy  and 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer.  ' '  The 
former  is  entitled  'An  act  for  restoring  to  the 
crown  the  antient  jurisdiction  over  the  State 
55 


Ecclesiastical  and  Spiritual ;  and  for  abolishing 
foreign  power.'  It  is  the  same  for  substance 
with  the  25th  of  Henry  VIII.  .  .  .  but  the  com- 
mons incorporated  several  other  bills  into  it ;  fur 
besides  the  title  of  '  Supreme  Governor  in  all 
causes  Ecclesiastical  and  Temporal,'  which  is 
restored  to  the  Queen,  the  act  revives  those  laws 
of  King  Henry  VIII.  and  King  Edward  VI. 
which  had  been  repealed  in  the  late  reign.  It 
forbids  all  appeals  to  Rome,  and  exonerates  the 
subjects  from  all  exactions  and  impositions  here- 
tofore paid  to  that  court ;  and  as  it  revives  King 
Edward's  laws,  it  repeals  a  severe  act  made  in  the 
late  reign  for  punishing  heresy.  .  .  .  '  Moreover, 
all  persons  in  any  public  employs,  whether  civil 
or  ecclesiastical,  are  obliged  to  take  an  oath  in 
recognition  of  the  Queen's  right  to  the  crown, 
and  of  her  supremacy  in  all  causes  ecclesiastical 
and  civil,  on  penalty  of  forfeiting  all  their  pro- 
motions in  the  church,  and  of  being  declared  in- 
capable of  holding  any  public  office.' .  .  .  Fur- 
ther, '  The  act  forbids  all  writing,  printing, 
teaching,  or  preaching,  and  all  other  deeds  or 
acts  whereby  any  foreign  jurisdiction  over  these 
realms  is  defended,  upon  pain  tliat  they  and  their 
abettors,  being  thereof  convicted,  shall  for  the 
first  offence  forfeit  their  goods  and  chattels ;  .  .  . 
spiritual  persons  shall  lose  their  benefices,  and 
all  ecclesiastical  preferments;  for  the  second 
offence  they  shall  incur  the  penalties  of  a  prtemu- 
nire ;  and  the  third  offence  shall  be  deemed  high 
treason.'  There  is  a  remarkable  clause  in  this 
act,  which  gave  rise  to  a  new  court,  called  '  The 
Court  of  High  Commission. '  The  words  are  these, 
'  The  Queen  and  her  successors  shall  have  power, 
by  their  letters  patent  under  the  great  seal,  to 
assign,  name,  and  authorize,  as  often  as  they 
shall  think  meet,  and  for  as  long  a  time  as  they 
shall  please,  persons  being  natural-born  subjects, 
to  use,  occupy,  and  exercise,  under  her  and  them, 
all  manner  of  jurisdiction,  privileges,  and  pre- 
eminences, touching  any  spiritual  or  ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction  within  the  realms  of  England 
and  Ireland,  &c.,  to  visit,  reform,  redress,  order, 
correct  and  amend  all  errors,  heresies,  schisms, 
abuses,  contempts,  offences  and  enormities  what- 
soever. Provided,  that  they  have  no  power  to 
determine  anything  to  be  heresy,  but  what  has 
been  adjudged  to  be  so  by  the  authority  of  the 
canonical  scripture,  or  by  tlie  first  four  general 
councils,  or  any  of  them ;  or  by  any  other  general 
council  wherein  the  same  was  declared  heresy  by 
the  express  and  plain  words  of  canonical  scrip- 
ture ;  or  such  as  shall  hereafter  be  declared  to  be 
heresy  by  the  high  court  of  parliament,  with  the 
assent  of  the  clergy  in  convocation. '  Upon  the 
authority  of  this  clause  the  Queen  appointed  a 
certain  number  of  '  Commissioners '  for  ecclesi- 
astical causes,  who  exercised  the  same  power  that 
had  been  lodged  in  the  hands  of  one  vicegerent 
in  the  reign  of  King  Henry  VIII.  And  how 
sadly  they  abused  their  power  in  this  and  the 
two  next  reigns  will  appear  in  the  sequel  of  this 
history.  They  did  not  trouble  themselves  much 
with  the  express  words  of  scripture,  or  the  four 
first  general  councils,  but  entangled  their  prison- 
ers with  oaths  ex-offlcio,  and  the  inextricable 
mazes  of  the  popish  canon  law.  .  .  .  The  papists 
being  vanquished,  the  next  point  was  to  unite 
the  reformed  among  themselves.  .  .  .  Though  all 
the  reformers  were  of  one  faith,  yet  they  were  far 
from  agreeing  about  discipline  and  ceremonies, 
each  party  being  for  settling  the  church  accord- 


865 


ENGLAND,  1559. 


Rise  of 
Puritanism. 


ENGLAND,  1559-1566. 


ing  to  their  own  model.  .  .  .  The  Queen  .  .  . 
therefore  appointed  a  committee  of  divines  to 
review  King  Edward's  liturgy,  and  to  see  if  in 
any  particular  it  was  fit  to  be  changed;  their 
names  were  Dr.  Parlier,  Grindal,  Cox,  Pilkingtou, 
May,  Bill,  Whitehead,  and  Sir  Thomas  Smitli, 
doctor  of  the  civil  law.  Their  instructions  were, 
to  strike  out  all  offensive  passages  against  the 
pope,  and  to  make  people  easy  about  the  belief 
of  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ments; but  not  a  word  in  favour  of  the  stricter 
protestants.  Her  Majesty  was  afraid  of  reform- 
ing too  far;  she  was  desirous  to  retain  images  in 
churches,  crucifixes  and  crosses,  vocal  and  instru- 
mental music,  with  all  the  old  popish  garments ; 
it  is  not  therefore  to  be  wondered,  that  in  review- 
ing the  liturgy  of  King  Edward,  no  alterations 
were  made  in  favour  of  those  who  now  began  to 
be  called  Puritans,  from  their  attempting  a  purer 
form  of  worship  and  discipline  than  had  yet  been 
established.  .  .  .  The  book  was  presented  to  the 
two  houses  and  passed  into  a  law.  .  .  .  The  title 
of  the  act  is  '  An  act  for  the  Uniformity  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  and  Service  in  the  Church,  and  ad- 
ministration of  the  Sacraments. '  It  was  brought 
into  the  House  of  Commons  April  18th,  and  was 
read  a  third  time  April  20th.  It  passed  the 
House  of  Lords  April  28th,  and  took  place  from 
the  24th  of  June  1559."— D.  Neal,  Hist,  of  the 
Puritans,  e.  1,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  G.  Burnet,  Sist.  of  the  Reformation 
of  the  Ch.  of  Eng.,  v.  3,  bk.  3.— P.  Heylyn,  Ecclesia 
Bestaurata :  Elizabeth,  Anno  1. 

A.  D.  1559-1566. — Puritanism  taking  form. 
— "The  Church  of  England  was  a  latitudinarian 
experiment,  a  contrivance  to  enable  men  of  op- 
posing creeds  to  live  together  without  shedding 
each  others'  blood.  It  was  not  Intended,  and  it 
was  not  possible,  that  Catholics  or  Protestants 
should  find  in  its  formulas  all  that  they  required. 
The  services  were  deliberately  made  elastic; 
comprehending  in  the  form  of  positive  statement 
only  what  all  Christians  agreed  in  believing, 
while  opportunities  were  left  open  by  the  rubric 
to  vary  the  ceremonial  according  to  the  taste  of 
the  congregations.  The  management  lay  with 
the  local  authorities  in  town  or  parish :  where  the 
people  were  Catholics  the  Catholic  aspect  could 
be  made  prominent ;  where  Popery  was  a  bug- 
bear, the  people  were  not  disturbed  by  the  ob- 
trusion of  doctrines  which  they  had  outgrown. 
In  itself  it  pleased  no  party  or  section.  To  the 
heated  controversialist  its  chief  merit  was  its 
chief  defect.  .  .  .  Where  the  tendencies  to  Rome 
were  strongest,  there  the  extreme  Reformers  con- 
sidered themselves  bound  to  exhibit  in  the  most 
marked  contrast  the  unloveliness  of  the  purer 
creed.  It  was  they  who  furnished  the  noble  ele- 
ment in  the  Church  of  England.  It  was  they 
who  had  been  its  martyrs;  they  who,  in  their 
scorn  of  the  world,  in  tlieir  passionate  desire  to 
consociate  themselves  in  life  and  death  to  the 
Almighty,  were  able  to  rival  in  self-devotion  the 
Catholic  Saints.  But  they  had  not  the  wisdom 
of  the  serpent,  and  certainly  not  the  harmless- 
ness  of  the  dove.  Had  they  been  let  alone  — 
had  they  been  unharassed  by  perpetual  threats 
of  revolution  and  a  return  of  the  persecutions  — 
they,  too,  were  not  disinclined  to  reason  and 
good  sense.  A  remarkable  specimen  survives, 
in  an  account  of  the  Church  of  Northampton,  of 
what  English  Protestantism  could  become  under 
favouring  conditions.  .  .  .  The  fury  of  the  times 


unhappily  forbade  the  maintenance  of  this  wise 
and  prudent  spirit.  As  the  power  of  evil  gath- 
ered to  destroy  the  Church  of  England,  a  fiercer 
temper  was  required  to  combat  with  them,  and 
Protestantism  became  impatient,  like  David,  of 
the  uniform  in  which  it  was  sent  to  the  battle. 
It  would  have  fared  ill  with  England  had  there 
been  no  hotter  blood  there  than  filtered  in  the 
shiggish  veins  of  the  officials  of  the  Establish- 
ment. There  needed  an  enthusiasm  fiercer  far  to 
encounter  the  revival  of  Catholic  fanaticism ;  and 
if  the  young  Puritans,  in  the  heat  and  glow  of 
their  convictions,  snapped  their  traces  and  flung 
off  their  harness,  it  was  they,  after  all,  who 
saved  the  Church  which  attempted  to  disown 
them,  and  with  the  Church  saved  also  the  stolid 
mediocrity  to  which  the  fates  then  and  ever  com- 
mitted and  commit  the  government  of  it." — J. 
A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  10,  ch.  20.— "The 
compromise  arranged  by  Cranmer  had  from  the 
first  been  considered  by  a  large  body  of  Protest- 
ants as  a  scheme  for  serving  two  masters,  as  an 
attempt  to  unite  the  worship  of  the  Lord  with 
the  worship  of  Baal.  In  the  days  of  Edward 
VI.  the  scruples  of  this  party  had  repeatedly 
thrown  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  gov- 
ernment. When  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne, 
those  difficulties  were  much  increased.  Violence 
naturally  engenders  violence.  The  spirit  of 
Protestantism  was  therefore  far  fiercer  and  more 
intolerant  after  the  cruelties  of  Mary  than  before 
them.  Many  persons  who  were  warmly  attached 
to  the  new  opinions  had,  during  the  evil  days, 
taken  refuge  in  Switzerland  and  Germany. 
Tliey  had  been  hospitably  received  by  their 
brethren  in  the  faith,  had  sate  at  the  feet  of  the 
great  doctors  of  Strasburg,  Zurich  and  Geneva, 
and  had  been,  during  some  years,  accustomed  to 
a  more  simple  worship,  and  to  a  more  democrat- 
ical  form  of  church  government,  than  England 
had  yet  seen.  These  men  returned  to  their  coun- 
try, convinced  that  the  reform  which  had  been 
effected  under  King  Edward  had  been  far  less 
searching  and  extensive  than  the  interests  of 
pure  religion  required.  But  it  was  in  vain  that 
they  attempted  to  obtain  any  concession  from 
Elizabeth.  Indeed,  her  system,  wherever  it  dif- 
fered from  her  brother's,  seemed  to  them  to  dif- 
fer for  the  worse.  They  were  little  disposed  to 
submit,  in  matters  of  faith,  to  any  human  author- 
ity. .  .  .  Since  these  men  could  not  be  convinced, 
it  was  determined  that  they  should  be  persecuted. 
Persecution  produced  its  natural  effect  on  them. 
It  found  them  a  sect:  it  made  them  a  faction. 
.  .  .  The  power  of  the  discontented  sectaries  was 
great.  They  were  found  in  every  rank;  but 
they  were  strongest  among  the  mercantile  classes 
in  the  towns,  and  among  the  small  proprietors 
in  the  country.  Early  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth 
they  began  to  return  a  majority  of  the  House  of 
Commons.  And  doubtless,  had  our  ancestors 
been  then  at  liberty  to  fix  their  attention  entirely 
on  domestic  questions,  the  strife  between  the 
crown  and  the  Parliament  would  instantly  have 
commenced.  But  that  was  no  season  for  inter- 
nal dissensions.  .  .  .  Roman  Catholic  Europe  and 
reformed  Europe  were  struggling  for  death  or 
life.  .  .  .  Whatever  might  be  the  faults  of  Eliza- 
beth, it  was  plain  that,  to  speak  humanly,  the 
fate  of  the  realm  and  of  all  reformed  churches 
was  staked  on  the  security  of  her  person  and  on 
the  success  of  her  administration.  .  .  .  The 
Puritans,   even  in  the  depths  of  the  prisons  to 


866 


ENGLAND,  1559-1566. 


Persecution 
of  the  Catholics. 


ENGLAND,  1573-1603. 


which  she  had  sent  them,  prayed,  and  with  no 
simulated  fervour,  that  she  might  be  kept  from 
the  dagger  of  the  assassin,  that  rebellion  might 
be  put  down  under  her  feet,  and  that  her  arms 
might  be  victorious  by  sea  and  land." — Lord 
Macaulay,  Hist.  ofEng.,  v.  1,  ch.  1. — "Two  par- 
ties quickly  evolved  themselves  out  of  the 
mass  of  Englishmen  who  held  Calvinistic  opin- 
ions ;  namely  those  who  were  willing  to  conform 
to  the  requirements  of  the  Queen,  and  those 
who  were  not.  To  both  is  often  given  indis- 
criminately by  historians  the  name  of  Puritan ; 
but  it  seems  more  correct,  and  certainly  is  more 
convenient,  to  restrict  the  use  of  the  name  to 
those  who  are  sometimes  called  conforming  Puri- 
tans. ...  To  the  other  party  fitly  belongs  the 
name  of  Nonconformist.  ...  It  was  against  the 
Nonconformist  organization  that  Elizabeth's  ef- 
forts were  chiefly  directed.  .  .  .  The  war  began 
in  the  enforcement  by  Archbishop  Parker  in  1565 
of  the  Advertisements  as  containing  the  mini- 
mum of  ceremonial  that  would  be  tolerated.  In 
1566  the  clergy  of  London  were  required  to  make 
the  declaration  of  Conformity  which  was  ap- 
pended to  the  Advertisements,  and  thirty-seven 
were  suspended  or  deprived  for  refusal.  Some 
of  the  deprived  ministers  continued  to  conduct 
services  and  preach  in  spite  of  their  deprivation, 
and  so  were  formed  the  first  bodies  of  Noncon- 
formists, organized  in  England.  "—H.  O.  Wake- 
man,  The  Church  and  the  Puritans,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  J.  TuUoch,  Eng.  Puritanism  and  its 
Lenders,  int. — D.  Neal,  Ilist.  of  the  Puritans,  v. 
1,  ch.  4 — D.  Campbell,  The  Puritan  in  Holland, 
Eng.,  ciTid  Am.,  ch.  8-10  (b.  1). 

A.  D.  1562-1567. — Hawkins'  slave-trading 
voyages  to  America.  —  First  English  enter- 
prise in  the  New  World.  See  America  ;  A.  D. 
1563-1567. 

A.  D.  1564-1565  (?).— The  first  naming  of  the 
Puritans. —  "The  English  bishops,  conceiving 
themselves  empowered  by  their  canons,  began  to 
show  their  authority  in  urging  the  clergy  of  their 
dioceses  to  subscribe  to  the  Liturgy,  ceremonies 
and  discipline  of  the  Church;  and  such  as  re- 
fused the  same  were  branded  with  the  odious 
name  of  Puritans.  A  name  which  in  this  notion 
first  began  in  this  year  [A.  D.  1564];  and  the 
grief  had  not  been  great  if  it  had  ended  in  the 
same.  The  philosopher  banisheth  the  term, 
(which  is  Polysaimon),  that  is  subject  to  several 
senses,  out  of  the  predicaments,  as  affording  too 
much  covert  for  cavil  by  the  latitude  thereof. 
On  the  same  account  could  I  wish  that  the  word 
Puritan  were  banished  common  discourse,  because 
so  various  in  the  acceptations  thereof.  We  need 
not  speak  of  the  ancient  Cathari  or  primitive 
Puritans,  sufiiciently  known  by  their  heretical 
opinions.  Puritan  here  was  taken  for  the  opposers 
of  the  hierarchy  and  church  service,  as  resenting 
of  superstition.  But  profane  mouths  quickly 
improved  this  nickname,  therewith  on  every  oc- 
casion to  abuse  pious  people ;  some  of  them  so  far 
from  opposing  the  Liturgy,  that  they  endeavoured 
(according  to  the  instructions  thereof  in  the  pre- 
parative to  the  Confession)  'to  accompany  the 
minister  with  a  pure  heart,'  and  laboured  (as  it 
is  in  the  Absolution)  '  for  a  life  pure  and  holy. ' 
We  will,  therefore,  decline  the  word  to  prevent 
exceptions ;  which,  if  casually  slipping  from  our 
pen,  the  reader  knoweth  that  only  nonconformists 
are  thereby  intended. "— T.  Fidler,  Church  Hist, 
of  Britain,  bk.   9,  sect.  1. — "For  in  this  year 


[1565]  it  was  that  the  Zuinglian  or  Calvinian 
faction  began  to  be  first  known  by  the  name  of 
Puritans,  if  Genebrard,  Gualter,  and  Spondauus 
(being  all  of  them  right  good  chronologers)  be 
not  mistaken  in  the  time.  Which  name  hath  ever 
since  been  appropriate  to  them,  because  of  their 
pretending  to  a  greater  purity  in  the  service  of 
God  than  was  lield  forth  unto  them  (as  they  gave 
out)  in  the  Common  Prayer  Book ;  and  to  a  greater 
opposition  to  the  rites  and  usages  of  the  Churcli 
of  Rome  than  was  agreeable  to  the  constitution 
of  the  Church  of  England." — P.  Heylyn,  Ecclesia 
Restaurata:  Elimbeih.  Anno  7,  sect.  6. 

A.  D.  1568. — Detention  and  imprisonment 
of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots.  See  Scotland:  A.  D. 
1501-1568. 

A.  D.  1569. — Quarrel  with  the  Spanish  gov- 
ernor of  the  Netherlands.  See  Netherlands: 
A.  D.  1568-1573. 

A.  D.  1572-1580.— Drake's  piratical  warfare 
with  Spain  and  his  famous  voyage.  See 
America:  A.  D.  1572-1580. 

A.  D.  1572-1603.— Queen  Elizabeth's  treat- 
ment of  the  Roman  Catholics. — Persecution  of 
the  Seminary  Priests  and  the  Jesuits. — "Cam- 
den and  many  others  have  asserted  that  by  sys- 
tematic counivance  the  Roman  Catholics  enjoyed 
a  pretty  free  use  of  their  religion  for  the  first 
fourteen  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign.  But  this  is 
not  reconcilable  to  many  passages  in  Strype's 
collections.  We  find  abundance  of  persons  har- 
assed for  recusancy,  that  is,  for  not  attending 
the  protestant  church,  and  driven  to  insincere 
promises  of  conformity.  Others  were  dragged 
l3efore  ecclesiastical  commissions  for  harbouring 
priests,  or  for  sending  money  to  those  who  had 
fled  beyond  sea.  ...  A  great  majority  both 
of  clergy  and  laity  yielded  to  the  times ;  and  of 
these  temporizing  conformists  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  many  lost  by  degrees  all  thought 
of  returning  to  their  ancient  fold.  But  others, 
while  they  complied  with  exterior  ceremonies, 
retained  in  their  private  devotions  their  accus- 
tomed mode  of  worship.  .  .  .  Priests  .  .  .  trav- 
elled the  country  in  various  disguises,  to  keep 
alive  a  flame  which  the  practice  of  outward  con- 
formity was  calculated  to  extinguish.  There 
was  not  a  county  throughout  England,  says  a 
Catholic  historian,  where  several  of  Mary's  clergy 
did  not  reside,  and  were  commonly  called  the 
old  priests.  They  served  as  chaplains  in  private 
families.  By  stealth,  at  the  dead  of  night,  in 
private  chambers,  in  the  secret  lurking  places  of 
an  ill-peopled  country,  with  all  the  mystery  that 
subdues  the  imagination,  with  all  the  mutual 
trust  that  invigorates  constancy,  these  proscribed 
ecclesiastics  celebrated  their  solemn  rites,  more 
impressive  in  such  concealment  than  if  sur- 
rounded by  all  their  former  splendour.  ...  It 
is  my  thorough  conviction  that  the  persecution, 
for  it  can  obtain  no  better  name,  carried  on 
against  the  English  Catholics,  however  it  might 
serve  to  delude  the  government  by  producing  an 
apparent  conformity,  could  not  but  excite  a 
spirit  of  disloyalty  in  many  adherents  of  that 
faith.  Nor  would  it  be  safe  to  assert  that  a  more 
conciliating  policy  would  have  altogether  dis- 
armed their  hostility,  much  less  laid  at  rest  those 
busy  hopes  of  the  future,  which  the  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances of  Elizabeth's  reign  had  a  tendency 
to  produce." — H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng., 
ch.  3. — "The  more  vehement  Catholics  had  with- 
drawn from  the  country,  on  account  of  the  dan- 


867 


ENGLAND.   157^1603. 


Catholic 
Conspiracies. 


ENGLAND,  1585-1587. 


gers  which  there  beset  them.  They  had  taken 
refuge  in  the  Low  Countries,  and  there  Allen, 
one  of  the  chief  among  them,  had  established  a 
seminary  at  Douay,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping 
up  a  supply  of  priests  in  England.  To  Douay 
numbers  of  young  Englishmen  from  Oxford  con- 
tinually flocked.  The  establishment  had  been 
broken  up  by  Requescens,  and  removed  to  Rheims, 
and  a  second  college  of  the  same  description  was 
established  at  Rome.  From  these  two  centres  of 
intrigue  numerous  enthusiastic  young  men  con- 
stantly repaired  to  England,  and  in  the  disguise 
of  laymen  carried  on  their  priestly  work  and  at- 
tempted to  revive  the  Romanist  religion.  But 
abler  and  better  disciplined  workmen  were  now 
wanted.  Allen  and  his  friends  therefore  opened 
negotiations  with  Mercuriano,  the  head  of  the 
Jesuit  order,  in  which  many  Englishmen  had  en- 
rolled themselves.  In  1580,  as  part  of  a  great 
combined  Catholic  effort,  a  regular  Jesuit  mis- 
sion, under  two  priests,  Campion  and  Parsons, 
was  despatched  to  England.  .  .  .  The  new  mis- 
sionaries were  allowed.to  say  that  that  part  of 
the  Bull  [of  excommunication  issued  against 
Elizabeth]  which  pronounced  censures  upon 
those  who  clung  to  their  allegiance  applied  to 
heretics  only,  that  Catholics  might  profess  them- 
selves loyal  until  tlie  time  arrived  for  carrying 
the  Bull  into  execution ;  in  other  words,  they 
were  permitted  to  be  traitors  at  heart  while  de- 
claring themselves  loyal  subjects.  This  explana- 
tion of  the  Bull  was  of  itself  sufficient  to  justify 
severity  on  the  part  of  the  government.  It  was 
impossible  henceforward  to  separate  Roman 
Catholicism  from  disloyalty.  Proclamations  were 
issued  requiring  English  parents  to  summon 
their  cliildren  from  abroad,  and  declaring  that 
to  harbour  Jesuit  priests  was  to  support  rebels. 
.  .  .  Early  in  December  several  priests  were  ap- 
prehended and  closely  examined,  torture  being 
occasionally  used  for  the  purpose.  In  view  of 
the  danger  which  these  examinations  disclosed, 
stringent  measures  were  taken.  Attendance  at 
church  was  rendered  peremptorily  necessary. 
Parliament  was  summoned  in  the  beginning  of 
1581  and  laws  passed  against  the  action  of  the 
Jesuits.  .  .  .  Had  Elizabeth  been  conscious  of 
the  full  extent  of  the  plot  against  her,  had  she 
known  the  intention  of  the  Guises  [then  dominant 
in  Prance]  to  make  a  descent  upon  England  in 
co-operation  with  Spain,  and  the  many  ramifica- 
tions of  the  plot  in  her  own  country,  it  is  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  she  would  have  been  forced 
at  length  to  take  decided  measures.  But  in 
Ignorance  of  the  abyss  opening  before  her  feet, 
she  continued  for  some  time  longer  her  old  tem- 
porizing policy. "  At  last,  in  November,  1583, 
the  discovery  of  a  plot  for  the  assassination  of 
the  queen,  and  the  arrest  of  one  Throgmorton, 
whose  papers  and  whose  confession  were  of  start- 
ling import,  brought  to  light  the  whole  plan  and 
extent  of  tlie  conspiracy.  "Some  of  her  Council 
urged  her  at  once  to  take  a  straightforward  step, 
to  make  common  cause  with  the  Protestants  of 
Scotland  and  tlie  Netherlands,  and  to  bid  defi- 
ance to  Spain.  To  this  honest  step,  she  as  usual 
could  not  bring  herself,  but  strong  measures 
were  taken  in  England.  Great  numbers  of  Jes- 
uits and  seminary  priests  were  apprehended  and 
executed,  suspected  magistrates  removed,  and 
those  Catholic  Lords  whose  treachery  might  have 
been  fatal  to  her  ejected  from  their  places  of 
authority  and  deprived  of    influence." — J.    F. 


Bright,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  period  2,  pp.  546-549. — 
"That  the  conspiracy  with  which  these  men 
were  charged  was  a  fiction  cannot  be  doubted. 
They  had  come  to  England  under  a  prohibition 
to  take  any  part  in  secular  concerns,  and  with 
the  sole  view  of  exercising  the  spiritual  functions 
of  the  priesthood.  ...  At  the  same  time  it  must 
be  owned  that  the  answers  which  six  of  them 
gave  to  the  queries  were  far  from  satisfactory. 
Their  hesitation  to  deny  the  opposing  power  (a 
power  then  indeed  maintained  by  the  greater 
number  of  divines  in  Catholic  kingdoms)  rendered 
their  loyalty  very  problematical,  in  case  of  an 
attempt  to  enforce  the  bull  by  any  foreign  prince. 
It  furnished  sufficient  reason  to  watch  their  con- 
duct with  an  e3'e  of  jealousy  .  .  .  but  could  not 
j  ustif y  their  execution  for  an  imaginary  offence. " 
—  J.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  8,  ch.  3. — "It  is 
probable  that  not  many  more  than  200  Catholics 
were  executed,  as  such,  in  Elizabeth's  reign,  and 
this  was  ten  score  too  many.  .  .  .  '  Dod  reckons 
them  at  191 ;  Milner  has  raised  the  list  to  204. 
Fifteen  of  these,  according  to  him,  suffered  for 
denying  the  Queen's  supremacy,  126  for  exercis- 
ing their  ministry,  and  the  rest  for  being  recon- 
ciled to  the  Romish  church.  Many  others  died 
of  hardships  in  prison,  and  many  were  deprived 
of  their  property.  There  seems,  nevertheless 
[says  Hallam],  to  be  good  reason  for  doubting 
whether  any  one  who  was  executed  might  not 
have  saved  his  life  by  explicitly  denying  the 
Pope's  power  to  depose  the  Queen.'" — J.  L. 
Motley,  Hist,  of  the  United  Netherlands,  eh.  17, 
loith  foot-note. 

Axso  IN :  J.  Foley,  Records  of  the  Eng.  Province 
of  the  Snc.  of  Jesus. 

A.  D.  1574. — Emancipation  of  villeins  on 
the  royal  domains. — Practical  end  of  serfdom. 
See  Slavery,  Medl-eval:  England. 

A.  D.  1575. — Sovereignty  of  Holland  and 
Zealand  offered  to  Queen  Elizabeth,  and  de- 
clined.    See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1.575-1577. 

A.  D.  1581. — Marriage  proposals  of  the 
Duke  of  Anjou  declined  by  Queen  Elizabeth. 
See  Netherl.vnds  :  A.  D.  1581-1584. 

A.  D.  1583. — The  expedition  of  Sir  Hum- 
phrey Gilbert. — Formal  possession  taken  of 
Newfoundland.     See  America:  A.  D.  1583. 

A.  D.  1584-1590. — Raleigh's  colonizing  at- 
tempts in  America.  See  America:  A.  D.  1584- 
1586;  and  1587-1590. 

A.  D.  1585-1586. —  Leicester  in  the  Low 
Countries.  —  Queen  Elizabeth's  treacherous 
dealing  with  the  struggling  Netherlanders. 
See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1585-1586. 

A.  D.  1585-1587. — Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and 
the  Catholic  conspiracies. — Her  trial  and  exe- 
cution.—  "Maddened  by  persecution,  by  the  hope- 
lessness of  rebellion  within  or  deliverance  from 
without,  the  fiercer  Catholics  listened  to  schemes 
of  assassination,  to  which  the  murder  of  William 
of  Orange  lent  at  the  moment  a  terrible  signifi- 
cance. The  detection  of  Somerville,  a  fanatic 
who  had  received  the  host  before  setting  out  for 
London  '  to  shoot  the  Queen  with  his  dagg,'  was 
followed  by  measures  of  natural  severity,  by  the 
flight  and  arrest  of  Catholic  gentry,  by  a  vigour- 
ous  purification  of  the  Inns  of  Court,  where  a 
few  Catholics  lingered,  and  by  the  dispatch  of 
fresh  batches  of  priests  to  the  block.  "The  trial 
and  death  of  Parry,  a  member  of  the  House  of 
Commons  who  had  served  in  the  Queen's  house- 
hold, on  a  similar  charge,  brought  the  Parlia- 


868 


ENGLAND,  1585-1587. 


Mary  Sttiart^ 
Queeii  of  Scots. 


ENGLAND,  1588, 


ment  together  in  a  transport  of  horror  and  loy- 
alty. All  Jesuits  and  seminary  priests  were 
banished  from  the  realm  on  pain  of  death.  A 
bill  for  the  security  of  the  Queen  disqualified 
any  claimant  of  the  succession  who  had  insti- 
gated subjects  to  rebellion  or  hurt  to  the  Queen's 
person  from  ever  succeeding  to  the  crown.  The 
threat  was  aimed  at  Mary  Stuart.  Weary  of 
her  long  restraint,  of  her  failure  to  rouse  Philip 
or  Scotland  to  aid  her,  of  the  baffled  revolt  of 
the  English  Catholics  and  the  baffled  intrigues 
of  the  Jesuits,  she  bent  for  a  moment  to  submis- 
sion. '  Let  me  go,'  she  wrote  to  Elizabeth ;  '  let 
me  retire  from  this  island  to  some  solitude  where 
I  may  prepare  my  soul  to  die.  Grant  this  and  I 
will  sign  away  every  right  which  either  I  or 
mine  can  claim.'  But  the  cry  was  useless,  and 
her  despair  found  a  new  and  more  terrible  hope 
in  the  plots  against  Elizabeth's  life.  She  knew 
and  approved  the  vow  of  Anthony  Babington 
and  a  band  of  young  Catholics,  for  the  most 
part  connected  with  the  royal  household,  to  kill 
the  Queen ;  but  plot  and  approval  alike  passed 
through  Walsingham's  hands,  and  the  seizure  of 
Mary's  correspondence  revealed  her  guilt.  In 
spite  of  her  protests,  a  commission  of  peers  sat 
as  her  judges  at  Fotheringay  Castle;  and  their 
verdict  of  '  guilty '  annihilated,  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  recent  statute,  her  claim  to  the 
crown.  The  streets  of  London  blazed  with  bon- 
fires, and  peals  rang  out  from  steeple  to  steeple, 
at  the  news  of  her  condemnation ;  but,  in  spite 
of  the  prayer  of  Parliament  for  her  execution, 
and  the  pressure  of  the  Council,  Elizabeth 
slirank  from  her  death.  The  force  of  public 
opinion,  however,  was  now  carrying  all  before 
it,  and  the  unanimous  demand  of  her  people 
wrested  at  last  a  sullen  consent  from  the  Queen. 
She  flung  the  warrant  signed  upon  the  floor,  and 
the  Council  took  on  themselves  the  responsibility 
of  executing  it.  Mary  died  [Feb.  8,  1587]  on  a 
scaffold  which  was  erected  in  the  castle  hall  at 
Fotheringay,  as  dauntlessly  as  she  had  lived. 
'Do  not  weep,' she  said  to  her  ladies,  'I  have 
given  my  word  for  you.'  'Tell  my  friends,'  she 
charged  Melville,  '  that  I  die  a  good  Catholic. '  " 
— J.  R.  Green,  Short  Hist,  of  the  Eng.  People,  cli. 
7,  sect.  6. — "  'Who  now  doubts,'  writes  an  elo- 
quent modern  writer,  '  that  it  would  have  been 
wiser  in  Elizabeth  to  spare  her  life?'  Rather, 
the  political  wisdom  of  a  critical  and  difficult  act 
has  never  in  the  world's  history  been  more  sig- 
nally justified.  It  cut  away  the  only  interest  on 
which  the  Scotch  and  English  Catholics  could 
possibly  have  combined.  It  determined  Philip 
upon  the  undisguised  pursuit  of  the  English 
throne,  and  it  enlisted  against  him  and  his  proj- 
ects the  passionate  patriotism  of  the  English 
nobiUty."— J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  1'2, 
ch.  34. 

Also  in  :  A.  De  Lamartine,  Mary  Stuart,  ch. 
31-34. — L.  S.  F.  Buckingham,  Memoirs  of  Mary 
Stuart,  D.  2,  ch.  5-6. —  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  bk.  3,  ch.  5. — J.  D.  Leader,  Mary  Queen  of 
Scots  ill  Captivity. — C.  Nau,  Hist,  of  Mary  Stu- 
art.— F.  A.  Mignet,  Hist,  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots, 
eh.  9-10. 

A.  D.  1587-1588.— The  wrath  of  Catholic 
Europe — Spanish  vengeance  and  ambition 
astir. —  "The  death  of  Mary  [Queen  of  Scots] 
may  have  preserved  England  from  the  religious 
struggle  which  would  have  ensued  upon  her  ac- 
cession to  the  throne,  but  it  delivered  Elizabeth 


from  only  one,  and  that  the  weakest  of  her  ene 
mies ;  and  it  exposed  her  to  a  charge  of  injustice 
and  cruelty,  which,  being  itself  well  founded, 
obtained  belief  for  any  other  accusation,  however 
extravagantly  false.  It  was  not  Philip  [of  Spain] 
alone  who  prepared  for  making  war  upon  her  with 
a  feeling  of  personal  hatred:  throughout  Rom- 
ish Chrtstendom  she  was  represented  as  a  monster 
of  iniquity ;  that  representation  was  assiduously 
set  forth,  "not  in  ephemeral  libels,  but  in  histories, 
in  dramas,  in  poems,  and  in  hawker's  pamphlets; 
and  when  the  king  of  Spain  equipped  an  arma- 
ment for  the  invasion  of  England,  volunteers  en- 
tered it  with  a  passionate  persuasion  that  they 
were  about  to  bear  a  part  in  a  holy  war  against 
the  wickedest  and  most  inhuman  of  tyrants.  The 
Pope  exhorted  Philip  to  engage  in  this  great  en- 
terprize  for  the  sake  of  the  Roman  Catholic  and 
apostolic  church,  which  could  not  be  more  effect- 
ually nor  more  meritoriously  extended  than  by 
the  conquest  of  England.  .  .  .  And  he  promised, 
as  soon  as  his  troops  should  have  set  foot  in  tlint 
island,  to  supply  him  with  a  million  of  crowns 
of  gold  towards  the  expenses  of  the  expedition. 
.  .  .  Such  exhortations  accorded  with  the  ambi- 
tion, the  passions,  and  the  rooted  principles  of 
the  king  of  Spain.  The  undertaking  was  re- 
solved."— R.  Southey,  Lives  of  the  British  Ad- 
mirals, V.  2,  p.  319. — "The  succours  which 
Elizabeth  had  from  time  to  time  afforded  to  the 
insurgents  of  the  Netherlands  was  not  the  only 
cause  of  Philip's  resentment  and  of  his  desire  for 
revenge.  She  had  fomented  the  disturbances  in 
Portugal,  .  .  .  and  her  captains,  among  whom 
Sir  Francis  Drake  was  the  most  active,  had^  for 
many  years  committed  unjustifiable  depredations 
on  the  Spanish  possessions  of  South  America, 
and  more  than  once  on  the  coasts  of  the  Penin- 
sula itself.  ,  .  .  By  Spanish  historians,  these 
hostilities  are  represented  as  unprovoked." — S. 
A.  Dunham,  Hist,  of  Sjiain  and  Portugal,  hk.  4, 
sect.  1,  ch.  1. — When  the  intentions  of  the  Span- 
iard were  known,  Drake's  activity  increased.  In 
the  spring  of  1587,  he  sailed  into  the  harbor  of 
Cadiz,  and  destroyed  50  or  60  ships,  which  is  said 
to  have  delayed  the  expedition  for  a  year.  This 
he  called  "singeing  the  king  of  Spain's  beard." 

Also  in:  J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  12, 
ch.  35. 

A.  D.  1588.— The  Spanish  Armada.— "Per- 
haps in  the  history  of  mankind  there  has  never 
been  a  vast  project  of  conquest  conceived  and 
matured  in  so  protracted  and  yet  so  desultory  a 
manner,  as  was  this  famous  Spanish  invasion. 
...  At  last,  on  the  28th,  29th  and  30th  May, 
1588,  the  fleet,  which  had  been  waiting  at  Lis- 
bon more  than  a  month  for  favourable  weather, 
set  sail  from  that  port,  after  having  been  duly 
blessed  by  the  Cardinal  Archduke  Albert,  vice- 
roy of  Portugal.  There  were  rather  more  than 
130  ships  in  all,  divided  into  10  squadrons.  .  .  . 
The  total  tonnage  of  the  fleet  was  59,120:  the 
number  of  guns  was  3,165.  Of  Spanish  troops 
there  were  19,295  on  board:  there  were  8,252 
sailors  and  2,088  galley-slaves.  Besides  these, 
there  was  a  force  of  noble  volunteers,  belonging 
to  the  most  illustrious  houses  of  Spain,  with 
their  attendants,  amounting  to  nearly  2,000  in 
all,  .  .  .  The  size  of  the  ships  ranged  from  1,200 
tons  to  300.  The  galleons,  of  which  there  were 
about  60.  were  huge  round-stemmed  clumsy  ves- 
sels, with  bulwarks  three  or  four  feet  thick,  and 
built  up  at  stem  and  stern,  like  castles.     The 


869 


ENGLAND,  1588. 


T}ie  Spanish 
Amiada. 


ENGLAND,  1588. 


galeasses  —  of  which  there  were  four — were  a 
third  larger  than  tlie  ordinary  galley,  and  were 
rowed  each  by  300  galley-slaves.  They  con- 
sisted of  an  enormous  towering  fortress  at  the 
stern,  a  castellated  structure  almost  equally  mas- 
sive in  front,  with  seats  for  the  rowers  amid- 
ships. At  stem  and  stern  and  between  each  of 
the  slaves'  benches  were  heavy  cannon.  These 
galeasses  were  floating  edifices,  very  wonderful 
to  contemplate.  They  were  gorgeously  deco- 
rated. There  were  splendid  state-apartments, 
cabins,  chapels,  and  pulpits  in  each,  and  they 
were  amply  provided  with  awnings,  cushions, 
streamers,  standards,  gilded  saints  and  bands  of 
music.  To  take  part  in  an  ostentatious  pageant, 
nothing  could  be  better  devised.  To  fulfil  the 
great  objects  of  a  war- vessel  —  to  sail  and  to 
fight  —  they  were  the  worst  machines  ever 
launched  upon  the  ocean.  The  four  galleys 
were  similar  to  the  galeasses  in  every  respect 
except  that  of  size,  in  which  they  were  by  one- 
third  inferior.  All  the  ships  of  the  fleet  —  gal- 
easses, galleys,  galleons,  and  hulks  —  were  so 
encumbered  with  top-hamper,  so  over-weighted 
In  proportion  to  their  draught  of  water,  that 
they  could  bear  but  little  canvas,  even  with 
smooth  seas  and  light  and  favourable  winds. 
.  .  .  Such  was  the  machinery  which  Philip  had 
at  last  set  afloat,  for  the  purpose  of  dethroning 
Elizabeth  and  establishing  the  Inquisition  in 
England.  One  hundred  and  forty  ships,  11,000 
Spanish  veterans,  as  many  more  recruits,  partly 
Spanish,  partly  Portuguese,  3,000  grandees,  as 
many  galley  slaves,  and  300  barefooted  friars 
and  inquisitors.  The  plan  was  simple.  Medina 
Sidonia  [the  captain-general  of  the  Armada]  was 
to  proceed  straight  from  Lisbon  to  Calais  roads: 
there  he  was  to  wait  for  the  Duke  of  Parma 
[Spanish  commander  in  the  Nethei'lands],  who 
was  to  come  forth  from  Newport,  Sluys,  and 
Dunkirk,  bringing  with  him  his  17,000  veter- 
ans, and  to  assume  the  chief  command  of  the 
whole  expedition.  They  were  then  to  cross  the 
channel  to  Dover,  land  the  army  of  Parma,  rein- 
forced with  6,000  Spaniards  from  the  fleet,  and 
with  these  23,000  men  Alexander  was  to  march 
at  once  upon  London.  Medina  Sidonia  was  to 
seize  and  fortify  the  Isle  of  Wight,  guard  the  en- 
trance of  the  harbours  against  any  interference 
from  the  Dutch  and  English  fleets,  and  —  so  soon 
as  the  conquest  of  England  had  been  effected  — 
he  was  to  proceed  to  Ireland.  ...  A  strange 
omission  had  however  been  made  in  the  plan 
from  first  to  last.  The  commander  of  the  whole 
expedition  was  the  Duke  of  Parma:  on  his  head 
was  the  whole  responsibility.  Not  a  gun  was  to 
be  fired  —  if  it  could  be  avoided  —  until  he  had 
come  forth  with  his  veterans  to  make  his  junc- 
tion with  the  Invincible  Armada  off  Calais.  Yet 
there  was  no  arrangement  whatever  to  enable 
him  to  come  forth  —  not  the  slightest  provision 
to  effect  that  junction.  .  .  .  Medina  could  not 
go  to  Farnese  [Alexander  Farnese,  Duke  of 
Parma],  nor  could  Farnese  come  to  Medina. 
The  junction  was  likely  to  be  diflicult,  and  yet 
it  had  never  once  entered  the  heads  of  Philip  or 
his  counsellors  to  provide  for  that  difficulty. 
.  .  .  With  as  much  sluggishness  as  might  have 
been  expected  from  their  clumsy  architecture, 
the  ships  of  the  Armada  consumed  nearly  three 
weeks  in  sailing  from  Lisbon  to  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Cape  Finisterre.  Here  they  were 
overtaken  by  a  tempest.  ...  Of  the  squadron 


of  galleys,  one  was  already  sunk  in  the  sea,  and 
two  of  the  others  had  been  conquered  by  their 
own  slaves.  The  fourth  rode  out  the  gale  with 
difficulty,  and  joined  the  rest  of  the  fleet,  which 
ultimately  reassembled  at  Coruna;  the  ships 
having,  in  distress,  put  in  first  at  Vivera,  Ri- 
badeo,  Qijon,  and  other  northern  ports  of  Spain. 
At  the  Groyne  —  as  the  English  of  that  day  were 
accustomed  to  call  Coruna  —  they  remained  a 
month,  repairing  damages  and  recruiting;  and 
on  the  22d  of  July  (N.  S.)  the  Armada  set  sail. 
Six  days  later,  the  Spaniards  took  soundings, 
thirty  leagues  from  the  Scilly  Islands,  and  on 
Friday,  the  29th  of  July,  off  the  Lizard,  they 
had  the  first  glimpse  of  the  land  of  jjromise  pre- 
sented them  by  Sixtus  V.  of  which  they  had  at 
last  come  to  take  possession.  On  the  same  day 
and  night  the  blaze  and  smoke  of  ten  thousand 
beacon-fires  from  the  Land's  End  to  Margate, 
and  from  the  Isle  of  Wight  to  Cumberland,  gave 
warning  to  every  Englishman  that  the  enemy 
was  at  last  upon  them." — J.  L.  Motley,  Hist,  of 
the  United  Netherlands,  ch.  19. 

Also  en:  J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  u.  12. 
ch.  36. — The  same.  The  Spanish  Story  of  the 
Armada. — R.  Southe)',  Lives  of  British  Admirals, 
V.  2,  pp.  327-334.— C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from 
Eng.  Hist.,  5th  series,  c.  27. 

A.  D.  1588.— The  Destruction  of  the  Ar- 
mada.— "The  great  number  of  the  English,  the 
whole  able-bodied  population  being  drilled, 
counterbalanced  the  advantage  possessed,  from 
their  universal  use  of  firearms,  by  the  invaders. 
In  all  the  towns  there  were  trained  bands  (a  civic 
militia) ;  and,  either  in  regular  service  or  as  vol- 
unteers, thousands  of  all  ranks  had  received  a 
military  training  ou  the  continent.  The  musters 
represented  100,000  men  as  ready  to  assemble  at 
their  head-quarters  at  a  day's  notice.  It  was,  as 
nearly  always,  in  its  military  administration  that 
the  vulnerable  point  of  England  lay.  The  fitting- 
out  and  victualling  of  the  navy  was  disgraceful ; 
and  it  is  scarcely  an  excuse  for  the  councillors 
that  they  were  powerless  against  the  parsimony 
of  the  Queen.  The  Government  maintained  its 
hereditary  character  from  the  days  of  Ethelred 
the  Unready,  and  the  arrangements  for  assembling 
the  defensive  forces  were  not  really  completed  by 
them  until  after  the  Armada  was  destroyed. 
The  defeat  of  the  invaders,  if  they  had  landed, 
must  have  been  accomplished  by  the  people. 
The  flame  of  patriotism  never  burnt  purer:  all 
Englishmen  alike,  Romanists,  Protestant  Episco- 
palians, and  Puritans,  were  banded  together  to 
resist  the  invader.  Every  hamlet  was  on  the 
alert  for  the  beacon-signal.  Some  15,000  men 
were  already  under  arms  in  London ;  the  compact 
Tilbury  Fort  was  full,  and  a  bridge  of  boats 
from  Tilbury  to  Gravesend  blocked  the  Thames. 
Philip's  preparations  had  been  commensurate 
with  the  grandeur  of  his  scheme.  The  dock- 
yards in  his  ports  in  the  Low  Countries,  the 
rivers,  the  canals,  and  the  harbours  of  Spain, 
Portugal,  Naples,  and  Italy,  echoed  the  clang  of 
the  shipwrights'  hammers.  A  vast  armament, 
named,  as  if  to  provoke  Nemesis,  the  '  Invincible 
Armada,'  on  which  for  three  years  the  treasures 
of  the  American  mines  had  been  lavished,  at 
length  rode  the  seas,  blessed  with  Papal  benedic- 
tions and  under  the  patronage  of  the  saints.  It 
comprised  63  huge  galleons,  of  from  700  to  1,300 
tons,  with  sides  of  enormous  thickness,  and  built 
high  like  castles;  four  great  galleys,  each  carry- 


870 


ENGLAND,  1588. 


The  Armada. 


ENGLAND,  1588. 


ing  50  guns  and  450  men,  and  rowed  by  300 
slaves;  56  armed  merchantmen,  and  30  pinnaces. 
These  129  vessels  vpere  armed  with  2,430  brass 
and  iron  guns  of  the  best  manufacture,  but  each 
gun  was  furnished  only  with  50  rounds.  They 
carried  5,000  seamen;  Parma's  army  amounted 
to  80,000  men — Spaniards,  Germans,  Italians  and 
Walloons;  and  19,000  Castiliansaud  Portuguese, 
with  1,000  gentlemen  volunteers,  were  coming  to 
join  him.  To  maintain  this  army  after  it  had 
effected  a  landing,  a  great  store  of  provi-sions  — 
sufficient  for  40,000  men  for  six  months  —  was 
placed  on  board.  The  overthrow  of  this  arma- 
ment was  effected  by  the  navy  and  the  elements. 
From  the  Queen's  parsimony  the  State  had  only 
36  ships  in  the  fleet ;  but  the  City  of  London  fur- 
nished 33  vessels ;  18  were  supplied  by  the  liber- 
ality of  private  individuals;  and  nearly  100 
smaller  ships  were  obtained  on  hire ;  so  that  the 
fleet  was  eventually  brought  up  to  nearly  30,000 
tons,  carrying  16,000  men,  and  equipped  with 
837  guns.  But  there  was  sufficient  ammunition 
for  only  a  single  day's  fighting.  Fortunately  for 
Elizabeth's  Government,  the  Spaniards,  having 
been  long  driven  from  the  channel  by  privateers, 
were  now  unacquainted  with  its  currents;  and 
they  could  procure,  as  the  Dutch  were  in  revolt, 
only  two  or  three  competent  pilots.  The  Spanish 
commander  was  the  Duke  of  Medina-Sidonia, 
an  incapable  man,  but  he  had  under  him  some  of 
the  ablest  of  Philip's  officers.  When  the  ships 
set  out  from  the  Tagus,  on  the  29th  May,  1588,  a 
storm  came  on,  and  the  Armada  had  to  put  into 
Coruna  to  refit.  From  that  port  the  Armada 
set  out  at  the  beginning  of  July,  in  lovely 
weather,  with  just  enough  wind  to  wave  from 
the  mastheads  the  red  crosses  which  they  bore  as 
symbols  of  their  crusade.  The  Duke  of  Medina 
entered  the  Channel  on  the  18th  July,  and  the 
rear  of  his  fleet  was  immediately  harassed  by  a 
cannonade  from  the  puny  ships  of  England,  com- 
manded by  Lord  Howard  of  Effingham  (Lord 
High  Admiral),  with  Drake,  Hawkins,  Frobisher, 
Winter,  Fenner,  and  other  famous  captains. 
With  the  loss  of  three  galleons  from  fire  or  board- 
ing, the  Spanish  commander,  who  was  making 
for  Flanders  to  embark  Parma's  army,  anchored 
in  Calais  roads.  In  the  night  fire-ships  —  an  an- 
cient mode  of  warfare  which  had  just  been  rein- 
troduced by  the  Dutch  —  passed  in  among  the 
Armada,  a  fierce  gale  completed  their  work,  and 
morning  revealed  the  remnant  of  the  Invincible 
Armada  scattered  along  the  coast  from  Calais  to 
Ostend.  Eighty  vessels  remained  to  Medina,  and 
with  these  he  sailed  up  the  North  Sea,  to  round 
the  British  Isles.  But  the  treacherous  currents 
of  the  Orkneys  and  the  Hebrides  were  unknown 
to  his  officers,  and  only  a  few  ships  escaped  the 
tempests  of  the  late  autumn.  Jlore  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  expedition  perished,  and  of  the 
remnant  that  again  viewed  the  hills  of  Spain  all 
but  a  few  hundreds  returned  only  to  die. " — H.  R. 
Clinton,  B'rom  Crecy  to  Assye,  ch.  7. — In  the  fight- 
ing on  the  23d  of  July,  "the  Spaniards'  shot 
flew  for  the  most  part  over  the  heads  of  the  Eng- 
lish, without  doing  execution.  Cock  being  the 
only  Englishman  that  died  bravely  in  the  midst 
of  his  enemies  in  a  ship  of  his  own.  The  reason 
of  this  was,  that  the  English  ships,  being  far 
less  than  the  enemy's,  made  the  attack  with  more 
quickness  and  agility ;  and  when  they  had  given 
a  broadside,  they  presently  sheered  off  to  a  con- 
venient distance,  and  levelled  their  shot  so  directly 


at  the  bigger  and  more  unwieldy  ships  of  the 
Spaniards,  as  seldom  to  miss  their  aim ;  though 
the  Lord  Admiral  did  not  think  it  safe  or  proper 
to  grapple  with  them,  as  some  advised,  with 
much  more  heat  than  discretion,  because  that  the 
enemy's  fleet  carried  a  considerable  army  within 
their  sides,  whereas  ours  had  no  such  advantage. 
Besides  their  ships  far  exceeded  ours  in  number 
and  bulk,  and  were  much  stronger  and  higher 
built ;  insomuch  that  their  men,  having  the  op- 
portunity to  ply  us  from  such  lofty  hatches, 
must  inevitabLjr  destroy  those  that  were  obliged, 
as  it  were,  to  fight  beneath  them.  .  .  .  On  the 
24th  day  of  the  month  there  was  a  cessation  on 
both  sides,  and  the  Lord  Admiral  sent  some  of 
his  smaller  vessels  to  the  nearest  of  the  English 
harbours,  to  fetch  a  supply  of  powder  and  am- 
munition; then  he  divided  the  fleet  into  four 
squadrons,  the  first  of  wliich  he  commanded 
himself,  the  second  he  committed  to  Drake,  the 
third  to  Hawkins,  and  the  fourth  to  Frobisher. 
He  likewise  singled  out  of  the  main  fleet  some 
smaller  vessels  to  begin  the  attack  on  all  sides  at 
once,  in  the  very  dead  of  the  night;  but  a  calm 
happening  spoiled  his  design."  On  the  26th 
"  the  Spanish  fleet  sailed  forward  with  a  fair  and 
soft  gale  at  southwest  and  by  south ;  and  the  Eng- 
lish chased  them  close  at  the  heels;  but  so  far 
was  this  Invincible  Armada  from  alarming  the 
sea-coasts  with  any  frightful  apprehensions,  that 
the  English  gentry  of  the  younger  sort  entered 
themselves  volunteers,  and  taking  leave  of  their 
parents,  wives,  and  children,  did,  with  incredible 
cheerfulness,  hire  ships  at  their  own  charge ;  and, 
in  pure  love  to  their  country,  joined  the  grand 
fleet  in  vast  numbers.  .  .  .  On  the  27th  of  this 
month  the  Spanish  Fleet  came  to  an  anchor  before 
Calais,  their  pilots  having  acquainted  them  that 
if  they  ventured  any  farther  there  was  some  dan- 
ger that  the  force  of  the  current  might  drive 
them  away  into  the  Northern  Channel.  Not  far 
from  them  came  likewise  the  English  Admiral  to 
an  anchor,  and  lay  within  shot  of  their  ships. 
The  English  fleet  consisted  by  this  time  of  140 
sail ;  all  of  them  ships  of  force,  and  very  tight 
and  nimble  sailors,  and  easily  manageable  upon 
a  tack.  But,  however,  the  main  brunt  of  the  en- 
gagement lay  not  upon  more  than  15  or  16  of 
them.  .  .  .  The  Lord  Admiral  got  ready  eight 
of  his  worst  ships  the  very  day  after  the  Span- 
iards came  to  an  anchor;  and  having  bestowed 
upon  them  a  good  plenty  of  pitch,  tar,  and  rosin, 
and  lined  them  well  with  brimstone  and  other 
combustible  matter,  they  sent  them  before  the 
wind,  in  the  dead  time  of  the  night,  under  the  con- 
duct of  Young  and  Prowse,  into  the  midst  of  the 
Spanish  fleet.  .  .  .  The  Sjianiards  reported  that 
the  duke,  upon  the  approach  of  the  fire-ships, 
ordered  the  whole  fleet  to  weigh  anchor  and  stand 
to  sea.  but  that  when  the  danger  was  over  every 
ship  should  return  to  her  station.  This  is  what 
he  did  himself,  and  he  likewise  discharged  a  great 
gun  as  a  signal  to  the  rest  to  do  as  he  did ;  the 
report,  however,  was  heard  but  by  very  few,  by 
reason  their  fears  had  dispersed  them  at  that  rate 
that  some  of  them  ventured  out  of  the  main 
ocean,  and  others  sailed  up  the  shallows  of  Flan- 
ders. In  the  meantime  Drake  and  Fenner  played 
briskly  with  their  cannon  upon  the  Spanish  fleet, 
as  it  was  rendezvousing  over  against  Graveling. 
...  On  the  last  day  of  the  month  the  wind  blew 
hard  at  north-west  early  in  the  morning,  and  the 
Spanish  fleet  attempting  to  get  back  again  to  the 


871 


ENGLAND,  1588. 


James  I. 


ENGLAND,  1604. 


Straits  of  Calais,  was  driven  toward  Zealand. 
The  English  then  gave  over  the  chase,  because, 
in  the  Spaniards'  opinion,  they  perceived  them 
making  haste  enough  to  their  own  destruction. 
For  the  wind,  lying  at  the  W.  N.  W.  point,  could 
not  choose  but  force  them  on  the  shoals  and  sands 
on  the  coast  of  Zealand.  But  the  wind  happening 
to  come  about  in  a  little  time  to  S.  W.  and  by 
W.  they  went  before  tlie  wind.  .  .  .  Being  now, 
therefore,  clear  of  danger  in  the  main  ocean,  they 
steered  northward,  and  the  English  fleet  renewed 
the  chase  after  them.  .  .  .  The  Spaniards  having 
now  laid  aside  all  the  thoughts  and  hopes  of  re- 
turning to  attempt  the  English,  and  perceiving 
their  main  safety  lay  in  their  flight,  made  no 
stay  or  stop  at  any  port  whatever.  And  thus 
this  mighty  armada,  which  had  been  three  whole 
years  fitting  out,  and  at  a  vast  expense,  met  in 
one  month's  time  with  several  attacks,  and  was 
at  last  routed,  with  a  vast  slaughter  on  their  side, 
and  but  a  very  few  of  the  English  missing,  and 
not  one  ship  lost,  except  tliat  small  vessel  of 
Cock's.  .  .  .  When,  therefore,  the  Spanish  fleet 
had  taken  a  large  compass  round  Britain,  by  the 
coasts  of  Scotland,  the  Orcades,  and  Ireland,  and 
had  weathered  many  storms,  and  suffered  as 
many  wrecks  and  blows,  and  all  the  inconven- 
iences of  war  and  weather,  it  made  a  shift  to  get 
home  again,  laden  with  nothing  but  shame  and 
dishonour.  .  .  .  Certain  it  is  that  several  of  their 
ships  perished  in  their  flight,  being  cast  away 
on  the  coasts  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  that 
above  700  soldiers  were  cast  on  shore  in  Scotland. 
...  As  for  those  who  had  the  ill  fortune  to  be 
drove  upon  the  Irish  shore,  they  met  with  the 
most  barbarous  treatment ;  for  some  of  them  were 
butchered  by  the  wild  Irish,  and  the  rest  put  to 
the  sword  by  the  Lord  Deputy." — W.  Camden, 
Hist,  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

Also  in  ;  8.  R.  Gardiner,  Bist.  Biographies : 
Drake. — E.  S.  Creasy,  Fifteen  Decisive  Battles, 
eh.  10.— C.  Kingsley,  Westward  Ho!  ch.  31.— R. 
Hakluyt,  Principal  Navigations,  &e.  (E.  Oold- 
S77iid's  ed.),  v.  7. 

A.  D.  1596. — Alliance  with  Henry  IV.  of 
France  against  Spain.  See  France;  A.  D. 
1593-1598. 

A.  D.  1596. — Dutch  and  English  expedition 
against  Cadiz.     See  Spain:  A.  D.  1596. 

i6th  Century.^Commercial  Progress. — Be- 
ginnings of  the  East  India  Company.  See 
Trade,  Modern;  Hansa  Towns;  and  India  : 
A.  D.  1600-1702. 

A.  D.  1601. — The  first  Poor  Law.  See  Poor 
Laws,  The  English. 

A.  D.  1603. — Accession  of  King  James  I. — 
The  Stuart  family. — On  the  death  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  in  1603,  James  VI.  of  Scotland  became 
also  the  accepted  king  of  England  (under  the 
title  of  James  I.),  by  virtue  of  his  descent  from 
that  daughter  of  Henry  VII.  and  sister  of  Henry 
VIII.,  Margaret  Tudor,  who  married  James  IV. 
king  of  Scots.  His  grandfather  was  James  V. ; 
his  mother  was  Marie  Stuart,  or  Mary,  Queen  of 
Scots,  born  of  her  marriage  with  Lord  Darnley. 
He  was  the  ninth  in  the  line  of  the  Scottish 
dynasty  of  the  Stuarts,  or  Stewarts,  for  an  ac- 
count of  the  origin  of  which  see  Scotland: 
A.  D.  1370.  He  had  been  carefully  alienated 
from  the  religion  of  his  mother  and  reared  in 
Protestantism,  to  make  him  an  acceptable  heir  to 
the  English  throne.  He  came  to  it  at  a  time 
when  the  autocratic  spirit  of  the  Tudors,  making 


use  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  their  time, 
had  raised  the  royal  power  and  prerogative  to 
their  most  exalted  pitch ;  and  he  united  the  two 
kingdoms  of  Scotland  and  England  under  one 
sovereignty.  "The  noble  inheritance  fell  to  a 
race  who,  comprehending  not  one  of  the  con- 
ditions by  which  alone  it  was  possible  to  be  re- 
tained, profligately  misused  until  they  lost  it 
utterly.  The  calamity  was  in  no  respect  fore- 
seen by  the  statesman,  Cecil,  to  whose  exertion 
it  was  mainly  due  that  James  was  seated  on  the 
throne:  yet  in  regard  to  it  he  cannot  be  held 
blameless.  He  was  doubtless  right  in  the  course 
he  took,  in  so  far  as  he  thereby  satisfied  a  national 
desire,  and  brought  under  one  crown  two  king- 
doms that  with  advantage  to  either  could  not 
separately  exist;  but  it  remains  a  reproach  to  his 
name  that  he  let  slip  the  occasion  of  obtaining 
for  the  people  some  ascertained  and  settled  guar- 
antees which  could  not  then  have  been  refused, 
and  which  might  have  saved  half  a  century  of 
bloodshed.  None  such  were  proposed  to  James. 
He  was  allowed  to  seize  a  prerogative,  which  for 
upwards  of  fifty  years  had  been  strained  to  a 
higher  pitch  than  at  any  previous  period  of  the 
English  history ;  and  his  clumsy  grasp  closed  on 
it  without  a  sign  of  question  or  remonstrance 
from  the  leading  statesmen  of  England.  '  Do  I 
mak  the  judges?  Do  I  mak  the  bishops?'  he 
exclaimed,  as  the  powers  of  his  new  dominion 
dawned  on  his  delighted  sense:  'Then,  God's 
waunsi  I  mak  what  likes  me,  law  and  gospel ! ' 
It  was  even  so.  And  this  license  to  make  gospel 
and  law  was  given,  with  other  far  more  question- 
able powers,  to  a  man  whose  personal  appearance 
and  qualities  were  as  suggestive  of  contempt, 
as  his  public  acts  were  provocative  of  rebellion. 
It  is  necessary  to  dwell  upon  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject; for  it  is  only  just  to  his  not  more  culpable 
but  far  less  fortunate  successor  to  say,  that  in  it 
lies  the  source  and  explanation  of  not  a  little  for 
which  the  penalty  was  paid  by  him.  What  is 
called  the  Great  Rebellion  can  have  no  comment 
so  pregnant  as  that  which  is  suggested  by  the 
character  and  previous  career  of  the  first  of  the 
Stuart  kings. " — J.  Forster,  Hist.  andBiog.  Essays, 
p.  227. 

A.  D.  1604.  —  The  Hampton  Court  Con- 
ference.— James  I.  "  was  not  long  seated  on  the 
English  throne,  when  a  conference  was  held  at 
Hampton  Court,  to  hear  the  complaints  of  the 
puritans,  as  those  good  men  were  called  who 
scrupled  to  conform  to  the  ceremonies,  and 
sought  a  reformation  of  the  abuses  of  the  church 
of  England.  On  this  occasion,  surrounded  with 
his  deans,  bishops,  and  archbishops,  who  breathed 
into  his  ears  the  music  of  flattery,  and  worshipped 
him  as  an  oracle,  James,  like  king  Solomon, 
to  whom  he  was  fond  of  being  compared,  ap- 
peared in  all  his  glory,  giving  his  judgment  on 
every  question,  and  displaying  before  the  aston- 
ished prelates,  who  kneeled  every  time  they  ad- 
dressed him,  his  polemic  powers  and  theological 
learning.  Contrasting  his  present  honours  with 
the  scenes  from  which  he  had  just  escaped  in  his 
native  country,  he  began  by  congratulating  him- 
self that,  '  by  tlie  blessing  of  Providence,  he  was 
brought  into  the  promised  land,  where  religion 
was  professed  in  its  purity ;  where  he  sat  among 
grave,  learned,  and  reverend  men ;  and  that  now 
he  was  not,  as  formerly,  a  king  without  state 
and  honour,  nor  in  a  place  where  order  was  ban- 
ished, and  beardless  boys  would  brave  him  to  his 


872 


ENGLAND,  1604. 


The  Ounpowder 
Plot. 


ENGLAND,   1606. 


face. '    After  long  conferences,  during  ■which  the 
Icing  gave  the  most  extraordinary  exhibitions  of 
his  learning,  drollery,  and   profaneness,  he  was 
completely  thrown  off  his  guard  by  the  word 
presbytery,  which  Dr.  Reynolds,  a  representative 
of  the  puritans,  had  unfortunately  employed. 
Thinking  that  he  aimed  at  a  '  Scotch  presbytery,' 
James  rose  into  a  towering  passion,  declaring  that 
presbytery  agreed  as  well  with  monarchy  as  God 
and  the  devil.     '  Then,'  said  he,  '  Jack  and  Tom, 
and  Will  and  Dick,  shall  meet,  and  at  their  pleas- 
ures censure   me  and  my  council,  and  all   our 
proceedings.     Then  Will  shall  stand  up  and  say, 
It  must  be  thus :    Then  Dick  shall  reply,  and  say, 
Nay   marry,  but   we   will  have  it  thus.     And, 
therefore,  here  I  must  once  reiterate  my  former 
speech,  Le  Roy  s'avisera  (the  king  will  look  after 
it)      Stay,  I  pray  you,  for  one  seven  years  before 
you  demand  that  of  me ;  and  if  you  then  find  me 
pursy  and  fat,  and  my  wind-pipes  stuffed,  I  will 
perhaps  hearken  to  you ;  for  let  that  government 
be  once  up,  I  am  sure  I  shall  be  kept  in  breath ; 
then  we  shall  all  of  us  have  work  enough,  both 
our  hands  full.     But,  Dr.  Reynolds,  till  you  find 
that  I  grow  lazy,  let  that  alone.'     Then,  puttmg 
his  hand  to  his  hat,  'My  lords  the  bishops,'  said 
his  majesty,  '  I  may  thank  you  that  these  mep 
plead  for  my  supremacy  ;  they  think  they  can  t 
make  their  party  good  against  you,  but  by  ap- 
pealing unto  it.     But  if  once  you  are  out,  and 
they  in  place,  I  know  what  would  become  of  my 
supremacy ;  for  no  bishop,  no  king,  as  I  said  be- 
fore '     Then  rising  from  his  chair,  he  concluded 
the  conference  with,  '  If  this  be  all  they  have  to 
say,  I'll  make  them  conform,  or  I'll  harry  them 
out  of  this  land,  or  else  do  worse.'    The  English 
lords  and  prelates  were  so  filled  with  admiration 
at  the  quickness  of  apprehension  and  dexterity 
in  controversy  shown  by  the  king,  that,  as  Dr. 
Barlow  infonns  us,  '  one  of  them  said  his  majesty 
spoke  by  the  instinct  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and 
the  lord  chancellor,  as  he  went  out,  said  to  the 
dean  of  Chester,  I  have  often  heard  that  Rex  est 
mixta  persona  cum   sacerdote   (that   a  king   is 
partly  a  priest),  but  I  never  saw  the  truth  thereof 
till  this  day ! '     In  these  circumstances,  buoyed 
up  with  flattery  by  his  English  clergy,  and  placed 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  faithful  admonitions  of 
the  Scottish  ministry,  we  need  not  wonder  to  find 
James  prosecuting,  with  redoubled  ardour,  his 
scheme  of  reducing   the  church  of  Scotland  to 
the  English  model."— T.  McCrie,  Sketches  of  Scot- 
tish Church  Hist. ,  ch.  5. 

Also  in  :  S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  First  Two  Stuarts 
and  the  Puritan  Revolution,  ch.  1,  sect.  3. — G.  G. 
Perry,  Hist,  of  the  Ch.  of  Eng.,  v.  1,  ck.  2.— T. 
Fuller,  Church  Hist,  of  Britain,  bk.  10,  sect.  1 
(d.  3). 

A.  D.  1605.— The  Gunpowder  Plot.— "The 
Roman  Catholics  had  expected  great  favour  and 
indulgence  on  the  accession  of  James,  both  as  he 
was  descended  from  Mary,  whose  life  they  be- 
lieved to  have  been  sacrificed  to  their  cause,  and 
as  he  himself,  in  his  early  youth,  was  imagined 
to  have  shown  some  partiality  towards  them. 
Very  soon  they  discovered  their  mistake; 
and  were  at  once  surprised  and  enraged  to  find 
James,  on  all  occasions,  express  his  intention  of 
strictly  executing  the  laws  enacted  against  them, 
and  of  persevering  in  all  the  rigorous  measures  of 
Elizabeth.  Catesby,  a  gentleman  of  good  parts 
and  of  an  ancient  family,  first  thought  of  a  most 
extraordinary  method  of  revenge ;  and  he  opened 


his  intention  to  Piercy,  a  descendant  of  the  illus- 
trious house  of  Northumberland.     In  vain,  said 
he,  would  you  put  an  end  to  the  king's  life ;  he 
has  children.  ...  To  serve  any  good  purpose, 
we  must  destroy,  at  one  blow,  the  king,   the 
royal  family,  the  Lords,  the  Commons,  and  bury 
all  our  enemies  in  one  common  ruin.     Happily, 
they  are  all  assembled  on  the  first  meeting  of 
Parliament,    and   afford   us  the  opportunity   of 
glorious  and  useful  vengeance.     Great  prepara- 
tions will  not  be  requisite.     A  few  of  us,  com- 
bining, may  run  a  mine  below  the  hall  in  which 
they  meet,  and  choosing  the  very  moment  when 
the  king  harangues  both  Houses,  consign  over 
to  destruction  these  determined  foes  to  all  piety 
and  religion.  .  .  .  Piercy  was  charmed  with  this 
project  of  Catesby ;  and  they  agreed  to  commu- 
nicate the  matter  to  a  few  more,  and  among  the 
rest  to  Thomas  Winter,  whom  they  sent  over  to 
Flanders,  in  quest  of  Fawkes,  an  officer  in  the 
Spanish  service,  with  whose  zeal  and  courage 
they  were  all  thoroughly  acquainted.  ...  All 
this  passed  In  the  spring  and  summer  of  the  year 
160-1;  when  the  conspirators  also  hired  a  house 
in  Piercy 's  name,  adjoining  to  that  in  which  the 
Parliament  was  to  assemble.     Towards  the  end 
of  that  year  they  began  their  operations.  .  .  . 
They  soon  pierced  the  wall,  though  three  yards 
in  thickness ;  but  on  approaching  the  other  side 
they  were  somewhat  startled  at  hearing  a  noise 
which  they  knew  not  how  to  account  for.     Upon 
inquiry,  they  found  that  it  came  from  the  vault 
below  the  House  of  Lords;  that  a  magazine  of 
coals  had  been  kept  there ;  and  that,  as  the  coals 
were  selling  off,  the  vault  would  be  let  to  the 
highest  bidder.     The  opportunity  was  immedi- 
ately seized ;  the  place  hired  by  Piercy ;  thirty- 
six   barrels  of  powder  lodged  in  it;  the  whole 
covered  up  with  faggots  and  billets ;  the  doors  of 
the  cellar  boldly  flung  open,  and  everybody  ad- 
mitted, as  if  it  contained  nothing  dangerous.  .  .  . 
The  day  [November  5,  16051,  so  long  wished  for, 
now  approached,  on  which  the  Parliament  was 
appointed   to   assemble.      The  dreadful   secret, 
though  communicated  to  above  twenty  persons, 
had  been  religiously  kept,  during  the  space  of 
near  a  year  and  a  half.     No  remorse,  no  pity,  no 
fear  of  punishment,  no  hope  of  reward,  had  as 
yet  induced  any  one  conspirator,  either  to  aban- 
don the  enterprise  or  make  a  discovery  of  it." 
But  the  betrayal  was  unwittingly  made,  after 
all,  by  one  in  the  plot,  who  tried  to  deter  Lord 
IVIonteagle  from  attending  the  opening  session  of 
Parliament,  by  sending  him  a  mysterious  mes- 
sage of  warning.     Lord  Monteagle  showed  the 
letter  to  Lord  Salisbury,  secretary  of  state,  who 
attached  little  importance  to  it,  but  who  laid  it 
before  the  king.     The  Scottish  Solomon  read  it 
with  more  anxiety  and  was  shrewdly   led  by 
some  expressions  in  the  missive  to  order  an  in- 
spection of   the   vaults  underneath  the  parlia- 
mentary houses.     The  gunpowder  was  discov- 
ered and  Guy  Fawkes  was  found  in  the  place, 
with  matches  for  the  firing  of  it  on  his  person. 
Being  put  to  the  rack  he  disclosed  the  names  of 
his  accomplices.      They  were  seized,  tried  and 
executed,  or  killed   while  resisting  arrest.- D. 
Hume,  Hist,  if  Eng.,  v.  4,  ch.  46. 

Also  m:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  6, 
(i)   1).— J.  Lingard,  HiM.  of  Eng.,  v.  9.  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1606.— The  chartering  of  the  Virginia 
Company,  with  its  London  and  Plymouth 
branches.     See  ViBomLi.:  A.  D.  1606-1607. 


873 


ENGLAND,  1620. 


Charles  I. 


ENGLAND,  1635-1628. 


A.  D.  1620. — The  Monopoly  granted  to  the 
Council  for  New  England.  See  New  Eng- 
land: A.  D.  1620-1623. 

A.  D.  1620. — The  exodus  of  the  Pilgrims 
and  the  planting  of  their  colony  at  New  Ply- 
mouth. See  Massachusetts  (Plymouth  Col- 
ony): A.  D.   1620. 

A.  D.  1621. — Grant  of  Nova  Scotia.  See 
New  England  :  A.  D.  1021-l(i31. 

A.  D.  1622. — First  printed  newspaper.  See 
Printing  and  Phess  :  A.  D.  1622-1703. 

A.  D.  1623-1638. — The  grants  in  Newfound- 
land to  Baltimore  and  Kirke.  See  Newpound- 
lan-d:  a.  D.  1610-lG5."x 

A.  D.  1625. — The  Protestant  Alliance  in  the 
Thirty  Years  War.  See  Germany  :  A.  D.  1634- 
1626. 

A.  D.  1625. — The  gains  of  Parliament  in  the 
reign  of  James  I. — "The  commons  had  now 
been  engaged  [at  the  end  of  the  reign  of  James 
I.],  for  more  than  twenty  years,  in  a  struggle  to 
restore  and  to  fortify  their  own  and  their  fellow 
subjects'  liberties.  They  had  obtained  in  this 
period  but  one  legislative  measure  of  importance, 
the  late  declaratory  act  against  monopolies.  But 
they  had  rescued  from  disuse  their  ancient  right 
of  impeachment.  They  had  placed  on  record  a 
protestation  of  their  claim  to  debate  all  matters 
of  public  concern.  They  had  remonstrated 
against  the  usurped  prerogatives  of  binding  the 
subject  by  proclamation,  and  of  levying  customs 
at  the  out-ports.  They  had  secured  beyond  con- 
troversy their  exclusive  iirivilege  of  determining 
contested  elections  of  their  members.  They  had 
maintained,  and  carried  indeed  to  an  unwarrant- 
able extent,  their  power  of  judging  and  inflict- 
ing punishment,  even  for  offences  not  committed 
against  their  house.  Of  these  advantages  some 
were  evidently  incomplete ;  and  it  would  require 
the  most  vigorous  exertions  of  future  parliaments 
to  realize  them.  But  sucii  exertions  the  increased 
energy  of  the  nation  gave  abundant  cause  to  an- 
ticipate. A  deep  and  lasting  love  of  freedom 
had  taken  hold  of  every  class  except  perhaps  the 
clergy ;  from  which,  when  viewed  together  with 
the  rash  pride  of  the  court,  and  the  uncertainty 
of  constitutional  principles  and  precedents,  col- 
lected through  our  long  and  various  history,  a 
calm  by-stander  might  presage  that  the  ensuing 
reign  would  not  pass  without  disturbance,  nor 
perhaps  end  without  confusion." — H.  Hallam, 
Constitiitionitl  Hist,  of  England,  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1625.— Marriage  of  Charles  with 
Henrietta  Maria  of  France.  See  France: 
A,  D.  1624-1626. 

A.  D.  1625-1628.— The  accession  of  Charles 
I. — Beginning  of  the  struggle  of  King  and 
Parliament. — "  The  political  and  religious  schism 
which  had  originated  in  the  16th  century  was, 
during  the  first  quarter  of  the  17th  century,  con- 
stantly widening.  Theories  tending  to  Turkish 
despotism  were  in  fashion  at  Whitehall.  Theories 
tending  to  republicanism  were  in  favour  with  a 
large  portion  of  the  House  of  Commons.  .  .  . 
While  the  minds  of  men  were  in  this  state,  the 
country,  after  a  peace  of  many  years,  at  length 
engaged  in  a  war  [with  Spain,  and  with  Austria 
and  the  Emperor  in  the  Palatinate]  which  re- 
quired strenuous  exertions.  This  war  hastened 
the  approach  of  the  great  constitutional  crisis. 
It  was  necessary  that  the  king  should  have  a 
large  military  force.  He  could  not  have  such  a 
force  without  money.     He  could  not  legally  raise 


money  without  the  consent  of  Parliament.  It 
followed,  therefore,  that  he  either  must  admin- 
ister the  government  in  conformity  with  the  sense 
of  the  House  of  Commons,  or  must  venture  on 
such  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the 
land  as  had  been  unknown  during  several  cen- 
turies. .  .  .  Just  at  this  conjuncture  James  died 
[March  37,  1635].  Charles  L  succeeded  to  the 
throne.  He  had  received  from  nature  a  far  bet- 
ter understanding,  a  far  stronger  will,  and  a  far 
keener  and  firmer  temper  than  his  father's.  He 
had  inherited  his  father's  political  theories,  and 
was  much  more  disposed  than  his  father  to  carry 
them  into  practice.  .  .  .  His  taste  in  literature 
and  art  was  excellent,  his  manner  dignified  though 
not  gracious,  his  domestic  life  without  blemish. 
Faithlessness  was  the  chief  cause  of  his  disasters, 
and  is  the  chief  stain  on  his  memory.  He  was, 
in  truth,  impelled  by  an  incurable  propensity  to 
dark  and  crooked  ways.  ...  He  seems  to  have 
learned  from  the  theologians  whom  he  most 
esteemed  that  between  him  and  his  subjects 
there  could  be  nothing  of  the  nature  of  mutual 
contract;  that  he  could  not,  even  if  he  would, 
divest  himself  of  his  despotic  authority ;  and  that, 
in  every  promise  which  he  made,  there  was  an 
implied  reservation  that  such  promise  might  be 
broken  in  case  of  neces.sity,  and  that  of  the  ne- 
cessity he  was  the  sole  judge.  And  now  began 
that  hazardous  game  on  which  were  staked  the 
destinies  of  the  English  people.  It  was  played 
on  the  side  of  the  House  of  Commons  with  keen- 
ness, but  with  admirable  dexterity,  coolness  and 
perseverance.  Great  statesmen  who  looked  far 
behind  them  and  far  before  them  were  at  the 
head  of  that  assembly.  They  were  resolved  to 
place  the  king  in  such  a  situation  that  he  must 
either  conduct  the  administration  in  conformity 
with  the  wishes  of  his  Parliament,  or  make  out- 
rageous attacks  on  the  most  sacred  principles  of 
the  constitution.  They  accordingly  doled  out 
supplies  to  him  very  sparingly.  He  found  that 
he  must  govern  either  in  harmony  with  the 
House  of  Commons,  or  in  defiance  of  all  law. 
His  choice  was  soon  made.  He  dissolved  his 
first  Parliament,  and  levied  taxes  by  his  own  au- 
thority. He  convoked  a  second  Parliament  [1626] 
and  found  it  more  intractable  than  the  first.  He 
again  resorted  to  the  expedient  of  dissolution, 
raised  fresh  taxes  without  any  show  of  legal 
right,  and  threw  the  chiefs  of  the  opposition  into 
prison.  At  the  same  time  a  new  grievance,  which 
the  peculiar  feelings  and  habits  of  the  English 
nation  made  insupportably  painful,  and  which 
seemed  to  all  discerning  men  to  be  of  fearful 
augury,  excited  general  discontent  and  alarm. 
Companies  of  soldiers  were  billeted  on  the  people ; 
and  martial  law  was,  in  some  places,  substituted 
for  the  ancient  jurisprudence  of  the  realm.  The 
king  called  a  third  Parliament  [1638],  and  soon 
perceived  that  the  opposition  was  stronger  and 
fiercer  than  ever.  He  now  determined  on  a 
change  of  tactics.  Instead  of  opposing  an  in- 
flexible resistance  to  the  demands  of  the  commons, 
he,  after  much  altercation  and  many  evasions, 
agreed  to  a  compromise  which,  if  he  had  faith- 
fully adhered  to  it,  would  have  averted  a  long 
series  of  calamities.  The  Parliament  granted  an 
ample  supply.  The  King  ratified,  in  the  most 
solemn  manner,  that  celebrated  law  which  is 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Petition  of  Right,  and 
which  is  the  second  Great  Charter  of  the  liberties 
of  England." — Lord  Macaulay,  Hist.  ofEng.,  ch.  1. 


874 


ENGLAND,  1625-1628. 


Petition  of  Right. 


ENGLAND,  1628. 


Also  in:  J.  R.  Green.  Hist.  oftTie  Eng.  People, 
Ik.  7,  ch.  5  {v.  3).— F.  P.  Guizot,  Hist.  oftJwEng. 
Revolution,  bk.  1. 

A.  D.  1627-1628.— Buckingham's  war  with 
France  and  expedition  to  La  Rochelle.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1627-1628. 

A.  D.  1628.— The  Petition  of  Right.— 
"Charles  had  recourse  to  many  subterfuges  in 
hopes  to  elude  the  passing  of  this  law;  rather 
perhaps  through  wounded  pride,  as  we  may 
judge  from  his  subsequent  conduct,  than  much 
apprehension  that  it  would  create  a  serious  im- 
pediment to  his  despotic  schemes.  He  tried  to 
persuade  them  to  acquiesce  in  his  royal  promise 
not  to  arrest  any  one  without  just  cause,  or  in  a 
simple  confirmation  of  the  Great  Charter  and 
other  statutes  in  favour  of  liberty.  The  peers, 
too  pliant  in  this  instance  to  his  wishes,  and  half 
receding  from  the  patriot  banner  they  had  lately 
joined,  lent  him  their  aid  by  proposing  amend- 
ments (insidious  in  those  who  suggested  them, 
though  not  in  the  body  of  the  house)  which  the 
commons  firmly  rejected.  Even  when  tlie  bill 
was  tendered  to  him  for  that  assent  which  it  had 
been  necessary,  for  the  last  two  centuries,  that 
the  king  should  grant  or  refuse  in  a  word,  he  re- 
turned a  long  and  equivocal  answer,  from  which 
it  could  only  be  collected  that  he  did  not  intend 
to  remit  any  portion  of  what  he  had  claimed  as 
his  prerogative.  But  on  an  address  from  both 
houses  for  a  more  explicit  answer,  he  thought  fit 
to  consent  to  the  bill  in  the  usual  form.  The 
commons,  of  whose  harshness  towards  Charles 
his  advocates  have  said  so  much,  immediately 
passed  a  bill  for  granting  five  subsidies,  about 
£350,000;  a  sum  not  too  great  for  the  wealth  of 
the  kingdom  or  for  his  exigencies,  but  consider- 
able according  to  the  precedents  of  fonner  times, 
to  which  men  naturally  look.  .  .  .  The  Petition 
of  Right,  .  .  .  this  statute  Is  still  called,  from 
its  not  being  drawn  in  the  common  form  of  an 
act  of  parliament. "  Although  the  king  had  been 
defeated  in  his  attempt  to  qualify  his  assent  to 
the  Petition  of  Right,  and  had  been  forced  to 
accede  to  it  unequivocally,  yet  "he  had  the 
absurd  and  audacious  insincerity  (for  we  can  use 
no  milder  epithets),  to  circulate  1,500  copies  of  it 
through  the  country,  after  the  prorogation,  with 
his  first  answer  annexed ;  an  attempt  to  deceive 
without  the  possibility  of  success.  But  instances 
of  such  ill-faith,  accumulated  as  they  are  through 
the  life  of  Charles,  render  the  assertion  of  his 
sincerity  a  proof  either  of  historical  ignorance  or 
of  a  want  of  moral  delicacy.  "^H.  Hallam,  Const. 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  1,  ch.  7. — The  following  is  the 
text  of  the  Petition  of  Right:  "To  the  King's 
Most  Excellent  Majesty.  Humbly  show  unto 
our  Sovereign  Lord  the  King,  the  Lords  Spiritual 
and  Temporal,  and  Commons  in  Parliament  as- 
sembled, that  whereas  it  is  declared  and  enacted 
by  a  statute  made  in  the  time  of  the  reigu  of 
King  Edward  the  First,  commonly  called,  '  Statu- 
tum  de  Tallagio  non  concedendo,'  that  no  tallage 
or  aid  shall  be  laid  or  levied  by  the  King  or  his 
heirs  in  this  realm,  without  the  goodwill  and 
assent  of  the  Archbishops,  Bishops,  Earls,  Barons, 
Knights,  Burgesses,  and  other  the  freemen  of  the 
commonalty  of  this  realm :  and  by  authority  of 
Parliament"  holden  in  the  five  and  twentieth  year 
of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Third,  it  is  de- 
clared and  enacted,  that  from  thenceforth  no  per- 
son shall  be  compelled  to  make  any  loans  to  the 
King  against  his  will,  because  such  loans  were 


against  reason  and  the  franchise  of  the  land ;  and 
by  other  laws  of  this  realm  it  is  provided,  that 
none  should  be  charged  by  any  charge  or  impo- 
sition,   called   a  Benevolence,  or  by  such  like 
charge,  by  which  the  statutes  before-mentioned, 
and  other  the  good  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm, 
your  subjects  have  inherited  this  freedom,  that 
they  should  not  be  compelled  to  contribute  to  any 
tax,  tallage,  aid,  or  other  like  charge,  not  set  by 
common  consent  in  Parliament :  Yet  nevertheless, 
of  late  divers  commissions  directed  to  sundry 
Commissioners  in  several  counties  with  instruc- 
tions have  issued,  by  means  whereof  your  people 
have  been  in  divers  places  assembled,  and  re- 
quired to  lend  certain  sums  of  money  unto  your 
Majesty,  and  many  of  them  upon  their  refusal  so 
to  do,  have  had  an  oath  administered  unto  them, 
not  warrantable  by  the  laws  or  statutes  of  this 
realm,    and   have   been   constrained   to    become 
bound  to  make  appearance  and  give  attendance 
before  your  Privy  Council,  and  in  other  places, 
and  others  of  them  have  been  therefore  imprisoned, 
confined,  and  sundry  other  ways  molested  and 
disquieted :  and  divers  other  charges  have  been 
laid  and    levied  upon  your  people   in  several 
counties,  by  Lords  Lieutenants,  Deputy   Lieu- 
tenants, Commissioners  for  Musters,  Justices  of 
Peace  and  others,  by  command  or  direction  from 
your  Majesty  or  your  Privy  Council,  against  the 
laws  and  free  customs  of  this  realm :  And  where 
also  by  the  statute  called,  '  The  Great  Charter  of 
the  Liberties  of  England,'  it  is  declared  and  en- 
acted, that  no  freeman  may  be  taken  or  impris- 
oned or  be  disseised  of  his  freeholds  or  liberties, 
or  his  free  customs,  or  be  outlawed  or  exiled ;  or 
in  any   manner   destroyed,  but  by   the   lawful 
judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land : 
And   in   the   eight  and    twentieth  year   of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  the  Third,  it  was  declared 
and  enacted  by  authority  of  Parliament,  that  no 
man  of  what  estate  or  condition  that  he  be, 
should  be  put  out  of  his  lands  or  tenements,  nor 
taken,  nor  imprisoned,  nor  disherited,  nor  put  to 
death,  without  being  brouglit  to  answer  by  due 
process  of  law :  Nevertheless,  against  the  tenor 
of  the  said  statutes,  and  other  the  good  laws  and 
statutes  of  your  realm,  to  that  end   provided, 
divers  of  your  subjects  have  of  late   been  im- 
prisoned without  any  cause  showed,  and  when 
for  their  deliverance  they  were  brought  before 
your  Justices,  by  your  Majesty's  writs  of  Habeas 
Corpus,  there  to  undergo  and  receive  as  the  Court 
should  order,  and  their  keepers  commanded  to 
certify  the  causes  of  their  detainer;  no  cause  was 
certified,  but  that  they  were  detained  by  your 
Majesty's  special    command,    signified    Ijy   the 
Lords  of  your  Privy  Council,  and  yet  were  re- 
turned  back  to  several   prisons,  without  being 
charged   with   anything   to   which   they   might 
make  answer  according  to  the  law :  And  whereas 
of  late  great  companies  of  soldiers  and  mariners 
have  been  dispersed  into  divers  counties  of  the 
realm,   and   the  inhabitants   against  their  wills 
have  been  compelled  to  receive  them  into  their 
houses,   and  there   to  suffer  them  to  sojourn, 
against  the  laws  and  customs  of  this  realm,  and 
to  the  great  grievance  and  vexation  of  the  peo- 
ple: And  whereas  also  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  25th  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Ed- 
ward the  Third,  it  is  declared  and  enacted,  that 
no  man  shall  be  forejudged  of  life  or  limb  against 
the  form  of  the  Great  Charter,  and  the  law  of  the 
land :  and  by  the  said  Great  Charter  and  other 


875 


ENGLAND,  1638. 


Assassination 
of  Bitckingham, 


ENGLAND,  1628. 


the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  your  realm,  no  man 
ought  to  be  adjudged  to  death;  but  by  the  laws 
established  in  this  your  realm,  either  by  the  cus- 
toms of  the  same  realm  or  by  Acts  of  Parliament : 
and  whereas  no  oflfender  of  what  kind  soever  is 
exempted  from  the  proceedings  to  be  used,  and 
punishments  to  be  inflicted  by  the  laws  and 
statutes  of  this  your  realm :  nevertheless  of  late 
divers  commissions  under  your  Majesty's  Great 
Seal  have  issued  forth,  by  which  certain  persons 
have  been  assigned  and  appointed  Commissioners 
with  power  and  authority  to  proceed  within  the 
land,  according  to  the  justice  of  martial  law 
against  such  soldiers  and  mariners,  or  other  dis- 
solute persons  joining  with  them,  as  should  com- 
mit any  murder,  robbery,  felony,  mutiny,  or  other 
outrage  or  misdemeanour  whatsoever,  and  by 
such  summary  course  and  order,  as  is  agreeable 
to  martial  law,  and  is  used  in  armies  in  time  of 
war,  to  proceed  to  the  trial  and  condemnation  of 
such  offenders,  and  them  to  cause  to  be  executed 
and  put  to  death,  according  to  the  law  martial : 
By  pretext  whereof,  some  of  your  Majesty's  sub- 
jects have  been  by  some  of  the  said  Commission- 
ers put  to  death,  when  and  where,  if  by  the  laws 
and  statutes  of  the  laud  they  had  deserved  death, 
by  the  same  laws  and  statutes  also  they  might, 
and  by  no  other  ought  to  have  been,  adjudged 
and  executed :  And  also  sundry  grievous  offend- 
ers by  colour  thereof,  claiming  an  exemption, 
have  escaped  the  punishments  due  to  them  by 
the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  your  realm,  by 
reason  that  divers  of  your  officers  and  ministers 
of  justice  have  unjustly  refused,  or  forborne  to 
proceed  against  such  offenders  according  to  the 
same  laws  and  statutes,  upon  pretence  that  the 
said  offenders  were  punisliable  only  by  martial 
law,  and  by  authority  of  such  commissions  as 
aforesaid,  which  commissions,  and  all  other  of 
like  nature,  are  wholly  and  directly  contrary  to 
the  said  laws  and  statutes  of  this  your  realm: 
They  do  therefore  humbly  pray  your  Most  Ex- 
cellent Majesty,  that  no  man  hereafter  be  com- 
pelled to  make  or  yield  any  gift,  loan,  benevo- 
lence, tax,  or  such  like  charge,  without  common 
consent  by  Act  of  Parliament;  and  that  none  be 
called  to  make  answer,  or  take  such  oath,  or  to 
give  attendance,  or  be  confined,  or  otherwise 
molested  or  disquieted  concerning  the  same,  or 
for  refusal  thereof ;  and  that  no  freeman,  in  any 
such  manner  as  is  before-mentioned,  be  impris- 
oned or  detained;  and  that  your  Majesty  will  be 
pleased  to  remove  the  said  soldiers  and  mariners, 
and  that  your  people  may  not  be  so  burdened  in 
time  to  come ;  and  that  the  foresaid  commissions 
for  proceeding  by  martial  law,  may  be  revoked 
and  annulled ;  and  that  hereafter  no  commissions 
of  like  nature  may  issue  forth  to  any  person  or 
persons  whatsoever,  to  be  executed  as  aforesaid, 
lest  by  colour  of  them  any  of  your  Majesty's 
subjects  be  destroyed  or  put  to  death,  contrary 
to  the  laws  and  franchise  of  the  land.  All  which 
they  most  humbly  pray  of  your  Most  Excellent 
Majesty,  as  their  rights  and  liberties  according  to 
the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm:  and  that 
your  Majesty  would  also  vouchsafe  to  declare,  that 
the  awards,  doings,  and  proceedings  to  the  preju- 
dice of  your  people,  in  any  of  the  premises, 
shall  not  be  drawn  hereafter  into  consequence  or 
example:  and  that  your  Majesty  would  be  also 
graciously  pleased,  for  the  further  comfort  and 
safety  of  your  people,  to  declare  your  royal  will 
and  pleasure,  that  in  the  things  aforesaid  all  your 


officers  and  ministers  shall  serve  you,  according 
to  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm,  as  they 
tender  the  honour  of  your  Majesty,  and  the  pros- 
perity of  this  kingdom.  [Which  Petition  being 
read  the  2nd  of  June  1628,  the  King's  answer 
was  thus  delivered  unto  it.  The  King  willeth 
that  right  be  done  according  to  the  laws  and  cus- 
toms of  the  realm ;  and  that  the  statutes  be  put 
in  due  execution,  that  his  subjects  may  have  no 
cause  to  complain  of  any  wrong  or  oppressions, 
contrary  to  their  just  rights  and  liberties,  to  the 
preservation  whereof  he  holds  himself  as  well 
obliged  as  of  his  prerogative.  On  June  7  the 
answer  was  given  in  the  accustomed  form,  '  Soit 
droit  fait  comme  11  est  desire.']  " 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Ilist.  of  Eng.,  ch.  63 
(o.  6). — The  same.  Const.  Doc's  of  the  Puritan 
Bev.,  p.  1. — J.  L.  De  Lolme,  The  Eng.  Constitu- 
tion, ch.  7  (».  1). 

A.  D.  1628. — Assassination  of  Buckingham. 
— "While  the  struggle  [over  the  Petition  of 
Right]  was  going  on,  the  popular  hatred  of 
Buckingham  [the  King's  favourite,  whose  influ- 
ence at  court  was  supreme]  showed  itself  in  a 
brutal  manner.  In  the  streets  of  London,  the 
Duke's  phj'sician,  Dr.  Lambe,  was  set  upon  by 
the  mob,  called  witch,  devil,  and  the  Duke's  con- 
juror,  and  absolutely  beaten  to  death.  The 
Council  set  inquiries  on  foot,  but  no  individual 
was  brought  before  it,  and  the  rhyme  went  from 
mouth  to  mouth  — '  Let  Charles  and  George  do 
what  they  can.  The  Duke  shall  die  like  Doctor 
Larabe.'.  .  .  Charles,  shocked  and  grieved,  took 
his  friend  in  his  own  coach  through  London  to 
see  the  ten  ships  which  were  being  prepared 
at  Deptford  for  the  relief  of  Rochelle.  It  was 
reported  that  he  was  heard  to  say, '  George,  there 
are  some  that  wish  that  both  these  and  thou 
might  perish.  But  care  not  thou  for  them.  We 
will  both  perish  together  if  thou  dost.'  There 
must  have  been  something  strangely  attractive 
about  the  man  who  won  and  kept  the  hearts 
of  four  personages  so  dissimilar  as  James  and 
Charles  of  England,  Anne  of  Austria,  and  Wil- 
liam Laud.  ...  In  the  meantime  Rochelle  held 
out."  One  attempt  to  relieve  the  beleaguered 
town  had  failed.  Buckingham  was  to  command 
In  person  the  armament  now  in  preparation  for 
another  attempt.  ' '  The  fleet  was  at  Portsmouth, 
and  Buckingham  went  down  thither  in  high 
spirits  to  take  the  command.  The  King  came 
down  to  Sir  Daniel  Norton's  house  at  Southwick. 
On  the  2iid  of  August  Buckingham  rose  and  '  cut 
a  caper  or  two  '  before  the  barber  dealt  with  his 
moustache  and  lovelocks.  Then  he  was  about 
to  sit  down  to  breakfast  with  a  number  of  cap- 
tains, and  as  he  rose  he  received  letters  which 
made  him  believe  that  Rochelle  had  been  re- 
lieved. He  said  he  must  tell  the  King  instantly, 
but  Soubise  and  the  other  refugees  did  not  believe 
a  word  of  it,  and  there  was  a  good  deal  of  dis- 
puting and  gesticulation  between  them.  He 
crossed  a  lobby,  followed  by  the  eager  French- 
men, and  halted  to  take  leave  of  an  officer.  Sir 
Thomas  Fryar.  Over  the  shoulder  of  this  gen- 
tleman, as  he  bowed,  a  knife  was  thrust  into 
Buckingham's  breast.  There  was  an  effort  to 
withdraw  it ;  a  cry  '  The  Villain ! '  and  the  great 
Duke,  at  36  years  old,  was  dead.  The  attend- 
ants at  first  thought  the  blow  came  from  one  of 
the  noisy  Frenchmen,  and  were  falling  on  them. " 
But  a  servant  had  seen  the  deed  committed,  and 
ran  after  the  assassin,    who  was  arrested  and 


876 


ENGLAND,  1628. 


Toniiage  and 
Poundage, 


ENGLAND,  1633-1640. 


proved  to  be  one  John  Felton,  a  soldier  and  a 
man  of  good  family.  He  had  suffered  wrongs 
which  apparently  unhinged  his  mind. —  C.  M. 
Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist.,  Qth  series,  c.  17. 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  1608- 
U)43.  ch.  65. 

A.  D.  1628-1632. — Conquest  and  brief  occu- 
pation of  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia.  See 
Canada  (New  France)  ;  A.  D.  10'3S-ie3.5. 

A.  D.  1629. — The  royal  charter  granted  to 
the  Governor  and  Company  of  Massachusetts 
Bay.     See  Massachusktts:  A.  D.  1G33-1639. 

A.  D.  1629. — The  King's  Carolina  grant  to 
Sir  Robert  Heath.     See  AirEiiiCA;  A.  D.  1629. 

A.  D.  1629. — Tonnage  and  Poundage. — The 
tumult  in  Parliament  and  the  dissolution. — 
Cliarles'  third  Parliament,  prorogued  on  the  36th 
of  June,  1628,  reassembled  on  the  20th  of  Jan- 
uar}',  1639.  "The  Parliament  Session  proved 
very  brief;  but  very  energetic,  very  extraordi- 
nary. Tonnage  and  Poundage,  what  we  now 
call  Customhouse  duties,  a  constant  subject  of 
quarrel  between  Charles  and  his  Parliaments 
hitherto,  had  again  been  levied  without  Parlia- 
mentary consent ;  in  the  teeth  of  old  '  Tallagio 
non  concedendo,'  nay  even  of  the  late  solemnly 
confirmed  Petition  of  Right ;  and  naturally  gave 
rise  to  Parliamentary  consideration.  Merchants 
had  been  imprisoned  for  refusing  to  pay  it; 
Members  of  Parliament  themselves  had  been  '  su- 
poena'd ' :  there  was  a  very  ravelled  coil  to  deal 
with  in  regard  to  Tonnage  and  Poundage.  Nay 
the  Petition  of  Right  itself  had  been  altered  in 
the  Printing ;  a  very  ugly  business  too.  In  re- 
gard to  Religion  also,  matters  looked  equally  ill. 
Sycophant  Mainwaring,  just  censured  in  Par- 
liament, had  been  promoted  to  a  fatter  living. 
Sycophant  Montague,  in  the  like  circumstances, 
to  a  Bishopric:  Laud  was  in  the  act  of  conse- 
crating him  at  Croydon,  when  the  news  of  Buck- 
ingham's death  came  thither.  There  needed  to 
be  a  Committee  of  Religion.  The  House  re- 
solved itself  into  a  Grand  Committee  of  Religion ; 
and  did  not  want  for  matter.  Bishop  Neile  of 
Winchester,  Bishop  Laud  now  of  London,  were 
a  frightfully  ceremonial  pair  of  Bishops;  the 
fountain  they  of  innumerable  tendencies  to  Pa- 
pistry and  the  old  clothes  of  Babylon.  It  was 
In  this  Committee  of  Religion,  on  the  11th  day 
of  February,  1628-9,  that  Mr.  Cromwell,  Mem- 
ber for  Huntingdon,  stood  up  and  made  his  first 
speech,  a  fragment  of  which  has  found  its  way 
into  History.  ...  A  new  Remonstrance  behoves 
to  be  resolved  upon ;  Bishops  Neile  and  Laud  are 
even  to  be  '  named '  there.  Whereupon,  before 
they  could  get  well  '  named ' .  .  .  the  King  has- 
tily interfered.  This  Parliament,  in  a  fortnight 
more,  was  dissolved;  and  that  under  circum- 
stances of  the  most  unparalleled  sort.  For 
Speaker  Finch,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  Courtier, 
in  constant  communication  with  the  King :  one 
;lay,  while  these  high  matters  were  astir,  Speaker 
Finch  refused  to  'put  the  question'  when  or- 
dered by  the  House !  He  said  he  had  orders  to 
the  contrary;  persisted  in  that;  —  and  at  last 
took  to  weeping.  What  was  the  House  to  do  ? 
Adjourn  for  two  days,  and  consider  what  to  do! 
On  the  second  day,  which  was  Wednesday, 
Speaker  Finch  signified  that  by  his  Majesty's 
command  they  were  again  adjourned  till  Mon- 
day next.  On  Monday  next.  Speaker  Finch, 
still  recusant,  would  not  put  the  former  nor  in- 
deed any  question,  having  the  King's  order  to 


adjourn  again  instantly.  He  refused;  was  repri- 
manded, menaced;  once  more  took  to  weep- 
ing ;  then  started  up  to  go  his  ways.  But  young 
Mr.  Holies,  Deuzil  Holies,  the  Earl  of  Clare's 
second  son,  he  and  certain  other  honourable 
members  were  prepared  for  that  movement :  they 
seized  Speaker  Finch,  set  him  down  in  his  chair, 
and  by  main  force  held  him  there !  A  scene  of 
such  agitation  as  was  never  seen  in  Parliament 
before.  '  The  House  was  much  troubled.'  'Let 
him  go,'  cried  certain  Privy  Councillors,  Maj- 
esty's Ministers  as  we  should  now  call  them,  who 
in  those  days  sat  in  front  of  the  Speaker,  '  Let 
Jlr.  Speaker  go ! '  cried  they  imploringly.  '  No ! ' 
answered  Holies ;  '  God's  wounds,  he  shall  sit 
tliere  till  it  please  the  House  to  rise ! '  The 
House  in  a  decisive  though  almost  distracted 
manner,  with  their  Speaker  thus  held  down  for 
them,  locked  their  doors;  redacted  Three  em- 
phatic Resolutions,  their  Protest  against  Armin- 
ianism,  Papistry,  and  illegal  Tonnage  and 
Poundage ;  and  passed  the  same  by  acclamation ; 
letting  no  man  out,  refusing  to  let  even  the 
King's  Usher  in ;  then  swiftly  vanishing  so  soon 
as  the  resolutions  were  passed,  for  they  under- 
stood the  soldiery  was  coming.  For  which  sur- 
prising procedure,  vindicated  by  Necessity  the 
mother  of  Invention,  and  supreme  of  Lawgivers, 
certain  honourable  gentlemen,  Denzil  Holies, 
Sir  John  Eliot,  William  Strode,  John  Selden, 
and  others  less  known  to  us,  suffered  fine,  im- 
prisonment, and  much  legal  tribulation :  nay  Sir 
John  Eliot,  refusing  to  submit,  was  kept  in  the 
Tower  till  he  died.  This  scene  fell  out  on  Mon- 
day, 2d  of  March,  1639."— T.  Carlyle,  Int.  to 
Oliver  Cromwell's  Letters  and  Speeches,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  J.  Forster,  Sir  John  Eliot:  a  Biog- 
raphy, bk.  10,  sect.  6-8  (».  2). 

A.  D.  1630. — Emigration  of  the  Governor 
and  Company  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  virith 
their  royal  charter.  See  Massachusetts  :  A.  D. 
1639-1630. 

A.  D.  1631. — Aid  to  Gustavus  Adolphus  in 
Germany.     See  Germany:  A.  D.  1631-1633. 

A.  D.  1632. — CessionofAcadia(Nova Scotia) 
to  France.  See  Nova  Scotli  (Acadia)  :  A.  D. 
1621-1668. 

A.  D.  1632. — The  Palatine  grant  of  Mary- 
land to  Lord  Baltimore.  See  Maryland:  A.  D. 
1633.  '^y 

A.  D.  1633-1640. — The  Ecclesiastical  des- 
potism of  Laud. — "When  Charles,  having  quar- 
reled with  his  parliament,  stood  alone  in  the 
midst  of  his  kingdom,  seeking  on  all  sides  the 
means  of  governing,  the  Anglican  clergy  believed 
this  day  [for  establishing  the  independent  and 
uncontrolled  power  of  their  church]  was  come. 
They  had  again  got  immense  wealth,  and  enjoyed 
it  without  dispute.  The  papists  no  longer  in- 
spired them  with  alarm.  The  primate  of  the 
church,  Laud,  possessed  the  entire  confidence  of 
the  king  and  alone  directed  all  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  Among  the  other  ministers,  none  pro- 
fessed, like  lord  Burleigh  under  Elizabeth,  to 
fear  and  struggle  against  the  encroachments  of 
the  clergy.  'The  courtiers  were  indifferent,  or 
secret  papists.  Learned  men  threw  lustre  over  the 
church.  The  universities,  that  of  Oxford  more 
especially,  were  devoted  to  her  maxims.  Only 
one  adversary  remained  —  the  people,  each  day 
more  discontented  with  uncompleted  reform,  and 
more  eager  fully  to  accomplish  it.  But  this  ad- 
versary was  also  the  adversary  of  the  throne ;  it 


877 


ENGLAND.  1633-1640. 


Laud,  Strafford, 
Hampden. 


ENGLAND,  1634-1637. 


claimed  at  the  same  time,  tlie  one  to  secure  tbe 
other,  evangeliciil  faith  and  civil  liberty.  The 
same  peril  threatened  the  sovereignty  of  the 
crown  and  of  episcopacy.  The  Idng,  sincerely 
pious,  seemed  disposed  to  believe  that  he  was 
not  the  only  one  who  held  his  authority  from 
God,  and  that  the  power  of  the  bishops  was 
neither  of  less  high  origin,  nor  of  less  sacred 
character.  Never  had  so  many  favourable  cir- 
cumstances seemed  combined  to  enable  the  clergy 
to  achieve  independence  of  the  crown,  dominion 
over  the  people.  Laud  set  himself  to  work  with 
his  accustomed  vehemence.  First,  it  was  essen- 
tial that  all  dissensions  in  the  bosom  of  the  church 
itself  should  cease,  and  that  the  strictest  uni- 
formity should  infuse  strength  into  its  doctrines, 
its  discipline,  its  worship.  He  applied  himself 
to  this  task  with  the  most  unhesitating  and  un- 
scrupulous resolution.  Power  was  exclusively 
concentrated  into  the  hands  of  the  bishops.  The 
court  of  high  commission,  where  they  took  cog- 
nizance of  and  decided  everything  relating  to 
religious  matters,  became  day  by  day  more  arbi- 
trary, more  harsh  in  its  jurisdiction,  its  forms 
and  its  penalties.  The  complete  adoption  of  the 
Anglican  canons,  the  minute  observance  of  the 
liturgy,  and  the  rites  enforced  in  cathedrals,  were 
rigorously  exacted  on  the  part  of  the  whole  eccle- 
siastical body.  A  great  many  livings  were  in 
the  hands  of  nonconformists;  they  were  with- 
drawn from  them.  The  people  crowded  to  their 
sermons;  they  were  forbidden  to  preach.  .  .  . 
Persecution  followed  and  reached  them  every- 
where. .  .  .  Meantime,  the  pomp  of  catholic 
worship  speedily  took  possession  of  the  churches 
deprived  of  their  pastors;  while  persecution  kept 
away  the  faithful,  magnificence  adorned  the  walls. 
They  were  consecrated  amid  great  display,  and 
it  was  then  necessary  to  employ  force  to  collect 
a  congregation.  Laud  was  fond  of  prescrib- 
ing minutely  the  details  of  new  ceremonies  — 
sometimes  borrowed  from  Rome,  sometimes  the 
production  of  his  own  imagination,  at  once  osten- 
tatious and  austere.  On  the  part  of  the  noncon- 
formists, every  innovation,  the  least  derogation 
from  the  canons  or  the  liturgy,  was  punished  as 
a  crime ;  yet  Laud  innovated  without  consulting 
anybody,  looking  to  nothing  beyond  the  king's 
consent,  and  sometimes  acting  entirely  upon  his 
own  authority.  .  .  .  And  all  these  changes  had. 
If  not  the  aim,  at  all  events  the  result,  of  render- 
ing the  Anglican  church  more  and  more  like  that 
of  Rome.  .  .  .  Books  were  published  to  prove 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  English  bishops  miglit 
very  well  adapt  itself  to  that  of  Rome ;  and  these 
books,  though  not  regularly  licensed,  were  dedi- 
cated to  the  king  or  to  Laud,  and  openly  tolerated. 
.  .  .  The  splendour  and  exclusive  dominion  of 
episcopacy  thus  established,  at  least  so  he  flat- 
tered himself,  Laud  proceeded  to  secure  its  inde- 
pendence. .  .  .  The  divine  right  of  bishops  be- 
came, in  a  short  time,  the  official  doctrine,  not 
only  of  the  upper  clergy,  but  of  the  king  him- 
self. ...  By  the  time  things  had  come  to  this 
pass,  the  people  were  not  alone  in  their  anger. 
The  high  nobility,  part  of  them  at  least,  took  the 
alarm.  They  saw  in  the  progress  of  tlie  church 
far  more  than  mere  tyranny ;  it  was  a  regular 
revolution,  which,  not  satisfied  with  crushing 
popular  reforms,  disfigured  and  endangered  the 
first  reformation;  that  which  kings  had  made 
and  the  aristocracy  adopted." — P.  P.  Guizot, 
Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Revolution  of  1640,  bk.  2. 


Also  in:  D.  Neal,  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  v.  2, 
(•//.  4-6.— G.  G.  Perry,  Hist,  of  the  Ch.  of  Eng., 
ch.  13-16  (v.  1).— P.  Bayne,  T?ie  Chief  Actors  of 
the  Puritan  Revolution,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1634-1637. — Hostile  measures  against 
the  Massachusetts  Colony.  See  Massachu- 
setts; A,  D.  1684-1637. 

A.  D.  1634- 1637.— Ship-money. — "The  as- 
pect of  public  affairs  grew  darker  and  darker. 
.  .  .  All  the  promises  of  the  king  were  violated 
without  scruple  or  shame.  The  Petition  of 
Right,  to  which  he  had,  in  consideration  of  mon- 
eys duly  numbered,  given  a  solemn  assent,  was 
set  at  naught.  Taxes  were  raised  by  the  royal 
authority.  Patents  of  monopoly  were  granted. 
The  old  usages  of  feudal  times  were  made  pre- 
texts for  harassing  the  people  with  exactions  un- 
known during  many  years.  The  Puritans  were 
persecuted  with  cruelty  worthy  of  the  Holy 
Office.  They  were  forced  to  fly  from  the  country. 
They  were  imprisoned.  They  were  whipped. 
Their  ears  were  cut  off.  Their  noses  were  slit. 
Their  cheeks  were  branded  with  red-hot  iron. 
But  the  cruelty  of  the  oppressor  could  not  tire 
out  the  foi'titude  of  the  victims.  .  .  .  The  hardy 
sect  grew  up  and  flourished,  in  spite  of  every- 
thing that  seemed  likely  to  stimt  it,  struck  its 
roots  deep  into  a  barren  soil,  and  spread  its 
branches  wide  to  an  inclement  sky.  .  .  .  For  the 
misgovemment  of  this  disastrous  period,  Charles 
himself  is  principally  responsible.  After  the 
death  of  Buckingham,  he  seemed  to  have  been 
his  own  prime  minister.  He  had,  however,  two 
counsellors  who  seconded  him,  or  went  beyond 
him,  in  intolerance  and  lawless  violence ;  the  one 
a  superstitious  driveller,  as  honest  as  a  vile  tem- 
per would  suffer  him  to  be ;  the  other  a  man  of 
great  valour  and  capacity,  but  licentious,  faith- 
less, corrupt,  and  cruel.  Never  were  faces  more 
strikingly  characteristic  of  tlie  individuals  to 
whom  they  belonged  than  those  of  Laud  and 
Strafford,  as  they  still  remain  portrayed  by  the 
most  skilful  hand  of  that  age.  The  mean  foie- 
head,  the  pinched  features,  the  peering  eyes  of 
the  prelate  suit  admirably  with  his  disposition. 
They  mark  him  out  as  a  lower  kind  of  Saint 
Dominic.  .  .  .  But  Wentworth  —  who  ever  names 
him  without  thinking  of  those  harsh  dark  feat- 
ures, ennobled  by  their  expression  into  more  than 
the  majesty  of  an  antique  Jupiter!  .  .  .  Among 
the  humbler  tools  of  Charles  were  Chief -Justice 
Finch,  and  Noy,  the  attorney-general.  Noy  had, 
like  Wentworth,  supported  the  cause  of  liberty 
in  Parliament,  and  had,  like  Wentworth,  aban- 
doned that  cause  for  the  sake  of  office.  He  de- 
vised, in  conjunction  with  Finch,  a  scheme  of 
exaction  which  made  the  alienation  of  the  people 
from  the  throne  complete.  A  writ  was  issued 
by  the  king,  commanding  the  city  of  London  to 
equip  and  man  ships  of  war  for  his  service.  Simi- 
lar writs  were  sent  to  the  towns  along  the  coast. 
These  measures,  though  they  were  direct  viola- 
tions of  the  Petition  of  Right,  had  at  least  some 
show  of  precedent  in  their  favour.  But,  after  a 
time,  the  government  took  a  step  for  which  no 
precedent  could  be  pleaded,  and  sent  writs  of 
ship-money  to  the  inland  counties.  This  was  a 
stretch  of  power  on  which  Elizabeth  herself  had 
not  ventured,  even  at  a  time  when  all  laws  might 
with  propriety  have  been  made  to  bend  to  that 
highest  law,  the  safety  of  the  state.  The  inland 
counties  had  not  been  required  to  furnish  ships, 
or  money  in  the  room  of  ships,  even  when  the 


878 


ENGLAND,  1634-1637. 


Rise  of 
the  Independents. 


ENGLAND,  1640. 


Armada  was  approaching  our  shores.  It  seemed 
intolerable  that  a  prince,  who,  by  assenting  to 
the  Petition  of  Right,  had  relinquished  the  power 
of  levying  ship-money  even  in  the  outports, 
should  be  the  first  to  levy  it  on  parts  of  the  king- 
dom where  it  had  been  unknown,  under  the  most 
absolute  of  bis  predecessors.  Clarendon  distinctly 
admits  that  this  tax  was  intended,  not  only  for 
the  support  of  the  navy,  but  'for  a  spring  and 
magazine  that  should  have  no  bottom,  and  for  an 
everlasting  supply  on  all  occasions.'  The  nation 
well  understood  this ;  and  from  one  end  of  Eng- 
land to  the  other,  the  public  mind  was  strongly 
excited.  Buckinghamshire  was  assessed  at  a 
ship  of  450  tons,  or  a  sum  of  £4,500.  The  share 
of  the  tax  which  tell  to.  Hampden  was  very 
small  [twenty  shillings] ;  so  small,  indeed,  that 
the  sheriff  was  blamed  for  setting  so  wealthy  a 
man  at  so  low  a  rate.  But,  though  the  sum  de- 
manded was  a  trifle,  the  principle  of  the  demand 
was  despotism.  Hampden,  after  consulting  the 
most  eminent  constitutional  lawyers  of  the  time, 
refused  to  pay  the  few  shillings  at  which  be  was 
assessed ;  and  determined  to  incur  all  the  certain 
expense  and  the  probable  danger  of  bringing  to 
a  solemn  hearing  this  great  controversy  between 
the  people  and  the  crown.  .  .  .  Towards  the 
close  of  the  year  1636,  this  great  cause  came  on 
in  the  Exchequer  Chamber  before  all  the  judges 
of  England.  The  leading  counsel  against  the 
writ  was  the  celebrated  Oliver  St.  John ;  a  man 
whose  temper  was  melancholy,  whose  manners 
were  reserved,  and  who  was  as  yet  little  known 
in  Westminster  Hall;  but  whose  great  talents 
had  not  escaped  the  penetrating  eye  of  Hampden, 
The  arguments  of  the  counsel  occupied  many 
days ;  and  the  Exchequer  Chamber  took  a  con- 
siderable time  for  deliberation.  The  opinion  of 
the  bench  was  divided.  So  clearly  was  the  law 
in  favour  of  Hampden,  that  though  the  judges 
held  their  situations  only  during  the  royal  pleas- 
ure, the  majority  against  him  was  the  least  pos- 
sible. Four  of  the  twelve  pronounced  decidedly 
in  his  favour;  a  fifth  took  a  middle  course.  The 
remaining  seven  gave  their  voices  in  favour  of 
the  writ.  The  only  effect  of  this  decision  was  to 
make  the  public  indignation  stronger  and  deeper. 
'  The  j  udgment, '  says  Clarendon, '  proved  of  more 
advantage  and  credit  to  the  gentleman  con- 
demned than  to  the  king's  service. '  The  courage 
which  Hampden  had  shown  on  this  occasion,  as 
the  same  historian  tells  us,  '  raised  his  reputation 
to  a  great  height  generally  throughout  the  king- 
dom.'"— Lord  Macaulay,  Essays,  v.  2  {Wugent's 
Memorials  of  Hampden). 

Also  nst :  J.  Forster,  Statesman  of  the  Comwwn- 
icealth:  Hampden. — S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist.  ofEng., 
1603-1643,  ch.  74  (».  7),  and  ch.  77  and  83  (v.  8)  ; 
also  Const.  Doc's  of  the  Puritan  Rev.,  pp.  37-53, 
and  115. 

A.  D.  1638-1640. — Presbyterianism  of  the 
Puritan  party. — Rise  of  the  Independents. — 
"  It  is  fhe  artifice  of  the  favourers  of  the  Catholic 
and  of  the  prelatical  party  to  call  all  who  are 
sticklers  for  the  constitution  in  church  or  state, 
or  would  square  their  actions  by  any  rule,  human 
or  divine,  Puritans." — J.  Rushworth,  Hist.  Coll., 
V.  2,  1355. — "These  men  [the  Puritan  party],  at 
the  commencement  of  the  civil  war,  were  pres- 
byterians:  and  such  had  at  that  time  been  the 
great  majority  of  the  serious,  the  sober,  and  the 
conscientious  people  of  England.  There  was  a 
sort  of  imputation  of  laxness  of  principles,  and  of 


a  tendency  to  immorality  of  conduct^  upon  the 
adherents  of  the  establishment,  which  was  in- 
finitely injurious  to  the  episcopal  church.  But 
these  persons,  whose  hearts  were  in  entire  opposi- 
tion to  the  hierarchy,  had  for  the  most  part  no 
difference  of  opinion  among  themselves,  and 
therefore  no  thought  of  toleration  for  difference 
of  opinion  in  others.  Their  desire  was  to  abolish 
episcopacy  and  set  up  presbytery.  They  thought 
and  talked  much  of  the  unity  of  the  church  of 
God,  and  of  the  cordial  consent  and  agreement  of 
its  members,  and  considered  all  sects  and  varie- 
ties of  sentiment  as  a  blemish  and  scandal  upon 
their  holy  religion.  They  would  put  down 
popery  and  episcopacy  with  the  strong  hand  of 
the  law,  and  were  disposed  to  employ  the  same 
instrument  to  suppress  all  who  should  venture  to 
think  the  presbyterian  church  itself  not  yet  suf- 
ficientlj'  spiritual  and  pure.  Against  this  party, 
which  lorded  it  for  a  time  almost  without  contra- 
diction, gradually  arose  the  party  of  the  inde- 
pendents. .  .  .  Before  the  end  of  the  civil  war 
they  became  almost  as  strong  as  the  party  of  the 
Presbyterians,  and  greatly  surpassed  them  in 
abilities,  intellectual,  military  and  civil." — W. 
Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth,  bk.  3,  ch.  1 
{v.  2). — See,  also.  Independents;  ENGLAico: 
A.  D.  1643  (July)  and  (July — Septembek),  A.  D. 
1646  (March),  A.  D.  1647  (April— Acgus'?),  and 
A.  D.  1648  (November — December). 

A.  D.  1639.— The  First  Bishops'  War  in 
Scotland.     See  Scotland:  A.  D.  1638-1640. 

A.  D.  1640. — The  Short  Parliament  and  the 
Second  Bishops'  War. — The  Scots  Army  in 
England. — "His  Majesty  having  burnt  Scotch 
paper  Declarations  '  by  the  hands  of  the  common 
hangman,'  and  almost  cut  the  Scotch  Chancel- 
lor Loudon's  head  off,  and  being  again  resolute  to 
chastise  the  rebel  Scots  with  an  Army,  decides 
on  summoning  a  Parliament  for  that  end,  there 
being  no  money  attainable  otherwise.  To  the 
great  and  glad  astonishment  of  England ;  which, 
at  one  time,  thought  never  to  have  seen  another 
Parliament !  Oliver  Cromwell  sat  in  this  Parlia- 
ment for  Cambridge;  recommended  by  Hamp- 
den, say  some ;  not  needing  any  recommendation 
in  those  Fen-countries,  think  others.  Oliver's 
Colleague  was  a  Thomas  Meautys,  Esq.  This 
Parliament  met,  13th  April,  1640:  it  was  by  no 
means  prompt  enough  with  supplies  against 
the  rebel  Scots ;  the  king  dismissed  it  in  a  huff, 
5th  May ;  after  a  Session  of  three  weeks :  His- 
torians call  it  the  Short  Parliament.  His  Majesty 
decides  on  raising  money  and  an  Army  '  by  otljer 
methods ' :  to  which  end  Wentworth,  now  Earl 
Strafford  and  Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  who 
had  advised  that  course  in  the  Council,  did  him- 
self subscribe  £30,000.  Archbishop  Laud  had 
long  ago  seen  '  a  cloud  rising '  against  the  Four 
surplices  at  Allhallowtide ;  and  now  it  is  cover- 
ing the  whole  sky  in  a  most  dismal  and  really 
thundery -looking  manner.  HisMajesty  by  'other 
methods,'  commission  of  array,  benevolence, 
forced  loan,  or  how  he  could,  got  a  kind  of  Army 
on  foot,  and  set  it  marching  out  of  the  several 
Counties  in  the  South  towards  the  Scotch  Bor- 
der ;  but  it  was  a  most  hopeless  Army.  The  sol- 
diers called  the  affair  a  Bishops'  War;  they 
mutinied  against  their  officers,  shot  some  of 
their  ofiBcers:  in  various  Towns  on  their  march, 
if  the  Clergyman  were  reputed  Puritan,  they 
went  and  gave  him  three  cheers;  if  of  Surplice- 
tendency,   they  sometimes  threw  his  furniture 


879 


ENGLAND,  1640. 


The 
Long  Parliament. 


ENGLAND,  1640-164L 


out  of  the  window.  No  fighting  against  poor 
Scotch  Gospellers  was  to  be  hoped  for  from 
these  men.  Meanwhile  the  Scots,  not  to  be  be- 
hindhand, had  raised  a  good  Army  of  their 
own;  and  decided  on  going  into  England  with 
it,  this  time,  '  to  present  their  grievances  to  the 
King's  Majesty.'  On  the  20tli  of  August,  1G4U, 
they  cross  the  Tweed  at  Coldstream;  Montrose 
wading  in  the  van  of  them  all.  They  wore  uni- 
form of  hodden  gray,  with  blue  caps;  and  each 
man  had  a  moderate  haversack  of  oatmeal  on  his 
back.  August  28th,  the  Scots  force  their  way 
across  the  Tyne,  at  Newburn,  some  miles  above 
Newcastle ;  the  King's  Army  making  small  flght, 
most  of  them  no  fight;  hurrying  from  New- 
castle, and  all  town  and  country  quarters,  to- 
wards York  again,  where  his  Majesty  and  Straf- 
ford were.  The  Bishops'  War  was  at  an  end. 
The  Scots,  striving  to  be  gentle  as  doves  in  their 
behaviour,  and  publishing  boundless  brotherly 
Declarations  to  all  the  brethren  that  loved 
Christ's  Gospel  and  God's  Justice  in  England, — 
took  possession  of  Newcastle  next  day ;  took  pos- 
session gradually  of  all  Northumberland  and 
Durham, — and  stayed  there,  in  various  towns 
and  villages,  about  a  year.  The  whole  body  of 
English  Puritans  looked  upon  them  as  their 
saviours.  .  .  .  His  Majesty  and  Strafford,  in  a 
fine  frenzy  at  the  turn  of  affairs,  found  no  ref- 
uge, except  to  summon  a  'Council  of  Peers,'  to 
enter  upon  a  '  Treaty '  with  the  Scots ;  and  alas, 
at  last,  summon  a  New  Parliament.  Not  to  be 
helped  in  any  way.  ...  A  Parliament  was  ap- 
pointed for  the  3d  of  November  ne.xt;  —  where- 
upon London  cheerfully  lent  £200,000;  and  the 
Treaty  with  the  Scots  at  Ripon,  1st  October, 
1640,  by  and  by  transferred  to  London,  went 
peaceably  on  at  a  very  leisurely  pace.  The 
Scotch  Army  lay  quartered  at  Newcastle,  and 
over  Northumberland  and  Durham,  on  an  allow- 
ance of  £850  a  day ;  an  Army  indispensable  for 
Puritan  objects ;  no  haste  in  finishing  its  Treaty. 
The  English  army  lay  across  in  Yorkshire ;  with- 
out allowance  except  from  the  casualties  of  the 
King's  Exchequer;  in  a  dissatisfied  manner,  and 
occasionally  getting  into  'Army-Plots.'  This 
Parliament,  which  met  on  the  3d  of  November, 
1640,  has  become  very  celebrated  in  History  by 
the  name  of  the  'Long  Parliament.'" — T.  Car- 
lyle,  Cromwell's  Letters  and  Speeches,  pt.  1:  1640. 

Also  in  :  J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Common- 
wealth: Strafford. — S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
1603-1643,  ch.  91-94.— J.  H.  Burton,  Hist,  of 
Scotland,  ch.  73-73  {v.  7). 

A.  D.  1640. — Acquisition  and  settlement  of 
Madras.     See  India:  A.  D.  1600-1703. 

A.  D.  1640-1641.— The  Long  Parliament 
and  the  beginning  of  its  work. — Impeachment 
and  Execution  of  Strafford. — "The  game  of 
tyranny  was  now  up.  Charles  had  risked  and 
lost  his  last  stake.  It  is  Impossible  to  trace  the 
mortifications  and  humiliations  which  this  bad 
man  now  had  to  endure  without  a  feeling  of  vin- 
dictive pleasure.  His  army  was  mutinous ;  his 
treasury  was  empty ;  his  people  clamoured  for  a 
Parliament ;  addresses  and  petitions  against  the 
government  were  presented.  Strafford  was  for 
shooting  those  who  presented  them  by  martial 
law,  but  the  king  could  not  trust  the  soldiers. 
A  great  council  of  Peers  was  called  at  York,  but 
the  king  would  not  trust  even  the  Peers.  He 
struggled,  he  evaded,  he  hesitated,  he  tried  every 
shift  rather  than  again  face  the  representatives 


of  his  injured  people.  At  length  no  shift  was 
left.  He  made  a  truce  with  the  Scots,  and  sum- 
moned a  Parliament.  ...  On  tlie  3d  of  Novem- 
ber, 1640  —  a  day  to  be  long  remembered  —  met 
that  great  Parliament,  destined  to  every  extreme 
of  fortune  —  to  empire  and  to  servitude,  to  glory 
and  to  contempt;  —  at  one  time  the  sovereign  of 
its  sovereign,  at  another  time  the  servant  of  its 
servants,  and  the  tool  of  its  tools.  From  the 
first  day  of  its  meeting  the  attendance  was  great, 
and  the  aspect  of  the  members  was  that  of  men 
not  disposed  to  do  the  work  negligently.  The 
dissolution  of  the  late  Parliament  had  convinced 
most  of  them  that  half  measures  would  no 
longer  suffice.  Clarendon  tells  us  that  '  the  same 
men  who,  six  months  before,  were  observed  to 
be  of  very  moderate  tempers,  and  to  wish  that 
gentle  remedies  might  be  applied,  talked  now  in 
another  dialect  both  of  kings  and  persons ;  and 
said  that  they  must  now  be  of  another  temper 
than  they  were  the  last  Parliament. '  The  debt 
of  vengeance  was  swollen  by  all  the  usury  which 
had  been  accumulating  during  many  years;  and 
payment  was  made  to  the  full.  This  memorable 
crisis  called  forth  parliamentary  abilities,  such  as 
England  had  never  before  seen.  Among  the 
most  distinguished  members  of  the  House  of 
Commons  were  Falkland,  Hyde,  Digby,  Young, 
Harry  Vane,  Oliver  St.  John,  Denzil  Hollis, 
Nathaniel  Fiennes.  But  two  men  exercised  a 
paramount  influence  over  the  legislature  and  the 
country  —  Pym  and  Hampden ;  and,  by  the  uni- 
versal consent  of  friends  and  enemies,  the  first 
place  belonged  to  Hampden." — Lord  Macaulay, 
Nugent's  Memorials  of  Hampden  (Critical  and 
Miscellaneous  Essays,  v.  3). — ■"  The  resolute  looka 
of  the  members  as  they  gathered  at  Westminster 
contrasted  with  the  hesitating  words  of  the  king, 
and  each  brought  from  borough  or  county  a 
petition  of  grievances.  Fresh  petitions  were 
brought  every  day  by  bands  of  citizens  or  far- 
mers. Forty  committees  were  appointed  to  ex- 
amine and  report  on  them,  and  their  reports 
formed  the  grounds  on  which  the  Commons 
acted.  One  by  one  the  illegal  acts  of  the  Tyranny 
were  annulled.  Prynne  and  his  fellow  '  mar 
tyrs '  recalled  from  their  prisons,  entered  London 
in  triumph,  amid  the  shouts  of  a  great  multi 
tude  who  strewed  laurel  in  their  path.  The  civil 
and  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  Privy  Council, 
the  Star  Chamber,  the  Court  of  High  Commis- 
sion, the  irregular  jurisdictions  of  the  Council 
of  the  North,  of  the  Duchy  of  Lancaster,  the 
County  of  Chester,  and  a  crowd  of  lesser  tribunals, 
were  summarily  abolished.  Ship-money  was  de- 
clared illegal,  and  the  judgment  in  Hampden's 
case  annulled.  A  statute  declaring  '  the  ancient 
right  of  the  subjects  of  this  kingdom  that  no 
subsidy,  custom,  impost,  or  any  charge  what- 
soever, ought  or  may  be  laid  or  imposed  upon  any 
merchandize  exported  or  imported  by  subjects, 
denizens  or  allies,  without  common  consent  of 
Parliament,'  put  an  end  forever  to  all  preten- 
sions to  a  right  of  arbitrary  taxation  on  uic  part 
of  the  crown.  A  Triennial  Bill  enforced  the 
Assembly  of  the  Houses  every  three  years,  and 
bound  the  sheriff  and  citizens  to  proceed  to  elec- 
tion if  the  Royal  writ  failed  to  summon  them. 
Charles  protested,  but  gave  way.  He  was  forced 
to  look  helplessly  on  at  the  wreck  of  his  Tyr- 
anny, for  the  Scotch  army  was  still  encamped  in 
the  north.  .  .  .  Meanwhile  the  Commons  were 
dealing  roughly  with  the  agents  of  the  Royal 


880 


ENGLAND,  1640-1641. 


Impeachment 
of  Lord  Strafford. 


ENGLAND,  1640-1641. 


system.  .  .  .  Windebank,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
with  the  Chancellor,  Finch,  fled  in  terror  over 
sea.  Laud  himself  was  flung  into  prison.  .  .  . 
But  even  Laud,  hateful  as  he  was  to  all  but  the 
poor  neighbours  whose  prayers  his  alms  had  won, 
was  not  the  centre  of  so  great  and  universal  a 
hatred  as  the  Earl  of  Strafford.  Strafford's  guilt 
was  more  than  the  guilt  of  a  servile  instrument 
of  tyranny  —  it  was  the  guilt  of  '  that  grand  apos- 
tate to  the  Commonwealth  who,' in  the  terrible 
words  which  closed  Lord  Digby's  invective, 
'must  not  expect  to  be  pardoned  in  this  world 
till  he  be  dispatched  to  the  other. '  He  was  con- 
scious of  his  danger,  but  Charles  forced  him  to 
attend  the  Court."  He  came  to  London  with  the 
solemn  assurance  of  his  master  that,  "while 
there  was  a  king  in  England,  not  a  hair  of  Straf- 
ford's head  should  be  touched  by  the  Parlia- 
ment." Immediately  impeached  of  high  treason 
by  the  Commons,  and  sent  to  the  Tower,  he  re- 
ceived from  the  king  a  second  and  more  solemn 
pledge,  by  letter,  that,  "upon  the  word  of  a 
king,  you  shall  not  suffer  in  life,  honour  or  for- 
tune." But  the  "word  of  a  king"  like  Charles 
Stuart,  had  neither  honor  nor  gratitude,  nor  a 
decent  self  respect  behind  it.  He  could  be  false 
to  a  friend  as  easily  as  to  an  enemy.  When  the 
Commons,  fearing  failure  on  the  trial  of  their 
impeachment,  resorted  to  a  bill  of  attainder, 
Charles  signed  it  with  a  little  resistance,  and 
Strafford  went  bravely  and  manfully  to  the 
block.  "  As  the  axe  fell,  the  silence  of  the  great 
multitude  was  broken  by  a  universal  shout  of 
joy.  The  streets  blazed  with  bonfires.  The 
bells  clashed  out  from  every  steeple." — J.  R. 
Green,  Sho}-t  Hist,  of  Eag.,  ch.  8,  sect.  6. — The 
king  "was  as  deeply  pledged  to  Strafford  as  one 
man  could  be  to  another ;  he  was  as  vitally  con- 
cerned in  saving  the  life  and  prolonging  the  ser- 
vice of  incomparably  his  ablest  servant  as  was 
ever  any  sovereign  in  the  case  of  any  minister ; 
yet  it  is  clear  that  for  some  days  past,  probably 
ever  since  the  first  signs  of  popular  tumult  be- 
gan to  manifest  themselves,  he  had  been  waver- 
ing. Four  days  before  the  Bill  passed  the  Lords, 
Strafford  as  is  well  known,  entreated  the  king  to 
assent  to  it.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  ab- 
solute sincerity  with  which,  at  the  moment  of  its 
conception,  the  prisoner  penned  his  famous  let- 
ter from  the  Tower.  That  passionate  chivalry 
of  loyalty,  which  has  never  animated  any  hu- 
man heart  in  equal  intensity  since  Stratford's 
ceased  to  beat,  inspires  every  line.  .  .  .  Charles 
turned  distractedly  from  one  adviser  to  another, 
not  so  much  for  counsel  as  for  excuse.  He  did 
not  want  his  judgment  guided,  but  his  con- 
science quieted;  and  his  counsellors  knew  it. 
They  had  other  reasons,  too,  for  urging  him  to 
his  dishonour.  Panic  seems  to  have  seized  upon 
them  all.  The  only  man  who  would  not  have 
quailed  before  the  fury  of  the  populace  was  the 
man  himself  whose  life  was  trembling  in  the 
balance.  The  judges  were  summoned  to  declare 
their  opinion,  and  replied,  with  an  admirable 
choice  of  non-committing  terms,  that  '  upon  all 
that  which  their  Lordships  have  voted  to  be 
proved  the  Earl  of  Strafford  doth  deserve  to  un- 
dergo the  pains  and  forfeitures  of  high  treason.' 
Charles  sent  for  the  bishops,  and  the  bishops, 
with  the  honourable  exception  of  Juxon,  in- 
formed him  that  he  had  two  consciences, —  a 
public  and  a  private  conscience, —  and  that  'his 
public  conscience  as  a  king  might  not  only  dis- 
06 


pense  with,  but  oblige  him  to  do,  that  which 
was  against  his  conscience  as  a  man.'  What 
passed  between  these  two  tenants  in  common  of 
the  royal  breast  during  the  whole  of  Sunday, 
May  9tli,  1641,  is  within  no  earthly  knowledge; 
but  at  some  time  on  that  day  Charles's  public 
conscience  got  the  better  of  its  private  rival. 
He  signed  a  commission  for  giving  the  royal  as- 
sent to  the  Bill,  and  on  Monday,  May  10th,  in 
the  presence  of  a  House  scarcely  able  to  credit 
the  act  of  betrayal  which  was  taking  place  be- 
fore them,  the  Commissioners  pronounced  the 
fatal  Le  roi  le  veult  over  the  enactment  which 
condemned  his  Minister  to  the  block.  Charles, 
of  course,  might  still  have  reprieved  him  by  an 
exercise  of  the  prerogative,  but  the  fears  which 
made  him  acquiesce  in  the  sentence  availed  to 
prevent  him  from  arresting  its  execution." — H. 
D.  Traill,  Lord  Strafford,  pp.  195-198.— "It  is  a 
sorry  otfice  to  plant  the  foot  on  a  worm  so 
crushed  and  writhing  as  the  wretched  king  .  .  . 
[who  abandoned  Strafford]  for  it  was  one  of  the 
few  crimes  of  which  he  was  in  the  event  thor- 
oughly sensible,  and  friend  has  for  once  co- 
operated with  foe  in  the  steady  application  to  it 
of  the  branding  iron.  There  is  in  truth  hardly 
any  way  of  relieving  the  '  damned  spot '  of  its 
intensity  of  hue  even  by  distributing  the  concen- 
trated infamy  over  other  portions  of  Charles's 
character.  .  .  .  When  we  have  convinced  our- 
selves that  this  '  unthankful  king  '  never  really 
loved  Strafford ;  that,  as  much  as  ia  him  lay,  he 
kept  the  dead  Buckingham  in  his  old  privilege 
of  mischief,  by  adopting  his  aversions  and  abid- 
ing by  his  spleenful  purposes;  that,  in  his  re- 
fusals to  award  those  increased  honours  for  which 
his  minister  was  a  petitioner,  on  the  avowed 
ground  of  the  royal  interest,  may  be  discerned 
the  petty  triumph  of  one  who  dares  not  dispense 
with  the  services  thrust  upon  him,  but  revenges 
himself  by  withholding  their  well-earned  reward ; 
—  still  does  the  blackness  accumulate  to  baffle 
our  efforts.  The  paltry  tears  he  is  said  to  have 
shed  only  burn  that  blackness  in.  If  his  after 
conduct  indeed  had  been  different,  he  might  have 
availed  himself  of  one  excuse, — but  that  the  man, 
who,  in  a  few  short  months,  proved  that  he  could 
make  so  resolute  a  stand  somewhere,  should  have 
judged  this  event  no  occasion  for  attempting  it, 
is  either  a  crowning  infamy  or  an  infinite  consola- 
tion, according  as  we  may  judge  wickedness  or 
weakness  to  have  preponderated  in  the  constitu- 
tion of  Charles  I.  ...  As  to  Strafford's  death, 
the  remark  that  the  people  had  no  alternative,  in- 
cludes all  that  it  is  necessary  to  urge.  The  king's 
assurances  of  his  intention  to  afford  him  no  further 
opportunity  of  crime,  could  surely  weigh  nothing 
with  men  who  had  observed  how  an  infinitely  more 
disgusting  minister  of  his  will  had  only  seemed 
to  rise  the  higher  in  his  master's  estimation  for 
the  accumulated  curses  of  the  nation.  Nothing 
but  the  knife  of  Felton  could  sever  in  that  case 
the  weak  head  and  the  wicked  instrument,  and  it 
is  to  the  honour  of  the  adversaries  of  Strafford 
that  they  were  earnest  that  their  cause  should 
vindicate  itself  completely,  and  look  for  no  ad- 
ventitious redress.  Strafford  had  outraged  the 
people  —  this  was  not  denied.  He  was  defended 
on  the  ground  of  those  outrages  not  amounting 
to  a  treason  against  the  king.  For  my  own  part, 
this  defence  appears  to  me  decisive,  looking  at  it 
in  a  technical  view,  and  with  our  present  settle- 
ment of  evidence  and  treason.     But  to  concede 


881 


ENGLAND,  1640-1641. 


Impeachment 
of  Lord  Strafford. 


-ENGLAND,  1G41. 


that  point,  after  the  advances  they  had  made, 
■would  have  been  in  that  day  to  concede  all.  It 
was  to  be  shown  that  anotlier  power  had  claim 
to  the  loyalty  and  the  service  of  Strafford  —  and 
if  a  claim,  then  a  vengeance  to  exact  for  its  neg- 
lect. And  this  was  done.  .  .  .  One  momentary 
emotion  .  .  .  esciiped  .  .  .  [StrafEord]  when  he 
was  told  to  prepare  for  death.  He  asked  if  the 
king  had  indeed  assented  to  the  bill.  Secretary 
Carleton  answered  in  the  affirmative ;  and  Straf- 
ford, laying  his  hand  on  his  heart,  and  raising 
his  eyes  to  lieaven,  uttered  the  memorable  words, 
— 'Putnotyour  trust  in  princes,  nor  in  the  sons  of 
men,  for  in  tliem  there  is  no  salvation.'  Charles's 
conduct  was  indeed  incredibly  monstrous." — R. 
Browning,  Thomas  Wentworth,  Earl  of  Strafford 
(Eminent  British  Statesmen,  by  John  Forster,  v.  2, 
pp.  403-406). 

Also  lN  :  J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  tJie  Common- 
wealth: Strafford;  Pym. — Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist, 
of  the  Bebellion,  bk.  3(».  1). — Lord  Nugent,  Memo- 
rials of  Hampden,  pt.  5-6  (v.  1-2).  —  Lady  T. 
Lewis,  Life  of  Lord  Falkland. 

The  following  are  the  Articles  of  Impeachment 
under  which  Strafford  was  tried  and  condemned : 
"  Articles  of  the  Commons,  assembled  in  Parlia- 
ment, against  Thomas  Earl  of  Strafford,  in  Main- 
tenance of  their  Accusation,  whereby  he  stands 
charged  with  High  Treason.  I.  That  he  the  said 
Thomas  earl  of  Strafford  hath  traiterously  en- 
deavoured to  subvert  the  fundamental  laws  and 
government  of  the  realms  of  England  and  Ire- 
land, and,  instead  thereof,  to  introduce  an  arbi- 
trary and  tyrannical  government,  against  law, 
which  he  hath  declared  by  traiterous  words, 
counsels,  and  actions,  and  by  giving  his  majesty 
advice,  by  force  of  arms,  to  compel  his  loyal 
subjects  to  submit  thereunto.  II.  That  he  hath 
traiterously  assumed  to  himself  regal  power  over 
the  lives,  liberties  of  persons,  lands,  and  goods  of 
his  majesty's  subjects,  in  England  and  Ireland, 
and  hath  exercised  the  same  tyrannically,  to  the 
subversion  and  undoing  of  many,  both  peers  and 
others,  of  his  majesty's  liege  people.  III.  The 
better  to  inrich,  and  enable  himself  to  go  through 
with  his  traiterous  designs,  he  hath  detained  a 
great  part  of  his  majesty's  revenue,  without  giv- 
ing any  legal  accounts ;  and  hath  taken  great  sums 
of  money  out  of  the  exchequer,  converting  them 
to  his  own  use,  when  his  majesty  was  necessitated 
for  his  own  urgent  occasions,  and  Ms  army  had 
been  a  long  time  unpaid.  FV.  That  he  hath 
traiterously  abused  the  power  and  authority  of 
his  government,  to  the  increasing,  countenancing, 
and  encouraging  of  Papists,  that  so  he  might 
settle  a  mutual  dependence  and  confidence  be- 
twixt himself  and  that  party,  and  by  their  help 
prosecute  and  accomplish  his  malicious  and 
tyrannical  designs.  V.  That  he  hath  maliciously 
endeavoured  to  stir  up  enmity  and  hostility  be- 
tween his  majesty's  subjects  of  England  and 
those  of  Scotland.  VI.  That  he  hath  traiterously 
broken  the  great  trust  reposed  in  him  by  his 
majesty,  of  lieutenant  general  of  his  Army,  by 
wilfully  betraying  divers  of  his  majesty's  subjects 
,  to  death,  his  majesty's  Army  to  a  dishonourable 
defeat  by  the  Scots  at  Newborne,  and  the  town  of 
Newcastle  into  their  hands,  to  the  end  that,  by 
effusion  of  blood,  by  dishonour,  by  so  great  a  loss 
as  of  Newcastle,  his  majesty's  realm  of  England 
might  be  engaged  in  a  national  and  irreconcil- 
able quarrel  with  the  Scots.  VII.  That,  to  pre- 
serve himself  from  being  questioned  for  these 


and  other  his  traiterous  courses,  he  laboured  to 
subvert  the  right  of  parliaments,  and  the  ancient 
course  of  parliamentary  proceedings,  and,  by 
false  and  malicious  slanders,  to  incense  his  maj. 
against  parliaments. — By  which  words,  counsels, 
and  actions,  he  hath  traiterously,  and  contrary  to 
his  allegiance,  laboured  to  alienate  the  hearts  of 
the  king's  liege  people  from  his  maj.  to  set  a 
division  between  them,  and  to  ruin  and  destroy 
his  majesty's  kingdoms,  for  which  they  do  im- 
peach him  of  High  Treason  against  our  sov- 
ereign lord  the  king,  his  crown  and  dignity. 
And  he  the  said  earl  of  Strafford  was  lord  deputy 
of  Ireland,  or  lord  lieutenant  of  Ireland,  and 
lieut.  general  of  the  Army  there,  under  his 
majesty,  and  a  sworn  privy  counsellor  to  his 
maj.  for  his  kingdoms  both  of  England  and  Ire- 
laud,  and  lord  president  of  the  North,  during  the 
time  that  all  and  every  of  the  crimes  and  offences 
before  set  forth  were  done  and  committed ;  and 
he  the  said  earl  was  lieut.  general  of  his  majesty's 
Army  in  the  North  parts  of  England,  during  the 
time  that  the  crimes  and  offences  in  the  5th 
and  6th  Articles  set  forth  were  done  and  com- 
mitted. —  And  the  said  commons,  by  protes- 
tation, saving  to  themselves  the  liberty  of 
exhibiting  at  any  time  hereafter  any  other 
Accusation  or  Impeacliment  against  the  said 
earl,  and  also  of  replying  to  the  Answer  that 
he  the  said  earl  shall  make  unto  the  said 
Articles,  or  to  any  of  them,  and  of  offering  proof 
also  of  the  premises,  or  any  of  them,  or  of  any 
otiier  Accusation  or  Impeachment  that  shall  be 
by  them  exhibited,  as  the  case  shall,  according 
to  the  course  of  parliaments,  require;  and  do 
pray  that  the  said  earl  may  be  put  to  answer  to 
all  and  every  the  premises ;  and  that  such  pro- 
ceedings, examination,  trial,  and  judgment,  may 
be  upon  every  of  them  had  and  used,  as  is  agree- 
able to  law  and  justice." — Cobbett's  Parliament- 
ary Hist,  of  England,  v.  2,  pp.  737-739. 

A.  D.  1641  (March— May).— The  Root  and 
Branch  Bill. — "A  bill  was  brought  in  [March, 
1641],  known  as  the  Restraining  Bill,  to  deprive 
Bishops  of  their  rights  of  voting  in  tlie  House  of 
Lords.  Tlie  opposition  it  encountered  in  that 
House  Induced  the  Commons  to  folio*  it  up 
[May  27]  with  a  more  vehement  measure,  '  for 
the  utter  abolition  of  Archbishops,  Bishops. 
Deans,  Archdeacons,  Prebendaries  and  Canons, ' 
a  measure  known  by  the  title  of  the  Root  and 
Branch  Bill.  By  the  skill  of  the  royal  partisans, 
this  bill  was  long  delayed  in  Committee." — J.  F. 
Bright,  Eist.  of  Eng.,  period  2  (».  2),  p.  650. 

Also  in:  D.  Masson,  Life  of  John  Milton,  v.  2, 
bk.  2,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1641  (October). — Roundheads  and 
Cavaliers. — The  birth  of  English  parties. — 
"After  ten  months  of  assiduous  toil,  the  Houses, 
in  September,  1641,  adjourned  for  a  short  vaca- 
tion and  the  king  visited  Scotland.  He  with 
ditliculty  pacified  that  kingdom,  by  consenting 
not  only  to  relinquish  his  plans  of  ecclesiastical 
reform,  but  even  to  pass,  with  a  very  bad  grace, 
an  act  declaring  that  episcopacy  was  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God.  The  recess  of  the  English 
IP'arliament  lasted  six  weeks.  The  day  on  which 
the  houses  met  again  is  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able epochs  in  our  history.  From  that  day  dates 
the  corporate  existence  of  the  two  great  parties 
which  have  ever  since  alternately  governed  the 
country.  .  .  .  During  the  first  months  of  the 
Long   Parliament,    the   indignation  excited    by 


882 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


Roundheads 
and  Cavaliers. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


many  years  of  lawless  oppression  was  so  strong 
and  general  tliat  the  House  of  Commons  acted  as 
one  man.  Abuse  after  abuse  disappeared  with- 
out a  struggle.  If  a  small  minority  of  the  repre- 
sentative body  wished  to  retain  the  Star  Chamber 
and  the  High  Commission,  that  minority,  over- 
awed by  the  enthusiasm  and  by  the  numerical 
superiority  of  the  reformers,  contented  itself  with 
secretly  regretting  institutions  which  could  not, 
with  any  hope  of  success,  be  openly  defended. 
At  a  later  period  the  Royalists  found  it  con- 
venient to  antedate  tlie  separation  between  them- 
selves and  tiieir  opponents,  and  to  attribute  the 
Act  which  restrained  the  king  from  dissolving 
or  proroguing  the  Parliament,  the  Triennial  Act, 
the  impeachment  of  the  ministers,  and  the  at- 
tainder of  Strafford,  to  the  faction  which  after- 
wards made  war  on  the  king.  But  no  artifice 
could  be  more  disingenuous.  Every  one  of  those 
strong  measures  was  actively  promoted  by  the 
men  who  were  afterwards  foremost  among  the 
Cavaliers.  No  republican  spoke  of  the  long  mis- 
government  of  Charles  more  severely  than  Cole- 
pepper.  The  most  remarkable  speech  in  favour 
of  the  Triennial  Bill  was  made  by  Digby.  The 
impeachment  of  the  Lord  Keeper  was  moved  by 
Falkland.  The  demand  that  the  Lord  Lieuten- 
ant should  be  kept  close  prisoner  was  made  at 
the  bar  of  the  Lords  by  Hyde.  Not  till  the  law 
attainting  Strafford  was  proposed  did  the  signs  of 
serious  disunion  become  visible.  Even  against 
that  law,  a  law  which  nothing  but  extreme  ne- 
cessity could  justify,  only  about  sixty  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons  voted.  It  is  certain 
that  Hyde  was  not  in  the  minority,  and  that 
Falkland  not  only  voted  with  the  majority,  but 
spoke  strongly  for  the  bill.  Even  the  few  who 
entertained  a  scruple  about  inflicting  death  by  a 
retrospective  enactment  thought  it  necessary  to 
express  the  utmost  abhorrence  of  Strafford's 
character  and  administration.  But  under  this 
apparent  concord  a  great  schism  was  latent ;  and 
when,  in  October  1641,  the  Parliament  reas- 
sembled after  a  short  recess,  two  hostile  parties, 
essentially  the  same  with  those  which,  under  dif- 
ferent names,  have  ever  since  contended,  and 
are  still  contending,  for  the  direction  of  public 
affairs,  appeared  confronting  each  other.  Dur- 
ing some  years  they  were  designated  as  Cavaliers 
and  Roundheads.  They  were  subsequently  called 
Tories  and  Whigs;  nor  "does  it  seem  that  these 
appellations  are  likely  soon  to  become  obsolete. " 
— Lord  Macaulay,  Jlist.  of  England,  ch.  1. —  It 
was  not  until  some  months  later,  however,  that 
the  name  of  Roundheads  was  applied  to  the  de- 
fenders of  popular  rights  by  their  royalist  ad- 
versaries.    See  Roundheads. 

A.  D.  1641  (November). — The  Grand  Remon- 
strance.— Early  in  November,  1641,  the  king 
being  in  Scotland,  and  news  of  the  insurrection 
in  Ireland  having  just  reached  London,  the  party 
of  Pym,  Hampden,  and  Cromwell  "  resolved  on 
a  great  pitched  battle  between  them  and  the  op- 
position, which  should  try  their  relative  strengths 
before  the  king's  return ;  and  they  chose  to  fight 
this  battle  over  a  vast  document,  which  they  en- 
titled '  A  Declaration  and  Remonstrance  of  the 
State  of  the  Kingdom, '  but  which  has  come  to  be 
known  since  as  The  Grand  Remonstrance.  .  .  . 
The  notion  of  a  great  general  document  which, 
under  the  name  of  'A  Remonstrance,'  should  pre- 
sent to  the  king  in  one  view  a  survey  of  the  prin- 
cipal evils  that  had  crept  into  the  kingdom  in  his 


own  and  preceding  reigns,  with  a  detection  of 
their  causes,  and  a  specification  of  the  remedies, 
had  more  than  once  been  before  the  Commons. 
It  had  been  first  mooted  by  Lord  Digby  while 
the  Parliament  was  not  a  week  old.  Again  and 
again  set  aside  for  more  immediate  work,  it  had 
recurred  to  the  leaders  of  the  Movement  party, 
just  before  the  king's  departure  for  Scotland,  as 
likely  to  afford  the  broad  battle-ground  with  the 
opposition  then  becoming  desirable.  '  A  Remon- 
strance to  be  made,  how  we  found  the  Kingdom 
and  the  Church,  and  how  the  state  of  it  now 
stands,'  such  was  the  description  of  the  then  in- 
tended document  (Aug.  7).  The  document  had 
doubtless  been  in  rehearsal  through  the  Recess, 
for  on  the  8th  of  November  the  rough  draft  of  it 
was  presented  to  the  House  and  read  at  the  clerk's 
table.  When  we  say  that  the  document  in  its 
final  form  occupies  thirteen  folio  pages  of  rather 
close  print  in  Rushworth,  and  consists  of  a  pre- 
amble followed  by  206  articles  or  paragraphs  duly 
numbered,  one  can  conceive  what  a  task  the  read- 
ing of  even  the  first  draft  of  it  must  have  been, 
and  through  what  a  storm  of  successive  debates 
over  proposed  amendments  and  additions  it 
reached  completeness.  There  had  been  no  such 
debates  yet  in  the  Parliament," — D.  Masson,  Life 
of  John  Milton,  v.  3,  bk.  2,  ch.  6.— "It  [The  Grand 
Remonstrance]  embodies  the  case  of  the  Parlia- 
ment against  the  Ministers  of  the  king.  It  is  the 
most  authentic  statement  ever  put  forth  of  the 
wrongs  endured  by  all  classes  of  the  English 
people,  during  the  first  fifteen  years  of  the  reign 
of  Charles  I. ;  and,  for  that  reason,  the  most  com- 
plete justification  upon  record  of  the  Great  Re- 
bellion." The  debates  on  The  Grand  Remon- 
strance were  begun  Nov.  9  and  ended  Nov.  32, 
when  the  vote  was  taken :  Ayes,  159. — Noes,  148. 
— So  evenly  were  the  parties  in  the  great  strug- 
gle then  divided. — J.  Forster,  Hist,  and  Biog. 
Essays,  v.  1  .•  Debates  on  the  Grand  Bemonstrance. 
— The  following  is  the  text  of  "The  Grand  Re- 
monstrance, "  with  that  of  the  Petition  preceding 
it:  "  Most  Gracious  Sovereign:  Your  Majesty's 
most  humble  and  faithful  subjects  the  Commons 
in  this  present  Parliament  assembled,  do  with 
much  thankfulness  and  joy  acknowledge  the 
great  mercy  and  favour  of  God,  in  giving  your 
Slajesty  a  safe  and  peaceable  return  out  of  Scot- 
land into  your  kingdom  of  England,  where  the 
pressing  dangers  and  distempers  of  the  State 
have  caused  us  with  much  earnestness  to  desire 
the  comfort  of  your  gracious  presence,  and  like- 
wise the  unity  and  j  ustice  of  your  royal  authority, 
to  give  more  life  and  power  to  the  dutiful  and 
loyal  counsels  and  endeavours  of  your  Parliament, 
for  the  prevention  of  that  eminent  ruin  and  de- 
struction wherein  your  kingdoms  of  England  and 
Scotland  are  threatened.  The  duty  which  we 
owe  to  your  Majesty  and  our  country,  cannot  but 
make  us  very  sensible  and  apprehensive,  that  the 
multiplicity,  sharpness  and  malignity  of  those 
evils  under  which  we  have  now  many  years  suf- 
fered, are  fomented  and  cherished  by  a  corru])t 
and  ill-affected  party,  who  amongst  other  their 
mischievous  devices  for  the  alteration  of  religion 
and  government,  have  sought  by  many  false 
scandals  and  imputations,  cunningly  insinuated 
and  dispersed  amongst  the  people,  to  blemish  and 
disgrace  our  proceedings  in  this  Parliament,  and 
to  get  themselves  a  party  and  faction  amongst 
your  subjects,  for  the  better  strengthening  them- 
selves in   their  wicked  courses,  and  hindering 


88c 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Grand 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


those  provisions  and  remedies  whicli  might,  by 
the  wisdom  of  your  Majesty  and  counsel  of  your 
Parliament,  be  opposed  against  them.  For  pre- 
venting whereof,  and  the  better  information  of 
your  Majesty,  your  Peers  and  all  other  your  loyal 
subjects,  we  have  been  necessitated  to  make  a  dec- 
laration of  the  state  of  the  kingdom,  both  before 
and  since  the  assembly  of  this  Parliament,  unto 
this  time,  which  we  do  humbly  present  to  your 
Majesty,  without  the  least  intention  to  lay  any 
blemish  upon  your  royal  person,  but  only  to  rep- 
resent how  your  royal  authority  and  trust  have 
been  abused,  to  the  great  prejudice  and  danger 
of  your  Majesty,  and  of  all  your  good  subjects. 
And  because  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  those 
malignant  parties,  whose  proceedings  evidently 
appear  to  be  mainly  for  the  advantage  and  in- 
crease of  Popery,  is  composed,  set  up,  and  acted 
by  the  subtile  practice  of  the  Jesuits  and  other 
engineers  and  factors  for  Rome,  and  to  the  great 
danger  of  this  kingdom,  and  most  grievous  afflic- 
tion of  your  loyal  subjects,  have  so  far  prevailed 
as  to  corrupt  divers  of  your  Bishops  and  others  in 
prime  places  of  the  Church,  and  also  to  bring 
divers  of  these  instruments  to  be  of  your  Privy 
Council,  and  other  employments  of  trust  and 
nearness  about  your  Majesty,  the  Prince,  and  the 
rest  of  your  royal  children.  And  by  this  means 
have  had  such  an  operation  in  your  counsel  and 
the  most  important  affairs  and  proceedings  of 
your  government,  that  a  most  dangerous  division 
and  chargeable  preparation  for  war  betwixt  your 
kingdoms  of  England  and  Scotland,  the  increase 
of  jealousies  betwixt  your  Majesty  and  your 
most  obedient  subjects,  the  violent  distraction 
and  interruption  of  this  Parliament,  the  insurrec- 
tion of  the  Papists  in  your  kingdom  of  Ireland, 
and  bloody  massacre  of  your  people,  have  been 
not  only  endeavoured  and  attempted,  but  in  a 
great  measure  compassed  and  effected.  For  pre- 
venting the  final  accomplishment  whereof,  your 
poor  subjects  are  enforced  to  engage  their  per- 
sons and  estates  to  the  maintaining  of  a  very  ex- 
pensive and  dangerous  war,  notwithstanding  they 
have  already  since  the  beginning  of  this  Parlia- 
ment undergone  the  charge  of  £150,000  sterling, 
or  thereabouts,  for  the  necessary  support  and 
supply  of  your  Majesty  in  these  present  and  peril- 
ous designs.  And  because  all  our  most  faithful 
endeavours  and  engagements  will  be  ineffectual 
for  the  peace,  safety  and  preservation  of  your 
Majesty  and  your  people,  if  some  present,  real 
and  effectual  course  be  not  taken  for  suppressing 
this  wicked  and  malignant  party:  —  We,  your 
most  humble  and  obedient  subjects,  do  with  all 
faithfulness  and  humility  beseech  your  Majesty, 

—  1.  That  you  will  be  graciously  pleased  to  con- 
cur with  the  humble  desires  of  your  people  in  a 
parliamentary  way,  for  the  preserving  the  peace 
and  safety  of  the  kingdom  from  the  malicious 
designs  of  the  Popish  party : —  For  depriving  the 
Bishops  of  their  votes  in  Parliament,  and  abridg- 
ing their  immoderate  power  usurped  over  the 
Clergy,  and  other  your  good  subjects,  which  they 
have  perniciously  abused  to  the  hazard  of  re- 
ligion, and  great  prejudice  and  op])ression  of  the 
laws  of  the  kingdom,  and  just  liberty  of  your 
people : —  For  the  taking  away  such  oppressions 
in  religion,  Church  government  and  discipline, 
as  have  been  brought  in  and  fomented  by  them: 

—  For  uniting  all  such  your  loyal  subjects  to- 
gether as  join  in  the  same  fundamental  truths 
against  the  Papists,  by  removing  some  oppres- 


sions and  unnecessary  ceremonies  by  which  divers 
weak  consciences  have  been  scrupled,  and  seem 
to  be  divided  from  the  rest,  and  for  the  due  exe- 
cution of  those  good  laws  which  have  been  made 
for  securing  the  liberty  of  your  subjects.  2. 
That  your  Majesty  will  likewise  be  pleased  to  re- 
move from  your  council  all  such  as  persist  to 
favour  and  promote  any  of  those  pressures  and 
corruptions  wherewith  your  people  have  been 
grieved,  and  that  for  the  future  your  Majesty 
will  vouchsafe  to  employ  such  persons  in  your 
great  and  public  affairs,  and  to  take  such  to  be 
near  you  in  places  of  trust,  as  your  Parliament 
may  have  cause  to  confide  in;  that  in  your 
princely  goodness  to  your  people  you  will  reject 
and  refuse  all  mediation  and  solicitation  to  the 
contrary,  how  powerful  and  near  soever.  3. 
That  j'ou  will  be  pleased  to  forbear  to  alienate 
any  of  the  forfeited  and  escheated  lands  in  Ire- 
land which  shall  accrue  to  your  Crown  by  reason 
of  this  rebellion,  that  out  of  them  the  Crown  may 
be  the  better  supported,  and  some  satisfaction 
made  to  your  subjects  of  this  kingdom  for  the 
great  expenses  they  are  like  to  undergo  [in]  this 
war.  Which  humble  desires  of  ours  being  gra- 
ciously fulfilled  by  your  Majesty,  we  will,  by  the 
blessing  and  favour  of  God,  most  cheerfully  un- 
dergo the  hazard  and  expenses  of  this  war,  and 
apply  ourselves  to  such  other  courses  and  coun- 
sels as  may  support  your  real  estate  with  honour 
and  plenty  at  home,  with  power  and  reputation 
abroad,  and  by  our  loyal  affections,  obedience 
and  service,  lay  a  sure  and  lasting  foundation  of 
the  greatness  and  prosperity  of  your  Majesty, 
and  your  royal  prosperity  in  future  times. 

The  Commons  in  this  present  Parliament  as- 
sembled, having  with  much  earnestness  and  faith- 
fulness of  affection  and  zeal  to  the  public  good 
of  this  kingdom,  and  His  Majesty's  honour  and 
service  for  the  space  of  twelve  months,  wrestled 
with  great  dangers  and  fears,  the  pressing  miseries 
and  calamities,  the  various  distempers  and  dis- 
orders which  had  not  only  assaulted,  but  even 
overwhelmed  and  extinguished  the  liberty,  peace 
and  prosperity  of  this  kingdom,  the  comfort  and 
hopes  of  all  His  Majesty's  good  subjects,  and  ex- 
ceedingly weakened  and  undermined  the  founda- 
tion and  strength  of  his  own  royal  throne,  do  yet 
find  an  abounding  malignity  and  opposition  in 
those  parties  and  factions  who  have  been  the 
cause  of  those  evils,  and  do  still  labour  to  cast 
aspersions  upon  that  which  hath  been  done,  and 
to  raise  many  difficulties  for  the  hindrance  of  that 
which  remains  yet  undone,  and  to  foment  jealous- 
ies between  the  King  and  Parliament,  that  so  they 
may  deprive  him  and  his  people  of  the  fruit  of 
his  own  gracious  intentions,  and  their  humble 
desires  of  procuring  the  public  peace,  safety  and 
happiness  of  this  realm.  For  the  preventing  of 
those  miserable  effects  which  such  malicious  en- 
deavours may  produce,  we  have  thought  good  to 
declare  the  root  and  the  growth  of  these  mis- 
chievous designs:  the  maturity  and  ripeness  to 
which  they  have  attained  before  the  beginning 
of  the  Parliament:  the  effectual  means  which 
have  been  used  for  the  extirpation  of  those  dan- 
gerous evils,  and  the  progress  which  hath  therein 
been  made  by  His  Majesty's  goodness  and  the 
wisdom  of  the  Parliament :  the  ways  of  obstruc- 
tion and  opposition  by  which  that  progress  hath 
been  interrupted:  the  courses  to  be  taken  for  the 
removing  those  obstacles,  and  for  the  accomplish- 
ing of  our  most  dutiful  and  faithful  intentions 


884 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Orand 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


and  endeavours  of  restoring  and  establishing  the 
ancient  honour,  greatness  and  security  of  this 
Crown  and  nation.     The  root  of  all  this  mischief 
we  find  to  be  a  malignant  and  pernicious  design 
of   subverting  the  fundamental  laws  and  prin- 
ciples of  government,  upon  which  the  religion 
and  justice  of  this  kingdom  are  firmly  established. 
The  actors  and  promoters  hereof  have  been:     1. 
The  Jesuited  Papists,  who  hate  the  laws,  as  the 
obstacles  of  that  change  and  subversion  of  re- 
ligion which   they  so   much   long   for.     3.  The 
Bishops,  and  the  corrupt  part  of  the  Clergy,  who 
cherish  formality  and  superstition  as  the  natural 
effects  and  more  probable  supports  of  their  own 
ecclesiastical  tyranny  and  usurpation.     3.   Such 
Councillors  and  Courtiers  as  for  private  ends  have 
engaged  themselves  to  further  the  interests  of 
some  foreign  princes  or  states  to  the  prejudice  of 
His  Majesty  and  the  State  at  home.     The  com- 
mon principles  by  which  they  moulded  and  gov- 
erned  all   their  particular  counsels  and  actions 
were  these :     First,  to  maintain  continual  differ- 
ences and  discontents  between  the  King  and  the 
people,  upon  questions  of  prerogative  and  liberty, 
that  so  they  might  have  the  advantage  of  siding 
with  him,  and  under  the  notions  of  men  addicted 
to  his  service,  gain  to  themselves  and  their  parties 
the  places  of  greatest  trust  and  power  in  the  king- 
dom.    A  second,    to  suppress   the   purity   and 
power  of  religion,  and  such  persons  as  were  best 
affected  to  it,  as  being  contrary  to  their  own  ends, 
and  the  greatest  impediment  to  that  change  which 
they  thought  to  introduce.     A  third,  to  conjoin 
those  parties  of  the  kingdom  which  were  most 
propitious  to  their  own  ends,  and  to  divide  those 
who  were  most  opposite,  which  consisted  in  many 
particular  observations.  To  cherish  the  Arminian 
part  in  those  points  wherein  they  agree  with  the 
Papists,  to  multiply  and  enlarge  the  difference 
between  the  common  Protestants  and  those  whom 
they  call  Puritans,  to  introduce  and  countenance 
such  opinions  and  ceremonies  as  are  fittest  for 
accommodation  with  Popery,    to  increase  and 
maintain  ignorance,  looseness  and  profaneness  in 
the  people ;  that  of  those  three  parties.  Papists, 
Arminians  and  Libertines,  they  might  compose  a 
body  fit  to  act  such  counsels  and  resolutions  as 
were   most  conducible   to   their  own   ends.     A 
fourth,  to  disaffect  the  King  to  Parliaments  by 
slander  and  false  imputations,  and  by  putting 
him  upon  other  ways  of  supply,  which  in  show 
and   appearance  were  fuller  of  advantage  than 
the  ordinary  course  of  subsidies,  though  in  truth 
they  brought  more  loss  than  gain  both  to  the 
King  and  people,  and  have  caused  the  great  dis- 
tractions under  which  we  both  suffer.     As  in  all 
compounded  bodies  the  operations  are  qualified 
according  to  Ute  predominant  element,  so  in  this 
mi.xed  party,  the  Jesuited  counsels,  being  most 
active  and  prevailing,  may  easily  be  discovered 
to  have  had  the  greatest  sway  in  all  their  deter- 
minations, and  if  they   be  not  prevented,  are 
likely  to  devour  the  rest,  or  to  turn  them  into 
their  own  nature.      In   the   beginning   of    His 
Majesty's  reign  the  party  began  to  revive  and 
flourish   again,  having  been  somewhat  damped 
by  the  breach  with  Spain  in  the  last  year  of  King 
James,   and    by  His  Majesty's   marriage   with 
France ;  the  interests  and  counsels  of  that  State 
being  not  so  contrary  to  the  good  of  religion  and 
the  prosperity  of  this  kingdom  as  those  of  Spain ; 
and  the  Papists  of  England,  having  been  ever 
more  addicted  to  Spain  than  France,  yet  they 


still  retained  a  purpose  and  resolution  to  weaken 
the  Protestant  parties  in  all  parts,  and  even  in 
France,  whereby  to  make  way  for  the  change  of 
religion  which  they  intended  at  home. 

1.  The  iirst  effect  and  evidence  of  their  re- 
covery and  strength  was  the  dissolution  of  the 
Parliament  at  Oxford,  after  there  had  been  given 
two  subsidies  to  His  Majesty,  and  before  they 
received  relief  in  any  one  grievance  many  other 
more  miserable  effects  followed. 

2.  The  loss  of  the  Rochel  fleet,  by  the  help  of 
our  shipping,  set  forth  and  delivered  over  to  the 
French  in  opposition  to  the  advice  of  Parliament, 
which  left  that  town  without  defence  by  sea,  and 
made  way,  not  only  to  the  loss  of  that  important 
place,  but  likewise  to  the  loss  of  all  the  strength 
and  security  of  the  Protestant  religion  in  France. 

3.  The  diverting  of  His  Majesty's  course  of 
wars  from  the  West  Indies,  which  was  the  most 
facile  and  hopeful  way  for  this  kingdom  to  pre- 
vail against  the  Spaniard,  to  an  expenseful  and 
successless  attempt  upon  Cadiz,  which  was  so 
ordered  as  if  it  had  rather  been  intended  to  make 
us  weary  of  war  than  to  prosper  in  it. 

4.  The  precipitate  breach  with  France,  by  tak- 
ing their  ships  to  a  great  value  without  making 
recompense  to  the  English,  whose  goods  were 
thereupon  imbarred  and  confiscated  in  that  king- 
dom. 

5.  The  peace  with  Spain  without  consent  of 
Parliament,  contrary  to  the  promise  of  King  James 
to  both  Houses,  whereby  the  Palatine's  cause 
was  deserted  and  left  to  chargeable  and  hopeless 
treaties,  which  for  the  most  part  were  managed 
by  those  who  might  justly  be  suspected  to  be  no 
friends  to  that  cause. 

6.  The  charging  of  the  kingdom  with  billeted 
soldiers  in  all  parts  of  it,  and  the  concomitant 
design  of  German  horse,  that  the  land  might 
either  submit  with  fear  or  be  enforced  with  rigour 
to  such  arbitrary  contributions  as  should  be  re- 
quired of  them. 

7.  The  dissolving  of  the  Parliament  in  the 
second  year  of  His  Majesty's  reign,  after  a  declara- 
tion of  their  intent  to  grant  five  subsidies. 

8.  The  exacting  of  the  like  proportion  of  five 
subsidies,  after  the  Parliament  dissolved,  by  com- 
mission of  loan,  and  divers  gentlemen  and  others 
imprisoned  for  not  yielding  to  pay  that  loan, 
whereby  many  of  them  contracted  such  sicknesses 
as  cost  them  their  lives. 

9.  Great  sums  of  money  required  and  raised 
by  privy  seals. 

10.  An  unjust  and  pernicious  attempt  to  ex- 
tort great  payments  from  the  subject  by  way  of 
excise,  and  a  commission  issued  under  the  seal  to 
that  purpose. 

11.  The  Petition  of  Right,  which  was  granted 
in  full  Parliament,  blasted,  with  an  illegal  dec- 
laration to  make  it  destructive  to  itself,  to  the 
power  of  Parliament,  to  the  liberty  of  the  subject, 
and  to  that  purpose  printed  with  it,  and  the 
Petition  made  of  no  use  but  to  show  the  bold 
and  presumptuous  injustice  of  such  ministers  as 
durst  break  the  laws  and  suppress  the  liberties 
of  the  kingdom,  after  they  had  been  so  solemnly 
and  evidently  declared. 

12.  Another  Parliament  dissolved  4  Car.,  the 
privilege  of  Parliament  broken,  by  imprisoning 
divers  members  of  the  House,  detaining  them 
close  prisoners  for  many  months  together,  with- 
out the  liberty  of  using  books,  pen,  inker  paper; 
denying  them  all  the  comforts  of  life,  all  means 


885 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Grand 
Bemonstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


of  preservation  of  health,  not  permitting  their 
wives  to  come  unto  them  even  in  the  time  of 
their  sickness. 

13.  And  for  the  completing  of  that  cruelty, 
after  years  spent  in  such  miserable  durance,  de- 
priving them  of  the  necessary  means  of  spiritual 
consolation,  not  suiiering  tliem  to  go  abroad  to 
enjoy  God's  ordinances  in  God's  House,  or  God's 
ministers  to  come  to  them  to  minister  comfort  to 
them  in  their  private  chambers. 

14.  And  to  keep  them  still  in  this  oppressed 
condition,  not  admitting  them  to  be  bailed  accord- 
ing to  law,  yet  vexing  them  with  informations 
in  inferior  courts,  sentencing  and  fining  some  of 
them  for  matters  done  in  Parliament;  and  ex- 
torting the  payments  of  those  fines  from  them, 
^juforcing  others  to  put  in  security  of  good  be- 
haviour before  they  could  be  released. 

15.  The  imprisonment  of  the  rest,  which  re- 
fused to  be  bound,  still  continued,  which  might 
have  been  perpetual  if  necessity  had  not  the  last 
year  brought  another  Parliament  to  relieve  them, 
of  whom  one  died  [Sir  John  Eliot]  by  the  cruelty 
and  harsliness  of  his  imprisonment,  which  would 
admit  of  no  relaxation,  notwithstanding  the  im- 
minent danger  of  his  life,  did  sufficiently  appear 
by  the  declaration  of  his  physician,  and  his  re- 
lease, or  at  least  his  refreshment,  was  sought 
by  many  humble  petitions,  and  his  blood  still 
cries  either  for  vengeance  or  repentance  of  those 
Jlinisters  of  State,  who  have  at  once  obstructed 
the  course  both  of  His  Ma  j  esty 's  j  ustice  and  mercy. 

16.  Upon  the  dissolution  of  both  these  Parlia- 
ments, untrue  and  scandalous  declarations  were 
published  to  asperse  their  proceedings,  and  some 
of  their  members  unjustly ;  to  make  them  odious, 
and  colour  the  violence  which  was  used  against 
them ;  proclamations  set  out  to  the  same  purpose ; 
and  to  the  great  dejecting  of  the  hearts  of  the 
people,  forbidding  them  even  to  speak  of  Parlia- 
ments. 

17.  After  the  breach  of  the  Parliament  in  the 
fourth  of  His  Majesty,  injustice,  oppression  and 
violence  broke  in  upon  us  without  any  restraint 
or  moderation,  and  yet  the  first  project  was  the 
great  sums  exacted  through  the  whole  kingdom 
for  default  of  knighthood,  which  seemed  to  have 
some  colour  and  shadow  of  a  law,  yet  if  it  be 
rightly  examined  by  that  obsolete  law  which 
was  pretended  for  it,  it  will  be  found  to  be  against 
all  the  rules  of  justice,  both  in  respect  of  the 
persons  charged,  the  proportion  of  the  fines  de- 
manded, and  the  absurd  and  unreasonable  man- 
ner of  their  proceedings. 

18.  Tonnage  and  Poundage  hath  been  received 
without  colour  or  pretence  of  law ;  many  other 
heavy  impositions  continued  against  law,  and 
some  so  unreasonable  that  the  sum  of  the  charge 
exceeds  the  value  of  the  goods. 

19.  The  Book  of  Rates  lately  enhanced  to  a 
high  proportion,  and  such  merchants  that  would 
not  submit  to  their  illegal  and  unreasonable  pay- 
ments, were  vexed  and  oppressed  above  measure ; 
and  the  ordinary  course  of  justice,  the  common 
birthright  of  the  subject  of  England,  wholly  ob- 
structed unto  them. 

20.  And  although  all  this  was  taken  upon  pre- 
tence of  guarding  the  seas,  yet  a  new  unheard-of 
tax  of  ship-money  was  devised,  and  upon  the 
same  pretence,  by  both  wliich  there  was  charged 
upon  the  subject  near  £700,000  some  years,  and 
yet  the  merchants  have  been  left  so  naked  to  the 
violence  of  the  Turkish  pirates,  that  many  great 


ships  of  value  and  thousands  of  His  Majesty's 
subjects  have  been  taken  by  them,  and  do  still 
remain  in  miserable  slavery. 

21.  The  enlargements  of  forests,  contrary  to 
'  Carta  de  Foresta, '  and  the  composition  there- 
upon. 

22.  The  exactions  of  coat  and  conduct  money 
and  divers  other  military  charges. 

23.  The  taking  away  the  arms  of  trained  bands 
of  divers  counties. 

24.  The  desperate  design  of  engrossing  all  the 
gunpowder  into  one  hand,  keeping  it  in  the  Tower 
of  London,  and  setting  so  high  a  rate  upon  it  that 
the  poorer  sort  were  not  able  to  buy  it,  nor  could 
any  have  it  without  licence,  thereby  to  leave  the 
several  parts  of  the  kingdom  destitute  of  their 
necessary  defence,  and  by  selling  so  dear  that 
which  was  sold  to  make  an  unlawful  advantage 
of  it,  to  the  great  charge  and  detriment  of  the 
subject. 

25.  The  general  destruction  of  the  King's  tim- 
ber, especially  that  in  the  Forest  of  Deane,  sold 
to  Papists,  which  was  the  best  store-house  of  this 
kingdom  for  the  maintenance  of  our  shipping. 

26.  The  taking  away  of  men's  right,  under  the 
colour  of  tlie  King's  title  to  land,  between  high 
and  low  water  marks. 

27.  The  monopolies  of  soap,  salt,  wine,  leather, 
sea-coal,  and  in  a  manner  of  all  things  of  most 
common  and  necessary  use. 

28.  The  restraint  of  the  liberties  of  the  sub- 
jects in  their  habitation,  trades  and  other  in- 
terests. 

29.  Their  vexation  and  oppression  by  pur- 
vej'ors,  clerks  of  the  market  and  saltpetre  men. 

30.  The  sale  of  pretended  nuisances,  as  build- 
ing in  and  about  London. 

31.  Conversion  of  arable  into  pasture,  con- 
tinuance of  pasture,  under  the  name  of  depopu- 
lation, have  driven  many  millions  out  of  the 
subjects'  purses,  without  any  considerable  profit 
to  His  Majesty. 

32.  Large  quantities  of  common  and  several 
grounds  hath  been  taken  from  the  subject  by 
colour  of  the  Statute  of  Improvement,  and  by 
abuse  of  the  Commission  of  Sewers,  without 
their  consent,  and  against  it. 

33.  And  not  only  private  interest,  but  also 
public  faith,  have  been  broken  in  seizing  of  the 
money  and  bullion  in  the  mint,  and  the  whole 
kingdom  like  to  be  robbed  at  once  in  that  abom- 
inable project  of  brass  money. 

34.  Great  numbers  of  His  Majesty's  subjects 
for  refusing  those  unlawful  charges,  have  been 
vexed  with  long  and  expensive  suits,  some  fined 
and  censured,  others  committed  to  long  and  hard 
imprisonments  and  confinements,  to  the  loss  of 
health  in  many,  of  life  in  some,  and  others  have 
had  their  houses  broken  up,  their  goods  seized, 
some  have  been  restrained  from  their  lawful 
callings. 

35.  Ships  have  been  interrupted  in  their  voy- 
ages, surprised  at  sea  in  a  hostile  manner  by  pro- 
jectors, as  by  a  common  enemy. 

36.  Merchants  prohibited  to  unlade  their  goods 
in  such  ports  as  were  for  their  own  advantage, 
and  forced  to  bring  them  to  those  places  which 
were  much  for  the  advantage  of  the  monopolisers 
and  projectors. 

37.  The  Court  of  Star  Chamber  hath  abounded 
in  extravagant  censures,  not  only  for  the  mainte- 
nance and  improvement  of  monopolies  and  other 
unlawful  taxes,  but  for  divers  other  causes  where 


886 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Grand 
Remonstrance, 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


there  hath  been  no  offence,  or  very  small ;  where- 
by His  Majesty's  subjects  have  been  oppressed 
by  grievous  fines.  Imprisonments,  stigmatisings, 
mutilations,  whippings,  pillories,  gags,  confine- 
ments, banishments ;  after  so  rigid  a  manner  as 
hath  not  only  deprived  men  of  the  society  of 
their  friends,  exercise  of  their  professions,  com- 
fort of  books,  use  of  paper  or  ink,  but  even  vio- 
lated that  near  union  which  God  hath  established 
between  men  and  their  wives,  by  forced  and  con- 
strained separation,  whereby  they  have  been  be- 
reaved of  the  comfort  and  conversation  one  of 
another  for  many  years  together,  without  hope 
of  relief,  if  God  had  not  by  His  overruling  provi- 
dence given  some  interruption  to  the  prevailing 
power,  and  counsel  of  those  who  were  the  authors 
and  promoters  of  such  peremptory  and  heady 
courses. 

38.  Judges  have  been  put  out  of  their  places 
for  refusing  to  do  against  their  oaths  and  con- 
sciences; others  have  been  so  awed  that  they 
durst  not  do  their  duties,  and  the  better  to  hold 
a  rod  over  them,  the  clause  '  Quam  diu  se  bene 
gesserit '  was  left  out  of  their  patents,  and  a  new 
clause  '  Durante  bene  placito '  inserted. 

39.  Lawyers  have  been  checked  for  being  faith- 
ful to  their  clients ;  solicitors  and  attorneys  have 
been  threatened,  and  some  punished,  for  follow- 
ing lawful  suits.  And  by  this  means  all  the 
approaches  to  justice  were  interrupted  and  fore- 
eluded. 

40.  New  oaths  have  been  forced  upon  the 
subject  against  law. 

41.  New  judicatories  erected  without  law. 
The  Council  Table  have  by  their  orders  offered 
to  bind  the  subjects  in  their  freeholds,  estates, 
suits  and  actions. 

42.  The  pretended  Court  of  the  Earl  Marshal 
was  arbitrary  and  illegal  in  its  being  and  proceed- 
ings. 

43.  The  Chancery,  Exchequer  Chamber,  Court 
of  Wards,  and  other  English  Courts,  have  been 
grievous  in  exceeding  their  jurisdiction. 

44.  The  estate  of  many  families  weakened,  and 
some  ruined  by  excessive  fines,  exacted  from 
them  for  compositions  of  wardships. 

45.  All  leases  of  above  a  hundred  years  made 
to  draw  on  wardship  contrary  to  law. 

46.  Undue  proceedings  used  in  the  finding  of 
ofl5ces  to  make  the  jury  find  for  the  King. 

47.  The  Common  Law  Courts,  feeling  all  men 
more  inclined  to  seek  justice  there,  where  It  may 
be  fitted  to  their  own  desire,  are  known  frequently 
to  forsake  the  rules  of  the  Common  Law,  and 
straying  beyond  their  bounds,  under  pretence  of 
equity,  to  do  injustice. 

48.  Titles  of  honour,  judicial  places,  sergeant- 
ships  at  law,  and  other  offices  have  been  sold  for 
great  sums  of  money,  whereby  the  common 
justice  of  the  kingdom  hath  been  much  en- 
dangered, not  only  by  opening  a  way  of  employ- 
ment in  places  of  great  trust,  and  advantage  to 
men  of  weak  parts,  but  also  by  giving  occasion 
to  bribery,  extortion,  partiality,  it  seldom  hap- 
pening that  places  ill-gotton  are  well  used. 

49.  Commissions  have  been  granted  for  ex- 
amining the  excess  of  fees,  and  when  great  exac- 
tions have  been  discovered,  compositions  have 
been  made  with  delinquents,  not  only  for  the 
time  past,  but  likewise  for  immunity  and  security 
in  offending  for  the  time  to  come,  which  under 
colour  of  remedy  hath  but  confirmed  and  in- 
creased the  grievance  to  the  subject. 


50.  The  usual  course  of  pricking  Sheriffs  not 
observed,  but  many  times  Sheriffs  made  in  an 
extraordinary  way,  sometimes  as  a  punishment 
and  charge  unto  them;  sometimes  such  were 
pricked  out  as  would  be  instruments  to  execute 
whatsoever  they  would  have  to  be  done. 

51.  The  Bishops  and  the  rest  of  the  Clergy  did 
triumph  in  the  suspensions,  ex-communications, 
deprivations,  and  degradations  of  divers  painful, 
learned  and  pious  ministers,  in  the  vexation  and 
grievous  oppression  of  great  numbers  of  His 
Slajesty's  good  subjects. 

52.  The  High  Commission  grew  to  such  excess 
of  sharpness  and  severity  as  was  not  much  less 
than  the  Romish  Inquisition,  and  yet  in  many 
cases  by  the  Archbishop's  power  was  made  much 
more  heavy,  being  assisted  and  strengthened  by 
authority  of  the  Council  Table. 

53.  The  Bishops  and  their  Courts  were  as  eager 
in  the  country;  although  their  jurisdiction  could 
not  reach  so  high  in  rigour  and  extremity  of 
punishment,  yet  were  they  no  less  grievous  in 
respect  of  the  generality  and  multiplicity  of 
vexations,  which  lighting  upon  the  meaner  sort 
of  tradesmen  and  artificers  did  impoverish  many 
thousands. 

54.  And  so  afflict  and  trouble  others,  that 
great  numbers  to  avoid  their  miseries  departed 
out  of  the  kingdom,  some  into  New  England  and 
other  parts  of  America,  others  into  Holland. 

55.  Where  they  have  transported  their  manu- 
factures of  cloth,  which  is  not  only  a  loss  by 
diminishing  the  present  stock  of  the  kingdom, 
but  a  great  mischief  by  impairing  and  endanger- 
ing the  loss  of  that  particular  trade  of  clothing, 
which  hath  been  a  plentiful  fountain  of  wealth 
and  honour  to  this  nation. 

56.  Those  were  fittest  for  ecclesiastical  prefer- 
ment, and  soonest  obtained  it,  who  were  most 
officious  in  promoting  superstition,  most  virulent 
in  railing  against  godliness  and  honesty. 

57.  The  most  public  and  solemn  sermons  be- 
fore His  Majesty  were  either  to  advance  prerog- 
ative above  law,  and  decry  the  property  of  the 
subject,  or  full  of  such  kind  of  invectives. 

58.  Whereby  they  might  make  those  odious 
who  sought  to  maintain  the  religion,  laws  and 
liberties  of  the  kingdom,  and  such  men  were 
sure  to  be  weeded  out  of  the  commission  of  the 
peace,  and  out  of  all  other  employments  of 
power  in  the  government  of  the  country. 

59.  Many  noble  personages  were  councillors 
in  name,  but  the  power  and  authority  remained 
in  a  few  of  such  as  were  most  addicted  to  this 
party,  whose  resolutions  and  determinations  were 
brought  to  the  table  for  countenance  and  execu- 
tion, and  not  for  debate  and  deliberation,  and  no 
man  could  offer  to  oppose  them  without  disgrace 
and  hazard  to  himself. 

60.  Nay,  all  those  that  did  not  wholly  concur 
and  actively  contribute  to  the  furtherance  of 
their  designs,  though  otherwise  persons  of  never 
so  great  honour  and  abilities,  were  so  far  from 
being  employed  in  any  place  of  trust  and  power, 
that  they  were  neglected,  discountenanced,  and 
upon  all  occasions  injured  and  oppressed. 

61.  This  faction  was  grown  to  that  height  and 
entireness  of  power,  that  now  they  began  to 
think  of  finishing  their  work,  which  consisted  of 
these  three  parts. 

62.  I.  The  government  must  be  set  free  from 
all  restraint  of  laws  concerning  our  persons  and 
estates. 


887 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  G^-and 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


63.  11.  There  must  be  a  conjunction  between 
Papists  and  Protestants  in  doctrine,  discipline 
and  ceremonies;  only  it  must  not  yet  be  called 
Popery. 

64.  IIL  Tlie  Puritans,  under  which  name  they 
include  all  those  that  desire  to  preserve  the  laws 
and  liberties  of  the  kingdom,  and  to  maintain 
religion  in  the  power  of  it,  must  be  either  rooted 
out  of  the  kingdom  with  force,  or  driven  out 
with  fear. 

65.  For  the  effecting  of  this  it  was  thought 
necessary  to  reduce  Scotland  to  such  Popish 
superstitions  and  innovations  as  might  make  them 
apt  to  join  with  England  in  that  great  change 
which  was  intended. 

66.  Whereupon  new  canons  and  a  new  liturgy 
were  pressed  upon  them,  and  when  they  refused 
to  admit  of  them,  an  army  was  raised  to  force 
them  to  it,  towards  which  the  Clergy  and  the 
Papists  were  very  forward  in  their  contribution. 

67.  The  Scots  likewise  raised  an  army  for  their 
defence. 

68.  And  when  both  armies  were  come  together, 
and  ready  for  a  bloody  encounter.  His  Majesty's 
own  gracious  disposition,  and  the  counsel  of  the 
English  nobility  and  dutiful  submission  of  the 
Scots,  did  so  far  prevail  against  the  evil  counsel 
of  others,  that  a  pacification  was  made,  and  His 
Majesty  returned  with  peace  and  much  honour 
to  London. 

69.  The  unexpected  reconciliation  was  most 
acceptable  to  all  the  kingdom,  except  to  the 
malignant  party ;  whereof  the  Archbishop  and 
the  Earl  of  Strafford  being  heads,  they  and  their 
faction  begun  to  inveigh  against  the  peace,  and 
to  aggravate  the  proceedings  of  the  states,  which 
so  increased  [incensed?]  His  Majesty,  that  he 
forthwith  prepared  again  for  war. 

70.  And  such  was  their  confidence,  that  having 
corrupted  and  distempered  the  whole  frame  and 
government  of  the  kingdom,  they  did  now  hope 
to  corrupt  that  which  was  the  only  means  to  re- 
store all  to  a  right  frame  and  temper  again. 

71.  To  which  end  they  persuaded  His  Majesty 
to  call  a  Parliament,  not  to  seek  counsel  and 
advice  of  them,  but  to  draw  countenance  and 
supply  from  them,  and  to  engage  the  whole  king- 
dom in  their  quarrel. 

72.  And  In  the  meantime  continued  all  their  un- 

i'ust  levies  of  money,  resolving  either  to  make  the 
'arliament  pliant  to  their  will,  and  to  establish 
mischief  by  a  law,  or  else  to  break  it,  and  with 
more  colour  to  go  on  by  violence  to  take  wliat 
they  could  not  obtain  by  consent.  The  ground 
alleged  for  the  justification  of  this  war  was 
this, 

73.  That  the  undutiful  demands  of  the  Parlia- 
ments in  Scotland  was  a  sufficient  reason  for  His 
Majesty  to  take  arms  against  them,  without  hear- 
ing the  reason  of  those  demands,  and  thereupon 
a  new  army  was  prepared  against  them,  their 
ships  were  seized  in  all  ports  both  of  England 
and  Ireland,  and  at  sea,  their  petitions  rejected, 
their  commissioners  refused  audience. 

74.  The  whole  kingdom  most  miserably  dis- 
tempered with  levies  of  men  and  money,  and 
Imprisonments  of  those  who  denied  to  submit  to 
those  levies. 

75.  The  Earl  of  Strafford  passed  into  Ireland, 
caused  the  Parliament  there  to  declare  against 
the  Scots,  to  give  four  subsidies  towards  that 
war,  and  to  engage  themselves,  their  lives  and 
fortunes,    for  tlic   prosecution  of  it,  and   gave 


directions  for  an  army  of  eight  thousand  foot 
and  one  thousand  horse  to  be  levied  there,  which 
were  for  the  most  part  Papists. 

76.  The  Parliament  met  upon  the  13th  of  April, 
1640.  The  Earl  of  Strafford  and  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  with  their  party,  so  prevailed  with 
His  Majesty,  that  the  House  of  Commons  was 
pressed  to  yield  a  supply  for  maintenance  of  the 
war  with  Scotland,  before  they  had  provided  any 
relief  for  the  great  and  pressing  grievances  of  the 
people,  which  being  against  the  fundamental 
privilege  and  proceeding  of  Parliament,  was  yet 
in  humble  respect  to  His  Majesty,  so  far  admitted 
as  that  they  agreed  to  take  the  matter  of  supply 
into  consideration,  and  two  several  days  it  was 
debated. 

77.  Twelve  subsidies  were  demanded  for  the 
release  of  ship-money  alone,  a  third  day  was  ap- 
pointed for  conclusion,  when  the  heads  of  that 
party  begun  to  fear  the  people  might  close  with 
the  King,  in  falsifying  his  desires  of  money ;  but 
that  withal  they  were  like  to  blast  their  mali- 
cious designs  against  Scotland,  finding  them 
very  much  indisposed  to  give  any  countenance 
to  that  war. 

78.  Thereupon  they  wickedly  advised  the  King 
to  break  off  the  Parliament  and  to  return  to  the 
ways  of  confusion,  in  which  their  own  evil  in- 
tentions were  most  likely  to  prosper  and  succeed. 

79.  After  the  Parliament  ended  the  5th  of  May, 
1640,  this  party  grew  so  bold  as  to  counsel  the 
King  to  supply  himself  out  of  his  subjects'  estates 
by  his  own  power,  at  his  own  will,  without  their 
consent. 

80.  The  very  next  day  some  members  of  both 
Houses  had  their  studies  and  cabinets,  yea,  their 
pockets  searched  :  another  of  them  not  long  after 
was  committed  close  prisoner  for  not  delivering 
some  petitions  which  he  received  by  authority  of 
that  House. 

81.  And  if  harsher  courses  were  intended  (as 
was  reported)  it  is  very  probable  that  the  sick- 
ness of  the  Earl  of  Strafford,  and  the  tumultu- 
ous rising  in  Southwark  and  about  Lambeth  were 
the  causes  that  such  violent  intentions  were  not 
brought  to  execution. 

82.  A  false  and  scandalous  Declaration  against 
the  House  of  Commons  was  published  in  His 
Slajesty's  name,  which  yet  wrought  little  effect 
with  the  people^  but  only  to  manifest  the  impu- 
dence of  those  who  were  authors  of  it. 

83.  A  forced  loan  of  money  was  attempted  in 
the  City  of  London. 

84.  'The  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  in  their 
several  wards,  enjoined  to  bring  in  a  list  of  the 
names  of  such  persons  as  they  judged  fit  to  lend, 
and  of  the  sums  they  should  lend.  And  such 
Aldermen  as  refused  to  do  so  were  committed  to 
prison. 

85.  The  Archbishop  and  the  other  Bishops  and 
Clergy  continued  the  Convocation,  and  by  a  new 
commission  turned  it  into  a  provincial  Synod,  in 
which,  by  an  unheard-of  presumption,  they  made 
canons  that  contain  in  them  many  matters  con- 
trary to  the  King's  prerogative,  to  the  funda- 
mental laws  and  statutes  of  the  realm,  to  the 
right  of  Parliaments,  to  the  property  and  liberty 
of  the  subject,  and  matters  tending  to  sedition 
and  of  dangerous  consequence,  thereby  establish- 
ing their  own  usurpations,  justifying  their  altar- 
worship,  and  those  other  superstitious  innova- 
tions which  they  formerly  introduced  without 
warrant  of  law. 


888 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


Tlte  Grand 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


86.  They  imposed  a  new  oath  upon  divers  of 
His  Majesty's  subjects,  both  ecclesiastical  and 
lay,  for  maintenance  of  their  own  tyranny,  and 
laid  a  great  tax  on  the  Clergy,  for  supply  of  His 
Majesty,  and  generally  they  showed  themselves 
very  affectionate  to  the  war  with  Scotland,  which 
was  by  some  of  them  styled  '  Bellum  Episcopale,' 
and  a  prayer  composed  and  enjoined  to  lie  read 
in  all  churches,  calling  the  Scots  rebels,  to  put 
the  two  nations  in  blood  and  make  them  irrecon- 
cileable. 

87.  All  those  pretended  canons  and  constitu- 
tions were  armed  with  the  several  censures  of 
suspension,  excommunication,  deprivation,  by 
which  they  would  have  thrust  out  all  the  good 
ministers,  and  most  of  the  well-afiected  people 
of  the  kingdom,  and  left  an  easy  passage  to  their 
own  design  of  reconciliation  with  Rome. 

88.  The  Popish  party  enjoyed  such  exemp- 
tions from  penal  laws  as  amounted  to  a  toleration, 
besides  many  other  encouragements  and  Court 
favours. 

89.  They  had  a  Secretary  of  State,  Sir  Francis 
"Windebanck,  a  powerful  agent  for  speeding  all 
their  desires. 

90.  A  Pope's  Nuncio  residing  here,  to  act  and 
govern  them  according  to  such  influences  as  he 
received  from  Rome,  and  to  intercede  for  them 
with  the  most  powerful  concurrence  of  the 
foreign  princes  of  that  religion. 

91.  By  his  authority  the  Papists  of  all  sorts, 
nobility,  gentry,  and  clergy  were  convocated 
after  the  manner  of  a  Parliament. 

92.  New  jurisdictions  were  erected  of  Romish 
Archbishops,  taxes  levied,  another  state  moulded 
within  this  state  independent  iu  government, 
contrary  In  interest  and  affection,  secretly  cor- 
rupting the  ignorant  or  negligent  professors  of 
our  religion,  and  closely  uniting  and  combining 
themselves  against  such  as  were  found  in  this 
posture,  waiting  for  an  opportunity  by  force  to 
destroy  those  whom  they  could  not  hope  to  seduce. 

93.  For  the  effecting  whereof  they  were 
strengthened  with  arms  and  munitions,  encour- 
aged by  superstitious  prayers,  enjoined  by  the 
Nuncio  to  be  weekly  made  for  the  prosperity  of 
some  great  design. 

94.  And  such  power  had  they  at  Court,  that 
secretly  a  commission  was  issued  out,  or  intended 
to  be  issued  to  some  great  men  of  that  profession, 
for  the  levying  of  soldiers,  and  to  command  and 
employ  them  according  to  private  instructions, 
which  we  doubt  were  framed  for  the  advantage 
of  those  who  were  the  contrivers  of  them. 

95.  His  Majesty's  treasure  was  consumed,  his 
revenue  anticipated. 

96.  His  servants  and  officers  compelled  to  lend 
great  sums  of  money. 

97.  Multitudes  were  called  to  the  Council 
Table,  who  were  tired  with  long  attendances  there 
for  refusing  illegal  payments. 

98.  The  prisons  were  filled  with  their  com- 
mitments; many  of  the  Sheriffs  summoned  into 
the  Star  Chamber,  and  some  imprisoned  for  not 
being  quick  enough  in  levying  the  ship-money ; 
the  people  languished  under  grief  and  fear,  no 
visible  hope  being  left  but  in  desperation. 

99.  The  nobility  began  to  weary  of  their 
silence  and  patience,  and  sensible  of  the  duty  and 
trust  which  belongs  to  them:  and  thereupon 
some  of  the  most  ancient  of  them  did  petition 
His  Majesty  at  such  a  time,  when  evil  counsels 
were  so  strong,  that  they    had  occasion  to  ex- 


pect more  hazard  to  themselves,  than  redress  of 
those  public  evils  for  which  they  interceded. 

100.  Whilst  the  kingdom  was  in  this  agitation 
and  distemper,  the  Scots,  restrained  in  their  trades, 
impoverished  by  the  loss  of  many  of  their  ships, 
bereaved  of  all  possibility  of  satisfying  His 
Majesty  by  any  naked  supplication,  entered  with 
a  powerful  army  into  the  kingdom,  and  without 
any  hostile  act  or  spoil  iu  the  country  they  passed, 
more  than  forcing  a  passage  over  the  "Tyne  at 
Newburn,  near  Newcastle,  possessed  themselves 
of  Newcastle,  and  had  a  fair  opportunity  to  press 
on  further  upon  the  King's  army. 

loi.  But  duty  and  reverence  to  His  Majesty, 
and  brotherly  love  to  the  English  nation,  made 
them  stay  there,  whereby  the  King  had  leisure 
to  entertain  better  counsels. 

102.  Wherein  God  so  blessed  and  directed  him 
that  he  summoned  the  Great  Council  of  Peers  to 
meet  at  York  upon  the  24th  of  September,  and 
there  declared  a  Parliament  to  begin  the  3d  of 
November  then  following. 

103.  The  Scots,  the  first  day  of  the  Great 
Council,  presented  an  humble  Petition  to  His 
Majesty,  whereupon  the  Treaty  was  appointed 
at  Ripon. 

104.  A  present  cessation  of  arms  agreed  upon, 
and  the  full  conclusion  of  all  differences  referred 
to  the  wisdom  and  care  of  the  Parliament. 

105.  At  our  first  meeting,  all  oppositions 
seemed  to  vanish,  the  mischiefs  were  so  evident 
which  those  evil  counsellors  produced,  that  no 
man  durst  stand  up  to  defend  them :  yet  the  work 
itself  afforded  difliculty  enough. 

106.  The  multiplied  evils  and  corruption  of 
fifteen  years,  strengthened  bj'  custom  and  au- 
thority, and  the  concurrent  interest  of  many 
powerful  delinquents,  were  now  to  be  brought 
to  judgment  and  reformation. 

107.  The  King's  household  was  to  be  provided 
for: — they  had  brought  him  to  that  want,  that 
he  could  not  supply  his  ordinary  and  necessary 
expenses  without  the  assistance  of  his  people. 

108.  Two  armies  were  to  be  paid,  which 
amounted  very  near  to  eighty  thousand  pounds 
a  month. 

109.  The  people  were  to  be  tenderly  charged, 
having  been  formerly  exhausted  with  many 
burdensome  projects. 

no.  The  difficulties  seemed  to  be  insuperable, 
which  by  the  Divine  Providence  we  have  over- 
come. The  contrarieties  incompatible,  which 
yet  in  a  great  measure  we  have  reconciled. 

111.  Six  subsidies  have  been  granted  and  a 
Bill  of  poll-money,  which  if  it  be  duly  levied, 
may  equal  six  subsidies  more,  in  all  £600,000. 

112.  Besides  we  have  contracted  a  debt  to  the 
Scots  of  £330,000,  yet  God  hath  so  blessed  the 
endeavours  of  this  Parliament,  that  the  kingdom 
is  a  great  gainer  by  all  these  charges. 

113.  The  ship-money  is  abolished,  which  cost 
the  kingdom  about  £300,000  a  year. 

114.  The  coat  and  conduct-money,  and  other 
military  charges  are  taken  away,  which  in  .many 
countries  amounted  to  little  less  than  the  ship- 
money. 

1 15.  The  monopolies  are  all  suppressed,  whereof 
some  few  did  prejudice  the  subject,  above 
£1.000,000  yearly. 

116.  The  soap  £100,000. 

117.  The  wine  £300,000. 

118.  The  leather  must  needs  exceed  both,  and 
salt  could  be  no  less  than  that. 


889 


ENGLAND,   1641. 


The  Grand 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND.  1641. 


119.  Besides  the  inferior  monopolies,  wliich,  if 
they  could  be  exactly  computed,  would  make  up 
a  great  sum. 

120.  That  which  is  more  beneficial  than  all 
this  is,  that  the  root  of  these  evils  is  taken  away, 
which  was  the  arbitrary  power  pretended  to  be  in 
His  Majesty  of  taxing  the  subject,  or  charging 
their  estates  without  consent  in  Parliament, 
which  is  now  declared  to  be  against  law  by  the 
judgment  of  both  Houses,  and  likewise  by  an  Act 
of  Parliament. 

121.  Another  step  of  great  advantage  is  this, 
the  living  grievances,  the  evil  counsellors  and 
actors  of  these  mischiefs  have  been  so  quelled. 

122.  By  the  justice  done  upon  the  Earl  of 
Strafford,  the  flight  of  the  Lord  Finch  and  Secre- 
tary Windebank. 

123.  The  accusation  and  imprisonment  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  of  Judge  Berkelej' ; 
and 

124.  The  impeachment  of  divers  other  Bishops 
and  Judges,  that  it  is  like  not  only  to  be  an  ease  to 
the  present  times,  but  a  preservation  to  the  future. 

125.  The  discontinuance  of  Parliaments  ii  pre- 
vented by  the  Bill  for  a  triennial  Parliament,  and 
the  abrupt  dissolution  of  tliis  Parliament  by 
another  Bill,  by  which  it  is  provided  it  shall  not 
be  dissolved  or  adjourned  without  the  consent  of 
both  Houses. 

126.  Which  two  laws  well  considered  may  be 
thought  more  advantageous  than  all  the  former, 
because  they  secure  a  full  operation  of  the  present 
remedy,  and  afford  a  perpetual  spring  of  reme- 
dies for  the  future. 

127.  The  Star  Chamber. 

128.  The  High  Commission. 

129.  The  Courts  of  the  President  and  Council 
in  the  North  were  so  many  forges  of  misery, 
oppression  and  violence,  and  are  all  taken  away, 
whereby  men  are  more  secured  in  their  persons, 
liberties  and  estates,  than  they  could  be  by  any 
law  or  example  for  the  regulation  of  those  Courts 
or  terror  of  the  Judges. 

130.  The  immoderate  power  of  the  Council 
Table,  and  the  excessive  abuse  of  that  power  is 
so  ordered  and  restrained,  that  we  may  well 
hope  that  no  such  things  as  were  frequently 
done  by  them,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  public  lib- 
erty, will  appear  in  future  times  but  only  in 
stories,  to  give  us  and  our  posterity  more  occa- 
sion to  praise  God  for  His  Majesty's  goodness, 
and  the  faithful  endeavours  of  this  Parliament. 

131.  The  canons  and  power  of  canon-making 
are  blasted  by  the  votes  of  both  Houses. 

132.  The  exorbitant  power  of  Bishops  and 
their  courts  are  much  abated,  by  some  provisions 
in  the  Bill  against  the  High  Commission  Court, 
the  authors  of  the  many  innovations  in  doctrine 
and  ceremonies. 

133.  The  ministers  that  have  been  scandalous 
in  their  lives,  have  been  so  terrified  in  just  com- 
plaints and  accusations,  that  we  may  well  hope 
they  will  be  more  modest  for  the  time  to  come ; 
either  inwardly  convicted  by  the  sight  of  their 
own  folly,  or  outwardly  restrained  by  the  fear 
of  punishment. 

134.  The  forests  are  by  a  good  law  reduced  to 
their  right  bounds. 

135.  The  encroachments  and  oppressions  of 
the  Stannary  Courts,  the  extortions  of  the  clerk 
of  the  market. 

136.  And  the  compulsion  of  the  subject  to  re- 
ceive the  Order  of  Knighthood  against  his  will, 


paying  of  fines  for  not  receiving  it,  and  the  vexa- 
tious proceedings  thereupon  for  levying  of  those 
fines,  are  by  other  beneficial  laws  reformed  and 
prevented. 

137.  Many  excellent  laws  and  provisions  are 
in  preparation  for  removing  the  inordinate  power, 
vexation  and  usurpation  of  Bishops,  for  reform- 
ing the  pride  and  idleness  of  many  of  the  clergy, 
for  easing  the  people  of  unnecessary  ceremonies 
in  religion,  for  censuring  and  removing  un- 
worthy and  unprofitable  ministers,  and  for  main- 
taining godly  and  diligent  preachers  through 
the  kingdom. 

138.  Other  things  of  main  importance  for  the 
good  of  this  kingdom  are  in  proposition,  though 
little  could  hitherto  be  done  in  regard  of  the 
many  other  more  pressing  businesses,  which  yet 
before  the  end  of  this  Session  we  hope  may  re- 
ceive some  progress  and  perfection. 

139.  The  establishing  and  ordering  the  King's 
revenue,  that  so  the  abuse  of  officers  and  super- 
fluity of  expenses  may  be  cut  off,  and  the  neces- 
sary disbursements  for  His  Majesty's  honour, 
the  defence  and  government  of  the  kingdom, 
mny  be  more  certainly  provided  for. 

140.  The  regulating  of  courts  of  justice,  and 
abridging  both  the  delays  and  charges  of  law- 
suits. 

141.  The  settling  of  some  good  courses  for 
preventing  the  exportation  of  gold  and  silver, 
and  the  inequality  of  exchanges  between  us  and 
other  nations,  for  the  advancing  of  native  com- 
modities, increase  of  our  manufactures,  and  well 
balancing  of  trade,  whereby  the  stock  of  the 
kingdom  may  be  increased,  or  at  least  kept  from 
impairing,  as  through  neglect  hereof  it  hath 
done  for  many  years  last  past. 

142.  Improving  the  herring-fishing  upon  our 
coasts,  which  will  be  of  mighty  use  in  the  em- 
ployment of  the  poor,  and  a  plentiful  nursery  of 
mariners  for  enabling  the  kingdom  in  any  great 
action. 

143.  The  oppositions,  obstructions  and  other 
difficulties  wherewith  we  have  been  encountered, 
and  which  still  lie  in  our  way  with  some  strength 
and  much  obstinacy,  are  these:  the  malignant 
party  whom  we  have  formerly  described  to  be 
the  actors  and  promoters  of  all  our  misery,  they 
have  taken  heart  again. 

144.  Tliey  liave  been  able  to  prefer  some  of 
their  own  factors  and  agents  to  degrees  of  hon- 
our, to  places  of  trust  and  employment,  even 
during  the  Parliament. 

145.  Tliey  have  endeavoured  to  work  In  His 
Majesty  ill  impressions  and  opinions  of  our  pro- 
ceedings, as  if  we  had  altogether  done  our  own 
work,  and  not  his ;  and  had  obtained  from  him 
many  things  very  prejudicial  to  the  Crown,  both 
in  respect  of  prerogative  and  profit. 

146.  To  wipe  out  this  slander  we  think  good 
only  to  say  thus  much :  that  all  that  we  have  done 
is  for  His  Majesty,  his  greatness,  honour  and  sup- 
port, when  we  yield  to  give  £25, 000  a  month  for 
the  relief  of  the  Northern  Counties;  this  was 
given  to  the  King,  for  he  was  bound  to  protect 
his  subjects. 

147.  They  were  His  Majesty's  evil  counsellors, 
and  their  ill  instruments  that  were  actors  in  those 
grievances  wliich  brought  in  the  Scots. 

148.  And  if  His  Majesty  please  to  force  those 
who  were  the  authors  of  this  war  to  make  satis- 
faction, as  he  might  justly  and  easily  do,  it  seems 
very  reasonable  that  the  people  might  well  be 


890 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Grand 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


excused  from  taking  upon  them  this  burden, 
being  altogether  innocent  and  free  from  being 
any  cause  of  it. 

149.  When  we  undertook  the  charge  of  the 
army,  which  cost  above  £50,000  a  month,  was 
not  this  given  to  the  King  ?  Was  it  not  His 
Majesty's  army  ?  Were  not  all  the  commanders 
under  contract  with  His  Majesty,  at  higher  rates 
and  greater  wages  than  ordinary  ? 

150.  And  have  not  we  taken  upon  us  to  dis- 
charge all  the  brotherly  assistance  of  £300,000, 
which  we  gave  the  Scots  ?  Was  it  not  toward 
repair  of  those  damages  and  losses  which  they  re- 
ceived from  the  King's  ships  and  from  his  min- 
isters ? 

151.  These  three  particulars  amount  to  above 
£1,100,000. 

152.  Besides,  His  Majesty  hath  received  by 
impositions  upon  merchandise  at  least  £400,000. 

153.  So  that  His  Majesty  hath  had  out  of  the 
subjects'  purse  since  the  Parliament  began,  £1,- 
500,000,  and  yet  these  men  can  be  so  impudent 
as  to  tell  His  Majesty  that  we  have  done  nothing 
for  him. 

154.  As  to  the  second  branch  of  this  slander, 
we  acknowledge  with  much  thankfulness  that  His 
Majesty  hath  passed  more  good  Bills  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  subjects  than  have  been  in  many  ages. 

155.  But  withal  we  cannot  forget  that  these 
venomous  councils  did  manifest  themselves  in 
some  endeavours  to  hinder  these  good  acts. 

156.  And  for  both  Houses  of  Parliament  we 
may  with  truth  and  modesty  say  thus  much :  that 
we  have  ever  been  careful  not  to  desire  anything 
that  should  weaken  the  Crown  either  in  just 
profit  or  useful  power. 

157.  The  triennial  Parliament  for  the  matter 
of  it,  doth  not  extend  to  so  much  as  by  law  we 
ought  to  have  required  (there  being  two  statutes 
still  in  force  for  a  Parliament  to  be  once  a  year), 
and  for  the  manner  of  it,  it  is  in  the  King's  power 
that  it  shall  never  take  effect,  if  he  by  a  timely 
summons  shall  prevent  any  other  way  of  assem- 
bling. 

158.  In  the  Bill  for  continuance  of  this  present 
Parliament,  there  seems  to  be  some  restraint  of 
the  royal  power  in  dissolving  of  Parliaments,  not 
to  take  it  out  of  the  Crown,  but  to  suspend  the 
execution  of  it  for  this  time  and  occasion  only : 
which  was  so  necessary  for  the  King's  own 
security  and  the  public  peace,  that  without  it  we 
could  not  have  undertaken  any  of  these  great 
charges,  but  must  have  left  both  the  armies  to 
disorder  and  confusion,  and  the  whole  kingdom 
to  blood  and  rapine. 

159.  The  Star  Chamber  was  much  more  fruit- 
ful in  oppression  than  in  profit,  the  great  fines 
being  for  the  most  part  given  away,  and  the  rest 
stalled  at  long  times. 

160.  The  fines  of  the  High  Commission  were 
in  themselves  unjust,  and  seldom  or  never  came 
into  the  King's  purse.  These  four  Bills  are  par- 
ticularly and  more  specially  instanced. 

161.  In  the  rest  there  will  not  be  found  so 
much  as  a  shadow  of  prejudice  to  the  Crown. 

162.  They  have  sought  to  diminish  our  repu- 
tation with  the  people,  and  to  bring  them  out  of 
love  with  Parliaments. 

163.  The  aspersions  which  they  have  attempted 
this  way  have  been  sucli  as  these : 

164.  That  we  have  spent  much  time  and  done 
little,  especially  in  those  grievances  which  con- 
cern religion. 


165.  That  the  Parliament  is  a  burden  lo  the 
kingdom  by  the  abundance  of  protections  which 
hinder  justice  and  trade;  and  by  many  subsidies 
granted  much  more  heavy  than  any  formerly  en 
dured, 

166.  To  which  there  is  a  ready  answer;  if  the 
time  spent  in  this  Parliament  be  considered  in  re- 
lation backward  to  the  long  growth  and  deep 
root  of  those  grievances,  which  we  have  removed, 
to  the  powerful  supports  of  those  delinquents, 
which  we  have  pursued,  to  the  great  necessities 
and  other  charges  of  the  commonwealth  for  which 
we  have  provided. 

167.  Or  if  it  be  considered  in  relation  forward 
to  many  advantages,  which  not  only  the  present 
but  future  ages  are  like  to  reap  by  the  good  laws 
and  other  proceedings  in  this  Parliament,  we 
doubt  not  but  it  will  be  thought  by  all  indifferent 
judgments,  that  our  time  hath  been  much  better 
employed  than  in  a  far  greater  proportion  of  time 
in  many  former  Parliaments  put  together ;  and 
the  charges  which  have  been  laid  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  other  inconveniences  which  they 
have  borne,  will  seem  very  light  in  respect  of 
the  benefit  they  have  and  may  receive. 

168.  And  for  the  matter  of  protections,  the 
Parliament  is  so  sensible  of  it  that  therein  they 
intended  to  give  them  whatsoever  ease  may  stand 
with  honour  and  justice,  and  are  in  a  way  of 
passing  a  Bill  to  give  them  satisfaction. 

169.  They  have  sought  by  many  subtle  prac- 
tices to  cause  jealousies  and  divisions  betwixt  us 
and  our  brethren  of  Scotland,  by  slandering  their 
proceedings  and  intentions  towards  us,  and  by 
secret  endeavours  to  instigate  and  incense  them 
and  us  one  against  another. 

170.  They  have  had  such  a  party  of  Bishops 
and  Popish  lords  in  the  House  of  Peers,  as  hath 
caused  much  opposition  and  delay  in  the  prose- 
cution of  delinquents,  hindered  the  proceedings 
of  divers  good  Bills  passed  in  the  Commons' 
House,  concerning  the  reformation  of  sundry 
great  abuses  and  corruptions  both  in  Church  and 
State. 

171.  They  have  laboured  to  seduce  and  cor- 
rupt some  of  the  Commons'  House  to  draw  them 
into  conspiracies  and  combinations  against  the 
liberty  of  the  Parliament. 

172.  And  by  their  instruments  and  agents  they 
have  attempted  to  disaffect  and  discontent  His 
Majesty's  army,  and  to  engage  it  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  their  wicked  and  traitorous  designs ;  the 
keeping  up  of  Bishops  in  votes  and  functions, 
and  by  force  to  compel  the  Parliament  to  order, 
limit  and  dispose  their  proceedings  in  such  man- 
ner as  might  best  concur  with  the  intentions  of 
this  dangerous  and  potent  faction. 

173.  And  when  one  mischievous  design  and 
attempt  of  theirs  to  bring  on  the  army  against 
the  Parliament  and  the  City  of  London,  hath 
been  discovered  and  prevented ; 

174.  They  presently  tmdertook  another  of  the 
same  damnable  nature,  with  this  addition  to  it, 
to  endeavour  to  make  the  Scottish  army  neutral, 
whilst  the  English  army,  which  they  had  la- 
boured to  corrupt  and  envenom  against  us  by 
their  false  and  slanderous  suggestions,  should 
execute  their  malice  to  the  subversion  of  our  re- 
ligion and  the  dissolution  of  our  government. 

175.  Thus  they  have  been  continually  practis- 
ing to  disturb  the  peace,  and  plotting  the  de- 
struction even  of  all  the  King's  dominions ;  and 
have  employed  their  emissaries  and   agents  in 


891 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Grand 
Bevionstrance. 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


them,  all  for  the  promoting  their  devilish  designs, 
which  the  vigilancy  of  those  who  were  well  af- 
fected hath  still  discovered  and  defeated  before 
they  were  ripe  for  execution  in  England  and 
Scotland. 

176.  Only  in  Ireland,  which  was  farther  off, 
they  have  had  time  and  opportunity  to  mould 
and  prepare  their  work,  and  had  brought  it  to 
that  perfection  that  they  had  possessed  them- 
selves of  that  whole  kingdom,  totally  subverted 
the  government  of  it,  routed  out  religion,  and 
destroyed  all  the  Protestants  whom  the  conscience 
of  their  duty  to  God,  their  King  and  country, 
would  not  have  permitted  to  join  with  them,  if 
by  God's  wonderful  providence  their  main  enter- 
prise upon  the  city  and  castle  of  Dublin,  had 
not  been  detected  and  prevented  upon  the  very 
eve  before  it  should  have  been  executed. 

177.  Notwithstanding  they  have  in  other  parts 
of  that  kingdom  broken  out  into  open  rebellion, 
surprising  towns  and  castles,  committed  murders, 
rapes  and  other  villainies,  and  shaken  off  all 
bonds  of  obedience  to  His  Majesty  and  the  laws 
of  the  realm. 

178.  And  in  general  have  kindled  such  a  fire, 
as  nothing  but  God's  intinite  blessing  upon  the 
wisdom  and  endeavours  of  this  State  will  be  able 
to  quench  it. 

179.  And  certainly  had  not  God  in  His  great 
mercy  unto  this  land  discovered  and  confounded 
their  former  designs,  we  had  been  the  prologue  to 
this  tragedy  in  Ireland,  and  had  by  this  been  made 
the  lamentable  spectacle  of  misery  and  confusion. 

180.  And  now  what  hope  have  we  but  in  God, 
when  as  the  only  means  of  our  subsistence  and 
power  of  reformation  is  under  Him  in  the  Par- 
liament ? 

181.  But  what  can  we  the  Commons,  without 
the  conjunction  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  what 
conjunction  can  we  expect  there,  when  the 
Bishops  and  recusant  lords  are  so  numerous  and 
prevalent  that  they  are  able  to  cross  and  interrupt 
our  best  endeavours  for  reformation,  and  by  that 
means  give  advantage  to  this  malignant  party 
to  traduce  our  proceedings  ? 

182.  They  infuse  into  the  people  that  we 
mean  to  abolish  all  Church  government,  and 
leave  every  man  to  his  own  fancy  for  the  service 
and  worship  of  God,  absolving  him  of  that  obedi- 
ence which  he  owes  under  God  unto  His  Majesty, 
whom  we  know  to  be  entrusted  with  the  ecclesi- 
astical law  as  well  as  with  the  temporal,  to  regu- 
late all  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England, 
by  such  rules  of  order  and  discipline  as  are  es- 
tablished by  Parliament,  which  is  his  great  coun- 
cil in  all  affairs  both  in  Church  and  State. 

183.  We  confess  our  intention  is,  and  our  en- 
deavours have  been,  to  reduce  within  bounds 
that  exorbitant  power  which  the  prelates  have 
assumed  unto  themselves,  so  contrary  both  to 
the  Word  of  God  and  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  to 
which  end  we  passed  the  Bill  for  the  removing 
them  from  their  temporal  power  and  employ- 
ments, that  so  the  better  they  might  with  meek- 
ness apply  themselves  to  the  discharge  of  their 
functions,  which  Bill  themselves  opposed,  and 
were  the  principal  instruments  of  crossing  it. 

184.  And  we  do  here  declare  that  it  is  far  from 
our  purpose  or  desire  to  let  loose  the  golden 
reins  of  discipline  and  government  in  the  Church, 
to  leave  private  persons  or  particular  congrega- 
tions to  take  up  what  form  of  Divine  Service 
they  please,  for  we  hold  it  requisite  that  there 


should  be  throughout  the  whole  realm  a  con- 
formity to  that  order  which  the  laws  enjoin  ac- 
cording to  the  Word  of  God.  And  we  desire  to 
unburden  the  consciences  of  men  of  needless  and 
superstitious  ceremonies,  suppress  innovations, 
and  take  away  the  monuments  of  idolatry. 

185.  And  the  better  to  effect  the  intended  ref- 
ormation, we  desire  there  may  be  a  general  synod 
of  the  most  grave,  pious,  learned  and  judicious 
divines  of  this  island;  assisted  with  some  from 
foreign  parts,  professing  the  same  religion  with 
us,  who  may  consider  of  all  things  necessary  for 
the  peace  and  good  government  of  the  Church, 
and  represent  the  results  of  their  consultations 
unto  the  Parliament,  to  be  there  allowed  of  and 
confirmed,  and  receive  the  stamp  of  authority, 
thereby  to  find  passage  and  obedience  throughout 
the  kingdom. 

186.  They  have  maliciously  charged  us  that 
we  intend  to  destroy  and  discourage  learning, 
whereas  it  is  our  chief  est  care  and  desire  to  advance 
it,  and  to  provide  a  competent  maintenance  for 
conscionable  and  preaching  ministers  throughout 
the  kingdom,  which  will  be  a  great  encourage- 
ment to  scholars,  and  a  certain  means  whereby 
the  want,  meanness  and  ignorance,  to  which  a 
great  part  of  the  clergy  is  now  subject,  will  be 
prevented. 

187.  And  we  intended  likewise  to  reform  and 
purge  the  fountains  of  learning,  the  two  Univer- 
sities, that  the  streams  flowing  from  thence  may 
be  clear  and  pure,  and  an  honour  and  comfort  to 
the  whole  land. 

188.  They  have  strained  to  blast  our  proceed- 
ings in  Parliament,  by  wresting  the  interpreta- 
tions of  our  orders  from  their  genuine  intention. 

189.  They  tell  the  people  that  our  meddling 
with  the  power  of  episcopacy  hath  caused  sectaries 
and  conventicles,  when  idolatrous  and  Popish 
ceremonies,  introduced  into  the  Church  by  the 
command  of  the  Bishops  have  not  only  debarred 
the  people  from  thence,  but  expelled  them  from 
the  kingdom. 

190.  Thus  with  Elijah,  we  are  called  by  this 
malignant  party  the  troublers  of  the  State,  and 
still,  while  we  endeavour  to  reform  their  abuses, 
they  make  us  the  authors  of  those  mischiefs  we 
study  to  prevent. 

191.  For  the  perfecting  of  the  work  begun, 
and  removing  all  future  impediments,  we  con- 
ceive these  courses  will  be  very  effectual,  seeing 
the  religion  of  the  Papists  hath  such  principles 
as  do  certainly  tend  to  the  destruction  and  extir- 
pation of  all  Protestants,  when  they  shall  have 
opportunity  to  effect  it. 

192.  It  is  necessary  in  the  first  place  to  keep 
them  in  such  condition  as  that  they  may  not  be 
able  to  do  us  any  hurt,  and  for  avoiding  of  such 
connivance  and  favour  as  hath  heretofore  been 
shown  unto  them. 

193.  That  His  Majesty  be  pleased  to  grant  a 
standing  Commission  to  some  choice  men  named 
in  Parliament,  who  may  take  notice  of  their  in- 
crease, their  counsels  and  proceedings,  and  use 
all  due  means  by  execution  of  the  laws  to  pre- 
vent all  mischievous  designs  against  the  peace 
and  safety  of  this  kingdom. 

194.  Thus  some  good  course  be  taken  to  dis- 
cover the  counterfeit  and  false  conformity  of 
Papists  to  the  Church,  by  colour  whereof  persons 
very  much  disaffected  to  the  true  religion  have 
been  admitted  into  place  of  greatest  authority 
and  trust  in  the  kingdom. 


892 


ENGLAND,  1641. 


The  Grand 
Remonstrance. 


ENGLAND.  1642. 


195.  For  the  better  preservation  of  the  laws 
and  liberties  of  the  kingdom,  that  all  illegal 
grievances  and  exactions  be  presented  and  pun- 
ished at  the  sessions  and  assizes. 

196.  And  that  Judges  and  Justices  be  very 
careful  to  give  this  in  charge  to  the  grand  jury, 
and  both  the  Sheriff  and  Justices  to  be  sworn  to 
the  due  execution  of  the  Petition  of  Right  and 
other  laws. 

197.  That  His  Majesty  be  humbly  petitioned 
by  both  Houses  to  employ  such  counsellors,  am- 
bassadors and  other  ministers,  in  managing  his 
business  at  home  and  abroad  as  the  Parliament 
may  have  cause  to  confide  in,  without  which  we 
cannot  give  His  Majesty  such  supplies  for  sup- 
port of  his  own  estate,  nor  such  assistance  to  the 
Protestant  party  beyond  the  sea,  as  is  desired. 

198.  It  may  often  fall  out  that  the  Commons 
may  have  just  cause  to  take  exceptions  at  some 
men  for  being  councillors,  and  yet  not  charge 
those  men  with  crimes,  for  there  be  grounds  of 
diffidence  which  lie  not  in  proof. 

199.  There  are  others,  which  though  they  may 
be  proved,  yet  are  not  legally  criminal. 

200.  To  be  a  known  favourer  of  Papists,  or  to 
have  been  very  forward  in  defending  or  counte- 
nancing some  great  offenders  questioned  in  Par- 
liament; or  to  speak  contemptuously  of  either 
Houses  of  Parliament  or  Parliamentary  proceed- 
ings. 

201.  Or  such  as  are  factors  or  agents  for  any 
foreign  prince  of  another  religion ;  such  are  justly 
suspected  to  get  councillors'  places,  or  any  other 
of  trust  concerning  public  employment  for 
money ;  for  all  these  and  divers  otliers  we  may 
have  great  reason  to  be  earnest  with  His  Majesty, 
not  to  put  bis  great  affairs  into  such  hands,  though 
we  may  be  unwilling  to  proceed  against  them  in 
any  legal  way  of  charge  or  impeachment. 

202.  That  all  Councillors  of  State  may  be 
sworn  to  observe  those  laws  which  concern  the 
subject  in  his  liberty,  that  they  may  likewise  take 
an  oath  not  to  receive  or  give  reward  or  pension 
from  any  foreign  prince,  but  such  as  they  shall 
within  some  reasonable  time  discover  to  the  Lords 
of  His  Majesty's  Council. 

203.  And  although  they  should  wickedly  for- 
swear themselves,  3'et  it  may  herein  do  good  to 
make  them  known  to  be  false  and  perjured  to 
those  who  employ  them,  and  thereby  bring  them 
into  as  little  credit  with  them  as  with  us. 

204.  That  His  Majesty  may  have  cause  to  be  in 
love  with  good  counsel  and  good  men,  by  shewing 
him  in  an  humble  and  dutiful  manner  how  full 
of  advantage  it  would  be  to  himself,  to  see  his 
own  estate  settled  in  a  plentiful  condition  to  sup- 
port his  honour ;  to  see  his  people  united  in  ways 
of  duty  to  him,  and  endeavours  of  the  public 
good ;  to  see  happiness,  wealth,  peace  and  safety 
derived  to  his  own  kingdom,  and  procured  to  his 
allies  by  the  influence  of  his  own  power  and  gov- 
ernment." 

A.  D.  1642  (January). — ^The  King's  attempt 
against  the  Five  Members. —  On  the  3d  of 
January,  "the  king  was  betrayed  into  ...  an 
indiscretion  to  which  all  the  ensuing  disorders 
and  civil  wars  ought  immediately  and  directly  to 
be  ascribed.  This  was  the  impeachment  of  Lord 
Kimbolton  and  the  five  members.  .  .  .  Herbert, 
attorney-general,  appeared  in  the  House  of  Peers, 
and,  in  his  majesty's  name,  entered  an  accusa- 
tion of  high  treason  against  Lord  Kimbolton  and 
five  commoners,    Hollis,    Sir  Arthur   Hazlerig, 


Hambden,  Pym,  and  Strode.  The  articles  were, 
That  they  had  traitorously  endeavoured  to  sub- 
vert the  fundamental  laws  and  government  of 
the  kingdom,  to  deprive  the  king  of  his  regal 
power,  and  to  impose  on  his  subjects  an  arbi- 
trary and  tyrannical  authority;  that  they  had 
endeavoured,  by  many  foul  aspersions  ou  his 
majesty  and  his  government,  to  alienate  the  affec- 
tions of  his  people,  and  make  him  odious  to  them ; 
that  they  had  attempted  to  draw  his  late  army 
to  disobedience  of  his  royal  commands,  and  to 
side  with  them  in  their  traitorous  designs;  that 
they  had  invited  and  encouraged  a  foreign  power 
to  invade  the  kingdom ;  that  they  had  aimed  at 
subverting  the  rights  and  very  being  of  Parlia- 
ment ;  that,  in  order  to  complete  their  traitorous 
designs,  they  had  endeavoured,  as  far  as  in  them 
lay,  by  force  and  terror,  to  compel  the  Parlia- 
ment to  join  with  them,  and  to  that  end  had 
actually  raised  and  countenanced  tumults  against 
the  king  and  Parliament;  and  that  they  had 
traitorously  conspired  to  levy,  and  actually  had 
levied,  war  against  the  king.  The  whole  world 
stood  amazed  at  this  important  accusation,  so 
suddenly  entered  upon,  without  concert,  delibera- 
tion or  reflection.  .  .  .  But  men  had  not  leisure  to 
wonder  at  the  indiscretion  of  this  measure :  their 
astonishment  was  excited  by  new  attempts,  still 
more  precipitate  and  imprudent.  A  sergeant  at 
arms,  in  the  king's  name,  demanded  of  the  House 
the  five  members,  and  was  sent  back  without  any 
positive  answer.  Messengers  were  employed  to 
search  for  them  and  arrest  them.  Their  trunks, 
chambers,  and  studies,  were  sealed  and  locked. 
The  House  voted  all  these  acts  of  violence  to  be 
breaches  of  privilege,  and  commanded  every  one 
to  defend  the  liberty  of  the  members.  The  king, 
irritated  by  all  this  opposition,  resolved  next  day 
to  come  in  person  to  the  House,  with  an  Intention 
to  demand,  perhaps  seize,  in  their  presence,  the 
persons  whom  he  had  accused.  This  resolution 
was  discovered  to  the  Countess  of  Carlisle,  sister 
to  Northumberland,  a  lady  of  spirit,  wit,  and 
intrigue.  She  privately  sent  Intelligence  to  the 
five  members ;  and  they  had  time  to  withdraw,  a 
moment  before  the  king  entered.  He  was  accom- 
panied by  his  ordinary  retinue,  to  the  number  of 
above  two  hundred,  armed  as  usual,  some  with 
halberts,  some  with  walking  swords.  The  king 
left  them  at  the  door,  and  he  himself  advanced 
alone  through  the  hall,  while  all  the  members 
rose  to  receive  him.  The  speaker  withdrew  from 
his  chair,  and  the  king  took  possession  of  it. 
The  speech  which  he  made  was  as  follows: 
'  Gentlemen,  I  am  sorry  for  this  occasion  of  com- 
ing to  you.  Yesterday,  I  sent  a  sergeant  at 
arms,  to  demand  some,  who,  by  my  order,  were 
accused  of  high  treason.  Instead  of  obedience,  I 
received  a  message.  .  .  .  Therefore  am  I  come 
to  tell  you,  that  I  must  have  these  men  whereso- 
ever I  can  find  them.  Well,  since  I  see  all  the 
birds  are  flown,  I  do  expect  that  you  will  send 
them  to  me  as  soon  as  they  return.  But  I  assure 
you,  on  the  word  of  a  king,  I  never  did  intend 
any  force,  but  shall  proceed  against  them  in  a 
fair  and  legal  way,  for  I  never  meant  any  other.' 
.  .  .  When  the  king  was  looking  around  for  the 
accused  members,  he  asked  the  speaker,  who 
stood  below,  whether  any  of  these  persons  were 
in  the  House  ?  The  speaker,  falling  on  his  knee, 
prudently  replied :  '  I  have,  sir,  neither  eyes  to 
see,  nor  tongue  to  speak,  in  this  place,  but  as  the 
House  is  pleased  to  direct  me,  whose  servant  I 


893 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


Preparing  for 
War. 


ENGLAND,   1642. 


am.  And  I  humbly  ask  pardon,  that  I  cannot 
give  any  other  answer  to  what  your  majesty  is 
pleased  to  demand  of  me.'  The  Commons  were 
in  the  utmost  disorder ;  and  when  the  liing  was 
departing,  some  members  cried  aloud  so  as  he 
might  hear  them.  Privilege!  Privilege!  and  the 
House  immediately  adjourned  till  next  day. 
That  evening,  the  accused  members,  to  show  the 
greaterapprehension,  removed  into  the  city.whicli 
was  their  fortress.  The  citizens  were  the  whole 
night  in  arms.  .  .  When  the  House  of  Com- 
mons met,  they  affected  the  greatest  dismay ;  and 
adjourning  themselves  for  some  days,  ordered  a 
committee  to  sit  in  Merchant-Tailors'  hall  in  the 
city.  .  .  .  The  House  again  met,  and  after  con- 
firming the  votes  of  their  committee,  instantly 
adjourned,  as  if  exposed  to  the  most  imminent 
perils  from  the  violence  of  their  enemies.  This 
practice  they  continued  for  some  time.  When 
the  people,  by  these  affected  panics,  were  wrought 
up  to  a  sufficient  degree  of  rage  and  terror,  it 
was  thought  proper,  that  the  accused  members 
should,  with  a  triumphant  and  military  proces- 
sion, take  their  seats  in  the  House.  The  river 
was  covered  with  boats,  and  other  vessels,  laden 
with  small  pieces  of  ordnance,  and  prepared  for 
tight.  Skippon,  whom  the  Parliament  had  ap- 
pointed, by  their  own  authority,  major-general 
of  the  city  militia,  conducted  the  members,  at  the 
head  of  this  tumultuary  army,  to  Westminster- 
hall.  And  when  the  populace,  by  land  and  by 
water,  passed  Whitehall,  they  still  asked,  with 
insulting  shouts,  What  has  become  of  the  king 
and  his  cavaliers  ?  And  whither  are  they  fled  ? 
The  king,  apprehensive  of  danger  from  the  en- 
raged multitude,  had  retired  to  Hampton-court, 
deserted  by  all  the  world,  and  overwhelmed  with 
grief,  shame,  and  remorse  for  the  fatal  measures 
Into  which  he  hud  been  hurried." — D.  Hume, 
Hist,  of  England,  v.  5,  ch.  55,  pp.  85-91. 

Also  in  ;  S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  First  Two  Stuarts 
and  the  Puritan  Revolution,  ch.  6,  sect.  5, — The 
same,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  1603-1643,  eh.  103  (».  10).— 
J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Commonwealth :  Pym; 
Hampden.- — L.  von  Ranke,  Hist:  of  Eng.,  1.7th 
Cent.,  bk.  8,  eh.  10  (?).  3). 

A.  D.  1642  (January — August). — Prepara- 
tions for  war. — The  marshalling  of  forces. — 
The  raising  of  the  King's  standard. —  "Janu- 
ary 10th.  The  King  with  his  Court  quits  White- 
hall ;  the  Five  Members  and  Parliament  proposing 
to  return  tomorrow,  with  the  whole  City  in  arms 
round  them.  He  left  Whitehall ;  never  saw  it 
again  till  he  came  to  lay  down  his  head  there. 
March  9th.  The  King  has  sent  away  his  Queen 
from  Dover,  'to  be  in  a  place  of  safety,' — and 
also  to  pawn  the  Crown-jewels  in  Holland,  and 
get  him  arms.  He  returns  Northward  again, 
avoiding  London.  Many  messages  between  the 
Houses  of  Parliament  and  him:  'Will  your 
Majesty  grant  us  Power  of  the  Militia ;  accept 
this  list  of  Lord-Lieutenants  ? '  On  the  9th  of 
March,  still  advancing  Northward  without  af- 
firmative response,  he  has  got  to  Newmarket; 
where  another  Message  overtakes  him,  earnestly 
urges  itself  upon  him;  '  Could  not  your  Majesty 
please  to  grant  us  Power  of  the  Militia  for  a  lim- 
ited time  ?'  '  No,  by  God  I'  answers  his  Majesty, 
'not  for  an  hour.' — On  the  19th  of  March  he 
is  at  York;  where  his  Hull  Magazine,  gathered 
for  service  against  the  Scots,  is  lying  near;  where 
a  great  Earl  of  Newcastle,  and  other  Northern 
potentates,  will  help  him ;  where  at  least  London 


and  its  Puritanism,  now  grown  so  fierce,  is  far 
off.  There  we  will  leave  him ;  attempting  Hull 
Magazine,  in  vain ;  exchanging  messages  with 
his  Parliament;  messages,  missives,  printed  and 
written  Papers  without  limit;  Law-pleadings 
of  both  parties  before  the  great  tribunal  of  tiie 
English  Nation,  each  party  striving  to  prove 
itself  right  and  within  the  verge  of  Law;  pre- 
served still  in  acres  of  typography,  once  thrill- 
ingly  alive  in  every  fibre  of  them ;  now  a  mere 
torpor,  readable  by  few  creatures,  not  remem- 
berable  by  any." — T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  Cromwell's 
Letters  and  Speeches,  pt.  3,  preliminary. — "As 
early  as  June  3  a  ship  had  arrived  on  the  North- 
English  coast,  bringing  the  King  arms  and  am- 
munition from  Holland,  purchased  by  the  sale  of 
the  crown-jewels  which  the  Queen  had  taken 
abroad.  On  the  33d  of  the  same  month  more 
than  forty  of  the  nobles  and  others  in  attendance 
on  the  King  at  York  had  put  down  tlicir  names 
for  the  numbers  of  armed  horse  they  would  fur- 
nish respectively  for  Iiis  service.  Requisitions  in 
the  King's  name  were  also  out  for  supplies  of 
money;  and  the  two  Universities,  and  the  Col- 
leges in  each,  were  invited  to  send  in  their  plate. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Parliament  had  not  been 
more  negligent.  There  had  been  contributions 
or  promises  from  all  the  chief  Parliamentarian 
nobles  and  others ;  there  was  a  large  loan  from 
the  city ;  and  hundreds  of  thousands,  on  a  smaller 
scale,  were  willing  to  subscribe.  And  already, 
through  all  the  shires,  the  two  opposed  powers 
were  grappling  and  jostling  with  each  other  in 
raising  levies.  On  the  King's  side  there  were 
what  were  called  Commissions  of  Array,  or  pow- 
ers granted  to  certain  nobles  and  others  by  name 
to  raise  troops  for  the  King.  On  the  side  of 
Parliament,  in  addition  to  the  Volunteering 
which  had  been  going  on  in  many  places  (as,  for 
example,  in  Cambridgeshire,  where  Oliver  Crom- 
well was  forming  a  troop  of  Volunteer  horse 
.  .  .  ),  there  was  the  Militia  Ordinance  available 
wherever  the  persons  named  in  that  ordinance 
were  really  zealous  for  Parliament,  and  able  to 
act  personally  in  the  districts  assigned  them. 
And  so  on  the  13th  of  July  the  Parliament  had 
passed  the  necessary  vote  for  supplying  an  army, 
and  had  appointed  the  Earl  of  Essex  to  be  its 
commander-in-chief,  and  the  Earl  of  Bedford  to 
be  its  second  in  command  as  general  of  horse.  It 
was  known,  on  the  other  side,  that  the  Earl  of 
Lindsey,  in  consideration  of  his  past  experience 
of  service  both  on  sea  and  land,  was  to  have  the 
command  of  the  King's  army,  and  that  his  master 
of  horse  was  to  be  the  King's  nephew,  young 
Prince  Rupert,  who  was  expected  from  the  Con- 
tinent on  purpose.  Despite  all  these  prepara- 
tions, however,  it  was  probably  not  till  August 
had  begun  that  the  certainty  of  Civil  War  was 
universally  acknowledged.  It  was  on  the  9th  of 
that  month  tliat  the  King  issued  his  proclamation 
'  for  suppressing  the  present  Rebellion  under  the 
command  of  Robert,  Earl  of  Essex,'  offering 
pardon  to  him  and  others  if  within  six  days 
they  made  their  submission.  The  Parliamentary 
answer  to  this  was  on  the  11th;  on  which  day 
the  Commons  resolved,  each  man  separately  ris- 
ing in  his  place  and  giving  his  word,  that  they 
would  stand  by  the  Earl  of  Essex  with  their 
lives  and  fortunes  to  the  end.  Still,  even  after 
that,  there  were  trembling  souls  here  and  there 
who  hoped  for  a  reconciliation.  Monday  the 
23d  of  August  put  an  end  to  all  such  fluttering : 


894 


ENGLAND,  1642. 


War  beguji. 


ENGLAND,  1642. 


—  On  that  day,  the  King,  who  had  meanwhile 
left  York,  and  come  about  a  hundred  miles  far- 
ther south,  into  the  very  heart  of  England,  .  .  . 
made  a  backward  movement  as  far  as  the  town 
of  Nottingham,  wliere  preparations  had  been 
made  for  the  great  scene  that  was  to  follow.  .  .  . 
This  consisted  in  bringing  out  the  royal  standard 
and  setting  it  up  in  due  form.  It  was  about  si-\ 
o'clock  in  the  evening  when  it  was  done.  ...  A 
herald  read  a  proclamation,  declaring  the  cause 
why  the  standard  had  been  set  up,  and  summon- 
ing all  the  lieges  to  assist  his  Majesty.  Those 
who  were  present  cheered  and  tlirew  up  their 
hats,  and,  with  a  beating  of  drums  and  a  sound- 
ing of  trumpets,  the  ceremony  ended.  .  .  .  From 
that  evening  of  the  22d  of  August,  1643,  tlie 
Civil  War  had  begun." — D.  Masson,  Life  of  John 
Milton,  bk.  2,  ch.  8  (».  2). 

Also  in:  John  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Com- 
monwealth: Pym  ;  Hampden. — S.  R.  Gardiner, 
Hist.  ofEng.,  1603-1642,  ch.  104-105  {v.  10). 

A.  D.  1642  (August— September).— The  na- 
tion choosing  sides. — "In  wealth,  in  numbers, 
and  in  cohesion  tlie  Parliament  was  stronger  than 
the  king.  To  him  there  liad  rallied  most  of  the 
greater  nobles,  many  of  the  lesser  gentry,  some 
proportion  of  tlie  richer  citizens,  the  townsmen 
of  the  west,  and  tlie  rural  population  generally 
of  the  west  and  north  of  England.  For  the 
Parliament  stood  a  strong  section  of  the  peers 
and  greater  gentry,  the  great  bulk  of  the  lesser 
gentry,  the  townsmen  of  the  richer  parts  of  Eng- 
land, the  whole  eastern  and  liome  counties,  and 
lastly,  the  city  of  London.  But  as  the  Civil  War 
did  not  sharply  divide  classes,  so  neither  did  it 
geographically  bisect  England.  Roughly  speak- 
ing, aristocracy  and  peasantry,  the  Church,  uni- 
versities, the  world  of  culture,  fasliion,  and 
pleasure  were  loyal :  the  gentry,  the  yeomanry, 
trade,  commerce,  morality,  and  law  inclined  to 
the  Parliament.  Broadly  divided,  the  north  and 
west  went  for  the  king ;  the  soutli  and  east  for 
the  Houses;  but  the  lianes  of  demarcation  were 
never  exact:  cities,  castles,  and  manor-houses 
long  held  out  in  an  enemy's  county.  There  is 
only  one  permanent  limitation.  Draw  a  line 
from  the  Wash  to  tlie  Solent.  East  of  that  line 
the  country  never  yielded  to  the  king ;  from  first 
to' last  it  never  failed  the  Parliament.  Within 
it  are  enclosed  Norfolk,  Suffolk,  Essex,  Cam- 
bridge, Huntingdon,  Bedford,  Bucks,  Herts,  Jlid- 
dlesex,  Surrey,  Kent,  Sussex.  Tliis  was  the 
wealthiest,  the  most  populous,  and  the  most  ad- 
vanced portion  of  England.  AVith  Gloucester, 
Reading,  Bristol,  Leicester,  and  Northampton, 
it  formed  the  natural  home  of  Puritanism." — P. 
Harrison,  Oliver  Cromwell,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1642 (October — -December). — Edgehill 
^the  opening  battle  of  the  war. — The  Eastern 
Association. — Immediately  after  the  raising  of 
his  standard  at  Nottingham,  the  King,  "aware 
at  last  that  he  could  not  rely  on  the  inhabitants 
of  Yorkshire,  moved  to  Shrewsbury,  at  once  to 
collect  the  Catholic  gentry  of  Lancashire  and 
Cheshire,  to  receive  the  Royalist  levies  of  Wales, 
and  to  secure  the  valley  of  the  Severn.  The 
movement  was  successful.  In  a  few  days  his 
little  army  was  increased  fourfold,  and  he  felt 
himself  strong  enough  to  make  a  direct  march 
towards  the  capital.  Essex  had  garrisoned 
Northampton,  Coventry  and  Warwick,  and  lay 
himself  at  Worcester ;  but  the  King,  waiting  for 
no  sieges,  left  the  garrisoned  towns  unmolested 


and  passed  on  towards  London,  and  Essex  re- 
ceived peremptory  orders  to  pursue  and  interpose 
if  possible  between  the  King  and  London.  On 
the  22nd  of  October  he  was  close  upon  the  King's 
rear  at  Keynton,  between  Stratford  and  Ban- 
bury. But  his  army  was  by  no  means  at  its  full 
strength ;  some  regiments  had  been  left  to  garri- 
son the  West,  others,  under  Hampden  had  not 
yet  joined  him.  But  delay  was  impossible,  and 
the  first  battle  of  the  war  was  fought  on  the 
plain  at  the  foot  of  the  north-west  slope  of 
Edgehill,  over  which  the  royal  army  descended, 
turning  back  on  its  course  to  meet  Essex.  Both 
partij:s  claimed  the  victory.  In  fact  it  was  with 
the  King.  The  Parliamentary  cavalry  found 
themselves  wholly  unable  to  withstand  the  charge 
of  Rupert's  cavaliers.  Wliole  regiments  turned 
and  fled  without  striking  a  blow;  but,  as  usual, 
want  of  discipline  ruined  the  royal  cause. 
Rupert's  men  fell  to  plundering  tlie  Parliament- 
ary baggage,  and  returned  to  tlie  field  only  in 
time  to  find  that  the  infantry,  under  the  personal 
leading  of  Essex,  had  reestablished  the  fight. 
Night  closed  the  battle  [which  is  sometimes 
named  from  Edgehill  and  sometimes  from  Keyn- 
ton]. The  King's  army  withdrew  to  the  vantage- 
ground  of  the  hills,  and  Essex,  reinforced  by 
Hampden,  passed  the  night  upon  the  field.  But 
the  Royalist  army  was  neither  beaten  nor  checked 
in  its  advance,  wliile  the  rottenness  of  the  Par- 
liamentary troops  had  been  disclosed."  Some 
attempts  at  peace-making  followed  this  doubtful 
first  collision ;  but  their  only  effect  was  to  em- 
bitter the  passions  on  botli  sides.  The  King  ad- 
vanced, threatening  London,  but  the  citizens 
of  the  capital  turned  out  valiantly  to  oppose 
him,  and  he  "fell  back  upon  Oxford,  which 
henceforward  became  the  centre  of  their  opera- 
tions. .  .  .  War  was  again  the  only  resource,  and 
speedily  became  universal.  .  .  .  There  was  local 
fighting  over  the  whole  of  England.  .  .  .  The 
headquarters  of  the  King  were  constantly  at  Ox- 
ford, from  which,  as  from  a  centre,  Rupert  would 
suddenly  make  rapid  raids,  now  in  one  direction, 
now  in  another.  Between  him  and  London, 
about  Reading,  Aylesbury,  and  Thame,  lay  what 
may  be  spoken  of  as  the  main  army  of  Parlia- 
ment, under  the  command  of  Lord-General  Essex. 
.  .  .  The  other  two  chief  scenes  of  the  war  were 
Yorkshire  and  the  West.  In  Yorkshire  the  Fair- 
faxes, Ferdinando  Lord  Fairfax  and  his  son  Sir 
Thomas,  made  what  head  they  could  against 
what  was  known  as  the  Popish  army  under  the 
command  of  the  Earl,  subsequently  Marquis  of 
Newcastle,  which  consisted  mainly  of  the  troops 
of  the  Northern  counties,  which  had  become 
associated  under  Newcastle  in  favour  of  Charles. 
Newark,  in  Nottinghamshire,  was  early  made 
a  royal  garrison,  and  formed  the  link  of  connec- 
tion between  the  operations  in  Yorkshire  and  at 
Oxford.  In  the  extreme  South-west,  Lord  Stam- 
ford, the  Parliamentary  General,  was  making  a 
somewhat  unsuccessful  resistance  against  Sir 
Ralph,  afterwards  Lord  Hopton.  AVales  was 
wholly  Royalist,  and  one  of  the  chief  objects  of 
Charles's  generals  was  to  secure  the  Severn  val- 
ley, and  thus  connect  the  war  in  Devonshire  with 
the  central  operations  at  Oxford.  In  the  Eastern 
counties  matters  assumed  rather  a  different  form. 
The  principle  of  forming  several  counties  into  an 
association  .  .  .  was  adopted  by  the  Parliament, 
and  several  such  associations  were  formed,  but 
none  of  these  came  to  much  except  that  of  the 


895 


ENGLAND,  1642. 


CromiCKll 
and  his  Ironsides. 


ENGLAND,   1043. 


Eastern  counties,  which  was  known  by  way  of 
preeminence  as  'The  Association.'  Its  object 
was  to  Ijeep  the  war  entirely  beyond  the  borders 
of  the  counties  of  which  it  consisted.  The  reason 
of  its  success  was  the  genius  and  energy  of  Crom- 
well."— J.  F.  Bright,  Hist.  ofEng.,  period  2,  p. 
659. — "This  winter  there  arise  among  certain 
Counties  '  Associations '  for  mutual  defence, 
against  Royalism  and  plunderous  Rupertism;  a 
measure  clierished  by  tlie  Parliament,  condemned 
as  treasonable  by  the  King.  Of  wliich  '  Associa- 
tions,' countable  to  the  number  of  five  or  six,  we 
name  only  one,  that  of  Norfolli,  Suffolk,  Esses, 
Cambridge,  Herts ;  with  Lord  Gray  of  Warli  for 
Commander;  where  and  under  whom  Oliver  was 
now  serving.  This  '  Eastern  Association '  is  alone 
worth  naming.  All  the  other  Associations,  no 
man  of  emphasis  being  in  the  midst  of  them, 
fell  in  a  few  months  to  pieces;  only  tliis  of 
Cromwell  subsisted,  enlarged  itself ,  grew  famous; 
—  and  kept  its  own  borders  clear  of  invasion  dur- 
ing the  whole  course  of  the  War." — T.  Carlyle, 
Oliwr  Cromwell's  Letters  and  Speeches,  pt.  2,  pre- 
liminary. 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of  the  Great 
Cinl  War,  ch.  2-4  (v.  1).— W.  Godwin,  Eist.  of 
the  Commonwealth,  ch.  2  (».  1), 

A.  D.  1643  (May). — Cromwell's  Ironsides. — 
"  It  was  .  .  .  probably,  a  little  before  Edgehill, 
that  there  took  place  between  Cromwell  and 
Hampden  the  memorable  conversation  which  fif- 
teen years  afterwards  the  Protector  related  in  a 
speech  to  his  second  Parliament.  It  is  a  piece  of 
autobiography  so  instructive  and  pathetic  that  it 
must  be  set  forth  in  full  in  the  words  of  Crom- 
well himself; — 'I  was  a  person  who,  from  my 
first  employment,  was  suddenly  preferred  and 
lifted  up  from  lesser  trusts  to  greater;  from  my 
first  being  Captain  of  a  Troop  of  Horse.  ...  I 
had  a  very  worthy  friend  then ;  and  he  was  a  very 
noble  person,  and  I  know  his  memory  was  very 
grateful  to  all, — Mr.  John  Hampden.  At  my 
first  going  out  into  this  engagement,  I  saw  our 
men  were  beaten  at  every  hand.  .  .  .  Your  troops, 
said  I,  are  most  of  them  old  decayed  serving-men, 
and  tapsters,  and  such  kind  of  fellows;  and,  said 
I,  their  troops  are  gentlemen's  sons,  younger  sons 
and  persons  of  quality:  do  you  think  that  the 
spirits  of  such  base  mean  fellows  will  ever  be 
able  to  encounter  gentlemen,  that  have  honour 
and  courage  and  resolution  in  them  ?  Truly  I 
did  represent  to  him  in  this  manner  conscien- 
tiously ;  and  truly  I  did  tell  him :  You  must  get 
men  of  a  spirit:  and  take  it  not  ill  what  I  say, — 
I  know  you  will  not, —  of  a  spirit  that  is  likely  to 
go  on  as  far  as  gentlemen  will  go:  or  else  you 
will  be  beaten  still.  I  told  him  so;  I  did  truly. 
He  was  a  wise  and  worthy  person ;  and  he  did 
think  that  I  talked  a  good  notion,  but  an  imprac- 
ticable one.  ...  I  raised  such  men  as  had  the 
fear  of  God  before  them,  as  made  some  conscience 
of  what  they  did ;  and  from  that  day  forward,  I 
must  say  to  you,  they  were  never  beaten,  and 
wherever  they  were  engaged  against  the  enemy 
they  beat  continually. ' .  .  .  "The  issue  of  the 
whole  war  lay  in  that  word.  It  lay  with  '  such 
men  as  had  some  conscience  in  what  they  did. ' 
'  From  that  day  forward  they  were  never  beaten. ' 
.  .  .  '  As  for  Colonel  Cromwell,' writes  a  news- 
letter of  May,  1643,  'he  hath  2,000  brave  men, 
well  disciplined ;  no  man  swears  but  he  pays  his 
twelve-pence;  if  he  be  drunk,  he  is  set  in  the 
stocks,  or  worse;  if  one  calls  the  other  round- 


head he  is  cashiered :  insomuch  that  the  countries 
where  they  come  leap  for  joy  of  them,  and  come 
in  and  join  with  them.  How  happy  were  it 
it  all  the  forces  were  thus  disciplined  ! '  These 
were  the  men  who  ultimately  decided  the  war, 
and  established  the  Commonwealth.  On  the  field 
of  jNIarston,  Rupert  gave  Cromwell  the  name  of 
Ironside,  and  from  thence  this  famous  name 
passed  to  his  troopers.  There  are  two  features 
in  their  history  which  we  need  to  note.  They 
were  indeed  '  such  men  as  had  some  conscience 
in  their  work ' ;  but  they  were  also  much  more. 
They  were  disciplined  and  trained  soldiers.  They 
were  the  only  body  of  '  regulars '  on  either  side. 
The  instinctive  genius  of  Cromwell  from  the  very 
first  created  the  strong  nucleus  of  a  regular  army, 
which  at  last  in  discipline,  in  skill,  in  valour, 
reached  the  liighest  perfection  ever  attained  by 
soldiers  either  in  ancient  or  modern  times.  The 
fervour  of  Cromwell  is  continually  pressing 
towards  the  extension  of  this  '  regular '  force. 
Through  all  the  early  disasters,  this  body  of  Iron- 
sides kept  the  cause  alive :  at  Marston  it  over- 
whelmed the  king :  as  soon  as,  by  the  New  Model, 
this  system  was  extended  to  the  whole  army,  the 
Civil  War  was  at  an  end."— F.  Harrison,  Oliver 
Cromwell,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Common- 
wealth :  Cromwell. 

A.  D.  1643  (June — September). — The  King 
calls  in  the  Irish. —  "To  balance  the  accession 
of  power  which  the  alliance  with  Scotland  brought 
to  the  Parliament,  Charles  was  so  unwise,  men 
then  said  so  guilty,  as  to  conclude  a  peace  with 
the  Irish  rebels,  with  the  intent  that  thus  those 
of  his  forces  which  had  been  employed  against 
them,  might  be  set  free  to  join  his  army  in  Eng- 
land. No  act  of  the  King,  not  the  levying  of 
ship-money,  not  the  crowd  of  monopolies  which 
enriched  the  court  and  impoverished  the  people, 
neither  the  extravagance  of  Buckingham,  the 
tyranny  of  Strafford  nor  the  prelacy  of  Laud, 
not  even  the  attempted  arrest  of  the  five  mem- 
bers, raised  such  a  storm  of  indignation  and 
hatred  throughout  the  kingdom,  as  did  this  de- 
termination of  the  King  to  withdraw  (as  men 
said),  for  the  purpose  of  subduing  his  subjects, 
the  force  which  had  been  raised  to  avenge  the 
blood  of  100,000  Protestant  martyrs.  .  .  .  To  the 
England  of  the  time  this  act  was  nauseous,  was 
exasperating  to  the  highest  degree,  while  to  the 
cause  of  the  King  it  was  fatal;  for,  from  this 
moment,  the  condition  of  the  Parliamentary  party 
began  to  mend." — N.  L.  Walford,  Parliament- 
ary Generals  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  ch.  2. — 
"None  of  the  king's  schemes  proved  so  fatal  to 
his  cause  as  these.  On  their  discovery,  ofiicer 
after  oflicer  in  his  own  army  flung  down  their 
commissions,  the  peers  who  had  fled  to  Oxford 
fled  back  again  to  London,  and  the  Royalist  re- 
action in  the  Parliament  itself  came  utterly  to  an 
end."— J.  R.  Green,  Short  Eist.  of  Eng.,  ch.  8, 
sect.  7. 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Eist.  of  the  Great 
Civil  War,  ch.  11  (v.  1). 

A.  D.  1643  (July). — Meeting  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly  of  Divines. — At  the  begin- 
ning of  July,  1643,  "London  was  astir  with  a 
new  event  of  great  consequence  in  the  course  of 
the  national  revolution.  This  was  the  meeting 
of  the  famous  Westminster  Assembly.  The  neces- 
sity of  an  ecclesiastical  Synod  or  Convocation,  to 
cooperate  with  the  Parliament,  had  been  long 


896 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


^^'estminster 
Assembly. 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


felt.  Among  the  articles  of  the  Grand  Remon- 
strance of  Dec.  1641  had  been  one  desiring  a  con- 
vention of  '  a  General  Synod  of  the  most  grave, 
pious,  learned,  and  judicious  divines  of  this 
island,  assisted  by  some  from  foreign  parts,'  to 
consider  of  all  things  relating  to  the  Church  and 
report  thereon  tu  Parliament.  It  is  clear  from 
the  wording  of  this  article  that  it  was  contem- 
plated that  the  Synod  should  contain  representa- 
tives from  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland. 
Indeed,  by  that  time,  the  establishment  of  a  uni- 
formity of  Doctrine,  Discipline,  and  Worship  be- 
tween the  Churches  of  England  and  Scotland 
was  the  fixed  idea  of  those  who  chiefly  desired  a 
Synod.  ...  In  April,  1643  ...  it  was  ordered 
by  the  House,  in  pursuance  of  previous  resolu- 
tions on  the  subject,  'that  the  names  of  such 
divines  as  shall  be  thought  fit  to  be  consulted 
with  concerning  the  matter  of  the  Church  be 
brought  in  tomorrow  morning,'  the  understood 
rule  being  that  the  knights  and  burgesses  of  each 
English  county  should  name  to  the  House  two 
divines,  and  those  of  each  Welsh  county  one  di- 
vine, for  approval.  Accordingly,  on  the  20th, 
the  names  were  given  in.  .  .  .  By  the  stress  of 
the  war  the  Assembly  was  postponed.  At  last, 
hopeless  of  a  bill  that  should  pass  in  the  regular 
way  by  the  King's  consent,  the  Houses  resorted, 
in  this  as  in  other  things,  to  their  peremptory 
plan  of  Ordinance  bj'  tlicir  own  authority.  On 
the  13th  of  May,  1643,  an  Ordinance  for  calling' 
an  Assembly  was  introduced  in  the  Commons; 
which  Ordinance,  after  due  going  and  coming 
between  the  two  Houses,  came  to  maturity  June 
13,  wlien  it  was  entered  at  full  length  in  the 
Lords'  Journals.  '  Whereas,  amongst  the  infinite 
blessings  of  Almighty  God  upon  this  nation,' — 
so  runs  the  preamble  of  the  Ordinance, — '  none 
is,  or  can  be,  more  dear  to  us  than  the  purity  of 
our  religion;  and  for  as  much  as  many  things 
yet  remain  in  the  discipline,  liturgy  and  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  which  necessarily  require  a 
more  perfect  reformation:  and  whereas  it  has 
been  declared  and  resolved,  by  the  Lords  and 
Commons  assembled  in  Parliament,  that  the  pres- 
ent Church  Government  by  Archbishops,  Bishops, 
their  Chancellors,  Commissaries,  Deans,  Deans 
and  Chapters,  Archdeacons,  and  other  ecclesias- 
tical officers  depending  on  the  hierarchy,  is  evil 
and  justly  offensive  and  burdensome  to  the  king- 
dom, and  a  great  impediment  to  reformation  and 
growth  of  religion,  and  very  prejudicial  to  the 
state  and  government  of  this  kingdom,  and  that 
therefore  they  are  resolved  the  same  shall  be 
taken  away,  and  that  such  a  government  shall 
be  settled  in  the  Church  as  may  be  agreeable  to 
God's  Holy  Word,  and  most  apt  to  procure  and 
preserve  the  peace  of  the  Church  at  home,  and 
nearer  agreement  with  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
and  other  reformed  Churches  abroad.  ...  Be  it 
therefore  ordained,  &c.'  What  is  ordained  is  that 
149  persons,  enumerated  by  name  in  the  Ordi- 
nance .  .  .  shall  meet  on  the  1st  of  July  next  in 
King  Henry  VII. 's  Chapel  at  Westminster;  .  .  . 
'  to  confer  and  treat  among  themselves  of  such 
matters  and  things,  concerning  the  liturgy,  disci- 
pline and  government  of  the  Church  of  England 
...  as  shall  be  proposed  by  either  or  both  Houses 
(if  Parliament,  and  no  other. ' .  .  .  Notwithstand- 
ing a  Royal  Proclamation  from  Oxford,  dated 
June  22,  forbidding  the  Assembly  and  threaten- 
ing consequences,  the  first  meeting  duly  took 
place  on  the  day  appointed  —  Saturday,  July  1, 
57 


1643 ;  and  from  that  day  till  the  22d  of  February, 
1648-9,  or  for  more  than  five  years  and  a  half, 
the  Westminster  Assembly  is  to  be  borne  in  mind 
as  a  power  or  institution  in  the  English  realm, 
existing  side  by  side  with  the  Long  Parliament, 
and  in  constant  conference  and  cooperation  with 
it.  The  number  of  its  sittings  during  these  five 
3'ears  and  a  half  was  1,163  in  all;  which  is  at  the 
rate  of  about  four  sittings  every  week  for  the 
whole  time.  The  earliest  years  of  the  Assembly 
were  the  most  important." — D.  Masson,  Life  of 
John  Milton,  bk.  3,  ch.  3  (v.  2). 

Also  in:  A.  F.  Mitchell,  Tlie  Westminster  Aa- 
semUy,  led.  4-5. — D.  Neal,  Hist,  of  the  Puritans, 
V.  3,  ch.  3  and  4. — See,  also.  Independents. 

A.  D.  1643  (July — September). — The  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  with  the  Scottish 
nation. — "  Scotland  had  been  hitherto  kept  aloof 
from  the  English  quarrel.  ...  Up  to  this  time 
the  pride  and  delicacy  of  the  English  patriots 
withheld  them,  for  obvious  reasons,  from  claiming 
her  assistance.  Had  it  been  possible,  they  would 
still  have  desired  to  engage  no  distant  party  in  this 
great  domestic  struggle;  but  when  the  present 
unexpected  crisis  arrived  .  .  .  these  considera- 
tions were  laid  aside,  and  the  chief  leaders  of  the 
Parliament  resolved  upon  an  embassy  to  the 
North,  to  bring  the  Scottish  nation  into  the  field. 
The  conduct  of  this  embassy  was  a  matter  of  the 
highest  difficulty  and  danger.  The  Scots  were 
known  to  be  bigoted  to  their  own  persuasions  of 
narrow  and  exclusive  church  government,  whUe 
the  greatest  men  of  the  English  Parliament  had 
proclaimed  the  sacred  maxim  that  every  man 
who  worshipped  God  according  to  the  dictates  of 
his  conscience  was  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the 
State.  But  these  men.  Vane,  Cromwell,  Marten 
and  St.  John,  though  the  difficulties  of  the  com- 
mon cause  had  brought  them  into  the  acknowl- 
edged position  of  leaders  and  directors  of  affairs, 
were  in  a  minority  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  the  party  who  were  their  superiors  in  num- 
bers were  as  bigoted  to  the  most  exclusive  prin- 
ciples of  Presbyterianism  as  the  Scots  themselves. 
Denzil  Holies  stood  at  the  head  of  this  inferior 
class  of  patriots.  .  .  .  The  most  eminent  of  the 
Parliamentary  nobility,  particularly  Northiimber- 
land,  Essex  and  Manchester  belonged  also  to 
this  body;  while  the  London  clergy,  and  the 
metropolis  itself,  were  almost  entirely  Presby- 
terian. These  things  considered,  there  was  indeed 
great  reason  to  apprehend  that  this  party,  backed 
by  the  Scots,  and  supported  with  a  Scottish  army, 
would  be  strong  enough  to  overpower  the  advo- 
cates of  free  conscience,  and  '  set  up  a  tyranny 
not  less  to  be  deplored  than  that  of  Laud  and  his 
hierarchy,  which  had  proved  one  of  the  main 
occasions  of  bringing  on  the  war. '  Yet,  oppos- 
ing to  all  this  danger  only  their  own  high  pur- 
poses and  dauntless  courage,  the  smaller  party 
of  more  consummate  statesmen  were  the  first  to 
propose  the  embassy  to  Scotland.  ...  On  the 
30th  of  July,  1643,  the  commissioners  set  out 
from  London.  They  were  four;  and  the  man 
principally  confided  in  among  them  was  Vane 
[Sir  Henry,  the  younger].  He,  indeed,  was  the 
individual  best  qualified  to  succeed  Hampden  as 
a  counsellor  in  the  arduous  struggle  in  which  the 
nation  was  at  this  time  engaged.  .  .  .  Immedi- 
ately on  his  arrival  in  Edinburgh  the  negotia- 
tion commenced,  and  what  Vane  seems  to  have 
anticipated  at  once  occurred.  The  Scots  offered 
their  assistance  heartily  on  the  sole  condition  of 


897 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


Solemn 
League  and  Covenant. 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


an  adhesion  to  the  Scottish  religious  sj'stcni  on 
the  part  of  England.  After  many  long  and  very 
warm  debates,  in  which  Vane  held  to  one  firm 
policy  from  the  first,  a  solemn  covenant  was  pro- 
posed, which  Vane  insisted  should  be  named  a 
solemn  league  and  covenant,  wliile  certain  words 
were  inserted  in  it  on  his  subsequent  motion,  to 
which  he  also  adhered  with  immovable  constancy, 
and  which  had  the  effect  of  leaving  open  to  the 
great  party  in  England,  to  whose  interests  he 
was  devoted,  that  last  liberty  of  conscience  which 
man  should  never  surrender.  .  .  .  The  famous 
article  respecting  religion  ran  in  these  words: 
'That  we  shall  sincerely,  really,  and  constantly, 
through  the  grace  of  God,  endeavour,  in  our 
several  places  and  callings,  the  preservation  of 
the  Reformed  religion  in  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government, 
against  our  common  enemies ;  the  reformation  of 
religion  in  the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Ire- 
land, in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline,  and  govern- 
ment, according  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
example  of  the  best  Reformed  churches;  and 
we  shall  endeavour  to  bring  the  churches  of  God 
In  the  three  kingdoms  to  the  nearest  conjunction 
and  uniformity  in  religion,  confessing  of  faith, 
form  of  church  government  directory  for  wor- 
ship and  catechizing ;  that  we  and  our  posterity 
after  us,  may  as  brethren  live  in  faith  and  love, 
and  the  Lord  may  delight  to  dwell  in  the  midst 
of  us.  That  we  shall  in  like  manner,  without 
respect  of  persons,  endeavour  the  extirpation  of 
popery,  prelacy  (that  Is,  church  government  by 
archbishops,  bishops,  their  chancellors  and  com- 
missaries, deans,  deans  and  chapters,  archdea- 
cons, and  all  other  ecclesiastical  officers  depend- 
ing on  that  hierarchy). '  Vane,  by  this  introduction 
of  '  according  to  tlie  Word  of  God,'  left  the  in- 
terpretation of  that  word  to  the  free  conscience 
of  every  man.  On  the  17th  of  August,  the 
solemn  league  and  covenant  was  voted  by  the 
Legislature  and  the  Assembly  of  the  Church  at 
Edinburgh.  The  king  in  desperate  alarm,  sent 
his  commands  to  the  Scotch  people  not  to  take 
such  a  covenant.  In  reply,  they  '  humbly  ad- 
vised his  majesty  to  take  the  covenant  himself.' 
The  surpassing  service  rendered  by  Vane  on  this 
great  occasion  to  the  Parliamentary  cause,  ex- 
posed him  to  a  more  violent  hatred  from  the 
Royalists  than  he  had  yet  experienced,  and 
Clarendon  has  used  every  artifice  to  depreciate  his 
motives  and  his  sincerity.  .  .  .  The  solemn  league 
and  covenant  remained  to  be  adopted  in  England. 
The  Scottish  form  of  giving  it  authority  was 
followed  as  far  as  possible.  It  was  referred  by 
the  two  Houses  to  the  Assembly  of  Divines, 
which  had  commenced  its  sittings  on  the  1st  of 
the  preceding  July,  being  called  together  to  be 
consulted  with  by  the  Parliament  for  the  purpose 
of  settling  the  government  and  form  of  worship 
of  the  Church  of  England.  This  assembly  al- 
ready referred  to,  consisted  of  121  of  the  clergy ; 
iuid  a  number  of  lay  assessors  were  joined  with 
thera,  consisting  of  ten  peers,  and  twenty  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Commons.  All  these  per- 
sons were  named  by  the  ordinance  of  the  two 
Houses  of  Parliament  whicli  gave  birth  to  the 
assembly.  The  public  taking  of  the  Covenant 
was  solemnized  on  the  25th  of  September,  each 
member  of  either  House  attesting  his  adherence 
by  oath  first,  and  then  by  subscribing  his  name. 
The  name  of  Vane,  subscribed  immediately  on 
his  return,  appears  upon  the  list  next  to  that  of 


Cromwell." — J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Common- 
wealtli :   Vane. 

Also  in;  J.  K.  Hosmer,  Life  of  Young  Sir 
Henry  VaTie,  ch.  8.— A.  P.  Mitchell,  The  West- 
minster Assembly,  lect.  5-6. — D.  Neal,  Bist.  of  the 
Puritans,  v.  3,  ch.  2. — S.  R.  Gardiner,  Const. 
Doe's  of  the  Puritan  Sev.,  p.  187. 

The  following  is  the  text  of  the  Solemn  League 
and  Covenant: 

"  A  solemn  league  and  covenant  for  Reforma- 
tion and  defence  of  religion,  the  honour  and 
ha])piness  of  tlie  King,  and  the  peace  and  safety 
of  the  three  kingdoms  of  England,  Scotland  and 
Ireland.  We  noblemen,  barons,  knights,  gentle- 
men, citizens,  burgesses,  ministers  of  the  Gospel, 
and  commons  of  all  sorts  in  the  kingdoms  of  Eng- 
land, Scotland  and  Ireland,  by  the  providence  of 
God  living  under  one  King,  and  being  of  one  re- 
formed religion ;  having  before  our  eyes  the  glory 
of  God,  and  the  advancement  of  the  kingdom  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  the  honour 
and  happiness  of  the  King's  Majesty  and  his  pos- 
terity, and  the  true  public  liberty,  safety  and 
peace  of  the  kingdoms,  wherein  every  one's  pri- 
vate condition  is  included ;  and  calling  to  mind 
the  treacherous  and  bloody  plots,  conspiracies, 
attempts  and  practices  of  the  enemies  of  God 
against  the  true  religion  and  professors  thereof 
in  all  places,  especially  in  these  three  kingdoms, 
ever  since  the  reformation  of  religion ;  and  how 
.  much  their  rage,  power  and  presumption  are  of 
late,  and  at  this  time  increased  and  exercised, 
whereof  the  deplorable  estate  of  the  Church  and 
kingdom  of  Ireland,  the  distressed  estate  of  the 
Church  and  kingdom  of  England,  and  the  dan- 
gerous estate  of  the  Church  and  kingdom  of 
Scotland,  are  present  and  public  testimonies:  we 
have  (now  at  last)  after  other  means  of  supplica- 
tion, remonstrance,  protestations  and  sufferings, 
for  the  preservation  of  ourselves  and  our  religion 
from  utter  ruin  and  destruction,  according  to  the 
commendable  practice  of  these  kingdoms  in  former 
times,  and  the  example  of  God's  people  in  other 
nations,  after  mature  deliberation,  resolved  and 
determined  to  enter  into  a  mutual  and  solemn 
league  and  covenant,  wherein  we  all  subscribe, 
and  each  one  of  us  for  himself,  with  our  hands 
lifted  up  to  the  most  high  God,  do  swear,  I. 
That  we  shall  sincerely,  really  and  constantly, 
through  the  grace  of  God,  endeavour  in  our  sev- 
eral places  and  callings,  the  preservation  of  the 
reformed  religion  in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  in 
doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government, 
against  our  common  enemies;  the  reformation  of 
religion  in  the  kingdoms  of  England  and  Ireland, 
in  doctrine,  worship,  discipline  and  government, 
according  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  example 
of  the  best  reformed  Churches ;  and  we  shall  en- 
deavour to  bring  the  Churches  of  God  in  the 
three  kingdoms  to  the  nearest  conjunction  and 
uniformity  in  religion,  confession  of  faith,  form 
of  Church  government,  directory  for  worship  and 
catechising,  that  we,  and  our  posterity  after  us, 
maj',  as  bretliren,  live  in  faith  and  love,  and  the 
Lord  may  deliglit  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  us. 
n.  That  we  shall  in  like  manner,  without  respect 
of  persons,  endeavour  the  extirpation  of  Popery, 
prelacy  (that  is.  Church  government  by  Arch- 
bishops, BisLiops,  their  Chancellors  and  Commis- 
saries, Deans,  Deans  and  Chapters,  Archdeacons, 
and  ail  other  ecclesiastical  officers  depending  on 
that  hierarchy),  superstition,  heresy,  schism,  pro- 
faneness  and  whatsoever  shall  be  found  to  be 


898 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


Siege  of 
Gloucestef. 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


contrary  to  sound  doctrine  and  the  power  of  god- 
liness lest  we  partake  in  other  men's  sins,  and 
thereby  be  in  danger  to  receive  of  their  plagues ; 
and  that  the  Lord  may  be  one,  and  His  name  one 
in  the  three  kingdoms.  IIL  AVe  shall  with  the 
same  sincerity,  reality  and  constancy,  in  our  sev- 
eral vocations,  endeavour  with  our  estates  and 
lives  mutually  to  preserve  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  the  Parliaments,  and  the  liberties  of  the 
kingdoms,  and  to  preserve  and  defend  the  King's 
Majesty's  person  and  authority,  in  the  preserva- 
tion and  defence  of  the  true  religion  and  liberties 
of  the  kingdoms,  that  the  world  may  bear  wit- 
ness with  our  consciences  of  our  loyalty,  and  that 
we  have  no  thoughts  or  intentions  to  diminish 
His  Majesty's  just  power  and  greatness.  IV. 
We  shall  also  with  all  faithfulness  endeavour  the 
discovery  of  all  such  as  have  been  or  shall  be  in- 
cendiaries, malignants  or  evil  instruments,  by 
hindering  the  reformation  of  religion,  dividing 
the  King  from  his  people,  or  one  of  the  kingdoms 
from  another,  or  making  any  faction  or  parties 
amongst  the  people,  contrary  to  the  league  and 
covenant,  that  they  may  be  brought  to  public 
trial  and  receive  condign  punishment,  as  the  de- 
gree of  their  offences  shall  require  or  deserve, 
or  the  supreme  judicatories  of  both  kingdoms 
respectively,  or  others  having  power  from  them 
for  that  effect,  shall  judge  convenient.  V.  And 
whereas  the  happiness  of  a  blessed  peace  between 
these  kingdoms,  denied  in  former  times  to  our 
progenitors,  is  by  the  good  providence  of  God 
granted  to  us,  and  hath  been  lately  concluded 
and  settled  by  both  Parliaments:  we  shall  each 
one  of  us,  according  to  our  places  and  interest, 
endeavour  that  they  may  remain  conjoined  in  a 
firm  peace  and  union  to  all  posterity,  and  that 
justice  may  be  done  upon  the  wilful  opposers 
thereof,  in  manner  expressed  in  the  precedent 
articles.  VL  We  shall  also,  according  to  our 
places  and  callings,  in  this  common  cause  of  re- 
ligion, liberty  and  peace  of  the  kingdom,  assist 
and  defend  all  those  that  enter  into  this  league 
and  covenant,  in  the  maintaining  and  pursuing 
thereof;  and  shall  not  suffer  ourselves,  directly 
or  indirectly,  by  whatsoever  combination,  per- 
suasion or  terror,  to  be  divided  and  withdrawn 
from  this  blessed  union  and  conjunction,  whether 
to  make  defection  to  the  contrary  part,  or  give 
ourselves  to  a  detestable  indifferency  or  neutral- 
ity in  this  cause,  which  so  much  concerneth  the 
glory  of  God,  the  good  of  the  kingdoms,  and  the 
honour  of  the  King ;  but  shall  all  the  days  of  our 
lives  zealously  and  constantly  continue  therein, 
against  all  opposition,  and  promote  the  same  ac- 
cording to  our  power,  against  all  lets  and  impedi- 
ments whatsoever;  and  what  we  are  not  able 
ourselves  to  suppress  or  overcome  we  shall  reveal 
and  make  known,  that  it  may  be  timely  prevented 
or  removed :  all  which  we  shall  do  as  in  the  sight 
of  God.  And  because  these  kingdoms  are  guilty 
of  many  sins  and  provocations  against  God,  and 
His  Son  Jesus  Christ,  as  is  too  manifest  by  our 
present  distresses  and  dangers,  the  fruits  thereof : 
we  profess  and  declare,  before  God  and  the  world, 
our  unfeigned  desire  to  be  humbled  for  our  own 
sins,  and  for  the  sins  of  these  kingdoms ;  especially 
that  we  have  not  as  we  ought  valued  the  inesti- 
mable benefit  of  the  Gospel ;  that  we  have  not 
laboured  for  the  purity  and  power  thereof ;  and 
that  we  have  not  endeavoured  to  receive  Christ 
in  our  hearts,  nor  to  walk  worthy  of  Him  in  our 
lives,  which  are  the  causes  of  other  sins  and  trans- 


gressions so  much  abounding  amongst  us,  and 
our  true  and  unfeigned  purpose,  desire  and  en- 
deavour, for  ourselves  and  all  others  under  our 
power  and  charge,  both  in  public  and  in  private, 
in  all  duties  we  owe  to  God  and  man,  to  amend 
our  lives,  and  each  one  to  go  before  another  in 
the  example  of  a  real  reformation,  that  the  Lord 
may  turn  away  His  wrath  and  heavy  indignation, 
and  establish  these  Churches  and  kingdoms  in 
truth  and  peace.  And  this  covenant  we  make 
in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God,  the  Searcher 
of  all  hearts,  with  a  true  intention  to  perform 
the  same,  as  we  shall  answer  at  that  Great  Day 
when  the  secrets  of  all  hearts  shall  be  disclosed : 
most  humbly  beseeching  the  Lord  to  strengthen 
us  by  His  Holy  Spirit  for  this  end,  and  to  bless 
our  desires  and  proceedings  with  such  success  as 
may  be  a  deliverance  and  safety  to  His  people, 
and  encouragement  to  the  Christian  Cliurches 
groaning  under  or  in  danger  of  the  yoke  of  Anti- 
christian  tyranny,  to  join  in  the  same  or  like  as- 
sociation and  covenant,  to  the  glory  of  God,  the 
enlargement  of  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  peace  and  tranquility  of  Christian  kingdoms 
and  commonwealths. " 

A.  D.  1643  (August — September). — Siege  of 
Gloucester  and  first  Battle  of  Newbury. — 
"When  the  war  had  lasted  a  year,  the  advan- 
tage was  decidedly  with  the  Royalists.  Tney  were 
victorious,  both  in  the  western  and  in  the  north- 
ern counties.  They  had  wrested  Bristol,  the 
second  city  in  the  kingdom,  from  the  Parlia- 
ment. They  had  won  several  battles,  and  had 
not  sustained  a  single  serious  or  ignominious  de- 
feat. Among  the  Roundheads,  adversity  had 
begun  to  produce  dissension  and  discontent. 
The  Parliament  was  kept  in  alarm,  sometimes 
by  plots  and  sometimes  by  riots.  It  was  thought 
necessary  to  fortify  London  against  the  royal 
army,  and  to  hang  some  disaffected  citizens  at 
their  own  doors.  Several  of  the  most  distin- 
guished peers  who  had  hitherto  remained  at 
Westminster  fled  to  the  court  a*.  Oxford ;  nor  can 
it  be  doubted  that,  if  the  operations  of  the  Cava- 
liers had,  at  this  season,  been  directed  by  a  saga- 
cious and  powerful  mind,  Charles  would  soon 
have  marched  in  triumph  to  Whitehall.  But 
the  King  suffered  the  auspicious  moment  to  pass 
away ;  and  it  never  returned.  In  August,  1643, 
he  sate  down  before  the  city  of  Gloucester.  That 
city  was  defended  by  the  inhabitants  and  by  the 
garrison,  with  a  determination  such  as  had  not, 
since  the  commencement  of  the  war,  been  shown 
by  the  adherents  of  the  Parliament.  The  emu- 
lation of  London  was  excited.  The  trainbands 
of  the  City  volunteered  to  march  wherever  their 
services  might  be  required.  A  great  force  was 
speedily  collected,  and  began  to  move  westward. 
The  siege  of  Gloucester  was  raised.  The  Royal- 
ists in  every  part  of  the  kingdom  were  disheart- 
ened ;  the  spirit  of  the  parliamentary  party  re- 
vived; and  the  apostate  Lords,  who  had  lately 
fled  from  Westminster  to  Oxford,  hastened  back 
from  Oxford  to  Westminster.  "—Lord  Macaulay, 
Ilist.  of  Encj.,  ch.  1. — After  accomplishing  the 
relief  of  Gloucester,  the  Parliamentary  army, 
marching  back  to  London,  was  intercepted  at 
Newbury  by  the  army  of  the  king,  and  forced  to 
fight  a  battle,  Sect.  20,  1643,  in  which  both  par- 
ties, as  at  Edgehill,  claimed  the  victory.  The 
Royalists,  however,  failed  to  bar  the  road  to 
London,  as  they  had  undertaken  to  do,  and  Essex 
resumed  his  march  on  the  following  morning. 


899 


ENGLAND,  1643. 


Kewbin-y.  Lathoni  House 
aiid  Marston  Moor. 


ENGLAND,  1644. 


—"In  this  unhappy  battle  was  slain  the  lord 
viscount  Falkland ;  a  person  of  such  prodig- 
ious parts  of  learning  and  knowledge,  of  that 
inimitable  sweetness  and  delight  in  conversation, 
of  so  flowing  and  obliging  a  humanity  and  good- 
ness to  mankind,  and  of  that  primitive  sincerity 
and  integrity  of  life,  that  if  there  were  no  other 
brand  upon  this  odious  and  accursed  war  than 
that  single  loss,  it  must  be  most  infamous  and 
execrable  to  all  posterity. " — Earl  of  Clarendon, 
Hist,  of  tlie  Rebellion,  bk.  7,  sect.  217. — This 
lamented  death  on  the  royal  side  nearly  evened,  so 
to  speak,  the  great,  unmeasured  calamity  which 
had  befallen  the  better  cause  three  months  be- 
fore, when  the  high-souled  patriot  Hampden  was 
slain  in  a  paltry  skirmish  with  Rupert's  horse,  at 
Chalgrove  Field,  not  far  from  the  borders  of  Ox- 
fordshire. Soon  after  the  fight  at  Newbury, 
Charles,  having  occupied  Reading,  withdrew  his 
army  to  Oxford  and  went  into  winter  quarters. 
— N.  L.  Walford,  Parliamentary  Generals  of  the 
Great  Civil  War,  ch.  2. 

Also  in  :  Sir  E.  Cust,  Lives  of  tlie  Warriors  of 
tlie  Ciiiil  Wars,  pt.  2. — S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of 
the  Great  Ciril  War,  ch.  10  (».  1). 

A.  D.  1644  (January). — Battle  of  Nantv^ich 
and  siege  of  Lathom  House.— The  Irish  army 
brought  over  by  King  Charles  and  landed  in 
Flintshire,  in  November,  1643,  under  the  com- 
mand of  Lord  Byron,  invaded  Cheshire  and  laid 
siege  to  Nantwich,  which  was  the  headquarters 
of  the  Parliamentary  cause  in  that  region. 
Young  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax  was  ordered  to  col- 
lect forces  and  relieve  the  town.  With  great 
difficulty  he  succeeded,  near  the  end  of  January, 
1644,  in  leading  2,500  foot-soldiers  and  twenty- 
eight  troops  of  horse,  against  the  besieging 
army,  which  numbered  3,000  foot  and  1,800 
horse.  On  the  28th  of  January  he  attacked  and 
routed  the  Irish  ro3'alists  completely.  "All  the 
Royalist  Colonels,  including  the  subsequently 
notorious  Monk,  1,500  soldiers,  six  pieces  of 
ordnance,  and  quantities  of  arms,  were  cap- 
tured." Having  accomplished  this  most  im- 
portant service.  Sir  Thomas,  "to  his  great  an- 
noyance," received  orders  to  lay  siege  to  Lathom 
House,  one  of  the  country  seats  of  the  Earl  of 
Derby,  which  had  been  fortified  and  secretly 
garrisoned,  with  300  soldiers.  It  was  held  by 
the  high-spirited  and  dauntless  Countess  of 
Derby,  in  the  absence  of  her  husband,  who  was 
in  the  Isle  of  Man.  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax  soon 
escaped  from  this  ignoble  enterprise  and  left  it 
to  be  carried  on,  first,  by  his  cousin,  Sir  William 
Fairfax,  and  afterwards  by  Col.  Rigby.  The 
Countess  defended  her  house  for  three  months, 
until  the  approach  of  Prince  Rupert  forced  the 
raising  of  the  siege  in  the  following  spring. 
Lathom  House  was  not  finally  surrendered  to 
the  Roundheads  until  Dec.  6,  1645,  when  it  was 
demolished. — C.  R.  Markham,  Life  of  the  Cheat 
Lord  Fairfax,  ch.  13. 

Also  in  :  >Irs.  Thompson,  Becollections  of  Lit- 
erary Characters  and  Celebrated  Places,  v.  2,  ch.  2. 
— E.  Warburton,  Memmrs  of  I'rince  Bvpert  and 
tlie  Cavaliers,  v.  2,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1644  (January— July). — The  Scots  in 
England.— The  Battle  of  Marston  Moor. — 
"On  the  19th  of  January,  1644,  the  Scottish 
army  entered  England.  Lesley,  now  earl  of 
Leven,  commanded  them.  ...  In  the  mean- 
time, the  parliament  at  Westminster  formed  a 
council   under  the   title  of  '  The  Committee  of 


the  Two  Kingdoms,'  consisting  of  seven  Lords, 
fourteen  members  of  the  Commons,  and  four 
Scottish  Commissioners.  Whatever  belongs  to 
the  executive  power  as  distinguished  from  the 
legislative  devolved  upon  this  Committee.  In 
the  spring  of  1644  the  parliament  had  five  armies 
in  the  field,  paid  by  general  or  local  taxation, 
and  by  voluntary  contributions.  Including  the 
Scottish  army  there  were  altogether  50,000  men 
under  arms;  the  English  forces  being  com- 
manded, as  separate  armies,  by  Essex,  Waller, 
Manchester,  and  Fairfax.  Essex  and  Waller  ad- 
vanced to  blockade  Oxford.  The  queen  went  to 
Exeter  in  April,  and  never  saw  Charles  again. 
The  blockading  forces  around  Oxford  had  be- 
come so  strong  that  resistance  appeared  to  be 
hopeless.  On  the  night  of  the  3d  of  June  the 
king  secretly  left  the  city  and  passed  safely  be- 
tween the  two  hostile  armies.  There  had  again 
been  jealousies  and  disagreements  between  Essex 
and  Waller.  Essex,  supported  by  the  council 
of  war,  but  in  opposition  to  the  committee  of 
the  two  kingdoms,  had  marched  to  the  west. 
Waller,  meanwhile,  went  in  pursuit  of  the  king 
into  AVorcestershire.  Charles  suddenly  returned 
to  Oxford;  and  then  at  Copredy  Bridge,  near 
Banbury,  defeated  Waller,  who  had  hastened 
back  to  encounter  him.  Essex  was  before  the 
walls  of  Exeter,  in  which  city  the  queen  had 
given  birth  to  a  princess.  The  king  hastened  to 
the  west.  He  was  strong  enough  to  meet  either 
of  the  parliamentary  armies  thus  separated. 
Meanwhile  the  combined  English  and  Scottish 
armies  were  besieging  York.  Rupert  had  just 
accomplished  the  relief  of  Lathom  House,  which 
had  been  defended  by  the  heroic  countess  of 
Derby  for  eighteen  weeks,  against  a  detachment 
of  the  army  of  Fairfax.  He  then  marched  to- 
wards York  with  20,000  men.  The  allied  Eng- 
lish and  Scots  retired  from  Hessey  Moor,  near 
York,  to  Tadcaster.  Rupert  entered  York  with 
3,000  cavalry.  The  Earl  of  Newcastle  was  in 
command  there.  He  counselled  a  prudent  delay. 
The  impetuous  Rupert  said  he  had  the  orders  of 
the  king  for  his  guidance,  and  he  was  resolved 
to  fight.  On  the  2nd  of  July,  having  rested  two 
daj's  in  and  near  York,  and  enabled  the  city  to 
be  newly  provisioned,  the  royalist  army  went 
forth  to  engage.  They  met  their  enemy  on 
Marston  Moor.  The  issue  of  the  encounter 
would  have  been  more  than  doubtful,  but  for 
Cromwell,  who  for  the  first  time  had  headed  his 
Ironsides  in  a  great  pitched  battle.  The  right 
wing  of  the  parliamentary  army  was  scattered. 
Rupert  was  chasing  and  slaying  the  Scottish 
cavalry.  .  .  .  The  charges  of  Fairfax  and  Crom- 
well decided  the  day.  The  victory  of  the  par- 
liamentary forces  was  so  complete  that  the  Earl 
of  Newcastle  left  York,  and  embarked  at  Scar- 
borough for  the  continent.  Rupert  marched 
away  also,  with  the  wreck  of  his  army,  to  Ches- 
ter. Fifteen  hundred  prisoners,  all  the  artillery, 
more  than  100  banners,  remained  with  the  vic- 
tors; 4,150  bodies  lay  dead  on  the  plain." — C. 
Knight,  Crown  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  25. 

Also  in  :  T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  Cromwell's  Letters 
and  Speec/ies,  pt.  2,  letter  8. — B.  M.  Cordery  and 
J.  S.  Phillpotts,  Jiinff  and  Commonwealth,  ch.  7. 
— W.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth,  ch.  13 
(«.  1). — E.  Warburton,  Memmrs  of  Prince  Rupert 
and  the  Cavaliers,  v.  2,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1644  (August — September^.— Essex's 
surrender. — The  second  Battle  of  Newbury. — 


900 


ENGLAND,  1644. 


Self-denying 
Ordinance. 


ENGLAND,  1645. 


"The  great  success  at  Marston,  which  had  given 
the  north  to  the  Parliament,  was  all  undone  in 
the  south  and  west  through  feebleness  and  jeal- 
ousies in  the  leaders  and  the  wretclied  policy 
that  directed  the  war.  Detached  armies,  consist- 
ing of  a  local  militia,  were  aimlessly  ordered 
about  by  a  committee  of  civilians  in  London. 
Disaster  followed  on  disaster.  Essex,  Waller, 
and  Manchester  would  neither  agree  amongst 
themselves  nor  obey  orders.  Essex  and  Waller 
had  parted  before  Marston  was  fought;  Man- 
chester had  returned  from  York  to  protect  his 
own  eastern  counties.  Waller,  after  his  defeat 
at  Copredy,  did  nothing,  and  naturally  found  his 
army  melting  away.  Essex,  perversely  advanc- 
ing into  the  west,  was  out-manceu  vred  by  Charles, 
and  ended  a  campaign  of  blunders  by  the  sur- 
render of  all  his  infantry  [at  Fowey,  in  Cornwall, 
Sept.  2,  1644].  By  September  1644  throughout 
the  whole  south-west  the  Parliament  had  not  an 
army  in  the  iield.  But  the  Committee  of  the 
Houses  still  toiled  on  with  honourable  spirit,  and 
at  last  brought  together  near  Newliury  a  united 
army  nearly  double  the  strength  of  the  King's. 
On  Sunday,  the  29th  of  October,  was  fought  the 
second  battle  of  Newbury,  as  usual  in  these  ill- 
ordered  campaigns,  late  in  the  afternoon.  An 
arduous  day  ended  without  victory,  in  spite  of  the 
greater  numbers  of  the  Parliament's  army,  though 
the  men  fought  well,  and  their  officers  led  them 
with  skill  and  energy.  At  night  the  King  was 
suffered  to  withdraw  his  army  without  loss,  and 
later  to  carry  off  his  guns  and  train.  The  urgent 
appeals  of  Cromwell  and  his  officers  could  not 
infuse  into  Manchester  energy  to  win  the  day,  or 
spirit  to  pursue  the  retreating  foe. " — F.  Harrison, 
Oliver-  Cromwell,  ch.  5. 

Also  in  :  B.  M.  Cordery  and  J.  S.  Phillpotts, 
King  and  Commonwealth,  ch.  7. — S.  R.  Gardiner, 
Hist,  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  ch.  19  and'lX. 

A.  D.  1644-1645. — The  Self-denying  Ordi- 
nance.— "Cromwell  had  shown  his  capacity  for 
organization  in  the  creation  of  the  Ironsides ;  his 
military  genius  had  displayed  itself  at  Marston 
Moor.  Newbury  first  raised  him  into  a  political 
leader.  '  Without  a  more  speedy,  vigorous  and 
effective  prosecution  of  the  war,'  he  said  to  the 
Commons  after  his  quarrel  with  Manchester, 
'  casting  off  all  lingering  proceedings,  like  those 
of  soldiers  of  fortune  beyond  sea  to  spin  out  a 
war,  we  shall  make  the  kingdom  weary  of  us, 
and  hate  the  name  of  a  Parliament. '  But  under 
the  leaders  who  at  present  conducted  it  a  vigor- 
ous conduct  of  the  war  was  hopeless.  They  were, 
in  Cromwell's  plain  words,  '  afraid  to  conquer. ' 
They  desired  not  to  crush  Charles,  but  to  force 
him  back,  with  as  much  of  his  old  strength  re- 
maining as  might  be,  to  the  position  of  a  con- 
stitutional King.  .  .  .  The  army,  too,  as  he  long 
ago  urged  at  Edgehill,  was  not  an  army  to  con- 
quer with.  Now,  as  then,  he  urged  that  till  the 
whole  force  was  new  modeled,  and  placed  under 
a  stricter  discipline,  '  they  must  not  expect  any 
notable  success  in  anything  they  went  about.' 
But  the  first  step  in  such  a  reorganization  must 
be  a  change  of  officers.  The  army  was  led  and 
officered  by  members  of  the  two  Houses,  and  the 
Self-renouncing  [or  Self-denying]  Ordinance, 
which  was  introduced  by  Cromwell  and  Vane, 
declared  the  tenure  of  civil  or  military  offices  in- 
compatible with  a  seat  in  either.  In  spite  of  a 
long  and  bitter  resistance,  which  was  justified  at 
a  later  time  by  the  political  results  which  fol- 


lowed this  rupture  of  the  tie  which  had  hitherto 
lioiuid  the  array  to  the  Parliament,  the  drift  of 
public  opinion  was  too  strong  to  be  withstood. 
Tlie  passage  of  the  Ordinance  brought  about  the 
retirement  of  Essex,  Manchester,  and  Waller; 
and  the  new  organization  of  the  army  went 
rapidly  on  under  a  new  commander-in-chief,  Sir 
Thomas  Fairfax,  the  hero  of  the  long  contest  in 
Yorkshire,  and  who  had  been  raised  into  fame  by 
his  victory  at  Nantwich  and  his  bravery  at  Mars- 
ton Moor." — J.  R.  Green,  Sho^-t  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch. 
8,  sect.  7. 

Also  m:  AV.  Godwin.  Hist,  of  the  Common- 
irralth,  ch.  15  (».  1). — J.  K.  Hosmer,  Life  of 
Young  Sir  Henry  Vane,  ch.  11. — J.  A.  Picton, 
Oliver  Cromwell,  ch.  10. — J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of 
the  Commonwealth:   Vane. 

A.  D.  1645  (January — February). — The  at- 
tempted Treaty  of  Uxbridge. — A  futile  negotia- 
tion between  the  king  and  Parliament  was  opened 
at  Uxbridge  in  January,  1645.  "But  neither 
the  king  nor  his  advisers  entered  on  it  with  minds 
sincerely  bent  on  peace ;  they,  on  the  one  hand, 
resolute  not  to  swerve  from  the  utmost  rigour  of 
a  conqueror's  terms,  without  having  conquered ; 
and  he  though  more  secretly,  cherishing  illusive 
hopes  of  a  more  triumphant  restoration  to  power 
than  any  treaty  could  be  expected  to  effect.  The 
three  leading  topics  of  discussion  among  the  nego- 
tiators at  Uxbridge  were,  the  church,  the  militia, 
and  the  state  of  Ireland.  Bound  by  their  un- 
happy covenant,  and  watched  by  their  Scots  col- 
leagues, the  English  commissioners  on  the  parlia- 
ment's side  demanded  the  complete  establishment 
of  a  presbyterian  polity,  and  the  substitution  of 
what  was  called  the  directory  for  the  Anglican 
liturgy.  Upou  this  head  there  was  little  pros- 
pect of  a  union." — H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  ch.  10,  pt.  1. 

Also  in:  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  the  Re- 
hellion,  bk.  8,  sect.  209-252  (v.  3). 

A.  D.  164s  (January— April).— The  New 
Model  of  the  army. — The  passage  of  the  Self- 
denying  Ordinance  was  followed,  or  accompanied, 
by  the  adoption  of  the  scheme  for  the  so-called 
New  Model  of  the  army.  ' '  The  New  Model  was 
organised  as  follows :  10  Regiments  of  Cavalry  of 
600  men,  6,000;  10  Companies  of  Dragoons  of 
100  men,  1,000;  10  Regiments  of  Infantry  of 
1,400  men,  14,000:  Total,  31,000  men.  All  offi- 
cers were  to  be  nominated  by  Sir  Thomas  Fair- 
fax, the  new  General,  and  (as  was  insisted  upon 
by  the  Lords,  with  the  object  of  excluding  the 
more  fanatical  Independents)  every  officer  was  to 
sign  the  covenant  within  twenty  days  of  his  ap- 
pointment. The  cost  of  this  force  was  estimated 
at  £539,460  per  annum,  about  £1,600,000  of  our 
money.  .  .  .  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax  having  been 
appointed  Commander-in-Cliief  by  a  vote  of  both 
Houses  on  the  1st  of  April  [A.  D.  1645],  Essex, 
Manchester  and  others  of  the  Lords  resigned 
their  commissions  on  the  2nd.  .  .  .  The  name  of 
Cromwell  was  of  course,  with  those  of  other 
members  of  the  Commons,  omitted  from  the 
original  list  of  the  New  Model  army ;  but  with 
a  significance  which  could  not  have  escaped  re- 
mark, the  appointment  of  lieutenant-general  was 
left  vacant,  while  none  doubted  by  whom  that 
vacancy  would  be  filled." — N.  L.  Walford,  The 
Parliamentary  Oenerals  of  the  Oreat  Civil  War, 
ch.  4. 

Also  rcr :  Sir  E.  Oust,  Lives  of  the  Warriors  of 
the  Civil  Wars,  pt.  2  .•  Fairfax. 


901 


ENGLAND,  1645. 


Xaseby  Pight. 


ENGLAND,  1645. 


A.  D.  1645  (June).— The  Battle  of  Naseby. 
— "  Early  in  April,  Fairfax  with  his  new  army 
advanced  westward  to  raise  the  siege  of  Taunton, 
which  city  Goring  was  besieging.  Before  tliat 
task  was  completed  lie  received  orders  to  enter 
on  the  siege  of  Oxford.  This  did  not  suit  his 
own  views  or  those  of  the  Independents.  They 
had  ioined  their  new  army  upon  the  implied 
condition  that  decisive  battles  should  be  fought. 
It  was  tlierefore  witli  great  joy  that  Fairfax 
received  orders  to  proceed  in  pursuit  of  the  royal 
forces,  wliich,  having  left  Worcester,  were 
marching  apparently  against  the  Eastern  Asso- 
ciation, and  had  j  ust  taken  Leicester  on  their  way. 
Before  entering  on  this  active  service,  Fairfax 
demanded  and  obtained  leave  for  Cromwell  to 
serve  at  least  for  one  battle  more  in  the  capacity  of 
Lieutenant-General.  He  came  up  with  the  king 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Ilarborough.  Charles 
turned  back  to  meet  him,  and  just  by  the  village 
of  Naseby  the  great  battle  known  by  that  name 
was  fought.  Cromwell  had  joined  the  army, 
amid  the  rejoicing  shouts  of  the  troops,  two  days 
before,  with  the  Association  horse.  Again  the 
victory  seems  to  have  been  chiefl}-  due  to  his 
skill.  In  detail  it  is  almost  a  repetition  of  the  bat- 
tle of  Marston  Moor." — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of 
England,  period  3,  p.  675. — "The  old  Hamlet  of 
Naseby  stands  3'et,  on  its  old  hill-top,  very  much 
as  it  did  in  Saxon  days,  on  the  Northwestern 
border  of  Northamptonshire ;  nearly  on  a  line, 
and  nearly  midway,  between  that  Town  and 
Daventry.  A  peaceable  old  Hamlet,  of  perhaps 
five  hundred  souls;  clay  cottages  for  laborers, 
but  neatly  thatched  and  swept;  smith's  shop, 
saddler's  shop,  beer-shop  all  in  order;  forming  a 
kind  of  square,  which  leads  off.  North  and  South, 
into  two  long  streets;  the  old  Church  with  its 
graves,  stands  in  the  centre,  the  truncated  spii'e 
finishing  itself  with  a  strange  old  Ball,  held  up 
by  rods ;  a  '  hollow  copper  Ball,  which  came 
from  Boulogne  in  Henry  the  Eighth's  time,' — 
which  has,  like  Hudibras's  breeches,  '  been  at  the 
Siege  of  Bullen.'  The  ground  is  upland,  moor- 
land, though  now  growing  corn;  was  not  en- 
closed till  the  last  generation,  and  is  still  some- 
what bare  of  wood.  It  stands  nearly  in  the  heart 
of  England;  gentle  Dullness,  taking  a  turn  at 
etymology,  sometimes  derives  it  from  'Navel'; 
'  Navesby,  quasi  Navelsby,  from  being,  &c.' .  .  . 
It  was  on  this  high  moor-ground,  in  the  centre  of 
England,  that  King  Charles,  on  the  14th  of  June, 
1645,  fought  his  last  Battle;  dashed  fiercely 
against  the  New-Model  Army  which  he  had  de- 
spised till  then :  and  saw  himself  shivered  utterly  to 
ruin  thereby.  '  Prince  Rupert,  on  tlie  King's  right 
wing,  charged  up  the  hill,  and  carried  all  before 
him  ' ;  but  Lieutenant-General  Cromwell  charged 
down  hill  on  the  other  wing,  likewise  carrying 
all  before  hira, — and  did  not  gallop  off  the  field 
to  plunder,  he.  Cromwell,  ordered  thither  by  the 
Parliament,  had  arrived  from  the  Association 
two  days  before,  '  amid  shouts  from  the  whole 
Army ' :  he  had  the  ordering  of  the  Horse  this 
morning.  Prince  Rupert,  on  returning  from  his 
[ilunder,  finds  the  King's  Infantry  a  ruin;  pre- 
jiares  to  charge  again  with  the  rallied  Cavalry; 
but  the  Cavalry  too,  when  it  came  to  the  point, 
'  broke  all  asunder,' — never  to  reassemble  more. 
.  .  .  There  were  taken  here  a  good  few  'ladies 
of  quality  in  carriages';  —  and  above  a  hundred 
Irish  ladies  not  of  quality,  tattery  camp-fol- 
owers  ■  with  long  skean-knives  about  a  foot  in 


length,'  which  they  well  knew  how  to  use ;  upon- 
whom  I  fear  the  Ordinance  against  Papists  pressed 
Imrd  this  day.  The  King's  Carriage  was  also 
taken,  with  a  Cabinet  and  many  Royal  Auto- 
graphs in  it,  which  when  printed  made  a  sad  im- 
pression against  his  Majesty, —  gave  in  fact  a 
most  melancholy  view  of  the  veracity  of  his 
Majesty,  'On  the  word  of  a  King.'  All  was 
lost!" — T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  Cromwell's  Letters  and 
Speeches,  pt.  2,  Utter  29. 

Also  in  :  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  the  Mebel- 
lion,  bk.  9,  sect.  30-42  {c.  4).— E.  Warburton, 
Memoirs  of  Prince  Rupert  and  the  Cavaliers,  v.  3, 
ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1645  (June — December). — Glamorgan's 
Commissions,  and  other  perfidies  of  the  King 
disclosed. — "At  the  battle  of  Naseby,  copies  of 
some  letters  to  the  queen,  chiefly  written  about 
the  time  of  the  treaty  of  Uxbridge,  and  strangely 
preserved,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  enemy  and 
were  instantly  published.  No  other  losses  of 
that  fatal  day  were  more  injurious  to  [the 
king's]  cause.  ...  He  gave  her  [the  queen] 
power  to  treat  with  the  English  catholics,  prom- 
ising to  take  away  all  penal  laws  against  them 
as  soon  as  God  sliould  enable  him  to  do  so,  in 
consideration  of  such  powerful  assistance  as 
might  deserve  so  great  a  favour,  and  enable  him 
to  affect  it.  .  .  .  Suspicions  were  much  aggra- 
vated by  a  second  discovery  that  took  place  soon 
afterwards,  of  a  secret  treaty  between  the  earl  of 
Glamorgan  and  the  confederate  Irish  catholics, 
not  merely  promising  the  repeal  of  the  penal 
laws,  but  the  establishment  of  their  religion  in 
far  the  greater  part  of  Ireland.  The  marquis  of 
Ormond,  as  well  as  lord  Digby,  who  happened  to 
be  at  Dublin,  loudly  exclaimed  against  Glamor- 
gan's presumption  in  concluding  such  a  treaty, 
and  committed  him  to  prison  on  a  charge  of 
treason.  He  produced  two  commissions  from 
the  king,  secretly  granted  without  any  seal  or 
the  knowledge  of  any  minister,  containing  the 
fullest  powers  to  treat  with  the  Irish,  and  prom- 
ising to  fulfil  any  conditions  into  which  he  should 
enter.  The  king,  informed  of  this,  disavowed 
Glamorgan.  .  .  .  Glamorgan,  however,  was  soon 
released,  and  lost  no  portion  of  the  king's  or  his 
family's  favour.  This  transaction  has  been  the 
subject  of  much  historical  controversy.  The 
enemies  of  Charles,  both  in  his  own  and  later 
ages,  have  considered  it  as  a  proof  of  his  indif- 
ference, at  least,  to  the  protestant  religion,  and 
of  his  readiness  to  accept  the  assistance  of  Irish 
rebels  on  any  conditions.  His  advocates  for  a 
long  time  denied  the  authenticity  of  Glamorgan's 
commissions.  But  Dr.  Birch  demonstrated  tliat 
they  were  genuine;  and,  if  his  dissertation  could 
have  left  any  doubt,  later  evidence  might  be  .id- 
duced  in  confirmation." — H.  Hallam,  Const.  IL'st. 
ofEng.,ch.  10  (».  2). 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of  the  Great 
Cinl  War,  ch.  39  and4A(v.  3).— T.  Carte,  Life  (f 
James,  Duke  of  Ormond,  bk.  4  {r.  3). — J.  Lingard, 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  10,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1645  (July— August).— The  Clubmen. 
— "When  Fairfax  and  Cromwell  marched  into 
the  west  [after  Naseby  fight],  they  found  that  in 
these  counties  the  countrj'-people  had  begun  to 
assemble  in  bodies,  sometimes  5,000  strong,  to 
resist  their  oppressors,  whether  they  fought  in 
the  name  of  King  or  Parliament.  They  were 
called  clubmen  from  their  arms,  and  carried  ban- 
ners, with  the  motto  —  '  If  you  offer  to  plunder 


902 


ENGLAND,  lU-io 


Preshyterianism. 


ENGLAND,  1646-1647. 


our  cattle.  Be  assured  we  will  give  you  battle.' 
The  clubmen,  however,  could  not  hope  to  con- 
trol the  movements  of  the  disciplined  troops  who 
now  appeared  against  them.  After  a  few  fruit- 
less attempts  at  resistance  they  dispersed."  —  B. 
M.  Cordery  and  J.  S.  Phillpotts,  King  and  Com- 
monwealth, cli.  8.  — "  The  inexpugnable  Sir  Lewis 
Dives  (a  thrasonical  person  knowu  to  the  readers 
of  Evelyn),  after  due  battering,  was  now  soon 
stormed ;  whereupon,  by  Letters  found  on  him 
it  became  apparent  how  deeply  Royalist  this 
scheme  of  Clubmen  had  been:  ' Commissions  for 
raising  Regiments  of  Clubmen  ';  the  design  to  be 
extended  over  England  at  large,  'yea  into  the 
Associated  Counties  ' :  however,  it  has  now  come 
to  nothing."  —  T.  Carlyle,  Olimr  GromweWs  Let- 
ters and  Speeches,  pt.  2,  letter  14. 

A.  D.  1645  (July— September). —  The  storm- 
ing of  Bridgewater  and  Bristol.  —  "  The  con- 
tinuance of  the  civil  war  for  a  whole  year  after 
the  decisive  battle  of  Naseby  is  a  proof  of  the 
King's  selfishness,  and  of  his  utter  indiffer- 
ence to  the  sufferings  of  the  people.  All  ra- 
tional hope  was  gone,  and  even  Rupert  advised 
his  uncle  to  make  terms  with  the  Parliament. 
Yet  Charles,  while  incessantly  vacillating  as  to 
his  plans,  persisted  in  retaining  his  garrisons, 
and  required  his  adherents  to  sacrifice  all  they 
possessed  in  order  to  prolong  a  useless  struggle 
for  a  few  months.  Bristol,  therefore,  was  to 
stand  a  siege,  and  Charles  expected  the  garri- 
son to  hold  out,  without  an  object,  to  the  last 
extremity,  entailing  misery  and  ruin  on  the 
second  commercial  city  in  the  kingdom.  Rupert 
was  sent  to  take  the  command  there,  and  when 
the  army  of  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax  approached, 
towards  the  end  of  August,  he  had  completed  his 
preparations."  Fairfax  had  marched  promptly 
and  rapidly  westward,  after  the  battle  of  Naseby. 
He  had  driven  Goring  from  the  siege  of  Taunton, 
had  defeated  him  in  a  sharp  battle  at  Langport, 
taking  1,400  prisoners,  and  had  carried  Bridge- 
water  by  storm,  July  21,  capturing  3,000  pris- 
oners, with  36  pieces  of  artillery  and  5.000  stand 
of  arms.  On  the  21st  of  August  he  arrived  be- 
fore Bristol,  which  Prince  Rupert  had  strongly 
fortified,  and  which  he  held  with  an  effective 
garrison  of  3.300  men.  On  the  morning  of  the 
10th  of  September  it  was  entered  by  storm,  and 
on  the  following  day  Rupert,  who  still  occupied 
the  most  defensiljle  forts,  surrendered  the  whole 
place.  This  surrender  so  enraged  the  King  that 
he  deprived  his  nephew  of  all  his  commissions 
and  sent  him  a  pass  to  quit  the  kingdom.  But 
Rupert  understood,  as  the  King  would  not,  that 
fighting  was  useless  —  that  the  royal  cause  was 
lost.  —  C.  R.  Markham,  Life  of  the  Oreat  Lord 
Fairfax,  ch.  21-23. 

Also  in  :  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  the  Re- 
bellion, bk.  9.  —  W.  Hunt,  Bristol,  c!i.  7.  —  E. 
Warburton,  Memoirs  of  Prince  Rupert  and  the 
Caraliers,  v.  3,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1645  (September).  —  Defeat  of  Mont- 
rose at  Philiphaugh.  See  Scotland:  A.  D. 
1644-1645. 

A.  D.  1646  (March). — Adoption  of  Preshy- 
terianism by  Parliament.  —  "  For  the  last  three 
years  the  Assembly  of  Divines  had  been  sitting 
almost  daily  in  the  Jerusalem  Chamber  of  West- 
minster Abbey.  .  .  .  They  were  preparing  a 
new  Prayer-book,  a  form  of  Church  Government, 
a  Confession  of  Faith,  and  a  Catechism  ;  but  the 
real  questions  at  issue  were  the  establishment  of 


903 


the  Presbyterian  Church  and  the  toleration  of 
sectarians.  The  Presbyterians,  as  we  know,  de- 
sired to  establish  their  own  form  of  Church  gov- 
ernment by  assemblies  and  synods,  without  any 
toleration  for  uon-conformists,  whether  Catholics, 
Episcopalians,  or  sectarians.  But  though  they 
formed  a  large  majority  in  the  assembly,  there 
was  a  well-organized  opposition  of  Independents 
and  Erastians,  whose  union  made  it  no  easy  mat- 
ter for  the  Presbyterians  to  carry  every  vote 
their  own  way.  .  .  .  After  the  Assembly  had 
sat  a  year  and  a  half,  the  Parliament  passed  an 
ordinance  for  putting  a  directory,  prepared  by 
the  divines,  into  force,  and  taking  away  the 
Common  Prayer-book  (3rd  Jan. ,  1645).  The  sign 
of  the  cross  in  baptism,  the  ring  in  marriage,  the 
wearing  of  vestments,  the  keeping  of  saints' 
days,  were  discontinued.  The  communion  table 
was  ordered  to  be  set  in  the  body  of  the  church, 
about  which  the  people  were  to  stand  or  sit ;  the 
passages  of  Scripture  to  be  read  were  left  to  the 
minister's  choice ;  no  forms  of  prayer  were  pre- 
scribed. The  same  year  a  new  directory  for  or- 
dination of  ministers  was  passed  into  an  ordinance. 
The  Presbyterian  assemblies,  called  presbyteries, 
were  empowered  to  ordain,  and  none  were  al- 
lowed to  enter  the  ministry  without  first  taking 
the  covenant  (8th  Nov.,  1645).  This  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  third  ordinance  for  establishing  the 
Presbyterian  system  of  Church  government  in 
England  by  way  of  trial  for  three  years.  As 
originally  introduced  into  the  House,  this  ordi- 
nance met  with  great  opposition,  because  it  gave 
power  to  ministers  of  refusing  the  sacrament  and 
turning  men  out  of  the  Church  for  scandalous 
offences.  Now,  in  what,  argued  the  Erastians, 
did  scandalous  offences  consist  ?  .  .  .  A  modified 
ordinance  accordingly  was  passed  ;  scandalous 
offences,  for  which  ministers  might  refuse  the 
sacrament  and  excommunicate,  were  specified  ; 
assemblies  were  declared  subject  to  Parliament, 
and  leave  was  granted  to  those  who  thought 
themselves  unjustly  sentenced,  to  appeal  right 
up  from  one  Church  assembly  after  another  to 
the  civil  power  —  the  Parliament  (16th  JIarch, 
1646).  Presbyterians,  both  in  England  and  Scot- 
laud,  felt  deeply  mortified.  After  all  these  years' 
contending,  then,  just  when  they  thought  they 
were  entering  on  the  fruits  of  their  labours,  to 
see  the  Church  still  left  under  the  povver  of  the 
State  —  the  disappointment  was  intense  to  a  de- 
gree we  cannot  estimate.  They  looked  on  the 
Independents  as  the  enemies  of  God  :  this  '  lame 
Erastian  Presbytery  '  as  hardly  worth  the  having. 
.  .  .  The  Assembly  of  Divines  practically  came 
to  an  end  in  1649,  when  it  was  changed  into  a 
committee  for  examining  candidates  for  the 
Presbyterian  ministry.  It  finally  broke  up  with- 
out any  formal  dismissal  on  the  dispersion  of  the 
Rump  Parliament  in  March,  1653."  —  B.  M.  Cor- 
dery and  J.  S:  Phillpotts,  King  aud  Common- 
wealth,  ch.  9. 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Sist.  of  the  Great 
Ciml  War,  ch.  40  (v.  3).  —  A.  F.  Mitchell,  The 
Westminster  Assembly,  lects.  7,  9,  13.  —  Minutes  of 
the  Sessions  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  —  See, 
also,  Independents. 

A.  D.  1646-1647.  —  The  King  in  the  hands  of 
the  Scots.  —  His  duplicity  and  his  intrigues.  — 
The  Scots  surrender  hira.  —  "On  the  morning 
of  May  6th  authentic  news  came  that  the  King 
had  ridden  into  the  Scottish  army,  and  had  en- 
trusted to  his  northern  .subjects  the  guardianship 


ENGLAND,  1646-1647. 


The  King  and 
the  Scots. 


ENGLAND,  1647. 


of  his  royal  person.  Thereupon  the  English 
Parliament  at  once  asserted  their  right  to  dis- 
pose of  their  King  so  long  as  he  was  on  English 
soil ;  and  for  the  present  ordered  that  he  be  sent 
to  Warwick  Castle,  an  order,  however,  which 
had  no  effect.  Newark,  impregnable  even  to 
Ironsides,  was  surrendered  at  last  by  royal  order ; 
and  the  Scots  retreated  northwards  to  Newcastle, 
carr3-ing  their  sovereign  with  them.  .  .  .  Mean- 
time the  City  Presbyterians  were  petitioning  the 
House  to  quicken  the  establishment  of  the  godly 
and  thorough  reformation  so  long  promised ;  and 
they  were  supported  by  letters  from  the  Scottish 
Parliament,  which,  in  the  month  of  February, 
1646,  almost  peremptorily  required  that  the 
Solemn  League  and  Covenant  should  be  carried 
out  in  the  Scottish  sense  of  it.  .  .  .  The  question 
as  to  the  disposal  of  the  King's  person  became 
accidentally  involved  in  the  issues  between  Pres- 
byterianism  and  the  sects.  For  if  the  King  had 
been  a  man  to  be  trusted,  and  if  he  had  frankly 
accepted  the  army  programme  of  free  religion, 
a  free  Parliament,  and  responsible  advisers,  there 
is  little  doubt  that  he  might  have  kept  his  crown 
and  his  Anglican  ritual  —  at  least  for  his  own 
worship  —  and  might  yet  have  concluded  his 
reign  prosperously  as  the  first  constitutional 
King  of  England.  Instead  of  this,  he  angered 
the  army  by  making  their  most  sacred  purposes 
mere  cards  in  a  game,  to  be  played  or  held  as  he 
thought  most  to  his  own  advantage  in  dealing 
with  the  Presbyterian  Parliament.  On  July  11th, 
1646,  Commissioners  from  both  Houses  were  ap- 
pointed to  lay  certain  propositions  for  peace  be- 
fore the  King  at  Newcastle.  These  of  course 
involved  everything  for  which  the  Parliament 
had  contended,  and  in  a  form  developed  and  ex- 
aggerated by  the  altered  position  of  affairs.  All 
armed  forces  were  to  be  absolutely  under  the 
control  of  Parliament  for  a  period  of  20  years. 
Speaking  generally,  all  public  acts  done  by  Par- 
liament, or  by  its  authority,  were  to  be  con- 
firmed ;  and  all  public  acts  done  by  the  King  or 
his  Oxford  anti-Parliament,  without  due  authori- 
sation from  Westminster,  were  to  be  void.  .  .  . 
On  August  10th  the  Commissioners  who  had 
been  sent  to  the  King  returned  to  Westminster. 
.  .  .  The  King  had  given  no  distinct  answer.  It 
was  a  suspicious  circumstance  that  the  Duke  of 
Hamilton  had  gone  into  Scotland,  especially  as 
Cromwell  learned  that,  in  spite  of  an  ostensible 
order  from  the  King,  Montrose's  force  had  not 
been  disbanded.  The  labyrinthine  web  of  royal 
intrigue  in  Ireland  was  beginning  to  be  discov- 
ered. .  .  .  The  death  of  the  Earl  of  Essex  on 
September  14th  increased  the  growing  danger  of 
a  fatal  schism  in  the  victorious  party.  The  Pres- 
byterians had  hoped  to  restore  him  to  the  head 
of  the  army,  and  so  sheathe  or  blunt  the  terrible 
weapon  they  had  forged  and  could  not  wield. 
They  were  now  left  without  a  man  to  rival  in 
military  authority  the  commanders  whose  exploits 
overwhelmed  their  employers  with  a  too  com- 
plete success.  Not  only  were  the  political  and 
religious  opinions  of  the  soldiers  a  cause  of 
anxiety,  but  the  burden  of  their  sustenance  and 
pay  was  pressing  hea\>ily  on  the  country.  .  .  . 
No  wonder  that  the  City  of  London,  always 
sensitive  as  to  public  security,  began  to  urge 
upon  the  Parliament  the  necessity  for  diminish- 
ing or  disbanding  the  army  in  England.  .  .  . 
The  I'arliameut,  however,  could  not  deal  with 
the  army,  for  two  reasons .   First,  the  negotia- 


tions with  the  Scotch  lingered ;  and  next,  they 
could  not  pay  the  men.  The  first  difficulty  was 
overcome,  at  least  for  the  time,  by  the  middle  of 
January,  1647.  when  a  train  of  wagons  carried 
£200,000  to  Newcastle  in  discharge  of  the  Eng- 
lish debt  to  the  Scottish  army.  But  the  success- 
ful accomplishment  of  this  only  increased  the  re- 
maining difficulty  of  the  Parliament  —  that  of 
paying  their  own  soldiers.  We  need  not  notice 
the  charge  made  against  the  Scotch  of  selling 
their  King  further  than  to  say,  that  it  is  unfairly 
based  upon  only  one  subordinate  feature  of  a 
very  complicated  negotiation.  If  the  King  would 
have  taken  the  Covenant,  and  guaranteed  to  them 
their  precious  Presbyterian  system,  his  Scottish 
subjects  would  have  fought  for  him  almost  to 
the  last  man.  The  firmness  of  Charles  in  declin- 
ing the  Covenant  for  himself  is,  no  doubt,  the 
most  creditable  point  in  his  resistance.  But  his 
obstinacy  in  disputing  the  right  of  two  nations, 
in  their  political  establishment  of  religion,  to 
override  his  convictions  by  their  own,  illustrates 
his  entire  incapacity  to  comprehend  the  new 
light  dawning  on  the  relations  of  sovereign  and 
people.  The  Scots  did  their  best  for  him.  They 
petitioned  him,  they  knelt  to  him,  they  preached 
to  him.  .  .  .  But  to  have  carried  with  theiu  an 
intractable  man  to  form  a  wedge  of  division 
amongst  themselves,  at  the  same  time  that  he 
brought  against  them  the  whole  power  of  Eng- 
land, would  have  been  sheer  insanity.  Accord- 
ingly, they  made  the  best  bargain  they  could 
both  for  him  and  themselves;  and,  taking  their 
wages,  they  left  him  with  his  English  subjects, 
who  conducted  him  to  Holdenby  House,  in  North- 
amptonshire, on  the  6th  of  February,  1647." — 
J.  A.  Picton,  Oliver  Cromwell,  ch.  13. 

Also  in  :  S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  First  two  Stuarts 
and  the  Puritan  Revolution,  ch.  7,  sect.  4. — The 
same.  Hist,  of  the  Great  Civil  War,  ch.  38-45  (». 
2). — W.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth,  bk. 
1,  ch.  24-27,  and  bk.  2,  ch.  1-6  (».  2).— Earl  of 
Clarendon,  Hist,  of  the  Rebellion,  bk,  9,  sect.  161- 
178,  and  bk.  10  (o.  8). 

A.  D.  1647  (April — August). — The  Army 
takes  things  in  hand. — "  The  King  was  surren- 
dered to  Parliament,  and  all  now  looking  toward 
peace,  the  Presbyterians  were  uppermost,  dis- 
credit falling  upon  the  Army  and  its  favorers. 
Many  of  the  Recruiters  [i.  e.,  the  new  members, 
elected  to  fill  vacancies  in  the  Parliament],  who  at 
first  had  acted  with  the  Independents,  inclined  now 
to  their  opponents.  The  Presbyterians,  feeling 
that  none  would  dare  to  question  the  authority 
of  Parliament,  pushed  energetically  their  policy 
as  regards  the  Army,  of  sending  to  Ireland,  dis- 
banding, neglecting  the  payment  of  arrears,  and 
displacing  the  old  officers.  But  suddenly  there 
came  for  them  a  rude  awakening.  On  April  30, 
1647,  Skippon,  whom  all  liked,  whom  the  Pres- 
byterians indeed  claimed,  but  who  at  the  same 
time  kept  on  good  terms  with  the  Army  and  In- 
dependents, rose  in  his  place  in  St.  Stephens  and 
produced  a  letter,  brought  to  him  the  day  before 
by  three  private  soldiers,  in  which  eight  regi- 
ments of  horse  expressly  refused  to  serve  in  Ire- 
land, declaring  that  it  was  a  perfidious  design  to 
separate  the  soldiers  from  the  officers  whom  tliey 
loved, — framed  by  men  who,  having  tasted  of 
power,  were  degenerating  into  tyrants.  Holies 
and  the  Presbyterians  were  thunder-struck,  and 
laying  aside  all  other  business  summoned  the 
three  soldiers  to  appear  at  once.  ...  A  violent 


904 


ENGLAND,  1647. 


The  King,  Cromwell 
and  the  Army. 


ENGLAND,  1647. 


tumult  arose  in  tbe  House.  The  Presbyterians 
declared  that  the  three  sturdy  Ironsides  standing 
there,  with  their  buff  stained  from  their  corselets, 
ought  to  be  at  once  committed;  to  which  it  was 
answered,  that  if  there  were  to  be  commitment, 
it  should  be  to  the  best  London  tavern,  and  sack 
and  sugar  provided,  Cromwell,  leaning  over 
toward  Ludlow,  who  sat  next  to  him,  and  point- 
ing to  the  Presbyterians,  said  that  those  fellows 
would  never  leave  till  the  Army  pulled  them  out 
by  the  ears.  That  day  it  became  known  that 
there  existed  an  organization,  a  sort  of  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  Army,  the  officers  forming  an  upper 
council  and  the  representatives  of  the  rank  and 
file  a  lower  council.  Two  such  representatives 
stood  in  the  lower  council  for  each  squadron  or 
troop,  known  as  'Adjutators,'  aiders,  or  'Agita- 
tors.' This  organization  had  taken  upon  itself 
to  see  that  the  Army  had  its  rights.  ...  At  the 
end  of  a  month,  there  was  still  greater  occasion 
for  astonishment.  Seven  hundred  horse  suddenly 
left  the  camp,  and  appearing  without  warning, 
June  3,  at  Holmby  House,  where  Charles  was 
kept,  in  charge  of  Parliamentary  commissioners, 
proposed  to  assume  tbe  custody  of  the  King.  A 
cool,  quiet  fellow,  of  rank  no  higher  than  that  of 
cornet,  led  them  and  was  their  spokesman, 
Joyce.  '  What  is  your  authority  ? '  asked  the 
King.  The  comet  simply  pointed  to  the  mass 
of  troopers  at  his  back.  ...  So  bold  a  step  as 
the  seizure  of  the  King  made  necessary  other 
bold  steps  on  the  part  of  the  Army.  Scarcely  a 
fortnight  had  passed,  when  a  demand  was  made 
for  the  exclusion  from  Parliament  of  eleven 
Presbyterians,  the  men  most  conspicuous  for  ex- 
treme views.  The  Army  meanwhile  hovered, 
ever  ominously,  close  at  hand,  to  the  north  and 
east  of  the  city,  paying  slight  regard  to  the 
Parliamentary  prohibition  to  remain  at  a  distance. 
The  eleven  members  withdrew.  .  .  .  But  if 
Parliament  was  willing  to  yield,  Presbyterian 
London  and  the  country  round  about  were  not, 
and  in  July  broke  out  into  sheer  rebellion.  .  .  . 
The  Speakers  of  the  Lords  and  Commons,  at  the 
head  of  the  strength  of  the  Parliament,  fourteen 
Peers  and  one  hundred  Commoners,  betook  them- 
selves to  Fairfax,  and  on  August  3  they  threw 
themselves  into  the  protection  of  the  Army  at 
Hounslow  Heath,  ten  miles  distant.  A  grand 
review  took  place.  The  consummate  soldier, 
Fairfax,  had  his  troops  in  perfect  condition,  and 
they  were  drawn  out  30,000  strong  to  receive  the 
seceding  Parliament.  The  soldiers  rent  the  air 
with  shouts  in  their  behalf,  and  all  was  made 
ready  for  a  most  impressive  demonstration.  On 
the  6th  of  August,  Fairfax  marched  his  troops  in 
full  array  through  the  city,  from  Hammersmith 
to  Westminster.  Each  man  had  in  his  hat  a 
wreath  of  laurel.  The  Lords  and  Commons  who 
had  taken  flight  were  escorted  in  the  midst  of 
the  column  ;  the  city  officials  joined  the  train.  At 
Westminster  the  Speakers  were  ceremoniously 
reinstalled,  and  the  Houses  again  put  to  work, 
the  first  business  being  to  thank  the  General  and 
the  veterans  who  had  reconstituted  them.  The 
next  day,  with  Skippon  in  the  centre  and  Crom- 
well in  the  rear,  the  Army  marched  through  the 
city  itself,  a  heavy  tramp  of  battle-seasoned 
platoons,  at  the  mere  sound  of  which  the  war- 
like ardor  of  the  turbulent  youths  of  the  work- 
shops and  the  rough  watermen  was  completely 
squelched.  Yet  the  soldiers  looked  neither  to 
the  right  nor  left ;  nor  by  act,  word,  or  gesture 


was  any  offence  given." — J.  K.  Hosmer,  Life  of 

Young  Sir  Henry  Vane,  ch.  13. 

Also  IN:  C.  R.  Markham,  Life  of  the  Gtreai 
Lord  Fairfax,  ch.  34. — T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  Crom- 
well's Letters  and  Speeches,  pt.  3,  letter  36. — W. 
Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth,  bk.  3,  ch.  7- 
11. 

A.  D.  1647  (August  —  December).  —  The 
King's  "  Game  "  with  Cromwell  and  the  army, 
and  the  ending  of  it. —  After  reinstating  the 
Parliament  at  Westminster,  "the  army  leaders 
resumed  negotiations  with  the  King.  The  in- 
dignation of  the  soldiers  at  his  delays  and  in- 
trigues made  the  task  hourly  more  difficult ;  but 
Cromwell  .  .  .  clung  to  the  hope  of  accommoda- 
tion with  a  passionate  tenacity.  His  mind,  con- 
servative by  tradition,  and  above  all  practical  in 
temper,  saw  the  political  difficulties  which  would 
follow  on  the  abolition  of  Royalty,  and  in  spite 
of  the  King's  evasions,  he  persisted  in  negotiat- 
ing with  liim.  But  Cromwell  stood  almost  alone ; 
the  Parliament  refused  to  accept  Ireton's  pro- 
posals as  a  basis  of  peace,  Charles  still  evaded, 
and  the  army  then  grew  restless  and  suspicious. 
There  were  cries  for  a  wide  reform,  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  House  of  Peers,  for  a  new  House  of 
Commons,  and  the  Adjutators  called  on  the  Coun- 
cil of  Officers  to  discuss  the  question  of  abolish- 
ing Royalty  itself.  Cromwell  was  never  braver 
than  when  he  faced  the  gathering  storm,  forbade 
the  discussion,  adjourned  the  Council,  and  sent 
the  officers  to  their  regiments.  But  the  strain 
was  too  great  to  last  long,  and  Charles  was  still 
resolute  to  '  play  his  game.'  He  was,  in  fact,  so 
far  from  being  in  earnest  in  his  negotiations  with 
Cromwell  and  Ireton,  that  at  the  moment  they 
were  risking  their  lives  for  him  he  was  conducting 
another  and  equally  delusive  negotiation  with  the 
Parliament.  ...  In  the  midst  of  his  hopes  of  an 
accommodation,  Cromwell  found  with  astonish- 
ment that  he  had  been  duped  throughout,  and 
that  the  King  had  fled  [Nov.  11,  1647].  .  .  . 
Even  Cromwell  was  powerless  to  break  the  spirit 
which  now  pervaded  the  soldiers,  and  the  King's 
perfidy  left  him  without  resource.  'The  King 
is  a  man  of  great  parts  and  great  understanding,' 
he  said  at  last,  '  but  so  great  a  dissembler  and  so 
false  a  man  that  he  is  not  to  be  trusted. '  By  a 
strange  error,  Charles  had  made  his  way  from 
Hampton  Court  to  the  Isle  of  Wight,  perhaps 
with  some  hope  from  the  sympathy  of  Colonel 
Hammond,  the  Governor  of  Carisbrooke  Castle, 
and  again  found  himself  a  prisoner.  Foiled  in 
his  effort  to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  the  new 
civil  war,  he  set  himself  to  organize  it  from  his 
prison ;  and  while  again  opening  delusive  negotia- 
tions with  the  Parliament,  he  signed  a  secret  treaty 
with  the  Scots  for  the  invasion  of  the  realm. 
The  rise  of  Independency,  and  the  practical  sus- 
pension of  the  Covenant,  had  produced  a  violent 
reaction  in  his  favour  north  of  the  Tweed.  .  .  . 
In  England  the  whole  of  the  conservative  party, 
with  many  of  the  most  conspicuous  members  of 
the  Long  Parliament  at  its  head,  was  drifting,  in 
its  horror  of  the  religious  and  political  changes 
which  seemed  impending,  toward  the  King ;  and 
the  news  from  Scotland  gave  the  signal  for  fitful 
insurrections  in  almost  every  quarter." — J.  R. 
Green,  Short  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  ch.  8,  sect.  8. 

Also  in  :  F.  P.  Guizot,  Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Rev. 
of  1040,  bk.  7-8.— L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng. 
nth  Century,  bk.  10,  ch.  4.— W.  God*in,  Hist, 
of  the  Commonwealth.— Q.  Hillier,  Narrative  of 


905 


ENGLAND,  1647. 


Treat:/ 
of  Newport. 


ENGLAND,  1648. 


attempted  Escapes  of  Charles  I.  from  Carishrooke 
Castle.  &c. 

A.  D.  1648  (April— August).— The  Second 
Civil  War.— Defeat  of  the  Scots  at  Preston. 
—"The  Second  Civil  War  broke  out  in  April, 
and  proved  to  be  a  short  but  formidable  affair. 
The  whole  of  "Wales  was  speedily  in  insurrec- 
tion ;  a  strong  force  of  cavaliers  were  mustering 
in  the  north  of  England;  in  Essex,  Surrey,  and 
the  southern  counties  various  outbreaks  arose; 
Berwick,  Carlisle,  Chester,  Pembroke,  Colches- 
ter, were  held  for  the  king ;  the  fleet  revolted ;  and 
40,000  men  were  ordered  by  the  Parliament  of 
Scotland  to  invade  England.  Lambert  was  sent 
to  the  north;  Fairfax  to  take  Colchester;  and 
Cromwell  into  Wales,  and  thence  to  join  Lambert 
and  meet  the  Scotch.  On  the  24th  of  May  Crom- 
well reached  Pembroke,  but  being  short  of  guns, 
he  did  not  take  it  till  11th  July.  The  rising  in 
Wales  crushed,  Cromwell  turned  northwards, 
where  the  northwest  was  already  in  revolt,  and 
20,000  Scots,  under  the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  were 
advancing  into  the  country.  Want  of  supplies 
and  shoes,  and  sickness,  detained  him  with  his 
army,  some 7,000  strong,  'so  extremely  harassed 
with  hard  service  and  long  marches,  that  they 
seemed  rather  fit  for  a  hospital  than  a  battle. ' 
Having  joined  Lambert  in  Yorkshire  he  fought 
the  battle  of  Preston  on  17th  of  August.  The 
battle  of  Preston  was  one  of  the  most  decisive 
and  important  victories  ever  gained  by  Crom- 
well, over  the  most  numerous  enemy  he  ever 
encountered,  and  the  first  in  which  he  was  in 
supreme  command.  .  .  .  Early  on  the  morning 
of  the  17th  August,  Cromwell,  with  some  9,000 
men,  fell  upon  the  army  of  the  Duke  of  Hamil- 
ton unawares,  as  it  proceeded  southwards  in  a 
long,  straggling,  unprotected  line.  The  in- 
vaders consisted  of  17,000  Scots  and  7,000  good 
men  from  northern  counties.  The  long  ill-or- 
dered line  was  cut  in  half  and  rolled  back  north- 
ward and  southward,  before  they  even  knew 
that  Cromwell  was  upon  them.  The  great  host, 
cut  Into  sections,  fought  with  desperation  from 
town  to  town.  But  for  three  days  it  was  one 
long  chase  and  carnage,  which  ended  only  with 
the  exhaustion  of  the  victors  and  their  horses. 
Ten  thousand  prisoners  were  taken.  '  We  have 
killed  we  know  not  what,'  writes  Cromwell, 
'  but  a  very  great  number ;  having  done  execu- 
tion upon  them  above  thirty  miles  together,  be- 
sides what  we  killed  in  the  two  great  fights.' 
His  own  loss  was  small,  and  but  one  superior 
officer.  .  .  .  The  Scottish  invaders  dispersed, 
Cromwell  hastened  to  recover  Berwick  and  Car- 
lisle, and  to  restore  the  Presbyterian  or  Whig 
party  in  Scotland." — F.  Harrison,  Oliver  Crom- 
well, ch.  7. 

Also  in:  J.  H.  Burton,  Sist.  of  Scotland,  ch. 
74  (*.  7).— Earl  of  Clarendon,  Sist.  of  the  Rebel- 
lion, bk.  11  (0.  4). 

A.  D.  1648  (September— November).— The 
Treaty  at  Newport. — "The  unfortunate  issue 
of  the  Scots  expedition  under  the  duke  of  Hamil- 
ton, and  of  the  various  insurrections  throughout 
England,  quelled  by  the  vigilance  and  good  con- 
duct of  Fairfax  and  Cromwell,  is  well  known. 
But  these  formidable  manifestations  of  the  public 
sentiment  in  favour  of  peace  with  the  king  on 
honourable  conditions,  wherein  the  city  of  Lon- 
don, ruled  by  the  presbyterian  ministers,  took  a 
share,  compelled  the  house  of  commons  to  retract 
its  measures.     They  came  to  a  vote,  by  165  to 


99,  that  they  would  not  alter  the  fundamental 
government  by  king,  lords,  and  commons;  they 
abandoned  their  impeachment  against  seven  peers, 
the  most  moderate  of  the  upper  house  and  the 
most  obnoxious  to  the  army :  they  restored  the 
eleven  members  to  their  seats ;  they  revoked  their 
resolutions  against  a  personal  treaty  with  the 
king,  and  even  that  which  required  his  assent  by 
certain  preliminary  articles.  In  a  word  the  party 
for  distinction's  sake  called  presbyterian,  but 
now  rather  to  be  denominated  constitutional,  re- 
gained its  ascendancy.  This  change  in  the  coun- 
sels of  parliament  brought  on  the  treaty  of  New- 
port. The  treaty  of  Newport  was  set  on  foot 
and  managed  by  those  politicians  of  the  house  of 
lords,  who,  having  long  suspected  no  danger  to 
themselves  but  from  the  power  of  the  king,  had 
discovered,  somewhat  of  the  latest,  that  the  crown 
itself  was  at  stake,  and  that  their  own  privileges 
were  set  on  the  same  cast.  Nothing  was  more 
remote  from  the  intentions  of  the  earl  of  Nor- 
thumberland, or  lord  Say,  than  to  see  themselves 
pushed  from  their  seats  by  such  upstarts  as  Ireton 
and  Harrison ;  and  their  present  mortification  af- 
forded a  proof  how  men  reckoned  wise  in  their 
generation  become  the  dupes  of  their  own  selfish, 
crafty,  and  pusillanimous  policy.  They  now 
grew  an.\ious  to  see  a  treaty  concluded  with  the 
king.  Sensible  that  it  was  necessary  to  antici- 
pate, if  possible,  the  return  of  Cromwell  from 
the  north,  they  implored  him  to  comply  at  once 
with  all  the  propositions  of  parliament,  or  at  least 
to  yield  in  the  first  instance  as  far  as  he  meant  to 
go.  They  had  not,  however,  mitigated  in  any 
degree  the  rigorous  conditions  so  often  jiroposed; 
nor  did  the  king  during  this  treaty  obtain  any 
reciprocal  concession  worth  mentioning  in  return 
for  his  surrender  of  almost  all  that  could  be  de- 
manded."— H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch. 
10,  pt.  2, — The  utter  faithlessness  with  which 
Charles  carried  on  these  negotiations,  as  on  all 
former  occasions,  was  shown  at  a  later  day  when 
his  correspondence  came  to  light.  "  After  hav- 
ing solemnly  promised  that  all  hostilities  in  Ire- 
land should  cease,  he  secretly  wrote  to  Ormond 
(Oct.  10) :  '  Obey  my  wife's  orders,  not  mine,  until 
I  shall  let  you  know  I  am  free  from  all  restraint ; 
nor  trouble  yourself  about  my  concessions  as  to 
Ireland ;  they  will  not  lead  to  anything ;'  and  the 
day  on  which  he  had  consented  to  transfer  to 
parliament  for  twenty  years  the  command  of  the 
army  (Oct.  9),  he  wrote  to  sir  William  Hopkins: 
'  To  tell  you  the  truth,  my  great  concession  this 
morning  was  made  only  with  a  view  to  facilitate 
my  approaching  escape;  without  that  hope,  I 
should  never  have  yielded  in  this  manner.  If  I 
had  refused,  I  could,  without  much  sorrow,  have 
returned  to  my  prison;  but  as  it  is,  I  own  it  would 
break  my  heart,  for  I  have  done  that  which  ray 
escape  alone  can  justify. '  The  parliament,  though 
without  any  exact  information,  suspected  all  this 
perfidy ;  even  the  friends  of  peace,  the  men  most 
affected  by  the  king's  condition,  and  most  earnest 
to  save  him,  replied  but  hesitatingly  to  the  charges 
of  the  independents. " — F.  P.  Guizot,  Hist,  of  the 
Eng.  Rev.  of  1640,  bk.  8. 

Also  in  :  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  the  Re- 
bellion, bk.  11,  sect.  153-190  (v.  4).— I.  Disraeli, 
Commentaries  on  the  Life  and  Reign  of  Charles  I. , 
V.  2,  ch.  39-40. 

A.  D.  1648  (November — December). — The 
Grand  Army  Remonstrance  and  Pride's  Purge. 
— The   Long    Parliament    cut    down   to    the 


906 


ENGLAND,  1648. 


Pride^s  Purge. 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


Rump.— On  the  20th  of  November,  1648,  Colonel 
Ewer  and  other  officers  presented  to  the  house  of 
commons  a  remonstrance  from  the  Army  against 
the  negotiations  and  proposed  treaty  with  the 
king.  This  was  accompanied  by  a  letter  from 
Fairfax,  stating  that  it  had  been  voted  unani- 
mously in  the  council  of  officers,  and  entreating 
for  it  the  consideration  of  parliament.  The  re- 
monstrance recommended  an  immediate  ending 
of  the  treaty  conferences  at  Newport,  demanded 
that  the  king  be  brought  to  justice,  as  the  capital 
source  of  all  grievances,  and  called  upon  parlia- 
ment to  enact  its  own  dissolution,  with  provision 
for  the  electing  and  convening  of  future  annual 
or  biennial  parliaments.  Ten  days  passed  with- 
out attention  being  given  to  this  army  manifesto, 
the  house  having  twice  adjourned  its  considera- 
tion of  the  document.  On  the  first  of  December 
there  appeared  at  Newport  a  party  of  horse 
which  quietly  took  possession  of  the  person  of 
the  king,  and  conveyed  him  to  Hurst  Castle,  "a 
fortress  in  Hampshire,  situated  at  the  extreme 
point  of  a  neck  of  land,  which  shoots  into  the  sea 
towards  the  Isle  of  Wight. "  The  same  day  on 
which  this  was  done,  "the  commissioners  who 
had  treated  with  the  king  at  Newport  made  their 
appearance  in  the  two  houses  of  parliament ;  and 
the  two  following  days  were  occupied  by  the 
house  of  commons  in  an  earnest  debate  as  to  the 
state  of  the  negociation.  Vane  was  one  of  the  prin- 
cipal speakers  against  the  treaty ;  and  Fiennes, 
who  had  hitherto  ranked  among  the  independ- 
ents, spoke  for  it.  At  length,  after  the  house 
had  sat  all  night,  it  was  put  and  carried,  at 
five  in  the  morning  of  the  5th,  by  a  majority 
of  130  to  83,  that  the  king's  answers  to  the  propo- 
sitions of  both  houses  were  a  ground  for  them 
to  proceed  upon,  to  the  settlement  of  the  peace 
of  the  kingdom.  On  the  same  day  this  vote 
received  the  concurrence  of  the  house  of  lords." 
Meantime,  on  the  30th  of  November,  the  council 
of  the  army  had  voted  a  second  declaration  more 
fully  expressive  of  its  views  and  announcing  its 
intention  to  draw  near  to  London,  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  purposes  of  the  remonstrance. 
"On  the  2d  of  December  Fairfax  marched  to 
London,  and  quartered  his  army  at  Whitehall, 
St.  James's,  the  Mews,  and  the  villages  near  the 
metropolis.  .  .  .  On  the  5th  of  December  three 
officers  of  the  army  held  a  meeting  with  three 
members  of  parliament,  to  arrange  the  plan  by 
which  the  sound  members  might  best  be  separated 
from  those  by  whom  their  measures  were  thwarted, 
and  might  peaceably  be  put  in  possession  of  the 
legislative  authority.  The  next  morning  a  regi- 
ment of  horse,  and  another  of  foot  were  placed 
as  a  guard  upon  the  two  houses,  Skippon,  who 
commanded  the  city-militia,  having  agreed  with 
the  council  of  the  army  to  keep  back  the  guard 
under  his  authority  which  usually  performed 
that  duty.  A  part  of  the  foot  were  ranged  in 
the  Court  of  Requests,  upon  the  stairs,  and  in 
the  lobby  leading  to  the  house  of  commons. 
Colonel  Pride  was  stationed  near  the  door,  with 
a  list  in  his  hand  of  the  persons  lie  was  com- 
missioned to  arrest;  and  sometimes  one  of  the 
door-keepers,  and  at  others  Lord  Grey  of  Groby, 
pointed  them  out  to  him,  as  they  came  up  with 
an  intention  of  passing  into  the  house.  Forty- 
one  members  were  thus  arrested.  ...  On  the 
following  day  more  members  were  secured,  or 
denied  entrance,  amounting,  with  those  of  the 
day  before,  to  about  one  hundred.     At  the  same 


time  Cromwel  took  his  seat ;  and  Henry  Martea 
moved  that  the  speaker  should  return  him  thanks 
for  his  great  and  eminent  services  performed  in 
the  course  of  the  campaign.  The  day  after,  the 
two  houses  adjourned  to  the  12th.  During  the 
adjournment  many  of  the  members  who  had  been 
taken  into  custody  by  the  military  were  liberated. 
.  .  .  Besides  those  who  were  absolutely  secured, 
or  shut  out  from  their  seats  by  the  power  of  the 
army,  there  were  other  members  that  looked 
with  dislike  on  the  present  proceedings,  or  that 
considered  parliament  as  being  under  force,  and 
not  free  in  their  deliberations,  who  voluntarily 
abstained  from  being  present  at  their  sittings  and 
debates." — W.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Common- 
icealth,  bk.  2,  ch.  23-24  (v.  2).— "The  famous 
Pride's  Purge  was  accomplished.  By  military 
force  the  Long  Parliament  was  cut  down  to  a 
fraction  of  its  number,  and  the  career  begins  of 
the  mighty  'Rump,'  so  called  in  the  coarse  wit 
of  the  time  because  it  was  'the  sitting  part.'" — 
J.  K.  Hosmer,  Life  of  Young  Sir  Heni-yVane,  ch. 
13. — ■"  This  name  [the  Rump]  was  first  given  to 
them  by  Walker,  the  author  of  the  History  of 
Independency,  by  way  of  derision,  in  allusion  to 
a  fowl  all  devoured  but  the  rump. " — D.  Neal, 
Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  v.  4,  ch.  \,  foot-note. 

Alsoln:  C.  R.  Markham,  Life  of  the  Great  Lord 
Faitfa.v,  ch.  28. — D.  Massou,  Life  of  John  Milton, 
bk.  4,  ch.  1  and  3  (».  3). 

A.  D.  1649  (January). — The  trial  and  execu- 
tion of  the  King. — "During  the  month  in  which 
Charles  had  remained  at  Windsor  [whither  he 
had  been  brought  from  Hurst  Castle  on  the  17th 
of  December],  there  had  been  proceedings  in  Par- 
liament of  which  he  was  imperfectly  informed. 
On  the  day  he  arrived  there,  it  was  resolved  by 
the  Commons  that  he  should  be  brought  to  trial. 
On  the  2nd  of  January,  1649,  it  was  voted  that, 
in  making  war  against  the  Parliament,  he  had 
been  guilty  of  treason ;  and  a  High  Court  was 
appointed  to  try  him.  One  hundred  and  fifty 
commissioners  were  to  compose  the  Court, — 
peers,  members  of  the  Commons,  aldermen  of 
London.  The  ordinance  was  sent  to  the  Upper 
House,  and  was  rejected.  On  the  6th,  a  fresh 
ordinance,  declaring  that  the  people  being,  after 
God,  the  source  of  all  just  power,  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  are  the  supreme  power  in  the 
nation;  and  that  whatsoever  is  enacted  or  de- 
clared for  law  by  the  Commons  in  Parliament 
hath  the  force  of  a  law,  and  the  people  are  con- 
cluded thereby,  though  the  consent  of  King  or 
Peers  be  not  had  thereto.  Asserting  this  power, 
so  utterly  opposed  either  to  the  ancient  constitu- 
tion of  the  monarchy,  or  to  the  possible  working 
of  a  republic,  there  was  no  hesitation  in  constitut- 
ing the  High  Court  of  Justice  in  the  name  of  the 
Commons  alone.  The  number  of  members  of  the 
Court  was  now  reduced  to  135.  They  had  seven 
preparatory  meetings,  at  which  only  58  members 
attended.  'All  men,'  says  Mrs.  Hutchinson, 
'  were  left  to  their  free  liberty  of  acting,  neither 
persuaded  nor  compelled ;  and  as  there  were  some 
nominated  in  the  commission  who  never  sat,  and 
others  who  sat  at  first  but  durst  not  hold  on,  so- 
all  the  rest  might  have  declined  it  if  they  would, 
when  it  is  apparent  they  should  have  suffered 
nothing  by  so  doing. ' .  .  .  On  the  19th  of  Janu- 
ary, major  Harrison  appeared  ...  at  Windsor 
with  his  troop.  There  was  a  coach  with  six 
horses  in  the  court-yard,  in  which  the  King  took 
his  seat ;  and,  once  more,  he  entered  London,  an(J 


907 


ENGLAND.  1649. 


Trial  and  Execution 
of  the  King. 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


was  lodged  at  St.  James's  palace.  The  next  day, 
the  High  Court  of  Justice  was  opened  in  West- 
minster-hall. .  .  .  After  the  names  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  court  had  been  called,  69  being 
present,  Bradshaw,  the  president,  ordered  the  Ser- 
jeant to  bring  in  the  prisoner.  Silently  the  King 
sat  down  in  the  chair  prepared  for  him.  He 
moved  not  his  hat,  as  he  looked  sternly  and  con- 
temptuously around.  The  sixty-nine  rose  not 
from  their  seats,  and  remained  covered.  .  .  .  The 
clerk  reads  the  charge,  and  when  he  is  accused 
therein  of  being  tyrant  and  traitor,  he  laughs 
in  the  face  of  the  Court.  '  Though  bis  tongue 
usually  hesitated,  yet  it  was  very  free  at  this  time, 
for  he  was  never  discomposed  In  mind,'  writes 
Warwick.  .  .  .  Again  and  again  contending 
against  the  authority  of  the  Court,  the  King  was 
removed,  and  the  sitting  was  adjourned  to  the 
22nd.  On  that  day  the  same  scene  was  renewed ; 
and  again  on  the  23rd.  A  growing  sympathy 
for  the  monarch  became  apparent.  The  cries  of 
'  Justice,  justice,'  which  were  heard  at  first,  were 
now  mingled  with  '  God  save  the  King. '  He  had 
refused  to  plead ;  but  the  Court  nevertheless  em- 
ployed the  24th  and  25th  of  January  in  collecting 
evidence  to  prove  the  charge  of  his  levying  war 
against  the  Parliament.  Coke,  the  solicitor-gen- 
eral, then  demanded  whether  the  Court  would 
proceed  to  pronouncing  sentence ;  and  the  mem- 
bers adjourned  to  the  Painted  Chamber.  On  the 
S7th  the  public  sitting  was  resumed.  .  .  .  The 
Court,  Bradshaw  then  stated,  had  agreed  upon 
the  sentence.  Ludlow  records  that  the  King  '  de- 
sired to  make  one  proposition  before  tliey  pro- 
ceeded to  sentence ;  which  he  earnestly  pressing, 
as  that  which  he  thought  would  lead  to  the  rec- 
onciling of  all  parties,  and  to  the  peace  of  the 
three  kingdoms,  they  permitted  him  to  offer  it: 
the  effect  of  which  was,  that  he  might  meet  the 
two  Houses  in  the  Painted  Chamber,  to  whom  he 
doubted  not  to  offer  that  which  should  satisfy 
and  secure  all  interests. '  Ludlow  goes  on  to  say, 
'  Designing,  as  I  have  since  been  informed,  to 
propose  his  own  resignation,  and  the  admission 
of  his  sou  to  the  throne  upon  such  terms  as  should 
have  been  agreed  upon.'  The  commissioners  re- 
tired to  deliberate,  '  and  being  satisfied,  upon  de- 
bate, that  nothing  but  loss  of  time  would  be  the 
consequence  of  it,  they  returned  into  the  Court 
with  a  negative  to  his  demand.'  Bradshaw  then 
delivered  a  solemn  speech  to  the  King.  .  .  .  The 
clerk  was  lastly  commanded  to  read  the  sentence, 
that  his  head  should  be  severed  from  his  body ; 
'  and  the  commissioners, '  says  Ludlow,  '  testified 
their  unanimous  assent  by  standing  up.'  The 
King  attempted  to  speak;  'but  being  accounted 
dead  in  law,  was  not  permitted.'  On  the  29th  of 
January,  the  Court  met  to  sign  the  sentence  of 
execution,  addressed  to  '  colonel  Francis  Hacker, 
colonel  Huncks,  and  lieutenant-colonel  Phayr, 
and  to  every  one  of  them.' .  .  .  There  were  some 
attempts  to  save  him.  The  Dutch  ambassador 
made  vigorous  efforts  to  procure  a  reprieve, 
whilst  tlie  French  and  Spanish  ambassadors  were 
inert.  The  ambassadors  from  the  States  never- 
theless persevered ;  and  early  in  the  day  of  the 
30th  obtained  some  glimmering  of  hope  from 
Fairfax.  'But  we  found,'  they  say  in  their  des- 
patch, '  in  front  of  the  house  In  which  we  had 
just  spoken  with  the  general,  about  200  horse- 
men ;  and  we  learned,  as  well  as  on  our  way  as 
on  reaching  home,  that  all  the  streets,  passages, 
and  squares  of  London  were  occupied  by  troops, 


so  that  no  one  could  pass,  and  that  the  approaches 
of  the  city  were  covered  with  cavalry,  so  as  to 
prevent  any  one  from  coming  in  or  going  out. 
.  .  .  The  same  day,  between  two  and  three 
o'clock,  the  King  was  taken  to  a  scaffold  covered 
with  black,  erected  before  Whitehall.'  To  that 
scaffold  before  Whitehall,  Charles  walked,  sur- 
rounded by  soldiers,  through  the  leafless  avenues 
of  St.  James's  Park.  It  was  a  bitterly  cold  morn- 
ing. .  .  .  His  purposed  address  to  the  people  was 
delivered  only  to  the  hearing  of  those  upon  the 
scaffold,  but  its  purport  was  that  the  people  mis- 
took the  nature  of  government;  for  people  are 
free  under  a  government,  not  by  being  sharers 
in  it,  but  by  due  administration  of  the  laws  of 
it. '  His  theory  of  government  was  a  consistent 
one.  He  had  the  misfortune  not  to  understand 
that  the  time  had  been  fast  passing  away  for  Its 
assertion.  The  headsman  did  his  office;  and  a 
deep  groan  went  up  from  the  surrounding  multi- 
tude."— Charles  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Eng- 
land, V.  4,  ch.  7.- — "In  the  death-warrant  of  29th 
January  1649,  next  after  the  President  and  Lord 
Grey,  stands  the  name  of  Oliver  Cromwell.  He 
accepted  the  responsibility  of  it,  justified,  de- 
fended it  to  his  dying  day.  No  man  in  England 
was  more  entirely  answerable  for  the  deed  than 
he.  'I  tell  you,'  he  said  to  Algernon  Sidney, 
'  we  will  cut  off  his  head  with  the  crown  upon 
it. ' .  .  .  Slowly  he  had  come  to  know  —  not  only 
that  the  man,  Charles  Stuart,  was  incurably 
treacherous,  but  that  any  settlement  of  Parlia- 
ment with  the  old  Feudal  Monarchy  was  impos- 
sible. As  the  head  of  the  king  rolled  on  the  scaf- 
fold the  old  Feudal  Monarchy  expired  for  ever. 
In  January  1649  a  great  mark  was  set  in  the 
course  of  the  national  life  —  the  Old  Rule  behind 
it,  the  New  Rule  before  it.  Parliamentary  govern- 
ment, the  consent  of  the  nation,  equality  of 
lights,  and  equity  in  the  law  —  all  date  from  this 
great  New  Departure.  The  Stuarts  indeed  re- 
turned for  one  generation,  but  with  the  sting  of 
the  Old  Monarchy  gone,  and  only  to  disappear 
almost  without  a  blow.  The  Church  of  England 
returned;  but  not  the  Church  of  Laud  or  of 
Charles.  The  peers  returned,  but  as  a  meek 
House  of  Lords,  with  their  castles  razed,  their 
feudal  rights  and  their  political  power  extinct. 
It  is  said  that  the  regicides  killed  Charles  I.  only 
to  make  Charles  II.  king.  It  is  not  so.  They 
killed  the  Old  Monarchy ;  and  the  restored  mon- 
arch was  by  no  means  its  heir,  but  a  royal  Stadt- 
holder  or  Hereditary  President." — F.  Harrison, 
Oliver  Cromwell,  ch.  7. — "Respecting  the  death 
of  Charles  it  has  been  pronounced  by  Fox,  that 
'  it  is  much  to  be  doubted  whether  his  trial  and 
execution  have  not,  as  much  as  any  other  circum- 
stance, served  to  raise  the  character  of  the  Eng- 
lish nation  in  the  opinion  of  Europe  ki  general. ' 
And  he  goes  on  to  speak  with  considerable  favour 
of  the  authors  of  that  event.  One  of  the  great 
authorities  of  the  age  having  so  pronounced, 
an  hundred  and  flft}'  years  after  the  deed,  it  may 
be  proper  to  consider  for  a  little  the  real  merits 
of  the  actors,  and  the  act.  It  is  not  easy  to  im- 
agine a  greater  criminal  than  the  individual 
against  whom  the  sentence  was  awarded.  .  .  . 
Liberty  is  one  of  the  greatest  negative  advantages 
that  can  fall  to  the  lot  of  a  man ;  without  it  we 
cannot  possess  any  high  degree  of  happiness,  or 
exercise  any  considerable  virtue.  Now  Charles, 
to  a  degree  which  can  scarcely  be  exceeded,  con- 
spired against  the  liberty  of  his  country.     To 


908 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


Charles  I.  Adjudged. 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


assert  his  own  authority  without  limitation,  was 
the  object  of  all  his  desires  and  all  his  actions,  so 
far  as  the  public  was  concerned.  To  accomplish 
this  object  he  laid  aside  the  use  of  a  parliament. 
When  he  was  compelled  once  more  to  have  re- 
course to  this  assembly,  and  found  it  retrograde 
to  his  purposes,  he  determined  to  bring  up  the 
array,  and  by  that  means  to  put  an  end  to  its  sit- 
tings. Both  in  Scotland  and  England,  the  scheme 
that  he  formed  for  setting  aside  all  opposition, 
was  by  force  of  arms.  For  that  purpose  he 
commenced  war  against  the  English  parliament, 
and  continued  it  by  every  expedient  in  his  power 
for  four  years.  Conquered,  and  driven  out  of 
the  field,  he  did  not  for  that,  for  a  moment  lose 
sight  of  his  object  and  his  resolution.  He  sought 
in  every  quarter  for  the  materials  of  a  new  war ; 
and,  after  an  interval  of  twenty  months,  and  from 
the  depths  of  his  prison,  he  found  them.  To  this 
must  be  added  the  most  consummate  insincerity 
and  duplicity.  He  could  never  be  reconciled ;  he 
could  never  be  disarmed ;  he  could  never  be  con- 
vinced. His  was  a  war  to  the  death,  and  there- 
fore had  the  utmost  aggravation  that  can  belong 
to  a  war  against  the  liberty  of  a  nation.  .  .  .  The 
proper  lesson  taught  by  the  act  of  the  thirtieth 
of  January,  was  that  no  person,  however  high  in 
station,  however  protected  by  the  prejudices  of 
his  contemporaries,  must  expect  to  be  criminal 
against  the  welfare  of  the  state  and  community, 
without  retribution  and  punishment.  The  event 
however  sufficiently  proved  that  the  condemna- 
tion and  execution  of  Charles  did  not  answer  the 
purposes  intended  by  its  authors.  It  did  not 
conciliate  the  English  nation  to  republican  ideas. 
It  shocked  all  those  persons  in  the  country  who 
did  not  adhere  to  the  ruling  party.  This  was  in 
some  degree  owing  to  the  decency  with  which 
Charles  met  his  fate.  He  had  always  been  in 
manners,  formal,  sober  and  specious.  .  .  .  The 
notion  was  every  where  prevalent,  that  a  sov- 
ereign could  not  be  called  to  account,  could  not 
be  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  his  subjects.  And  the 
violation  of  this  prejudice,  instead  of  breaking 
down  the  wall  which  separated  him  from  others, 
gave  to  his  person  a  sacredness  which  never  be- 
fore appertained  to  it.  Among  his  own  partisans 
the  death  of  Charles  was  treated,  and  was  spoken 
of,  as  a  sort  of  deicide.  And  it  may  be  admitted 
for  a  universal  rule,  that  the  abrupt  violation  of 
a  deep-rooted  maxim  and  persuasion  of  the  human 
mind,  produces  a  reaction,  and  urges  men  to  hug 
the  maxim  closer  than  ever.  I  am  afraid,  that 
the  day  that  saw  Charles  perish  on  the  scaffold, 
rendered  the  restoration  of  his  family  certain. " — 
W.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Eng- 
land to  the  Bestoration  of  Charles  II.,  bk.  2,  ch. 
26  (v.  2). — "The  situation,  complicated  enough 
already,  had  been  still  further  complicated  by 
Charles's  duplicity.  Men  who  would  have  been 
willing  to  come  to  terms  with  him,  despaired  of 
any  constitutional  arrangement  in  which  he  was 
to  be  a  factor ;  and  men  who  had  long  been  alien- 
ated from  him  were  irritated  into  active  hos- 
tility. By  these  he  was  regarded  with  increasing 
intensity  as  the  one  disturbing  force  with  which 
no  understanding  was  possible  and  no  settled 
order  consistent.  To  remove  him  out  of  the  way 
appeared,  even  to  those  who  had  no  thought  of 
punishing  him  for  past  offences,  to  be  the  only 
possible  road  to  peace  for  the  troubled  nation. 
It  seemed  that  so  long  as  Charles  lived  deluded 
nations  and  deluded  parties  would  be  stirred  up, 


by  promises  never  intended  to  be  fulfilled,  to  flint; 
themselves,  as  they  had  flung  themselves  in  the 
Second  Civil  War,  against  the  new  order  of  things 
which  was  struggling  to  establish  itself  in  Eng- 
land. " — S.  R.  Gardiner,  Hist,  of  the  Great  Civil 
War,  1642-1649,  ch.  71  (v.  3). 

Also  in  :  John  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Com- 
monwealth :  Henry  Marten. — S.  R.  Gardiner, 
Const.  Doc's  of  the  Puritan  Rev.,  pp.  868-290. 

The  following  is  the  text  of  the  Act  which 
arraigned  the  King  and  constituted  the  Court  by 
which  he  was  tried:  "  Whereas  it  is  notorious 
that  Charles  Stuart,  the  now  king  of  England, 
not  content  with  the  many  encroachments  which 
his  predecessors  had  made  upon  the  people  in 
their  rights  and  freedom,  hath  had  a  wicked  de- 
sign totally  to  subvert  the  antient  and  funda- 
mental laws  and  liberties  of  this  nation,  and  in 
their  place  to  introduce  an  arbitrary  and  tyran- 
nical government ;  and  that,  besides  all  other  evil 
ways  and  means  to  bring  his  design  to  pass,  he 
hath  prosecuted  it  with  fire  and  sword,  levied 
and  maintained  a  civil  war  in  the  land,  against 
the  parliament  and  kingdom ;  whereby  this  coun- 
try hath  been  miserably  wasted,  the  public  treas- 
ure exhausted,  trade  decayed,  thousands  of  people 
nuirdered,  and  infinite  other  mischiefs  committed ; 
for  all  which  high  and  treasonable  offences  the 
said  Charles  Stuart  might  long  since  have  justly 
been  brought  to  exemplary  and  condign  punish- 
ment :  whereas  also  the  parliament,  well  hoping 
that  the  restraint  and  imprisonment  of  his  per- 
son after  it  had  pleased  God  to  deliver  him  into 
their  hands,  would  have  quieted  the  distem- 
pers of  the  kingdom,  did  forbear  to  proceed 
judicially  against  him;  but  found,  by  sad  ex- 
perience, that  such  their  remissness  served  only 
to  encourage  him  and  his  accomplices  in  the  con- 
tinuance of  their  evil  practices  and  in  raising 
new  commotions,  rebellions,  and  invasions :  for 
prevention  therefore  of  the  like  or  greater  incon- 
veniences, and  to  the  end  no  other  chief  officer 
or  magistrate  whatsoever  may  hereafter  pre- 
sume, traiterously  and  maliciously,  to  imagine 
or  contrive  the  enslaving  or  destroying  of  the 
English  nation,  and  to  expect  impunity  for  so 
doing ;  be  it  enacted  and  ordained  by  the  [Lords] 
and  commons  in  Parliament  assembled,  and  it  is 
hereby  enacted  and  ordained  by  the  authority 
thereof.  That  the  earls  of  Kent,  Nottingham, 
Pembroke,  Denbigh,  and  Mulgrave;  the  lord 
Grey  of  Warke;  lord  chief  justice  Rolle  of  the 
king's  bench,  lord  chief  justice  St.  John  of  the 
common  Pleas,  and  lord  chief  baron  Wylde ;  the 
lord  Fairfax,  lieut.  general  Cromwell,  &c.  [in 
all  about  150,]  shall  be,  and  are  hereby  appointed 
and  required  to  be  Commissioners  and  Judges,  for 
the  Hearing,  Trying,  and  Judging  of  the  said 
Charles  Stuart;  and  the  said  Commissioners,  or 
any  20  or  more  of  them,  shall  be,  and  are  hereby 
authorized  and  constituted  an  High  Court  of  Jus- 
tice, to  meet  and  sit  at  such  convenient  times  and 
place  as  by  the  said  commissioners,  or  the  major 
part,  or  20  or  more  of  them,  under  their  hands  and 
seals,  shall  be  appointed  and  notified  by  public 
Proclamation  in  the  Great  Hall,  or  Palace  Yard 
of  Westminster;  and  to  adjourn  from  time  to 
time,  and  from  place  to  place,  as  the  said  High 
Court,  or  the  major  part  thereof,  at  meeting, 
shall  hold  fit ;  and  to  take  order  for  the  charging 
of  him,  the  said  Charles  Stuart,  with  the  Crimes 
and  Treasons  above-mentioned,  and  for  receiv- 
ing  his    personal    Answer    thereunto,    and   for 


909 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


The  Commonwealth. 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


examination  of  witnesses  upon  oath,  (which  the 
court  hath  hereby  authority  to  administer)  or 
otherwise,  and  taking  any  other  Evidence  con- 
cerning the  same ;  and  thereupon,  or  in  default 
of  such  Answer,  to  proceed  to  final  Sentence 
according  to  justice  and  the  merit  of  the  cause; 
and  such  final  Sentence  to  execute,  or  cause  to 
he  executed,  speedily  and  impartially. —  And  the 
said  court  is  hereby" authorized  and  required  to 
chuse  and  appoint  all  such  officers,  attendants, 
and  other  circumstances  as  they,  or  the  major 
part  of  them,  shall  in  any  sort  judge  necessary 
or  useful  for  the  orderly  and  good  managing  of 
the  premises;  and  Thomas  lord  Fairfax  the  Gen- 
eral, and  all  officers  and  soldiers,  under  his 
command,  and  all  officers  of  justice,  and  other 
well-affected  persons,  are  hereby  authorized  and 
required  to  be  aiding  and  assisting  unto  the  said 
court  in  the  due  execution  of  the  trust  hereby 
committed  unto  them ;  provided  that  this  act, 
and  the  authority  hereby  granted,  do  continue  in 
force  for  the  space  of  one  month  from  the  date 
of  the  making  hereof,  and  no  longer." — Cobbett's 
Parliamentary  Uist.  of  England,  v.  3,  pp.  1254- 
1255, 

A.  D.  1649  (February). — The  Commonwealth 
established. — "England  was  now  a  Republic. 
The  change  had  been  virtually  made  on  Thurs- 
day, January  4,  1648-9,  when  the  Commons 
passed  their  three  great  Resolutions,  declaring 
(1)  that  the  People  of  England  were,  under  God, 
the  original  of  all  just  power  in  the  State,  (3) 
that  the  Commons,  in  Parliament  assembled, 
having  been  chosen  by  the  People,  and  repre- 
senting the  People,  possessed  the  supreme  power 
In  their  name,  and  (3)  that  whatever  the  Com- 
mons enacted  should  have  the  force  of  a  law, 
without  needing  the  consent  of  either  King  or 
House  of  Peers.  On  Tuesday,  the  30th  of  Janu- 
ary, the  theory  of  these  Resolutions  became  more 
visibly  a  fact.  On  the  afternoon  of  that  day, 
while  the  crowd  that  had  seen  the  execution  in 
front  of  Whitehall  were  still  lingering  round  the 
scaffold,  the  Commons  passed  an  Act  '  prohibit- 
ing the  proclaiming  of  any  person  to  be  King  of 
England  or  Ireland,  or  the  dominions  thereof.' 
It  was  thus  declared  that  Kingship  in  England 
had  died  with  Charles.  But  what  of  the  House 
of  Peers  ?  It  was  significant  that  on  the  same 
fatal  day  the  Commons  revived  their  three  theo- 
retical resolutions  of  the  4th,  and  ordered  them 
to  be  printed.  The  wretched  little  rag  of  a 
House  might  then  have  known  its  doom.  But 
it  took  a  week  more  to  convince  them."  On  the 
6th  of  February  it  was  resolved  by  the  House  of 
Commons,  ' ' '  That  the  House  of  Peers  in  Par- 
liament is  useless  and  dangerous,  and  ought  to 
be  abolished,  and  that  an  Act  be  brought  in  to 
that  purpose.'  Next  da}',  Feb.  7,  after  another 
long  debate,  it  was  further  resolved  '  That  it 
hath  been  found  by  experience,  and  this  House 
doth  declare,  that  the  office  of  a  King  in  this 
realm,  and  to  have  the  power  thereof  in  any  sin- 
gle person,  is  unnecessary,  burdensome,  and  dan- 
gerous to  the  liberty,  safety,  and  public  interest 
of  the  People  of  this  nation,  and  therefore  ought 
to  be  abolished,  and  that  an  Act  be  brought  in  to 
that  purpose.'  Not  till  after  some  weeks  were 
these  Acts  deliberately  passed  after  the  custom- 
ary three  readings.  The  delay,  however,  was 
matter  of  mere  Parliamentary  form.  Theoreti- 
cally a  Republic  since  Jan.  4,  1648-9,  and  visi- 
bly a  Republic  from  the  day  of  Charles's  death. 


England  was  a  Republic  absolutely  and  in  every 
sense  from  Feb.  7,  1648-9."  For  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  government  of  the  republican 
Commonwealth,  the  Commons  resolved,  on  the 
7th  of  February,  that  a  Council  of  State  be 
erected,  to  consist  of  not  more  than  forty  per- 
sons. On  the  13th,  Instructions  to  the  intended 
Council  of  State  were  reported  and  agreed  to, 
' '  these  Instructions  conferring  almost  plenary 
powers,  but  limiting  the  duration  of  the  Council 
to  one  year."  On  the  14th  and  15th  forty -one 
persons  were  appointed  to  be  members  of  the 
Council,  Fairfax,  Cromwell,  Vane,  St.  John, 
Whitlocke,  Henry  Marten,  and  Colonels  Hutch- 
inson and  Ludlow  being  in  the  number;  nine  to 
constitute  a  quorum,  and  no  permanent  Presi- 
dent to  be  chosen. — D.  Masson,  Life  of  John  Hil- 
ton, 11.  4,  bk.  1,  ch.  1. 

Also  in:  J.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ■i\  10,  ch. 
5.  — A.  Bisset,  Omitted  Chapters  of  Hist,  of  JEfng. . 
ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1649  (February). — The  Ejkon  Basilike. 
— "A  book,  published  with  great  secrecy,  and  in 
very  mysterious  circumstances,  Feb.  9,  1648-9, 
exactly  ten  days  after  the  late  King's  death,  had 
done  much  to  increase  the  Royalist  enthusiasm. 
'Eikon  Basilike:  The  True  Portraicture  of  His 
Sacred  Majestic  in  his  Solitudes  and  Sufferings. 
— Rom.  viii.  More  than  conquerour,  &c. — -Bona 
agere  et  mala  pati  Regium  est.  MDCXLVIII ' : 
such  was  the  title-page  of  this  volume  (of  369 
pages  of  text,  in  small  octavo),  destined  by  fate, 
rather  than  by  merit,  to  be  one  of  the  most 
famous  books  of  the  world.  .  .  .  The  book,  so 
elaborately  prepared  and  heralded,  consists  of 
twenty-eight  successive  chapters,  purporting  to 
have  been  written  by  the  late  King,  and  to  be 
the  essence  of  his  spiritual  autobiography  in  the 
last  years  of  his  life.  Each  chapter,  with  scarcely 
an  exception,  begins  with  a  little  narrative,  or 
generally  rather  with  reflections  and  meditations 
on  some  passage  of  the  King's  life  the  narrative 
of  which  is  supposed  to  be  unnecessary,  and 
ends  with  a  prayer  in  italics  appropriate  to  the 
circumstances  remembered.  .  .  .  Save  for  a  few 
.  .  .  passages  .  .  .  ,  the  pathos  of  which  lies  in 
the  situation  they  represent,  the  Eikon  Basilike 
is  a  rather  dull  performance,  in  third-rate  rhetoric, 
modulated  after  the  Liturgy,  and  without  in- 
cision, point,  or  the  least  shred  of  real  informa- 
tion as  to  facts.  But  O  what  a  reception  it  had  I 
Copies  of  it  ran  about  instantaneously,  and  were 
read  with  sobs  and  tears.  It  was  in  vain  that 
Parliament,  March  16,  gave  orders  for  seizing 
the  book.  It  was  reprinted  at  once  in  various 
forms,  to  supply  the  constant  demand  —  which 
was  not  satisfied,  it  is  said,  with  less  than  fifty 
editions  within  a  single  year;  it  became  a  very 
Bible  in  English  Royalist  households.  .  .  .  By 
means  of  this  book,  in  fact,  acting  on  the  state 
of  sentiment  which  it  fitted,  there  was  estab- 
lished, within  a  few  weeks  after  the  death  of 
Charles  I. ,  that  marvellous  worship  of  his  mem- 
ory, that  passionate  recollection  of  him  as  the 
perfect  man  and  the  perfect  king,  the  saint,  the 
martyr,  the  all  but  Christ  on  earth  again,  which 
persisted  till  the  other  day  as  a  positive  religious 
cultus  of  the  English  mind,  and  still  lingers  in 
certain  quarters." — D.  Masson,  Life  and  Times  of 
John  Milton,  v.  4,  hk.  1,  ch.  1. — "I  struggled 
through  the  Eikon  Basilike  yesterday ;  one  of  the 
paltriest  pieces  of  vapid,  shovel-hatted,  clear- 
starched,   immaculate   falsity  and  cant  I  have 


910 


ENGLAND,  1649. 


War  with,  the 
Dutch. 


ENGLAND,  1652-1654. 


ever  read.  It  is  to  me  an  amazement  how  any 
mortal  could  ever  have  taken  tliat  for  a  genuine 
book  of  King  Charles's.  Nothing  but  a  sur- 
pliced  Pharisee,  sitting  at  his  ease  afar  off,  could 
have  got  up  such  a  set  of  meditations.  It  got 
Parson  Gauden  [John  Gauden,  Bishop  of  Exeter 
and  Worcester,  successively,  after  the  Restora- 
tion, and  who  is  believed  to  have  been  the  author 
of  the  Eikon  Basilike]  a  bishopric." — T.  Carlyle, 
in  Hist,  of  his  Life  in  London,  by  Froude,  v.  1, 
ch.  7,  Nov.  26,  1840. 

A.  D.  1649  (April — May). — Mutiny  of  the 
Levellers.     See  Levellers. 

A.  D.  1649-1650. — Cromwell's  campaign  in 
Ireland.     See  Ireland:  A.  D.  1649-1650. 

A.  D.  1650  (July). — Charles  II.  proclaimed 
King  in  Scotland.  See  Scotland:  A.  D.  1650 
(March — .Idly). 

A.  D.  1650  (September).— War  with  the 
Scots  and  Cromwell's  victory  at  Dunbar.  See 
Scotland:  A.  D.  1650  (September). 

A.  D.  1651  (September).— The  Scots  and 
Charles  II.  overthrown  at  Worcester.  See 
Scotland:  A.  D.  1651. 

A.  D.  1651-1653. — The  Army  and  the  Rump. 
— "  '  Now  that  the  King  is  dead  and  his  son  de- 
feated,' Cromwell  said  gravely  to  the  Parliament, 
'I  think  it  necessarj'  to  come  to  a  settlement. ' 
But  the  settlement  which  had  been  promised 
after  Naseby  was  still  as  distant  as  ever  after 
Worcester.  The  bill  for  dissolving  the  present 
Parliament,  though  Cromwell  pressed  it  in  per- 
son, was  only  passed,  after  bitter  opposition,  by 
a  majority  of  two;  and  even  this  success  had 
been  purchased  by  a  compromise  which  per- 
mitted the  House  to  sit  for  three  years  more. 
Internal  affairs  were  simply  at  a  dead  lock.  .  .  . 
The  one  remedy  for  all  this  was,  as  the  army 
saw,  the  assembly  of  a  new  and  complete  Par- 
liament in  place  of  the  mere  '  rump  '  of  the  old  ; 
but  this  was  the  one  measure  which  tlie  House 
was  resolute  to  avert.  Vane  spurred  it  to  a  new 
activity.  .  .  .  But  it  was  necessary  for  Vane's 
purposes  not  only  to  show  the  energy  of  the  Par- 
liament, but  to  free  it  from  the  control  of  the 
army.  His  aim  was  to  raise  in  the  navy  a  force 
devoted  to  the  House,  and  to  eclipse  the  glories 
of  Dunbar  and  Worcester  by  yet  greater  triumphs 
at  sea.  With  this  view  the  quarrel  with  Hollantl 
had  been  carefully  nursed.  .  .  .  The  army  hardly 
needed  the  warning  conveyed  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  bill  for  its  disbanding  to  understand  the 
new  policy  of  the  Parliament.  .  .  .  The  army 
petitioned  not  only  for  reform  in  Church  and 
State,  but  for  an  explicit  declaration  that  the 
House  would  bring  its  proceedings  to  a  close. 
The  Petition  forced  the  House  to  discuss  a  bill 
for  'a  New  Representative,'  but  the  discussion 
soon  brought  out  the  resolve  of  the  sitting  mem- 
bers to  continue  as  a  part  of  the  coming  Parlia- 
ment without  re-election.  The  officers,  irritated 
by  such  a  claim,  demanded  in  conference  after 
conference  an  immediate  dissolution,  and  the 
House  as  resolutely  refused.  In  ominous  words 
Cromwell  supported  the  demands  of  the  army. 
'  As  for  the  members  of  this  Parliament,  the 
army  begins  to  take  them  in  disgust.  I  would 
it  did  so  with  less  reason. "...  Not  only  were 
the  existing  members  to  continue  as  members  of 
the  New  Parliament,  depriving  the  places  they 
represented  of  their  right  of  choosing  representa- 
tives, but  they  were  to  constitute  a  Committee 
of  Revision,  to  determine  the  validity  of  each 


election,  and  the  fitness  of  the  members  returned. 
A  conference  took  place  [April  19,  1653]  between 
the  leaders  of  the  Commons  and  the  officers  of 
the  army.  .  .  .  The  conference  was  adjourned 
till  the  next  morning,  on  an  understanding  that 
no  decisive  step  should  be  taken ;  but  it  had  no 
sooner  reassembled,  than  the  absence  of  the  lead- 
ing members  confirmed  the  news  that  Vane  was 
fast  pressing  the  bill  for  a  new  Representative 
through  the  House.  '  It  is  contrary  to  common 
honesty,'  Cromwell  angrily  broke  out;  and, 
quitting  Whitehall,  he  summoned  a  company  of 
musketeers  to  follow  him  as  far  as  the  door  of 
the  House  of  Commons." — J.  R.  Green,  Sho7-t 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  8,  sect.  9. 

Also  in  :  J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Common- 
wealth: Cromwell. — J.  A.  Picton,  Oliver  Crom- 
well, ch.  23. 

A.  D.  1651-1672. — The  Navigation  Acts  and 
the  American  colonies.  See  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1651-1672 ;  also.  Navigation  Laws. 

A.  D.  1652-1654.— War  with  the  Dutch  Re- 
public.— "After  the  deatli  of  William,  Prince  of 
Orange,  which  was  attended  ■^^'ith  the  depression 
of  his  party  and  the  triumph  of  the  Dutch  re- 
publicans [see  Netherlands :  A.  D.  1647-1650], 
the  Parliament  thought  that  the  time  was  now 
favourable  for  cementing  a  closer  confederacy 
with  the  states.  St.  John,  chief  justice,  who 
was  sent  over  to  the  Hague,  had  entertained  the 
idea  of  forming  a  kind  of  coalition  between  the 
two  republics,  which  would  have  rendered  their 
interests  totally  inseparable;  .  .  .  but  the  states, 
who  were  unwilling  to  form  a  nearer  confederacy 
with  a  government  whose  measures  were  so  ob- 
noxious, and  whose  situation  seemed  so  precari- 
ous, offered  only  to  renew  the  former  alliances 
with  England;  and  tlie  haughty  St.  John,  dis- 
gusted with  tills  disappointment,  as  well  as  in- 
censed at  many  affronts  which  had  been  offered 
him,  with  impunity,  by  the  retainers  of  the  Pala- 
tine and  Orange  families,  and  indeed  by  the  popu- 
lace in  general,  returned  into  England  and  en- 
deavoured to  foment  a  quarrel  between  the 
republics.  .  .  .  There  were  several  motives  which 
at  this  time  induced  the  English  Parliament  to 
embrace  hostile  measures.  Many  of  the  members 
thought  that  a  foreign  war  would  serve  as  a  pre- 
tence for  continuing  tlie  same  Parliament,  and  de- 
laying the  new  model  of  a  representative,  with 
which  the  nation  had  so  long  been  flattered. 
Others  hoped  that  the  war  would  furnish  a  reason 
for  maintaining,  some  time  longer,  that  numerous 
standing  army  which  was  so  much  complained 
of.  On  the  otlier  hand,  some,  who  dreaded  the 
increasing  power  of  Cromwell,  expected  that  the 
great  expense  of  naval  armaments  would  prove 
a  motive  for  diminishing  the  military  establish- 
ment. To  divert  the  attention  of  the  public  from 
domestic  quarrels  towards  foreign  transactions, 
seemed,  in  the  present  disposition  of  men's  minds, 
to  be  good  policy.  .  .  .  All  these  views,  enforced 
by  the  violent  spirit  of  St.  John,  who  had  great 
influence  over  Cromwell,  determined  the  Parlia- 
ment to  change  the  purposed  alliance  into  a  furi- 
ous war  against  the  United  Provinces.  To  cover 
these  hostile  intentions,  the  Parliament,  under 
pretence  of  providing  for  the  interests  of  com- 
merce, embraced  such  measures  as  they  knew 
would  give  disgust  to  the  states.  They  framed 
the  famous  act  of  navigation,  which  prohibited 
all  nations  from  importing  into  England  in  their 
bottoms  any  commodity  which  was  not  the  growth 


911 


ENGLAND,  1652-1654. 


Expulsion  of 
ther 


I  Bump. 


ENGLAND,   1653. 


and  manufacture  of  their  own  country.  .  .  .  The 
minds  of  men  in  both  states  were  every  day  more 
irritated  against  each  other ;  and  it  was  not  long 
before  these  humours  broke  forth  into  action. " — 
D.  Hume,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  60  {».  5).— "The  ne- 
gotiations .  .  .  were  still  pending  when  Blalte, 
meeting  Van  Tromp's  fleet  in  the  Downs,  in  vain 
summoned  the  Dutch  Admiral  to  lower  his  flag. 
A  battle  was  the  consequence,  which  led  to  a 
declaration  of  war  on  the  8th  of  July  (1653).  The 
maritime  success  of  England  was  chiefly  due  to 
the  genius  of  Blake,  who  having  hitherto  served 
upon  shore,  now  turned  his  whole  attention  to 
the  navy.  A  series  of  bloody  fights  took  place 
between  the  two  nations.  For  some  time  the 
fortunes  of  the  war  seemed  undecided.  Van 
Tromp,  defeated  by  Blake,  had  to  yield  the  com- 
mand to  De  Ruyter.  De  Ruyter  in  his  turn  was 
displaced  to  give  way  again  to  his  greater  rival. 
Van  Tromp  was  reinstated  in  command.  A  vic- 
tory over  Blake  off  the  Naze  (Nov.  38)  enabled 
him  to  cruise  in  the  Cliannel  with  a  broom  at  his 
mast-head,  implying  that  he  had  swept  the  Eng- 
lish from  the  seas.  But  the  year  1653  again  saw 
Blake  able  to  fight  a  drawn  battle  of  two  days' 
duration  between  Portland  and  La  Hogue ;  while 
at  length,  on  the  3d  and  3d  of  June,  a  decisive 
engagement  was  fought  off  the  North  Foreland, 
in  which  Monk  and  l3eane,  supported  by  Bluke, 
completely  defeated  the  Dutch  Admiral,  who, 
as  a  last  resource,  tried  in  vain  to  blow  up  his  own 
ship,  and  tlieu  retreated  to  the  Dutch  coast,  leav- 
ing eleven  ships  in  the  hands  of  the  English.  In 
the  next  month,  another  victory  on  the  part  of 
Blake,  accompanied  by  the  death  of  the  great 
Dutch  Admiral,  completed  the  ruin  of  the  naval 
power  of  Holland.  The  States  were  driven  to 
treat.  In  1654  the  treaty  was  signed,  in  which 
IDenmark,  the  Hanseatic  towns,  and  the  Swiss 
provinces  were  included.  .  .  .  The  Dutch  ac- 
knowledged the  supremacy  of  the  English  flag  in 
the  British  seas ;  tliey  consented  to  the  Naviga- 
tion Act. " — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  period  2, 
p.  701. 

Also  in  :  W.  H.  Dixon,  Robert  BlaJce,  Admiral 
and  General  at  Sea,  ch.  6-7. — D.  Hannay,  Admiral 
Blake,  ch.  6-7.— J.  Campbell,  Naval  Hist,  of  Ot. 
B.,  ch.  15  (i).  2). — 6.  Peun,  Memorials  of  Sir  Wm. 
Penn.  ch.  4. — J.  Corbett,  Monk,  ch.  7. — J.  Geddes, 
Hist,  of  the  Administration  of  John  De  Witt,  v.  1, 
hk.  4-5. — See,  also.  Navigation  Laws,  English: 
A.  D.   1651. 

A.  D.  1653  (April). — Cromwell's  expulsion 
of  the  Rump. — "In  plain  black  clothes  and  gray 
worsted  stockings,  the  Lord-General  came  in 
quietly  and  took  his  seat  [April  20],  as  Vane 
was  pressing  the  House  to  pass  the  dissolution 
Bill  without  delay  and  without  the  customary 
forms.  He  beckoned  to  Harrison  and  told  him 
that  the  Parliament  was  ripe  for  dissolution,  and 
he  must  do  it.  'Sir,'  said  Harrison,  '  the  work 
Is  very  great  and  dangerous.' — 'You  say  well,' 
said  the  general,  and  thereupon  sat  still  for  about 
a  quarter  of  an  hour.  Vane  sat  down,  and  the 
Speaker  was  putting  the  question  for  passing 
the  Bill.  Then  said  Cromwell  to  Harrison  again, 
'  This  is  the  time ;  I  must  do  it. '  He  rose  up, 
put  off  his  hat,  and  spoke.  Beginning  moder- 
ately and  respectfully,  he  presently  changed  his 
style,  told  them  of  their  injustice,  delays  of  jus- 
tice, self  interest,  and  other  faults ;  charging 
them  not  to  have  a  heart  to  do  anything  for  tlie 
public  good,  to  have  espoused  the  corrupt  inter- 


est of  Presbytery  and  the  lawyers,  who  were  the 
supporters  of  tyranny  and  oppression,  accus- 
ing them  of  an  intention  to  perpetuate  them- 
selves in  power.  And  rising  into  passion,  '  as  if 
he  were  distracted,'  he  told  tliem  tiiat  the  Lord 
had  done  with  them,  and  had  chosen  other  in- 
struments for  the  carrying  on  His  work  that 
were  worthy.  Sir  Peter  Wentworth  rose  to 
complain  of  sucli  language  in  Parliament,  com- 
ing from  their  own  trusted  servant.  Roused  to 
fury  by  the  interruption,  Cromwell  left  his  seat, 
clapped  on  his  hat,  walked  up  and  down  the 
floor  of  the  House,  stamping  with  his  feet,  and 
cried  out,  '  You  are  no  Parliament,  I  say  you  are 
no  Parliament.  Come,  come,  we  have  had 
enough  of  this ;  I  will  put  an  end  to  your  prat- 
ing. Call  them  in ! '  Twenty  or  thirty  muske- 
teers under  Colonel  Worsley  marched  in  onto  the 
floor  of  the  House.  The  rest  of  the  guard  were 
placed  at  the  door  and  in  the  lobby.  Vane  from 
his  place  cried  out,  '  This  is  not  honest,  yea,  it  is 
against  morality  and  common  honesty.'  Crom- 
well, who  evidently  regai'ded  Vane  as  the  breaker 
of  the  supposed  agreement,  turned  on  him  with 
a  loud  voice,  crying,  '  O  Sir  Henry  Vane.  Sir 
Henry  Vane,  the  Lord  deliver  me  from  Sir  Henry 
Vane. '  Then  looking  upon  one  of  the  members, 
he  said,  'There  sits  a  drunkard ;' to  another  he 
said,  '  Some  of  you  are  unjust,  corrupt  persons, 
and  scandalous  to  the  profession  of  the  Gospel.' 
'  Some  are  whoremasters, '  he  said,  looking  at 
Wentworth  and  Marten.  Going  up  to  the  table, 
he  said,  '  What  shall  we  do  with  this  Bauble  ? 
Here,  take  it  away  I '  and  gave  it  to  a  musketeer, 
'  Fetch  him  down, '  he  cried  to  Harrison,  point- 
ing to  the  Speaker.  Lenthall  sat  still,  and  re- 
fused to  come  down  unless  by  force.  '  Sir, '  said 
Harrison,  'I  will  lend  you  my  hand,'  and  put- 
ting his  liand  within  his,  the  Speaker  came  down. 
Algernon  Sidney  sat  still  in  his  place.  '  Put  him 
out,'  said  Cromwell.  And  Harrison  and  Wors- 
ley put  their  hands  on  his  shoulders,  and  he  rose 
and  went  out.  The  mejnbers  went  out,  fifty- 
three  in  all,  Cromwell  still  calling  aloud.  'To 
Vane  he  said  that  he  might  have  prevented  tliis ; 
but  that  he  was  a  juggler  and  had  not  common 
honesty.  'It  is  you,'  he  said,  as  they  passed 
him,  '  that  have  forced  me  to  do  this,  for  I  have 
sought  the  Lord  night  and  day,  that  He  would 
rather  slay  me  than  put  me  on  the  doing  of  this 
work.'  He  snatched  the  Bill  of  dissolution  from 
the  hand  of  the  clerk,  put  it  under  his  cloak, 
seized  on  the  records,  ordered  the  guard  to  clear 
the  House  of  all  members,  and  to  have  tlie  door 
locked,  and  went  away  to  Whitehall.  Such  is 
one  of  the  most  famous  scenes  in  our  history, 
that  which  of  all  other  things  has  most  heavily 
weighed  on  the  fame  of  Cromwell.  In  truth  it 
is  a  matter  of  no  small  complexity,  which  neither 
constitutional  eloquence  nor  boisterous  sarcasm 
has  quite  adequately  unravelled.  ...  In  strict 
constitutional  right  tlie  House  was  no  more  the 
Parliament  than  Cromwell  was  the  king.  A 
House  of  Commons,  which  had  executed  the 
king,  abolished  tlic  Lords,  approved  the  'coup 
d'etat '  of  Pride,  and  by  successive  proscriptions 
had  reduced  itself  to  a  few  score  of  extreme  par- 
tisans, had  no  legal  title  to  the  name  of  Parlia- 
ment. The  junto  which  held  to  Vane  was  not 
more  numerous  than  the  junto  which  held  to 
Cromwell;  they  had  far  less  public  support;  nor 
had  their  services  to  the  Cause  been  so  great. 
In  closing  tlie  House,  the  Lord-General  had  used 


912 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


The  Protectorate. 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


his  office  of  Commander-in-Chief  to  anticipate 
one  '  coup  d'etat '  by  anotlier.  Had  he  been  ten 
minutes  late.  Vane  would  himself  liave  dissolved 
the  House ;  snapping  a  vote  which  would  give 
his  faction  a  legal  ascendancy.  Yet,  after  all, 
the  fact  remains  that  Vane  and  the  remnant  of 
the  famous  Long  Parliament  had  that  '  scintilla 
juris,'  as  lawyers  call  it,  that  semblance  of  legal 
right,  which  counts  for  so  much  in  things  polit- 
ical."— F.  Harrison,  Oliver  Cromwell,  ch.  10. 

Also  in  :  J.  K.  Hosmer,  Life  of  Young  Sir  Henri/   j 
Vane,  pt.  3,  ch.  17.— F.  P.  Guizot,  Hist,  of  Oliver   I 
Cromwell,  bk.  4  {v.  1). — L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  nth  century,  bk.  11,  ch.  5  {i\  3).— W.   God-   | 
win,  ffist.  of  the  Commonwealth.  ■».  3,  ch.  27-39.        j 

A.  D.  1653  (June — December). — The  Bare-  ! 
bones,  or  Little  Parliament. —  Six  weeks  after 
the  expulsion  of  the  Rump,  Cromwell,  in  his 
own  name,  and  upon  his  own  authority,  as  "Cap- 
tain-General and  Commander-in-Chief,"  issued 
(June  6)  a  summons  to  one  hundred  and  forty 
"  persons  fearing  God  and  of  approved  fidelity 
and  honesty,"  chosen  and  "  nominated  "  by  him- 
self, with  the  advice  of  his  council  of  officers,  re- 
quiring them  to  be  and  appear  at  the  Council 
Chamber  of  Whitehall  on  the  following  fourth 
day  of  July,  to  take  upon  themselves  "the  great 
charge  and  trust"  of  providing  for  "the  peace, 
safety,  and  good  government "  of  the  Common- 
wealth, and  to  serve,  each,  "as  a  Member  for  the 
county"  from  which  he  was  called.  "Of  all 
the  Parties  so  summoned,  '  only  two '  did  not  at- 
tend. Disconsolate  Bulstrode  says:  'Many  of 
this  Assembly  being  persons  of  fortune  and 
knowledge,  it  was  much  wondered  by  some  that 
they  would  at  this  summons,  and  from  such  hands, 
take  upon  them  the  Supreme  Authority  of  this 
Nation;  considering  how  little  right  Cromwell 
and  his  Officers  had  to  give  it,  or  those  Gentle- 
men to  take  it. '  My  disconsolate  friend,  it  is  a 
sign  that  Puritan  England  in  general  accepts  this 
action  of  Cromwell  and  his  Officers,  and  thanks 
them  for  it,  in  such  a  case  of  extremity ;  saying 
as  audibly  as  the  means  permitted :  Yea,  we  did 
wish  it  so.  Rather  mournful  to  the  disconsolate 
official  mind.  .  .  .  The  undeniable  fact  is,  these 
men  were,  as  Whitlocke  intimates,  a  quite  re- 
putable Assembly ;  got  together  by  anxious  '  con- 
sultation of  the  godly  Clergy  '  and  chief  Puritan 
lights  in  their  respective  Counties ;  not  without 
much  earnest  revision,  and  solemn  consideration 
in  all  kinds,  on  the  part  of  men  adequate  enough 
for  such  a  work,  and  desirous  enough  to  do  it 
well.  The  List  of  the  Assembly  exists ;  not  3'et 
entirely  gone  dark  for  mankind.  A  fair  pro- 
portion of  them  still  recognizable  to  mankind. 
Actual  Peers  one  or  two:  founders  of  Peerage 
Families,  two  or  three,  which  still  exist  among 
us, —  Colonel  Edward  Montague,  Colonel  Charles 
Howard,  Anthony  Ashley  Cooper.  And  better 
than  King's  Peers,  certain  Peers  of  Nature ; 
whom  if  not  the  King  and  his  pasteboard  Nor- 
roys  have  had  the  luck  to  make  Peers  of,  the  liv- 
ing heart  of  England  has  since  raised  to  the  Peer- 
age and  means  to  keep  there, —  Colonel  Robert 
Blake  the  Sea-King,  for  one.  '  Known  persons,' 
I  do  think ;  '  of  approved  integrity,  men  fearing 
Gtod ' ;  and  perhaps  not  entirely  destitute  of  sense 
any  one  of  them !  Truly  it  seems  rather  a  dis- 
tinguished Parliament, — even  though  Mr.  Praise- 
god  Barbone,  '  the  Leather  merchant  in  Fleet- 
street,'  be,  as  all  mortals  must  admit,  a  member 
of  it.     The  fault,  I  hope,  is  forgivable.     Praise- 

91 


god,  though  he  deals  in  leather,  and  has  a  name 
which  can  be  misspelt,  one  discerns  to  be  the  son 
of  pious  parents ;  to  be  himself  a  man  of  piety,  of 
under.standing  and  weight, — -and  even  of  consid- 
erable private  capital,  my  witty  flunkey  friends ! 
We  will  leave  Praisegod  to  do  the  best  he  can, 
I  think.  ...  In  fact,  a  real  Assembly  of  the 
Notables  in  Puritan  England;  a  Parliament, 
Parliamentum,  or  Speaking- Apparatus  for  the 
now  dominant  Interest  in  England,  as  exact  as 
could  well  be  got,  —  much  more  exact,  I  suppose, 
than  any  ballot-box,  free  hustings  or  ale-barrel 
election  usually  yields.  Such  is  the  Assembly 
called  the  Little  Parliament,  and  wittily  Bare- 
bone's  Parliament;  which  meets  on  the  4th  of 
July.  Their  witty  name  survives ;  but  their  his- 
tory is  gone  all  dark." — -T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  Crom- 
ivell's  Letters  and  Speeches,  pt.  7,  speech  1.  —  The 
" assembly  of  godly  persons"  proved,  however, 
to  be  quite  an  unmanageable  body,  containing  so 
large  a  number  of  erratic  and  impracticable  re- 
formers that  everything  substantial  among  Eng- 
lish institutions  was  threatened  with  overthrow 
at  their  hands.  After  five  months  of  busy  session, 
Cromwell  was  happily  able  to  bring  about  a  dis- 
solution of  his  parliament,  by  the  action  of  a 
majority,  surrendering  back  their  powers  into 
his  hands, — which  was  done  on  the  10th  of  De- 
cember, 1653. — P.  P.  Guizot,  Hist,  of  Oliver  Crom- 
well, bk.  5  (V.  3). 

Also  nst :  J.  A.  Picton,  Oliver  Cromtoell,  ch.  23. 

A.  D.  1653  (December). — The  Establishment 
and  Constitution  of  the  Protectorate. — The 
Instrument  of  Government. — "What  followed 
the  dissolution  of  the  Little  Parliament  is  soon 
told.  The  Council  of  Officers  having  been  sum- 
moned by  Cromwell  as  the  only  power  de  facto, 
there  were  dialogues  and  deliberations,  ending  in 
the  clear  conclusion  that  the  method  of  headship 
in  a  '  Single  Person '  for  his  whole  life  must  now 
be  tried  in  the  Government  of  the  Common- 
wealth, and  that  Cromwell  must  be  that  '  Single 
Person.'  The  title  of  King  was  actually  pro- 
posed; but,  as  there  were  objections  to  that, 
Protector  was  chosen  as  a  title  familiar  in  Eng- 
lish History  and  of  venerable  associations.  Ac- 
cordingly, Cromwell  having  consented,  and  all 
preparations  having  been  made,  he  was,  on  Fri- 
day, Dec.  16,  in  a  great  a.ssembly  of  civic,  judic- 
ial and  military  dignities,  solemnly  sworn  and 
installed  in  the  Chancery  Court,  Westminster 
Hall,  as  Lord  Protector  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
England,  Scotland  and  Ireland.  There  were 
some  of  his  adherents  hitherto  who  did  not  like 
this  new  elevation  of  their  hero,  and  forsook  him 
in  consequence,  regarding  any  experiment  of 
the  Single  Person  method  in  Government  as  a 
treason  to  true  Republicanism,  and  Cromwell's 
assent  to  it  as  unworthy  of  him.  Among  these 
was  Harrison.  Lambert,  on  the  other  hand,  had 
been  the  main  agent  in  the  change,  and  took  a 
conspicuous  part  in  the  installation-ceremony. 
In  fact,  pretty  generally  throughout  the  country 
and  even  among  the  Presbyterians,  the  elevation 
of  Cromwell  to  some  kind  of  sovereignty  had 
come  to  be  regarded  as  an  inevitable  necessity  of 
the  time,  the  only  possible  salvation  of  the  Com- 
monwealth from  the  anarchy,  or  wild  and  ex- 
perimental idealism,  in  matters  civil  and  re- 
ligious, which  had  been  the  visible  drift  at  last 
of  the  Barebones  or  Daft  Little  Parliament.  .  .  . 
The  powers  and  duties  of  the  Protectorate  had 
been  defined,  rather  elaborately,  in  a  Constitu- 


ENGLAND.  1653. 


Instruinenf 
of  Government. 


ENGLAND,  1G.53. 


donal  Instrument  of  forty-two  Articles,  called 
'  The  Government  of  the  Commonwealth'  [more 
commonly  known  as  The  Instrument  of  Govern- 
ment] to  which  Cromwell  had  sworn  fidelity  at 
his  installation. " — D.  Masson,  Life  of  John  Mil- 
ton, x>.  4.  bk.  4,  ch.  1  and  3. 

Also  m :  J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Common- 
wealth: Cromwell. — L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
nth  Century,  bk.  13,  ch.  1  {v.  3).— S.  R.  Gardiner, 
Const.  Doc's  of  tlie  Puritan  Bev.,  inti'od.,  sect.  4 
and  pp.  314-324. — Cobhett's  Parliamentary  Hist. 
of  England,  ».  i,  pp.  1417-1426. 

The  following  is  the  text  of  the  Instrument  of 
Government: 

The  government  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  and  the  domin- 
ions thereunto  belonging. 

I.  That  the  supreme  legislative  authority  of 
the  Commonwealth  of  England,  Scotland,  and 
Ireland,  and  the  dominions  thereunto  belonging, 
shall  be  and  reside  in  one  person,  and  the  people 
assembled  in  Parliament ;  the  style  of  which  per- 
son shall  be  the  Lord  Protector  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland. 

II.  That  the  exercise  of  the  chief  magistracy 
and  the  administration  of  the  government  over 
the  said  countries  and  dominions,  and  the  people 
thereof,  shall  be  in  the  Lord  Protector,  assisted 
with  a  council,  the  number  whereof  shall  not 
exceed  twenty-one,  nor  be  less  than  thirteen. , 

III.  That  all  writs,  processes,  commissions, 
patents,  grants,  and  other  things,  which  now 
run  in  the  name  and  style  of  the  keepers  of  the 
liberty  of  England  by  authority  of  Parliament, 
shall  run  in  the  name  and  style  of  the  Lord  Pro- 
tector, from  whom,  for  the  future,  shall  be  de- 
rived all  magistracy  and  honours  in  these  tlii?e 
nations ;  and  have  the  power  of  pardons  (except 
in  case  of  murders  and  treason)  and  benefit  of  all 
forfeitures  for  the  public  use;  and  shall  govern 
the  said  countries  and  dominions  in  all  things  by 
the  advice  of  the  council,  and  according  to  these 
presents  and  the  laws. 

IV.  That  the  Lord  Protector,  the  Parliament 
sitting,  shall  dispose  and  order  the  militia  and 
forces,  both  by  sea  and  land,  for  the  peace  and 
good  of  the  three  nations,  by  consent  of  Parlia- 
ment ;  and  that  the  Lord  Protector,  with  the  ad- 
vice and  consent  of  the  major  part  of  the  council, 
shall  dispose  and  order  the  militia  for  the  ends 
aforesaid  in  the  intervals  of  Parliament. 

V.  That  the  Lord  Protector,  by  the  advice 
aforesaid,  shall  direct  in  all  things  concerning  the 
keeping  and  holding  of  a  good  correspondency 
with  foreign  kings,  princes,  and  states;  and  also, 
with  the  consent  of  the  major  part  of  the  council, 
have  the  power  of  war  and  peace. 

VI.  That  the  laws  shall  not  be  altered,  sus- 
pended, abrogated,  or  repealed,  nor  any  new  law 
made,  nor  any  tax,  charge,  or  imposition  laid 
U]ion  the  people,  but  by  common  consent  in  Par- 
liament, save  only  as  is  expressed  in  the  thirtieth 
article. 

VII.  That  there  shall  be  a  Parliament  sum- 
moned to  meet  at  Westminster  upon  the  third 
day  of  September,  1654,  and  that  successively 
a  Parliament  shall  be  summoned  once  in  every 
third  year,  to  be  accounted  from  the  dissolution 
of  the  present  Parliament. 

VIII.  That  neither  the  Parliament  to  be  next 
summoned,  nor  any  successive  Parliaments,  shall, 
during  the  time  of  five  months,  to  be  accounted 
from  the  day  of  their  first  meeting,  be  adjourned, 


prorogued,  or  dissolved,  without  their  own  con- 
sent. 

IX.  That  as  well  the  next  as  all  other  succes- 
sive Parliaments,  shall  be  summoned  and  elected 
in  manner  hereafter  expressed ;  that  is  to  say, 
the  persons  to  be  chosen  within  England,  Wales, 
the  Isles  of  Jersey,  Guernsey,  and  the  town  of 
Berwick-upon-Tweed,  to  sit  and  serve  in  Parlia- 
ment, shall  be,  and  not  exceed,  the  number  of 
four  hundred.  The  persons  to  be  chosen  within 
Scotland,  to  sit  and  serve  in  Parliament,  shall  be, 
and  not  exceed,  the  number  of  thirty ;  and  the 
persons  to  be  chosen  to  sit  in  Parliament  for 
Ireland  shall  be,  and  not  exceed,  the  number  of 
thirty. 

X.  That  the  persons  to  be  elected  to  sit  in 
Parliament  from  time  to  time,  for  the  several 
coimties  of  England,  Wales,  the  Isles  of  Jersey 
and  Guernsey,  and  the  town  of  Berwick-upon- 
Tweed,  and  all  places  within  the  same  respec- 
tively, shall  be  according  to  the  proportions  and 
numbers  hereafter  expressed:  that  is  to  say, 
Bedfordshire,  5;  Bedford  Town,  1;  Berkshire, 
5 ;  Abingdon,  1 ;  Reading,  1 ;  Buckinghamshire, 
5;  Buckingham  Town,  1;  Aylesbury,  1;  Wy- 
comb,  1;  Cambridgeshire.  4;  Cambridge  Town, 
1 ;  Cambridge  University,  1 ;  Isle  of  Ely,  2 ; 
Cheshire,  4 ;  Chester,  1 ;  Cornwall,  8 ;  Launces- 
ton,  1 ;  Truro,  1 ;  Penryn,  1 ;  East  Looe  and 
West  Looe,  1;  Cumberland,  2;  Carlisle,  1;  Der- 
byshire, 4;  Derby  Town,  1;  Devonshire,  11; 
Exeter,  2;  Plymouth,  2;  Clifton,  Dartmouth, 
Hardness,  1 ;  Totnes,  1 ;  Barnstable,  1 ;  Tiverton, 
1 ;  Honiton,  1 ;  Dorsetshire,  6 ;  Dorchester,  1 ; 
Weymouth  and  Melcomb-Regis,  1 ;  Lyme-Regis, 
1 ;  Poole,  1 ;  Durham,  2 ;  City  of  Durham,  1 ; 
Essex,  13;  Maiden,  1;  Colchester,  2;  Gloucester- 
shire, 5;  Gloucester,  2;  Tewkesbury,  1;  Ciren- 
cester, 1;  Herefordshire.  4;  Hereford,  1;  Leo- 
minster, 1 ;  Hertfordshire.  5 ;  St.  Alban's,  1 ; 
Hertford,  1 ;  Huntingdonshire,  3 ;  Huntingdon,  1 ; 
Kent,  11;  Canterbury,  2;  Rochester,  1;  Maid- 
stone, 1 ;  Dover,  1 ;  Sandwich,  1 ;  Queenborough, 
1 ;  Lancashire,  4 ;  Preston,  1 ;  Lancaster,  1 ;  Liv- 
erpool, 1 ;  Manchester,  1 ;  Leicestershire,  4 ;  Lei- 
cester, 2;  Lincolnshire,  10;  Lincoln,  2;  Boston, 
1 ;  Grantham,  1 ;  Stamford,  1 ;  Great  Grimsby, 
1;  Middlesex,  4;  London,  6;  Westminster,  2; 
Monmouthshire,  3;  Norfolk  10;  Norwich,  2; 
Lynn-Regis,  2;  Great  Yarmouth,  2;  Northamp- 
tonshire, 6 ;  Peterborough,  1 ;  Northampton,  1 ; 
Nottinghamshire,  4;  Nottingham,  2;  Northum- 
berland, 3;  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  1;  Berwick, 
1;  Oxfordshire,  5;  Oxford  City,  1;  Oxford  Uni- 
versity, 1 ;  Woodstock,  1 ;  Rutlandshire,  2 ;  Shrop- 
shire, 4 ;  Shrewsbury,  2 ;  Bridgnorth,  1 ;  Ludlow, 
1;  Staffordshire,  3;  Lichfield,  1;  Stafford,  1; 
Newcastle-under-Lyne,  1 ;  Somersetshire,  11 ; 
Bristol,  2;  Taunton,  2;  Bath,  1 ;  Wells,  1 ;  Bridg- 
water, 1 ;  Southamptonshire,  8 ;  Winchester,  1 ; 
Southampton,  1 ;  Portsmouth,  1 ;  Isle  of  Wight, 
2;  Andover,  1;  Suffolk,  10;  Ipswich,  2;  Bury 
St.  Edmunds,  2 ;  Dunwich,  1 ;  Sudbury,  1 ;  Sur- 
rey, 6 ;  Soutliwark,  2 ;  Guildford,  1 ;  Reigate,  1 ; 
Sussex,  9;  Chichester,  1;  Lewes,  1;  East  Grin- 
stead,  1;  Arundel,  1;  Rye,  1;  Westmoreland,  2; 
Warwickshire,  4;  Coventry,  2;  Warwick,  1; 
AViltshire,  10;  New  Sarum,  2;  Marlborough,  1; 
Devizes,  1;  Worcestershire,  5;  Worcester,  2. 
Yorkshire. —  West  Riding,  6;  East  Riding,  4; 
North  Riding,  4 ;  City  of  York,  2 ;  Kingston-upon- 
Hull,  1 ;  Beverley,  1 ;  Scarborough,  1 ;  Richmond, 
1;  Leeds,  1;  Halifax,  1.     Wales. — Anglesey,  2: 


914 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


Inst'mment 
of  Government. 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


Brecknockshire,  2;  Cardiganshire.  3;  Carmar- 
thenshire, 2;  Carnarvonsliire,  2;  Denbighshire, 
2 :  Flintsliire,  3 ;  Glamorganshire,  3 ;  Cardiff,  1 ; 
Merionethshire,  1;  Montgomeryshire,  3;  Pem- 
brokeshire, 2:  Plaverfordwest,  1;  Radnorshire, 
2.  The  distribution  of  the  persons  to  be  chosen 
for  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  the  several  coun- 
ties, cities,  and  places  therein,  shall  be  according 
to  such  proportions  and  number  as  shall  be 
agreed  upon  and  declared  by  the  Lord  Protector 
and  the  major  part  of  the  council,  before  the 
sending  forth  writs  of  summons  for  the  next 
Parliament. 

XI.  That  the  summons  to  Parliament  shall  be 
by  writ  under  the  Great  Seal  of  England,  directed 
to  the  sheriffs  of  the  several  and  respective 
counties,  with  such  alteration  as  may  suit  with 
the  present  government  to  be  made  by  the  Lord 
Protector  and  his  council,  which  the  Chancellor, 
Keeper,  or  Commissioners  of  the  Great  Seal  shall 
seal,  issue,  and  send  abroad  by  warrant  from  the 
Lord  Protector.  If  the  Lord  Protector  shall  not 
give  warrant  for  issuing  of  writs  of  summons  for 
the  next  Parliament,  before  the  first  of  June, 
1654,  or  for  the  Triennial  Parliaments,  before  the 
first  day  of  August  in  every  third  year,  to  be 
accounted  as  aforesaid ;  that  then  the  Chancellor, 
Keeper,  or  Commissioners  of  the  Great  Seal  for 
the  time  being,  shall,  without  any  warrant  or 
direction,  within  seven  days  after  the  said  first  day 
of  June,  1654,  seal,  issue,  and  send  abroad  writs  of 
summons  (changing  therein  what  is  to  be  changed 
as  aforesaid)  to  the  several  and  respective  sheriffs 
of  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  for  summoning 
the  Parliament  to  meet  at  Westminster,  the  third 
day  of  September  next ;  and  shall  likewise,  within 
seven  days  after  the  said  first  day  of  August,  in 
every  third  year,  to  be  accounted  from  the  dis- 
solution of  the  precedent  Parliament,  seal,  issue, 
and  send  forth  abroad  several  writs  of  summons 
(changing  therein  what  is  to  be  changed)  as 
aforesaid,  for  summoning  the  Parliament  to  meet 
at  Westminster  the  sixth  of  November  in  that 
third  year.  That  the  said  several  and  respective 
sheriffs,  shall,  within  ten  days  after  the  receipt  of 
such  writ  as  aforesaid,  cause  the  same  to  be  pro- 
claimed and  published  in  every  market-town 
within  his  county  upon  the  market-days  thereof, 
between  twelve  and  three  of  the  clock ;  and  shall 
then  also  publish  and  declare  the  certain  d.ay  of 
the  week  and  month,  for  choosing  members  to 
serve  in  Parliament  for  the  body  of  the  said 
county,  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  said  writ, 
which  shall  be  upon  Wednesday  five  weeks  after 
the  date  of  the  writ ;  and  shall  likewise  declare 
the  place  where  the  election  shall  be  made :  for 
which  purpose  he  shall  appoint  the  most  con- 
venient place  for  the  whole  county  to  meet  in ; 
and  shall  send  precepts  for  elections  to  be  made 
in  all  and  every  city,  town,  borough,  or  place 
within  his  county,  where  elections  are  to  be  made 
by  virtue  of  these  presents,  to  the  Mayor,  Sheriff, 
or  other  head  oflicer  of  such  city,  town,  borough, 
or  place,  within  three  days  after  the  receipt  of 
such  writ  and  writs;  which  the  said  Mayors, 
Sheriffs,  and  oflicers  respectively  are  to  make 
publication  of,  and  of  the  certain  day  for  such 
elections  to  be  made  in  the  said  city,  town,  or 
place  aforesaid,  and  to  cause  elections  to  be  made 
accordingly. 

Xn.  That  at  the  day  and  place  of  elections, 
the  Sheriff  of  each  county,  and  the  said  Mayors, 
Sheriffs,  Bailiffs,  and  other  head  officers  within 


their  cities,  towns,  boroughs,  and  places  respec- 
tively, shall  take  view  of  the  said  elections,  anil 
shall  make  return  into  the  chancery  within 
twenty  days  after  tlie  said  elections,  of  the  per- 
sons elected  by  the  greater  number  of  electors, 
under  their  hands  and  seals,  between  him  on  the 
one  part,  and  the  electors  on  the  other  part; 
wherein  shall  be  contained,  that  the  persons 
elected  shall  not  have  power  to  alter  the  govern- 
ment as  it  is  hereby  settled  in  one  single  person 
and  a  Parliament. 

XIII.  That  the  Sheriff,  who  shall  wittingly 
and  willingly  make  any  false  return,  or  neglect 
his  duty,  shall  incur  the  penalty  of  3,000  marks 
of  lawful  English  money ;  the  one  moiety  to  the 
Lord  Protector,  and  the  other  moiety  to  such  per- 
son as  will  sue  for  the  same. 

XIV.  That  all  and  every  person  and  persons, 
who  have  aided,  advised,  assisted,  or  abetted  in 
any  war  against  the  Parliament,  since  the  first 
day  of  January  1641  (unless  they  have  been  since 
in  the  service  of  the  Parliament,  and  given  signal 
testimony  of  their  good  affection  thereunto)  shall 
be  disabled  and  incapable  to  be  elected,  or  to  give 
any  vote  in  the  election  of  any  members  to  serve 
in  the  next  Parliament,  or  in  the  three  succeeding 
Triennial  Parliaments. 

XV.  That  all  such,  who  have  advised,  assisted, 
or  abetted  the  rebellion  of  Ireland,  shall  be  dis- 
abled and  incapable  for  ever  to  be  elected,  or  give 
any  vote  in  the  election  of  any  member  to  serve 
in  Parliament ;  as  also  all  such  who  do  or  shall 
profess  the  Roman  Catholic  religion. 

XVI.  That  all  votes  and  elections  given  or 
made  contrary,  or  not  according  to  these  qualifi  - 
cations,  shall  be  null  and  void;  and  if  any  per- 
son, who  is  hereby  made  incapable,  shall  give 
his  vote  for  election  of  members  to  serve  in  Par- 
liament, such  person  shall  lose  and  forfeit  one 
full  year's  value  of  his  real  estate,  and  one  full 
third  part  of  his  personal  estate;  one  moiety 
thereof  to  the  Lord  Protector,  and  the  other 
moiety  to  him  or  them  who  shall  sue  for  the  same. 

XVII.  That  the  persons  who  shall  be  elected 
to  serve  in  Parliament,  shall  be  such  (and  no 
other  than  such)  as  are  persons  of  known  integ- 
rity, fearing  God,  and  of  good  conversation,  and 
being  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years. 

XVIII.  That  all  and  every  person  and  persons 
seised  or  possessed  to  his  own  use,  of  any  estate, 
real  or  personal,  to  the  value  of  £300,  and  not 
within  the  aforesaid  exceptions,  shall  be  capable 
to  elect  members  to  serve  in  Parliament  for 
counties 

XIX.  That  the  Chancellor,  Keeper,  or  Com- 
missioners of  the  Great  Seal,  shall  be  sworn  be- 
fore they  enter  into  their  offices,  truly  and  faith- 
fully to  issue  forth,  and  send  abroad,  writs  of 
summons  to  Parliament,  at  the  times  and  in  the 
manner  before  expressed :  and  in  case  of  neglect 
or  failure  to  issue  and  send  abroad  writs  accord- 
ingly, he  or  they  shall  for  every  such  offence  be 
guilty  of  high  treason,  and  suffer  the  pains  and 
penalties  thereof. 

XX.  That  in  case  writs  be  not  issued  out,  as 
is  before  expressed,  but  that  there  be  a  neglect 
therein,  fifteen  days  after  the  time  wherein  the 
same  ought  to  be  issued  out  by  the  Chancellor, 
Keeper,  or  Commissioners  of  the  Great  Seal; 
that  then  the  Parliament  shall,  as  often  as  such 
failure  shall  happen,  assemble  and  be  held  at 
Westminster,  in  the  usual  place,  at  the  times 
prefixed,  in  manner  and  by  the  means  hereafter 


915 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


Instrument 

of  Government. 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


expressed ;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  sheriffs  of  the 
several  and  respective  counties,  sheriffdoms, 
cities,  boroughs,  and  places  aforesaid,  within 
England,  Wales,  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  the  Chan- 
cellor, Masters,  and  Scholars  of  the  Universities 
of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and  the  JIayor  and 
Bailiffs  of  the  borough  of  Berwick-upon-Tweed, 
and  other  places  aforesaid  respectively,  shall 
at  the  several  courts  and  places  to  be  appointed 
as  aforesaid,  within  thirty  days  after  the  said 
fifteen  days,  cause  such  members  to  be  chosen 
for  their  said  several  and  respective  counties, 
sheriffdoms,  universities,  cities,  boroughs,  and 
places  aforesaid,  by  such  persons,  and  in  such 
manner,  as  if  several  and  respective  writs  of 
summons  to  Parliament  under  the  Great  Seal 
had  issued  and  been  awarded  according  to  the 
tenor  aforesaid :  that  if  the  sheriff,  or  other  per- 
sons authorized,  shall  neglect  his  or  their  duty 
herein,  that  all  and  every  such  sheriff  and  person 
authorized  as  aforesaid,  so  neglecting  his  or  their 
duty,  shall,  for  every  such  offence,  be  guilty  of 
high  treason,  and  shall  suffer  the  pains  and  pen- 
alties thereof. 

XXI.  That  the  clerk,  called  the  clerk  of  the 
Commonwealth  in  Chancery  for  the  time  being, 
and  all  others,  who  shall  afterwards  execute  that 
office,  to  whom  the  returns  shall  be  made,  shall 
for  the  next  Parliament,  and  the  two  succeeding 
Triennial  Parliaments,  the  next  day  after  such 
return,  certify  the  names  of  the  several  persons  so 
returned,  and  of  the  places  for  which  he  and  they 
were  chosen  respectively,  unto  the  CouncU;  who 
shall  peruse  the  said  returns,  and  examine 
■whether  the  persons  so  elected  and  returned  be 
such  as  is  agreeable  to  the  qualifications,  and  not 
disabled  to  be  elected :  and  that  every  person  and 
persons  being  so  duly  elected,  and  being  ap- 
proved of  by  the  major  part  of  the  Council  to  be 
persons  not  disabled,  but  qualified  as  aforesaid, 
shall  be  esteemed  a  member  of  Parliament,  and  be 
admitted  to  sit  in  Parliament,  and  not  otherwise. 

XXII.  That  the  persons  so  chosen  and  assem- 
bled in  manner  aforesaid,  or  any  sixty  of  them, 
shall  be,  and  be  deemed  the  Parliament  of  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  and  Ireland;  and  the  supreme 
legislative  power  to  be  and  reside  in  the  Lord 
Protector  and  such  Parliament,  in  manner  herein 
expressed. 

XXIII.  That  the  Lord  Protector,  with  the  ad- 
vice of  the  major  part  of  the  Council,  shall  at 
any  other  time  than  is  before  expressed,  when 
the  necessities  of  the  State  shall  require  it,  sum- 
mon Parliaments  in  manner  before  expressed, 
■which  shall  not  be  adjourned,  prorogued,  or  dis- 
solved without  their  own  consent,  during  the  first 
three  months  of  their  sitting.  And  in  case  of 
future  war  with  any  foreign  State,  a  Parliament 
shall  be  forthwith  summoned  for  their  advice 
concerning  the  same. 

XXIV.  That  all  Bills  agreed  unto  by  the  Par- 
liament, shall  be  presented  to  the  Lord  Protector 
for  his  consent ;  and  in  case  he  shall  not  give  his 
consent  thereto  ■svithin  twenty  days  after  they 
shall  be  presented  to  him,  or  give  satisfaction 
to  the  Parliament  within  the  time  limited,  that 
then,  upon  declaration  of  the  Parliament  that 
the  Lord  Protector  hath  not  consented  nor  given 
satisfaction,  such  BiUs  shall  pass  into  and  be- 
come laws,  although  he  shall  not  give  his  consent 
thereunto;  provided  such  Bills  contain  nothing 
in  them  contrary  to  the  matters  contained  in  these 
presents. 


XXV.  That  [Henry  Lawrence,  esq.  ;  Philip 
lord  vise.  Lisle;  the  majors  general  Lambert, 
Desborough,  and  Skippon ;  lieut.  general  Fleet- 
wood ;  the  colonels  Edw.  Montagu,  Philip  Jones, 
and  Wm.  Sydenham ;  sir  Gilbert  Pickering,  sir 
Ch.  Wolseley,  and  sir  Anth.  Ashley  Cooper, 
Barts.,  Francis  Rouse,  esq..  Speaker  of  the  late 
Convention,  Walter  Strickland,  and  Rd.  Major, 
esqrs.]  —  or  any  seven  of  them,  shall  be  a  Council 
for  the  purposes  expressed  in  this  writing ;  and 
upon  the  death  or  other  removal  of  any  of  them, 
tlie  Parliament  shall  nominate  six  persons  of 
ability,  integrity,  and  fearing  God,  for  every  one 
that  is  dead  or  removed ;  out  of  which  the  major 
part  of  the  Council  shall  elect  two,  and  present 
them  to  the  Lord  Protector,  of  which  he  shall 
elect  one ;  and  in  case  the  Parliament  shall  not 
nominate  within  twenty  days  after  notice  given 
unto  them  thereof,  the  major  part  of  the  Council 
shall  nominate  three  as  aforesaid  to  the  Lord 
Protector,  who  out  of  them  shall  supply  the 
vacancy ;  and  until  this  choice  be  made,  the  re- 
maining part  of  the  Council  shall  execute  as  fully 
in  all  things,  as  if  tlieir  number  were  full.  And 
in  case  of  corruption,  or  other  miscarriage  in  any 
of  the  Council  in  their  trust,  the  Parliament  shall 
appoint  seven  of  their  number,  and  the  Council 
six,  who,  together  with  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
Lord  Keeper,  or  Commissioners  of  the  Great  Seal 
for  the  time  laeing,  shall  have  power  to  hear  and 
determine  such  corruption  and  miscarriage,  and 
to  award  and  inflict  punishment,  as  the  nature  of 
the  offence  shall  deserve,  which  punishment  shall 
not  be  pardoned  or  remitted  bj'  tlie  Lord  Protec- 
tor; and,  in  the  interval  of  Parliaments,  the 
major  part  of  the  Council,  with  the  consent  of 
the  Lord  Protector,  may,  for  corruption  or  other 
miscarriage  as  aforesaid,  suspend  any  of  their 
number  from  the  exercise  of  their  trust,  if  they 
shall  find  it  just,  until  the  matter  shall  be  heard 
and  examined  as  aforesaid. 

XXVI.  That  the  Lord  Protector  and  the  major 
part  of  the  Council  aforesaid  may,  at  any  time 
before  the  meeting  of  the  next  Parliament,  add 
to  the  Council  such  persons  as  they  shall  think 
fit,  provided  the  number  of  the  Council  be  not 
made  thereby  to  exceed  twent)'-one,  and  the 
quorum  to  be  proportioned  accordingly  by  the 
Lord  Protector  and  the  major  part  of  the  Coun- 
cil. 

XXVII.  That  a  constant  yearly  revenue  shall 
be  raised,  settled,  and  established  for  maintain- 
ing of  10,000  horse  and  dragoons,  and  20,000 
foot,  in  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  for  the 
defence  and  security  thereof,  and  also  for  a  con- 
venient number  of  ships  for  guarding  of  the  seas ; 
besides  £300,000  per  annum  for  defraying  the 
other  necessary  charges  of  administration  of  jus- 
tice, and  other  expenses  of  the  Government, 
which  revenue  shall  be  raised  by  the  customs, 
and  such  other  ways  and  means  as  shall  be  agreed 
upon  by  the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Council,  and 
shall  not  be  taken  away  or  diminished,  nor  the 
way  agreed  upon  for  raising  the  same  altered, 
but  by  the  consent  of  tlie  Lord  Protector  and  the 
Parliament. 

XXVIII.  That  the  said  yearly  revenue  shall 
be  paid  into  the  public  treasury,  and  shall  be 
issued  out  for  the  uses  aforesaid, 

XXIX.  That  in  case  there  shall  not  be  cause 
hereafter  to  keep  up  so  great  a  defence  both  at 
land  or  sea,  but  that  there  be  an  abatement  made 
thereof,  the  money  which  will  be  saved  thereby 


916 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


Instrument 
of  Government. 


ENGLAND,  1653. 


shall  remain  in  bank  for  the  public  service,  and 
not  be  employed  to  any  other  use  but  by  con- 
sent of  Parliament,  or,  in  the  intervals  of  Parlia- 
ment, by  the  Lord  Protector  and  major  part  of 
the  Council. 

XXX.  That  the  raising  of  money  for  defray- 
ing the  charge  of  the  present  extraordinary  forces, 
both  at  sea  and  land,  in  respect  of  the  present 
•n-ars,  shall  be  by  consent  of  Parliament,  and  not 
otherwise:  save  only  that  the  Lord  Protector, 
with  the  consent  of  the  major  part  of  the  Coun- 
cil, for  preventing  the  disorders  and  dangers 
which  might  otherwise  fall  out  both  by  sea  and 
land,  shall  have  power,  until  the  meeting  of  the 
first  Parliament,  to  raise  money  for  the  purposes 
aforesaid ;  and  also  to  make  laws  and  ordinances 
for  the  peace  and  welfare  of  these  nations  where 
it  shall  be  necessary,  which  shall  be  binding  and 
in  force,  until  order  shall  be  taken  in  Parliament 
concerning  the  same. 

XXXL  That  the  lands,  tenements,  rents,  roy- 
alties, jurisdictions  and  hereditaments  which  re- 
main yet  unsold  or  undisposed  of,  by  Act  or 
Ordinance  of  Parliament,  belonging  to  the  Com- 
monwealth (except  the  forests  and  chases,  and 
the  honours  and  manors  belonging  to  the  same ; 
the  lands  of  the  rebels  in  Ireland,  lying  in  the 
four  counties  of  Dublin,  Cork,  Kildare,  and  Car- 
low  ;  the  lands  forfeited  by  the  people  of  Scot- 
land in  the  late  wars,  and  also  the  lands  of  Pa- 
pists and  delinquents  in  England  who  have  not 
yet  compounded),  shall  be  vested  in  the  Lord 
Protector,  to  hold,  to  him  and  his  successors. 
Lords  Protectors  of  these  nations,  and  shall  not 
be  alienated  but  by  consent  in  Parliament.  And 
all  debts,  tines,  issues,  amercements,  penalties  and 
profits,  certain  and  casual,  due  to  the  Keepers  of 
the  liberties  of  England  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment, shall  be  due  to  the  Lord  Protector,  and  be 
payable  into  his  public  receipt,  and  shall  be  re- 
covered and  prosecuted  in  his  name. 

XXXn.  That  the  office  of  Lord  Protector  over 
these  nations  shall  be  elective  and  not  heredi- 
tary ;  and  upon  the  death  of  the  Lord  Protector, 
another  fit  person  shall  be  forthwith  elected  to 
succeed  him  in  the  Government ;  which  election 
shall  be  by  the  Council,  who,  immediately  upon 
the  death  of  the  Lord  Protector,  shall  assemble 
in  the  Chamber  where  they  usually  sit  in  Coun- 
cil ;  and,  having  given  notice  to  all  their  members 
of  the  cause  of  their  assembling,  shall,  being 
thirteen  at  least  present,  proceed  to  the  election ; 
and,  before  they  depart  the  said  Chamber,  shall 
elect  a  fit  person  to  succeed  in  the  Government, 
and  forthwith  cause  proclamation  thereof  to  be 
made  in  all  the  three  nations  as  shall  be  requisite ; 
and  the  person  that  they,  or  the  major  part  of 
them,  shall  elect  as  aforesaid,  shall  be,  and  shall 
be  taken  to  be.  Lord  Protector  over  these  nations 
of  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  the  do- 
minions thereto  belonging.  Provided  that  none 
of  the  children  of  the  late  King,  nor  any  of  bis 
line  or  family,  be  elected  to  be  Lord  Protector  or 
other  Chief  Magistrate  over  these  nations,  or  any 
the  dominions  thereto  belonging.  And  until  the 
aforesaid  election  be  past,  the  Council  shall  take 
care  of  the  Government,  and  administer  in  all 
things  as  fully  as  the  Lord  Protector,  or  the 
Lord  Protector  and  Council  are  enabled  to  do. 

XXXIII.  That  Oliver  Cromwell,  Captain-Gen- 
eral of  the  forces  of  England,  Scotland  and  Ire- 
laud,  shall  be,  and  is  "hereby  declared  to  be, 
Lord  Protector  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Eng- 


land, Scotland  and  Ireland,  and  the  dominions 
thereto  belonging,  for  his  life. 

XXXIV.  That  the  Chancellor,  Keeper  or  Com- 
missioners of  the  Great  Seal,  the  Treasurer,  Ad- 
miral, Chief  Governors  of  Ireland  and  Scotland, 
and  the  Chief  Justices  of  both  the  Benches,  shall 
be  chosen  by  the  approbation  of  Parliament; 
and,  in  the  intervals  of  Parliament,  by  the  ap- 
probation of  the  major  part  of  the  Council,  to  be 
afterwards  approved  by  the  Parliament. 

XXXV.  That  the  Christian  religion,  as  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures,  be  held  forth  and  rec- 
ommended as  the  public  profession  of  these 
nations;  and  that,  as  soon  as  may  be,  a,  provis- 
ion, less  subject  to  scruple  and  contention,  and 
more  certain  than  the  present,  be  made  for  the 
encouragement  and  maintenance  of  able  and 
painful  teachers,  for  the  instructing  the  people, 
and  for  discovery  and  confutation  of  error,  here- 
by, and  whatever  is  contrary  to  sound  doctrine ; 
and  until  such  provision  be  made,  the  present 
maintenance  shall  not  be  taken  away  or  im- 
peached. 

XXXVI.  That  to  the  public  profession  held 
forth  none  shall  be  compelled  by  penalties  or 
otherwise ;  but  that  endeavours  be  used  to  win 
them  by  sound  doctrine  and  the  example  of  a 
good  conversation. 

XXXVII.  That  such  as  profess  faith  in  God 
by  Jesus  Christ  (though  differing  in  judgment 
from  the  doctrine,  worship  or  discipline  publicly 
held  forth)  shall  not  be  restrained  from,  but  shall 
be  protected  in,  the  profession  of  the  faith  and 
exercise  of  their  religion;  so  as  they  abuse 
not  this  liberty  to  the  civil  injury  of  others  and 
to  the  actual  disturbance  of  the  public  peace  on 
their  parts ;  provided  this  liberty  be  not  extended 
to  Popery  or  Prelacy,  nor  to  such  as,  under  the 
profession  of  Christ,  hold  forth  and  practice 
licentiousness. 

XXXVIII.  That  all  laws,  statutes  and  ordi- 
nances, and  clauses  in  any  law,  statute  or  ordi- 
nance to  the  contrary  of  the  aforesaid  liberty, 
shall  be  esteemed  as  null  and  void. 

XXXIX.  That  the  Acts  and  Ordinances  of 
Parliament  made  for  the  sale  or  other  disposition 
of  the  lands,  rents  and  hereditaments  of  the  late 
King,  Queen,  and  Prince,  of  Archbishops  and 
Bishops,  &c..  Deans  and  Chapters,  the  lands  of 
delinquents  and  forest-lands,  or  any  of  them,  or 
of  any  other  lauds,  tenements,  rents  and  heredita- 
ments belonging  to  the  Commonwealth,  shall 
nowise  be  impeached  or  made  invalid,  but  shall 
remain  good  and  firm;  and  that  the  securities 
given  by  Act  and  Ordinance  of  Parliament  for 
any  sum  or  sums  of  money,  by  any  of  the  said 
lands,  the  excise,  or  any  other  public  revenue ; 
and  also  the  securities  given  by  the  public  faith 
of  the  nation,  and  the  engagement  of  the  public 
faith  for  satisfaction  of  debts  and  damages,  shall 
remain  firm  and  good,  and  not  be  made  void  and 
invalid  upon  any  pretence  whatsoever. 

XL.  That  the  Articles  given  to  or  made  with 
the  enemy,  and  afterwards  confirmed  by  Parlia- 
ment, shall  be  performed  and  made  good  to  the 
persons  concerned  therein ;  and  that  such  appeals 
as  were  depending  in  the  last  Parliament  for  re- 
lief concerning  bills  of  sale  of  delinquent's  estates, 
may  be  heard  and  determined  the  next  Parlia- 
ment, anything  in  this  writing  or  otherwise  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

XLI.  That  every  successive  Lord  Protector 
over  these  nations  shall   take   and   subscribe  a 


917 


ENGLAND,   1653. 


The  py-otector's 
Government. 


ENGLAND,  1654-1658. 


solemn  oath,  in  the  presence  of  the  Council,  and 
such  others  as  they  shall  call  to  them,  that  he 
will  seek  the  peace,  quiet  and  welfare  of  these 
nations,  cause  law  and  justice  to  be  equally  ad- 
ministered; and  that  he  will  not  violate  or  in- 
fringe the  matters  and  things  contained  in  this 
writing,  and  in  all  other  things  will,  to  his  power 
and  to  the  best  of  his  understanding,  govern 
these  nations  according  to  the  laws,  statutes  and 
customs  thereof. 

XLII.  That  each  person  of  the  Council  shall, 
before  they  enter  upon  their  trust,  take  and  sub- 
scribe an  oath,  that  they  will  be  true  and  faith- 
ful in  their  trust,  according  to  the  best  of  their 
knowledge ;  and  that  in  the  election  of  every 
successive  Lord  Protector  they  shall  proceed 
therein  impartially,  and  do  nothing  therein  for 
any  promise,  fear,  favour  or  reward. 

A.  D.  1654. — Re-conquest  of  Acadia  (Nova 
Scotia).    See  Nova  Scotia:  A.  D.  1621-1668. 

A.  D.  1654  (April). — Incorporation  of  Scot- 
land with  the  Commonwealth.  See  Scotlakd: 
A.  D.  1654. 

A.  D.  1654-1658.— The  Protector,  his  Parlia- 
ments and  his  Major-Generals. — The  Humble 
Petition  and  Advice. — Differing  views  of  the 
Cromwellian  autocracy. —  "  Oliver  addressed  his 
first  Protectorate  Parliament  on  Sunday,  the  3d 
of  September.  .  .  .  Immediately,  under  the  leader- 
ship of  old  Parliamentarians,  Haslerig,  Scott, 
Bradshaw,  and  many  other  republicans,  the  House 
proceeded  to  debate  the  Instrument  of  Govern- 
ment, the  constitutional  basis  of  the  existing  sys- 
tem. By  five  votes,  it  decided  to  discuss  '  whether 
the  House  should  approve  of  government  by  a 
Single  Person  and  a  Parliament.'  This  was  of 
course  to  set  up  the  principle  of  making  tlie  Ex- 
ecutive dependent  on  the  House ;  a  principle,  in 
Oliver's  mind,  fatal  to  settlement  and  order.  He 
acted  at  once.  Calling  on  the  Lord  Mayor  to  se- 
cure the  city,  and  disposing  his  own  guard  round 
Westminster  Hall,  he  summoned  the  House  again 
on  the  9th  day.  .  .  .  Members  were  called  on  to 
sign  a  declaration,  '  not  to  alter  the  government 
as  settled  in  a  Single  Person  and  a  Parliament.' 
Some  300  signed ;  the  minority  —  about  a  fourth 
—  refused  and  retired.  .  .  .  The  Parliament,  in 
spite  of  the  declaration,  set  itself  from  the  first 
to  discuss  the  constitution,  to  punish  heretics, 
suppress  blasphemy,  revise  the  Ordinances  of  the 
Council ;  and  they  deliberately  withheld  all  sup- 
plies for  the  services  and  the  government.  At 
last  they  passed  an  Act  for  revising  the  constitu- 
tion de  novo.  Not  a  single  bill  had  been  sent  up 
to  the  Protector  for  his  assent.  Oliver,  as  usual, 
acted  at  once.  On  the  expiration  of  their  five 
lunar  months,  22d  January  1655,  he  summoned 
the  House  and  dissolved  it,  with  a  speech  full  of 
reproaches." — F.  Harrison,  Oliver  Cromwell,  ch. 
11. — "  In  1656,  the  Protector  called  asecond  Par- 
liament. By  excluding  from  it  about  a  hundred 
members  whom  he  judged  to  be  hostile  to  his 
government,  he  found  himself  on  amicable  terms 
with  the  new  assembly.  It  presented  to  him  a 
Humble  Petition  and  Advice,  asking  that  certain 
changes  of  the  Constitution  might  be  agreed  to 
by  mutual  consent,  and  that  he  should  assume 
the  title  of  King.  This  title  he  rejected,  and  the 
Humble  Petition  and  Advice  was  passed  in  an 
amended  form  on  May  25,  1657,  and  at  once  re- 
ceived the  assent  of  the  Protector.  On  June  26, 
it  was  modified  in  some  details  by  the  Additional 
Petition  and  Advice.     Taking  the  two  together, 


the  result  was  to  enlarge  the  power  of  Parliament 
and  to  diminish  that  of  tlie  Council.  The  Pro- 
tector, in  turn,  received  the  right  of  appointing 
his  successor,  and  to  name  the  life-members  of 
'the  other  House,'  which  was  now  to  take  the 
place  of  the  House  of  Lords.  ...  In  accordance 
with  the  Additional  Petition  and  Advice,  the 
Protector  summoned  '  certain  persons  to  sit  in  the 
other  House. '  A  quarrel  between  the  two  Houses 
broke  out,  and  the  Protector  [Feb.  4,  1658]  dis- 
solved the  Parliament  in  anger. " — S.  R.  Gardiner, 
Const.  Doc's  of  the  Puritan  Revolution,  pp.  Ixiii- 
Ixiv.,  and  384-350. — "To  govern  according  to 
law  may  sometimes  be  an  usurper's  wish,  but  can 
seldom  be  in  his  power.  The  protector  [in  1655] 
abandoned  all  thought  of  it.  Dividing  the  king- 
dom into  districts,  he  placed  at  the  head  of  each 
a  major-general  as  a  sort  of  militarj^  magistrate, 
responsible  for  the  subjection  of  his  prefecture. 
These  were  eleven  in  number,  men  bitterly  hos- 
tile to  the  royalist  party,  and  insolent  towards 
all  civil  authority.  They  were  employed  to  se- 
cure the  payment  of  a  tax  of  10  per  cent.,  im- 
posed by  Cromwell's  arbitrary  will  on  those  who 
had  ever  sided  with  the  king  during  the  late 
wars,  where  their  estates  exceeded  £100  per  an- 
num. The  major-generals,  in  their  correspon- 
dence printed  among  Thurloe's  papers,  display  a 
rapacity  and  oppression  beyond  their  master's. 
.  .  .  All  illusion  was  now  gone  as  to  tlie  pre- 
tended benelits  of  the  civil  war.  It  had  ended 
iu  a  despotism,  compared  to  which  all  the  illegal 
practices  of  former  kings,  all  that  had  cost  Charles 
his  life  and  crown,  appeared  as  dust  in  the 
balance.  For  what  was  ship-money,  a  general 
burthen,  by  the  side  of  the  present  decimation  of 
a  single  class,  whose  ofEence  had  long  been  ex- 
piated by  a  composition  and  effaced  by  an  act  of 
indemnity  ?  or  were  the  excessive  punishments 
of  the  star-chamber  so  odious  as  the  capital  exe- 
cutions inflicted  without  trial  by  peers,  whenever 
it  suited  the  usurper  to  erect  liis  high  court  of 
justice  ?  .  .  .  I  cannot  .  .  .  agree  in  the  praises 
which  liave  been  showered  upon  Cromwell  for 
the  just  administration  of  the  laws  under  his  do- 
minion. That,  between  party  and  party,  the  or- 
dinary civil  rights  of  men  were  fairly  dealt  with, 
is  no  extraordinary  praise;  and  it  may  be  ad- 
mitted that  he  filled  the  benches  of  justice  with 
able  lawyers,  though  not  so  considerable  as  those 
of  the  reign  of  Charles  II. ;  but  it  is  manifest 
that,  so  far  as  his  own  authority  was  concerned, 
no  hereditary  despot,  proud  in  the  crimes  of  a 
hundred  ancestors,  could  more  have  spurned  at 
every  limitation  than  this  soldier  of  a  common- 
wealth."— H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  10, 
pt.  3. — "  Cromwell  was,  and  felt  himself  to  be,  a 
dictator  called  in  by  the  winning  cause  iu  a  revo- 
lution to  restore  confidence  and  secure  peace.  He 
was,  as  he  said  frequently,  '  the  Constable  set  to 
keep  order  in  the  Parish.'  Nor  was  he  in  any 
sense  a  militarj'  despot.  .  .  .  Never  did  a  ruler 
invested  with  absolute  power  and  overwhelming 
military  force  more  obstinately  strive  to  surround 
his  authority  with  legal  limits  and  Parliamentary 
control." — F.  Harrison,  Oliver  Cromwell,  ch.  11. 
• — "To  this  condition,  then,  England  was  now 
reduced.  After  the  gallantest  fight  for  liberty 
that  had  ever  been  fought  by  any  nation  in  the 
world,  she  found  herself  trampled  under  foot  by 
a  military  despot.  All  the  vices  of  old  kingly 
rule  were  nothing  to  what  was  now  imposed  upon 
her." — J.  Forster,  Statesmen  of  the  Commonwealth: 


918 


ENGLAND,  1654-1658. 


Restoration  of  the 
Stuarts, 


ENGLAND,  1658-1660. 


Cromwell. —  "His  [Cromwell's]  wish  seems  to 
have  been  to  govern  constitutionally,  and  to  sub- 
stitute the  empire  of  the  laws  for  that  of  the 
sword.  But  he  soon  found  that,  hated  as  he 
was,  both  by  Roj'alists  and  Presbyterians,  he 
could  be  safe  only  by  being  absolute.  .  .  .  Those 
soldiers  who  would  not  suffer  him  to  assume  the 
kingly  title,  stood  by  him  when  he  ventured  on 
acts  of  power  as  high  as  any  English  king  has 
ever  attempted.  The  government,  therefore, 
though  in  form  a  republic,  was  in  truth  a  des- 
potism, moderated  only  by  the  wisdom,  the  so- 
briety and  the  magnanimity  of  the  despot." — 
Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1655-1658. —  War  with  Spain,  alli- 
ance with  France. — Acquisition  of  Dunkirk. — 
"Though  the  German  war  ['the  Thirty  Years' 
"War,'  concluded  in  1648  by  the  Treaty  of  West- 
phalia] was  over,  the  struggle  between  France 
and  Spain  was  continued  with  great  animosity, 
each  country  striving  to  crush  her  rival  and  be- 
come the  first  power  in  Europe.  Both  Louis 
XIV.  and  Philip  IV.  of  Spain  were  bidding  for 
the  protector's  support.  Spain  offered  the  pos- 
session of  Calais,  when  taken  from  France; 
France  the  possession  of  Dunkirk  when  taken 
from  Spain  (1655).  Cromwell  determined  to  ally 
himself  with  France  against  Spain.  ...  It  was 
in  the  West  Indies  that  the  obstructive  policy  of 
Spain  came  most  into  collision  with  the  interests 
of  England.  Her  kings  based  their  claims  to  the 
possession  of  two  continents  on  the  bull  of  Pope 
Alexander  VI.,  who  in  1493  had  granted  them  all 
lands  they  should  discover  from  pole  to  pole,  at 
the  distance  of  100  leagues  west  from  the  Azores 
and  Cape  Verd  Islands.  On  the  strength  of  this 
bull  they  held  that  the  discovery  of  an  island 
gave  them  the  right  to  the  group,  the  discovery 
of  a  headland  the  right  to  a  continent.  Though 
this  monstrous  claim  had  quite  broken  do  wn  as  far 
as  the  North  American  continent  was  concerned, 
the  Spaniards,  still  recognizing  '  no  peace  beyond 
the  line,'  endeavoured  to  shut  all  Europeans 
but  themselves  out  of  any  share  in  the  trade  or 
colonization  of  at  least  the  southern  half  of  the 
New  World.  .  .  .  While  war  was  now  pro- 
claimed with  Spain,  a  treaty  of  peace  was  signed 
between  France  and  England,  Louis  XIV.  agree- 
ing to  banish  Charles  Stuart  and  his  brothers 
from  French  territory  (Oct.  24,  1655).  This 
treaty  was  afterwards  changed  into  a  league, 
offensive  and  defensive  (March  33,  1657),  Crom- 
well undertaking  to  assist  Louis  with  6,000  men 
in  besieging  Gravelines,  Mardyke,  and  Dunkirk, 
on  condition  of  receiving  the  two  latter  towns 
when  reduced  by  the  allied  armies.  By  the  occu- 
pation of  these  towns  Cromwell  intended  to  con- 
trol the  trade  of  the  Channel,  to  hold  the  Dutch 
in  check,  who  were  then  but  unwilling  friends, 
and  to  lessen  the  danger  of  invasion  from  any 
union  of  Royalists  and  Spaniards.  The  war 
opened  in  the  year  1657  [Jamaica,  however,  had 
already  been  taken  from  the  Spaniards  and  St. 
Domingo  attacked],  with  another  triumph  by 
sea."  'This  was  Blake's  last  exploit.  He  attacked 
and  destroyed  the  Spanish  bullion  fleet,  from 
Mexico,  in  the  harbor  of  Santa  Cruz,  island  of 
Tenerilie,  and  silenced  the  forts  which  guarded 
it.  The  great  sea-captain  died  on  his  voyage 
home,  after  striking  this  blow.  The  next  spring 
' '  the  siege  of  Dunkirk  was  commenced  (May, 
1658).  The  Spaniards  tried  to  relieve  the  town, 
but  were  completely  defeated  in  an  engagement 


called  the  Battle  of  the  Dunes  from  the  sand  hills 
among  which  it  was  fought ;  the  defeat  was  mainly 
owing  to  the  courage  and  discipline  of  Oliver's 
troops,  who  won  for  themselves  the  name  of  'the 
Immortal  Six  Thousand.'  .  .  .  Ten  days  after 
the  battle  Dunkirk  surrendered,  and  the  French 
had  no  choice  but  to  give  over  to  the  English 
ambassador  the  keys  of  a  town  they  thought  '  un 
si  bon  morceau '  (June  35). "— B.  M.  Cordery  and 
J.  S.  Phillpotts,  King  and  Commonwealth,  ch.  15. 

Also  in.-  T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  CromicelVs  Letters 
and  Speeches,  hk.  9,  speech  5  and  bk.  10,  letters 
153-157.— J.  Campbell,  Naval  Hist,  of  Gt.  B., 
eh.  15  (».  3). — J.  Waylen,  The  House  of  Cromwell 
and  the  Story  of  Dunkirk,  pp.  173-273.— W.  H. 
Dixon,  Robert  Blake,  ch.  9-10. — D.  Hannay, 
Admiral  Blake,  ch.  9-11. — See,  also,  France: 
A.  D.  1655-1658. 

A.  D.  1658-1660.- The  fall  of  the  Protector- 
ate and  Restoration  of  the  Stuarts. — King 
Charles  II. — When  Oliver  Cromwell  died,  on 
the  3d  day  of  September,  1658  —  the  anniversary 
of  his  victories  at  Dunbar  and  at  Worcester  —  his 
eldest  son  Richard,  whom  he  had  nominated,  it 
was  said,  on  his  death-bed,  was  proclaimed  Pro- 
tector, and  succeeded  him  "as  quietly  as  any 
King  had  ever  been  succeeded  by  any  Prince  of 
Wales.  During  five  months,  the  administration 
of  Richard  Cromwell  went  on  so  tranquilly  and 
regularly  that  all  Europe  believed  him  to  be 
firmly  established  on  the  chair  of  state."  But 
Richard  had  none  of  his  father's  genius  or  per- 
sonal power,  and  the  discontents  and  jealousies 
which  the  former  had  rigorously  suppressed  soon 
tossed  the  latter  from  his  unstable  throne  by  their 
fierce  upheaval.  He  summoned  a  new  Parliament 
(Jan.  27,  1659),  which  recognized  and  confirmed 
his  authority,  though  containing  a  powerful  op- 
position, of  uncompromising  republicans  and 
secret  royalists.  But  the  army,  which  the  great 
Protector  had  tamed  to  submissive  obedience, 
was  now  stirred  into  mischievous  action  once 
more  as  a  political  power  in  the  state,  subservient 
to  the  ambition  of  Fleetwood  and  other  com- 
manders. Richard  Cromwell  could  not  make 
himself  the  master  of  his  father's  battalions. 
' '  He  was  used  by  the  army  as  an  instrument  for 
the  purpose  of  dissolving  the  Parliament  [April 
2'3],  and  was  then  contemptuously  thrown  aside. 
The  officers  gratified  their  republican  allies  by 
declaring  that  the  expulsion  of  the  Rump  had 
been  illegal,  and  by  inviting  that  assembly  to  re- 
sume its  functions.  The  old  Speaker  and  a 
quorum  of  the  old  members  came  together  [May 
9]  and  were  proclaimed,  amidst  the  scarcely 
stifled  derision  and  execration  of  the  whole  na- 
tion, the  supreme  power  in  the  Commonwealth. 
It  was  at  the  same  time  expressly  declared  that 
there  should  be  no  first  magistrate  and  no  House 
of  Lords.  But  this  state  of  things  could  not  last. 
On  the  day  on  which  the  Long  Parliament  re- 
vived, revived  also  its  old  quarrel  with  the  army. 
Again  the  Rump  forgot  that  it  owed  its  existence 
to  the  pleasure  of  the  soldiers,  and  began  to  treat 
them  as  subjects.  Again  the  doors  of  the  House 
of  Commons  were  closed  by  military  violence 
[Oct.  13] ;  and  a  provisional  government,  named 
by  the  officers,  assumed  the  direction  of  affairs. " 
The  troops  stationed  in  Scotland,  under  Monk, 
had  not  been  consulted,  however,  in  these  trans- 
actions, and  were  evidently  out  of  sympathy 
with  their  comrades  in  England.  Monk,  who 
had  never  meddled  with  politics  before,  was  now 


919 


ENGLAND,  1658-1660. 


Charles  II . 
"  the  Merry  Monarch.^ 


ENGLAND,  1660-1685. 


Induced  to  interfere.  He  refused  to  acknowledge 
the  military  provisional  government,  declared 
himself  the  champion  of  the  civil  power,  and 
marched  into  England  at  the  head  of  his  7,000 
veterans.  His  movement  was  everywhere  wel- 
comed and  encouraged  by  popular  demonstra- 
tions of  delight.  The  army  in  England  lost 
courage  and  lost  unity,  awed  and  paralyzed  by 
the  public  feeling  at  last  set  free.  Monk  reached 
London  without  opposition,  and  was  the  recog- 
nized master  of  the  realm.  Nobody  knew  his 
intentions  —  himself,  perhaps,  as  little  as  any  — 
and  it  was  not  until  after  a  period  of  protracted 
suspense  that  he  declared  himself  for  the  conven- 
ing of  a  new  and  free  Parliament,  in  the  place  of 
the  Rump — -which  had  again  resumed  its  sit- 
tings—  for  the  settlement  of  the  state.  "The 
result  of  the  elections  was  such  as  might  have 
been  expected  from  the  temper  of  the  nation. 
The  new  House  of  Commons  consisted,  with  few 
exceptions,  of  persons  friendly  to  the  royal  family. 
The  Presbyterians  formed  the  majority.  .  .  . 
The  new  Parliament,  which,  having  been  called 
without  the  royal  writ,  is  more  accurately  de- 
scribed as  a  Convention,  met  at  "Westminster 
[April  26, 1660].  The  Lords  repaired  to  the  hall, 
from  which  they  had,  during  more  than  eleven 
years,  been  excluded  by  force.  Both  Houses  in- 
stantly invited  the  King  to  return  to  his  country. 
He  was  proclaimed  with  pomp  never  before 
known.  A  gallant  fleet  convoyed  him  from  Hol- 
land to  the  coast  of  Kent.  "When  he  landed  [May 
25,  1660],  the  cliffs  of  Dover  were  covered  by 
thousands  of  gazers,  among  whom  scarcely  one 
could  be  found  who  was  not  weeping  with  de- 
light. The  journey  to  London  was  a  continued 
triumph." — Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  1. 
—  The  only  guarantee  with  which  the  careless 
nation  took  back  their  ejected  kings  of  the  faith- 
less race  of  Stuarts  was  embodied  in  a  Declara- 
tion which  Charles  sent  over  from  "Our  Court 
at  Breda "  in  April,  and  which  was  read  in 
Parliament  with  an  effusive  display  of  respect  and 
thankfulness.  In  this  Declaration  from  Breda, 
"a  general  amnesty  and  liberty  of  conscience 
were  promised,  with  such  exceptions  and  limita- 
tions only  as  the  Parliament  should  think  fit  to 
make.  AH  delicate  questions,  among  others  the 
proprietorship  of  confiscated  estates,  were  in  like 
manner  referred  to  the  decision  of  Parliament, 
thus  leaving  the  King  his  liberty  while  diminish- 
ing his  responsibility ;  and  though  fully  asserting 
the  ancient  rights  of  the  Crown,  he  announced 
his  intention  to  associate  the  two  Houses  with 
himself  in  all  great  affairs  of  State." — F.  P. 
Guizot,  Hist,  of  Bich'd  Cromwell  and  tlie  Restoi-a- 
tion,  hie.  4  («.  2). 

Also  ik  :  G.  Burnet,  Hut.  of  My  Own  Time,  bk. 
2,  1660-61.— Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  the  Re- 
hellion,  hk.  16  (o.  6). — D.  ]\Iasson,  Life  of  Milton, 
V.  5,  hk.  3.— J.  Corbett,  Monk.  cli.  9-14. 

A.  D.  1660-1685. — The  Merry  Monarch. — 
' '  There  never  were  such  profligate  times  in  Eng- 
land as  under  Charles  the  Second.  Whenever 
you  see  his  portrait,  with  his  swarthy  ill-looking 
face  and  great  nose,  you  may  fancy  him  in  his 
Court  at  "Whitehall,  surrounded  by  some  of  the 
very  worst  vagabonds  in  the  kingdom  (though 
they  were  lords  and  ladies),  drinking,  gambling, 
indulging  in  vicious  conversation,  and  committing 
every  kind  of  profligate  excess.  It  has  been  a 
fashion  to  call  Charles  the  Second  '  The  Merry 
Monarch. '    Let  me  try  to  give  you   a  general 


idea  of  some  of  the  merry  things  that  were  done, 
in  the  merry  days  when  this  merry  gentleman  sat 
upon  his  merry  throne,  in  merry  England.  The 
first  merry  proceeding  was  —  of  course — to  de- 
clare that  he  was  one  of  the  greatest,  the  wisest, 
and  the  noblest  kings  that  ever  shone,  like  the 
blessed  sun  itself,  on  this  benighted  earth.  The 
next  merry  and  pleasant  piece  of  business  was, 
for  the  Parliament,  in  the  humblest  manner,  to 
give  him  one  million  two  hundred  thousand 
pounds  a  year,  and  to  settle  upon  him  for  life 
that  old  disputed  '  tonnage  and  poundage  '  which 
had  been  so  bravely  fought  for.  Then,  General 
Monk,  being  made  Earl  of  Albemarle,  and  a  few 
other  Royalists  similarly  rewarded,  the  law  went 
to  work  to  see  what  was  to  be  done  to  those  per- 
sons (they  were  called  Regicides)  who  had  "been 
concerned  in  making  a  martyr  of  the  late  King. 
Ten  of  these  were  merrily  executed ;  that  is  to 
say,  six  of  the  judges,  one  of  the  council,  Colonel 
Hacker  and  another  oflicer  who  had  commanded 
the  Guards,  and  Hugh  Peters,  a  preacher  who 
had  preached  against  the  martyr  with  all  his 
heart.  These  executions  were  so  extremely 
merry,  that  every  horrible  circumstance  which 
Cromwell  had  abandoned  was  revived  with  ap- 
palling cruelty.  .  .  .  Sir  Harry  Vane,  who  had 
furnished  the  evidence  against  Strafford,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  staunch  of  the  Republicans,  was 
also  tried,  found  guilty,  and  ordered  for  execu- 
tion. .  .  .  These  merry  scenes  were  succeeded  by 
another,  perhaps  even  merrier.  On  the  anni- 
versary of  the  late  King's  death,  the  bodies  of 
Oliver  Cromwell,  Ireton,  and  Bradshaw,  were 
torn  out  of  their  graves  in  Westminster  Abbey, 
dragged  to  Tyburn,  hanged  there  on  a  gallows 
all  day  long,  and  then  beheaded.  Imagine  the 
head  of  Oliver  Cromwell  set  upon  a  pole  to  be 
stared  at  by  a  brutal  crowd,  not  one  of  whom 
would  have  dared  to  look  the  living  Oliver  in 
the  face  for  half  a  moment !  Think,  after  you 
have  read  this  reign,  what  England  was  under 
Oliver  Cromwell  who  was  torn  out  of  his  grave, 
and  what  it  was  under  this  merry  monarch  who 
sold  it,  like  a  merry  Judas,  over  and  over  again. 
Of  course,  the  remains  of  Oliver's  wife  and 
daughter  were  not  to  be  spared,  either,  though 
they  had  been  most  excellent  women.  The  base 
clergy  of  that  time  gave  up  their  bodies,  which 
had  been  buried  in  the  Abbey,  and  —  to  the 
eternal  disgrace  of  England  —  they  were  thrown 
into  a  pit,  together  with  the  mouldering  bones  of 
Pym,  and  of  the  brave  and  bold  old  Admiral 
Blake.  .  .  .  The  whole  Court  was  a  great  flaunt- 
ing crowd  of  debauched  men  and  shameless 
women;  and  Catherine's  merry  husband  insulted 
and  outraged  her  in  every  possible  way,  until 
she  consented  to  receive  those  worthless  creatures 
as  her  very  good  friends,  and  to  degrade  herself 
by  their  companionship.  A  Mrs.  Palmer,  whom 
the  King  made  Lady  Castlemaine.  and  afterwards 
Duchess  of  Cleveland,  was  one  of  the  most  pow- 
erful of  the  bad  women  about  the  Court,  and  had 
great  influence  with  the  King  nearly  all  through 
his  reign.  Another  merry  lady  named  Moll 
Davies,  a  dancer  at  the  theatre,  was  afterwards 
her  rival.  So  was  Nell  Gwyn,  first  an  orange 
girl  and  then  an  actress,  who  really  had  good  in 
her,  and  of  whom  one  of  the  worst  things  I 
know  is,  that  actuallv  she  does  seem  to  have  been 
fond  of  the  King,  the  first  Duke  of  St.  Albans 
was  this  orange  girl's  child.  In  like  manner  the 
son  of  a  merry  waiting-lady,  whom  the  King 


920 


ENGLAND,   1660-1685. 


Savoy 
Conference. 


ENGLAND,  1662-1665. 


created  Duchess  of  Portsmouth,  became  the 
Duke  of  Richmond.  Upon  the  whole  it  is  not  so 
bad  a  thing  to  be  a  commoner.  The  Merry 
Monarch  was  so  exceedingly  merry  among  these 
merry  ladies,  and  some  equally  merry  (and  equally 
infamous)  lords  and  gentlemen,  that  he  soon  got 
through  his  hundred  thousand  pounds,  and  then, 
by  way  of  raising  a  little  pocket-money,  made  a 
merry  bargain.  He  sold  Dunkirk  to  the  French 
King  for  five  millions  of  livres.  When  I  think 
of  the  dignity  to  which  Oliver  Cromwell  raised 
England  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  powers,  and  when 
I  think  of  the  manner  in  which  he  gained  for 
England  this  very  Dunkirk,  I  am  much  inclined 
to  consider  that  if  the  Merry  Monarch  had  been 
made  to  follow  his  father  for  this  action,  he 
would  have  received  his  just  deserts." — C. 
Dickens,  Child's  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  ch.  35. 

A.  D.  i66i. — Acquisition  of  Bombay.  See 
India:  A.  D.  1G00-1T(«. 

A.  D.  i66i. — The  Savoy  Conference. —  "The 
Restoration  had  been  the  joint  work  of  Episco- 
palian and  Presbj'terian ;  would  it  be  possible 
to  reconcile  them  on  this  question  too  [i.  e.,  of 
the  settlement  of  Church  government]  ?  The 
Presbyterian  indeed  was  willing  enough  for  a 
compromise,  for  he  had  an  uneasy  feeling  that 
the  ground  was  slipping  from  beneath  his  feet. 
Of  Charles's  intentions  he  was  still  in  doubt;  but 
he  knew  tliat  Clarendon  was  the  sworn  friend 
of  the  Church.  The  Churchman  on  the  other 
hand  was  eagerly  expecting  the  approaching 
hour  of  triumph.  It  soon  appeared  that  as  King 
and  Parliament,  so  King  and  Church  were  in- 
separable in  the  English  mind ;  that  indeed  the 
return  of  the  King  was  the  restoration  of  the 
Church  even  more  than  it  was  the  restoration  of 
Parliament.  In  the  face  of  the  present  Presby- 
terian majority  however  it  was  necessary  to  tem- 
porise. The  former  incumbents  of  Church  liv- 
ings were  restored,  and  the  Commons  took  the 
Communion  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Churcli ; 
but  in  other  respects  the  Presbyterians  were  care- 
fully kept  in  play ;  Charles  taking  his  part  in  the 
elaborate  farce  by  appointing  ten  of  their  leading 
ministers  royal  chaplains,  and  even  attending 
their  sermons."  In  October,  1660,  Charles  "took 
the  matter  more  completely  into  his  own  hands 
by  issuing  a  Declaration.  Refusing,  on  the 
ground  of  constraint,  to  admit  tlie  validity  of  the 
oaths  imposed  upon  him  in  Scotland,  by  which 
he  was  bound  to  uphold  the  Covenant,  and  not 
concealing  his  preference  for  the  Anglican  Church, 
as  '  the  best  fence  God  hath  yet  raised  against 
popery  in  the  world,'  he  asserted  that  neverthe- 
less, to  his  own  knowledge,  the  Presbyterians 
were  not  enemies  to  Episcopacy  or  a  set  liturgy, 
and  were  opposed  to  tlie  alienation  of  Church 
revenues.  The  Declaration  then  went  on  to  limit 
the  power  of  bishops  and  archdeacons  in  a  degree 
sufficient  to  satisfy  many  of  the  leading  Presbyte- 
rians, one  of  whom,  Reynolds,  accepted  a  bishop- 
ric. Charles  then  proposed  to  choose  an  equal 
number  of  learned  divines  of  both  persuasions  to 
discuss  alterations  in  the  liturgy ;  meanwhile  no 
one  was  to  be  troubled  regarding  differences  of 
practice.  The  majority  in  the  Commons  at  first 
welcomed  the  Declaration,  .  .  .  and  a  bill  was 
accordingly  introduced  by  Sir  Matthew  Hale  to 
turn  the  Declaration  into  a  law.  But  Clarendon 
at  any  rate  had  no  intention  of  thus  baulking  the 
Church  of  her  revenge.  Anticipating  Hale's 
action,  he  had  in  the  interval  been  busy  in  se- 


curing a  majority  against  any  compromise.  The 
Declaration  had  done  its  work  in  gaining  time, 
and  when  the  bill  was  brought  in  it  was  rejected 
by  183  to  157  votes.  Parliament  was  at  once  (De- 
cember 24)  dissolved.  The  way  was  now  open  for 
the  riot  of  the  Anglican  triumph.  Even  before 
the  new  House  met  the  masic  was  thrown  off  by 
the  issuing  of  an  order  to  the  justices  to  restore 
the  full  liturgy.  The  conference  indeed  took 
place  in  the  Savoy  Palace.  It  failed,  like  the 
Hampton  Court  Conference  of  James  I.,  because 
it  was  intended  to  fail.  Upon  the  two  important 
points,  the  authority  of  bishops  and  the  liturgy, 
the  Anglicans  would  not  give  way  an  inch. 
Both  parties  informed  the  King  that,  anxious  as 
they  were  for  agreement,  they  saw  no  chance  of 
it.  This  last  attempt  at  union  having  fallen 
through,  the  Government  had  their  hands  free ; 
and  their  intentions  were  speedily  made  plain." 
— O.  Airy,  The  Eng.  Bestoration  and  Louis  XIV., 
ch.  7. — "'The  Royal  Commission  [for  the  Savoy 
Conference]  bore  date  the  25th  of  March.  It 
gave  the  Commissioners  authority  to  review  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  to  compare  it  with  the 
most  ancient  Liturgies,  to  take  into  consideration 
all  things  which  it  contained,  to  consult  respect- 
ing the  exceptions  against  it,  and  by  agreement 
to  make  such  necessary  alterations  as  should 
afford  satisfaction  to  tender  consciences,  and  re- 
store to  the  Church  unity  and  peace ;  the  instru- 
ment appointed  '  the  Master's  lodgings  in  the 
Savoy '  as  the  place  of  meeting.  .  .  .  The  Com- 
missioners were  summoned  to  meet  upon  the  15th 
of  April.  .  .  .  The  Bill  of  Uniformity,  hereafter  to 
be  described,  actually  passed  the  House  of  Com- 
mons on  the  9th  of  July,  about  a  fortnight  before 
the  Conference  broke  up.  The  proceedings  of  a 
Royal  Commission  to  review  the  Prayer  Book, 
and  make  alterations  for  the  satisfaction  of  tender 
consciences  were,  by  this  premature  act,  really 
treated  with  mockery,  a  circumstance  which 
could  not  but  exceedingly  offend  and  annoy  the 
Puritan  members,  and  serve  to  embitter  the 
language  of  Baxter  as  the  end  of  these  fruitless 
sittings  approached." — J.  Stoughton,  Hist,  of 
Religion  in  Eng.,  v.  3,  ch.  5. 

Also  in:  E.  Calamy,  Nonconformists'  Memo- 
rial, introd.,  sect.  3. — W.  Orme,  Life  and  Times 
of  Richard  Baxter,  ch.  7. 

A.  D.  1662. — The  sale  of  Dunkirk. — "Unable 
to  confine  himself  within  the  narrow  limits  of  his 
civil  list,  with  his  favorites  and  mistresses,  he 
[Charles  II.]  would  have  sought  even  in  the  in- 
fernal regions  the  gold  which  his  subjects  meas- 
ured out  to  him  with  too  parsimonious  a  hand. 
.  .  .  [He]  proposed  to  sell  to  France  Dunkirk 
and  its  dependencies,  which,  he  said,  cost  him 
too  much  to  keep  up.  He  asked  twelve  million 
francs ;  he  fell  at  last  to  five  millions,  and  the 
treaty  was  signed  Oct.  27,  1663.  It  was  time ; 
the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  London,  In- 
formed of  the  negotiation,  had  determined  to 
offer  Charles  II.  whatever  he  wished  in  behalf 
of  their  city  not  to  alienate  Dunkirk.  Charles 
dared  not  retract  his  word,  which  would  have 
been,  as  D'Estrades  told  him,  to  break  forever 
with  Louis  XIV.,  and  on  the  2d  of  December 
Louis  joyfully  made  his  entry  into  his  good  city, 
reconquered  by  gold  instead  of  the  sword." — H. 
JIartin,  Hist,  of  France :  Age  of  Louis  XIV. , 
trans,  by  M.  L.  Booth,  ch.  4  (».  1). 

A.  D.  1662-1665. — The  Act  of  Uniformity 
and  persecution  of  the  Nonconformists. — The 


921 


ENGLAND,  1663-1665 


Act  of  Uniformity. 


ENGLAND,  1668-1670. 


failure  of  the  Savoy  Conference  "was  the  con- 
clusion which  had  been  expected  and  desired. 
Chai'les  had  already  summoned  the  Convocation, 
and  to  that  assembly  was  assigned  the  task  which 
had  failed  in  the  hands  of  the  commissioners  at 
the  Savoy.  .  .  .  The  act  of  uniformity  followed 
[passed  by  the  Commons  July  9,  1661 ;  by  the 
Lords  May  8,  1662;  receiving  the  royal  assent 
May  19,  1662],  by  which  it  was  enacted  that  the 
revised  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  of  Ordi- 
nation of  Jlinisters,  and  no  other,  should  be  used 
in  all  places  of  public  worship;  and  that  all 
beneficed  clergymen  should  read  the  service  from 
it  within  a  given  time,  and,  at  the  close,  profess 
in  a  set  form  of  words,  their  '  unfeigned  assent 
and  consent  to  everythmg  contained  and  pre- 
scribed in  it. ' .  .  .  The  act  of  uniformity  may 
have  been  necessary  for  the  restoration  of  the 
church  to  its  former  discipline  and  doctrine ;  but 
if  such  was  the  intention  of  those  who  framed 
the  declaration  from  Breda,  they  were  guilty  of 
infidelity  to  the  king  and  of  fraud  to  the  people, 
by  putting  into  his  mouth  language  which,  with 
the  aid  of  equivocation,  they  might  explain 
away,  and  by  raising  in  them  expectations  which 
it  was  never  meant  to  fulfil." — J.  Lingard,  Hist, 
of  Eng.,  V.  11,  ch.  4. — "This  rigorous  act  when 
it  passed,  gave  the  ministers,  who  could  not  con- 
form, no  longer  time  than  till  Bartholomewday, 
August  24th,  1662,  when  they  were  all  cast  out. 
.  .  .  This  was  an  action  without  a  precedent: 
The  like  to  this  the  Reformed  church,  nay  the 
Christian  world,  never  saw  before.  Historians 
relate,  with  tragical  excl.iraations,  that  between 
three  and  four  score  bishops  were  driven  at  once 
into  the  island  of  Sardinia  by  the  African  van- 
dals ;  tliat  200  ministers  were  banished  by  Fer- 
dinand, king  of  Bohemia;  and  that  great  havock 
was,  a  few  years  after,  made  among  the  ministers 
of  Germany  by  the  Imperial  Interim.  But  these 
all  together  fall  short  of  the  number  ejected  by 
the  act  of  uniformity,  which  was  not  less  than 
2,000.  The  succeeding  hardships  of  the  latter 
were  also  by  far  the  greatest.  They  were  not 
only  silenced,  liut  )iad  no  room  left  for  any  sort 
of  usefulness,  and  were  in  a  manner  buried  alive. 
Far  greater  tenderness  was  used  towards  the 
Popish  clergy  ejected  at  the  Reformation.  They 
were  suffered  to  live  quietly;  but  these  were 
oppressed  to  the  utmost,  and  that  even  by  their 
brethren  who  professed  the  same  faith  them- 
selves: not  only  excluded  preferments,  but 
turned  out  into  the  wide  world  without  any  visi- 
ble way  of  subsistence.  Not  so  much  as  a  poor 
vicarage,  not  an  obscure  chapel,  not  a  school  was 
left  them.  Nay,  though  they  offered,  as  some  of 
them  did,  to  preach  gratis,  it  must  not  be  allowed 
them.  .  .  .  The  ejected  ministers  continued  for 
ten  years  in  a  state  of  silence  and  obscurity.  .  .  . 
The  act  of  uniformity  took  place  August  the 
24th,  1662.  On  the  26th  of  December  following, 
the  king  published  a  Declaration,  expressing  his 
purpose  to  grant  some  indulgence  or  liberty  in 
religion.  Some  of  the  Nonconformists  were 
hereupon  much  encouraged,  and  waiting  pri- 
vately on  the  king,  had  their  hopes  confirmed, 
and  would  have  persuaded  their  brethren  to  have 
thanked  him  for  his  declaration;  but  they  re- 
fused, lest  they  should  make  way  for  the  tolera- 
I  ion  of  the  Papists,  whom  they  understood  the 
lung  intended  to  include  in  it.  .  .  .  Instead  of 
indulgence  or  comprehension,  on  the  30th  of 
June,  an  act  against  private  meetings,  called  the 


Conventicle  Act,  passed  the  House  of  Commons, 
and  soon  after  was  made  a  law,  viz. :  'That  every 
person  above  sixteen  years  of  age,  present  at  any 
meeting,  under  pretence  of  any  exercise  of  re- 
ligion, in  other  manner  than  is  the  practice  of  the 
church  of  England,  where  there  are  five  persons 
more  than  the  household,  shall  for  the  first  of- 
fence, by  a  justice  of  peace  be  recorded,  and 
sent  to  gaol  three  months,  till  he  pay  £.5,  and  for 
the  second  offence  six  months,  till  he  pay  £10, 
and  the  third  time  being  convicted  by  a  jury, 
shall  be  banished  to  some  of  the  American  plan- 
tations, excepting  New  England  or  Virginia.' 
.  .  .  In  the  year  1665  the  plague  broke  out" — 
and  the  ejected  ministers  boldly  took  possession 
for  the  time  of  the  deserted  London  pulpits. 
"While  God  was  consuming  the  people  by  this 
judgment,  and  the  Nonconformists  were  labour- 
ing to  save  their  souls,  the  parliament,  which  sat 
at  Oxford,  was  busy  in  making  an  act  [called 
the  Five  Mile  Act]  to  render  their  case  incompara- 
bly harder  than  it  was  before,  by  putting  upon 
them  a  certain  oath  ['  that  it  is  not  lawful,  upon 
any  pretence  whatsoever,  to  take  arms  against 
the  king.'&c],  which,  if  they  refused,  they  must 
not  come  (unless  upon  the  road)  within  five  miles 
of  any  city  or  corporation,  any  place  that  sent 
burgesses  to  parliament,  any  place  where  they 
had  been  ministers,  or  had  preached  after  the  act 
of  oblivion.  .  .  .  When  this  act  came  out,  those 
ministers  who  had  any  maintenance  of  their  own, 
found  out  some  place  of  residence  in  obscure 
villages,  or  market-towns,  that  were  not  corpora- 
tions." — E.  Calamy,  The  Nonconformist's  Me- 
morial, in  trod.,  sect.  4-6. 

Also  in  :  J.  Stoughton,  Hist,  of  Religion  in 
Eng.,  V.  3,  ch.  6-9.— D.  Neal,  Hist,  of  the  Puri- 
tans, V.  4,  ch.  6-7. 

A.  D.  1663. — The  grant  of  the  Carolinas  to 
Monk,  Clarendon,  Shaftesbury,  and  others. 
See  North  Carolina:  A.  D.  1663-1670. 

A.  D.  1663. — The  King's  charter  to  Rhode 
Island.     See  Rhode  Island:  A.  D.  1660-1663. 

A.  D.  1664. — The  conquest  of  New  Nether- 
land  (Nev7  York).     See  New  York:  A.  D,  1664. 

A.  D.  1664-1665. — The  first  refractory  symp- 
toms in  Massachusetts.  See  Massachusetts: 
A.  D.   1660-1665. 

A.  D.  1665. — The  grant  of  New  Jersey  to 
Carteret  and  Berkeley.  See  New  Jebset: 
A.  D.  1664-1667. 

A.  D.  1665-1666.— War  with  Holland  re- 
newred. — The  Dutch  fleet  in  the  Thames.  See 
Netherl.\nds  (Holland):  A.  D.  166.5-1666. 

A.  D.  1668.— The  Triple  Alliance  with  Hol- 
land and  Sweden  against  Louis  XIV.  See 
Netherlands  (Holl.^nd)  :  A.  D.  1668. 

A.  D.  1668. — Cession  of  Acadia  (Nova  Sco- 
tia) to  France.  See  Nova  Scotia:  A.  D.  1621- 
1668. 

A.  D.  1668-1670.— The  secret  Catholicism 
and  the  perfidy  of  the  King. — His  begging  of 
bribes  from  Louis  XIV. — His  betrayal  of  Hol- 
land.— His  breaking  of  the  Triple  Alliance. — 
In  1668,  the  royal  treasury  being  greatly  embar- 
rassed by  the  king's  extravagances,  an  attempt 
was  made  "to  reduce  the  annual  expenditure 
below  the  amount  of  the  royal  income.  .  .  .  But 
this  plan  of  economy  accorded  not  with  the  royal 
disposition,  nor  did  it  offer  any  prospect  of  ex- 
tinguishing the  debt.  Charles  remembered  the 
promise  of  pecuniary  assistance  from  France  in 
the  beginning  of  his  reign ;  and,  though  his  pre- 


922 


ENGLAND,  1668-1670. 


TIte  King 
in  French  Bay. 


ENGLAND    1672-1673. 


vious  efforts  to  cultivate  the  friendship  of  Louis 
had  been  defeated  by  an  unpropitious  course  of 
events,  he  resolved  to  renew  the  experiment. 
Immediately  after  the  peace  of  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
Buckingham  opened  a  negotiation  with  the 
duchess  of  Orleans,  the  king's  sister,  in  France, 
and  Charles,  in  his  conversations  with  the  French 
resident,  apologised  for  his  conduct  in  forming 
the  triple  alliance,  and  openly  expressed  his 
wish  to  enter  into  a  closer  union,  a  more  intimate 
friendship,  with  Louis.  .  .  .  About  the  end  of 
the  year  the  communications  between  the  two 
[irinces  became  more  open  and  confidential; 
French  money,  or  the  promise  of  French  money, 
was  received  by  the  English  ministers ;  the  nego- 
tiation began  to  assume  a  more  regular  form, 
and  the  most  solemn  assurances  of  secrecy  were 
given,  that  their  real  object  might  be  withheld 
from  the  knowledge,  or  even  the  suspicion,  of 
the  States.  In  this  stage  of  the  proceedings 
Charles  received  an  important  communication 
from  his  brother  James.  Hitherto  that  prince 
had  been  an  obedient  and  zealous  son  of  the 
Church  of  England ;  but  Dr.  Heylin's  History  of 
the  Reformation  had  shaken  his  religious  cre- 
dulity, and  the  result  of  the  inquiry  was  a  con- 
viction that  it  became  his  duty  to  reconcile  him- 
self with  the  Church  of  Rome.  He  was  not 
blind  to  the  dangers  to  which  such  a  change 
would  expose  him ;  and  he  therefore  purposed  to 
continue  outwardly  in  communion  with  the  es- 
tablished church,  while  he  attended  at  the  Catho- 
lic service  in  private.  But,  to  his  surprise,  he 
learned  from  Symonds,  a  Jesuit  missionary,  that 
no  dispensation  could  authorise  such  duplicity 
of  conduct :  a  similar  answer  was  returned  to  the 
same  question  from  the  pope ;  and  James  imme- 
diately took  his  resolution.  He  communicated 
to  the  king  in  private  that  he  was  determined  to 
embrace  the  Catholic  faith ;  and  Charles  without 
hesitation  replied  that  he  was  of  the  same  mind, 
and  would  consult  with  the  duke  on  the  subject 
in  the  presence  of  lord  Arundell,  lord  Arlington, 
and  Arlington's  confidential  friend,  sir  Thomas 
Clifford.  .  .  .  The  meeting  was  held  in  the  duke's 
closet.  Charles,  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  lamented 
the  hardship  of  being  compelled  to  profess  a  re- 
ligion which  he  did  not  approve,  declared  his 
determination  to  emancipate  himself  from  this 
restraint,  and  requested  the  opinion  of  those 
present,  as  to  the  most  eligible  means  of  effecting 
his  purpose  with  safety  and  success.  They  ad- 
vised him  to  communicate  his  intention  to  Louis, 
and  to  solicit  the  powerful  aid  of  that  monarch. 
Here  occurs  a  very  interesting  question, —  was 
Charles  sincere  or  not?  .  .  .  He  was  the  most 
accomplished  dissembler  in  his  dominions;  nor 
will  it  be  any  injustice  to  his  character  to  sus- 
pect that  his  real  object  was  to  deceive  both  his 
brother  and  the  king  of  France.  .  .  .  Now,  how- 
ever, the  secret  negotiation  proceeded  with 
greater  activity ;  and  lord  Arundell,  accompanied 
by  sir  Richard  Bellings,  hastened  to  the  French 
court.  He  solicited  from  Louis  the  present  of  a 
considerable  sum,  to  enable  the  king  to  suppress 
any  insurrection  which  might  be  provoked  by 
his  intended  conversion,  and  offered  the  co-cp- 
cration  of  England  in  the  projected  invasion  of 
Holland,  on  the  condition  of  an  annual  subsidy 
during  the  continuation  of  hostilities. "  On  the 
advice  of  Louis,  Charles  postponed,  for  the  time 
being,  his  intention  to  enter  publicly  the  Romish 
church  and  thtis  provoke  a  national  revolt;  but 


his  proposals  were  otherwise  accepted,  and  a 
secret  treaty  was  concluded  at  Dover,  in  May, 
1670,  through  the  agency  of  Charles'  sister,  Hen- 
rietta, the  duchess  of  Orleans,  who  came  over 
for  that  purpose.  "  Of  this  treaty,  .  .  .  though 
much  was  afterwards  said,  little  was  certainly 
known.  All  the  parties  concerned,  both  the 
sovereigns  and  the  negotiators,  observed  an  im- 
penetrable secrecy.  AVhat  became  of  the  copy 
transmitted  to  France  is  unknown ;  its  counter- 
part was  confided  to  the  custody  of  sir  Thomas 
Clifford,  and  is  still  in  the  keeping  of  his  descen- 
dant, the  lord  Clifford  of  Chudleigh.  The  prin- 
cipal articles  were :  1.  That  the  king  of  England 
should  publicly  profess  himself  a  Catholic  at  such 
time  as  should  appear  to  him  most  expedient,  and 
subsequently  to  that  profession  should  join  with 
Louis  in  a  war  against  the  Dutch  republic  at  such 
time  as  the  most  Christian  king  should  judge 
proper.  3.  That  to  enable  the  king  of  England 
to  suppress  any  insurrection  which  might  be  oc- 
casioned by  his  conversion,  the  king  of  France 
should  grant  him  an  aid  of  2,000,000  of  livres, 
by  two  payments,  one  at  the  expiration  of  three 
months,  the  other  of  six  months,  after  the  ratifi- 
cation of  the  treaty,  and  should  also  assist  him 
with  an  armed  force  of  6,000  men,  if  .  .  .  neces- 
sary. ...  4.  That  if,  eventually,  any  new  rights 
on  the  Spanish  monarchy  should  accrue  to  the 
king  of  France,  the  king  of  England  should  aid 
nira  with  all  his  power  in  the  acquisition  of  those 
rights.  5.  That  both  princes  should  make  war 
on  the  united  provinces,  and  that  neither  should 
conclude  peace  or  truce  with  them  without  the 
advice  and  consent  of  his  ally. " — J.  Lingard,  Hist. 
of  Eng.,  ».  11,  ch.  6. 

Also  in  :  H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  ch. 
11. — O.  Airy,  Tlie  Eng.  ReMoration  and  Louis 
XIV.,  ch.  16.— G.  Burnet,  Hist,  of  My  Own  Time, 
bk.  3  (d.  1). 

A.  D.  1671. — The  Cabal. —  "It  was  remarked 
that  the  committee  of  council,  established  for 
foreign  affairs,  was  entirely  changed ;  and  that 
Prince  Rupert,  the  Duke  of  Ormond,  Secretary 
Trevor,  and  Lord-keeper  Bridgeman,  men  in 
whose  honour  the  nation  had  great  confidence, 
were  never  called  to  any  deliberations.  The 
whole  secret  was  intrusted  to  five  persons,  Clif- 
ford, Ashley  [afterwards  Earl  of  Shaftesburj'], 
Buckingham,  Arlington,  and  Lauderdale.  These 
men  were  known  by  the  appellation  of  the  Cabal, 
a  word  which  the  initial  letters  of  their  names 
happened  to  compose.  Never  was  there  a  more 
dangerous  ministry  in  England,  nor  one  more 
noted  for  pernicious  counsels." — D.  Hume,  Hist. 
of  Eng.,  ch.  65  («.  6). — See,  also,  Cabinet,  The 
English. 

A.  D.  1672-1673. — The  Declaration  of  In- 
dulgence and  the  Test  Act. — "  It  would  have 
been  impossible  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the 
party  in  the  Royal  Council  which  represented 
the  old-  Presbyterians,  of  Ashley  or  Lauderdale 
or  the  Duke  of  Buckingham,  to  the  Treaty  of 
Dover.  But  it  was  possible  to  trick  them  into 
approval  of  a  war  with  Holland  by  playing  on 
their  desire  for  a  toleration  of  the  Nonconform- 
ists. The  announcement  of  the  King's  Catholi- 
cism was  therefore  deferred.  .  .  .  His  ministers 
outwitted,  it  only  remained  for  Charles  to  out- 
wit his  Parliament.  A  large  subsidy  was  de- 
manded for  the  fleet,  under  the  pretext  of  up- 
holding the  Triple  Alliance,  and  the  subsidy  was 
no  sooner  granted  than  the  two  Houses  were 


923 


ENGLAND,  1673-1673. 


DecCaration 
of  Indulgence, 


ENGLAND,  1678-1679. 


adjourned.  Fresh  supplies  were  obtained  by  clos- 
ing the  Exchequer,  and  suspending  —  under 
Clifford's  advice  —  the  payment  of  either  prin- 
cipal or  interest  on  loans  advanced  to  the  public 
treasury.  The  measure  spread  bankruptcy  among 
half  the  goldsmiths  of  London ;  but  it  was  fol- 
lowed in  1672  by  one  yet  more  startling  —  the 
Declaration  of  indulgence.  By  virtue  of  his 
ecclesiastical  powers,  the  King  ordered  '  that  all 
manner  of  penal  laws  on  matters  ecclesiastical 
against  whatever  sort  of  Nonconformists  or  rec- 
usants should  be  from  that  day  suspended,'  and 
gave  liberty  of  public  worsliip  to  all  dissidents 
save  Catholics,  who  were  allowed  to  practice 
their  religion  only  in  private  houses.  .  .  .  The 
Declaration  of  Indulgence  was  at  once  followed 
by  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  Dutch  on  the 
part  of  both  England  and  France.  ...  It  was 
necessary  in  1673  to  appeal  to  the  Commons  [for 
war  supplies],  but  the  Commons  met  in  a  mood 
of  angry  distrust.  .  .  .  There  was  a  general  sus- 
picion that  a  plot  was  on  foot  for  the  establisli- 
ment  of  Catholicism  and  despotism,  and  that  the 
war  and  the  Indulgence  were  parts  of  the  plot. 
The  change  of  temper  in  the  Commons  was 
marked  by  the  appearance  of  what  was  from  that 
time  called  the  Country  party,  with  Lords  Russell 
and  Cavendish  and  Sir  William  Coventry  at  its 
head  —  a  party  which  sympathized  with  the  Non- 
conformists, but  looked  on  it  as  its  first  duty  to 
guard  against  the  designs  of  the  Court.  As  to 
the  Declaration  of  Indulgence,  however,  all 
parties  in  the  House  were  at  one.  The  Commons 
resolved  '  that  penal  statutes  in  matters  ecclesi- 
astical cannot  be  suspended  but  by  consent  of 
Parliament,'  and  refused  supplies  till  tlie  Declara- 
tion was  recalled.  The  King  yielded ;  but  the 
Declaration  was  no  sooner  recalled  than  a  Test 
Act  was  passed  through  both  Houses  without 
opposition,  wliich  required  from  every  one  in  the 
civil  and  military  employment  of  the  State  the 
oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy,  a  declaration 
against  transubstantiation,  and  a  reception  of  the 
sacrament  according  to  tlie  rites  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Clifford  at  once  counseled  resis- 
tance, and  Buckingham  talked  fliglitily  about 
bringing  the  army  to  London,  l5ut  Arlington  saw 
that  all  hope  of  carrying  the  '  great  plan '  through 
was  at  an  end,  and  pressed  Cliarles  to  yield.  .  .  . 
Charles  sullenly  gave  way.  No  measure  has 
ever  brought  about  more  startling  results.  The 
Duke  of  York  owned  himself  a  Catholic,  and  re- 
signed his  office  as  Lord  High  Admiral.  .  .  . 
Clifford,  too,  .  .  .  owned  to  being  a  Catholic, 
and  .  .  .  laid  down  his  staff  of  office.  Tlieir 
resignation  was  followed  by  that  of  hundreds  of 
others  in  the  army  and  the  civil  service  of  the 
Crown.  .  .  .  The  resignations  were  lield  to  have 
proved  the  existence  of  the  dangers  which  the 
Test  Act  had  been  passed  to  meet.  From  this 
moment  all  trust  in  Charles  was  at  an  end." — J. 
R.  Green,  Short  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  9,  sect.  3. — "It 
is  very  true  that  the  [Test  Act]  pointed  only  at 
Catholics,  that  it  really  proposed  an  anti-Popish 
test,  yet  the  construction  of  it,  although  it  did 
not  exclude  from  office  such  Dissenters  as  could 
occasionally  conform,  did  effectually  exclude  all 
who  scrupled  to  do  so.  Aimed  at  the  Romanists, 
it  struck  the  Presbyterians.  It  is  clear  that,  had 
the  Nonconformists  and  the  Catholics  joined 
their  forces  with  those  of  the  Court,  in  opposing 
the  measure,  they  might  have  defeated  it;  but 
the  first  of  tliese  classes  for  the  present  submitted 


to  the  inconvenience,  from  tbe  horror  which  they 
entertained  of  Popery,  hoping,  at  the  same  time, 
that  some  relief  would  be  afforded  for  this  per- 
sonal sacrifice  in  the  cause  of  a  common  Protes- 
tantism. Thus  the  passing  of  an  Act,  which, 
until  a  late  period,  inflicted  a  social  wrong  upon 
two  large  sections  of  the  community,  is  to  be  at- 
tributed to  the  course  pursued  by  the  very  parties 
whose  successors  became  the  sufferers." — J. 
Stoughton,  Hist,  of  Religion  in  Eng.,  «.  3,  ch.  11. 

Also  in:  D.  Neal,  ITist.  of  the  Puritans,  v.  4, 
ch.  8,  and  v.  5,  ch.  1. — J.  Collier,  Ecclesiastical 
Hist,  of  Gt.  Britain,  pt.  2,  bk.  9  (».  8). 

A.  D.  1672-1674.— Alliance  with  Louis  XIV. 
of  France  in  war  with  Holland.  Sec  Nethek- 
LAKDS  (HoLLAl^D) :  A.  D.  1672-1674. 

A.  D.  1673. — Loss  of  New  York,  retaken  by 
the  Dutch.     See  New  York:  A.  D.  1673. 

A.  D.  1674.— Peace  with  the  Dutch.— Treaty 
of  Westminster.— Recovery  of  New  York. 
See  Netherlands  (Holland)  :  A.  D.  1674. 

A.  D.  1675-1688. — Concessions  to  France  in 
Newfoundland.  See  Newfoundland:  A.  D. 
1660-1688. 

A.  D.  1678-1679.— The  Popish  Plot.— "There 
was  an  uneasy  feeling  in  the  nation  that  it  was 
being  betrayed,  and  just  then  [August,  1678]  a 
strange  story  caused  a  panic  throughout  all  Eng- 
land. A  preacher  of  low  character,  named  Titus 
Gates,  who  had  gone  over  to  the  Jesuits,  declared 
that  he  knew  of  a  plot  among  the  Catholics  to 
kill  the  king  and  set  up  a  Catholic  Government. 
He  brought  his  tale  to  a  magistrate,  named  Sir 
Edmund  Bury  Godfrey,  and  shortly  afterwards 
[Oct.  17]  Godfrey  was  found  murdered  in  a  ditch 
near  St.  Pancras  Church.  The  people  thought 
that  the  Catholics  had  murdered  him  to  hush  up 
the  'Popish  plot,'  and  wlien  Parliament  met  a 
committee  was  appointed  to  examine  into  the 
matter.  Some  papers  belonging  to  a  Jesuit 
named  Coleman  alarmed  them,  and  so  great  was 
the  panic  that  an  Act  was  passed  shutting  out  all 
Catholics,  except  the  Duke  of  York,  from  Parlia- 
ment. After  this  no  Catholic  sat  in  either  House 
for  a  hundred  and  fifty  3'ears.  But  worse  fol- 
lowed. Gates  became  popular,  and  finding  tale- 
bearing successful,  he  and  other  informers  went 
on  to  swear  away  the  lives  of  a  great  number  of 
innocent  Catholics.  The  most  noted  of  these  was 
Lord  Stafford,  an  upright  and  honest  peer,  who 
was  executed  in  1681,  declaring  his  innocence. 
Charles  laughed  among  his  friends  at  the  whole 
matter,  but  let  it  go  on,  and  Shaftesbury,  who 
wished  to  turn  out  Lord  Dauby,  did  all  he  could 
to  fan  the  flame." — A.  B.  Buckle}',  Hist,  of  Eng. 
for  Beginners,  ch.  19.— "The  capital  and  the 
whole  nation  went  mad  witli  hatred  and  fear. 
The  penal  laws,  which  had  begun  to  lose  some- 
thing of  their  edge,  were  sharpened  anew. 
Everj'where  justices  were  busied  in  searching 
houses  and  seizing  papers.  All  the  gaols  were 
filled  with  Papists.  London  had  the  aspect  of  a 
city  in  a  state  of  siege.  The  trainbands  were 
vmder  arms  aU  night.  Preparations  were  made 
for  barricading  the  great  thoroughfares.  Patroles 
marched  up  and  down  the  streets.  Cannon  were 
planted  round  Whitehall.  No  citizen  thought 
himself  safe  unless  he  carried  under  his  coat  a 
small  flail  loaded  with  lead  to  brain  the  Popish 
assassins." — Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  3 
(?i.  1). — "It  being  expected  that  printed  Bibles 
would  soon  become  rare,  or  locked  up  in  an  un- 
Isnown  tongue,  many  honest  people,  struck  with 


924 


ENGLAND,  1678-1679. 


The  Popish  Plot. 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


the  alarm,  employed  themselves  in  copying  the 
Bible  into  short-hand  that  they  might  not  be  des- 
titute of  its  consolations  in  the  hour  of  calamity. 
...  It  was  about  the  year  1679  that  the  famous 
King's  Head  Club  was  formed,  so  named  from 
its  being  held  at  the  King's  Head  Tavern  in  Fleet 
Street.  .  .  .  They  were  terrorists  and  spread 
alarm  with  great  effect.  It  was  at  this  club  that 
silk  armour,  pistol  proof,  was  recommended  as  a 
security  against  assassination  at  the  hands  of  the 
Papists ;  and  the  particular  kind  of  life-preserver 
of  that  day,  called  a  Protestant  flail,  was  intro- 
duced."— G.  Roberts,  Life  of  Monnmuth,  ch.  5 
(v.  1), — "And  now  commenced,  before  the  courts 
of  justice  and  the  upper  house,  a  sombre  prose- 
cution of  the  catholic  lords  Arundel,  Petre,  Staf- 
ford, Powis,  Bellasis,  the  Jesuits  Coleman,  Ire- 
land, Grieve,  Pickering,  and,  in  succession,  all 
who  were  implicated  by  the  indefatigable  de- 
nunciations of  Titus  Gates  and  Bedloe.  Un- 
happily, these  courts  of  justice,  desiring,  in 
common  with  the  whole  nation,  to  condemn 
rather  than  to  examine,  wanted  neither  elements 
which  might,  if  strictly  acted  upon,  establish 
legal  proof  of  conspiracy  against  some  of  the 
accused,  nor  terrible  laws  to  destroy  them  when 
found  guilty.  And  it  was  here  that  a  spectacle, 
at  first  imposing,  became  horrible.  No  friendly 
voice  arose  to  save  those  men  who  were  guilty 
only  of  impracticable  wishes,  of  extravagant 
conceptions.  The  king,  the  duke  of  York,  the 
Frencli  ambassador,  thoroughly  acquainted  as 
they  were  with  the  real  nature  of  these  imputed 
crimes,  remained  silent ;  they  were  thoroughly 
cowed." — A.  Carrel,  Hist,  of  the  Counter-Devolu- 
tion in  Eng.,pt.\,ch.  A. — "Although,  .  .  .  upon 
a  review  of  this  truly  shocking  transaction,  we 
may  be  fairly  justified  ...  in  imputing  to  the 
greater  part  of  those  concerned  in  it,  rather  an 
extraordinary  degree  of  blind  credulity  than  the 
deliberate  wickedness  of  planning  and  assisting 
in  the  perpetration  of  legal  murders;  yet  the  pro- 
ceedings on  the  popish  plot  must  always  be  con- 
sidered as  an  indelible  disgrace  upon  the  English 
nation,  in  which  king,  parliament,  judges,  juries, 
witnesses,  prosecutors,  have  all  their  respective, 
though  certainly  not  equal,  shares." — C.  J.  Pox, 
Hist,  of  tlie  Early  Part  of  the  Reign  of  James  II., 
introd.  ch. — "In  this  dreadful  scene  of  wicked- 
ness, it  is  difiicult  not  to  assign  the  pre-eminence 
of  guilt  to  Anthony  Ashley  Cooper,  earl  of 
Shaftesbury.  If  he  did  not  first  contrive,  he 
certainly  availed  himself  of  the  revelations  of 
Gates,  to  work  up  the  nation  to  the  fury  which 
produced  the  subsequent  horrors.  ...  In  ex- 
tenuation of  the  delusion  of  the  populace,  some- 
thing may  be  offered.  The  defamation  of  half  a 
century  had  made  the  catholics  the  objects  of 
protestant  odium  and  distrust:  and  these  had 
been  increased  by  the  accusation,  artfully  and 
assiduously  fomented,  of  their  having  been  the 
authors  of  the  fire  of  the  city  of  London.  The 
publication,  too,  of  Coleman's  letters,  certainly 
announced  a  considerable  activity  in  the  catholics 
to  promote  the  catholic  religion ;  and  contained 
expressions,  easily  distorted  to  the  sense,  in  whicli 
the  favourers  of  the  belief  of  the  plot  wished 
them  to  be  understood.  Danby's  correspondence, 
likewise,  which  had  long  been  generally  known, 
and  was  about  this  time  made  public,  had  dis- 
covered that  Charles  was  in  the  pay  of  France. 
These,  with  several  other  circumstances,  had  in- 
flamed the  imaginations  of  the  public  to  the  very 


highest  pitch.  A  dreadful  sometliing  (and  not 
the  less  dreadful  because  its  precise  nature  was 
altogether  unknown),  was  generally  apprehended. 
.  .  .  For  their  supposed  part  in  the  plot,  ten  lay- 
men and  seven  priests,  one  of  whom  was  seventy, 
another  eighty,  years  of  age,  were  executed. 
Seventeen  others  were  condemned,  but  not  exe- 
cuted. Some  died  in  prison,  and  some  were  par- 
doned. On  the  whole  body  of  catholics  the  laws 
were  executed  with  horrible  severity. " — C.  Butler, 
Hist.  Memmrs  of  the  Eng.  Catholics,  ch.  33,  sect. 
3  (V.  2). 

Also  in:  Lord  Campbell,    Lives  of  the  Lord 
Chancellors,  ch.  89  (».  3). 

A.  D.  1679  (May).— The  Habeas  Corpus  Act. 
— "  Arbitrary  imprisonment  is  a  grievance  which, 
in  some  degree,  has  place  in  almost  every  gov- 
ernment, except  in  that  of  Great  Britain ;  and  our 
absolute  security  from  it  we  owe  chiefly  to  the 
present  Parliament ;  a  merit  which  makes  some 
atonement  for  the  faction  and  violence  into  which 
their  prejudices  had,  in  other  particulars,  be- 
trayed them.  The  great  charter  had  laid  the 
foundation  of  this  valuable  part  of  liberty ;  the 
petition  of  right  had  renewed  and  extended  it ; 
but  some  provisions  were  still  wanting  to  render 
it  complete,  and  prevent  all  evasion  or  delay  from 
ministers  and  judges.  The  act  of  habeas  corpus, 
which  passed  this  session,  served  these  purposes. 
By  this  act  it  was  prohibited  to  send  any  one  to 
a  prison  beyond  sea.  No  judge,  under  severe 
penalties,  must  refuse  to  any  prisoner  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  by  which  the  gaoler  was  directed 
to  produce  in  court  the  body  of  the  prisoner 
(whence  the  writ  has  its  name),  and  to  certify 
the  cause  of  his  detainer  and  imprisonment.  If 
the  gaol  lie  within  twenty  miles  of  the  judge, 
the  writ  must  be  obeyed  in  three  days ;  and  so 
proportionably  for  greater  distances ;  every  pris- 
oner must  be  indicted  the  first  term  after  his 
commitment,  and  brought  to  trial  in  the  subse- 
quent term.  And  no  man,  after  being  enlarged 
by  order  of  court,  can  be  recommitted  for  the 
same  offence." — D.  Hume,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  67 
(».  6). — "The  older  remedies  serving  as  a  safe- 
guard against  unlawful  imprisonment,  were  — 
1.  The  writ  of  Mainprise,  ensuring  the  delivery 
of  the  accused  to  a  friend  of  the  same,  who  gave 
security  to  answer  for  his  appearance  before  the 
court  when  required,  and  in  token  of  such  under- 
taking he  held  him  by  the  hand  ('  le  prit  par  le 
main').  2.  The  writ  '  De  odio  et  atia,'  i.  e.,  of 
hatred  and  malice,  which,  though  not  abolished, 
has  long  since  been  antiquated.  ...  It  directed 
the  sheriff  to  make  inquisition  in  the  county 
court  whether  the  imprisonment  proceeded  from 
malice  or  not.  ...  3.  The  writ  '  De  horaine 
rcplegiando,'orreplevying  aman,  that  is,  deliver- 
ing him  out  on  security  to  answer  what  may  be 
objected  against  him.  A  writ  is,  originally,  a 
royal  writing,  either  an  open  patent  addressed  to 
all  to  whom  it  may  come,  and  issued  under  the 
great  seal;  or,  'litteroe  clausse,' a  sealed  letter  ad- 
dressed to  a  particular  person ;  such  writs  were 
prepared  in  the  royal  courts  or  in  the  Court  of 
Chancery.  The  most  usual  instrument  of  pro- 
tection, however,  against  arbitrary  imprison- 
ment is  the  writ  of  'Habeas  corpus,'  so  called 
from  its  beginning  with  the  words,  '  Habeas  cor- 
pus ad  subjiciendum,'  which,  on  account  of  its 
universal  application  and  the  security  it  affords, 
has,  insensibly,  taken  precedence  of  all  others. 
This  is  an  old  writ  of  the  common  law,  and  must 


925 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


Habeas 
Corpus  Act, 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


be  prayed  for  in  any  of  the  Superior  courts  of 
common  law.  .  .  .  But  this  ■writ  .  .  .  proved 
but  a  feeble,  or  rather  wholly  ineffectual  protec- 
tion against  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  sovereign. 
The  right  of  an  English  subject  to  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  and  to  a  release  from  Imprison- 
ment unless  suflScient  cause  be  shown  for  his  de- 
tention, was  fuUy  canvassed  in  the  first  years  of 
the  reign  of  Charles  I.  .  .  .  The  parliament  en- 
deavoured to  prevent  such  arbitrary  imprison- 
ment by  passing  the  'Petition  of  Right,' which 
enacted  that  no  freeman,  in  any  such  manner 
.  .  .  should  be  imprisoned  or  detained.  Even 
this  act  was  found  unavailing  against  the  malevo- 
lent interpretations  put  by  the  judges;  hence  the 
16  Charles  I.,  c.  10,  was  passed,  which  enacts, 
that  when  any  person  is  restrained  of  his  liberty 
by  the  king  in  person,  or  by  the  Privy  Council, 
or  any  member  thereof,  he  shall,  on  demand  of 
his  counsel,  have  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and, 
three  days  after  the  writ,  shall  be  brought  before 
the  court  to  determine  whether  there  is  ground 
for  further  imprisonment,  for  bail,  or  for  his  re- 
lease. Notwithstanding  these  provisions,  the 
immunity  of  English  subjects  from  arbitrary  de- 
tention was  not  ultimately  established  in  full 
practical  efficiency  until  the  passing  of  the  statute 
of  Charles  II. ,  commonly  called  the  '  Habeas 
Corpus  Act. '  " — E.  Pischel,  The  English  CoTutitu- 
tion,  bk.  1,  ch.  9. 

Also  in  :  Sir  W.  Blackstone,  Commentaries  on 
the  Laws  of  Eng.,  bk.  3,  ch.  8. — H.  J.  Stephen, 
Commentaries,  bk.  5,  ch.  13,  sect.  5  (v.  4). 

The  following  is  the  text  of  the  Habeas  Corpus 
Act  of  1679: 

Whereas  great  Delays  have  been  used  by  Sher- 
iffs, Gaolers  and  other  Officers,  to  whose  Custody 
any  of  the  King's  Subjects  have  been  committed, 
for  criminal  or  supposed  criminal  Matters,  in  mak- 
ing Returns  of  Writs  of  Habeas  Corpus  to  them 
directed,  by  standing  out  an  Alias  and  Pluries 
Habeas  Corpus,  and  sometimes  more,  and  by  other 
Shifts,  to  avoid  their  yielding  Obedience  to  such 
Writs,  contrary  to  their  Duty,  and  the  known 
Laws  of  the  Land,  whereby  many  of  the  King's 
Subjects  have  been,  and  hereafter  may  be  long 
detained  in  Prison,  in  such  cases  where  by  Law 
they  are  bailable,  to  their  great  Charges  and 
Vexation. 

II.  For  the  Prevention  whereof,  and  the  more 
speedy  Relief  of  all  Persons  imprisoned  for  any 
such  Criminal,  or  supposed  Criminal  Matters: 
(2.)  Be  it  Enacted  by  the  King's  most  Excellent 
Majesty,  by  and  with  the  Advice  and  Consent  of 
the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  and  Commons 
in  this  present  Parliament  assembled,  and  by  the 
Authority  thereof,  that  whensoever  any  Person 
or  Persons  shall  bring  any  Habeas  Corpus  di- 
rected unto  any  Sheriff,  or  Sheriffs,  Gaoler,  IMinis- 
ter,  or  other  Person  whatsoever,  for  any  Person 
in  his  or  their  Custody,  and  the  said  Writ  shall 
be  served  upon  the  said  Officer,  or  left  at  the 
Gaol  or  Prison,  with  any  of  the  imdor  Officers, 
under  Keepers,  or  Deputy  of  the  said  Officers  or 
Keepers;  that  the  said  Officer  or  Officers,  his  or 
their  Under  Officers,  Under  Keepers  or  Deputies, 
shall  within  three  Days  after  the  Service  thereof, 
as  aforesaid  (unless  the  Commitment  aforesaid 
were  for  Treason  or  Felony,  plainly  and  specially 
expressed  in  the  Warrant  of  Commitment),  upon 
Payment  or  Tender  of  the  Charges  of  bringing 
the  said  Prisoner,  to  be  ascertained  by  the  Judge 
or  Court  that  awarded  the  same,  and  endorsed 


upon  the  said  Writ,  not  exceeding  Twelve- pence 
per  Mile,  and  upon  Security  given  by  his  own 
Bond,  to  pay  the  Charges  of  carrying  back  the 
Prisoner,  if  he  shall  be  remanded  by  the  Court 
or  Judge,  to  which  he  shall  be  brought,  accord- 
ing to  the  true  Intent  of  this  present  Act,  and 
that  he  will  not  make  any  Escape  by  the  way, 
make  Return  of  such  Writ.  (3.)  And  bring  or 
cause  to  be  brought  the  Body  of  the  Party  so 
committed  or  restrained,  unto  or  before  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  or  Lord  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal  of 
England  for  the  time  being,  or  the  Judges  or 
Barons  of  the  said  Court  from  whence  the  said 
Writ  shall  Issue,  or  unto  and  before  such  other 
Person  or  Persons  before  whom  the  said  Writ  is 
made  returnable,  according  to  the  Command 
thereof.  (4.)  And  shall  then  likewise  certifie  the 
true  causes  of  his  Detainer,  or  Imprisonment,  un- 
less the  commitment  of  the  said  party  be  in  any 
place  beyond  the  Distance  of  twenty  Miles  from 
the  Place  or  Places  where  such  Court  or  Person 
is,  or  shall  be  residing ;  and  if  beyond  the  Distance 
of  twenty  Miles,  and  not  above  One  Hundred 
Miles,  then  within  the  Space  of  Ten  Days,  and 
if  beyond  the  Distance  of  One  Hundred  Miles, 
then  within  the  space  of  Twenty  Days,  after  such 
Delivery  aforesaid,  and  not  longer. 

III.  And  to  the  Intent  that  no  Sheriff,  Gaoler 
or  other  Officer  may  pretend  Ignorance  of  the 
Import  of  any  such  Writ,  (2.)  Be  it  enacted  by 
the  Authority  aforesaid,  That  all  such  Writs 
shall  be  marked  in  this  manner.  Per  Statutum 
Tricesimo  Primo  Caroli  Secundi  Regis,  and  shall 
be  signed  by  the  Person  that  awards  the  same. 
(3.)  And  if  any  Person  or  Persons  shall  be  or 
stand  committed  or  detained,  as  aforesaid,  for 
any  Crime,  unless  for  Felony  or  Treason,  plainly 
expressed  in  the  Warrant  of  Commitment,  in  the 
Vacation-time,  and  out  of  Term,  it  shall  and  may 
be  lawful  to  and  for  the  Person  or  Persons  so 
committed  or  detained  (other  than  Persons  con- 
vict, or  in  Execution  by  legal  Process)  or  any  one 
on  his  or  their  Behalf,  to  appeal,  or  complain  to 
the  Lord  Chancellor,  or  Lord  Keeper,  or  any  one 
of  His  Majesty's  Justices,  either  of  the  one  Bench, 
or  of  the  other,  or  the  Barons  of  the  Exchequer 
of  the  Degree  of  the  Coif.  (4.)  And  the  said 
Lord  Chancellor,  Lord  Keeper,  Justices,  or 
Barons,  or  any  of  them,  upon  View  of  the  Copy 
or  Copies  of  the  Warrant  or  Warrants  of  Com- 
mitment and  Detainer,  or  otherwise  upon  Oath 
made,  that  such  Copy  or  Copies  were  denied  to 
be  given  by  such  Person  or  Persons  in  whose 
custody  the  Prisoner  or  Prisoners  is  or  are  de- 
tained, are  hereby  authorized  and  required,  upon 
Request  made  in  Writing  by  such  Person  or 
Persons,  or  any  on  his,  her,  or  their  Behalf,  at- 
tested and  subscribed  by  two  Witnesses,  who  were 
present  at  the  Delivery  of  the  same,  to  award  and 
grant  an  Habeas  Corpus  under  the  Seal  of  such 
Court,  whereof  he  shall  then  be  one  of  the  Judges, 
(5.)  to  be  directed  to  the  Officer  or  Officers  in 
whose  Custody  the  Party  so  committed  or  detained 
shall  be,  returnable  immediate  before  the  said 
Lord  Chancellor,  or  Lord  Keeper,  or  such  Justice, 
Baron,  or  any  other  Justice  or  Baron,  of  the 
Degree  of  the  Coif,  of  any  of  the  said  Courts. 
(6.)  And  upon  Service  thereof  as  aforesaid,  the 
OlBcer  or  Officers,  his  or  their  under  Officer  or 
under  Officers,  under  Keeper  or  under  Keepers, 
or  their  Deputy,  in  whose  Custody  the  Party  is 
so  committed  or  detained,  shall  within  the  times 
respectively  before  limited,  bring  such  Prisoner 


926 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


Habeas 
Corpus  Act. 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


or  Prisoners  before  the  said  Lord  Chancellor  or 
Lord  Keeper,  or  such  Justices,  Barons,  or  one  of 
them,  before  whom  the  said  Writ  is  made  return- 
able, and  in  case  of  his  Absence,  before  any  of 
[hem,  with  the  Return  of  such  Writ,  and  the  true 
Causes  of  the  Commitment  and  Detainer.  (7.) 
And  thereupon  within  two  Days  after  the  Party 
shall  be  brought  before  them  the  said  Lord  Chan- 
cellor, or  Lord  Keeper,  or  such  Justice  or  Baron, 
before  whom  the  Prisoner  shall  be  brought  as 
aforesaid,  shall  discharge  the  said  Prisoner  from 
his  Imprisonment,  taking  his  or  their  Recogni- 
zance, with  one  or  more  Surety  or  Sureties,  in  any 
Sum,  according  to  their  Discretions,  having  regard 
to  the  Quality  of  the  Prisoner,  and  Nature  of  the 
Offence,  for  his  or  their  Appearance  iu  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench  the  Term  following,  or  at  the  next 
Assizes,  Sessions,  or  genera!  Gaol-Delivery,  of  and 
for  such  County,  City  or  Place,  where  the  Com- 
mitment was,  or  where  the  Offence  was  com- 
mitted, or  in  such  other  Court  where  the  said 
Offence  is  properly  cognizable,  as  the  Case  shall 
require,  and  then  shall  certify  the  said  "Writ  with 
the  Return  thereof,  and  the  said  Recognizance  or 
Recognizances  into  the  said  Court,  where  such 
Appearance  is  to  be  made.  (8.)  Unless  it  shall 
appear  unto  the  said  Lord  Chancellor,  or  Lord 
Keeper,  or  Justice,  or  Justices,  or  Baron  or  Barons, 
that  the  Party  so  committed  is  detained  upon  a 
legal  Process,  Order,  or  Warrant  out  of  some 
Court  that  hath  Jurisdiction  of  Criminal  Matters, 
or  by  some  Warrant  signed  and  sealed  with  the 
Hand  and  Seal  of  any  of  the  said  Justices  or 
Barons,  or  some  Justice  or  Justices  of  the  Peace, 
for  such  Matters  or  Offences,  for  the  which  by 
the  Law,  the  Prisoner  is  not  bailable. 

IV.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  enacted.  That 
if  any  Person  shall  have  wilfully  neglected  by 
the  Space  of  two  whole  Terms  after  his  Imprison- 
ment to  pray  a  Habeas  Corpus  for  his  Enlarge- 
ment, such  Person  so  wilfully  neglecting,  shall 
not  have  any  Habeas  Corpus  to  be  granted  in 
Vacation-time  in  Pursuance  of  this  Act. 

V.  And  be  it  further  enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid,  That  if  any  Officer  or  Officers,  his  or 
their  under  Officer,  or  under  Officers,  under 
Keeper  or  under  Keepers,  or  Deputy,  shall  neglect 
or  refuse  to  make  the  Returns  aforesaid,  or  to  bring 
the  Body  or  Bodies  of  the  Prisoner  or  Prisoners,  ac- 
cording to  the  Command  of  the  said  Writ,  within 
the  respective  times  aforesaid,  or  upon  Demand 
made  by  the  Prisoner,  or  Person  in  his  Behalf, 
shall  refuse  to  deliver,  or  within  the  Space  of  six 
Hours  after  Demand  shall  not  deliver,  to  the  Per- 
son so  demanding,  a  true  Copy  of  the  Warrant 
or  Warrants  of  Commitment  and  Detainer  of  such 
Prisoner,  which  he  and  they  are  hereby  required 
to  deliver  accordingly;  all  and  every  the  Head 
Gaolers  and  Keepers  of  such  Prisons,  and  such 
other  Person,  in  whose  Custody  the  Prisoner  shall 
be  detained,  shall  for  the  first  Offence,  forfeit  to 
the  Prisoner,  or  Party  grieved,  the  Sum  of  One 
Hundred  Pounds.  (3.)  And  for  the  second  Of- 
fence, the  Sum  of  Two  Hundred  Pounds,  and 
shall  and  is  hereby  made  incapable  to  hold  or 
execute  his  said  Office.  (3.)  The  said  Penalties 
to  be  recovered  by  the  Prisoner  or  Party  grieved, 
his  Executors  or  Administrators,  against  such 
Offender,  his  Executors  or  Administrators,  by  any 
Action  of  Debt,  Suit,  Bill,  Plaint  or  Information, 
in  any  of  the  King's  Courts  at  Westminster, 
wherein  no  Essoin,  Protection,  Priviledge,  Injunc- 
tion, Wager  of  Law,  or  stay  of  Prosecution,  by 


Non  vult  ulterius  prosequi,  or  otherwise,  shall  be 
admitted  or  allowed,  or  any  more  than  one  Impar- 
lance. (4.)  And  any  Recovery  or  Judgment  at 
the  Suit  of  any  Party  grieved,  shall  be  a  sufficient 
Conviction  for  the  first  Offence;  and  any  after 
Recovery  or  Judgment  at  the  Suit  of  a  Party 
grieved,  for  any  Offence  after  the  first  Judgment, 
shall  be  a  sufficient  Conviction  to  bring  tlie  Offi- 
cers or  Person  within  the  said  Penalty  for  the 
Second  Offence. 

VI.  And  for  the  Prevention  of  unjust  Vexation, 
by  reiterated  Commitments  for  the  same  offence ; 
(3.)  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid. 
That  no  Person  or  Persons,  whicli  shall  be  de- 
livered or  set  at  large  upon  any  Habeas  Corpus, 
shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be  again  imprisoned 
or  committed  for  the  same  Offence,  by  any  Per- 
son or  Persons  whatsoever,  other  tlian  by  the 
legal  Order  and  Process  of  such  Court  wherein 
he  or  they  shall  be  bound  by  Recognizance  to  ap- 
pear, or  other  Court  having  Jurisdiction  of  the 
Cause.  (3.)  And  if  any  other  Person  or  Persons 
shall  knowingly,  contrary  to  this  Act,  recommit 
or  imprison,  or  knowingly  procure  or  cause  to  be 
recommitted  or  imprisoned  for  the  same  Offence, 
or  pretended  Offence,  any  Person  or  Persons  de- 
livered or  set  at  large  as  aforesaid,  or  be  know- 
ingly aiding  or  assisting  therein,  then  he  or  they 
shall  forfeit  to  the  Prisoner  or  Party  grieved,  the 
Sum  of  Five  Hundred  Pounds;  any  colourable 
Pretence  or  Variation  in  the  Warrant  or  War- 
rants of  Commitment  notwithstanding,  to  be  re- 
covered as  aforesaid. 

VII.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  further  en- 
acted, That  if  any  Person  or  Persons  shall  be 
committed  for  High  Treason  or  Felony,  plainly 
and  specially  expressed  iu  the  Warrant  of  Com- 
rnitment,  upon  his  Prayer  or  Petition  in  open 
Court  the  first  Week  of  the  Term,  or  first  Day 
of  the  Sessions  of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  or  general 
Gaol  Delivery,  to  be  brought  to  his  Tryal,  shall 
not  be  indicted  sometime  in  the  next  Term,  Ses- 
sions of  Oyer  and  Terminer,  or  general  Gaol-De- 
livery after  such  Commitment,  it  shall  and  may 
be  lawful  to  and  for  the  Judges  of  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench,  and  Justices  of  Oyer  and  Termi- 
ner, or  general  Gaol-Delivery,  and  they  are 
hereby  required,  upon  Motion  to  them  made  in 
open  Court  the  last  Day  of  the  Term,  Sessions  or 
Gaol-Delivery,  either  by  the  Prisoner,  or  any  one 
iu  his  Behalf,  to  set  at  Liberty  the  Prisoner  upon 
Bail,  unless  it  appear  to  the  Judges  and  Justices 
upon  Oath  made,  that  the  Witnesses  for  the  King 
could  not  be  produced  the  same  Term,  Sessions, 
or  general  Gaol-Delivery.  (3.)  And  if  any  Per- 
son or  Persons  committed  as  aforesaid,  upon  his 
Prayer  or  Petition  in  open  Court,  the  first  Week 
of  the  Term,  or  first  Day  of  the  Sessions  of  Oyer 
and  Terminer,  and  general  Gaol-Delivery,  to  be 
brought  to  his  Tryal,  shall  not  be  indicted  and 
tryed  the  second  Term,  Sessions  of  Oyer  and 
Terminer,  or  general  Gaol-Delivery,  after  his 
Commitment,  or  upon  his  Tryal  shall  be  ac- 
quitted, he  shall  be  discharged  from  his  Imprison- 
ment. 

VIII.  Provided  always,  that  nothing  in  this 
Act  shall  extend  to  discharge  out  of  Prison,  any 
Person  charged  in  Debt,  or  other  Action,  or 
with  Process  in  any  Civil  Cause,  but  that  after 
he  shall  be  discharged  of  his  Imprisonment  for 
such  his  criminal  Offence,  he  shall  be  kept  in 
Custody,  according  to  the  Law  for  such  other 
Suit. 


927 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


Habeas 
Corpus  Act. 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


IX.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  enacted  by  the 
Authority  aforesaid.  That  if  any  Person  or  Per- 
sons, Subjects  of  this  Realm,  shall  be  committed 
to  any  Prison,  or  in  Custody  of  any  Officer  or 
Officers  whatsoever,  for  any  Criminal  or  sup- 
posed Criminal  Matter,  that  the  said  Person  shall 
not  be  removed  from  the  said  Prison  and  Custod}', 
into  the  Custody  of  any  other  Officer  or  Officers. 
(2.)  Unless  it  be  by  Habeas  Corpus,  or  some 
other  legal  Writ;  or  where  the  Prisoner  is  de- 
livered to  the  Constable  or  other  inferiour  Officer, 
to  carry  such  Prisoner  to  some  common  Gaol. 
(3.)  Or  where  any  Person  is  sent  by  Order  of  any 
Judge  of  Assize,  or  Justice  of  the  Peace,  to  any 
common  Workhouse,  or  House  of  Correction. 
(4. )  Or  where  the  Prisoner  is  removed  from  one 
Prison  or  Place  to  another  within  the  same 
County,  in  order  to  his  or  her  Tryal  or  Dis- 
charge in  due  Course  of  Law.  (5.)  Or  in  case  of 
sudden  Fire,  or  Infection,  or  other  Necessity.  (6. ) 
And  if  any  Person  or  Persons  shall  after  such 
Commitment  aforesaid,  make  out  and  sign,  or 
countersign,  any  Warrant  or  Warrants  for  such 
Removal  aforesaid,  contrary  to  this  Act,  as  well 
he  that  makes  or  signs,  or  countersigns,  such 
Warrant  or  AVarrants,  as  the  Officer  or  Officers, 
that  obey  or  execute  the  same,  shall  suffer  &  in- 
cur the  Pains  &  Forfeitures  in  this  Act  before- 
mentioned,  both  for  the  1st  &  2nd  Offence,  re- 
spectively, to  be  recover'd  in  manner  aforesaid, 
by  the  Party  grieved. 

X.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  further  enacted  by 
the  Authority  aforesaid.  That  it  shall  and  may 
be  lawful  to  and  for  any  Prisoner  &  Prisoners  as 
aforesaid,  to  move,  and  obtain  his  or  their  Habeas 
Corpus,  as  well  out  of  the  High  Court  of  Chan- 
cery, or  Court  of  Exchequer,  as  out  of  the  Courts 
of  King's  Bench,  or  Common  Pleas,  or  either  of 
them.  (2.)  And  if  the  said  Lord  Chancellor  or 
Lord  Keeper,  or  any  Judge  or  Judges,  Baron  or 
Barons  for  the  time  being,  of  the  Degree  of  the 
Coif,  of  any  of  the  Courts  aforesaid,  in  the  Va- 
cation time,  upon  view  of  the  Copy  or  Copies  of 
the  Warrant  or  Warrants  of  Commitment  or  De- 
tainer, or  upon  Oath  made  that  such  Copy  or 
Copies  were  denied  as  aforesaid,  shall  deny  any 
Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  by  this  Act  required  to 
be  granted,  being  moved  for  as  aforesaid,  they 
shall  severally  forfeit  to  the  Prisoner  or  Party 
grieved,  the  Sum  of  Five  Hundred  Pounds,  to 
be  recovered  in  manner  aforesaid. 

XI.  And  be  it  declared  and  enacted  by  the 
Authority  aforesaid,  That  an  Habeas  Corpus  ac- 
cording to  the  true  Intent  and  meaning  of  this 
Act,  may  be  directed,  and  run  into  any  County 
Palatine,  the  Cinque  Ports,  or  other  priviledged 
Places,  within  the  Kingdom  of  England,  Do- 
minion of  Wales,  or  Town  of  Berwick  upon 
Tweed,  and  the  Isles  of  Jersey  or  Guernsey,  any 
Law  or  Usage  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

XII.  And  for  preventing  illegal  Imprisonments 
in  Prisons  beyond  the  Seas;  (2.)  Be  it  further 
enacted  by  the  Authority  aforesaid.  That  no 
Subject  of  this  Realm  that  now  is,  or  hereafter 
shall  be,  an  Inhabitant  or  Resiant  of  this  King- 
dom of  England,  Dominion  of  Wales,  or  Town  of 
Berwick  upon  Tweed,  shall  or  may  be  sent  Pris- 
oner into  Scotland,  Ireland,  Jersey,  Guernsey, 
Tangier,  or  into  Parts,  Garrisons,  Islands,  or 
Places  beyond  the  Seas,  which  are,  or  at  any  time 
hereafter  shall  be  within  or  without  the  Domin- 
ions of  his  Majesty,  his  Heirs  or  Successors.  (3.) 
And  that  every  such  Imprisonment  is  hereby 


enacted  and  adjudged  to  be  illegal.  (4.)  And 
that  if  any  of  the  said  Subjects  now  is,  or  here- 
after shall  be  so  imprisoned,  every  such  Person 
and  Persons  so  imprisoned,  shall  and  may  for 
every  such  Imprisonment,  maintain  by  Virtue 
of  this  Act,  an  Action  or  Actions  of  False  Im- 
prisonment, in  any  of  his  Majesty's  Courts  of 
Record,  against  the  Person  or  Persons  by  whom 
he  or  she  shall  be  so  committed,  detained,  im- 
prisoned, sent  Prisoner  or  transported,  contrary 
to  the  true  meaning  of  this  Act,  and  against  all 
or  any  Person  or  Persons,  that  shall  frame,  con- 
trive, write,  seal  or  countersign  any  Warrant  or 
Writing  for  such  Commitment,  Detainer,  Im- 
prisonment or  Transportation,  or  shall  be  advis- 
ing, aiding  or  assisting  in  the  same,  or  any  of 
them.  (5. )  And  the  Plaintiff  in  every  such  Ac- 
tion, shall  have  judgment  to  recover  his  treble 
Costs,  besides  Damages;  which  Damages  so  to 
be  given,  shall  not  be  le.ss  than  Five  Hundred 
Pounds.  (6.)  In  which  Action,  no  Delay,  Stay, 
or  Stop  of  Proceeding,  by  Rule,  Order  or  Com- 
mand, nor  no  Injunction,  Protection,  or  Privi- 
ledge  whatsoever,  nor  any  more  than  one  Impar- 
lance shall  be  allowed,  excepting  such  Rule  of 
tlie  Court  wherein  the  Action  shall  depend,  made 
in  open  Court,  as  shall  be  thought  in  justice  nec- 
essary, for  special  Cause  to  be  expressed  in  the 
said  Rule.  (7.)  And  the  Person  or  Persons  who 
shall  knowingly  frame,  contrive,  write,  seal  or 
countersign  any  Warrant  for  such  Commitment, 
Detainer,  or  Transportation,  or  shall  so  commit, 
detain,  imprison,  or  transport  any  Person  or  Per- 
sons contrary  to  this  Act,  or  be  any  ways  advis- 
ing, aiding  or  assisting  therein,  being  lawfully 
convicted  thereof,  shall  be  disabled  from  thence- 
forth to  bear  any  Office  of  Trust  or  Profit  within 
the  said  Realm  of  England,  Dominion  of  Wales, 
or  Town  of  Berwick  upon  Tweed,  or  any  of  the 
Islands,  Territories  or  Dominions  thereunto  be- 
longing. (8.)  And  shall  incur  and  sustain  the 
Pains,  Penalties,  and  Forfeitures,  limited,  or- 
dained, and  Provided  in  and  by  the  Statute  of 
Provision  and  Premunire  made  in  the  Sixteenth 
Year  of  King  Richard  the  Second.  (9.)  And  be 
incapable  of  any  Pardon  from  the  King,  his  Heirs 
or  Successors,  of  the  said  Forfeitures,  Losses,  oi 
Disabilities,  or  any  of  them. 

XIII.  Provided  always,  That  nothing  in  this 
Act  shall  extend  to  give  Benefit  to  any  Person 
who  shall  by  Contract  in  Writing,  agree  with 
any  Merchant  or  Owner,  of  any  Plantation,  or 
other  Person  whatsoever,  to  be  transported  to  any 
part  beyond  the  Seas,  and  receive  Earnest  upon 
such  Agreement,  altho'  that  afterwards  such 
Person  shall  renounce  such  Contract. 

XIV.  Provided  always,  and  be  it  enacted, 
That  if  any  Person  or  Persons,  lawfully  convicted 
of  any  Felony,  shall  in  open  Court  pray  to  be 
transported  beyond  the  Seas,  and  the  Court  shall 
think  fit  to  leave  him  or  them  in  Prison  for  that 
Purpose,  such  Person  or  Persons  may  be  trans- 
ported into  any  Parts  beyond  the  Seas ;  This 
Act,  or  any  thing  therein  contained  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding. 

XV.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  enacted,  That 
nothing  heroin  contained,  shall  be  deemed,  con- 
strued, or  taken  to  extend  to  the  Imprisonment 
ot  any  Person  before  the  first  Day  of  June,  One 
Tliousand  Six  Hundred  Seventy  and  Nine,  or  to 
any  thing  advised,  procured,  or  otherwise  done, 
rehiting  to  such  Imprisonment;  Any  thing  herein 
contained  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 


928 


ENGLAND,  1679. 


Exclusion 
Bill. 


ENGLAND,  1679-1681. 


XVI.  Provided  also.  That  if  any  Person  or 
Persons,  at  any  time  resiant  in  this  Realm,  shall 
have  committed  any  Capital  Offence  in  Scotland 
or  Ireland,  or  any  of  the  Islands,  or  foreign  Plan- 
tations of  the  King,  his  Heirs  or  Successors,  where 
he  or  she  ought  to  be  tryed  for  such  Offence, 
such  Person  or  Persons  may  be  sent  to  such 
Place,  there  to  receive  such  Tryal,  in  such  man- 
ner as  the  same  might  Iiave  been  used  before  the 
making  this  Act ;  Any  thing  herein  contained  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

XVII.  Provided  also,  and  be  it  enacted.  That 
no  Person  or  Persons,  shall  be  sued,  impleaded, 
molested  or  troubled  for  any  Offence  against  this 
Act,  unless  the  Party  offending  be  sued  or  im- 
pleaded for  the  same  within  two  Years  at  the 
most  after  such  time  wherein  the  Offence  shall 
be  committed,  in  Case  the  Party  grieved  shall 
not  be  then  in  Prison ;  and  if  he  shall  be  in 
Prison,  then  within  the  space  of  two  Years  after 
the  Decease  of  the  Person  imprisoned,  or  his,  or 
her  Delivery  out  of  Prison,  which  shall  first 
happen. 

XVIII.  And  to  the  Intent  no  Person  may 
avoid  his  Tryal  at  the  Assizes,  or  general  Gaol 
Delivery,  by  procuring  his  Removal  before  the 
Assizes  at  such  time  as  he  cannot  be  brought 
back  to  receive  his  Tryal  there;  (3.)  Be  it  en- 
acted. That  after  the  Assizes  proclaimed  for  that 
Coimty  where  the  Prisoner  is  detained,  no  Per- 
son shall  be  removed  from  the  Common  Gaol 
upon  any  Habeas  Corpus  granted  in  pursuance 
of  this  Act,  but  upon  any  such  Habeas  Corpus 
shall  be  brought  before  the  Judge  of  Assize  in 
open  Court,  who  is  thereupon  to  do  wliat  to 
Justice  shall  appertain. 

XIX.  Provided  nevertheless.  That  after  the 
Assizes  are  ended,  any  Personor  Persons  detained 
may  have  his  or  her  Habeas  Corpus,  according 
to  the  Direction  and  Intention  of  this  Act. 

XX.  And  be  it  also  enacted  by  the  Authority 
aforesaid.  That  if  any  Information,  Suit  or  Action, 
shall  be  brought  or  exhibited  against  any  Person 
or  Persons,  for  any  Offence  committed  or  to  be 
committed  against  the  Form  of  this  Law,  it  shall 
be  lawful  for  such  Defendants  to  plead  the  gen- 
eral Issue,  that  they  are  not  guilty,  or  that  they 
owe  nothing,  and  to  give  such  special  Matter  in 
Evidence  to  the  Jury,  that  shall  try  the  same, 
which  ]\Iatter  being  pleaded,  had  been  good  and 
sufficient  matter  in  Law  to  have  discharged  the 
said  Defendant  or  Defendants  against  the  said 
Information,  Suit  or  Action,  and  the  said  Matter 
shall  be  then  as  available  to  him  or  them,  to  all 
Intents  and  Purposes,  as  if  he  or  they  had  suf- 
ficiently pleaded,  set  forth,  or  alleged  the  same 
Matter  in  Bar,  or  Discharge  of  such  Information, 
Suit  or  Action. 

XXI.  And  because  many  times  Persons  charged 
with  Petty -Treason  or  Felony,  or  as  Accessaries 
thereunto,  are  committed  upon  Suspicion  only, 
whereupon  they  are  bailable  or  not,  according  as 
the  Circumstances  making  out  that  Suspicion  are 
more  or  less  weighty,  which  are  best  known  to 
the  Justices  of  Peace  that  committed  the  Persons, 
and  have  the  E.xaminations  before  them,  or  to 
other  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  County ;  (2.)  Be 
it  therefore  enacted,  That  where  any  Person  shall 
appear  to  be  committed  by  any  Judge,  or  Justice 
of  the  Peace,  and  charged  as  accessary  before  the 
Fact,  to  any  Petty-Treason  or  Felony,  or  upon 
Suspicion  thereof,  or  with  Suspicion  of  Petty- 
Treason    or    Felony,   which  Petty-Treason    or 

^^  929 


Felony,  shall  be  plainly  and  specially  expressed 
in  the  Warrant  of  Commitment,  that  such  Per- 
son shall  not  be  removed  or  bailed  by  Virtue  of 
this  Act,  or  in  any  other  manner  than  they  might 
have  been  before  the  making  of  this  Act. 

A.  D.  1679  (June).— The  Meal-tub  Plot.— 
"Dangerfleld,  a  subtle  and  dexterous  man,  who 
had  gone  through  all  the  shapes  and  practices  of 
roguery,  and  in  particular  was  a  false  coiner, 
undertook  now  to  coin  a  plot  for  the  ends  of  the 
papists.  He  .  .  .  got  into  all  companies,  and 
mixed  with  the  hottest  men  of  the  town,  and 
studied  to  engage  others  with  himself  to  swear 
that  they  had  been  invited  to  accept  of  commis- 
sions, and  that  a  new  form  of  government  was  to 
be  set  up,  and  that  the  king  and  the  royal  family 
were  to  be  sent  away.  He  was  carried  with  this 
story,  first  to  the  duke,  and  then  to  the  king, 
and  had  a  weekly  allowance  of  money,  and  was 
very  kindly  used  by  many  of  that  side ;  so  that 
a  whisper  run  about  town,  that  some  extraor- 
dinary thing  would  quicldy  break  out:  and  he 
having  some  coiTespondence  with  one  colonel 
Mansel,  he  made  up  a  bundle  of  seditious  but 
ill  contrived  letters,  and  laid  them  in  a  dark 
comer  of  his  room :  and  then  some  searchers  were 
sent  from  the  custom  house  to  look  for  some  for- 
bidden goods,  which  they  heard  were  in  Mansel's 
chamber.  There  were  no  goods  found:  but  as 
it  was  laid,  they  found  that  bundle  of  letters: 
and  upon  that  a  great  noise  was  made  of  a  dis- 
covery :  but  upon  inquiry  it  appeared  the  letters 
were  counterfeited,  and  the  forger  of  them  was 
suspected ;  so  they  searched  into  all  Dangerfield's 
haunts,  and  in  one  of  them  they  found  a  paper 
that  contained  the  scheme  of  this  whole  fiction, 
which,  because  it  was  found  in  a  meal-tub,  came 
to  be  called  the  meal-tub  plot.  .  .  .  This  was  a 
great  disgrace  to  the  popish  party,  and  the  king 
suffered  much  by  the  countenance  he  had  given 
him." — G.  Burnet,  Hist,  of  My  Own  Time,  bk.  3, 
1679. 

A.  D.  1679-1681.— The  Exclusion  Bill.— 
' '  Though  the  duke  of  York  was  not  charged  with 
participation  in  the  darkest  schemes  of  the  popish 
conspirators,  it  was  evident  that  his  succession 
was  the  great  aim  of  their  endeavours,  and  evi- 
dent also  that  he  had  been  engaged  in  the  more 
real  and  undeniable  intrigues  of  Coleman.  His 
accession  to  the  throne,  long  viewed  with  just 
apprehension,  now  seemed  to  threaten  such  perils 
to  every  part  of  the  constitution  as  ought  not 
supinely  to  be  waited  for,  if  any  means  could  be 
devised  to  obviate  them.  This  gave  rise  to  the 
bold  measure  of  the  exclusion  bill,  too  bold,  in- 
deed, for  the  spirit  of  the  country,  and  the  rock 
on  which  English  liberty  was  nearly  ship- 
wrecked. In  the  long  parliament,  full  as  it  was 
of  pensioners  and  creatures  of  court  influence, 
nothing  so  vigorous  would  have  been  successful. 
.  .  .  But  the  zeal  they  showed  against  Danby 
induced  the  king  to  put  an  end  [Jan.  34,  1679]  to 
this  parliament  of  seventeen  years'  duration ;  an 
event  long  ardently  desired  by  the  popular  party, 
who  foresaw  their  ascendancy  in  the  new  elections. 
The  next  house  of  commons  accordingly  came 
together  with  an  ardour  not  yet  quenched  by 
corruption;  and  after  reviving  the  impeach- 
ments commenced  by  their  predecessors,  and  car- 
rying a  measure  long  in  agitation,  a  test  which 
shut  the  catholic  peers  out  of  parliament,  went 
upon  the  exclusion  bill  [the  second  reading  of 
which  was  carried,  May  31,  1679,  by  307  to  128]. 


ENGLAND,  1679-1681. 


Whigs  and 
Tories. 


ENGLAND,  1681-1683. 


Their  dissolution  put  a  stop  to  this ;  and  in  the 
next  parliament  the  lords  rejected  it  [after  the 
commons  had  passed  the  bill,  without  a  division, 
Oct.,  1680].  .  .  .  The  bill  of  exclusion  .  .  . 
provided  that  the  imperial  crown  of  England 
should  descend  to  and  be  enjoyed  by  such  per- 
son or  persons  successively  during  the  life  of  the 
duke  of  York  as  would  have  inherited  or  en- 
joyed the  same  in  case  he  were  naturally  dead. 
.  .  .  But  a  large  part  of  the  opposition  had  un- 
fortunately other  objects  in  view."  Under  the 
contaminating  influence  of  the  earl  of  Shaftes- 
bury, "they  broke  away  more  and  more  from 
the  line  of  national  opinion,  till  a  fatal  reaction 
Involved  themselves  in  ruin,  and  exposed  the 
cause  of  public  liberty  to  its  most  imminent 
peril.  The  countenance  and  support  of  Shaftes- 
bury brought  forward  that  unconstitutional  and 
most  impolitic  scheme  of  the  duke  of  Mon- 
mouth's succession  [James,  duke  of  Monmouth, 
was  the  acknowledged  natural  son  of  king 
Charles,  by  Lucy  Walters,  his  mistress  while  in 
exile  at  the  Hague.]  There  could  hardly  be  a 
greater  insult  to  a  nation  used  to  respect  its 
hereditary  line  of  kings,  than  to  set  up  the 
bastard  of  a  prostitute,  without  the  least  pre- 
tence of  personal  excellence  or  public  services, 
against  a  princess  of  known  virtue  and  attachment 
to  the  protestant  religion.  And  the  effrontery  of 
this  attempt  was  aggravated  by  the  libels  eagerly 
circulated  to  dupe  the  credulous  populace  into  a 
belief  of  Monmouth's  legitimacy." — H.  Hallam, 
Co7ist.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  13. 

Also  m:  A..  C&\'k\,  Hist,  of  the  Counter-Rem- 
lution  in  Eng.,  pt.  2,  ch.  1. — G.  Roberts,  Life  of 
Monmouth,  ch.  4-8  (v.  1). — G.  Mwvnet,  Hist,  of  My 
Own  Time,  bk.  3.,  1679-81.— Sir  W.  Temple, 
Memoirs,  pt.  3  {Works,  v.  2). 

A.  D.  i68o. —  Whigs  and  Tories  acquire 
their  respective  names.  —  "Factions  indeed 
were  at  this  time  [A.  D.  1680]  extremely  ani- 
mated against  each  other.  The  very  names  by 
which  each  party  denominated  its  antagonist 
discover  the  virulence  and  rancour  which  jsre- 
vailed.  For  besides  petitioner  and  abhorrer,  ap- 
pellations which  were  soon  forgotten,  this  year 
is  remarkable  for  being  the  epoch  of  the  well- 
known  epithets  of  Whig  and  Tory,  by  which, 
and  sometimes  without  any  material  difference, 
this  island  has  been  so  long  divided.  The  court 
party  reproached  their  antagonists  with  their 
affinity  to  the  fanatical  conventiclers  in  Scotland, 
who  were  known  by  tlie  name  of  Whigs:  the 
country  party  found  a  resemblance  between  the 
courtiers  and  the  popish  banditti  in  Ireland,  to 
whom  the  appellation  of  Tory  was  affixed :  and 
after  this  manner  these  foolish  terms  of  reproach 
came  into  public  and  general  use." — D.  Hume, 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  68  (».  6).— "The  definition  of 
the  nickname  Tory,  as  it  originally  arose,  is 
given  in  '  A  New  Ballad '  (Narcissus  Luttrell's 
Collection) ;  — 

The  word  Tory's  of  Irish  Extraction, 
'Tis  a  Legacy  that  they  have  left  here 
The)'  came  here  in  their  brogues, 
And  have  acted  like  Rogues, 
In  endeavouring  to  learn  us  to  swear." 
— J.  Grego,  Hist,  of  Parliamentary  Elections,  p. 
36. 

Also  in:  G.  W.  Cooke,  Hist,  of  Party,  v.  1,  ch. 
2. — Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  2. — For 
the  origin  of  the  name  of  the  Whig  party,  see 
Whigs  (Whiqgamoks)  ;  also,  R.\.pp.uiees. 


A.  D.  1681-1683.— The  Tory  reaction  and  the 
downfall  of  the  Whigs. — The  Rye-house  Plot. 

— "  Shaftesbury's  course  rested  wholly  on  the 
belief  that  the  penury  of  the  Treasury  left  Charles 
at  his  mercy,  and  that  a  refusal  of  supplies  must 
wring  from  the  King  his  assent  to  the  exclusion. 
But  the  gold  of  France  had  freed  the  King  from 
his  thraldom.  He  had  used  the  Parliament  [of 
1681]  simply  to  exhibit  himself  as  a  sovereign 
whose  patience  and  conciliatory  temper  was  re- 
warded with  insult  and  violence ;  and  now  that 
he  saw  his  end  accomplished,  he  suddenlj'  dis- 
solved the  Houses  in  April,  and  appealed  in  a 
Royal  declaration  to  the  justice  of  the  nation  at 
large.  The  appeal  was  met  by  an  almost  uni- 
versal burst  of  loyalty.  The  Church  rallied  to 
the  King ;  his  declaration  was  read  from  every 
pulpit;  and  the  Universities  solemnly  decided 
that  '  no  religion,  no  law,  no  fault,  no  forfeiture ' 
could  avail  to  bar  the  sacred  right  of  hereditary 
succession.  .  .  .  The  Duke  of  York  returned  in 
triumph  to  St.  James's.  .  .  .  Monmouth,  who  had 
resumed  his  progresses  through  the  country  as  a 
means  of  checking  the  tide  of  reaction,  was  at 
once  arrested.  .  .  .  Shaftesbury,  alive  to  the  new 
danger,  plunged  desperately  into  conspiracies 
with  a  handful  of  adventurers  as  desperate  as 
himself,  hid  himself  in  the  City,  where  he  boasted 
that  ten  thousand  '  brisk  boys '  were  ready  to  ap- 
pear at  his  call,  and  urged  his  friends  to  rise  in 
arms.  But  tlieir  delays  drove  him  to  flight.  .  .  . 
The  flight  of  Shaftesbury  proclaimed  the  tri- 
umph of  the  King.  His  wonderful  sagacity  had 
told  him  when  the  struggle  was  over  and  further 
resistance  useless.  But  the  Whig  leaders,  who 
had  delayed  to  answer  the  Earl's  call,  still  nursed 
projects  of  rising  in  arms,  and  the  more  des- 
perate spirits  who  had  clustered  around  him  as 
he  lay  hidden  in  the  City  took  refuge  in  plots 
of  assassination,  and  in  a  plan  for  murdering 
Charles  and  his  brother  as  they  passed  the  Rye- 
house  [a  Hertfordshire  farm  house,  so-called]  on 
their  road  from  London  to  Newmarket.  Both 
the  conspiracies  were  betrayed,  and,  though  they 
were  wholly  distinct  from  one  another,  the  cruel 
ingenuity  of  the  Crown  lawyers  blended  them 
into  one.  Lord  Essex,  the  last  of  an  ill-fated 
race,  saved  himself  from  a  traitor's  death  by  sui- 
cide in  the  Tower.  Lord  Russell,  convicted  on 
a  charge  of  sharing  in  the  Rye-house  Plot,  was 
beheaded  in  Lincoln  Inn  Fields.  The  same  fate 
awaited  Algernon  Sidney.  Monmouth  fled  in 
terror  over  sea,  and  his  flight  was  followed  by  a 
series  of  prosecutions  for  sedition  directed  against 
his  followers.  In  1683  the  Constitutional  oppo- 
sition which  had  held  Charles  so  long  in  check 
lay  crushed  at  his  feet.  ...  On  the  very  day 
when  the  crowd  around  Russell's  scaffold  were 
dipping  their  handkerchiefs  in  his  blood,  as  in 
the  blood  of  a  martyr,  the  University  of  Oxford 
solemnly  declared  that  the  doctrine  of  passive 
obedience,  even  to  the  worst  of  rulers,  was  a 
part  of  religion."  During  the  brief  remainder 
of  his  reign  Charles  was  a  prudently  absolute 
monarch,  governing  without  a  Parliament,  coolly 
ignoring  the  Triennial  Act,  and  treating  on 
occasions  the  Test  Act,  as  well  as  other  laws 
obnoxious  to  him,  with  contempt.  He  died  un- 
expectedly, early  in  February,  1685,  and  his 
brother,  the  Duke  of  York,  succeeded  to  the 
tliroue,  as  James  II.,  with  no  resistance,  but  with 
much  feeling  opposed  to  him.  —  J.  R.  Green, 
Short  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  9,  sect.  5-6. 


930 


ENGLAND,  1681-1683. 


Monmouth^s 
Rebellion. 


ENGLAND,  1685. 


Also  in  :  G.  Roberts,  Life  of  Monmouth,  eh. 
8-10  (j).  1).— D.  Hume,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  eh.  68-69 
(v.  6).— G.  W.  Cooke,  Hist,  of  Party,  v.  1,  eh. 
6-11. 

A.  D.  1685. — Accession  of  James  II. 

A.  D.  1685  (February). — The  new  King  pro- 
claims his  religion. — "The  King  [James  II.] 
early  put  the  loyalty  of  his  Protestant  friends  to 
the  proof.  While  he  was  a  subject,  he  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  hearing  mass  with  closed  doors  in 
a  small  oratory  which  had  been  fitted  up  for  his 
wife.  He  now  ordered  the  doors  to  be  thrown 
open,  in  order  that  all  who  came  to  pay  their 
duty  to  him  might  see  the  ceremony.  When  the 
liost  was  elevated  there  was  a  strange  confusion 
in  the  antechamber.  The  Roman  Catholics  fell 
on  their  knees  :  the  Protestants  hurried  out  of 
the  room.  Soon  a  new  pulpit  was  erected  in  the 
palace ,  and,  during  Lent,  a  series  of  sermons 
was  preached  there  by  Popish  divines." — Lord 
Macaulay,  Hist,  if  Eng. ,  ch.  4  (».  2). 

A.  D.  1685  (May— July).— Monmouth's  Re- 
bellion.— "The  Parliament  which  assembled  on 
the  22nd  of  May  .  .  .  was  almost  entirely  Tory. 
The  failure  of  the  Rye-House  Plot  had  produced  a 
reaction,  which  for  a  time  entirely  annihilated 
the  Whig  influence.  .  .  .  The  apparent  tri\imph 
of  the  King  and  the  Tory  party  was  completed 
by  the  disastrous  failure  of  the  insurrection 
planned  by  their  adversaries.  A  knot  of  exiled 
malcontents,  some  Scotch,  some  English,  had 
collected  in  Holland.  Among  them  was  Mon- 
mouth and  the  Earl  of  Argyle,  son  of  that  Mar- 
quis of  Argyle  who  had  taken  so  prominent  a 
part  on  the  Presbyterian  side  in  the  Scotch 
troubles  of  Charles  I.  's  reign.  Monmouth  had 
kept  aloof  from  politics  till,  on  the  accession  of 
James,  he  was  induced  to  join  the  exiles  at  Am- 
sterdam, whither  Argyle,  a  strong  Presbyterian, 
but  a  man  of  lofty  and  moderate  views,  also  re- 
paired. National  jealousy  prevented  any  union 
between  the  exiles,  and  two  expeditions  were 
determined  on, — the  one  under  Argyle,  who 
hoped  to  find  an  array  ready  to  his  hand  among 
his  clansmen  in  the  West  of  Scotland,  the  other 
under  Monmouth  in  the  West  of  England.  Ar- 
gyle's  expedition  set  sail  on  the  2nd  of  May 
[1685].  .  .  .  Argyle's  invasion  was  ruined  by 
the  limited  authority  intrusted  to  him,  and  by 
the  jealousy  and  insubordination  of  his  fellow 
leaders.  .  .  .  His  army  disbanded.  He  was  him- 
self taken  in  Renfrewshire,  and,  after  an  exhibi- 
tion of  admirable  constancy,  was  beheaded.  .  .  . 
A  week  before  the  final  dispersion  of  Argyle's 
troops,  Monmouth  had  landed  in  England  [at 
Lyme,  June  11],  He  was  well  received  in  the 
West.  He  had  not  been  twenty-four  hours  in 
England  before  he  found  himself  at  the  head  of 
1,500  men;  but  though  popular  among  the  com- 
mon people,  he  received  no  support  from  the 
upper  classes.  Even  the  strongest  Whigs  dis- 
believed the  story  of  his  legitimacy,  and  thought 
his  attempt  ill-timed  and  fraught  with  danger. 
.  .  .  Meanwhile  Monmouth  had  advanced  to 
Taunton,  had  been  there  received  with  enthusi- 
asm, and,  vainly  thinking  to  attract  the  nobility, 
had  assumed  the  title  of  King.  Nor  was  his  re- 
ception at  Bridgewater  less  flattering.  But  diffi- 
culties already  began  to  gather  round  him;  he 
was  in  such  want  of  arms,  that,  although  rustic 
implements  were  converted  into  pikes,  he  was 
still  obliged  to  send  away  many  volunteers ;  the 
militia  were  closing  in  upon  him  in  all  directions ; 


Bristol  had  been  seized  by  the  Duke  of  Beau- 
fort, and  the  regular  army  under  Feversham  and 
Churchill  were  approaching."  After  feebly  at- 
tempting several  movements,  against  Bristol  and 
into  Wiltshire,  Monmouth  lost  heart  and  fell  back 
to  Bridgewater.  "  The  Royalist  army  was  close 
behind  him,  and  on  the  fifth  of  July  encamped 
about  three  miles  from  Bridgewater,  on  the  plain 
of  Sedgemoor. "  Monmouth  was  advised  to  under- 
take a  night  surprise,  and  did  so  in  the  early 
morning  of  the  6th.  "The  night  was  not  unfit- 
ting for  such  an  enterprise,  for  the  mist  was  so 
thick  that  at  a  few  paces  nothing  could  be  seen. 
Three  great  ditches  by  which  the  moor  was  drained 
lay  between  the  armies;  of  the  third  of  these, 
strangely  enough,  Monmouth  knew  nothing." 
The  unexpected  discovery  of  this  third  ditch, 
known  as  "the  Sussex  Rhine,"  which  his  cav- 
alry could  not  cross,  and  behind  which  the  enemy 
rallied,  was  the  ruin  of  the  enterprise.  "Mon- 
mouth saw  that  the  day  was  lost,  and  with  the 
love  of  life  which  was  one  of  the  characteristics  of 
his  soft  nature,  he  turned  and  fled.  Even  after 
his  flight  the  battle  was  kept  up  bravely.  At 
length  the  arrival  of  the  King's  artillery  put  an 
end  to  any  further  struggle.  The  defeat  was 
followed  by  all  the  terrible  scenes  which  mark 
a  suppressed  insurrection.  .  .  .  Monmouth  and 
Grey  pursued  their  flight  into  the  New  Forest, 
and  were  there  apprehended  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Ringwood. "  Monmouth  petitioned  ab- 
jectly for  his  life,  but  in  vain.  He  was  executed 
on  the  15th  of  July.  "The  failure  of  this  insur- 
rection was  followed  by  the  most  terrible  cruel- 
ties. Feversham  returned  to  London,  to  be  flat- 
tered by  the  King  and  laughed  at  by  the  Court 
for  his  military  exploits.  He  left  Colonel  Kirke 
in  command  at  Bridgewater.  This  man  had 
learned,  as  commander  at  Tangier,  all  the  worst 
arts  of  cruel  despotism.  His  soldiery  in  bitter 
pleasantry  were  called  Kirke 's  '  Lambs, '  from  the 
emblem  of  their  regiment.  It  is  impossible  to 
say  how  many  suffered  at  the  hands  of  this  man 
and  his  brutal  troops;  100  captives  are  said  by 
some  to  have  been  put  to  death  the  week  after 
the  battle.  But  this  military  revenge  did  not 
satisfy  the  Court." — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
period  2,  pp.  764-768.  —  "The  number  of  Mon- 
mouth's men  killed  is  computed  by  some  at  2,000, 
by  others  at  300;  a  disparity,  however,  which 
may  be  easily  reconciled  by  supposing  that  the 
one  account  takes  in  those  who  were  killed  in 
battle,  while  the  other  comprehends  the  wretched 
fugitives  who  were  massacred  In  ditches,  corn- 
fields, and  other  hiding  places,  the  following 
day."— C.  J.  Fox,  Hist,  of  the  Early  Part  of  the 
Reign  of  James  II. ,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  G.  Roberts,  Life  of  Monmouth,  ch. 
13-28  {V.  1-2). 

A.  D.  1685  (September).— The  Bloody  As- 
sizes.—  "Early  in  September,  Jeffreys  [Sir 
George  Jeffreys,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench],  accompanied  by  four  other 
judges,  set  out  on  that  circuit  of  which  the 
memory  will  last  as  long  as  our  race  and  lan- 
guage. ...  At  Winchester  the  Chief  Justice 
first  opened  his  commission.  Hampshire  had  not 
been  the  theatre  of  war;  but  many  of  the  van- 
quished rebels  had,  like  their  leader,  fled  thither. " 
Two  among  these  had  been  found  concealed  in  the 
house  of  Lady  Alice  Lisle,  a  widow  of  eminent 
nobility  of  character,  and  Jeffreys'  first  proceed- 
ing was  to  arraign  Lady  Alice  for  the  technical 


931 


ENGLAND,  1685. 


The  Bloody 
Assizes. 


ENGLAND,  1687. 


treason  of  the  concealment.  She  was  tried  with 
extraordinary  brutality  of  manner  on  the  part  of 
the  judge ;  the  jury  was  bullied  into  a  verdict  of 
guilty,  and  the  innocent  woman  was  condemned 
by  tlie  liend  on  the  bench  to  be  burned  alive.  By 
great  exertion  of  many  people,  the  sentence  was 
commuted  from  burning  to  beheading.  No 
mercy  beyond  this  could  be  obtained  from  Jef- 
freys or  his  fit  master,  the  king.  "In  Hamp- 
shire Alice  Lisle  was  the  only  victim:  but,  on 
the  day  following  her  execution,  Jeffreys  reached 
Dorchester,  the  principal  town  of  the  county  in 
which  Monmouth  had  landed,  and  the  judicial 
massacre  began.  The  court  was  hung,  by  order 
of  the  Chief  Justice,  with  scarlet ;  and  this  inno- 
vation seemed  to  the  multitude  to  indicate  a 
bloody  purpose.  .  .  .  More  than  300  prisoners 
were  to  be  tried.  The  work  seemed  heavy ;  but 
Jeffreys  had  a  contrivance  for  making  it  light. 
He  let  it  be  understood  that  the  only  chance  of 
obtaining  pardon  or  respite  was  to  plead  guilty. 
Twenty-nine  persons,  who  put  tliemselves  on 
their  country  and  were  convicted,  were  ordered 
to  be  tied  up  without  delay.  The  remaining 
prisoners  pleaded  guilty  by  scores.  Two  hundred 
and  ninety-two  received  sentence  of  death.  The 
whole  number  hanged  in  Dorsetshire  amounted 
to  seventy-four.  From  Dorchester  Jeffreys  pro- 
ceeded to  Exeter.  The  civil  war  had  barely  grazed 
the  frontier  of  Devonshire.  Here,  therefore,  com- 
paratively few  persons  were  capitally  punished. 
Somersetshire,  the  chief  seat  of  the  rebellion,  had 
been  reserved  for  the  last  and  most  fearful  ven- 
geance. In  this  county  two  hundred  and  thirty- 
three  prisoners  were  in  a  few  days  hanged,  drawn 
and  quartered.  At  every  spot  where  two  roads 
met,  on  every  market  place,  on  the  green  of 
every  large  village  which  had  furnished  Mon- 
mouth with  soldiers,  ironed  corpses  clattering  in 
the  wind,  or  Iieads  and  quarters  stuck  on  poles, 
poisoned  the  air,  and  made  the  traveller  sick  with 
horror.  .  .  .  The  Chief  Justice  was  all  himself. 
His  spirits  rose  higher  and  higher  as  the  work 
went  on.  He  laughed,  shouted,  joked,  and 
swore  in  such  a  way  that  many  thought  him 
drunk  from  morning  to  night.  .  .  .  Jeffreys 
boasted  that  he  had  hanged  more  traitors  than  all 
his  predecessors  together  since  the  Conquest. 
.  .  .  Yet  those  rebels  who  were  doomed  to  death 
were  less  to  be  pitied  than  some  of  the  survi- 
vors. Several  prisoners  to  whom  Jeffreys  was 
unable  to  bring  home  the  cliarge  of  high  treason 
were  convicted  of  misdemeanours  and  were 
sentenced  to  scourging  not  less  terrible  than  that 
which  Oates  had  undergone.  .  .  .  The  number 
of  prisoners  whom  Jeffreys  transported  was 
eight  hundred  and  forty-one.  These  men,  more 
wretched  than  their  associates  who  suffered  death, 
were  distributed  into  gangs,  and  bestowed  on 
persons  who  enjoyed  favour  at  court.  The  con- 
ditions of  the  gift  were  that  the  convicts  should 
be  carried  beyond  sea  as  slaves,  that  they  should 
not  be  emancipated  for  ten  years,  and  that  the 
place  of  their  banishment  should  be  some  West 
Indian  island.  ...  It  was  estimated  by  Jeffreys 
that,  on  an  average,  each  of  them,  after  all 
charges  were  paid,  would  be  worth  from  ten  to 
fifteen  pounds.  There  was  therefore  much  angry 
competition  for  grants.  .  .  .  And  now  Jeffreys 
had  done  his  work,  and  returned  to  claim  his 
reward.  He  arrived  at  Windsor  from  the  West, 
leaving  carnage,  mourning  and  terror  behind  him. 
The  hatred  with  which  he  was  regarded  by  the 


people  of  Somersetshire  has  no  parallel  in  our 
history.  .  .  .  But  at  the  court  Jeffreys  was  cor- 
dially welcomed.  He  was  a  judge  after  his 
master's  own  heart.  James  had  watched  the  cir- 
cuit with  interest  and  delight.  ...  At  a  later 
period,  when  all  men  of  all  parties  spoke  with 
horror  of  the  Bloody  Assizes,  the  wicked  Judge 
and  the  wicked  King  attempted  to  vindicate  them- 
selves by  throwing  the  blame  on  each  other." — 
Lord  Macaulay,  Bist.  of  Eng.,  ch.  5. 

Also  dj:  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  Hist,  of  the 
B£iwlution  in  Eng.,  ch.  1. — Lord  Campbell,  Lives 
of  the  Lord  Chancellors,  ch.  100  (».  3). — G.  Roberts, 
Life  of  Monmouth,  ch.  29-81  («.  2). — See,  also, 
Taunton:  A.  D.  1685. 

A.  D.  1685-1686. — Faithless  and  tyrannical 
measures  against  the  New  England  colonies. 
See  Connecticut:  A.  D.  1685-1687;  and  Massa- 
chusetts: A.  D.  1671-1686. 

A.  D.  1685-1689. — The  Despotism  of  James 
II.  in  Scotland.  See  Scotland:  A.  D.  1681- 
1689. 

A.  D.  1686.— The  Court  of  High  Commis- 
sion revived. — "James  conceived  the  design  of 
employing  his  authority  as  head  of  the  Church 
of  England  as  a  means  of  subjecting  that  church 
to  his  pleasure,  if  not  of  finally  destroying  it. 
It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  he  could  reconcile  to 
his  religion  the  exercise  of  supremacy  in  an 
heretical  sect,  and  thus  sanction  by  his  example 
the  usurpations  of  the  Tudors  on  the  rights  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  .  .  .  He,  indeed,  consid- 
ered the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  as  placed  in  his 
hands  by  Providence  to  enable  him  to  betray  the 
Protestant  establishment.  'God,'  said  he  to 
Barillon,  '  has  permitted  that  all  the  laws  made 
to  establish  Protestantism  now  serve  as  a  foun- 
dation for  my  measures  to  re-establish  true  re- 
ligion, and  give  me  a  right  to  exercise  a  more 
extensive  power  than  other  Catholic  princes  pos- 
sess in  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  their  domin- 
ions.' He  found  legal  advisers  ready  with  paltry 
expedients  for  evading  the  two  statutes  of  1641 
and  1660  [abolishing,  and  re-affirming  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  Court  of  High  Commission],  under 
the  futile  pretext  that  they  forbade  only  a  court 
vested  with  such  powers  of  corporal  punishment 
as  had  been  exercised  by  the  old  Court  of  High 
Commission;  and  in  conformity  to  their  perni- 
cious counsel,  he  issued,  in  July,  a  commission 
to  certain  ministers,  prelates,  and  judges,  to  act 
as  a  Court  of  Commissioners  in  Ecclesiastical 
Causes.  The  first  purpose  of  this  court  was  to 
enforce  directions  to  preachers,  issued  by  the 
King,  enjoining  them  to  abstain  from  preaching 
on  controverted  questions." — Sir  James  Mackin- 
tosh, Hist,  of  the  Revolution  in  Eng.,  ch.  3. 

Also  ln:  D.  Neal,  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  v.  5, 
ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1686. — The  consolidation  of  New 
England  under  a  royal  Governor-General. 
See  New  England:  A.  D.  1686. 

A.  D.  1687.— Riddance  of  the  Test  Act  by 
royal  dispensing  power. — "  The  abolition  of  the 
tests  was  a  thing  resolved  upon  in  the  catholic 
council,  and  for  this  a  sanction  of  some  kind  or 
other  was  rcijuired,  as  they  dared  not  yet  pro- 
ceed upon  the  royal  will  alone.  Chance,  or  the 
machinations  of  the  catholics,  created  an  affair 
which  brought  the  question  of  the  tests  under 
another  form  before  the  court  of  king's  bench. 
This  court  had  not  the  power  to  abolish  the 
Test  Act,    but  it  might   consider  whether  the 


932 


ENGLAND,  1687. 


Trial  of 
the  Seven  Bishops, 


ENGLAND,  1687-1688. 


king  had  the  right  of  exempting  particular  sub- 
jects from  the  formalities.  .  .  .  The  king  .  .  . 
closeted  himself  with  the  judges  one  hy  one,  dis- 
missed some,  and  got  those  who  replaced  them, 
'ignorant  men,' sa_ys  an  historian,  'and  scandal- 
ously incompetent, '  to  acknowledge  his  dispens- 
ing power.  .  .  .  The  judges  of  the  king's  bench, 
after  a  trial,  .  .  .  declared,  almost  in  the  very 
language  used  by  the  crown  counsel :  —  1.  That 
the  kings  of  England  are  sovereign  princes ;  2. 
That  the  laws  of  England  are  the  king's  laws ; 
3.  That  therefore  it  is  an  inseparable  preroga- 
tive in  the  kings  of  England  to  dispense  with 
penal  laws  in  particular  cases,  and  upon  particu- 
lar necessary  reasons ;  4.  That  of  those  reasons, 
and  those  necessities,  the  king  himself  is  sole 
judge;  and  finally,  which  is  consequent  upon 
all,  5.  That  this  is  not  a  trust  invested  in,  or 
granted  to  the  king  by  the  people,  but  the  an- 
cient remains  of  thj  sovereign  power  and  pre- 
rogative of  the  kings  of  England,  which  never 
yet  was  taken  from  them,  nor  can  be.  The  case 
thus  decided,  the  king  thought  he  might  rely 
upon  the  respect  always  felt  by  the  English  peo- 
ple for  the  decisions  of  the  higher  courts,  to  ex- 
empt all  his  catholic  subjects  from  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  test.  And  upon  this,  it  became  no 
longer  a  question  merely  of  preserving  in  their 
commissions  and  ofBces  those  whose  dismissal 
had  been  demanded  by  parliament.  ...  To  ob- 
tain or  to  retain  certain  employments,  it  was  nec- 
essary to  be  of  the  same  religion  with  the  king. 
Papists  replaced  in  the  army  and  in  the  admin- 
istration all  those  who  had  pronounced  at  all 
energetically  for  the  maintenance  of  the  tests. 
Abjurations,  somewhat  out  of  credit  during  the 
last  session  of  parliament,  again  resumed  fa- 
vour."— A.  Carrel,  Hist,  of  the  Counter- Jievolutio7i 
ill  Eng. ,  ch.  3. 

Also  en:  J.  Stoughton,  Hist,  of  Religion  in 
Eng.,  V.  4,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1687-1688.— Declarations  of  Indul- 
gence.— Trial  of  the  Seven  Bishops. — "Under 
pretence  of  toleration  for  Dissenters,  James  en- 
deavoured, under  another  form,  to  remove  ob- 
stacles from  Romanists.  He  announced  an  In- 
dulgence. He  began  in  Scotland  by  issuing  on 
the  12th  of  February,  1687,  in  Edinburgh,  a  Proc- 
lamation granting  relief  to  scrupulous  con- 
sciences. Hereby  he  professed  to  relieve  the 
Presbyterians,  but  the  relief  of  them  amounted 
to  nothing ;  to  the  Romanists  it  was  complete. 
...  On  the  18th  of  March,  1687,  he  announced 
to  the  English  Privy  Council  his  intention  to  pro- 
rogue Parliament,  and  to  grant  upon  his  own 
authority  entire  liberty  of  conscience  to  all  his 
subjects.  Accordingly  on  the  4th  of  April  he 
published  his  Indulgence,  declaring  his  desire  to 
see  all  his  subjects  become  members  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  his  resolution  (since  that  was  im- 
practicable) to  protect  them  in  the  free  exercise 
of  their  religion ;  also  promising  to  protect  the 
Established  Church :  then  he  annulled  a  number 
of  Acts  of  Parliament,  suspended  all  penal  laws 
against  Nonconformists,  authorised  Roman  Catho- 
lics and  Protestant  Dissenters  to  perform  worship 
publicly,  and  abrogated  all  Acts  of  Parliament 
imposing  any  religious  test  for  civil  or  military 
ofBces.  This  declaration  was  then  notoriously 
illegal  and  unconstitutional.  James  now  issued 
a  second  and  third  declaration  for  Scotland,  and 
courted  the  Dissenters  in  England,  but  with  small 
encouragement.  ...  On  the  37th  of  April,  1688, 


James  issued  a  second  Declaration  of  Indulgence 
for  England.  .  .  .  On  the  4th  of  May,  by  an 
order  in  Council,  he  directed  his  Declaration  of 
the  27th  of  April  to  be  publicly  read  during  divine 
service  in  all  Churches  and  Chapels,  by  the  offici- 
ating ministers,  on  two  successive  Sundays  — 
namely,  on  the  20th  and  27th  of  May  in  London, 
and  on  the  3d  and  10th  of  June  in  the  country ; 
and  desired  the  Bishops  to  circulate  this  Declara- 
tion through  their  dioceses.  Hitherto  tlie  Bishops 
and  Clergy  had  held  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedi- 
ence to  the  sovereign,  however  bad  in  character 
or  in  his  measures  —  now  they  were  placed  by 
the  King  himself  in  a  dilemma.  Here  was  a  vio- 
lation of  existing  law,  and  an  intentional  injury 
to  their  Church,  if  not  a  plan  for  the  substitution 
of  another.  The  Nonconformists,  whom  James 
pretended  to  serve,  coincided  with  and  supported 
the  Church.  A  decided  course  must  be  taken. 
The  London  Clergy  met  and  resolved  not  to  read 
the  Declaration.  On  the  12th  of  May,  at  Lam- 
beth Palace,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and 
other  Prelates  assembled.  They  resolved  that 
the  Declaration  ought  not  to  be  read.  On  Fri- 
day, the  18th  of  May,  a  second  meeting  of  the 
Prelates  and  eminent  divines  was  held  at  Lam- 
beth Palace.  A  petition  to  the  King  was  drawn 
up  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  his  own 
handwriting,  disclaiming  all  disloyalty  and  all 
intolerance,  .  .  .  but  stating  that  Parliament  had 
decided  that  the  King  could  not  dispense  with 
Statutes  in  matters  ecclesiastical  —  that  the  Decla- 
ration was  therefore  illegal  —  and  could  not  be 
solemnly  published  by  the  petitioners  in  the 
House  of  God  and  during  divine  service.  This 
paper  was  signed  by  Bancroft,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  Lloyd,  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  Turner 
of  Ely,  Lake  of  Chichester,  Ken  of  Bath  and 
Wells,  White  of  Peterborough,  and  Trelawny 
of  Bristol.  It  was  approved  by  Compton,  Bishop 
of  London,  but  not  signed,  because  he  was  under 
suspension.  The  Archbishop  had  long  been  for- 
bidden to  appear  at  Court,  therefore  could  not 
present  it.  On  Friday  evening  the  six  Bishops 
who  had  signed  were  introduced  by  Sunderland 
to  the  King,  who  read  the  document  and  pro- 
nounced it  libellous  [and  seditious  and  rebellious], 
and  the  Bishops  retired.  On  Sunday,  the  20tli 
of  May,  the  first  day  appointed,  the  Declaration 
was  read  in  London  only  in  four  Churches  out  of 
one  hundred.  The  Dissenters  and  Church  Lay- 
men sided  with  the  Clergy.  On  the  following 
Sunday  the  Declaration  was  treated  in  the  same 
manner  in  London,  and  on  Sunday,  the  3d  of 
June,  was  disregarded  by  Bishops  and  Clergy  in 
all  parts  of  England.  James,  by  the  advice  of 
Jeffreys,  ordered  the  Archbishop  and  Bishops  to 
be  indicted  for  a  seditious  libel.  They  were, 
on  the  8th  of  June,  conveyed  to  the  Tower  amidst 
the  most  enthusiastic  demonstrations  of  respect 
and  affection  from  all  classes.  The  same  night 
the  Queen  was  said  to  have  given  birth  to  a  son ; 
but  the  national  opinion  was  that  some  trick  had 
been  played.  On  the  29th  of  June  the  trial  of 
the  seven  Bishops  came  on  before  the  Court  of 
King's  Bench.  .  .  .  The  Jury,  who,  after  remain- 
ing together  all  night  (one  being  stubborn)  pro- 
nounced a  verdict  of  not  guilty  on  the  morning 
of  the  30th  June,  1688."— W.  H,  Torriano,  Wil- 
liam tlie  Third,  ch.  2. — "The  court  met  at  nine 
o'clock.  The  nobility  and  gentry  covered  the 
benches,  and  an  immense  concourse  of  people 
fiUed  the  Hall,   and  blocked  up  the  adjoining 


933 


ENGLAND,  1687-1688. 


William  of 
Orange  invited. 


ENGfLAND,  1688. 


streets.  Sir  Robert  Langley ,  the  foreman  of  the 
jury,  being,  according  to  established  form,  aslied 
whether  the  accused  were  guilty  or  not  guilty, 
pronounced  the  verdict  '  Not  guilty. '  No  sooner 
were  these  words  uttered  than  a  loud  huzza  arose 
from  the  audience  in  the  court.  It  was  instantly 
echoed  from  without  by  a  shout  of  joy,  which 
sounded  like  a  crack  of  the  ancient  and-  massy 
roof  of  Westminster  Hall.  It  passed  with  elec- 
trical rapidity  from  voice  to  voice  along  the  in- 
finite multitude  who  waited  in  the  streets.  It 
reached  the  Temple  in  a  few  minutes.  .  .  .  '  The 
acclamations,'  says  Sir  John  Reresby,  'were  a 
very  rebellion  in  noise.'  In  no  long  time  they 
ran  to  the  camp  at  Hounslow,  and  were  repeated 
with  an  ominous  voice  by  the  soldiers  iu  the  hear- 
ing of  the  King,  who,  on  being  told  that  they 
were  for  the  acquittal  of  the  bishops,  said,  with 
an  ambiguity  probably  arising  from  confusion, 
'So  much  the  worse  for  them.'" — Sir  J.  Mack- 
intosh, Hist,  of  the  Kemlution  in  Eng.  in  1688, 
ch.  9. 

Also  in  :  A.  Strickland,  Lives  of  the  Seven  Bish- 
ops.— R.  Southey,  Bk.  of  the  Church,  ch.  18. — 
G.  G.  Perry,  Hist,  of  the  Ch.  of  Eng.,  ch.  30  (b.  3). 

A.  D.  i"688  (July).— William  and  Mary  of 
Orange  the  hope  of  the  nation. — "The  wiser 
among  English  statesmen  had  fixed  their  hopes 
steadily  on  the  succession  of  Mary,  the  elder 
daughter  and  heiress  of  James.  The  tyranny  of 
her  father's  reign  made  this  succession  the  hope 
of  the  people  at  large.  But  to  Europe  the  im- 
portance of  the  change,  whenever  it  should  come 
about,  lay  not  so  much  in  the  succession  of  Mary 
as  in  the  new  power  which  such  an  event  would 
give  to  her  husband,  William,  Prince  of  Orange. 
We  have  come,  in  fact,  to  a  moment  when  the 
struggle  of  England  against  the  aggression  of  its 
King  blends  with  the  larger  struggle  of  Europe 
against  the  aggression  of  Lewis  XIV." — J.  R. 
Green,  Short  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  9,  sect.  7.— "Wil- 
liam of  Nassau,  Prince  of  Orange,  Stadtholder  of 
the  republic  of  the  United  Provinces,  was,  before 
the  birth  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  first  prince  of 
the  blood  royal  of  England  [as  son  of  Princess 
Mary,  daughter  of  Charles  I.,  and,  therefore, 
nephew  as  well  as  son-in-law  of  James  II.]  ;  and 
his  consort,  the  Lady  Mary,  the  eldest  daughter 
of  the  King,  was,  at  that  period,  presumptive 
heiress  to  the  crown." — Sir  J.  Mackintosh,  Hist, 
of  the  Revolution  in  Eng.,  ch.  10. 

A.  D.  i688  (July — November).— Invitation  to 
William  of  Orange  and  his  acceptance  of  it. — 
' '  In  July,  in  almost  exact  coincidence  of  time  with 
the  Queen's  accouchement  [generally  doubted 
and  suspected],  came  the  memorable  trial  of  the 
Seven  Bishops,  which  gave  the  first  demonstra- 
tion of  the  full  force  of  that  popular  animosity 
which  James's  rule  had  provoked.  Some  months 
before,  however,  Edward  Russell,  nephew  of  the 
Earl  of  Bedford,  and  cousin  of  Algernon  Sidney's 
fellow-victim,  had  sought  the  Hague  with  pro- 
posals to  William  [Prince  of  Orange]  to  make  an 
armed  descent  upon  England,  as  vindicator  of 
English  liberties  and  the  Protestant  religion. 
AVilliam  had  cautiously  required  a  signed  in- 
vitation from  at  least  a  few  representative  states- 
men before  committing  himself  to  such  an  enter- 
prise, and  on  the  day  of  the  acquittal  of  the 
Seven  Bishops  a  paper,  signed  in  cipher  by  Lords 
Shrewsbury,  Devonshire,  Danby,  andLumley,  by 
Compton,  Bishop  of  Northampton,  by  Edward 
Russell,  and  by  Henry  Sidney,  brother  of  Alger- 


non, was  conveyed  by  Admiral  Herbert  to  the 
Hague.  William  was  now  furnished  with  the 
required  security  for  English  assistance  in  the 
projected  undertaking,  but  the  task  before  him 
was  still  one  of  extreme  difficulty.  ...  On  the 
10th  of  October,  matters  now  being  ripe  for  such 
a  step,  William,  in  conjunction  with  some  of  his 
English  advisers,  put  forth  his  famous  declara- 
tion. Starting  with  a  preamble  to  the  effect 
that  the  observance  of  laws  is  necessary  to  the 
happiness  of  states,  the  instrument  proceeds  to 
enumerate  fifteen  particulars  in  which  the  laws 
of  England  had  been  set  at  naught.  The  most 
important  of  these  were  —  (1)  the  exercise  of  the 
dispensing  power;  (3)  the  corruption,  coercion, 
and  packing  of  the  judicial  bench;  (3)  the  viola- 
tion of  the  test  laws  by  the  appointment  of  papists 
to  offices  (particularly  judicial  and  military  of- 
fices, and  the  administration  of  Ireland),  and 
generally  the  arbitrary  and  illegal  measures  re- 
sorted to  by  James  for  the  propagation  of  the 
Catholic  religion ;  (4)  the  establishment  and  action 
of  the  Court  of  High  Commission;  (5)  the  in- 
fringement of  some  municipal  charters,  and  the 
procuring  of  the  surrender  of  others ;  (6)  inter- 
ference with  elections  by  turning  out  of  all  em- 
ployment such  as  refused  to  vote  as  they  were 
required ;  and  (7)  the  grave  suspicion  which  had 
arisen  that  the  Prince  of  Wales  was  not  born  of 
the  Queen,  which  as  yet  nothing  had  been  done 
to  remove.  Having  set  forth  these  grievances, 
the  Prince's  manifesto  went  on  to  recite  the 
close  interest  which  he  and  his  consort  had  in 
this  matter  as  next  in  succession  to  the  crown, 
and  the  earnest  solicitations  which  had  been 
made  to  him  by  many  lords  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, and  other  English  subjects  of  all  ranks,  to 
interpose,  and  concluded  by  affirming  in  a  very 
distinct  and  solemn  manner  that  the  sole  object 
of  the  expedition  then  preparing  was  to  obtain 
the  assembling  of  a  free  and  lawful  Parliament, 
to  which  the  Prince  pledged  himself  to  refer  all 
questions  concerning  the  due  execution  of  the 
laws,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  Protestant  re- 
ligion, and  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  Church  of  England  and  the  Dissenters, 
as  also  the  inquiry  into  the  birth  of  the  '  pre- 
tended Prince  of  Wales ' ;  and  that  this  object 
being  attained,  the  Prince  would,  as  soon  as  the 
state  of  the  nation  should  permit  of  it,  send  home 
his  foreign  forces.  About  a  week  after,  on  the 
16th  of  October,  all  things  being  now  in  readi- 
ness, the  Prince  took  solemn  leave  of  the  States- 
General.  .  .  .  On  the  19th  William  and  his  arma- 
ment set  sail  from  Helvoetsluys,  but  was  met  on 
the  following  day  by  a  violent  storm  which 
forced  him  to  put  back  on  the  21st.  On  the  1st  of 
November  the  fleet  jiiut  to  sea  a  second  time.  .  .  . 
By  noon  of  the  5th  of  November,  the  Prince's 
fleet  was  wafted  safely  into  Torbay." — H.  D. 
Traill,  William  the  Third,  ch.  3. 

Also  in  :  G.  Burnet,  Hist,  of  My  Own  Time, 
1688  (41.  3).— L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  17th 
Gent.,  bk.  18,  ch.  1-i  {v.  4). — Lord  Campbell, 
Lives  of  the  Lord  Gliancellors,  ch.  106-107."  Somers 
(».  4). — T.  P.  Courtenay,  Life  of  Danby  (Lard- 
ner's  Cab.  Cyclop.),  pp.  315-334. 

A.  D.  i688  (November— December). — The 
Revolution. — Ignominious  flight  of  James. — 
"The  declaration  published  by  the  prince  [on 
landing]  consisted  of  sixteen  articles.  It  enu- 
merated those  proceedings  of  the  government 
since   the   accession  of    the   king,   which  were 


934 


ENGLAND,  1688. 


The  Revolution. 
Might  of  James. 


ENGLAKD,  1689. 


regarded  as  in  the  greatest  degree  opposed  to  the 
liberty  of  the  subject  and  to  the  safety  of  the 
Protestant  religion.  ...  To  provide  some  ef- 
fectual remedy  against  these  and  similar  evils, 
was  the  only  design  of  the  enterprise  in  which 
the  prince,  in  comijliance  with  earnest  solicita- 
tions from  many  lords,  both  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, from  numbers  among  the  gentry  and  all 
ranks  of  people,  had  now  embarked.  .  .  .  Ad- 
dresses were  also  published  to  the  army  and  navy. 
.  .  .  The  immediate  effect  of  these  apjieals  did 
not  correspond  with  the  expectations  of  William 
and  his  followers.  On  the  8th  of  November  the 
people  of  Exeter  received  the  prince  with  quiet 
submission.  The  memory  of  i\Ionmouth's  expe- 
dition was  still  fresh  and  terrible  through  the 
west.  On  the  12th,  lord  Cornbury,  son  of  the 
earl  of  Clarendon,  went  over,  with  some  ofHcers, 
and  about  a  hundred  of  his  regiment,  to  the 
prince;  and  most  of  the  officers,  with  a  larger 
body  of  the  privates  belonging  to  the  regiment 
commanded  by  the  duke  of  St.  Alban's,  followed 
their  example.  Of  three  regiments,  however, 
quartered  near  Salisbury,  the  majority  could  not 
be  induced  to  desert  the  service  of  the  king.  .  .  . 
Every  day  now  brought  with  it  new  accessions 
to  the  standard  of  the  prince,  and  tidings  of 
movements  in  different  parts  of  the  kingdom  in 
his  favour ;  while  James  was  as  constantly  re- 
minded, by  one  desertion  after  another,  that  he 
lived  in  an  atmosphere  of  treachery,  with  scarcely 
a  man  or  woman  about  him  to  be  trusted.  The 
defection  of  the  lords  Churchill  and  Drumlaneric, 
and  of  the  dukes  of  Grafton  and  Ormond,  was 
followed  by  that  of  prince  George  and  the  princess 
Anne.  Prince  George  joined  the  invader  at  Sher- 
burne ;  the  princess  made  her  escape  from  White- 
hall at  night,  under  the  guardianship  of  the 
bishop  of  London,  and  found  an  asylum  among 
the  adherents  of  the  prince  of  Orange  who  were 
in  arms  in  Northamptonshire.  By  this  time 
Bristol  and  Plymouth,  Hull,  York,  and  New- 
castle, were  among  the  places  of  strength  which 
had  been  seized  by  the  partisans  of  the  prince. 
His  standard  had  also  been  unfurled  with  success 
in  the  counties  of  Derby,  Nottingham,  York, 
and  Cheshire.  .  .  .  Even  in  Oxford,  several  of 
the  heads  of  colleges  concurred  in  sending  Dr. 
Finch,  warden  of  All  Souls'  College,  to  invite 
the  prince  from  Dorsetshire  to  their  city,  assuring 
him  of  their  willingness  to  receive  him,  and  to 
melt  down  their  plate  for  his  service,  if  it  should 
be  needed.  So  desperate  had  the  affairs  of 
James  now  become,  that  some  of  his  advisers 
urged  his  leaving  the  kingdom,  and  negotiating 
with  safety  to  his  person  from  a  distance ;  but 
from  that  course  he  was  dissuaded  by  Halifax 
and  Godolphin.  In  compliance  with  the  advice 
of  an  assembly  of  peers,  James  issued  a  procla- 
mation on  the  13th  of  November,  stating  that 
writs  had  been  signed  to  convene  a  parliament  on 
the  loth  of  January ;  that  a  pardon  of  all  offences 
should  previously  pass  the  great  seal ;  and  that 
commissioners  should  proceed  immediately  to 
the  head-quarters  of  the  prince  of  Orange,  to 
negotiate  on  the  present  state  of  affairs.  The 
commissioners  chosen  by  the  king  were  Halifax, 
Nottingham,  and  Godolphin ;  but  William  evaded 
for  some  days  the  conference  which  they  solicited. 
In  the  meantime  a  forged  proclamation  in  the 
name  of  the  prince  was  made  public  in  London, 
denouncing  the  Catholics  of  the  metropolis  as 
plotting  the  destruction  of  life  and  property  on 


the  largest  possible  scale.  .  .  .  No  one  doubted 
the  authenticity  of  this  document,  and  the  fer- 
ment and  disorder  which  it  spread  through  the 
city  filled  the  king  with  the  greatest  apprehension 
for  the  safety  of  himself  and  family.  On  the 
morning  of  the  9th  of  December,  the  queen  and 
the  infant  prince  of  Wales  were  lodged  on  board 
a  yacht  at  Gravesend,  and  commenced  a  safe  voy- 
age to  Calais.  James  pledged  himself  to  follow 
within  24  hours.  In  the  course  of  that  day  the 
royal  commissioners  sent  a  report  of  their  pro- 
ceedings to  Whitehall.  The  demands  of  the 
prince  were,  that  a  parliament  should  be  assem- 
bled; that  all  persons  holding  public  trusts  in 
violation  of  the  Test-laws  should  relinquish  them ; 
that  the  city  should  have  command  of  the  Tower; 
that  the  fleet,  and  the  places  of  strength  through 
the  kingdom  should  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
Protestants ;  that  the  expense  of  the  Dutch  arma- 
ment should  be  defrayed,  in  part,  from  the  Eng- 
lish Treasury ;  and  that  the  king  and  the  prince, 
and  their  respective  forces,  should  remain  at  an 
equal  distance  from  London  during  the  sitting  of 
parliament.  James  read  these  articles  with  some 
surprise,  observing  that  they  were  much  more 
moderate  than  he  had  expected.  But  his  pledge 
had  been  given  to  the  queen ;  the  city  was  still 
in  great  agitation ;  and  private  letters.  Intimating 
that  his  person  was  not  beyond  the  reach  of  dan- 
ger, suggested  that  his  interests  might  possibly  be 
better  served  by  his  absence  than  by  his  presence. 
Hence  his  purpose  to  leave  the  kingdom  remained 
unaltered.  At  three  o'clock  on  the  following 
morning  the  king  left  Whitehall  with  sir  Edward 
Hales,  disguising  himself  as  an  attendant.  The 
vessel  provided  to  convey  him  to  France  was  a 
miserable  fishing-boat.  It  descended  the  river 
without  interruption  until  it  came  near  to  Fevers- 
ham,  where  some  fishermen,  suspecting  Hales 
and  the  king  to  be  Catholics,  probably  priests 
endeavouring  to  make  their  escape  in  disguise, 
took  them  from  the  vessel.  .  .  .  The  arrest  of  tht 
monarch  at  Feversham  on  Wednesday  was  fol 
lowed  by  an  order  of  the  privy  council,  command- 
ing that  his  carriage  and  the  royal  guards  should 
be  sent  to  reconduct  him  to  the  capital.  .  .  . 
After  some  consultation  the  king  was  informed 
that  the  public  interests  required  his  Immediate 
withdrawment  to  some  distance  fi'om  Westmin- 
ster, and  Hampton  Court  was  named.  James  ex- 
pressed a  preference  for  Rochester,  and  his  wishes 
in  that  respect  were  complied  with.  The  day  on 
which  the  king  withdrew  to  Rochester  William 
took  up  his  residence  in  St.  James's.  The  king 
chose  his  retreat,  deeming  it  probable  that  it 
might  be  expedient  for  him  to  make  a  second 
effort  to  reach  the  continent.  .  .  .  His  guards 
left  him  so  much  at  liberty,  that  no  impediment 
to  his  departure  was  likely  to  arise ;  and  on  the 
last  day  of  this  memorable  year  —  only  a  week 
after  his  removal  from  Whitehall,  James  em- 
barked secretly  at  Rochester,  and  with  a  favoura- 
ble breeze  safely  reached  the  French  coast." — 
R.  Vaughan,  Hist,  of  England  under  the  House  of 
Stuart,  V.  2,  pp.  914-918. 

Aiso  IN :  Lord  Macaulay,  Bist.  of  Eng. ,  ch.  9- 
10  (b.  2).— H.  D.  Traill,  William  tJie  Third,  ch.  4. 
— Continuation  of  Sir  J.  Mackintosh's  Hist,  oftlie 
Rev.  in  1688,  ch.  16-17.— Sir  J.  Dalrymple,  Mem- 
oirs of  Gt.  Britain  and  Ireland,  pt.  1,  bk.  6-7  (o.  2). 

A.  D.  1689  (January— February).— The  set- 
tlement of  the  Crowrn  on  William  and  Mary.— 
The  Declaration  of  Rights.— "The  convention 


935 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


Willia7n  and 

Mary, 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


met  on  the  22nd  of  January.  Their  first  care  was 
to  address  the  prince  to  take  the  administration 
of  affairs  and  disposal  of  the  revenue  into  his 
hands,  in  order  to  give  a  kind  of  parliamentary 
sanction  to  the  power  he  already  exercised. 
On  the  28tli  of  January  tlie  commons,  after  a 
debate  in  which  the  friends  of  tlie  late  king  made 
but  a  faint  opposition,  came  to  their  great  vote: 
That  king  James  II.,  having  endeavoured  to  SHb- 
vert  the  constitution  of  this  kingdom,  by  break- 
ing the  original  contract  between  king  and  peo- 
ple, and  by  the  advice  of  Jesuits  and  other 
wicked  persons  having  violated  the  fundamental 
laws,  and  having  withdrawn  liimself  out  of  the 
kingdom,  has  abdicated  the  government,  and 
that  the  throne  is  thereby  vacant.  They  resolved 
unanimously  the  next  day.  That  it  hath  been 
found  by  experience  inconsistent  with  the  safety 
and  welfare  of  this  protestant  kingdom  to  be 
governed  by  a  popisli  prince.  This  vote  was  a 
remarkable  triumph  of  the  whig  party,  who  had 
contended  for  the  exclusion  bill.  .  .  .  The  lords 
agreed  with  equal  unanimity  to  this  vote ;  which, 
thougli  It  was  expressed  only  as  an  abstract 
proposition,  led  by  a  practical"  inference  to  the 
whole  change  that  the  whigs  had  in  view.  But 
upon  the  former  resolution  several  important 
divisions  took  place."  The  lords  were  unwilling 
to  commit  themselves  to  the  two  propositions, 
that  James  had  "abdicated "  the  government  by 
his  desertion  of  it,  and  that  the  throne  had  there- 
by become  "vacant."  They  yielded  at  length, 
however,  and  adopted  the  resolution  as  the  com- 
mons had  passed  it.  They  "followed  this  up  by 
a  resolution,  that  the  prince  and  princess  of 
Orange  shall  be  declared  king  and  queen  of  Eng- 
land, and  all  tlie  dominions  thereunto  belonging. 
But  the  commons,  with  a  noble  patriotism,  de- 
layed to  concur  in  this  hasty  settlement  of  the 
crown,  till  they  should  have  completed  the 
declaration  of  those  fundamental  rights  and  lib- 
erties for  the  sake  of  which  alone  they  had  gone 
forward  with  this  great  revolution.  That  decla- 
ration, being  at  once  an  exposition  of  the  mis- 
government  which  had  compelled  them  to  de- 
throne the  late  king,  and  of  the  conditions  upon 
which  they  elected  his  successors,  was  incorpo- 
rated in  the  final  resolution  to  which  both  houses 
came  on  the  13th  of  February,  extending  the 
limitation  of  the  crown  as  far  as  the  state  of 
affairs  required :  That  William  and  Mary,  prince 
and  princess  of  Orange,  be,  and  be  declared,  king 
and  queen  of  England,  France  and  Ireland,  and 
the  dominions  thereunto  belonging,  to  hold  the 
crown  and  dignity  of  the  said  kingdoms  and 
dominions  to  them,  the  said  prince  and  princess, 
during  their  lives,  and  the  life  of  the  survivor  of 
them ;  and  that  the  sole  and  full  exercise  of  the 
regal  power  be  only  in,  and  executed  by,  the 
said  prince  of  Orange,  in  the  names  of  the  said 
prince  and  princess,  during  their  joint  lives;  and 
after  their  decease  the  said  crown  and  royal  dig- 
nity of  the  said  kingdoms  and  dominions  to  be 
to  the  lieirs  of  the  body  of  the  said  princess ;  for 
default  of  such  issue,  to  the  princess  Anne  of 
Denmark  [younger  daughter  of  James  II.],  and 
the  heirs  of  her  body ;  and  for  default  of  such 
issue,  to  the  heirs  of  the  body  of  the  said  prince 
of  Orange.  .  .  .  The  Declaration  of  Rights  pre- 
sented to  the  prince  of  Orange  by  the  marquis  of 
Halifax,  as  speaker  of  the  lords,  in  the  presence 
of  both  houses,  on  the  18th  of  February,  consists 
of  three  parts:  a  recital  of  the  illegal  and  arbi- 


trary acts  committed  by  the  late  king,  and  of 
their  consequent  vote  of  abdication;  a  declara- 
tion, nearly  following  the  words  of  the  former 
part,  that  such  enumerated  acts  are  illegal ;  and 
a  resolution,  that  the  throne  shall  be  tilled  by  the 
prince  and  princess  of  Orange,  according  to  the 
limitations  mentioned.  .  .  .  This  declaration  was, 
some  months  afterwards  [in  October],  confirmed 
by  a  regular  act  of  the  legislature  in  the  bill  of 
rights  [see  below:  1689  (October)]." — H.  Hal- 
lam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  14-15  (o.  3). 

Also  in:  Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch. 
10  (j).  2).— L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  nth 
Cent.,  bk.  19,  c7i.  2-3  (».  4).— R.  Gneist,  Hist,  of 
Eng.  Const. ,  ch.  42  (v.  2). 

A.  D.  1689  (April— August).— The  Church 
and  the  Revolution. — The  Toleration  Act.— 
The  Non-Jurors. — "The  men  who  had  been 
most  helpful  in  bringing  about  the  late  changes 
were  not  all  of  the  same  way  of  thinking  in  re- 
ligion ;  many  of  them  belonged  to  the  Church  of 
England;  many  were  Dissenters.  It  seemed, 
therefore,  a  fitting  time  to  grant  the  Dissenters 
some  relief  from  the  harsh  laws  passed  against 
them  in  Charles  II. 's  reign.  Protestant  Dissent- 
ers, save  those  who  denied  the  Trinity,  were  no 
longer  forbidden  to  have  places  of  worship  and 
services  of  their  own,  if  they  would  only  swear 
to  be  loyal  to  the  king,  and  that  his  power  was 
as  lawful  in  Church  as  in  State  matters.  The 
law  that  gave  them  this  is  called  the  Toleration 
Act.  Men's  notions  were  still,  however,  very 
narrow ;  care  was  taken  that  the  Roman  Catholics 
should  get  no  benefit  from  this  law.  Even  a 
Protestant  Dissenter  might  not  yet  lawfully  be  a 
member  of  either  House  of  Parliament,  or  take 
a  post  in  the  king's  service;  for  the  Test  Acts 
were  left  untouched.  King  "William,  who  was  a 
Presbyterian  in  his  own  laud,  wanted  very  much 
to  see  the  Dissenters  won  back  to  the  Church  of 
England.  To  bring  this  about,  he  wished  the 
Church  to  alter  those  things  in  the  Prayer  Book 
which  kept  Dissenters  from  joining  with  her. 
But  most  of  the  clergy  would  not  have  any 
change;  and  because  these  were  the  stronger 
party  in  Convocation  —  as  the  Parliament  of  the 
Church  is  called  —  William  could  get  nothing 
done.  At  the  same  time  a  rent,  which  at  first 
seemed  likely  to  be  serious,  was  made  in  the 
Church  itself.  There  was  a  strong  feeling  among 
the  clergy  in  favour  of  the  banished  king.  So 
a  law  was  made  by  which  every  rnan  who  held 
a  preferment  in  the  Church,  or  either  of  the 
Universities,  had  to  swear  to  be  true  to  King  Wil- 
liam and  Queen  JIary,  or  had  to  give  up  his  pre- 
ferment. Most  of  the  clergy  were  very  unwill- 
ing to  obey  this  law ;  but  only  400  were  found 
stout-hearted  enough  to  give  up  their  livings 
rather  than  do  what  they  thought  to  be  a  wicked 
thing.  These  were  called  'non- jurors,'  or  men 
who  would  not  swear.  Among  them  were  five 
out  of  the  seven  Bishops  who  had  withstood 
James  II.  only  a  year  before.  The  sect  of  non- 
jurors, who  looked  upon  themselves  as  the  only 
true  Churchmen,  did  not  spread.  But  it  did  not 
die  out  altogether  until  seventy  years  ago  [i.  e., 
early  in  the  19th  century].  It  was  at  this  time 
that  the  names  High-Church  and  Low-Church 
first  came  into  use." — J.  Rowley,  Tlie  Settlement 
of  the  Constitution,  ch.  1. 

Also  in:  J.  Stoughton.  Hist,  of  Reliyion  in 
Eng.,  V.  5,  ch.  4-11.— T.  Lathbury,  Hist,  of  the 
Non-jurors. 


93a 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


Bill  of  Rights. 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


A.  D.  1689  (May).— War  declared  against 
France. — The  Grand  Alliance.  See  Prance: 
A.  D.  1689-1690. 

A.  D.  1689  (October).— The  Bill  of  Rights.— 

The  following  is  tlie  text  of  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
passed  by  Parliament  at  its  sitting  in  October, 
1689:  Whereas  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem- 
poral, and  Commons,  assembled  at  Westminster, 
lawfully,  fully,  and  freely  representing  all  the 
estates  of  the  people  of  this  realm,  did  upon  the 
Thirteenth  day  of  February,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  One  Thousand  Six  Hundred  Eighty-eight 
[0.  s.],  present  unto  their  Majesties,  then  called 
and  known  by  the  names  and  style  of  William 
and  Mary,  Prince  and  Princess  of  Orange,  being 
present  in  their  proper  persons,  a  certain  Declara- 
tion in  writing,  made  by  the  said  Lords  and  Com- 
mons, in  the  words  following,  viz. :  "  Whereas 
the  late  King  James  IL,  by  the  assistance  of 
divers  evil  counsellors,  judges,  and  ministers  em- 
ployed by  him,  did  endeavour  to  subvert  and  ex- 
tirpate the  Protestant  religion,  and  the  laws  and 
liberties  of  this  kingdom:  i.  By  assuming  and 
exercising  a  power  of  dispensing  with  and  sus- 
pending of  laws,  and  the  execution  of  laws, 
without  consent  of  Parliament.  2.  By  commit- 
ting and  prosecuting  divers  worthy  prelates  for 
humbly  petitioning  to  be  excused  from  concur 
ring  to  the  said  assumed  power.  3.  By  issuing 
and  causing  to  be  executed  a  commission  under 
the  Great  Seal  for  erecting  a  court,  called  the 
Court  of  Commissioners  for  Ecclesiastical  Causes. 
4.  By  levying  money  for  and  to  the  use  of  the 
Crown  by  pretence  of  prerogative,  for  other  time 
and  in  other  manner  than  the  same  was  granted 
by  Parliament.  5.  By  raising  and  keeping  a 
standing  army  within  this  kingdom  in  time  of 
peace,  without  consent  of  Parliament,  and  quar- 
tering soldiers  contrary  to  law.  6.  IBy  causing 
several  good  subjects,  being  Protestants,  to  be 
disarmed,  at  the  same  time  when  Papists  were 
both  armed  and  employed  contrary  to  law.  7. 
By  violating  the  freedom  of  election  of  members 
to  serve  in  Parliament.  8.  By  prosecutions  in 
the  Court  of  King's  Bench  for  matters  and  causes 
cognisable  only  in  Parliament,  and  by  divers 
other  arbitrary  and  illegal  causes.  9.  And  where- 
as of  late  years,  partial,  corrupt,  and  unqualified 
persons  have  been  returned,  and  served  on  juries 
in  trials,  and  particularly  divers  jurors  in  trials 
for  high  treason,  which  were  not  freeholders. 
ID.  And  excessive  bail  hath  been  required  of 
persons  committed  in  criminal  cases,  to  elude  the 
benefit  of  the  laws  made  for  the  liberty  of  the 
subjects.  II.  And  excessive  fines  have  been  im- 
posed ;  and  illegal  and  cruel  punishments  inflicted. 
12.  And  several  grants  and  promises  made  of 
fines  and  forfeitures  before  any  conviction  or 
judgment  against  the  persons  upon  whom  the 
same  were  to  be  levied.  All  which  are  utterly 
and  directly  contrary  to  the  known  laws  and 
statutes,  and  freedom  of  this  realm.  And  whereas 
the  said  late  King  James  IL  having  abdicated 
the  government,  and  the  throne  being  thereby 
vacant,  his  Highness  the  Prince  of  Orange  (whom 
it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God  to  make  the  glori- 
ous instrument  of  delivering  this  kingdom  from 
Popery  and  arbitrary  power)  did  (by  the  advice 
of  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  divers 
principal  persons  of  the  Commons)  cause  letters 
to  be  written  to  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem- 
poral, being  Protestants,  and  other  letters  to  the 
several  counties,  cities,  universities,  boroughs, 


and  cinque  ports,  for  the  choosing  of  such  persons 
to  represent  them  as  were  of  right  to  be  sent  to 
Parliament,  to  meet  and  sit  at  Westminster  upon 
the  two-and-twentieth  day  of  January,  in  this 
year  One  Thousand  Six  Hundred  Eighty  and 
Eight,  in  order  to  such  an  establishment,  as  that 
their  religion,  laws,  and  liberties  might  not  again 
be  in  danger  of  being  subverted ;  upon  which 
letters  elections  have  been  accordingly  made. 
And  thereupon  the  said  Lords  Spiritual  and 
Temporal,  and  Commons,  pursuant  to  their  re- 
spective letters  and  elections,  being  now  assem- 
bled in  a  full  and  free  representation  of  this  na- 
tion, taking  into  their  most  serious  consideration 
the  best  means  for  attaining  the  ends  aforesaid, 
do  in  the  first  place  (as  their  ancestors  in  like 
case  have  usually  done)  for  the  vindicating  and 
asserting  their  ancient  rights  and  liberties,  de- 
clare: I.  That  the  pretended  power  of  suspend- 
ing of  laws,  or  the  execution  of  laws,  by  regal 
authority,  without  consent  of  Parliament,  is  ille- 
gal. 2.  That  the  pretended  power  of  dispens- 
ing with  laws,  or  the  execution  of  laws  by  regal 
authority,  as  it  hath  been  assumed  and  exercised 
of  late,  is  illegal.  3.  That  the  commission  for 
erecting  the  late  Court  of  Commissioners  for  Ec- 
clesiastical Causes,  and  all  other  commissions  and 
courts  of  like  nature,  are  illegal  and  pernicious. 
4.  That  levying  money  for  or  to  the  use  of  the 
Crown  by  pretence  and  prerogative,  without 
grant  of  Parliament,  for  longer  time  or  in  other 
manner  than  the  same  is  or  shall  be  granted,  is 
illegal.  5.  That  it  is  the  right  of  the  subjects 
to  petition  the  King,  and  all  commitments  and 
prosecutions  for  such  petitioning  are  illegal.  6. 
That  the  raising  or  keeping  a  standing  army 
within  the  kingdom  in  time  of  peace,  unless  it 
be  with  consent  of  Parliament,  is  against  law. 
7.  Tliat  the  subjects  which  are  Protestants  may 
have  arms  for  their  defence  suitable  to  their  con- 
ditions, and  as  allowed  by  law.  8.  That  election 
of  members  of  Parliament  ought  to  be  free.  9. 
That  the  freedom  of  speech,  and  debates  or  pro- 
ceedings in  Parliament,  ought  not  to  be  impeached 
or  questioned  in  any  court  or  place  out  of  Parlia- 
ment. 10.  That  excessive  bail  ought  not  to  be 
required,  nor  excessive  fines  Imposed ;  nor  cruel 
and  unusual  punishments  inflicted.  11.  That 
jurors  ought  to  be  duly  impanelled  and  returned, 
and  jurors  which  pass  upon  men  in  trials  for  high 
treason  ought  to  be  freeholders.  12.  That  all 
grants  and  promises  of  fines  and  forfeitures  of 
particular  persons  before  conviction  are  illegal 
and  void.  13.  And  that  for  redress  of  all  grie- 
vances, and  for  the  amending,  strengthening,  and 
preserving  of  the  laws.  Parliament  ought  to  be 
lield  frequently.  And  they  do  claim,  demand, 
and  insist  upon  all  and  singular  the  premises,  as 
their  undoubted  rights  and  liberties ;  and  that  no 
declarations,  judgments,  doings  or  proceedings, 
to  the  prejudice  of  the  people  in  any  of  the  said 
premises,  ought  in  any  wise  to  be  drawn  here- 
after into  consequence  or  example.  To  which 
demand  of  their  rights  they  are  particularly  en- 
couraged by  the  declaration  of  his  Highness  the 
Prince  of  Orange,  as  being  the  only  means  for 
obtaining  a  full  redress  and  remedy  therein. 
Having  therefore  an  entire  confidence  that  his 
said  Highness  the  Prince  of  Orange  will  perfect 
the  deliverance  so  far  advanced  by  him,  and  will 
still  preserve  them  from  the  violation  of  their 
rights,  which  they  have  here  asserted,  and  from 
all  other  attempts  upon  their  religion,  rights,  and 


937 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


Bill  of  Rights. 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


liberties :  II.  The  said  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem- 
poral, and  Commons,  assembled  at  Westminster, 
do  resolve,  that  William  and  Mary,  Prince  and 
Princess  of  Orange,  be,  and  be  declared,  King 
and  Queen  of  England,  France,  and  Ireland,  and 
the  dominions  thereunto  belonging,  to  hold  the 
crown  and  royal  dignity  of  the  said  kingdoms 
and  dominions  to  them  the  said  Prince  and 
Princess  during  their  lives,  and  the  life  of  the 
survivor  of  them ;  and  that  the  sole  and  full  ex- 
ercise of  the  regal  power  be  only  in,  and  exe- 
cuted by,  the  said  Prince  of  Orange,  in  the  names 
of  the  said  Prince  and  Princess,  during  their 
joint  lives;  and  after  their  deceases,  the  said 
crown  and  royal  dignity  of  the  said  kingdoms 
and  dominions  to  be  to  the  heirs  of  the  body  of 
the  said  Princess;  and  for  default  of  such  issue 
to  the  Princess  Anne  of  Denmark,  and  the  heirs 
of  her  body ;  and  for  default  of  such  issue  to  the 
heirs  of  the  body  of  the  said  Prince  of  Orange. 
And  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Com- 
mons, do  pray  the  said  Prince  and  Princess  to  ac- 
cept the  same  accordingly.  III.  And  that  the 
oaths  hereafter  mentioned  be  taken  by  all  persons 
of  whom  the  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy 
might  be  required  by  law  instead  of  them ;  and 
that  the  said  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy 
be  abrogated.  'I,  A.  B.,  do  sincerely  promise 
and  swear.  That  I  will  be  faithful  and  bear  true 
allegiance  to  their  Majesties  King  William  and 
Queen  Mary:  So  help  me  God.'  'I,  A.  B., 
do  swear.  That  I  do  from  my  heart  abhor,  detest, 
and  abjure  as  impious  and  heretical  that  damna- 
ble doctrine  and  position,  that  princes  excom- 
municated or  deprived  by  the  Pope,  or  any  au- 
thority of  the  See  of  Rome,  may  be  deposed  or 
murdered  by  their  subjects,  or  any  other  what- 
soever. And  I  do  declare,  that  no  foreign  prince, 
person,  prelate,  state,  or  potentate  hath,  or  ought 
to  have,  any  jurisdiction,  power,  superiority,  pre- 
eminence, or  authority,  ecclesiastical  or  spiritual, 
within  this  realm:  So  help  me  God.'"  IV. 
Upon  which  their  said  Majesties  did  accept  the 
crown  and  royal  dignity  of  the  kingdoms  of  Eng- 
land, France,  and  Ireland,  and  the  dominions 
thereunto  belonging,  according  to  the  resolution 
and  desire  of  the  said  Lords  and  Commons  con- 
tained in  the  said  declaration.  V.  And  thereupon 
their  Majesties  were  pleased,  that  the  said  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  being 
the  two  Houses  of  Parliament,  should  continue 
to  sit,  and  with  their  Majesties'  royal  concurrence 
make  effectual  provision  for  the  settlement  of  the 
religion,  laws  and  liberties  of  this  kingdom,  so 
that  the  same  for  the  future  might  not  be  in  dan- 
ger again  of  being  subverted ;  to  which  the  said 
Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons, 
did  agree  and  proceed  to  act  accordingly.  VI. 
Now  in  pursuance  of  the  premises,  the  said  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  in  Par- 
liament assembled,  for  the  ratifying,  confirming, 
and  establishing  the  said  declaration,  and  the  ar- 
ticles, clauses,  matters,  and  things  therein  con- 
tained, by  the  force  of  a  law  made  in  due  form 
by  authority  of  Parliament,  do  pray  that  it  may 
be  declared  and  enacted,  'That  all  and  singular 
the  rights  and  liberties  asserted  and  claimed  in 
the  said  declaration  are  the  true,  ancient,  and  in- 
dubitable rights  and  liberties  of  the  people  of 
this  kingdom,  and  so  shall  be  esteemed,  allowed, 
adjudged,  deemed,  and  taken  to  be,  and  that  all 
and  every  the  particulars  aforesaid  shall  be  firmly 
and  strictly  holden  and  observed,  as  they  are  ex- 


pressed in  the  said  declaration;  and  all  officers 
and  ministers  whatsoever  shall  serve  their  Majes- 
ties and  their  successors  according  to  the  same  in 
all  times  to  come.  VII.  And  the  said  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  seriously 
considering  how  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God, 
in  his  marvellous  providence,  and  merciful  good- 
ness to  this  nation,  to  provide  and  preserve  their 
said  ^Majesties'  royal  persons  most  happily  to 
reign  over  us  upon  the  throne  of  their  ancestors, 
for  which  they  render  unto  Him  from  the  bottom 
of  their  hearts  their  humblest  thanks  and  praises, 
do  truly,  firmly,  assuredly,  and  in  the  sincerity 
of  their  hearts,  think,  and  do  hereby  recognise, 
acknowledge,  and  declare,  that  King  James  II. 
having  abdicated  the  Government,  and  their  Maj- 
esties having  accepted  the  Crown  and  royal  dig- 
nity as  aforesaid,  their  said  Majesties  did  become, 
were,  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  by  the  laws 
of  this  realm,  our  sovereign  liege  Lord  and  Lady, 
King  and  Queen  of  England,  France,  and  Ire- 
land, and  the  dominions  thereunto  belonging,  in 
and  to  whose  princely  persons  the  royal  state, 
crown,  and  dignity  of  the  said  realms,  with  all 
honours,  styles,  titles,  regalities,  prerogatives, 
powers,  jurisdictions,  and  authorities  to  the  same 
belonging  and  appertaining,  are  most  fully,  right- 
fully, and  entirely  invested  and  incorporated, 
united,  and  annexed.  VIII.  And  for  preventing 
all  questions  and  divisions  in  this  realm,  by  rea- 
son of  any  pretended  titles  to  the  Crown,  and  for 
preserving  a  certainty  in  the  succession  thereof, 
in  and  upon  which  the  unity,  peace,  tranquillity, 
and  safety  of  this  nation  doth,  under  God,  wholly 
consist  and  depend,  the  said  Lords  Spiritual  and 
Temporal,  and  Commons,  do  beseech  their  Maj- 
esties that  it  may  be  enacted,  established,  and 
declared,  that  the  Crown  and  regal  government 
of  the  said  kingdoms  and  dominions,  with  all 
and  singular  the  premises  thereunto  belonging 
and  appertaining,  shall  be  and  continue  to  their 
said  Majesties,  and  the  survivor  of  them,  during 
their  lives,  and  the  life  of  the  survivor  of  them. 
And  that  the  entire,  perfect,  and  full  exercise  of 
the  regal  power  and  government  be  only  in,  and 
executed  by,  his  Majesty,  in  the  names  of  both 
their  Majesties,  during  their  joint  lives;  and  after 
their  deceases  the  said  Crown  and  premises  shall 
be  and  remain  to  the  heirs  of  the  body  of  her 
Majesty:  and  for  default  of  such  issue,  to  her 
Royal  Highness  the  Princess  Anne  of  Denmark, 
and  the  heirs  of  her  body ;  and  for  default  of  such 
issue,  to  the  heirs  of  the  body  of  his  said  Majesty : 
And  thereunto  the  said  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem- 
poral, and  Commons,  do,  in  the  name  of  all  the 
people  aforesaid,  most  humbly  and  faithfully 
submit  themselves,  their  heirs  and  posterities, 
for  ever:  and  do  faithfully  promise,  that  they 
will  stand  to,  maintain,  and  defend  their  said 
Majesties,  and  also  the  limitation  and  succession 
of  the  Crown  herein  specified  and  contained,  to 
the  utmost  of  their  powers,  with  their  lives  and 
estates,  against  all  persons  whatsoever  that  shall 
attempt  anything  to  the  contrary.  IX.  And 
whereas  it  hath  been  found  by  experience,  that 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  safety  and  welfare  of 
this  Protestant  kingdom  to  be  governed  by  a 
Popish  prince,  or  by  any  king  or  queen  marry- 
ing a  Papist,  the  said  Lords  Spiritual  and  Tem- 
poral, and  Commons,  do  further  pray  that  it  may 
be  enacted.  That  all  and  every  person  and  per- 
sons that  is,  are,  or  shall  be  reconciled  to,  or  shall 
hold  communion  with,  the  See  or  Church  of 


938 


ENGLAND,  1689. 


Battle  of 
Beachy  Head. 


ENGLAND,  1693. 


Rome,  or  shall  profess  the  Popish  religion,  or 
shall  marry  a  Papist,  shall  be  excluded,  and  be 
for  ever  Incapable  to  inherit,  possess,  or  enjoy 
the  Crown  and  Government  of  this  realm,  and 
Ireland,  and  the  dominions  thereunto  belonging, 
or  any  part  of  the  same,  or  to  have,  use,  or  exer- 
cise, any  regal  power,  authority,  or  jurisdiction 
within  the  same ;  and  in  all  and  every  such  case 
or  cases  the  people  of  these  realms  shall  be  and 
are  hereby  absolved  of  their  allegiance,  and  the 
said  Crown  and  government  shall  from  time  to 
time  descend  to,  and  be  enjoyed  by,  such  person 
or  persons,  being  Protestants,  as  should  have  in- 
herited and  enjoyed  the  same,  in  case  the  said 
person  or  persons  so  reconciled,  holding  com- 
munion, or  professing,  or  marrying,  as  aforesaid, 
were  naturally  dead.  X.  And  that  every  King 
and  Queen  of  this  realm,  who  at  any  time  here- 
after shall  come  to  and  succeed  in  the  Imperial 
Crown  of  this  kingdom,  shall,  on  the  first  day  of 
the  meeting  of  the  first  Parliament,  next  after 
his  or  her  coming  to  the  Crown,  sitting  in  his  or 
her  throne  in  the  House  of  Peers,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Lords  and  Commons  therein  assembled,  or 
at  his  or  her  coronation,  before  such  person  or 
persons  who  shall  administer  the  coronation  oath 
to  him  or  her,  at  the  time  of  his  or  her  taking  the 
said  oath  (which  shall  first  happen),  make,  sub- 
scribe, and  audibly  repeat  the  declaration  men- 
tioned in  the  statute  made  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  the  reign  of  King  Charles  II.,  Intituled  "  An 
Act  for  the  more  efEectual  preserving  the  King's 
person  and  Government,  by  disabling  Papists 
from  sitting  in  either  House  of  Parliament. "  But 
if  it  shall  happen  that  such  King  or  Queen,  upon 
his  or  her  succession  to  the  Crown  of  this  realm, 
shall  be  under  the  age  of  twelve  years,  then  every 
such  King  or  Queen  shall  make,  subscribe,  and 
audibly  repeat  the  said  declaration  at  his  or  her 
coronation,  or  the  first  day  of  meeting  of  the 
first  Parliament  as  aforesaid,  which  shall  first 
happen  after  such  King  or  Queen  shall  have  at- 
tained the  said  age  of  twelve  years.  XI.  All 
which  their  Majesties  are  contented  and  pleased 
shall  be  declared,  enacted,  and  established  by  au- 
thority of  this  present  Parliament,  and  shall 
stand,  remain,  and  be  the  law  of  this  realm  for 
ever;  and  the  same  are  by  their  said  Majesties, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Lords 
Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons,  in  Par- 
liament assembled,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
same,  declared,  enacted,  or  established  accord- 
ingly. XII.  And  be  it  further  declared  and  en- 
acted by  the  authority  aforesaid.  That  from  and 
after  this  present  session  of  Parliament,  no  dispen- 
sation by  "non  obstante"  of  or  to  any  statute, 
or  any  part  thereof,  shall  be  allowed,  but  that 
the  same  shall  be  held  void  and  of  no  effect,  ex- 
cept a  dispensation  be  allowed  of  in  such  statute, 
and  except  in  such  cases  as  shall  be  specially 
provided  for  by  one  or  more  bill  or  bills  to  be 
passed  during  this  present  session  of  Parliament. 
XIII.  Provided  that  no  charter,  or  grant,  or  par- 
don granted  before  the  thi-ee-and-twentieth  day 
of  October,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  One  thousand 
six  hundred  eighty -nine,  shall  be  any  ways  im- 
peached or  invalidated  by  this  Act,  but  that  the 
same  shall  be  and  remain  of  the  same  force  and 
effect  in  law,  and  no  other,  than  as  if  this  Act 
had  never  been  made. 

A.  D.  1689-1696. — The  war  of  the  League 
of  Augsburg,  or  the  Grand  Alliance  against 
Louis  XIV.  (called  in  American  history  "  King 


William's  War  ").  See  France:  A.  D.  1689- 
1690;  1689-1691;  1693;  1693  (July)  ;  1694 ;  1695- 
1696.— Also,  Canada:  A.  D.  1689-1690;  1693- 
1697;      and  Newfoundland:  A.  D.  1691^1697. 

A.  D.  1690  (June).— The  Battle  of  Beachy 
Head. — The  great  peril  of  the  kingdom.  — 
"In  June,  1690,  whilst  William  was  in  Ireland, 
the  French  sent  a  fleet,  under  Tourville,  to 
threaten  England.  He  left  Brest  and  entered 
the  British  Channel.  Herbert  (then  Earl  of  Tor- 
rington)  commanded  the  English  fleet  lying  in 
the  Downs,  and  sailed  to  Saint  Helens,  where  he 
was  joined  by  the  Dutch  fleet  under  Evertsen. 
On  the  36th  of  June  the  English  and  French 
fleets  were  close  to  each  other,  and  an  important 
engagement  was  expected,  when  unexpectedly 
Torrington  abandoned  the  Isle  of  Wight  and  re- 
treated towards  the  Straits  of  Dover.  .  .  .  The 
Queen  and  her  Council,  receiving  this  intelligence, 
sent  to  Torrington  peremptory  orders  to  fight. 
Torrington  received  these  orders  on  the  39th 
June.  Next  day  he  bore  down  on  the  French 
fleet  in  order  of  battle.  He  had  less  than  60  ships 
of  the  line,  whilst  the  French  had  80.  He  placed 
the  Dutch  in  the  van,  and  during  the  whole  fight 
rendered  them  little  or  no  assistance.  He  gave 
the  signal  to  engage,  which  was  immediately 
obeyed  by  Evertsen,  who  fought  with  the  most 
splendid  courage,  but  at  length,  being  unsup- 
ported, his  second  in  command  and  many  other 
officers  of  high  rank  having  fallen,  and  his  ships 
being  fearfully  shattered,  Evertsen  was  obliged 
to  draw  off  his  contingent  from  the  unequal 
battle.  Torrington  destroyed  some  of  these  in- 
jured ships,  took  the  remainder  in  tow,  and  sailed 
along  the  coast  of  Kent  for  the  Thames.  When 
in  that  river  he  pulled  up  all  the  buoys  to  pre- 
vent pursuit.  .  .  .  Upon  his  return  to  London 
he  was  sent  to  the  Tower,  and  in  December  was 
tried  at  Sheerness  by  court-martial,  and  on  the 
third  day  was  acquitted ;  but  William  refused  to 
see  him,  and  ordered  him  to  be  dismissed  from 
the  navy." — W.  H.  Torriano,  William  tlie  Third, 
ch.  34. — "There  has  scarcely  ever  been  so  sad  a 
day  in  London  as  that  on  which  the  news  of  the 
Battle  of  Beachy  Head  arrived.  The  shame  was 
insupportable ;  the  peril  was  imminent.  ...  At 
any  moment  London  might  be  appalled  by  news 
that  30,000  French  veterans  were  in  Kent.  It 
was  notorious  that,  in  every  part  of  the  kingdom, 
the  Jacobites  had  been,  during  some  months, 
making  preparations  for  a  rising.  All  the  regu- 
lar troops  who  could  be  assembled  for  the  defence 
of  the  island  did  not  amount  to  more  than  10,000 
men.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  our  country 
has  ever  passed  through  a  more  alarming  crisis 
than  that  of  the  first  week  of  July  1690." — Lord 
Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  15  (».  3). 

Also  rpf :  J.  Campbell,  Naval  Hist,  of  Gt.  Brit. , 
cfi.  18  (1).  2). 

A.  D.  1690-1691. — Defeat  of  James  and  the 
Jacobites  in  Ireland.  See  Ireland:  A.  D. 
1689-1691. 

A.  D.  1692. — The  new  charter  to  Massachu- 
setts as  a  royal  province.  See  Massachxisetts  : 
A.  D.  1689-1693. 

A.  D.  1692. — Attempted  invasion  from 
France. — Battle  of  La  Hogue. — "  The  diversion 
in  Ireland  having  failed,  Louis  wished  to  make 
an  effort  to  attack  England  without  and  within. 
James  II.,  who  had  turned  to  so  little  advantage 
the  first  aid  granted  by  the  King  of  France  saw 
therefore  in  preparation  a  much  more  powerful 


939 


ENGLAND,  1692. 


Battle 
of  La  Hogue. 


ENGLAND.  1701. 


assistance,  and  obtained  what  bad  been  refused 
him  after  the  days  of  tlie  Boyne  and  Beachy- 
Head, —  an  army  to  invade  England.  News  re- 
ceived from  that  country  explained  this  change 
in  the  conduct  of  Louis.  The  opinion  of  James 
at  Versailles  was  no  better  than  in  the  past ;  but 
England  was  believed  to  be  on  the  eve  of  counter- 
revolution, which  it  would  be  sufficient  to  aid  with 
a  vigorous  and  sudden  blow.  .  .  .  Many  eminent 
personages,  among  the  Whigs  as  well  as  among 
the  Tories,  among  others  the  Duke  of  SLirlborough 
(Churchill),  had  opened  a  secret  correspondence 
with  the  royal  exile  at  Saint-Germain.  James 
had  secret  adherents  in  the  English  fleet  whieli 
he  had  so  long  commanded  before  reigning,  and 
believed  himself  able  to  count  on  Rear-Admiral 
Carter,  and  even  on  Admiral  Russell.  Louis 
gave  himself  up  to  excessive  confidence  in  the 
result  of  these  plots,  and  arranged  his  plan  of 
naval  operations  accordingly.  Aii  army  of  30, 000 
men,  with  500  transports,  was  assembled  on  the 
coast  of  Normandy,  the  greater  part  at  La  Hogue 
and  Cherbourg,  the  rest  at  Havre :  this  was  com- 
posed of  all  the  Irisli  troops,  a  number  of  Anglo- 
Scotch  refugees,  and  a  corps  of  French  troops. 
Marslial  de  Bellefonds  commanded  under  King 
James.  Tourville  was  to  set  out  from  Brest  in  the 
middle  of  April  with  fifty  ships  of  the  line,  enter 
the  Channel,  attack  the  English  fleet  before  it 
could  be  reinforced  by  the  Dutch,  and  thus  secure 
the  invasion.  Express  orders  were  sent  to  him 
to  engage  the  enemy  '  whatever  might  be  his 
numbers. '  It  was  believed  that  half  of  the  English 
fleet  would  go  over  to  the  side  of  the  allies  of  its 
king.  The  landing  effected,  Tourville  was  to 
return  to  Brest,  to  rally  there  the  squadron  of 
Toulon,  sixteen  vessels  strong,  and  the  rest  of 
our  large  ships,  then  to  hold  the  Channel  during 
the  whole  campaign.  They  had  reckoned  with- 
out the  elements,  which,  hitherto  hostile  to  the 
enemies  of  France,  this  time  turned  against  her. " 
The  French  fleets  were  detained  by  contrary 
winds  and  by  incomplete  preparations.  Tourville 
was  not  reinforced,  as  he  expected  to  be,  by  the 
squadrons  of  Toulon  and  Rochefort.  Before  he 
found  it  possible  to  sail  from  Brest,  tlie  Jacobite 
plot  had  been  discovered  in  England,  the  govern- 
ment was  on  its  guard,  and  the  Dutch  and  Eng- 
lish fleets  had  made  their  junction.  Still,  the 
French  admiral  was  under  orders  which  left  him 
no  discretion,  and  he  went  out  to  seek  the  enemy. 
"May  29,  at  daybreak,  between  the  Capes  of 
La  Hogue  and  Barfleur,  Tourville  found  himself 
in  presence  of  the  allied  fleet,  the  most  powerful 
that  had  ever  appeared  on  the  sea.  He  had  been 
joined  by  seven  ships  from  the  squadron  of 
Rochefort,  and  numbered  44  vessels  against  99, 
78  of  which  carried  over  50  guns,  and,  for  the 
most  part,  were  much  larger  than  a  majority 
of  the  French.  The  English  had  63  ships  and 
[4,540]  guns;  the  Dutch,  36  ships  and  2,614 guns; 
in  all,  7,154  guns;  the  French  counted  only  3,114. 
The  allied  fleet  numbered  nearly  42,000  men ;  the 
French  fleet  less  than  20,000."  Notwithstanding 
this  great  inferiority  of  numbers  and  strength,  it 
was  the  French  fleet  which  made  the  attack,  bear- 
ing down  under  full  sail  ' '  on  the  immense  mass  of 
the  enemy. "  The  attempt  was  almost  hopeless ; 
and  yet,  when  night  fell,  after  a  day  of  tremendous 
battle,  Tourville  had  not  yet  lost  a  ship ;  but  his 
line  of  battle  had  been  broken,  and  no  chance  of 
success  remained.  "May  30,  at  break  of  day, 
Tourville  rallied  around  him  35  vessels.  The  other 


nine  had  strayed,  five  towards  La  Hogue,  four 
towards  the  English  coast,  whence  they  regained 
Brest.  If  there  had  been  a  naval  port  at  La 
Hogue  or  at  Cherbourg,  as  Colbert  and  Vauban 
had  desired,  the  French  fleet  would  have  pre- 
served its  laurels!  There  was  no  place  of  retreat 
on  all  that  coast.  The  fleet  of  the  enemy  advanced 
in  full  force.  It  was  impossible  to  renew  the 
prodigious  effort  of  the  day  before."  In  this 
emergency,  Tourville  made  a  daring  attempt  to 
escape  with  his  fleet  through  the  dangerous  chan- 
nel called  the  Race  of  Aldernej',  which  separates 
the  Channel  Islands  from  the  Normandy  coast. 
Twenty-two  vessels  made  the  passage  safely  and 
found  a  place  of  refuge  at  St.  Malo;  thirteen 
were  too  late  for  the  tide  and  failed.  Most  of 
these  were  destroyed,  during  the  next  few  days, 
by  the  English  and  Dutch  at  Cherbourg  and  in 
the  bay  of  La  Hogue, — in  the  presence  and  under 
the  guns  of  King  James'  army  of  invasion. 
"James  II.  had  reason  to  say  that  'his  unlucky 
star '  everywhere  shed  a  malign  influence  around 
him;  but  this  influence  was  only  that  of  his 
blindness  and  incapacity.  Such  was  that  dis- 
aster of  La  Hogue,  which  has  left  among  us  such 
a  fatal  renown,  and  the  name  of  which  resounds 
in  our  history  like  another  Agincourt  or  Cressy. 
Historians  have  gone  so  far  as  to  ascribe  to  this 
the  destruction  of  the  French  navy.  ...  La 
Hogue  was  only  a  reprisal  for  Beachy-Head.  The 
French  did  not  lose  in  it  a  vessel  more  than  the 
allies  had  lost  two  years  before,  and  the  15  ves- 
sels destro3'ed  were  soon  replaced." — H.  Martin, 
Hist,  of  France :  Age  of  Louis  XIV.  (tr.  by  M.  L. 
Booth),  V.  2,  ck.  2. 

Also  in  :  Lord  Macaulay,  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  ch.  18 
(i\  4). — L.  vou  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  llth  Century, 
hk.  20,  ch.  4  (i).  5). — Sir  J.  Dairy mple.  Memoirs  of 
Gt.  Britain  and  Ireland,  pt.  2,  hk.  7  (b.  3). 

A.  D.  1695. — Expiration  of  censorship  la^w. 
— Appearance  of  first  newspapers.  See  Print- 
ing AND  THE  Press:  A.  D.  1695. 

A.  D.  1696-1749. — Measures  of  commercial 
and  industrial  restriction  in  the  American  col- 
onies. See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1696- 
1749  ;  and  Trade,  Modern. 

A.  D.  1697. — The  Peace  of  Ryswick. — Rec- 
ognition of  William  III.  by  France.  See 
France  :  A.  D.  1697. 

A.  D.  1698. — The  founding  of  Calcutta.  See 
India  :  A.  D.  1600-1702. 

A.  D.  1698-1700. — The  question  of  the  Span- 
ish Succession.     See  Spain  :  A.  I).  1698-170(1, 

17th  Century.— Commercial  Progress.  See 
Trade,  Modern. 

A.  D.  1701.— The  Act  of  Settlement.— The 
source  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  House  of  Han- 
over or  Brunswick. —  'William  and  Mary  had 
no  children;  and  in  1700  the  J'oung  Duke  of 
Gloucester,  the  only  child  of  Anne  that  lived 
beyond  infancy,  died.  There  was  now  no  hope 
of  "there  being  anyone  to  inherit  the  crown  bj^  the 
Bill  of  Rights  after  the  death  of  William  and  of 
Anne.  In  1701,  therefore.  Parliament  settled  the 
crown  on  the  Electress  Sophia  of  Hanover,  and 
her  heirs.  Sophia  was  one  of  the  children  of  that 
Elizabeth,  daughter  of  James  I.,  who  in  1613 
had  married  the  Palsgrave  Frederick.  She  was 
chosen  to  come  after  William  and  Anne  because 
she  was  the  nearest  to  the  Stuart  line  who  was  a 
Protestant.  The  law  tliat  did  this  is  called  the 
Act  of  Settlement ;  it  gives  Queen  Victoria  her 
title  to  the  throne.     Parliament  in  passing  it  tried 


940 


ENGLAND,   1701. 


Act  of 
Settlement. 


ENGLAND,  1702-1714. 


to  make  the  nation's  liberties  still  safer.  It  was 
now  made  impossible  (1)  for  any  foreigner  to  sit 
in  Parliament  or  to  hold  an  office  under  the 
Crown ;  (3)  for  the  king  to  go  to  war  in  defence 
of  countries  that  did  not  belong  to  England,  un- 
less Parliament  gave  him  leave ;  or  (3)  to  pardon 
anyone  so  that  the  Commons  might  not  be  able 
to  impeach  him." — .1.  Rowley,  2'he  Settlement  of 
the  Coiutitiitioii,  bk.  1,  ch.  5. — "Though  the 
choice  was  truly  free  in  the  hands  of  parliament, 
and  no  pretext  of  absolute  right  could  be  advanced 
on  any  side,  there  was  no  question  that  the 
princess  Sophia  was  the  fittest  object  of  the  na- 
tion's preference.  She  was  indeed  very  far  re- 
moved from  any  hereditary  title.  Besides  the 
pretended  prince  of  Wales,  and  his  sister,  whose 
legitimacy  no  one  disputed,  there  stood  in  her 
way  the  duchess  of  Savoy,  daughter  of  Henrietta 
duchess  of  Orleans,  and  several  of  the  Palatine 
family.  These  last  had  abjured  the  reformed 
faith,  of  which  their  ancestors  had  been  the  strenu- 
ous assertors ;  but  it  seemed  not  improbable  that 
some  one  might  return  to  it.  .  .  .  According  to 
the  tenor  and  intention  of  the  act  of  settlement, 
all  prior  claims  of  inheritance,  save  that  of  the 
issue  of  king  William  and  the  princess  Anne,  be- 
ing set  aside  and  annulled,  the  princess  Sophia 
became  the  source  of  a  new  royal  line.  The 
throne  of  England  and  Ireland,  by  virtue  of  the 
paramount  will  of  parliament,  stands  entailed 
upon  the  heirs  of  her  body,  being  protestants. 
In  them  the  right  is  as  truly  hereditary  as  it  ever 
was  in  the  Plantagenets  or  the  Tudors.  But 
they  derive  it  not  from  those  ancient  families. 
The  blood  indeed  of  Cerdic  and  of  the  Conqueror 
flows  in  the  veins  of  his  present  majesty  [George 
IV.].  Our  Edwards  and  Henries  illustrate  the 
almost  unrivalled  splendour  and  antiquity  of 
the  house  of  Brunswic.  But  they  have  trans- 
mitted no  more  right  to  the  allegiance  of  Eng- 
land than  Boniface  of  Este  or  Henry  the  Lion. 
That  rests  wholly  on  the  act  of  settlement,  and 
resolves  itself  into  the  sovereignty  of  the  legis- 
lature."— H.  Hallam,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  15 
{0.  3). 

Also  m :  Sir  A.  Halliday,  Annals  of  the  House 
of  Hanover,  bk.  10  (».  2). — See,  also,  England: 
A.  D.  1714. 

A.  D.  1701-1702. — The  rousing  of  the  nation 
to  war  with  France. — When  Louis  XIV.  pro- 
cured and  accepted  for  his  grandson  the  bequest 
of  the  Spanish  crown,  throwing  over  the  Parti- 
tion Treaty,  "  William  had  the  intolerable  cha- 
grin of  discovering  not  only  that  he  had  been 
befooled,  but  that  his  English  subjects  had  no 
sympathy  with  him  or  animosity  against  the  royal 
swindler  who  had  tricked  him.  '  The  blindness 
of  the  people  here,' he  writes  sadly  to  the  Pen- 
sionary Heinsius,  '  is  incredible.  For  though 
the  affair  is  not  public,  yet  it  was  no  sooner  said 
that  the  King  of  Spain's  will  was  in  favour  of  the 
Duke  of  Anjou,  that  it  was  the  general  opinion 
that  it  was  better  for  England  that  France  should 
accept  the  will  than  fulfil  the  Treaty  of  Parti- 
tion.'. .  .  William  dreaded  the  idea  of  a  Bour- 
bon reigning  at  Madrid,  but  he  saw  no  very 
grave  objection,  as  the  two  treaties  showed,  to 
Naples  and  Sicily  passing  into  French  hands. 
With  his  English  subjects  the  exact  converse  was 
the  case.  They  strongly  deprecated  the  assign- 
ment of  the  Mediterranean  possessions  of  the 
Spaniard  to  the  Dauphin ;  but  they  were  undis- 
turbed by  the  sight  of  the  Duke  of  Anjou  seating 


himself  on  the  Spanish  throne.  .  .  .  But  just  as, 
under  a  discharge  from  an  electric  battery,  two 
repugnant  chemical  compounds  will  sometimes 
rush  into  sudden  combination,  so  at  this  juncture 
the  King  and  the  nation  were  instantaneously 
imited  by  the  shock  of  a  gross  affront.  The  hand 
that  liberated  the  uniting  fluid  was  that  of  the 
Christian  king.  On  the  16th  of  September  1701 
James  II.  breathed  his  last  at  St.  Germains,  and, 
obedient  to  one  of  those  impulses,  half -chivalrous, 
half-arrogant,  which  so  often  determined  hi.-i 
policy,  Louis  XIV.  declared  his  recognition  of 
the  Prince  of  Wales  as  de  jure  King  of  England. 
No  more  timely  and  effective  assistance  to  the 
[lolicy  of  its  de  facto  king  could  possibly  have 
been  rendered.  Its  effect  upon  English  public 
opinion  was  instantaneous;  and  when  William 
returned  from  Holland  on  the  4tli  of  November, 
he  found  the  country  in  the  temper  in  which  he 
could  most  have  wished  it  to  be. "  Dissolving  the 
Parliament  in  which  his  plans  had  long  been 
factiously  opposed,  he  summoned  a  new  one, 
which  met  on  the  last  day  of  the  year  1701. 
"Opposition  in  Parliament  —  in  the  country  it 
was  already  inaudible — ^was  completely  silenced. 
The  two  Houses  sent  up  addresses  assuring  the 
King  of  their  firm  resolve  to  defend  the  suc- 
cession against  the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales 
and  all  other  pretenders  whatsoever.  .  .  .  Nor 
did  the  goodwill  of  Parliament  expend  itself  in 
words.  The  Commons  accepted  without  a  word 
of  protest  the  four  treaties  constituting  the  new 
Grand  Alliance.  .  .  .  The  votes  of  supply  were 
passed  unanimously. "  But  scarcely  had  the  nation 
and  the  King  arrived  at  this  agreement  with  one 
another  than  the  latter  was  snatched  from  his 
labors.  On  the  21st  of  February,  1703,  William 
received  an  injury,  through  the  stumbling  of  his 
horse,  which  liis  frail  and  diseased  body  could 
not  bear.  His  death  would  not  have  been  long 
delayed  in  any  event,  but  it  was  hastened  by  this 
accident,  and  occurred  on  the  8th  of  March  fol- 
lowing. He  was  succeeded  by  Anne,  the  sister 
of  his  deceased  queen,  Mary,  and  second  daughter 
of  the  deposed  Stuart  king,  James  II. — H.  D. 
Traill,  William  the  Third,  ch.  14-15. 

Also  in  :  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  Vlth 
Century,  bk.  31,  ch.  7-10  {v.  5). — See,  also,  Spain: 
A.  D.  1701-1703. 

A.  D.   1702. — Accession  of  Queen  Anne. 

A.  D.  1702. —  Union  of  rival  East  India 
Companies.     See  India:  A.  D,  1600-1703. 

A.  D.  1702.— The  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession. See  Spain  :  A.  D.  1703  ;  and  Nether- 
lands :  A.  D.  1703-1704. 

A.  D.  1702. — First  daily  newspaper.  See 
PniNTiNG  AND  PiiESS  :  A.  I).  1623-17U3. 

A.  D.  1702-1711. — The  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession  in  America  (called  "  Queen  Anne's 
War").  See  New  Engl.s.nd:  A.  D.  1703-1710; 
Canada:  A.  D.  1711-1713. 

A.  D.  1702-1714. — The  Age  of  Anne  in  lit- 
erature.— "That  which  was  once  called  the 
Augustan  age  of  English  literature  was  specially 
marked  by  the  growing  development  of  a  distinct 
literary  class.  It  was  a  period  of  transition  from 
the  early  system  of  the  patronage  of  authors  to 
the  later  system  of  their  professional  indepen- 
dence. Patronage  was  being  changed  into  influ- 
ence. The  system  of  subscription,  by  which 
Pope  made  his  fortune,  was  a  kind  of  joint-stock 
patronage.  The  noble  did  not  support  the  poet, 
but  induced  his  friends  to  subscribe.     The  noble 


941 


ENGLAND,  1702-1714. 


Age  of  Anne  in 
Literature. 


ENGLAND,  1703. 


moreover,  made  another  discovery.  He  found 
that  he  could  dispense  a  cheaper  and  more  effect- 
ive patronage  than  of  old  by  patronising  at  the 
public  expense.  During  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne, 
the  author  of  a  successful  poem  or  an  effective 
pamphlet  might  look  forward  to  a  comfortable 
place.  The  author  had  not  to  wear  the  livery, 
but  to  become  the  political  follower,  of  the  great 
man.  Gradually  a  separation  took  place.  The 
minister  found  it  better  to  have  a  regular  corps 
of  politicians  and  scribblers  in  his  pay  than  occa- 
sionally to  recruit  his  ranks  by  enlisting  men  of 
literary  taste.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  authors, 
by  slow  degrees,  struggled  into  a  more  indepen- 
dent position  as  their  public  increased.  In  the 
earlier  part  of  the  century,  however,  we  find  a 
class  of  fairly  cultivated  people,  sufficiently  nu- 
merous to  form  a  literary  audience,  and  yet  not 
so  numerous  as  to  split  into  entirely  distinct  frac- 
tions. The  old  religious  and  political  warfare 
has  softened ;  the  statesman  loses  his  place,  but 
not  his  head ;  and  though  there  is  plenty  of  bit- 
terness, there  is  little  violence.  "We  have  thus  a 
brilliant  society  of  statesmen,  authors,  clergy- 
men, and  lawyers,  forming  social  clubs,  meeting 
at  coffee-houses,  talking  scandal  and  politics,  and 
intensely  interested  in  the  new  social  phenomena 
which  emerge  as  the  old  order  decays ;  more  excit- 
able, perhaps,  than  their  fathers,  but  less  des- 
perately in  earnest,  and  waging  a  constant  pam- 
phleteering warfare  upon  politics,  literature,  and 
theology,  which  is  yet  consistent  with  a  certain 
degree  of  friendly  intercourse.  The  essayist,  the 
critic,  and  the  novelist  appear  for  the  first  time  in 
their  modern  shape;  and  the  journalist  is  slowly 
gaining  some  authority  as  the  wielder  of  a  polit- 
ical force.  The  whole  character  of  contemporary 
literature,  in  short,  is  moulded  by  the  social  con- 
ditions of  the  class  for  which  and  by  which  it 
was  written,  still  more  distinctly  than  by  the 
ideas  current  in  contemporary  speculation.  .  .  . 
Pope  is  the  typical  representative  of  the  poetical 
spirit  of  the  day.  He  may  or  may  not  be  regarded 
as  the  intellectual  superior  of  Swift  or  Addison ; 
and  the  most  widely  differing  opinions  may  be 
formed  of  the  intrinsic  merits  of  his  poetry.  The 
mere  fact,  however,  that  his  poetical  dynasty  was 
supreme  to  the  end  of  the  century  proved  that, 
in  some  sense,  he  is  a  most  characteristic  prod- 
uct. Nor  is  it  hard  to  see  the  main  sources  of 
his  power.  Pope  had  at  least  two  great  poetical 
qualities.  He  was  amongst  the  most  keenly 
sensitive  of  men,  and  he  had  an  almost  unique 
felicity  of  expression,  which  has  enabled  him  to 
coin  more  proverbs  than  any  writer  since  Shake- 
speare. Sensitive,  it  may  be  said,  is  a  polite  word 
for  morbid,  and  his  felicity  of  phrase  was  more 
adapted  to  coin  epigrams  than  poetry.  The  con- 
troversy is  here  irrelevant.  Pope,  whether,  as  I 
should  say,  a  true  poet,  or,  as  some  have  said, 
only  the  most  sparkling  of  rhymesters,  reflects 
the  thoughts  of  his  day  with  a  curious  complete- 
ness. .  .  .  There  is,  however,  another  wide  prov- 
ince of  literature  in  which  writers  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  did  work  original  in  character 
and  of  permanent  value.  If  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury is  the  great  age  of  di-amatists  and  theolo- 
gians, the  eighteenth  century  was  the  age  in 
which  the  critic,  the  essayist,  the  satirist,  the  nov- 
elist, and  the  moralist  first  appeared,  or  reached 
the  highest  mark.  Criticism,  though  still  in  its 
infancy,  first  became  an  independent  art  with 
Addison.     Addison   and  his  various  colleagues 


set  the  first  example  of  that  kind  of  social  essay 
which  is  still  popular.  Satire  had  been  practised 
in  the  preceding  centur}',  and  in  the  hands 
of  Dryden  had  become  a  formidable  political 
weapon ;  but  the  social  satire  of  which  Pope  was, 
and  remains,  the  chief  master,  began  with  the 
century,  and  may  be  said  to  have  expired  with 
it,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  Byron  and  Gifford. 
De  Foe,  Richardson,  Fielding,  and  Smollett  de- 
veloped the  modern  novel  out  of  very  crude  rudi- 
ments ;  and  two  of  the  greatest  men  of  the  cen- 
tury. Swift  and  Johnson,  may  be  best  described 
as  practical  moralists  in  a  vein  peculiar  to  the 
time.  .  .  .  The  English  novel,  as  the  word  is 
now  understood,  begins  with  De  Foe.  Though, 
like  all  other  products  of  mind  or  body,  it  was 
developed  out  of  previously  existing  material, 
and  is  related  to  the  great  family  of  stories  with 
which  men  have  amused  themselves  in  all  ages, 
it  is,  perhaps,  as  nearly  an  original  creation  as 
anything  can  be.  The  legends  of  saints  which 
amused  the  middle  ages,  or  the  chivalrous 
romances  which  were  popular  throughout  the 
seventeenth  century,  had  become  too  unreal  to 
amuse  living  human  beings.  De  Foe  made  the 
discovery  that  a  history  might  be  equally  interest- 
ing if  the  recorded  events  had  never  happened." 
— L.  Stephen,  Hist,  of  Eng.  Tlwiiglit  in  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century,  ch.  12,  sect.  23-56  (».  2).— "This 
so-called  classic  age  of  ours  has  long  ceased  to  be 
regarded  with  that  complacency  which  led  the 
most  flourishing  part  of  it  to  adopt  the  epithet 
'  Augustan. '  It  will  scarcely  be  denied  by  its 
greatest  admirer,  if  he  be  a  man  of  wide  reading, 
that  it  cannot  be  ranked  with  the  poorest  of  the 
five  great  ages  of  literature.  Deficient  in  the 
highest  intellectual  beauty,  in  the  qualities  which 
awaken  the  fullest  critical  enthusiasm,  the  eigh- 
teenth century  will  be  enjoyed  more  thoroughly 
by  those  who  make  it  their  special  study  than  by 
those  who  skim  the  entire  surface  of  literature. 
It  has,  although  on  the  grand  scale  condemned 
as  second-rate,  a  remarkable  fulness  and  sus- 
tained richness  which  endear  it  to  specialists.  If 
it  be  compared,  for  instance,  with  the  real  Augus- 
tan age  in  Rome,  or  with  the  Spanish  period  of 
literary  supremacy,  it  may  claim  to  hold  its  own 
against  these  rivals  in  spite  of  their  superior  rank, 
because  of  its  more  copious  interest.  If  it  has 
neither  a  Horace  nor  a  Calderon,  it  has  a  great 
extent  and  variety  of  writers  just  below  these  in 
merit,  and  far  more  numerous  than  what  Rome 
or  Spain  can  show  during  those  blossoming 
periods.  It  is,  moreover,  fertile  at  far  more 
points  than  either  of  these  schools.  This  sus- 
tained and  variegated  success,  at  a  comparatively 
low  level  of  effort,  strikes  one  as  characteristic 
of  an  age  more  remarkable  for  persistent  vitality 
than  for  rapid  and  brilliant  growth.  The  Eliza- 
bethan vivida  vis  is  absent,  the  Georgian  glow  has 
not  yet  dawned,  but  there  is  a  suffused  prosaic 
light  of  intelligence,  of  cultivated  form,  over  the 
whole  picture,  and  during  the  first  half  of  the 
period,  at  least,  this  is  bright  enough  to  be  very 
attractive.  Perhaps,  in  closing,  the  distinguish- 
ing mark  of  eighteenth-century  literature  may  be 
indicated  as  its  masterj'  of  prose  as  a  vehicle  for 
general  thought." — E.  Gosse,  The  Study  of  Eigh- 
teenth-Century Literature  {New  Princeton  Rev., 
July,  1888,  p.  21). 

A.  D.  1703. —  The  Methuen  Treaty  with 
Portugal.  See  Portugal:  A.  D.  1703;  and 
Spain:  A.  D.  1703-1704. 


942 


ENGLAND,  1703. 


Fall  of  the 
Whigs. 


ENGLAND,  1710-1713. 


A.  D.  1703. — The  Aylesbury  election  case. 

—  "Ashby,  a  burgess  of  Aylesbury,  sued  the 
returning  officer  for  maliciously  refusing  his 
vote.  Three  judges  of  the  King's  Bench  decided, 
against  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Holt,  that 
the  verdict  which  a  jury  had  given  in  favor  of 
Ashby  must  be  set  aside,  as  the  action  was  not 
maintainable.  The  plaintiff  went  to  the  House 
of  Lords  upon  a  writ  of  error,  and  there  the 
judgment  was  reversed  by  a  large  majority  of 
Peers.  The  Lower  House  maintained  that  '  the 
qualification  of  an  elector  is  not  cognizable  else- 
where than  before  the  Commons  of  England ' ; 
that  Ashby  was  guilty  of  a  breach  of  privilege ; 
and  that  all  persons  who  should  in  future  com- 
mence such  an  action,  and  all  attorneys  and 
counsel  conducting  the  same,  are  also  guilty  of 
a  high  breach  of  privilege.  The  Lords,  led  by 
Soniers,  then  came  to  counter-resolutions.  .  .  . 
The  prorogation  of  Parliament  put  an  end  to  the 
quarrel  in  that  Session ;  but  in  the  next  it  was 
renewed  with  increased  violence.  The  judgment 
against  the  Returning  Officer  was  followed  up 
by  Ashby  levying  his  damages.  Other  Ayles- 
bury men  brought  new  actions.  The  Commons 
imprisoned  the  Aylesbury  electors.  The  Lords 
took  strong  measures  that  affected,  or  appeared 
to  affect,  the  privileges  of  the  Commons.  The 
Queen  finally  stopped  the  contest  by  a  proroga- 
tion ;  and  the  quarrel  expired  when  the  Parlia- 
ment expired  under  the  Triennial  Act.  Lord 
Somers  '  established  the  doctrine  which  has  been 
acted  on  ever  since,  that  an  action  lies  against  a 
Returning  Officer  for  maliciously  refusing  the 
vote  of  an  elector. '" — C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist, 
of  Emj.,  ■!).  5,  ch.  17. 

Also  in:  Lord  Campbell,  Lives  of  the  Lord 
Cluinccllors :  Somer.i.  ch.  110  (p.  4). 

A.  D.  1704-1707. — Marlborough's  campaigns 
in  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession. — Cam- 
paigns in  Spain.  See  Germany:  A.  D.  1704; 
Spain:  A.  D.  1703-1704,  to  1707;  Netherlands: 
A.  D.  1705,  and  1706-1707. 

A.  D.  1707. —  The  Union  with  Scotland. 
See  Scotland  :  A.  D.  1707. 

A.  D.  1707-1708. — Hostility  to  the  Union  in 
Scotland. — Spread  of  Jacobitism.  See  Scot- 
land: A.  D.  1707-1708. 

A.  D.  1708-1709.— The  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession  :  Oudenarde  and  Malplaquet.  See 
Netherlands:  A.  D.  1708-1709;  and  Spain: 
A.  D.  1707-1710. 

A.  D.  1709. — The  Barrier  Treaty  with  Hol- 
land.— "  The  influence  of  the  Whig  party  in  the 
alfairs  of  government  in  England,  always  irk- 
some to  the  Queen,  had  now  began  visibly  to 
decline ;  and  the  partiality  she  was  suspected  of 
entertaining  for  her  brother,  with  her  known  dis- 
like of  the  house  of  Hanover,  inspired  them 
with  alarm,  lest  the  Tories  might  seek  still  fur- 
ther to  propitiate  her  favour,  by  altering,  in  his 
favour,  the  line  of  succession,  as  at  present  es- 
tablished. They  had,  accordingly,  made  it  one 
of  the  preliminaries  of  the  proposed  treaty  of 
peace,  that  the  Protestant  succession,  in  Eng- 
land, should  be  secured  by  a  general  guarantee, 
and  now  sought  to  repair,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
failure  caused  by  the  unsuccessful  termination 
of  the  conferences,  by  entering  into  a  treaty  to 
that  efEect  with  the  States.  The  Marquis  Towns- 
hend,  accordingly,  repaired  for  this  purpose  to 
the  Hague,  when  the  States  consented  to  enter 
into  an  engagement  to  maintain  the  present  suc- 


cession to  the  crown,  with  their  whole  force,  and 
to  make  the  recognition  of  that  succession,  and 
the  expulsion  of  the  Pretender  from  France,  an 
indispensable  preliminary  to  any  peace  with  that 
kingdom.  In  return  for  this  important  guar- 
antee, England  was  to  secure  to  the  States  a  bar- 
rier, formed  of  the  towns  of  Nieuport,  Furnes 
and  the  fort  of  Knokke,  Menin,  Lille,  Ryssel, 
Tournay,  Conde,  and  Valenciennes,  Maubeuge, 
Charleroi,  Namur,  Lier,  Halle,  and  some  forts, 
besides  the  citadels  of  Ghent  and  Dendermonde. 
]t  was  afterwards  asserted,  in  excuse  for  the 
dereliction  from  that  treaty  on  the  part  of  Eng- 
land, that  Townshend  had  gone  beyond  his  in- 
structions; but  it  is  quite  certain  that  it  was 
I'atifled  without  hesitation  by  the  queen,  what- 
ever may  have  been  her  secret  feelings  regarding 
it." — C.  M.  Da  vies.  Hist,  of  Holland,  pt.  3,  ch. 
11  (».  8  ). 

A.  D.  1710-1712. — Opposition  to  the  war. — 
Trial  of  Sacheverell. — Fall  of  the  Whigs  and 
Marlborough. — "A  'deluge  of  blood'  such  as 
that  of  Malplaquet  increased  the  growing  weari- 
ness of  the  war,  and  the  rejection  of  the  French 
offers  was  unjustly  attributed  to  a  desire  on  the 
part  of  Marlborough  of  lengthening  out  a  con- 
test which  brought  him  profit  and  power.  The 
expulsion  of  Harley  and  St.  John  [Bolingbroke] 
from  the  JNIinistry  had  given  the  Tories  leaders 
of  a  more  vigorous  stamp,  and  St.  John  brought 
into  play  a  new  engine  of  political  attack  whose 
powers  soon  made  themselves  felt.  In  the  Ex- 
aminer, and  in  a  crowd  of  pamphlets  and  period- 
icals which  followed  in  its  train,  the  humor  of 
Prior,  the  bitter  irony  of  Swift,  and  St.  John's 
own  brilliant  sophistry  spent  themselves  on  the 
abuse  of  the  war  and  of  its  general.  ...  A  sud- 
den storm  of  popular  passion  showed  the  way  in 
which  public  opinion  responded  to  these  efforts. 
A  High-Church  divine.  Dr.  Sacheverell,  main- 
tained the  doctrine  of  non-resistance  [the  doc- 
trine, that  is,  of  passive  obedience  and  non-resis- 
tance to  government,  implying  a  condemnation  of 
the  Revolution  of  1688  and  of  the  Revolution 
settlement],  in  a  sermon  at  St.  Paul's,  with  a 
boldness  which  deserved  prosecution;  but  in 
spite  of  the  warning  of  Marlborough  and  of 
Somers  the  Whig  Ministers  resolved  on  his  im- 
peachment. His  trial  in  1710  at  once  widened 
into  a  great  party  struggle,  and  the  popular 
enthusiasm  in  Sacheverell's  favor  showed  the 
gathering  hatred  of  the  Whigs  and  the  war.  .  .  . 
A  small  majority  of  the  peers  found  him  guilty, 
but  the  light  sentence  they  inflicted  was  in  effect 
an  acquittal,  and  bonfires  and  illuminations  over 
the  whole  country  welcomed  it  as  a  Tory  triumph. 
The  turn  of  popular  feeling  freed  Anne  at  once 
from  the  pressure  beneath  which  she  had  bent; 
and  the  skill  of  Harley,  whose  cousin,  Mrs. 
Mashara,  had  succeeded  fhe  Duchess  of  Marlbor- 
ough in  the  Queen's  favor,  was  employed  in 
bringing  about  the  fall  both  of  Marlborough  and 
the  Whig  Ministers.  .  .  .  The  return  of  a  Tory 
House  of  Commons  sealed  his  [Marlborough's] 
fate.  His  wife  was  dismissed  from  court.  A 
masterly  plan  for  a  march  .into  the  heart  of 
France  in  the  opening  of  1711  was  foiled  by  the 
withdrawal  of  a  part  of  his  forces,  and  the  nego- 
tiations which  had  for  some  time  been  conducted 
between  the  French  and  English  Ministers  with- 
out his  knowledge  marched  rapidly  to  a  close. 
...  At  the  opening  of  1713  the  Whig  majority 
of  the  House  of  Lords  was  swamped   by   the 


943 


ENGLAND,  1710-1712. 


Queen  Anne^s 
later  Ministers. 


ENGLAND,  1711-1714. 


creation  of  twelve  Tory  peers.  Marlborougli 
was  dismissed  from  his  command,  charged  with 
peculation,  and  condemned  as  guilty  by  a  vote 
of  the  House  of  Commons.  He  at  once  with- 
drew from  England,  and  with  his  withdrawal  all 
opposition  to  the  peace  was  at  an  end." — J.  R. 
Green,  Short  Hist,  of  the  Eng.  People,  sett.  9,  ch. 
9. — Added  to  other  reasons  for  opposition  to  the 
war,  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Joseph  I. ,  which 
occurred  In  April,  1711,  had  entirely  reversed 
the  situation  iu  Europe  out  of  which  the  war 
proceeded.  The  Archduke  Charles,  whom  the 
allies  had  been  striving  to  place  on  the  Spanish 
throne,  was  now  certain  to  be  elected  Emperor. 
He  received  the  imperial  crown,  in  fact,  in  De- 
cember, 1711.  By  this  change  of  fortune,  there- 
fore, he  became  a  more  objectionable  claimant 
(if  the  Spanish  crown  than  Louis  XIV. 's  grand- 
son had  been.  See  Austria:  A.  D.  1711. — Earl 
Stanhope,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  Reir/n  of  Anne,  ch.  IS- 
IS.—  "Round  the  fall  of  Marlborough  has  gath- 
ered the  interest  attaching  to  the  earliest  political 
crisis  at  all  resembling  those  of  quite  recent 
times.  It  is  at  this  moment  that  Party  Govern- 
ment in  the  modern  sense  actually  commenced. 
William  the  Third  -nath  military  instinct  had 
always  been  reluctant  to  govern  by  means  of  a 
party.  Bound  as  he  was,  closely,  to  the  Whigs, 
he  employed  Tory  Ministers.  .  .  .  The  new  idea 
of  a  homogeneous  government  was  working 
itself  into  shape  under  the  mild  direction  of  Lord 
Somers;  but  the  form  finally  taken  under  Sir 
Robert  Walpole,  which  has  continued  to  the 
present  time,  was  as  yet  some  way  off.  Marl- 
borough's notions  were  those  of  tlie  late  King. 
Both  abroad  and  at  home  lie  carried  out  the 
policy  of  William.  He  refused  to  rely  wholly 
upon  the  Whigs,  and  the  extreme  Tories  were 
not  given  employment.  The  Ministry  of  Godol- 
phin  was  a  composite  administration,  containing 
at  one  time,  in  1705,  Tories  like  Harley  and  St. 
John  as  well  as  Whigs  such  as  Sunderland  and 
Halifax.  .  .  .  Lord  Somers  was  a  type  of  states- 
man of  a  novel  order  at  that  time.  ...  In  the 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth  century  it  was  rare 
to  find  a  man  attaining  the  highest  political  rank 
who  was  unconnected  by  birth  or  training  or 
marriage  with  any  of  the  great '  governing  fami- 
lies,' as  they  have  been  called.  Lord  Somers 
■was  the  son  of  a  Worcester  attorney.  ...  It 
was  fortunate  for  England  that  Lord  Somers 
should  have  been  the  foremost  man  of  the  Whig 
party  at  the  time  when  constitutional  govern- 
ment, as  we  now  call  it,  was  in  course  of  con- 
struction. By  his  prudent  counsel  the  Whigs 
were  guided  through  the  difficult  years  at  the 
end  of  Queen  Anne's  reign ;  and  from  the  ordeal 
of  seeing  their  rivals  in  power  they  certainly 
managed,  as  a  party,  to  emerge  on  the  whole 
with  credit.  Although  he  was  not  nominally 
their  leader,  the  paramount  influence  in  the  Tory 
party  was  Bolingbroke's ;  and  that  the  Tories 
suffered  from  the  defects  of  his  great  qualities, 
no  unprejudiced  critic  can  doubt.  Between  the 
two  parties,  and  at  the  head  of  the  Treasury 
through  the  earlier  years  of  the  reign,  stood  Go- 
dolphin,  without  whose  masterly  knowledge  of 
finance  and  careful  attention  to  the  details  of 
administration  Marlborough's  policy  would  have 
been  baffled  and  his  campaigns  remained  un- 
fought.  To  Godolphin,  more  than  to  any  other 
one  man,  is  due  the  preponderance  of  the  Treas- 
ury control  in  public  affairs.     It  was  his  admin- 


istration, during  the  absence  of  Marlborough  on 
the  Continent,  which  created  for  the  oflice  of 
Lord  Treasurer  its  paramount  importance,  and 
paved  the  way  for  Sir  Robert  Walpole's  govern- 
ment of  England  under  the  title  of  First  Lord  of 
the  Treasury.  .  .  .  Marlborough  saw  and  always 
admitted  that  his  victories  were  due  in  large 
measure  to  the  financial  skill  of  Godolphin.  To 
this  statesman's  lasting  credit  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  iu  a  venal  age,  when  the  standards  of 
public  honesty  were  so  different  from  those  which 
now  prevail,  Godolphin  died  a  poor  man.  .  .  . 
Bolingbroke  is  interesting  to  us  as  the  most  strik- 
ing figure  among  the  originators  of  the  new  par- 
liamentary system.  With  Marlborough  disap- 
peared the  type  of  Tudor  statesmen  modified  by 
contact  with  the  Stuarts.  He  was  the  last  of  the 
Imperial  Chancellors.  Bolingbroke  and  his  suc- 
cessor Walpole  were  the  earlier  types  of  consti- 
tutional statesmen  among  whom  Mr.  Pitt  and, 
later,  Mr.  Gladstone  stand  pre-eminent.  ...  He 
and  his  friends,  opponents  of  Marlborough,  and 
contributors  to  his  fall,  are  Interesting  to  us 
mainly  as  furnishing  the  first  examples  of  '  Her 
Majesty's  Opposition,'  as  the  authors  of  party 
government  and  the  prototypes  of  cabinet  minis- 
ters of  to-day.  Their  ways  of  thought,  their 
style  of  speech  and  of  writing,  may  be  dissimilar 
to  those  now  in  vogue,  but  they  show  greater 
resemblance  to  those  of  modern  politicians  than 
to  those  of  the  Ministers  of  William  or  of  the 
Stuarts.  Bolingbroke  may  have  appeared  a 
strange  product  of  the  eighteenth  century  to  his 
contemporaries,  but  he  would  not  have  appeared 
peculiarly  misplaced  among  the  colleagues  of 
Lord  Randolph  Churchill  or  Mr.  Chamberlain." 
— R.  B.  Brett,  Footprints  of  Statesmen,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  W.  Coxe,  Memoirs  of  3Iarlbnrough, 
ch.  89-107. — The  same.  Memoirs  of  Walpole,  v.  1. 
ch.  5-6. — G.  Saintsbury,  Marlborough. — G.  W. 
Cooke,  Memoirs  of  Bolingbroke,  v.  1,  ch.  6-13. — 
J.  C.  Collins,  Bolingbroke. — A.  Hassall,  Life  of 
Bolingbroke,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1711-1714. — The  Occasional  Confor- 
mity Bill  and  the  Schism  Act.— "The  Test  Act, 
making  the  reception  of  the  Anglican  Sacrament 
a  necessary  qualification  for  becoming  a  member 
of  corporations,  and  for  the  enjoyment  of  most 
civil  offices,  was  very  eflicacious  in  excluding 
Catholics,  but  was  altogether  insufficient  to  ex- 
clude moderate  Dissenters.  .  .  .  Such  men, 
while  habitually  attending  their  own  places  of 
worship,  had  no  scruple  about  occasionally  enter- 
ing an  Anglican  church,  or  receiving  the  sacra- 
ment from  an  Anglican  clergyman.  The  Inde- 
pendents, it  is  true,  and  some  of  the  Baptists, 
censured  this  practice,  and  Defoe  wrote  vehe- 
mently against  it,  but  it  was  very  general,  and  was 
supported  by  a  long  list  of  imposing  authorities. 
...  In  1703,  in  1703,  and  in  1704,  measures  for 
suppressing  occasional  conformity  were  carried 
through  the  Commons,  but  on  each  occasion  they 
were  defeated  by  the  Whig  preponderance  in  the 
Lords."  In  1711,  the  Whigs  formed  a  coalition 
with  one  section  of  the  Tories  to  defeat  the 
negotiations  which  led  to  the  Peace  of  Utrecht  ; 
but  the  Tories  "made  it  the  condition  of  alliance 
that  the  Occasional  Conformity  Bill  should  be  ac- 
cepted by  the  Whigs.  The  bargain  was  made; 
the  Dissenters  were  abandoned,  and,  on  the 
motion  of  Nottingham,  a  measure  was  carried 
providing  that  all  persons  in  places  of  profit  or 
trust,   and  all   common  council  men  in  corpora- 


944 


ENGLAND,  1711-1714. 


Coining  of 
the  Hanoverians, 


ENGLAND,  1714. 


tions,  who,  while  holding  office,  were  proved  to 
have  attended  any  Nonconformist  place  of  wor- 
ship, should  forfeit  the  place,  and  should  con- 
tinue incapable  of  public  employment  till  they 
should  depose  that  for  a  whole  year  they  had  not 
attended  a  conventicle.  The  House  of  Com- 
mons added  a  fine  of  £40,  which  was  to  be  paid 
to  the  informer,  and  with  this  addition  the  Bill 
became  a  law.  Its  effects  during  the  few  years 
it  continued  in  force  were  very  inconsiderable, 
for  the  gi'eat  majority  of  conspicuous  Dissenters 
remained  in  office,  abstaining  from  public  wor- 
ship in  conventicles,  but  having  Dissenting  min- 
isters as  private  chaplains  in  their  houses.  .  .  . 
The  object  of  the  Occasional  Conformity  Bill 
was  to  exclude  the  Dissenters  from  all  Govern- 
ment positions  of  power,  dignity  or  profit.  It 
was  followed  in  1714  by  the  Schism  Act,  which 
was  intended  to  crush  their  seminaries  and  de- 
prive them  of  the  means  of  educating  their 
children  in  their  faith.  ...  As  carried  through 
the  House  of  Commons,  it  provided  that  no  one, 
under  pain  of  three  months'  imprisonment,  should 
keep  either  a  public  or  a  private  school,  or 
should  even  act  as  tutor  or  usher,  unless  he  had 
obtained  a  licence  from  the  Bishop,  had  engaged 
to  conform  to  the  Anglican  liturgy,  and  had  re- 
ceived the  sacrament  in  some  Anglican  church 
within  the  year.  In  order  to  prevent  occasional 
conformity  it  was  further  provided  that  if  a 
teacher  so  qualified  were  present  at  any  other 
form  of  worship  he  should  at  once  become  liable 
to  three  months'  imprisonment,  and  should  be 
incapacitated  for  the  rest  of  his  life  from  acting 
as  schoolmaster  or  tutor.  .  .  .  Some  important 
clauses,  however,  were  introduced  by  the  Whig 
party  qualifying  its  severity.  They  provided 
that  Dissenters  might  have  school-mistresses  to 
teach  their  children  to  read ;  that  the  Act  should 
not  extend  to  any  person  instructing  youth  in 
reading,  writing,  or  arithmetic,  in  any  part  of 
mathematics  relating  to  navigation,  or  in  any 
mechanical  art  only.  .  .  .  The  facility  with  which 
this  atrocious  Act  was  carried,  abundantly  shows 
the  danger  in  which  religious  liberty  was  placed 
in  the  latter  years  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne. " — 
W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  18th  Centunj, 
ch.  1. — The  Schism  Act  was  repealed  in  1719, 
during  the  administration  of  Lord  Stanhope. — 
Cobbett's  Parliamentary  History,  v.  7,  pp.  567-587. 

Axso  IN:  J.  Stoughton,  Hist,  of  ReUyion  in 
Eng.,  V.  5,  ch.  14-16. 

A.  D.  1713.— Ending  of  the  War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession. — The  Peace  of  Utrecht. 
— Acquisitions  from  Spain  and  France.  See 
Utrecht:  A.  D.  1712-1714;  C.^ada:  A.  D. 
1711-1713;  also,  Newfoundland:  A.  D.  1713; 
and  Slavery,  Negro:  A.  D.  1698-1776. 

A.  D.  1713.— Second  Barrier  Treaty  with 
the  Dutch.  See  Netherlands  (Holland): 
A.  D.  1713-1715. 

A.  D.  1713-1714.  —  The  desertion  of  the 
Catalans.     See  Spain:  A.  D.  1713-1714. 

A.  D.  1714. — The  end  of  the  Stuart  line  and 
the  beginning  of  the  Hanoverians. —  Queen 
Anne  died,  after  a  short  illness,  on  the  morning 
of  August  1,  1714.  The  Tories,  who  had  just 
gained  control  of  the  ministry,  were  wholly  un- 
prepared for  this  emergency.  They  assembled 
in  Privy  Council,  on  the  29th  of  July,  when  the 
probably  fatal  issue  of  the  Queen's  illness  became 
apparent,  and  ' '  a  strange  scene  is  said  to  have 
occurred.     Argyle  and  Somerset,  though  they 

945 


had  contributed  largely  by  their  defection  to  the 
downfall  of  the  Whig  ministry  of  Godolphin, 
wei'c  now  again  in  opposition  to  the  Tories,  and 
had  recently  been  dismissed  from  their  posts. 
Availing  themselves  of  their  rank  of  Privy  Coun- 
cillors, they  appeared  uusummoned  in  the  coun- 
cil room,  pleading  the  greatness  of  the  emergency. 
Shrewsbury,  who  had  probably  concocted  the 
scene,  rose  and  warmly  thanked  them  for  their 
offer  of  assistance ;  and  these  three  men  appear 
to  have  guided  the  course  of  events.  .  .  .  Shrews- 
bury, who  was  already  Chamberlain  and  Lord 
Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  became  Lord  Treasurer, 
and  assumed  the  authority  of  Prime  Minister. 
Summons  were  at  once  sent  to  all  Privy  Coun- 
cillors, irrespective  of  party,  to  attend ;  and 
Somers  and  several  other  of  the  Whig  leaders 
were  speedily  at  their  post.  They  had  the  great 
advantage  of  knowing  clearly  the  policy  they 
should  pursue,  and  their  measures  were  taken 
with  admirable  promptitude  and  energy.  The 
guards  of  the  Tower  were  at  once  doubled.  Four 
regiments  were  ordered  to  march  from  the  country 
to  London,  and  all  seamen  to  repair  to  their  vessels. 
An  embargo  was  laid  on  all  shipping.  The  fleet 
was  equipped,  and  speedy  measures  were  taken 
to  jjrotect  the  seaports  and  to  secure  tranquility 
in  Scotland  and  Ireland.  At  the  same  time  des- 
patches were  sent  to  the  Netherlands  ordering 
seven  of  the  ten  British  battalions  to  embark 
without  delay ;  to  Lord  Strafford,  the  ambassador 
at  the  Hague,  desiring  the  States-General  to  ful- 
fil their  guarantee  of  the  Protestant  succession 
in  England ;  to  the  Elector,  urging  him  to  hasten 
to  Holland,  where,  on  the  death  of  the  Queen,  he 
would  be  met  by  a  British  squadron,  and  escorted 
to  his  new  kingdom. "  When  the  Queen's  death 
occurred,  "  the  new  King  was  at  once  proclaimed, 
and  it  is  a  striking  proof  of  the  danger  of  the 
crisis  that  the  funds,  which  had  fallen  on  a  false 
rumour  of  the  Queen's  recovery,  rose  at  once 
when  she  died.  Atterbury  is  said  to  have  urged 
Bolingbroke  to  proclaim  James  III.  at  Charing 
Cross,  and  to  have  offered  to  head  the  processinn 
in  his  lawn  sleeves,  but  the  counsel  was  mere 
madness,  and  Bolingbroke  saw  clearly  that  any 
attempt  to  overthrow  the  Act  of  Settlement 
would  be  now  worse  than  useless.  .  .  .  The  more 
violent  spirits  among  the  Jacobites  now  looked 
eagerly  for  a  French  invasion,  but  the  calmer  mem- 
bers of  the  party  perceived  that  such  an  invasion 
was  impossible.  .  .  .  The  Regency  Act  of  1705 
came  at  once  into  operation.  The  Hanoverian 
minister  produced  the  sealed  list  of  the  names  of 
those  to  whom  the  Elector  entrusted  the  govern- 
ment before  his  arrival,  and  it  was  found  to  con- 
sist of  eighteen  names  taken  from  the  leaders  of 
the  Whig  party.  .  .  .  Parliament,  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Bill,  was  at  once  sum- 
moned, and  it  was  soon  evident  that  there  was 
nothing  to  fear.  The  moment  for  a  restoration 
was  passed." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
18th  Cent.,  ch.  1  (».  1). — "George  I.,  whom  cir- 
cumstances and  the  Act  of  Settlement  had  thus 
called  to  be  King  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland, 
had  been  a  sovereign  prince  for  sixteen  years, 
during  which  time  he  had  been  Elector  of  Bruns- 
wick-Lilneburg.  He  was  the  second  who  ever 
bore  that  title.  By  right  of  his  father  he  was 
Elector ;  it  was  by  right  of  his  mother  that  he  now 
became  ruler  of  the  United  Kingdom.  The  father 
was  Ernest  Augustus,  Sovereign  Bishop  of  Osna- 
burg,  who,  by  the  death  of  his  elder  brothers,  had 


ENGLAND,  1714. 


XValpole  and  Parlia- 
mentary Government. 


ENGLAND,  1714-1721. 


become  Duke  of  Hanover,  and  then  Duke  of 
Brunswick  and  Luneburg.  In  1692  he  was  raised 
by  the  Emperor  to  the  dignity  of  Elector.  .  .  .The 
niother  of  George  I.  was  Sophia,  usually  known 
as  the  Electress  Sophia.  The  title  was  merely 
one  of  honour,  and  only  meant  wife  of  an  Elector. 
.  .  .  The  Electress  Sophia  was  the  daughter  of 
Elizabeth,  daughter  of  King  James  I.,  and 
Frederick,  the  Elector  Palatine  [whose  election 
to  the  throne  of  Bohemia  and  subsequent  expul- 
sion from  that  kingdom  and  from  his  Palatine 
dominions  were  the  first  acts  in  the  Thirty  Years' 
"War].  .  .  .  The  new  royal  house  in  England  is 
sometimes  called  the  House  of  Hanover,  some- 
times the  House  of  Brunswick.  It  will  be  found 
that  the  latter  name  is  more  generally  used  in 
histories  written  during  the  last  centurj',  the  for- 
mer in  books  written  in  the  present  day.  If  the 
names  were  equallj'  applicable,  the  modern  use 
is  the  more  convenient,  because  there  is  another, 
and  in  some  respects  well  known,  branch  of  the 
House  of  Brunswick ;  but  no  other  has  a  right  to 
the  name  of  Hanover.  It  is,  however,  quite  certain 
that,  whatever  the  English  use  may  be,  Hanover 
Is  properly  the  name  of  a  town  and  of  a  duchy, 
but  that  the  electorate  was  Brunswick-Liineburg. 
.  .  .  The  House  of  Brunswick  was  of  noble  ori- 
gin, tracing  itself  back  to  a  certain  Guelph 
d'Este,  nicknamed  '  the  Robust,'  son  of  an  Italian 
nobleman,  who  had  been  seeking  his  fortunes  in 
Germany.  Guelph  married  Judith,  widow  of  the 
English  King,  Harold,  who  fell  on  the  hill  of 
Senlac.  .  .  .  One  of  Guelph's  descendants,  later, 
married  Maud,  the  daughter  of  King  Henry  II., 
probably  the  most  powerful  king  in  Europe  of 
his  day,  at  whose  persuasion  the  Emperor  con- 
ferred on  the  Guelphs  the  duchy  of  Brunswick." 
— E.  E.  Morris,  The  Early  HaTwverians,  bk.  1, 
ch.  2. 

Also  in  :  P.  M.  Thornton,  T?ie  Brunswick  Ac- 
cession, ch.  1-10. — Sir  A.  HaUiday,  Annals  of  the 
Houseof  Hanover,  bk.  10(».  2). — J.  McCarthy,  Hist, 
of  the  Four  Oeorges,  ch.  1-4. — W.  M.  Thackeray, 
The  Four  Georges,  lect.  1.— A.  W.  Ward,  The 
Electress  Sophia  and  the  Hanoverian  Succession 
(Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  v.  1). — See,  also,  England:  A.  D. 
1701,  The  Act  of  Settlement. 

A.  D.  1714-1721. — First  years  of  George  I. 
— The  rise  of  Walpole  to  power  and  the  found- 
ing of  Parliamentary  Government. — "The  ac- 
cession of  the  house  of  Hanover  in  the  person  of 
the  great-grandson  of  James  I.  was  once  called 
by  a  Whig  of  this  generation  the  greatest  miracle 
in  our  history.  It  took  place  without  domestic 
or  foreign  disturbance.  .  .  .  Within  our  own 
borders  a  short  lull  followed  the  sharp  agitations 
of  the  last  six  months.  The  new  king  appointed 
an  exclusively  Whig  Ministry.  The  office  of 
Lord  Treasurer  was  not  revived,  and  the  title 
disappears  from  political  history.  Lord  Towns- 
hend  was  made  principal  Secretary  of  State,  and 
assumed  the  part  of  first  Minister.  Mr.  Walpole 
[Sir  Robert]  took  the  subaltern  office  of  paymaster 
of  the  forces,  holding  along  with  it  the  paymaster- 
ship  of  Chelsea  Hospital.  Although  he  had  at 
first  no  seat  in  the  inner  Council  or  Cabinet,  which 
seems  to  have  consisted  of  eight  members,  only 
one  of  them  a  commoner,  it  is  evident  that  from 
the  outset  his  influence  was  hardly  second  to  that 
of  Townshend  himself.  In  little  more  than  a 
year  (October  1715)  he  had  made  himself  so 
prominent  and  valuable  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons,  that  the  opportunity  of  a  vacancy  was 


taken  to  appoint  him  to  be  First  Commissioner 
of  the  Treasury  and  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 
.  .  .  Besides  excluding  their  opponents  from 
power,  the  Whigs  instantly  took  more  positive 
measures.  The  new  Parliament  was  strongly 
Whig.  A  secret  committee  was  at  once  appointed 
to  inquire  into  the  negotiations  for  the  Peace. 
Walpole  was  chairman,  took  the  lead  in  its  pro- 
ceedings, and  drew  the  report."  On  Walpole's 
report,  the  House  "directed  the  impeachment  of 
Oxford,  Bolingbroke,  and  Ormond  for  high 
treason,  and  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanours 
mainly  relating  to  the  Peace  of  Utrecht.  .  .  . 
The  proceedings  against  Oxford  and  Bolingbroke 
are  the  last  instance  in  our  history  of  a  political 
impeachment.  They  are  the  last  ministers  who 
were  ever  made  personally  responsible  for  giving 
bad  advice  and  pursuing  a  discredited  policy,  and 
since  then  a  political  mistake  has  ceased  to  be  a 
crime.  .  .  .  The  affair  came  to  an  abortive  end. 
.  .  .  The  opening  years  of  the  new  reign  mark 
one  of  the  least  attractive  periods  in  political 
history.  George  I.  .  .  .  cared  very  little  for  his 
new  kingdom,  and  knew  very  little  about  its 
people  or  its  institutions.  .  .  .  His  expeditions 
to  Hanover  threw  the  management  of  all  domes- 
tic affairs  almost  without  control  into  the  hands 
of  his  English  ministers.  If  the  two  first  Hano- 
verian kings  had  been  Englishmen  instead  of 
Germans,  if  they  had  been  men  of  talent  and 
ambition,  or  even  men  of  strong  and  command- 
ing will  without  much  talent,  Walpole  would 
never  have  been  able  to  lay  the  foundations  of 
government  by  the  House  of  Commons  and  by 
Cabinet  so  firmly  that  even  the  obdurate  will  of 
George  III.  was  unable  to  overthrow  it  [see 
Cabinet,  The  English].  Happily  for  the  sys- 
tem now  established,  circumstances  compelled 
the  first  two  sovereigns  of  the  Hanoverian  line 
to  strike  a  bargain  with  the  English  Whigs,  and 
it  was  faithfully  kept  until  the  accession  of  the 
third  George.  The  king  was  to  manage  the  af- 
fairs of  Hanover,  and  the  Whigs  were  to  govern 
England.  It  was  an  excellent  bargain  for  Eng- 
land. Smooth  as  this  operation  may  seem  in  his- 
toric description,  Walpole  found  its  early  stages 
rough  and  thorny. "  The  king  was  not  easily 
brought  to  understand  that  England  would  not 
make  war  for  Hanoverian  objects,  nor  allow  her 
foreign  policy  to  be  shaped  by  the  ambitions  of 
the  Electorate.  Differences  arose  which  drove 
Townshend  from  the  Cabinet,  and  divided  the 
Whig  party.  Walpole  retired  from  the  govern- 
ment with  Townshend,  and  was  in  opposition  for 
three  years,  while  Lord  Stanhope  and  the  Earl  of 
Sunderland  controlled  the  administration.  The 
Whig  schism  came  to  an  end  in  1720,  and  Towns- 
hend and  Walpole  rejoined  the  administratnon, 
the  latter  as  Paymaster  of  the  Forces  without  a 
seat  in  the  Cabinet.  "  His  opposition  was  at  an 
end,  but  he  took  no  part  in  the  active  work  of 
government.  .  .  .  Before  many  months  had 
passed  the  country  was  overtaken  by  the  memora- 
ble disasters  of  the  South  Sea  Bubble  [see  South 
Sea  Bubble].  .  .  .  All  eyes  were  turned  to 
Walpole.  Though  he  had  privately  dabbled  in 
South  Sea  stock  on  his  own  account,  his  public 
predictions  came  back  to  men's  minds ;  they  re- 
membered that  he  had  been  called  the  best  man 
for  figures  in  the  House,  and  the  disgrace  of  his 
most  important  colleagues  only  made  his  sagacity 
the  more  prominent.  ...  He  returned  to  his  old 
posts,  and  once  more  became  First  Lord  of  the 


946 


ENGLAND.  1714-1721. 


Walpole 
and  George  II. 


ENGLAND,  1727-1741. 


Treasury  and  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  (April 
1721),  while  Townshend  was  again  Secretary  of 
State.  "Walpole  held  his  offices  practically  with- 
out a  break  for  twenty-one  years.  The  younger 
Pitt  had  an  almost  equal  span  of  unbroken  su- 
premacy, but  with  that  exception  there  is  no 
parallel  to  Walpole's  long  tenure  of  power.  To 
estimate  aright  the  vast  significance  of  this  ex- 
traordinary stability,  we  must  remember  that  the 
country  had  just  passed  through  eighty  years  of 
revolution.  A  man  of  80  in  1721  could  recall 
the  execution  of  Charles  I.,  the  protectorate  of 
Oliver,  the  fall  of  Richard  Cromwell,  the  restora- 
tion of  Charles  II.,  the  exile  of  James  II.,  the 
change  of  the  order  of  succession  to  "William  of 
Orange,  the  reactionary  ministry  of  Anne,  and 
finally  the  second  change  to  the  House  of  Hano- 
ver. The  interposition,  after  so  long  a  series  of 
violent  perturbations  as  this,  of  twenty  years  of 
settled  system  and  continuous  order  under  one 
man,  makes  Walpole's  government  of  capital 
and  decisive  importance  in  our  history,  and  con- 
stitutes not  an  artificial  division  like  the  reign  of 
a  king,  but  a  true  and  definite  period,  with  a  be- 
ginning, an  end,  a  significance,  and  a  unity  of  its 
own." — J.  Morley,  Walpole,  ch.  3—4. 

Also  in  :  W.  Coxe,  Memoirs  of  Sir  Robert  Wal- 
pole, ch.  9-31  {V.  1). 

A.  D.  1715. — The  Jacobite  rising.  See  Scot- 
land: A.  D.  1715. 

A.  D.  1716. — The  Septennial  Act. — The  easy 
suppression  of  the  Jacobite  rebellion  was  far 
from  putting  an  end  to  the  fears  of  the  loyal 
supporters  of  the  Hanoverian  dynasty.  They 
regarded  with  especial  anxiety  the  approaching 
Parliamentary  elections.  "As,  by  the  existing 
statute  of  6  "William  and  Mary  [the  Triennial  Act, 
of  1694],  Parliament  would  be  dissolved  at  the 
close  of  the  year,  and  a  new  election  held  in  the 
spring  of  1717,  there  seemed  great  probability  of 
a  renewal  of  the  contest,  or  at  least  of  very  seri- 
ous riots  during  the  election  time.  "With  this  in 
view,  the  ministers  proposed  that  the  existing 
Parliament  should  be  continued  for  a  term  of 
seven  instead  of  three  years.  This,  which  was 
meant  for  a  temporary  measure,  has  never  been 
repealed,  and  is  still  the  law  under  which  Par- 
liaments are  held.  It  has  been  often  objected  to 
this  action  of  Parliament,  that  it  was  acting  arbi- 
trarily in  thus  increasing  its  own  duration.  '  It 
was  a  direct  usurpation,'  it  has  been  said,  'of 
the  rights  of  the  people,  analogous  to  the  act  of 
the  Long  Parliament  in  declaring  itself  inde- 
structible.' It  has  been  regarded  rather  as  a 
party  measure  than  as  a  forward  step  in  liberal 
government.  We  must  seek  its  vindication  in 
the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  time.  It  was  use- 
less to  look  to  the  constituencies  for  the  support 
of  the  popular  liberty.  The  return  of  members 
in  the  smaller  boroughs  was  in  the  hands  of  cor- 
rupt or  corruptible  freemen ;  in  the  counties,  of 
great  landowners ;  in  the  larger  towns,  of  small 
place-holders  under  Government.  A  general 
election  in  fact  only  gave  fresh  occasion  for  the 
exercise  of  the  influence  of  the  Crown  and  of  the 
House  of  Lords  —  freedom  and  independence  in 
the  presence  of  these  two  permanent  powers 
could  be  secured  only  by  the  greater  permanence 
of  the  third  element  of  the  Legislature,  the 
House  of  Commons.  It  was  thus  that,  though 
no  doubt  in  some  degree  a  party  measure  for 
securing  a  more  lengthened  tenure  of  office  to 
the  Whigs,  the  Septennial  Act  received,   upon 


good  constitutional  grounds,  the  support  and 
approbation  of  the  best  statesmen  of  the  time. " 
—J.  F.  Bright,  mst.  ofEng.,  period  3,  p.  938. 

Also  in:  Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Hist. 
of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  v.  1,  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1717-1719. — The  Triple  Alliance. — 
The  Quadruple  Alliance. — War  with  Spain. 
See  Spain:  A.  D.  1713-1725;  also,  Italy:  A.  D. 
1715-1735. 

A.  D.  1720.— The  South  Sea  Bubble.  See 
South  Sea  Bubble. 

A.  D.  1721-1742. — Development  of  the  Cabi- 
net System  of  ministerial  government.  See 
Cabinet,  The  English. 

A.  D.  1725. — The  Alliance  of  Hanover.  See 
Spain:  A.  D.  1713-1735. 

A.  D.  1726-1731. — Fresh  differences  vyith 
Spain. — Gibraltar  besieged. — The  Treaty  of 
Seville. — The  Second  Treaty  of  Vienna.  See 
Spain:  A.  D.  1736-1731. 

A.  D.  1727. — Accession  of  King  George  II. 

A.  D.  1727-1741. — Walpole's  administra- 
tion under  George  II. —  "The  management  of 
public  affairs  during  the  six  j'ears  of  George  the 
First's  reign  in  which  Walpole  was  Prime  Min- 
ister, was  easy.  .  .  .  His  political  fortunes  seemed 
to  be  ruined  by  George  the  First's  death  [1737]. 
That  King's  successor  had  ransacked  a  very  co- 
pious vocabulary  of  abuse,  in  order  to  stigmatise 
the  minister  and  his  associates.  Rogue  and  rascal, 
scoundrel  and  fool,  were  his  commonest  utterances 
when  Robert  Walpole's  name  was  mentioned. 
.  .  .  Walpole  bowed  meekly  to  the  coming 
storm,"  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  put  Sir 
Spencer  Compton  in  his  place.  But  Compton 
himself,  as  well  as  the  king  and  his  sagacious 
queen,  soon  saw  the  futility  of  it,  and  the  old 
ministry  was  retained.  "At  first,  Walpole  was 
associated  with  his  brother-in-law,  Townsend. 
But  they  soon  disagreed,  and  the  rupture  was 
total  after  the  death  of  "Walpole's  sister.  Towns- 
end's  wife.  .  .  .  After  Townsend's  dismissal, 
Walpole  reigned  alone,  if,  indeed,  he  could  be 
said  to  exercise  sole  functions  while  Newcastle 
was  tied  to  him.  Long  before  he  was  betraj'ed 
by  this  person,  of  whom  he  justly  said  that  his 
name  was  perfidy,  he  knew  how  dangerous  was 
the  association.  But  Newcastle  was  the  largest 
proprietor  of  rotten  boroughs  in  the  kingdom, 
and,  fool  and  knave  as  he  was,  he  had  wit  enough 
to  guess  at  his  own  importance,  and  knavery 
enough  to  make  his  market.  AValpole's  chief 
business  lay  in  managing  the  King,  the  Queen, 
the  Church,  the  House  of  Commons,  and  perhaps 
the  people.  I  have  already  said,  that  before  his 
accession  George  hated  Walpole.  But  there  are 
hatreds  and  hatreds,  equal  in  fervency  while  they 
last,  but  different  in  duration.  The  King  hated 
Walpole  because  he  had  served  his  father  well. 
But  one  George  was  gone,  and  another  George  was 
in  possession.  Then  came  before  the  man  in  pos- 
session the  clear  vision  of  Walpole's  consummate 
usefulness.  The  vision  was  made  clearer  by  the 
sagacious  hints  of  the  Queen.  It  became  clear  as 
noonday  when  Walpole  contrived  to  add  £115,000 
to  the  civil  list.  .  .  .  Besides,  Walpole  was  sin- 
cerely determined  to  support  the  Hanoverian 
succession.  He  constantly  insisted  to  George 
that  the  final  settlement  of  his  House  on  the 
throne  would  be  fought  out  in  England.  .  .  . 
Hence  he  was  able  to  check  one  of  the  King's 
ruling  passions,  a  longing  to  engage  in  war.  .  .  . 
It  is  generally  understood  that  Walpole  managed 


947 


ENGLAND,  1727-1741. 


Walpole'^s 
sta  fesmansh  ip. 


ENGLAND,  1727-1741. 


the  House  of  Commons  by  bribery ;  that  the  se- 
cret service  money  was  thus  employed :  and  that 
this  minister  was  the  father  of  that  corruption 
which  was  reported  to  have  disgraced  the  House 
during  the  first  half  of  the  last  century.  I  sus- 
pect that  these  influences  have  been  exaggerated. 
It  is  a  stock  story  that  Walpole  said  he  knew 
every  man's  price.  It  might  have  been  generally 
true,  but  the  foundation  of  this  apothegm  is,  in 
all  likelihood,  a  recorded  saying  of  his  about  cer- 
tain members  of  the  opposition.  .  .  .  Walpole 
has  been  designated,  and  with  justice,  as  em- 
phatically a  peace  minister.  He  held  '  that  the 
most  pernicious  circumstances  in  which  this  coun- 
try can  be,  are  those  of  war,  as  we  must  be  great 
losers  while  the  war  lasts,  and  cannot  be  great 
gainers  when  it  ends.'  He  kept  George  the 
Second  at  peace,  as  well  as  he  could,  by  insisting 
on  it  that  the  safety  of  his  dynasty  lay  in  avoid- 
ing foreign  embroilments.  He  strove  in  vain 
against  the  war  which  broke  out  in  1739.  ...  I 
do  not  intend  to  disparage  Walpole's  administra- 
tive ability  when  I  say  that  the  country  pros- 
pered independently  of  any  financial  policy 
which  he  adopted  or  carried  out.  .  .  .  Walpole 
let  matters  take  their  course,  for  he  understood 
that  the  highest  merit  of  a  minister  consists  in 
his  doing  no  mischief.  But  Walpole's  praise 
lies  in  the  fact,  that,  with  this  evident  growth 
of  material  prosperity,  he  steadily  set  his  face 
against  gambling  with  it.  He  resolved,  as  far 
as  lay  in  his  power,  to  keep  the  peace  of  Europe ; 
and  he  was  seconded  in  his  efforts  by  Cardinal 
Fleury.  He  contrived  to  smooth  away  the  diffi- 
culties which  arose  in  1727 ;  and  on  January  13, 
1730,  negotiated  the  treaty  of  Seville  [see  Spain: 
A.  D.  1726-1731],  the  benefits  of  which  lasted 
through  ten  years  of  peace,  and  under  which  he 
reduced  the  army  to  5,000  men."  But  the  oppo- 
sition to  Walpole's  peace  policy  became  a  grow- 
ing passion,  which  overcame  him  in  1741  and 
forced  him  to  resign.  On  his  resignation  he  was 
raised  to  the  peerage,  with  the  title  of  Earl  of 
Orford,  and  defeated,  though  with  great  difli- 
culty,  the  determination  of  his  enemies  to  im- 
peach him. —  J.  E.  T.  Rogers,  Historical  Glean- 
ings, V.  1,  ch.  3. — "It  is  impossible,  I  think,  to 
consider  his  [Walpole's]  career  with  adequate 
attention  without  recognising  in  him  a  great 
minister,  although  the  merits  of  his  administra- 
tion were  often  rather  negative  than  positive, 
and  although  it  exhibits  few  of  those  dramatic 
incidents,  and  is  but  little  susceptible  of  that 
rhetorical  colouring,  on  which  the  reputation  of 
statesmen  largely  depends.  ...  He  was  emi- 
nently true  to  the  character  of  his  countrymen. 
He  discerned  with  a  rare  sagacity  the  lines  of 
policy  most  suited  to  their  genius  and  to  their 
needs,  and  he  had  a  sufficient  ascendancy  in 
English  politics  to  form  its  traditions,  to  give  a 
character  and  a  bias  to  its  institutions.  The 
Whig  party,  under  his  guidance,  retained,  though 
with  diminished  energy,  its  old  love  of  civil  and 
of  religious  liberty,  but  it  lost  its  foreign  sym- 
pathies, its  tendency  to  extravagance,  its  military 
restlessness.  The  landed  gentry,  and  in  a  great 
degree  the  Church,  were  reconciled  to  the  new 
dynasty.  The  dangerous  fissures  which  divided 
the  English  nation  were  filled  up.  Parliamentary 
government  lost  its  old  violence,  it  entered  into 
a  period  of  normal  and  pacific  action,  and  the 
habits  of  compromise,  of  moderation,  and  of 
practical  good  sense,  which  are  most  essential  to 


its  success,  were  greatly  strengthened.  These 
were  the  great  merits  of  Walpole.  His  faults 
were  very  manifest,  and  are  to  be  attributed  in 
part  to  his  own  character,  but  in  a  great  degree 
to  the  moral  atmosphere  of  his  time.  He  was 
an  honest  man  in  the  sense  of  desiring  sincerely 
the  welfare  of  his  country  and  serving  his  sove- 
reign with  fidelity ;  but  he  was  intensely  wedded 
to  power,  exceedingly  unscrupulous  about  the 
means  of  grasping  or  retaining  it,  and  entirely 
destitute  of  that  delicacy  of  honour  which  marks 
a  high-minded  man.  .  .  .  His  estimate  of  political 
integrity  was  very  similar  to  his  estimate  of  female 
virtue.  He  governed  by  means  of  an  assembly 
which  was  saturated  with  corruption,  and  he 
fully  acquiesced  in  its  conditions  and  resisted 
every  attempt  to  improve  it.  .  .  .  It  is  necessary 
to  speak  with  much  caution  on  this  matter,  re- 
membering that  no  statesman  can  emancipate 
himself  from  the  conditions  of  his  time.  .  .  . 
The  systematic  corruption  of  Members  of  Par- 
liament is  said  to  have  begun  under  Charles  II., 
in  whose  reign  it  was  practised  to  the  largest 
extent.  It  was  continued  under  his  successor, 
and  the  number  of  scandals  rather  increased  than 
diminished  after  the  Revolution.  .  .  .  And  if  cor- 
ruption did  not  begin  with  Walpole,  it  is  equally 
certain  that  it  did  not  end  with  him.  His  ex- 
penditure of  secret  service  money,  large  as  it 
was,  never  equalled  in  an  equal  space  of  time 
the  expenditure  of  Bute.  .  .  .  The  real  charge 
against  him  is  that  in  a  period  of  profound  peace, 
when  he  exercised  an  almost  unexampled  ascen- 
dancy in  politics,  and  when  public  opinion  was 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  diminution  of  corrupt 
influence  in  Parliament,  he  steadily  and  success- 
fully resisted  every  attempt  at  reform.  ...  It 
was  his  settled  policy  to  maintain  his  Parlia- 
mentary majority,  not  by  attracting  to  his  min- 
istry great  orators,  great  writers,  great  financiers, 
or  great  statesmen,  .  .  .  but  simply  by  engross- 
ing borough  influence  and  extending  tlae  patron- 
age of  the  Crown."— W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of 
Eng.  in  the  18th  Century,  ch.  3  (».  1). — "But  for 
Sir  Robert  Walpole,  we  should  have  had  the  Pre- 
tender back  again.  But  for  his  obstinate  love  of 
peace,  we  should  have  had  wars,  which  the 
nation  was  not  strong  enough  nor  united  enough 
to  endure.  But  for  his  resolute  counsels  and 
good-humoured  resistance,  we  might  have  had 
German  despots  attempting  a  Hanoverian  regi- 
men over  us :  we  should  have  had  revolt,  com- 
motion, want,  and  tyrannous  misrule,  in  place  of 
a  quarter  of  a  century  of  peace,  freedom  and 
material  prosperity,  such  as  the  country  never 
enjoyed,  until  that  corrupter  of  parliaments, 
that  dissolute  tipsy  cynic,  that  courageous  lover 
of  peace  and  liberty,  that  great  citizen,  patriot 
and  statesman  governed  it.  .  .  .  In  private  life 
the  old  pagan  revelled  in  the  lowest  pleasures: 
he  passed  his  Sundays  tippling  at  Richmond; 
and  his  holidays  bawling  after  dogs,  or  boozing 
at  Houghton  with  Boors  over  beef  and  punch. 
He  cared  for  letters  no  more  than  his  master  did : 
he  judged  luunan  nature  so  meanly  that  one  is 
ashamed  to  have  to  own  that  he  was  right,  and 
that  men  could  be  corrupted  by  means  so  base. 
But,  with  his  hireling  House  of  Commons,  he  de- 
fended liberty  for  us ;  with  his  incredulity  he  kept 
Church-craft  down.  ...  He  gave  Englishmen 
no  conquests,  but  he  gave  them  peace,  and  ease, 
and  freedom ;  the  Three  per  Cents,  nearly  at  par; 
and  wheat  at  five  and  six  and  twenty  shillings  a 


948 


ENGLAND.  1727-1741. 


War  of 
Jenkins''  Ear. 


ENGLAND,  1739-1741. 


quarter."— W.  M.  Thackeray,  The  Four  Georges, 
eh.  2. 

Also  m ;  W.  Coxe,  Memoirs  of  Sir  R.  Walpole, 
eh.  31-59  (v.  1).— Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope), 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  15-23  (s.  2-3).— 
Lord  Hervey,  Memoirs  of  the  Reign  of  Oeorge  II. 

A.  D.  1731-1740. — The  question  of  the  Aus- 
trian Succession. —  Guarantee  of  the  Prag- 
matic Sanction.  See  Austria:  A.  D.  1718- 
1738,  and  1740. 

A.  D.  1732. — The  grant  of  Georgia  to  Gen- 
eral Oglethorpe.  See  Georgia;  A.  D.  1783- 
1739. 

A.  D.  1733.— The  first  Bourbon  Family  Com- 
pact.—  Its  hostility  to  Great  Britain.  See 
France,  A.  D.  1733. 

A.  D.  1733-1787.  —  The  great  inventions 
which  built  up  the  Cotton  Manufacture.  See 
Cotton  JIanupacture. 

A.  D.  1739-1741. — The  War  of  Jenkins'  Ear. 
— "In  spite  of  Walpole's  love  of  peace,  and  de- 
termined efforts  to  preserve  it,  in  the  year  1739 
a  war  broke  out  with  Spain,  which  is  an  illu-st  ra- 
tion of  the  saying  that  the  occasion  of  a  war  may 
be  trifling,  though  its  real  cause  be  very  serious. 
The  war  is  often  called  the  War  of  Jenkins'  Ear. 
The  story  ran  that  eight  years  before  (1731)  a 
certain  Captain  Jenkins,  skipper  of  the  ship 
'  Rebecca, '  of  London,  had  been  maltreated  by  the 
Spaniards.  His  ship  was  sailing  from  Jamaica, 
and  hanging  about  the  entrance  of  the  Gulf  of 
Florida,  when  it  was  boarded  by  the  Spanish 
coastguard.  The  Spaniards  could  find  no  proof 
that  .Jenkins  was  smuggling,  though  they  search- 
ed narrowly,  and  being  angry  at  their  ill-success 
they  hanged  him  to  the  yardarm,  lowering  him 
just  in  time  to  save  his  life.  At  length  they 
pulled  off  his  ear  and  told  him  to  take  it  to  his 
king.  .  .  .  Seven  3'ear8  later  Captain  Jenkins 
was  examined  by  the  House  of  Commons,  on 
which  occasion  some  member  asked  him  how  he 
felt  when  being  maltreated,  and  Jenkins  an- 
swered, '  I  recommended  my  soul  to  God  and 
my  cause  to  my  country.'  The  answer,  whether 
made  at  the  time  or  prepared  for  use  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  touched  a  chord  of  sympathy,  and 
soon  was  circulated  through  the  country.  '  No 
need  of  allies  now,'  said  one  politician ;  '  the  story 
of  Jenkins  will  raise  us  volunteers.'  The  truth 
of  the  matter  is  that  this  story  from  its  some- 
what ridiculous  aspect  has  remained  in  tlie  minds 
of  men,  but  that  it  is  only  a  specimen  of  many 
stories  then  afloat,  all  pointing  to  insolence  of 
Spaniards  in  insisting  upon  what  was  after  all 
strictly  within  their  rights.  But  the  legal  treaty 
rights  of  Spain  were  growing  intolerable  to  Eng- 
lishmen, though  not  necessarily  to  the  English 
Government ;  and  traders  and  sailors  were  break- 
ing the  international  laws  which  practically 
stopped  the  expansion  of  England  in  the  New 
World.  The  war  arose  out  of  a  question  of 
trade,  in  this  as  in  so  many  other  cases  the  Eng- 
lish being  prepared  to  fight  in  order  to  force  an 
entrance  for  their  trade,  which  the  Spaniards 
wished  to  shut  out  from  Spanish  America.  This 
question  found  a  place  amongst  the  other  matters 
arranged  by  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,  when  the 
English  obtained  almost  as  their  sole  return  for 
their  victories  what  was  known  as  the  Assiento. 
This  is  a  Spanish  word  meaning  contract,  but  its 
use  had  been  for  some  time  confined  to  the  dis- 
graceful privilege  of  providing  Spanish  America 
with  negroes  kidnapped  from  their  homes  in 


Africa.  The  Flemings,  the  Genoese,  the  Portu- 
guese, and  the  French  Guinea  Company  received 
in  turn  from  Spanish  kings  the  monopoly  in  this 
shameful  traffic,  which  at  the  treaty  of  Utrecht 
was  passed  on  for  a  period  of  thirty  years  to 
England,  now  becoming  mistress  of  the  seas, 
and  with  her  numerous  merchant  ships  better 
able  than  others  to  carry  on  the  business.  The 
English  Government  committed  the  contract  to 
the  South  Sea  Company,  and  the  number  of 
negroes  to  be  supplied  annually  was  no  less  than 
4,800  'sound,  healthy,  merchantable  negroes, 
two-thirds  to  be  male,  none  under  ten  or  over 
forty  years  old. '  In  the  Assiento  Treaty  there 
was  also  a  provision  for  the  trading  of  one  Eng- 
lish ship  each  year  with  Spanish  America;  but  in 
order  to  prevent  too  great  advantage  therefrom 
it  was  carefully  stipulated  that  the  ship  should 
not  exceed  600  tons  burden.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  this  stipulation  was  regularly  violated  by 
the  English  sending  a  ship  of  the  required  num- 
ber of  tons,  but  with  it  numerous  tenders  and 
smaller  craft.  Moreover  smuggling,  being  very 
profitable,  became  common ;  it  was  of  this  smug- 
gling that  Captain  Jenkins  was  accused.  .  .  . 
Walpole,  always  anxious  for  peace,  by  argu- 
ment, by  negotiation,  by  delays,  resisted  the 
growing  desire  for  war ;  at  length  he  could  resist 
no  longer.  For  the  sake  of  his  reputation  he 
should  have  resigned  office,  but  he  had  enjoyed 
power  too  long  to  be  ready  to  yield  it,  and  most 
unwisely  he  allowed  himself  to  be  forced  into  a 
declaration  of  war  October  19,  1739.  The  news 
was  received  throughout  England  with  a  perfect 
frenzy  of  delight.  ...  A  year  and  a  day  after 
this  declaration  of  war  an  event  occurred  —  the 
death  of  the  Emperor  —  which  helped  to  swell 
the  volume  of  this  war  until  it  was  merged  into 
the  European  war,  called  the  War  of  the  Austrian 
Succession,  which  includes  within  itself  the  First 
and  Second  Silesian  Wars,  between  Austria  and 
Frederick  the  Great  of  Prussia.  The  European 
war  went  on  until  the  general  pacification  in  the 
treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  1748.  Within  another 
ten  years  war  broke  out  again  on  somewhat 
similar  grounds,  but  on  a  much  wider  scale  and 
with  the  combatants  differently  arranged,  under 
the  title  '  Seven  Years'  War. '  The  events  of  this- 
year,  whilst  the  war  was  only  between  Spain  and 
England,  were  the  attacks  on  Spanish  settle- 
ments in  America,  the  capture  of  Porto  Bello, 
and  the  failure  before  Cartagena,  which  led  to 
Anson's  famous  voyage." — E.  E.  Morris,  The 
Early  Hanoverians,  bk.  2,  cli.  3. — "Admiral  Ver- 
non, setting  sail  with  the  English  fleet  from 
Jamaica,  captured  Porto  Bello,  on  the  Isthmus 
of  Darien,  Dec.  1st  —  an  exploit  for  which  he 
received  the  thanks  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament. 
His  attempt  on  Carthagena,  in  the  spring  of  1741, 
proved,  however,  a  complete  failure  through  his 
dissensions,  it  is  said,  with  General  Wentworth, 
the  commander  of  the  land  forces.  A  squadron, 
under  Commodore  Anson,  despatched  to  the 
South  Sea  for  the  purpose  of  annoying  the 
Spanish  colonies  of  Peru  and  Chili,  destroyed  the 
Peruvian  town  of  Paita,  and  made  several  prizes ; 
the  most  important  of  which  was  one  of  the 
great  Spanish  galleons  trading  between  Acapulco 
and  Manilla,  having  a  large  treasure  on  board. 
It  was  on  this  occasion  that  Anson  circumnavi- 
gated the  globe,  having  sailed  from  England  in 
1740  and  returned  to  Spithead  in  1744." — T.  H. 
Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  6,  eh.  3. 


949 


ENGLAND,  1739-1741. 


Rise  of 
Chatham. 


ENGLAND,  1744-1745. 


Also  in  :  R.  Walter,  Voyage  around  the  World 
of  George  Anson. — Sir  J.  Barrow,  Life  of  Lord 
Oeorge  Anson,  ch.  1-2. — W.  Coxe,  Memoirs  of  the 
Bourbon  Kings  of  Spain,  ch.  43  (v.  3). — See,  also, 
France,  A.  D.  1733,  and  Georgia:  A.  D.  1738- 
1743. 

A.  D.  1740-1741. — Beginning  of  the  'War  of 
the  Austrian  Succession.  See  Austria;  A.  D. 
1740-1741. 

A.  D.  1742. — Naval  operations  in  the  Medi- 
terranean.    See  Italy:  A.  D.  1741-1743. 

A.  D.  1742-1745.  —  Ministries  of  Carteret 
and  the  Pelhams. — Pitt's  admission  to  the 
Cabinet. — "  Walpole  resigned  in  the  beginning 
of  February,  1743;  but  his  retirement  did  not 
bring  Pitt  into  office.  The  King  had  conceived  a 
violent  prejudice  against  him,  not  only  on  ac- 
count of  the  prominent  and  effective  part  he  had 
taken  in  the  general  assault  upon  the  late  admin- 
istration, but  more  especially  in  consequence  of 
the  strong  opinions  he  had  expressed  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Hanover,  and  respecting  the  public  mis- 
chiefs arising  from  George  the  Second's  partiality 
to  the  interests  of  the  Electorate.  Lord  Wilming- 
ton was  the  nominal  head  of  the  new  administra- 
tion, which  was  looked  on  as  little  more  than  a 
weak  continuation  of  Walpole's.  The  same  char- 
acter was  generally  given  to  PeUiam's  ministry, 
(Pelham  succeeded  Wilmington  as  Premier,  on 
the  death  of  the  latter  in  1743,)  and  Pitt  soon  ap- 
peared in  renewed  opposition  to  the  Court.  It 
was  about  this  time  that  he  received  a  creditable 
and  convenient  addition  to  his  private  fortune, 
which  also  attested  his  celebrity.  In  1744,  the 
celebrated  Duchess  of  Marlborough  died,  leaving 
him  a  legacy  '  of  10,000  1.  on  account  of  his  merit 
in  the  noble  defence  he  has  made  of  the  laws  of 
England,  to  prevent  the  ruin  of  his  country.' 
Pitt  was  now  at  the  head  of  a  small  but  deter- 
mined band  of  Opposition  statesmen,  with  whom 
he  was  also  connected  by  intermarriages  between 
members  of  their  respective  families  and  his  own. 
These  were  Lord  Cobham,  the  Grenvilles,  and  his 
schoolfellow  Lord  Lyttelton.  The  genius  of 
Pitt  had  made  the  opposition  of  this  party  so  em- 
barrassing to  the  minister,  that  Mr.  Pelham,  the 
leader  of  the  House  of  Commons,  and  his  brother, 
the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  found  it  necessary  to  get 
rid  of  Lord  Carteret,  who  was  personally  most 
obnoxious  to  the  attacks  of  Pitt,  on  account  of 
his  supposed  zeal  in  favour  of  the  King's  Hano- 
verian policy.  Pitt's  friends,  Lyttelton  and 
GrenviUe,  were  taken  into  the  ministry  [called  the 
Broad-bottomed  Administration],  and  the  un- 
doubted wish  of  the  Pelhams  was  to  enlist  Pitt 
also  among  their  colleagues.  But  '  The  great 
Mr.  Pitt,'  says  old  Horace  Walpole  —  using  in 
derision  an  epithet  soon  confirmed  by  the  serious 
voice  of 'the  country  — '  the  great  Mr.  Pitt  insisted 
on  being  Secretary  at  War ' ; —  but  it  was  found 
that  the  King's  aversion  to  him  was  insurmount- 
able; and  after  much  reluctance  and  difficulty, 
his  friends  were  persuaded  to  accept  office  with- 
out him,  under  an  assurance  from  the  Duke  of 
Newcastle  that  '  he  should  at  no  distant  day  be 
able  to  remove  this  prejudice  from  his  Majesty's 
mind.'  Pitt  concurred  in  the  new  arrangement, 
and  promised  to  give  his  support  to  the  remodelled 
administration.  .  .  .  On  the  breaking  out  of  the 
rebellion  of  1745,  Pitt  energetically  supported 
the  ministry  in  their  measures  to  protect  the  estab- 
lished government.  George  the  Second's  preju- 
dices against  him,  were,  however,  as  strong  as 


ever.  At  last  a  sort  of  compromise  was  effected. 
Pitt  waived  for  a  time  his  demand  of  the  War 
Secretaryship,  and  on  the  22nd  of  Februarj', 
1746,  he  was  appointed  one  of  the  joint  Vice- 
treasurers  for  Ireland ;  and  on  the  6th  of  May  fol- 
lowing he  was  promoted  to  the  more  lucrative 
office  of  Paymaster-General  of  the  Forces.  .  .  . 
In  his  office  of  Paymaster  of  the  Forces  Pitt  set 
an  example  then  rare  among  statesmen,  of  per- 
sonal disinterestedness.  He  held  what  had  hith- 
erto been  an  exceedingly  lucrative  situation:  for 
the  Paymaster  seldom  had  less  than  100,000  1.  in 
his  hands,  and  was  allowed  to  appropriate  the  in- 
terest of  what  funds  he  held  to  his  own  use.  In 
addition  to  this  it  had  been  customary  for  foreign 
princes  in  the  pay  of  England  to  allow  the  Pay- 
master of  the  Forces  a  per-centage  on  their  sub- 
sidies. Pitt  nobly  declined  to  avail  himself  of 
these  advantages,  and  would  accept  of  nothing  be- 
yond his  legal  salary. " — Sir  E.  Creasy,  Memoirs 
of  Eminent  Etonians,  ch.  4.  —  "  From  Walpole's 
death  in  1745,  when  the  star  of  the  Stuarts  set 
for  ever  among  the  clouds  of  Culloden,  to  1754, 
when  Henry  Pelham  followed  his  old  chief,  pub- 
lic life  in  England  was  singular])'  calm  and  lan- 
guid. The  temperate  and  peaceful  disposition 
of  the  Minister  seemed  to  pervade  Parliament. 
At  his  death  the  King  exclaimed :  '  Now  I  shall 
have  no  more  peace  ' ;  and  the  words  proved  to  be 
prophetic.  Both  in  Parliament  and  in  the  coun- 
try, as  well  as  beyond  its  shores,  the  elements  of 
discord  were  swiftly  at  war.  Out  of  conflicting 
ambitions  and  widely  divergent  interests  a  new 
type  of  statesman,  very  different  from  Walpole, 
or  from  Bolingbroke,  or  from  Pelham,  or  from 
the  'hubble-bubble  Newcastle,' was  destined  to 
arise.  And  along  with  the  new  statesman  a  new 
force,  of  which  he  was  in  part  the  representative, 
in  part  the  creator,  was  to  be  introduced  into 
political  life.  This  new  force  was  the  unrepre- 
sented voice  of  the  people.  The  new  statesman 
was  an  ex-cornet  of  horse,  William  Pitt,  better 
known  as  Lord  Chatham.  The  characteristics  of 
William  Pitt  which  mainly  influenced  his  career 
were  his  ambition  and  his  ill-health.  Power,  and 
that  conspicuous  form  of  egotism  called  personal 
glory,  were  the  objects  of  his  life.  He  pursued 
them  with  all  the  ardour  of  a  strong-willed  pur- 
pose ;  but  the  flesh  was  in  his  case  painfully  weak. 
Gout  had  declared  itself  his  foe  while  he  was  still 
an  Eton  boy.  His  failures,  and  prolonged  with- 
drawal at  intervals  from  public  affairs,  were  due 
to  the  inroads  of  this  fatal  enemy,  from  whom 
he  was  destined  to  receive  his  death-blow.  Wal- 
pole had  not  been  slow  to  recognise  the  quality 
of  this  'terrible  cornet  of  horse,'  as  he  called 
him." — R.  B.  Brett,  Footprints  of  Statesmen, 
ch.  7. 

Also  en:  Lord  !Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Hist, 
of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  24-28  (».  3). 

A.  D.  1743. — The  British  Pragmatic  Army. 
— Battle  of  Dettingen.  See  Austria:  A.  D. 
1743. 

A.  D.  1743  (October). — The  second  Bourbon 
Family  Compact.  See  France:  A.  D.  1743 
(October). 

A.  D.  1743-1752.  —  Struggle  of  French  and 
English  for  supremacy  in  India. — The  founding 
of  British  empire  by  Clive.  See  India  :  A.  D. 
1743-1752. 

A.  D.  1744-1745. — War  of  the  Austrian  Suc- 
cession: Hostilities  in  America.  See  New 
England:  A.  D.  1744;  and  1745. 


950 


ENGLAND,  1745. 


TJie  Seven 
Years  War. 


ENGLAND,  1754-1755. 


A.  D.  174s  (May). — War  of  the  Austrian  Suc- 
cession in  the  Netherlands. — Fontenoy.     See 

Netherlands  (The  Austrian  Provinces): 
A.  D.  1745. 

A.  D.  1745-1746. — The  Young  Pretender's 
invasion. — Last  rising  of  the  Jacobites.  See 
8coTL;iND:  A.  D.  1745-1746. 

A.  D.  1745-1747. — War  of  the  Austrian  Suc- 
cession.— British  incapacity. — Final  successes 
at  Sea. — "The  extraordinary  incapacity  of  Eng- 
lish commanders,  both  by  land  and  sea,  is  one  of 
the  most  striking  facts  in  the  war  Tve  are  consid- 
ering. .  .  .  Mismanagement  and  languor  were 
general.  The  battle  of  Dettingen  was  truly  de- 
scribed as  a  happy  escape  rather  than  a  great  vic- 
tory ;  the  army  in  Flanders  can  hardly  be  said  to 
have  exhibited  any  military  quality  except  cour- 
age, and  the  British  navy,  though  it  gained  some 
successes,  added  little  to  its  reputation.  The  one 
brilliant  exception  was  the  expedition  of  Anson 
round  Cape  Horn,  for  the  purpose  of  plundering 
the  Spanish  mereliandise  and  settlements  in  the 
Pacific.  It  lasted  for  nearly  four  years.  .  .  . 
The  overwhelming  superiority  of  England  upon 
the  sea  began,  however,  gradually  to  influence 
the  war.  The  island  of  Cape  Breton,  which  com- 
manded the  mouth  of  Gulf  St.  Lawrence,  and 
protected  the  Newfoundland  fisheries,  was  cap- 
tured in  the  June  of  1745.  In  1747  a  French 
squadron  was  destroyed  by  a  very  superior  Eng- 
lish fleet  off  Cape  Finisterre.  Another  was  de- 
feated near  Belleisle,  and  in  the  same  year  as 
many  as  644  prizes  were  taken.  The  war  on  the 
part  of  the  English,  however,  was  most  efficiently 
conducted  by  means  of  subsidies,  which  were 
enormously  multiplied." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist, 
of  En;/.,  ISth  Century,  ch.  3  (».  1), 

A.  D.  1746-1747. — War  of  the  Austrian  Suc- 
cession in  Italy. — Siege  of  Genoa.  See  Italy: 
A.  D.  1T46-1T47. 

A.  D.  1748  (October).— End  and  results  of 
the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession.  See  Aix- 
LA-CiiAPELLE :  A.  D.  1748;  and  New  England: 
A.  D.  1745-1748. 

A.  D.  1748-1754. — First  movements  to  dis- 
pute possession  of  the  Ohio  Valley  with  the 
French.     See  Ohio  (Valley):  A.  D.  1748-1754. 

A.  D.  1749-1755. — Unsettled  boundary  dis- 
putes vyith  France  in  America. — Preludes  of 
the  final  contest.  See  Nova  Scotia:  A.  D. 
1749-1755;  Canada:  A.  D.  1750-1753;  and  Ohio 
(Valley):  A.  D.  1754. 

A.  D.  1751. —  Reformation  of  the  Calendar. 
See  Calendar,  Gregorian. 

A.  D.  1753.  —  The  Jewish  Naturalization 
Bill.     See  Jews:  A.  D.  1663-1753. 

A.  D.  1754. —  Collision  with  the  French  in 
the  Ohio  Valley.  See  Ohio  (Valley):  A.  D. 
1754. 

A.  D.  1754-1755.— The  Seven  Years  War. 
— Its  causes  and  provocations.  — "  The  seven 
years  that  succeeded  the  Peace  of  Aix-la-Chapelle 
are  described  by  Voltaire  as  among  the  happiest 
that  Europe  ever  enjoyed.  Commerce  revived, 
the  fine  arts  flourished,  and  the  European  nations 
resembled,  it  is  said,  one  large  family  that  had 
been  reunited  after  its  dissensions.  Unfortu- 
nately, however,  the  peace  had  not  exterminated 
all  the  elements  of  discord.  Scarcely  had  Europe 
begun  to  breathe  again  when  new  disputes  arose, 
and  the  seven  years  of  peace  and  prosperity  were 
succeeded  by  another  seven  of  misery  and  war. 
The  ancient  rivalry  between  France  and  Eng- 


land, which  had  formerly  vented  itself  in  conti- 
nental struggles,  had,  by  the  progress  of  mari- 
time discovery  and  colonisation,  been  extended  to 
all  the  quarters  of  the  globe.  The  interests  of 
the  two  nations  came  into  collision  in  India,  Africa 
and  America,  and  a  dispute  about  boundaries  in 
this  last  quarter  again  plunged  them  into  a  war. 
By  the  9th  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Aix-la-Cha- 
pelle, France  and  England  were  mutually  to  re- 
store their  conquests  in  such  state  as  they  were 
before  the  war.  This  clause  became  a  copious 
source  of  quarrel.  The  principal  dispute  re- 
garded the  limits  of  Acadia,  or  Nova  Scotia, 
which  province  had,  by  the  12th  article  of  the 
Treaty  of  Utrecht,  been  ceded  to  England  '  con- 
formably to  its  ancient  boundaries ' ;  but  what 
these  were  had  never  been  accurately  determined, 
and  each  Power  fixed  thon  according  to  its  con- 
venience. Thus,  while  the  French  pretended 
that  Nova  Scotia  embraced  on\j  the  peninsula 
extending  from  Cape  St.  Mary  to  Cape  Canseau, 
the  English  further  included  in  it  that  part  of  the 
American  continent  which  extends  to  Pentagoet 
on  the  west,  and  to  the  river  St.  Lawrence  on  the 
north,  comprising  all  the  province  of  New  Bruns- 
wick. Another  dispute  regarded  the  western 
limits  of  the  British  North  American  settlements. 
The  English  claimed  the  banks  of  the  Ohio  as 
belonging  to  Virginia,  the  French  as  forming  part 
of  Louisiana ;  and  they  attempted  to  confine  the 
British  colonies  by  a  chain  of  forts  stretching  from 
Louisiana  to  Canada.  Commissaries  were  ap- 
pointed to  settle  these  questions,  who  held  their 
conferences  at  Paris  between  the  years  1750  and 
1755.  Disputes  also  arose  respecting  the  occupa- 
tion by  the  French  of  the  islands  of  St.  Lucia, 
Dominica,  St.  Vincent,  and  Tobago,  which  had 
been  declared  neutral  by  former  treaties.  Before 
the  Commissaries  could  terminate  their  labours, 
mutual  aggressions  had  rendered  a  war  inevitable. 
As  is  usual  in  such  cases,  it  is  difficult  to  say  who 
was  the  first  aggressor.  Each  nation  laid  the 
blame  on  the  other.  Some  French  writers  assert 
that  the  English  resorted  to  hostilities  out  of 
jealousy  at  the  increase  of  the  French  navy.  Ac- 
cording to  the  plans  of  Rouille,  the  Fi-ench  Min- 
ister of  Marine,  111  ships  of  the  line,  54  frigates, 
and  smaller  vessels  in  proportion,  were  to  be  built 
in  the  course  of  ten  years.  The  question  of 
boundaries  was,  however,  undoubtedly  the  occa- 
sion, if  not  also  the  true  cause,  of  the  war.  A 
series  of  desultory  conflicts  had  taken  place  along 
the  Ohio,  and  on  the  frontiers  of  Nova  Scotia,  in 
1754,  without  being  avowed  by  the  mother  coun- 
tries. A  French  writer,  who  flourished  about 
this  time,  the  Abbe  Raynal,  ascribes  this  clan- 
destine warfare  to  the  policy  of  the  Court  of 
Versailles,  which  was  seeking  gradually  to  re- 
cover what  it  had  lost  by  treaties.  Orders  were 
now  issued  to  the  English  fleet  to  attack  French 
vessels  wherever  found.  ...  It  being  known 
that  a  considerable  French  fleet  was  preparing  to 
sail  from  Brest  and  Rochefort  for  America,  Ad- 
miral Boscawen  was  despatched  thither,  and  cap- 
tured two  French  men-of-war  off  Cape  Race  in 
Newfoundland,  June  1755.  Hostilities  were  also 
transferred  to  the  shores  of  Europe.  ...  A  naval 
war  between  England  and  France  was  now  un- 
avoidable; but,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Austrian 
Succession,  this  was  also  to  be  mixed  up  with  a 
European  war.  The  complicated  relations  of  the 
European  system  again  caused  these  two  wars  to 
run  into  one,  though  their  origin  had  nothing  in 


951 


ENGLAND,  1754-1755. 


Chatham's 
Adni  in  istra  Hon. 


ENGLAND,  1757-1760. 


common.  France  and  England,  whose  quarrel 
hy  in  the  New  World,  appeared  as  the  leading 
Powers  in  a  European  contest  in  which  they 
had  only  a  secondary  interest,  and  decided  the 
fate  of  Canada  on  tlie  plains  of  Germany.  ^  The 
war  in  Europe,  commonly  called  the  Seven  Years' 
AVar,  was  chiefly  caused  by  the  pride  of  one 
Empress  [Maria  Theresa],  the  vanity  of  another 
[Elizabeth  of  Russia],  and  tlie  subserviency  of 
a  royal  courtezan  [JIadame  Pompadour],  who 
liecame  the  tool  of  these  passions." — T.  H.  Dyer, 
Hist,  of  Modern.  Europe,  hk.  6,  ch.  5  (».  3).— "The 
Seven  Years'  War  was  in  its  origin  not  an  Euro- 
pean war  at  all ;  it  was  a  w'ar  between  England 
and  France  on  Colonial  questions  with  which  the 
restof  Europe  had  nothing  todo;  but  the  alliances 
and  enmities  of  England  and  France  in  Europe, 
joined  with  the  fact  that  the  King  of  England 
was  also  Elector  of  Hanover,  made  it  almost  cer- 
tain that  a  war  between  England  and  France  must 
spread  to  the  Continent.  I  am  far  from  charging 
on  the  English  Goverament  of  the  time  —  for  it 
was  they,  and  not  the  French,  who  forced  on  the 
war  —  as  Macaulay  might  do,  the  blood  of  the 
Austrians  who  perished  at  Leuthen,  of  the  Rus- 
sians sabred  at  Zorndorf,  and  the  Prussians  mown 
down  at  Kunersdorf .  The  States  of  the  Continent 
had  many  old  enmities  not  either  appeased  or 
fought  out  to  a  result ;  and  these  would  probably 
have  given  rise  to  a  war  some  da)',  even  if  no 
black  men,  to  adapt  Macaulay  again,  had  been 
previously  fighting  on  the  coast  of  Coromandel, 
nor  red  men  scalping  each  other  by  the  great 
lakes  of  North  America.  Still,  it  is  to  be  re- 
membered that  it  was  the  work  of  England  that 
the  war  took  place  then  and  on  those  lines;  and 
in  view  of  the  enormous  suffering  and  slaughter 
of  that  war,  and  of  the  violent  and  arbitrary  pro- 
ceedings by  which  it  was  forced  on,  we  may  well 
question  whether  English  writers  have  any  right 
to  reprobate  Frederick's  seizure  of  Silesia  as 
something  specially  immoral  in  itself  and  disas- 
trous to  the  world.  If  the  Prussians  were  high- 
way robbers,  the  English  were  pirates.  .  .  .  The 
origin  of  the  war  between  England  and  France, 
if  a  struggle  which  had  hardly  been  interrupted 
since  the  nominal  peace  could  be  said  to  have  an 
origin,  was  the  struggle  for  America." — A.  R. 
Ropes,  Tlie  Cmucs  of  the  Seven  Tears'  War  (Royal 
Hist.  Soc,  Traiuaetions,  new  series,  v.  4). 

Also  in  :  Lord  JIahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  31-32  (v.  4).— F.  Parkman, 
Montcalm  and  Wolfe,  ch.  1-7. — See,  also,  Gek- 
mant:  a.  D.  1755-1756;  Canada:  A.  D.  1750- 
1753;  and  Onio  (Valley):  A.  D.  1748-1754. 

A.  D.  175s  (April). — Demand  of  the  royal 
governors  in  America  for  taxation  of  the  colo- 
nies by  act  of  Parliament.  See  United  States 
OP  Am.  :  A.  D.  175o. 

A.  D.  1755  (June). — Boscawen's  naval  vic- 
tory over  the  French.  See  Canada:  A.  D. 
1755  (June). 

A.  D.  1755  (July).— Braddock's  defeat  in 
America.     See  Ohio  (Valley)  :  A.  D.  1755. 

A.  D.  1755  (September).— Victory  at  Lake 
George.    See  Can.s.d.\:  A.  I).  1755  (September). 

A.  D.  1756. — Loss  of  Minorca  and  reverses 
in  America.  See  Minorca:  A.  D.  1756;  and 
Canada:  A.  D.  1756-1757. 

A.  D.  1757-1759.- Campaigns  on  the  Conti- 
nent.— Defence  of  Hanover.  See  Gebm.any: 
A  D  1757  (.July — December),  to  1759  (April 
—August). 


A.  D.  1757-1760. — The  great  administration 
of  the  elder  Pitt.—"  In  17.54  Henry  Pclham  died. 
The  important  consequence  of  his  death  was  the 
fact  that  it  gave  Pitt  at  last  an  opportunity  of 
coming  to  the  front.  The  Duke  of  Newcastle, 
Henry  Pelham's  brother,  became  leader  of  the 
administration,  with  Henry  Fo.x  for  Secretary  at 
War,  Pitt  for  Paymaster-general  of  the  Forces, 
and  Jlurray,  afterwards  to  be  famous  as  Lord 
JIansfleld,  for  Attorney-general.  There  was 
some  difficulty  about  the  leadership  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  Pitt  was  still  too  much  disliked 
by  tlie  King  to  be  available  for  the  position. 
Fox  for  a  while  refused  to  accept  it.  and  Murray 
was  unwilling  to  do  anything  which  might  be 
likely  to  withdraw  him  from  the  professional 
path  along  which  he  was  to  move  to  such  dis- 
tinction. An  attempt  was  made  to  get  on  with 
a  Sir  Thomas  Robinson,  a  man  of  no  capacity 
for  such  a  position,  and  the  attempt  was  soon  an 
evident  failure.  Then  Fox  consented  to  take  the 
position  on  Newcastle's  own  terms,  which  were 
those  of  absolute  submission  to  the  dictates  of 
Newcastle.  Later  still  he  was  content  to  descend 
to  a  subordinate  office  which  did  not  even  give 
him  a  place  in  the  Cabinet.  Fox  never  recov- 
ered the  damage  which  his  reputation  and  his 
influence  suffered  by  this  amazing  act.  .  .  .  The 
Duke  of  Newcastle's  IMinistry  soon  fell.  New- 
castle was  not  a  man  who  had  the  slightest  ca- 
pacity for  controlling  or  directing  a  policy  of 
war;  and  the  great  struggle  known  as  the  Seven 
Years'  War  had  now  broken  out.  One  lamenta- 
ble event  in  the  war  has  to  be  recorded,  although 
it  was  but  of  minor  importance.  This  was  the 
capture  of  ]\Iinorca  by  the  French  under  the  ro- 
mantic, gallant,  and  profligate  Due  de  Richelieu. 
The  event  is  memorable  chiefly,  or  only,  because 
it  was  followed  by  the  trial  and  execution  [March 
14,  1757]  of  the  unfortunate  Admiral  Byng 
[see  Mlnorca:  A.  D.  1756].  .  .  .  The  Duke  of 
Newcastle  resigned  office,  and  for  a  short  time 
the  Duke  of  Devonshire  was  at  the  head  of  a 
coalition  Ministry  which  included  Pitt.  The 
King,  however,  did  not  stand  this  long,  and  one 
day  suddenly  turned  them  all  out  of  office. 
Then  a  coalition  of  another  kind  was  formed, 
which  included  Newcastle  and  Pitt,  with  Henry 
Fox  in  the  subordinate  position  of  paymaster. 
Pitt  now  for  the  first  time  had  it  all  his  own  way. 
He  ruled  everything  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
He  flung  himself  with  passionate  and  patriotic 
energy  into  the  alliance  with  that  great  Frede- 
rick whose  genius  and  daring  were  like  his  own. " 
— Justin  McCarthy,  Hist,  of  the  Four  Oeorges,  v. 
2,  ch.  41. — "Newcastle  took  the  Treasury.  Pitt 
was  Secretary  of  State,  with  the  lead  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  with  the  supreme  direc- 
tion of  the  war  and  of  foreign  affairs.  Fox,  the 
only  man  who  could  have  given  much  annoy- 
ance to  the  new  Government,  was  silenced  with 
the  office  of  Paymaster,  which,  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  that  war,  was  probably  the  most 
lucrative  place  in  the  whole  Government.  He 
was  poor,  and  the  situation  was  tempting.  .  .  . 
The  first  acts  of  the  new  administration  were 
characterized  rather  by  vigour  than  by  judg- 
ment. Expeditions  were  sent  against  different 
parts  of  the  French  coast  with  little  success.  .  .  . 
But  soon  conquests  of  a  very  different  kind  filled 
the  kingdom  with  pride  and  rejoicing.  A  succes- 
sion of  victories  imdoubtedly  brilliant,  and,  as  it 
was  thought,  not  barren,  raised  to  the  highest 


952 


ENGLAND,  1757-1760. 


Chatliavi's 
Administration. 


ENGLAND,  1758. 


point  the  fame  of  the  minister  to  whom  the  con- 
duct of  the  war  had  been  intrusted.  In  July, 
1758,  Louisburg  fell.  The  whole  island  of  Cape 
Breton  was  reduced.  The  fleet  to  which  the 
Court  of  Versailles  had  confided  the  defence  of 
French  America  was  destroyed.  The  captured 
standards  were  borne  in  triumph  from  Kensing- 
ton Palace  to  the  city,  and  were  suspended  in 
St.  Paul's  Church,  amidst  the  roar  of  guns  and 
kettle-drums,  and  the  shouts  of  an  immense  mul- 
titude. Addresses  of  congratulation  came  in 
from  all  the  great  towns  of  England.  Parlia- 
ment met  only  to  decree  thanks  and  monuments, 
and  to  bestow,  without  one  murmur,  supplies 
more  than  double  of  those  which  had  been  given 
during  the  war  of  the  Grand  Alliance.  The  year 
1759  opened  with  the  conquest  of  Goree.  Next 
fell  Guadaloupe ;  then  Ticonderoga ;  then  Niag- 
ara. The  Toulon  squadron  was  completely  de- 
feated by  Boscawen  off  Cape  Lagos.  But  the 
greatest  exploit  of  the  year  was  the  achievement 
of  Wolfe  on  the  heights  of  Abraham.  The  news 
of  his  glorious  death  and  of  the  fall  of  Quebec 
reached  London  in  the  very  week  in  which  the 
Houses  met.  All  was  joy  and  triumph.  'Envy 
and  faction  wei-e  forced  to  join  in  the  general 
applause.  Whigs  and  Tories  vied  with  each 
other  in  extolling  the  genius  and  energy  of  Pitt. 
His  colleagues  were  never  talked  of  or  thought 
of.  The  House  of  Commons,  the  nation,  the 
colonies,  our  allies,  our  enemies,  had  their  eyes 
fixed  on  him  alone.  Scarcely  had  Parliament 
voted  a  monument  to  Wolfe  when  another  great 
event  called  for  fresh  rejoicings.  The  Brest 
fleet,  under  the  command  of  Conflans,  had  put 
out  to  sea.  It  was  overtaken  by  an  English 
squadron  under  Hawke.  Conflans  attempted  to 
take  shelter  close  under  the  French  coast.  The 
shore  was  rocky :  the  night  was  black :  the  wind 
was  furious :  the  waves  of  the  Bay  of  Biscay  ran 
high.  But  Pitt  had  infused  into  every  branch 
of  the  service  a  spirit  which  had  long  been  un- 
known. No  British  seaman  was  disposed  to  err 
on  the  same  side  with  Byng.  The  pilot  told 
Hawke  that  the  attack  could  not  be  made  with- 
out the  greatest  danger.  '  You  have  done  your 
duty  in  remonstrating,'  answered  Hawke;  'I 
will  answer  for  everything.  I  command  you  to 
lay  me  alongside  the  French  admiral.'  Two 
French  ships  of  the  line  struck.  Four  were  de- 
stroyed. The  rest  hid  themselves  in  the  rivers 
of  Brittany.  The  year  1760  came;  and  still  tri- 
umph followed  triumph.  Montreal  was  taken ; 
the  whole  Province  of  Canada  was  subjugated; 
the  French  fleets  underwent  a  succession  of  dis- 
asters in  the  seas  of  Europe  and  America.  In 
the  meantime  conquests  equalling  in  rapidity, 
and  far  surpassing  in  magnitude,  those  of  Cortes 
and  Pizarro,  had  been  achieved  in  the  East.  In 
the  space  of  three  years  the  English  had  founded 
a  mighty  empire.  The  French  had  been  de- 
feated in  every  part  of  India.  Chandernagore 
had  surrendered  to  Clive,  Pondicherry  to  Coote. 
Throughout  Bengal,  Bahar,  Orissa  and  the  Car- 
natic,  the  authority  of  the  East  India  Company 
was  more  absolute  than  that  of  Acbar  or  Aurung- 
zebe  had  ever  been.  On  the  continent  of  Europe 
the  odds  were  against  England.  We  had  but 
one  important  all}',  the  King  of  Prussia ;  and  he 
was  attacked,  not  only  by  France,  but  also  by 
Russia  and  Austria.  Yet  even  on  the  Continent, 
the  energy  of  Pitt  triumphed  over  all  dilficulties. 
Vehemently  as  he  had  condemned  the  practice  of 


subsidising  foreign  princes,  he  now  carried  that 
practice  farther  than  Carteret  himself  would 
have  ventured  to  do.  The  active  and  able  Sov- 
ereign of  Prussia  received  such  pecuniary  assis- 
tance as  enabled  him  to  maintain  the  conflict  on 
equal  terms  against  his  powerful  enemies.  On 
no  subject  had  Pitt  ever  spoken  with  so  much 
eloquence  and  ardour  as  on  the  mischiefs  of  the 
Hanoverian  connection.  He  now  declared,  not 
without  much  show  of  reason,  that  it  would  be 
tmworthy  of  the  English  people  to  suffer  their 
King  to  be  deprived  of  his  electoral  dominions 
in  an  English  quarrel.  He  assured  his  country- 
men that  they  should  be  no  losers,  and  that  he 
would  conquer  America  for  them  in  Germany. 
By  taking  this  line  he  conciliated  the  King,  and 
lost  no  part  of  his  influence  with  the  nation.  In 
Parliament,  such  was  the  ascendency  which  his 
eloquence,  his  success,  his  high  situation,  his 
pride,  and  his  intrepidity  had  obtained  for  him, 
that  he  took  liberties  with  the  House  of  which 
there  had  been  no  example,  and  which  have  never 
since  been  imitated.  .  .  .  The  face  of  affairs  was 
speedily  changed.  The  invaders  [of  Hanover] 
were  driven  out.  ...  In  the  meantime,  the  nation 
exhibited  all  the  signs  of  wealth  and  prosperity. 
.  .  .  The  success  of  our  arms  was  perhaps 
(jwing  less  to  the  skill  of  his  [Pitt's]  dispo- 
sitions than  to  the  national  resources  and  the 
national  spirit.  But  that  the  national  spirit  rose 
to  the  emergency,  that  the  national  re.sources 
were  contributed  with  unexampled  cheerfulness, 
this  was  undoubtedly  his  work.  The  ardour  of 
his  soul  had  set  the  whole  kingdom  on  fire.  .  .  . 
The  situation  which  Pitt  occupied  at  the  close  of 
the  reign  of  George  the  Second  was  the  most 
enviable  ever  occupied  by  any  public  man  in 
English  history.  He  had  conciliated  the  King ; 
he  domineered  over  the  House  of  Commons; 
he  was  adored  by  the  people ;  he  was  admired 
by  all  Europe.  He  was  the  first  Englishman  of 
his  time;  and  he  had  made  England  the  first 
country  in  the  world.  The  Great  Commoner, 
the  name  by  which  he  was  often  designated, 
might  look  down  with  scorn  on  coronets  and 
garters.  The  nation  was  drunk  with  joy  and 
pride." — Lord  Macaulay,  First  Essay  on  William 
Pitt,  Earl  of  Chatham  {Essays,  v.  3). 

Also  in:  Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Hist. 
of  Eric/.,  1713-1783,  ch.  33-36  {v.  4).— SirE.  Creasy, 
Memoirs  of  Eminent  Etonians,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1758  (June— August).— The  Seven 
Years  War. — Abortive  expeditions  against 
the  coast  of  France. — Earlj*  in  1758  there  was 
sent  out  "one  of  those  joint  military  and  naval 
expeditions  which  Pitt  seems  at  first  to  have 
thought  the  proper  means  by  which  England 
should  assist  in  a  continental  war.  Like  all  such 
isolated  expeditions,  it  was  of  little  value.  St. 
JIalo,  against  which  it  was  directed,  was  found 
too  strong  to  be  taken,  but  a  large  quantity  of 
shipping  and  naval  stores  was  destroyed.  The 
fleet  also  approached  Cherbourg,  but  although 
the  troops  were  actually  in  their  boats  ready  to 
laud,  they  were  ordered  to  re-embark,  and  the 
fleet  came  home.  Another  somewhat  similar  ex- 
pedition was  sent  out  later  in  the  year.  In  July 
General  Bligh  and  Commodore  Howe  took  and 
destroyed  Cherbourg,  but  on  attempting  a  simi- 
lar assault  on  St.  Malo  they  found  it  too  strong 
for  them.  The  army  had  been  landed  in  the  Bay 
of  St.  Cast,  and,  while  engaged  in  re-embarka- 
tion, it  was  attacked  by  some  French  troops 


953 


ENGLAND,  1758. 


NavaC 
Victories. 


ENGLAND,  1760-1763. 


which  had  been  hastily  collected,  and  severely- 
handled."— J.  P.  Bright,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  period  3, 
p.  1037. 

A.  D.  1758  (July — November). — The  Seven 
Years  War  in  America:  Final  capture  of 
Louisbourg  and  recovery  of  Fort  Duquesne. — 
Bloody  defeat  at  Ticonderoga.  See  Cakada: 
A.  D.  IT08;  and  Cape  Breton  Island:  A.  D. 
1758-1760. 

A.  D.  1758-1761. — Breaking  of  French  power 
in  India.     See  India:  A.  D.  1758-1761. 

A.  D.  1759. — Great  victories  in  America. — 
Niagara,  Ticonderoga,  Crown  Point,  Quebec. 
See  Canada:  A.  D.  1759. 

A.  D.  1759  (August — November). — British 
naval  supremacy  established. — Victories  off 
Lagos  and  in  Quib^ron  Bay. — "Early  in  the 
year  [1759]  the  French  had  begun  to  make  prepa- 
rations for  an  invasion  of  the  British  Isles  on  a  large 
scale.  Flat-bottomed  boats  were  built  at  Havre 
and  other  places  along  the  coasts  of  Normandy 
and  Brittany,  and  large  fleets  were  collected 
at  Brest  and  Toulon,  besides  a  small  squad- 
ron at  Dunkirk.  A  considerable  force  was  as- 
sembled at  Vannes  in  the  south  of  Brittany, 
under  the  command  of  the  Due  d'Aiguillon, 
which  was  to  be  convoyed  to  the  Irish  coasts  by 
the  combined  fleets  of  Brest  and  Toulon,  while 
the  flat-bottomed  boats  transported  a  second 
army  across  the  channel  under  cover  of  a  dark 
night.  The  Dunkirk  squadron,  under  Admiral 
Thurot,  a  celebrated  privateer,  was  to  create  a 
diversion  by  attacking  some  part  of  the  Scotch 
coast.  The  design  was  bold  and  well  contrived, 
and  would  not  improbably  have  succeeded  three 
or  even  two  yeai-s  before,  but  the  opportunity 
was  gone.  England  was  no  longer  in  '  that  ener- 
vate state  in  which  20,000  men  from  France  could 
shake  her.'  Had  a  landing  been  effected,  the 
regular  troops  in  the  country,  with  the  support 
of  the  newly  created  militia,  would  probably 
have  been  equal  to  the  emergency ;  but  a  more 
effectual  bulwark  was  found  in  the  fleet,  which 
watched  the  whole  French  coast,  ready  to  engage 
the  enemy  as  soon  as  he  ventured  out  of  his 
ports.  The  first  attempt  to  break  through  the 
cordon  was  made  by  M.  de  la  Clue  from  Toulon. 
The  English  Mediterranean  fleet,  under  Admiral 
Boscawen,  cruising  before  that  port,  was  com- 
pelled early  in  July  to  retire  to  Gibraltar  to  take 
in  water  and  provisions  and  to  refit  some  of  the 
ships.  Hereupon  TNI.  de  la  Clue  put  to  sea,  and 
hugging  the  African  coast,  passed  the  straits  with- 
out molestation.  Boscawen,  however,  though  his 
ships  were  not  yet  refitted,  at  once  gave  chase, 
and  came  up  with  the  enemy  off  [Lagos,  on]  the 
coast  of  Portugal,  where  an  engagement  took 
place  [Aug.  18],  in  which  three  French  ships 
were  taken  and  two  driven  on  shore  and  burnt. 
The  remainder  took  refuge  in  Cadiz,  where  they 
were  blockaded  till  the  winter,  when,  the  English 
fleet  being  driven  off  the  coast  by  a  storm,  they 
managed  to  get  back  to  Toulon.  The  discom- 
fiture of  the  Brest  fleet,  under  M.  de  Conflans, 
was  even  more  complete.  On  November  9  Ad- 
miral Sir  Edward  Hawke,  who  had  blockaded 
Brest  all  the  summer  and  autumn,  was  driven 
from  his  post  by  a  violent  gale,  and  on  the  14th, 
Conflans  put  to  sea  with  31  sail  of  the  line  and  4 
frigates.  On  the  same  day,  Hawke,  with  23 
sail  of  the  line,  stood  out  from  Torbay,  where  he 
had  taken  shelter,  and  made  sail  for  Quiberon 
Bay,  judging  that  Conflans  would  steer  thither 


to  liberate  a  fleet  of  transports  which  were 
blocked  up  in  the  river  Morbihan,  by  a  small 
squadron  of  frigates  under  Commodore  Duff. 
On  the  morning  of  the  20th,  he  sighted  the 
French  fleet  chasing  Duff  in  Quiberon  Bay. 
Conflans,  when  he  discerned  the  English,  recalled 
his  chasing  ships  and  prepared  for  action ;  but 
on  their  nearer  approach  clianged  his  mind,  and 
ran  for  shelter  among  the  shoals  and  rocks  of  the 
coast.  The  sea  was  running  mountains  high  and 
the  coast  was  very  dangerous  and  little  known 
to  the  English,  who  had  no  pilots ;  but  Hawke. 
whom  no  peril  could  daunt,  never  hesitated  a 
moment,  but  crowded  all  sail  after  them.  With- 
out regard  to  lines  of  battle,  every  ship  was 
directed  to  make  the  best  of  her  way  towards  the 
enemy,  the  admiral  telling  his  officers  he  was  for 
the  old  way  of  fighting,  to  make  downright 
work  with  them.  In  consequence  many  of  the 
English  ships  never  got  into  action  at  all ;  but 
the  short  winter  day  was  wearing  away,  and 
all  haste  was  needed  if  the  enemy  were  not  to 
escape.  ...  As  long  as  daylight  lasted  the 
battle  raged  with  great  fury,  so  near  the  coast 
that  '10,000  persons  on  the  shore  were  the  sad 
spectators  of  the  white  flag's  disgrace. '  ...  By 
nightfall  two  French  ships,  the  Thesee  74,  and 
Superb  70,  were  sunk,  and  two,  the  Formidable 
80,  and  the  Heros  74,  had  struck.  The  Soleil 
Royal  afterwards  went  aground,  but  her  crew 
escaped,  as  did  that  of  the  Heros,  whose  captain 
dishonourably  ran  her  ashore  in  the  night.  Of 
the  remainder,  seven  ships  of  the  line  and  four 
frigates  threw  their  guns  overboard,  and  escaped 
up  the  river  Vilaine,  where  most  of  them  bumped 
their  bottoms  out  in  the  shallow  water ;  the  rest 
got  away  and  took  shelter  in  the  Charente,  all 
but  one,  which  was  wrecked,  but  very  few  ever 
got  out  again.  With  two  hours  more  of  day- 
light Hawke  thought  he  could  liave  taken  or  de- 
stroyed all,  as  he  was  almost  up  with  the  French 
van  when  night  overtook  him.  Two  English 
ships,  the  Esse.x  64,  and  the  Resolution  74,  went 
ashore  in  the  night  and  could  not  be  got  off,  but 
the  crews  were  saved,  and  the  victory  was  won 
with  the  loss  of  40  killed  and  200  wounded.  The 
great  invasion  scheme  was  completely  wrecked. 
Thurot  had  succeeded  in  getting  out  from  Dun- 
kirk, and  for  some  montlis  was  a  terror  to  the 
northern  coast-towns,  but  early  in  the  following 
year  an  end  was  put  to  his  career.  Por  the  rest 
of  the  war  the  French  never  ventured  to  meet 
the  English  in  battle  on  the  high  seas,  and  could 
only  look  on  helplessly  while  their  colonies  and 
commerce  fell  into  the  hands  of  their  rivals. 
From  the  day  of  the  fight  in  Quiberon  Bay,  the 
naval  and  commercial  supremacy  of  England 
was  assured." — F.  W.  Longman,  Frederick  the 
Qreat  and  tlie  Seven  Tears  War,  cIl.  12,  sect.  3. 

Also  in:  C.  D.  Yonge,  Hist,  of  the  British 
Navy,  V.  1,  ch.  13.— .1.  Eutick,  Hist,  of  tlie  late 
War,  11.  4,  pp.  241-290. 

A.  D.  1760. — Completed  conquest  of  Canada. 
— Successes  of  the  Prussians  and  their  allies. 
See  Canada:  A.  D.  1760;  andGEKM.^NT:  A.  D. 
1760. 

A.  D.  1760-1763. — Accession  of  George  III. 
— His  ignorance  and  his  despotic  notions  of 
kingship. —  Retirement  of  the  elder  Pitt. — 
Rise  and  fall  of  Bute. — The  Grenville  Ministry. 
— "When  George  III.  came  to  the  throne,  in 
1760,  England  had  been  governed  for  more  than 
half  a  century  by  the  great  ^Vhig  families  which 


954 


ENGLAND,  1760-1763. 


Beginning  of  the 
reign  of  George  III. 


ENGLAND,  1760-1763. 


liad  been  brought  iuto  the  foreground  by  the 
revolution  of  1688.  .  .  .  Under  Walpole's  wise 
and  powerful  sway,  the  first  two  Georges  had 
possessed  scarcely  more  than  the  shadow  of 
sovereignty.  It  was  the  third  George's  ambition 
to  become  a  real  king,  like  the  king  of  France  or 
the  king  of  Spain.  From  earliest  babyhood,  his 
mother  had  forever  been  impressing  upon  him 
the  precept,  'George  be  king!'  and  this  simple 
lesson  had  constituted  pretty  much  tlie  whole  of  his 
education.  Popular  tradition  regards  him  as  the 
most  ignorant  king  that  ever  sat  upon  the  Eng- 
lish throne :  and  so  far  as  general  culture  is  con- 
cerned, this  opinion  is  undoubtedly  correct.  .  .  . 
Nevertheless  .  .  .  George  III.  was  not  destitute  of 
a  certain  kind  of  ability,  which  often  gets  highly 
rated  in  this  not  too  clear-sighted  world.  He 
could  see  an  immediate  end  very  distinctly,  and 
acquired  considerable  power  from  the  dogged  in- 
dustry with  which  he  pursued  it.  In  an  age  where 
some  of  the  noblest  English  statesmen  drank  their 
gallon  of  strong  wine  daily,  or  sat  late  at  the 
gambling-table,  or  lived  in  scarcely  hidden  con- 
cubinage, George  III.  was  decorous  in  personal 
habits  and  pure  in  domestic  relations,  and  no 
banker's  clerk  in  London  applied  himself  to  the 
details  of  business  more  industriously  than  he. 
He  had  a  genuine  talent  for  administration,  and 
he  devoted  this  talent  most  assiduously  to  selfish 
ends.  Scantily  endowed  with  human  sympathy, 
and  almost  boorishly  stiff  in  his  ordinary  unstudied 
manner,  he  could  be  smooth  as  oil  whenever  he 
liked.  He  was  an  adept  in  gaining  men's  confi- 
dence by  a  show  of  interest,  and  securing  their  aid 
by  dint  of  fair  promises ;  and  when  he  found  them 
of  no  further  use,  he  could  turn  them  adrift  with 
wanton  insult.  Any  one  who  dared  to  disagree 
with  him  upon  even  the  slightest  point  of  policy 
he  straightway  regarded  as  a  natural  enemy,  and 
pursued  him  ever  afterward  with  vindictive 
hatred.  As  a  natural  consequence,  he  surrounded 
himself  with  weak  and  short-sighted  advisers,  and 
toward  all  statesmen  of  broad  views  and  inde- 
pendent character  he  nursed  the  bitterest  ran- 
cour. .  .  .  Such  was  the  man  who,  on  coming 
to  the  throne  in  1760,  had  it  for  his  first  and  chief- 
est  thought  to  break  down  the  growing  system 
of  cabinet  government  in  England." — J.  Fiske, 
The  American  Revolution,  ch.  1  (».  1). — "The  dis- 
solution of  Parliament,  shortly  after  his  accession, 
afforded  an  opportunity  of  strengthening  the  par- 
liamentary connection  of  the  king's  friends.  Par- 
liament was  kept  sitting  while  the  king  and  Lord 
Bute  were  making  out  lists  of  the  court  candi- 
dates, and  using  every  e.vertion  to  secure  their 
return.  The  king  not  only  wrested  government 
boroughs  from  the  ministers,  in  order  to  nomi- 
nate his  own  friends,  but  even  encouraged  opposi- 
tion to  such  ministers  as  he  conceived  not  to  be 
in  his  interest.  .  .  .  Lord  Bute,  the  originator  of 
the  new  policy,  was  not  personally  well  qualified 
for  its  successful  promotion.  He  was  not  con- 
nected with  the  great  families  who  had  acquired 
a  preponderance  of  political  influence ;  he  was  no 
parliamentary  debater:  his  manners  were  un- 
popular: he  was  a  courtier  rather  than  a  poli- 
tician: his  intimate  relations  with  the  Princess  of 
Wales  were  an  object  of  scandal;  and,  above  all, 
he  was  a  Scotchman.  .  .  .  Immediately  after  the 
king's  accession  he  had  been  made  a  privy  coun- 
cillor, and  admitted  into  the  cabinet.  An  ar- 
rangement was  soon  afterwards  concerted,  by 
which  Lord  Holdemesse  retired  from  office  with 


a  pension,  and  Lortl  Bute  succeeded  him  as  Sec- 
retary of  State.  It  was  now  the  object  of  the 
court  to  break  up  the  existing  ministry,  and  to 
replace  it  with  another,  formed  from  among  the 
king's  friends.  Had  the  ministry  been  united, 
and  had  the  chiefs  reposed  confidence  in  one 
another,  it  would  have  been  difiicult  to  over- 
throw tliem.  But  there  were  already  jealousies 
amongst  them,  which  the  court  lost  no  opportunity 
of  fomenting.  A  breach  soon  arose  between  Mr. 
Pitt,  the  most  powerful  and  popular  of  the  min- 
isters, and  his  colleagues.  He  desired  to  strike  a 
sudden  blow  against  Spain,  which  had  concluded 
a  secret  treaty  of  alliance  with  France,  then  at 
war  with  this  country  [see  France:  A.  D.  1761 
(August)].  Though  war  minister  he  was  op- 
posed by  all  his  colleagues  except  Lord  Tem- 
ple. He  bore  himself  haughtily  at  the  council, 
—  declared  that  he  had  been  called  to  the  min- 
istry by  the  voice  of  the  people,  and  that  he  could 
not  be  responsible  for  measures  which  he  was  no 
longer  allowed  to  guide.  Being  met  with  equal 
loftiness  in  the  cabinet,  he  was  forced  to  tender 
his  resignation.  The  king  overpowered  the  re- 
tiring minister  with  kindness  and  condescension. 
He  offered  the  barony  of  Chatham  to  his  wife, 
and  to  himself  an  annuity  of  £3,000  a  year  for 
three  lives.  The  minister  had  deserved  these 
royal  favours,  and  he  accepted  them,  but  at  the 
cost  of  his  popularity.  .  .  .  The  same  Gazette 
which  announced  his  resignation,  also  trumpeted 
forth  the  peerage  and  the  pension,  and  was  the 
signal  for  clamors  against  the  public  favourite. 
On  the  retirement  of  Mr.  Pitt,  Lord  Bute  be- 
came the  most  influential  of  the  ministers.  He 
undertook  the  chief  management  of  public  affairs 
in  the  cabinet,  and  the  sole  direction  of  the  House 
of  Lords.  .  .  .  His  ascendency  provoked  the 
jealousy  and  resentment  of  the  king's  veteran  min- 
ister, the  Duke  of  Newcastle :  who  had  hitherto 
distributed  all  the  patronage  of  the  Crown,  but 
now  was  never  consulted,  ...  At  length,  in 
May  1763,  his  grace,  after  frequent  disagree- 
ments in  the  cabinet  and  numerous  affronts,  was 
obliged  to  resign.  And  now,  the  object  of  the 
court  being  at  length  attained,  Lord  Bute  was 
immediately  placed  at  the  head  of  affairs,  as 
First  Lord  of  the  Treasury.  .  .  .  The  king  and 
his  minister  were  resolved  to  carry  matters  with 
a  high  hand,  and  their  arbitrary  attempts  to 
coerce  and  intimidate  opponents  disclosed  their 
imperious  views  of  the  prerogative.  Prelimi- 
naries of  a  treaty  of  peace  with  Prance  having 
been  agreed  upon,  against  which  a  strong  popu- 
lar feeling  was  aroused,  the  king's  vengeance 
was  directed  against  all  who  ventured  to  disap- 
prove them.  The  Duke  of  Devonshire  having 
declined  to  attend  the  council  summoned  to  de- 
cide upon  the  peace,  was  insulted  by  the  king, 
and  forced  to  resign  his  office  of  Lord  Chamber- 
lain. A  few  days  afterwards  the  king,  with  his 
own  hand,  struck  his  grace's  name  from  the  list 
of  privy  councillors.  ...  No  sooner  had  Lord 
Rockingham  heard  of  the  treatment  of  the  Duke 
of  Devonshire  than  he  .  .  .  resigned  his  place  in 
the  household.  A  more  general  proscription  of 
the  "Whig  nobles  soon  followed.  The  Dukes  of 
Newcastle  and  Grafton,  and  the  Marquess  of 
Rockingham,  having  presumed,  as  peers  of  Par- 
liament, to  express  their  disapprobation  of  the 
peace,  were  dismissed  from  the  lord-lieutenancies 
of  their  counties.  .  .  .  Nor  was  the  vengeance 
of  the  court  confined  to  the  heads  of  the  Whig 


955 


ENGLAND,  1760-1763. 


Wilkes  and 
•  The  North  Briton." 


ENGLAND,  1762-1764. 


party.  All  placemen,  who  had  voted  against  the 
preliminaries  of  peace,  were  dismissed.  .  .  .  The 
preliminaries  of  peace  were  approved  by  Parlia- 
ment; and  the  Princess  of  Wales,  exulting  in 
the  success  of  the  court,  exclaimed,  '  Now  my 
son  is  king  of  England.'  But  her  exultation  was 
premature.  .  .  .  "These  stretches  of  prerogative 
served  to  unite  the  Whigs  into  an  organised  op- 
position. .  .  .  The  fall  of  the  king's  favoured 
minister  was  even  more  sudden  than  his  rise. 
.  .  .  Afraid,  as  he  confessed,  '  not  only  of  falling 
himself,  but  of  involving  his  royal  master  in  his 
ruin,'  he  resigned  suddenly  [April  7,  1763], — to 
the  surprise  of  all  parties,  and  even  of  the  king 
himself, —  before  he  had  held  ofBce  for  eleven 
months.  .  .  .  He  retreated  to  the  interior  cabi- 
net, whence  he  could  direct  more  securely  the 
measures  of  the  court;  having  previously  ne- 
gotiated the  appointment  of  Mr.  George  Gren- 
ville  as  his  successor,  and  arranged  with  him  the 
nomination  of  the  cabinet.  The  ministry  of  Mr. 
Gren  ville  was  constituted  in  a  manner  favourable 
to  the  king's  personal  views,  and  was  expected  to 
be  under  the  control  of  himself  and  his  favour- 
ite."—T.E.  May, Const.  Eist.ofEiig.,  1760-1860, 
ch.  1. 

Also  in  :  J.  H.  Jesse,  Memoirs  of  tlie  Life  and 
Reign  of  Oeorge  III.,  ch.  1-10  (v.  1). — The  Oren- 
iiille  Papers,  v.  1-3. — W.  Massey,  Hist,  of  Eng.: 
Reign  of  George  III.,  ch.  2-3  (».  1).— G.  O.  Tre- 
velyan.  Early  Hist,  of  Charles  James  Fox,  cli.  4. 

A.  D.  1760-1775.  —  Crown,  Parliament  and 
Colonies. — The  conflicting  theories  of  their  re- 
lations. See  United  States  op  Am.  ;  A.  D. 
1760-177.5. 

A.  D.  1761-1762.— The  third  Family  Com- 
pact of  the  Bourbon  kings. — War  with  Spain. 
See  Fb.\nce  :  A.  D.  1761  (August). 

A.  D.  1761-1762. — The  Seven  Years  'War* 
Last  Campaigns  in  Germany.  See  Germany  : 
A.  D.  1761-1703. 

A.  D.  1762. — Capture  of  Havana.  See  Cuba; 
A.  D.  1.51-1-18.51. 

A.  D.  1762-1764.— "The  North  Briton,"  No. 
45,  and  the  prosecution  of  Wilkes. — "  The  pop- 
ular dislike  to  the  new  system  of  Government  by 
courtiers  had  found  vent  in  a  scurrilous  press, 
the  annoyance  of  which  continued  unabated  by 
the  sham  retirement  of  the  minister  whose  as- 
cendancy had  provoked  this  grievous  kind  of  op- 
position. The  leader  of  the  host  of  libellers  was 
John  Wilkes,  a  man  of  that  audacity  and  self- 
possession  which  are  indispensable  to  success  in 
the  most  disreputable  line  of  political  adventure. 
But  Wilkes  had  qualities  which  placed  him  far 
above  the  level  of  a  vulgar  demagogue.  Great 
sense  and  shrewdness,  brilliant  wit,  extensive 
knowledge  of  the  world,  with  the  manners  of  a 
gentleman,  were  among  the  accomplishments 
which  he  brought  to  a  vocation,  but  rarely  illus- 
trated by  the  talents  of  a  Catiline.  Long  before 
he  engaged  in  public  life,  Wilkes  had  become  in- 
famous for  his  debaucheries,  and,  with  a  few 
other  men  of  fashion,  had  tested  the  toleration  of 
public  opinion  by  a  series  of  outrages  upon  re- 
ligion and  decency.  Profligacy  of  morals,  how- 
ever, has  not  in  any  age  or  country  proved  a  bar 
to  the  character  of  a  patriot.  .  .  .  Wilkes'  jour- 
nal, which  originated  with  the  administration  of 
Lord  Bute  [first  issued  June  5,  1762],  was  hap- 
pily entitled  'The  North  Briton,'  and  from  its 
boldness  and  personality  soon  obtained  a  large 
circulation.     It  is  surpassed  in  ability  though  not 


often  equalled  in  virulence  by  the  politital  press 
of  the  present  day ;  but  at  a  time  when  the  char- 
acters of  public  men  deservedly  stood  lowest  in 
public  estimation,  they  were  protected,  not  un- 
advisedly perhaps,  from  the  assaults  of  the  press 
by  a  stringent  law  of  libel.  ...  It  had  been  the 
practice  since  the  Revolution,  and  it  is  now  ac- 
knowledged as  an  important  constitutional  right, 
to  treat  the  Speech  from  the  Throne,  on  the  open- 
ing of  Parliament,  as  the  manifesto  of  the  minis- 
ter ;  and  in  that  point  of  view,  it  had  from  time 
to  time  been  censured  by  Pitt,  and  other  leaders 
of  party,  with  the  ordinary  license  of  debate. 
But  when  Wilkes  presvimed  to  use  this  freedom 
in  his  paper,  though  in  a  degree  which  would 
have  seemed  temper-ate  and  even  tame  had  he 
spoken  to  the  same  purport  in  his  place  in  Parlia- 
ment, it  was  thought  necessary  to  repress  such 
insolence  with  the  whole  weight  of  the  law.  A 
warrant  was  issued  from  the  office  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  to  seize  —  not  any  person  named  — 
but  '  the  authors,  printers,  and  publishers  of  the 
seditious  libel,  entitled  the  North  Briton,  No.  45.' 
Under  this  warrant,  forty-nine  persons  were  ar- 
rested and  detained  in  custody  for  several  days; 
but  as  it  was  found  that  none  of  them  could  be 
brought  within  the  description  in  the  warrant, 
they  were  discharged.  Several  of  the  individuals 
who  had  been  so  seized,  brought  actions  for  false 
imprisonment  against  the  messengers ;  and  in  one 
of  these  actions,  in  which  a  verdict  was  entered 
for  the  plaintiff  under  the  direction  of  the  Lord 
Chief  Justice  of  the  Common  Pleas,  the  two  Im- 
portant questions  as  to  the  claim  of  a  Secretary 
of  State  to  the  protection  given  by  statute  to  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  acting  in  that  capacity,  and  as 
to  the  legality  of  a  warrant  which  did  not  speci- 
fy any  individual  by  name,  were  raised  by  a  Bill 
of  Exceptions  to  the  ruling  of  the  presiding 
judge,  and  thus  came  upon  appeal  before  the 
Court  of  King's  Bench.  .  .  .  The  Court  of  King's 
Bench  .  .  .  intimated  a  strong  opinion  against 
the  Crown  upon  the  Important  constitutional 
questions  which  had  been  raised,  and  directed 
the  case  to  stand  over  for  further  argument ;  but 
when  the  case  came  on  again,  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral Yorke  prudently  declined  any  further  agita- 
tion of  the  questions.  .  .  .  These  proceedings 
were  not  brought  to  a  close  until  the  end  of  the 
year  1765,  long  after  the  administration  under 
which  they  were  instituted  had  ceased  to  exist. 
.  .  .  The  prosecution  of  Wilkes  himself  was 
pressed  with  the  like  indiscreet  vigour.  The 
privilege  of  Parliament,  which  extends  to  every 
case  except  treason,  felony,  and  breach  of  the 
peace,  presented  an  obstacle  to  the  vengeance  of 
the  Court.  But  the  Crown  lawyers,  with  a  ser- 
vility which  belonged  to  the  worst  times  of  pre- 
rogative, advised  that  a  libel  came  within  the 
purview  of  the  exception,  as  having  a  tendency 
to  a  breach  of  the  peace ;  and  upon  this  perver- 
sion of  plain  law,  Wilkes  was  arrested,  and 
brought  before  Lord  Halifax  for  examination. 
The  cool  and  wary  demagogue,  however,  was 
more  than  a  match  for  the  Secretary  of  State ;  but 
his  authorship  of  the  alleged  libel  having  been 
proved  by  the  printer,  he  was  committed  close 
prisoner  to  the  Tower.  In  a  few  days,  having 
sued  out  writs  of  habeas,  he  was  brought  up  be- 
fore the  Court  of  Common  Pleas.  .  .  .  The  ar- 
gument which  would  confound  the  commission 
of  a  crime  with  conduct  which  had  no  more  than 
a  tendency  to  provoke  it,  was  at  once  rejected 


956 


ENGLAND,  1762-1764. 


Repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act. 


ENGLAND,  1765-1768. 


by  an  independent  court  of  justice;  and  the  re- 
sult was  the  liberation  of  Wilkes  from  custody. 
Cut  the  vengeance  of  the  Court  was  not  turned 
aside  by  this  disappointment.  An  ex-officio  prose- 
cution for  libel  was  immediately  instituted 
against  tlie  member  for  Aylesbury;  he  was  de- 
prived of  his  commission  as  colonel  of  the  Buck- 
inghamshire militia;  his  patron,  Earl  Temple, 
who  provided  the  funds  for  his  defence,  was  at 
the  same  time  dismissed  from  the  lord-lieuten- 
ancy of  the  same  county,  and  from  the  Privy 
Council.  When  Parliament  assembled  in  the  au- 
tumn, the  first  business  brought  forward  by  the 
Government  was  this  contemptible  aft'air  —  a  pro- 
ceeding not  merely  foolish  and  undignified,  but 
a  flagrant  violation  of  common  justice  and  de- 
cency. Having  elected  to  prosecute  Wilkes  for 
this  alleged  libel  before  the  ordinary  tribunals  of 
the  country,  it  is  manifest  that  the  Government 
should  have  left  the  law  to  take  its  course  un- 
prejudiced. But  the  House  of  Commons  was 
now  required  to  pronounce  upon  the  very  subject- 
matter  of  inquiry  which  had  been  referred  to  the 
decision  of  a  court  of  law ;  and  this  degenerate 
assembly,  at  the  bidding  of  the  minister,  readily 
condemned  the  indicted  paper  in  terms  of  extrava- 
gant and  fulsome  censure,  and  ordered  that  it 
should  be  burned  by  the  hands  of  the  common 
hangman.  Lord  North,  on  the  part  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, then  pressed  for  an  immediate  decision 
on  the  question  of  privilege;  but  Pitt,  in  his 
most  solemn  manner,  insisting  on  an  adjournment, 
the  House  yielded  this  point.  On  the  following 
day,  Wilkes,  being  dangerously  wounded  in  a 
duel  with  Martin,  one  of  the  joint  Secretaries 
to  the  Treasury,  who  had  grossly  insulted  him 
in  the  House,  for  the  purpose  of  provoking  a 
quarrel,  was  disabled  from  attending  In  his 
place;  but  the  House,  nevertheless,  refused  to 
postpone  the  question  of  privilege  beyond  the 
24th  of  the  month.  On  that  day,  they  resolved 
'  that  the  privilege  of  Parliament  does  not  extend 
to  the  case  of  writing  and  publishing  seditious 
libels,  nor  ought  to  be  allowed  to  obstruct  the  or- 
dinary course  of  the  laws  in  the  speedy  and  ef- 
fectual prosecution  of  so  heinous  and  dangerous 
an  offence.'  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the 
public  spirit  or  prudence  of  a  House  of  Commons 
which  could  thus  officiously  define  its  privilege, 
the  vote  was  practically  futile,  since  a  court  of 
justice  had  already  decided  in  this  very  case,  as 
a  matter  of  strict  law,  that  the  person  of  a  mem- 
ber of  Parliament  was  protected  from  arrest  on 
a  charge  of  this  description.  The  conduct  of 
Pitt  on  this  occasion  was  consistent  with  the  lofti- 
ness of  his  character.  .  .  .  The  conduct  of  the 
Lords  was  in  harmony  with  that  of  the  Lower 
House.  .  .  .  The  session  was  principally  occu- 
pied by  the  i^roceedings  against  this  worthless 
demagogue,  whom  the  unworthy  hostility  of  the 
Crown  and  both  Houses  of  Parliament  had  ele- 
vated into  a  person  of  the  first  importance.  His 
name  was  coupled  with  that  of  Liberty ;  and 
when  the  executioner  appeared  to  carry  into  ef- 
fect the  sentence  of  Parliament  upon  '  The  North 
Briton,'  he  was  driven  away  by  the  populace, 
who  rescued  the  obnoxious  paper  from  the  flames, 
and  evinced  their  hatred  and  contempt  for  the 
Court  faction  by  burning  in  its  stead  the  jack- 
boot and  the  petticoat,  the  vulgar  emblems  which 
they  employed  to  designate  John  Earl  of  Bute 
and  his  supposed  royal  patroness.  .  .  .  Wilkes 
himself,  however,   was  forced   to   yield  to   the 


storm.  Beset  by  the  spies  of  Government,  and 
harassed  by  its  prosecutions,  which  he  had  not 
the  means  of  resisting,  he  withdrew  to  Paris. 
Failing  to  attend  in  his  place  in  the  House  of 
Commons  on  the  first  day  after  the  Christmas  re- 
cess, according  to  order,  his  excuse  was  eagerly 
declared  invalid ;  a  vote  of  expulsion  immediately 
followed  [January  19,  1764],  and  a  new  writ  was 
ordered  for  Aylesbury." — W.  Massey,  Sist.  of 
Eng. :  Beign  of  George  III. ,  ch.  4  {v,  1). 

Also  in  :  J.  E.  T.  Rogers,  HUtm'ical  OUanings, 
V.  2,  ch.  3. — Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Sist. 
of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  41-43  (v.  5). 

A.  D.  1763. — The  end  and  results  of  the 
Seven  Years  War  :  The  Peace  of  Paris  and 
Peace  of  Hubertsburg. — America  to  be  Eng- 
lish, not  French.     See  Seven  Years  War. 

A.  D.  1763-1764. — Determination  to  tax  the 
American  colonies. — The  Sugar  (or  Molasses) 
Act.  See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1763- 
1764. 

A.  D.  1764. — The  climax  of  the  mercantile 
colonial  policy  and  its  consequences.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1704. 

A.  D.  1765. — Passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  for 
the  colonies.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1765. 

A.  D.  1765-1768. —  Grenville  dismissed. — 
The  Rockingham  and  the  Grafton-Chatham 
Ministries. — Repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act. — Fresh 
trouble  in  the  American  colonies. — "Hitherto 
the  Ministry  had  only  excited  the  indignation  of 
the  people  and  the  colonies.  Not  satisfied  with 
the  number  of  their  enemies,  they  now  proceeded 
to  quarrel  openly  with  the  king.  In  1765  the 
first  signs  of  the  illness,  to  which  George  after- 
wards fell  a  victim,  appeared;  and  as  soon  as  he 
recovered  he  projiosed,  with  wonderful  firmness, 
that  a  Regency  Bill  should  be  brought  in,  limit- 
ing the  king's  choice  of  a  Regent  to  the  members 
of  the  Royal  Family.  The  Ministers,  however, 
in  alarm  at  the  prospect  of  a  new  Bute  Ministry, 
persuaded  the  king  that  there  was  no  hope  of 
the  Princess's  name  being  accepted,  and  that  it 
had  better  be  left  out  of  the  Bill.  The  king 
unwisely  consented  to  this  unparalleled  insult  on 
his  parent,  apparently  through  lack  of  considera- 
tion. Parliament,  however,  insisted  on  inserting 
the  Princess's  name  by  a  large  majority,  and  thus 
exposed  the  trick  of  his  Ministers.  This  the 
king  never  forgave.  They  had  been  for  some 
time  obnoxious  to  him,  and  now  he  determined 
to  get  rid  of  them.  AVith  this  view  he  induced 
the  Duke  of  Cumberland  to  make  overtures  to 
Chatham  [Pitt,  not  yet  titled], -offering  almost 
any  terms."  But  no  arrangement  was  practica- 
ble, and  the  king  was  left  quite  at  the  mercy  of 
the  Ministers  he  detested.  "He  was  obliged  to 
consent  to  dismiss  Bute  and  all  Bute's  following. 
He  was  obliged  to  promise  that  he  would  use  no 
underhand  influence  for  the  future.  Life,  in  fact, 
became  a  burden  to  him  under  George  Gren- 
ville's  domination,  and  he  determined  to  dismiss 
him,  even  at  the  cost  of  accepting  the  Whig 
Houses,  whom  he  had  pledged  himself  never 
to  employ  again.  Pitt  and  Temple  still  prov- 
ing obdurate,  Cumberland  opened  negotiations 
with  the  Rockingham  Whigs,  and  the  Grenville 
Ministry  was  at  an  end  [July,  1765].  .  .  .  The 
new  Ministry  was  composed  as  follows:  Rock- 
ingham became  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury; 
Dowdeswell,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer;  New- 
castle, Privj'  Seal;  Northington,  Lord  Chancellor. 


957 


ENGLAND.  1765-1768. 


TAc  Middlesex 
Eltctioyis. 


ENGLAND,  1768-1774. 


.  .  .  Their  leader  Rockingham  was  a  man  of 
sound  sense,  but  no  power  of  language  or  gov- 
ernment. .  .  .  He  was  totally  free  from  any  sus- 
picion of  corruption.  In  fact  there  was  more 
honesty  than  talent  in  the  Ministry  altogether. 
.  .  .  The  back-bone  of  the  party  was  removed 
by  the  refusal  of  Pitt  to  co-operate.  Burke  was 
undoubtedly  the  ablest  man  among  them,  but  his 
time  was  not  yet  come.  Such  a  Ministry,  it  was 
recognized  even  by  its  own  members,  could  not 
last  long.  However,  it  had  come  in  to  effect  cer- 
tain necessary  legislation,  and  it  certainly  so  far 
accomplished  the  end  of  its  being.  It  repealed 
the  Stamp  Act  [see  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1766],  which  had  caused  so  much  indig- 
nation among  the  Americans ;  and  at  the  same 
time  passed  a  law  securing  the  dependence  of  the 
colonies.  .  .  .  The  king,  however,  made  no  secret 
of  his  hostility  to  his  Ministers.  .  .  .  The  con- 
duct of  Pitt  in  refusing  to  join  them  was  a  de- 
cided mistake,  and  more.  He  was  really  at  one 
with  them  on  most  points.  Most  of  their  acts 
were  in  accordance  with  his  views.  But  he  was 
determined  not  to  join  a  purely  party  Ministry, 
though  he  could  have  done  so  practically  on 
whatever  terms  he  pleased.  In  1766,  however, 
he  consented  to  form  a  coalition,  in  which  were 
included  men  of  the  most  opposite  views  — 
"King's  Friends,'  Rockingham  Whigs,  and  the 
few  personal  followers  of  Pitt.  Rockingham  re- 
fused to  take  any  office,  and  retired  to  the  more 
congenial  occupation  of  following  the  hounds. 
The  nominal  Prime  Minister  of  this  Cabinet  was 
the  Duke  of  Grafton,  for  Pitt  refused  the  leader- 
ship, and  retired  to  the  House  of  Lords  as  Lord 
Chatham.  Charles  Townshend  became  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer,  and  Lord  North,  the 
leader  of  the  '  King's  Friends,'  was  Pay-master. 
The  Ministry  included  Shelburne,  Barre,  Con- 
way, Northington,  Barrington,  Camden,  Granby 
—  all  men  of  the  most  opposite  views.  .  .  .  Tliis 
second  Ministry  of  Pitt  was  a  mistake  from  the 
very  first.  He  lost  all  his  popularity  by  taking 
a  peerage.  ...  As  a  peer  and  Lord  Privy  Seal 
he  found  himself  in  an  uncongenial  atmosphere. 
.  .  .  His  name,  too,  had  lost  a  great  deal  of  its 
power  abroad.  'Pitt'  had,  indeed,  been  a  word 
to  conjure  with;  but  there  were  no  associations 
of  defeat  and  humiliation  connected  with  the 
name  of  'Chatham.'.  .  .  There  were  other  dif- 
ficulties, however,  as  well.  His  arrogance  had 
increased,  and  it  was  so  much  intensified  by  ins- 
tating gout,  that  it  became  almost  impossible  to 
serve  with  him.  His  disease  later  almost  ap- 
proached madiless.  .  .  .  The  Ministry  drifted 
helplessly  about  at  the  mercy  of  each  wind  and 
_  wave  of  opinion  like  a  water-logged  ship ;  and 
'  it  was  only  the  utter  want  of  union  among  the 
Opposition  which  prevented  its  sinking  entirely. 
As  it  was,  they  contrived  to  renew  the  breach 
with  America,  which  had  been  almost  entirely 
healed  by  Rockingham's  repeal  of  the  Stamp 
Act.  Charles  Townshend,  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  was  by  far  the  ablest  man  left  in  the 
Cabinet,  and  he  rapidly  assumed  the  most  promi- 
nent position.  He  had  always  been  in  favour  of 
taxing  America.  He  now  brought  forward  a 
plan  for  raising  a  revenue  from  tea,  glass,  and 
paper  [see  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1766- 
1767,  and  1767-1768],  by  way  of  import  duty  at 
the  American  ports.  .  .  .  This  wild  measure  was 
followed  shortly  by  the  death  of  its  author,  in 
September ;  and  then  the  weakness  of  the  Minis- 


try became  so  obvious  that,  as  Chatham  still  con- 
tinued incapable,  some  fresh  reinforcement  was 
absolutely  necessary.  A  coalition  was  effected 
with  the  Bloomsbury  Gang;  and,  in  consequence. 
Lords  Gower,  Weymouth,  and  Sandwicli  joined 
the  Ministry.  Lord  Northington  and  General 
Conway  retired.  North  succeeded  Townshend 
at  the  Exchequer.  Lord  Hillsborough  became 
the  first  Secretary  of  State  for  the  Colonies,  thus 
raising  the  number  of  Secretaries  to  three.  This 
Ministry  was  probably  the  worst  that  had  gov- 
erned England  since  the  days  of  the  Cabal ;  and 
the  short  period  of  its  existence  was  marked  by 
a  succession  of  arbitrary  and  foolish  acts.  On 
every  important  question  that  it  had  to  deal 
with,  it  pursued  a  course  diametrically  opposed 
to  Chatliam's  views ;  and  yet  with  singular  irony 
his  nominal  connection  with  it  was  not  severed 
for  some  time  " — that  is,  not  until  the  following 
year,  1768. — B.  C.  Skottowe,  Our  Hanoverian 
Kings,  pp.  234-239. 

Also  m:  The  Grenville  Papers,  v.  3-4. — C.  W. 
Dilke,  Papers  of  a  Critic,  d.  2. — E.  Lodge,  Por- 
traits, V.  8,  c7t.  3. 

A.  D.  1767-1769. — The  first  war  with  Hyder 
AH,  of  Mysore.     See  India:  A.  D,  1707-1769. 

A.  D.  1768-1770. — The  quartering  of  troops 
in  Boston  and  its  ill  consequences.  See  Bos- 
ton: A.  D.  1768;  and  1770. 

A.  D.  1768-1774.— John  Wilkes  and  the 
King  and  Parliament  again. — The  Middlesex 
elections. — In  March,  1768,  AVilkes,  though  out- 
lawed by  the  court,  returned  to  London  from 
Paris  and  solicited  a  pardon  from  the  king ;  but 
his  petition  was  unnoticed.  Parliament  being 
then  dissolved  and  writs  issued  for  a  new  elec- 
tion, he  offered  himself  as  a  candidate  to  represent 
the  City  of  London.  "He  polled  1,347  votes, 
but  was  unsuccessful.  On  the  day  following 
this  decision  he  issued  an  address  to  the  freehold- 
ers of  Middlesex.  The  election  took  place  at 
Brentford,  on  the  38th  of  March.  At  the  close 
of  the  poll  the  numbers  were  —  Mr.  Wilkes,  1,393 ; 
Mr.  Cooke,  827;  Sir  W.  B.  Proctor,  807.  This 
was  a  victory  which  astonished  the  public  and 
terrified  the  ministry .  The  mob  was  in  ecstasies. 
The  citizens  of  London  were  compelled  to  illu- 
minate their  houses  and  to  shout  for  '  Wilkes  and 
liberty. '  It  was  the  earnest  desire  of  the  ministry 
to  pardon  the  man  whom  they  had  persecuted, 
but  the  king  remained  inexorable.  ...  A  month 
after  the  election  he  wrote  to  Lord  North  : 
'  Though  relying  entirely  on  your  attachment  to 
my  person  as  well  as  in  your  hatred  of  any  law- 
less proceeding,  yet  I  think  it  highly  expedient 
to  apprise  you  that  the  expulsion  of  Mr.  Wilkes 
appears  to  be  very  essential,  and  must  be  effected. ' 
What  the  sovereign  counselled  was  duly  accom- 
plished. Before  his  expulsion,  Wilkes  was  a 
prisoner  in  the  King's  Bench.  Having  surren- 
dered, it  was  determined  that  his  outlawry  was 
informal ;  consequently  it  was  reversed,  and  sen- 
tence was  passed  for  the  offences  whereof  he  had 
been  convicted.  He  was  fined  £1,000,  and  im- 
prisoned for  twenty-two  months.  On  his  way 
to  prison  he  was  rescued  by  the  mob ;  but  as 
soon  as  he  could  escape  out  of  the  hands  of  his 
boisterous  friends  he  went  and  gave  himself  into 
the  custody  of  the  Marshal  of  the  lijng's  Bench. 
Parliament  met  on  the  10th  of  April,  and  it  was 
thought  that  he  would  be  released  in  order  to 
take  his  seat.  A  dense  multitude  assembled  be- 
fore  the   prison,  but,  balked  in  its  purpose  of 


958 


ENGLAND,   1768-1774. 


Letters  of 

Junius, 


ENGLAND,  1769-1772. 


escorting  the  popular  favourite  to  the  House, 
became  furious,  and  commenced  a  riot.  Soldiers 
■were  at  hand  prepared  for  this  outbreak.  They 
fired,  -wounding  and  slauglitering  several  per- 
sons ;  among  others,  they  butchered  a  young  man 
whom  they  found  in  a  neighbouring  house,  and 
■who  was  mistaken  for  a  rioter  they  liad  pursued. 
At  the  inquest  the  jury  brought  in  a  verdict  of 
wilful  murder  against  the  magistrate  viho  ordered 
the  firing,  and  the  soldier  who  did  the  deed. 
The  magistrate  was  tried  and  acquitted.  The 
soldier  was  dismissed  the  service,  but  received  in 
compensation,  as  a  reward  for  his  services,  a  pen- 
sion of  one  shilling  a  day.  A  general  order  sent 
from  the  War  Office  by  Lord  Barrington  con- 
veyed his  Majesty's  express  thanks  to  the  troops 
employed,  assuring  them  '  that  every  possible  re- 
gard shall  be  shown  to  them ;  their  zeal  and  good 
behaviour  on  this  occasion  deserve  it;  and  in  case 
any  disagreeable  circumstance  should  liappen  in 
the  execution  of  their  duty,  they  shall  have  every 
defence  and  protection  that  the  law  can  author- 
ise and  this  office  can  give. '  This  approbation  of 
what  the  troops  had  done  was  the  necessary  sup- 
plement to  a  despatch  from  Lord  Weymouth  sent 
before  the  riot,  and  intimating  that  force  was  to 
he  used  without  scruple.  Wilkes  commented  on 
both  documents.  His  observations  on  tlie  latter 
drew  a  complaint  from  Lord  Weymouth  of  breach 
of  privilege.  This  was  made  an  additional  pre- 
text for  his  expulsion  from  tlie  House  of  Com- 
mons. Ten  days  afterwards  he  was  re-elected, 
his  opponent  receiving  five  votes  only.  On  the 
following  day  the  House  resolved  '  that  John 
Wilkes,  Esquire,  having  been  in  this  session  of 
Parliament  expelled  tliis  House,  was  and  is  in- 
capable of  being  elected  a  member  to  serve  in 
this  present  Parliament ' ;  and  his  election  was  de- 
clared void.  Again  the  freeholders  of  Middle- 
sex returned  him,  and  the  House  re-affirmed  the 
above  resolution.  At  another  election  he  was 
opposed  by  Colonel  Luttrell,  a  Court  tool,  when 
he  polled  1,143  votes  against  296  cast  for  Lut- 
trell. It  was  declared,  however,  that  the  latter 
had  been  elected.  Now  began  a  struggle  between 
the  country,  which  had  been  outraged  in  the 
persons  of  tlie  Middlesex  electors,  and  a  subservi- 
ent majority  in  the  House  of  Commons  tliat  did 
not  hesitate  to  become  instrumental  in  gratifying 
tlie  personal  resentment  of  a  revengeful  and  ob- 
stinate king.  The  cry  of  '  Wilkes  and  liberty ' 
was  raised  in  quarters  where  the  very  name  of 
the  popular  idol  had  been  proscribed.  It  was 
evident  that  not  the  law  only  liad  been  violated 
in  his  person,  but  that  the  Constitution  itself  had 
sustained  a  deadly  wound.  Wilkes  was  over- 
whelmed with  suijstantial  marks  of  sympathy. 
In  the  cour.se  of  a  few  weeks  £20,000  were  sub- 
scribed to  pay  his  debts.  He  could  boast,  too, 
that  the  courts  of  law  had  at  length  done  what 
was  right  between  him  and  one  of  the  Secretaries 
of  State  who  had  signed  the  General  Warrant, 
the  other  having  been  removed  by  death  beyond 
the  reach  of  j  ustice.  Lord  Halifax  was  sentenced 
to  pay  £4,000  damages.  These  damages,  and  the 
costs  of  the  proceedings,  were  defrayed  out  of 
the  public  purse.  Lord  North  admitted  that  the 
outlay  had  exceeded  £100,000.  Thus  the  nation 
was  doubly  insulted  by  the  ministers,  who  first 
violated  the  law,  and  then  paid  the  costs  of  the 
proceedings  out  of  the  national  taxes.  On  the 
17th  of  April,  1770,  Wilkes  left  the  prison,  to  be 
elected  in  rapid  succession  to  the  offices  —  then 


much  sought  after,  because  held  in  high  honour 
—  of  Alderman,  Sheriff,  and  Lord  Mayor  of  Lon- 
don. In  1774  he  was  permitted  to  take  his  seat 
as  Member  for  Middlesex.  After  several  failures, 
he  succeeded  in  getting  the  resolutions  of  his  in- 
capacity to  sit  in  the  House  formally  expunged 
from  its  journals.  He  was  elected  Chamberlain 
of  the  City  in  1779,  and  filled  that  lucrative  and 
responsible  post  till  his  death,  in  1797,  at  the  age 
of  seventy.  Although  tlie  latter  portion  of  his 
career  as  Member  of  Parliament  has  generally 
been  considered  a  blank,  yet  it  was  marked  by 
several  incidents  worthy  of  attention.  He  was  a 
consistent  and  energetic  opponent  of  the  war  with 
America." — W.  F.  Rae,  Jo/i7i  Wilkes  (Fortnightly 
Rev.,  Sept.,  1868,  v.  10). 

Also  in  :  The  same,  Wilkes,  Sheridan,  Fox,  pt. 
1.— G.  O.  Trevelyan,  Early  Hist,  of  Charles 
James  Fox,  ch.  5-6,  and  8. 

A.  D.  1769-1772. — The  Letters  of  Junius. — 
"One  of  the  newspapers  in  London  at  this 
period  was  the  'Public  Advertiser,'  printed  and 
directed  by  Mr.  Henry  Sampson  Woodfall.  His 
politics  were  those  of  the  Opposition  of  the  day ; 
and  he  readily  received  any  contributions  of  a 
like  tendency  from  unknown  correspondents. 
Among  others  was  a  writer  whose  letters  begin- 
ning at  the  latest  in  April,  1767,  continued  fre- 
quent through  that  and  the  ensuing  year.  It 
was  the  pleasure  of  this  writer  to  assume  a  great 
variety  of  signatures  in  his  communications,  as 
Mnemon,  Atticus,  and  Brutus.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear, however,  that  these  letters  (excepting  only 
some  with  the  signature  of  Lucius  which  were 
published  in  the  autumn  of  1768)  attracted  the 
public  attention  to  any  unusual  extent,  though 
by  no  means  wanting  in  ability,  or  still  less  in 
acrimony.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  state  of  these  pub- 
lications, not  much  rising  in  interest  above  the 
common  level  of  many  such  at  other  times,  when 
on  the  31st  of  January  1769  there  came  forth 
another  letter  from  the  same  hand  with  the  novel 
signature  of  Junius.  It  did  not  differ  greatly 
from  its  predecessors  either  in  superior  merit  or 
superior  moderation ;  it  contained,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  fierce  and  indiscriminate  attack  on  most 
men  in  high  places,  including  the  Commander- 
in-Chief,  Lord  Granby.  But,  unlike  its  prede- 
cessors, it  roused  to  controversy  a  well-known 
and  respectable  opponent.  Sir  William  Drajjer, 
General  in  the  army  and  Knight  of  the  Bath, 
undertook  to  meet  and  parry  the  blows  which  it 
had  aimed  at  his  Noble  friend.  In  an  evil  hour 
for  himself  he  sent  to  the  Public  Advertiser  a 
letter  subscribed  with  his  own  name,  and  de- 
fending the  character  and  conduct  of  Lord  Gran- 
by. An  answer  from  Junius  soon  appeared, 
urging  anew  his  original  charge,  and  adding 
some  thrusts  at  Sir  William  himself  on  the  sale 
of  a  regiment,  and  on  the  nonpayment  of  the 
Manilla  ransom.  Wincing  at  the  blow.  Sir  Wil- 
liam more  than  once  replied ;  more  than  once  did 
the  keen  pen  of  Junius  lay  him  prostrate  in  the 
dust.  The  discomfiture  of  poor  Sir  William  was 
indeed  complete.  Even  his  most  partial  friends 
could  not  deny  that  so  far  as  wit  and  eloquence 
were  concerned  the  man  in  the  mask  had  far, 
very  far,  the  better  in  the  controversy.  .  .  . 
These  victories  over  a  man  of  rank  and  station 
such  as  Draper's  gave  Importance  to  the  name  of 
Junius.  Henceforth  letters  with  that  signature 
were  eagerly  expected  by  the  public,  and  care- 
fully prepared  by  the  author.     He  did  not  indeed 


959 


ENGLAND,  1769-1772. 


Lord  North. 


ENGLAND,  1770. 


altogether  cease  to  write  under  other  names; 
sometimes  especially  adopting  tlie  part  of  a  by- 
stander, and  the  signature  of  Philo-Junius ;  but 
it  was  as  Junius  that  his  main  and  most  elabo- 
rate attacks  were  made.  Nor  was  it  long  before 
he  swooped  at  far  higher  game  than  Sir  William. 
First  came  a  series  of  most  bitter  pasquinades 
against  the  Duke  of  Grafton.  Dr.  Blackstone 
was  then  assailed  for  the  unpopular  vote  which 
he  gave  in  the  case  of  Wilkes.  In  September 
was  published  a  false  and  malignant  attack  upon 
the  Duke  of  Bedford, — an  attack,  however,  of 
which  the  sting  is  felt  b}'  his  descendants  to  this 
day.  In  December  the  acme  of  audacity  was 
reached  by  the  celebrated  letter  to  the  King. 
All  this  while  conjecture  was  busy  as  to  the 
secret  author.  Names  of  well-known  statesmen 
or  well-known  writers  —  Burke  or  Dunning, 
Boyd  or  Dyer,  George  Sackville  or  Gerard  Ham- 
ilton —  flew  from  mouth  to  mouth.  Such  guesses 
were  for  the  most  part  made  at  mere  hap-hazard, 
and  destitute  of  any  plausible  ground.  Never- 
theless the  stir  and  talk  which  they  created 
added  not  a  little  to  the  natural  effects  of  the 
writer's  wit  and  eloquence.  '  The  most  impor- 
tant secret  of  our  times  1'  cries  Wilkes.  Junius 
himself  took  care  to  enhance  his  own  importance 
by  arrogant,  nay  even  impious,  boasts  of  it.  In 
one  letter  of  August  1771  he  goes  so  far  as  to 
declare  that  '  the  Bible  and  Junius  will  be  read 
when  the  commentaries  of  the  Jesuits  are  for- 
gotten ! '  Mystery,  as  I  have  said,  was  one  in- 
gredient to  the  popularity  of  Junius.  Another 
not  less  efficacious  was  supplied  by  persecution. 
In  the  course  of  1770  Mr.  Woodfall  was  indicted 
for  publishing,  and  Mr.  Almon  with  several 
others  for  reprinting,  the  letter  from  Junius  to 
the  King.  The  verdict  in  Woodfall's  case  was; 
Guilty  of  printing  and  publishing  only.  It  led 
to  repeated  discussions  and  to  ulterior  proceed- 
ings. But  in  the  temper  of  the  public  at  that 
period  such  measures  could  end  only  in  virtual 
defeat  to  the  Government,  in  augmented  reputa- 
tion to  the  libeller.  During  the  years  1770  and 
1771  the  letters  of  Junius  were  continued  with 
little  abatement  of  spirit.  He  renewed  invec- 
tives against  the  Duke  of  Grafton;  he  began 
them  against  Lord  Mansfield,  who  had  presided  at 
the  trials  of  the  printers ;  he  plunged  into  the 
full  tide  of  City  politics ;  and  he  engaged  in  a 
keen  controversy  with  the  Rev.  John  Home, 
afterwards  Home  Tooke.  The  whole  series  of 
letters  from  January  1769,  when  it  commences, 
until  January  1773,  when  it  terminates,  amounts 
to  69,  including  those  with  the  signature  of 
Philo-Junius,  those  of  Sir  William  Draper,  and 
those  of  Mr.  Home.  .  .  .  Besides  the  letters 
which  Junius  designed  for  the  press,  there  were 
many  others  which  he  wrote  and  sent  to  various 
persons,  intending  them  for  those  persons  only. 
Two  addressed  to  Lord  Chatham  appear  in  Lord 
Chatham's  correspondence.  Three  addressed  to 
Mr  George  Grenville  have  until  now  remained 
in  manuscript  among  the  papers  at  Wotton,  or 
Stowe ;  all  three  were  written  in  the  same  year, 
1768,  and  the  two  first  signed  with  the  same 
initial  C.  Several  others  addressed  to  Wilkes 
were  first  made  known  through  the  son  of  Mr. 
Woodfall.  But  the  most  important  of  all,  per- 
haps, are  tlie  private  notes  addressed  to  Mr. 
Woodfall  himself.  Of  these  there  are  upwards 
of  sixty,  signed  in  general  with  the  letter  C. ; 
6orae  only  a  few  lines  in  length ;  but  many  of 


great  value  towards  deciding  the  question  of 
authorship.  It  seems  that  the  packets  contain- 
ing the  letters  of  Junius  for  Mr.  Woodfall  or  the 
Public  Advertiser  were  sometimes  brought  to 
the  office-door,  and  thrown  in,  by  an  unknown 
gentleman,  probably  Junius  himself ;  more  com- 
monly they  were  conveyed  by  a  porter  or  other 
messenger  hired  in  the  streets.  When  some  com- 
munication from  Mr.  Woodfall  in  reply  was 
deemed  desirable,  Junius  directed  it  to  be  ad- 
dressed to  him  under  some  feigned  name,  and  to 
be  left  till  called  for  at  the  bar  of  some  coflfee- 
house  ...  It  may  be  doubted  whether  Junius 
had  any  confidant  or  trusted  friend.  .  .  .  When 
dedicating  his  collected  letters  to  the  English 
people,  he  declares:  'I  am  the  sole  depository 
of  my  own  secret,  and  it  shall  perish  with  me.' " 
— Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Hist,  of  Eng., 
1713-1783,  ch.  47  (».  5).— The  following  list  of 
fifty -one  names  of  persons  to  whom  the  letters  of 
Junius  have  been  attributed  at  different  times  by 
different  writers  is  given  in  Cushing's  "Initials 
and  Pseudonyms " :  James  Adair,  M.  P. ;  Cap- 
tain Allen ;  Lieut.  -Col.  Isaac  Barre,  M.  P. ;  Wil- 
liam Henry  Cavendish  Bentinck ;  Mr.  Bickerton ; 
Hugh  M'Aulay  Boyd ;  Edmund  Burke ;  AVilliam 
Burke ;  John  Butler,  Bishop  of  Hereford ;  Lord 
Camden ;  John  Lewis  De  Lolme ;  John  Dunning, 
afterwards  Lord  Ashburton;  Samuel  Dyer; 
Henry  Flood ;  Sir  Philip  Francis ;  George  III. ; 
Edward  Gibbon;  Richard  Glover;  Henry  Grat- 
tan ;  William  Greatrakes ;  George  Grenville ; 
James  Grenville;  William  Gerard  Hamilton; 
James  Hollis ;  Thomas  Hollis ;  Sir  George  Jack- 
son; Sir  William  Jones;  John  Kent;  Major- 
General  Charles  Lee;  Charles  Lloyd;  Thomas 
Lyttleton;  Laughlin  Maclean;  Rev.  Edmund 
Marshall ;  Thomas  Paine ;  William  Pitt,  Earl  of 
Chatham ;  the  Duke  of  Portland ;  Thomas  Pow- 
nall;  Lieut. -Col.  Sir  Robert  Rich ;  John  Roberts; 
Rev.  Philip  Rosenhagen;  George,  Viscount' 
Sackville ;  the  Earl  of  Shelburne ;  Philip  Dormer 
Stanhope,  Earl  of  Chesterfield;  Richard  Suett; 
Earl  Temple ;  John  Home  Tooke ;  Horace  Wal- 
pole;  Alexander  Wedderburn,  Lord  Loughbor- 
ough; John  Wilkes;  James  Wilmot,  D.  D. ; 
Daniel  Wray. 

Also  in:  G.  W.  Cooke,  Hist,  of  Party,  v.  3, 
ch.  6.— C.  W.  Dilke,  Papers  of  a  Critic,  v.  2.— 
Lord  Macaulay,  Warroi  Hastings  (Essays,  v.  5). 
— A.  Bisset,  Sho?'t  Hist,  of  the  English  Parlia- 
ment, ch.  7. 

A.  D.  1770.— Fall  of  the  Grafton  Ministry. — 
Beginning  of  the  administration  of  Lord 
North. — "  The  incompetency  of  the  ministry  was 
.  .  .  becoming  obvious.  In  the  first  place  it  was 
divided  within  itself.  The  Prime  Minister,  with 
the  Chancellor  and  some  others,  were  remnants  of 
the  Chatham  ministry  and  admirers  of  Chatham's 
policy.  The  rest  of  the  Cabinet  were  either  men 
who  represented  Bedford's  party,  or  members  of 
that  class  whose  views  are  sufficiently  explained 
by  their  name,  'the  King's  friends.'  Grafton, 
fonder  of  hunting  and  the  turf  than  of  ])olitics, 
had  by  his  indolence  suffered  himself  to  fall  under 
the  influence  of  the  last-named  party,  and  uncon- 
stitutional action  had  been  the  result  which  had 
brought  discontent  in  England  to  the  verge  of 
open  outbreak.  Hillsborough,  under  the  same 
influence,  was  hurrying  along  the  road  which  led 
to  the  loss  of  America.  On  this  point  the  Prime 
Minister  had  found  himself  in  a  minority  in  his 
own  Cabinet.     Prance  too,  under  Choiseul,  in 


960 


ENGLAND,  1770. 


Parliament  and 
the  Press. 


ENGLAND,  1771. 


alliance  with  Spain,  was  beginning  to  think  of  re- 
venge for  the  losses  of  the  Seven  Years'  "War.  A 
crisis  was  evidently  approaching,  and  the  Oppo- 
sition began  toclo.se  their  ranks.  Chatham,  yield- 
ing again  to  the  necessities  of  party,  made  a 
public  profession  of  friendship  with  Temple  and 
George  Grenville ;  and  though  there  was  no  cor- 
dial connection,  there  was  external  alliance  be- 
tween the  brothers  and  the  old  Whigs  under 
Rockingham.  In  the  first  session  of  1770  the 
storm  broke.  Notwithstanding  the  state  of  pub- 
lic affairs,  the  chief  topic  of  the  King's  speech 
was  the  murrain  among  'horned  beasts,' — a 
speech  not  of  a  king,  but,  said  Junius,  of  '  a 
ruined  grazier.'  Chatham  at  once  moved  an 
amendment  when  the  address  in  answer  to  this 
speech  was  proposed.  He  deplored  the  want  of 
all  European  alliances,  the  fruit  of  our  desertion 
of  our  allies  at  the  Peace  of  Paris ;  he  blamed  the 
conduct  of  the  ministry  with  regard  to  America, 
which,  he  thought,  needed  much  gentle  handling, 
inveighed  strongly  against  the  action  of  the 
Lower  House  in  the  case  of  Wilkes,  and  ended 
by  moving  that  that  action  should  at  once  be 
taken  into  consideration.  At  the  sound  of  their 
old  leader's  voice  his  followers  in  the  Cabinet 
could  no  longer  be  silent.  Camden  declared  he 
had  been  a  most  unwilling  party  to  the  persecu- 
tion of  Wilkes,  and  though  retaining  the  Seals, 
attacked  and  voted  against  the  ministry.  In  the 
Lower  House,  Granby,  one  of  the  most  popular 
men  in  England,  followed  the  same  course. 
James  Grenville  and  Dunning,  the  Solicitor-Gen- 
eral, also  resigned.  Chatham's  motion  was  lost, 
but  was  followed  up  by  Rockingham,  who  asked 
for  a  night  to  consider  the  state  of  the  nation. 
.  .  .  Grafton  thus  found  himself  in  no  state  to 
meet  the  Opposition,  and  in  his  heart  still  admir- 
ing Chatham,  and  much  disliking  business,  ho 
suddenly  and  unexpectedly  gave  in  his  resigna- 
tion the  very  day  fixed  for  Rockingham's  motion. 
The  Opposition  seemed  to  have  everything  in 
their  own  hands,  but  there  was  no  real  cordiality 
between  tlie  two  sections.  .  .  .  The  King  with 
much  quickness  and  decision,  took  advantage  of 
this  disunion.  To  him  it  was  of  paramount  im- 
portance to  retain  his  friends  in  oflSce,  and  to 
avoid  a  new  Parliament  elected  in  the  present 
excited  state  of  the  nation.  There  was  only  one 
of  the  late  ministry  capable  of  assuming  the  po- 
sition of  Prime  Minister.  This  was  Lord  North, 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  and  to  him  the 
King  immediately  and  successfully  applied,  so 
that  while  the  difEerent  sections  of  the  Opposition 
were  still  unable  to  decide  on  any  united  action, 
they  were  astonished  to  find  the  old  ministry  re- 
constituted and  their  opportunity  gone.  The 
new  Prime  Minister  .  .  .  had  great  capacity  for 
business  and  administration,  and  much  sound 
sense ;  he  was  a  first-rate  debater,  and  gifted  with 
a  wonderful  sweetness  of  temper,  which  enabled 
him  to  listen  unmoved,  or  even  to  sleep,  during 
the  most  violent  attacks  upon  himself,  and  to 
turn  aside  tlie  bitterest  invectives  with  a  happy 
joke.  With  his  accession  to  the  Premiership  the 
unstable  character  of  the  Government  ceased. 
Resting  on  the  King,  making  himself  no  more 
than  an  instrument  of  the  King's  will,  and  thus 
commanding  the  support  of  all  royal  influence, 
from  whatever  source  derived.  North  was  able  to 
bid  defiance  to  all  enemies,  till  the  ill  effects  of 
such  a  system  of  government,  and  of  the  King's 
policy,  became  so  evident  that  the  clamour  for  a 

961 


really  responsible  minister  grew  too  loud  to  be 
disregarded.  Thus  is  closed  the  great  constitu- 
tional struggle  of  the  early  part  of  the  reign  — 
the  struggle  of  the  King,  supported  by  the  un 
represented  masses,  and  the  more  liberal  and  in- 
dependent of  those  who  were  represented,  against 
the  domination  of  the  House  of  Commons.  It 
was  an  attempt  to  break  those  trammels  which, 
under  the  guise  of  liberty,  the  upper  classes,  the 
great  lords  and  landed  aristocracy,  had  succeeded 
after  the  Revolution  in  laying  on  both  Crown  and 
people.  In  that  struggle  the  King  had  been  vic- 
torious. But  he  did  not  recognize  the  alliance 
which  had  enabled  him  to  succeed.  He  did  not 
understand  that  the  people  had  other  objects 
much  beyond  his  own." — J.  F.  Bright,  Sist.  of 
Eng.,  period  3,  pp.  1057-1060. 

Also  in  :  Cor.  of  Oeorge  III.  with  Lord  North,  v. 
1.  — W.  Massey,  Hist,  of  Eng. :  Reign  of  Oeorge  III. , 
ch.  10-13  (».  1).  — J.  Adolphus,  Hist,  of  Eng.  : 
Reign  of  George  III,  ch.  17  (v.  1).  —  E.  Burke, 
Thoughts  on  the  Present  Discontents  (Works,  v.  1). 

A.  D.  1770-1773. — Repeal  of  the  Tovynshend 
duties,  except  on  tea. — The  tea-ships  and  the 
Boston  Tea-party.  See  United  States  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1770,  and  177S-1773;  and  Boston:  A.  D. 
1773. 

A.  D.  1771.— Last  contention  of  Parliament 
against  the  Press. — Freedom  of  reporting  se- 
cured.—"The  session  of  1771  commenced  with  a 
new  quarrel  between  the  House  of  Commons  and 
the  country.  The  standing  order  for  the  exclu- 
sion of  strangers,  which  had  long  existed  (and 
which  still  exists),  was  seldom  enforced,  except 
when  it  was  thought  desirable  that  a  question 
should  be  debated  with  closed  doors.  It  was  now 
attempted,  by  means  of  this  order,  to  prevent  the 
publication  of  the  debates  and  proceedings  of  the 
House.  It  had  long  been  the  practice  of  the 
newspapers,  and  other  periodical  journals,  to  pub- 
lish the  debates  of  Parliament,  under  various  thin 
disguises,  and  with  more  or  less  fulness  and  ac- 
curacy, from  speeches  furnished  at  length  by  the 
speakers  themselves,  to  loose  and  meagre  notes  of 
more  or  less  authenticity.  One  of  the  most  attrac- 
tive features  of  the  'Gentleman's  Magazine,'  a 
monthly  publication  of  respectability,  which  has 
survived  to  the  present  day,  was  an  article  which 
purported  to  be  a  report  of  the  debates  in  Parlia- 
ment. This  report  was,  for  nearly  three  years, 
prepared  by  Dr.  Johnson,  who  never  attended  the 
galleries  himself,  and  derived  his  information  from 
persons  who  could  seldom  give  him  more  than  the 
names  of  the  speakers,  and  the  side  which  each 
of  them  took  in  the  debate.  The  speeches  were, 
therefore,  the  composition  of  Johnson  himself; 
and  some  of  the  most  admired  oratory  of  the 
period  was  avowedly  the  product  of  his  genius. 
Attempts  were  made  from  time  to  time,  both 
within  and  without  the  walls  of  Parliament,  to 
abolish,  or  at  least  to  modify,  the  standing  order 
for  the  exclusion  of  strangers,  by  means  of  which 
the  license  of  reporting  had  been  restricted ;  for 
there  was  no  order  of  either  House  specifically 
prohibiting  the  publication  of  its  debates.  But 
such  proposals  had  always  been  resisted  by  the 
leaders  of  parties,  who  thought  that  the  privilege 
was  one  which  might  be  evaded,  but  could  not 
safely  be  formally  relinquished.  The  practice 
of  reporting,  therefore,  was  tolerated  on  the 
understanding,  that  a  decent  disguise  should  be 
observed;  and  that  no  publication  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Parliament  should  take  place  during 


ENGLAND,  1771. 


Revolt  of  the 
American  Colonies. 


ENGLAND,  1776-1778. 


the  session.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  however, 
that  the  public  journals  would  have  gone  on, 
with  the  tacit  conuivauce  of  tlie  parliamentary 
chiefs,  until  they  had  practically  established  a 
right  of  reporting  regularly  the  proceedings  of 
both  Houses,  had  not  the  presumptuous  folly  of 
inferior  members  provoked  a  conflict  with  the 
press  upon  this  ground  of  privilege,  and,  in  the 
result,  driven  Parliament  reluctantly  to  yield 
what  they  would  otherwise  have  quietly  con- 
ceded. It  was  Colonel  Onslow,  member  for 
Guildford,  who  rudely  agitated  a  question  which 
wiser  men  had  been  content  to  leave  unvexed; 
and  by  his  rash  meddling,  precipitated  the  very 
result  which  he  thought  he  could  prevent.  He 
complained  that  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
had  been  inaccurately  reported;  and  that  the 
newspapers  had  even  presumed  to  reflect  on  the 
public  conduct  of  honourable  members." — Wm. 
Massey,  Hist,  of  England,  v.  3,  ch.  15.- — "  Certain 
printers  were  in  consequence  ordered  to  attend 
the  bar  of  the  House.  Some  appeared  and  were 
discharged,  after  receiving,  on  their  knees,  a 
reprimand  from  the  Speaker.  Others  evaded 
compliance ;  and  one  of  them,  John  Miller,  who 
failed  to  appear,  was  arrested  by  its  messenger, 
but  instead  of  submitting,  sent  for  a  constable 
and  gave  the  messenger  into  custody  for  an  as- 
sault and  false  imprisonment.  They  were  both 
taken  before  the  Lord  Mayor  (Mr.  Brass  Crosby), 
Mr.  Alderman  Oliver,  and  the  notorious  Johu 
Wilkes,  who  had  recently  been  invested  with  the 
aldermanic  gown.  These  civic  magistrates,  on 
the  ground  that  the  messenger  was  neither  a 
peace-officer  nor  a  constable,  and  that  his  warrant 
was  not  backed  by  a  city  magistrate,  discharged 
the  printer  from  custody,  and  committed  the  mes- 
senger to  prison  for  an  unlawful  arrest.  Two 
other  printers,  for  whose  apprehension  a  reward 
had  been  offered  by  a  Government  proclamation, 
were  collusively  apprehended  by  friends,  and 
taken  before  Aldermen  Wilkes  and  Oliver,  who 
discharged  the  prisoners  as  'not  being  accused 
of  having  committed  any  crime.'  These  pro- 
ceedings at  once  brought  the  House  into  conflict 
with  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  London. 
The  Lord  Mayor  and  Alderman  Oliver,  who  were 
both  members  of  Parliament,  were  ordered  by 
the  House  to  attend  in  their  places,  and  were 
subsequently  committed  to  the  Tower.  Their 
imprisonment,  instead  of  being  a  punishment, 
was  one  long-continued  popular  ovation,  and 
from  the  date  of  their  release,  at  the  prorogation 
of  Parliament  shortly  afterwards,  the  publication 
of  debates  has  been  pursued  without  any  inter- 
ference or  restraint.  Though  still  in  theory  a 
breach  of  privilege,  reporting  is  now  encouraged 
by  Parliament  as  one  of  the  main  sources  of  its 
influence  —  its  censure  being  reserved  for  wilful 
misrepresentation  only.  But  reporters  long  con- 
tinued beset  with  many  difliculties.  The  taking 
of  notes  was  prohibited,  no  places  were  reserved 
for  reporters,  and  the  power  of  a  single  member 
of  either  House  to  require  the  exclusion  of 
strangers  was  frequently  and  caj^riciously  em- 
ployed. By  the  ancient  usage  of  the  House 
of  Commons  [until  1875]  any  one  member  by 
merely  '  spying '  strangers  present  could  compel 
the  Speaker  to  order  their  withdrawal." — T.  P. 
Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hist.,  ch.  17. 

Also  in:  R.  F.  D.  Palgrave,  The  House  of  Com- 
mons, lect.  2. — T.  E.  May,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng., 
ch.  7  (i).  1). 


A.  D.  1772. — The  ending  of  Negro  slavery 
in  the  British  Islands.  See  Slavery,  Negro: 
A.  D.  1685-1772. 

A.  D.  1773. — Reconstitution  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  British  India.  See  India:  A.  D.  1770- 
1773. 

A.  D.  1774.  — The  Boston  Port  Bill,  the 
Massachusetts  Act  and  the  Quebec  Act. — 
The  First  Continental  Congress  in  America. 
See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1774. 

A.  D.  1774.  —  Advent  in  English  industries 
of  the  Steam-Engine  as  made  efficient  by 
James  Watt.  See  Steam  Engine:  A.  D.  1765- 
1785. 

A.  D.  1775.— The  beginning  of  the  War  of 
the  American  Revolution.  —  Lexington.  — 
Concord. —  The  colonies  in  arms  and  Boston 
beleaguered. —  Ticonderoga. —  Bunker  Hill. — 
The  Second  Continental  Congress.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1775. 

A.  D.  1775-1776.  —  Successful  defence  of 
Canada  against  American  invasion.  See 
Canada:  A.  D.  1775-1776. 

A.  D.  1776. — War  measures  against  the  col- 
onies.— The  drift  toward  American  independ- 
ence. See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1776 
(January — June). 

A.  D.  1776-1778.— The  People,  the  Parties, 
the  King,  and  Lord  North,  in  their  relations  to 
the  American  War. — "The  undoubted  popu- 
larity of  the  war  [in  America]  in  its  first  stage 
had  for  some  time  continued  to  increase,  and  in 
the  latter  part  of  1776  and  1777  it  had  probably 
attained  its  maximum.  .  .  .  The  Whigs  at  this 
time  very  fully  admitted  that  the  genuine  opinion 
of  the  country  was  with  the  Government  and 
with  the  King.  .  .  .  The  Declaration  of  Inde- 
l^endence,  and  the  known  overtures  of  the  Ameri- 
cans to  France,  were  deemed  the  climax  of  in- 
solence and  ingratitude.  The  damage  done  to 
English  commerce,  not  only  in  the  West  Indies 
but  even  around  the  English  and  Irish  coast, 
excited  a  widespread  bitterness.  ...  In  every 
stage  of  the  contest  the  influence  of  the  Opposi- 
tion was  employed  to  trammel  the  Government. 
.  .  .  The  statement  of  Wraxall  that  the  Whig 
colours  of  buff  and  blue  were  first  adopted  by 
Fox  in  imitation  of  the  uniform  of  Washing- 
ton's troops,  is,  I  believe,  corroborated  by  no 
other  writer ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  question 
his  assertion  that  the  members  of  the  Whig  party 
in  society  and  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament  dur- 
ing the  whole  course  of  the  war  wished  success  to 
the  American  cause  and  rejoiced  in  the  American 
triumphs.  .  .  .  While  the  Opposition  needlessly 
and  heedlessly  intensified  the  national  feeling 
against  them,  the  King,  on  his  side,  did  the  ut- 
most in  his  power  to  embitter  the  contest.  It  is 
only  by  examining  his  correspondence  with  Lord 
North  that  we  fully  realise  how  completely  at 
this  time  he  assumed  the  position  not  only  of  a 
jirime  minister  but  of  a  Cabinet,  superintending, 
directing,  and  prescribing,  in  all  its  parts,  the 
policy  of  the  Government.  .  .  .  'Every  means 
of  distressing  America,'  wrote  the  King,  'must 
meet  with  my  concurrence.'  He  strongly  sup- 
ported the  employment  of  Indians.  ...  It  was 
the  King's  friends  who  were  most  active  in  pro- 
moting all  measures  of  violence.  .  .  .  The  war 
was  commonly  called  the  '  King's  war, '  and  its 
opponents  were  looked  upon  as  opponents  of  the 
King.  The  person,  however,  who  in  the  eye  of 
history  appears  most  culpable  in  this  matter,  was 


962 


ENGLAND,  1776-1778. 


War 
i7i  America. 


ENGLAND,  1778-1780. 


Lord  North.  .  .  .  The  publication  of  the  corre- 
spondence of  George  III.  .  .  .  supplies  one  of 
the  most  striking  and  melancholy  examples  of 
the  relation  of  the  King  to  his  Tory  ministers. 
It  appears  from  this  correspondence  that  for  the 
space  of  about  live  years  North,  at  the  entreaty 
of  the  King,  carried  on  a  bloody,  costly,  and  dis- 
astrous war  in  direct  opposition  to  his  own 
judgment  and  to  liis  own  wishes.  .  .  .  Again 
and  again  he  entreated  that  his  resignation  might 
be  accepted,  but  again  and  again  he  yielded  to 
the  request  of  the  King,  who  threatened,  if  his 
minister  resigned,  to  abdicate  the  throne.  .  .  . 
The  King  was  determined,  under  no  circum- 
stances, to  treat  with  the  Americans  on  the  basis  of 
the  recognition  of  their  independence;  but  he  ac- 
knowledged, after  the  surrender  of  Burgoyne,  and 
as  soon  as  the  French  war  had  become  inevitable, 
that  unconditional  submission  could  no  longer 
be  hoped  for.  ...  He  consented,  too,  though 
apparently  with  extreme  reluctance,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Cabinet, 
that  new  propositions  should  be  m&de  to  the 
Americans."  These  overtures,  conveyed  to  Amer- 
ica by  three  Commissioners,  were  rejected,  and 
the  colonies  concluded,  in  the  spring  of  1778, 
their  alliance  with  France.  "The  moment  was 
one  of  the  most  terrible  in  English  history.  Eng- 
land had  not  an  ally  in  the  world.  .  .  .  Eng- 
land, already  exhausted  by  a  war  which  its  dis- 
tance made  peculiarly  terrible,  had  to  confront 
the  whole  force  of  France,  and  was  certain  in  a 
few  months  to  have  to  encounter  the  whole  force 
of  Spain.  .  .  .  There  was  one  man  to  whom,  in 
this  hour  of  panic  and  consternation,  the  eyes  of 
all  jjatriotic  Englishmen  were  turned.  ...  If 
any  statesman  could,  at  the  last  moment,  con- 
ciliate [the  Americans],  dissolve  the  new  alli- 
ance, and  kindle  into  a  flame  the  loyalist  feeling 
which  undoubtedly  existed  largely  in  America,  it 
was  Chatham.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  conciliation 
proved  impossible,  no  statesman  could  for  a 
moment  be  compared  to  him  in  the  management 
of  a  war.  Lord  North  implored  the  King  to  ac- 
cept his  resignation,  and  to  send  for  Chatham. 
Bute,  tlie  old  Tory  favourite,  breaking  his  long 
silence,  spoke  of  Chatham  as  now  indispensable. 
Lord  Manstield,  the  bitterest  and  ablest  rival  of 
Chatham,  said,  with  tears  in  liis  eyes,  tliat  unless 
the  King  sent  for  Chatham  the  ship  would  as- 
suredly go  down.  .  .  .  The  King  was  unmoved. 
He  consented  indeed  —  and  he  actually  author- 
ised Lord  North  to  make  the  astounding  propo- 
sition— -to  receive  Chatham  as  a  subordinate 
minister  to  North.  .  .  .  This  episode  appears  to 
me  the  most  criminal  in  the  whole  reign  of 
George  III.,  and  in  my  own  judgment  it  is  as 
criminal  as  any  of  those  acts  which  led  Charles  I. 
to  the  scaffold." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of  Eng.  in 
the  ISth  Century,  ch.  14  (».  4). — "George  III.  and 
Lord  North  have  been  made  scapegoats  for  sins 
which  were  not  exclusively  their  own.  The  min- 
ister, indeed,  was  only  the  vizier,  who  hated  his 
work,  but  still  did  not  shrink  from  it,  out  of  a 
sentiment  that  is  sometimes  admired  under  the 
name  of  loyalty,  but  which  in  such  a  case  it  is 
difficult  to  distinguish  from  base  servility.  The 
impenetrable  mind  of  the  King  was,  in  the  case 
of  the  American  war,  the  natural  organ  and  rep- 
resentative of  all  the  lurking  ignorance  and 
arbitrary  humours  of  the  entire  community.  It 
is  totally  unjust  and  inadequate  to  lay  upon 
him  the  entire  burden." — J.    Morley,   Edmund 


Burke:  a  Historical  Study,  p.  135. — "No  sane 
person  in  Great  Britain  now  approves  of  the 
attempt  to  tax  the  colonies.  No  sane  person  does 
otherwise  than  rejoice  that  the  colonies  became 
free  and  independent.  But  let  us  in  common 
fairness  say  a  word  for  King  George.  In  all 
that  he  did  he  was  backed  by  the  great  mass  of 
the  British  nation.  And  let  us  even  say  a  word- 
for  the  British  nation  also.  Had  the  King  and 
the  nation  been  really  wise,  they  would  have  let 
the  colonies  go  without  striking  a  blow.  But  then 
no  king  and  no  nation  ever  was  really  wise  after 
that  fashion.  King  George  and  the  British  nation 
were  simply  not  wiser  than  other  people.  I  be- 
lieve that  you  may  turn  the  pages  of  history  from 
the  earliest  to  the  latest  times,  without  finding  a 
time  when  any  king  or  any  commonwealth,  fi'eely 
and  willingly,  without  compulsion  or  equivalent, 
gave  up  power  or  dominion,  or  even  mere  extent 
of  territory  on  the  map,  when  there  was  no  real 
power  or  dominion.  Remember  that  seventeen 
years  after  the  acknowledgment  of  American 
independence.  King  George  still  called  himself 
King  of  Prance.  Remember  that,  when  the 
title  was  given  up,  some  people  thought  it  un- 
wise to  give  it  up.  Remember  that  some  people 
in  our  own  day  regretted  the  separation  between 
the  crowns  of  Great  Britain  and  Hanover.  If 
they  lived  to  see  the  year  1866,  perhaps  they 
grew  wiser." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Tlie  English  People 
in  its  Three  Homes  {Lectures  to  American  Au- 
diences),  pp.  183-184. 

Also  ln:  Correspondence  of  George  III.  with 
Lord  North.— LotA.  Brougham,  Hist.  Sketches  of 
Statesmen  in  the  Reign  of  Oeorge  III. — T.  Mac- 
knight,  Hist,  of  the  Life  and  Times  of  Edmund 
Burke,  ch.  22-26  (v.  2). 

A.  D.  1778. — Warwrith  France.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1778  (Feisruart). 

A.  D.  1778-1780.— Repeal  of  Catholic  penal 
laws. — The  Gordon  No-Popery  Riots. — "The 
Quebec  Act  of  1774  [see  Canada:  A.  D.  1763- 
1774],  establishing  Catholicism  in  Canada,  would 
a  generation  earlier  have  been  impossible,  and  it 
was  justly  considered  a  remarkable  sign  of  the 
altered  condition  of  opinion  that  such  a  law 
should  be  enacted  by  a  British  Parliament,  and 
should  have  created  no  serious  disturbances  in 
the  country.  .  .  .  The  success  of  the  Quebec  Act 
led  Parliament,  a  few  years  later,  to  undertake 
the  relief  of  the  Catholics  at  home  from  some 
part  of  the  atrocious  penal  laws  to  which  they 
were  still  subject.  .  .  .  The  Act  still  subsisted 
which  gave  a  reward  of  £100  to  any  informer 
who  iirocured  the  conviction  of  a  Catholic  priest 
performing  his  functions  in  England,  and  there 
were  occasional  prosecutions,  though  the  judges 
strained  the  law  to  the  utmost  in  order  to  defeat 
them.  .  .  .  The  worst  part  of  the  persecution  of 
Catholics  was  based  upon  a  law  of  William  III,, 
and  in  1778  Sir  George  Savile  introduced  a  bill 
to  repeal  those  portions  of  this  Act  which  related 
to  the  apprehending  of  Popish  bishops,  priests, 
and  Jesuits,  which  subjected  these  and  also  Pa- 
pists keeping  a  school  to  perpetual  imprisonment, 
and  which  disabled  all  Papists  from  inheriting 
or  purchasing  land.  .  .  .  It  is  an  honourable  fact 
that  this  Relief  Bill  was  carried  witnout  a  divi- 
sion in  either  House,  without  any  serious  opposi- 
tion from  the  bench  of  bishops,  and  with  the 
concurrence  of  both  parties  in  the  State.  The 
law  applied  to  England  only,  but  the  Lord  Ad- 
vocate promised,  in  the  ensuing  session,  to  intro- 


963 


ENGLAND,  1778-1780. 


Oordon 
No-Popery  Riots. 


ENGLAND,  1778-1780. 


duce  a  similar  measure  for  Scotland.  It  was 
hoped  tliat  a  measure  which  was  so  manifestly 
moderate  and  equitable,  and  which  was  carried 
with  such  unanimity  through  Parliament,  would 
have  passed  almost  unnoticed  in  the  country; 
but  fiercer  elements  of  fanaticism  than  politicians 
perceived  were  still  smouldering  in  the  nation. 
The  first  signs  of  the  coming  storm  were  seen 
among  the  Presbyterians  of  Scotland.  The  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  Scotch  Established  Church 
was  sitting  when  the  English  Relief  Bill  was 
pending,  and  it  rejected  by  a  large  majority  a 
motion  for  a  remonstrance  to  Parliament  against 
it.  But  in  a  few  months  an  agitation  of  the  most 
dangerous  description  spread  swiftly  through 
the  Lowlands.  It  was  stimulated  by  many  in- 
cendiary resolutions  of  provincial  synods,  by 
pamphlets,  hand-bills,  newspapers,  and  sermons, 
and  a  '  Committee  for  the  Protestant  Interests ' 
was  formed  at  Edinburgh  to  direct  it.  .  .  .  Furi- 
ous riots  broke  out  In  January,  1779,  both  in 
Edinburgh  and  Glasgow.  Several  houses  in 
which  Catholics  lived,  or  the  Catholic  worship 
was  celebrated,  were  burnt  to  the  ground.  The 
shops  of  Catholic  tradesmen  were  wrecked,  and 
their  goods  scattered,  plundered,  or  destroyed. 
Catholic  ladies  were  compelled  to  take  refuge  in 
Edinburgh  Castle.  The  houses  of  many  Protes- 
tants who  were  believed  to  sympathise  with  the 
Relief  Bill  were  attacked,  and  among  the  num- 
ber was  that  of  Robertson  the  historian.  The 
troops  were  called  out  to  suppress  the  riot,  but 
they  were  resisted  and  pelted,  and  not  suffered 
to  fire  in  their  defence.  .  .  .  The  flame  soon 
spread  southwards.  For  some  years  letters  on 
the  increase  of  Popery  had  been  frequently  ap- 
pearing in  the  London  newspapers.  Many  mur- 
murs had  been  heard  at  the  enactment  of  the 
Quebec  Act,  and  many  striking  instances  in  the 
last  ten  years  had  shown  how  easily  the  spirit  of 
riot  could  be  aroused,  and  how  impotent  the  or- 
dinary watchmen  were  to  cope  with  it.  .  .  .  The 
fanatical  party  had  unfortunately  acquired  an 
unscrupulous  leader  in  the  person  of  Lord  George 
Gordon,  whose  name  now  attained  a  melancholy 
celebrity.  He  was  a  young  man  of  thirty,  of 
very  ordinary  talents,  and  with  nothing  to  rec- 
ommend him  but  his  connection  with  the  ducal 
house  of  Gordon.  .  .  .  A  '  Protestant  Associa- 
tion,' consisting  of  the  worst  agitators  and  fanat- 
ics, was  formed,  and  at  a  great  meeting  held  on 
May  29,  1780,  and  presided  over  by  Lord  George 
Gordon,  It  was  determined  that  20,000  men 
should  march  to  the  Parliament  House  to  present 
a  petition  for  the  repeal  of  the  Relief  Act.  It 
was  about  half-past  two  on  the  afternoon  of  Fri- 
day, June  2,  that  three  great  bodies,  consisting 
of  many  thousands  of  men,  wearing  blue  cock- 
ades, and  carrying  a  petition  which  was  said  to 
have  been  signed  by  near  120,000  persons,  ar- 
rived by  different  roads  at  the  Parliament  House. 
Their  first  design  appears  to  have  been  only  to  in- 
timidate, but  they  very  soon  proceeded  to  actual 
violence.  The  two  Houses  were  just  meeting, 
and  the  scene  that  ensued  resembled  on  a  large 
scale  and  in  an  aggravated  form  the  great  riot 
which  had  taken  place  around  the  Parliament 
House  in  Dublin  during  the  administration 
of  the  Duke  of  Bedford.  The  members  were 
seized,  insulted,  compelled  to  put  blue  cockades 
in  their  hats,  to  shout  '  No  Popery  I '  and  to 
swear  that  they  would  vote  for  the  repeal ;  and 
many  of  them,  but  especially  the  members  of 


the  House  of  Lords,  were  exposed  to  the  grossest 
indignities.  ...  In  the  Commons  Lord  George 
Gordon  presented  the  petition,  and  demanded  its 
instant  consideration.  The  House  behaved  with 
much  courage,  and  after  a  hurried  debate  it  was 
decided  by  192  to  7  to  adjourn  its  considera- 
tion till  the  6th.  Lord  George  Gordon  several 
times  appeared  on  the  stairs  of  the  gallery, 
and  addressed  the  crowd,  denouncing  by  name 
those  who  opposed  him,  and  especially  Burke 
and  North;  but  Conway  rebuked  him  in  the 
sight  and  hearing  of  the  mob,  and  Colonel  Gor- 
don, one  of  his  own  relatives,  declared  that  the 
moment  the  first  man  of  the  mob  entered  the 
House  he  would  plunge  his  sword  into  the  body 
of  Lord  George.  The  doors  were  locked.  The 
strangers'  gallery  was  empty,  but  only  a  few 
doorkeepers  and  a  few  other  ordinary  oflUcials 
protected  the  House,  while  the  mob  is  said  at 
first  to  have  numbered  not  less  than  60,000  men. 
Lord  North  succeeded  in  sending  a  messenger 
for  the  guards,  but  many  anxious  hours  passed 
before  they  arrived.  Twice  attempts  were  made 
to  force  the  doors.  ...  At  last  about  nine 
o'clock  the  troops  appeared,  and  the  crowd, 
without  resisting,  agreed  to  disperse.  A  great 
part  of  them,  however,  were  bent  on  further 
outrages.  They  attacked  the  Sardinian  Jlinis- 
ter's  chapel  in  Duke  Street,  Lincoln's  Inn  Fields. 
They  broke  it  open,  carried  away  the  silver 
lamps  and  other  furniture,  burnt  the  benches  in 
the  street,  and  flung  the  burning  brands  into  the 
chapel.  The  Bavarian  Minister's  chapel  in  "War- 
wick Street  Golden  Square  was  next  attacked, 
plundered,  and  burnt  before  the  soldiers  could 
intervene.  They  at  last  appeared  upon  the 
scene,  and  some  slight  scuflling  ensued,  and  thir- 
teen of  the  rioters  were  captured.  It  was  hoped 
that  the  riot  had  expended  its  force,  for  Satur- 
day and  the  greater  part  of  Sunday  passed  with 
little  disturbance,  but  on  Sunday  afternoon  new 
outrages  began  in  Moorflelds,  where  a  considera- 
ble Catholic  population  resided.  Several  houses 
were  attacked  and  plundered,  and  the  chapels 
utterly  ruined." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  HUt.  of  Eng. 
in  the  18th  Century,  ch.  13  (».  3). — "On  Monday 
the  rioters  continued  their  outrages.  .  .  .  Not- 
withstanding, however,  that  the  town  might 
now  be  said  to  have  been  in  the  possession  of  the 
rioters  for  more  than  three  da3'S,  it  does  not 
appear  that  any  more  decided  measures  were 
adopted  to  put  them  down.  Their  audacity  and 
violence,  as  might  have  been  expected,  increased 
under  this  treatment.  On  Tuesday  afternoon 
and  evening  the  most  terrible  excesses  were  per- 
petrated. Notwithstanding  that  a  considerable 
military  force  was  stationed  around  and  on  the 
way  to  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  several  of  the 
members  were  again  insulted  and  maltreated  in 
the  grossest  manner.  Indeed,  the  mob  by  this 
time  seem  to  have  got  over  all  apprehensions  of 
the  interference  of  the  soldiers."  The  principal 
event  of  the  day  was  the  attack  on  Newgate 
prison,  which  was  destroyed  and  the  prisoners 
released.  "The  New  Prison,  Clerkenwell,  was 
also  broken  open  .  .  .  and  all  the  prisoners  set 
at  large.  Attacks  were  likewise  made  upon  sev- 
eral .  .  .  private  houses.  .  .  .  But  the  most  la- 
mentable of  all  the  acts  of  destruction  yet  per- 
petrated by  these  infuriated  ruffians  was  that 
with  which  they  closed  the  day  of  madness  and 
crime  —  the  entire  demolition  of  the  residence  of 
Lord  Mansfield,  the  venerable  Lord  Chief  Jus- 


9G4 


ENGLAND,  1778-1780. 


Rodney's 
Victory, 


ENGLAND,  1780-1782. 


tice,  ia  Bloomsbury  Square.  .  .  .  The  scenes 
that  took  place  on  Wednesday  were  still  more 
dreadful  than  those  by  which  Tuesday  had  been 
marked.  The  town  indeed  was  now  in  a  state  of 
complete  insurrection :  and  it  was  felt  by  all  that 
the  mob  must  be  put  down  at  any  cost,  if  it  was 
intended  to  save  the  metropolis  of  the  kingdom 
from  utter  destruction.  This  day,  accordingly, 
the  military  were  out  in  all  quarters,  and  were 
everywhere  employed  against  the  infuriated 
multitudes  who  braved  their  power.  .  .  .  The 
King's  Bench  Prison,  the  New  Gaol,  the  Bor- 
ough Clink,  the  Surrey  Bridewell,  were  all 
burned  today.  .  .  .  The  Mansion  House,  the  3Iu- 
seum,  the  Exchange,  the  Tower,  and  the  Bank, 
were  all,  it  is  understood,  marked  for  destruc- 
tion. Lists  of  these  and  the  other  buildings 
which  it  was  intended  to  attack  were  circulated 
among  the  mob.  The  bank  was  actually  twice 
assaulted;  but  a  powerful  body  of  soldiers  by 
whom  it  was  guarded  on  both  occasions  drove  off 
the  crowd,  though  not  without  great  slaughter. 
At  some  places  the  rioters  returned  the  fire  of 
the  military.  .  .  .  Among  other  houses  which 
were  set  on  fire  in  Holborn  were  the  extensive 
premises  of  Mr.  Langdale,  the  distiller,  who  was 
a  Catholic.  .  .  .  The  worst  consequence  of  this 
outrage,  however,  was  the  additional  excitement 
which  the  frenzy  of  the  mob  received  from  the 
quantities  of  spirits  with  which  they  were  here 
supplied.  Many  indeed  drank  themselves  literally 
dead ;  and  many  more,  who  had  rendered  them- 
selves unable  to  move,  perished  in  the  midst  of 
the  flames.  Six  and  thirty  fires,  it  is  stated,  were 
this  night  to  be  seen,  from  one  spot,  blazing  at 
the  same  time  in  different  quarters  of  the  town. 
.  .  .  By  Thursday  morning  .  .  .  the  exertions 
of  Government,  now  thoroughly  alarmed,  had 
succeeded  in  bringing  up  from  different  parts  so 
large  a  force  of  regular  troops  and  of  militia  as 
to  make  it  certain  that  the  rioters  would  be 
speedily  overpowered.  .  .  .  The  soldiers  attacked 
the  mob  in  various  places,  and  everywhere  with 
complete  success.  ...  On  Friday  the  courts  of 
justice  were  again  opened  for  business,  and  the 
House  of  Commons  met  in  the  evening.  .  .  . 
On  this  first  day  after  the  close  of  the  riots,  '  the 
metropolis, '  says  the  Annual  Register,  '  presented 
in  many  places  the  image  of  a  city  recently 
stormed  and  sacked.'.  .  .  Of  the  persons  ap- 
prehended and  brought  to  trial,  59  were  capitally 
convicted ;  and  of  these  more  than  20  were  exe- 
cuted; the  others  were  sent  to  expiate  their 
offences  by  passing  the  remainder  of  their  days 
in  hard  labour  and  bondage  in  a  distant  land. 
.  .  .  Lord  George  Gordon,  in  consequence  of  the 
part  he  had  borne  in  the  measures  which  led  to 
these  riots,  was  sent  to  the  Tower,  and  some 
time  afterwards  brought  to  trial  on  a  charge  of 
high  treason,"  but  was  acquitted. — Sketches  of 
Poptilar  Tumults,  sect.  1,  ch.  3. 

Also  in  :  J.  H.  Jesse,  Memoirs  of  the  Life  and 
Reign  of  George  III.,  ch.  34  (».  2).— H.  Walpole, 
Journal  of  the  Reign  of  Qeorge  III.,  v.  2,  pp.  403- 
i^i,L— Annual  Register,  1780,  pp.  254-287.— C. 
Dickens,  Barnahj  Rudge. — -W.  J.  Amherst,  Hist, 
of  Catholic  Emancipation,  v.  1,  eh.  1-5. 

A.  D.  1780-1782. — Declining  strength  of  the 
government. — Rodney's  great  naval  victory. — 
The  siege  of  Gibraltar. — "The  fall  of  Lord 
North's  ministry,  and  with  it  the  overthrow  of 
the  personal  government  of  George  III.,  was  now 
close  at  hand.     For  a  long  time  the  government 


had  been  losing  favour.  In  the  summer  of  1780, 
the  British  victories  in  South  Carolina  had  done 
something  to  strengthen,  yet  when,  in  the  autumn 
of  that  year.  Parliament  was  dissolved,  although 
the  king  complained  that  his  expenses  for  pur- 
poses of  corruption  had  been  twice  as  great  as 
ever  before,  the  new  Parliament  was  scarcely 
more  favourable  to  the  ministry  than  the  old 
one.  Misfortunes  and  perplexities  crowded  in  the 
path  of  Lord  North  and  his  colleagues.  The  ex- 
ample of  American  resistance  had  told  upon  Ire- 
laud.  .  .  .  For  more  than  a  year  there  had  been 
war  in  India,  where  Hyder  Ali,  for  the  moment, 
was  carrying  everything  before  him.  France, 
eager  to  regain  her  lost  foothold  upon  Hindustan, 
sent  a  strong  armament  thither,  and  insisted  that 
England  must  give  up  all  her  Indian  conquests 
except  Bengal.  For  a  moment  England's  great 
Eastern  empire  tottered,  and  was  saved  only  by 
the  superhuman  efforts  of  Warren  Hastings,  aided 
by  the  wonderful  military  genius  of  Sir  Eyre 
Coote.  In  Jlay,  1781,  the  Spaniards  had  taken 
Pensacola,  thus  driving  the  British  from  their 
last  position  in  Florida.  In  February,  1782,  the 
Spanish  fleet  captured  Minorca,  and  the  siege  of 
Gibraltar,  which  had  been  kept  up  for  nearly 
three  years,  was  pressed  with  redoubled  energy. 
During  the  winter  the  French  recaptured  St. 
Eustatius,  and  handed  it  over  to  Holland;  and 
Grasse's  great  fleet  swept  away  all  the  British 
possessions  in  the  West  Indies,  except  Jamaica, 
Barbadoes,  and  Antigua.  All  this  time  the 
Northern  League  kept  up  its  jealous  watch  upon 
British  cruisers  in  the  narrow  seas,  and  among 
all  the  powers  of  Europe  the  government  of 
George  could  not  find  a  single  friend.  The  mari- 
time supremacy  of  England  was,  however,  im- 
paired but  for  a  moment.  Rodney  was  sent  back 
to  the  West  Indies,  and  on  the  12th  of  April, 
1782,  his  fleet  of  36  ships  encountered  the  French 
near  the  island  of  Sainte-Marie-Galante.  The 
battle  of  eleven  hours  which  ensued,  and  in  which 
5,000  men  were  killed  or  wounded,  was  one  of 
the  most  tremendous  contests  ever  witnessed 
upon  the  ocean  before  the  time  of  Nelson.  The 
French  were  totally  defeated,  and  Grasse  was 
taken  prisoner,  —  the  first  French  commander-in- 
chief,  by  sea  or  land,  who  had  fallen  into  an 
enemy's  hands  since  Marshal  Tallard  gave  up 
his  sword  to  Marlborough,  on  the  terrible  day  of 
Blenheim.  France  could  do  nothing  to  repair 
this  crushing  disaster.  Her  naval  power  was 
eliminated  from  the  situation  at  a  single  blow ; 
and  in  the  course  of  the  summer  the  English 
achieved  another  great  success  by  overthrowing 
the  Spaniards  at  Gibraltar,  after  a  struggle  which, 
for  dogged  tenacity,  is  scarcely  paralleled  in 
modern  warfare.  By  the  autumn  of  1782,  Eng- 
land, defeated  in  the  United  States,  remained  vic- 
torious and  defiant  as  regarded  the  other  parties 
to  the  war." — J.  Fiske,  American  Revolution .  ch. 
15  (ii.  2). — "  Gibraltar  .  .  .  had  been  closely  in- 
vested for  nearly  three  years.  At  first,  the 
Spanish  had  endeavoured  to  starve  the  place ;  but 
their  blockade  having  been  on  two  occasions 
forced  by  the  British  fleet,  they  relinquished  that 
plan,  and  commenced  a  regular  siege.  During 
the  spring  and  summer  of  1781,  the  fortress  was 
bombarded,  but  with  little  success ;  in  the  month 
of  November,  the  enemy  were  driven  from  their 
approaches,  and  the  works  themselves  were  al- 
most destroyed  by  a  sally  from  the  garrison. 
Early  in  the  year,  however,  the  fall  of  Minorca 


965 


ENGLAND,  1780-1782. 


Siege 
of  Gibraltar. 


ENGLAND,  1782-1783. 


enabled  the  Spanish  to  reform  the  siege  of  Gib- 
raltar. De  Grillou  himself,  the  hero  of  Minorca, 
superseding  Alvarez,  assumed  the  chief  com- 
mand. .  .  .  The  garrison  of  Gibraltar  comprised 
no  more  than  7,000  men;  while  the  force  of  the 
allied  monarchies  amounted  to  33,000  soldiers, 
with  an  immense  train  of  artillery.  De  Grillon, 
however,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the  for- 
tress, had  little  hope  of  taking  it  from  the  land 
side,  but  relied  with  confidence  on  the  formidable 
preparations  which  he  had  made  for  bombarding 
it  from  the  sea.  Huge  floating  batteries,  bomb- 
proof and  shot-proof,  were  constructed;  and  it 
was  calculated  that  the  action  of  these  tremen- 
dous engines  alone  would  be  sufficient  to  destroy 
the  works.  Besides  the  battering  ships,  of  which 
ten  were  provided,  a  large  armament  of  vessels 
of  all  rates  was  equipped;  and  a  grand  attack 
was  to  take  place,  both  from  sea  and  land,  with 
400  pieces  of  artillery.  Six  months  were  con- 
sumed in  these  formidable  preparations;  and  it 
was  not  until  September  that  they  were  com- 
pleted. A  partial  cannonade  took  place  on  the 
9th  and  three  following  days;  but  the  great  at- 
tack, which  was  to  decide  the  fate  of  the  be- 
leaguered fortress,  was  commenced  on  the  18th  of 
September.  On  that  day,  the  combined  fleets  of 
France  and  Spain,  consisting  of  47  sail  of  the 
line,  besides  numerous  ships  of  inferior  rate,  were 
drawn  out  in  order  of  battle  before  Gibraltar. 
Numerous  bomb  ketches,  gun  and  mortar  boats, 
dropped  their  anchors  within  close  range ;  while 
the  ten  floating  batteries  were  moored  with  strong 
iron  chains  within  half  gun-shot  of  the  walls. 
On  the  laud  170  guns  were  prepared  to  open  fii-e 
simultaneously  with  the  ships;  and  40,000  troops 
were  held  in  readiness  to  rush  in  at  the  first  prac- 
ticable breach.  .  .  .  The  grand  attack  was  com- 
menced at  ten  o'clock  in  the  forenoon,  by  the  fire 
of  400  pieces  of  artillery.  The  great  floating  bat- 
teries, securely  anchored  within  600  yards  of  the 
walls,  poured  in  an  incessant  storm,  from  143 
guns.  Elliot  had  less  than  100  guns  to  reply  to 
the  cannonade  both  from  sea  and  land ;  and  of 
these  he  made  the  most  judicious  use.  Disre- 
garding the  attack  from  every  other  quarter,  he 
concentrated  the  whole  of  his  ordnance  on  the 
floating  batteries  in  front  of  him ;  for  unless  these 
were  silenced,  their  force  would  prove  irresisti- 
ble. But  for  a  long  time  the  thunder  of  80 
guns  made  no  impression  on  the  enormous  masses 
of  wood  and  iron.  The  largest  shells  glanced 
harmless  from  their  sloping  roofs;  the  heaviest 
shot  could  not  penetrate  their  hulls  seven  feet  in 
thickness.  Nevertheless,  the  artillery  of  the  gar- 
rison was  still  unceasingly  directed  against  these 
terrible  engines  of  destruction.  A  storm  of  red- 
hot  balls  was  poured  down  upon  them;  and 
about  midday  it  was  observed  that  the  combus- 
tion caused  by  these  missiles,  which  had  hitherto 
been  promptly  extinguished,  was  beginning  to 
take  effect.  Soon  after,  the  partial  cessation 
of  the  guns  from  the  battering  ships,  and  the 
volumes  of  smoke  which  issued  from  their  decks, 
made  it  manifest  they  were  on  fire,  and  that  all 
the  efEorts  of  the  crews  were  required  to  subdue 
the  conflagration.  Towards  evening,  their  guns 
became  silent;  and  before  midnight,  the  flames 
burst  forth  from  the  principal  floating  battery, 
which  carried  the  Admiral's  flag.  .  .  .  Eight  of 
the  10  floating  batteries  were  on  fire  during  the 
night;  ;ind  the  only  care  of  the  besieged  was  to 
save  from  the  flames  and  from  the  waters,  the 


wretched  survivors  of  that  terrible  flotilla,  which 
had  so  recently  menaced  them  with  annihilation. 
.  .  .  The  loss  of  the  enemy  was  computed  at 
2,000 ;  that  of  the  garrison,  in  killed  and  wounded, 
amounted  to  no  more  than  84.  The  labour  of  a  few 
hours  sufficed  to  repair  the  damage  sustained  by 
the  works.  The  French  and  Spanish  fleets  re- 
mained in  the  Straits,  expecting  the  appearance 
of  the  British  squadron  under  Lord  Howe ;  and 
relying  on  their  superiority  in  ships  and  weight 
of  metal,  they  still  hoped  that  the  result  of  an 
action  at  sea  might  enable  them  to  resume  the 
siege  of  Gibraltar.  Howe,  having  been  delayed 
by  contrary  winds,  did  not  reach  the  Straits  until 
the  9th  of  October;  and,  notwithstanding  the 
superior  array  which  the  enetny  presented,  he 
was  prepared  to  risk  an  engagement.  But  at 
this  juncture,  a  storm  having  scattered  the  com- 
bined fleet,  the  British  Admiral  was  enabled  to 
land  his  stores  and  reinforcements  without  op- 
position. Having  performed  this  duty,  he  set 
sail  for  England ;  nor  did  the  Spanisli  Admiral, 
though  still  superior  by  eight  sail  of  the  line,  ven- 
ture to  dispute  his  passage.  Such  was  the  close 
of  the  great  siege  of  Gibraltar;  an  undertaking 
which  had  been  regarded  by  Spain  as  the  chief 
object  of  the  war,  which  she  had  prosecuted  for 
three  years,  and  which,  at  the  last,  had  been 
pressed  by  the  whole  force  of  the  allied  mon- 
archies. After  this  event,  the  war  Itself  was 
virtually  at  an  end." — W.  Massey,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
Reign  of  Oem-(je  III. ,  cli.  37  («.  3). 

Also  ik  :  Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stanhope),  Hist, 
of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  63-66  (».  7).— J.  Drink- 
water,  Hist,  of  the  Siege  of  0-ibraltar. 

A.  D.  1780-1783. — Second  war  with  Hyder 
AH,  or  Second  Mysore  War.  See  India;  A.  D. 
1780-1783. 

A.  D.  1781-1783.— War  with  Holland.  See 
Netherlands  (Holland)  :  A.  D.  1746-1787. 

A.  D.  1782. — Legislative  independence  con- 
ceded to  Ireland.  See  Ireland:  A.  D.  1778- 
1794. 

A.  D.  1782-1783.— Fall  of  Lord  North.— The 
second  Rockingham  Ministry. —  Fox,  Shel- 
burne,  and  the  American  peace  negotiations. 
— The  Shelburne  Ministry. — Coalition  of  Fox 
and  North. —  "There  comes  a  point  when  even 
tlie  most  servile  majority  of  an  unrepresentative 
Parliament  finds  the  strain  of  party  allegiance 
too  severe,  and  that  point  was  reached  when  the 
surrender  of  Cornwallis  at  Yorktown  became 
known  in  November,  1781.  '  O  God,  it  is  all 
overl'  cried  Lord  North,  wringing  his  hands, 
when  he  heard  of  it.  .  .  .  On  February  7,  a  vote 
of  censure,  moved  by  Pox,  upon  Lord  Sandwich, 
was  negatived  by  a  majority  of  only  twenty-two. 
On  the  22nd,  General  Conway  lost  a  motion  in 
favour  of  putting  an  end  to  the  war  by  only  one 
vote.  On  the  27th,  the  motion  was  renewed  in 
the  form  of  a  resolution  and  carried  by  a  major- 
ity of  nineteen  [see  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1782  (February— jVL\y)].  Still  theKing 
would  not  give  his  consent  to  Lord  North's  res- 
ignation. Rather  than  commit  himself  to  the  op- 
position, he  seriously  thought  of  abdicating  his 
crown  and  retiring  to  Hanover.  .  .  .  Indeed,  if 
it  had  not  been  for  his  lai'ge  family,  and  the 
character  of  the  Prince  of  Wales,  already  too  well 
known,  it  is  far  from  improbable  that  he  would 
have  carried  this  idea  into  execution,  and  retired 
from  a  Government  of  which  he  was  no  longer 
master.     By  the  SOth  [of  March],  however,  even 


966 


ENGLAND,  1782-1783. 


Fall  of 
Lord  North. 


ENGLAND,  1782-1783. 


George  IIL  saw  that  the  game  could  not  be  kept 
up  any  longer.  He  gave  permission  to  Lord 
North  to  announce  his  resignation,  and  parted 
with  him  with  the  characteristic  words :  '  Re- 
member, my  Lord,  it  is  you  who  desert  me,  not 
I  who  desert  you.' .  .  .  Even  when  the  long-de- 
ferred blow  fell,  and  Lord  North's  Ministry  was 
no  more,  the  King  refused  to  send  for  Lord 
Rockingham.  He  still  flattered  himself  that  he 
might  get  together  a  jMinlstry  from  among  the 
followers  of  Chatham  and  of  Lord  North,  which 
would  be  able  to  restore  peace  without  granting 
independence,  and  Shelburue  was  the  politician 
whom  he  fixed  upon  to  aid  him  in  this  scheme. 
.  .  .  Shelburne,  however,  was  too  clever  to  fall 
into  the  trap.  A  Ministry  which  had  against  it 
the  influence  of  the  Rockingham  connection  and 
the  talents  of  Charles  Fox,  and  would  not  receive 
the  hearty  support  of  Lord  North's  phalanx  of 
placemen,  was  foredoomed  to  failure.  The  pear 
was  not  yet  ripe.  He  saw  clearly  enough  that 
his  best  chance  of  permanent  success  lay  in  be- 
coming the  successor,  not  the  supplanter,  of 
Rockingham.  .  .  .  His  game  was  to  wait.  He 
respectfully  declined  to  act  without  Rockingham. 
.  .  .  Before  Rockingham  consented  to  take  office, 
he  procured  a  distinct  pledge  from  the  King  that 
he  would  not  put  a  veto  upon  American  inde- 
pendence, if  the  Ministers  recommended  it ;  and 
on  the  i27th  of  jMarch  the  triumph  of  the  Opposi- 
tion was  completed  by  the  formation  of  a  Minis- 
try, mainly  representative  of  the  old  Whig  fami- 
lies, pledged  to  a  policy  of  economical  reform, 
and  of  peace  with  America  on  the  basis  of  the 
acknowledgment  of  independence.  Fox  received 
the  reward  of  his  services  by  being  appointed 
Foreign  Secretary,  and  Lord  Shelburne  took 
charge  of  the  Home  and  Colonial  Department. 
Rockingham  himself  went  to  the  Treasury,  Lord 
John  Cavendish  became  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
chequer, Lord  Keppel  First  Lord  of  the  Ad- 
miralty, Lord  Camden  President  of  the  Council. 
Burke  was  made  Paymaster  of  the  Forces,  and 
Sheridan  Under-Secretary  to  his  friend  Fox.  At 
the  King's  special  request,  Thurlow  was  allowed 
to  remain  as  Chancellor.  .  .  .  The  Cabinet  no 
sooner  met  than  it  divided  into  the  parties  of 
Shelburne  and  of  Fox,  while  Rockingham,  Con- 
way, and  Cavendish  tried  to  hold  the  balance  be- 
tween them,  and  Thurlow  artfully  fomented  the 
dissensions.  .  .  .  Few  Administrations  have  done 
30  much  in  a  short  time  as  did  the  Rockingham 
Ministry  during  the  three  months  of  its  existence, 
and  it  so  happened  that  the, lion's  share  of  the 
work  fell  to  Pox.  Upon  his  appointment  to  of- 
fice his  friends  noticed  a  change  in  habits  and 
manner  of  life,  as  complete  as  that  ascribed  to 
Henry  V.  on  his  accession  to  the  throne.  He  is 
said  never  to  have  touched  a  card  during  either 
of  his  three  short  terms  of  office.  .  .  .  By  the  di- 
vision of  work  among  the  two  Secretaries  of  State, 
all  matters  which  related  to  the  colonies  were 
under  the  control  of  Shelburne,  while  those  re- 
lating to  foreign  Governments  belonged  to  the 
department  of  Fox.  Consequently  it  became 
exceedingly  important  to  these  two  Ministers 
whether  independence  was  to  be  granted  to  the 
American  colonies  by  the  Crown  of  its  own  ac- 
cord, or  should  be  reserved  in  order  to  form  part 
of  the  general  treat)'  of  peace.  According  to 
Fox's  plan,  independence  was  to  be  offered  at 
once  fully  and  freely  to  the  Americans.  They 
would  thus  gain  at  a  blow  all  that  they  wanted. 


Their  jealousy  of  French  and  Spanish  interests 
in  America  would  at  once  assert  itself,  and  Eng- 
land would  have  no  difficulty  in  bringing  them 
over  to  her  side  in  the  negotiations  with  France. 
Such  was  Fox's  scheme,  but  unfortunately,  di- 
rectly America  became  independent,  she  ceased 
to  be  in  any  way  subject  to  Shelburne's  manage- 
ment, and  the  negotiations  for  peace  would  pass 
wholly  out  of  his  control  into  the  hands  of  Fox. 
.  .  .  Shelburne  at  once  threw  his  whole  weight 
into  the  opposite  scale.  He  urged  with  great  ef- 
fect that  to  give  independence  at  once  was  to 
throw  away  the  trump  card.  It  was  the  chief 
concession  which  England  would  be  required  to 
make,  the  only  one  which  she  was  prepared  to 
make ;  and  to  make  it  at  once,  before  she  was 
even  asked,  was  wilfully  to  deprive  herself  of 
her  best  weapon.  The  King  and  the  Cabinet 
adopted  Shelburne's  view.  Fox's  scheme  for  the 
isolation  of  France  failed,  and  a  double  negotia- 
tion for  peace  was  set  on  foot.  Shelburue  and 
Franklin  took  charge  of  the  treaty  with  America 
[see  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1783  (Sep- 
tember)], Fox  and  M.  de  Vergennes  that  with 
France  and  Spain  and  Holland.  An  arrangement 
of  this  sort  could  hardly  have  succeeded  had  the 
two  Secretaries  been  the  firmest  of  friends ;  since 
they  were  rivals  and  enemies  it  was  foredoomed 
to  failure."  Fox  found  occasion  very  soon  to 
complain  that  important  matters  in  Shelburne's 
negotiation  with  Franklin  were  kept  from  his 
knowledge,  and  once  more  he  proposed  to  the 
Cabinet  an  immediate  concession  of  independence 
to  the  Americans.  Again  he  was  outvoted,  and, 
"defeated  and  despairing,  only  refrained  from 
resigning  there  and  then  because  he  would  not  em- 
bitter Rockingham's  last  moments  upon  earth. " 
This  was  on  the  30th  of  June.  "On  the  1st  of 
July  Rockingham  died,  and  on  the  2nd  Shelburne 
accepted  from  the  King  the  task  of  forming  a 
Ministry."  Fox,  of  course,  declined  to  enter  it, 
and  suffered  in  influence  because  he  could  not 
make  public  the  reasons  for  his  inability  to  act 
with  Lord  Shelburne.  "  Only  Lord  Cavendish, 
Burke,  and  the  Solicitor-General,  Lee,  left  office 
with  Portland  and  Fox,  and  the  gap  was  more 
than  supplied  by  the  entrance  of  William  Pitt 
[Lord  Chatham's  son,  who  had  entered  Parlia- 
ment in  1780]  into  the  Cabinet  as  Chancellor  of 
the  Exchequer.  Fortune  seemed  to  smile  on 
Shelburne.  He  .  .  .  might  well  look  forward 
to  a  long  and  unclouded  tenure  of  political 
power.  His  Administration  lasted  not  quite  seven 
months. "  It  was  weakened  by  distrust  and  dis- 
satisfaction among  its  members,  and  overturned 
iu  February,  1783,  by  a  vote  of  censure  on  the 
peace  which  it  had  concluded  with  France,  Spain 
and  the  American  States.  It  was  succeeded  in 
the  Government  by  the  famous  Coalition  Minis- 
try formed  under  Fox  and  Lord  North.  "The 
Duke  of  Portland  succeeded  Shelburne  at  the 
Treasury.  Lord  North  and  Fox  became  the  Sec- 
retaries of  State.  Lord  John  Cavendish  returned 
to  the  Exchequer,  Keppel  to  the  Admiralty,  and 
Burke  to  the  Paymastership,  the  followers  of 
Lord  North  .  .  .  were  rewarded  with  the  lower 
offices.  Few  combinations  in  the  history  of  polit- 
ical parties  have  been  received  by  historians  and 
posterity  with  more  unqualified  condemnation 
than  the  coalition  of  1783.  .  .  .  There  is  no  evi- 
dence to  show  that  at  the  time  it  struck  politicians 
iu  general  as  being  specially  heinous." — H.  O. 
Wakeman,  Life  of  Charles  Janied  Fox,  ch.  3—5. 


967 


ENGLAND,  1782-1783. 


The  Younger 
Pitt. 


ENGLAND,  1783-1787. 


Also  in:  Lord  J.  Eussell,  Life  of  Fox,  ch.  16- 
17  (v.  1).— W.  P.  Rae,  Wilkes,  Sheridan,  Fox, 
pp.  307-317.— Lord  E.  Fitzmaurice,  Life  of  Wil- 
liam, Earl  of  Shelburne,  i\  3,  c!i.  3-6. 

A.  D.  1783. — The  definitive  Treaty  of  Peace 
with  the  United  States  of  America  signed  at 
Paris.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1783 
(Septe.mbek). 

A.  D.  1783-1787. — Fall  of  the  Coalition. — 
Ascendancy  of  the  younger  Pitt. — His  extra- 
ordinary grasp  of  power. —  His  attempted 
measures  of  reform. — "Parliament  met  on  the 
11th  of  November;  on  the  18th  Fox  asked  for 
leave  to  introduce  a  Bill  for  the  Better  Govern- 
ment of  India.  That  day  month  the  Government 
had  ceased  to  exist.  Into  the  merits  of  the  Bill 
it  is  not  now  necessary  to  enter.  .  .  .  It  was  clear 
that  it  furnished  an  admirable  weapon  against 
an  unpopular  Coalition  which  had  resisted  eco- 
nomical reform,  demanded  a  great  income  for  a 
debauched  prince,  and  now  aimed  at  securing  a 
monopoly  of  the  vast  patronage  of  India, —  pat- 
ronage which,  genially  exercised  by  Dundas, 
was  soon  to  secure  Scotland  for  Pitt.  In  the 
House  of  Commons  the  majority  for  the  Bill  was 
over  100;  the  loftiest  eloquence  of  Burke  was 
exerted  in  its  favour;  and  Fox  was,  as  ever, 
dauntless  and  crushing  in  debate.  But  outside 
Parliament  the  King  schemed,  and  controversy 
raged.  .  .  .  When  tlie  Bill  arrived  at  the  House 
of  Lords,  the  undertakers  were  ready.  The  King 
had  seen  Temple,  and  empowered  him  to  com- 
municate to  all  whom  it  might  concern  his  august 
disapprobation.  The  uneasy  whisper  circulated, 
and  the  joints  of  the  lords  became  as  water.  The 
peers  who  yearned  for  lieutenancies  or  regiments, 
for  stars  or  strawberry  leaves ;  the  prelates,  who 
sought  a  larger  sphere  of  usefulness ;  the  minions 
of  the  bedchamber  and  the  janissaries  of  the 
closet;  all,  temporal  or  spiritual,  whose  convic- 
tions were  unequal  to  their  appetite,  rallied  to 
the  royal  nod.  .  .  .  The  result  was  overwhelm- 
ing. The  triumphant  Coalition  was  paralysed  by 
the  rejection  of  their  Bill.  They  rightly  refused 
to  resign,  but  the  King  could  not  sleep  until  he 
had  resumed  the  seals.  Late  at  night  he  sent 
for  them.  The  messenger  found  North  and  Fox 
gaily  seated  at  supper  with  their  followers.  At 
first  he  was  not  believed.  '  The  King  would  not 
dare  do  it,'  exclaimed  Fox.  But  the  under  Sec- 
retary charged  with  the  message  soon  convinced 
them  of  its  authenticity,  and  the  seals  were  de- 
livered with  a  light  heart.  In  such  dramatic 
fashion,  and  the  springtide  of  its  youth,  fell  that 
famous  government,  unhonoured  and  unwept. 
'  England,'  once  said  Mr.  Disraeli,  '  does  not  love 
coalitions.'  She  certainly  did  not  love  this  one. 
On  this  occasion  there  was  neither  hesitation  nor 
delay ;  the  moment  had  come,  and  the  man. 
Within  13  hours  of  the  King's  receiving  the  seals, 
Pitt  had  accepted  the  First  Lordship  of  the  Treas- 
ury and  the  Chancellorship  of  the  Exchequer. 
That  afternoon  his  writ  was  moved  amid  univer- 
sal derision.  And  so  commenced  a  supreme  and 
unbroken  Ministry  of  17  years.  Those  who 
laughed  were  hardly  blamable,  for  the  difficulties 
were  tremendous.  .  .  .  The  composition  of  the 
Government  was  .  .  .  the  least  of  Pitt's  embar- 
rassments. The  majority  against  him  in  the 
House  of  Commons  was  not  less  than  40  or  50, 
containing,  with  the  exception  of  Pitt  himself 
and  Dundas,  every  debater  of  eminence;  while 
he  had,  before  the  meeting  of  Parliament,  to  pre- 


pare and  to  obtain  the  approval  of  the  East  India 
Company  to  a  scheme  which  should  take  the  place 
of  Burke's.  The  Coalition  JNIinisters  were  only 
dismissed  on  the  18th  of  December,  1783;  but, 
when  the  House  of  Commons  met  on  the  12th  of 
January,  1784,  all  this  had  been  done.  The  nar- 
rative of  the  next  three  months  is  stirring  to 
read,  but  would  require  too  much  detail  for  our 
limits.  .  .  .  On  the  day  of  the  meeting  of  Par- 
liament, Pitt  was  defeated  in  two  pitched  divi- 
sions, the  majorities  against  him  being  39  and  54. 
His  government  seemed  still-born.  His  col- 
leagues were  dismayed.  The  King  came  up  from 
Windsor  to  support  him.  But  in  truth  he  needed 
no  support.  He  had  inherited  from  his  father 
that  confidence  which  made  Chatham  once  say, 
'  I  am  sure  that  I  can  save  this  country,  and  that 
nobody  else  can ' ;  which  made  himself  say  later, 
'  I  place  much  dependence  on  my  new  colleagues; 
I  place  still  more  dependence  on  myself.'  He 
had  refused,  in  spite  of  the  King's  insistance,  to 
dissolve;  for  he  felt  that  the  country  required 
time.  .  .  .  The  Clerkship  of  the  Pells,  a  sinecure 
office  worth  not  less  than  £3,000  a  year,  fell  va- 
cant the  very  day  that  Parliament  met.  It  was 
universally  expected  that  Pitt  would  take  it  as 
of  right,  and  so  acquire  an  independence,  which 
woukl  enable  him  to  devote  his  life  to  politics, 
without  care  for  the  morrow.  He  had  not  £300 
a  year ;  bis  position  was  to  the  last  degree  pre- 
carious. .  .  .  Pitt  disappointed  his  friends  and 
amazed  his  enemies.  He  gave  the  place  to  Barre. 
...  To  a  nation  Inured  to  jobs  this  came  as  a 
revelation.  .  .  .  Above  and  beyond  all  was  the 
fact  that  Pitt,  young,  unaided,  and  alone,  held 
his  own  with  the  great  leaders  allied  against  him. 
...  In  face  of  so  resolute  a  resistance,  the  assail- 
ants began  to  melt  away.  Their  divisions, 
though  they  always  showed  a  superiority  to  the 
Government,  betrayed  notable  diminution.  .  .  . 
On  the  35th  of  March  Parliament  was  dissolved, 
the  announcement  being  retarded  by  the  unex- 
plained theft  of  the  Great  Seal.  When  the  elec- 
tions were  over,  the  party  of  Fox,  it  was  found, 
had  shared  the  fate  of  the  host  of  Sennacherib. 
The  number  of  Fox's  martyrs  —  of  Fox's  follow- 
ers who  had  earned  that  nickname  by  losing  their 
seats  —  was  160.  .  .  .  The  King  and  Pitt  were 
supported  on  the  tidal  wave  of  one  of  those  great 
convulsions  of  feeling,  which  in  Great  Britain 
relieve  and  express  pent-up  national  sentiment, 
and  which  in  other  nations  produce  revolutions." 
— Lord  Rosebery,  Pitt,  ch.  3.^"  Three  subjects 
then  needed  the  attention  of  a  great  statesman, 
though  none  of  them  were  so  pressing  as  to  force 
themselves  on  the  attention  of  a  little  statesman. 
These  were,  our  economical  and  financial  legisla- 
tion, the  imperfection  of  our  parliamentary  rep- 
resentation, and  the  unhappy  condition  of  Ire- 
land. Pitt  dealt  with  all  three.  ...  He  brought 
in  a  series  of  resolutions  consolidating  our  cus- 
toms laws,  of  which  the  inevitable  complexity 
may  be  estimated  by  their  number.  They 
amounted  to  133,  and  the  number  of  Acts  of 
Parliament  which  they  restrained  or  completed 
was  much  greater.  He  attempted,  and  success- 
fully, to  apply  the  principles  of  Free  Trade,  the 
principles  wliich  he  was  the  first  of  English 
statesmen  to  learn  from  Adam  Smith,  to  the  ac- 
tual commerce  of  the  country.  .  .  .  Tlie  financial 
reputation  of  Pitt  has  greatly  suffered  from  the 
absurd  praise  which  was  once  lavished  on  the 
worst  part  of  it.     The  dread  of  national  ruin 


968 


ENGLAND,  1783-1787. 


The  French 
Revolittio7i. 


ENGLAND,  1793-1796. 


from  the  augmentation  of  the  national  debt  was 
a  sort  of  nightmare  in  that  age.  .  .  .  Mr.  Pitt 
sympathised  with  the  general  apprehension  and 
created  the  well-known  'Sinking  Fund.'  He 
proposed  to  apply  annually  a  certain  fixed  sura 
to  the  payment  of  the  debt,  which  was  in  itself 
excellent,  but  he  omitted  to  provide  real  money 
to  be  so  paid.  .  .  .  He  proposed  to  borrow  the 
money  to  pay  off  the  debt,  and  fancied  that  he 
thus  diminished  it.  .  .  .  The  exposure  of  this 
financial  juggle,  for  though  not  intended  to  be 
so,  such  in  fact  it  was,  has  reacted  very  unfavour- 
ably upon  Mr.  Pitt's  deserved  fame.  .  .  .  The 
subject  of  parliamentary  reform  is  the  one  with 
which,  in  Mr.  Pitt's  early  days,  the  public  most 
connected  his  name,  and  is  also  that  with  which 
we  are  now  least  apt  to  connect  it.  .  .  .  He  pro- 
posed the  abolition  of  the  worst  of  the  rotten 
boroughs  fifty  years  before  Lord  Grey  accom- 
plished it.  .  .  .  If  the  strong  counteracting  in- 
fluence of  the  French  Revolution  had  not  changed 
the  national  opinion,  he  would  unquestionably 
have  amended  our  parliamentary  representation. 
.  .  .  The  state  of  Ireland  was  a  more  pressing 
difficulty  than  our  financial  confusion,  our  eco- 
nomical errors,  or  our  parliamentary  corruption. 
.  .  .  He  proposed  at  once  to  remedy  the  national 
danger  of  having  two  Parliaments,  and  to  remove 
the  incredible  corruption  of  the  old  Irish  Parlia- 
ment, by  uniting  the  three  kingdoms  in  a  single 
representative  system,  of  which  the  Parliament 
should  sit  in  England.  ...  Of  these  great  re- 
forms he  was  only  permitted  to  carry  a  few  into 
execution.  His  power,  as  we  have  described  it, 
was  great  when  his  reign  commenced,  and  very 
great  it  continued  to  be  for  very  many  years ;  but 
the  time  became  unfavourable  for  all  forward- 
looking  statesmanship." — W.  Bagehot,  Biograph- 
ical Studies:   William  Pitt. 

Also  in:  Earl  Stanhope,  Life  of  William  Pitt, 
ch.  4-9  {v.  1).— G.  Tomline,  Ufe  of  William  Pitt, 
ch.  8-9  (v.  1-2).— Lord  Rosebery,  Pitt,  ch.  3^. 

A.  D.  1788  (February). — Opening  of  the  Trial 
of  Warren  Hastings.  See  India:  A.  D.1785- 
1795. 

A.  D.  1788-1789.  — The  King's  second  de- 
rangement.—  The  king's  second  derangement, 
which  began  to  show  itself  in  the  summer  of 
1788,  was  more  serious  and  of  longer  duration 
than  the  first.  "He  was  able  ...  to  sign  a 
warrant  for  the  further  prorogation  of  Parlia- 
ment by  conunission,  from  the  25th  September 
to  the  20th  November.  But,  in  the  interval, 
the  king's  malady  increased :  he  was  wholly  de- 
prived of  reason,  and  placed  under  restraint ;  and 
for  several  days  his  life  was  in  danger.  As  no 
authority  could  be  obtained  from  him  for  a  fur- 
ther prorogation,  both  Houses  assembled  on  the 
20th  November.  .  .  .  According  to  long  estab- 
lished law.  Parliament,  without  being  opened  by 
the  Crown,  had  no  authority  to  proceed  to  any 
business  whatever:  but  the  necessity  of  an 
occasion,  for  which  the  law  had  made  no  provi- 
sion, was  now  superior  to  the  law ;  and  Parlia- 
ment accordingly  proceeded  to  deliberate  upon 
the  momentous  questions  to  which  the  king's  ill- 
ness had  given  rise. "  By  Mr.  Fox  it  was  main- 
tained that  ' '  the  Prince  of  Wales  had  as  clear  a 
right  to  exercise  the  power  of  sovereignty  dur- 
ing the  king's  incapacity  as  if  the  king  were 
actually  dead ;  and  that  it  was  merely  for  the 
two  Houses  of  Parliament  to  pronounce  at  what 
time  he  should  commence  the  exercise  of  his 


right.  .  .  .  Mr.  Pitt,  on  the  other  hand,  main 
tained  that  as  no  legal  provision  had  been  made 
for  carrying  on  the  government,  it  belonged  to 
the  Houses  of  Parliament  to  make  such  provi- 
sion." The  discussion  to  which  these  differences, 
and  many  obstructing  circumstances  in  the  situa- 
tion of  affairs,  gave  rise,  was  so  prolonged,  that 
the  king  recovered  his  faculties  (February,  1789) 
before  the  Regency  Bill,  framed  by  Mr.  Pitt, 
had  been  passed. — T.  E.  Jlay,  Const.  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  V.  1,  i-h.  3. 

A.  D.  1789-1792. — War  with  Tippoo  Saib 
(third  Mysore  War).  See  India:  A.  D.  1785- 
1793. 

A.  D.  1793. — The  Coalition  against  Revolu- 
tionary France. — Unsuccessful  siege  of  Dun- 
kirk. See  France:  A.  D.  1793  (March — Sep- 
te.mber),  and  (July — December), 

A.  D.  1793-1796. — Popular  feeling  tovyards 
the  French  Revolution. — Small  number  of 
the  English  Jacobins. — Pitt  forced  into  war. — 
Tory  panic  and  reign  of  terror. — -Violence  of 
government  measures. — ' '  That  the  war  [of  Rev- 
olutionary France]  with  Germany  would  widen 
into  a  vast  European  struggle,  a  struggle  iu 
which  the  peoples  would  rise  against  their  op- 
pressors, and  the  freedom  which  France  had  won 
diffuse  itself  over  the  world,  no  French  revolu- 
tionist doubted  for  an  hour.  Nor  did  they  doubt 
that  in  this  struggle  England  would  join  them. 
It  was  from  England  that  they  had  drawn  those 
principles  of  political  and  social  liberty  which  they 
believed  themselves  to  be  putting  into  practice. 
It  was  to  England  that  they  looked  above  all  for 
approbation  and  sympathy.  ...  To  the  revolu- 
tionists at  Paris  the  attitude  of  England  remained 
imintelligible  and  Irritating.  Instead  of  the  aid 
they  had  counted  on,  they  found  but  a  cold  neu- 
trality. .  .  .  But  that  this  attitude  was  that  of 
the  English  people  as  a  whole  was  incredible  to 
the  French  enthusiasts.  .  .  .  Their  first  work 
therefore  they  held  to  be  the  bringing  about  a 
revolution  in  England.  .  .  .  They  strove,  through 
a  number  of  associations  which  had  formed  them- 
selves under  the  name  of  Constitutional  Clubs, 
to  rouse  the  same  spirit  which  they  had  roused 
in  France;  and  the  French  envoy,  Chauvelin, 
protested  warmly  against  a  proclamation  which 
denounced  this  correspondence  as  seditious.  .  .  . 
Burke  was  still  working  hard  in  writings  whose 
extravagance  of  style  was  forgotten  in  their  in- 
tensity of  feeling  to  spread  alarm  throughout 
Europe.  He  had  from  the  first  encouraged  the 
emigrant  princes  to  take  arms,  and  sent  his  son 
to  join  them  at  Coblentz.  'Be  alarmists,' he 
wrote  to  them ;  '  diffuse  terror  1 '  But  the  royalist 
terror  which  he  sowed  would  have  been  of  little 
moment  had  it  not  roused  a  revolutionary  terror 
in  France.  ...  In  November  the  Convention 
decreed  that  France  offered  the  aid  of  her  soldiers 
to  all  nations  who  would  strive  for  freedom.  .  .  . 
In  the  teeth  of  treaties  signed  only  two  years  be- 
fore, and  of  the  stipulation  made  by  England 
when  it  pledged  itself  to  neutrality,  the  French 
Government  resolved  to  attack  Holland,  and 
ordered  its  generals  to  enforce  by  arms  the  open- 
ing of  the  Scheldt  [see  France:  A.  D.  1792-1793 
(December — February)].  To  do  this  was  to 
force  England  into  war.  Public  opinion  was 
already  pressing  every  day  harder  upon  Pitt.  .  .  . 
But  even  while  withdrawing  our  Minister  from 
Paris  on  the  imprisonment  of  the  King,  to  whose 
Court  he  had  been  commissioned,   Pitt  clung 


969 


ENGLAND,  1793-1796. 


English 
Jacobins, 


ENGLAND,  1797. 


stubbornly  to  a  policy  of  peace.  .  .  .  No  hour 
of  Pitt's  life  is  so  great  as  the  hour  when  he  stood 
lonely  and  passionless  before  the  growth  of 
national  passion,  and  refused  to  bow  to  the  gath- 
ering cry  for  war.  .  .  .  But  desperately  as  Pitt 
struggled  for  peace,  his  struggle  was  in  vain. 
.  .  .  Both  sides  ceased  from  diplomatic  communi- 
cations, and  in  February  1793  France  issued  her 
Declaration  of  "War.  From  that  moment  Pitt's 
power  was  at  an  end.  His  pride,  his  immoveable 
firmness,  and  the  general  confidence  of  the  nation, 
still  kept  him  at  the  head  of  affairs  ;  but  he  could 
do  little  save  drift  along  with  a  tide  of  popular 
feeling  which  he  never  fully  understood.  Around 
him  the  country  broke  out  in  a  fit  of  passion  and 
panic  which  rivalled  the  passion  and  panic  over- 
sea. .  .  .  The  partisans  of  Republicanism  were 
in  reality  but  a  few  haudfuls  of  men.  .  .  .  But 
in  the  mass  of  Englishmen  the  dread  of  these 
revolutionists  passed  for  the  hour  into  sheer  panic. 
Even  the  bulk  of  the  Whig  party  believed  prop- 
erty and  the  constitution  to  be  in  peril,  and  for- 
sook Pox  when  he  still  proclaimed  his  faith  in 
France  and  the  Revolution." — J.  R.  Green,  Jlist. 
of  the  Eng.  People,  bk.  9,  ch.  4  (».  4).  — "Burke 
himself  said  that  not  one  man  in  a  hundred  was 
a  Revolutionist.  Fox's  revolutionary  sentiments 
mut  with  no  response,  but  with  general  reproba- 
tion, and  caused  even  his  friends  to  shrink  from 
liis  side.  Of  the  so-called  Jacobin  Societies,  .the 
Society  for  Constitutional  Information  numbered 
only  a  few  hundred  members,  who,  though  they 
held  extreme  opinions,  were  headed  by  men  of 
character,  and  were  quite  incapable  of  treason 
or  violence.  The  Corresponding  Society  was  of 
a  more  sinister  character  ;  but  its  numbers  were 
computed  oulj^  at  6,000,  and  it  was  swallowed  up 
in  the  loyal  masses  of  the  people.  ...  It  is  sad 
to  say  it,  but  when  Pitt  had  once  left  the  path  of 
right,  he  fell  headlong  into  evil.  To  gratify  the 
ignoble  fears  and  passions  of  his  party,  he  com- 
menced a  series  of  attacks  on  English  liberty  of 
speaking  and  writing  which  Mr.  Massey,  a  strong 
anti-revolutionist,  characterizes  as  unparalleled 
since  the  time  of  Charles  I.  The  country  was 
filled  with  spies.  A  band  of  the  most  infamous 
informers  was  called  into  activity  by  the  govern- 
ment. .  .  .  There  was  a  Tory  reign  of  terror,  to 
which  a  slight  increase  of  the  panic  among  the 
upper  classes  would  probably  have  lent  a  redder 
hue.  Among  other  measures  of  repression  the 
Habeas  Corpus  Act  was  suspended ;  and  the  lib- 
erties of  all  men  were  thus  placed  at  the  mercy 
of  the  party  in  power.  ...  In  Scotland  the  Tory 
reign  of  terror  was  worse  than  in  England." — 
Goldwin  Smith,  Tlwee  Engliih  Statesmen,  pp.  339- 
247. — "  The  gaols  were  filled  with  political  delin- 
quents, and  no  man  who  professed  himself  a 
reformer  could  say,  that  the  morrow  might  not 
see  him  a  prisoner  upon  a  charge  of  high  treason. 
.  .  .  But  the  rush  towards  despotism  against 
which  the  Whigs  could  not  stand,  was  arrested 
by  the  people.  Although  the  Habeas  Corpus 
had  fallen,  the  Trial  by  Jury  remained,  and  now, 
as  it  had  done  before,  when  the  alarm  of  fictitious 
plots  had  disposed  the  nation  to  acquiesce  in  the 
surrender  of  its  liberties,  it  opposed  a  barrier 
which  Toryism  could  not  pass."  The  trials  which 
excited  most  interest  were  those  of  Hardy,  who 
organized  the  Corresponding  Society,  and  Home 
Tooke.  But  no  unlawful  conduct  or  treasonable 
designs  could  be  proved  against  them  by  credita- 
ble witnesses,  and  both  were  acquitted.     ' '  The 


public  joy  was  very  general  at  these  acquittals. 
.  .  .  The  war  lost  its  popularity  ;  bread  grew 
scarce  ;  commerce  was  crippled  ;  .  .  .  the  easy 
success  that  had  been  anticipated  was  replaced 
by  reverses.  The  people  clamoured  and  threw 
stones  at  the  king,  and  Pitt  eagerly  took  advan- 
tage of  their  violence  to  tear  away  the  few  shreds 
of  the  constitution  which  j'et  covered  them.  He 
brought  forward  the  Seditious  Meetings  bill, 
and  the  Treasonable  Practices  bill.  Bills  which, 
among  other  provisions,  placed  the  conduct  of 
every  political  meeting  under  the  protection  of  a 
magistrate,  and  rendered  disobedience  to  his  com- 
mand a  felony." — G.  W.  Cooke,  Sist.  of  Party, 
r.  3,  ch.  17. 

Also  in  :  J.  Adolphus,  Hist,  of  Eng. :  Reign 
of  George  III.  ch.  81-89a,/jfZ9.5((\5-6).— J.  Gifford, 
mst.  of  the  Political  Life  of  Win.  Pitt,  ch.  33-24, 
and  38-29  (».  3-4).— W.  Massey,  Sist.  of  Eng.  : 
Reign  of  George  III.,ch.  82-36  (c.  3-4).— E.  Smith, 
The  Story  of  the  English  Jacobins. — A.  Bisset, 
Short  Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Parliament,  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1794. — Campaigns  of  the  Coalition 
against  France. — French  successes  in  the 
Netherlands  and  on  the  Rhine. — Conquest  of 
Corsica. — Naval  victory  of  Lord  Howe.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1794  (M.\rch— July), 

A.  D.  1794. — Angry  relations  with  the 
United  States.— The  Jay  Treaty.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1794-1795. 

A.  D.  1794-1795. —  Withdrawal  of  troops 
from  the  Netherlands. — French  conquest  of 
Holland. — Establishment  of  the  Batavian  Re- 
public.— Crumbling  of  the  European  Coalition. 
See  France:  A.  O.  1794-179.5  (October— May). 

A.  D.  1795. — Disastrous  expedition  to  Qui- 
beron  Bay.     See  Fr.\nce:  A.  D.  1794-1796. 

A.  D.  1795. — Capture  of  the  Cape  of  Good 
Hope  from  the  Dutch.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1793  (.June — December). 

A.  D.  1796  (September). —  Evacuation  and 
abandonment  of  Corsica.  See  France;  A.  D. 
1796  (September). 

A.  D.  1796  (October). —  Unsuccessful  peace 
negotiations  with  the  French  Directory.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1796  (October). 

A.  D.  1796-1798. — Attempted  French  inva- 
sions of  Ireland. — Irish  Insurrection.  See  Ire- 
land: A.  D.  1793-1798. 

A.  D.  1797. — Monetary  panic  and  suspen- 
sion of  specie  payments. — Defeat  of  the  first 
Reform  movement. —  Mutiny  of  the  Fleet. — 
Naval  victories  of  Cape  St.  Vincent  and  Cam- 
perdown. — "The  aspect  of  affairs  in  Britain 
had  never  been  so  clouded  during  the  18th  cen- 
tury as  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  1797.  The 
failure  of  Lord  Malmesbury's  mission  to  Paris 
had  closed  every  hope  of  an  honourable  termina- 
tion to  the  war,  while  of  all  her  original  allies, 
Austria  alone  remained ;  the  national  burdens 
were  continually  increasing,  and  the  three-per- 
cents  had  fallen  to  fifty-one ;  while  party  spirit 
raged  with  uncommon  violence,  and  Ireland  was 
in  a  state  of  partial  insurrection.  A  still  greater 
disaster  resulted  from  the  panic  arising  from  the 
dread  of  invasion,  and  which  produced  such  a 
run  on  all  the  banks,  that  the  Bank  of  England 
itself  was  reduced  to  payment  in  sixpences,  and 
an  Order  in  Council  appeared  (Feb.  26)  for  the 
suspension  of  all  cash  payments.  This  measure, 
at  first  only  temporary,  was  prolonged  from  time 
to  time  by  parliamentary  enactments,  making 
bank-notes  a  legal-tender;  and  it  was  not  till 


970 


ENGLAND,  1797. 


Victories 
at  Sea. 


ENGLAND,  1800. 


1819,  after  the  conclusion  of  peace,  that  the  re- 
currence to  metallic  currency  took  place.  The 
Opposition  deemed  this  a  favourable  opportunity 
to  renew  their  cherished  project  of  parliamen- 
tary reform ;  and  on  26th  May,  Mr.  (afterwards 
Lord)  Grey  brought  forward  a  plan  chiefly  re- 
markable for  containing  the  outlines  of  that  sub- 
sequently earned  into  effect  in  1831.  It  was 
negatived,  however,  after  violent  debates,  by  a 
majority  of  258  against  93.  After  a  similar 
strife  of  parties,  the  motion  for  the  continuance 
of  the  war  was  carried  by  a  great  majority  in 
both  houses;  and  the  requisite  supplies  were 
voted.  .  .  .  Unknown  to  the  government,  great 
discontent  had  for  a  long  time  prevailed  in  the 
navy.  The  exciting  causes  were  principally  the 
low  rate  of  pay  (which  had  not  been  raised 
since  the  time  of  Charles  II.),  the  unequal  distri- 
bution of  prize-money,  and  undue  severity  in 
the  maintenance  of  discipline.  These  grounds  of 
complaint,  with  others  not  less  well  founded, 
gave  rise  to  a  general  conspiracy,  which  broke 
out  (April  15)  in  the  Channel  fleet  under  Lord 
Bridport.  All  the  ships  fell  under  the  power  of 
the  insurgents ;  but  they  maintained  perfect  order, 
and  memorialised  the  Admiralty  and  the  Com- 
mons on  their  grievances:  their  demands  being 
examined  by  government,  and  found  to  be  rea- 
sonable, were  granted ;  and  on  the  7th  of  May 
the  fleet  returned  to  its  duty.  But  scarcely  was 
the  spirit  of  disaffection  quelled  in  this  quarter, 
when  it  broke  out  in  a  more  alarming  form 
(May  22)  among  the  squadron  at  the  Nore,  which 
was  soon  after  (June  6)  joined  by  the  force  which 
had  been  cruising  off  the  Texel  under  Lord  Dun- 
can. The  mutineers  appointed  a  seaman  named 
Parker  to  the  command ;  and,  blockading  the 
mouth  of  the  Thames,  announced  their  demands 
in  such  a  tone  of  menacing  audacity  as  insured 
their  instant  rejection  by  the  government.  This 
second  mutiny  caused  dreadful  consternation  in 
London ;  but  the  firmness  of  the  King  remained 
unshaken,  and  he  was  nobly  seconded  by  the 
parliament.  A  bill  was  passed,  prohibiting  all 
communication  with  the  mutineers  under  pain  of 
deatli.  Sheerness  and  Tilbury  Fort  were  armed 
and  garrisoned  for  the  defence  of  the  Thames ;  and 
the  sailors,  finding  the  national  feelings  strongly 
arraj^ed  against  them,  became  gradually  sensible 
that  their  enterprise  was  desperate.  One  by  one 
the  ships  returned  to  their  duty;  and  on  15th 
June  all  had  submitted.  Parker  and  several 
other  ringleaders  suffered  death;  but  clemency 
was  extended  to  the  multitude.  .  .  .  Notwith- 
standing all  these  dissensions,  the  British  navy 
was  never  more  terrible  to  its  enemies  than  dur- 
ing this  eventful  year.  On  the  14th  of  February, 
the  Spanish  fleet  of  27  sail  of  the  line  and  12 
frigates,  which  had  put  to  sea  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  the  blockade  of  the  French  harbours,  was 
encountered  off  Cape  St.  Vincent  by  Sir  John 
Jarvis,  who  had  only  15  ships  and  6  frigates. 
By  the  old  manoeuvre  of  breaking  the  line,  9  of 
the  Spanish  ships  were  cut  off  from  the  rest; 
and  the  admiral,  while  attempting  to  regain  them 
by  wearing  round  the  rear  of  the  Britisli  line, 
was  boldly  assailed  by  Nelson  and  Collingwood, 
—  the  former  of  whom,  in  the  Captain,  of  74 
guns,  engaged  at  once  two  of  the  enemy's  gigan- 
tic vessels,  the  Santissima  Trinidad  of  136  guns, 
and  the  San  Josef  of  112;  while  the  Salvador  del 
Mundo,  also  of  112  guns,  struck  in  a  quarter  of 
an  hour  to  Collingwood.     Nelson  at  length  car- 


ried the  San  Josef  by  boarding,  and  received  the 
Spanish  admiral's  sword  on  his  own  quarter- 
deck. The  Santissima  Trinidad  —  an  enormous 
four-decker  —  though  her  colours  were  twice 
struck,  escaped  in  the  confusion;  but  the  San 
Josef  and  the  Salvador,  with  two  74-gun  ships, 
remained  in  the  hands  of  the  British ;  and  the 
Spanish  armament,  thus  routed  by  little  more 
than  half  its  own  force,  retired  in  the  deepest 
dejection  to  Cadiz,  which  was  shortly  after  in- 
sulted by  a  bombardment  from  the  gallant  Nel- 
son. A  more  important  victory  than  that  of  Sir 
John  Jarvis  (created  in  consequence  Earl  St. 
Vincent)  was  never  gained  at  sea,  from  the  evi- 
dent superiority  of  skill  and  seamanship  which 
it  demonstrated  in  the  British  navy.  The  battle 
of  St.  Vincent  disconcerted  the  plans  of  Truguet 
for  the  naval  campaign ;  but  later  in  the  season 
a  second  attempt  to  reach  Brest  was  made  by  a 
Dutch  fleet  of  15  sail  of  the  line  and  11  frigates, 
under  the  command  of  De  Winter,  a  man  of 
tried  courage  and  experience.  The  British  block- 
ading fleet,  under  Admiral  Duncan,  consisted  of 
16  ships  and  3  frigates;  and  the  battle  was 
fought  (Oct.  16)  off  Camperdown,  about  nine 
miles  from  the  shore  of  Holland.  The  manoeu- 
vres of  the  British  Admiral  were  directed  to  cut 
off  the  enemy's  retreat  to  his  own  shores ;  and 
this  having  been  accomplished,  the  action  com- 
menced yard-arm  to  yard-arm,  and  continued 
with  the  utmost  fury  for  more  than  tliree  hours. 
The  Dutch  sailors  fought  with  the  most  admi- 
rable skill  and  courage,  and  proved  themselves 
worthy  descendants  of  VanTromp  and  De  Ruy  ter ; 
but  the  prowess  of  the  British  was  irresistible. 
12  sail  of  the  line,  including  the  flagship,  two  56- 
gun  ships,  and  2  frigates,  struck  their  colours; 
but  the  nearness  of  the  shore  enabled  two  of  the 
prizes  to  escape,  and  one  74-gun  ship  foundered. 
The  obstinacy  of  the  conflict  was  evidenced  by 
the  nearly  equal  number  of  killed  and  wounded, 
which  amounted  to  1,040  English,  and  1,160 
Dutch.  .  .  .  The  only  remaining  operations  of 
the  year  were  the  capture  of  Trinidad  in  Febru- 
ary, by  a  force  which  soon  after  was  repulsed 
from  before  Porto  Rico ;  and  an  abortive  attempt 
at  a  descent  in  Pembroke  Bay  by  about  1,400 
French." — Epitome  of  Alison's  Uist.  of  Europe, 
sect.  190-196  {eh.  22,  v.  5— of  complete  work). 

Also  in:  J.  Adolphus,  Hist,  of  Eng.:  Reign  of 
George  III.,  ch.  100-103  («.  6).— R.  Southey,  Life 
of  Nelson,  ch.  4. — E.  J.  De  La  Gravifere,  Sketches  of 
the  Last  Naval  War,  v.  1,  pt.  2. — Capt.  A.  T. 
Mahan,  Influence  of  Sea  Power  on  the  French  Bev. 
and  Empire,  ch.  8  and  11  {v.  1). 

A.  D.  1798  (August). — Nelson's  victory  in  the 
Battle  of  the  Nile.  See  Fuance:  A.  D.  1798 
(May — August). 

A.  D.  1798. — Second  Coalition  against  Revo- 
lutionary France.  See  Fkance:  A.  D.  1798- 
1799  (August — April). 

A.  D.  1799  (April). — Final  war  with  Tippoo 
Saib  (third  Mysore  War).  See  Indlv  :  A.  D. 
1798-1805. 

A.  D.  1799  (August — October). — Expedition 
against  Holland. — Seizure  of  the  Dutch  fleet. 
— Ignominious  ending  of  the  enterprise. — 
Capitulation  ofthe  Duke  of  York.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1799  (April — September),  and  (Septem- 
ber— October), 

A.  D.  1800. — Legislative  union  of  Ireland 
with  Great  Britain. — Creation  of  the  "  United 
Kingdom."     See  Ireland:  A.  D.  1798-1800. 


971 


ENGLAKD,   1801. 


PiWs  last 

Admiii  istration. 


ENGLAND,  1801-1806. 


A.  D.  1801.— The  first  Factory  Act.  See 
Factory  Legislation. 

A.  D.  1801-1802. — Import  of  the  Treaty  of 
Luneville. — Bonaparte's  preparations  for  con- 
flict with  Great  Britain  alone. — Retirement  of 
Pitt. — The  Northern  Maritime  League  and  its 
summary  annihilation  at  Copenhagen. — Ex- 
pulsion of  the  French  from  Egypt. — The  Peace 
of  Amiens.     SccFrakce:  A.  D.  1801-1802, 

A.  D.  1801-1806. — Pitt's  promise  to  the  Irish 
Catholics  broken  by  the  King. — His  resigna- 
tion.— The  Addington  Ministry. — The  Peace 
of  Amiens. — War  resumed. — Pitt  at  the  helm 
again.— His  death.— The  Ministry  of  "  All  the 
Talents." — "  The  union  with  Ireland  introduced 
a  new  topic  of  party  discussion,  which  quickly 
became  only  second  to  that  of  parliamentary  re- 
form. In  transplanting  the  parliament  of  Col- 
lege Green  to  St.  Stephen's,  Pitt  had  transplanted 
the  questions  which  were  there  debated ;  and,  of 
these,  none  had  been  more  important  than  the 
demand  of  the  Catholics  to  be  admitted  to  the 
common  rights  of  citizens.  Pitt,  whose  Toryism 
was  rather  the  imperiousness  of  a  haughty  master, 
than  the  cautious  cowardice  of  the  miser  of 
power,  thought  their  complaints  were  just.  In 
Ms  private  negotiations  with  the  Irish  popular 
leaders  he  probably  promised  that  emancipation 
should  be  the  sequel  to  the  union.  In  his  place 
In  parliament  he  certainly  gave  an  intimation, 
which  from  the  mouth  of  a  minister  could  receive 
no  second  interpretation.  Pitt  was  not  a  min- 
ister who  governed  by  petty  stratagems,  by  am- 
biguous professions,  and  by  skilful  shuffles :  he 
was  at  least  an  honourable  enemy.  He  prepared 
to  fulfil  the  pledge  he  had  given,  and  to  admit 
the  Catholics  within  the  pale  of  the  constitution. 
It  had  been  better  for  the  character  of  George 
III.  had  he  imitated  the  candour  of  his  minister; 
had  he  told  him  that  he  had  made  a  promise  he 
would  not  be  suffered  to  fulfil,  before  he  had  ob- 
tained the  advantage  to  gain  which  that  promise 
had  been  made.  When  Pitt  proposed  Catholic 
emancipation  as  one  of  the  topics  of  the  king's 
speech,  for  the  session  of  1801,  the  royal  negative 
was  at  once  Interposed,  and  when  Dundas  per- 
sisted in  his  attempt  to  overcome  his  master's 
objections,  the  king  abruptly  terminated  the 
conference,  saying,  '  Scotch  metaphysics  cannot 
destroy  religious  obligations. '  Pitt  immediately 
tendered  his  resignation.  .  .  .  All  that  was  bril- 
liant in  Toryism  passed  from  the  cabinet  with 
the  late  minister.  When  Pitt  and  Canning  were 
withdrawn,  with  their  satellites,  nothing  remained 
of  the  Tory  party  but  the  mere  courtiers  who 
lived  upon  the  favour  of  the  king,  and  the  insipid 
lees  of  the  party;  men  who  voted  upon  every 
subject  in  accordance  with  their  one  ruling  idea 
—  the  certain  ruin  which  must  follow  the  first 
particle  of  innovation.  Yet  from  these  relicts 
the  king  was  obliged  to  form  a  new  cabinet, 
for  application  to  the  Whigs  was  out  of  the 
question.  These  were  more  strenuous  for  eman- 
cipation than  Pitt.  Henry  Addington,  Pitt's 
speaker  of  the  house  of  commons,  was  the  person 
upon  whom  the  king's  choice  fell;  and  he  suc- 
ceeded, with  the  assistance  of  the  late  premier, 
In  filling  up  the  offices  at  his  disposal.  .  .  .  The 
peace  of  Amiens  was  the  great  work  of  this  feeble 
administration  [see  France:  A.  D.  1801-1802], 
and  formed  a  severe  commentary  upon  the  boast- 
ings of  the  Tories.  '  Unless  the  monarchy  of 
France  be  restored,'  Pitt  had  said,  eight  years 


before,  '  the  monarchy  of  England  is  lost  for- 
ever.' Eight  years  of  warfare  had  succeeded, 
yet  the  monarchy  of  France  was  not  restored, 
and  the  crusade  was  stayed.  England  had  sur- 
rendered her  conquests,  France  retained  hers; 
the  landmarks  of  Europe  had  been  in  some  de- 
gree restored ;  England,  alone,  remained  bur- 
dened with  the  enduring  consequences  of  the 
ruinous  and  useless  strife.  The  peace  was  ap- 
proved by  the  Whigs,  who  were  glad  of  any 
respite  from  such  a  war,  and  by  Pitt,  who  gave 
his  support  to  the  Addington  administration. 
But  he  could  not  control  his  adherents.  ...  As 
the  instability  of  the  peace  grew  manifest,  the 
incompetency  of  the  administration  became  gen- 
erally acknowledged :  with  Pitt  sometimes  chid- 
ing, Windham  and  Canning,  and  Lords  Spencer 
and  Grenville  continually  attacking,  and  Fox 
and  the  Whigs  only  refraining  from  violent  op- 
position from  a  knowledge  that  if  Addington 
went  out  Pitt  would  be  his  successor,  the  conduct 
of  the  government  was  by  no  means  an  easy  or  a 
grateful  task  to  a  man  destitute  of  commanding 
talents.  When  to  these  parliamentary  difficulties 
were  added  a  recommencement  of  the  war,  and 
a  popular  panic  at  Bonaparte's  threatened  inva- 
sion, Addington's  embarrassments  became  inex- 
tricable. He  had  performed  the  business  which 
Pitt  had  assigned  him ;  he  had  made  an  experi- 
mental peace,  and  had  saved  Pitt's  honour  with 
the  Roman  Catholics.  The  object  of  his  ap- 
pointment he  had  unconsciously  completed,  and 
no  sooner  did  his  predecessor  manifest  an  inten- 
tion of  returning  to  office,  than  the  ministerial 
majorities  began  to  diminish,  and  Addington 
found  himself  without  support.  On  the  12th  of 
April  it  was  announced  that  Mr.  Addington  had 
resigned,  and  Pitt  appeared  to  resume  his  station 
as  a  matter  of  course.  During  his  temporary  re- 
tirement, Pitt  had,  however,  lost  one  section  of 
his  supporters.  The  Grenville  party  and  the 
AVhigs  had  gradually  approximated,  and  the 
former  now  refused  to  come  into  the  new  arrange- 
ments unless  Fox  was  introduced  into  the  cabinet. 
To  this  Pitt  offered  no  objection,  but  the  king 
was  firm  —  or  obstinate.  ...  In  the  following 
year,  Addington  himself,  now  created  Viscount 
Sidmouth,  returned  to  office  with  the  subordinate 
appointment  of  president  of  the  council.  The 
conflagration  had  again  spread  through  Europe. 
.  .  .  Pitt  had  the  mortification  to  see  his  grand 
continental  coalition,  the  produce  of  such  im- 
mense expense  and  the  object  of  such  hope,  shat- 
tered in  one  campaign.  At  home,  Lord  Mel- 
ville, his  most  faithful  political  supporter,  was 
attacked  by  a  charge  from  which  he  could  not 
defend  him,  and  underwent  the  impeachment  of 
the  commons  for  malpractices  in  his  office  as 
treasurer  of  the  navy.  Lord  Sidmouth  and  sev- 
eral others  seceded  from  the  cabinet,  and  Pitt, 
broken  in  health,  and  dispirited  by  reverses,  had 
lost  much  of  his  wonted  energy.  Thus  passed 
away  the  year  1805.  On  the"  23d  of  January, 
1806,  Pitt  expired.  .  .  .  The  death  of  Pitt  was 
the  dissolution  of  his  administration.  The  Tory 
party  was  scattered  in  divisions  and  subdivisions 
innumerable.  Canning  now  recognised  no  po- 
litical leader,  but  retained  his  old  contempt  for 
Sidmouth  and  his  friends,  and  his  hostility  to  the 
Grenvilles  for  their  breach  with  Pitt.  Castle- 
reagh,  William  Dundas,  Hawkesbury,  orBarham, 
although  sufficiently  effective  when  Pitt  was 
present  to  direct  and  to  defend,  would  have  made 


972 


ENGLAND,  1801-1806. 


Abolition  of 
the  Slave  Tj'ade. 


ENGLAND.   1806-1813. 


a  hopeless  figure  without  him  in  face  of  such  an 
opposition  as  the  house  of  commons  now  afforded. 
The  administration,  which  was  ironically  desig- 
nated by  its  opponents  as  '  All  the  Talents, '  suc- 
ceeded. Lord  Grenville  was  first  lord  of  the  treas- 
ury. Fox  chose  the  office  of  secretary  for  foreign 
affairs  with  the  hope  of  putting  an  end  to  the 
war.  Windham  was  colonial  secretary.  Earl 
Spencer  had  the  seals  of  the  home  department. 
Erskine  was  lord  chancellor.  Mr.  Grey  was  first 
lord  of  the  admiralty.  Sheridan,  treasurer  of  the 
iiavy.  Lord  Sidmouth  was  privy  seal.  Lord 
Henry  Petty,  who,  although  now  only  in  his  36th 
year,  had  already  acquired  considerable  distinc- 
tion as  an  eloquent  Whig  speaker,  was  advanced 
to  the  post  of  chancellor  of  the  exchequer,  the 
vacant  chair  of  Pitt.  Such  were  the  men  who 
now  assumed  the  reins  under  circumstances  of 
unparalleled  difficulty." — G.  W.  Cooke,  Hist,  of 
Party,  v.  3,  ch.  17-18. 

Also  in  :  Earl  Stanhope  (Lord  Mahon),  Life  of 
Pitt,  ch.  39-44  (».  3^).— A.  G.  Stapleton,  George 
Canning  and  His  Times,  ch.  6-8. — Earl  Russell, 
Life  and  Times  of  Charles  James  Fox,  ch.  58-69 
<».  3). — G.  Pellew,  Life  and  Corr.  of  Henry  Ad- 
dington,  \st  Viscmint  Sidmouth,  ch.  10-36  (v.  1-3). 

A.  D.  l802  (October).— Protest  against  Bo- 
naparte's interference  in  Svsritzerland. —  His 
extraordinary  reply.  See  Fkance:  A.  D.  1801- 
1808. 

A.  D.  1802-1803. — Bonaparte's  complaints 
and  demands. — The  Peltier  trial. — The  First 
Consul's  rage. — Declaration  of  war. — Napo- 
leon's seizure  of  Hanover. — Cruel  detention 
of  all  English  people  in  France,  Italy,  Switz- 
erland and  the  Netherlands.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1803-1803. 

A.  D.  1804-1809.  —  Difficulties  with  the 
United  States. — Questions  of  neutral  rights. 
— Right  of  Search  and  Impressment. —  The 
American  Embargo.  See  United  States  of 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1804-1809,  and  1808. 

A.  D.  1805  (January— April).— Third  Coali- 
tion against  France.  See  France:  A.  D.  1805 
(.J.\NUARY — April). 

A.  D.  1805. —  Napoleon's  threatened  inva- 
sion.— Nelson's  long  pursuit  of  the  French 
fleet. — His  victory  and  death  at  Trafalgar. — 
The  crushing  of  the  Coalition  at  Austerlitz. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1805  (March — December). 

A.  D.  1806. — Final  seizure  of  Cape  Colony 
from  the  Dutch.  See  South  Africa:  A.  D. 
1486-1806. 

A.  D.  1806. — Cession  of  Hanover  to  Prussia 
by  Napoleon. — War  with  Prussia.  See  Ger- 
many: A.  D.  1806  (.January— August). 

A.  D.  1806. —  Attempted  reinstatement  of 
the  dethroned  King  of  Naples. — The  Battle  of 
Maida.  See  France  :  A.  D.  1805-1806  (Decem- 
ber— September). 

A.  D.  1806.— Death  of  Pitt.— Peace  nego- 
tiations with  Napoleon.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1806  (.January- — October). 

A.  D.  1806-1807.— Expedition  against  Bue- 
nos Ay  res.  See  Argentine  Republic:  A.  D. 
1806-1830. 

A.  D.  1806-1810. — Commercial  warfare  with 
Napoleon. —  Orders  in  Council. —  Berlin  and 
Milan  Decrees.     See  France  :  A.  D.  1806-1810. 

A.  D.  1806-1812.— The  ministry  of  "All  the 
Talents."— Abolition  of  the  Slave  Trade.— 
The  Portland  and  the  Perceval  ministries. — 
Confirmed  insanity  of  George  III. — Beginning 


of  the  regency  of  the  Prince  of  Wales. — As- 
sassination of  Mr.  Perceval. — The  "Ministry 
of  All  the  Talents"  is  "remarkable  solely  for  its 
mistakes,  and  is  to  be  remembered  chiefly  for 
the  death  of  Fox  [September  13,  1806]  and  the 
abolition  of  the  slave-trade.  Fox  was  now  des- 
tined at  the  close  of  his  career  to  be  disillusioned 
with  regard  to  Napoleon.  He  at  last  thoroughly 
realized  the  insincerity  of  his  hero.  .  .  .  The 
second  great  object  of  Fox's  life  he  succeeded  in 
attaining  before  his  death ; —  this  was  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  slave-trade.  For  more  than  thirty 
years  the  question  had  been  before  the  country, 
and  a  vigorous  agitation  had  been  conducted 
by  Clarkson,  Wilberforce,  and  Fox.  Pitt  was 
quite  at  one  with  them  on  this  question,  and  had 
brought  forward  motions  on  the  subject.  The 
House  of  Lords,  however,  rejected  all  measures 
of  this  description  during  the  Revolutionary 
War,  under  the  influence  of  the  Anti-Jacobin 
feeling.  It  was  reserved  for  Fox  to  succeed  in 
carrying  a  Bill  inflicting  heavy  pecuniary  pun- 
ishments on  the  traffic  in  slaves.  And  yet  this 
measure  —  the  sole  fruit  of  Fox's  statesmanship 
—  was  wholly  inadequate;  nor  was  it  till  the 
slave-trade  was  made  felony  in  1811  that  its  final 
extinction  was  secured.  "The  remaining  acts  of 
the  Ministry  were  blunders.  .  .  .  Their  finan- 
cial system  was  a  failure.  They  carried  on  the 
war  so  as  to  alienate  their  allies  and  to  cover 
themselves  with  humiliation.  Finally,  they  in- 
sisted on  bringing  forward  a  measure  for  the 
relief  of  the  Catholics,  though  there  was  not  the 
slightest  hope  of  carrying  it,  and  it  could  only 
cause  a  disruption  of  the  Government.  .  .  .  The 
king  and  the  Pittites  were  determined  to  oppose 
it,  and  so  the  Ministry  agreed  to  drop  the  ques- 
tion under  protest.  George  Insisted  on  their 
withdrawing  the  protest,  and  as  this  was  refused 
he  dismissed  them.  .  .  .  This  then  was  the 
final  triumph  of  George  III.  He  had  success- 
fully dismissed  this  Ministry ;  he  had  maintained 
the  principle  that  every  Ministry  is  bound  to 
withdraw  any  project  displeasing  to  the  king. 
These  principles  were  totally  inconsistent  with 
Constitutional  Government,  and  they  indirectly 
precipitated  Reform  by  rendering  it  absolutely 
necessary  in  order  to  curb  the  royal  influence. 
.  .  .  The  Duke  of  Portland's  sole  claims  to  form 
a  Ministry  were  his  high  rank,  and  the  length  of 
his  previous  services.  His  talents  were  never 
very  great,  and  they  were  weakened  by  age  and 
disease.  "The  real  leader  was  Mr.  Perceval,  the 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  a  dexterous  de- 
bater and  a  patriotic  statesman.  This  Govern- 
ment, being  formed  on  the  closest  Tory  basis  and 
on  the  king's  influence,  was  pledged  to  pursue  a 
retrograde  policy  and  to  oppose  all  measures  of 
Reform.  The  one  really  high-minded  statesman 
in  the  Cabinet  was  Canning,  the  Foreign  Minis- 
ter. His  advanced  views,  however,  continually 
brought  hira  into  collision  with  Castlereagh,  the 
War  Minister,  a  man  of  much  inferior  talents 
and  the  narrowest  Tory  views.  Quarrels  inevita- 
bly arose  between  the  two,  and  there  was  no 
real  Prime  Minister  to  hold  them  strongly  under 
control.  ...  At  last  the  ill-feeling  ended  in  a 
duel,  which  was  followed  by  a  mutual  resigna- 
tion on  the  ground  that  neither  could  serve  with 
the  other.  This  was  followed  by  the  resignation 
of  Portland,  who  felt  himself  wholly  unequal 
to  the  arduous  task  of  managing  the  Ministry 
any  longer.     The  leadership   now  devolved   on 


973 


ENGLAND.  1806-1813. 


The  Regency. 
The  Walcheren  Piasco. 


ENGLAND,  1809. 


Perceval,  'n-ho  found  liimself  in  an  apparently 
hopeless  condition.  His  only  supporters  were 
Lords  Liverpool,  Eldon,  Palmerston,  and  Welles- 
ley.  Neither  Canning,  Castlereagh,  nor  Sidmouth 
(Addington)  would  join  Mm.  The  miserable 
expedition  to  Walcheren  had  just  ended  in  igno- 
miny. The  campaign  in  the  Peninsula  was  re- 
garded as  a  chimerical  enterprise,  got  up  mainly 
for  the  benefit  of  a  Tory  commander.  Certainly 
the  most  capable  man  in  the  Cabinet  was  Lord 
Wellesley,  the  Foreign  Minister,  but  he  was  con- 
tinually thwarted  by  the  incapable  men  he  had 
to  deal  with.  However,  as  long  as  he  remained 
at  the  Foreign  Oflace,  he  supported  the  Peninsu- 
lar War  with  vigour,  and  enabled  his  brother  to 
carry  out  more  effectually  his  plans  with  regard 
to  the  defence  of  Portugal.  In  November,  1810, 
the  king  was  again  seized  with  insanity,  nor  did 
he  ever  recover  the  use  of  his  faculties  during 
the  rest  of  his  life.  The  Ministry  determined  to 
bring  forward  Pitt's  old  Bill  of  1788  in  a  some- 
what more  modified  form,  February,  1811.  The 
Prince  of  Wales  requested  Grey  and  Grenville 
to  criticize  this,  but,  regarding  their  reply  as 
lukewarm,  he  began  to  entertain  an  ill-will  for 
them.  At  this  moment  the  judicious  flattery  of 
his  family  brought  him  over  from  the  Whigs, 
and  he  decided  to  continue  Perceval  in  oflice. 
Wellesley,  however,  took  the  opportunity  to  re- 
sign, and  was  succeeded  by  Castlereagh,  Febru- 
ary, 1812.  In  May  Perceval  was  assassinated  by 
Mr.  Bellingham,  a  lunatic,  and  his  Ministry  at 
once  fell  to  pieces." — B.C.  Skottowe,  Our  Han- 
overian Kings,  bk.  10,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  F.  H.  Hill,  Oeorge  Canning,  ch.  13- 
17. — S.  Walpole,  Life  of  Spencer  Perceval,  v.  2. — 
R.  I.  and  S.  Wilberforce,  Life  of  William  Wilber- 
force,  ch.  20  (c.  3). 

A.  D.  1807.— Act  for  the  Abolition  of  the 
Slave-Trade.  See  Slavery,  Negro;  A.  D. 
1792-1807. 

A.  D.  1807  (February— September).— Opera- 
tions in  support  of  the  Russians  against  the 
Turks  and  French. — Bold  naval  attack  on 
Constantinople  and  humiliating  failure. — Dis- 
astrous expedition  to  Egypt.  See  Turks: 
A.  D.  1806-1807. 

A.  D.  1807  (June— July).— Alliance  formed  at 
Tilsit  between  Napoleon  and  Alexander  I.  of 
Russia.  See  Germany:  A.  D.  1807  (June — 
July). 

A.  D.  1807  (August— November).— Bombard- 
ment of  Copenhagen  and  seizure  of  the  Dan- 
ish fleet. — War  vyith  Russia  and  Denmark. 
See  Scandinavian  States:  A.  D.  1807-1810. 

A.  D.  1807  (October— November).— Submis- 
sion of  Portugal  to  Napoleon  under  English 
advice. — Flight  of  the  house  of  Braganza  to 
Brazil.     See  Portugal:   A.  D.  1807. 

A.  D.  1808  (May).— Ineffectual  attempt  to 
aid  Sweden. — Expedition  of  Sir  John  Moore. 
See  ScANiftNAViAN  States:  A.  D.  1807-1810. 

A.  D.  1808  (July).— Peace  and  alliance  with 
the  Spanish  people  against  the  new  Napo- 
leonic monarchy. — Opening  of  the  Peninsular 
War.   See  Spain  :  A.  D.  1808  (May— Septejiber). 

A.  D.  1808. — Expulsion  of  English  forces 
from  Capri.  See  Italy  (Southern)  :  A.  D.  1808- 
1809. 

A.  D.  1808-1809.— Wellington's  first  cam- 
paign in  the  Peninsula. — Convention  of  Cintra. 
— Evacuation  of  Portugal  by  the  French.— 
Sir  John  Moore's  advance  into  Spain  and  his 


retreat. — His  death  at  Corunna.     See  Spain: 
A.  D.  1808-1809  (August— January). 

A.  D.  1809  (February — July).— 'Wellington 
sent  to  the  Peninsula. — The  passage  of  the 
Douro  and  the  Battle  of  Talavera.  Sue  Spain: 
A.  D.  1809  (Feeru.ary— July). 

A.  D.  1809  (July— December).— The  Wal- 
cheren Expedition. — "  Three  times  before,  dur- 
ing the  war,  it  had  occurred  to  one  or  another, 
connected  with  the  government,  that  it  would  be 
a  good  thing  to  hold  Antwerp,  and  command  the 
Scheldt,  seize  the  French  ships  in  the  river,  and 
get  possession  of  their  arsenals  and  dockyards. 
On  each  occasion,  men  of  military  science  and 
experience  had  been  consulted;  and  invariably 
they  had  pronounced  against  the  scheme.  Now, 
however,  what  Mr.  Pitt  had  considered  imprac- 
ticable. Lord  Castlereagh,  with  the  rashness  of 
incapacity,  resolved  should  be  done:  and,  in 
order  not  to  be  hindered,  he  avoided  consulting 
with  those  who  would  have  objected  to  the  en- 
terprise. Though  the  scene  of  action  was  to  be 
the  swamps  at  the  mouths  of  the  Scheldt,  he  con- 
sulted no  physician.  Having  himself  neither 
naval,  military,  nor  medical  knowledge,  he  as- 
sumed the  responsibility  —  except  such  as  the 
King  and  the  Duke  of  York  chose  to  share.  .  .  . 
It  was  May,  1809,  before  any  stir  was  apparent 
which  could  lead  men  outside  the  Cabinet  to  in- 
fer that  an  expedition  for  the  Scheldt  was  in  con- 
templation ;  but  so  early  as  the  beginning  of  April 
(it  is  now  known),  Mr.  Canning  signified  that  he 
could  not  share  in  the  responsibility  of  an  enter- 
prise which  must  so  involve  his  own  office.  .  .  . 
The  fleet  that  rode  in  the  channel  consisted  of  39 
ships  of  the  line,  and  36  frigates,  and  a  due  pro- 
portion of  small  vessels:  in  all,  245  vessels  of 
war:  and  400  transports  carried  40,000  soldiers. 
Only  one  hospital  ship  was  provided  for  the 
whole  expedition,  though  the  Surgeon  General 
implored  the  grant  of  two  more.  He  gave  his 
reasons,  but  was  refused.  .  .  .  The  naval  com- 
mander was  Sir  Richard  J.  Strachan,  whose  title 
to  the  responsibility  no  one  could  perceive,  while 
many  who  had  more  experience  were  unem- 
ployed. The  military  command  was  given  (as 
the  selection  of  the  present  Cabinet  had  been)  to 
Lord  Chatham,  for  no  better  reason  than  that  he 
was  a  favourite  with  the  King  and  Queen,  who 
liked  his  gentle  and  courtly  manners,  and  his 
easy  and  amiable  temper.  .  .  .  The  fatal  mis- 
take was  made  of  not  defining  the  respective  au- 
thorities of  the  two  commanders;  aud  both  being 
inexperienced  or  apathetic,  each  relied  upon  the 
other  first,  and  cast  the  blame  of  failure  upon  him 
afterwards.  In  the  autumn,  an  epigram  of  un- 
known origin  was  in  every  body's  mouth,  all  over 
England: 
'  Lord  Chatham,  with  his  sword  undrawn. 

Stood  waiting  for  Sir  Richard  Strachan ; 

Sir  Richard,  longing  to  be  at  'em. 

Stood  waiting  for  the  Earl  of  Chatham.' 
The  fleet  set  sail  on  the  28th  of  July,  and  was  on 
the  coast  of  Holland  the  next  day.  The  first  dis- 
covery was  that  there  were  not  boats  enough  to 
land  the  troops  and  the  ordnance.  The  next  was 
that  no  plan  had  been  formed  about  how  to  pro- 
ceed. The  most  experienced  officers  were  for 
pushing  on  to  Antwerp,  45  miles  off,  and  taking 
it  before  it  could  be  prepared  for  defence ;  but 
the  commanders  determined  to  take  Flushing 
first.  They  set  about  it  so  slowly  that  a  fort- 
night was  consumed  in  preparations.      In  two 


974 


ENGLAND,  1809. 


Distress 
and  Disorders. 


ENGLAND,  1812-1813. 


(lays  more,  the  15th  of  August,  Flushing  was 
taken.  After  this.  Lord  Chatham  paused  to  con- 
sider what  lie  should  do  next ;  and  it  was  the  21st 
before  he  began  to  propose  to  go  on  to  Antwerp. 
Tlien  came  the  next  discovery,  that,  by  this  time 
two  intermediate  places  had  been  so  strengthened 
tliat  there  must  be  some  fighting  on  the  way. 
So  he  did  nothing  more  but  take  possession  of 
two  small  islands  near  Flushing.  Not  another 
blow  was  struck ;  not  another  league  was  trav- 
ersed by  this  magnificent  expedition.  But  the 
most  important  discovery  .of  all  now  disclosed 
itself.  The  army  had  been  brought  into  the 
swamps  at  the  beginning  of  the  sickly  season. 
Fever  sprang  up  under  their  feet,  and  3,000  men 
were  in  hospital  in  a  few  days,  just  when  it  be- 
came necessary  to  reduce  the  rations,  because 
provisions  were  falling  short.  On  the  27th  of 
August,  Lord  Chatham  led  a  council  of  war  to 
resolve  that  'it  was  not  advisable  to  pursue 
further  operations. '  But,  if  they  could  not  pro- 
ceed, neitlier  could  they  remain  where  they  were. 
The  enemy  had  more  spirit  than  their  invaders. 
On  the  30th  and  31st,  such  a  fire  was  opened 
from  both  banks  of  the  river,  that  the  ships  were 
obliged  to  retire.  Flushing  was  given  up,  and 
everything  else  except  the  island  of  Walcheren, 
which  it  was  fatal  to  hold  at  this  season.  On  the 
4th  of  September,  most  of  the  ships  were  at 
home  again ;  and  Lord  Chatliam  appeared  on  the 
14th.  Eleven  thousand  men  were  by  that  time 
in  the  fever,  and  he  brouglit  home  as  many  as  he 
could.  Sir  Eyre  Coote,  whom  ho  left  in  com- 
mand, was  dismayed  to  see  all  the  rest  sinking 
down  in  disease  at  the  rate  of  hundreds  in  a  daj'. 
Though  the  men  had  been  working  in  tlie 
swamps,  up  to  the  waist  in  marsh  water,  and  the 
roofs  of  their  sleeping  places  had  been  carried 
off  by  bombardment,  so  that  they  slept  under  a 
canopy  of  autumn  fog,  it  was  supposed  that  a 
supply  of  Thames  water  to  drink  would  stop  the 
sickness ;  and  a  supply  of  500  tons  per  week  was 
transmitted.  At  last,  at  the  end  of  October,  a 
hundred  English  bricklayers,  with  tools,  bricks, 
and  mortar,  were  sent  over  to  mend  the  roofs ; 
but  they  immediately  dropped  into  the  hospitals. 
Then  the  patients  were  to  be  accommodated  in  the 
towns;  but  to  spare  the  inhabitants,  the  soldiers 
were  laid  down  in  damp  churches;  and  their 
bedding  had  from  the  beginning  been  insufficient 
for  their  need.  At  last,  government  desired  the 
cliief  officers  of  the  army  Medical  Board  to  repair 
to  Walcheren,  and  see  what  was  the  precise 
nature  of  the  fever,  and  what  could  be  done. 
The  Surgeon-General  and  the  Physician-General 
threw  the  duty  upon  each  other.  Government 
appointed  it  to  the  Pliysician-General,  Sir  Lucas 
Pepys ;  but  he  refused  to  go.  Both  officers  were 
dismissed,  and  the  medical  department  of  the 
army  was  reorganized  and  greatly  improved. 
The  deatlis  were  at  this  time  from  200  to  300  a 
week.  AVhen  Walcheren  was  evacuated,  on  the 
23rd  of  December,  nearly  half  the  force  sent  out 
five  months  before  were  dead  or  missing ;  and  of 
those  who  returned,  35,000  were  admitted  into 
the  hospitals  of  England  before  the  next  1st  of 
June.  Twenty  millions  sterling  were  spent  on 
this  expedition.  It  was  the  purchase  money  of 
tens  of  thousands  of  deaths,  and  of  ineffaceable 
national  disgrace." — H.  Martineau,  fij«i.  of  Eruj.. 
1800-1815,  bk.  2,  ch.  2. 

Also  in  :  C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Eng. ,  v. 
7,  ch.  29. 


A.  D.  1809  (August  — December). —  Difficul- 
ties of  Wellington's  campaign  in  the  Penin- 
sula.— His  retreat  into  Portugal.  See  Spaik: 
A.  D.  1809  (August— December). 

A.  D.  1810. — Capture  of  the  Mauritius.  See 
India:  A.  D.  180.5-1816. 

A.  D.  1810-1812.— The  War  in  the  Penin- 
sula.— Wellington's  Lines  of  Torres  Vedras. — 
French  recoil  from  them. — English  advance 
into  Spain.  See  Spain:  A.  D.  1809-1810  (Oc- 
tober— September),  and  1810-1812. 

A.  D.  i8ii.  —  Capture  of  Java  from  the 
Dutch.     See  India:  A.  D.  180.5-1816. 

A.  D.  1811-1812. — Desertion  of  Napoleon's 
Continental  System  by  Russia  and  Sweden. — 
Reopening  of  their  ports  to  British  com- 
merce.    See  Francj=:  A.  D.  1810-1813. 

A.  D.  1812  (January). — Building  of  the  first 
passenger  Steam-boat.  See  Steam  Naviga- 
tion: The  Beginnings. 

A.  D.  i8i2(June — August). — The  Peninsular 
War. — Wellington's  victory  at  Salamanca 
and  advance  to  Madrid.  See  Spain:  A.  D.  1813 
(June — August). 

A.  D.  1812-1813. — The  Liverpool  Ministry. 
— Business  depression  and  bad  harvests. — 
Distress  and  rioting. — The  Luddites. — "  Again 
there  was  mucli  negotiation,  and  an  attempt  to 
introduce  Lord  Wellesley  and  Mr.  Canning  to  the 
ministry.  Of  course  they  could  not  serve  with 
Castlereagh ;  they  were  then  asked  to  form  a 
ministry  with  Grenville  and  Grey,  but  these 
Lords  objected  to  the  Peninsular  War,  to  which 
Wellesley  was  pledged.  Grenville  and  Grey  then 
attempted  a  ministry  of  their  own  but  quarrelled 
with  Lord  Moira  on  the  appointments  to  the 
Household ;  and  as  an  American  war  was  threat- 
ening, and  the  ministrj^  had  already  given  up 
their  Orders  in  Council  (one  of  the  chief  causes 
of  their  unpopularity),  the  Regent  rather  than 
remain  longer  without  a  ministry,  intrusted  Lord 
Liverpool  with  the  Premiership,  with  Castlereagh 
as  his  Foreign  Secretary,  and  the  old  ministry 
remained  in  office.  Before  the  day  of  triumph 
of  this  ministry  arrived, while  Napoleon  was  still 
at  the  height  of  his  power,  and  the  success  of 
AVellington  as  yet  imcertain,  England  had  drifted 
into  war  with  America.  It  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  this  useless  war  might  not  have  been  avoided 
had  the  ministers  been  men  of  ability.  It  arose 
from  the  obstinate  manner  in  which  the  Govern- 
ment clung  to  the  execution  of  their  retaliatory 
measures  against  France,  regardless  of  the  prac- 
tical injury  they  were  inflicting  upon  all  neutrals. 
.  .  .  The  same  motive  of  class  aggrandizement 
which  detracts  from  the  virtue  of  the  foreign 
policy  of  this  ministry  underlay  the  whole  ad- 
ministration of  home  affairs.  There  was  an  in- 
capacity to  look  at  public  affairs  from  any  but  a 
class  or  aristocratic  point  of  view.  The  natural 
consequence  was  a  constantly  increasing  mass  of 
discontent  among  the  lower  orders,  only  kept  in 
restraint  by  an  overmastering  fear  felt  by  all 
those  higher  in  rank  of  the  possible  revolutionary 
tendencies  of  any  attempt  at  change.  Much  of 
the  discontent  was  of  course  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  circumstances  in  which  England 
was  placed,  and  for  which  the  Government  was 
only  answerable  in  so  far  as  it  created  those  cir- 
cumstances. At  the  same  time  it  is  impossible 
not  to  blame  the  complacent  manner  in  which 
the  misery  was  ignored  and  the  occasional  success 
of  individual  merchants  and  contractors  regarded 


975 


ENGLAND,  1812-1813. 


Agitation  and 

Riot. 


ENGLAND,  1816-1820. 


as  evidences  of  national  prosperity.  ...  A  plen- 
tiful harvest  in  1813,  and  the  opening  of  many 
continental  ports,  did  much  to  revive  both  trade 
and  manufactures;  but  it  was  accompanied  by 
a  fall  in  the  price  of  corn  from  171s.  to  75s. 
The  consequence  was  widespread  distress  among 
the  agriculturists,  which  involved  the  country 
banks,  so  that  in  the  two  following  years  240  of 
them  stopped  payment.  So  great  a  crash  could 
not  fail  to  affect  the  manufacturing  interest  also ; 
apparently,  for  the  instant,  the  very  restoration 
of  peace  brought  widespread  ruin.  .  .  .  Before 
the  end  of  the  year  1811,  wages  had  sunk  to  7s. 
6d.  a  week.  The  manufacturing  operatives  were 
therefore  in  a  state  of  absolute  misery.  Petitions 
signed  by  40,000  or  50,000  men  urged  upon  Par- 
liament that  they  were  starving ;  but  there  was 
another  class  which  fared  still  worse.  Machinery 
had  by  no  means  superseded  hand- work.  Li  thou- 
sands of  hamlets  and  cottages  handlooms  still 
existed.  The  work  was  neither  so  good  nor  so 
rapid  as  work  done  by  machinery ;  even  at  the 
be§t  of  times  used  chiefly  as  an  auxiliary  to 
agriculture,  this  hand  labour  could  now  scarcely 
find  employment  at  all.  Not  unnaturally,  with- 
out work  and  without  food,  these  hand  workers 
were  very  ready  to  believe  that  it  was  the  ma- 
chinery which  caused  their  ruin,  and  so  in  fact  it 
was ;  the  change,  though  on  the  whole  beneficial, 
had  brought  much  individual  misery.  The  people 
were  not  wise  enough  to  see  this.  They  rose  in 
riots  in  many  parts  of  England,  chiefly  about 
Nottingham,  calling  themselves  Luddites  (from 
the  name  of  a  certain  idiot  lad  who  some  30  years 
before  had  broken  stocking-frames),  gathered 
round  them  many  of  the  disbanded  soldiery  with 
whom  the  country  was  thronged,  and  with  a  very 
perfect  secret  organization,  carried  out  their 
object  of  machine-breaking.  The  unexpected 
thronging  of  the  village  at  nightfall,  a  crowd  of 
men  with  blackened  faces,  armed  sentinels  hold- 
ing every  approach,  silence  on  all  sides,  the  vil- 
lage inhabitants  cowering  behind  closed  doors, 
an  hour  or  two's  work  of  smashing  and  buroing, 
and  the  disappearance  of  the  crowd  as  rapidly  as 
it  had  arrived — such  were  the  incidents  of  the 
night  riots." — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  period 
3,  pp.  1325-1832. 

Also  m:  C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Eng., 
V.  7,  ch.  30. — Pictorial  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  8,  ch.  4 
(Beign.  of  George  III.,  v.  4). 

A.  D.  1812-1815.— War  with  the  United 
States.  See  United  States  op  Am.  •  A.  D. 
1804-1809;  1808;  and  1810-1812,  to  1815  (J anu- 
akt). 

A.  D.  1813  (June). — Joined  with  the  new 
European  Coalition  against  Napoleon.  See 
GEKM.VNY:  A.  D.  1813  (.AIay— Aut^rsT). 

A.  D.  1813-1814. — Wellington's  victorious 
and  final  campaigns  in  the  Peninsular  War. 
See  Spain:  A.  D.  1812-1814. 

A.  D.  1813-1816.— War  with  the  Ghorkas  of 
Nepal.     See  India:  A.  D.  1805-1816. 

A.  D.  1814. — The  allies  in  France  and  in 
possession  of  Paris. — Fall  of  Napoleon.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1814  (Januaky — 3Iarch),  and 
(March — April). 

A.  D.  1814  (May— June).— Treaty  of  Paris.— 
Acquisition  of  Malta,  the  Isle  of  France  and 
the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1814  (Apkil — June). 

A.  D.  1814  (December).- The  Treaty  of 
Ghent,    terminating    war    with    the    United 


States.     See  United  States  op  Am.  :   A.  D. 
1814  (December). 

A.  D.  1814-1815.— The  Congress  of  Vienna 
and  its  revision  of  the  map  of  Europe.  See 
ViEXN.\,  The  Congress  of. 

A.  D.  1815  (March).— The  Corn  Law.  See 
Tariff  Legislation  (England);  A.  D.  1815- 
1838. 

A.  D.  1815  (June).  — The  Waterloo  cam- 
paign.—  Defeat  and  final  Overthrow  of  Na- 
poleon.    See  France:  A.  D.  1815  (.June). 

A.  D.  1815  (July— August).  — Surrender  of 
Napoleon. — His  confinement  on  the  Island  of 
St.  Helena.  See  France:  A.  D.  1815  (June — 
August). 

A.  D.  i8i5(July— November).— Wellington's 
army  in  Paris. —  The  Second  Treaty.  See 
Fr.ance:  a.  D.  1815  (July— No\t:mber). 

A.  D.  181S  (September).— The  Holy  Alliance. 
See  Holy  Alli.ance. 

A.  D.  1816-1820.— Agitation  for  Parliamen- 
tary Reform. —  Hampden  Clubs. —  Spencean 
philanthropists. — Trials  of  William  Hone. — 
The  Spa-fields  meeting  and  riot. — March  of 
the  Blanketeers. — Massacre  of  Peterloo. — The 
Six  Acts. — Death  of  George  III.— Accession 
of  George  IV. — "From  this  time  the  name  of 
Parliamentary  Reform  became,  for  the  most  part, 
a  name  of  terror  to  the  Government.  ...  It 
passed  away  from  the  patronage  of  a  few  aristo- 
cratic lovers  of  popularity,  to  be  advocated  by 
writers  of  '  two-penny  trash,'  and  to  be  discussed 
aud  organized  by  '  Hampden  Clubs '  of  hunger- 
ing philanthropists  aud  unemployed  '  weaver- 
boys.'  Samuel  Bamford,  who  thought  it  no  dis- 
grace to  call  himself  'a  Radical'.  .  .  says,  'at 
this  time  (1816)  the  writings  of  William  Cobbett 
suddenly  became  of  great  authority ;  they  were 
read  on  nearly  every  cottage  hearth  in  the  manu- 
facturing disti-icts  of  South  Lancashire,  in  those 
of  Leicester,  Derby,  and  Nottingham;  also  in 
many  of  the  Scottish  manufacturing  towns.  Their 
influence  was  speedily  visible.'  Cobbett  ad- 
vocated Parliamentary  Reform  as  the  corrective 
of  whatever  miseries  the  lower  classes  suffered. 
A  new  order  of  politicians  was  called  into  action : 
'  The  Sunday-schools  of  the  preceding  thirty  years 
had  produced  many  working  men  of  suflicient 
talent  to  become  readers,  writers,  and  speakers  in 
the  village  meetings  for  Parliamentary  Reform ; 
some  also  were  found  to  possess  a  rude  poetic 
talent,  which  rendered  their  effusions  popular, 
and  bestowed  an  additional  charm  on  their  assem- 
blages ;  and  by  such  various  means,  anxious  lis- 
teners at  first,  and  then  zealous  proselytes,  were 
drawn  from  the  cottages  of  quiet  nooks  and  din- 
gles to  the  weekly  readings  and  discussions  of 
the  Hampden  Clubs.'.  .  .  In  a  Report  of  the 
Secret  Committee  of  the  House  of  Commons,  pre- 
sented on  the  19th  of  February,  1817,  the  Hamp- 
den Clubs  are  described  as  '  associated  profess- 
edly for  the  purpose  of  Parliamentary  Reform, 
upon  the  most  extended  principle  of  universal 
suffrage  and  annual  parliaments ' ;  but  that  '  in 
far  the  greater  number  of  them  .  .  .  nothing 
short  of  a  Revolution  is  the  object  expected  and 
avowed.'  The  testimony  of  Samuel  Bamford 
shows  that,  in  this  early  period  of  their  history, 
the  Hampden  Clubs  limited  their  object  to  the 
attainment  of  Parliamentary  Reform.  .  .  .  Bam- 
ford, at  the  beginning  of  1817,  came  to  London 
as  a  delegate  from  the  Middleton  Club,  to  attend 
a  great  meeting  of  delegates  to  be  assembled  in 


976 


ENGLAND,  1816-1830. 


The  Blanketeers 
and  Peterloo. 


ENGLAND,  1816-1820. 


London.  .  .  .  The  Middleton  delegate  was  in- 
troduced, amidst  the  reeking  tobacco-fog  of  a  low 
tavern,  to  the  leading  members  of  a  society  called 
the  '  Spencean  Philanthropists.'  They  derived 
their  name  from  that  of  a  Mr.  Spence,  a  school- 
master in  Yorkshire,  who  had  conceived  a  plan 
for  making  the  nation  happy,  by  causing  all  the 
lands  of  the  country  to  become  the  property  of 
the  State,  which  State  should  divide  all  the  pro- 
duce for  the  support  of  the  people.  .  .  .  The 
Committee  of  the  Spenceans  openly  meddled 
with  sundry  grave  questions  besides  that  of  a 
community  in  land;  and,  amongst  other  notable 
projects,  petitioned  Parliament  to  do  away  with 
'machinery.  Amongst  these  fanatics  some  dan- 
gerous men  had  established  themselves,  such  as 
Thistlewood,  who  subsequently  paid  the  penalty 
of  five  years  of  maniacal  plotting."  A  meeting 
held  at  Spa-fields  on  the  2d  of  December,  1816,  in 
the  interest  of  the  Spencean  Philanthropists,  ter- 
minated in  a  senseless  outbreak  of  riot,  led  by  a 
young  fanatic  named  Watson.  The  mob  plun- 
dered some  gunsmiths'  shops,  shot  one  gentleman 
who  remonstrated,  and  set  out  to  seize  the  Tower ; 
but  was  dispersed  by  a  few  resolute  magistrates 
and  constables.  "It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a 
more  degraded  and  dangerous  position  than  that 
In  which  every  political  writer  was  placed  during 
the  year  1817.  In  the  first  place,  he  was  subject, 
by  a  Secretary  of  State's  warrant,  to  be  impris- 
oned upon  suspicion,  under  the  Suspension  of 
the  Habeas  Corpus  Act.  Secondly,  he  was  open 
to  an  ex-officio  information,  under  which  he 
would  be  compelled  to  find  bail,  or  be  imprisoned. 
The  power  of  ex-offlcio  information  had  been  ex- 
tended so  as  to  compel  bail,  by  an  Act  of  1808; 
but  from  1808  to  1811,  during  which  three  years 
forty  such  informations  were  laid,  only  one  per- 
son was  held  to  bail.  In  1817  numerous  ex-offlcio 
informations  were  filed,  and  the  almost  invariable 
practice  then  was  to  hold  the  alleged  offender  to 
bail,  or,  in  default,  to  commit  to  prison.  Under 
this  Act  Mr.  Hone  and  others  were  committed  to 
prison  during  this  year.  .  .  .  The  entire  course 
of  these  proceedings  was  a  signal  failure.  There 
was  only  one  solitary  instance  of  success  —  Wil- 
liam Cobbett  ran  away.  On  the  28th  of  March 
he  fled  to  America,  suspending  the  publication  of 
his  '  Register '  for  four  mouths.  On  the  12th  of 
May  earl  Grey  mentioned  in  the  House  of  Lords 
that  a  Mr.  Hone  was  proceeded  against  for  pub- 
lishing some  blasphemous  parody;  but  he  had 
read  one  of  the  same  nature,  written,  printed, 
and  published,  some  years  ago,  by  other  people, 
without  any  notice  havmg  been  officially  taken 
of  it.  The  parody  to  which  earl  Grey  al- 
luded, and  a  portion  of  which  he  recited,  was 
Canning's  famous  parody,  '  Praise  Lepaux  ' ;  and 
he  asked  whether  the  authors,  be  they  in  the 
cabinet  or  in  any  other  place,  would  also  be  found 
out  and  visited  with  the  penalties  of  the  law  ? 
This  hint  to  the  obscure  publisher  against  whom 
these  ex-officio  informations  had  been  filed  for 
blasphemous  and  seditious  parodies,  was  effec- 
tually worked  out  by  him  in  the  solitude  of  his 
prison,  and  in  the  poor  dwelling  where  he  had 
surrounded  himself,  as  he  had  done  from  his 
earliest  j'ears,  with  a  collection  of  odd  and  curious 
books.  Prom  these  he  had  gathered  an  abun- 
dance of  knowledge  that  was  destined  to  perplex 
the  technical  acquirements  of  the  Attorney-Gen- 
eral, to  whom  the  sword  and  buckler  of  his  pre- 
cedents would  be  wholly  useless,  and  to  change 

977 


the  determination  of  the  boldest  judge  in  the  land 

[Lord  Ellenborough]  to  convict  at  any  rate,  into 
tlie  prostration  of  helpless  despair.  Altogether, 
the  three  trials  of  William  Hone  are  amongst  the 
most  remarkable  in  our  constitutional  history. 
They  produced  more  distinct  effects  upon  the 
temper  of  the  country  than  any  public  proceed- 
ings of  that  time.  They  taught  the  Government 
a  lesson  which  has  never  been  forgotten,  and  to 
which,  as  much  as  to  any  other  cause,  we  owe 
the  prodigious  improvement  as  to  the  law  of 
libel  itself,  and  the  use  of  the  law,  in  our  own 
day, — an  improvement  which  leaves  what  is  dan- 
gerous in  the  press  to  be  corrected  by  the  reme- 
dial power  of  the  press  itself ;  and  which,  instead 
of  lamenting  over  the  newly-acquired  ability  of 
the  masses  to  read  seditious  and  irreligious  works, 
depends  upon  the  general  diffusion  of  this  ability 
as  the  surest  corrective  of  the  evils  that  are  in- 
cident even  to  the  best  gift  of  heaven, —  that  of 
knowledge." — C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Eng., 
V.  8,  ch.  5.— In  1817  "there  was  widespread  dis- 
tress. There  were  riots  in  the  counties  of  Eng- 
land arising  out  of  the  distress.  There  were  riots 
in  various  parts  of  London.  Secret  Committees 
were  appointed  by  both  Houses  of  the  Legisla- 
ture to  inquire  into  the  alleged  disaffection  of 
part  of  the  people.  The  Habeas  Corpus  Act  was 
suspended.  The  march  of  the  Blanketeers  from 
Manchester  [March,  1817]  caused  panic  and  con- 
sternation through  various  circles  in  London. 
The  march  of  the  Blanketeers  was  a  very  simple 
and  harmless  project.  A  large  number  of  the 
working-men  in  Slanchester  conceived  the  idea 
of  walking  to  London  to  lay  an  account  of  their 
distress  before  the  heads  of  the  Government,  and 
to  ask  that  some  remedy  might  be  found,  and 
also  to  appeal  for  the  granting  of  Parliamentary 
reform.  It  was  part  of  their  arrangement  that 
each  man  should  carry  a  blanket  with  him,  as 
they  would,  necessarily,  have  to  sleep  at  many 
places  along  the  way,  and  they  were  not  exactly  in 
funds  to  pay  for  first-class  hotel  accommodation. 
The  nickname  of  Blanketeers  was  given  to  them 
because  of  their  portable  sleeping-arrangements. 
The  whole  project  was  simple,  was  touching  in 
its  simplicity.  Even  at  this  distance  of  time  one 
cannot  read  about  it  without  being  moved  by  its 
pathetic  childishness.  These  poor  men  thought 
they  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  walk  to  London, 
and  get  to  speech  of  Lord  Liverpool,  and  justice 
would  be  done  to  them  and  their  claims.  The 
Government  of  Lord  Liverpool  dealt  very  roundly, 
and  in  a  very  different  way,  with  the  Blanket- 
eers. If  the  poor  men  had  been  marching  on 
London  with  pikes,  muskets  and  swords,  they 
could  not  have  created  a  greater  fury  of  panic 
and  of  passion  in  official  circles.  The  Government, 
availing  itself  of  the  suspension  of  the  Habeas 
Corpus  Act,  had  the  leaders  of  the  movement 
captured  and  sent  to  prison,  stopped  the  march 
by  military  force,  and  dispersed  those  who  were 
taking  part  in  it.  .  .  .  The  '  Massacre  of  Peter- 
loo,' as  it  is  not  inappropriately  called,  took  place 
not  long  after.  A  great  public  meeting  was  held 
[August  16,  1819]  at  St.  Peter's  Field,  then  on  the 
outskirts  of  Manchester,  now  the  site  of  the  Free 
Trade  Hall,  which  many  years  later  rang  so  often 
to  the  thrilling  tones  of  John  Bright.  The  meet- 
ing was  called  to  petition  for  Parliamentary  re- 
form. It  should  be  remembered  that  in  those 
days  Manchester,  Birmingham,  and  other  great 
cities  were  without  any  manner  of  representation 


ENGLAND,  1816-1820. 


TriaC  of 
Queen  Caroline, 


ENGLAND,  1820-1837 


in  Parliament.  It  was  a  vast  meeting  —  some 
80,000  men  and  women  are  stated  to  have  been 
present.  The  yeomanry  [a  mounted  militia 
force],  for  some  reason  impossible  to  understand, 
endeavoured  to  disperse  the  meeting,  and  actually 
dashed  in  upon  the  crowd,  spurring  their  horses 
and  flourishing  their  sabres.  Eleven  persons  were 
killed,  and  several  hundreds  were  wounded.  The 
Government  brought  in,  as  their  panacea  for 
popular  trouble  and  discontent,  the  famous  Six 
Acts.  These  Acts  were  simply  measures  to 
render  it  more  easy  for  the  authorities  to  put 
down  or  disperse  meetings  which  they  consid- 
ered objectionable,  and  to  suppress  any  manner 
of  publication  wliich  they  chose  to  call  seditious. 
But  among  tliem  were  some  Bills  to  prevent 
training  and  drilling,  and  the  collection  and  use 
of  arms.  These  measures  show  what  the  panic 
of  the  Government  was.  It  was  the  conviction 
of  the  ruling  classes  that  the  poor  and  the  work- 
ing-classes of  England  were  preparing  a  revolu- 
tion. .  .  .  During  all  this  time,  the  few  genuine 
Radicals  in  the  House  of  Commons  were  bring- 
ing on  motion  after  motion  for  Parliamentary  re- 
form, just  as  Grattan  and  his  friends  were  bring- 
ing forward  motion  after  motion  for  Catholic 
Emancipation.  In  1818,  a  motion  by  Sir  Francis 
Burdett  for  annual  Parliaments  and  universal 
suffrage  was  lost  by  a  majority  of  106  to  nobody. 
.  .  .  The  motion  had  only  two  supporters  — 
Burdett  himself,  and  his  colleague.  Lord  Coch- 
rane. .  .  .  The  forms  of  the  House  require  two 
tellers  on  either  side,  and  a  compliance  with  this 
inevitable  rule  took  up  the  whole  strength  of 
Burdett's  party.  ...  On  January  29,  1820,  the 
long  reign  of  George  III.  came  to  an  end.  The 
life  of  the  King  closed  in  darlvness  of  eyes  and 
mind.  Stone-blind,  stone-deaf,  and,  except  for 
rare  lucid  intervals,  wholly  out  of  his  senses,  the 
poor  old  King  wandered  from  room  to  room  of 
his  palace,  a  touching  picture,  with  his  long, 
white,  flowing  beard,  now  repeating  to  himself 
the  awful  words  of  Milton  —  the  'dark,  dark, 
dark,  amid  the  blaze  of  noon  —  irrecoverably 
dark ' —  now,  in  a  happier  mood,  announcing  him- 
self to  be  in  the  companionship  of  angels.  George, 
the  Prince  Regent,  succeeded,  of  course,  to  the 
throne ;  and  George  TV.  at  once  announced  his 
willingness  to  retain  the  services  of  the  Ministry 
of  Lord  Liverpool.  The  Whigs  had  at  one  time 
expected  much  from  the  coming  of  George  IV. 
to  the  throne,  but  their  hopes  had  begun  to  be 
chilled  of  late." — J.  McCarthy,  Sir  Robert  Peel, 
ell.  3. 

Also  in  ;  J.  Routledge,  Chapters  in  tlie  Hist, 
of  Popular  Progress,  ch.  12-19. — H.  Martineau, 
ilist.  of  the  Thirti/  Tears'  Peace,  bk.  1,  ch.  5-17 
(!).  1).— E.  Smith,  William  Cobbett,  ch.  21-23  {v.  2). 
— See,  also,  Tarifp  Legislation  (England): 
A.  D.  1815-1838. 

A.  D.  i8i8.— Convention  with  the  United 
States  relating  to  Fisheries,  etc.  See  Fish- 
eries, North  American  :  A.  D.  1814-1818. 

A.  D.  1820.— Accession  of  King  George  IV. 

A.  D.  1820-1822. — Congresses  of  Troppau, 
Laybach  and  Verona. — Projects  of  the  Holy 
Alliance. — English  protests. — Canning's  pol- 
icy towards  Spain  and  the  Spanish  American 
colonies.     See  Verona,  The  Congress  op. 

A.  D.  1820-1827.— TheCato  Street  Conspir- 
acy.— Trial  of  Queen  Caroline. — Canning  in 
the  Foreign  Office. — Commercial  Crisis  of 
1825. —  Canning    as    Premier. —  His    death. — 


"Riot  and  social  misery  had,  during  the  Re- 
gency, heralded  the  Reign.  They  did  not  cease 
to  afflict  the  country.  At  once  we  are  plunged  into 
the  wretched  details  of  a  conspiracy.  Secret  intel- 
ligence reached  the  Home  Office  to  the  effect  that 
a  man  named  Thistlewood,  who  had  been  a  year 
in  jail  for  challenging  Lord  Sidmouth,  had  with 
several  accomplices  laid  a  plot  to  murder  the 
Ministers  during  a  Cabinet  dinner,  which  was  to 
come  off  at  Lord  Harrowby's.  The  guests  did 
not  go,  and  the  police  pounced  on  the  gang, 
arming  themselves  in  a  stable  in  Cato  Street,  off 
the  Edgeware  Road.  Thistlewood  blew  out  the 
candle,  having  first  stabbed  a  policeman  to  the 
heart.  For  that  night  he  got  off;  but,  being 
taken  next  day,  he  was  soon  hanged,  with  his 
four  leading  associates.  This  is  called  the  Cato 
Street  Conspiracy.  .  .  .  George  IV.,  almost  as 
soon  as  the  crown  became  his  own,  began  to  stir 
in  the  matter  of  getting  a  divorce  from  his  wife. 
He  had  married  this  poor  Princess  Caroline  of 
Brunswick  in  1795,  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  his  debts  paid.  Their  first  interview 
disappointed  both.  After  some  time  of  semi- 
banishment  to  Blackheath  she  had  gone  abroad 
to  live  chiefly  in  Italy,  and  had  been  made  the 
subject  of  more  than  one  '  delicate  investigation ' 
for  the  purpose  of  procuring  evidence  of  infidel- 
ity against  her.  She  now  came  to  England  (Juno 
6,  1830),  and  passed  from  Dover  to  London 
through  joyous  and  sympathizing  crowds.  The 
King  sent  a  royal  message  to  the  Lords,  asking 
for  an  inquiry  into  her  conduct.  Lord  Liver- 
pool and  Lord  Castlereagh  laid  before  the  Lords 
and  Commons  a  green  bag,  stuffed  with  indecent 
and  disgusting  accusations  against  the  Queen. 
Happily  for  her  she  had  two  champions,  whose 
names  shall  not  readily  lose  the  lustre  gained  in 
her  defence  —  Henry  Brougham  and  Thomas 
Denman,  her  Attorney-General  and  Solicitor- 
General.  After  the  failure  of  a  negotiation,  in 
which  the  Queen  demanded  two  things  that  the 
Ministers  refused  —  the  insertion  of  her  name  in 
the  Liturgy,  and  a  proper  reception  at  some  for- 
eign court — Lord  Liverpool  brought  into  the 
Upper  House  a  '  Bill  of  Pains  and  Penalties, ' 
which  aimed  at  her  degradation  from  the  throne 
and  the  dissolution  of  her  marriage.  Through 
the  fever-heat  of  a  scorching  summer  the  case 
went  on,  counsel  and  witnesses  playing  their 
respective  parts  before  the  Lords.  ...  At  length 
the  Bill,  carried  on  its  third  reading  by  a  major- 
ity of  only  nine,  was  abandoned  by  the  Ministry 
(November  10).  And  the  country  broke  out  into 
cheers  and  flaming  windows.  Had  she  rested 
content  with  the  vindication  of  her  fair  fame,  it 
would  have  been  better  for  her  own  peace.  But 
she  went  in  public  procession  to  St.  Paul's  to  re- 
turn thanks  for  her  victory.  And  more  rashly 
still  in  the  following  year  she  tried  to  force  her 
way  into  Westminster  Abbey  during  the  Coro- 
nation of  her  husband  (July  19, 1821).  But  mercy 
came  a  few  days  later  from  the  King  of  kings. 
The  people,  true  to  her  even  in  death,  insisted 
that  the  hearse  containing  her  remains  should 
pass  through  the  city;  and  in  spite  of  bullets 
from  the  carbines  of  dragoons  they  gained  their 
point,  the  Lord  Mayor  heading  the  procession 
till  it  had  cleared  the  streets.  .  .  .  George  Can- 
ning had  resigned  his  office  rather  than  take  any 
part  with  the  Liverpool  Cabinet  in  supporting 
the  '  Bill  of  Pains  and  Penalties, '  and  had  gone 
to  the  Continent  for  the  summer  of  the  trial  year. 


978 


ENGLAND,  1820-1837. 


Disabilities  of 
Dissenters  Removed. 


ENGLAND,  1837-1838. 


Early  in  1823  Lord  Sidmouth  .  .  .  resigned  the 
Home  Office.  He  was  succeeded  by  Robert 
Peel,  a  statesman  destined  to  acliieve  eminence. 
Canning-  about  tiie  same  time  was  offered  the 
post  of  Governor-General  of  India,"  and  accepted 
it ;  but  this  arrangement  was  suddenly  changed 
by  the  death  of  Castlereagh,  who  committed  sui- 
cide in  August.  Canning  then  became  Foreign 
Secretary.  "The  spirit  of  Canning's  foreign 
policy  was  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  Lon- 
donderry [Castlereagh].  .  .  .  Refusing  to  inter- 
fere in  Spanish  affairs,  he  yet  acknowledged  the 
new-won  freedom  of  the  South  American  States, 
which  had  lately  shaken  off  the  Spanish  yoke. 
To  preserve  peace  and  yet  cut  England  loose 
from  the  Holy  Alliance  were  the  conflicting  aims, 
which  the  genius  of  Canning  enabled  him  to 
reconcile  [see  Verona,  Congress  of].  .  .  . 
During  the  years  1834-25,  the  country,  drunk 
with  unusual  prosperity,  took  that  speculation 
fever  which  has  afflicted  her  more  than  once  dur- 
ing the  last  century  and  a  half.  ...  A  crop  of 
fungus  companies  sprang  up  temptingly  from 
the  heated  soil  of  the  Stock  Exchange.  .  .  . 
Shares  were  bought  and  gambled  in.  The  win- 
ter passed ;  but  spring  shone  on  glutted  markets, 
depreciated  stock,  no  buyers,  and  no  returns 
from  the  shadowy  and  distant  investments  in 
South  America,  which  had  absorbed  so  much 
capital.  Then  the  crashing  began — the  weak 
broke  first,  the  strong  next,  until  banks  went 
down  by  dozens,  and  commerce  for  the  time  was 
paralyzed.  By  causing  the  issue  of  one  and  two 
pound  notes,  by  coining  in  great  haste  a  new 
supply  of  sovereigns,  and  by  inducing  the  Bank 
of  England  to  lend  money  upon  the  security  of 
goods — in  fact  to  begin  the  pawnbroking  busi- 
ness —  the  Government  met  the  crisis,  allayed 
the  panic,  and  to  some  extent  restored  commer- 
cial credit.  Apoplexy  having  struck  down  Lord 
Liverpool  early  in  1827,  it  became  necessary  to 
select  a  new  Premier.  Canning  was  the  chosen 
man."  He  formed  a  Cabinet  with  difficulty  in 
April,  Wellington,  Peel,  Eldon,  and  others  of  his 
former  colleagues  refusing  to  take  office  with 
him.  His  administration  was  brought  abruptly 
to  an  end  in  August  by  his  sudden  death. — W. 
F.  Collier,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  pp.  526-539. 

Also  in  :  Lord  Brougham,  Life  and  Times,  by 
Himself,  ch.  13-18  {v.  3). — A.  G.  Stapleton,  Oeorye 
Canning  and  His  Times,  ch.  18-31;.— The  same. 
Some  OJjUial  Gorr.  of  Oeorge  Canning,  3  v. — F.  H. 
Hill,  George  Canning,  ch.  19-33.— Sir  T.  Martin, 
Life  of  Lord  Lyndhurst,  ch.  7. 

A.  D.  1824-1826. — The  first  Burmese  War. 
See  IxDLv:  A.  D.  1833-1833. 

A.  D.  1825-1830. — The  beginning  of  rail- 
roads.    See  Ste.ui  Loco.motion  on  Land. 

A.  D.  1827-1828.— Removal  of  Disabilities 
from  the  Dissenters. — Repeal  of  the  Test  and 
Corporation  Acts. — "Early  in  1837  a  private 
member,  of  little  influence,  unexpectedly  raised 
a  dormant  question.  For  the  best  part  of  a  cen- 
tury the  Dissenters  had  passively  submitted  to 
the  anomalous  position  in  which  they  had  been 
placed  by  the  Legislature  [see  above :  A.  D.  1663- 
1665;  1673-1673;  1711-1714].  Nominally  unable 
to  hold  any  office  under  the  Crown,  they  were 
aimually  '  whitewashed '  for  their  infringement 
of  the  law  by  the  passage  of  an  Indemnity  Act. 
The  Dissenters  had  hitherto  been  assenting  parties 
to  this  policy.  They  fancied  that  the  repeal  of 
the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts  would  logically 


lead  to  the  emancipation  of  the  Roman  Catholics, 
and  they  preferred  remaining  under  a  disability 
themselves  to  running  the  risk  of  conceding  relief 
to  others.  The  tacit  understanding,  which  thus 
existed  between  the  Church  on  one  side  and  Dis- 
sent on  the  other,  was  maintained  unbroken  and 
almost  unchallenged  till  1837.  It  was  challenged 
in  that  year  by  William  Smith,  the  member  for 
Norwich.  Smith  was  a  London  banker ;  he  was 
a  Dissenter;  and  he  felt  keenly  the  'hard,  unjust, 
and  unnecessary '  law  which  disabled  him  from 
holding  '  any  office,  however  insignificant,  under 
the  Crown,'  and  from  sitting  'as  a  magistrate  in 
any  corporation  without  violating  his  conscience. ' 
Smith  took  the  opportunity  Which  the  annual 
Indemnity  Act  afforded  him  of  stating  these 
views  in  the  House  of  Commons.  As  he  spoke 
the  scales  fell  from  the  eyes  of  the  Liberal  mem- 
bers. The  moment  he  sat  down  Harvey,  the 
member  for  Colchester,  twitted  the  Opposition 
with  disregarding  '  the  substantial  claims  of  the 
Dissenters,'  while  those  of  the  Catholics  were 
urged  3'ear  after  year  'with  the  vehemence  of 
party,' and  supported  by  'the  mightiest  powers 
of  energy  and  eloquence.'  The  taunt  called  up 
Lord  John  Russell,  and  elicited  from  him  the  de- 
claration, that  he  would  bring  forward  a  motion 
on  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts,  '  if  the  Prot- 
estant Dissenters  should  think  it  to  their  interest 
that  he  should  do  so.'  A  year  afterwards — on 
the  36th  of  February,  1838  —  Lord  John  Russell 
rose  to  redeem  the  promise  which  he  thus  gave. " 
His  motion  "was  carried  by  337  votes  to  193. 
The  Ministry  had  sustained  a  crushing  and  un- 
expected reverse.  For  the  moment  it  was  doubt 
ful  whether  it  could  continue  in  office.  It  was 
saved  from  the  necessity  of  resigning  by  the 
moderation  and  dexterity  of  Peel.  Peel  consid- 
ered that  nothing  could  be  more  unfortunate  for 
the  Church  than  to  involve  the  House  of  Com- 
mons in  a  conflict  with  the  House  of  Lords  on  a 
religious  question.  .  .  .  On  his  advice  the  Bishops 
consented  to  substitute  a  formal  declaration  for 
the  test  hitherto  in  force.  The  declaration,  which 
contained  a  promise  that  the  maker  of  it  would 
'  never  exert  any  power  or  any  influence  to  injure 
or  subvert  the  Protestant '  Established  Church, 
was  to  be  taken  by  the  members  of  every  corpo- 
ration, and,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Crown,  by  the 
holder  of  every  office.  Russell,  though  he  dis- 
liked the  declaration,  assented  to  it  for  the  sake 
of  securing  the  success  of  his  measure."  The 
bill  was  modified  accordingly  and  passed  both 
Houses,  though  strenuously  resisted  by  all  the 
Tories  of  the  old  school. — S.  Walpole,  Hist,  of 
Eng.  from  1815,  ch.  10  (ii.  3). 

Also  m :  J.  Stoughton,  Religion  in  Enq.  from 
1800  to  1850,  V.  1,  ch.  2.— H.  S.  Skeats,  Hist,  of 
the  Free  Churches  of  Eng.,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1827-1828. — The  administration  of 
Lord  Goderich. — Advent  of  the  Wellington 
Ministry. — "The  death  of  Mr.  Canning  placed 
Lord  Goderich  at  the  head  of  the  government. 
The  composition  of  the  Cabinet  was  slightly 
altered.  Mr.  Huskissou  became  Colonial  Secre- 
tary, -Mr.  Herries  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 
The  government  was  generally  considered  to  be 
weak,  and  not  calculated  for  a  long  endurance. 
.  .  .  The  differences  upon  financial  measures  be- 
tween Mr.  Herries  .  .  .  and  Mr.  Huskisson  .  .  . 
coild  not  be  reconciled  by  Lord  Goderich,  and  he 
therefore  tendered  his  resignation  to  the  king  on 
the  !)lli  of  January,  1838.     His  majesty  immedi- 


97D 


ENGLAND,  1827-1828. 


Parliavient 
before  Eefomi. 


ENGLAND,  1830. 


ately  sent  to  lord  Lyndhurst  to  desire  that  he  and 
the  duke  of  Wellington  should  come  to  Windsor. 
The  king  told  the  duke  that  he  wished  him  to 
form  a  government  of  which  he  should  he  the 
head.  ...  It  was  understood  that  lord  Lynd- 
hurst was  to  continue  in  office.  The  duke  of 
Wellington  immediately  applied  to  Mr.  Peel, 
who,  returning  to  his  post  of  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  Hume  Department,  saw  the  impossibility 
of  re-uniting  in  this  administration  those  who  had 
formed  the  Cabinet  of  lord  Liverpool.  He  de- 
sired to  strengthen  the  government  of  the  duke 
of  Wellington  by  the  introduction  of  some  of  the 
more  important  of  Mr.  Canning's  friends  into 
the  Cabinet  and  to  fill  some  of  the  lesser  offices. 
The  earl  of  Dudley,  Mr.  Huskisson,  lord  Palmer- 
ston,  and  Mr.  Charles  Grant,  became  members  of 
the  new  administration.  Mr.  William  Lamb, 
afterwards  lord  Melbourne,  was  appointed  Chief 
Secretary  for  Ireland.  The  ultra-Tories  were 
greatly  indignant  at  these  arrangements.  They 
groaned  and  reviled  as  if  the  world  was  un- 
changed."— C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v. 
8,  ch.  13. 

Also  in:  Sir  T.  Martin,  Life  of  Lord  Lynd- 
hurst, ch.  9. — W.  M.  Torrens,  Life  of  Viscount 
Melbourne,  v.  1,  c7i.  15. 

A.  D.  1827-1829. — Intervention  on  behalf  of 
Greece. — Battle  of  Navarino.  See  Greece: 
A.  D.  1821-1829. 

A.  D.  1828. — Corn  Law  amendment. — The 
Sliding  Scale.  See  T.\ripf  Legislation  (Eng- 
L.\ND):  A.  D.  1815-1828. 

A.  D.  1829. — Catholic  Emancipation.  See 
Iiiel.\nd:  a.  D.  1811-1829. 

A.  D.  1830. — The  state  of  the  Parliamentary 
representation  before  Reform.  —  Death  of 
George  IV. — Accession  of  William  IV. — Fall 
of  the  Wellington  Ministry. — "Down  to  the 
year  1800,  when  the  Union  between  Great  Brit- 
ain and  Ireland  was  effected,  the  House  consisted 
of  558  members;  after  1800,  it  consisted  of  658 
members.  In  the  earlier  days  of  George  III.,  it 
was  elected  by  160,000  voters,  out  of  a  popula- 
tion of  a  little  more  than  eight  millions ;  in  the 
later  days  of  that  monarch,  it  was  elected  by  about 
440,000  voters,  out  of  a  population  of  twenty -two 
millions.  .  .  .  But  the  Inadequacy  of  the  repre- 
sentation will  be  even  more  striking  if  we  con- 
sider the  manner  in  which  the  electors  were  broken 
up  into  constituencies.  The  constituencies  con- 
sisted either  of  counties,  or  of  cities  or  boroughs. 
Generally  speaking,  the  counties  of  England  and 
Wales  (and  of  Ireland,  after  the  Union)  were  rep- 
resented by  two  members,  and  the  counties  of 
Scotland  by  one  member ;  and  the  voters  were  the 
forty-shilling  freeholders.  The  number  of  cities 
and  boroughs  which  returned  members  varied; 
but,  from  the  date  of  the  Union,  there  were  about 
217  in  England  and  Wales,  14  in  Scotland,  and  39 
in  Ireland, —  all  the  English  and  Welsh  boroughs 
(with  a  few  exceptions)  returning  two  members, 
and  the  Scotch  and  Irish  boroughs  one  member. 
How  the  particular  places  came  to  be  Parliamen- 
tary boroughs  is  a  question  of  much  historic  in- 
terest, which  cannot  be  dealt  with  here  in  detail. 
Originally,  the  places  to  which  writs  were  issued 
seem  to  have  been  chosen  by  the  Crown,  or,  not 
unfrequently,  by  the  Sheriffs  of  the  counties. 
Probably,  in  the  first  instance,  the  more  impor- 
tant places  were  selected ;  though  other  considera- 
tions, such  astlie  political  opinions  of  the  owners 
of  the  soil,  and  the  desire  to  recognise  services 


(often  of  a  very  questionable  character)  rendered 
by  such  owners  to  the  King,  no  doubt  had  their 
weight.  In  the  time  of  Cromwell,  some  im- 
portant changes  were  made.  In  1654,  he  dis- 
franchised many  small  boroughs,  increased  the 
number  of  county  members,  and  enfranchised 
^Manchester,  Leeds,  and  Halifax.  All  these  re- 
forms were  cancelled  after  the  Restoration;  and 
from  that  time  very  few  changes  were  made. 
...  In  the  hundred  and  fifty  years  which  fol- 
lowed the  Restoration,  however,  there  were 
changes  in  the  condition  of  the  country,  alto- 
gether beyond  the  control  of  either  kings  or  par- 
liaments. Old  towns  disappeared  or  decayed, 
and  new  ones  sprang  up.  Manchester,  Birming- 
ham, and  Leeds  were  remarkable  examples  of 
the  latter, —  Old  Sarum  was  an  example  of  the 
former.  ...  At  one  time  a  place  of  some  impor- 
tance, it  declined  from  the  springing  up  of  New 
Sarum  (Salisbury) ;  and,  even  so  far  back  as  the 
reign  of  Henry  VII.,  it  existed  as  a  town  only  in 
imagination,  and  in  the  roll  of  the  Parliamentary 
boroughs.  .  .  .  !Many  other  places  might  be 
named  [known  as  Rotten  Boroughs  and  Pocket 
Boroughs]  — such  as  Gatton  in  Surrey,  and  Lud- 
gershall  in  Wiltshire  —  which  represented  only 
their  owners.  In  fact,  the  representation  of 
owners,  and  of  owners  onl)',  was  a  very  promi- 
nent feature  of  the  electoral  system  now  under 
consideration.  Thus,  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  was 
represented  by  eleven  members,  who  sat  for  places 
forming  a  part  of  his  estates;  similarly,  Lord 
Lonsdale  was  represented  by  nine  members.  Lord 
Darlington  by  seven,  the  Duke  of  Rutland  and 
several  other  peers  by  six  each ;  and  it  is  stated 
by  one  authority  that  the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  at 
one  time,  returned  one  third  of  all  the  members 
for  the  boroughs,  while,  up  to  1780,  the  members 
for  the  county  of  York  —  the  largest  and  most 
influential  of  the  counties  —  were  always  elected 
in  Lord  Rockingham's  dining-room.  But  these 
are  only  selected  instances.  JIany  others  might 
be  cited.  According  to  a  statement  made  by  the 
Duke  of  Richmond  in  1780,  6,000  persons  re- 
turned a  clear  majority  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. In  1793,  the  Society  of  the  Friends  of 
the  People  asserted,  and  declared  that  they  were 
able  to  prove,  that  84  individuals  returned  157 
members;  that  70 individuals  returned  150  mem- 
bers ;  and  that  of  the  154  individuals  who  thus 
returned  307  members  —  the  majority  of  the 
House  before  the  Union  with  Ireland —  no  fewer 
than  40  were  peers.  The  same  Society  asserted 
in  the  same  year,  and  declared  that  they  were 
able  to  prove,  that  70  members  were  returned 
b}'  35  places,  in  which  there  were  scarcely  any 
electors ;  that  90  members  were  returned  by  46 
places,  in  which  there  were  fewer  than  50  electors ; 
that  37  members  were  returned  by  19  places,  with 
not  more  than  100  electors;  and  that  52  members 
were  returned  by  26  places,  with  not  more  than 
200  electors :  all  these  in  England  alone.  Even 
in  the  towns  which  had  a  real  claim  to  represen- 
tation, the  franchise  rested  upon  no  uniform  basis. 
...  In  some  cases  the  suffrage  was  practically 
household  suffrage;  in  other  cases  the  suffrage 
was  extremely  restricted.  But  they  all  returned 
their  two  members  equally ;  it  made  no  difference 
whether  the  voters  numbered  3, 000  or  only  thi-ee 
or  four.  Such  being  the  state  of  the  representa- 
tion, corruption  was  inevitable.  Bribery  was 
practised  to  an  inconceivable  extent.  Many  of 
the  smaller  boroughs  had  a  fixed  price,  and  it 


980 


ENGLAND,  1830. 


The  Question  of 
Reform. 


ENGLAND,  1830. 


was  by  no  means  uncommon  to  see  a  borough 
advertised  for  sale  in  the  newspapers.  ...  As 
an  example  of  cost  in  contesting  a  county  elec- 
tion, it  is  on  record  that  the  joint  expenses  of 
Lord  Milton  and  Mr.  Lascelles,  in  contesting  the 
county  of  York  in  1807,  were  £300,000.  ...  It 
is  not  to  be  supposed  that  a  condition  of  things 
which  appears  to  us  so  intolerable  attracted  no 
attention  before  what  may  be  called  the  Reform 
era.  So  far  back  as  174.5,  Sir  Francis  Dashwood 
(afterwards  Lord  de  Spencer)  moved  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Address  in  favour  of  Reform  ;  Lord 
Chatham  himself,  in  1766  and  1770,  spoke  of  the 
borough  representation  as  '  the  rotten  part  of  the 
constitution,'  and  likened  it  to  a  '  mortified  limb'; 
the  Duke  of  Richmond  of  that  day,  in  1780,  in- 
troduced a  bill  into  the  House  of  Lords  which 
would  have  given  manhood  suffrage  and  annual 
parliaments;  and  three  times  in  succession,  in 
1783,  1783,  and  1785,  Mr.  Pitt  proposed  resolu- 
tions in  favour  of  Reform.  .  .  .  After  Mr.  Pitt 
had  abandoned  the  cause,  Mr.  (afterwards  Earl) 
Grey  took  up  the  subject.  First,  in  1793,  he 
presented  that  famous  petition  from  the  Society 
of  the  Friends  of  the  People,  to  which  allusion 
has  been  already  made,  and  founded  a  resolution 
upon  it.  He  made  further  efforts  in  1793,  1795, 
and  1797,  but  was  on  every  occasion  defeated  by 
large  majorities.  .  .  .  From  the  beginning  of 
the  19th  century  to  the  year  1815  —  with  the  ex- 
ception of  a  few  months  after  the  Peace  of 
Amiens  in  1803 —  England  was  at  war.  During 
that  time  Reform  dropped  out  of  notice.  .  .  . 
In  1817.  and  again  in  1818  and  1819,  Sir  Francis 
Burdett,  who  was  at  that  time  member  for  West- 
minster and  a  leading  Reformer,  brought  the 
question  of  Reform  before  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. On  each  occasion  he  was  defeated  by  a 
tremendous  majority.  .  .  .  The  next  ten  years 
were  comparatively  uneventful,  so  far  as  the 
subject  of  this  history  is  concerned.  .  .  .  Two 
events  made  the  year  1830  particularly  opportune 
for  raising  the  question  of  Parliamentary  Reform. 
The  first  of  these  events  was  the  death  of  George 
TV.  [June  36], —  the  second,  the  deposition  of 
Charles  X.  of  France.  .  .  .  For  the  deposition 
of  Charles  —  followed  as  it  was  very  soon  by  a 
successful  insurrection  in  Belgium  —  produced 
an  immense  impression  upon  the  Liberals  of  this 
country,  and  upon  the  people  generally.  In  a 
few  days  or  weeks  there  had  been  secured  in  two 
continental  countries  what  the  people  of  England 
had  been  asking  for  in  vain  for  years.  .  .  .  We 
must  not  omit  to  notice  one  other  circumstance 
that  favoured  the  cause  of  Reform.  This  was 
the  popular  distress.  Distress  always  favours 
agitation.  The  distress  in  1830  was  described  in 
the  House  of  Lords  at  the  time  as  '  unparalleled 
in  any  previous  part  of  our  history. '  Probably 
this  was  an  exaggeration.  But  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  distress  was  general,  and  that  it 
was  acute.  .  .  .  By  the  law  as  it  stood  when 
George  IV.  died,  the  demise  of  the  Crown  in- 
volved a  dissolution  of  Parliament.  The  Parlia- 
ment which  was  in  existence  in  1830  had  been 
elected  in  1836.  Since  the  beginning  of  1838  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  had  boon  Prime  Minister, 
with  Mr.  (soon  after  Sir  Robert)  Peel  as  Home 
Secretary,  and  Leader  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
They  decided  to  dissolve  at  once.  ...  In  the 
Parliament  thus  dissolved,  and  especially  in  the 
session  just  brought  to  a  close,  the  question  of 
Reform  had  held  a  prominent  place.     At  the 


very  beginning  of  the  session,  in  the  first  week  of 
February,  the  Marquis  of  Blandford  (afterwards 
Duke  of  Marlborough)  moved  an  amendment  to 
the  Address,  in  which,  though  a  Tory,  he  af- 
firmed the  conviction  '  that  the  State  is  at  this 
moment  in  the  most  imminent  danger,  and  that 
no  effectual  measures  of  salvation  will  or  can  be 
adopted  until  the  people  shall  be  restored  to  their 
rightful  share  in  the  legislation  of  the  country.' 
.  .  .  He  was  supported  on  very  different  grounds 
by  Mr.  O'Connell,  but  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of 
96  to  11.  A  few  days  later  he  introduced  a  spe- 
cific plan  of  Reform  —  a  very  Radical  plan  in- 
deed—but was  again  ignominiously  defeated  ; 
then,  on  the  33d  of  February,  Lord  John  Russell 
.  .  .  asked  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  con- 
ferring the  franchise  upon  Leeds,  Manchester, 
and  Birmingham,  as  the  three  largest  unrepre- 
sented towns  in  the  kingdom,  but  was  defeated 
by  188  votes  to  140  ;  and  finally,  on  the  38th  of 
May  —  scarcely  two  months  before  the  dissolu- 
tion —  Mr.  O'Connell  brought  in  a  bill  to  estab- 
lish universal  suffrage,  vote  by  ballot,  and  trien- 
nial parliaments,  but  found  only  13  members  to 
support  him  in  a  House  of  333.  .  .  .  Thus,  the 
question  of  Reform  was  now  before  the  country, 
not  merely  as  a  popular  but  as  a  Parliamentary 
question.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that,  when 
the  dissolution  occurred,  it  occupied  all  minds. 
.  .  .  The  whole  of  August  and  a  considerable 
part  of  September,  therefore,  were  occupied  with 
the  elections,  which  were  attended  by  an  un- 
paralleled degree  of  excitement.  .  .  .  When  all 
was  over,  and  the  results  were  reckoned  up,  it 
was  founa  that,  of  the  38  members  who  repre- 
sented the  thirteen  greatest  cities  in  England 
(to  say  nothing  of  Wales,  Scotland,  or  Ireland), 
only  3  were  Ministerialists.  ...  Of  the  236  men 
who  were  returned  by  elections,  more  or  less  pop- 
ular, in  England,  only  79  were  Ministerialists. 
.  .  .  The  first  Parliament  of  William  IV.  met  on 
the  36th  of  October,  but  the  session  was  not  really 
opened  till  the  3d  of  November,  when  the  King 
came  down  and  delivered  his  Speech.  .  .  .  The 
occasion  was  made  memorable,  however,  not  by 
the  King's  Speech,  but  by  a  speech  by  the  Duke 
of  Wellington,  who  was  then  Prime  Minister. 
.  .  .  'The  noble  Earl  [Grey],'  said  the  Duke, 
'  has  alluded  to  something  in  the  shape  of  a  Par- 
liamentary Reform,  but  he  has  been  candid 
enough  to  acknowledge  that  he  is  not  prepared 
with  any  measure  of  Reform  ;  and  I  have  as  little 
scruple  to  say  that  his  Majesty's  Government  is 
as  totally  unprepared  as  the  noble  lord.  Nay, 
on  my  own  part,  I  will  go  further,  and  say,  that 
I  have  never  read  or  heard  of  any  measure,  up 
to  the  present  moment,  which  could  in  any  de- 
gree satisfy  my  mind  that  the  state  of  the  repre- 
sentation could  be  improved,  or  be  rendered  more 
satisfactory  to  the  country  at  large  than  at  the 
present  moment.  ...  I  am  not  only  not  prepared 
to  bring  forward  any  measure  of  this  nature,  but 
I  will  at  once  declare  that,  as  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, as  long  as  I  hold  any  station  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  country,  I  shall  always  feel  it  my 
duty  to  resist  such  measures  when  jjroposed  by 
others. '  Exactly  fourteen  days  after  the  delivery 
of  this  speech,  the  Duke's  career  as  Prime  Min- 
ister came  for  the  time  to  a  close.  On  the  16th 
of  November  he  came  down  to  Westminster, 
and  announced  that  he  had  resigned  office.  In 
the  meantime,  there  had  been  something  like  a 
panic  in  the  city,  because  Ministers,  apprehending 


981 


ENGLAND,  1830. 


The  First 
Eeform  Bill. 


ENGLAND,  1830-1832. 


disturbance,  had  advised  the  King  and  Queen  to 
abandon  an  engagement  to  dine,  on  the  9th,  "witli 
the  Lord  Mayor  at  the  Guildhall.  On  the  15th, 
too,  the  Government  had  sustained  a  defeat  in 
the  House  of  Commons,  on  a  motion  proposed 
by  Sir  Henry  Parnell  on  the  part  of  the  Oppo- 
sition, having  reference  to  the  civil  list.  This 
defeat  was  made  the  pretext  for  resignation. 
But  it  was  only  a  pretext.  After  the  Duke's 
declaration  in  regard  to  Reform,  and  in  view  of 
his  daily  increasing  unpopularity,  his  continuance 
in  office  was  impossible." — W.  Heaton,  The 
Three  Refm-ms  of  Parliament,  ch.  1-2. 

Also  in:  A.  Paul,  Mist,  of  Eeform,  ch.  1-6. — 
W.  Bagehot,  Essays  on  Parliavientary  Reform, 
essay  2. — H.  Cox,  Antient  Parliamentary  Elec- 
tions.— S.  Walpole,  The  Electorate  and  the  Legis- 
lature, ch.  4. — E.  A.  Freeman,  Decayed  Boroughs 
(Hist.  Essays,  4th  seriei<). 

A.  D.  1830-1832. — The  great  Reform  of  Rep- 
resentation in  Parliament,  under  the  Ministry 
of  Earl  Grey. — "Earl  Grey  was  the  new  Minis- 
ter; and  Mr.  Brougham  his  Lord  Chancellor. 
The  first  announcement  of  the  premier  was  that 
the  government  would  '  take  into  immediate  con- 
sideration the  state  of  the  representation,  with  a 
view  to  the  correction  of  those  defects  which 
have  been  occasioned  in  it,  by  the  operation  of 
time ;  and  with  a  view  to  the  reestablishment  of 
that  confidence  upon  the  part  of  the  people, 
which  he  was  afraid  Parliament  did  not  at  present 
enjoy,  to  the  full  extent  that  is  essential  for  the 
welfare  and  safety  of  the  country,  and  the  pres- 
ervation of  the  government.'  The  government 
were  now  pledged  to  a  measure  of  parliamentary 
reform ;  and  during  the  Christmas  recess  were 
occupied  in  preparing  it.  Meanwhile,  the  cause 
was  eagerly  supported  by  the  people.  ...  So 
great  were  the  difficulties  with  which  the  govern- 
ment had  to  contend,  that  they  needed  all  the 
encouragement  that  the  people  could  give.  They 
had  to  encounter  the  reluctance  of  the  king, — 
the  interests  of  the  proprietors  of  boroughs, 
which  Mr.  Pitt,  unable  to  overcome,  had  sought 
to  purchase, —  the  opposition  of  two  thirds  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  and  perhaps  of  a  majority 
of  the  House  of  Commons, —  and  above  all,  the 
strong  Tory  spirit  of  the  country.  ...  On  the 
3d  February,  when  Parliament  reassembled, 
Lord  Grey  announced  that  the  government  had 
succeeded  in  framing  '  a  measure  which  would 
be  effective,  without  exceeding  the  bounds  of  a 
just  and  well-advised  moderation,'  and  which 
'  had  received  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  whole 
government.'.  .  .  On  the  1st  March,  this  measure 
was  brought  forward  in  the  House  of  Commons 
by  Lord  John  Russell,  to  whom, — though  not  in 
the  cabinet, —  this  honorable  duty  had  been  justly 
confided.  ...  On  the  22d  JIarch,  the  second 
reading  of  the  bill  was  carried  by  a  majority  of 
one  only,  in  a  House  of  608, —  probably  the 
greatest  number  which,  up  to  that  time,  had  ever 
been  assembled  at  a  division.  On  the  19th  of 
April,  on  going  into  committee,  ministers  found 
themselves  in  a  minority  of  eight,  on  a  resolution 
proposed  by  General  Gascoyue,  that  the  number 
of  members  returned  for  England  ought  not  to 
be  diminished.  On  the  21st,  ministers  announced 
that  it  was  not  their  intention  to  proceed  with 
the  bill.  On  that  same  night,  they  were  again 
defeated  on  a  question  of  adjournment,  by  a 
majority  of  twenty-two.  This  last  vote  was  de- 
cisive.    The  very  next  day.  Parliament  was  pro- 


rogued by  the  king  in  person,  '  with  a  view  to  its 
immediate  dissolution.'  It  was  one  of  thu  moct 
critical  days  iu  the  history  of  our  country.  .  .  . 
The  people  were  now  to  decide  the  question;  — 
and  they  decided  it.  A  triumphant  body  of  re- 
formers was  returned,  pledged  to  carry  the  reforni 
bill ;  and  on  the  6th  July,  the  second  reading  of 
the  renewed  measure  was  agreed  to,  by  a  ma- 
jority of  136.  The  most  tedious  and  irritating 
discussions  ensued  in  committee, —  night  after 
night;  and  the  bill  was  not  disposed  of  until  the 
31st  September,  when  it  was  passed  by  a  majority 
of  109.  That  the  peers  were  still  adverse  to  the 
bill  was  certain ;  but  whether,  at  such  a  crisis, 
they  would  venture  to  oppose  the  national  will, 
was  doubtful.  On  the  7th  October,  after  a  debate 
of  five  nights, —  one  of  the  most  memorable  by 
which  that  House  has  ever  been  distinguished, 
and  itself  a  great  event  in  history, —  the  Ijill  was 
rejected  on  the  second  reading,  by  a  majority  of 
forty-one.  The  battle  was  to  be  fought  again. 
Ministers  were  too  far  pledged  to  the  people  to 
think  of  resigning ;  and  on  the  motion  of  Lord 
Ebrington,  they  were  immediately  supported  by 
a  vote  of  confidence  from  the  House  of  Commons. 
On  the  20th  October,  Parliament  was  prorogued; 
and  after  a  short  interval  of  excitement,  turbu- 
lence, and  danger  [see  Bristol:  A.  D.  1831],  met 
again  on  the  6th  December.  A  third  reform  bill 
was  immediately  brought  in, —  changed  in  many 
respects, —  and  much  improved  by  reason  of  the 
recent  census,  and  other  statistical  investigations. 
Amongst  other  changes,  the  total  number  of 
members  was  no  longer  proposed  to  be  reduced. 
This  bill  was  read  a  second  time  on  Sunday 
morning,  the  18th  of  December,  by  a  majority 
of  162.  On  the  23d  March,  it  was  passed  by  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  once  more  was  before 
the  House  of  Lords.  Here  the  peril  of  again  re- 
jecting it  could  not  be  concealed, —  the  courage 
of  some  was  shaken, — the  patriotism  of  others 
aroused ;  and  after  a  debate  of  four  nights,  the 
second  reading  was  affirmed  by  the  narrow  ma- 
jority of  nine.  But  danger  still  awaited  it.  The 
peers  who  would  no  longer  venture  to  reject  such 
a  bill,  were  preparing  to  change  its  essential 
character  by  amendments.  Meanwhile  the  agi- 
tation of  the  people  was  becoming  dangerous. 
.  .  .  The  time  had  come,  when  either  the  Lords 
nuist  be  coerced,  or  the  ministers  must  resign. 
This  alternative  was  submitted  to  the  king.  He 
refused  to  create  peers:  the  ministers  resigned, 
and  their  resignation  was  accepted.  Again  the 
Commons  came  to  the  rescue  of  the  bill  and  the 
reform  ministry.  On  the  motion  of  Lord  Ebring- 
ton, an  address  was  immediately  voted  by  them, 
renewing  their  expressions  of  unaltered  confi- 
dence iu  the  late  ministers,  and  imploring  his 
Majesty  '  to  call  to  his  councils  such  persons  only 
as  will  carry  into  effect,  unimpaired  in  all  its  es- 
sential provisions,  that  bill  for  reforming  the 
representation  of  the  people,  which  has  recently 
passed  this  House.'.  .  .  The  public  excitement 
was  greater  than  ever ;  and  the  government  and 
the  people  were  In  imminent  danger  of  a  bloody 
collision,  when  Earl  Grey  was  recalled  to  the 
councils  of  his  sovereign.  The  bill  was  now  se- 
cure. The  peers  averted  the  threatened  addition 
to  their  numbers  by  abstaining  from  further 
opposition;  and  the  bill,  —  the  Great  Charter 
of  1832, —  at  length  received  the  Royal  Assent. 
It  is  now  time  to  advert  to  the  provisions  of 
this  famous  statute;  and  to  inquire  how  far  it 


982 


ENGLAND,  1830-1833. 


Social  and  In- 
dxistrial  Reforms. 


ENGLAND,  1833-1833. 


corrected  the  faults  of  a  system,  which  had  been 
complained  of  for  more  than  half  a  century.  The 
main  evil  had  been  the  number  of  nomination,  or 
rotten  boroughs  enjoying  the  franchise.  Fifty- 
six  of  these, —  having  less  than  2,000  inhabitants, 
and  returning  111  members, — were  swept  away. 
Thirty  boroughs,  having  less  than  4,000  inhabi- 
tants, lost  each  a  member.  Weymouth  and  Mel- 
combe  Regis  lost  two.  This  disfranchisement 
extended  to  143  members.  The  next  evil  had 
been,  that  large  populations  were  unrepre- 
sented; and  this  was  now  redressed.  Twenty- 
two  large  towns,  including  metropolitan  districts, 
received  the  privilege  of  returning  two  members ; 
and  20  more  of  returning  one.  The  large  county 
populations  were  also  regarded  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  seats, —  the  number  of  county  members 
being  increased  from  94  to  159.  The  larger 
counties  were  divided ;  and  the  number  of  mem- 
bers adjusted  with  reference  to  the  importance 
of  the  constituencies.  Another  evil  was  the  re- 
stricted and  unequal  franchise.  This  too  was 
corrected.  All  narrow  rights  of  election  were 
set  aside  in  Boroughs;  and  a  £10  household  fran- 
chise was  established.  The  freemen  of  corporate 
towns  were  the  only  class  of  electors  whose 
rights  were  reserved;  but  residence  within  the 
borough  was  attached  as  a  condition  to  their 
right  of  voting.  .  .  .  The  county  constituency 
was  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  copyholders  and 
leaseholders,  for  terms  of  years,  and  of  tenants- 
at-will  paying  a  rent  of  £50  a  year.  .  .  .  The  de- 
fects of  the  Scotch  representation,  being  even 
more  flagrant  and  indefensible  than  those  of  Eng- 
land, were  not  likely  to  be  omitted  from  Lord 
Grey's  general  scheme  of  reform.  .  .  .  The  entire 
representation  was  remodelled.  Forty -five  mem- 
bers had  been  assigned  to  Scotland  at  the  Union : 
this  number  was  now  increased  to  53  of  whom  30 
were  allotted  to  counties,  and  23  to  cities  and 
burglis.  The  county  franchise  was  extended  to 
all  owners  of  property  of  £10  a  year,  and  to  cer- 
tain classes  of  leaseholders ;  and  the  burgh  fran- 
chise to  all  £10  householders.  The  representa- 
tion of  Ireland  had  many  of  the  defects  of  the 
English  system.  .  .  .  The  right  of  election  was 
taken  away  from  the  corporations,  and  vested  in 
£10  householders ;  and  large  additions  were  made 
to  the  county  constituency.  The  number  of 
members  in  Ireland,  which  the  Act  of  Union  had 
settled  at  100,  was  now  increased  to  105." — T.  E. 
May,  Const.  Hist/ of  Eng.,  1760-1860,  ch.  6  (v.  1). 

Also  in  :  W.  N.  Molesworth,  Hist,  of  the  Re- 
form Bill  of  1832.— W.  Jones,  Biog.  Sketches  of 
the  Beform  Ministers. — Lord  Brougham,  Life  and 
Times,  by  Himself,  ch.  21-22.— S.  Walpole,  Hist, 
of  Eng.  from  1815,  ch.  11  («.  2). 

A.  D.  1831. — First  assumption  of  the  name 
Conservatives  by  the  Tories.  See  Conserva- 
tive Party. 

A.  D.  1831-1832. — Intervention  in  the  Neth- 
erlands.— Creation  of  the  kingdom  of  Belgium. 
— War  with  Holland.  See  Netherlands; 
A.  D.  1830-1833. 

A.  D.  1832-1833.— Abolition  of  Slavery  in 
the  West  Indies.  —  Trade  monopoly  of  the 
East  India  Company  iwithdrawn.  —  Factory 
Bill. — Irish  tithes. — "The  period  which  suc- 
ceeded the  passing  of  the  Reform  Bill  was  one  of 
immense  activity  and  earnestness  in  legislation. 
.  .  .  The  first  great  reform  was  the  complete 
abolition  of  the  system  of  slavery  in  the  British 
colonies.     The  slave  trade  had  itself  been  sup- 


pressed so  far  as  we  could  suppress  it  long  be- 
fore that  time,  but  now  the  whole  system  of 
"West  Indian  slavery  was  brought  to  an  end  [see 
Slavery,  Negro:  A.  D.  1834-1838].  ...  A 
long  agitation  of  the  small  but  energetic  anti- 
slavery  party  brought  about  this  practical  result 
in  1833.  .  .  .  Granville  Sharpe,  Zachary  Macau- 
lay,  father  of  the  historian  and  statesman,  Thomas 
Powell  Buxton,  Wilberforce,  Brougham,  and 
many  others,  had  for  a  long  time  been  striving 
hard  to  rouse  up  public  opinion  to  the  abolition 
of  the  slave  system."  The  bill  which  passed 
Parliament  gave  immediate  freedom  to  all  chil- 
dren subsequently  born,  and  to  all  those  who 
were  then  under  six  years  of  age ;  while  it  de- 
termined for  all  other  slaves  a  period  of  appren- 
ticeship, lasting  five  years  in  one  class  and  seven 
years  in  another,  after  which  they  attained  abso- 
lute freedom.  It  appropriated  £20,000,000  for 
the  compensation  of  the  slave-owners.  ' '  Another 
reform  of  no  small  importance  was  accomplished 
when  the  charter  of  the  East  India  Company 
came  to  be  renewed  in  1833.  The  clause  giving 
them  a  commercial  monopoly  of  the  trade  of  the 
East  was  abolished,  and  the  trade  thrown  open 
to  the  merchants  of  the  world  [see  India:  A.  D. 
1823-1833].  There  were  other  slaves  in  those 
days  as  well  as  the  negro.  There  were  slaves  at 
home,  slaves  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  who 
were  condemned  to  a  servitude  as  rigorous  as 
that  of  the  negro,  and  who,  as  far  as  personal 
treatment  went,  suffered  more  severely  than 
negroes  in  the  better  class  plantations.  We 
speak  now  of  the  workers  in  the  great  mines 
and  factories.  No  law  up  to  this  time  regulated 
with  anything  like  reasonable  stringency  the 
hours  of  labour  in  factories.  ...  A  commission 
was  appointed  to  investigate  the  condition  of 
those  who  worked  in  the  factories.  Lord  Ash- 
ley, since  everywhere  known  as  the  Earl  of 
Shaftesbury,  .  .  .  brought  forward  the  motion 
which  ended  in  the  appointment  of  the  commis- 
sion. The  commission  quickly  brought  together 
an  Immense  amount  of  evidence  to  show  the 
terrible  effect,  moral  and  physical,  of  the  over- 
working of  women  and  children,  and  an  agitation 
set  in  for  the  purpose  of  limiting  by  law  the 
durationof  the  hours  of  labour.  .  .  .  The  principle 
of  legislative  interference  to  protect  children 
working  in  factories  was  established  by  an  Act 
passed  in  1833,  limiting  the  work  of  children  to 
eight  hours  a  day,  and  that  of  young  persons 
under  eighteen  to  69  hours  a  week  [see  Factory 
Legislation].  The  agitation  then  set  on  foot 
and  led  by  Lord  Ashley  was  engaged  for  years 
after  in  endeavouring  to  give  that  principle  a 
more  extended  application.  .  .  .  Irish  tithes  were 
one  of  the  grievances  which  came  under  the  ener- 
getic action  of  this  period  of  reform.  The  people 
of  Ireland  complained  with  justice  of  having  to 
pay  tithes  for  the  maintenance  of  the  church  es- 
tablislmient  in  which  they  did  not  believe,  and 
under  whose  roofs  they  never  bent  In  worship." 
In  1832,  committees  of  both  Houses  of  Parliament 
reported  in  favor  of  the  extinction  of  tithes ;  but 
the  Government  undertook  temporarily  a  scheme 
whereby  it  made  advances  to  the  Irish  clergy 
and  assumed  the  collection  of  tithes  among  its 
own  functions.  It  only  succeeded  in  making 
matters  worse,  and  several  years  passed  before 
the  adoption  (in  1838) of  a  bill  which  "converted 
the  tithe  composition  into  a  rent  charge." — J. 
McCarthy,  The  Epoch  of  Reform,  ch.  7-8. 


983 


ENGLAND,  1833-1833. 


Qiteen  Victoria. 


ENGLAND,  1837-1839. 


Also  in:  C.  Knight,  Popular  Sist.  of  Eng.,  v. 
8,  ch.  17.— H.  Martineau,  Sist.  of  the  Thirty 
Years'  Peace,  bk.  4,  ch.  6-9  {v.  2-3). 

A.  D.  1833-1840.  —  Turko-Egyptxan  ques- 
tion and  its  settlement. — The  capture  of  Acre. 
— Bombardment  of  Alexandria.  See  Turks: 
A,  D.  1831-1840. 

A.  D.  1833-1845.— The  Oxford  orTractarian 
Movement.    See  Oxford  or  Tbactarian  Move 

MBNT. 

A.  D.  1834-1837. — Resignation  of  Lord  Grey 
and  the  Reform  Ministry.  —  The  first  Mel- 
bourne Administration. — Peel's  first  Ministry 
and  Melbourne's  second. — Death  of  William 
IV. — Accession  of  Queen  Victoria. —  "  On  May 
27th,  Mr.  Ward,  member  of  St.  Albans,  brought 
forward  .  .  .  resolutions,  that  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  Ireland  much  exceeded  the 
spiritual  wants  of  the  Protestant  population ;  that 
it  was  the  right  of  the  State,  and  of  Parliament, 
to  distribute  church  property,  and  that  the  tem- 
poral possessions  of  the  Irish  church  ought  to  be 
reduced.  The  ministers  determined  to  adopt  a 
middle  course  and  appoint  a  commission  of  in- 
quiry ;  they  hoped  thereby  to  Induce  Mr.  Ward 
to  withdraw  his  motion,  because  the  question 
was  already  In  government  hands.  While  the 
negotiations  were  going  on,  news  was  received  of 
the  resignation  of  four  of  the  most  conservative 
members  of  the  Cabinet,  who  regarded  any  inter- 
ference with  church  property  with  abhorrence ; 
they  were  Mr.  Stanley,  Sir  James  Graham,  the 
Duke  of  Richmond,  and  the  Earl  of  Ripon.  .  .  . 
Owing  to  the  difference  of  opinion  in  the  Cabinet 
on  the  Irish  coercion  bill,  on  July  9,  1834,  Earl 
Grey  placed  his  resignation  as  Prime  Minister  in 
the  hands  of  the  king.  On  the  10th  the  House 
of  Commons  adjourned  for  four  days.  On  the 
14th,  Viscount  Melbourne  stated  in  the  House  of 
Lords  that  his  Majesty  had  honored  him  with 
his  commands  for  the  formation  of  a  ministry. 
He  had  undertaken  the  task,  but  it  was  not  yet 
completed.  There  was  very  little  change  in  the 
Cabinet;  Lord  Melbourne's  place  in  the  Home 
Department  was  filled  by  Lord  Duncannon ;  Sir 
John  Cam  Hobhouse  obtained  a  seat  as  First 
Commissioner  of  Woods  and  Forests,  and  Lord 
Carlisle  surrendered  the  Privy  Seal  to  Lord  Mul- 
grave.  The  Irish  Church  Bill  was  again  brought 
forward,  and  although  it  passed  the  Commons, 
was  defeated  in  the  Lords,  August  1st.  The 
king  much  disliked  the  church  policy  of  the 
Whigs,  and  dreaded  reform.  He  was  eager  to 
prevent  the  meeting  of  the  House,  and  circum- 
stances favored  him.  Before  the  session  Lord 
Spencer  died,  and  Lord  Althorpe,  his  son,  was 
thus  removed  to  the  upper  House.  There  was 
no  reason  why  this  should  have  broken  up  the 
ministry,  but  the  king  seized  the  opportunity, 
sent  for  Lord  Melbourne,  asserted  that  the  min- 
istry depended  chiefly  on  the  personal  influence 
of  Lord  Althorpe  in  the  Commons,  declared  that, 
deprived  of  it  as  it  now  was,  the  government 
could  not  go  on,  and  dismissed  his  ministers,  in- 
structing Melbourne  at  once  to  send  for  the  Duke 
of  Wellington.  The  sensation  in  London  was 
great ;  the  dismissal  of  the  ministry  was  consid- 
ered unconstitutional;  the  act  of  the  king  was 
wholly  without  precedent.  .  .  .  The  Duke  of 
Wellington,  from  November  15th  to  December 
9th,  was  the  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury,  and  the 
sole  Secretary  of  State,  having  only  one  col- 
league. Lord  Lyndhurst,  who  held  the  great  seal. 


while  at  the  same  time  he  sat  as  Chief  Baron  of 
the  Court  of  Exchequer.  This  temporary  gov- 
ernment was  called  a  dictatorship.  ...  On  Sir 
Robert  Peel's  return  from  Italy,  whence  he  had 
been  called,  he  waited  upon  the  king  and  ac- 
cepted the  oflice  of  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury 
and  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  With  the 
king's  permission,  he  applied  to  Lord  Stanley 
and  Sir  James  Graham,  entreating  them  to  give 
him  the  benefit  of  their  co-operation  as  colleagues 
in  the  Cabinet.  They  both  declined.  Prevented 
from  forming  a  moderate  Conservative  ministry, 
he  was  reduced  to  fill  his  places  with  men  of  more 
pronounced  opinions,  which  promised  ill  for  any 
advance  in  reform.  .  .  .  The  Foreign,  Home, 
War,  and  Colonial  offices  were  filled  by  Welling- 
ton, Goulburn,  Herries,  and  Aberdeen ;  Lord 
Lyndhurst  was  Lord  Chancellor ;  Harding,  Sec- 
retary for  Ireland;  and  Lord  Wharncliffe,  Privy 
Seal.  With  this  ministry  Peel  had  to  meet  a  hos- 
tile House  of  Commons.  .  .  .  The  Prime  Minis- 
ter therefore  thought  it  necessary  to  dissolve  Par- 
liament, and  took  the  opportunity  [in  what  was 
called  '  the  Tam worth  manifesto  ']  of  declaring 
his  policy.  He  declared  his  acceptance  of  the 
Reform  Bill  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  question. 
.  .  .  The  elections,  though  they  returned  a 
House,  as  is  generally  the  case,  more  favorable 
to  the  existing  government  than  that  which  had 
been  dissolved,  still  gave  a  considerable  majority 
to  the  Liberals.  .  .  .  Lord  John  Russell,  on  April 
7th,  proposed  the  resolution,  '  That  it  is  the 
opinion  of  this  House  that  no  measure  upon  the 
subject  of  the  tithes  in  Ireland  can  lead  to  satis- 
factory and  final  adjustment  which  does  not  em- 
body the  temporalities  of  the  Church  in  Ireland.' 
This  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  27,  and  that 
majority  was  fatal  to  the  ministry.  On  the  fol- 
lowing day  the  Duke  of  Wellington,  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  stated  that  in  consequence  of  the  reso- 
lution in  the  House  of  Commons,  the  ministry 
had  tendered  their  resignation.  Sir  Robert  made 
a  similar  explanation  in  the  Commons.  Ten 
days  later.  Viscount  Melbourne,  in  moving  the 
adjournment  of  the  House  of  Lords,  stated  that 
the  king  had  been  pleased  to  appoint  him  First 
Lord  of  the  Treasury.  ...  On  June  9,  1837,  a 
bulletin  issued  from  Windsor  Castle  informing  a 
loyal  and  really  affectionate  people  that  the  king 
was  ill.  From  the  12th  they  were  regularly 
issued  until  the  19th,  when  the  malady,  inflam- 
mation of  the  lungs,  had  greatly  increased.  .  .  . 
On  Tuesday,  June  20th,  the  last  of  these  official 
documents  was  issued.  His  Majesty  had  ex- 
pired that  morning  at  2  o'clock.  William  died 
in  the  seventy-second  year  of  his  age  and  seventh 
year  of  his  reign,  leaving  no  legitimate  issue. 
He  was  succeeded  by  his  niece,  Alexandrina  Vic- 
toria."— A.  H.  McC3haa.n,  Abridged  Hist,  of  Etig- 
land,  pp.  565-570. 

Also  ik  :  W.  C.  Taylor,  Life  and  Times  of  Sir 
Pobert  Peel,  v.  2,  ch.  10-12.— W.  M.  Torrens, 
Memoirs  of  Viscount  Melbourne,  v.  2,  ch.  1-8. — J. 
W.  Croker,  Correspondence  and  Diaries,  ch.  18-20 
(!'.  2). 

A.  D.  1836-1839.— Beginning  of  the  Anti- 
Corn-Law  Agitation.  See  Tariff  Legisla- 
tion (England)  :  A.  D.  1836-1839. 

A.  D.  1837. — Separation  of  Hanover.  See 
Hanover:  A.  D.  1837. 

A.  D.  1837-1839.— Opening  of  the  reign  of 
Queen  Victoria. — End  of  personal  rule.— Be- 
ginning of  purely  constitutional  government. 


984 


ENGLAND,  1837-1839. 


The  Victorian 
Literature. 


ENGLAND,  1837-. 


— Peel  and  the  Bedchamber  Question. — "The 
Duke  of  Wellington  thought  the  accession  of  a 
woman  to  the  sovereign's  place  would  be  fatal 
to  the  present  hopes  of  the  Tories  [who  were 
then  expecting  a  turn  of  events  in  their  favor,  as 
against  the  Whig  administration  of  Lord  Mel- 
bourne]. 'Peel,' he  said,  '  has  no  manners,  and 
I  have  no  small  talk.'  He  seemed  to  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  new  sovereign  would  choose 
her  Ministers  as  a  school-girl  chooses  her  com- 
panions. He  did  not  know,  did  not  foresee,  that 
with  the  accession  of  Queen  Victoria  the  real 
reign  of  constitutional  government  in  these  is- 
lands was  to  begin.  The  late  King  had  advanced 
somewhat  on  the  ways  of  his  predecessors,  but 
his  rule  was  still,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a 
personal  rule.  With  the  accession  of  Victoria 
the  system  of  personal  rule  came  to  an  end.  The 
elections  which  at  that  time  were  necessary  on 
the  coming  of  a  new  sovereign  went  slightly  in 
favour  of  the  Tories.  The  Whigs  had  many  trou- 
bles. They  were  not  reformers  enough  for  the 
great  body  of  their  supporters.  .  .  .  The  Radi- 
cals had  split  off  from  them.  They  could  not 
manage  O'Connell.  The  Chartist  fire  was  al- 
ready burning.  There  was  many  a  serious  crisis 
in  foreign  policy — in  China  and  in  Egypt,  for 
example.  The  Canadian  Rebellion  and  the  mis- 
sion of  Lord  Durham  involved  the  Whigs  in 
fresh  anxieties,  and  laid  them  open  to  new  at- 
tacks from  their  enemies.  On  the  top  of  all 
came  some  disturbances,  of  a  legislative  rather 
than  an  insurrectionary  kind,  in  Jamaica,  and 
the  Government  felt  called  upon  to  bring  in  a 
Bill  to  suspend  for  five  years  the  Constitution  of 
the  island.  A  Liberal  and  reforming  Ministry 
bringing  in  a  Bill  to  suspend  a  Constitution  is  in 
a  highly  awkward  and  dangerous  position.  Peel 
saw  his  opportunity,  and  opposed  the  Bill.  The 
Government  won  by  a  majority  of  only  5.  Lord 
Melbourne  accepted  the  situation,  and  resigned 
[May  7,  1839].  The  Queen  sent  for  the  Duke  of 
Wellington,  and  he,  of  course,  advised  her  to 
send  for  Peel.  When  Peel  came,  the  young 
Queen  told  him  with  all  the  frankness  of  a  girl 
that  she  was  sorry  to  part  with  her  late  Minis- 
ters, and  that  she  did  not  disapprove  of  their 
conduct,  but  that  she  felt  bound  to  act  in  accor- 
dance with  constitutional  usages.  Peel  accepted 
the  task  of  forming  an  Administration.  And 
then  came  the  famous  dispute  known  as  the 
'Bedchamber  Question' — the  'question  de  ju- 
pons.'  The  Queen  wished  to  retain  her  ladies- 
in-waiting  ;  Peel  insisted  that  there  must  be  some 
change.  'Two  of  these  ladies  were  closely  re- 
lated to  Whig  statesmen  whose  policy  was  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  that  of  Peel  on  no  less  im- 
portant a  question  than  the  Government  of 
Ireland.  Peel  insisted  that  he  could  not  under- 
take to  govern  under  such  conditions.  The 
Queen,  acting  on  the  advice  of  her  late  Ministers, 
would  not  give  way.  The  whole  dispute  created 
immense  excitement  at  the  time.  There  was  a 
good  deal  of  misunderstanding  on  both  sides.  It 
was  quietly  settled,  soon  after,  by  a  compromise 
which  the  late  Prince  Consort  suggested,  and 
which  admitted  that  Peel  had  been  in  the  right. 
...  Its  importance  to  us  now  is  that,  as  Peel 
would  not  give  way,  the  Whigs  had  to  come 
back  again,  and  they  came  back  discredited  and 
damaged,  having,  as  Mr.  Molesworth  puts  it, 
got  back  '  behind  the  petticoats  of  the  ladies-in- 
waiting.'  "—J.  McCarthy,  Sir  Bobert  Peel,  ch.  12. 


Alsoin:  W.  N.  Molesworth,  Hist,  of  Eng., 
1830-1874,  V.  2,  ch.  1.— H.  Dunckley,  Lord  Mel- 
bourne, ch.  11. 

A.  D.  1837-. — The  Victorian  Age  in  Litera- 
ture.— "It  may  perhaps  be  assumed  without  any 
undue  amount  of  speculative  venturesomeness 
that  the  age  of  Queen  Victoria  will  stand  out  in 
history  as  the  period  of  a  literature  as  distinct 
from  others  as  the  age  of  Elizabeth  or  Anne,  al- 
though not  perhaps  equal  in  greatness  to  the 
latter,  and  far  indeed  below  the  former.  At  the 
opening  of  Queen  Victoria's  reign  a  great  race  of 
literary  men  had  come  to  a  close.  It  is  curious 
to  note  how  sharply  and  completely  the  litera- 
ture of  Victoria  separates  itself  from  that  of  tlic 
era  whose  heroes  were  Scott,  Byron,  and  Words- 
worth. Before  Queen  Victoria  came  to  the  throne, 
Scott,  Byron,  Coleridge,  and  Keats  were  dead. 
Wordsworth  lived,  indeed,  for  many  years  after; 
so  did  Southey  and  Moore ;  and  Savage  Landor 
died  much  later  still.  But  Wordsworth,  Southey, 
Moore,  and  Landor  had  completed  their  literary 
work  before  Victoria  came  to  the  throne.  Not 
one  of  them  added  a  cubit  or  an  inch  to  his  in- 
tellectual stature  from  that  time ;  some  of  them 
even  did  work  which  distinctly  proved  that  their 
day  was  done.  A  new  and  fresh  breath  was 
soon  after  breathed  into  literature.  Nothing, 
perhaps,  is  more  remarkable  about  the  better 
literature  of  the  age  of  Queen  Victoria  than  its 
complete  .severance  from  the  leadership  of  that 
which  had  gone  before  it,  and  its  evidence  of  a 
fresh  and  genuine  inspiration.  It  is  a  somewhat 
curious  fact,  too,  very  convenient  for  the  pur- 
poses of  this  history,  that  the  literature  of  Queen 
Victoria's  time  thus  far  divides  itself  clearly 
enough  into  two  parts.  The  poets,  novelists,  and 
historians  who  were  making  their  fame  with  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  had  done  all  their  best 
work  and  made  their  mark  before  these  later 
years,  and  were  followed  by  a  new  and  different 
school,  drawing  inspiration  from  wholly  different 
sources,  and  challenging  comparison  as  antago- 
nists rather  than  disciples.  We  speak  now  only 
of  literature.  In  science  the  most  remarkable 
developments  were  reserved  for  the  later  years 
of  the  reign." — J.  McCarthy,  The  Literature  of  the 
Victorian  Reign  {Appletons'  Journal,  Jan.,  1879, 
p.  498). — "The  age  of  Queen  Victoria  is  as  justly 
entitled  to  give  name  to  a  literary  epoch  as  any 
of  those  periods  on  which  this  distinction  has  been 
conferred  by  posterity.  A  new  tone  of  thought 
and  a  new  colour  of  style  are  discernible  from 
about  the  date  of  the  Queen's  accession,  and, 
even  should  these  characteristics  continue  for 
generations  without  apparent  break,  it  will  be 
remembered  that  the  Elizabethan  age  did  not 
terminate  with  Elizabeth.  In  one  important  re- 
spect, however,  it  differs  from  most  of  those 
epochs  which  derive  their  appellation  from  a  sov- 
ereign. The  names  of  Augustus,  Lorenzo,  Louis 
XIV.,  Anne,  are  associated  with  a  literary  ad- 
vance, a  claim  to  have  bequeathed  models  for 
imitation  to  succeeding  ages.  This  claim  is  not 
preferred  on  behalf  of  the  age  of  Victoria.  It 
represents  the  fusion  of  two  currents  which  had 
alternately  prevailed  in  successive  periods.  De- 
light and  Utility  met.  Truth  and  Imagination 
kissed  each  other.  Practical  reform  awoke  the 
enthusiasm  of  genius,  and  genius  put  poetry  to 
new  use,  or  made  a  new  path  for  itself  in  prose. 
The  result  has  been  much  gain,  some  loss,  and  an 
originality  of  aspect  which  would  alone  render  our 


985 


ENGLAND,  1837-. 


The  Victorian 
Literature. 


ENGLAND,  1837- 


Queen's  reign  intenectually  memorable.  Look- 
ing back  to  "the  18th  century  in  England,  we  see 
the  spirit  of  utility  entirely  in  the  ascendant. 
Intellectual  power  is  as  great  as  ever,  immortal 
books  are  written  as  of  old,  but  there  is  a  general 
incapacity  not  only  for  the  production,  but  for 
the  comprehension  of  works  of  the  imagination. 
Minds  as  robust  as  Johnson's,  as  acute  as  Hume's, 
display  neither  strength  nor  intelligence  in  their 
criticism  of  the  Elizabethan  writers,  and  their 
professed  regard  for  even  the  masterpieces  of  an- 
tiquity is  evidently  in  the  main  conventional. 
Conversely,  when  the  spell  is  broken  and  the 
capacity  for  imaginative  composition  returns,  the 
half -century  immediately  preceding  her  Majesty's 
accession  does  not,  outside  the  domain  of  the 
ideal,  produce  a  single  work  of  the  first  class. 
Hallam,  the  elder  Mill,  and  others  compose,  in- 
deed, books  of  great  value,  but  not  great  books. 
In  poetry  and  romantic  fiction,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  genius  of  that  age  reaches  a  height  unat- 
tained  since  Milton,  and  probably  not  destined  to 
be  rivalled  for  many  generations.  In  the  age  of 
Victoria  we  witness  the  fusion  of  its  predecessors. " 
— R.  Garnett,  Literature  (The  Beign  of  Queen 
Victoria,  ed.  by  T.  H.  Ward.  t\  2,  pp.  445-446).— 
"The  most  conspicuous  of  the  substantial  dis- 
tinctions between  the  literature  of  the  present 
day  and  that  of  the  first  quarter  or  third  of  the 
century  may  be  described  as  consisting  in  the 
different  relative  positions  at  the  two  dates  of 
Prose  and  Verse.  In  the  Georgian  era  ver.se  was 
in  the  ascendant;  in  the  Victorian  era  the  su- 
premacy has  passed  to  prose.  It  is  not  easy  for 
any  one  who  has  grown  up  in  the  latter  to  esti- 
mate aright  the  universal  excitement  which  used 
to  be  produced  in  the  former  by  a  new  poem  of 
Scott's,  or  Byron's,  or  Moore's,  or  Campbell's,  or 
Crabbe's,  or  the  equally  fervid  interest  that  was 
taken  throughout  a  more  limited  circle  in  one  by 
Wordsworth,  or  Southey,  or  Shelley.  There  may 
have  been  a  power  in  the  spirit  of  poetry  which 
that  of  prose  would  in  vain  aspire  to.  Probably 
all  the  verse  ages  would  be  found  to  have  been 
of  higher  glow  than  the  prose  ones.  The  age  in 
question,  at  any  rate,  will  hardly  be  denied  by 
any  one  who  remembers  it  to  have  been  in  these 
centuries,  perhaps  from  the  mightier  character 
of  the  events  and  circumstances  in  the  midst  of 
which  we  were  then  placed,  an  age  in  which  the 
national  heart  beat  more  strongly  than  it  does  at 
present  in  regard  to  other  things  as  well  as  this. 
Its  reception  of  the  great  poems  that  succeeded 
one  another  so  rapidly  from  the  first  appearance 
of  Scott  till  the  death  of  Byron  was  like  its  re- 
ception of  the  succession  of  great  victories  that, 
ever  thickening,  and  almost  unbroken  by  a  single 
defeat,  filled  up  the  greater  part  of  the  ten  years 
from  Trafalgar  to  Waterloo  —  from  the  last  fight 
of  Nelson  to  the  last  of  Wellington.  No  such 
huzzas,  making  the  welkin  ring  with  the  one 
voice  of  a  whole  people,  and  ascending  alike 
from  every  city  and  town  and  humblest  vDlage 
in  the  land,  have  been  heard  since  then.  ...  Of 
course,  there  was  plenty  of  prose  also  written 
throughout  the  verse  era ;  but  no  book  in  prose 
that  was  then  produced  greatly  excited  the  pub- 
lic mind,  or  drew  any  considerable  amount  of  at- 
tention, till  the  Waverley  novels  began  to  ap 
pear;  and  even  that  remarkable  series  of  works 
did  not  succeed  in  at  once  reducing  poetry  to  the 
second  place,  however  chief  a  share  it  may  have 
had  in  hastening  that  result.     Of  tlic  other  prose 


writing  that  then  went  on  what  was  most  effec- 
tive was  that  of  the  periodical  press. — of  the  Edin- 
burgh Review  and  Cobbett's  Register,  and,  at  a 
later  date,  of  Blackwood's  Magazine  and  the  Lou- 
don Magazine  (the  latter  with  Charles  Lamb  ;ind 
De  Quincey  among  its  contributors), —  much  of 
it  owing  more  or  less  of  its  power  to  its  vehement 
political  partisanship.  A  descent  from  poeti'}'  to 
prose  is  the  most  familiar  of  all  phenomena  in 
the  history  of  literature.  Call  it  natural  decay 
or  degeneracy,  or  only  a  relaxation  which  the 
spirit  of  a  people  requires  after  having  been  for 
a  certain  time  on  the  wing  or  on  the  stretch,  it 
is  what  a  period  of  more  than  ordinary  poetical 
productiveness  always  ends  in." — G.  L.  Craik, 
Compendious  Hist,  of  Eng.  Literature,  i>.  2,  j>p. 
553-555. — "What  .  .  .  are  the  specific  channels 
of  Victorian  utterance  in  verse  ?  To  define  them 
is  difficult,  because  they  are  so  subtly  varied  and 
so  inextricably  interwoven.  Yet  I  think  they 
may  be  superficially  described  as  the  idyll  and 
the  lyric.  Under  the  idyll  I  should  class  all 
narrative  and  descriptive  poetry,  of  which  this 
age  has  been  extraordinarily  prolific ;  sometimes 
assuming  tlie  form  of  minstrelsy,  as  in  the  lays 
of  Scott;  sometimes  approaching  to  the  classic 
style,  as  in  the  Hellenics  of  Landor ;  sometimes 
rivalling  the  novellette,  as  in  the  work  of  Tenny- 
son ;  sometimes  aiming  at  psychological  analysis, 
as  in  the  portraits  drawn  by  Robert  Browning; 
sometimes  confining  art  to  bare  history,  as  in 
Crabbe ;  sometimes  indulging  flights  of  pure  artis- 
tic fancy,  as  in  Keats'  "Eudyraiou"  and  "Lamia." 
Under  its  many  metamorphoses  the  narrative  and 
descriptive  poetry  of  our  century  bears  the  stamp 
of  the  idyll,  because  it  is  fragmentary  and  be- 
cause it  results  in  a  picture.  .  .  .  No  literature 
and  no  age  has  been  more  fertile  of  lyric  poetry 
than  English  literature  in  the  age  of  Victoria. 
The  fact  is  apparent.  I  should  superfluously 
burden  my  readers  if  I  were  to  prove  the  point 
by  reference  to  Byron,  Coleridge,  Shelley,  Keats, 
Wordsworth,  Rossetti,  Clough,  Swinburne,  Ar- 
nold, Tennyson,  and  I  do  not  know  how  many 
of  less  illustrious  but  splendid  names,  in  detail. 
The  causes  are  not  far  to  seek.  Without  a  com- 
prehensive vehicle  like  the  epic,  which  belongs 
to  the  first  period  of  national  life,  or  the  drama, 
which  belongs  to  its  secondary  period,  our  poets 
of  a  later  day  have  had  to  sing  from  their  inner 
selves,  subjectively,  introspectively,  obeying  im- 
pulses from  nature  and  the  world,  which  touched 
them  not  as  they  were  Englishmen,  but  as  they 
were  this  man  or  that  woman.  .  .  .  When  they 
sang,  they  sang  with  their  particular  voice ;  and 
the  lyric  is  the  natural  channel  for  such  song. 
But  what  a  complex  thing  is  this  Victorian  lyric  I 
It  includes  Wordsworth's  sonnets  and  Rossetti's 
ballads,  Coleridge's  '  Ancient  Mariner '  and  Keats' 
odes,  Clough's  '  Easter  day '  and  Tennyson's 
'  Maud,'  Swinburne's  '  Songs  before  Sunrise '  and 
Browning's  'Dramatis  Persons,'  Thomson's 
'  City  of  Dreadful  Night '  and  Mary  Robinson's 
'  Handful  of  Honeysuckle.?,'  Andrew  Lang's  Bal- 
lades and  Sharp's  '  Weird  of  Michael  Scot,'  Dob- 
son's  dealings  with  the  eighteenth  century  and 
Noels  'Child's  Garland, '"Barnes's  Dorsetshire 
Poems  and  Buchanan's  London  Lyrics,  the  songs 
from  Empedocles  on  Etna  and  Ebenezer  Jones's 
'  Pagans  Drinking  Chant,'  Shelley's  Ode  to  the 
West  Wind  and  Mrs.  Browning's  '  Pan  is  Dead,' 
Newman's  hymns  and  Gosse's  Chant  Royal.  The 
kaleidoscope  presented  by  this  lyric  is  so  inex- 


986 


ENGLAND,  1837-. 


Jlie  Chartists. 


ENGLAND,  1838-1843. 


haustible  that  any  man  with  the  fragment  of  a 
memory  might  pair  off  scores  of  poems  by  ad- 
mired authors,  and  yet  not  fall  upon  the  same 
parallels  as  those  which  I  have  made.  The 
genius  of  our  century,  debarred  from  epic,  de- 
Ijarred  from  drama,  falls  back  upon  idyllic  and 
lyrical  expression.  In  the  idyll  it  satisfies  its 
objective  craving  after  art.  In  the  lyric  it  pours 
forth  personality.  It  would  be  wrong,  however, 
to  limit  the  wealth  of  our  poetry  to  these  two 
branches.  Such  poems  as  Wordsworth's  '  Ex- 
cursion,'Byron's  'Don  Juan 'and  'Childe  Har- 
old,' Mrs.  Browning's  'Aurora  Leigh,'  William 
Morris's  'Earthly  Paradise,'  Clough's  'Amours 
de  Voyage,'  are  not  to  be  classified  in  either 
species.  They  are  partly  autobiographical,  and 
in  part  the  influence  of  the  tale  makes  itself  dis- 
tinctly felt  in  them.  Nor  again  can  we  omit  the 
translations,  of  which  so  many  have  been  made ; 
some  of  them  real  masterpieces  and  additions  to 
our  literature." — J.  A.  Symonds,  A  Comparison 
of  EUzahethan  with  Victorian  Poetry  {Pm'tnightly 
Bev.,  Jan.  1,  1889,  pp.  62-64).  — The  difference 
between  the  drama  and  the  novel  "is  one  of  per- 
spective ;  and  it  is  this  which  in  a  wide  sense  dis- 
tinguishes the  Elizabethan  and  the  Victorian 
views  of  life,  and  thence  of  art.  .  .  .  It  is  .  .  . 
the  present  aim  of  art  to  throw  on  life  all  manner 
of  side-lights,  such  as  the  stage  can  hardly  con- 
trive, but  which  the  novel  professes  to  manage 
for  those  who  can  read.  The  round  unvarnished 
tale  of  the  early  novelists  has  been  dead  for  over 
a  century,  and  in  its  place  we  have  fiction  that 
seeks  to  be  as  complete  as  life  itself.  .  .  .  There 
is,  then,  in  each  of  these  periods  an  excellence 
and  a  relative  defect:  in  the  Elizabethan,  round- 
ness and  balance,  but,  to  us,  a  want  of  fulness ; 
in  the  Victorian,  amplified  knowledge,  but  a  fall- 
ing short  of  comprehensiveness.  And  adapted 
to  each  respectively,  the  drama  and  the  novel 
are  its  most  expressive  literary  form.  The  limita- 
tions and  scope  of  the  drama  are  those  of  its 
time,  and  so  of  the  novel.  Even  as  the  Eliza- 
bethan lived  with  all  his  might  and  was  not 
troubled  about  many  things,  his  art  was  intense 
and  round,  but  restricted ;  and  as  the  Victorian 
commonly  views  life  by  the  light  of  a  patent 
reading-lamp,  and  so,  sitting  apart,  sees  much  to 
perplex,  the  novel  gives  a  more  complex  treat- 
ment of  life,  with  rarer  success  in  harmony. 
This  rareness  is  not,  however,  due  to  the  novel 
itself,  but  to  the  minds  of  its  makers.  In  pos- 
sibility it  is  indeed  the  greater  of  the  two,  being 
more  epical ;  for  it  is  as  capable  of  grandeur,  and 
is  ampler.  This  largeness  in  Victorian  life  and 
art  argues  in  the  great  novelists  a  quality  of 
spirit  which  it  is  difficult  to  name  without  being 
misunderstood,  and  which  is  peculiarly  non-Eliza- 
bethan. It  argues  what  Burns  would  call  a  casti- 
gated pulse,  a  supremacy  over  passion.  Yet 
they  are  not  Lucretian  gods,  however  calm  their 
atmosphere;  their  minds  are  not  built  above 
humanity,  but,  being  rooted  deep  in  it,  rise  high. 
.  .  .  Both  periods  are  at  heart  earnest,  and  the 
stamp  on  the  great  literature  of  each  is  that  of 
reality,  heightened  and  made  powerful  by  ro- 
mance. Nor  is  their  agreement  herein  greatly 
shaken  by  the  novel  laying  considerable  stress  on 
the  outside  of  life,  while  the  drama  is  almost 
heedless  of  it ;  for  they  both  seek  to  break  into 
the  kernel,  their  variance  being  chiefly  one  of 
method,  dictated  by  difference  of  knowledge, 
taste,  and  perception." — T.  D.  Robb.  The  Eliza- 


bethan Drama  and  the  Victorian  Novel  {Lippin- 
cott's  Monthly  Magazine,  April,  1891,  pp.  520-522). 
A.  D.  1838-1842.— The  Chartist  agitation.— 
"When  the  Parliament  was  opened  by  tCe  Queen 
on  the  5th  of  February,  1839,  a  passage  in  the 
Royal  Speech  had  reference  to  a  state  of  domes- 
tic affairs  which  presented  an  unhappy  con- 
trast to  the  universal  loyalty  which  marked  the 
period  of  the  Coronation.  Her  Majesty  said:  'I 
have  observed  with  pain  the  persevering  efforts 
which  have  been  made  in  some  parts  of  the  coun- 
try to  excite  my  subjects  to  disobedience  and 
resistance  to  the  law,  and  to  recommend  dan- 
gerous and  illegal  practices.'  Chartism,  which 
for  ten  subsequent  years  occasionally  agitated 
the  country,  had  then  begun  to  take  root.  On 
the  previous  12th  of  December  a  proclamation 
had  been  issued  against  illegal  Chartist  assem- 
blies, several  of  which  had  been  held,  says  the 
proclamation,  '  after  sunset  by  torchlight. '  The 
persons  attending  these  meetings  were  armed 
with  guns  and  pikes;  and  demagogues,  such  as 
Feargus  O'Connor  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Stephens  at 
Bury,  addressed  the  people  in  the  most  inflam- 
matory language.  .  .  .  The  document  called 
'The  People's  Charter,'  which  was  embodied  in 
the  form  of  a  bill  in  1838,  comprised  six  points:  — 
universal  suffrage,  excluding,  however,  women; 
division  of  the  United  Kingdom  into  equal 
electoral  districts ;  vote  by  ballot ;  annual  parlia- 
ments; no  property  qualification  for  members; 
and  a  paj'ment  to  every  member  for  his  legisla- 
tive services.  These  principles  so  quickly  rec- 
ommended themselves  to  the  working-classes 
that  in  the  session  of  1839  the  number  of  signa- 
tures to  a  petition  presented  to  Parliament  was 
upwards  of  a  million  and  a  quarter.  The  mid- 
dle classes  almost  universally  looked  with  ex- 
treme jealousy  and  apprehension  upon  any  at- 
tempt for  an  extension  of  the  franchise.  The 
upper  classes  for  the  most  part  regarded  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Chartists  with  a  contempt  which 
scarcely  concealed  their  fears.  This  large  sec- 
tion of  the  working  population  very  soon  became 
divided  into  what  were  called  physical-force 
Chartists  and  moral-force  Chartists.  As  a  nat- 
ural consequence,  the  principles  and  acts  of  the 
physical-force  Chartists  disgusted  every  sup- 
porter of  order  and  of  the  rights  of  property." — 
C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Eng.,  v.  8,  eh.  23.— 
"Nothing  can  be  more  unjust  than  to  represent 
the  leaders  and  promoters  of  the  movement  as 
mere  factious  and  self-seeking  demagogues. 
Some  of  them  were  men  of  great  ability  and  elo- 
quence; some  were  impassioned  young  poets, 
drawn  from  the  class  whom  Kingsley  has  de- 
scribed in  his  '  Alton  Locke ' ;  some  were  men  of 
education;  many  were  earnest  and  devoted  fanat- 
ics; and,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  all,  or  nearly 
all,  were  sincere.  Even  the  man  who  did  the 
movement  most  harm,  and  who  made  himself 
most  odious  to  all  reasonable  outsiders,  the  once 
famous,  now  forgotten,  Feargus  O'Connor,  ap 
pears  to  have  been  sincere,  and  to  have  person- 
ally lost  more  than  he  gained  by  his  Chartism. 
.  .  .  He  was  of  commanding  presence,  great  stat- 
ure, and  almost  gigantic  strength.  He  had  edu 
cation ;  he  had  mixed  in  good  society ;  he  belonged 
to  an  old  family.  .  .  .  There  were  many  men  in 
the  movement  of  a  nobler  moral  nature  than 
poor,  huge,  wild  Feargus  O'Connor.  There 
were  men  like  Thomas  Cooper,  .  .  .  devoted, 
impassioned,  full  of   poetic   aspiration,  and  no 


987 


ENGLAND,  1838-1843. 


Penny  Postage. 


ENGLAND,  1840. 


scant  measure  of  poetic  inspiration  as  well. 
Henry  Vincent  was  a  man  of  unimpeachable 
character.  .  .  .  Ernest  Jones  was  as  sincere  and 
self-sacrificing  a  man  as  ever  joined  a  sinking 
cause.  ...  It  is  necessary  to  read  sucli  a  book 
as  Thomas  Cooper's  Autobiography  to  under- 
stand how  genuine  was  the  poetic  and  political 
enthusiasm  which  was  at  the  heart  of  the  Cliart- 
ist  movement,  and  how  bitter  was  the  suffering 
which  drove  into  its  ranks  so  many  thousands 
of  stout  working  men  who,  in  a  country  like 
England,  might  well  have  expected  to  be  able 
to  live  by  the  hard  work  they  were  only  too  will- 
ing to  do.  One  must  read  the  Anti-Corn-Law 
Rhymes  of  Ebenezer  Elliott  to  understand  how 
the  '  bread  tax '  became  identified  in  the  minds 
of  the  very  best  of  the  working  class,  and  Iden- 
tified justly,  with  the  system  of  political  and 
economical  legislation  which  was  undoubtedly 
kept  up,  although  not  of  conscious  purpose,  for 
the  benefit  of  a  class.  ...  A  whole  literature  of 
Chartist  newspapers  sprang  up  to  advocate  the 
cause.  The  'Northern  Star,'  owned  and  con- 
ducted by  Feargus  O'Connor,  was  the  most  popu- 
lar and  influential  of  them;  but  every  great 
town  had  its  Chartist  press.  Meetings  were  held 
at  which  sometimes  very  violent  language  was 
employed.  ...  A  formidable  riot  took  place  in 
Birmingham,  where  the  authorities  endeavoured 
to  put  down  a  Chartist  meeting.  .  .  .  Efforts 
were  made  at  times  to  bring  about  a  compromise 
with  the  middle-class  Liberals  and  the  Anti-Corn- 
Law  leaders;  but  all  such  attempts  proved  fail- 
ures. The  Chartists  would  not  give  up  their 
Charter ;  many  of  them  would  not  renounce  the 
hope  of  seeing  it  carried  by  force.  The  Govern- 
ment began  to  prosecute  some  of  the  orators  and 
leaders  of  the  Charter  movement;  and  some  of 
these  were  convicted,  imprisoned  and  treated 
with  great  severity.  Henry  Vincent's  imprison- 
ment at  Newport,  In  Wales,  was  the  occasion  of 
an  attempt  at  rescue  [November  4,  1839]  which 
bore  a  very  close  resemblance  indeed  to  a  scheme 
of  organised  and  armed  rebellion."  A  conflict 
occurred  In  which  ten  of  the  Chartists  were 
killed,  and  some  50  were  wounded.  Three  of 
the  leaders,  named  Frost,  Williams,  and  Jones, 
were  tried  and  convicted  on  the  charge  of  high 
treason,  and  were  sentenced  to  death;  but  tlie 
sentence  was  commuted  to  one  of  transportation. 
"The  trial  and  conviction  of  Frost,  Williams, 
and  Jones,  did  not  put  a  stop  to  the  Chartist  agi- 
tation. On  the  contrary,  that  agitation  seemed 
rather  to  wax  and  strengthen  and  grow  broader 
because  of  the  attempt  at  Newport  and  its 
consequences.  .  .  .  There  was  no  lack  of  what 
were  called  energetic  measures  on  the  part  of  the 
Government.  The  leading  Chartists  all  over  the 
country  were  prosecuted  and  tried,  literally  by 
hundreds  In  most  cases  they  were  convicted 
and  sentenced  to  terras  of  imprisonment.  .  .  . 
The  working  classes  grew  more  and  more  bitter 
against  the  Whigs,  who  they  said  had  professed 
Liberalism  only  to  gain  their  own  ends.  .  .  . 
There  was  a  profound  distrust  of  the  middle 
class  and  their  leaders,"  and  it  was  for  tliat  rea- 
son that  the  Chartists  would  not  join  hands  with 
the  Anti-Corn-Law  movement,  then  in  full  prog- 
ress. "It  is  clear  that  at  that  time  the  Chart- 
ists, who  represented  the  bulk  of  the  artisan 
class  In  most  of  the  large  towns,  did  in  their  very 
hearts  believe  that  England  was  ruled  for  the 
benefit  of  aristocrats  and  millionaires  who  were 


absolutely  indifferent  to  the  sufferings  of  the 
poor.  It  is  equally  clear  that  most  of  what  are 
called  the  ruling  class  did  really  believe  the  Eng- 
lish working  men  who  joined  the  Chartist  move- 
ment to  be  a  race  of  fierce,  unmanageable,  and 
selfish  communists,  who,  if  thej'  were  allowed 
their  own  way  for  a  moment,  would  prove  them- 
selves determined  to  overthrow  throne,  altar,  and 
all  established  securities  of  society." — J.  Mc- 
Carthy, Hist,  of  Our  Own  Times,  ch.  5  (».  1). — 
Among  the  measures  of  coercion  advocated  in 
the  councils  of  the  Chartists  was  that  of  appoint- 
ing and  observing  what  was  to  be  called  a 
"'sacred  month,'  during  which  the  working 
classes  throughout  the  whole  kingdom  were  to 
abstain  from  every  kind  of  labour,  in  the  hope 
of  compelling  the  governing  classes  to  concede 
the  charter. " — W.  N.  Molesworth,  Hist,  of  Eng. , 
1830-1874,  V.  2,  ch.  5. 

Also  in  :  T.  Cooper,  Life,  by  himself,  ch.  14-23. 
— W.  Lovett,  Life  and  Struggles,  ch.  8-15. — T. 
Frost,  Forty  Years'  Recollections,  ch.  3-11. — H. 
Jephsou,  The  Platform,  pt.  4,  ch.  17  and  19  {v.  3). 

A.  D.  1839-1842. —  The  Opium  War  with 
China.     See  Chtna:  A.  D.  1839-1842. 

A.  D.  1840. — Adoption  of  Penny-Postage. — 
"In  1837  Mr.  Rowland  Hill  had  published  his 
plan  of  a  cheap  and  uniform  postage.  A  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Commons  was  appointed 
in  1837,  which  continued  its  inquiries  through- 
out the  session  of  1838,  and  arrived  at  the  con- 
viction that  the  plan  was  feasible,  and  deserving 
of  a  trial  under  legislative  sanction.  After  much 
discussion,  and  the  experiment  of  a  varying 
charge,  the  uniform  rate  for  a  letter  not  weigh- 
ing more  than  half  an  ounce  became,  by  order  of 
the  Treasury,  one  penny.  This  great  reform 
came  into  operation  on  the  10th  of  January,  1840. 
Its  final  accomplisliment  is  mainly  due  to  the  sa- 
gacity and  perseverance  of  the  man  who  first  con- 
ceived the  scheme."- — C.  Knight,  Crown  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  p.  883. — "Up  to  this  time  the  rates  of  pos- 
tage on  letters  were  very  heavy,  and  varied  ac- 
cording to  the  distance.  For  instance,  a  single 
letter  conveyed  from  one  part  of  a  town  to  an- 
other cost  2d. ;  a  letter  from  Reading,  to  London 
7d. ;  from  Brighton,  8d.  ;  from  Aberdeen,  Is.  3id. ; 
from  Belfast,  Is.  4d.  If  the  letter  was  writ- 
ten on  more  than  a  single  sheet,  the  rate  of  pos- 
tage was  much  higher." — W.  N.  Molesworth, 
Hist,  of  Eng.,  1830-1874,  v.  2,  ch.  1. 

Also  in  :  G.  B.  Hill,  Life  of  Sir  Rowland  Hill. 

A.  D.  1840. — The  Queen's  marriage. — "  On 
January  16, 1840,  the  Queen,  opening  Parliament 
in  person,  announced  her  intention  to  marry  her 
cousin,  Prince  Albert  of  Saxe  Coburg-Gotha  — a 
step  which  she  trusted  would  be  '  conducive  to 
the  interests  of  my  people  as  well  as  to  my  own 
domestic  happiness.'  .  .  .  It  was  indeed  a  mar- 
riage founded  on  affection.  .  .  .  The  Queen  had 
for  a  long  time  loved  her  cousin.  He  was  nearly 
her  own  age,  the  Queen  being  the  elder  by  three 
months  and  two  or  three  days.  Francis  Charles 
Augustus  Albert  Emmanuel  was  the  full  name 
of  the  young  Prince.  He  was  the  second  son  of 
Ernest,  Duke  of  Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld,  and  of 
his  wife  Louisa,  daughter  of  Augustus,  Duke  of 
Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg.  Prince  Albert  was  born 
at  the  Rosenau,  one  of  his  father's  residences, 
near  Coburg,  on  August  26,  1819.  ...  A  mar- 
riage between  the  Princess  Victoria  and  Prince 
Albert  had  been  thought  of  as  desirable  among 
the  families  on  both  sides,  but  it  was  always 


988 


ENGLAND,  1840. 


Peel  and 
ttie  Com  Laws. 


ENGLAND,  1846. 


wisely  resolved  that  nothing  should  be  said  to  the 
young  Princess  on  the  subject  unless  she  herself 
showed  a  distinct  liking  for  lier  cousin.  In  1836, 
Prince  Albert  was  brouglit  by  his  father  to  Eng- 
land, and  made  the  personal  acquaintance  of  the 
Princess,  and  she  seems  at  once  to  have  been 
drawn  toward  him  in  tlie  manner  whicli  her  fam- 
ily and  friends  would  most  have  desired.  .  .  . 
The  marriage  of  the  Queen  and  the  Prince  tools 
place  on  February  10,  1840."— J.  McCarthy,  ffist. 
of  Our  Own  Times,  ch.  7  (c  1). 

A.  D.  1841-1842. — Interference  in  Afghanis- 
tan.—The  first  Afghan  War.  See  Afghanis- 
tan: A.  D.  1803-1838;  1838-1843;  1842-1869. 

A.  D.  1841-1842.— Fall  of  the  Melbourne 
Ministry. — Opening  of  the  second  administra- 
tion of  Sir  Robert  Peel.— In  1841,  the  Whig 
Ministry  (Melbourne's)  determined  "to  do  some- 
thing for  freedom  of  trade.  .  .  .  Colonial  timber 
and  sugar  were  charged  with  a  duty  lighter  than 
was  imposed  on  foreign  timber  and  sugar ;  and 
foreign  sugar  paid  a  lighter  or  a  heavier  duty  ac- 
cording as  it  was  imported  from  countries  of 
slave  labour  or  countries  of  free  labour.  It  was 
resolved  to  raise  the  duty  on  colonial  timber,  but 
to  lower  the  duty  on  foreign  timber  and  foreign 
sugar,  and  at  the  same  time  to  replace  the  slid- 
ing scale  of  the  Corn  Laws  tlien  in  force  [see 
Tariff  Legislation  (Engi,.\nd):  A.  D.  1815- 
1828]  witli  a  fixed  duty  of  8s.  per  quarter.  .  .  . 
The  concessions  offered  by  tlie  Ministry,  too  small 
to  excite  tlie  enthusiasm  of  tlie  free  traders,  were 
enough  to  rally  all  the  threatened  interests  around 
Peel.  Baring's  revision  of  the  sugar  duties  was 
rejected  by  a  majority  of  36.  Everybody  ex- 
pected the  Ministers  to  resign  upon  this  defeat; 
but  they  merely  announced  the  continuance  of 
the  former  duties.  Then  Peel  gave  notice  of  a 
vote  of  want  of  confidence,  and  carried  it  on  the 
4th  of  June  by  a  single  vote  in  a  House  of  633 
members.  Instead  of  resigning,  the  Ministers 
appealed  to  tlie  country.  Tlie  elections  went  on 
tiirough  tlie  last  days  of  June  and  the  whole  of 
July.  When  the  new  Parliament  was  complete, 
it  appeared  that  the  Conservatives  could  count 
upon  367  votes  in  tlie  House  of  Commons.  The 
Ministry  met  Parliament  on  the  24th  of  August. 
Peel  in  the  House  of  Commons  and  Ripon  in  the 
House  of  Lords  moved  amendments  to  the  Ad- 
dress, which  were  carried  by  majorities  of  91  and 
72  respectively."  Tlie  Jliuistry  resigned  and  a 
Conservative  Government  was  formed,  with  Peel 
at  its  head,  as  First  Lord  of  tlie  Treasury.  "  Wel- 
lington entered  the  Cabinet  without  otfice,  and 
Lyndhurst  assumed  for  the  third  time  tlie  honours 
of  Lord  Chancellor. "  Among  the  lesser  members 
of  the  Administration  —  not  in  the  Cabinet  —  was 
Mr.  Gladstone,  who  became  Vice-President  of 
the  Board  of  Trade.  "This  time  Peel  experi- 
enced no  difficulty  with  regard  to  the  Queen's 
Household.  It  had  been  previously  arranged 
that  in  the  case  of  Lord  Melbourne's  resignation 
three  Whig  Ladies,  the  Ducliess  of  Bedford,  tlie 
Duchess  of  Sutherland,  and  Lady  Normanby, 
should  resign  of  their  own  accord.  One  or  two 
other  changes  in  tlie  Household  contented  Peel, 
and  these  the  Queen  accorded  with  a  frankness 
which  placed  him  entirely  at  his  ease.  .  .  .  Dur- 
ing the  recess  Peel  took  a  wide  survey  of  the  ills 
affecting  the  commonwealth,  and  of  the  possible 
remedies.  To  supply  the  deficiency  in  the  reve- 
nue without  laying  new  burthens  upon  the  hum- 
bler class;  to  revive  our  fainting  manufactures 


by  encouraging  the  importation  of  raw  material ; 
to  assuage  distress  by  making  the  price  of  pro- 
visions lower  and  more  regular,  without  taking 
away  that  protection  which  he  still  believed  es- 
sential to  British  agriculture:  these  were  the 
tasks  which  Peel  now  bent  his  mind  to  compass. 
.  .  .  Having  solved  [the  problems]  to  his  own 
satisfaction,  he  had  to  persuade  his  colleagues 
that  they  were  right.  Only  one  proved  obstinate. 
The  Duke  of  Buckingham  would  hear  of  no 
change  in  the  degree  of  protection  afforded  to 
agriculture.  He  surrendered  the  Privy  Seal, 
which  was  given  to  the  Duke  of  Buccleugh.  .  .  . 
The  Queen's  Speech  recommended  Parliament 
to  consider  the  state  of  the  laws  affecting  the  im- 
portation of  corn  and  other  commodities.  It  an- 
nounced the  beginmng  of  a  revolution  which  few 
persons  in  England  thought  possible,  although  it 
was  to  be  completed  in  little  more  than  ten  years." 
—P.  C.  Montague,  Life  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  ch.  7-8. 
AisoiN:  J.  R.  Thursfleld,  Peel,  ch.  7-8.— W. 
C.  Taylor,  Life  and  Times  of  Sir  Robert  Peel,  v. 
3,  ch.  3-5. — J.  W.  Croker,  Correspondence  and 
Diaries,  ch.  22  (».  2). 

A.  D.  1842. — The  Ashburton  Treaty.  See 
United  States  of  Am.:  A.  D.  1843. 

A.  D.  1844.— The  Bank  Charter  Act.  See 
MOKEY  AND  ISanking  :  A.  D.  1844. 

A.  D.  1845-1846. — Repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws. 
See  Tariff  Legislation  :  A.  D.  18-15-1846. 

A.  D.  1845-1846. — First  war  with  the  Sikhs. 
See  India:  A.  D.  1845-1849. 

A.  D.  1846. —  Settlement  of  the  Oregon 
Boundary  Question  with  the  United  States. 
See  Oregon:  A.  D.  1844-1846. 

A.  D.  1846. — The  vengeance  of  the  Tory- 
Protectionists. — Overthrow  of  Peel. — Advent 
of  Disraeli. — Ministry  of  Lord  John  Russell. — 
"Strange  to  say,  the  day  when  the  Bill  [extin- 
guishing the  duties  on  corn]  was  read  in  the 
House  of  Lords  for  the  third  time  [June  25]  saw 
the  fall  of  Peel's  Ministry.  The  fall  was  due  to 
the  state  of  Ireland.  The  Government  had  been 
bringing  in  a  Coercion  Bill  for  Ireland.  It  was 
introduced  while  the  Corn  Bill  was  yet  passing 
through  the  House  of  Commons.  The  situation 
was  critical.  All  the  Irish  followers  of  Mr. 
O'Connell  would  be  sure  to  oppose  the  Coercion 
Bill.  The  Liberal  party,  at  least  when  out  of  of- 
fice, had  usually  made  it  their  principle  to  oppose 
Coercion  Bills,  if  they  were  not  attended  with 
some  promises  of  legislative  reform.  The  Eng- 
lish Radical  members,  led  by  Mr.  Cobden  and  Mr. 
Bright,  were  certain  to  oppose  coercion.  If  the 
protectionists  should  join  with  these  other  oppo- 
nents of  the  Coercion  Bill,  the  fate  of  the 
measure  was  assured,  and  with  it  the  fate  of  the 
Government.  This  was  exactly  what  happened. 
Eighty  Protectionists  followed  Lord  George  Ben- 
tinck  into  the  lobby  against  the  Bill,  in  combina- 
tion with  the  Free  Traders,  the  Whigs,  and  the 
Irish  Catholic  and  national  members.  The  divi- 
sion took  place  on  the  second  reading  of  the  Bill  on 
Thursday,  June  35,  and  there  was  a  majority  of 
73  against  the  Ministry.  "—J.  McCarthy,  T7ie  Epoch 
of  Reform,  p.  183.— The  revengeful  Tory-Protec- 
tionist attack  on  Peel  was  led  by  Sir  George 
Bentinck  and  Benjamin  Disraeli,  then  just  mak- 
ing himself  felt  in  the  House  of  Commons.  It 
was  distinctly  grounded  upon  no  objection  in 
principle  to  the  Irish  Coercion  Bill,  but  on  the 
declaration  that  they  could  "no  longer  trust  Peel, 
and,  '  must  therefore  refuse  to  give  him  unconsti- 


989 


ENGLAND,  1846. 


TKe  Chartists 
Again, 


ENGLAND,  1849-1850. 


tutional  powers.' ...  He  had  twice  betrayed 
the  party  who  had  trusted  his  promises.  .  .  . 
'The  gentlemen  of  England,'  of  whom  it  had 
once  been  Sir  Robert's  proudest  boast  to  be  tlie 
leader,  declared  against  him.  He  was  beaten  by 
an  overpowering  majority,  and  his  career  as  an 
English  Minister  was  closed.  Disraeli's  had  been 
the  hand  which  dethroned  him,  and  to  Disraeli 
himself,  after  three  years  of  anarchy  and  uncer- 
tainty, descended  the  task  of  again  building 
together  the  shattered  ruins  of  the  Conservative 
party.  Very  unwillingly  they  submitted  to  the 
unwelcome  necessity.  Canning  and  the  elder 
Pitt  had  both  been  called  adventurers,  but  they 
had  birth  and  connection,  and  they  were  at  least 
Englishmen.  Disraeli  had  risen  out  of  a  despised 
race;  he  had  never  sued  for  their  favours;  he 
had  voted  and  spoken  as  he  pleased,  whether 
they  liked  it  or  not.  .  .  .  He  was  without  Court 
favour,  and  had  hardly  a  powerful  friend  except 
Lord  Lyndhurst.  He  had  never  been  tried  on 
the  lower  steps  of  the  official  ladder.  He  was 
young,  too—  only  42  —  after  all  the  stir  that  he 
had  made.  There  was  no- example  of  a  rise  so 
sudden  under  such  conditions.  But  the  Tory 
party  had  accepted  and  cheered  his  services,  and 
he  stood  out  alone  among  them  as  a  debater  of 
superior  power.  Their  own  trained  men  had  all 
deserted  them.  Lord  George  remained  for  a  year 
or  two  as  nominal  chief;  but  Lord  George  died; 
the  conservatives  could  only  consolidate  them- 
selves under  a  real  leader,  and  Disraeli  was  the 
single  person  that  they  had  who  was  equal  to  the 
situation.  ...  He  had  overthrown  Peel  and  suc- 
ceeded to  Peel's  honours." — J.  A.  Froude,  Lord 
Beaconsfidd,  ch.  9. — Although  the  Tory-Protec- 
tionists had  accomplished  the  overthrow  of  Peel, 
they  were  not  prepared  to  take  the  Government 
into  their  own  hands.  The  new  Ministry  was 
formed  under  Lord  John  Russell,  as  First  Lord  of 
the  Treasury,  with  Lord  Palmerston  in  the  Foreign 
Office,  Sir  George  Grey  in  the  Home  Department, 
Earl  Grey  Colonial  Secretary,  Sir  C.  Wood  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Exchequer,  and  Mr.  Macaulay  Pay- 
master-General.— W.  C.  Taylor,  Life  and  Times 
of  Sir  Robert  Pe-el,  )!.  3,  ch.  11.— The  most  im- 
portant enactment  of  the  Coercion  Bill  ' '  (which 
subsequently  gave  it  the  name  of  the  Curfew 
Act)  was  that  which  conferred  on  the  executive 
Government  the  power  in  proclaimed  districts  of 
forbidding  persons  to  be  out  of  their  dwellings 
between  sunset  and  sunrise.  The  right  of  pro- 
claiming a  district  as  a  disturbed  district  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Lord-Lieutenant,  who 
might  station  additional  constabulary  there,  the 
whole  expense  of  which  was  to  be  borne  by  the 
district." — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  period  i, 
p.  137. 

Also  in:  S.  Walpole,  Life  of  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell, ch.  16  {v.  1). — B.  Disraeli,  Lord  George  Ben- 
tinck,  ch.   14-16. 

A.  D.  1846.— Difference  with  France  on  the 
Spanish  marriages.  See  France;  A.  D.  1841- 
1848. 

A.  D.  1848.— The  last  Chartist  demonstra- 
tion.—  "The  more  violent  Chartists  had  broKen 
from  the  Radical  reformers,  and  had  themseives 
divided  into  two  sections;  for  their  nominal 
leader,  Feargus  O'Connor,  was  at  bitter  enmity 
with  more  thoroughgoing  and  earnest  leaders 
such  as  O'Brien  and  Cooper.  O'Connor  had  not 
proved  a  very  efficient  guide.  He  had  entered 
iato  a  land  scheme  of  a  somewhat  doubtful  char- 


acter. .  .  .  Hehad  also  iniudiciously  taken  up  a 
position  of  active  hostility  to  the  free-traders, 
and  while  thus  appearing  as  the  champion  of  a 
falling  cause  had  alienated  many  of  his  sup- 
porters. Yet  the  Parliament  elected  in  1846  con- 
tained several  representatives  of  the  Chartist 
principles,  and  O'Connor  himself  had  been  re- 
turned for  Nottingham  by  a  large  majority 
over  Hobhouse,  a  member  of  the  new  Ministry. 
The  revolution  in  France  gave  a  sudden  and 
enormous  impulse  to  the  agitation.  The  coun- 
try was  filled  with  meetings  at  which  violent 
speeches  were  uttered  and  hints,  not  obscure, 
dropped  of  the  forcible  establishment  of  a  repub- 
lic in  England.  A  new  Convention  was  sum- 
moned for  the  6tli  of  April,  a  vast  petition  was 
prepared,  and  a  meeting,  at  which  it  was  believed 
that  half  a  million  of  people  would  have  been 
present,  was  summoned  to  meet  on  Kennington 
Common  on  the  10th  of  April  for  the  purpose  of 
carrying  the  petition  to  tlie  House  in  procession. 
The  alarm  felt  in  London  was  very  great.  It 
was  thought  necessary  to  swear  in  special  con- 
stables, and  the  wealthier  classes  came  forward 
in  vast  numbers  to  be  enrolled.  There  are  said 
to  have  been  no  less  than  170,000  special  con- 
stables. The  military  arrangements  were  en- 
trusted to  the  Duke  of  Wellington;  the  public 
offices  were  guarded  and  fortified ;  public  vehicles 
were  forbidden  to  pass  the  streets  lest  they  should 
be  employed  for  barricades;  and  measures  were 
taken  to  prevent  the  procession  from  crossing 
the  bridges.  .  .  .  Such  a  display  of  determina- 
tion seemed  almost  ridicidous  when  compared 
with  what  actually  occurred.  But  it  was  in  fact 
the  cause  of  the  harmless  nature  of  the  meeting. 
Instead  of  half  a  million,  about  30,000  men 
assembled  on  Kennington  Common.  Feargus 
O'Connor  was  there;  Mr.  Maine,  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Police,  called  him  aside,  told  him  he 
might  hold  his  meeting,  but  that  the  procession 
would  be  stopped,  and  that  he  would  be  held 
personally  responsible  for  any  disorder  that  might 
occur.  His  heart  had  already  begun  to  fail  him, 
and  he  .  .  .  used  all  his  influence  to  put  an  end 
to  the  procession.  His  prudent  advice  was  fol- 
lowed, and  no  disturbance  of  any  importance 
took  place.  .  .  .  The  air  of  ridicule  thrown  over 
the  Chartist  movement  by  the  abortive  close  of  a 
demonstration  which  had  been  heralded  with  so 
much  violent  talk  was  increased  by  the  disclo- 
sures attending  the  presentation  of  the  petition." 
There  were  found  to  be  only  2,000,000  names 
appended  to  the  document,  instead  of  5,000,000 
as  claimed,  and  great  numbers  of  them  were 
manifestly  spurious.  "This  failure  proved  a 
deathblow  to  Chartism." — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of 
Eng.,  period  ^,  jrj).  176-178. 

Also  in;  S.  Walpole,  Hist,  of  Eng.  from  1815, 
ch.  20  (ii.  4). 

A.  D.  1848-1849. —  Second  war  with  the 
Sikhs. — Conquest  and  annexation  of  the  Pun- 
jab.    See  India;  A.  D.  184.5-1849. 

A.  D.  1849. — Repeal  of  the  Navigation  Laws. 
See  N.^viG.\TioN  L-\ws;  A.  I).  1849. 

A.  D.  1849-1850.— The  Don  Pacifico  Affair. 
— Lord  Palmerston's  speech. — The  little  diffi- 
culty with  Greece  which  came  to  a  crisis  in  the 
last  weeks  of  1849  and  the  first  of  1850  (see 
Greece;  A.  D.  1846-1850).  and  which  was  com- 
monly called  the  Don  Pacifico  Affair,  gave  occa- 
sion for  a  memorable  speech  in  Parliament  by 
Lord  Palmerston,  defending  his  foreign  policy 


990 


ENGLAND,  1849-1850. 


Palmerston  and, 
the  French  Coup  d^Eiat. 


ENGLAND,  1851-1852. 


against  attacks.  The  speech  (.June  24,  1850), 
which  occupied  five  hours,  "from  the  dusk  of 
one  day  till  the  dawn  of  another,"  was  greatly 
admired,  and  proved  immensely  effective  in  rais- 
ing the  speaker's  reputation.  "The  Don  Pacifico 
debate  was  unquestionably  an  important  land- 
mark in  the  life  of  Lord  Palmerston.  Hitherto 
his  merits  had  been  known  only  to  a  select  few ; 
for  the  British  public  does  not  read  Blue  Books, 
and  as  a  rule  troubles  itself  very  little  about 
foreign  politics  at  all.  .  .  .  But  the  Pacifico 
speech  caught  the  ear  of  the  nation,  and  was  re- 
ceived with  a  universal  verdict  of  approval. 
From  that  hour  Lord  Palmerston  became  the 
man  of  the  people,  and  his  rise  to  the  premier- 
ship only  a  question  of  time." — L.  C.  Sanders, 
Life  of  Viscount  Palmerston,  eh.  8. 

Also  in;  Marquis  of  Lome,  Yiacoxint  Palm- 
erston, ch.  7. — J.  McCarthy,  Hist,  of  Our  Own 
Times,  ch.  19  {v.  2),— J.  Morley,  Life  of  Cobden, 
1).  2,  ch.  3. — T.  Martin,  Life  of  the  Prince  Consort, 
ch.  38  (t:  2). 

A.  D.  1850.— The  so-called  Clayton-Bulwer 
Treaty  with  the  United  States,  establishing  a 
joint  protectorate  over  the  projected  Nicara- 
gua Canal.     See  Nicaragua:  A.  D.  1850. 

A.  D.  1850.— Restoration  of  the  Roman 
Episcopate. —  The  Ecclesiastical  Titles  Bill. 
See  P.'i.PACY:  A.  D.  1850. 

A.  D.  1850-1852. — The  London  protocol  and 
treaty  on  the  Schleswig-Holstein  Question. 
See  Scandinavian  States  (Denmark):  A.  D. 
1848-1862. 

A.  D.  1851.— The  Great  Exhibition.— "The 
first  of  May,  1851,  will  always  be  memorable  as 
the  day  on  which  the  Great  Exhibition  was 
opened  in  Hyde  Park.  .  .  .  Many  exhibitions  of 
a  similar  kind  have  taken  place  since.  Some  of 
these  far  surpassed  that  of  Hyde  Park  in  the 
splendour  and  variety  of  the  collections  brought 
together.  Two  of  them  at  least  —  those  of  Paris 
in  1867  and  1878  —  were  infinitely  superior  in  the 
array  and  display  of  the  products,  the  dresses, 
the  inhabitants  of  far-divided  countries.  But 
the  impression  which  the  Hyde  Park  Exhibition 
made  upon  the  ordinary  mind  was  like  that  of 
the  boy's  first  visit  to  the  play  —  an  impression 
never  to  be  equalled.  ...  It  was  the  first  or- 
ganised to  gather  all  the  representatives  of  the 
world's  industry  into  one  great  fair.  .  .  .  The 
Hyde  Park  Exhibition  was  often  described  as 
the  festival  to  open  the  long  reign  of  Peace.  It 
might,  as  a  mere  matter  of  chronology,  be  called 
without  any  impropriety  the  festival  to  celebrate 
the  close  of  the  short  reign  of  Peace.  From  that 
year,  1851,  it  may  be  said  fairly  enough  that  the 
world  has  hardly  known  a  week  of  peace.  .  .  . 
The  first  idea  of  the  Exhibition  was  conceived  by 
Prince  Albert ;  and  it  was  his  energy  and  influ- 
ence which  succeeded  in  carrying  the  idea  into 
practical  execution.  .  .  .  Many  persons  were 
disposed  to  sneer  at  it;  many  were  sceptical 
about  its  doing  any  good;  not  a  few  still  re- 
garded Prince  Albert  as  a  foreigner  and  a  ped- 
ant, and  were  slow  to  believe  that  anything 
really  practical  was  likely  to  be  developed  under 
his  impulse  and  protection.  .  .  .  There  was  a 
great  deal  of  difficulty  in  selecting  a  plan  for  the 
building.  .  .  .  Happily,  a  sudden  inspiration 
struck  Mr.  (afterward  Sir  Joseph)  Paxton,  who 
was  then  in  charge  of  the  Duke  of  Devonshire's 
superb  grounds  at  Chatsworth.  Why  not  try 
glass  and  iron  ?  he  asked  himself.  .  .  .  Mr.  Pax- 


ton  sketched  out  his  plan  hastily,  and  the  idea 
was  eagerly  accepted  by  the  Royal  Commission- 
ers. He  made  many  improvements  afterwards 
in  his  design ;  but  the  palace  of  glass  and  iron 
arose  within  the  specified  time  on  the  green  turf 
of  Hyde  Park.  "—J.  McCarthy,  Mist,  of  Our  Own 
Times,  ch.  21  {v.  2). 

Also  in  :  T.  Martin,  Life  of  tTie  Prince  Consort, 
ch.  33-36,  39,  42-43  (v.  2).  , 

A.  D.  1851-1852.— The  Coup  d'Etat  in 
France  and  Lord  Palmerston's  dismissal  from 
the  Cabinet. — Defeat  and  resignation  of  Lord 
John  Russell.— The  first  Derby-Disraeli  Min- 
istry and  the  Aberdeen  coalition  Ministry. — 
The  "coup  d'etat"  of  December  2nd,  1851,  by 
which  Louis  Napoleon  made  himself  master  of 
France  (see  France:  A.  D.  1851)  brought  about 
the  dismissal  of  Lord  Palmerston  from  the  British 
Ministry,  followed  quickly  by  the  overthrow  of 
the  Ministry  which  expelled  him.  "Lord  Palm- 
erston not  only  expressed  privately  to  Count 
Walewski  [the  French  ambassador]  his  approval 
of  the  'coup  d'etat,"  but  on  the  16th  of  December 
wrote  a  despatch  to  Lord  Normanby,  our  repre- 
sentative in  Paris,  expressing  in  strong  terms  his 
satisfaction  at  the  success  of  the  French  Presi- 
dent's arbitrary  action.  This  despatch  was  not 
submitted  either  to  the  Prime  Minister  or  to  the 
Queen,  and  of  course  the  offence  was  of  too 
serious  a  character  to  be  passed  over.  A  great 
deal  of  correspondence  ensued,  and  as  Palmer- 
ston's explanations  were  not  deemed  satisfactory, 
and  he  had  clearly  broken  the  undertaking  he 
gave  some  time  previously,  he  was  dismissed 
from  office.  .  .  .  There  were  some  who  thought 
him  irretrievably  crushed  from  this  time  for- 
ward ;  but  a  very  short  time  only  elapsed  before 
he  retrieved  his  fortunes  and  was  as  powerful 
as  ever.  In  February  1852  Lord  John  Russell 
brought  in  a  Militia  Bill  which  was  intended  to 
develop  a  local  militia  for  the  defence  of  the 
country.  Lord  Palmerston  strongly  disapproved 
of  the  scope  of  the  measure,  and  in  committee 
moved  an  amendment  to  omit  the  word  'local,' 
so  as  to  constitute  a  regular  militia,  which  should 
be  legally  transportable  all  over  the  kingdom, 
and  thus  be  always  ready  for  any  emergency. 
The  Government  were  defeated  by  eleven  votes, 
and  as  the  Administration  had  been  very  weak 
for  some  time.  Lord  John  resigned.  Lord 
Derby  formed  a  Ministry,  and  invited  the  co- 
operation of  Palmerston,  but  the  offer  was  de- 
clined, as  the  two  statesmen  differed  on  the 
question  of  imposing  a  duty  on  the  importation 
of  corn,  and  other  matters." — G.  B.  Smith,  The 
Prims  Ministers  of  Queen  Victoria,  pp.  264-265. 
—"The  new  Ministry  [in  which  Mr.  Disraeli 
became  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer]  took  their 
seats  on  the  27th  of  February,  but  it  was  under- 
stood that  a  dissolution  of  Parliament  would 
take  place  in  the  summer,  by  which  the  fate  of 
the  new  Government  would  be  decided,  and  that 
in  the  meantime  the  Opposition  should  hold  its 
hand.  The  raw  troops  [of  the  Tory  Party  in  the 
House  of  Commons],  notwithstanding  their  in- 
experience, acquitted  themselves  with  credit,  and 
some  good  Bills  were  passed,  the  Militia  Bill 
among  the  number,  while  a  considerable  addition 
to  the  strength  of  the  Navy  was  effected  by  the 
Duke  of  Northumberland.  No  doubt,  when  the 
general  election  began,  the  party  had  raised 
itself  considerably  in  public  estimation.  But  for 
one  consideration  the  country  would  probably 


991 


ENGLAND.  1851-1852. 


War  in  the 
Crimea. 


ENGLAND,  1856-1860. 


have  been  quite  willing  to  entrust  its  destinies  to 
their  hands.  But  that  one  consideration  was  all 
important.  .  .  .  The  Government  was  obliged 
to  go  to  the  country,  to  some  extent,  on  Protec- 
tionist principles.  It  was  known  that  a  Derbyite 
majority  meant  a  moderate  import  duty ;  and  the 
consequence  was  that  Lord  Derby  just  lost  the 
battle,  though  by  a  very  narrow  majority. 
When  Parliament  met  in  November,  Lord  Derby 
and  Mr.  Disraeli  had  a  very  difficult  game  to 
play.  .  .  .  Negotiations  were  again  opened  with 
Palmerston  and  the  Peelites,  and  on  this  occasion 
Gladstone  and  Mr.  Sidney  Herbert  were  willing 
to  join  if  Lord  Palmerston  might  lead  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  But  the  Queen  put  her 
veto  on  this  arrangement,  which  accordingly  fell 
ta  the  ground ;  and  Lord  Derby  had  to  meet  the 
Opposition  attack  without  any  reinforcements. 
...  On  the  16th  of  December,  .  .  .  being  de- 
feated on  the  Budget  by  a  majority  of  19,  Lord 
Derby  at  once  resigned." — T.  E.  Kebbel,  Life  of 
the  Earl  of  Derby,  ch.  6. — "The  new  Government 
[which  succeeded  that  of  Derby]  was  a  coalition 
of  Whigs  and  Peelites,  with  Sir  William  Moles- 
worth  thrown  in  to  represent  the  Radicals.  Lord 
Aberdeen  became  Prime  Minister,  and  Mr.  Glad- 
stone Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer.  The  other 
Peelites  in  the  Cabinet  were  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle, Sir  James  Graham,  and  Mr.  Sidney  Her- 
bert."—G.  W.  E.  Russell,  TJui  Rt.  Hon.  William 
Ewart  Qladstone,  ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1852. — Second  Burmese  War. — An- 
nexation of  Pegu.     See  India:  A.  D.  1852. 

A.  D.  1852-1853. — Abandonment  of  Protec- 
tion by  the  Conservatives. — Further  progress 
in  Free  Trade.  See  Tariff  Legislation 
(E.NGi.AND):  A.  D.  1846-1879;  and  Trade. 

A.  D.  1853-1855.— Civil-Service  Reform.  See 
CrvTL-SERVicE  Reform  in  England. 

A.  D.  1 853- 1 856.— The  Crimean  War.  See 
Russia:  A.  D.  1853-1854,  to  1854-1856. 

A.  D.  1855. — Popular  discontent  vvith  the 
management  of  the  war. — Fall  of  the  Aber- 
deen Ministry. — Palmerston's  first  premier- 
ship.— A  brightening  of  prospects. — "Our 
army  system  entirely  broke  down  [in  the  Cri- 
mea], and  Lord  Aberdeen  and  the  Duke  of  New- 
castle were  made  the  scapegoats  of  the  popular 
indignation.  .  .  .  But  England  was  not  only 
suffering  from  unpreparedness  and  want  of  ad- 
ministrative power  in  the  War  department ;  there 
were  dissensions  in  the  Cabinet.  .  .  .  Lord  John 
Russell  gave  so  much  trouble,  that  Lord  Aber- 
deen, after  one  of  the  numerous  quarrels  and 
reconciliations  which  occurred  at  this  juncture, 
wrote  to  the  Queen  that  nothing  but  a  sense 
of  public  duty  and  the  necessity  for  avoiding 
the  scandal  of  a  rupture  kept  him  at  his  post. 
...  At  a  little  later  stage  .  .  .  the  difficulties 
were  renewed.  Mr.  Roebuck  gave  notice  of  his 
motion  for  the  appointment  of  a  select  committee 
to  inquire  into  the  condition  of  the  army  be- 
fore Sebastopol,  and  Lord  John  definitively  re- 
signed. The  Ministry  remained  in  office  to  await 
the  fate  of  Jlr.  Roebuck's  motion,  which  was 
carried  against  them  by  the  very  large  majority 
of  157.  Lord  Aberdeen  now  placed  the  resigna- 
tion of  the  Cabinet  in  the  hands  of  the  Queen 
[Jan.  31,  1855].  .  .  .  Thus  fell  the  Coalition 
Cabinet  of  Lord  Aberdeen.  In  talent  and  parlia- 
mentary influence  it  was  apparently  one  of  the 
strongest  Governments  ever  seen,  but  it  suffered 
from  a  fatal  want  of    cohesion." — G.  B.  Smith, 


Prime  Ministers  of  Queen  Victoria,  pp.  227-230. 
—  "Lord  Palmerston  had  passed  his  70th  year 
when  the  Premiership  came  to  him  for  the  first 
time.  On  the  fall  of  the  Coalition  Government 
the  Queen  sent  for  Lord  Derby,  and  upon  his 
failure  for  Lord  John  Russell.  Palmerston  was 
willing  at  the  express  request  of  her  Majesty  to 
serve  once  more  under  his  old  chief,  but  Claren- 
don and  many  of  the  Whigs  not  unnaturally 
positively  refused  to  do  so.  Palmerston  finally 
undertook  and  successfully  achieved  the  task  of 
forming  a  Government  out  of  the  somewhat 
heterogeneous  elements  at  his  command.  Lord 
Clarendon  continued  at  the  Foreign  Office,  and 
Gladstone  was  still  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer. 
The  War  Department  was  reorganised,  the  office 
of  Secretary  at  War  disappearing,  and  being 
finally  merged  in  that  of  Secretary  of  State  for 
War.  Although  Palmerston  objected  to  Roe- 
buck's Committee,  he  was  practically  compelled 
to  accept  it,  and  this  led  to  the  resignation  of 
Gladstone,  Graham  and  Herbert;  their  places 
being  taken  by  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  Sir  Charles 
Wood,  and  Lord  John  Russell." — Marquis  of 
Lome,  Viscount  Palmerston,  ch.  10. — "  It  was  a 
dark  hour  in  the  history  of  the  nation  when  Lord 
Palmerston  essayed  the  task  which  had  been 
abandoned  by  the  tried  wisdom  of  Derby,  Lans- 
downe,  and  John  Russell.  Far  away  in  the 
Crimea  the  war  was  dragging  on  without  much 
hope  of  a  creditable  solution,  though  the  winter 
of  discontent  and  mismanagement  was  happily 
over.  The  existence  of  the  European  concert 
was  merely  nominal.  The  Allies  had  discovered, 
many  months  previously,  that,  though  Austria 
was  staunch,  Prussia  was  a  faithless  friend.  .  .  . 
Between  the  belligerent  powers  the  cloud  of  sus- 
picion and  distrust  grew  thicker ;  for  Abd-el- 
Medjid  was  known  to  be  freely  squandering  his 
war  loans  on  seraglios  and  palaces  while  Kars 
was  starving ;  and  though  there  was  no  reason 
for  distrusting  the  present  good  faith  of  the 
Emperor  of  the  French,  his  policy  was  straight- 
forward only  as  long  as  he  kept  himself  free  from 
the  influence  of  the  gang  of  stock-jobbers  and 
adventurers  who  composed  his  Ministry.  Nor 
was  the  horizon  much  brighter  on  the  side  of 
England.  A  series  of  weak  cabinets,  and  the 
absence  of  questions  of  organic  reform,  had  com- 
pletely relaxed  the  bouds  of  Party.  If  there  was 
noregular  Opposition,  still  less  was  there  a  regular 
majority.  .  .  .  And  the  hand  that  was  to  restore 
order  out  of  chaos  was  not  so  steady  as  of  yore. 
.  .  .  Lord  Palmerston  was  not  himself  during  the 
first  weeks  of  his  leadership.  But  the  prospect 
speedily  brightened.  Though  Palmerston  was 
considerably  over  seventy,  he  still  retained  a  won- 
derful vigour  of  constitution.  He  was  soon  re- 
stored to  health,  and  was  always  to  be  found  at 
his  post.  .  .  .  His  generalship  secured  ample 
majorities  for  the  Government  in  every  division 
during  the  session.  Of  the  energy  which  Lord 
Palmerston  inspired  into  the  operations  against 
Sebastopol,  there  can  hardly  be  two  opinions." 
— L.  C.  Sanders,  Life  of  Viscount  Palmerston, 
ch.  10. 

A.  D.  1855. —  Mr.  Gladstone's  Commission 
to  the  Ionian  Islands.  See  Ionian  Islands: 
A.  D.  1815-1863. 

A.  D.  1856-1860.— War  writh  China.— French 
alliance  in  the  war. — Capture  of  Canton. — 
Entrance  into  Pekin. — Destruction  of  the 
Summer  Palace.     See  China:  A.  D.  1856-1860 


992 


ENGLAND,  1857-1858. 


Cotton  Famine. 


ENGLAND,  1861-1865. 


A.  D.  1 857-1 858.— The  Sepoy  Mutiny  in 
India.  See  India:  A.  D.  1857,  to  1857-1858 
(July — June). 

A.  D.  1858. — Assumption  of  the  government 
of  India  by  the  Crown. — End  of  the  rule  of  the 
East  India  Co.     See  India:  A.  D.  1858. 

A.  D.  1858-1859.— The  Conspiracy  Bill.— 
Fall  of  Palmerston's  government. —  Second 
Ministry  of  Derby  and  Disraeli. — Lord  Palmer- 
ston  again  Premier. — "  On  January  14,  1858, 
an  attempt  was  made  to  assassinate  Napoleon 
III.  by  a  gang  of  desperadoes,  headed  by  Orsini, 
whose  head-quarters  had  previously  been  in  Lon- 
don. Not  witliout  some  reason  it  was  felt  in 
France  tliat  such  men  ought  not  to  be  able  to  find 
shelter  in  this  country,  and  the  French  Minister 
was  ordered  to  make  representations  to  that 
effect.  Lord  Palmerston,  alwa}'S  anxious  to  cul- 
tivate the  good  feeling  of  the  French  nation,  de- 
sired to  pass  a  measure  which  should  give  to  the 
British  Government  the  power  to  banish  from 
England  any  foreigner  conspiring  in  Britain 
against  the  life  of  a  foreign  sovereign.  .  .  .  An 
unfortunate  outburst  of  vituperation  against  Eng- 
land in  the  French  press,  and  the  repetition  of 
such  language  by  officers  of  the  French  army 
who  were  received  by  the  Emperor  when  thej' 
waited  on  liiin  as  a  deputation,  aroused  very 
angry  English  feeling.  Lord  Palmerston  had 
already  introduced  the  Bill  he  desired  to  pass, 
and  it  had  been  read  the  first  time  by  a  majority 
of  300.  But  the  foolish  action  of  the  French 
papers  changed  entirely  the  current  of  popular 
opinion.  Lord  Derby  saw  his  advantage.  An 
amendment  to  the  second  reading,  which  was 
practically  a  vote  of  censure,  was  carried  against 
Lord  Palmerston,  and  to  his  own  surprise  no  less 
than  to  that  of  the  country,  he  was  obliged  to  re- 
sign. Lord  Derby  succeeded  to  Palmerston's 
vacant  office.  .  .  .  Lord  Derby's  second  Ministry 
was  wrecked  upon  the  fatal  rock  of  Reform  early 
in  1859,  and  at  once  appealed  to  the  country.  .  .  . 
The  election  of  1859  failed  to  give  the  Conserva- 
tives a  majority,  and  soon  after  the  opening  of 
the  session  they  were  defeated  upon  a  vote  of 
want  of  confidence  moved  by  Lord  Hartington. 
Earl  Granville  was  commissioned  by  the  Queen 
to  form  a  Ministry,  because  her  Majesty  felt  that 
'  to  make  so  marked  a  distinction  as  is  implied 
in  the  choice  of  one  or  other  as  Prime  Minister  of 
two  statesmen  so  full  of  years  and  honour  as  Lord 
Palmerston  and  Lord  John  Russell  would  be  a 
very  invidious  and  unwelcome  task.'  Each  of 
these  veterans  was  willing  to  serve  under  the 
other,  but  neither  would  follow  the  lead  of  a 
third.  And  so  Granville  failed,  and  to  Palmer- 
ston was  entrusted  the  task.  He  succeeded  in 
forming  what  was  considered  the  strongest  ]\Iin- 
istry  of  modem  times,  so  far  as  the  individual 
ability  of  its  members  was  concerned.  Russell 
went  to  the  Foreign  Office  and  Gladstone  to  the 
Exchequer." — Marquis  of  Lome,  Viscount  Palm- 
erston, ch.  10-11. 

Also  in:  T.  Martin,  Life  of  the  Prince  Con- 
sort, ch.  83-84.  91-93,  and  94  (v.  4).— T.  E.  Keb- 
bel.  Life  of  the  Earl  of  Derby,  eh.  7. 

A.  b.  i860.  —  The  Cobden-Chevalier  com- 
mercial treaty  with  France.  See  Tariff 
Legisl.\tion  (France):  A.  D.  1853-1860. 

A.  D.  1861  (May).— The  Queen's  Proclama- 
tion of  Neutrality  with  reference  to  the  Ameri- 
can Civil  War.  See  United  States  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1861  (APRn—MAT). 

''  993 


A.  D.  1861  (October). — The  allied  interven- 
tion in  Mexico.     See  Mexico:  A.  D.  1861-1867. 

A.  D.  1861  (November).— The  Trent  Affair. 
— Seizure  of  Mason  and  Slidell.  See  United 
St.\tes  of  A.M. :  A.  D.  1861  (November). 

A.  D.  1861-1865. — The  Cotton  Famine. — 
"Upon  a  population,  containing  half  a  million  of 
cotton  operatives,  in  a  career  of  rapid  prosperity, 
the  profits  of  1860  reaching  in  some  instances 
from  30  to  40  per  cent  upon  the  capital  engaged; 
and  with  wages  also  at  the  highest  point  which 
they  had  ever  touched,  came  the  news  of  the 
American  war,  with  the  probable  stoppage  of  85 
per  cent  of  the  raw  material  of  their  manufacture. 
A  few  wise  heads  hung  despondently  down,  or 
shook  with  fear  for  the  fate  of  '  the  freest  nation 
under  heaven,'  but  the  great  mass  of  traders  re- 
fused to  credit  a  report  which  neither  suited  their 
opinions  nor  their  interests.  .  .  .  There  was  a 
four  months'  supply  held  on  this  side  the  water 
at  Christmas  (1860),  and  there  had  been  three 
months'  imports  at  the  usual  rate  since  that  time, 
and  there  would  be  the  usual  twelve  months'  sup- 
ply from  other  sources ;  and  by  the  time  this  was 
consumed,  and  the  five  months'  stock  of  goods 
held  by  merchants  sold,  all  would  be  right  again. 
That  this  was  the  current  opinion  was  proved  by 
the  most  delicate  of  all  barometers,  the  scale  of 
prices;  for  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year 
1861  tlie  market  was  dull,  and  prices  scarcely 
moved  upwards.  But  towards  the  end  of  the 
year  the  aspect  of  affairs  began  to  change.  .  .  . 
The  Federals  had  declared  a  blockade  of  the 
Southern  ports,  and,  although  as  yet  it  was  pretty 
much  a  'paper  blockade,'  yet  the  newly  estab- 
lished Confederate  government  was  doing  its  best 
to  render  it  effective.  They  believed  that  cottJon 
■VPas  king  in  England,  and  that  the  old  country 
could  not  do  without  it,  and  would  be  forced,  in 
order  to  secure  its  release,  to  side  with  those  who 
kept  it  prisoner.  Jlills  began  to  run  short  tiiUB 
or  to  close  in  the  month  of  October,  but  no  noise 
was  made  about  it ;  and  the  only  evidence  of  any- 
thing unusual  was  at  the  boards  of  guardians, 
where  the  applications  had  reached  the  mid-win- 
ter height  three  months  earlier  than  usual.  The 
poor-law  guardians  in  the  various  unions  were 
aware  that  the  increase  was  not  of  the  usual 
character — it  was  too  early  for  out-door  labour- 
ers to  present  themselves;  still  the  difference  was 
not  of  serious  amount,  being  only  about  3,000  in 
the  whole  twenty-eight  unions.  In  November, 
7,000  more  presented  themselves,  and  in  Decem- 
ber the  increase  was  again  7,000;  so  that  the  re- 
cipients of  relief  were  at  this  time  13,000  (or  aboiit 
35  per  cent)  more  than  in  the  January  previous. 
And  now  serious  thoughts  began  to  agitate  many 
minds ;  cotton  was  very  largely  held  by  specula- 
tors for  a  rise,  the  arrivals  were  meagre  in  quan- 
tity, and  the  rates  of  insurance  began  to  show 
that,  notwithstanding  the  large  profits  on  im- 
ports, the  blockade  was  no  longeron  paper  alone. 
January,  1862,  added  16,000  more  to  the  recipi- 
ents of  relief,  who  were  now  70  per  cent  abovE 
the  usual  number  for  the  same  period  of  the 
year.  But  from  the  facts  as  afterwards  revealed, 
the  statistics  of  boards  of  guardians  were  evi- 
dently no  real  measure  of  the  distress  prevailing. 
.  .  .  The  month  of  February  usually  lessens  the 
dependents  on  the  poor-rates,  for  out-door  labour 
begins  again  as  soon  as  the  signs  of  sjiring  ap- 
pear; but  in  1863  it  added  nearly  9,000  to  the  al- 
ready large  number  of  extra  cases,  the  recipients 


ENGLAND,  1861-1863. 


Cotton  Famine. 


ENGLAND,  1865-1868. 


being  now  105  per  cent  above  the  average  for  the 
same  period  of  the  year.  But  this  average  ^ives 
no  idea  of  the  pressure  in  particular  locahties. 
.  .  .  The  cotton  operatives  were  now,  if  left  to 
themselves,  like  a  ship's  crew  upon  short  provi- 
sions, and  those  very  unequally  distributed,  and 
without  chart  or  compass,  and  no  prospect  of  get- 
ting to  land.  Li  Ashton  there  were  3,197;  in 
Stockport,  8,588;  and  in  Preston,  9.488  persons 
absolutely  foodless;  and  who  nevertheless  de- 
clined to  go  to  the  guardians.  To  have  forced 
the  high-minded  heads  of  these  families  to  hang 
about  the  work-house  lobbies  in  company  with 
the  idle,  the  improvident,  the  dirty,  the  diseased, 
Mid  the  vicious,  would  have  been  to  break  their 
heaving  hearts,  and  to  hurl  them  headlong  into 
despair.  Happily  there  is  spirit  enough  in  this 
country  to  appreciate  nobility,  even  when  dressed 
in  fustian,  and  pride  and  sympathy  enough  to 
spare  even  the  poorest  from  unnecessary  humili- 
ation ;  and  organisations  spring  up  for  any  im- 
portant work  so  soon  as  the  necessity  of  the  case 
becomes  urgent  in  any  locality.  Committees 
arose  almost  simultaneously  in  Ashton,  Stock- 
port, and  Preston ;  and  in  April,  Blackburn  fol- 
lowed in  the  train,  and  the  guardians  and  the  re- 
lief committees  of  these  several  places  divided  an 
extra  6, 000  dependents  between  them.  The  month 
of  May,  which  usually  reduces  pauperism  to  al- 
most its  lowest  ebb,  added  6,000  more  to  the  re- 
cipients from  the  guardians,  and  5,000  to  the  de- 
pendents on  the  relief  committees,  which  were 
now  six  in  number,  Oldham  and  Prestwich  (a 
part  of  Manchester)  being  added  to  the  list.  .  .  . 
The  month  of  June  sent  6,000  more  applicants  to 
sue  for  bread  to  the  boards  of  guardians,  and 
5,000  additional  to  the  six  relief  committees ;  and 
these  six  committees  had  now  as  many  depend- 
ents as  the  whole  of  the  boards  of  guardians  in 
the  twenty-eight  unions  supported  in  ordinary 
years.  ...  In  the  month  of  July,  when  all  un- 
employed operatives  would  ordinarily  be  lending 
a  hand  in  the  hay  harvest,  and  picking  up  the 
means  of  living  whilst  improving  in  health  and 
enjoying  the  glories  of  a  summer  in  the  country, 
the  distress  increased  like  a  flood,  13,000  ad- 
ditional applicants  being  forced  to  appeal  for 
poor-law  relief ;  whilst  11,000  others  were  adopted 
by  the  seven  relief  committees.  ...  In  August 
the  flood  had  become  a  deluge,  at  which  the 
stoutest  heart  might  stand  appalled.  The  in- 
creased recipients  of  poor-law  relief  were  in  a 
single  month  33,000,  being  nearly  as  many  as  the 
total  number  diargeable  in  the  same  month  of 
the  previous  j'ear,  whilst  a  further  addition  of 
more  than  34,000  became  chargeable  to  the  relief 
committees.  .  .  .  Most  of  the  cotton  on  hand  at 
this  period  was  of  Indian  growth,  and  needed  al- 
terations of  machinery  to  make  it  workable  at  all, 
and  in  good  times  an  employer  might  as  well  shut 
up  his  mill  as  try  to  get  it  spun  or  manufactured. 
But  oh  !  how  glad  would  the  tens  of  thousands 
of  unwilling  idlers  have  been  now,  to  have  had 
a  chance  even  of  working  at  Surats,  although 
they  knew  that  it  required  much  harder  work 
for  one-third  less  than  normal  wages.  .  .  .  An- 
other month  is  past,  and  October  has  added  to 
the  number  under  the  guardians  no  less  than 
55,000,  and  to  the  charge  of  the  relief  committees 
39,000  more.  .  .  .  And  now  dread  winter  ap- 
proaches, and  the  authorities  have  to  deal  not 
only  with  hundreds  of  thousands  who  are  com- 
pulsorily  idle,   and  consequently  foodless,  but 


who  are  wholly  unprepared  for  the  inclemencies 
of  the  season ;  who  have  no  means  of  procuring 
needful  clothing,  nor  even  of  making  a  show  of 
cheerfulness  upon  the  hearth  by  means  of  the 
fire,  which  is  almost  as  useful  as  food.  .  .  .  The 
total  number  of  persons  chargeable  at  the  end  of 
November,  1862,  was,  under  boards  of  guardians, 
258,357,  and  on  relief  committees,  3007084;  total 
458,441.  .  .  .  There  were  not  wanting  men  who 
saw,  or  thought  they  saw,  a  short  way  out  of  the 
difficulty,  viz.,  by  a  recognition  on  the  part  of 
the  English  government  of  the  Southern  con- 
federacy in  America.  And  meetings  were  called 
in  various  places  to  memorialise  the  government 
to  this  effect.  Such  meetings  were  always  bal- 
anced by  counter  meetings,  at  which  it  was  shown 
that  simple  recognition  would  be  waste  of  words ; 
that  it  would  not  bring  to  our  siiores  a  single 
shipload  of  cotton,  unless  followed  up  by  an 
armed  force  to  break  the  blockade,  which  course 
if  adopted  would  be  war ;  war  in  favour  of  the 
slave  confederacy  of  the  South,  and  against  the 
free  North  and  North-west,  whence  comes  a  large 
proportion  of  our  imported  corn.  In  addition  to 
the  folly  of  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  a  nation 
3,000  rniles  away,  the  cotton,  if  we  succeeded  in 
getting  it,  would  be  stained  with  blood  and  cursed 
with  the  support  of  slavery,  and  would  also  pre- 
vent our  getting  the  food  which  we  needed  from 
the  North  equally  as  much  as  the  cotton  from 
the  South.  .  .  .  These  meetingsand  counter  meet- 
ings perhaps  helped  to  steady  the  action  of  the 
government  (notwithstanding  the  sympathy  of 
some  of  its  members  towards  the  South),  to  con- 
firm them  in  the  policy  of  the  royal  proclamation, 
and  to  determine  them  to  enforce  the  provisions 
of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  against  all  of- 
fenders. .  .  .  The  maximum  pressure  upon  the 
relief  committees  was  reached  early  in  December, 
1862,  but,  as  the  tide  had  turned  before  the  end 
of  the  month,  the  highest  number  chargeable  at 
any  one  time  is  nowhere  shown.  The  highest 
number  exhibited  in  the  returns  is  for  the  last 
week  in  the  year  1863,  viz. :  485,434  persons ;  but 
in  the  previous  weeks  of  the  same  month  some 
thousands  more  were  relieved. " — J.  Watts,  The 
Facts  of  the  Cotton  Famine,  ch.  8  and  12. 

Also  in:  R.  A.  Arnold,  Hist,  of  the  Cotton 
Famine.— E.  Waugh,  Factory  Folk  during  the 
Cotton  Famine. 

A.  D.  1862  (July).— The  fitting  out  of  the 
Confederate  cruiser  Alabama  at  Liverpool. 
See  Alab.«ia  Claims:  A.  D.  1S63-1864. 

A.  D.  1865. — Governor  Eyre  and  the  Jamaica 
Insurrection.     See  Jamaica:  A.  D.  1865. 

A.  D.  1865-1868.— Death  of  Palmerston.— 
Ministry  of  Lord  John  Russell. — Its  unsatis- 
factory Reform  Bill  and  its  resignation. — Tri- 
umph of  the  Adullamites. — Third  administra- 
tion of  Derby  and  Disraeli,  and  its  Reform 
Bills. — "On  the  death  of  Lord  Palmerston 
[which  occurred  October  18,  1865],  the  premier- 
ship was  intrusted  for  the  second  time  to  Earl 
Russell,  with  Mr.  Gladstone  as  leader  in  the 
House  of  Commons.  The  queen  opened  her  sev- 
enth parliament  (February  6,  1866),  in  person, 
for  the  first  time  since  the  prince  consort's  death. 
On  March  12th  Mr.  Gladstone  brought  forward 
his  scheme  of  reform,  proposing  to  extend  the 
franchise  in  counties  and  boroughs,  but  the  op- 
position of  the  moderate  Liberals,  and  their  join- 
ing the  Conservatives,  proved  fatal  to  the  meas- 
ure,  and  in  consequence   the  ministry  of  Earl 


994 


ENGLAND,  1865-1868. 


Reform  BUI 
of  1867. 


ENGLAND,   1865-1868. 


Russell  resigned.  The  government  had  been 
personally  weakened  by  the  successive  deaths  of 
Mr.  Sidney  Herbert,  Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis, 
the  Duke  of  Newcastle,  Earl  of  Elgin,  and  Lord 
Palmerston.  The  queen  sent  for  the  Earl  of 
Derby  to  form  a  Cabinet,  who,  although  the 
Conservative  party  was  in  the  minority  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  accepted  the  responsibility 
of  undertaking  the  management  of  the  govern- 
ment :  he  as  Premier  and  First  Lord  of  the  Treas- 
ury;  Mr.  Disraeli,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer." 
— A.  H.  McCalman,  Abridged  Hist,  of  England,  p. 
603. — "The  measure,  in  fact,  was  too  evidently 
a  compromise.  The  Russell  and  Gladstone  sec- 
tion of  the  Cabinet  wanted  reform :  the  remnants 
of  Palmerston's  followers  still  thouglit  it  unne- 
cessary. The  result  was  this  wretched,  tinkering 
measure,  which  satisfied  nobody,  and  disap- 
pointed the  expectation  of  all  earnest  Reformers. 
.  .  .  The  principal  opposition  came  not  from  the 
Conservatives,  as  miglit  have  been  expected,  but 
from  :Mr.  Horsman  and  Mr.  Robert  Lowe,  both 
members  of  the  Liberal  party,  who  from  the 
very  tirst  declared  they  would  have  none  of  it. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Bright  denounced  them  furiously  as 
'  AduUamites  ' ;  all  who  were  in  distress,  all  who 
were  discontented,  had  gathered  themselves  to- 
gether in  the  political  cave  of  Adullam  for  the 
attack  on  the  Government.  But  Mr.  Lowe,  all 
unabashed  by  denunciation  or  sarcasm,  carried 
the  war  straight  into  the  enemy's  camp  in  a 
swift  succession  of  speeches  of  extraordinary 
brilliance  and  power.  .  .  .  The  party  of  two, 
whicli  in  its  origin  reminded  Mr.  Bright  of  '  the 
Scotch  terrier  which  was  so  covered  with  hair 
that  you  could  not  tell  which  was  the  head  and 
which  was  the  tail  of  it,'  was  gradually  rein- 
forced by  deserters  from  the  ranks  of  the  Gov- 
ernment until  at  last  the  Adullarnites  were  strong 
enough  to  turn  the  scale  of  a  division.  Then 
one  wild  night,  after  a  hot  and  furious  debate, 
the  combined  armies  of  the  AduUamites  and 
Conservatives  carried  triumphantly  an  amend- 
ment brought  forward  by  one  of  the  Adullamite 
chiefs,  Lord  Dunkellin,  to  the  effect  that  a  rat- 
ing be  substituted  for  a  rental  qualification ;  and 
the  Government  was  at  an  end.  .  .  .  The  failure  of 
the  bill  brought  Lord  Russell's  official  career  to 
Its  close.  He  formally  handed  over  the  leader- 
ship of  the  party  to  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  from  this 
time  took  but  little  part  in  politics.  Lord  Derby, 
his  opponent,  was  soon  to  follow  his  example, 
and  then  the  long-standing  duel  between  Glad- 
stone and  Disraeli  would  be  pushed  up  to  the 
very  front  of  the  parliamentary  stage,  right  in 
the  full  glare  of  the  footlights.  Meanwhile, 
however.  Lord  Derby  had  taken  office  [July  9, 
1866].  Disraeli  and  Gladstone  were  changing 
weapons  and  crossing  the  stage.  .  .  .  The  ex- 
asperated Liberals,  however,  were  rousing  a 
widespread  agitation  throughout  the  country  in 
favour  of  Reform;  monster  meetings  were  held 
in  Hj'de  Park;  the  Park  railings  were  pulled 
down  and  trampled  on  by  an  excited  mob,  and 
the  police  regulations  proved  as  unable  to  bear 
the  unusual  strain  as  police  regulations  usually 
do  on  such  occasions.  The  result  was  that  Mr. 
Disraeli  became  convinced  that  a  Reform  Bill  of 
some  kind  or  other  was  inevitable,  and  Mr.  Dis- 
raeli's opinion  naturally  carried  the  day.  The 
Government,  however,  did  not  go  straight  to  the 
point  at  once.  They  began  by  proposing  a  num- 
ber of  resolutions  on  the  subject,   which  were 


very  soon  laughed  out  of  existence.  Then  they 
brought  a  bill  founded  on  them,  which,  how- 
ever, was  very  shortly  afterwards  withdrawn 
after  a  very  discouraging  reception.  Finally, 
the  Ministry,  lightened  by  the  loss  of  three  of  its 
members  —  the  Earl  of  Carnarvon,  Viscount 
Cranborne,  and  General  Peel  —  announced  their 
intention  of  bringing  in  a  comprehensive  mea- 
sure. The  measure  in  question  proposed  house- 
hold suffrage  in  the  boroughs  subject  to  the 
payment  of  rates,  and  occupation  franchise  for 
the  counties  subject  to  the  same  limitation,  and 
a  variety  of  fanciful  clauses,  which  would  have 
admitted  members  of  the  liberal  professions, 
graduates  of  the  universities,  and  a  number  of 
other  classes  to  the  franchise.  The  most  novel 
feature  was  a  clause  which  permitted  a  man  to 
acquire  two  votes  if  he  possessed  a  double  quali- 
fication by  rating  and  by  profession.  The  great 
objection  to  the  bill  was  that  it  excluded  'the 
compound  householder.'  The  compound  house- 
holder is  now  as  extinct  an  animal  as  the  pot- 
walloper  found  in  earlier  parliamentary  strata, 
but  he  was  the  hero  of  the  Reform  debates  of 
1867,  and  as  such  deserves  more  than  a  passing 
reference.  He  was,  in  fact,  an  occupier  of  a 
small  house  who  did  not  pay  his  rates  directly 
and  in  person,  but  paid  them  through  his  land- 
lord. Now  the  occupiers  of  these  very  small 
houses  were  naturally  by  far  the  most  numerous 
class  of  occupiers  in  the  boroughs,  and  the  omis- 
sion of  them  implied  a  large  exclusion  from  the 
franchise.  The  Liberal  party,  therefore,  rose  in 
defence  of  the  compound  householder,  and  the 
struggle  became  fierce  and  hot.  It  must  be  re- 
membered, however,  that  neither  Mr.  Gladstone 
nor  Mr.  Bright  wished  to  lower  the  franchise 
beyond  a  certain  point,  and  a  meeting  was  held 
in  consequence,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  the 
programme  brought  forward  in  committee  should 
begin  by  an  alteration  of  the  rating  laws,  so  that 
the  compound  householder  above  a  certain  level 
should  pay  his  own  rates  and  be  given  a  vote, 
and  that  all  occupiers  below  the  level  should  be 
excluded  from  the  rates  and  the  franchise  alike. 
On  what  may  be  described  roughly  as  '  the  great 
drawing-the-line  question,'  however,  the  Liberal 
party  once  more  split  up.  The  advanced  sec- 
tion were  determined  that  all  occupiers  should 
be  admitted,  and  they  would  have  no  '  drawing 
the  line.'  Some  fifty  or  sixty  of  them  held  a 
meeting  in  the  tea-room  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons and  decided  on  this  course  of  action:  in 
consequence  they  acquired  the  name  of  the  '  Tea- 
Room  Party.'  The  communication  of  their 
views  to  Mr.  Gladstone  made  him  excessively 
indignant.  He  denounced  them  in  violent  lan- 
guage, and  his  passion  was  emulated  by  Mr. 
Bright.  .  .  .  Mr.  Gladstone  had  to  give  in,  and 
his  surrender  was  followed  by  that  of  Mr.  Dis- 
raeli. The  Tea-Room  Party,  in  fact,  were  mas- 
ters of  the  day,  and  were  able  to  bring  sufficient 
pressure  to  bear  on  the  Government  to  induce 
them  to  admit  the  principle  of  household  suf- 
frage pure  and  simple,  and  to  abolish  all  dis- 
tinctions of  rating.  .  .  .  Not  only  was  the  house- 
hold suffrage  clause  considerably  extended,  the 
dual  vote  abolished,  and  most  of  the  fancy  fran- 
chises swept  away,  but  there  were  numerous 
additions  which  completely  altered  the  character 
of  the  bill,  and  transformed  it  from  a  balanced 
attempt  to  enlarge  the  franchise  without  shifting 
the  balance  of  power  to  a  sweeping  measure  of 


995 


ENGLAND,  1865-1868. 


Gladstone's 
Irish  Land  Bill. 


ENGLAND,  1868-1870. 


feform."— B.  C.  Skottowe,  STiort  Hist,  of  Parlia- 
ment, ch.  22.  — The  Reform  Bill  for  England 
"  was  followed  in  1868  by  measures  for  Scotland 
and  Ireland.  By  these  Acts  the  county  franchise 
in  England  was  extended  to  all  occupiers  of 
lands  or  houses  of  the  yearly  value  of  £12,  and 
in  Scotland  to  all  £5  property  owners  and  £14 
property  occupiers;  while  that  in  Ireland  was 
not  altered.  The  borough  franchise  in  England 
and  Scotland  was  given  to  all  ratepaying  house- 
holders and  to  lodgers  occupying  lodgings  of 
the  annual  value  of  £10;  and  in  Ireland  to  all 
ratepaying  £4  occupiers.  Thus  the  House  of 
Commons  was  made  nearly  representative  of  all 
taxpaying  commoners,  except  agricultural  la- 
bourers and  women." — D.  W.  'R&xmK,  Hist.  Out- 
line of  the  Eng.  Const.,  eh.  12,  sect.  4. 

Also  in  :  W.  Bagehot,  Essays  on  Parliamen- 
tary Reform,  3, — G.  B.  Smith,  Life  of  Oladstone, 
ch.  17-18  (ii.  2).— W.  Robertson,  Life  and  Times 
if  John  Bright,  ch.  39-40. 

A.  D.  1865-1869. — Discussionof  the  Alabama 
Claims  of  the  United  States.— The  Johnson- 
Clarendon  Treaty  and  its  rejection.  See  Ala- 
BAMA  Claims;  A.  D.  1862-1869. 

A.  D.  1867-1868.— Expedition  to  Abyssinia. 
See  Abyssinia:  A.  D.  1854-1889. 

A.  D.  1868-1870.— Disestablishment  of  the 
Irish  Church. — Retirement  of  the  Derby-Dis- 
raeli Ministry. — Mr.  Gladstone  in  power. — 
His  Irish  Land  Bill.— "On  ilarch  16,  1868,  a 
remarkable  debate  took  place  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  It  had  for  its  subject  the  condition 
of  Ireland,  and  it  was  introduced  by  a  series  of 
resolutions  which  Mr.  John  Francis  Maguire,  an 
Irish  member,  proposed.  ...  It  was  on  the 
fourth  night  of  the  debate  that  the  importance  of 
the  occasion  became  fully  manifest.  Then  it  was 
that  Mr.  Gladstone  spoke,  and  declared  that  in 
his  opinion  the  time  had  come  when  the  Irish 
Church  as  a  State  institution  must  cease  to  exist. 
Then  every  man  in  the  House  knew  that  the  end 
was  near.  Mr.  Maguire  withdrew  his  resolutions. 
The  cause  he  had  to  serve  was  now  in  the  hands 
of  one  who,  though  not  surely  more  earnest  for 
its  success,  had  incomparably  greater  power  to 
serve  it.  There  was  probably  not  a  single  Eng- 
lishman capable  of  forming  an  opinion  who  did 
not  know  that  from  the  moment  when  Mr.  Glad- 
stone made  his  declaration,  the  fall  of  the  Irish 
State  Church  had  become  merely  a  question  of 
time.  Men  only  waited  to  see  how  Jlr.  Gladstone 
would  proceed  to  procure  its  fall.  Public  expec- 
tation was  not  long  kept  in  suspense.  A  few 
days  after  the  debate  on  'Mi.  Maguire's  motion, 
Mr.  Gladstone  gave  notice  of  three  resolutions  on 
the  subject  of  the  Irish  State  Church.  The  first 
declared  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  House  of 
Commons  it  was  necessary  that  the  Established 
Church  of  Ireland  should  cease  to  exist  as  an 
Establishment,  due  regard  being  had  to  all  per- 
sonal interests  and  to  all  individual  rights  of 
property.  The  second  resolution  pronounced  it 
expedient  to  prevent  the  creation  of  new  personal 
interests  by  the  exercise  of  any  public  patronage ; 
and  the  third  asked  for  an  address  to  the  Queen, 
praying  that  her  Majesty  would  place  at  the  dis- 
posal of  Parliament  her  interest  in  the  temporali- 
ties of  the  Irish  Church.  The  object  of  these 
resolutions  was  simply  to  prepare  for  the  actual 
disestablishment  of  the  Church,  by  providing 
that  no  further  appointments  should  be  made, 
and  that  the  action  of  patronage  should  be  stayed, 


until  Parliament  should  decide  the  fate  of  the 
whole  institution.  On  March  30, 1868,  Mr.  Glad- 
stone proposed  his  resolutions.  Not  many  per- 
sons could  have  had  much  doubt  as  to  the  result 
of  the  debate.  But  if  there  were  any  such,  their 
doubts  must  have  begim  to  vanish  when  they 
read  the  notice  of  amendment  to  the  resolutions 
which  was  given  by  Lord  Stanley.  The  amend- 
ment proclaimed  even  more  surely  than  the  reso- 
lutions the  impending  fall  of  the  Irish  Church. 
Lord  Stanley  must  have  been  supposed  to  speak 
in  the  name  of  the  Government  and  the  Conser- 
vative party;  and  his  amendment  merely  de- 
clared that  the  House,  while  admitting  that  con- 
siderable modifications  in  the  temporalities  of  the 
Church  in  Ireland  might  appear  to  be  expedient, 
was  of  opinion  '  that  any  proposition  tending 
to  the  disestablishment  or  disendowment  of  the 
Church  ought  to  be  reserved  for  the  decision  of 
the  new  Parliament.'  Lord  Stanley's  amendment 
asked  only  for  delay.  .  .  .  The  debate  was  one 
of  great  power  and  interest.  .  .  .  When  the 
division  was  called  there  were  370  votes  for  the 
amendment,  and  331  against  it.  The  doom  of 
the  Irish  Church  was  pronounced  by  a  majority 
of  61.  An  interval  was  afEorded  for  agitation  on 
both  sides.  .  .  .  Mr.  Gladstone's  first  resolution 
came  to  a  division  about  a  month  after  the  defeat 
of  Lord  Stanley's  amendment.  It  was  carried 
by  a  majority  somewhat  larger  than  that  which 
had  rejected  the  amendment  —  330  votes  were 
given  for  the  resolution;  265  against  it.  The 
majority  for  the  resolution  was  therefore  65. 
Mr.  Disraeli  quietly  observed  that  the  Govern- 
ment must  take  some  decisive  step  in  consequence 
of  that  vote ;  and  a  few  days  afterwards  it  was 
announced  that  as  soon  as  the  necessary  business 
could  be  got  through.  Parliament  would  be  dis- 
solved and  an  appeal  made  to  the  country.  On 
the  last  day  of  July  the  dissolution  took  place, 
and  the  elections  came  on  in  November.  Not  for 
many  years  had  there  been  so  important  a  general 
election.  The  keenest  anxiety  prevailed  as  to  its 
results.  The  new  constituencies  created  by  the 
Reform  Bill  were  to  give  their  votes  for  the  first 
time.  The  question  at  issue  was  not  merely  the 
existence  of  the  Irish  State  Church.  It  was  a 
general  struggle  of  advanced  Liberalism  against 
Toryism.  .  .  .  The  new  Parliament  was  to  all 
appearance  less  marked  in  its  Liberalism  than 
that  which  had  gone  before  it.  But  so  far  as 
mere  numbers  went  the  Liberal  party  was  much 
stronger  than  it  had  been.  In  the  new  House  of 
Commons  it  could  count  upon  a  majority  of 
about  120,  whereas  in  the  late  Parliament  it  had 
but  60.  Mr.  Gladstone  it  was  clear  would  now 
have  everything  in  his  own  hands,  and  the  coun- 
try might  look  for  a  career  of  energetic  reform. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Disraeli  did  not  meet  the  new  Parlia- 
ment as  Prime  Minister.  He  decided  very  prop- 
erly that  it  would  be  a  mere  waste  of  public 
time  to  wait  for  the  formal  vote  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  which  would  inevitably  command  him 
to  surrender.  He  at  once  resigned  his  office,  and 
Mr.  Gladstone  was  immediately  sent  for  by  the 
Queen,  and  invited  to  form  an  Administration. 
Mr.  Gladstone,  it  would  seem,  was  only  beginning 
his  career.  He  was  nearly  sixty  years  of  age, 
but  there  were  scarcely  any  evidences  of  advanc- 
ing years  to  be  seen  on  his  face.  .  .  .  The  Govern- 
ment he  formed  was  one  of  remarkable  strength. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Gladstone  went  to  work  at  once  with 
his  Irish  policy.     On  March  1,  1869,  the  Prime 


996 


ENGLAND,  1868-1870. 


Army  Purchase  and 
University  Tests. 


ENGLAND,  1873-1880. 


Minister  introduced  his  measure  for  the  disestab- 
lishment and  partial  disendowraent  of  the  Irish 
State  Church.  The  proposals  of  the  Government 
were,  that  the  Irish  Church  should  almost  at 
once  cease  to  exist  as  a  State  Establishment, 
and  should  pass  into  the  condition  of  a  free 
Episcopal  Church.  As  a  matter  of  course  the 
Irish  bishops  were  to  lose  their  seats  in  the  House 
of  Lords.  A  synodal,  or  governing  body,  was 
to  be  elected  from  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the 
Church  and  was  to  be  recognised  by  the  Govern- 
ment, and  duly  incorporated.  The  union  between 
the  Churches  of  England  and  Ireland  was  to  be 
dissolved,  and  the  Irish  Ecclesiastical  Courts 
were  to  be  abolished.  There  were  various  and 
complicated  arrangements  for  the  protection  of 
the  life  interests  of  those  already  holding  positions 
in  the  Irish  Church,  and  for  the  appropriation  of 
the  fund  which  would  return  to  the  possession  of 
the  State  when  all  these  interests  had  been  fairly 
considered  and  dealt  with.  .  .  .  Many  amend- 
ments were  introduced  and  discussed ;  and  some 
of  these  led  to  a  controversy  between  the  two 
Houses  of  Parliament;  but  the  controvers}'  ended 
in  compromise.  .  On  July  26,  1869,  the  measure 
for  the  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  Church  re- 
ceived the  royal  assent.  Lord  Derby  did  not 
long  survive  the  passing  of  the  measure  which  he 
had  opposed  with  such  fervour  and  so  much 
pathetic  dignity.  He  died  before  the  Irish  State 
Church  had  ceased  to  live.  .  .  .  When  the  Irish 
Church  had  been  disposed  of,  Jlr.  Gladstone  at 
once  directed  his  energies  to  the  Irish  land  system. 
...  In  a  speech  delivered  by  him  during  his 
electioneering  campaign  in  Lancashire,  he  had  de- 
iilared  that  the  Irish  upas-tree  had  three  great 
branches:  the  State  Church,  the  Land  Tenure 
System,  and  the  System  of  Education,  and  that 
he  meant  to  hew  them  all  down  if  he  could.  On 
February  15,  1870,  Mr.  Gladstone  introduced  his 
Irish  Land  Bill  into  the  House  of  Commons.  .  .  . 
It  recognised  a  certain  property  or  partnership  of 
the  tenant  in  the  land  which  he  tilled.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone took  the  Ulster  tenant-right  as  he  found  it, 
and  made  it  a  legal  institution.  In  places  where 
the  Ulster  practice,  or  something  analogous  to  it, 
did  not  exist,  he  threw  upon  the  landlord  the 
burden  of  proof  as  regarded  the  right  of  eviction. 
The  tenant  disturbed  in  the  possession  of  his  land 
could  claim  compensation  for  improvements,  and 
the  bill  reversed  the  existing  assumption  of  the  law 
by  presuming  all  improvements  to  be  the  property 
of  the  tenant,  and  leaving  it  to  the  landlord,  if  he 
could,  to  prove  the  contrary.  The  bill  estab- 
lished a  special  judiciary  machinery  for  carrying 
out  its  provisions.  ...  It  put  an  end  to  the  reign 
of  the  landlord's  absolute  power ;  it  reduced  the 
landlord  to  the  level  of  every  other  proprietor,  of 
every  other  man  in  the  country  who  had  anything 
to  sell  or  hire.  .  .  .  The  bill  passed  without  sub- 
stantial alteration.  On  August  1,  1870,  the  bill 
received  the  Royal  assent.  The  second  branch 
of  the  upas-tree  had  been  hewn  down.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Gladstone  had  dealt  with  Church  and  land;  he 
had  yet  to  deal  with  university  education.  He 
had  gone  with  Irish  ideas  thus  far." — J.  McCar- 
thy, Shoj-t  Hist,  of  Our  Own  Times,  ell.  23. 

Also  m :  W.  N.  Molesworth,  Hist,  of  Eng. , 
1830-1874,  V.  3,  ch.  &.— Annual  Register,  1869, 
pt.  1  .•  Eng.  Hist. ,  ch.  3-3,  and  1870,  ch.  1-3. 

A.  D.  1870.— The  Education  Bill.  See  Edu- 
cation, Modern  ;  European  countries. — Eng- 
land: A.  D.  1699-1870. 


A.  D.  1871. — Abolition  of  Army  Purchase 
and  University  Religious  Tests. — Defeat  of  the 
Ballot  Bill. — "The  great  measure  of  the  Session 
[of  1871]  was  of  course  the  Army  Bill,  which 
was  introduced  by  Mr.  Cardwell,  on  the  16th  of 
February.  It  abolished  the  system  by  which 
rich  men  obtained  by  purchase  commissions  and 
promotion  in  the  army,  and  provided  £8,000,000 
to  buy  all  commissions,  as  they  fell  in,  at  their 
regulation  and  over-regulation  value  [the  regula- 
tion value  being  a  legal  price,  fixed  by  a  Royal 
"Warrant,  but  which  in  practice  was  never  re- 
garded]. In  future,  commissions  were  to  be 
awarded  either  to  those  who  won  them  by  opei} 
competition,  or  who  had  served  as  subalterns  in 
the  Militia,  or  to  deserving  non-commissioned 
oflicers.  .  .  .  The  debate,  which  seemed  inter- 
minable, ended  in  an  anti-clima.x  that  astonished 
the  Tory  Opposition.  Mr.  Disraeli  threw  over  the 
advocates  of  Purchase,  evidently  dreading  an 
appeal  to  the  country.  .  .  .  The  Army  Regula- 
tion Bill  thus  passed  the  Second  Reading  without 
a  division,"  and  finally,  with  some  amendments 
passed  the  House.  "In  the  House  of  Lords  the 
Bill  was  again  obstructed.  .  .  .  Mr.  Gladstone 
met  them  with  a  bold  stroke.  By  statute  it  was 
enacted  that  only  such  terms  of  Purchase  could 
exist  as  her  Majesty  chose  to  permit  by  Royal 
Warrant.  The  Queen,  therefore,  acting  on  Mr. 
Gladstone's  advice,  cancelled  her  warrant  per- 
mitting Purchase,  and  thus  the  opposition  of  the 
Peers  was  crushed  by  what  Mr.  Disraeli  indig- 
nantly termed  '  the  high-handed  though  not  il- 
legal '  exercise  of  the  "lloyal  Prerogative.  The 
rage  of  the  Tory  Peers  knew  no  bounds."  They 
"carried  a  vote  of  censure  on  the  Government, 
who  ignored  it,  and  then  their  Lordships  passed 
the  Army  Regulation  Bill  without  any  altera- 
tions. .  .  .  The  Session  of  1871  was  also  made 
memorable  by  the  struggle  over  the  Ballot  Bill, 
in  the  course  of  which  nearly  all  the  devices  of 
factious  obstruction  were  exhausted.  .  .  .  When 
the  Bill  reached  the  House  of  Lords,  the  real 
motive  which  dictated  the  .  .  .  obstruction  of 
the  Conservative  Opposition  in  the  House  of 
Commons  was  quickly  revealed.  The  Lords  re- 
jected the  Bill  on  the  18th  of  August,  not  merely 
because  they  disliked  and  dreaded  it,  but  because 
it  had  come  to  them  too  late  for  proper  considera- 
tion. Ministers  were  more  successful  with  some 
other  measures.  In  spite  of  much  conservative 
opposition  they  passed  a  Bill  abolishing  religious 
tests  in  the  Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge, 
and  throwing  open  all  academic  distinctions  and 
privileges  except  Divinity  Degrees  and  Clerical 
Fellowships  to  students  of  all  creeds  and  faiths. " 
— R.  Wilson,  Life  and  Times  of  Queen  Victoria,  v. 
2,  ch.  16. 

Also  in:  G.  W.  E.  Russell,  T/ie  Rt.  Hon.  W.  E. 
Gladstone,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1871-1872.  —  Renewed  negotiations 
with  the  United  States. —  The  Treaty  of 
Washington  and  the  Geneva  Award.  See 
Alabama  Claims:  A.  D.  1869-1871;  1871;  and 
1871-1872. 

A.  D.  1873-1879.— Rise  of  the  Irish  Home 
Rule  Party  and  organization  of  the  Land 
League.     Sec  Ireland:  A.  D.  1873-1879. 

A.  D.  1873-1880.— Decline  and  fall  of  the 
Gladstone  government. —  Disraeli's  Ministry. 
— His  rise  to  the  peerage,  as  Earl  of  Beacons- 
field. — The  Eastern  Question. — Overthrow  of 
the  administration. —  The  Second  Gladstone 


997 


ENGLAND,  1873-1880. 


Beacoiisfield  and 
Gladstone. 


ENGLAND,  1883. 


IVIinistry. — "  One  of  the  little  wars  in  wbich  we 
had  to  engage  broke  out  with  the  Ashantees,  a 
misunderstanding  resulting  from  our  purchase 
of  the  Dutch  possessions  (1873)  in  their  neighbour- 
hood. Troops  and  marines  under  Wolseley  .  .  . 
were  sent  out  to  West  Africa.  Crossing  the 
Prah  River,  January  20th,  1874,  he  defeated  the 
Ashantees  on  the  last  day  of  that  month  at  a 
place  called  Amoaful,  entered  and  burnt  their 
capital,  Coomassie,  and  made  a  treaty  with  their 
King,  Koffee,  by  which  he  withdrew  all  claims 
•of  sovereignty  over  the  tribes  under  our  protec- 
tion. The  many  Liberal  measures  carried  by 
the  Ministry  caused  moderate  men  to  wish  for  a 
halt.  Some  restrictions  on  the  licensed  vintners 
turned  that  powerful  body  against  the  Adminis- 
tration, which,  on  attempting  to  carry  an  Irish 
University  Bill  in  1873,  became  suddenly  aware 
■of  its  unpopularity,  as  the  second  reading  was 
•only  carried  by  a  majority  of  three.  Resignation 
followed.  The  erratic,  but  astute,  Disraeli  de- 
clined to  undertake  the  responsibility  of  govern- 
ing the  country  with  the  House  of  Commons  then 
existing,  consequently  Mr.  Gladstone  resumed 
office;  yet  Conservative  reaction  progressed. 
He  in  September  became  Chancellor  of  the  Ex- 
■chequer  (still  holding  the  Premiership)  and  23rd 
January,  1874,  he  suddenly  dissolved  Parliament, 
promising  in  a  letter  to  the  electors  of  Greenwich 
the  final  abolition  of  the  income  tax,  and  a  re- 
duction in  some  other  '  imposts. '  The  elections 
went  against  him.  The  '  harassed '  interests 
•overturned  the  Jlinistry  (17th  February,  1874). 
...  On  the  accession  of  the  Conservative  Gov- 
ernment under  Mr.  Disraeli  (February,  1874), 
the  budget  showed  a  balance  of  six  millions  in 
favour  of  the  reduction  of  taxation.  Conse- 
quently the  sugar  duties  were  abolished  and  the 
income  tax  reduced  to  2d.  in  the  pound.  This, 
the  ninth  Parliament  of  Queen  Victoria,  sat  for 
a  little  over  si.x  years.  .  .  .  Mr.  Disraeli,  now  the 
Earl  of  Beaconsfleld,  was  fond  of  giving  the  coun- 
try surprises.  One  of  these  consisted  in  the  pur- 
-chase  of  the  interest  of  the  Khedive  of  Egypt  in 
the  Suez  Canal  for  four  millions  sterling  (Feb- 
ruary, 1876).  Another  was  the  acquisition  of 
the  Turkish  Island  of  Cyprus,  handed  over  for 
the  guarantee  to  Turkey  of  her  Asiatic  provinces 
in  the  event  of  any  future  Russian  encroach- 
ments. ...  As  war  had  broken  out  in  several 
•of  the  Turkish  provinces  (1876),  and  as  Russia 
had  entered  the  lists  for  the  insurgents  against 
the  Sultan,  whom  England  was  bound  to  sup- 
port by  solemn  treaties,  we  were  treated  to  a 
third  surprise  b}'  the  conveyance,  in  anticipation 
of  a  breach  with  Russia,  of  7,000  troops  from 
India  to  Malta.  The  Earl  of  Derby,  looking 
upon  this  manoeuvre  as  a  menace  to  that  Power, 
resigned  his  office,  which  was  filled  by  Lord 
Salisbury  (1878).  .  .  .  The  war  proving  disas- 
trous to  Turkey,  the  treaty  of  St.  Stephano  (Feb- 
ruary, 1878),  was  concluded  with  Russia,  by 
which  the  latter  acquired  additional  territory  in 
Asia  Minor  in  violation  of  the  treaty  of  Paris 
(1856).  Our  Government  strongly  remonstrated, 
and  war  seemed  imminent.  Through  the  inter- 
cession, however,  of  Bismarck,  the  German  Chan- 
cellor, war  was  averted,  and  a  congress  soon  met 
in  Berlin,  at  which  Britain  was  represented  by 
Lords  Salisbury  and  Beaconsfleld ;  the  result 
being  the  sanction  of  the  treaty  already  made, 
with  the  exception  that  the  town  of  Brzeroum 
•was  handed  back  to  Turkey.     Our  ambassadors 


returned  home  rather  pompously,  the  Prime 
Minister  loftily  declaring,  that  they  had  brought 
back  '  peace  with  honour. '  .  .  .  Our  expenses 
had  rapidly  increased,  the  wealthy  commercial 
people  began  to  distrust  a  Prime  Minister  who 
had  brought  us  to  the  brink  of  war,  the  Irish 
debates,  Irish  poverty,  and  Irish  outrages  had 
brought  with  them  more  or  less  discredit  on 
the  Slinistry.  .  .  .  The  Parliament  was  dis- 
solved March  24th,  but  the  elections  went  so 
decisively  in  favour  of  the  Liberals  that  Beacons- 
field  resigned  (April  23rd).  Early  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  he  appeared  in  his  place  in  the 
House  of  Peers,  but  died  April  19th.  Though 
Mr.  Gladstone  had  in  187.5  relinquished  the 
political  leadership  in  favour  of  Lord  Hartington 
yet  the  '  Bulgarian  Atrocities  '  and  other  writings 
brought  him  again  so  prominent  before  the  pub- 
lic that  his  leadership  was  universally  acknowl- 
edged by  the  party.  ...  He  now  resumed  office, 
taking  the  two  posts  so  frequently  held  before 
by  Prime  Ministers  since  the  days  of  William 
Pitt,  who  also  held  them.  .  .  .  The  result  of  the 
general  election  of  1880  was  the  return  of  more 
Liberals  to  Parliament  than  Conservatives  and 
Home  Rulers  together.  The  farming  interest 
continued  depressed  both  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  resulting  in  thousands  of  acres  being 
thrown  on  the  landlords'  hands  in  the  former 
country,  and  numerous  harsh  evictions  in  the 
latter  for  non-payment  of  rent.  Mr.  Gladstone 
determined  to  legislate  anew  on  the  Irish  Land 
Question :  and  (1881)  carried  through  both  Houses 
that  admirable  measure  known  as  the  Irish  Land 
Act,  which  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  ol 
that  country  secured  to  the  tenant  remuneration 
for  his  own  industry.  A  Land  Commission  Court 
was  established  to  fix  Fair  Rents  for  a  period  of 
15  years.  After  a  time  leaseholders  were  in- 
cluded in  this  beneficent  legislation." — R.  Johns- 
ton, A  Slwrt  Sist.  of  the  Queen's  Reign,  pp.  49- 
57. 

Also  in;  J.  A.  Froude,  Lord  Beaeonsfield,  ch. 
16-17.— G.  B.  Smith,  Life  of  Oladstone,  ch.  22- 
28  (v.  2).— H.  Jephson,  Th^  Platform,  ch.  21-22 
(V.  2). 

A.  D.  1877. — Assumption  by  the  Queen  of 
the  title  of  Empress  of  India.  See  India:  A.  D. 
1877. 

A.  D.  1877-1878.— The  Eastern  Question 
again.  —  Bulgarian  atrocities.  —  Excitement 
over  the  Russian  successes  in  Turkey. — War- 
clamor  of  "  the' Jingoes."  —  The  fleet  sent 
through  the  Dardanelles. — Arrangement  of  the 
Berlin  Congress.  See  B.vlk.vn  and  D.^nubian 
States;  A.  D.  1875-1878;  and  Turks:  A.  D. 
1878. 

A.  D.  1877-1881. — Annexation  of  the  Trans- 
vaal.—  The  Boer  War.  See  South  Africa; 
A.  D.  1806-1881. 

A,  D.  1878.— The  Congress  of  Berlin. — Ac- 
quisition of  the  control  of  Cyprus.  See  Turks  : 
A.  D.  1878. 

A.  D.  1878-1880. — The  second  Afghan  War. 
See  Afgil^nistan  ;  A.  D.  1.869-1881. 

A. D. 1880. — Breach  bet-sveen  the  Irish  Party 
and  the  English  Liberals.— Coercion  Bill  and 
Land  Act.  See  Ireland:  A.  D.  1880;  and 
1SH1-1S82. 

A.  D.  1882.— War  in  Egypt.  See  Egypt  : 
A.  1).  1875-1882,  and  1882-1883. 

A.  D.  1883. — The  Act  for  Prevention  of  Cor- 
rupt and  Illegal  Practices  at  Parliamentary 


998 


ENGLAND,  1883. 


Corrupt  Practices 
in  Elections. 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


Elections. — "Prior  to  the  General  Electioa  of 
1880  there  were  those  who  hoped  aud  believed 
that  Corrupt  Practices  at  Elections  were  decreas- 
ing. These  hopes  were  based  upon  the  growth 
of  the  constituencies  and  their  increased  political 
intelligence,  and  also  upon  the  operation  of  the 
Ballot  Act.  The  disclosures  following  the  General 
Election  proved  to  the  most  sanguine  that  this 
belief  was  an  error.  Corrupt  practices  were 
found  to  be  more  prevalent  than  ever.  If  in 
olden  times  larger  aggregate  suras  were  expended 
in  bribery  and  treating,  never  probably  had  so 
man}'  persons  been  bribed  and  treated  as  at  the 
General  Election  of  1880.  After  that  election 
nineteen  petitions  against  returns  on  the  ground 
of  corrupt  practices  were  presented.  In  eight 
instances  the  Judges  reported  that  those  practices 
had  extensively  prevailed,  and  in  respect  of  seven 
of  these  the  reports  of  the  Commissioners  ap- 
pointed under  the  Act  of  1852  demonstrated  the 
alarming  extent  to  which  corruption  of  all  kinds 
had  grown.  ...  A  most  serious  feature  in  the 
Commissioners'  Reports  was  the  proof  they 
afforded  that  bribery  was  regarded  as  a  meri- 
torious not  as  a  disgraceful  act.  Thirty  magis- 
trates were  reported  as  guilty  of  corrupt  practices 
and  removed  from  the  Commission  of  the  Peace 
by  the  Lord  Chancellor.  3Iayors,  aldermen,  town- 
councillors,  solicitors,  the  agents  of  the  candi- 
dates, and  others  of  a  like  class  were  found  to 
have  dealt  with  bribery  as  if  it  were  a  part  of 
the  necessary  machinery  for  conducting  an  elec- 
tion. "Worst  of  all,  some  of  these  persons  had 
actually  attained  municipal  honours,  not  only 
after  they  had  committed  these  practices,  but 
even  after  their  misdeeds  had  been  exposed  by 
public  inquiry.  The  Reports  also  showed,  and 
a  Parliamentary  Return  furnished  still  more  con- 
clusive proof,  that  election  expenses  were  ex- 
travagant even  to  absurdity,  and  moreover  were 
on  the  increase.  The  lowest  estimate  of  the  ex- 
penditure during  the  General  Election  of  1880 
amounts  to  the  enormous  sum  of  two  and  a  half 
millions.  With  another  Reform  Bill  in  view,  the 
prospects  of  future  elections  were  indeed  alarm- 
ing. .  .  .  The  necessity  for  some  change  was 
self-evident.  Public  opinion  insisted  that  the 
subject  should  be  dealt  with,  and  the  evil  en- 
countered. .  .  .  The  Queen's  Speech  of  the  6th  of 
January,  1881,  announced  that  a  measure  'for 
the  repression  of  corrupt  practices '  would  be 
submitted  to  Parliament,  and  on  tlie  following 
day  the  Attorney-General  (Sir  Henry  James),  in 
forcible  and  eloquent  terms,  moved  for  leave  to 
introduce  his  Bill.  His  proposals  (severe  as  they 
seemed)  were  received  with  general  approval  and 
sympathy,  both  inside  and  outside  the  House  of 
Commons,  at  a  time  when  members  and  con- 
stituents alike  were  ashamed  of  the  excesses  so 
recently  brought  to  light.  It  is  true  that  the 
two  and  a  half  years'  delay  that  intervened  be- 
tween the  introduction  of  the  Bill  and  its  finally 
becoming  law  (a  delay  caused  by  the  necessities 
of  Irish  legislation),  sufHced  very  considerably  to 
cool  the  enthusiasm  of  Parliament  and  the  pub- 
lic. Yet  enough  desire  for  reform  remained  to 
carry  in  July  1883  the  Bill  of  January  1881, 
modified  indeed  in  detail,  but  with  its  principles 
intact  and  its  main  provisions  unaltered.  The 
measure  which  has  now  become  the  Parliamen- 
tary Elections  Act  of  1883,  was  in  its  conception 
pervaded  by  two  principles.  The  first  was  to 
strike  hard  and  home  at  corrupt  practices ;  the 


second  was  to  prohibit  by  positive  legislation  any 
expenditure  in  the  conduct  of  an  election  which 
was  not  absolutely  necessary.  Bribery,  undue 
influence,  and  personation,  had  long  been  crimes 
for  which  a  man  could  be  fined  and  imprisoned. 
Treating  was  now  added  to  the  same  class  of 
offences,  and  tbe  punishment  for  all  rendered 
more  deterrent  by  a  liability  to  hard  labour.  .  .  . 
Besides  punishment  on  conviction,  incapacities 
of  a  serious  character  are  to  result  from  a  person 
being  reported  guilty  of  corrupt  practices  by 
Election  Judges  or  Election  Commissioners.  .  .  . 
A  candidate  reported  personally  guilty  of  cor- 
rupt practices  can  never  sit  again  for  the  same 
constituency,  and  is  rendered  incapable  of  being 
a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons  for  seven 
years.  All  persons,  whether  candidates  or  not, 
are,  on  being  reported,  rendered  incapable  of  hold- 
ing any  public  office  or  exercising  any  franchise 
for  the  same  period.  Moreover,  if  any  persons 
so  found  guilty  are  magistrates,  barristers,  so- 
licitors, or  members  of  other  honourable  pro- 
fessions, they  are  to  be  reported  to  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  Inns  of  Court,  High  Court  of  Justice, 
or  other  authority  controlling  their  profession, 
and  dealt  with  as  in  the  case  of  professional  mis- 
conduct. Licensed  victuallers  are,  in  a  similar 
manner,  to  be  reported  to  the  licensing  justices, 
who  may  on  the  next  occasion  refuse  to  renew 
their  licenses.  .  .  .  The  employment  of  all  paid 
assistants  except  a  very  limited  number  is  for- 
bidden; no  conveyances  are  to  be  paid  for,  and 
only  a  restricted  number  of  committee  rooms  are 
to  be  engaged.  Unnecessary  payments  for  the 
exhibition  of  bills  and  addresses,  and  for  flags, 
bands,  torches,  and  the  like  are  declared  illegal. 
But  these  prohibitions  of  specific  objects  were 
not  considered  suflicieut.  Had  these  alone  been 
enacted,  the  money  of  wealthy  and  reckless  can- 
didates would  have  found  other  channels  in  which 
to  flow.  .  .  .  And  thus  it  was  that  the  '  maxi- 
mum scale '  was  adopted  as  at  once  the  most 
direct  and  the  most  efficacious  means  of  limit- 
ing expenditure.  Whether  by  himself  or  his 
agents,  by  direct  payment  or  by  contract,  the 
candidate  is  forbidden  to  spend  more  in  '  the  con- 
duct and  management  of  an  election '  than  the 
sums  permitted  by  the  Act,  sums  which  depend 
in  each  case  on  the  numerical  extent  of  the  con- 
stituency."— H.  Hobhouse,  The  Parliamentary 
Elections  {Corrupt  and  Illegal  Practices)  Act,  1883, 
pp.  1-8. 

A.  D.  1884-1885.— The  Third  Reform  Bill 
and  the  Redistribution  Bill. — The  existing 
qualifications  and  disqualifications  of  the  Suf- 
frage.— "Soon  after  Sir.  Gladstone  came  into 
power  in  1880,  Mr.  Trevelyau  became  a  member 
of  his  Administration.  Already  the  Premier  had 
secured  the  co-operation  of  two  other  men  new  to 
office  —  Mr.  Chamberlain  and  Sir  Charles  Dilke. 
.  .  .  Their  presence  in  the  Administration  was 
looked  upon  as  a  good  augury  by  the  Radicals, 
and  the  augury  was  not  destined  to  prove  mis- 
leading. It  was  understood  from  the  first  that, 
with  such  men  as  his  coadjutors,  Mr.  Gladstone 
was  pledged  to  a  still  further  Reform.  He  was 
pledged  already,  in  fact,  by  his  speeches  in  Mid- 
lothian. ...  On  the  17th  of  October,  1883,  a 
great  Conference  was  held  at  Leeds,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  the  Liberal  programme  for 
the  ensuing  season.  The  Conference  was  at- 
tended by  no  fewer  than  3,000  delegates,  who 
represented  upwards  of  500  Liberal  Associations. 


999 


ENGLAND.  1884-1885. 


Third  Reform 
BiU. 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


It  was  presided  over  by  Mr.  John  Morley.  .  .  . 
To  a  man  the  delegates  agreed  as  to  the  impera- 
tive necessity  of  liousehold  suffrage  being  ex- 
tended to  the  counties ;  and  almost  to  a  man  they 
agreed  also  as  to  the  necessity  of  the  measure  be- 
ing no  longer  delayed.  .  .  .  When  Parliament 
met  on  the  5tli  of  the  following  February  ...  a 
measure  for  'the  enlargement  of  the  occupation 
franchise  in  Parliamentary  Elections  throughout 
the  United  Kingdom '  was  distinctly  promised  in 
the  Royal  Speech;  and  the  same  evening  Mr. 
Gladstone  gave  notice  that  '  on  the  first  available 
day,'  he  would  move  for  leave  to  bring  in  the 
bill.  So  much  was  the  House  of  Commons  occu- 
pied with  affairs  in  Egypt  and  the  Soudan,  how- 
ever, that  it  was  not  till  the  29th  of  February 
that  the  Premier  was  able  to  fulfil  his  pledge." 
Four  months  were  occupied  in  the  passage  of  the 
bill  through  tlie  House  of  Commons,  and  when  it 
reached  the  Lords  it  was  rejected.  This  roused 
"an  intense  feeling  throughout  the  country.  On 
the  21st  of  July,  a  great  meeting  was  held  in 
Hyde  Park,  attended,  it  was  believed,  by  upwards 
of  100,000  persons.  ...  On  the  30th  of  July,  a 
great  meeting  of  delegates  was  held  in  St.  James's 
Hall,  London.  .  .  .  Mr.  John  Morley,  who  pre- 
sided, used  some  words  respecting  the  House  that 
had  rejected  the  bill  which  were  instantly  caught 
up  by  Reformers  everywhere.  'Be  sure,'  he 
said,  '  that  no  power  on  earth  can  separate  hence- 
forth the  question  of  mending  the  House  of  Com- 
mons from  the  question  of  mending,  or  ending, 
the  House  of  Lords.'  On  the  4th  of  August,  Mr. 
Bright,  speaking  at  Birmingham,  refen'ed  to  the 
Lords  as  '  many  of  them  the  spawn  of  the  plunder 
and  the  wars  and  the  corruption  of  the  dark  ages 
of  our  country ' ;  and  his  colleague,  Mr.  Chamber- 
lain, used  even  bolder  words:  '  During  the  last 
one  hundred  years  the  House  of  Lords  has  never 
contributed  one  iota  to  popular  liberties  or  popu- 
lar freedom,  or  done  anything  to  advance  the 
common  weal ;  and  during  that  time  it  has  pro- 
tected every  abuse  and  sheltered  every  privilege. 
.  .  .  It  is  irresponsible  without  independence,  ob- 
stinate without  courage,  arbitrary  without  judg- 
ment, and  arrogant  without  knowledge.' .  .  .  In 
very  many  instances,  a  strong  disposition  was 
manifested  to  drop  the  agitation  for  the  Reform 
of  the  House  of  Commons  for  a  time,  and  to  con- 
centrate the  whole  strength  of  the  Liberal  party 
on  one  final  struggle  for  the  Reform  (or,  prefer- 
ably, the  extinction)  of  the  Upper  House. "  But 
Mr.  Gladstone  gave  no  encouragement  to  this  in- 
clination of  his  party.  The  outcome  of  the  agi- 
tation was  the  passage  of  the  Franchise  Bill  a 
second  time  in  the  House  of  Commons,  in  Novem- 
ber, 1884,  and  by  the  Lords  soon  afterwards.  A 
concession  was  made  to  the  latter  by  previously 
satisfying  them  with  regard  to  the  contemplated 
redistribution  of  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
for  which  a  separate  bill  was  framed  and  intro- 
duced while  the  Franchise  Bill  was  yet  pending. 
The  Redistribution  Bill  passed  the  Commons  in 
May  and  the  Lords  in  June,  1885. — W.  Heaton, 
The  Three  Reforms  of  Parliaimiit,  ch.  6. — -"In 
regai'd  to  electoral  districts,  the  equalization,  in 
other  words,  the  radical  refashioning  of  electoral 
districts,  having  about  the  same  number  of  in- 
habitants, is  carried  out.  For  this  purpose,  79 
towns,  having  less  than  15,000  inhabitants,  are 
divested  of  the  right  of  electing  a  separate  mem- 
ber; 36  towns,  with  less  than  50,000,  return  only 
one  member;  14  large  towns  obtain  an  increase 


of  the  number  of  the  members  in  proportion  to 
the  population;  35  towns,  of  nearly  50,000,  obtain 
a  new  franchise.  The  counties  are  throughout 
parcelled-out  into  '  electoral  districts '  of  about 
the  like  population,  to  elect  one  member  each. 
This  single-seat  system  is,  regularly,  carried  out 
in  towns,  with  the  exception  of  28  middle-sized 
towns,  which  have  been  left  with  two  members. 
The  County  of  York  forms,  for  example,  26  elec- 
toral districts ;  Liverpool  9.  To  sum  up,  the  re- 
sult stands  thus: —  the  counties  choose  253  mem- 
bers (formerly  187),  the  towns  287  (formerly  397). 
The  average  population  of  the  county  electoral 
districts  is  now  52,800  (formerly  70,800);  the 
average  number  of  the  town  electoral  districts 
52, 700  (formerly  41, 200).  .  .  .  The  number  of  the 
newly-enfrancliised  is  supposed,  according  to  an 
average  estimate,  to  be  2,000,000."— Dr.  R. 
Gneist,  The  English  Parliament  in  its  Trarisfor- 
matiom,  cJt.  9. 

Also  in  :  J.  Murdoch,  Hist,  of  Const.  Reform 
in  Gt.  Britain  and  Ireland,  pp.  277-398. — H. 
Jephson,  The  Platform,  ch.  23  {v.  2). 

Tlie  following  is  the  text  of  the  "Third  Re- 
form Act,"  which  is  entitled  "The  Representa- 
tion of  the  People  Act,  1884  "  : 

An  Act  to  amend  the  Law  relating  to  the  Rep- 
resentation of  the  People  of  the  United  Kingdom. 
[6th  December,  1884.] 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Queen's  most  Excellent 
Majesty,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal,  and  Commons, 
in  this  present  Parliament  assembled,  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  same,  as  follows : 

1.  This  Act  may  be  cited  as  the  Representa- 
tion of  the  People  Act,  1884. 

2.  A  uniform  household  franchise  and  a  uni- 
form lodger  franchise  at  elections  shall  be  estab- 
lished in  all  counties  and  boroughs  throughout 
the  United  Kingdom,  and  every  man  possessed 
of  a  household  qualification  or  a  lodger  qualifi- 
cation shall,  if  the  qualifying  premises  be  situate 
in  a  county  in  England  or  Scotland,  be  entitled  to 
be  registered  as  a  voter,  and  when  registered  to 
vote  at  an  election  for  such  county,  and  if  the 
qualifying  premises  be  situate  in  a  county  or 
borough  in  Ireland,  be  entitled  to  be  registered 
as  a  voter,  and  when  registered  to  vote  at  an 
election  for  such  county  or  borough. 

3.  Where  a  man  himself  inhabits  any  dwelling- 
house  by  virtue  of  any  oflSce,  service,  or  employ- 
ment, and  the  dwelling-house  is  not  inhabited  by 
any  person  under  whom  such  man  serves  in  such 
office,  service,  or  employment,  he  shall  be  deemed 
for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  and  of  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Acts  to  be  an  inhabitant 
occupier  of  such  dwelling-house  as  a  tenant. 

4.  Subject  to  the  saving  in  this  Act  for  exist- 
ing voters,  the  following  provisions  shall  have 
effect  with  reference  to  elections:  (1.)  A  man 
shall  not  be  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  voter  in 
respect  of  the  ownersliip  of  any  rentcharge  ex- 
cept the  owner  of  the  whole  of  the  tithe  rent- 
cliarge  of  a  rectory,  vicarage,  chapelry,  or  bene- 
fice to  whicli  an  apportionment  of  tithe  rentcharge 
shall  have  been  made  in  respect  of  any  portion  of 
tithes.  (2.)  Where  two  or  more  men  are  owners 
either  as  joint  tenants  or  as  tenants  in  common 
of  an  estate  in  any  land  or  tenement,  one  of  such 
men,  but  not  more  than  one,  shall,  if  his  interest 
is  suflicient  to  confer  a  qualification  as  a  voter  in 
respect  of  the  ownership  of  such  estate,  be  en- 
titled (in  the  like  cases  and  subject  to  the  like 


1000 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885, 


Third  Reform 
Bill. 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


conditions  as  if  he  were  the  sole  owner)  to  be 
registered  as  a  voter,  and  when  registered  to 
vote  at  an  election.  Provided  that  where  such 
owners  have  derived  their  interest  by  descent, 
succession,  marriage,  marriage  settlement,  or 
will,  or  where  they  occupy  the  land  or  tene- 
ment, and  are  bona  fide  engaged  as  partners 
carrying  on  trade  or  business  thereon,  each  of 
such  owners  whose  interest  is  sufficient  to  confer 
on  him  a  qualitication  as  a  voter  shall  be  entitled 
(in  the  like  cases  and  subject  to  the  like  con- 
ditions as  if  he  were  sole  owner)  to  be  regis- 
tered as  a  voter  in  respect  of  such  ownership, 
and  when  registered  to  vote  at  an  election,  and 
the  value  of  the  interest  of  each  such  owner 
where  not  otherwise  legally  defined  shall  be  as- 
certained by  the  division  of  the  total  value  of 
the  laud  or  tenement  equally  among  the  whole  of 
such  owners. 

5.  Every  man  occupying  any  land  or  tene- 
ment in  a  county  or  borough  in  the  United  King- 
dom of  a  clear  yearly  value  of  not  less  than  ten 
pounds  shall  be  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a 
voter  and  when  registered  to  vote  at  an  election 
for  such  county  or  borough  in  respect  of  such 
occupation  subject  to  the  like  conditions  respec- 
tively as  a  man  is,  at  the  passing  of  this  Act, 
entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  voter  and  to  vote 
at  an  election  for  such  county  in  respect  of  the 
county  occupation  franchise,  and  at  an  election 
for  such  borough  in  respect  of  the  borough  occu- 
pation franchise. 

6.  A  man  shall  not  by  virtue  of  this  Act  be 
entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  voter  or  to  vote  at 
any  election  for  a  county  in  respect  of  the  occu- 
pation of  any  dwelling-house,  lodgings,  land,  or 
tenement,  situate  in  a  borough. 

7.  (1.)  In  this  Act  the  expression  "a  house- 
hold qualification  "  means,  as  respects  England 
and  Ireland,  the  qualification  enacted  by  the 
third  section  of  the  Representation  of  the  People 
Act,  1867  [see  comments  appended  to  this  text], 
and  the  enactments  amending  or  affecting  the 
same,  and  the  said  section  and  enactments  so  far 
as  they  are  consistent  with  this  Act,  shall  extend 
to  counties  in  England  and  to  counties  and  bor- 
oughs in  Ireland.  (2.)  In  the  construction  of  the 
said  enactments,  as  amended  and  applied  to  Ire- 
land, the  following  dates  shall  be  substituted  for 
the  dates  therein  mentioned,  that  is  to  say,  the 
twentieth  day  of  July  for  tlie  fifteenth  day  of 
July,  the  first  day  of  July  for  the  twentieth  day 
of  July,  and  the  first  day  of  January  for  the  fifth 
day  of  January.  (3.)  The  expression  "a  lodger 
qualification "  means  the  qualification  enacted, 
as  respects  England,  by  the  fourth  section  of  the 
Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1867  [see  com- 
ments appended  to  this  text],  and  the  enactments 
amending  or  affecting  the  same,  and  as  respects 
Ireland,  by  the  fourth  .section  of  the  Representa- 
tion of  the  People  (Ireland)  Act,  1868,  and  the 
enactments  amending  or  affecting  the  same,  and 
the  said  section  of  the  English  Act  of  1867,  and 
the  enactments  amending  or  affecting  the  same, 
shall,  so  far  as  they  are  consistent  with  this  Act, 
extend  to  counties  in  England,  and  the  said  sec- 
tion of  the  Irish  Act  of  1868,  and  the  enactments 
amending  or  affecting  the  same,  shall,  so  far  as 
they  are  consistent  with  this  Act,  extend  to 
counties  in  Ireland;  and  sections  five  and  six  and 
twenty-two  and  twenty-three  of  the  Parliamen- 
tary and  Municipal  Registration  Act,  1878,  so 
far  as  they  relate  to  lodgings,  shall  apply  to  Ire- 


land, and  for  the  purpose  of  such  application 
the  reference  in  tlie  said  section  six  to  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Act,  1867,  shall  be 
deemed  to  be  made  to  the  Representation  of  the 
People  (Ireland)  Act,  1868,  and  in  the  said  sec- 
tion twenty-two  of  the  Parliamentary  and  Mu- 
nicipal Registration  Act,  1878,  the  reference  to 
section  thirteen  of  the  Parliamentary  Registra- 
tion Act,  1843,  shall  be  construed  to  refer  to  the 
enactments  of  the  Registration  Acts  in  Ireland 
relating  to  the  making  out,  signing,  publishing, 
and  otherwise  dealing  with  the  lists  of  voters, 
and  the  reference  to  the  Parliamentary  Regis- 
tration Acts  shall  be  construed  to  refer  to  the 
Registration  Acts  in  Ireland,  and  the  following 
dates  shall  be  substituted  in  Ireland  for  the  dates 
in  that  section  mentioned,  that  is  to  say,  the 
twentieth  day  of  July  for  the  last  day  of  July, 
and  the  fourteenth  day  of  July  for  the  twenty- 
fifth  day  of  July,  and  the  word  "overseers" 
shall  be  construed  to  refer  in  a  county  to  the 
clerk  of  the  peace,  and  in  a  borough  to  the  town 
clerk.  (4.)  The  expression  "a  household  qualifica- 
tion" means,  as  respects  Scotland,  the  qualifica- 
tion enacted  by  the  third  section  of  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  (Scotland)  Act,  1868,  and 
the  enactments  amending  or  affecting  the  same, 
and  the  said  section  and  enactments  shall,  so  far 
as  they  are  consistent  with  this  Act,  extend  to 
counties  in  Scotland,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
the  said  section  and  enactments  the  expression 
"dwelling-house  "  in  Scotland  means  any  house 
or  part  of  a  house  occupied  as  a  separate  dwel- 
ling, and  this  definition  of  a  dwelling-house  shall 
be  substituted  for  the  definition  contained  in 
section  fifty-nine  of  the  Representation  of  the 
People  (Scotland)  Act,  1868.  (5.)  The  expression 
"a  lodger  qualification  "  means,  as  respects  Scot- 
land, the  qualification  enacted  by  the  fourth 
section  of  the  Representation  of  the  People  (Scot- 
land) Act,  1868,  and  the  enactments  amending  or 
affecting  the  same,  and  the  said  section  and  en- 
actments, so  far  as  they  are  consistent  with  this 
Act,  shall  extend  to  counties  in  Scotland.  (6.) 
The  expression  "county  occupation  franchise" 
means,  a^  respects  England,  the  franchise  enacted 
by  the  sixth  section  of  the  Representation  of  the 
People  Act,  1867  [see  comments  appended  to 
this  text] ;  and,  as  respects  Scotland,  the  fran- 
chise enacted  by  tlie  sixth  section  of  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  (Scotland)  Act,  1868;  and, 
as  respects  Ireland,  the  franchise  enacted  by  the 
first  section  of  the  Act  of  the  session  of  the  thir- 
teenth and  fourteenth  years  of  the  reign  of  Her 
present  Majesty,  chapter  sixty-nine.  (7.)  The  ex- 
pression "borough  occupation  franchise  "  means, 
as  respects  England,  the  franchise  enacted  by 
the  twenty-seventh  section  of  the  Act  of  the  ses- 
sion of  the  second  and  third  years  of  the  reign  of 
King  AVilliam  the  Fourth,  chapter  forty-five 
[see  comments  appended  to  this  text] ;  and  as 
respects  Scotland,  the  franchise  enacted  by  the 
eleventh  section  of  the  Act  of  the  session  of  the 
second  and  third  j'ears  of  the  reign  of  King  Wil- 
liam the  Fourth,  chapter  sixty -five;  and  as  re- 
spects Ireland  the  franchise  enacted  by  section 
five  of  the  Act  of  the  session  of  the  thirteenth 
and  fourteenth  years  of  the  reign  of  Her  present 
Majesty,  chapter  sixty-nine,  and  the  third  section 
of  the  Representation  of  the  People  (Ireland)  Act, 
1868.  (8.)  Any  enactments  amending  or  relating 
to  the  county  occupation  franchise  or  borough 
occupation  franchise  other  than  the  sectious  in 


1001 


ENGLAND,   1884-1885. 


Third  Reform 
Bill. 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


this  Act  in  that  behalf  mentioned  shall  be  deemed 
to  be  referred  to  in  the  definition  of  the  county 
occupation  franchise  and  the  borough  occupation 
franchise  in  this  Act  mentioned. 

8.  (1.)  In  this  Act  the  expression  "the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Acts  "  means  the  enact- 
ments for  tlie  time  being  in  force  in  England, 
Scotland,  and  Ireland  respectively  relating  to  the 
representation  of  the  people,  inclusive  of  the 
Registration  Acts  as  defined  by  this  Act.  (2.) 
The  expression  "the  Registration  Acts"  means 
the  enactments  for  the  time  being  in  force  in 
England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland  respectively,  re- 
lating to  the  registration  of  persons  entitled  to 
vote  at  elections  for  counties  and  boroughs,  in- 
clusive of  the  Rating  Acts  as  defined  by  this  Act. 
(3.)  The  expressions  "the  Representation  of  the 
People  Acts"  and  "the  Registration  Acts"  re- 
spectively, where  used  in  this  Act,  shall  be  read 
distributively  in  reference  to  the  three  parts  of 
the  LTnited  Kingdom  as  meaning  in  the  case  of 
each  part  the  enactments  for  the  time  being  in 
force  in  that  part.  (4.)  All  enactments  of  the 
Registration  Acts  which  relate  to  the  registra- 
tion of  persons  entitled  to  vote  in  boroughs  in 
England  in  respect  of  a  household  or  a  lodger 
qualification,  and  in  boroughs  in  Ireland  in  re- 
spect of  a  lodger  qualification,  shall,  with  the 
necessary  variations  and  with  the  necessary  al- 
terations of  precepts,  notices,  lists,  and  other 
forms,  extend  to  counties  as  well  as  to  boroughs. 
(5.)  All  enactments  of  the  Registration  Acts 
which  relate  to  the  registration  in  counties  and 
boroughs  in  Ireland  of  persons  entitled  to  vote  in 
respect  of  the  county  occupation  franchise  and 
the  borough  occupation  franchise  respectively, 
shall,  with  the  necessary  variations  and  with  the 
necessary  alterations  of  precepts,  notices,  lists, 
and  other  forms,  extend  respectively  to  the  re- 
gistration in  counties  and  boroughs  in  Ireland  of 
persons  entitled  to  vote  in  respect  of  the  house- 
hold qualification  conferred  by  this  Act.  (6.) 
In  Scotland  all  enactments  of  the  Registration 
Acts  which  relate  to  the  registration  of  persons 
entitled  to  vote  in  burghs,  including  the  pro- 
visions relating  to  dates,  shall,  with  the  neces- 
sary variations,  and  with  the  necessary  altera- 
tions of  notices  and  other  forms,  extend  and 
apply  to  counties  as  well  as  to  burghs ;  and  the 
enactments  of  the  said  Acts  which  relate  to  the 
registration  of  persons  entitled  to  vote  in  counties 
shall,  so  far  as  inconsistent  with  the  enactments 
so  applied,  be  repealed:  Provided  that  in  coun- 
ties the  valuation  rolls,  registers,  and  lists  shall 
continue  to  be  arranged  in  parishes  as  heretofore. 

9.  (1.)  In  this  Act  the  expression  "the  Rating 
Acts  "  means  the  enactments  for  the  time  being 
in  force  in  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland  re- 
spectively, relating  to  the  placing  of  the  names 
of  occupiers  on  the  rate  book,  or  other  enact- 
ments relating  to  rating  in  so  far  as  they  are 
auxiliary  to  or  deal  with  the  registration  of  per- 
sons entitled  to  vote  at  elections ;  and  the  expres- 
sion "the  Rating  Acts"  where  used  in  this  Act 
shall  be  read  distributively  in  reference  to  the 
three  parts  of  the  United  Kingdom  as  meaning 
in  the  case  of  each  part  the  Acts  for  the  time 
being  in  force  in  that  part.  (2.)  In  every  part  of 
the  United  Kingdom  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
overseers  annually,  in  the  months  of  April  and 
May,  or  one  of  them,  to  inquire  or  ascertain  with 
respect  to  every  hereditament  which  comprises 
any  dwelling-house  or  dwelling-houses  within 


the  meaning  of  the  Representation  of  the  People 
Acts,  ■nhether  any  man,  other  than  the  owner  or 
other  person  rated  or  liable  to  be  rated  in  respect 
of  such  hereditament,  is  entitled  to  be  registered 
as  a  voter  in  respect  of  his  being  an  inhabitant 
occupier  of  any  such  dwelling-house,  and  to  en- 
ter in  the  rate  book  the  name  of  every  man  so 
entitled,  and  the  situation  or  description  of  the 
dwelling-house  in  respect  of  which  he  is  entitled, 
and  for  the  purposes  of  such  entry  a  separate 
column  shall  be  added  to  the  rate  book.  (3.)  For 
the  purpose  of  the  execution  of  such  duty  the 
overseers  may  serve  on  the  person  who  is  the 
occupier  or  rated  or  liable  to  be  rated  in  respect 
of  such  hereditament,  or  on  some  agent  of  such 
person  concerned  in  the  management  of  such 
hereditament,  the  requisition  specified  in  the 
Third  Schedule  of  this  Act  requiring  that  the 
form  in  that  notice  be  accurately  filled  up  and 
returned  to  the  overseers  within  twenty -one  days 
after  such  service ;  and  if  any  such  person  or 
agent  on  whom  such  requisition  is  served  fails 
to  comply  therewith,  he  shall  be  liable  on  sum- 
mary conviction  to  a  fine  not  exceeding  forty 
shillings,  and  any  overseer  who  fails  to  perform 
his  duty  under  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  duty  in  the  execution  of  the  Re- 
gistration Acts,  and  shall  be  liable  to  be  fined 
accordingly  a  sum  not  exceeding  forty  shillings 
for  each  default.  (4.)  The  notice  under  this  sec- 
tion may  be  served  in  manner  provided  by  the 
Representation  of  the  People  Acts  with  respect 
to  the  service  on  occupiers  of  notice  of  non-pay- 
ment of  rates,  and,  where  a  body  of  persons, 
corporate  or  unincorporate,  is  rated,  shall  be 
served  on  the  secretary  or  agent  of  such  body  of 
persons;  and  where  the  hereditament  by  reason 
of  belonging  to  the  Crown  or  otherwise  is  not 
rated,  shall  be  served  on  the  chief  local  officer 
having  the  superintendence  or  control  of  such 
hereditament.  (5. )  In  the  application  of  this  sec- 
tion to  Scotland  the  expression  rate  book  means 
the  valuation  roll,  and  where  a  man  entered  on 
the  valuation  roll  by  virtue  of  this  section  inhab- 
its a  dwelling-house  by  virtue  of  any  office,  ser- 
vice, or  employment,  there  shall  not  be  entered 
in  the  valuation  roll  any  rent  or  value  against 
the  name  of  such  man  as  applicable  to  such 
dwelling-house,  nor  shall  any  such  man  by  rea- 
son of  such  entry  become  liable  to  be  rated  in 
respect  of  such  dwelling-house.  (6.)  The  proviso 
in  section  two  of  the  Act  for  the  valuation  of 
lands  and  heritages  in  Scotland  passed  in  the 
session  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  years 
of  the  reign  of  Her  present  Majesty,  chapter 
ninety -one,  and  section  fifteen  of  the  Represen- 
tation of  the  People  (Scotland)  Act,  1868,  shall 
be  repealed:  Provided  that  in  any  county  in 
Scotland  the  commissioners  of  supply,  or  the 
parochial  board  of  any  parish,  or  any  other  rat- 
ing authority  entitled  to  impose  assessments  ac- 
cording to  the  valuation  roll,  may,  if  they  think 
fit,  levy  such  assessments  in  respect  of  lands  and 
heritages  separately  let  for  a  shorter  period  than 
one  year  or  at  a  rent  not  amounting  to  four 
pounds  per  annum  in  the  same  manner  and  from 
the  same  persons  as  if  the  names  of  the  tenants 
and  occupiers  of  such  lands  and  heritages  were 
not  inserted  in  the  valuation  roll.  (7.)  In  Ireland 
where  the  owner  of  a  dwelling-house  is  rated 
instead  of  the  occupier,  the  occupier  shall  never- 
theless be  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  voter,  and 
to  vote  under  the  same  conditions  under  which 


1002 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


Quatifications  of 
the  Suffrage. 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


an  occupier  of  a  dwelling-house  in  England  is 
entitled  in  pursuance  of  the  Poor  Rate  Assess- 
ment and   Collection  Act,   1869,   and   the   Acts 
amending  the  same,  to  be  registered  as  a  voter, 
and  to  vote  where  the  owner  is  rated,  and  the 
enactments  referred  to  in  the  First  Schedule  to 
this  Act  shall  apply  to  Ireland  accordingly,  with 
the   modifications   in   that  schedule  mentioned. 
(8.)  Both  in  England  and  Ireland  where  a  man 
inhabits  any  dwelling-house  by  virtue  of  any 
office,  service,  or  employment,  and  is  deemed  for 
the  purposes  of  this  Act  and  of  the  Representa- 
tion of  the  People  Acts  to  be  an  inhabitant  occu- 
pier of  such  dwelling-house  as  a  tenant,  and 
another  person  is  rated  or  liable  to  be  rated  for 
such  dwelling-house,   the  rating  of  such  other 
person  shall  for  the  purposes  of  this  Act  and  of 
the  Representation  of  the  People  Acts  be  deemed 
to  be  that  of  the  inhabitant  occupier ;  and  the 
several  enactments  of  the  Poor  Rate  Assessment 
and  Collection  Act,  1869,  and  other  Acts  amend- 
ing the  same  referred  to  in  the  First  Schedule  to 
this  Act  shall  for  those  purposes  apply  to  such 
inhabitant  occupier,  and  in  the  construction  of 
those  enactments  the  word  "owner"  shall  be 
deemed   to  include  a  person  actually  rated  or 
liable  to  be  rated  as  aforesaid.     (9.)  In  any  part 
of  the  United  Kingdom  where  a  man  inhabits  a 
dwelling-house  in  respect  of  which  no  person  is 
rated  by  reason  of  such  dwelling-house  belong- 
ing to  or  being  occupied  on  behalf  of  the  Crown, 
or  by  reason  of  any  other  ground  of  exemptiou, 
such  person  shall  not  be  disentitled  to  be  regis- 
tered as  a  voter,  and  to  vote  by  reason  only  that 
no  one  is  rated  in  respect  of  such  dwelling-house, 
and  that  no  rates  are  paid  in  respect  of  the  same, 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  persons  making 
out  the  rate  book  or  valuation  roll  to  enter  any 
such  dwelling-house  as  last  aforesaid  in  the  rate 
book  or  valuation  roll,  together  with  the  name  of 
the  inhabitant  occupier  thereof. 

10.  Nothing  in  this  Act  shall  deprive  any  per- 
son (who  at  the  date  of  the  passing  of  this  Act 
is  registered  in  respect  of  any  qualification  to 
vote  for  any  county  or  borough),  of  his  right  to 
be  from  time  to  time  registered  and  to  vote  for 
such  county  or  borough  in  respect  of  such  quali- 
fication in  like  manner  as  if  this  Act  had  not 
passed.  Provided  that  where  a  man  is  so  regis- 
tered in  respect  of  the  county  or  borough  occu- 
pation franchise  by  virtue  of  a  qualification 
which  also  qualifies  him  for  the  franchise  under 
this  Act,  he  shall  be  entitled  to  be  registered  in 
respect  of  such  latter  franchise  only.  Nothing 
in  this  Act  shall  confer  on  any  man  who  is  sub- 
ject to  any  legal  incapacity  to  be  registered  as  a 
voter  or  to  vote,  any  right  to  be  registered  as  a 
voter  or  to  vote. 

II.  This  Act,  so  far  as  may  be  consistently 
with  the  tenor  thereof,  shall  be  construed  as  one 
with  the  Representation  of  the  People  Acts  as 
defined  by  this  Act;  and  the  expressions  "elec- 
tion," "county,"  and  "borough,"  and  other  ex- 
pressions in  this  Act  and  in  the  enactments  ap- 
plied by  this  Act,  shall  have  the  same  meaning 
as  in  the  said  Acts.  Provided  that  in  this  Act 
and  the  said  enactments  — The  expression  "over- 
seers" Includes  assessors,  guardians,  clerks  of 
unions,  or  other  persons  by  whatever  name 
known,  who  perform  duties  in  relation  to  rating 
or  to  the  registration  of  voters  similar  to  those 
performed  in  relation  to  such  matters  by  over- 
seers in  England.    The  expression  ' '  rentcharge  " 


Includes  a  fee  farm  rent,  a  feu  duty  in  Scotland,, 
a  rent  seek,  a  chief  rent,  a  rent  of  assize,  and 
any  rent  or  annuity  granted  out  of  land.  The 
expression  "land  or  tenement"  includes  any 
part  of  a  house  separately  occupied  for  the  pur- 
pose of  any  trade,  business,  or  profession,  and 
that  expression,  and  also  the  expression  "here- 
ditament "  when  used  in  this  Act,  in  Scotland  in- 
cludes "lands  and  heritages. "  The  exprepiona 
"joint  tenants  "  and  "tenants  in  common  "  shall 
include  "pro  indiviso  proprietors."  The  ex- 
pression "clear  yearly  value  "  as  applied  to  any- 
land  or  tenement  means  in  Scotland  the  annual 
value  as  appearing  in  the  valuation  roll,  and  In 
Ireland  the  net  annual  value  at  which  the  occu- 
pier of  such  land  or  tenement  was  rated  under 
the  last  rate  for  the  time  being,  under  the  Act 
of  the  session  of  the  first  and  second  years  of  the 
reign  of  Her  present  Majesty,  chapter  fifty-six, 
or  any  Acts  amending  the  same. 

12.  Whereas  the  franchises  conferred  by  this 
Act  are  in  substitution  for  the  franchises  con- 
ferred by  the  enactments  mentioned  in  the  first 
and  second  parts  of  the  Second  Schedule  hereto, 
be  it  enacted  that  the  Acts  mentioned  in  the  first 
part  of  the  said  Second  Schedule  shall  be  re- 
pealed to  the  extent  in  the  third  column  of  that 
part  of  the  said  schedule  mentioned  except  in  sO' 
far  as  relates  to  the  rights  of  persons  saved  by 
this  Act ;  and  the  Acts  mentioned  in  the  second 
part  of  the  said  Second  Schedule  shall  be  re- 
pealed to  the  extent  in  the  third  column  of  that 
part  of  the  said  schedule  mentioned,  except  in  so- 
far  as  relates  to  the  rights  of  persons  saved  by 
this  Act  and  except  in  so  far  as  the  enactments- 
so  repealed  contain  conditions  made  applicable 
by  this  Act  to  any  franchise  enacted  by  this  Act. 
13.  This  Act  shall  commence  and  come  into 
operation  on  the  first  day  of  January  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  eighty -five:  Provided 
that  the  register  of  voters  in  any  county  or  bor- 
ough in  Scotland  made  in  the  last-mentioned 
year  shall  not  come  into  force  until  the  first  day 
of  January  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eighty-six,  and  until  that  day  the  previous  regis- 
ter of  voters  shall  continue  in  force. 

The  following  comments  upon  the  foregoing^ 
act  afford  explanations  which  are  needed  for  the 
understanding  of  some  of  its  provisions: 

"  The  introduction  of  the  household  franchise 
into  counties  is  the  main  work  of  the  Representa- 
tion of  the  People  Act,  1884.  .  .  .  The  county 
household  franchise  is  .  .  .  made  identical  with 
the  borough  franchise  created  by  the  Reform 
Act  of  1867  (30 &  31  Vict.,  c.  102),  to  which  we 
must,  therefore,  turn  for  the  definition  of  the  one 
household  franchise  now  established  in^  both 
counties  and  boroughs  throughout  the  United 
Kingdom.  The  third  section  of  the  Act  in  ques- 
tion provides  that  '  Every  man  shall  in  and  after 
the  year  1868  be  entitled  to  be  registered  as  a 
voter,  and  when  registered  to  vote,  for  a  member 
or  members  to  serve  in  Parliament  for  a  borough 
[we  must  now  add  "or  for  a  county  or  division 
of  a  county"]  who  is  qualified  as  follows:— (l.> 
Is  of  full  age  and  not  subject  to  any  legal  in- 
capacity ;  (3.)  Is  on  the  last  day  of  July  [now  July 
15th]  in  any  year,  and  has  during  the  whole  of  the 
preceding  twelve  calendar  months  been  an  inhabi- 
tant occupier  as  owner  or  tenant  of  any  dwelling 
house  within  the  borough  [or  within  a  county  or 
division  of  a  county];  (3.)  Has  during  the  time 
of  such  occupation  been  rated  as  an  ordinary 


1U03 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


Suj^rage 
Qualifications, 


ENGLAND,  1884^188a. 


occupier  in  respect  of  the  premises  so  occupied  by 
him  within  the  borough  to  all  rates  (if  any)  made 
for  the  relief  of  the  poor  in  respect  of  such  prem- 
ises; and,  (4.)  Has  on  or  before  the  20th  day  of 
July  in  the  same  year  bona  fide  paid  an  equal 
amount  in  the  pound  to  that  payable  by  other  or- 
dinary occupiers  in  respect  of  all  poor  rates  that 
have  been  payable  by  him  in  respect  of  the  said 
premises  up  to  the  preceding  5th  day  of  January : 
Provided  that  no  man  shall  under  this  section  be 
entitled  to  be  registered  as  a  voter  by  reason  of 
his  being  a  joint  occupier  of  any  dwelling  house. 
.  .  .  The  lodger  franchise  was  the  creation  of 
the  Reform  Act  of  1867  (30  &  31  Vict.,  c.  102), 
the  4th  section  of  which  conferred  the  suffrage 
upon  lodgers  who,  being  of  full  age  and  not  sub- 
ject to  any  legal  incapacity,  have  occupied  in 
the  same  borough  lodgings  '  of  a  clear  yearly 
value,  if  let  unfurnished,  of  £10  or  upwards  '  for 
twelve  months  preceding  the  last  day  of  July, 
and  have  claimed  to  be  registered  as  voters  at 
the  next  ensuing  registration  of  voters.  By  this 
clause  certain  limitations  or  restrictions  were  im- 
posed on  the  lodger  franchise;  but  these  were 
swept  away  by  the  41  &  42  Vict.,  c.  26,  the  6th 
section  of  which  considerably  enlarged  the  fran- 
chise by  enacting  that: — (1.)  Lodgings  occupied 
by  a  person  in  any  j'ear  or  two  successive  years 
shall  not  be  deemed  to  be  different  lodgings  by 
reason  only  that  in  that  j'ear  or  either  of  those 
years  he  has  occupied  some  other  rooms  or  place 
in  addition  to  his  original  lodgings.  (2.)  For  the 
purpose  of  qualifjiug  a  lodger  to  vote  the  occu- 
pation in  immediate  succession  of  different  lodg- 
ings of  the  requisite  value  in  the  same  house 
shall  have  the  same  effect  as  continued  occupa- 
tion of  the  same  lodgings.  (3.)  Wliere  lodgings 
are  jointly  occupied  by  more  than  one  lodger, 
and  the  clear  yearly  value  of  the  lodgings  if  let 
unfurnished  is  of  an  amount  which,  when  divided 
by  the  number  of  the  lodgers,  gives  a  sum  of  not 
less  than  £10  for  each  lodger,  then  each  lodger 
(if  otherwise  qualified  and  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act, 
1867)  shall  be  entitled  to  be  registered  and  when 
registered  to  vote  as  a  lodger,  provided  that  not 
more  than  two  persons  being  such  joint  lodgers 
shall  be  entitled  to  be  registered  in  respect  of 
such  lodgings.  .  .  .  Until  the  passing  of  the 
Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1884,  no  house- 
holder was  qualified  to  vote  unless  he  not  only 
occupied  a  dwelling  house,  but  occupied  it  either 
as  owner  or  as  the  tenant  of  the  owner.  And 
where  residence  in  an  official  or  other  house  was 
necessary,  or  conducive  to  the  efficient  discharge 
of  a  man's  duty  or  service,  and  was  either  ex- 
pressly or  impliedly  made  a  part  of  such  duty  or 
service  then  the  relation  of  landlord  or  tenant 
was  held  not  to  be  created.  The  consequence 
was  that  a  large  number  of  persons  who  as  offi- 
cials, as  employes,  or  as  servants  are  required  to 
reside  in  public  buildings,  on  the  premises  of 
their  employers  or  in  houses  assigned  to  them  by 
their  masters  were  held  not  to  be  entitled  to  the 
franchise.  In  future  such  persons  will  ...  be 
entitled  to  vote  as  inhabitant  occupiers  and  ten- 
ants (under  Section  3  of  the  recent  Act),  notwith- 
standing that  they  occupy  their  dwelling  houses 
'  by  virtue  of  any  office,  service  or  employment.' 
But  this  is  subject  to  the  condition  that  a  subor- 
dinate cannot  qualify  or  obtain  a  vote  in  respect 
of  a  dwelling  house  which  is  also  inhabited  by 
any  person  under  whom  '  such  man  serves   in 


such  office,  service  or  employment,' .  .  .  Persons 
seised  of  (i.  e. ,  owning)  an  estate  of  inheritance 
(i.  e.,  in  fee  simple  or  fee-tail)  of  freehold  tenure, 
in  lands  or  tenements,  of  the  value  of  40s.  per 
annum,  are  entitled  to  a  vote  for  the  county  or 
division  of  the  county  in  which  the  estate  is  situ- 
ated. This  is  the  class  of  electors  generally 
known  as  '  forty  shilling  freeholders.'  Originally 
all  freeholders  were  entitled  to  county  votes,  but 
by  the  8  Henry  VI.,  c.  7,  it  was  provided  that  no 
freehold  of  a  less  annual  value  than  40s.  should 
confer  the  franchise.  Until  the  Reform  Act  of 
1832,  40s.  freeholders,  whether  their  estate  was 
one  of  inheritance  or  one  for  life  or  lives,  were 
entitled  to  county  votes.  That  Act,  however, 
restricted  the  county  freehold  franchise  by  draw- 
ing a  distinction  between  (1)  freeholds  of  inheri- 
tance, and  (2)  freeholds  not  of  inheritance.  While 
the  owners  of  the  first  class  of  freeholds  were 
left  in  possession  of  their  former  rights  (except 
when  the  property  is  situated  within  a  Parlia- 
mentary borough),  the  owners  of  the  latter  were 
subjected  to  a  variety  of  conditions  and  restric- 
tions. .  .  .  Before  the  passing  of  the  Represen- 
tation of  the  People  Act,  1884,  any  number  of 
persons  might  qualify  and  obtain  county  votes 
as  joint  owners  of  a  freehold  of  inheritance,  pro- 
vided that  it  was  of  an  annual  value  sufficient  to 
give  40s.  for  each  owner.  But  .  .  .  this  right 
is  materially  qualified  by  Section  4  of  the  recent 
Act.  .  .  .  Persons  seised  of  an  estate  for  life  or 
lives  of  freehold  tenure  of  the  annual  value  of 
40s.,  but  of  less  than  £5,  are  entitled  to  a  county 
vote,  provided  that  they  (1)  actually  and  bonS 
fide  occupy  the  premises,  or  (2)  were  seised  of 
the  property  at  the  time  of  the  passing  of  the  2 
Will.  IV.,  c.  45  (June  7th,  1832),  or  (3)  have  ac- 
quired the  property  after  the  date  by  marriage, 
marriage  settlement,  devise,  or  promotion  to  a 
benefice  or  office.  .  .  .  Persons  seised  of  an  es- 
tate for  life  or  lives  or  of  any  larger  estate  in 
lands  or  tenements  of  any  tenure  whatever  of 
the  yearly  value  of  £5  or  upwards :  This  quali- 
fication is  not  confined  to  the  ownership  of  free- 
hold lands.  Under  the  words  'of  any  tenure 
whatever'  (30  &  31  Vict.,  c.  103,  s.  5)  copyholders 
have  county  votes  if  their  property  is  of  the  an- 
nual value  of  £5.  .  .  .  The  electoral  qualifica- 
tions in  Scotland  are  defined  by  the  2  &  3  Will. 
IV.,  c.  65,  the  31  &  32  Vict.,  c.  48,  and  the  Repre- 
sentation of  the  People  Act,  1884  (48  Vict.,  c.  3). 
The  effect  of  the  three  Acts  taken  together 
is  that  the  County  franchises  are  as  follows: — 1. 
Owners  of  Land,  &c.,  of  the  annual  value  of  £5, 
after  deducting  feu  duty,  ground  annual,  or 
other  considerations  which  an  owner  may  be 
bound  to  pay  or  to  give  an  account  for  as  a  con- 
dition of  his  right.  2.  Leaseholders  under  a 
lease  of  not  less  than  57  years  or  for  the  life  of 
the  tenant  of  the  clear  yearly  value  of  £10,  or 
for  a  period  of  not  less  than  19  years  when  the 
clear  yearly  value  is  not  less  than  £50,  or  the 
tenant  is  in  actual  personal  occupancy  of  the 
land.  3.  Occupiers  of  land,  &c.,  of  the  clear 
yearly  value  of  £10.  4.  Householders.  5.  Lodg- 
ers. 6.  The  service  franchise.  Borough  fran- 
chises.— 1.  Occupiers  of  land  or  tenements  of  the 
annual  value  of  £10.  2.  Householdere.  3.  Lodg- 
ers. 4.  The  service  franchise.  The  qualification 
for  these  franchises  is  in  all  material  respects  the 
same  as  for  the  corresponding  franchises  in  the 
Scotch  counties,  and  in  the  counties  and  boroughs 
of  England  and  Wales.  .  .  .  The  Acts  relating  to 


1004 


ENGLAND,  1884-1885. 


Gladstone 
and  Salisbury. 


ENGLAND,  1885-1886. 


the  franchise  in  Ireland  are  2  &  3  Will.  IV. ,  c.  88, 
13  &  14  Vict. ,  c.  69,  the  representation  of  the  Peo- 
ple (Ireland)  Act,  1868,  and  the  Representation  of 
the  People  Act,  1884.  Read  together  they  give 
the  following  qualifications : — County  franchises. 
— 1.  Owners  of  freeholds  of  inheritance  or  of  free- 
holds for  lives  renewable  for  ever  rated  to  the 
poor  at  the  annual  value  of  £5.  3,  Freeholders  and 
copyholders  of  a  clear  annual  value  of  £10.  3. 
Leaseholders  of  various  terras  and  value.  4. 
Occupiers  of  land  or  a  tenement  of  the  clear  an- 
nual value  of  £10.  5.  Householders.  6.  The 
lodger  franchise.  7.  The  service  franchise.  Bor- 
ough franchises. —  1.  Occupiers  of  lands  and 
tenements  of  the  annual  value  of  £10.  3.  House- 
holders. ...  3.  Lodgers.  4.  The  service  fran- 
chise. 5.  Freemen  in  certain  boroughs.  .  .  . 
All  the  franchises  we  have  described  .  .  .  are 
subject  to  this  condition,  that  no  one,  however 
qualified,  can  be  registered  or  vote  in  respect  of 
them  if  he  is  subjected  to  any  legal  incapacity 
to  become  or  act  as  elector.  .  .  .  No  alien  unless 
certificated  or  naturalised,  no  minor,  no  lunatic 
or  idiot,  nor  any  person  in  such  a  state  of  drunk- 
enness as  to  be  incapable  —  is  entitled  to  vote. 
Police  magistrates  in  London  and  Dublin,  and 
police  officers  throughout  the  country,  including 
the  members  of  the  Royal  Irish  Constabulary, 
are  disqualified  from  voting  either  generally  or 
for  constituencies  within  which  their  duties  lie. 
In  the  case  of  the  police  the  disqualification  con- 
tinues for  six  months  after  an  officer  has  left  the 
force.  .  .  .  Persons  are  disqualified  who  are  con- 
victed of  treason  or  treason-felony,  for  which  the 
sentence  is  death  or  penal  servitude,  or  any  term 
of  imprisonment  with  hard  labour  or  exceeding 
twelve  months,  until  they  have  suffered  their 
punishment  (or  such  as  may  be  substituted  by 
competent  authority),  or  until  they  receive  a 
free  pardon.  Peers  are  disqualified  from  voting 
at  the  election  of  any  member  to  serve  in  Parlia- 
ment. A  returning  officer  may  not  vote  at  any 
election  for  which  he  acts,  unless  the  numbers 
are  equal,  when  he  may  give  a  casting  vote.  No 
person  is  entitled  to  be  registered  in  any  year  as 
a  voter  for  any  county  or  borough  who  has  within 
twelve  calendar  months  next  previous  to  the  last 
day  of  July  in  such  year  received  parochial  re- 
lief or  other  alms  which  by  the  law  of  Parlia- 
ment disqualify  from  voting.  Persons  employed 
at  an  election  for  reward  or  payment  are  dis- 
qualified from  voting  thereat  although  they  may 
be  on  the  register.  .  .  .  The  Corrupt  and  Illegal 
Practices  Prevention  Act,  1883,  disqualifies  a 
variety  of  offenders." — W.  A.  Holdsworth,  The 
New  Reform  Act.  pp.  20-SQ. 

A.  D.  1884-1885.— Campaign  in  the  Soudan 
for  the  relief  of  General  Gordon.  See  Egypt  : 
A.  D.  1884-1885. 

A.  D.  1884-1895. — Acquisitions  in  Africa. 
See  Africa  :  A.  D.  1884-1885,  and  after. 

A.  D.  1885.— The  fall  of  the  Gladstone  gov- 
ernment.— The  brief  first  Ministry  of  Lord  Sal- 
isbury.—  "Almost  simultaneously  with  the  as- 
sembling of  Parliament  [February  19,  1885]  had 
come  the  news  of  the  fall  of  Khartoum  and  the 
death  of  General  Gordon  [see  Egypt:  A.  D. 
1884-1885].  These  terrible  events  sent  a  thrill  of 
horror  and  indignation  throughout  the  country, 
and  the  Government  was  severely  condemned  in 
many  quarters  for  its  procrastination.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, who  was  strongly  moved  by  Gordon's 
death,  rose  to  the  situation,  and  announced  that 


it  was  necessary  to  overthrow  the  Mahdi  at  Khar 
toum,  to  renew  operations  against  Osman  Digma, 
and  to  construct  a  railway  from  Suakim  to  Berber 
with  a  view  to  a  campaign  in  the  autumn.  A 
royal  proclamation  was  issued  calling  out  the  re- 
serves. Sir  Stafford  Northcote  initiated  a  debate 
on  the  Soudan  question  with  a  motion  aflSrming 
that  the  risks  and  sacrifices  which  the  Govern- 
ment appeared  to  be  ready  to  encounter  could 
only  be  justified  by  a  distinct  recognition  of  our 
responsibility  for  Egypt,  and  those  portions  of 
the  Soudan  which  are  necessary  to  its  security. 
Mr.  John  Morley  introduced  an  amendment  to 
the  motion,  waiving  any  judgment  on  the  policy 
of  the  Ministry,  but  expressing  regret  at  its  de- 
cision to  continue  the  conflict  with  the  Mahdi. 
Mr.  Gladstone  skilfully  dealt  with  both  motion 
and  amendment.  Observing  that  it  was  impossi- 
ble to  give  rigid  pledges  as  to  the  future,  he  ap- 
pealed to  the  Liberal  party,  if  they  had  not  made 
up  their  minds  to  condemn  and  punish  the  Gov- 
ernment, to  strengthen  their  hands  by  an  unmis- 
takable vote  of  confidence.  The  Government 
obtained  a  majority  of  14,  the  votes  being  303  in 
their  favour  with  388  against;  but  many  of  those 
who  supported  the  Government  had  also  voted 
for  the  amendment  by  Mr.  Morley.  .  .  .  Finan- 
cial questions  were  extremely  embarrassing  to  the 
Government,  and  it  was  not  until  the  30th  of 
April  that  the  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer  was 
ready  with  his  financial  statement.  He  was 
called  upon  to  deal  with  a  deficit  of  upwards  of 
a  million,  with  a  greatly  depressed  revenue,  and 
with  an  estimated  expenditure  for  the  current 
year  —  including  the  vote  of  credit — of  no  less 
than  £100,000,000.  Amongst  Mr.  Childers's  pro- 
posals was  one  to  levy  upon  laud  an  amount  of 
taxation  proportioned  to  that  levied  on  personal 
property.  There  was  also  an  augmentation  of 
the  spirit  duties  and  of  the  beer  duty.  The 
country  members  were  dissatisfied  and  demanded 
that  no  new  charges  should  be  thrown  on  the 
land  till  the  promised  relief  of  local  taxation  had 
been  carried  out.  The  agricultural  and  the  liquor 
interests  were  discontented,  as  well  as  the  Scotch 
and  Irish  members  with  the  whiskey  duty.  The 
Chancellor  made  some  concessions,  but  they  were 
not  regarded  as  suflicient,  and  on  the  Monday 
after  the  Whitsun  holidays,  the  Opposition  joined 
battle  on  a  motion  by  Sir  M.  Hicks  Beach.  .  .  . 
Mr.  Gladstone  stated  at  the  close  of  the  debate 
that  the  Government  would  resign  if  defeated. 
The  amendment  was  carried  against  them  by  264 
to  253,  and  the  Ministry  went  out.  .  .  .  Lord 
Salisbury  became  Premier.  .  .  .  The  general 
election  .  .  .  [was]  fixed  for  November  1885." — 
G.  B.  Smith,  T/ie  Prune  Ministers  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria, pp.  373-377. 

A.  D.  1 885-1 886.— The  partition  of  East 
Africa  with  Germany.  See  Africa:  A.  D. 
1884-1891. 

A.  D.  1885-1886. — Mr.  Gladstone's  return  to 
power. — His  Home  Rule  Bill  for  Ireland  and 
his  Irish  Land  Bill. — Their  defeat. — Division 
of  the  Liberal  Party. — Lord  Salisbury's  Min- 
istry.— "The  House  of  Commons  which  had  been 
elected  in  November  and  December,  1885,  was 
the  first  House  of  Commons  which  represented 
the  whole  body  of  the  householders  and  lodgers 
of  the  United  Kingdom.  The  result  of  the  appeal 
to  new  constituencies  and  an  enlarged  elector- 
ate had  taken  all  parties  by  surprise.  The  Tories 
found  themselves,    by   the   help  of  their   Irish 


1005 


ENGLAND,  1885-1886. 


Home  Rute  for 
Ireland. 


ENGLAND,  1885-1886. 


allies,  successful  in  the  towns  beyond  all  their 
hopes ;  the  Liberals,  disappointed  in  the  boroughs, 
had  found  compensation  in  unexpected  successes 
in  the  counties ;  and  the  Irish  Nationalists  had 
almost  swept  the  board.  .  .  .  The  Englisli  repre- 
sentation —  exclusive  of  one  Irish  Nationalist  for 
Liverpool  —  gave  a  liberal  majority  of  28  in  the 
English  constituencies;  which  Wales  and  Scot- 
land swelled  to  106.  The  Irish  representation 
had  undergone  a  still  more  remarkable  change. 
Of  103  members  for  the  sister  island,  85  were 
Home  Rulers  and  only  18  were  Tories.  .  .  .  The 
new  House  of  Commons  was  exactly  divided  be- 
tween the  Liberals  on  one  side  and  the  Tories 
with  their  Irish  allies  on  the  other.  Of  its  670 
members  just  one-half,  or  335,  were  Liberals, 
349  were  Tories,  and  86  were  Irish  Nationalists 
[or  Home  Rulers].  ...  It  was  soon  clear  enough 
that  the  alliance  between  the  Tory  Ministers  and 
the  Irish  Nationalists  was  at  an  end."  On  the 
25th  of  January  1886,  the  Government  was  de- 
feated on  an  amendment  to  the  address,  and  on  the 
28th  it  resigned.  Mr,  Gladstone  was  invited  to 
form  a  Ministry  and  did  so  with  Lord  Herschell 
for  Lord  Chancellor,  Sir  William  Harcourt  for 
Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  Mr.  Childers  for 
Home  Secretary,  Lord  Granville  for  Secretary 
for  the  Colonies,  Mr.  John  Morley  for  Chief  Sec- 
retary for  Ireland,  and  Mr.  Chamberlain  for  Presi- 
dent of  the  Local  Government  Board.  On  the 
29th  of  March  "  Mr.  Gladstone  announced  in  the 
House  of  Commons  that  on  the  8th  of  April  he 
would  ask  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  '  to  amend 
the  provision  for  the  future  government  of  Ire- 
land ' ;  and  that  on  the  15th  he  would  ask  leave  to 
bring  in  a  measure  'to  make  amended  provision 
for  the  sale  and  purchase  of  land  in  Ireland.'" 
The  same  day  Mr.  Chamberlain  and  Mr.Trevelyan 
(Secretary  for  Ireland)  resigned  their  seats  in  the 
Cabinet,  and  it  was  generally  understood  that 
differences  of  opinion  on  the  Irish  bills  had 
arisen.  On  the  8th  of  April  the  House  of  Com- 
mons was  densely  crowded  when  Mr.  Gladstone 
introduced  his  measure  for  giving  Home  Rule  to 
Ireland.  In  a  speech  whicTi  lasted  three  hours 
and  a  half  he  set  forth  the  details  of  his  plan  and 
the  reasons  on  which  they  were  based.  The  es- 
sential conditions  observed  in  the  framing  of  the 
measure,  as  he  defined  them,  were  these:  "The 
unity  of  the  Empire  must  not  be  placed  in  jeo- 
pardy ;  the  minority  must  be  protected ;  the 
political  equality  of  the  three  countries  must  be 
maintained,  and  there  must  be  an  equitable  dis- 
tribution of  Imperial  burdens.  He  then  discussed 
some  proposals  which  had  been  made  for  the 
special  treatment  of  Ulster  —  its  exclusion  from 
the  bill,  its  separate  autonomy  or  the  reservation 
of  certain  matters,  such  as  education,  for  Pro- 
vincial Councils ;  all  of  which  he  rejected.  The 
establishment  of  an  Irish  legislature  involved  the 
removal  of  Irish  peers  from  the  House  of  Lords 
and  the  Irish  representatives  from  the  House  of 
Commons.  But  if  Ireland  was  not  represented 
at  Westminster,  how  was  it  to  be  taxed  ?  The 
English  people  would  never  force  on  Ireland  tax- 
ation without  representation.  The  taxing  power 
would  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Irish  legislature, 
but  Customs  and  Excise  duties  connected  with 
Customs  would  be  solely  in  the  control  of  the 
Imperial  Parliament,  Ireland's  share  in  these  being 
reserved  for  Ireland's  use.  Ireland  must  have 
security  against  her  Magna  Charta  being  tam- 
pered  with;   the  provision   of   the  Act   would 


therefore  only  be  capable  of  modification  with 
the  concurrence  of  the  Irish  legislature,  or  after 
the  recall  of  the  Irish  members  to  the  tvpo  Houses 
of  Parliament.  The  Irish  legislature  would  have 
all  the  powers  which  were  not  specially  reserved 
from  it  in  the  Act.  It  was  to  consist  of  two 
orders,  though  not  two  Houses.  It  would  be  sub- 
ject to  all  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown ;  it  would 
have  nothing  to  do  with  Army  or  Navy,  or  with 
Foreign  or  Colonial  relations ;  nor  could  it  modify 
the  Act  on  which  its  own  authority  was  based. 
Contracts,  charters,  questions  of  education,  re- 
ligious endowments  and  establishments,  would 
be  beyond  its  authority.  Trade  and  navigation, 
coinage,  currency,  weights  and  measures,  copy- 
right, census,  quarantine  laws,  and  some  other 
matters,  were  not  to  be  within  the  powers  of  the 
Irish  Parliament.  The  composition  of  the  legis- 
lature was  to  be  first,  the  103  members  now  rep- 
resenting Ireland  with  101,  elected  by  the  same 
constituencies,  with  the  exception  of  the  Univer- 
sity, with  power  to  the  Irish  legislature  to  give 
two  members  to  the  Royal  University  if  it  chose; 
then  the  present  Irish  members  of  the  House  of 
Lords,  with  75  elected  by  the  Iri.sh  people  under 
a  property  qualification.  The  Viceroyalty  was 
to  be  left,  but  the  Viceroy  was  not  to  quit  oflice 
with  an  outgoing  government,  and  no  religious 
disability  was  to  affect  his  appointment.  He 
would  have  a  Privy  Council,  and  the  executive 
would  remain  as  at  present,  but  might  be  changed 
by  the  action  of  the  legislative  body.  The  present 
judges  would  preserve  their  lien  on  the  Consoli- 
dated Fund  of  Great  Britain,  and  the  Queen  would 
be  empowered  to  antedate  their  pensions  if  it 
was  seen  to  be  desirable.  Future  judges,  with 
the  exception  of  two  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer, 
would  be  appointed  by  the  Irish  government, 
and,  like  English  judges,  would  hold  their  office 
during  good  behaviour.  The  Constabulary 
would  remain  under  its  present  administration, 
Great  Britain  paying  all  charges  over  a  million. 
Eventually,  however,  the  whole  police  of  Ireland 
would  be  under  the  Irish  government.  The 
civil  servants  would  have  two  years'  grace,  with 
a  choice  of  retirement  on  pension  before  passing 
under  the  Irish  executive.  Of  the  financial  ar- 
rangements Mr.  Gladstone  spoke  in  careful  and 
minute  detail.  He  fixed  the  proportion  of  Im- 
perial charges  Ireland  should  pay  at  one-fifteenth, 
or  in  other  words  she  would  pay  one  part  and 
Great  Britain  fourteen  parts.  Jlore  than  a  mil- 
lion of  duty  is  paid  on  spirits  in  Ireland  which 
come  to  Great  Britain,  and  this  would  be  practi- 
cally a  contribution  towards  the  Irish  revenue. 
So  with  Irish  porter  and  with  the  tobacco  manu- 
factured in  Ireland  and  sold  here.  Altogether 
the  British  taxpayers  would  contribute  in  this 
way  £1,400,000  a  year  to  the  Irish  Exchequer; 
reducing  the  actual  payment  of  Ireland  itself  for 
Imperial  affairs  to  one-twenty-sixth."  On  the 
16th  of  April  Mr.  Gladstone  introduced  his  Irish 
Land  Bill,  connecting  it  with  the  Home  Rule 
Bill  as  forming  part  of  one  great  measure  for  the 
pacification  of  Ireland.  In  the  meantime  the  op- 
position to  his  policy  within  the  ranks  of  the 
Liberal  party  had  been  rapidly  taking  form.  It 
was  led  by  Lord  Hartington,  Mr.  Chamberlain, 
Mr.  Trevelyan,  Sir  Henry  James,  Sir  John  Lub- 
bock, Mr.  Goschen,  and  Mr.  Courtney.  It  soon 
received  the  support  of  Mr.  John  Bright.  The 
debate  in  the  House,  which  lasted  until  the  3rd 
of  June,  was  passionate  and  bitter.     It  ended  in 


1006 


ENGLAND,  1885-1886. 


Home  Rule  for 
Ireland. 


ENGLAND,  1893-1893. 


the  defeat  of  the  Government  by  a  majority  of 
30  against  the  bill.  The  division  was  the  largest 
which  had  ever  been  taken  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons, 657  members  being  present.  The  majority 
was  made  up  of  249  Conservatives  and  94  Lib- 
erals. The  minority  consisted  of  228  Liberals 
and  85  Nationalists.  Mr.  Gladstone  appealed  to 
the  country  by  a  dissolution  of  Parliament.^  The 
elections  were  adverse  to  him,  resulting  in  the 
return  to  Parliament  of  members  representing  the 
several  parties  and  sections  of  parties  asfollo^ys: 
Home  Rule  Liberals,  or  Gladstonians,  194,  Irish 
Nationalists  85  — total  279;  seceding  Liberals 
75,  Conservatives  316  — total  391.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone and  his  colleagues  resigned  and  a  new  Min- 
istry was  formed  under  Lord  Salisbury.  The 
Liberals,  in  alliance  with  the  Conservatives  and 
giving  their  support  to  Lord  Salisbury's  Govern- 
ment, became  organized  as  a  distinct  party  under 
the  leadership  of  Lord  Hartiugton,  and  took  the 
name  of  Liberal  Unionists.— P.  W.  Clayden,  JEng- 
land  under  the  Coalition,  ch.  1-6. 

Also  est  :  H.  D.  Traill,  Tlie  Marquis  of  Salis- 
bxiry,  ch.  VZ.— Annual  Register,  1885,  1886. 

A.  D.  1885-1888.— Termination  of  the  Fish- 
ery Articles  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington.— 
Renewed  controversies  with  the  United  States. 
—The  rejected  Treaty.  See  Fisheries,  North 
American:  A.  D.  18TT-1888. 

A.  D.  1886.— Defeat  of  Mr.  Parnell's  Ten- 
ants' Relief  Bill.— The  plan  of  campaign  in 
Ireland.     See  Ireland  :  A.  D.  1886. 

A.  D.  1886-1893.— The  Bering  Sea  Contro- 
versy and  Arbitration.  See  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1886-1893. 

A.  D.  1890.— Settlement  of  African  questions 
with  Germany.— Cession  of  Heligoland.  See 
Africa:  A.  D.  1884-1889. 

A.  D.  1891.— The  Free  Education  Bill.  See 
Education,  Modern:  European  Countries. — 
England:  A.  D.  1891. 

A.  D.  1892-1893.  — The  fourth  Gladstone 
Ministry.— Passage  of  the  Irish  Home  Rule 
Bill  by  the  House  of  Commons.— Its  defeat  by 
the  Lords.— On  the  28th  of  June,  1893,  Parlia- 
ment was  dissolved,  having  been  in  existence 
since  1886,  and  a  new  Parliament  was  summoned 
to  meet  on  the  4th  of  August.  Great  excitement 
prevailed  in  the  ensuing  elections,  which  turned 
almost  entirely  on  the  question  of  Home  Rule 
for  Ireland.  The  Liberal  or  Gladstonian  party, 
favoring  Home  Rule,  won  a  majority  of  43  in  the 
House  of  Commons ;  but  in  the  representation  of 
England  alone  there  was  a  majority  of  70  re- 
turned against  it.  In  Ireland,  the  representation 
returned  was  103  for  Home  Rule,  and  23  against; 
in  Scotland,  51  for  and  21  against;  in  Wales, 
28  for  and  3  against.  Conservatives  and  Liberal 
Unionists  (opposing  Home  Rule)  lost  little  ground 
in  the  boroughs,  as  compared  with  the  previous 
Parliament,  but  largely  in  the  counties.  As  the 
result  of  the  election.  Lord  Salisbury  and  his 
Ministry  resigned  August  13,  and  Mr.  Gladstone 
was  summoned  to  form  a  Government.  In  the 
new  Cabinet,  which  was  announced  four  days 
later.  Earl  Rosebery  became  Foreign  Secretary ; 
Baron  Herschell,  Lord  Chancellor;  Sir  William 
Vernon  Harcourt,  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer; 
Mr.  Herbert  H.  Asquith,  Home  Secretary ;  and 
Mr.  John  Morley,  Chief  Secretary  for  Ireland. 
Although  the  new  Parliament  assembled  in  Au- 
gust, 1892,  it  was  not  until  the  13th  of  February 
following  that  Mr.  Gladstone  introduced  his  bill 


to  establish  Home  Rule  in  Ireland.     The  bill  was 
under  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  until  the 
night  of  September  1,  1893,  when  it  passed  that 
body  by  a  vote  of  301  to  267.     "The  bill  pro- 
vides for  a  Legislature  for  Ireland,  consisting  of 
the  Queen  and  of  two  Houses— the  Legislative 
Council  and   the  Legislative  Assembly.     This 
Legislature,  with  certain  restrictions,  is  author- 
ized to  make  laws  for  the  peace,  order,  and  good 
government  of  Ireland  in  respect  of  matters  ex- 
clusively  relating  to  Ireland  or  some  part  thereof. 
The  bill  says  that  the  powers  of  the  Irish  Legis- 
lature shall  not  extend  to  the  making  of  any  law 
respecting  the  establishment  or  endowment  of  re- 
ligion or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof,  or 
imposing  any  disability  or  conferring  any  privi- 
lege on  account  of  religious  belief,  or  whereby 
any  person  may  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or 
property  without  due  process  of  law,  or  whereby 
private  property  may  be  taken  without  just  com- 
pensation.    According  to  the  bill  the  executive 
power  in  Ireland  shall  continue  vested  in  her 
Majesty  the  Queen,  and  the  Lord  Lieutenant,  on 
behalf  of  her  Majesty,  shall  exercise  any  preroga- 
tives or  other  executive  power  of  the  Queen  the 
exercise  of  which  may  be  delegated  to  him  by 
her  Majesty,  and  shall  in  the  Queen's  name  sum- 
mon, prorogue,  and  dissolve  the  Legislature.    An 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  of 
Ireland  is  provided  for,  which  '  shall  aid  and  ad- 
vise in   the  government  of  Ireland.'     The  Lord 
Lieutenant,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Executive  Council,  is  authorized  to  give  or  with- 
hold the  assent  of  her  Majesty  to  bills  passed  by 
the  houses  of  the  Legislature.     The  Legislative 
Council  by  the  terms  of  the  bill  shall  consist  of 
forty-eight  Councilors.     Every  man  shall  be  en- 
titled to  vote  for  a  Councilor  who  owns  or  occu- 
pies any  land  or  tenement  of  a  ratable  value  of 
£30.     the  term  of  office  of  the  Councilors  is  to 
be  for  eight  years,  which  is  not  to  be  affected  by 
dissolution,  but  one-half  of  the  Councilors  shall 
retire  in  every  fourth  year  and  their  seats  be  filled 
by  a  new  election.     The  Legislative  Assembly  is 
to  consist  of  103  members  returned  by  the  Parlia- 
mentary  constituencies  existing  at    present  in 
Ireland.    This  Assembly,  unless  sooner  dissolved, 
may  exist  for  five  years.     The  bill  also  provides 
for  80  Irish  members  in  the  House  of  Commons. 
In  regard  to  finance,  the  bill  provides  that  for 
the  purposes  of  this  act  the  public  revenue  shall 
be  divided  into  general  revenue  and  special  rev- 
enue, and   general  revenue  shall  consist  of  the 
gross  revenue  collected  in  Ireland  from  taxes; 
the  portion  due  to  Ireland  of  the  hereditary  rev- 
enues of  the  crown  which  are  managed  by  the 
Commissioners  of  Woods,  an  annual  sum  for  the 
customs  and  excise  duties  collected  in  Great  Brit- 
ain  on  articles  consumed  in   Ireland,  provided 
that  an  annual  sum  of  the  customs  and  excise 
duties  collected  in  Ireland  on  articles  consumed 
in  Great  Britain  shall  be  deducted  from  the  rev- 
enue collected  in  Ireland  and  treated  as  revenue 
collected  in  Great  Britain ;  these  annual  sums  to 
be  determined  by  a  committee  appointed  jointly 
by  the  Irish  Government  and  the  Imperial  Treas- 
ury.    It  is  also  provided  that  one-third  of  the 
general  revenue  of  Ireland  and  also  that  portion 
of  any  imperial  miscellaneous  revenue  to  which 
Ireland  may  claim  to  be  entitled  shall  be  paid 
into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  Kingdom  as  the 
contribution  of  Ireland  to  imperial  liabilities  and 
expenditures;  this  plan  to  continue  for  a  term  of 


1007 


ENGLAND,  1892-1893. 


EPHE8U8. 


six  years,  at  the  end  of  which  time  a  new  scheme 
of  tax  division  shall  be  devised.  The  Legisla- 
ture, in  order  to  meet  expenses  of  the  public  ser- 
vice, is  authorized  to  impose  taxes  other  than 
those  now  existing  in  Ireland.  Ireland  should 
also  have  charged  up  against  her  and  be  compelled 
to  pay  out  of  her  own  Treasury  all  salaries  and 
pensions  of  Judges  and  liabilities  of  all  kinds 
which  Great  Britain  has  assumed  for  her  benefit. 
,The  bill  further  provides  that  appeal  from  courts 
in  Ireland  to  the  House  of  Lords  shall  cease  and 
I  that  all  persons  having  the  right  of  appeal  shall 
have  a  like  right  to  appeal  to  the  Queen  in  coun- 


cil. The  term  of  office  of  the  Lord  Lieutenant 
is  fixed  at  six  years.  Ultimately  the  Royal  Irish 
Constabulary  shall  cease  to  exist  and  no  force 
other  than  the  ordinary  civil  police  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  be  formed.  The  Irish  Legislature  shall 
be  summoned  to  meet  on  the  first  Tuesday  in 
September,  1894,  and  the  first  election  for  mem- 
bers shall  be  held  at  such  time  before  that  day 
as  may  be  fixed  by  her  Majesty  in  council."  In 
the  House  of  Lords,  the  bill  was  defeated  on  the 
8th  of  September  —  the  second  reading  postponed 
to  a  day  six  months  from  that  date  —  by  the  over- 
whelming vote  of  419  to  41. 


ENGLE.— ENGLISH.  See  Ajigles  and 
Jdtes;  also,  England:  A.  D.  547-633. 

ENGLISH   PALE,   The.     See  Pale,   The 

English. 

ENGLISH  SWEAT,  The.  See  Sweating 
Sickness. 

ENGLISHRY.— To  check  the  assassination 
of  his  tyrannical  Norman  followers  by  the  exas- 
perated English,  William  the  Conqueror  ordained 
that  the  whole  Hundred  within  which  one  was 
slain  should  pay  a  heavy  penalty.  "In  con- 
nexion with  this  enactment  there  grew  up  the 
famous  law  of  'Englishry,'  by  which  every  mur- 
dered man  was  presumed  to  be  a  Norman,  unless 
proofs  of  '  Englishry '  were  made  by  the  four 
nearest  relatives  of  the  deceased.  '  Presentments 
of  Englishry,'  as  they  were  technically  termed, 
are  recorded  in  the  reign  of  Richard  I. ,  but  not 
later." — T.  P.  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const. 
Hist.,  p.  68. 

ENNISKILLEN,  The  defence  of.  See  Ike- 
l.\nd:^A.  D.  1688-1689. 

ENOMOTY,  The. —  In  the  Spartan  military 
organization  the  enomoty  ' '  was  a  small  company 
of  men,  the  number  of  whom  was  variable,  being 
given  differently  at  25,  32,  or  36  men, —  drilled 
and  practised  together  in  military  evolutions,  and 
bound  to  each  other  by  a  common  oath.  Each 
Enomoty  had  a  separate  captain  or  enomotarch, 
the  strongest  and  ablest  soldier  of  the  company." 
—  G.  Grote,  Hist,  of  Greece,  pt.  2,  ch.  8. 

ENRIQUE.     See  Henry. 

ENSISHEIM,  Battle  of  (1674).  See  Neth- 
BRL.VNDS  (HoLL.^'D) :  A.  D.  1674-1678. 

EORL  AND  CEORL.— "  The  modern  Eng- 
lish forms  of  these  words  have  completely  lost 
their  ancient  meaning.  The  word  'Earl,'  after 
several  fluctuations,  has  settled  down  as  the  title 
of  one  rank  in  the  Peerage ;  the  word  '  Churl ' 
has  come  to  be  a  word  of  moral  reprobation,  ir- 
respective of  the  rank  of  the  person  who  is  guilty 
of  the  offence.  But  in  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  words,  '  Eorl '  and  '  Ceorl ' —  words  whose 
happy  jingle  causes  them  to  be  constantly  op- 
posed to  each  other  —  form  an  exhaustive  divi- 
sion of  the  free  members  of  the  state.  The  dis- 
tinction in  modem  language  is  most  nearly 
expressed  by  the  words  'Gentle 'and  'Simple.' 
The  '  Ceorl '  is  the  simple  freeman,  the  mere  unit 
in  the  army  or  in  the  assembly,  whom  no  distinc- 
tion of  birth  or  ofiice  marks  out  from  his  fel- 
lows."—  E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  the  Norman 
Oonq.  of  Eng.,  ch.  3,  sect.  2. —  See,  also,  Ethel; 
and  England:  A.  I).  958. 

EORMEN  STREET.     See  Ekmyn  Street. 

EPAMINONDAS,  and  the  greatness  of 
Thebes.  See  Greece:  B.  C.  379-371,  and  371- 
863;  also  Thebes:  B.  C.  378. 

EPEIROS.     See  Epirds. 


EPHAH,  The.— "The  ephah,  or  bath,  was 
the  unit  of  measures  of  capacity  for  both  liquids 
and  grain  [among  the  ancient  Jews],  The  ephah 
is  considered  by  Queipo  to  have  been  the  mea- 
sure of  water  contained  in  the  ancient  Egyptian 
cubic  foot,  and  thus  equivalent  to  29.376  litres, 
or  6. 468  imperial  gallons,  and  to  have  been  nearly 
identical  with  the  ancient  Egyptian  artaba  and  the 
Greek  metretes.  For  liquids,  the  ephah  was  di- 
vided into  six  bin,  and  the  twelfth  part  of  the  hin 
was  the  log.  As  a  grain  measure,  the  ephah  was 
divided  into  ten  omers,  or  gomers.  'The  omer 
measure  of  manna  gathered  by  the  Israelites  in 
the  desert  as  a  day's  food  for  each  adult  person 
was  thus  equal  to  2.6  imperial  quarts.  The 
largest  measure  of  capacity  both  for  liquids  and 
dry  commodities  was  the  cor  of  twelve  ephahs. " — 
H.  "W.  Chisholm,  On  the  Science  of  Weighing  and 
Measuring,  ch.  2. 

EPHES-DAMMIM,  Battle  of.— The  battle 
which  followed  David's  encounter  with  Goliath, 
the  gigantic  Philistine. — 1  Sam.,  xvii. 

EPHESIA,  The.  See  Ionic  (Pan-Ionic) 
Amphiktyony. 


EPHESUS.  —  The     Ephesian     Temple. — 

"The  ancient  city  of  Ephesus  was  situated  on 
the  river  Cayster,  wliich  falls  into  the  Bay  of 
Scala  Nova,  on  the  western  coast  of  Asia  Minor. 
Of  the  origin  and  foundation  of  Ephesus  we  have 
no  historical  record.  Stories  were  told  which 
ascribed  the  settlement  of  the  place  to  Androklos, 
the  son  of  the  Athenian  king,  Codrus.  .  .  .  With 
other  Ionian  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  Ephesus  fell 
into  the  hands  of  Crffisus,  the  last  of  the  kings 
of  Lydia,  and,  on  the  overthrow  of  Croesus  by 
Cyrus,  it  passed  under  the  heavier  yoke  of  the 
Persian  despot.  Although  from  that  time,  dur- 
ing a  period  of  at  least  five  centuries,  to  the  con- 
quest by  the  Romans,  the  city  underwent  great 
changes  of  fortune,  it  never  lost  its  grandeur  and 
importance.  Tlie  Temple  of  Artemis  (Diana), 
whose  splendour  has  almost  become  proverbial, 
tended  chiefly  to  make  Ephesus  the  most  attrac- 
tive and  notable  of  all  the  cities  of  Asia  Minor. 
Its  magnificent  harbour  was  filled  with  Greek 
and  Phenician  merchantmen,  and  multitudes 
flocked  from  all  parts  to  profit  by  its  commerce 
and  to  worship  at  the  shrine  of  its  tutelary  god- 
dess. The  City  Port  was  fully  four  miles  from 
the  sea,  which  has  not,  as  has  been  supposed, 
receded  far.  .  .  .  During  the  generations  which 
immediately  followed  the  conquest  of  Lydia  and 
the  rest  of  Asia  Minor  by  the  Persian  kings,  the 
arts  of  Greece  attained  their  highest  perfection, 
and  it  was  within  this  short  period  of  little  more 
than  two  centuries  that  the  great  Temple  of 
Artemis  was  three  times  built  upon  the  same 
site,  and,  as  recent  researches  have  found,  each 


1008 


EPHESUS. 


EPIRUS. 


time  on  the  same  grand  scale." — J.  T.  Wood, 
Discoveries  at  Eptiesus,  ch.  1. — The  excavations 
which  were  carried  on  at  Bpliesus  by  Mr.  Wood, 
for  the  British  Museum,  during  eleven  years, 
from  1863  until  1874,  resulted  in  the  uncovering 
of  a  large  part  of  the  site  of  the  great  Temple 
and  the  determining  of  its  architectural  features, 
besides  bringing  to  light  many  inscriptions  and 
much  valuable  sculpture.  The  account  given  in 
the  work  named  above  is  exceedingly  interesting. 

Ionian  conquest  and  occupation.  See  Asia 
Minor:  The  Greek  CoLONrEs. 

Ancient  Commerce. — "The  spot  on  the  Asi- 
atic coast  which  corresponded  most  nearly  with 
Corinth  on  the  European,  was  Ephesus,  a  city 
which,  in  the  time  of  Herodotus,  had  been  the 
starting  point  of  caravans  for  Upper  Asia,  but 
which,  under  the  change  of  dynasties  and  ruin 
of  empires,  had  dwindled  into  a  mere  provin- 
cial town.  The  mild  sway  of  Augustus  re- 
stored it  to  wealth  and  eminence,  and  as  the  offi- 
cial capital  of  the  province  of  Asia,  it  was  reputed 
to  be  the  metropolis  of  no  less  than  500  cities. " 
— C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Somans,  ch.  40. 

A.  D.  267. — Destruction  by  the  Goths  of  the 
Temple  of  Diana.     See  Goths:  A.  D.  258-267. 

A.  D.  431  and  449. — The  General  Council 
and  the  "  Robber  Synod."  See  Nestori.vn  akd 
Monopuysite  Controversy. 


EPHETyE.The. — A  board  of  fifty-one  judges 
Instituted  by  the  legislation  of  Draco,  at  Athens, 
for  the  trial  of  crimes  of  bloodshed  upon  the 
Areopagus. — G.  Schomann,  Antig.  of  Greece: 
The  folate,  pt.  3,  c?i.  3. 

EPHORS. — "Magistrates,  called  by  the  name 
of  Ephors,  existed  in  many  Dorian  as  well  as  in 
other  States  [of  ancient  Greece],  although  our 
knowledge  with  regard  to  them  extends  no  fur- 
ther than  to  the  fact  of  their  existence ;  while 
the  name,  which  signifies  quite  generally  '  over- 
seers,' affords  room  for  no  conclusion  as  to  their 
political  position  or  importance.  In  Sparta, 
however,  the  Board  of  Five  Ephors  became,  in 
the  course  of  time,  a  magistracy  of  such  dignity 
and  influence  that  no  other  can  be  found  in  any 
free  State  with  which  it  can  be  compared. 
Concerning  its  first  institution  nothing  certain 
can  be  ascertained.  .  .  .  The  following  appears 
to  be  a  probable  account:  —  The  Ephors  were 
originally  magistrates  appointed  by  the  kings, 
partly  to  render  them  special  assistance  in  the 
judicial  decision  of  private  disputes, —  a  function 
which  they  continued  to  exercise  in  later  times, 
—  partly  to  undertake,  as  lieutenants  of  the 
kings,  other  of  their  functions,  during  their  ab- 
sence in  military  service,  or  through  some  other 
cause.  .  .  .  When  the  monarchy  and  the  Gerou- 
sia  wished  to  re-establish  their  ancient  influence 
in  opposition  to  the  popular  assembly,  they  were 
obliged  to  agree  to  a  concession  which  should 
give  some  security  to  the  people  that  this  power 
should  not  be  abused  to  their  detriment.  This 
concession  consisted  in  the  fact  that  the  Ephors 
were  independently  authorized  to  exercise  control 
over  the  kings  themselves.  .  .  .  The  Ephors 
were  enabled  to  interfere  in  every  department  of 
the  administration,  and  to  remove  or  pimish 
whatever  they  found  to  be  contrary  to  the  laws 
or  adverse  to  the  public  interest." — G.  F.  SchO- 
mann,  Antig.  of  Greece:  The  State,  pt.  3,  ch.  1, 
sect.  8. — See,  also,  Spakta:  The  Constitution, 
-%;c. 

64 


EPHTHALITES,  The.  See  Huns,  The 
White. 

EPIDAMNUS.  See  Greece:  B.  C.  435-432; 
and  KoRKYRA. 

EPIDII,  The.     See  Britain,  Celtic  Tribes. 

EPIGAMIA.— The  right  of  marriage  in  an- 
cient Athens. — G.  F.  SchOmann,  Antig.  of  Greece: 
The  State,  pt.  3,  ch.  3. 

EPIGONI,  The.     See  Bosotia. 

EPIPOL/E. — One  of  the  parts  or  divisions  of 
the  ancient  citv  of  Syracuse,  Sicily. 

EPIROT  LEAGUE,  The.— "The  tempo- 
rary greatness  of  the  Molossian  kingdom  [of 
Epeiros,  or  Epirus]  under  Alexander  and  Pyrrhus 
is  matter  of  general  history.  Our  immediate 
business  is  with  the  republican  government  which 
succeeded  on  the  bloody  extinction  of  royalty 
and  the  royal  line  [which  occurred  B.  C.  239]. 
Epeiros  now  became  a  republic ;  of  the  details  of 
its  constitution  we  know  nothing,  but  its  form 
can  hardly  fail  to  have  been  federal.  The  Epei- 
rots  formed  one  political  body ;  Polybios  always 
speaks  of  them,  like  the  Achaians  and  Akarnani- 
ans,  as  one  people  acting  with  one  will.  Decrees 
are  passed,  ambassadors  are  sent  and  received,  in 
the  name  of  the  whole  Epeirot  people,  and  Epeiros 
had,  like  Akarnania,  a  federal  coinage  bearing 
the  common  name  of  the  whole  nation." — E.  A. 
Freeman,  Hist,  of  Federal  Govt.,  bk.  4,  sect.  1. 

EPIRUS.  — THE    EPIROTS. —  "  Passing 

over  the  borders  of  Akarnania  [in  ancient  western 
Greece]  we  find  small  nations  or  tribes  not  con- 
sidered as  Greeks,  but  known,  from  the  fourth 
century  B.  C.  downwards,  under  the  common 
name  of  Epirots.  This  word  signifies,  properly, 
inhabitants  of  a  continent,  as  opposed  to  those  of 
an  island  or  a  peninsula.  It  came  only  gradually 
to  be  applied  by  the  Greeks  as  their  comprehen- 
sive denomination  to  designate  all  those  diverse 
tribes,  between  the  Ambrakian  Gulf  on  the  south 
and  west,  Pindus  on  the  east,  and  the  Illyrians 
and  Macedonians  to  the  north  and  north-east. 
Of  these  Epirots  the  principal  were  —  the  Chaoni- 
ans,  Thesprotians,  Kassopians,  and  Molossians, 
who  occupied  the  country  inland  as  well  as  mari- 
time along  the  Ionian  Sea,  from  the  Akrokerau- 
nian  mountains  to  the  borders  of  Ambrakia 
in  the  interior  of  the  Ambrakian  Gulf.  .  .  . 
Among  these  various  tribes  it  is  diflicult  to  dis- 
criminate the  semi-Hellenic  from  the  non-Hel- 
lenic; for  Herodotus  considers  both  Molossians 
and  Thesprotians  as  Hellenic,  —  and  the  oracle 
of  Dodona,  as  well  as  the  Nekyomanteion  (or 
holy  cavern  for  evoking  the  dead)  of  Acheron, 
were  both  in  the  territory  of  the  Thesprotians, 
and  both  (in  the  time  of  the  historian)  Hellenic. 
Thucydides,  on  the  other  hand,  treats  both 
Molossians  and  Thesprotians  as  barbaric.  .  .  . 
Epirus  is  essentially  a  pastoral  country:  its  cat- 
tle as  well  as  its  shepherds  and  shepherds'  dogs 
were  celebrated  throughout  all  antiquity :  and 
its  population  then,  as  now,  found  divided  vil- 
lage residence  the  most  suitable  to  their  means 
and  occupations.  .  .  .  Both  the  Chaonians  and 
Thesprotians  appear,  in  the  time  of  Thucydides, 
as  having  no  kings :  there  was  a  privileged  kingly 
race,  but  the  presiding  chief  was  changed  from 
year  to  year.  The  Molossians,  however,  had  a 
line  of  kings,  succeeding  from  father  to  son, 
which  professed  to  trace  its  descent  through 
fifteen  generations  downward  from  Achilles  and 
Neoptolemus  to   Tharypas  about  the  year  400 


1009. 


EPIRUS. 


EQUESTRIAN  ORDER. 


B.  0."— G.  Grote,  Hist,  of  Greece,  pt.  3,  eh.  34.— 
The  Molossian  kings  subsequently  extended  their 
sovereignty  over  the  whole  country  and  styled 
themselves  kings  of  Epirus.  Pyrrhus,  whose 
war  with  Rome  (see  Rome:  B.  C.  382-375)  is  one 
of  the  well  known  episodes  of  history,  was  the 
most  ambitious  and  energetic  of  the  dynasty  (see 
Macedonl\:  B.  C.  397-380);  Hannibal  reckoned 
him  among  the  greatest  of  soldiers.  In  the  next 
century  Epirus  fell  under  the  dominion  of  Rome. 
Subsequently  it  formed  part  of  the  Byzantine 
empire;  then  became  a  separate  principality, 
ruled  by  a  branch  of  the  imperial  Comnenian 
family;  "was  conquered  by  the  Turks  in  1466  and 
is  now  represented  by  tlie  southern  half  of  the 
province  of  Turkey,  called  Albania. — See,  also, 

ffiNOTRIANS. 

A.  D.  1204-1350. — The  Greek   Despotat. — 

From  the  ruins  of  the  Byzantine  empire,  over- 
thrown by  the  Crusaders  and  the  Venetians  in 
1304,  "  that  portion  .  .  .  situated  to  the  west  of 
the  range  of  Hndus  was  saved  from  feudal  dom- 
ination by  Michael,  a  natural  son  of  Constantine 
Angelos,  the  uncle  of  the  Emperors  Isaac  II.  and 
Alexius  III.  After  the  conquest  of  Constanti- 
nople, he  escaped  into  Epirus,  where  his  marriage 
with  a  lady  of  the  country  gave  him  some  influ- 
ence ;  and  assuming  the  direction  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  whole  country  from  Dyrrachium  to 
Naupactus,  he  collected  a  considerable  military 
f  oroe,  and  established  the  seat  of  his  authority  gen- 
erally at  loannina  or  Arta.  .  .  .  History  has  un- 
fortunately preserved  very  little  information  con- 
cerning tlie  organisation  and  social  condition  of 
the  different  classes  and  races  which  inhabited 
the  dominions  of  the  princes  of  Epirus.  Almost 
the  only  facts  that  have  been  preserved  relate  to 
the  wars  and  alliances  of  the  despots  and  their 
families  with  the  Byzantine  emperors  and  the 
Latin  princes.  .  .  .  They  all  assumed  the  name 
of  Angelos  Komnenos  Dukas;  and  the  title  of 
despot,  by  which  they  are  generally  distinguished, 
was  a  Byzantine  honorary  distinction,  never 
borne  by  the  earlier  members  of  the  family 
until  it  had  been  conferred  on  them  by  the  Greek 
emperor.  Michael  I,  the  founder  of  the  des- 
potat, distinguished  himself  by  his  talents  as  a 
soldier  and  a  negotiator.  He  extended  his  au- 
thority over  all  Epirus,  Acarnania  and  Etolia, 
and  a  part  of  Macedonia  and  Thessaly.  Though 
virtually  independent,  he  acknowledged  Theo- 
dore I.  (Laskaris),  [at  Nicaea]  as  the  lawful  em- 
peror of  the  East. "  The  able  and  unscrupulous 
brother  of  Michael,  Theodore,  who  became  his 
successor  in  1214,  extinguished  by  conquest  the 
Lombard  kingdom  of  Saloniki,  in  Macedonia 
(A.  D.  1232),  and  assumed  the  title  of  emperor, 
in  rivalry  with  the  Greek  emperor  at  Nicsea, 
establishing  his  capital  at  Thessalonica.  The 
empire  of  Thessalonica  ^as  short  lived.  Its 
capital  was  taken  by  the  emperor  of  Nicsea,  in 
1334,  and  Michael's  son  John,  then  reigning,  was 
forced  to  resign  the  imperial  title.  The  despotat 
of  Epirus  survived  for  another  century,  much 
torn  and  distracted  by  wars  and  domestic  con- 
flicts. In  1350  its  remaining  territory  was  occu- 
pied by  the  king  of  Servia,  and  finally  it  was 
swallowed  up  in  the  conquests  of  the  Turks. — G. 
Finlay,  Hist,  of  Greece  from  its  Conquest  by  tlie 
Crusaders,  ch.  6. 

Also  in:  Sir  J.  E.  Tennent,  Hist,  of  Modern 
Oreece,  ch.  3. 

Modern  History.    See  Albanians. 


EPISCOPAL  CHURCH.  See  Church  of 
England. 

EPISTATES.— The  presiding  officer  of  the 
ancient  Athenian  council  and  popular  assembly. 

EPONYM.— EPONYMUS.  —  The  name- 
giver, —  the  name-giving  hero  of  primitive  myths, 
in  which  tribes  and  races  of  people  set  before 
themselves,  partly  by  tradition,  partly  by  imagi- 
nation, an  heroic  personage  who  is  supposed  to 
be  their  common  progenitor  and  the  source  of 
their  name. 

EPONYM  CANON  OF  ASSYRIA.  See 
AssTRiA.  Epontm  Canon  op. 

EPPING  FOREST. -Once  so  extensive  that 
it  covered  the  whole  county  of  Essex,  England, 
and  was  called  the  Forest  of  Essex.  Subse- 
quently, when  diminished  in  size,  it  was  called 
Waltham  Forest.  Still  later,  when  further  re- 
trenched, it  took  the  name  of  Epping,  from  a 
town  that  is  embraced  in  it.  It  is  still  quite 
large,  and  within  recent  years  it  has  been  for- 
mally declared  by  the  Queen  ' '  a  people's  park. " — 
J.  C.  Brown,  Forests  of  Eng. 

EPULONES,  The.— "The  epulones  [at 
Rome]  formed  a  college  for  the  administration 
of  the  sacred  festivals." — C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of 
tlie  Romans,  ch.  31. 

EQUADOR.     See  Ecuador. 

EQUAL  RIGHTS  PARTY.  See  New 
York:  A.  D.  1835-1837. 

EQUESTRIAN  ORDER,  Roman.— "The 
selection  of  the  burgess  cavalry  was  vested  in 
the  censors.  It  was,  no  doubt,  the  duty  of  these 
to  make  the  selection  on  purely  military  grounds, 
and  at  their  musters  to  insist  that  all  horsemen 
incapacitated  by  age  or  otherwise,  or  at  all  un- 
serviceable, should  surrender  their  public  horse ; 
but  it  was  not  easy  to  hinder  them  from  looking 
to  noble  birth  more  than  to  capacity,  and  from 
allowing  men  of  standing,  who  were  once  ad- 
mitted, senators  particularly,  to  retain  their  horse 
beyond  the  proper  time.  Accordingly  it  became 
the  practical  rule  for  the  senators  to  vote  in  the 
eighteen  equestrian  centuries,  and  the  other 
places  in  these  were  assigned  chiefly  to  the 
younger  men  of  the  nobility.  The  military  sys- 
tem, of  course,  suffered  from  this,  not  so  much 
through  the  unfitness  for  effective  service  of  no 
small  part  of  the  legionary  cavalry,  as  through 
the  destruction  of  military  equality  to  which  the 
change  gave  rise;  the  noble  youth  more  and 
more  withdrew  from  serving  in  the  infantry,  and 
the  legionary  cavalry  became  a  close  aristocratic 
corps." — T.  Mommsen,  Hist,  of  Home,  bk.  3,  ch. 
11. — "  Theeighteen  centuries,  therefore,  in  course 
of  time  .  .  .  lost  their  original  military  charac- 
ter and  remained  only  as  a  voting  body.  It  was 
by  the  transformation  thus  effected  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  eighteen  centuries  of  knights,  whilst 
the  cavalry  service  passed  over  to  the  richer  citi- 
zens not  included  in  the  senatorial  families,  that 
a  new  class  of  Roman  citizens  began  gradually  to 
be  formed,  distinct  from  the  nobility  proper  and 
from  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  designated  as 
the  equestrian  order." — W.  Ihne,  Hist,  of  Rome, 
bk.  7,  ch.  1.— The  equestrian  order  became  a 
legally  constituted  class  under  the  judicial  law 
of  Caius  Gracchus,  B.  C.  133,  which  fixed  its 
membership  by  a  census,  and  transferred  to  it  the 
judicial  functions  previously  exercised  by  the 
senators  only.  It  formed  a  kind  of  monetary 
aristocracy. — Tlie  same,  bk.  7,  ch.  6. 

EQUITY.    See  Law,  Equity. 


1010 


ERA. 


ERFURT. 


ERA,  Christian. — "Unfortunately  for  ancient 
C'lironology,  there  was  no  one  fixed  or  univer- 
sally established  Era.  Different  countries  recli- 
oned  by  different  eras,  whose  number  is  embar- 
rassing, and  their  commencements  not  always 
easily  to  be  adjusted  or  reconciled  to  each  other; 
and  it  was  not  until  A.  D.  533  that  the  Christian 
Era  was  invented  by  Dionysius  Exiguus,  a 
Scythian  by  birth,  and  a  Roman  Abbot,  who 
flourished  in  the  reign  of  Justinian.  .  .  .  Dionys- 
ius began  his  era  with  the  year  of  our  Lord's 
incarnation  and  nativity,  in  U.  C.  753,  of  the 
Varronian  Computation,  or  the  45th  of  the  Julian 
Era.  And  at  an  earlier  period,  Panodorus,  an 
Egyptian  monk,  who  flourished  under  the  Em- 
peror Arcadius,  A.  D.  395,  had  dated  the  incar- 
nation in  the  same  year.  IJut  by  some  mistake, 
or  misconception  of  his  meaning,  Bede,  who 
lived  in  the  next  century  after  Dionysius,  adopted 
his  year  of  the  Nativity,  U.  C.  753,  yet  began 
the  Vulgar  Era,  which  he  first  introduced,  the 
year  after,  and  made  it  commence  Jan.  1,  U.  C. 
754,  which  was  an  alteration  for  the  worse,  as 
making  the  Christian  Era  recede  a  year  further 
from  the  true  year  of  the  Nativity.  The  Vulgar 
Era  began  to  prevail  in  the  West  about  the  time 
of  Charles  Martel  and  Pope  Gregory  II.  A.  D. 
730.  .  .  .  But  it  was  not  established  till  the  time 
of  Pope  Eugenius  IV.  A.  D.  1431,  who  ordered 
this  era  to  be  used  in  the  public  Registers.  .  .  . 
Dionysius  was  led  to  date  the  year  of  the  Nativ- 
ity, ij.  C.  753,  from  the  Evangelist  Luke's  ac- 
count that  John  the  Baptist  began  his  ministry 
'in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius 
Caesar';  and  that  Jesus,  at  his  baptism,  'was  be- 
ginning to  be  about  30  years  of  age.'  Luke  iii. 
1-23.  .  .  .  But  this  date  of  the  Nativity  is  at 
variance  with  Matthew's  account,  that  Christ 
was  born  before  Herod's  death ;  which  followed 
shortly  after  his  massacre  of  the  infants  at 
Bethlehem.  .  .  .  Christ's  birth,  therefore,  could 
not  have  been  earlier  than  U.  C.  748,  nor  later 
than  U.  C.  749.  And  if  we  assume  the  latter 
year,  as  most  conformable  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
Sacred  History,  with  Chrysostom,  Petavius, 
Prideaux,  Playfair,  &c.,  this  would  give  Christ's 
age  at  his  baptism,  about  34  years ;  contrary  to 
Luke's  account." — W.  Hales'  Neio  Analysis  of 
Chronology,  v.  1,  bk.  1.  —  In  a  subsequent  table, 
Mr.  Hales  gives  the  results  of  the  computations 
made  by  different  chronologists,  ancient  and 
modern,  to  fix  the  true  year  of  the  Nativity,  as 
accommodated  to  what  is  called  "the  vulgar,"  or 
popularly  accepted.  Christian  Era.  The  range 
is  through  no  less  than  ten  years,  from  B.  C.  7 
to  A.  D.  3.  His  own  conclusion,  supported  by 
Prideau.x  and  Playfair,  is  in  favor  of  the  year 
B.  C.  5.  Somewhat  more  commonly  at  the 
present  time,  it  is  put  at  B.  C.  4. — See,  also, 
Jews:  B.  C.  8— A.  D.  1. 

ERA,  French  Revolutionary.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1793  (September — No\^mber),  and  1793 
(October). 

ERA,  Gregorian.   See  Calendar, Gregorian. 

ERA,  Jalalaean.  See  Turks  (The  Skljuk): 
A.  D.  1073^1093. 

ERA,  Julian.     See  Calendar,  Julian. 

ERA,  Mahometan,  or  Era  of  the  Hegira. — 
"  The  epoch  of  the  Era  of  the  Hegira  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  civil  calculation,  Friday,  the  16th  of 
July,  A.  D.  633,  the  day  of  the  flight  of  Ma- 
homet from  Mecca  to  Medina,  which  is  the  date 
of  the  Mahometans;  but  astronomers  and  some 


historians  assign  it  to  the  preceding  day,  viz., 
Thursday,  the  15th  of  July ;  an  important  fact  to 
be  borne  in  mind  when  perusing  Arabian  writers. 
The  years  of  the  Hegira  are  lunar  years,  and  con- 
tain twelve  months,  each  commencing  with  the 
new  moon ;  a  practice  which  necessarily  leads  to 
great  confusion  and  uncertainty,  inasmuch  as 
every  year  must  begin  considerably  earlier  in  the 
season  than  the  preceding.  In  chronology  and 
historj',  however,  and  in  dating  their  public  in- 
struments, the  Turks  use  months  which  contain 
alternately  thirty  and  twenty-nine  days,  except- 
ing the  last  month,  which,  in  intercalary  years, 
contains  thirty  days.  .  .  .  The  years  of  the 
Hegira  are  divided  into  cycles  of  thirty  years, 
nineteen  of  which  are  termed  common  years,  of 
354  days  each ;  and  the  eleven  others  intercalary, 
or  abundant,  from  their  consisting  of  one  day 
more:  these  are  the  3d,  5th,  7th,  10th,  13th,  16th, 
18th,  21st,  24th,  26th  and  39th.  To  ascertain 
whether  any  given  year  be  intercalary  or  not 
divide  it  by  30 ;  and  if  either  of  the  above  num- 
bers remain,  the  year  is  one  of  355  days." — Sir 
H.  Nicolas,  Chronology  of  History. — See,  also, 
Mahometan  Conquest  :  A.  D.  609-633. 

ERA,  Spanish. —  "The  Spanish  era  dates  from 
38  B.  C.  (A.  U.  716)  and  is  supposed  to  mark 
some  important  epoch  in  the  organization  of  the 
province  by  the  Romans.  It  may  coincide  with 
the  campaign  of  Calvinus,  which  is  only  known 
to  us  from  a  notice  in  the  Fasti  Triumphales. 
.  .  .  The  Spanish  era  was  preserved  in  Aragon 
tUl  1358,  in  Castile  till  1383,  and  in  Portugal  till 
1415." — C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Romans,  ch.  34, 
note. 

ERA  OF  DIOCLETIAN,  or  Era  of  Mar- 
tyrs.    See  Ro.me:  A.  D.  192-284. 

ERA  OF  GOOD  FEELING.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1821-1834, 

ERA  OF  THE  FOUNDATION  OF 
ROME.     See  Rome:  B.  C.  7.53. 

ERA  OF  THE  OLYMPIADS.  See  Olym- 
piads, Era  of  the. 

ERANL- — Associations  existing  in  ancient 
Athens  which  resembled  the  mutual  benefit  or 
friendly-aid  societies  of  modern  times. — G.  F. 
SchOmann,  Antiq.  ofG-reece :  The  State,  pt.  3,  ch.  3. 

ERASTIANISM.— A  doctrine  which  "re- 
ceived its  name  from  Thomas  Erastus,  a  German 
physician  of  the  16th  century,  contemporary  with 
Luther.  The  work  in  which  he  delivered  his 
theory  and  reasonings  on  the  subject  is  entitled 
'  De  Excommunicatione  Ecclesiastica. ' .  .  .  The 
Erastians  .  .  .  held  that  religion  is  an  affair  be- 
tween man  and  his  creator,  in  which  no  other 
man  or  society  of  men  was  entitled  to  interpose. 
.  .  .  Proceeding  on  this  ground,  they  maintained 
that  every  man  calling  himself  a  Christian  has  a 
right  to  make  resort  to  any  Christian  place  of 
worship,  and  partake  in  all  its  ordinances.  Sim- 
ple as  this  idea  is.  it  strikes  at  the  root  of  all 
priestcraft." — W.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  the  Common- 
wealth, V.  1,  c7i.  13. 

ERCTE,  Mount,  Hamilcar  on.  See  Punic 
War,  The  First. — See,  also,  Eryx. 

ERDINI,  The.  See  Ireland,  Tribes  of 
early  Celtic  Inhabitants. 

EREMITES  OF  ST.  FRANCIS.  See 
Minims. 

ERETRIA.     See  Chalcis  and  Eretria. 

ERFURT,  Imperial  Conference  and  Treaty 
of.  See  France:  A.  D.  1808  (September- 
October). 


1011 


ERECTHEION. 


ESPINOSA. 


ERECTHEION    AT    ATHENS,    The.— 

"At  a  very  early  period  there  was,  opposite  the 
long  northern  side  of  the  Parthenon,  a  temple 
which,  according  to  Herodot,  was  dedicated 
jointly  to  Athene  Polias  and  the  Attic  hero,  Erec- 
theus.  .  .  .  This  temple  was  destroyed  by  fire 
while  the  Persians  held  the  city.  Not  unlikely 
the  rebuilding  of  the  Erectheion  was  begun  by 
Perikles  together  with  that  of  the  other  destroyed 
temples  of  the  Akropolis ;  but  as  it  was  not  fin- 
ished by  him,  it  is  generally  not  mentioned 
amongst  his  works.  .  .  .  This  temple  was  re- 
nowned amongst  the  ancients  as  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  and  perfect  in  existence,  and  seems  to 
have  remained  almost  intact  down  to  the  time  of 
the  Turks.  The  siege  of  Athens  by  the  Venetians 
In  1687  seems  to  have  been  fatal  to  the  Erec- 
theion, as  it  was  to  the  Parthenon." — E.  Guhl 
and  W.  Koner,  Life  of  the  0-reeks,  sect.  14. — See, 
also,  Acropolis  of  Athens. 

ERIC,  King  of  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Nor- 
way, A.  D.  1413-1439 Eric  Blodaexe,  King 

of  Norway,  A.  D.  934-940 Eric  I.,  King  of 

Denmark,   A.    D.    850-854 Eric   I.   (called 

Saint),  King  of  Sweden,  A.  D.  1155-1161 

Eric  II.,  King  of  Denmark,  A.  D.  8.54-883 

Eric  II.,  King  of  Norway,  A.  D.  1280-1299 

Eric  II.  (Knutsson),  King  of  Sweden,  A.  D. 

1210-1216 Eric    III.,   King    of   Denmark, 

A.  D.  1095-1103 Eric  III.  (called The  Stam- 
merer), King  of  Sweden,  A.  D.  1223-1250 

Eric  IV.,  King  of  Denmark,  A.  D.  1134-1137. 
...Eric  v..  King  of  Denmark,  A.  D.  1137- 

1147 Eric  VI.,  King  of  Denmark,   A,   D. 

1241-1250 Eric   VII.,    King   of   Denmark, 

A.  D.  1359-1286 Eric  VIII.,  King  of  Den- 
mark, A.  D.  1286-1319 Eric  XIV.,  King  of 

Sweden,  A.  D.  1560-1568. 

ERICSSON,  John.—  Invention  and  con- 
struction of  the  Monitor.  See  United  St.^tes 
OF  Am.  :  A.  D.  1862  (March). 

ERIE,  The  City  of:  A.  D.  1735.— Site  oc- 
cupied by  the  French.  See  Canada:  A.  D. 
1700-1735.  _ 

ERIE,  Fort:  A.    D.    1764-1791.— Origin.— 

Four  years  after  the  British  conquest  of  Canada, 
in  1764,  Colonel  John  Bradstreet  built  a  block- 
house and  stockade  near  the  site  of  the  later  Fort 
Erie,  which  was  not  constructed  until  1791. 
When  war  with  the  United  States  broke  out,  in 
1812,  the  British  considered  the  new  fort  unten- 
able, or  unnecessary,  and  evacuated  and  partly 
destroyed  it,  in  May,  1813. — C.  K.  Remington, 
Old  Fort  Erie. 

A.  D.  1814.— The  siege  and  the  destruction. 
See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1814  (July — 
September). 

A.  D.  1866. — The  Fenian  invasion.  See  Can- 
ada; A.  D.  1866-1871. 

ERIE,  Lake  :  The  Indian  name.  See  Niag- 
ara: The  Name.  &c. 

A.  D.  1679. — Navigated  by  La  Satle.  See 
Canada:  A.  D.  1669-1687. 

A.  D.  1813. — Perry's  naval  victory.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1812-1813. 


ERIE  CANAL,  Construction  of  the.  See 
New  York:  A.  D.  1817-1825. 

ERIES,  The.  See  American  Aborigines: 
Hurons,  &c.,  and  iRoquois  Contederact: 
Thbir  conquests. 


ERIN.     See  Ireland. 

ERITREA.  The  name  given  in  1890  to  a 
strip  of  territory  acquired  by  Italy  on  the  Afri- 
can coast  of  the  Red  Sea,  bordering  on  Nubia 
and  Abyssinia. 

ERMANRIC,  The  empire  of.  See  Goths 
(OsTKociOTHS);  A.  D.  3.50-375;  and  376. 

ERMYN  STREET.— A  corruption  of  Eor- 
men  street,  the  Saxon  name  of  one  of  the  great 
Roman  roads  in  Britain,  which  ran  from  London 
to  Lincoln.     See  Roman  Roads  in  Britain. 

ERNESTINE  LINE  OF  SAXONY.  See 
Saxony:  A.  D.  1180-1558. 

ERPEDITANI,  The.  See  Ireland,  Tribes 
OF  EARLY  Celtic  inhabitants. 

ERTANG,  The.— The  sacred  book  of  the 
Manicheans.     See  M.^nicheans. 

ERYTHR.<E.— ERYTHR^AN  SIBYL.— 
Erythroe  was  an  ancient  Ionian  city  on  the  Lydian 
coast  of  Asia  Minor,  opposite  the  island  of  Chios 
or  Scio.  It  was  chieliy  famous  as  the  home  or 
seat  of  one  of  the  most  venerated  of  the  sibyls  — 
prophetic  women  —  of  antiquity.  The  collection 
of  Sibylline  oracles  which  was  sacredly  preserved 
at  Rome  appears  to  have  been  largely  derived 
from  Erythrfe.  The  Cumasan  Sibyl  is  sometimes 
identified  with  her  Erythrfean  sister,  who  is  said 
to  have  passed  into  Europe. — See,  also,  Sibyls. 

ERYTHR.£AN  SEA,  The.— The  Ery- 
thrfean Sea,  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  term,  as 
used  by  the  ancients,  comprised  "the  Arabian 
Gulf  (or  what  we  now  call  the  Red  Sea),  the 
coasts  of  Africa  outside  the  straits  of  Bab  el  Man- 
deb  as  far  as  they  had  then  been  explored,  as  well 
as  those  of  Arabia  and  India  down  to  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  Malabar  coast."  The  Periplus  of 
the  Erythreean  Sea  is  a  geographical  treatise  of 
great  importance  which  we  owe  to  some  unknown 
Greek  writer  supposed  to  be  nearly  contemporary 
with  Pliny.  It  is  "a  kind  of  manual  for  the  in- 
struction of  navigators  and  traders  in  the  Ery- 
thrjEan  Sea." — E.  H.  Bunbury,  Hist,  of  Ancient 
Oeog.,  ch.  25. — "The  Erythrean  Sea  is  an  appel- 
lation ...  in  all  appearance  deduced  [by  the 
ancients]  from  their  entrance  into  it  by  the  straits 
of  the  Red  Sea,  styled  Erythra  by  the  Greeks, 
and  not  excluding  the  gulph  of  Persia,  to  which 
the  fabulous  history  of  a  king  Erythras  is  more 
peculiarly  appropriate." — W.  Vincent,  Periplus 
of  the  Erythrmn  Sea,  bk.  1,  prelim,  disquis. 

ERYX.— ERCTE.— A  town  originally  Phoe- 
nician or  Carthaginian  on  the  northwestern  coast 
of  Sicily.  It  stood  on  the  slope  of  a  mountain 
which  was  crowned  with  an  ancient  temple  of 
Aphrodite,  and  which  gave  the  name  Erycina  to 
the  goddess  when  her  worship  was  introduced  at 
Rome.     See  Punic  War,  The  First. 

ERZEROUM  :  A.  D.  1878.— Taken  by  the 
Russians.  ,See  Turks:  A.  D.  1877-1878. 

ESCOCES,  The  party  of  the.  See  Mexico: 
A.  D.  1833-1838. 

ESCOMBOLI.     See  Stamboul. 

ESCORIAL,  The.  See  Spain:  A.  D.  1.559- 
1563. 

ESCUYER.— ESQUIRE.     See  Chivalry. 

ESDRAELON,  Valley  of.     See  Megiddo. 

ESKIMO,  The.  See  American  Aborigines: 
Eskimauan  Family. 

ESNE.     See  Theow. 

ESPARTERO,  Regency  of.  See  Spain: 
A.  D.  1833-1846. 

ESPINOSA,  Battle  of.  See  Spain:  A.  D. 
1808  (September — December). 


1012 


ESQUILINE. 


ESSENES. 


ESQUILINE,  The.    See  Seven  Hills  of 
Rome. 
ESQUIRE. -ESCUYER.— SQUIRE.  See 

Chivalry. 

ESQUIROS,  Battle  of  (1521).  See  Na- 
VAiiiiE:  A.  1).  1443-1531. 

ESSELENIAN  FAMILY,  The.  See 
American  Aborigines:  Esselenian  Family. 

ESSENES,  The. —  "Apart  from  the  great 
highroad  of  Jewish  life,  there  lived  in  Palestine 
in  the  time  of  Christ  a  religious  community 
which,  though  it  grew  up  on  Jewish  soil,  differed 
essentially  in  many  points  from  traditional  Ju- 
daism, and  which,  though  it  exercised  no  pow- 
erful influence  upon  the  development  of  the 
people,  deserves  our  attention  as  a  peculiar  prob- 
lem in  the  history  of  religion.  This  community, 
the  Essenes  or  Essajans,  is  generally,  after  the 
precedent  of  Josephus,  placed  beside  the  Phari- 
sees and  Sadducees  as  the  third  Jewish  sect. 
But  it  scarcely  needs  the  remark,  that  we  have 
here  to  deal  with  a  phenomenon  of  an  entirely 
different  kind.  While  the  Pharisees  and  Sad- 
ducees were  large  political  and  religious  parties, 
the  Essenes  might  far  rather  be  compared  to  a 
monastic  order.  There  is  indeed  much  tliat  is 
enigmatical  in  them  as  to  particulars.  Even 
their  name  is  obscure.  .  .  .  The  origin  of  the 
Essenes  is  as  obscure  as  their  name.  Josephus 
first  mentions  them  in  the  time  of  Jonathan  the 
Maccabee,  about  150  B.  C,  and  speaks  expressly 
of  one  Judas,  an  Essene,  in  the  time  of  Aristobu- 
lus  I.  (105-104  B.  C).  .\ccording  to  this,  the 
origin  of  the  order  would  have  to  be  placed  in 
the  second  century  before  Christ.  But  it  is  ques- 
tionable whether  they  proceeded  simply  from 
Judaism,  or  whether  foreign  and  especially  Hel- 
lenistic elements  had  not  also  an  influence  in 
their  organization.  .  .  .  Philo  and  Josephus 
agree  in  estimatiug  the  number  of  the  Essenes  in 
their  time  at  above  4.000.  As  far  as  is  known, 
they  lived  only  in  Palestine,  at  least  there  are  no 
certain  traces  of  their  occurrence  out  of  Palestine. 
.  .  .  For  the  sake  of  living  as  a  community,  they 
had  special  houses  of  the  order  in  whicli  they 
dwelt  together.  Their  whole  community  was 
most  strictly  organized  as  a  single  body.  .  .  . 
The  strongest  tie  by  which  the  members  were 
united  was  absolute  community  of  goods.  'The 
community  among  them  is  wonderful  [says  Jose- 
phus], one  does  not  find  that  one  possesses  more 
than  another.  For  it  is  the  law,  that  those  who 
enter  deliver  up  their  property  to  the  order,  so 
that  there  is  nowhere  to  be  seen,  either  the  hu- 
miliation of  poverty  or  the  superfluity  of  wealth, 
but  on  the  contrary  one  property  for  all  as 
brethren,  formed  by  the  collection  of  the  posses- 
sions of  individuals.'  'They  neither  buy  nor 
sell  among  each  other ;  but  while  one  gives  to 
another  what  he  wants,  he  receives  in  return 
what  is  useful  to  himself,  and  without  anything 
in  return  they  receive  freely  whatever  they 
want.'  .  .  .  "There  is  but  one  purse  for  all,  and 
common  expenses,  common  clothes,  and  common 
food  in  common  meals.  For  community  of 
dwelling,  of  life,  and  of  meals  is  nowhere  so 
firmly  established  and  so  developed  as  with  them. 
And  this  is  intelligible.  For  what  they  receive 
daily  as  wages  for  their  labour,  they  do  not  keep 
for  themselves,  but  put  it  together,  and  thus 
make  the  profits  of  their  work  common  for  those 
who  desire  to  make  use  of  it.  And  the  sick  are 
without  anxiety  on  account  of  their  inability  to 


earn,  because  the  common  purse  is  in  readiness 
for  the  care  of  them,  and  they  ma.v  with  all  cer- 
taintj'  meet  their  expenses  from  abundant  stores.' 
.  .  .  The  daily  labour  of  the  Essenes  was  under 
strict  regulation.  It  began  with  prayer,  after 
which  the  members  were  dismissed  to  their  work 
by  the  presidents.  They  reassembled  for  puri- 
fying ablutions,  which  were  followed  bj'  the 
common  meal.  After  this  they  again  went  to 
work,  to  assemble  again  for  their  evening  meal. 
The  chief  employment  of  members  of  the  order 
was  agriculture.  They  likewise  carried  on,  how- 
ever, crafts  of  every  kind.  On  the  other  hand, 
trading  was  forbidden  as  leading  tocovetousness, 
and  also  the  making  of  weapons  or  of  any  kind 
of  utensils  that  might  injure  men.  .  .  .  The 
Essenes  are  described  by  both  Philo  and  Jose- 
phus as  very  connoisseurs  in  morality.  .  .  . 
Their  life  was  abstemious,  simple  and  un]5re- 
tending.  '  They  condemn  sensual  desires  as 
sinful,  and  esteem  modei'ation  and  freedom  from 
passion  as  of  the  nature  of  virtue.'  They  only 
take  food  and  drink  till  they  have  had  enough  ; 
abstaining  from  passionate  excitement,  they  are 
'  just  dispensers  of  wrath.'  At  their  meals  they 
are  'contented  with  the  same  dish  day  by  day, 
loving  sufficiency  and  rejecting  great  expense 
as  harmful  to  mind  and  body.'  .  .  .  There  is  not 
a  slave  among  them,  but  all  are  free,  mutually 
working  for  each  other.  All  that  they  say  is 
more  certain  than  an  oath.  They  forbid  swear- 
ing, because  it  is  worse  than  perjury.  .  .  .  Be- 
fore every  meal  they  bathe  in  cold  water.  They 
do  the  same  after  performing  the  functions  of 
nature.  .  .  .  They  esteem  it  seemly  to  wear 
white  raiment  at  all  times.  .  .  .  They  entirely 
condemned  marriage.  Josephus  indeed  knew  of 
a  branch  of  the  Essenes  who  permitted  marriage. 
But  these  must  at  all  events  have  formed  a  small 
minority.  ...  A  chief  peculiarity  of  the  Essenes 
was  their  common  meals,  which  bore  the  char- 
acter of  sacrificial  feasts.  The  food  was  jire- 
pared  by  priests,  with  the  observance  probably 
of  certain  rites  of  purification  :  for  an  Essene  was 
not  permitted  to  partake  of  any  other  food  than 
this.  The  meals  are  described  as  follows  by 
Josephus:  'After  the  bath  of  purification  they 
betake  themselves  to  a  dwelling  of  their  own, 
entrance  into  which  is  forbidden  to  all  of  another 
faith.  And  being  clean  they  go  into  the  refec- 
tory as  into  a  sanctuary.  .  .  .  The  priest  prays 
before  the  meal,  and  none  may  eat  before  the 
prayer.  After  the  meal  he  prays  again.  At  the 
beginning  and  end  they  honour  God  as  the  giver 
of  food.  Then  they  put  off  their  garments  as 
sacred  and  go  back  to  their  work  till  evening. 
Returning,  they  feed  again  in  the  same  man- 
ner.' In  their  worship,  as  well  as  in  that  of 
other  Jews,  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  read  and 
explained  ;  and  Philo  remarks,  that  they  specially 
delighted  in  allegorical  interpretation.  They 
were  extraordinarily  strict  in  the  celebration  of 
the  Sabbath.  They  did  not  venture  on  that  day 
to  move  a  vessel  from  its  place,  nor  even  to  per- 
form the  functions  of  nature.  In  other  respects 
too  they  showed  themselves  to  be  Jews.  Though 
they  were  excluded  from  the  temple  they  sent 
gifts  of  incense  there.  .  .  .  Concerning  their 
doctrine  of  the  soul  and  of  its  immortality, 
Josephus  expresses  himself  most  full}'.  If  we 
may  trust  his  account,  they  taught  that  bodies 
are  perishable,  but  souls  immortal,  and  that  the 
latter  dwelt  originally  in  the  subtlest  ather,  but 


1013 


ESSENES. 


ESTE. 


being  debased  by  sensual  pleasures  united  them- 
selves with  bodies  as  with  prisons ;  but  when 
thev  are  freed  from  the  fetters  of  sense  they  will 
joyfully  soar  on  high,  as  if  delivered  from  long 
bondage.  To  the  good  (souls)  is  appointed  a  life 
beyond  the  ocean.  .  .  .  But  to  the  bad  (souls)  is 
appointed  a  darli,  cold  region  full  of  unceasing 
torment." — E.  Schiirer,  A  Histary  of  the  Jewish 
People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Chiist.  r.  2. 

ESSEX.— Originally  the  kingdom  formed 
by  that  body  of  the  Saxon  conquerors  of  Britain, 
in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  who  acquired, 
from  their  geographical  position  in  the  island, 
the  name  of  the  East  Saxons.  It  covered  the 
present  county  of  Esses,  and  London  and  Middle- 
sex.    See  EkcJl.^nd  :  A.  D.  477-.')27. 

ESSEX  JUNTO,  The.— In  the  Massachu- 
setts election  of  1781,  "the  representatives  of  the 
State  in  Congress,  and  some  of  the  more  moder- 
ate leaders  at  home,  opposed  Governor  Hancock, 
the  popular  candidate,  and  supported  James 
Bowdoin,  who  was  thought  to  represent  the  more 
conservative  elements.  ...  It  was  at  this  time 
that  Hancock  is  said  to  have  bestowed  on  his  op- 
ponents the  title  of  the  '  Essex  Junto, '  and  this  is 
the  first  appearance  of  the  name  in  American 
politics.  .  .  .  The  '  Junto '  was  generally  sup- 
posed to  be  composed  of  such  men  as  Theophilus 
Parsons,  George  Cabot,  Fisher  Ames,  Stephen 
Higginson,  tlie  Lowells,  Timothy  Pickering,  &c., 
and  took  its  name  from  the  county  to  which  most 
of  its  reputed  members  originally  belonged.  .  .  . 
The  reputed  members  of  the  'Junto'  held  politi- 
cal power  in  Massachusetts  [as  leaders  of  the 
Federalist  party]  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century."  According  to  Chief  Justice  Parsons, 
as  quoted  by  Colonel  Pickering  in  his  Diary,  the 
term  '  Essex  Junto '  was  applied  by  one  of  the 
Massachusetts  royal  governors,  before  the  Revo- 
lution, to  certain  gentlemen  of  Essex  county  who 
opposed  his  measures.  Hancock,  therefore,  only 
revived  the  title  and  gave  it  currency,  with  a 
new  application. — H.  C.  Lodge,  Life  and  Letters 
of  George  Cabot,  pp.  17-22, 

ESSLINGEN,  OR  ASPERN,  Battle  of. 
See  Germ.^ny  :  A.  D.  1809  (January— J lt<'e). 

ESSUVII,  The.— A  Gallic  tribe  established 
anciently  in  the  modern  French  department  of 
the  Orne. — Napoleon  III.,  Hist,  of  Casar,  bk.  3, 
ch.  2,  itote. 

ESTATES,  Assembly  of.— "An  assembly 
of  estates  is  an  organised  collection,  made  by 
representation  or  otherwise,  of  the  several  orders, 
states  or  conditions  of  men,  who  are  recognised 
as  possessing  political  power.  A  national  coun- 
cil of  clergy  and  barons  is  not  an  assembly  of 
estates,  because  it  does  not  include  the  body  of 
the  people,  the  plebs,  the  simple  freemen  or  com- 
mons."— W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  15, 
sect.  185. — See,  also.  Estates,  The  Three. 

ESTATES,  The  Three.— "The  arrange- 
ment of  the  political  factors  In  three  estates  is 
common,  with  some  minor  variations,  to  all  the 
European  constitutions,  and  depends  on  a  prin- 
ciple of  almost  universal  acceptance.  This  classi- 
fication differs  from  the  system  of  caste  and  from 
all  divisions  based  on  differences  of  blood  or  re- 
ligion, historical  or  prehistorical.  ...  In  Chris- 
tendom it  has  always  taken  the  form  of  a  distinc- 
tion between  clergy  and  laity,  the  latter  being 
subdivided  according  to  national  custom  into 
noble  and  non-noble,  patrician  and  plebeian, 
warriors  and  traders,  landowners  and  craftsmen. 


.  .  .  The  Aragonese  cortes  contained  four  brazos 
or  arms,  the  clergy,  the  great  barons  or  ricos 
hombres,  the  minor  barons,  knights  or  infan- 
zones,  and  the  towns.  The  Germanic  diet  com- 
prised three  colleges,  the  electors,  the  princes 
and  the  cities,  the  two  former  being  arranged  in 
distinct  benches,  lay  and  clerical.  .  .  .  The  Cas- 
tilian  cortes  arranged  the  clergy,  the  ricos  hom- 
bres and  the  communidades,  in  three  estates. 
The  Swedish  diet  was  composed  of  clergy,  barons, 
burghers  and  peasants.  ...  In  France,  both  in 
the  States  General  and  in  the  provincial  estates, 
the  division  is  into  gentz  de  Feglise,  nobles,  and 
gentz  des  bonnes  villes.  In  England,  after  a 
transitional  stage,  in  which  the  clergy,  the  greater 
and  smaller  barons,  and  the  cities  and  boroughs, 
seemed  likely  to  adopt  the  system  used  in  Aragon 
and  Scotland,  and  another  in  which  the  county  and 
borough  communities  continued  to  assert  an  es- 
sential difference,  the  three  estates  of  clergy,  lords 
and  commons,  finally  emerge  as  the  political  con- 
stituents of  the  nation,  or,  in  their  parliamentary 
form,  as  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal  and  the 
commons.  This  familiar  formula  in  either  shape 
bears  the  impress  of  history.  The  term  com- 
mons is  not  in  itself  an  appropriate  expression  for 
the  third  estate ;  it  does  not  signify  primarily  the 
simple  freemen,  the  plebs,  but  the  plebs  organ- 
ised and  combined  in  corporate  communities,  in* 
a  particular  way  for  particular  purposes.  The 
commons  are  the  communitates  or  universitates, 
the  organised  bodies  of  freemen  of  the  shires  and 
towns.  .  .  .  The  third  estate  in  England  differs 
from  the  same  estate  In  the  continental  constitu- 
tions, by  including  the  landowners  under  baronial 
rank.  In  most  of  those  systems  it  contains  the 
representatives  of  the  towns  or  chartered  com- 
munities only.  "—W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng., 
ch.  15,  sect.  185,  193. — "The  words  '  gens  de  tiers 
et  commun  etat '  are  found  in  many  acts  [France] 
of  the  15th  century.  The  expressions  '  tiers  etat,' 
'commun  etat,'  and  'le  commun'  are  used  in- 
differently. .  .  .  Tills  name  of  Tiers  Etat,  when 
used  in  its  ordinary  sense,  properly  comprises 
only  the  population  of  the  privileged  cities ;  but 
in  effect  it  extends  much  beyond  this;  it  includes 
not  only  the  cities,  but  the  villages  and  hamlets 
—  not  only  the  free  commonalty,  but  all  those  for 
whom  civil  liberty  is  a  privilege  still  to  come." — 
A.  Thierrj',  Formation  and  Progress  of  the  Tiers 
^tat  in  Francs,  v.  1,  pp.  61  and  60. 

ESTATES,  or  "  States,"  of  the  Netherland 
Provinces.    See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1584-1585. 

ESTATES  GENERAL.  See  States  Gen- 
eral. 

ESTE,  The  House  of.— "  Descended  from 
one  of  the  northern  families  which  settled  in 
Italy  during  the  darkest  period  of  the  middle 
ages,  the  Este  traced  their  lineal  descent  up  to 
the  times  of  Charlemagne.  They  had  taken  ad- 
vantage of  the  frequent  dissensions  between  the 
popes  and  the  German  emperors  of  the  houses  of 
Saxony  and  Swabia,  and  acquired  wide  domin- 
ions in  Lunigiana,  and  the  March  of  Treviso, 
where  the  castle  of  Este,  their  family  residence, 
was  situated.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  11th 
century,  that  family  had  been  connected  by  mar- 
riages with  the  Guelphs  of  Bavaria,  and  one  of 
the  name  of  Este  was  eventually  to  become  the 
common  source  from  which  sprung  the  illustrious 
houses  of  Brunswick  and  Hanover.  The  Este 
had  wai-mly  espoused  the  Guelph  party  [see 
GuELFs],  during  the  wars  of  the  Lombard  League. 


1014 


ESTE. 


ETHELRED. 


.  .  .  Towards  the  year  1200,  Azzo  V.,  Marquis 
of  Bste,  married  Marchesella  degli  Adelardi, 
daughter  of  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  Guelphs 
at  Ferrara,  where  the  influence  of  the  House  of 
Este  was  thus  first  established." — L.  Mariotti  (A. 
Oallenga),  Italy,  v.  3,  pp.  62-63. — The  Marquesses 
of  Este  became,  "after  some  of  the  usual  fluc- 
tuations, permanent  lords  of  the  cities  of  Ferrara 
[1364]  and  Modena  [1288].  About  the  same  time 
they  lost  their  original  holding  of  Este,  which 
passed  to  Padua,  and  with  Padua  to  Venice. 
Thus  the  nominal  marquess  of  Este  and  real  lord 
of  Ferrara  was  not  uncommonly  spoken  of  as 
Marquess  of  Ferrara.  In  the  15th  century  these 
princes  rose  to  ducal  rank ;  but  by  that  time  the 
new  doctrine  of  the  temporal  dominion  of  the 
Popes  had  made  great  advances.  Modena,  no 
man  doubted,  was  a  city  of  the  Empire ;  but  Fer- 
rara was  now  held  to  be  under  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope.  Tlie  Marquess  Borso  had  thus  to  seek 
his  elevation  to  ducal  rank  from  two  separate 
lords.  He  was  created  Duke  of  Modena  [1453] 
and  Reggio  by  the  Emperor,  and  afterwards  Duke 
of  Ferrara  [1471]  by  the  Pope,  This  difference 
of  holding  .  .  .  led  to  the  destruction  of  the 
power  of  the  house  of  Este.  In  the  times  in 
which  we  are  now  concerned,  their  dominions 
lay  in  two  masses.  To  the  west  lay  the  duchy 
of  Modena  and  Reggio ;  apart  from  it  to  the  ea.st 
lay  the  duchy  of  Ferrara.  Not  long  after  its 
creation,  this  last  duchy  was  cut  short  by  the  sur- 
render of  the  border-district  of  Rovigo  to  Venice. 
.  .  .  Modena  and  Ferrara  remained  united,  till 
Ferrara  was  annexed  [1598]  as  an  escheated  fief 
to  the  dominions  of  its  spiritual  overlord.  But 
the  house  of  Este  still  reigned  over  Modena  with 
Reggio  and  Mirandola,  while  its  dominions  were 
extended  to  the  sea  by  the  addition  of  Massa  and 
other  small  possessions  between  Lucca  and  Genoa. 
The  duchy  in  the  end  passed  by  female  succes- 
sion to  the  House  of  Austria  [1771-1803]."— E. 
A.  Freeman,  Historical  Oeog.  of  Europe,  ch.  8, 
sect.  3-4. — "The  government  of  the  family  of 
Este  at  Ferrara,  Modena,  and  Reggio  displays 
curious  contrasts  of  violence  and  popularity. 
Within  the  palace  frightful  deeds  were  perpe- 
trated ;  a  princess  was  beheaded  [1435]  for  alleged 
adultery  with  a  stepson ;  legitimate  and  illegiti- 
mate children  fled  from  the  court,  and  even  abroad 
their  lives  were  threatened  by  assassins  sent  in 
pursuit  of  them  (1471),  Plots  from  without  were 
incessant ;  the  bastard  of  a  bastard  tried  to  wrest 
the  crown  from  the  lawful  heir,  Hercules  I.  :  this 
latter  is  said  afterwards  (1493)  to  have  poisoned 
his  wife  on  discovering  that  she,  at  the  instiga- 
tion of  her  brother,  Ferrante  of  Naples,  was  going 
to  poison  him.  This  list  of  tragedies  is  closed  by 
the  plot  of  two  bastards  against  their  brothers, 
the  ruling  Duke  Alfonso  I.  and  the  Cardinal  Ip- 
polito  (1506),  wliich  was  discovered  in  time,  and 
punished  with  imprisonment  for  life.  ...  It  is 
undeniable  that  the  dangers  to  which  these 
princes  were  constantly  exposed  developed  in 
them  capacities  of  a  remarkable  kind. " — J.  Burck- 
hardt.  The  Civilization  of  the  Period  of  the  Re- 
naissance in  Italy,  pt.  1,  ch.  5. — For  the  facts  of 
the  ending  of  the  legitimate  Italian  line  of  Este, 
see  Papacy:  A.  D.  1597. 


ESTHONIA,   OR   ESTONIA:     Origin  of 
the  name.     See  ^stii. 
Christian  conquest.   See  Livonia  :  12th-13th 

CENTDKtES. 


ESTIENNES,  The  Press  of  the.  See 
Printing:  A,  D.  1496-1598, 

ESTREMOS,  OR  AMEIXAL,  Battle  of 
(1663).     See  Portugal:  A.  D.  1637-1668. 

ETCHEMINS,  The.  See  American  Abo- 
rigines: Algonqui-^n  Fa.mily. 

ETHANDUN,  OR  EDINGTON,  Battle  of 
(A.  D.  878).     See  England:  A.  D.  855-880. 

ETHEL,  ETHELINGS,  OR  yETHEL- 
INGS. —  "The  sons  and  brothers  of  the  king  [of 
the  English]  were  distinguished  by  the  title  of 
jEthelings.  The  word  ^theling,  like  eorl,  origi- 
nally denoted  noble  birth  simply ;  but  as  the  royal 
house  of  Wessex  rose  to  pre-eminence  and  the 
other  royal  houses  and  the  nobles  generally  were 
thereby  reduced  to  a  relatively  lower  grade,  it  be- 
came restricted  to  the  near  kindred  of  the  national 
king." — T.  P.  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const. 
Hist.  ,p.  29. — "It  has  been  sometimes  held  that  the 
only  nobility  of  blood  recognized  in  England  be- 
fore the  Norman  Conquest  was  that  of  the  king's 
kin.  The  statement  may  be  regarded  as  deficient 
in  authority,  and  as  the  result  of  a  too  hasty  gener- 
alization from  the  fact  that  only  the  sons  and 
brothers  of  the  kings  bear  the  name  of  setheling. 
On  the  other  hand  must  be  alleged  the  existence 
of  a  noble  (edhiling)  class  among  the  continental 
Saxons  who  had  no  kings  at  all.  .  .  .  The  laws 
of  Ethelbert  prove  the  existence  of  a  class  bearing 
the  name  of  eorl  of  which  no  other  interpreta- 
tion can  be  given.  That  these,  eorlas  and  sethel, 
were  the  descendants  of  the  primitive  nobles  of 
the  first  settlement,  who,  on  the  institution  of 
royalty,  sank  one  step  in  dignity  from  the 
ancient  state  of  rude  independence,  in  which  they 
had  elected  their  own  chiefs  and  ruled  their  own 
dependents,  may  be  very  reasonably  conjectured. 
.  .  .  The  ancient  name  of  eorl,  like  that  of 
setheling,  changed  its  application,  and,  under  the 
influence,  perhaps,  of  Danish  association,  was 
given  like  that  of  jarl  to  the  oflicial  ealdorman. 
Henceforth  the  thegn  takes  the  place  of  the 
sethel,  and  the  class  of  thegns  probably  embraces 
all  the  remaining  families  of  noble  blood.  The 
change  may  have  been  very  gradual ;  the  '  north 
people's  law '  of  the  tenth  or  early  eleventh  cen- 
tury still  distinguishes  the  eorl  and  setheling  with 
a  wergild  nearly  double  that  of  the  ealdorman 
and  seven  times  that  of  the  thegn ;  but  the  north 
people's  law  was  penetrated  with  Danish  influ- 
ence, and  the  eorl  probably  represents  the  jarl 
rather  than  the  ealdorman,  the  great  eorl  of  the 
fourth  part  of  England  as  it  was  divided  by 
Canute.  .  .  .  The  word  eorl  is  said  to  be  the 
same  as  the  Norse  jarl  and  another  form  of 
ealdor  (?);  whilst  the  ceorl  answers  to  the  Norse 
Karl ;  the  original  meaning  of  the  two  being  old 
man  and  young  man." — W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist, 
of  Eng. ,  ch.  6,  sect.  64,  and  note. 

ETHEL.  —  Family-land.  See  Alod;  and 
Folcland. 

ETHELBALD,    King    of   Mercia,    A.    D. 

716-755 Ethelbald,  King  of  'Wessex,  A.  D. 

858-860. 

ETHELBERT,  King  of  Kent,  A.  D.  565- 

616 Ethelbert,  King  of 'Wessex,  A.  D.  860- 

866. 

ETHELFRITH,  King  of  Northumberland, 
A.  D,  593-617. 

ETHELRED,  King  of  Wessex,  A.  D.  866- 

871 Ethelred,  called  the  Unready,  King  of 

Wessex,  A.  D,  979-1016, 


1015 


ETHELSTAN. 


ETRUSCANS. 


ETHELSTAN,  KingofWessex,  A.  D.  925- 
940. 

ETHELWULF,   King  of  Wessex,  A.   D. 

836-858. 

ETHIOPIA. — The  Ethiopia  of  the  ancients, 
"  in  the  ordinary  and  vague  sense  of  the  terra, 
was  a  vast  tract  extending  in  length  above  a 
thousand  miles,  from  the  9th  to  the  24th  degree 
of  north  latitude,  and  in  breadth  almost  900  miles, 
from  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea  and  Indian  Ocean 
to  the  desert  of  the  Sahara.  This  tract  was  in- 
habited for  the  most  part  by  wild  and  barbarous 
tribes- — herdsmen,  hunters,  or  fishermen  —  who 
grew  no  corn,  were  unacquainted  with  bread, 
and  subsisted  on  the  milk  and  flesh  of  their  cat- 
tle, or  on  game,  turtle,  and  fish,  salted  or  raw. 
The  tribes  had  their  own  separate  chiefs,  and 
acknowledged  no  single  head,  but  on  the  con- 
trary were  frequently  at  war  one  with  the  other, 
and  sold  their  prisoners  for  slaves.  Such  was 
Ethiopia  in  the  common  vague  sense ;  but  from 
this  must  be  distinguished  another  narrower 
Ethiopia,  known  sometimes  as  'Ethiopia Proper' 
or  'Ethiopia  above  Egypt,'  the  limits  of  which 
were,  towards  the  south,  the  junction  of  the 
White  and  Blue  Niles,  and  towards  the  north  the 
Third  Cataract.  Into  this  tract,  called  some- 
times 'the  kingdom  of  Meroi!,'  Egyptian  civilisa- 
tion had,  long  before  the  eighth  century  [B.  C], 
deeply  penetrated.  Temples  of  the  Egyptian 
type,  stone  pyramids,  avenues  of  sphinxes,  had 
been  erected;  a  priesthood  had  been  set  up, 
which  was  regarded  as  derived  from  the  Egyp- 
tian priesthood ;  monarchical  institutions  had  been 
adopted ;  the  whole  tract  formed  ordinarily  one 
kingdom,  and  the  natives  were  not  very  much 
behind  the  Egyptians  in  arts  or  arms,  or  very 
different  from  them  in  manners,  customs,  and 
mode  of  life.  Even  in  race  the  difference  was 
not  great.  The  Ethiopians  were  darker  in  com- 
plexion than  the  Egyptians,  and  possessed  prob- 
ably a  greater  infusion  of  Nigritic  blood;  but 
there  was  a  common  stock  at  the  root  of  the  two 
races  —  Cush  and  Mizraim  were  brethren.  In  the 
region  of  Ethiopia  Proper  a  very  important 
position  was  occupied  in  the  eighth  century 
[B.  C]  by  Napata.  Napata  was  situated  mid- 
way in  the  great  bend  of  the  Nile,  between  lat. 
18°  and  19°.  ...  It  occupied  the  left  bank  of 
the  river  in  the  near  vicinity  of  the  modern 
Gebel  Berkal.  .  .  .  Here,  when  the  decline  of 
Egypt  enabled  the  Ethiopians  to  reclaim  their 
ancient  limits,  the  capital  was  fixed  of  that  king- 
dom, which  shortly  became  a  rival  of  the  old 
empire  of  the  Pharaohs,  and  aspired  to  take  its 
place.  .  .  .  The  kingdom  of  Meroe,  whereof  it 
was  the  capital,  reached  southward  as  far  as  the 
modern  Khartoum,  and  eastward  stretched  up  to 
the  Abyssinian  highlands,  including  the  valleys 
of  the  Atbara  and  its  tributaries,  together  with 
most  of  the  tract  between  the  Atbara  and  the 
Blue  Nile.  .  .  .  Napata  continued  down  to  Ro- 
man times  a  place  of  importance,  and  only  sank 
to  ruin  in  consequence  of  the  campaigns  of 
Petronius  against  Candace  in  the  first  century 
after  our  era." — G.  Rawlinson,  Hist,  of  Ancient 
Egypt,  ch.  25. 

Also  in:  A.  H.  L.  Heeren,  Sistmcal  He- 
searches,  Carthaginians,  Ethiopians,  &c.,  pp.  143- 
249.— See,  also,  Egypt:  About  B.  C.  1200-670; 
and  Libyans,  The. 

ETON  SCHOOL.  See  Education,  Modern  : 
European  countries. — England. 


ETRURIA,  Ancient.     See  Etruscans. 

ETRURIA,  The  kingdom  of.  See  Ger 
many:  a.  D.  1801-1803;  also  Portugal:  A.  D. 
1807;  and  France:  A.  D.  1807-1808  (November 
— February). 

ETRUSCANS,  The.—"  At  the  time  when 
Roman  history  begins,  we  find  that  a  powerful 
and  warlike  race,  far  superior  to  the  Latins  In 
civilisation  and  in  the  arts  of  life,  hemmed  in  the 
rising  Roman  dominion  in  the  north.  The  Greeks 
called  them  Turrhenoi,  the  Romans  called  them 
Etrusci,  they  called  themselves  the  Rasenna. 
Who  they  were  and  whence  they  came  has  ever 
been  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  doubtful  and 
difficult  problems  in  ethnology.  One  conclusion 
only  can  be  said  to  have  been  universally  accepted 
both  in  ancient  and  in  modern  times.  It  is  agreed 
on  every  hand  that  in  all  essential  points,  in  lan- 
guage, in  religion,  in  customs,  and  in  appearance, 
the  Etruscans  were  a  race  wholly  different  from 
the  Latins.  There  is  also  an  absolute  agreement 
of  all  ancient  tradition  to  the  effect  that  the 
Etruscans  were  not  the  original  inhabitants  of 
Etruria,  but  that  they  were  an  intrusive  race  of 
conquerors.  ...  It  has  been  usually  supposed 
that  the  Rasenna  made  their  appearance  in  Italy 
some  ten  or  twelve  centuries  before  the  Christian 
era.  .  .  .  For  some  six  or  seven  centuries,  the 
Etruscan  power  and  territory  continued  steadily 
to  increase,  and  ultimately  stretched  far  south  of 
the  Tiber,  Rome  itself  being  included  in  the 
Etruscan  dominion,  and  being  ruled  by  an  Etrus- 
can dynasty.  The  early  history  of  Rome  is  to  a 
great  extent  the  history  of  the  uprising  of  the 
Latin  race,  and  its  long  struggle  for  Italian  su- 
premacy with  its  Etruscan  foe.  It  took  Rome 
some  six  centuries  of  conflict  to  break  through 
the  obstinate  barrier  of  the  Etruscan  power.  The 
final  conquest  of  Etruria  by  Rome  was  effected 
in  the  year  281  B.  C.  .  .  .  The  Rasennic  people 
were  collected  mainly  in  the  twelve  great  cities 
of  Etruria  proper,  between  the  Amo  and  the 
Tiber.  [Modern  Tuscany  takes  its  name  from 
the  ancient  Etruscan  inhabitants  of  the  region.] 
This  region  was  the  real  seat  of  the  Etruscan 
power.  .  .  .  From  the  '  Shah-nameh,' the  great 
Persian  epic,  we  learn  that  the  Aryan  Persians 
called  their  nearest  non- Aryan  neighbours  —  the 
Turkic  or  Turcoman  tribes  to  the  north  of  them 
—  by  the  name  Turan,  a  word  from  which  we 
derive  the  familiar  ethnologic  term  Turanian. 
The  Aryan  Greeks,  on  the  other  hand,  called  the 
Turkic  tribe  of  the  Rasenna,  the  nearest  non- 
Aryan  race,  by  the  name  of  Turrhenoi.  The 
argument  of  this  book  is  to  prove  that  the  Tyrr- 
henians of  Italy  were  of  kindred  race  with  the 
Turanians  of  Turkestan.  Is  it  too  much  to  con- 
jecture that  the  Greek  form  Turrhene  may  be 
identically  the  same  word  as  the  Persian  form 
Turan  ?  "—I.  Taylor,  Etruscan  Researches,  ch.  2. 
— "  The  utmost  we  can  say  is  that  several  traces, 
apparently  reliable,  point  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Etruscans  may  be  on  the  whole  included 
among  the  Indo-Germans.  .  .  .  But  even  grant- 
ing those  points  of  connection,  the  Etruscan  peo- 
ple appears  withal  scarcely  less  isolated.  '  The 
Etruscans,'  Dionysius  said  long  ago,  '  are  like  no 
other  nation  in  language  and  manners ' ;  and  we 
have  nothing  to  add  to  his  statement.  .  .  .  Re- 
liable traces  of  any  advance  of  the  Etruscans 
beyond  the  Tiber,  by  land,  are  altogether  want- 
ing. .  .  .  South  of  the  Tiber  no  Etruscan  settle- 
ment can  be  pointed  out  as  having  owed  its  origlD 


1016 


ETRUSCANS. 

to  founders  who  came  by  land ;  and  that  no  indi- 
cation  whatever  is  discernible  of  any  senous 
pressure  by  the  Etruscans  upon  the  Latin  nation. 
_T   Mommsen,  Hist,  of  Rome,  hk  1,  ch.  9. 

EUBCEA.— "The  island  of  Eubcea,  long  and 
narrow  like  Krgte,  and  exhibiting  a  continuous 
backbone  of  lofty  mountains  from  northwest  to 
southeast,  is  separated  from  Bojotia  at  one  pomt 
by  a  strait  so  narrow  (celebrated  in  antiquity 
under  the  name  of  the  Eurlpus)  that  the  two 
were  connected  by  a  bridge  for  a  large  portion 
of  the  historical  period  of  Greece,  erected  during 
the  later  times  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  by  the 
inhabitants  of  Chalkis   [Chalcis].      Its  general 
want  of   breadth  leaves  little  room  for  plains 
The  area   of  the  island   consists  principally  of 
mountain,  rock,  dell,  and  ravine,  suited  in  many 
parts  for  pasture,  but  rarely  convenient  for  grain- 
culture  or  town  habitations.     Some  plains  there 
were,  however,  of  great  fertility,  especially  that 
of  Lelantum,  bordering  on  the  sea  near  Chalkis, 
and  continuing  from  that  city  in  a  southerly 
direction  towards  Eretria.     Chalkis  and  Eretria, 
both  situated  on  the  western  coast,  and  both  oc- 
cupving  parts  of  this  fertile  plain,  were  the  two 
principal  places  in  the  island :  the  domain  of  each 
seems  to  have  extended  across  the  island  from  sea 
to  sea    .  .  .  Both  were  in  early  times  governed 
by  an  oligarchy,  which  among  the  Chalkidians 
■was  called  the  Hippobotse,  or  Horse  feeders,— 
proprietors  probably  of  most  part  of  the  plain 
called  Lelantum."— G.    Grote,    Hist,  of  areece, 
pt.  2,  ch.  12.— See,  also,  Negropont. 


EUROPE. 

EUBOIC  TALENT.     See  Talent. 

EUCHITES,  The.     See  Mysticism. 

EUDES,  King  of  France  (in  partition  with 
Charles  the  Simple),  A.  D.  887-898. 

EUDOSES,  The.     See  Aviones. 

EUGENE  (Prince)  of  Savoy,  Campaigns  of. 
See  Hungary:  A.  D.  1699-1718;  Germany: 
A  D.  1704;  Italy  (Savoy  and  Piedmont): 
A  D  1701-1713;  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1708- 
1709,  and  1710-1713. 

EUGENE  L,  Pope,  A.  D.  655-657. ...  .Eu- 
gene IL,  Pope,  A.  D.  824^-827 Eugene  III., 

Pope,  A.  D.  1145-1153 Eugene  IV.,  Pope, 

A.  D.  1431-1447. 

EUGENIANS,  The.     See  Hy-Niai8. 

EUMENES,  and  the  vrars  of  the  Diadochi. 
See  Macedonia:  B.  C.  323-316. 

EUMOLPHIDiE,  The.  See  Phyl^. 
EUPATRIDiE,  The.— "The  Eupatridoe  [in 
ancient  Athens]  are  the  wealthy  and  powerful 
men  belonging  to  the  most  distinguished  fami- 
lies in  all  the  various  gentes,  and  principally 
livino-  in  the  city  of  Athens,  after  the  consolida- 
tion of  Attica :  from  them  are  distinguished  the 
middling  and  lower  people,  roughly  classified 
into  husbandmen  and  artisans.  To  the  Eupatn- 
d*  is  ascribed  a  religious  as  well  as  a  political 
and  social  ascendency.  They  are  represented  aa 
the  source  of  all  authority  on  matters  both  sacred 
and  profane."— G.  Grote,  Hist,  of  Greece,  pt.  2. 
ch.  10. 

EUROKS,  OR  YUROKS.  See  American 
Aborioinks  :  MODOCS. 


EUROPE. 

A  HISTORICAL  SKETCH.' 


The  first  inhabitants  of  the  contment  of  Eu- 
rope have  left  no  trace  of  their  existence  on  the 
surface  of  the  land.     The  little  that  we  know  of 
them  has  been  learned  by  the  discovery  of  deeply 
buried  remains,  including  a  few  bones  and  skulls, 
many  weapons  and  tools  which  they  had  fash- 
ioned out  of  stone  and  bone,  and  some  other  rude 
marks  of   their  hands  which  time  has  not  de- 
stroyed.    The  places  in  which  these  remains  are 
found  — under  deposits  that   formed   slowly  in 
ancient  river  beds  and  in  caves  — have  convinced 
geologists  that  the  people  whose  existence  they 
reveal  lived  many  thousands  of  years  ago,  and 
that  the  continent  of  Europe  in  their  time  was 
very  different  from  the  Europe  of  the  present 
day,  m  its  climate,  in  its  aspect,  and  in  its  form. 
They  find  reason  to  suppose  that  the  peninsula 
of  Italy,  as  well  as  that  of  Spain,  was_  then  an 
isthmus  which   joined  Europe  to  Africa;   and 
this  helps  to  explain  the  fact  that  remains  of 
such  animals  as  the  elephant,  the  lion,  the  rhino- 
ceros, the  hippopotamus,  and  the  hyena,  as  well 
as  the  mammoth,  are  found  with  the  remains  of 
these  early  men.     They   all   seem  to  have  be- 
longed, together,  to  a  state  of  things,  on  the  sur- 
face of  the  earth,   which  was  greatly  changed 
before  the  men  and  the  animals  that  we  have 
historical  knowledge  of  appeared. 

The  Stone  Age. 

These  primitive  Europeans  were  evidently 
quite  at  the  bottom  of  the  savage  state.  They 
had  learned  no  use  of  metals,  since  every  relic  of 
their  workmanship  that  can  be  found  is  of  stone, 


or  bone,  or  wood.  It  is  thought  possible  that 
they  shaped  rough  vessels  out  of  unbaked  clay ; 
but  that  is  uncertain.  There  is  nothing  to  show 
that  they  had  domesticated  any  animals.  It  is 
plain  that  they  dwelt  in  caves,  wherever  nature 
provided  such  dwellings ;  but  what  shelters  they 
may  have  built  elsewhere  for  themselves  is  un- 
Icnown.  . 

In  one  direction,  only,  did  these  ancient  peo- 
ple exhibit  a  faculty  finer  than  we  see  in  the 
lowest  savages  of  the  present  day:  they  were 
artists,  in  a  way.  They  have  left  carvings  and 
drawings  of  animals  — the  latter  etched  with  a 
sharp  point  on  horns,  bones,  and  stones  —  which 
are  remarkable  for  uncultured  men. 

The  period  in  man's  life  on  the  earth  at  which 
these  people  lived— the  period  before  metals 
were  known  — has  been  named  by  archaeologists 
the  Stone  Age.  But  the  Stone  Age  covers  two 
stages  of  human  culture  — one  in  which  stone 
implements  were  fashioned  unskilfully,  and  a 
second  in  which  they  were  finished  with  expert 
and  careful  hands.  The  first  is  called  the  Paleo- 
lithic or  Old  Stone  Age,  the  second  the  Neolithic 
or  New  Stone  Age.  Between  the  two  periods  in 
Europe  there  seems  to  have  been  a  long  interval 
of  time,  and  a  considerable  change  in  the  condi- 
tion of  the  country,  as  well  as  in  that  of  its  peo- 
ple     In  fact,  the  Europe  of  the  Neolithic  Age 


*A 
cannot 


general  sketch  of  the  history  of  Europe  at  large 
cannoi.  for  obvious  reasons,  be  constructed  of  quotations 
from  the  historians,  on  the  plan  followed  in  other  parte 
of  this  work.  The  editor  has  found  it  necessary,  there- 
fore, to  introduce  here  an  essay  of  his  own. 


1017 


EUEOPE. 


Before 
Kecorded  History, 


EUROPE. 


was  probably  not  very  different  in  form  and  cli- 
mate from  the  Europe  of  our  own  day.  Relics 
of  the  human  life  of  that  time  are  abundantly 
scattered  over  the  face  of  the  continent.  There 
are  notable  deposits  of  them  in  the  so-called 
' '  kitchen-middens  "  of  Denmark,  which  are  great 
mounds  of  shells, —  shells  of  oysters  and  other 
molluscs, —  which  these  ancient  fishermen  had 
opened  and  emptied,  and  then  cast  upon  a  refuse 
heap.  Buried  in  those  mounds,  many  bits  of 
their  workmanship  have  been  preserved,  and 
many  hints  of  their  manner  of  life  are  gleaned 
from  the  signs  and  tokens  which  these  afford. 
They  had  evidently  risen  some  degrees  above  the 
state  of  the  men  of  the  Palseolithic  or  Old  Stone 
Age ;  but  they  were  inferior  in  art. 

The  Bronze  Age. 

The  discovery  and  use  of  copper  —  the  metal 
most  easily  worked,  and  most  frequently  found 
in  the  metallic  state  —  is  the  event  by  which 
archiEologists  mark  the  beginning  of  a  second 
stage  in  early  civilizations.  The  period  during 
which  copper,  and  copper  hardened  by  an  allov 
of  tin,  are  the  only  metals  found  in  use,  they  call 
the  Bronze  Age.  There  is  no  line  of  positive 
division  between  this  and  the  Neolithic  period 
which  it  followed.  The  same  races  appear  to 
have  advanced  from  the  one  stage  to  the  other, 
and  probably  some  were  in  possession  of  tools 
and  weapons  of  bronze,  while  others  were  still 
contenting  themselves  with  implements  of  stone. 

Lake  Dv7ellings. 

In  many  parts  of  Europe,  especially  in  Switz- 
erland and  northern  Italy,  plain  traces  of  some 
curious  habitations  of  people  who  lived  through 
the  later  Stone  Age  into  the  Bronze  Age,  and 
even  after  it,  have  been  brought  to  light.  These 
are  the  "lake  dwellings,"  or  "lacustrine  habita- 
tions," as  they  have  been  called,  which  have 
excited  interest  in  late  years.  They  were  gener- 
ally built  on  piles,  driven  into  a  lake-bottom,  at 
such  distance  from  shore  as  would  make  them 
easy  of  defence  against  enemies.  The  founda- 
tions of  whole  villages  of  these  dwellings  have 
been  found  in  the  Swiss  and  North  Italian  lakes, 
and  less  numerously  elsewhere.  Prom  the  lake- 
mud  under  and  around  them,  a  great  quantitj' 
of  relics  of  the  lake-dwellers  have  been  taken, 
and  many  facts  about  their  arts  and  mode  of  life 
have  been  learned.  It  is  known  that,  even  be- 
fore a  single  metal  had  come  into  their  hands, 
they  had  begun  to  cultivate  the  earth ;  had  raised 
wheat  and  barley  and  flax ;  had  domesticated  the 
horse,  the  os,  the  sheep,  the  goat,  the  pig  and 
the  dog;  had  become  fairly  skilful  in  weaving, 
in  rope-making,  and  in  the  art  of  the  potter, 
but  without  the  potter's  wheel. 

Gradually  copper  and  bronze  made  their  ap- 
pearance among  the  implements  of  these  people, 
as  modern  search  discovers  them  imbedded,  layer 
upon  layer,  in  the  old  ooze  of  the  lake-beds 
where  they  were  dropped.  In  time,  iron,  too, 
reveals  itself  among  their  possessions,  showing 
that  they  lived  in  their  lake-villages  from  the 
later  Stone  Age  into  that  third  period  of  the 
early  process  of  civilization  which  is  named  the 
Iron  Age  —  when  men  first  acquired  the  use  of 
the  most  useful  of  all  the  metals.  It  appears,  in 
fact,  that  the  lake-dwellings  were  occupied  even 
down  to  Roman  times,  since  articles  of  Roman 
make  have  been  found  in  the  ruins  of  them. 


Barrows. 
In  nearly  all  parts  of  Europe  there  are  found 
burial  mounds,  called  barrows,  which  contain 
buried  relics  of  people  who  lived  at  one  or  the 
other  of  the  three  periods  named.  For  the  most 
part,  they  represent  inhabitants  of  the  Neolithic 
and  of  the  Bronze  Ages.  In  Great  Britain  some 
of  these  barrows  are  long,  some  are  round ;  and 
the  skulls  found  in  the  long  barrows  are  differ- 
ent in  shape  from  those  in  the  round  ones,  show- 
ing a  difference  of  race.  The  people  to  whom 
the  first  belonged  are  called  "long-headed,"  or 
' '  dolichocephalic  " ;  the  others  are  called  ' '  broad- 
headed, "  or  ' '  brachycephalic. "  In  the  opinion  of 
some  ethnologists,  who  study  this  subject  of  the 
distinctions  of  race  in  the  human  family,  the 
broad-headed  people  were  ancestors  of  the  Celtic 
or  Keltic  tribes,  whom  the  Romans  subdued  in 
Gaul  and  Britain;  while  the  long-headed  men 
were  of  a  preceding  race,  which  the  Celts, 
when  they  came,  either  drove  out  of  all  parts  of 
Europe,  except  two  or  three  mountainous  corners, 
or  else  absorbed  by  intermarriage.  The  Basques- 
of  northwestern  Spain,  and  some  of  their  neigh- 
bors on  the  French  side  of  the  Pyrenees,  are  sup- 
posed to  be  survivals  of  this  very  ancient  people ; 
and  there  are  suspected  to  be  traces  of  their  ex- 
istence seen  in  the  dark-haired  and  dark-skinned 
people  of  parts  of  Wales,  Ireland,  Corsica,  North 
Africa,  and  elsewhere. 

The  Aryan  Nations. 

At  least  one  part  of  this  conjecture  has  much 
to  rest  upon.  The  iniiabitants  of  western  Europe 
when  our  historical  knowledge  of  them  —  that  is, 
our  recorded  and  reported  knowledge  of  them  — 
begins,  were,  certainly,  for  the  most  part,  Celtic 
peoples,  and  it  ^s  extremely  probable  that  they 
had  been  occupying  the  country  as  long  as  the 
period  represented  by  the  round  barrows.  It  is 
no  less  probable  that  tliey  were  the  lake-dwellers 
of  Switzerland,  North  Italy,  and  other  regions; 
and  that  they  did,  in  fact,  displace  some  earlier 
people  in  most  parts  of  Western  Europe. 

The  Celts  —  whose  nearly  pure  descendants  are 
found  now  in  the  Bretons  of  France,  the  Welsh, 
the  Highland  Scotch  and  the  Celtic  Irish,  and 
who  formed  the  main  stock  of  the  larger  part  of 
the  French  nation  —  were  one  branch  of  the  great 
family  of  nations  called  Aryan  or  Indo-European. 
The  Aryan  peoples  are  assumed  to  be  akin  to  one 
another —  shoots  from  one  stem  —  because  their 
languages  are  alike  in  grammatical  structure  and 
contain  great  numbers  of  words  that  are  mani- 
festly formed  from  the  same  original  ' '  root " ;  and 
because  they  differ  in  these  respects  from  all  other 
languages.  The  nations  thus  identified  as  Aryan 
are  the  nations  that  have  acted  the  most  impor- 
tant parts  in  all  human  history  except  the  history 
of  extremely  ancient  times.  Besides  the  Celtic 
peoples  already  mentioned,  they  include  the  Eng- 
lish, the  Dutch,  tlie  Germans,  and  the  Scandi- 
navians, forming  the  Teutonic  race;  the  Rus- 
sians, Poles,  and  others  of  the  Slavonic  group; 
the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  with  their  mod- 
ern representatives,  and  the  Persians  and  Hindus 
in  Asia.  According  to  the  evidence  of  their  lan- 
guages, there  must  have  been  a  time  and  a  place, 
in  the  remote  past,  when  and  where  a  primitive 
Aryan  race,  which  was  ancestral  to  all  these  na- 
tions, lived  and  multiplied  until  it  outgrew  its 
original  country  and  began  to  send  forth  suc- 
cessive ' '  swarms,  "or  migrating  hordes,  as  many 


1018 


EUROPE. 


The  Greeke. 


EUROPE. 


unsettled  races  have  been  seen  to  do  within  the 
historic  age.  It  is  hopeless,  perhaps,  to  thinli  of 
determining  the  time  when  such  a  dispersion  of 
the  Aryan  peoples  began ;  but  many  scholars  be- 
lieve it  possible  to  trace,  by  various  marks  and  in- 
dications, in  language  and  elsewhere,  the  lines 
of  movement  in  the  migration,  so  far  as  to  guess 
with  some  assurance  the  region  of  the  primitive 
Aryan  home;  but  thus  far  there  are  great  disa- 
greements in  the  guessing.  Until  recent  years, 
the  prevailing  judgment  pointed  to  that  highland 
district  in  Central  Asia  which  lies  north  of  the 
Hindoo-Koosh  range  of  mountains,  and  between 
the  upper  waters  of  the  O.xus  and  Jaxartes.  But 
later  studies  have  discredited  this  first  theory  and 
started  many  opposing  ones.  The  strong  ten- 
dency now  is  to  believe  that  the  cradle  of  all  the 
peoples  of  Aryan  speech  was  somewhere  in 
Europe,  rather  than  in  Asia,  and  in  the  north  of 
Europe  rather  than  in  the  center  or  the  south. 
At  the  same  time,  there  seems  to  be  a  growing 
opinion  that  the  language  of  the  Aryans  was 
communicated  to  conquered  peoples  so  exten- 
sively that  its  spread  is  not  a  true  measure  of  the 
existing  diffusion  of  the  race. 

The  Celtic  Branch. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  starting-point  of 
the  Aryan  migrations,  it  is  supposed  that  the 
branch  now  distinguished  as  Celtic  was  the  first 
to  separate  from  the  parent  stem  and  to  acquire 
for  itself  a  new  domain.  It  occupied  southwest- 
ern Europe,  from  northern  Spain  to  the  Rhine, 
and  across  the  Channel  to  the  British  islands,  ex- 
tending eastward  into  Switzerland,  North  Italy 
and  the  Tyrol.  But  little  of  what  the  tribes  and 
nations  forming  this  Celtic  race  did  is  known, 
until  the  time  when  another  Aryan  people,  better 
civilized,  came  into  collision  with  them,  and  drew 
them  into  the  written  history  of  the  world  by 
conquering  them  and  making  them  its  sub- 
jects. 

The  people  who  did  this  were  the  Romans,  and 
the  Romans  and  the  Greeks  are  believed  to  have 
been  carried  into  the  two  peninsulas  which  they 
inhabited,  respectively,  by  one  and  the  same  move- 
ment in  the  Aryan  dispersion.  Their  languages 
show  more  affinity  to  one  another  than  to  the  other 
Aryan  tongues,  and  there  are  other  evidences  of 
a  near  relationship  between  them ;  though  they 
separated,  it  is  quite  certain,  long  before  the  ap- 
pearance of  either  in  history. 

The  Hellenes,  or  Greeks. 

The  Greeks,  or  Hellenes,  as  tliey  called  them- 
selves, were  the  first  among  the  Aryan  peoples 
in  Europe  to  make  themselves  historically  known, 
and  the  first  to  write  the  record  which  transmits 
history  from  generation  to  generation.  The  pe- 
ninsula in  which  they  settled  themselves  is  a  very 
peculiar  one  in  its  formation.  It  is  crossed  in 
different  directions  by  mountain  ranges,  which 
divide  the  land  into  parts  naturally  separated 
from  one  another,  and  which  form  barriers  easily 
defended  against  invading  foes.  Between  the 
mountains  he  numerous  fertile  valleys.  The 
coast  is  ragged  with  gulfs  and  bays,  which  notch 
it  deeply  on  all  sides,  making  the  whole  main 
peninsula  a  cluster  of  minor  peninsulas,  and  sup- 
plying the  people  with  harbors  which  invite  them 
to  a  life  of  seafaring  and  trade.  It  is  surrounded, 
moreover,  with  islands,  which  repeat  the  invita- 
tion, 


Almost  necessarily,  in  a  country  marked  with 
such  features  so  strongly,  the  Greeks  became 
divided  politically  into  small  independent  states 
—  city-states  they  have  been  named  —  and  those 
on  the  sea-coast  became  engaged  very  early  in 
trade  with  other  countries  of  the  Mediterranean 
Sea.  Every  city  of  importance  in  Greece  was 
entirely  sovereign  in  the  government  of  itself  and 
of  the  surrounding  territory  which  formed  its 
domain.  The  stronger  among  them  extended 
their  dominion  over  some  of  the  weaker  or  less 
valiant  ones;  but  even  then  the  subject  cities 
kept  a  considerable  measure  of  independence. 
There  was  no  organization  of  national  govern- 
ment to  embrace  the  whole,  nor  any  large  part, 
of  Greece.  Certain  among  the  states  were  some- 
times united  in  temporary  leagues,  or  confedera- 
cies, for  common  action  in  war ;  but  these  were 
unstable  alliances,  rather  than  political  unions. 

In  their  earliest  form,  the  Greek  city-states 
were  governed  by  kings,  whose  power  appears 
to  have  been  quite  limited,  and  who  were  leaders 
rather  than  sovereigns.  But  kingship  disap- 
peared from  most  of  the  states  in  Greece  proper 
laefore  they  reached  the  period  of  distinct  and 
accepted  history.  The  kings  were  first  displaced 
by  aristocracies  —  ruling  families,  which  took  all 
political  rights  and  privileges  to  themselves,  and 
allowed  their  fellows  (whom  they  usually  op- 
pressed) no  part  or  voice  in  public  affairs.  In 
most  instances  these  aristocracies,  or  oligarchies, 
were  overthrown,  after  a  time,  by  bold  agitators 
who  stirred  up  a  revolution,  and  then  contrived, 
while  confusion  prevailed,  to  gather  power  into 
their  own  hands.  Almost  every  Greek  city  had 
its  time  of  being  ruled  by  one  or  more  of  these 
Tyrants,  as  they  were  called.  Some  of  them, 
like  Pisistratus  of  Athens,  ruled  wi.sely  and  justly 
for  the  most  part,  and  were  not  "  tyrants"  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  term ;  but  all  who  gained 
and  held  a  princely  power  unlawfully  were  so 
named  by  the  Greeks.  The  reign  of  the  Tyrants 
was  nowhere  lasting.  They  were  driven  out  of 
one  city  after  another  until  they  disappeared. 
Then  the  old  aristocracies  came  uppermost  again 
in  some  cities,  and  ruled  as  before.  But  some, 
like  Athens,  had  trained  the  whole  body  of  their 
citizens  to  such  intelligence  and  spirit  that  neither 
kingship  nor  oligarchy  would  be  endured  any 
longer,  and  the  people  undertook  to  govern  them- 
selves. These  were  the  first  democracies  —  the 
first  experiments  in  popular  government  —  that 
history  gives  any  account  of.  "The  little  com- 
monwealths of  Greece,"  says  a  great  historian, 
"were  the  first  states  at  once  free  and  civilized 
which  the  world  ever  saw.  They  were  the  first 
states  which  gave  birth  to  great  statesmen, 
orators,  and  generals  who  did  great  deeds,  and  to 
great  historians  who  set  down  those  great  deeds 
in  writing.  It  was  in  the  Greek  commonwealths, 
in  short,  that  the  political  and  intellectual  life  of 
the  world  began." 

In  the  belief  of  the  Greeks,  or  of  most  men 
among  them,  their  early  history  was  embodied 
with  truth  in  the  numerous  legends  and  ancient 
poems  which  they  religiously  preserved;  but 
people  in  modern  times  look  differently  upon 
those  wonderful  myths  and  epics,  studying  them 
with  deep  interest,  but  under  more  critical  views. 
They  throw  much  light  on  the  primitive  life  of 
the  Hellenes,  and  more  light  upon  the  develop- 
ment of  the  remarkable  genius  and  spirit  of  those 
thoughtful  and  imaginative  people ;  but  of  actual 


1019 


EUROPE. 


Dorians  and 
lonians. 


EUROPE. 


history  there  are  only  glimpses  and  guesses  to  be 
got  from  them. 

The  Homeric  poems,  the  "Iliad"  and  the 
"Odyssey,"  describe  a  condition  of  things  in 
■which  the  ruling  state  of  Peloponnesus  (the 
southern  peninsula  of  Greece)  was  a  kingdom  of 
the  Achaians,  having  its  capital  at  Mycenae,  in 
Argolis,^  the  realm  of  King  Agamemnon, — and 
in  which  Athens  is  unknown  to  the  poet.  Within 
recent  years,  Dr.  Schliemann  has  excavated  the 
ruins  of  Mycenae,  and  has  found  evidence  that  it 
really  must  have  been,  in  very  early  times,  the 
seat  of  a  strong  and  rich  monarchy.  But  the 
Achaian  kingdom  had  entirely  disappeared,  and 
the  Acliaian  people  had  shrunk  to  an  insignifi- 
cant community,  on  the  Gulf  of  Corinth,  when 
the  first  assured  views  of  Greek  history  open  to 
us. 

The  Dorians. 

It  seems  to  be  a  fact  that  the  Achaians  had 
been  overwhelmed  by  a  great  invasion  of  more 
barbarous  Greek  tribes  from  the  North,  very 
much  as  the  Roman  Empire,  in  later  times,  was 
buried  under  an  avalanche  of  barbarism  from 
Germany.  The  invaders  were  a  tribe  or  league 
of  tribes  called  Dorians,  who  had  been  driven 
from  their  own  previous  home  on  the  slopes  of 
the  Pindus  mountain  range.  Their  movement 
southward  was  part,  as  appears,  of  an  extensive 
shifting  of  place,  or  migration,  that  occurred  at 
that  time  (not  long,  it  is  probable,  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  historic  period)  among  the  tribes 
of  Hellas.  The  Dorians  claimed  that  in  con- 
quering Peloponnesus  they  were  recovering  a 
heritage  from  which  their  chiefs  had  been  an- 
ciently expelled,  and  their  legends  were  shaped 
accordingly.  The  Dorian  chiefs  appeared  in  these 
legends  as  descendants  of  Hercules,  and  the 
tradition  of  the  conquest  became  a  story  of  "The 
Return  of  the  Heraclids." 

The  principal  states  founded  or  possessed  and 
controlled  by  the  Dorians  in  Peloponnesus,  after 
their  conquest,  were  Sparta,  or  Lacedoemon, 
Argos,  and  Corinth.  The  Spartans  were  the 
most  warlike  of  the  Greeks, — the  most  resolute 
and  energetic, — and  their  leadership  in  practical 
affairs  common  to  the  whole  came  to  be  generally 
acknowledged.  At  the  same  time  they  had  little 
of  the  intellectual  superiority  which  distinguished 
some  of  their  Hellenic  kindred  in  so  remarkable 
a  degree.  Their  state  was  organized  on  military 
principles ;  its  constitution  (the  body  of  famous 
ordinances  ascribed  to  Lycurgus)  was  a  code  of 
rigid  discipline,  which  dealt  with  the  citizen  as  a 
soldier  always  under  ti-aining  for  war,  and  de- 
manded from  him  the  utmost  simplicity  of  life. 
Their  form  of  government  combined  a  peculiar 
monarcliy  (having  two  royal  families  and  two 
kings)  with  an  aristocratic  senate  (the  Gerousia), 
and  a  democratic  assembly  (which  voted  on 
matters  only  as  submitted  to  it  by  the  senate), 
with  an  irresponsible  executive  over  the  whole, 
consisting  of  five  men  called  the  Ephors.  This 
singular  government,  essentially  aristocratic  or 
oligarchical,  was  maintained,  with  little  disturb- 
ance or  change,  through  the  whole  independent 
history  of  Sparta.  In  all  respects,  tlie  Spartans 
were  the  most  conservative  and  the  least  progres- 
sive among  tlie  politically  important  Greeks. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  domination  of  the 
Dorians  in  Peloponnesus,  their  city  of  Argos 
took  the  lead,  and  was  the  head  of  a  league 
which  included  Corinth  and   other   city-states. 


But  Sparta  soon  rose  to  rivalry  with  Argos ;  then 
reduced  it  to  a  secondary  place,  and  finally  sub- 
jugated it  completely. 

The  lonians. 

The  extensive  shifting  of  population  which 
had  produced  its  most  important  result  in  the 
invasion  of  Peloponnesus  by  the  Dorians,  must 
have  caused  great  commotions  and  changes 
throughout  the  whole  Greek  peninsula;  and 
quite  as  much  north  of  the  Corinthian  isthmus 
as  south  of  it.  But  in  the  part  which  lies  nearest 
to  the  isthmus  —  the  branch  peninsula  of  Attica 
—  the  old  inhabitants  appear  to  have  held  their 
ground,  repelling  invaders,  and  their  country 
was  affected  only  by  an  influx  of  fugitives,  flying 
from  the  conquered  Peloponnesus.  The  Attic 
people  were  more  nearly  akin  to  the  expelled 
Achaians  and  lonians  than  to  the  conquering 
Dorians,  although  a  common  brotherhood  in  the 
Hellenic  race  was  recognized  by  all  of  them. 
Whatever  distinction  there  may  have  been  be- 
fore between  Achaians  and  lonians  now  practi- 
cally disappeared,  and  the  Ionic  name  became 
common  to  the  whole  branch  of  the  Greek  peo- 
ple which  derived  itself  from  them.  The  impor- 
tant division  of  the  race  through  all  its  subse- 
quent history  was  between  Dorians  and  lonians. 
The  ^olians  constituted  a  third  division,  of 
minor  importance  and  of  far  less  significance. 

The  distinction  between  lonians  and  Dorians 
was  a  very  real  one,  in  character  no  less  than  in 
traditions  and  name.  The  lonians  were  the 
superior  Greeks  on  the  intellectual  side.  It  was 
among  them  that  the  wonderful  genius  resided 
which  produced  the  greater  marvels  of  art,  litera- 
ture and  philosophy  in  Greek  civilization.  It 
was  among  them,  too,  that  the  institutions  of 
political  freedom  were  carried  to  their  highest 
attainment.  Their  chief  city  was  Athens,  and 
the  splendor  of  its  history  "bears  testimony  to 
their  unexampled  genius.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Dorians  were  less  thoughtful,  less  imagina- 
tive, less  broad  in  judgment  or  feeling — less 
susceptible,  it  would  seem,  of  a  high  refinement 
of  culture ;  but  no  less  capable  in  practical  pur- 
suits, no  less  vigorous  in  effective  action,  and 
sounder,  perhaps,  in  their  moral  constitution. 
Sparta,  which  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Doric 
states,  contributed  almost  nothing  to  Greek  lit- 
erature, Greek  thought,  Greek  art,  or  Greek 
commerce,  but  exercised  a  great  influence  on 
Greek  political  history.  Other  Doric  states,  es- 
pecially Corinth,  were  foremost  in  commercial 
and  colonizing  enterprise,  and  attained  some 
brilliancy  of  artistic  civilization,  but  with  mod- 
erate originality. 

Greeks  and  Phoenicians. 

It  was  natural,  as  noted  above,  that  the  Greeks 
should  be  induced  at  an  early  day  to  navigate 
the  surrounding  seas,  and  to  engage  in  trade 
with  neighboring  nations.  They  were  not  origi- 
nal, it  is  supposed,  in  these  ventures,  but  learned 
more  or  less  of  ship-building  and  the  art  of  navi- 
gation from  an  older  people,  the  Phoenicians,  who 
dwelt  on  the  coast  of  Syria  and  Palestine,  and 
whose  chief  cities  were  Sidon  and  Tyre.  The 
Phoenicians  had  extended  their  commerce  widely 
through  the  Jlediterranean  before  the  Greeks 
came  into  rivalry  with  them.  Their  ships,  and 
their  merchants,  and  the  wares  they  bartered, 
were  familiar  in  the  ^gean  when  the  Homeric 


1020 


EUROPE. 


Early  Athens. 


EUROPE. 


poems  were  composed.  They  seem  to  have  been 
the  teachers  of  the  early  Greeks  in  many  things. 
They  gave  them,  witli  little  doubt,  the  invention 
of  the  alphabet,  which  they  themselves  had  bor- 
rowed from  Egypt.  They  conveyed  hints  of  art. 
which  bore  astonishing  fruits  when  planted  in  the 
fertile  Hellenic  imagination.  They  carried  from 
the  East  strange  stories  of  gods  and  demigods, 
which  were  woven  into  the  mythology  of  the 
Greeks.  They  gave,  in  fact,  to  Greek  civilization, 
at  its  beginning,  the  greatest  impulse  it  received. 
But  all  that  Hellas  took  from  the  outer  world  it 
wrought  into  a  new  character,  and  put  upon  it 
the  stamp  of  its  own  unmistakable  genius.  In 
navigation  and  commerce  the  Greeks  of  the  coast- 
cities  and  the  islands  were  able,  ere  long,  to  com- 
pete on  even  terms  with  the  Phoenicians,  and  it 
happened,  in  no  great  space  of  time,  that  they 
had  driven  the  latter  entirely  from  the  .^gean 
and  the  Euxine  seas. 

Greek  Colonies. 

They  had  now  occupied  with  colonies  the  coast 
of  Asia  Minor  and  the  islands  on  both  their  own 
coasts.  The  Ionian  Greeks  were  the  principal 
colonizers  of  the  Asiatic  shore  and  of  the  Cy- 
clades.  On  the  former  and  near  it  they  founded 
twelve  towns  of  note,  including  Samos,  Miletus, 
Ephesus,  Chios,  and  Phocsea,  which  are  among 
the  more  famous  cities  of  ancient  times.  Their 
important  island  settlements  in  the  Cyclades  were 
Naxos,  Delos,  Melos,  and  Paros.  They  pos- 
sessed, likewise,  the  great  island  of  Euboea,  with 
its  two  wealthy  cities  of  Chalcis  and  Eretria. 
These,  with  Attica,  constituted,  in  the  main,  the 
Ionic  portion  of  Hellas. 

The  Dorians  occupied  the  islands  of  Rhodes 
and  Cos,  and  founded  on  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor 
the  cities  of  Halicarnassus  and  Cuidus. 

The  important  ^^Eolian  colonies  in  Asia  were 
Smyrna  (acquired  later  by  the  lonians),  Temnos, 
Larissa,  and  Cyme.  Of  the  islands  they  occu- 
pied Lesbos  and  Tenedos. 

From  these  settlements  on  neighboring  coasts 
and  islands  the  vigorous  Greeks  pushed  on  to 
more  distant  fields.  It  is  probable  that  their  col- 
onies were  in  Cyprus  and  Crete  before  the  eighth 
century,  B.  C.  In  the  seventh  century  B.  C, 
during  a  time  of  confusion  and  weakness  in 
Egyot,  they  had  entered  that  country  as  allies 
or  as  mercenaries  of  the  kings,  and  had  founded 
a  city,  Naucratis,  which  became  an  important 
agent  iu  the  exchange  of  arts  and  ideas,  as  well 
as  of  merchandise,  between  the  Nile  and  the 
jEgean.  Within  a  few  years  past  the  site  of 
Naucratis  has  been  uncovered  by  explorers,  and 
much  has  been  brought  to  light  that  was  obscure 
in  Greek  and  Egyptian  history  before.  Within 
the  same  seventh  century,  Cyrene  and  Barca  had 
been  built  on  the  African  coast,  farther  west. 
Even  a  century  before  that  time,  the  Corinthians 
had  taken  possession  of  Corcyra  (modern  Corfu), 
and  they,  with  the  men  of  Chalcis  and  i\Iegara, 
had  been  actively  founding  cities  that  grew  great 
and  rich,  in  Sicily  and  in  southern  Italy,  which 
latter  acquired  the  name  of  "Magna  Grsecia" 
(Great  Greece).  At  a  not  much  later  time  they 
had  pressed  northwards  to  the  Euxine  or  Black 
Sea,  and  had  scattered  settlements  along  the 
Thracian  and  Macedonian  coast,  including  one 
(Bj'zantium)  on  the  Bosphorus,  which  became, 
after  a  thousand  years  had  passed,  the  imperial 
city  of  Constantinople.     About  597  B.C.,  the 


Phocasans  had  planted  a  colony  at  Massalia,  in 
southern  Gaul,  from  which  sprang  the  great 
city  known  in  modern  times  as  Marseilles.  And 
much  of  all  this  had  been  done,  by  lonians  and 
Dorians  together,  before  Athens  (in  which  Attica 
now  centered  itself,  and  which  loomed  finally 
greater  iu  glory  than  the  whole  Hellenic  world 
besides)  had  made  a  known  mark  in  history. 

Rise  of  Athens. 

At  first  there  had  been  kings  in  Athens,  and 
legends  had  gathered  about  their  names  which 
give  modern  historians  a  ground- work  for  criti- 
cal guessing,  and  scarcely  more.  Then  the  king 
disappearedf  and  a  magistrate  called  Archon  took 
his  place,  wlio  held  office  for  only  ten  years. 
The  archons  are  believed  to  have  been  chosen 
first  from  the  old  royal  family  alone;  but  after 
a  time  the  office  was  thrown  open  to  all  noble 
families.  This  was  the  aristocratic  stage  of  po- 
litical evolution  in  the  city-state.  The  next  step 
was  taken  in  683  B.  C.  (which  is  said  to  be  the 
beginning  of  authentic  Athenian  chronology) 
when  nine  archons  were  created,  in  place  of  the 
one,  and  their  term  of  office  was  reduced  to  a 
single  year. 

Fifty  years  later,  about  621  B.  C,  the  people 
of  Athens  obtained  their  first  code  of  written 
law,  ascribed  to  one  Draco,  and  described  as  a 
code  of  much  severity.  But  it  gave  certainty  to 
law,  for  the  first  time,  and  was  the  first  great 
protective  measure  secured  by  the  people.  In 
612  B.  C.  a  noble  named  Kylon  attempted  to  over- 
throw the  aristocratic  government  and  establish 
a  tyranny  under  himself,  but  he  failed. 

Legislation  of  Solon. 

Then  there  came  forward  iu  public  life  another 
noble,  who  was  one  of  the  wisest  men  and  purest 
patriots  of  any  country  or  age,  and  who  made  an 
attempt  of  quite  another  kind.  This  was  Solon, 
the  famous  lawgiver,  who  became  archon  in  594 
B.  C.  The  political  state  of  Athens  at  that  time 
has  been  described  for  us  in  an  ancient  Greek 
treatise  lately  discovered,  and  which  is  believed 
to  be  one  of  the  hitherto  lost  writings  of  Aristotle. 
' '  Not  only, "  says  the  author  of  this  treatise,  ' '  was 
the  constitution  at  this  time  oligarchical  in  every 
respect,  but  the  poorer  classes,  men,  women, 
and  children,  were  in  absolute  slavery  to  the  rich. 
.  .  .  The  whole  country  was  in  the  hands  of  a 
few  persons,  and  if  the  tenants  failed  to  pay  their 
rent,  they  were  liable  to  be  haled  into  slavery, 
and  their  children  with  them.  Their  persons 
were  mortgaged  to  their  creditors. "  Solon  saw 
that  this  was  a  state  of  things  not  to  be  endured 
by  such  a  people  as  the  Athenians,  and  he  exerted 
himself  to  change  it.  He  obtained  authority  to 
frame  a  new  constitution  and  a  new  code  of  laws 
for  the  state.  In  the  latter,  he  provided  measures 
for  relieving  the  oppressed  class  of  debtors.  In 
the  former,  he  did  not  create  a  democratic  gov- 
ernment, but  he  greatly  increased  the  political 
powers  of  the  people.  He  classified  them  ac- 
cording to  their  wealth,  defining  four  classes,  the 
citizens  in  each  of  which  had  certain  political 
duties  and  privileges  measured  to  them  by  the 
extent  of  their  property  and  income.  But  the 
whole  body  of  citizens,  in  their  general  assembly 
(the  Ecclesia),  were  given  the  important  right  of 
choosing  the  annual  archons,  whom  they  must 
select,  however,  from  the  ranks  of  the  wealthiest 
class.     At  the  same  time,  Solon  enlarged  the 


1021 


EUROPE. 


(Greeks  and 
Persiaris. 


EUROPE. 


powers  of  the  old  aristocratic  senate — the  Areop- 
agus —  giving  it  a  supervision  of  the  execution 
of  the  laws  and  a  censorship  of  the  morals  of  the 
people. 

"  These  changes  did  not  constitute  Democracy, 
—  a  form  of  government  then  unknown,  and  for 
which  there  was  as  yet  no  word  in  the  Greek 
language.  But  they  initiated  the  democratic 
spirit.  .  .  .  Athens,  thus  fairly  started  on  her 
way, —  emancipated  from  the  discipline  of  aristo- 
cratic school-masters,  and  growing  into  an  age 
of  manly  liberty  and  self-restraint, —  came  even- 
tually nearer  to  the  ideal  of  '  the  good  life '  [Aris- 
totle's phrase]  than  any  other  State  in  Hellas." 
(W.  "W.  Fowler.) 

Tyranny  of  Pisistratus. 

But  before  the  Athenians  reached  their  near- 
ness to  this  "  good  life,"  they  had  to  pass  under 
the  yoke  of  a  "  tyrant,"  Pisistratus,  who  won 
the  favor  of  the  poorer  people,  and,  with  their 
help,  established  himself  in  the  Acropolis  (.560 
B.  C.)  with  a  foreign  guard  to  maintain  his  power. 
Twice  driven  out,  he  was  twice  restored,  and 
reigned  quite  justly  and  prudently,  on  the  whole, 
until  his  death  in  527  B.  C.  He  was  succeeded 
by  his  two  sons,  Hippias  and  Hipparchus ;  but  the 
latter  was  killed  in  514,  and  Hippias  was  expelled 
by  the  Spartans  in  510  B.  C. ;  after  which  there 
was  no  tyranny  in  Athens. 

The  Democratic  Republic. 

On  the  fall  of  the  Pisistratida?,  a  majority  of 
the  noble  or  privileged  class  struggled  hard  to 
regain  their  old  ascendancy;  but  one  of  their 
number,  Cleisthenes,  took  the  side  of  the  people 
and  helped  them  to  establish  a  democratic  consti- 
tution. He  caused  the  ancient  tribal  division  of 
the  citizens  to  be  abolished,  and  substituted  a 
division  which  mixed  the  members  of  clans  and 
broke  up  or  weakened  the  clannish  influence  in 
politics.  He  enlarged  Solon's  senate  or  council 
and  divided  it  into  committees,  and  he  brought 
the  "ecclesia,"  or  popular  assembly,  into  a  more 
active  exercise  of  its  powers.  He  also  introduced 
the  custom  of  ostracism,  which  permitted  the 
citizens  of  Athens  to  banish  by  their  vote  any 
man  whom  they  thought  dangerous  to  the  state. 
The  constitution  of  Cleisthenes  was  the  final 
foundation  of  the  Athenian  democratic  republic. 
Monarchical  and  aristocratic  Sparta  resented  the 
popular  change,  and  undertook  to  restore  the 
oligarchy  by  force  of  arms ;  but  the  roused  democ- 
racy of  Athens  defended  its  newly  won  liberties 
with  vigor  and  success. 

The  Persian  Wars. 

Not  Athens  only,  but  all  Greece,  was  now 
about  to  be  put  to  a  test  which  proved  the  re- 
markable quality  of  both,  and  formed  the  begin- 
ning of  their  great  career.  The  Ionian  cities  of 
Asia  Minor  had  recently  been  twice  conquered, 
first  by  Croesus,  King  of  Lydia,  and  then  by 
Cyrus  the  Great,  founder  of  the  Persian  empire, 
who  had  overthrown  Crmsus  (B.  C.  547),  and 
taken  his  dominions  The  Persians  oppressed 
them,  and  in  500  B,  C.  they  rose  in  revolt.  Athens 
and  Eretria  sent  help  to  them,  while  Sparta  re- 
fused. The  revolt  was  suppressed,  and  Darius, 
the  king  of  Persia,  planned  vengeance  upon  the 
Athenians  and  Eretrians  for  the  aid  they  had 
given  to  it.  He  sent  an  expedition  against  them 
in  493  B.  C. ,  which  was  mostly  destroyed  by  a 


storm.  In  490  B.  C.  he  sent  a  second  powerful 
army  and  fleet,  which  took  Eretria  and  razed  it 
to  the  ground.  The  great  Persian  army  then 
marched  upon  Athens,  and  was  met  at  Marathon 
by  a  small  Athenian  force  of  9,000  men.  The  little 
city  of  Platfea  sent  1,000  more  to  stand  with  them 
in  the  desperate  encounter.  They  had  no  other 
aid  in  the  fight,  and  the  Persians  were  a  great  un- 
numbered host.  But  Miltiades,  the  Greek  general 
that  day,  planned  his  battle-charge  so  well  that  he 
routed  the  Asiatic  host  and  lost  but  192  men. 

The  Persians  abandoned  their  attempt  and  re- 
turned to  their  wrathful  king.  One  citizen  of 
Athens,  Themistocles,  had  sagacity  enough  to 
foresee  that  the  "  Great  King,"  as  he  was  known, 
would  not  rest  submissive  under  his  defeat ;  and 
with  difficulty  he  persuaded  his  fellow  citizens  to 
prepare  themselves  for  future  conflicts  by  build- 
ing a  fleet  and  by  fortifying  their  harbors,  thus 
making  themselves  powerful  at  sea.  The  wis- 
dom of  his  counsels  was  proved  in  480  B.  C, 
when  Xerxes,  the  successor  of  Darius,  led  an 
army  of  prodigious  size  into  Greece,  crossing  the 
Hellespont  by  a  bridge  of  boats.  This  time, 
Sparta,  Corinth,  and  several  of  the  lesser  states, 
rallied  witli  Athens  to  the  defence  of  the  common 
country ;  but  Thebes  and  Argos  showed  friend- 
ship to  the  Persians,  and  none  of  the  important 
island-colonies  contributed  any  help.  Athens 
was  the  brain  and  right  arm  of  the  war,  notwith- 
standing the  accustomed  leadership  of  Sparta  in 
military  affairs. 

The  "first  encounter  was  at  Thermopylae,  where 
Leonidas  and  his  300  Spartans  defended  the  nar- 
row pass,  and  died  in  their  place  when  the  Per- 
sians found  a  way  across  the  mountain  to  sur- 
round them.  But  on  that  same  day  the  Persian 
fleet  was  beaten  at  Artemisium.  Xerxes  marched 
on  Athens,  however,  found  the  city  deserted, 
and  destroyed  it.  His  fleet  had  followed  him, 
and  was  still  stronger  than  the  naval  force  of  the 
Greeks.  Themistocles  forced  a  battle,  against  the 
will  of  the  Peloponnesian  captains,  and  practi- 
cally destroyed  the  Persian  fleet.  This  most 
memorable  battle  of  Salamis  was  decisive  of  the 
war,  and  decisive  of  the  independence  of  Greece. 
Xerxes,  in  a  panic,  hastened  back  into  Asia,  leav- 
ing one  of  his  generals,  Mardonius,  with  300,000 
men,  to  pursue  the  war.  But  Mardonius  was 
routed  and  his  host  annihilated,  at  Plataja,  the 
next  year,  while  the  Persian  fleet  was  again  de- 
feated on  the  same  day  at  Mycale. 

The  Golden  Age  of  Athens. 

The  war  had  been  glorious  for  the  Athenians, 
and  all  could  see  that  Greece  had  been  saved  by 
their  spirit  and  their  intelligence  much  more  than 
by  the  valor  of  Sparta  and  the  other  states.  But 
they  were  in  a  woful  condition,  with  their  city 
destroyed  and  their  families  without  homes. 
AVasting  no  time  in  lamentations,  they  rebuilt  the 
town,  stretched  its  walls  to  a  wider  circuit,  and 
fortified  it  more  strongly  than  before,  under  the 
lead  of  the  sagacious  Themistocles.  Their  neigh- 
boi's  were  meanly  jealous,  and  Sparta  made  at- 
tempts to  interfere  with  the  building  of  the  walls ; 
but  Themistocles  bafiled  them  cunninglj',  and 
the  new  Athens  rose  proudly  out  of  the  ashes  of 
the  old. 

The  Ionian  islands  and  towns  of  Asia  Minor 
(which  had  broken  the  Persian  yoke)  now  recog- 
nized the  superiority  and  leadership  of  Athens, 
and  a  league  was  formed  among  them,  which  held 


1022 


EUROPE. 


Decline  of  Athens. 


EUROPE. 


the  meetings  of  its  deputies  and  kept  its  treasury 
in  the  temple  of  Apollo  on  the  sacred  island  of 
Deles;  for  ■which  reason  it  was  called  the  Con- 
federacy of  Delos,  or  the  Dalian  League.  The 
Peloponnesian  states  formed  a  looser  rival  league 
under  the  headship  of  Sparta.  The  Confederacy 
of  Delos  was  in  sympathy  with  popular  govern- 
ments and  popular  parties  everywhere,  while  the 
Spartans  and  their  following  favored  oligarchies 
and  aristocratic  parties.  There  were  many  occa- 
sions for  hostility  between  the  two. 

The  Athenians,  at  the  head  of  their  Confed- 
eracy, were  strong,  until  they  impaired  their 
power  by  usmg  it  in  tyrannical  ways.  Many 
lesser  states  in  the  league  were  foolish  enough  to 
commute  in  money  payments  the  contribution  of 
ships  and  men  which  they  had  pledged  them- 
selves to  make  to  the  conunon  naval  force.  This 
gave  Athens  the  power  to  use  that  force  despoti- 
cally, as  her  own,  and  she  did  not  scruple  to  ex- 
ercise the  power.  The  Confederacy  was  soon  a 
name ;  the  states  forming  it  were  no  longer  allies 
of  Athens,  but  her  subjects;  she  ruled  them  as 
the  sovereign  of  an  Empire,  and  her  rule  was 
neither  generous  nor  j  ust.  Thereby  the  double 
tie  of  kinship  and  of  interest  which  might  have 
bound  the  whole  circle  of  Ionian  states  to  her 
fortunes  and  herself  was  destroyed  by  her  own 
acts.  Provoking  the  hatred  of  her  allies  and 
challenging  the  jealous  fear  of  her  rivals,  Athens 
had  many  enemies. 

At  the  same  time,  a  dangerous  change  in  the 
character  of  her  democratic  institutions  was  be- 
gun, produced  especially  by  the  institution  of 
popular  jury-courts,  before  which  prosecutions 
of  every  kind  were  tried,  the  citizens  who  con- 
stituted the  courts  acting  as  jury  and  judge  at 
once.  This  gave  them  a  valuable  training,  with- 
out doubt,  and  helped  greatly  to  raise  the  com- 
mon standard  of  intelligence  among  the  Atheni- 
ans so  high ;  but  it  did  unquestionably  tend  also 
to  demoralizations  that  were  ruinous  in  the  end. 
The  jury  service,  which  was  slightly  paid,  fell 
more  and  more  to  an  unworthy  class,  made  up  of 
idlers  or  intriguers.  Party  feeling  and  popular 
passions  gained  an  increasing  influence  over  the 
juries,  and  demagogues  acquired  an  increasing 
skill  in  making  use  of  them. 

But  these  evils  were  scarcely  more  than  in  their 
seed  during  the  great  period  of  ' '  Athenian  Em- 
pire," as  it  is  sometimes  called,  and  everything 
within  its  bounds  was  suffused  with  the  shining 
splendor  of  that  matchless  half-century.  The 
genius  of  this  little  Ionic  state  was  stimulated  to 
amazing  achievements  in  every  intellectual  field. 
jEschylus,  Sophocles,  Euripides,  Aristoplianes, 
within  a  single  generation,  crowded  Athenian 
literature  with  the  masterpieces  of  classic  drama. 
Pheidias  and  his  companions  crowned  the  Acropo- 
lis and  filled  the  city  with  works  that  have  been 
the  models  in  art  for  all  ages  since.  Socrates 
began  the  quizzing  which  turned  philosophy  into 
honest  truth-seeking  paths,  and  Plato  listened  to 
him  and  was  instructed  for  his  mission.  Thucyd- 
ides  watched  events  with  sagacious  young  eyes, 
and  prepared  his  pen  for  the  chronicling  of  them ; 
while  Herodotus,  pausing  at  Athens  from  his 
wide  travels,  matured  the  knowledge  he  had 
gathered  up  and  perfected  it  for  his  final  work. 
Over  all  of  them  came  Pericles  to  preside  and 
rule,  not  as  a  master,  or  "  tyrant,"  but  as  leader, 
guide,  patron,  princely  republican, —  statesman 
and  politician  in  one. 


The  Peloponnesian  War. 

The  period  of  the  ascendancy  of  Pericles  was 
the  "golden  age  "  of  Athenian  prosperity  and 
power,  both  material  and  intellectual.  The  be- 
ginning of  the  end  of  it  was  reached  a  little  before 
he  died,  when  the  long-threatened  war  between 
Athens  and  the  Peloponnesian  league,  led  by 
Sparta,  broke  out  (B.  C.  431).  If  Athens  had 
then  possessed  the  good  will  of  the  cities  of  her 
own  league,  and  if  her  citizens  had  retained  their 
old  sobriety  and  intelligence,  she  might  have  tri- 
umphed in  the  war ;  for  she  was  all  powerful  at 
sea  and  fortified  almost  invincibly  against  at- 
tacks by  land.  But  the  subject  states,  called  al- 
lies, were  hostile,  for  the  most  part,  and  helped 
the  enemy  by  their  revolts,  while  the  death  of 
Pericles  (B.  C.  429)  let  loose  on  the  people  a 
swarm  of  demagogues  who  flattered  and  deluded 
them,  and  baffled  the  wiser  and  more  honest, 
whose  counsels  and  leadership  might  have  given 
her  success. 

The  fatal  folly  of  the  long  war  was  an  expedi- 
tion against  the  distant  city  of  Syracuse  (B.  C. 
415-413),  into  which  the  Athenians  were  enticed 
by  the  restless  and  unscrupulous  ambition  of 
Alcibiades.  The  entire  force  sent  to  Sicily  per- 
ished there,  and  the  strength  and  spirit  of  Atliens 
were  ruinously  sapped  by  the  fearful  calamity. 
She  maintained  the  war,  however,  until  404  B.  C., 
when,  having  lost  her  fleet  in  the  decisive  battle 
of  ^gospotami,  and  being  helplessly  blockaded 
by  sea  and  land,  the  city  was  surrendered  to  the 
Spartan  general  Lysander.  Her  walls  and  forti- 
fications were  then  destroyed  and  her  democratic 
government  was  overthrown,  giving  place  to  an 
oligarchy  known  as  the  "  thirty  tyrants. "  The 
democracy  soon  suppressed  the  thirty  tyrants  and 
regained  control,  and  Athens,  in  time,  rose  some- 
what from  her  deep  humiliation,  but  never  again 
to  much  political  power  in  Greece.  In  intellect 
and  cultivation,  the  superiority  of  the  Attic  state 
was  still  maintained,  and  its  greatest  productions 
in  philosophy  and  eloquence  were  yet  to  be  given 
to  the  world. 

Spartan  and  Theban  Ascendancy. 

After  the  fall  of  Athens,  Sparta  was  dominant 
in  the  whole  of  Greece  for  thirty  years  and  more, 
exercising  her  power  more  oppressively  than 
Athens  had  done.  Then  Thebes,  which  had  been 
treacherously  seized  and  garrisoned  by  the  Spar- 
tans, threw  off  their  yoke  (B.C.  379)  and  led  a  rising, 
under  her  great  and  high-souled  citizen,  Epami- 
nondas,  which  resulted  in  bringing  Thebes  to  the 
head  of  Greek  affairs.  But  the  Theban  ascen- 
dancy was  short-lived,  and  ended  with  the  death 
of  Epaminondas  in  363  B.  C. 

Macedonian  Supremacy. 

Meantime,  while  the  city-states  of  Hellas  prop- 
er had  been  wounding  and  weakening  one  an- 
other by  their  jealousies  and  wars,  the  semi- 
Greek  kingdom  of  Macedonia,  to  the  north  of 
them,  in  their  own  peninsula,  had  been  acquiring 
their  civilization  and  growing  strong.  And  now 
there  appeared  upon  its  throne  a  very  able  king, 
Philip,  who  took  advantage  of  their  divisions, 
interfered  in  their  affairs,  and  finally  made  a 
practical  conquest  of  the  whole  peninsula,  by  his 
victory  at  the  battle  of  Chseronea  (B.  C.  338). 
At  Athens,  the  great  orator  Demosthenes  had 
exerted  himself  for  years  to  rouse  resistance  to 
Philip.     If  his  eloquence  failed  fhen,  it  has  served 


1023 


EUROPE. 


Beginnings  of 
Rome. 


EUROPE. 


the  world  immortally  since,  by  delighting  and 
instructing  mankind. 

King  Philip  was  succeeded  by  his  famous  son, 
Alexander  the  Great,  who  led  an  army  of  Mace- 
donians and  Greeks  into  Asia  (B.  C.  334),  over- 
threw the  already  crumbling  Persian  power, 
pursued  his  conquests  through  Afghanistan  to 
India,  and  won  a  great  empire  which  he  did  not 
live  to  rule.  AVhen  he  died  (B.  C.  333),  his  gen- 
erals divided  the  empire  among  them  and  fought 
with  one  another  for  many  years.  But  the  gen- 
eral result  was  the  spreading  of  the  civilization 
and  language  of  the  Greeks,  and  the  establishing 
of  their  intellectual  influence,  in  Egypt,  in  Syria, 
in  Asia  Minor,  and  beyond. 

In  Greece  itself,  a  state  of  disturbance  and  of 
political  confusion  and  weakness  prevailed  for 
another  century.  There  was  promise  of  some- 
thing better,  in  the  formation,  by  several  of  the 
Peloponnesian  states,  of  a  confederacy  called  the 
Achaian  League,  which  might  possibly  have 
federated  and  nationalized  the  whole  of  Hellas 
in  the  end;  but  the  Romans,  at  this  juncture, 
turned  their  conquering  arms  eastward,  and  in 
three  successive  wars,  between  211  and  146  B.  C, 
they  extinguished  the  Macedonian  kingdom,  and 
annexed  it,  with  the  whole  peninsula,  to  the  do- 
minions of  their  wonderful  republic. 

The  Romans. 

The  Romans,  as  stated  already,  are  believed  to 
have  been  originally  near  kindred  to  the  Greeks. 
The  same  movement,  it  is  supposed,  in  the  suc- 
cessive outswarmings  of  Aryan  peoples,  deposited 
in  one  peninsula  the  Italian  tribes,  and  in  the 
next  peninsula,  eastward,  the  tribes  of  the  Hel- 
lenes. Among  the  Italian  tribes  were  Latins, 
Umbrians,  Sabines,  Samnites,  etc.,  occupying 
the  middle  and  much  of  the  southern  parts  of  the 
peninsula,  while  a  mysterious  alien  people,  the 
Etruscans,  whose  origin  is  not  known,  possessed 
the  country  north  of  them  between  the  Arno  and 
the  Tiber.  In  the  extreme  south  were  remnants 
of  a  primitive  race,  the  lapygian,  and  Greek 
colonies  were  scattered  there  around  the  coasts. 

From  the  Latins  sprang  the  Romans,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  their  separate  existence;  but  there 
seems  to  have  been  a  very  early  union  of  these 
Romans  of  the  primitive  tradition  with  a  Sabine 
community,  whereby  was  formed  the  Roman 
city-state  of  historical  times.  That  union  came 
about  through  the  settlement  of  the  two  com- 
munities, Latin  and  Sabine,  on  two  neighboring 
hills,  near  the  mouth  of  the  river  Tiber,  on  its 
southern  bank.  In  the  view  of  some  historians, 
it  is  the  geographical  position  of  those  hills, 
hardly  less  than  the  masterful  temper  and  capaci- 
ty of  the  race  seated  on  them,  which  determined 
the  marvellous  career  of  the  city  founded  on  that 
site.  Says  Professor  Freeman :  ' '  The  whole 
history  of  the  world  has  been  determined  by  the 
geological  fact  that  at  a  point  a  little  below  the 
junction  of  the  Tiber  and  the  Anio  the  isolated 
hills  stand  nearer  to  one  another  than  most  of  the 
other  hills  of  Latium.  On  a  site  marked  out 
above  all  other  sites  for  dominion,  the  centre  of 
Italy,  the  centre  of  Europe,  as  Europe  then  was,  a 
site  at  the  j  unction  of  three  of  the  great  nations  of 
Italy,  and  which  had  the  great  river  as  its  high- 
way to  lands  beyond  the  bounds  of  Italy,  stood 
two  low  hills,  the  hill  which  bore  the  name  of 
Latin  Saturn,  and  the  hill  at  the  meaning  of 
whose  name  of  Palatine  scholars  will  perhaps 


guess  for  ever.  These  two  hills,  occupied  by 
men  of  two  of  the  nations  of  Italy,  stood  so  near 
to  one  another  that  a  strait  choice  indeed  was 
laid  on  those  who'  dwelled  on  them.  They  must 
either  join  together  on  terms  closer  than  those 
which  commonly  united  Italian  leagues,  or  they 
must  live  a  life  of  border  warfare  more  ceaseless, 
more  bitter,  than  the  ordinary  warfare  of  Italian 
enemies.  Legend,  with  all  likelihood,  tells  us 
that  warfare  was  tried ;  histor)',  with  all  certainty, 
tells  us  that  the  final  choice  was  union.  The 
two  hills  were  fenced  with  a  single  wall ;  the  men 
who  dwelled  on  them  changed  from  wholly  sepa- 
rate communities  into  tribes  of  a  single  city." 

The  followers  of  Romulus  occupied  the  Pala- 
tine Mount,  and  the  Sabines  were  settled  on  the 
Quirinal.  At  subsequent  times,  the  Coelian,  the 
Capitoline,  the  Aventine,  the  Esquiline  and  the 
Viminal  hills  were  embraced  in  the  circumvalla- 
tion,  and  the  city  on  the  seven  hills  thus  acquired 
that  name. 

If  modem  students  and  thinkers,  throwing 
light  on  the  puzzling  legends  and  traditions  of 
early  Rome  from  many  sources,  in  language  and 
archaeology,  have  construed  their  meaning  right- 
ly, then  great  importance  attaches  to  those  first 
unions  or  incorporations  of  distinct  settlements 
in  the  forming  of  the  original  city-state.  For  it 
was  the  beginning  of  a  process  which  went  on 
until  the  whole  of  Latium,  and  then  the  whole 
of  Italy,  and,  finally,  the  whole  Mediterranean 
world,  were  joined  to  the  seven  hills  of  Rome. 
"The  whole  history  of  Rome  is  a  history  of  in- 
corporation" ;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that 
the  primal  spring  of  Roman  greatness  is  found 
in  that  early  adoption  and  persistent  practice  of 
the  policy  of  political  absorption,  which  gave 
conquest  a  character  it  had  never  borne  before. 

At  the  same  time,  this  view  of  the  creation  of 
the  Roman  statp  contributes  to  an  understanding 
of  its  early  constitutional  history.  It  supposes 
that  the  union  of  the  first  three  tribes  which 
coalesced  —  those  of  the  Palatine,  the  Quirinal 
and  Capitoline  (both  occupied  by  the  Sabines) 
and  the  Cojlian  hills  —  ended  the  process  of  in- 
corporation on  equal  terms.  These  formed  the 
original  Roman  people  —  the  "fathers,"  the 
"patres,"  whose  descendants  appear  in  later 
times  as  a  distinct  class  or  order,  the  "patri- 
cians " — •  holding  and  struggling  to  maintain  ex- 
clusive political  rights,  and  exclusive  owner- 
ship of  the  public  domain,  the  "ager  publicus," 
which  became  a  subject  of  bitter  contention  for 
four  centuries.  Around  these  heirs  of  the  ' '  fa- 
thers "  of  Rome  arose  another  class  of  Romans, 
brought  into  the  community  by  later  incorpora- 
tions, and  not  on  equal  terms.  If  the  first  class 
were  "fathers,"  these  were  children,  in  a  politi- 
cal sense,  adopted  into  the  Roman  family,  but 
without  a  voice  in  general  affairs,  or  a  share  in 
the  public  lands,  or  eligibility  to  the  higher 
offices  of  the  state.  These  were  the  "plebeians  " 
or  "plebs"  of  Rome,  whose  long  struggle  with 
the  patricians  for  political  and  agrarian  rights 
is  the  more  interesting  side  of  Roman  history 
throughout  nearly  the  whole  of  the  prosperous 
age  of  the  republic. 

At  Rome,  as  at  Athens,  there  was  a  period  of 
early  kingship,  the  legends  of  which  are  as  famil- 
iar to  us  all  as  the  stories  of  the  Bible,  but  the 
real  facts  of  which  are  almost  totally  unknown. 
It  is  surmised  that  the  later  kings  —  the  well 
known  Tarquins  of   the  classical  tale  —  were 


1024 


EUROPE. 


Founding  of 
the  Roman  Republic. 


EUROPE. 


Etruscan  princes  (it  is  certain  that  they  were 
Etruscans),  who  liad  broken  for  a  time  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Romans  and  extended  their  sov- 
ereignty over  them.  It  is  suspected,  too,  that 
this  period  of  Etruscan  domination  was  one  in 
which  Roman  civilization  made  a  great  advance, 
under  the  tuition  of  a  more  cultivated  people. 
But  if  Rome  in  its  infancy  did  know  a  time  of 
subjugation,  the  endurance  was  not  long.  It 
ended,  according  to  Roman  chronology,  in  the 
245th  year  of  the  city,  or  509  B.C.,  by  the  expul- 
sion of  Tarquin  the  Pro\id,  tlie  last  of  the  kings. 

The  Roman  Republic. 

The  Republic  was  then  founded ;  but  it  was  an 
aristocratic  and  not  a  democratic  republic.  The 
consuls,  who  replaced  the  kings,  were  required 
to  be  patricians,  and  they  were  chosen  by  the 
landholders  of  the  state.  The  senate  was  pa- 
trician; all  the  important  powers  of  govern- 
ment were  in  patrician  hands,  and  the  plebs  suf- 
fered grievous  oppression  in  consequence.  They 
were  not  of  a  tamely  submissive  race.  They 
demanded  powers  for  their  own  protection,  and 
by  slow  degrees  they  won  them  ■ —  strong  as  the 
patricians  were  in  their  wealth  and  their  trained 
political  skill. 

Precisely  as  in  Athens,  the  first  great  effort 
among  the  common  people  was  to  obtain  relief 
from  crushing  burdens  of  debt,  which  had  been 
laid  upon  them  in  precisely  the  same  way  —  by 
loss  of  harvests  while  in  military  service,  and  by 
the  hardness  of  the  laws  which  creditors  alone 
had  framed.  An  array  of  plebs,  just  home  from 
war,  marched  out  of  the  city  and  refused  to  re- 
turn until  magistrates  of  their  own  choosing  had 
been  conceded  to  them.  The  patricians  could 
not  afford  to  lose  the  bone  and  sinew  of  their 
state,  and  they  yielded  the  point  in  demand 
(B.C.  494).  This  first  "secession  of  the  plebs" 
brought  about  the  first  great  democratic  change 
in  the  Roman  constitution,  by  calling  into  exis- 
tence a  powerful  magistracy  —  the  Tribunes  of 
the  Plebs  —  who  henceforth  stood  between  the 
consuls  and  the  common  people,  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  latter. 

From  this  first  success  the  plebeian  order  went 
forward,  step  by  step,  to  the  attainment  of  equal 
political  rights  in  the  commonwealth,  and  equal 
participation  in  the  lands  which  Roman  conquest 
was  continually  adding  to  the  public  domain.  In 
450  B.C.,  after  ten  years  of  struggle,  they  se- 
cured the  appointment  of  a  commission  which 
framed  the  famous  Twelve  Tables  of  the  Law, 
and  so  established  a  written  and  certain  code. 
Five  years  later,  the  caste  exclusiveness  of  the 
patricians  was  broken  down  by  a  law  which  per- 
mitted marriages  between  the  orders.  In  367 
B.  C.  the  patrician  monopoly  of  the  consular 
office  was  extinguished,  by  the  notable  Licinian 
Laws,  which  also  limited  the  extent  of  land  that 
any  citizen  might  occupy,  and  forbade  the  ex- 
clusive employment  of  slave  labor  on  any  estate. 
One  by  one,  after  that,  other  magistracies  were 
opened  to  the  plebs ;  and  in  287  B.  C.  by  the  Lex 
Hortensia,  the  plebeian  concilium,  or  assembly, 
was  made  independent  of  the  senate  and  its  acts 
declared  to  be  valid  and  binding.  The  demo- 
cratic commonwealth  was  now  completely 
formed. 

Roman  Conquest  of  Italy. 

While  these  changes  in  the  constitution  of  their 
Republic  were  in  progress,  the  Romans  had  been 


making  great  advances  toward  supremacy  in  the 
peninsula.  First  they  had  been  in  league  with 
their  Latin  neighbors,  for  war  with  the  ^qui- 
ans,  the  Volscians,  and  the  Etruscans.  The 
Volscian  war  extended  over  forty  years,  and 
ended  about  450  B.  C.  in  the  practical  disap- 
pearance of  the  Volscians  from  history.  Of  war 
with  the  ^quians,  nothing  is  heard  after  458 
B.C.,  when,  as  the  tale  is  told,  Cincinnatus  left 
his  plow  to  lead  the  Romans  against  them. 
The  war  with  the  Etruscans  of  the  near  city  of 
Veii  had  been  more  stubborn.  Suspended  by  a 
truce  between  474  and  438  B.  C,  it  was  then 
renewed,  and  ended  in  396  B.  C.,  when  the 
Etruscan  city  was  taken  and  destroyed.  At  the 
same  time  the  power  of  the  Etruscans  was  being 
shattered  at  sea  by  the  Greeks  of  Tarentum  and 
Syracuse,  while  at  home  they  were  attacked  from 
the  north  by  the  barbarous  Gauls  or  Celts. 

These  last  named  people,  having  crossed  the 
Alps  from  Gaul  and  Switzerland  and  occupied 
northern  Italy,  were  now  pressing  upon  the 
more  civilized  nations  to  the  south  of  the  Po. 
The  Etruscans  were  first  to  suffer,  and  their  des- 
pair became  so  great  that  they  appealed  to  Rome 
for  help.  The  Romans  gave  little  aid  to  them  in 
their  extremity;  but  enough  to  provoke  the 
wrath  of  Brennus,  the  savage  leader  of  the  Gauls. 
He  quitted  Etruria  and  marched  to  Rome,  de- 
feating an  army  which  opposed  him  on  the  Allia, 
pillaging  and  burning  the  city  (B.  C.  390)  and 
slaying  the  senators,  who  had  refused  to  take 
refuge,  with  other  Inhabitants,  in  the  capitol. 
The  defenders  of  the  capitol  held  it  for  seven 
months;  Rome  was  rebuilt,  when  the  Gauls 
withdrew,  and  soon  took  up  her  war  again  with 
the  Etruscan  cities.  By  the  middle  of  the  same 
century  she  was  mistress  of  southern  Etruria, 
though  her  territories  had  been  ravaged  twice 
again  by  renewed  incursions  of  the  Gauls.  In  a 
few  years  more,  when  her  allies  of  Latium  com- 
plained of  their  meager  share  of  the  fruits  of 
these  common  wars,  and  demanded  Roman  citi- 
zenship and  equal  rights,  she  fought  them 
fiercely  and  humbled  them  to  submissiveness 
(B.  C.  339-338),  reducing  their  cities  to  the  status 
of  provincial  towns. 

And  now,  having  awed  or  subdued  her  rivals, 
her  friends,  and  her  enemies,  near  at  hand,  the 
young  Republic  swung  into  the  career  of  rapid 
conquest  which  subdued  to  her  will,  within  three- 
fourths  of  a  century,  the  whole  of  Italy  below  the 
mouth  of  the  Amo. 

In  343  B.  C.  the  Roman  arms  had  been  turned 
against  the  Samnites  at  the  south,  and  they  had 
been  driven  from  the  Campania.  In  327  B.  C. 
the  same  dangerous  rivals  were  again  assailed, 
with  less  impunity.  At  the  Caudine  Forks,  in 
321  B.  C,  the  Samnites  inflicted  both  disaster  and 
shame  upon  their  indomitable  foes ;  but  the  end 
of  the  war  (B.  C.  304)  found  Rome  advanced  and 
Samnium  fallen  back.  A  third  contest  ended 
the  question  of  supremacy ;  but  the  Samnites 
(B.  C.  290)  submitted  to  become  allies  and  not 
subjects  of  the  Roman  state. 

In  this  last  struggle  the  Samnites  had  sum- 
moned Gauls  and  Etruscans  to  join  them  against 
the  common  enemy,  and  Rome  had  overcome 
their  united  forces  in  a  great  fight  at  Sentinum. 
This  was  in  295  B.  C.  Ten  years  later  she  an- 
nihilated the  Senonian  Gauls,  annexed  their  ter- 
ritory and  planted  a  colony  at  Sena  on  the  coast. 
In  two  years  more  she  had  paralyzed  the  Boian 


65 


1025 


EUROPE. 


Conquests  of 
the  Roman  Republic. 


EUROPE. 


Gauls  by  a  terrible  chastisement,  and  had  noth- 
ing more  to  fear  from  the  northward  side  of  her 
realm.  Then  she  turned  back  to  finish  her  work 
in  the  south. 

War  with  Pyrrhus. 
The  Greek  cities  of  the  southern  coast  were 
harassed  by  various  marauding  neighbors,  and 
most  of  them  solicited  the  protection  of  Rome, 
which  Involved,  of  course,  some  surrender  of  their 
independence.  But  one  great  city,  Tarentum, 
the  most  powerful  of  their  number,  refused  these 
terms,  and  hazarded  a  war  with  the  terrible  re- 
public, expecting  support  from  the  ambitious 
Pyrrhus,  king  of  Epirus,  on  the  Greek  coast  op- 
posite their  own.  Pyrrhus  came  readily  at  their 
call,  with  dreams  of  an  Italian  kingdom  more 
agreeable  than  his  own.  Assisted  in  the  under- 
taking by  his  royal  kinsmen  of  Macedonia  and 
Syria,  he  brought  an  army  of  25,000  men,  with 
20  elephants  —  which  Roman  eyes  had  never  seen 
before.  In  two  bloody  fights  (B.  C.  280-379), 
Pyrrhus  was  victorious ;  but  the  cost  of  victory 
was  so  great  that  he  dared  not  follow  it  up.  He 
went  over  to  Sicily,  instead,  and  waged  war  for 
three  years  (B.  C.  278-376)  with  the  Carthaginians, 
who  had  subjugated  most  of  the  island.  The 
Epirot  king  brought  timely  aid  to  the  Sicilian 
Greeks,  and  drove  their  Punic  enemies  into  the 
western  border  of  the  island ;  but  he  claimed  sov- 
ereignty over  all  that  his  arms  delivered,  and  was 
not  successful  in  enforcing  the  claim.  He  re- 
turned to  Italy  and  found  the  Romans  better  pre- 
pared than  before  to  face  his  phalanx  and  his 
elephants.  They  routed  him  at  Beneventum,  in 
the  spring  of  375  B.  C.  and  he  went  back  to  Epirus, 
with  his  dreams  dispelled.  Tarentum  fell,  and 
Southern  Italy  was  added  to  the  dominion  of 
Rome. 

Punic  Wars. 

During  her  war  with  Pyrrhus,  the  Republic 
had  formed  an  alliance  with  Carthage,  the  power- 
ful maritime  Phojnician  city  on  the  African  coast. 
But  friendship  between  these  two  cities  was  im- 
possible. The  ambition  of  both  was  too  boundless 
and  too  fierce.  They  were  necessarily  competi- 
tors for  supremacy  in  the  Mediterranean  world, 
from  the  moment  that  a  narrow  strait  between 
Italy  and  Sicily  was  all  that  held  them  apart. 
Rome  challenged  her  rival  to  the  duel  in  264  B.  C. , 
when  she  sent  help  to  the  Mamertines,  a  band  of 
brigands  who  had  seized  the  Sicilian  city  of  Mes- 
sina, and  who  were  being  attacked  by  both  Car- 
thaginians and  Syracusan  Greeks.  The  "First 
Punic  War,"  then  begun,  lasted  twenty -four 
years,  and  resulted  in  the  withdrawal  of  the  Car- 
thaginians from  Sicily,  and  in  their  payment  of 
an  enormous  war  indemnity  to  Rome.  The  lat- 
ter assumed  a  protectorate  over  the  island,  and 
the  kingdom  of  Hiero  of  Syracuse  preserved  its 
nominal  independence  for  the  time;  but  Sicily,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  might  already  be  looked  upon 
as  the  first  of  those  provinces,  beyond  Italy,  which 
Rome  bound  to  herself,  one  by  one,  until  she  had 
compassed  tlie  Mediterranean  with  her  dominion 
and  gathered  to  it  all  the  islands  of  that  sea. 

The  "Second  Punic  war,"  called  sometimes 
the  "  Hannibalic  war,"  was  fought  with  a  great 
Carthaginian,  rather  than  with  Carthage  herself. 
Hamilcar  Barca  had  been  the  last  and  ablest  of 
the  Punic  generals  in  the  contest  for  Sicily.  Af- 
terwards he  undertook  the  conquest  of  Spain, 
where  his  arms  had  such  success  that  he  estab- 


lished a  very  considerable  power,  more  than  half 
independent  of  the  parent  state.  He  nursed  an 
unquenchable  hatred  of  Rome,  and  transmitted 
it  to  his  son  Hannibal,  who  solemnly  dedicated 
his  life  to  warfare  with  the  Latin  city.  Hamilcar 
died,  and  in  due  time  Hannibal  found  himself 
prepared  to  make  good  his  oath.  He  provoked 
a  declaration  of  war  (B.  C.  218)  by  attacking 
Saguntum,  on  the  eastern  Spanish  coast  —  a  town 
which  the  Romans  "  protected."  The  latter  ex- 
pected to  encounter  him  in  Spain ;  but  before  the 
fleet  bearing  their  legions  to  that  country  had 
reached  Massilia,  he  had  already  passed  the  Pyr- 
enees and  the  Rhone,  with  nearly  100,000  men, 
and  was  crossing  the  Alps,  to  assail  his  astounded 
foes  on  their  own  soil.  The  terrific  barrier  was 
surmounted  with  such  suffering  and  loss  that  only 
20,000  foot  and  6,000  horse,  of  the  great  army 
which  left  Spain,  could  be  mustered  for  the 
clearing  of  the  last  Alpine  pass.  With  this  small 
following,  by  sheer  energy,  rapidity  and  precision 
of  movement  —  by  force,  in  other  words,  of  a  mili- 
tary genius  never  surpassed  in  the  world  —  he 
defeated  the  armies  of  Rome  again  and  again, 
and  so  crushingly  in  the  awful  battle  of  Cannae 
(B.  C.  216)  that  the  proud  republic  was  staggered, 
but  never  despaired.  For  fifteen  years  the  great 
Carthaginian  held  his  ground  in  southern  Italy ; 
but  his  expectation  of  being  joined  by  discon- 
tented subjects  of  Rome  in  the  peninsula  was 
very  slightly  realized,  and  his  own  country  gave 
him  little  encouragement  or  help.  His  brother 
Hasdrubal,  marching  to  his  relief  in  307  B.  C, 
was  defeated  on  the  river  ^Metaurus  and  slain. 
The  arms  of  Rome  had  prospered  meantime  in 
Sicily  and  in  Spain,  even  while  beaten  at  home,  and 
her  Punic  rival  had  been  driven  from  both.  In 
204  B.  C.  the  final  field  of  battle  was  shifted  to 
Carthaginian  territory  by  Scipio,  of  famous  mem- 
ory, thereafter  styled  Africanus,  because  he  "car- 
ried the  war  into  Africa."  Hannibal  abandoned 
Italy  to  confront  him,  and  at  Zama,  in  the  autumn 
of  303  B.  C. ,  the  long  contention  ended,  and  the 
career  of  Carthage  as  a  Power  in  the  ancient 
world  was  forever  closed.  Existing  by  Roman 
sufferance  for  another  half  century,  she  then  gave 
her  implacable  conquerors  another  pretext  for 
war,  and  they  ruthlessly  destroyed  her  (B.C.  146). 

Roman  Conquest  of  Greece. 

In  that  same  year  of  the  destruction  of  Car- 
thage, the  conquest  of  Greece  was  finished.  The 
first  war  of  the  Romans  on  that  side  of  the  Adri- 
atic had  taken  place  during  the  Second  Punic 
war,  and  had  been  caused  bj'  an  alliance  formed 
between  Hannibal  and  King  Philip  of  Macedonia 
(B.  C.  314).  They  pursued  it  then  no  further 
than  to  frustrate  Philip's  designs  against  them- 
selves; but  they  formed  alliances  with  the 
Greek  states  oppressed  or  menaced  by  the  Mace- 
donian, and  these  drew  them  into  a  second  war, 
just  as  the  century  closed.  On  Cynoscephalse, 
Philip  was  overthrown  (B.  C.  197),  his  kingdom 
reduced  to  vassalage,  and  the  freedom  of  all 
Greece  was  solemnly  proclaimed  by  the  Roman 
Consul  Flaminius. 

And  now,  for  the  first  time,  Rome  came  into 
conflict  with  an  Asiatic  power.  The  throne  of 
the  Syrian  monarchy,  founded  by  one  of  the 
generals  of  Alexander  the  Great,  was  occupied 
by  a  king  more  ambitious  than  capable,  who  had 
acquired  a  large  and  loosely  jointed  dominion  in 
the  East,  and  who  bore  the  sounding  name  of 


1026 


EUROPE. 


Decline  of  the 
Roman  Republic. 


EUROPE. 


Antiochus  the  Great.  This  vainglorious  King, 
having  a  huge  army  and  many  elephants  at  his 
disposal,  was  eager  to  try  a  passage  at  arms  with 
the  redoubtable  men  of  Rome.  He  was  encour- 
aged in  his  desire  by  the  ^tolians  in  Greece, 
who  bore  ill-will  to  Rome.  Under  this  encour- 
agement, and  having  Hannibal  —  then  a  fugitive 
at  his  court  —  to  give  him  counsel,  which  he 
lacked  intelligence  to  use,  Antiochus  crossed  the 
jEgean  and  invaded  Greece  (B.  C.  193).  The 
Romans  met  him  at  the  pass  of  Thermopylae ; 
drove  him  back  to  the  shores  from  which  he 
came ;  pursued  him  thither ;  crushed  and  humbled 
him  on  the  field  of  Magnesia,  and  took  the  king- 
doms and  cities  of  Asia  Minor  under  their  pro- 
tection, as  the  allies  (soon  to  be  subjects)  of 
Rome. 

Twenty  years  passed  with  little  change  in  the 
outward  situation  of  affairs  among  the  Greeks. 
But  discontent  with  the  harshness  and  haughti- 
ness of  Roman  "protection"  changed  from  sul- 
lenness  to  heat,  and  Perseus,  son  of  Philip  of 
Macedonia,  fanned  it  steadily,  with  the  hope  of 
bringing  it  to  a  flame.  Rome  watched  him  with 
keen  vigilance,  and  before  his  plans  were  ripe 
her  legions  were  upon  him.  He  battled  with 
them  obstinately  for  three  years  (B.  C.  171-168); 
but  his  fate  was  sealed  at  Pydna.  He  went  as 
a  prisoner  to  Rome;  his  kingdom  was  broken 
into  four  small  republics ;  the  Achtean  League 
was  stricken  by  the  captivity  of  a  thousand  of  its 
chief  men;  the  whole  of  Greece  was  humbled  to 
submissiveness,  though  not  yet  formally  reduced 
to  the  state  of  a  Roman  province.  That  followed 
some  years  later,  when  risings  in  Macedonia  and 
Achaia  were  punished  by  the  extinction  of  the 
last  semblance  of  political  independence  in  both 
(B.  C.  148-146). 

The  zenith  of  the  Republic. 

Rome  now  gripped  the  Mediterranean  (the 
ocean  of  the  then  civilized  world)  as  with  four 
fingers  of  a  powerful  hand:  one  laid  on  Italy 
and  all  its  islands,  one  on  Macedonia  and  Greece, 
one  on  Carthage,  one  on  Spain,  and  the  little 
finger  of  her  "protection"  reaching  over  to  the 
Lesser  Asia.  Little  more  than  half  a  century, 
since  the  day  that  Hannibal  threatened  her  own 
city  gates,  had  sufliced  to  win  this  vast  dominion. 
But  the  losses  of  the  Republic  had  been  greater, 
after  all,  than  the  gains ;  for  the  best  energies  of 
its  political  constitution  had  been  expended  in 
the  acquisition,  and  the  nobler  qualities  in  Its 
character  had  been  touched  with  the  incurable 
taints  of  a  licentious  prosperity. 

Beginning  of  Decline. 

A  century  and  a  half  had  passed  since  the 
practical  ending  of  the  struggle  of  plebeians  with 
patricians  for  political  and  agrarian  rights.  In 
theory  and  in  form,  the  constitution  remained  as 
democratic  as  it  was  made  by  the  Licinian  Laws 
of  367  B.  C,  and  by  the  finishing  touch  of  the 
Hortensian  Law  of  287  B.  C.  But  in  practical 
working  it  had  reverted  to  the  aristocratic  mode. 
A  new  aristocracy  had  risen  out  of  the  plebeian 
ranks  to  reinforce  the  old  patrician  order.  It  was 
composed  of  the  families  of  men  who  had  been 
raised  to  distinction  and  ennobled  by  the  holding 
of  eminent  oflices,  and  its  spirit  was  no  less  jeal- 
ous and  exclusive  than  that  of  the  older  high 
caste. 


The  Senate  and  the  Mob. 

Thus  strengthened,  the  aristocracy  had  recov- 
ered its  ascendancy  in  Rome,  and  the  Senate, 
which  it  controlled,  had  become  the  supreme 
power  in  government.  The  amazing  success  of 
the  Republic  during  the  last  century  just  re- 
viewed —  its  successes  in  war,  in  diplomacy,  and 
in  all  the  sagacious  measures  of  policy  by  which 
its  great  dominion  had  been  won  —  are  reasona- 
bly ascribed  to  this  fact.  For  the  Senate  had 
wielded  the  power  of  the  state,  in  most  emergen- 
cies, with  passionless  deliberation  and  with  unity 
and  fixity  of  aim. 

But  it  maintained  its  ascendancy  by  an  increas- 
ing employment  of  means  which  debased  and 
corrupted  all  orders  alike.  The  people  held  pow- 
ers which  might  paralyze  the  Senate  at  any  mo- 
ment, if  they  chose  to  exercise  them,  through 
their  assemblies  and  their  tribunes.  They  had 
seldom  brought  those  powers  into  play  thus  far, 
to  interfere  with  the  senatorial  government  of 
the  Republic,  simply  because  they  had  been 
bribed  to  abstain.  The  art  of  the  politician  in 
Rome,  as  distinguished  from  the  statesman,  had 
already  become  demagoguery.  This  could  not 
well  have  been  otherwise  under  the  peculiar  con- 
stitution of  the  Roman  citizenship.  Of  the  thirty- 
five  tribes  who  made  up  the  Roman  people,  le- 
gally qualified  to  vote,  only  four  were  within 
the  city.  The  remaining  thirty-one  were  tribus 
rustieci.  There  was  no  delegated  representation 
of  this  country  populace  —  citizens  beyond  the 
walls.  To  exercise  their  right  of  suffrage  they 
must  be  personally  present  at  the  meetings  of 
the  "comitia  tributa" — the  tribal  assemblies; 
and  those  of  any  tribe  who  chanced  to  be  in  at- 
tendance at  such  a  meeting  might  give  a  vote 
which  carried  with  it  the  weight  of  their  whole 
tribe.  For  questions  were  decided  by  the  ma- 
jority of  tribal,  not  individual,  votes;  and  a 
very  few  members  of  a  tribe  might  act  for  and 
be  the  tribe,  for  all  purposes  of  voting,  on  occa- 
sions of  the  greatest  possible  importance. 

It  is  quite  evident  that  a  democratic  system  of 
this  nature  gave  wide  opportunity  for  corrupt 
"politics."  There  must  have  been,  always,  an 
attraction  for  the  baser  sort  among  the  rural 
plebs,  drawing  them  into  the  city,  to  enjoy  the 
excitement  of  political  contests,  and  to  partake 
of  the  flatteries  and  largesses  which  began  early 
to  go  with  these.  And  circumstances  had  tended 
strongly  to  increase  this  sinister  sifting  into  Rome 
of  the  most  vagrant  and  least  responsible  of  her 
citizens,  to  make  them  practically  the  deputies  and 
representatives  of  that  mighty  sovereign  which 
had  risen  in  the  world  —  the  "  Populus  Romanus. " 
For  there  was  no  longer  either  thrift  or  dignity 
possible  in  the  pursuits  of  husbandry.  The  long 
Hannibalic  War  had  ruined  the  farming  class 
in  Italy  by  its  ravages ;  but  the  extensive  con- 
quests that  followed  it  had  been  still  more  ruin- 
ous to  that  class  by  several  effects  combined. 
Corn  supplies  from  the  conquered  provinces  were 
poured  into  Rome  at  cheapened  prices ;  enormous 
fortunes,  gathered  in  the  same  provinces  by  offi- 
cials, by  farmers  of  taxes,  by  money-lenders,  and 
by  traders,  were  largely  invested  in  great  estates, 
absorbing  the  small  farms  of  olden  time;  and, 
finally,  free-labor  in  agriculture  was  supplanted, 
more  and  more,  by  the  labor  of  slaves,  which 
war  and  increasing  wealth  combined  to  multiply 
in  numbers.      Thus  the  rural  "  plebs"  of  Rome 


1027 


EUROPE. 


The  Gracchi. 


EUROPE. 


were  a  depressed  and,  therefore,  a  degenerating 
class,  and  the  same  circumstances  that  made  them 
so  impelled  them  towards  the  city,  to  swell  the 
mob  which  held  its  mighty  sovereignty  in  their 
hands. 

So  far,  a  lavish  amusement  of  this  mob  with 
free  games,  and  liberal  bribes,  had  kept  it  gen- 
erally submissive  to  the  senatorial  government. 
But  the  more  it  was  debased  by  such  methods, 
and  Its  vagrancy  encouraged,  the  more  extrava- 
gant gratuities  of  like  kind  it  claimed.  Hence 
a  time  could  never  be  far  away  when  the  aris- 
tocracy and  the  senate  would  lose  their  control 
of  the  popular  vote  on  which  they  had  built  tlieir 
governing  power. 

Agrarian  Agitations. 

But  they  invited  the  quicker  coming  of  that 
time  by  their  own  greediness  in  the  employment 
of  their  power  for  selfish  and  dishonest  ends. 
They  had  practically  recovered  their  monopoly 
of  the  use  of  the  public  lands.  The  Licinian 
law,  which  forbade  any  one  person  to  occupy 
more  than  five  hundred  jugera  (about  three  hun- 
dred acres)  of  the  public  lands,  had  been  made  a 
dead  letter.  The  great  tracts  acquired  in  the 
Samnite  wars,  and  since,  had  remained  undis- 
tributed, while  the  use  and  profit  of  them  were 
enjoyed,  under  one  form  of  authority  or  another, 
by  rich  capitalists  and  powerful  nobles. 

This  evil,  among  many  that  waxed  greater  each 
year,  caused  the  deepest  discontent,  and  provoked 
movements  of  reform  which  soon  passed  by  rapid 
stages  into  a  revolution,  and  ended  in  the  fall  of 
the  Republic.  The  leader  of  the  movement  at 
its  beginning  was  Tiberius  Gracchus,  grandson 
of  Scipio  Africanus  on  the  side  of  his  mother, 
Cornelia.  Elected  tribune  in  133  B.  C. ,  he  set 
himself  to  the  dangerous  task  of  rousing  the 
people  against  senatorial  usurpations,  especially 
in  the  matter  of  the  public  domain.  He  only 
drew  upon  himself  the  hatred  of  the  senate  and 
its  selfish  supporters ;  he  failed  to  rally  a  popular 
party  that  was  strong  enough  for  his  protection, 
and  his  enemies  slew  him  in  the  very  midst  of  a 
meeting  of  the  tribes.  His  brother  Caius  took 
up  the  perilous  cause  and  won  the  ofiice  of  tri- 
bune (B.  C.  123)  in  avowed  hostility  to  the  sena- 
torial government.  He  was  driven  to  bid  high 
for  popular  help,  even  when  the  measures  which 
he  strove  to  carry  were  most  plainly  for  the  wel- 
fare of  the  common  people,  and  he  may  seem  to 
modern  eyes  to  have  played  the  demagogue  with 
some  extravagance.  But  statesmanship  and  pa- 
triotism without  demagoguery  for  their  instru- 
ment or  their  weapon  were  hardly  practicable, 
perhaps,  in  the  Rome  of  those  days,  and  it  is  not 
easy  to  find  them  clean-handed  in  any  political 
leader  of  the  last  century  of  the  Republic. 

The  fall  of  Caius  Gracchus  was  hastened  by 
his  attempt  to  extend  the  Roman  franchise  be- 
yond the  "  populus  Romanus,"  to  all  the  freemen 
of  Italy.  The  mob  in  Rome  was  not  pleased 
with  such  political  generosity,  and  cooled  in  its 
admiration  for  the  large-minded  tribune.  He 
lost  his  office  and  the  personal  protection  it  threw 
over  him,  and  then  he,  like  his  brother,  was  slain 
(B.  C.  121)  in  a  melee. 

Jugurthine  War. 

For  ten  years  the  senate,  the  nobility,  and  the 
capitalists  (now  beginning  to  take  the  name  of 
the  equestrian  order),  had  mostly  their  own  way 


again,  and  effaced  the  work  of  the  Gracchi  as 
completely  as  they  could.  Then  came  disgrace- 
ful troubles  in  Numidia  which  enraged  the 
people  and  moved  them  to  a  new  assertion  of 
themselves.  The  Numidian  king  who  helped 
Scipio  to  pull  Carthage  down  had  been  a  ward  of 
Rome  since  that  time.  When  he  died,  he  left 
his  kingdom  to  be  governed  jointly  by  two  young 
sons  and  an  older  nephew.  The  latter,  Jugurtha, 
put  his  cousins  out  of  the  way,  took  the  king- 
dom to  himself,  and  baffled  attempts  at  Rome  to 
call  him  to  account,  by  heavy  bribes.  The  cor- 
ruption in  the  case  became  so  flagrant  that  even 
the  corrupted  Roman  populace  revolted  against 
it,  and  took  the  Numidian  business  into  Its  own 
hands.  War  was  declared  against  Jugurtha  by 
popular  vote,  and,  despite  opposing  action  in  the 
Senate,  one  Marius,  an  experienced  soldier  of 
humble  birth,  was  elected  consul  and  sent  out  to 
take  command.  Marius  distinguished  himself 
in  the  war  much  less  than  did  one  of  his  officers, 
Cornelius  Sulla ;  but  he  bore  the  lion's  share  of 
glory  when  Jugurtha  was  taken  captive  and  con- 
veyed to  Rome  (B.  C.  104).  JIarius  was  now  the 
great  hero  of  the  hour,  and  events  were  prepar- 
ing to  lift  him  to  the  giddiest  heights  of  popu- 
larity. 

Teutones  and  Cimbri. 

Hitherto,  the  barbarians  of  wild  Europe  whom 
the  Romans  had  met  were  either  the  Aryan  Celts, 
or  the  non- Aryan  tribes  found  in  northern  Italy, 
Spain  and  Gaul.  Now,  for  the  first  time,  the 
armies  of  Rome  were  challenged  by  tribes  of 
another  grand  division  of  the  Aryan  stock,  com- 
ing out  of  the  farther  North.  These  were  the 
Cimbri  and  the  Teutones,  wandei'ing  hordes  of 
the  great  Teutonic  or  Germanic  race  which  has 
occupied  AVestern  Europe  north  of  the  Rhine 
since  the  beginning  of  historic  time.  So  far  as 
we  can  linow,  these  two  were  the  first  of  the 
Germanic  nations  to  migrate  to  the  South.  They 
came  into  collision  with  Rome  in  113  B.  C,  when 
they  were  in  Noricum,  threatening  the  frontiers 
of  her  Italian  dominion.  Four  years  later  they 
were  in  southern  Gaul,  where  the  Romans  were 
now  settling  colonies  and  subduing  the  native 
Celts.  Twice  they  had  beaten  the  armies  op- 
posed to  them ;  two  years  later  they  added  a  third 
to  their  victories ;  and  in  105  B.  C.  they  threw 
Rome  into  consternation  by  destroying  two  great 
armies  on  the  Rhone.  Italy  seemed  helpless 
against  the  invasion  for  which  these  terrible  bar- 
barians were  now  preparing,  when  Marius  went 
against  them.  In  the  summer  of  102  B.  C.  he 
annihilated  the  Teutones,  near  AquEE  Sextise 
(modern  Aix),  and  in  the  following  year  he  de- 
stroyed the  invading  Cimbri,  on  a  bloody  field  in 
northern  Italy,  near  modern  Vercelloe. 

Marius. 

From  these  great  victories,  Marius  went  back 
to  Rome,  doubly  and  terribly  clothed  with  power, 
by  the  devotion  of  a  reckless  army  and  the  hero- 
worship  of  an  unthinking  mob.  The  state  was 
at  his  mercy.  A  strong  man  in  his  place  might 
have  crushed  the  class-factions  and  accomplished 
the  settlement  which  Csesar  made  after  half  a 
century  more  of  turbulence  and  shame.  But 
Marius  was  ignorant,  he  was  weak,  and  he  be- 
came a  mere  blood-stained  figure  in  the  ruinous 
anarchy  of  his  time. 


1028 


EUROPE. 


Marius  and  Sulla. 


EUROPE. 


Optimates  and  Populares. 

The  social  and  political  state  of  the  capital  had 
grown  rapidly  -worse.  A  middle-class  in  Roman 
society,  had  practically  disappeared.  The  two 
contending  parties  or  factions,  which  had  taken 
new  names  —  "optimates"  and  "populares" — 
were  now  divided  almost  solely  by  the  line  which 
separates  rich  from  poor.  "If  we  said  that 
'optimates'  signified  the  men  who  bribed  and 
abused  office  under  the  banner  of  the  Senate  and 
its  connections,  and  that  '  populares '  meant  men 
who  bribed  and  abused  office  with  the  interests  of 
the  people  outside  the  Senatorial  pale  upon  their 
lips,  we  might  do  injustice  to  many  good  men  on 
both  sides,  but  should  hardly  be  slandering  the 
parties  "  (Beesly).  There  was  a  desperate  conflict 
between  the  two  in  the  year  100  15.  C.  and  the 
Senate  once  more  recovered  its  power  for  a  brief 
term  of  years. 

The  Social  War. 

Tlio  enfranchisement  of  the  so-called  "allies" 
—  the  Latin  and  other  subjects  of  Rome  who  were 
not  citizens  —  was  the  burning  question  of  the 
time.  The  attempt  of  Caius  Gracchus  to  extend 
rights  of  citizenslup  to  them  had  been  renewed 
again  and  again,  without  success,  and  each  failure 
had  increased  the  bitter  discontent  of  the  Italian 
people.  In  90  B.  C.  they  drew  together  in  a  for- 
midable confederation  and  rose  in  revolt.  In  the 
face  of  this  great  danger  Rome  sobered  herself 
to  action  with  old  time  wisdom  and  vigor.  She 
yielded  her  full  citizenship  to  all  Italian  freemen 
who  had  not  taken  arms,  and  then  offered  it  to 
those  who  would  lay  their  arms  down.  At  the 
same  time,  she  fought  tlie  insurrection  with  every 
army  she  could  put  into  the  field,  and  in  two 
years  it  w'as  at  an  end.  Marius  and  his  old  lieu- 
tenant, Sulla,  had  been  the  principal  commanders 
in  this  "Social  War,"  as  it  was  named,  and  Sulla 
had  distinguished  himself  most.  The  latter  had 
now  an  army  at  his  back  and  was  a  power  in  the 
state,  and  between  the  two  military  champions 
there  arose  a  rivalry  which  produced  the  first  of 
the  Roman  Civil  Wars. 

Marius  and  Sulla. 

A  troublesome  war  in  the  East  had  been  forced 
upon  the  Romans  by  aggressions  of  Mithridates, 
King  of  Pontus.  Botli  Marius  and  Sulla  aspired 
to  the  command.  Sulla  obtained  election  to  the 
consulship  in  88  B.  C.  and  was  named  for  the 
coveted  place.  But  Marius  succeeded  in  getting 
the  appointment  annulled  by  a  popular  assembly 
and  himself  chosen  instead  for  the  Eastern  com- 
mand. Sulla,  personally  Imperilled  by  popular 
tumults,  fled  to  his  legions,  put  himself  at  their 
head,  and  marched  back  to  Rome — the  first 
among  her  generals  to  turn  her  arms  against  her- 
self. There  was  no  effective  resistance ;  Marius 
fled ;  both  Senate  and  people  were  submissive  to 
the  dictates  of  the  consul  who  had  become  master 
of  the  city.  He  "made  the  tribes  decree  their 
own  political  extinction,  resuscitating  the  comitia 
centuriata;  he  reorganized  the  Senate  by  adding 
three  hundred  to  its  members  and  vindicating  the 
right  to  sanction  legislation ;  conducted  the  con- 
sular elections,  exacting  from  L.  Cornelius  Cinna, 
the  newly  elected  consul,  a  solemn  oath  that  he 
would  observe  the  new  regulations,  and  securing 
the  election  of  Cn.  Octavius  in  his  own  interest, 
and  then,  like  'a  countryman  who  had  just 
shaken  the  lice  off  his  coat,'  to  use  his  own  figure, 


he  turned  to  do  his  great  work  in  the  East "  (Hor- 
ton). 

Sulla  went  to  Greece,  which  was  in  revolt  and 
in  alliance  with  Mithridates,  and  conducted  there  a 
brilliant,  ruthless  campaign  for  three  years  (B.  C. 
87-84),  until  he  had  restored  Roman  authority 
in  the  peninsula,  and  forced  the  King  of  Pontus 
to  surrender  all  his  conquests  in  Asia  Minor. 
Until  this  task  was  finished,  he  gave  no  heed  to 
what  his  enemies  did  at  Rome ;  though  the  strug- 
gle there  between  "  Sullans  "  and  "Marians" 
had  gone  fiercely  and  bloodily  on,  and  his  own 
partisans  had  been  beaten  in  the  fight.  The  con- 
sul Octavius,  who  was  in  Sulla's  interest,  had 
first  driven  the  consul  Cinna  out  of  the  city,  after 
slaying  10,000  of  his  faction.  Cinna's  cause  was 
taken  up  by  the  new  Italian  citizens;  he  was 
joined  by  the  exiled  Marius,  and  these  two  re- 
turned together,  with  an  army  which  the  Senate 
and  the  party  of  Sulla  were  unable  to  resist. 
Marius  came  back  with  a  burning  heart  and  with 
savage  intentions  of  revenge.  A  liorrible  mas- 
sacre of  his  opponents  ensued,  which  went  on 
unchecked  for  five  days,  and  was  continued  more 
deliberately  for  several  months,  until  Marius 
died,  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  86  B.  C. 
Then  Cinna  ruled  absolutely  at  Rome  for  three 
years,  supported  in  the  main  by  the  newly-made 
citizens ;  while  the  provinces  generally  remained 
under  the  control  of  the  party  of  the  optimates. 

In  83  B.  C.  Sulla,  having  finished  with  care- 
fulness ills  work  in  the  East,  came  back  into  Italy, 
with  40,000  veterans  to  attend  his  steps.  He  had 
been  outlawed  and  deprived  of  his  command,  by 
the  faction  governing  at  the  capital;  but  its  de- 
crees had  no  effect  and  troubled  him  little.  Cinna 
had  been  killed  by  his  own  troops,  even  before 
Sulla's  landing  at  Brundisiura.  Several  important 
leaders  and  soldiers  on  the  Marian  side,  such  as 
Pompeius,  then  a  young  general,  and  Crassus, 
the  millionaire,  went  over  to  Sulla's  camp.  One 
of  the  consuls  of  the  year  saw  his  troops  follow 
their  example,  in  a  body ;  the  other  consul  was 
beaten  and  driven  into  Capua.  Sulla  wintered  in 
Campania,  and  the  next  spring  he  pressed  for- 
ward to  Rome,  fighting  a  decisive  battle  with 
Marius  the  younger  on  the  way,  and  took  posses- 
sion of  the  city ;  but  not  in  time  to  prevent  a 
massacre  of  senators  by  the  resentful  mob. 

Sulla's  Dictatorship. 

Before  that  year  closed,  the  whole  of  Italy  had 
been  subdued,  the  final  battle  being  fought  with 
the  Marians  and  Italians  at  the  CoUine  Gate,  and 
Sulla  again  possessed  power  supreme.  He  placed 
it  beyond  dispute  by  a  deliberate  extermination 
of  his  opponents,  more  merciless  than  the  Marian 
massacre  had  been.  They  were  proscribed  by 
name,  in  placarded  lists,  and  rewards  paid  to- 
those  who  killed  them ;  while  their  property  was 
confiscated,  and  became  the  source  of  vast  for- 
tunes to  Sulla's  supporters,  and  of  lands  for  dis- 
tribution to  his  veterans. 

When  this  terror  had  paralyzed  all  resistance  to- 
his  rule,  the  Dictator  (for  he  had  taken  that  title) 
undertook  a  complete  reconstruction  of  the  con- 
stitution, aiming  at  a  permanent  restoration  of 
senatorial  ascendancy  and  a  curbing  of  the  pow- 
ers which  the  people,  in  their  assemblies,  and  the 
magistrates  wlio  especially  represented  them,  had 
gained  during  the  preceding  century.  He  re- 
modelled, moreover,  the  judicial  system,  and 
some  of  his   reforms  were  imdoubtedly  good. 


1029 


EUROPE. 


Pompeius,  Crassiis 
and  Ctxsar. 


EUROPE. 


though  they  did  not  prove  enduring.  When  he 
had  fashioned  the  state  to  his  liking,  this  extra- 
ordinary usurper  quietly  abdicated  his  dictatorial 
office  (B.  C.  80)  and  retired  to  private  life,  undis- 
turbed until  his  death  (B.  C.  78). 

After  Sulla. 

The  system  he  had  established  did  not  save 
Rome  from  renewed  distractions  and  disorder 
after  Sulla  died.  There  was  no  longer  a  practi- 
cal question  between  Senate  and  people  —  be- 
tween tlie  few  and  the  many  in  government.  The 
question  now,  since  the  legionaries  held  their 
swords  prepared  to  be  flung  into  the  scale,  was 
what  one  should  again  gather  the  powers  of 
government  into  his  hands,  as  Sulla  had  done. 

The  great  Game  and  the  Players. 

The  history  of  the  next  thirty  years  —  the  last 
generation  of  republican  Rome  —  is  a  sad  and 
sinister  but  thrilling  chronicle  of  the  strifes  and 
intrigues,  the  machinations  and  corruptions,  of  a 
stupendous  and  wicked  game  in  politics  that  was 
played,  against  one  another  and  against  the  Re- 
public, by  a  few  daring,  unscrupulous  players, 
with  the  empire  of  the  civilized  world  for  the 
stake  between  them.  There  were  more  than  a 
few  who  aspired ;  there  were  only  three  players 
who  entered  really  as  principals  into  the  game. 
These  were  Pompeius,  called  "the  Great,"  since 
he  extinguished  the  Marian  faction  in  Sicilj-  and 
in  Spain ;  Crassus,  whose  wealth  gave  him  power, 
and  who  acquired  some  military  pretensions  be- 
sides, by  taking  the  field  against  a  formidable  in- 
surrection of  slaves  (B.  C.  73-71);  and  Julius 
Caesar,  a  j'oung  patrician,  but  nephew  of  Marius 
by  marriage,  who  assiduously  strengthened  that 
connection  with  the  party  of  the  people,  and  who 
began,  very  soon  after  Sulla's  death,  to  draw  at- 
tention to  himself  as  a  rising  power  in  the  poli- 
tics of  the  day.  There  were  two  other  men, 
Cicero  and  the  younger  Cato,  who  bore  a  nobler 
and  greater  because  less  selfish  part  in  the  contest 
of  that  fateful  time.  Both  were  blind  to  the  im- 
possibility of  restoring  the  old  order  of  things, 
with  a  dominant  Senate,  a  free  but  well  guided 
populace,  and  a  simply  ordered  social  state ;  but 
their  blindness  was  heroic  and  high-souled. 

Pompeius  in  the  East. 

Of  the  three  strong  rivals  for  the  vacant  dic- 
tatorial chair  which  waited  to  be  filled,  Pompeius 
held  by  far  the  greater  advantages.  His  fame  as 
a  soldier  was  already  won ;  he  had  been  a  favorite 
of  Fortune  from  the  beginning  of  his  career ;  every- 
thing had  succeeded  with  him ;  everything  was 
expected  for  him  and  expected  from  him.  Even 
while  the  issues  of  the  great  struggle  were  pend- 
ing, a  wonderful  opportunity  for  increasing  his  re- 
nown was  opened  to  him.  Tlie  disorders  of  the  civil 
war  had  licensed  a  swarm  of  pirates,  who  fairly 
possessed  the  eastern  Jlediterranean  and  had 
.nearly  extirpated  the  maritime  trade.  Pompeius 
I  was  sent  against  them  (B.  C.  67),  with  a  commission 
'that  gave  him  almost  unlimited  powers.and  within 
ninety  days  he  had  driven  them  from  the  sea. 
Then,  before  he  had  returned  from  this  exploit, 
he  was  invested  with  supreme  command  in  the 
entire  East,  where  another  troublesome  war  with 
Mithridates  was  going  on.  He  harvested  there 
all  the  laurels  which  belonged  by  better  right  to 
his  predecessor,  LucuUus.  finding  the  power  of 
Mithridates  already  broken  down.     From  Pontus 


he  passed  into  Armenia,  and  thence  into  Syria, 
easily  subjugating  both,  and  extinguishing  the 
monarchy  of  the  Seleucids.  The  Jews  resisted 
him  and  he  humbled  them  by  the  siege  and  con- 
quest of  their  sacred  city.  Egypt  was  now  the 
only  Jlediterranean  state  left  outside  the  all-ab- 
sorbing dominion  of  Rome;  and  even  Egypt,  by 
bequest  of  its  late  king,  belonged  to  the  Repub- 
lic, though  not  yet  claimed. 

The  First  Triumvirate. 

Pompeius  came  back  to  Rome  in  the  spring  of 
61  B.  C.  so  glorified  by  his  successes  that  he 
might  have  seemed  to  be  irresistible,  whatever 
he  should  undertake.  But,  either  through  an 
honest  patriotism  or  an  overweening  confidence, 
he  had  disbanded  his  army  when  he  reached 
Italy,  and  he  had  committed  himself  to  no  party. 
He  stood  alone  and  aloof,  with  a  great  prestige, 
great  ambitions,  and  no  ability  to  use  the  one  or 
realize  the  other.  Before  another  year  passed, 
he  was  glad  to  accept  offers  of  a  helping  hand  in 
politics  from  Caesar,  who  had  climbed  the  ladder 
of  office  rapidly  within  four  or  five  years,  spend- 
ing vast  sums  of  borrowed  money  to  amuse  the 
people  with  games,  and  distinguishing  himself 
as  a  democratic  champion.  Ccesar,  the  far  seeing 
calculator,  discerned  the  enormous  advantages 
that  he  might  gain  for  himself  by  massing  together 
the  prestige  of  Pompeius,  the  wealth  of  Crassus 
and  his  own  invincible  genius,  which  was  sure  to 
be  the  master  element  in  the  combination.  He 
brought  the  coalition  about  through  a  bargain 
which  created  what  is  known  in  history  as  the 
First  Triumvirate,  or  supremacy  of  three. 

Caesar  in  Gaul. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  bargain,  Caesar  was 
chosen  consul  for  59  B.  C,  and  at  the  end  of  his 
term  was  given  the  governorship  of  Cisalpine 
and  Transalpine  Gaul,  with  command  of  three 
legions  there,  for  five  years.  His  grand  aim 
was  a  military  command  —  the  leadership  of  an 
arm}-  —  the  prestige  of  a  successful  soldier.  No 
sooner  had  he  secured  the  command  than  fortune 
gave  him  opportunities  for  its  use  in  the  most 
striking  way  and  with  the  most  impressive  re- 
sults. The  Celtic  tribes  of  Gaul,  north  of  the 
two  small  provinces  which  the  Romans  had  al- 
ready acquired  on  the  ]\Iediterrauean  coast,  gave 
him  pretexts  or  provocations  (it  mattered  little 
to  Cfesar  which)  for  war  with  them,  and  in  a 
series  of  remarkable  campaigns,  which  all  soldiers 
since  have  admired,  he  pushed  the  frontiers  of 
the  dominion  of  Rome  to  the  ocean  and  the 
Rhine,  and  threatened  the  nations  of  Germany 
on  the  farther  banks  of  that  .stream.  "  The  con- 
quest of  Gaul  by  Cfesar,"  says  Mr.  Freeman,  "is 
one  of  the  most  important  events  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  It  is  in  some  sort  the  beginning  of 
modem  history,  as  it  brought  the  old  world  of 
southern  Europe,  of  whicli  Rome  was  the  head, 
into  contact  with  the  lands  and  nations  which 
were  to  play  the  greatest  part  in  later  times  — 
with  Gaul,  Germany,  and  IJritain. "  From  Gaul 
Ciesar  crossed  the  channel  to  Britain  in  55  B.  C. 
and  again  in  the  following  year,  exacting  tribute 
from  the  Celtic  natives,  but  attempting  no  lodg- 
ment in  the  island. 

Meantime,  while  pursuing  a  career  of  conquest 
which  excited  the  Roman  world,  Caesar  never  lost 
touch  with  the  capital  and  its  seething  politics. 
Each  winter  he  repaired  to  Lucca,  the  point  in 


1030 


EUROPE. 


CcBsar''s 
Supremacy. 


EUROPE. 


bis  provicce  which  was  nearest  to  Rome,  and 
conferred  there  with  his  friends,  who  flocked  to 
the  rendezvous.  He  secured  an  extension  of  liis 
terra,  to  enable  him  to  complete  his  plans,  and 
year  by  year  he  grew  more  independent  of  the 
support  of  his  colleagues  in  the  triumvirate, 
while  they  weakened  one  another  by  their  jeal- 
ousies, and  the  Roman  state  was  more  hopelessly 
distracted  by  factious  strife. 

End  of  the  Triumvirate. 

The  year  after  Caesar's  second  invasion  of 
Britain,  Crassus,  who  had  obtained  the  govern- 
ment of  Syria,  perished  in  a  disastrous  war  with 
the  Parthians,  and  the  triumvirate  was  at  an  end. 
Disorder  in  Rome  increased  and  Pompeius  lacked 
energy  or  boldness  to  deal  with  it,  though  he 
seemed  to  be  the  one  man  present  who  might  do 
so.  He  was  made  sole  consul  in  52  B.  C. ;  he 
might  have  seized  the  dictatorship,  with  appro- 
val of  many,  but  he  waited  for  it  to  be  offered  to 
him,  and  the  offer  never  came.  He  drew  at  last 
into  close  alliance  with  the  party  of  the  Opti- 
mates,  and  left  the  Populares  to  be  won  entirely 
to  Cassar's  side. 

Civil  War. 

JIatters  came  to  a  crisis  in  50  B.  C. ,  when  the 
Senate  passed  an  order  removing  Cassar  from  his 
command  and  discharging  his  soldiers  who  had 
served  their  term.  He  came  to  Ravenna  with  a 
single  legion  and  concerted  measures  with  his 
friends.  The  issue  involved  is  supposed  to  have 
been  one  of  life  or  death  to  him,  as  well  as  of 
triumph  or  failure  in  his  ambitions ;  for  his  ene- 
mies were  malignant.  His  friends  demanded 
that  he  be  made  consul,  for  his  protection,  before 
laying  down  his  arms.  The  Senate  answered  by 
proclaiming  him  a  public  enemy  if  he  failed  to 
disband  his  troops  with  no  delay.  It  was  a 
declaration  of  war,  and  Ciesar  accepted  it.  He 
marched  his  single  legion  across  the  Rubicon, 
which  was  the  boundary  of  his  province,  and 
advanced  towards  Rome. 

Pompeius,  with  the  forces  he  had  gathered,  re- 
treated southward,  and  consuls,  senators  and 
nobles  generally  streamed  after  him.  Caesar  fol- 
lowed them  —  turning  aside  from  the  city  — and 
his  force  gathered  numbers  as  he  advanced. 
The  Pompeians  continued  their  flight  and  aban- 
doned Italy,  withdrawing  to  Epirus,  planning  to 
gather  there  the  forces  of  the  East  and  return 
with  them.  Caesar  now  took  possession  of  Rome 
and  secured  the  islands  of  Sicily  and  Sardinia, 
from  which  it  drew  its  supply  of  food.  This 
done,  he  proceeded  without  delay  to  Spain, 
where  seven  legions  strongly  devoted  to  Pom- 
peius were  stationed.  He  overcame  them  in  a 
single  campaign,  enlisted  most  of  the  veterans 
in  his  own  service,  and  acquired  a  store  of  treas- 
ure. Before  the  year  ended  he  was  again  in 
Rome,  where  the  citizens  had  proclaimed  him 
dictator.  He  held  the  dictatorship  for  eleven 
days,  only,  to  legalize  an  election  which  made 
him  consul,  with  a  pliant  associate.  He  reor- 
ganized the  government,  complete  in  all  its 
branches,  including  a  senate,  partly  composed  of 
former  members  of  the  body  who  had  remained 
or  returned.  ThenfB.  C.  48.  — January)  he  took 
up  the  pursuit  of  Pompeius  and  the  Optimates. 
Crossing  to  Epirus,  after  some  months  of  change- 
ful fortune,  he  fought  and  won  the  decisive 
battle  of  Pliarsalia.     Pompeius,  flying  to  Egypt, 


was  murdered  there.  Caesar,  following,  with  a 
small  force,  was  placed  in  great  peril  by  a  rising 
at  Alexandria,  but  held  his  ground  until  assis- 
tance came.  He  then  garrisoned  Egypt  with 
Roman  troops  and  made  the  princess  Cleopatra, 
who  had  captivated  him  by  her  charms,  joint 
occupant  of  the  throne  with  her  younger  brother. 
During  his  absence,  affairs  at  Rome  were  again 
disturbed,  and  he  was  once  more  appointed  dic- 
tator, as  well  as  tribune  for  life.  His  presence 
restored  order  at  once,  and  he  was  soon  in  readi- 
ness to  attack  the  party  of  his  enemies  who  had 
taken  refuge  in  Africa.  The  battle  of  Thapsus, 
followed  by  the  suicide  of  Cato  and  the  surrender 
of  Utica,  practically  finished  the  contest,  though 
one  more  campaign  was  fought  in  Spain  the  fol- 
lowing year. 

Ceesar  Supreme. 

Caesar  was  now  master  of  the  dominions  of 
Rome,  and  as  entirely  a  monarch  as  any  one  of 
his  imperial  successors,  who  took  his  name,  with 
the  power  which  he  caused  it  to  symbolize,  and 
called  themselves  "Csesars,"  and  "Imperators," 
as  though  the  two  titles  were  equivalent.  "  Im- 
perator  "  was  the  title  under  which  he  chose  to 
exercise  his  sovereignty.  Other  Roman  generals 
had  been  Imperators  before,  but  he  was  the  first 
to  be  named  Imperator  for  life,  and  the  word 
(changed  in  our  tongue  to  Emperor)  took  a  mean- 
ing from  that  day  more  regal  than  Rex  or  King. 
That  Caesar,  the  Imperator,  first  of  all  Emperors, 
ever  coveted  the  crown  and  title  of  an  older- 
fashioned  royalty,  is  not  an  easy  thing  to  believe. 

Having  settled  his  authority  firmly,  he  gave 
his  attention  to  the  organization  of  the  Empire 
(still  Republic  in  name)  and  to  the  reforming  of 
the  evils  which  afflicted  it.  That  he  did  this 
work  with  consummate  judgment  and  success  is 
the  opinion  of  all  who  study  his  time.  He  grati- 
fied no  resentments,  executed  no  revenges,  pro- 
scribed no  enemies.  All  who  submitted  to  his 
rule  were  safe ;  and  it  seems  to  be  clear  that  the 
people  in  general  were  glad  to  be  rescued  by  his 
rule  from  the  old  oligarchical  and  anarchical 
state.  But  some  of  Caesar's  own  partisans  were 
dissatisfied  with  the  autocracy  which  they  helped 
to  create,  or  with  the  slenderness  of  their  own 
parts  in  it.  They  conspired  with  surviving  lead- 
ers of  the  Optimates,  and  Caesar  was  assassinated 
by  them,  in  the  Senate  chamber,  on  the  15th  of 
March,  B.  C.  44. 

Professor  Mommsen  has  expressed  the  estimate 
of  Caesar  which  many  thoughtful  historians  have 
formed,  in  the  following  strong  words:  "In  the 
character  of  Caesar  the  great  contrasts  of  exis- 
tence meet  and  balance  each  other.  He  was  of 
the  mightiest  creative  power,  and  yet  of  the  most 
penetrating  judgment;  of  the  highest  energy  of 
will  and  the  highest  capacity  of  execution ;  filled 
with  republican  ideals,  and  at  the  same  time 
born  to  be  king.  He  was  'the  entire  perfect 
man ' ;  and  he  was  this  because  he  was  the  entire 
and  perfect  Roman."  This  may  be  nearly  true 
if  we  ignore  the  moral  side  of  Caesar's  character. 
He  was  of  too  large  a  nature  to  do  evil  things 
unnecessarily,  and  so  he  shines  even  morally  in 
comparison  with  many  of  his  kind ;  but  he  had 
no  scruples. 

After  the  Murder  of  Caesar. 

The  murderers  of  Csesar  were  not  accepted  by 
the  people  as  the  patriots  and  "liberators  "  which 


1031 


EUROPE. 


Augustus 
and  the  Empire. 


EUROPE. 


they  claimed  to  be,  and  they  were  soon  in  flight 
from  the  city.  Marcus  Antonius,  who  had  been 
Caesar's  associate  in  the  consulship,  now  naturally 
and  skilfully  assumed  the  direction  of  affairs, 
and  aspired  to  gather  the  reins  of  imperial  power 
into  his  own  hands.  But  rivals  were  ready  to 
dispute  with  him  the  great  prize  of  ambition. 
Among  them,  it  is  probable  that  Antony  gave 
little  heed  at  tirst  to  the  young  man,  Caius 
Octavius,  or  Octavianus,  who  was  Coesar's 
nephew,  adopted  son  and  heir;  for  Octavius  was 
less  than  nineteen  years  old,  he  was  absent  in 
Apollonia,  and  he  was  little  known.  But  the 
young  Caesar,  coming  boldly  though  quietly  to 
Rome,  began  to  push  his  hereditary  claims  with 
a  patient  craftiness  and  dexterity  that  were  mar- 
vellous in  one  so  young. 

The  Second  Triumvirate. 

The  contestants  soon  resorted  to  arras.  The 
result  of  their  first  indecisive  encounter  was  a 
compromise  and  the  formation  of  a  triumvirate, 
like  that  of  Ctesar,  Pompeius  and  Crassus.  This 
second  triumvirate  was  made  up  of  Antonius, 
Octavius,  and  Lepidus,  lately  master  of  the  horse 
in  Caesar's  army.  Unlike  the  earlier  coalition,  it 
was  vengeful  and  bloody-minded.  Its  first  act 
was  a  proscription,  in  the  terrible  manner  of 
Sulla,  which  filled  Rome  and  Italy  with  murders, 
and  with  terror  and  mourning.  Cicero,  the 
patriot  and  great  orator,  was  among  the  victims 
cut  down. 

After  this  general  slaughter  of  their  enemies  at 
home,  Antonius  and  Octavius  proceeded  against 
Brutus  and  Cassius,  two  of  the  assassins  of 
Casar,  who  had  gathered  a  large  force  in  Greece. 
They  defeated  them  at  Philippi,  and  both  "lib- 
erators" perished  by  their  own  hands.  The  tri- 
umvirs now  divided  the  empire  between  them, 
Antonius  ruling  the  East,  Octavius  the  West, 
and  Lepidus  taking  Africa — that  is,  the  Cartha- 
ginian province,  which  included  neitlier  Egypt 
nor  Numidia.  Unhappily  for  Antonius,  the 
queen  of  Egypt  was  among  his  vassals,  and  she 
ensnared  him.  He  gave  himself  up  to  voluptu- 
ous dalliance  with  Cleopatra  at  Alexandria,  while 
the  cool  intriguer,  Octavius,  at  Rome,  worked 
unceasingly  to  solidify  and  increase  his  power. 
After  six  years  had  passed,  the  young  Caesar 
was  ready  to  put  Lepidus  out  of  his  way,  which 
he  did  mercifully,  by  sending  him  into  exile. 
After  five  years  more,  he  launched  his  legions 
and  his  war  galleys  against  Antonius,  with  the 
full  sanction  of  the  Roman  senate  and  people. 
The  sea-fight  at  Actium  (B.  C.  31)  gave  Octavius 
the  whole  empire,  and  both  Antonius  and  Cleo- 
patra committed  suicide  after  flying  to  Egypt. 
The  kingdom  of  the  Ptolemies  was  now  extin- 
guished and  became  a  Roman  province  in  due 
form. 

Octavius  (Augustus)  Supreme. 

Octavius  was  now  more  securely  absolute  as 
the  ruler  of  Rome  and  its  great  empire  than 
Sulla  or  Julius  Ctesar  had  been,  and  he  main- 
tained that  sovereignty  without  challenge  for 
forty-five  years,  until  his  death.  He  received 
from  the  Senate  the  honorary  title  of  "Augus- 
tus," by  which  he  is  most  commonly  known. 
For  official  titles,  he  took  none  but  those  which 
had  belonged  to  the  institutions  of  the  Republic, 
and  were  familiarly  known.  He  was  Imperator, 
as  his  uncle  had  been.     He  was  Princeps,  or 


head  of  the  Senate;  he  was  Censor;  he  wa» 
Tribune ;  he  was  Supreme  Pontiff.  All  the  great 
offices  of  the  Republic  he  kept  alive,  and  in- 
geniously constructed  his  sovereignty  by  uniting 
their  powers  in  himself. 

Organization  of  the  Empire. 

The  historical  position  of  Augustus,  as  the 
real  founder  of  the  Roman  Empire,  is  unique  in 
its  grandeur;  and  yet  History  has  dealt  con- 
temptuously, for  the  most  part,  with  his  name. 
His  character  has  been  looked  upon,  to  use  the 
language  of  De  Quincey,  as  ' '  positively  repulsive, 
in  the  very  highest  degree."  "A  cool  head," 
wrote  Gibbon  of  him,  "an  unfeehng  heart,  and 
a  cowardly  disposition,  prompted  him,  at  the 
age  of  nineteen,  to  assume  the  mask  of  hypoc- 
risy, which  he  never  afterwards  laid  aside." 
And  again:  "His  virtues,  and  even  his  vices, 
were  artificial ;  and  according  to  the  various  dic- 
tates of  his  interest,  he  was  at  first  the  enemy, 
and  at  last  the  father,  of  the  Roman  world." 
Yet,  how  can  we  deny  surpassing  high  qualities 
of  some  description  to  a  man  who  set  the  shat- 
tered Roman  Republic,  with  all  its  democratic 
bases  broken  up,  ou  a  new  —  an  imperial  —  foun- 
dation, so  gently  that  it  suffered  no  further  shock, 
and  so  solidly  that  it  endured,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  for  a  millenium  and  a  half  ? 

In  the  reign  of  Augustus  the  Empire  was 
consolidated  and  organized;  it  was  not  much 
extended.  The  frontiers  were  carried  to  the 
Danube,  throughout,  and  the  subjugation  of  Spain 
was  made  complete.  Augustus  generally  dis- 
couraged wars  of  conquest.  His  ambitious  step- 
sons, Drusus  and  Tiberius,  persuaded  him  into 
several  expeditions  beyond  the  Rhine,  against 
the  restless  German  nations,  which  perpetually 
menaced  the  borders  of  Gaul ;  but  these  gained 
no  permanent  footing  in  the  Teutonic  territory. 
They  led,  on  the  contrar}',  to  a  fearful  disaster 
(A.D.  9),  near  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Augustus, 
when  three  legions,  under  Varus,  were  destroyed 
in  the  Teutoburg  Forest  by  a  great  combination 
of  the  tribes,  planned  and  conducted  by  a  young 
chieftain  named  Hermann,  or  Arminius,  who  is 
the  national  hero  of  Germany  to  this  day. 

The  policy  of  Drusus  in  strongly  fortifying  the 
northern  frontier  against  the  Germans  left  marks 
which  are  conspicuously  visible  at  the  present 
day.  From  the  fifty  fortresses  which  he  is  said 
to  have  built  along  the  line  sprang  many  impor- 
tant modern  cities, —  Basel,  Strasburg,  Worms, 
Mainz,  Bingen,  Coblenz,  Bonn,  Cologne,  and 
Leyden,  among  the  number.  From  similar  forts 
on  the  Dauubiaii  frontier  rose  Vienna,  Regens- 
burg  and  Passau. 

Tiberius,  Caligula,  Claudius  and  Nero. 

Augustus  died  A.  D.  11,  and  was  succeeded  in 
his  honors,  his  offices,  and  his  powers,  by  his 
step-son,  Tiberius  Claudius  Nero,  whom  he  had 
adopted.  Tiberius,  during  most  of  his  reign, 
was  a  vigorous  ruler,  but  a  detestable  man,  unless 
his  subjects  belied  him,  which  some  historians 
suspect.  Another  attempt  at  the  conquest  of 
Germany  was  made  by  his  nephew  Germanicus, 
son  of  Drusus;  but  the  jealousy  of  the  emperor 
checked  it,  and  Germanicus  died  soon  after,  be- 
lieving that  he  had  been  poisoned.  A  son  of 
Germanicus,  Caius,  better  known  by  his  nick- 
name of  Caligula,  succeeded  to  the  throne  on  the 
death  of  Tiberius  (A.  D.  37),  and  was  the  first  of 


1032 


EUROPE. 


Vespasian 
to  Hadrian. 


EUROPE. 


many  emperors  to  be  crazed  and  made  beast- 
like, in  lust,  cruelty  and  senselessness,  by  the 
awful,  unbounded  power  which  passed  into  their 
hands.  The  Empire  bore  his  madness  for  three 
years,  and  then  he  was  murdered  by  his  own 
guards.  The  Senate  had  thouglits  now  of  restor- 
ing the  commonwealth,  and  debated  the  question 
for  a  day;  but  the  soldiers  of  the  praetorian 
guard  took  it  out  of  their  hands,  and  decided  it, 
by  proclaiming  Tiberius  Claudius  (A.  D.  41),  a 
brother  of  Gcrmanicus,  and  uncle  of  the  em- 
^peror  just  slain.  Claudius  was  weak  of  body 
land  mind,  but  not  vicious,  and  his  reign  was  dis- 
Itinctly  one  of  improvement  and  advance  in  the 
Empire.  He  began  the  conquest  of  Britain, 
which  the  Romans  had  neglected  since  Ca;sar's 
time,  and  he  opened  the  Senate  to  the  provincials 
of  Gaul.  He  had  two  wives  of  infamous  charac- 
ter, and  the  later  one  of  these,  Agrippina,  brought 
him  a  son,  not  his  own,  whom  he  adopted,  and 
who  succeeded  him  (A.D.  54).  This  was  Nero,  of 
foul  memory,  who  was  madman  and  monster  in 
as  sinister  a  combination  as  history  can  show. 
During  the  reign  of  Nero,  the  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity, which  had  been  silently  making  its  way 
from  Judsea  into  all  parts  of  the  Empire,  began 
to  attract  the  attention  of  men  in  public  place, 
and  the  first  persecution  of  its  disciples  took 
place  (A.  D.  64).  A  great  fire  occurred  in  Rome, 
which  the  hated  emperor  was  believed  to  have 
caused ;  but  he  found  it  convenient  to  accuse  the 
Christians  of  the  deed,  and  large  numbers  of 
them  were  put  to  death  in  horrible  ways. 

Vespasian  and  his  Sons. 

Nero  was  tolerated  for  fourteen  years,  until 
the  soldiers  in  the  provinces  rose  against  him, 
and  he  committed  suicide  (A.  D.  68)  to  escape  a 
worse  death.  Then  followed  a  year  of  civil  war 
between  rival  emperors  • —  Galba,  Otho,  Vitellius, 
and  Vespasian  —  proclaimed  by  different  bodies 
of  soldiers  in  various  parts  of  the  Empire.  The 
struggle  ended  in  favor  of  Vespasian,  a  rude, 
strong  soldier,  who  purged  the  government, 
disciplined  the  army,  and  brought  society  baclt 
toward  simpler  and  decenter  ways.  The  great 
revolt  of  the  Jews  (A.  D.  66-70)  had  broken  out 
before  he  received  the  purple,  and  he  was  com- 
manding in  Judaea  when  Nero  fell.  The  siege, 
capture  and  destruction  of  Jeru.salem  was  ac- 
complished by  his  son  Titus.  A  more  formida- 
ble revolt  in  the  West  (A.  D.  69)  was  begun  by 
the  Batavians,  a  German  tribe  which  occupied 
part  of  the  Netherland  territory,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Rhine.  They  were  joined  by  neighboring 
Gauls  and  bj'  disaffected  Roman  legionaries,  and 
they  received  help  from  their  German  kindred 
on  the  northern  side  of  the  Rliine.  The  revolt, 
led  by  a  chieftain  named  Civilis,  who  had  served 
in  the  Roman  army,  was  overcome  with  extreme 
difficulty. 

Vespasian  was  more  than  worthily  succeeded 
(A.  D.  79)  by  liis  elder  son,  Titus,  whose  subjects 
so  admired  his  many  virtues  that  lie  was  called 
"the  delight  of  the  human  race."  His  short 
reign,  however,  was  one  of  calamities:  fire  at 
Rome,  a  great  pestilence,  and  the  frightful  erup- 
tion of  Vesuvius  which  destroyed  Herculaneum 
and  Pompeii.  After  Titus  came  his  younger 
brother  Domitian  (A.  D.  81),  who  proved  to  be 
another  creature  of  the  monstrous  species  that 
appeared  so  often  in  the  series  of  Roman  emper- 
ors.    The  conquest  of  southern  Britain  (modern 


England)  was  completed  in  his  reign  by  an  able 
soldier,  Agricola,  who  fought  the  Caledonians  of 
the  North,  but  was  recalled  before  subduing  them. 
Domitian  was  murdered  by  his  own  servants 
(A.  D.  96),  after  a  reign  of  fifteen  years. 

Nerva,  Trajan  and  Hadrian. 

Rome  and  the  Empire  were  happy  at  last  in 
the  choice  that  was  made  of  a  sovereign  to  suc- 
ceed the  hateful  son  of  Vespasian.  Not  the  sol- 
diery, but  the  Senate,  made  the  choice,  and  it 
fell  on  one  of  their  number,  Cocceius  Nerva,  who 
was  already  an  aged  man.  He  wore  the  purple 
but  sixteen  months,  and  his  single  great  distinc- 
tion in  Roman  history  is,  that  he  introduced  to 
the  imperial  succession  a  line  of  the  noblest  men 
who  ever  sat  in  the  seat  of  the  Ctesars.  The  first 
of  these  was  the  soldier  Trajan,  whom  Nerva 
adopted  and  associated  with  himself  in  authority. 
When  Nerva  died  (A.  D.  97),  his  son  by  adoption 
ascended  the  throne  with  no  opposition.  The 
new  Emperor  was  simple  and  plain  in  his  habits 
and  manners  of  life ;  he  was  honest  and  open  in 
all  his  dealings  with  men ;  he  was  void  of  sus- 
picion, and  of  malice  and  jealousy  no  less.  He 
gave  careful  attention  to  the  business  of  state 
and  was  wise  in  his  administration  of  affairs,  im- 
proving roads,  encouraging  trade,  helping  agri- 
culture, and  developing  the  resources-  of  the  Em- 
pire in  very  prudent  and  practical  ways.  But 
he  was  a  soldier,  fond  of  war,  and  he  unwisely 
reopened  the  career  of  conquest  which  had  been 
almost  closed  for  the  Empire  since  Pompeius 
came  back  from  the  East.  A  threatening  king- 
dom having  risen  among  the  Dacians,  in  the 
country  north  of  the  lower  Danube — the  Tran- 
sylvania and  Roumaniaof  the  present  day  —  he  at- 
tacked and  crushed  it,  in  a  series  of  vigorous 
campaigns  (A.  D.  101-106),  and  annexed  the 
whole  territory  to  the  dominion  of  Rome.  He 
then  garrisoned  and  colonized  the  country,  and 
Romanized  it  so  completely  that  it  keeps  the 
Roman  name,  and  its  language  to  this  day  is  of 
the  Latin  stock,  though  Goths,  Huns,  Bulgarians 
and  Slavs  have  swept  it  in  successive  invasions, 
and  held  it  among  their  conquests  for  centuries 
at  a  time.  In  the  East,  he  ravaged  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Parthian  king,  entered  his  capital  and 
added  Mesopotamia,  Armenia,  and  Arabia  Petrsea 
to  the  list  of  Roman  provinces.  But  he  died 
(A.  D.  117)  little  satisfied  with  the  results  of  his 
eastern  campaigns. 

His  successor  abandoned  them,  and  none  have 
doubted  that  he  did  well;  becau!;e  the  Empire 
was  weakened  by  the  new  frontier  in  Asia  which 
Trajan  gave  it  to  defend.  His  Dacian  conquests 
were  kept,  but  all  beyond  the  Euphrates  in  the 
East  were  given  up.  Tlie  successor  who  did  this 
was  Hadrian,  a  kinsman,  whom  the  Emperor 
adopted  in  his  last  hours.  Until  near  the  close 
of  his  life,  Hadrian  ranked  among  the  best  of  the 
emperors.  Rome  saw  little  of  him,  and  resented 
his  incessant  ti-avels  through  every  i)art  of  his 
great  realm.  His  manifest  preference  for  Alliens 
where  he  lingered  longest,  and  whicli  flourished 
anew  under  his  patronage,  was  still  more  dis- 
pleasing to  the  ancient  capital.  For  the  Emperor 
was  a  man  of  cultivation,  fond  of  literature,  phi- 
losophy and  art,  though  busy  with  the  cares  of 
State.  In  his  later  years  he  was  afflicted  with  a 
disease  which  poisoned  his  nature  by  its  torments, 
filled  his  mind  with  dark  suspicions,  and  made 
him  fitfully  tyrannical  and  cruel.    The  event  most 


1033 


EUROPE. 


The  Antonines, 
and  after. 


EUROPE. 


notable  in  his  generally  peaceful  and  prosperous 
reign  was  the  renewed  and  final  revolt  of  the 
Jews,  under  Barchochebas,  which  resulted  in 
their  total  expulsion  from  Jerusalem,  and  its  con- 
version into  a  heathen  city,  with  a  Roman  name. 

The  Antonines. 

Hadrian  had  adopted  before  his  death  (A.  D. 
138)  a  man  of  blameless  character,  Titus  Aurelius 
Antoninus,  who  received  from  his  subjects,  when 
he  became  Emperor,  the  appellation  "Pius,"  to 
signify  the  dutiful  reverence  and  kindliness  of 
his  disposition.  He  justified  the  name  of  Anto- 
ninus Pius,  by  which  he  is  historically  known,  and 
his  reign,  though  disturbed  by  some  troubles  on 
the  distant  borders  of  the  Empire,  was  happy  for 
Ms  subjects  in  nearly  all  respects.  "No  great 
deeds  are  told  of  him,  save  this,  perhaps  the  great- 
est, that  he  secured  the  love  and  happiness  of 
those  he  ruled  "  (Capes). 

Like  so  many  of  the  emperors,  Antoninus  had 
no  son  of  his  own ;  but  even  before  he  came  to 
the  throne,  and  at  the  request  of  Hadrian,  he  had 
adopted  a  young  lad  who  won  the  heart  of  the 
late  Emperor  while  still  a  child.  The  family 
name  of  this  son  by  adoption  was  Verus,  and  he 
was  of  Spanish  descent ;  the  name  which  he  took, 
in  his  new  relationship,  was  Marcus  Aurelius 
Antoninus.  It  is  unquestionably  the  most  illus- 
trious name  in  the  whole  imperial  line,  from 
Augustus  to  the  last  Constantine,  and  made  so, 
not  so  much  by  deeds  as  by  character.  He  gave 
the  world  the  solitary  example  of  a  philosopher 
upon  the  throne.  There  have  been  a  few  —  a  very 
few — surpassingly  good  men  in  kingly  places; 
but  there  has  never  been  another  whose  soul  was 
lifted  to  so  serene  a  height  above  the  sovereignty 
of  his  station.  Unlimited  power  tempted  no  form 
of  selfishness  in  him ;  he  saw  nothing  in  his  im- 
perial exaltation  but  the  duties  which  it  imposed. 
His  mind  was  meditative,  and  inclined  him  to  the 
studious  life ;  but  he  compelled  himself  to  be  a 
man  of  vigor  and  activity  in  affairs.  He  dis- 
liked war ;  but  he  spent  years  of  his  life  in  camp 
on  the  frontiers ;  because  it  fell  to  his  lot  to  en- 
counter the  first  great  onset  of  the  barbarian  na- 
tions of  the  north,  which  never  ceased  from 
that  time  to  beat  against  the  barriers  of  the  Em- 
pire until  they  had  broken  them  down.  His 
struggle  was  on  the  line  of  the  Danube,  with  the 
tribes  of  the  Marcomanni,  the  Quadi,  the  Van- 
dals, and  others  of  less  formidable  power.  He 
held  them  back,  but  the  resources  of  the  Empire 
were  overstrained  and  weakened  lastingly  by  the 
effort.  For  the  first  time,  too,  there  were  colo- 
nies of  barbarians  brought  into  the  Empire, 
from  beyond  its  lines,  to  be  settled  for  the  supply 
of  soldiers  to  the  armies  of  Rome.  It  was  a 
dangerous  sign  of  Roman  decay  and  a  fatal  policy 
to  begin.  Tlie  decline  of  the  great  world-power 
was,  in  truth,  already  well  advanced,  and  the 
century  of  good  emperors  which  ended  when 
Marcus  Aurelius  died  (A.  D.  180),  only  retarded, 
and  did  not  arrest,  the  progress  of  mortal  mala- 
dies in  the  state. 

From  Commodus  to  Caracalla. 

The  best  of  emperors,  was  followed  on  the 
throne  by  a  son,  Commodus,  who  went  mad,  like 
Nero  and  Caligula,  with  the  drunkenness  of 
power,  and  who  was  killed  (A.  D.  193)  by  his 
own  servants,  after  a  reign  of  twelve  years.  The 
soldiers  of  the  praetorian  guard  now  took  upon 


themselves  the  making  of  emperors,  and  placed 
two  upon  the  throne  —  first,  Pertinax,  an  aged 
senator,  whom  they  murdered  the  next  3'ear,  and 
then  Didius  Julianus,  likewise  a  senator,  to 
whom,  as  the  highest  bidder,  they  sold  the  purple. 
Again,  as  after  Nero's  death,  the  armies  on  the 
frontiers  put  forward,  each,  a  rival  claimant, 
and  there  was  war  between  the  competitors.  The 
victor  who  became  sovereign  was  Septimius  Se- 
verus  (A.  D.  194-311),  who  had  been  in  com- 
mand on  the  Danube.  He  was  an  able  soldier, 
and  waged  war  with  success  against  the  Par- 
thians  in  the  East,  and  with  the  Caledonians  in 
Britain,  which  latter  he  could  not  subdue.  Of 
his  two  sons,  the  elder,  nicknamed  Caracalla  (A.  D. 
311-317),  killed  his  brother  with  his  own  hands, 
and  tortured  the  Roman  world  with  his  brutali- 
ties for  six  years,  when  he  fell  under  the  stroke 
of  an  assassin.  The  reign  of  this  foul  beast 
brought  one  striking  change  to  the  Empire.  An 
imperial  edict  wiped  away  the  last  distinction 
between  Romans  and  Provincials,  giving  citizen- 
ship to  every  free  inhabitant  of  the  Empire. 
"Rome  from  this  date  became  constitutionally 
an  empire,  and  ceased  to  be  merely  a  mimici- 
pality.  The  city  had  become  the  world,  or, 
viewed  from  the  other  side,  the  world  had  be- 
come '  the  City  '  "  (Merivale). 

Anarchy  and  Decay. 

The  period  of  sixty-seven  years  from  the  mur- 
der of  Caracalla  to  the  accession  of  Diocletian  — 
when  a  great  constitutional  change  occurred  — 
demands  little  space  in  a  sketch  like  this.  The 
weakening  of  the  Empire  by  causes  inherent  in 
its  social  and  political  structure, — the  chief  among 
which  were  the  deadly  influence  of  its  system  of 
slavery  and  the  paralyzing  effects  of  its  autoc- 
racy,—  went  on  at  an  increasing  rate,  while  dis- 
order grew  nearly  to  the  pitch  of  anarchy,  com- 
plete. There  were  twenty-two  emperors  in  the 
term,  which  scarcely  exceeded  that  of  two  genera- 
tions of  men.  Nineteen  of  these  were  taken  from 
the  throne  by  violent  deaths,  through  mutiny  or 
murder,  while  one  fell  in  battle,  and  another  was 
held  captive  in  Persia  till  he  died.  Only  five 
among  these  twenty -two  ephemeral  lords  of  the 
world, —  namely  Alexander  Severus,  Decius  (who 
was  a  vigorous  soldier  and  ruler,  but  who  perse- 
cuted the  Christians  with  exceptional  cruelty), 
Claudius,  Aurelian,  and  Probus, —  can  be  credited 
with  any  personal  weight  or  worth  in  the  history 
of  the  time ;  and  they  held  power  too  briefly  to 
make  any  notable  mark. 

The  distractions  of  the  time  were  made  worse 
by  a  great  number  of  local  ' '  tyrants, "  as  they 
were  called  —  military  adventurers  who  rose  in 
different  parts  of  the  Empire  and  established 
themselves  for  a  time  in  authority  over  some  dis- 
trict, large  or  small.  In  the  reign  of  Gallienus 
(A.  D.  360-368)  there  were  nineteen  of  these  petty 
"  imperators,"  and  they  were  spoken  of  as  the 
"thirty  tyrants."  The  more  important  of  the 
"  provincial  empires  "  thus  created  were  those  of 
Postumus,  in  Gaul,  and  of  Odenatus  of  Palmyra. 
The  latter,  under  Zenobia,  queen  and  successor 
of  Odenatus,  became  a  really  imposing  monarchy, 
until  it  was  overthrown  by  Aurelian,  A.  D.  373. 

The  Teutonic  Nations. 

The  Germanic  nations  beyond  the  Rhine  and 
the  Danube  had,  by  this  time,  improved  their 
organization,  and  many  of  the  tribes  formerly 


1034 


EUROPE. 


Constantine  and 
Imperial  Christianity. 


EUROPE. 


separated  and  independent  were  now  gathered 
into  powerful  confederations.  The  most  formida- 
ble of  these  leagues  in  the  West  was  that  which 
acquired  the  common  name  of  tlie  Franks,  or  Free- 
men, and  which  was  made  up  of  the  peoples  oc- 
cupying territory  along  the  course  of  the  Lower 
Rhine.  Another  of  nearly  equal  power,  dominat- 
ing the  German  side  of  the  Upper  Rhine  and  tlie 
headwaters  of  the  Danube,  is  believed  to  have 
absorbed  the  tribes  which  had  been  known  in  the 
previous  century  as  Boii,  Marcomanni,  Quadi, 
and  others.  The  general  name  it  received  was 
that  of  the  Alemanni.  The  Alemanni  were  in 
Intimate  association  with  the  Suevi,  and  little  is 
known  of  the  distinction  that  existed  between  the 
two.  They  had  now  begun  to  make  incursions 
across  the  Rhine,  but  were  driven  back  in  238. 

Farther  to  the  East,  on  the  Lower  Danube,  a 
still  more  dangerous  horde  was  now  threatening 
the  flanks  of  the  Empire  in  its  European  domain. 
These  were  Goths,  a  people  akin,  without  doiibt, 
to  the  Swedes,  Norsemen  and  Danes ;  but  wnence 
and  when  they  made  their  way  to  the  neighbor- 
hood of  the  Black  Sea  is  a  question  in  dispute. 
It  was  in  the  reign  of  Caracalla  that  the  Romans 
became  first  aware  of  their  presence  in  the  coun- 
try since  known  as  the  Ukraine.  A  few  years 
later,  when  Alexander  Severus  was  on  the  throne, 
they  began  to  make  incursions  into  Dacia.  Dur- 
ing the  reign  of  Philip  the  Arabian  (A.  D.  244- 
249)  they  passed  through  Dacia,  crossed  the 
Danube,  and  invaded  Moesia  (modern  Bulgaria). 
In  their  next  invasion  (A.  D.  251)  they  passed  the 
Balkans,  defeated  the  Romans  in  two  terrible 
battles,  the  last  of  which  cost  the  reigning  Em- 
peror, Decius,  his  life,  and  destroyed  the  city  of 
Philippopohs,  with  100,000  of  its  people.  But 
when,  a  few  years  later,  they  attempted  to  take 
possession  of  even  Thrace  and  Macedonia,  they 
were  crushingly  defeated  by  the  Emperor  Clau- 
dius, whose  successor  Aurelian  made  peace  by 
surrendering  to  tliem  the  whole  province  of  Dacia 
(A.  D.  270),  where  they  settled,  giving  the  Em- 
pire no  disturbance  for  nearly  a  hundred  years. 
Before  this  occurred,  the  Goths,  having  acquired 
the  little  kingdom  of  Bosporus  (the  modern 
Crimea)  had  begun  to  launch  a  piratical  navy, 
which  plundered  the  coast  cities  of  Asia  Minor 
and  Greece,  including  Athens  itself. 

On  the  Asiatic  side  of  the  Empire  a  new  power, 
a  revived  and  regenerated  Persian  monarchy, 
had  risen  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  Parthian  king- 
dom, which  it  overthrew,  and  had  begun  with- 
out delay  to  contest  the  rule  of  Rome  in  the  East. 

Diocletian. 

Briefly  described,  this  was  the  state  and  situa- 
tion of  the  Roman  Empire  when  Diocletian,  an 
able  Ulyrian  soldier,  came  to  the  throne  (A.  D. 
284).  His  accession  marks  a  new  epoch.  ' '  From 
this  time,"  says  Dean  Merivale,  "  the  old  names 
of  the  Republic,  the  consuls,  the  tribunes,  and 
the  Senate  itself,  cease,  even  if  still  existing,  to 
have  any  political  significance. "  ' '  The  empire 
of  Rome  is  henceforth  an  Oriental  sovereignty." 
But  the  changes  which  Diocletian  made  in  the 
organization  and  administration  of  the  Empire, 
if  they  did  weigh  it  down  with  a  yet  more  crush- 
ing autocracy  and  contribute  to  its  exhaustion 
in  the  end,  did  also,  for  the  time,  stop  the  wast- 
ing of  its  last  energies,  and  gather  them  in  hand 
for  potent  use.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that 
he  lengthened  the  term  of  its  career. 


Finding  that  one  man  in  the  exercise  of  supreine 
sovereignty,  as  absolute  as  he  wished  to  make  it, 
could  not  give  sufficient  care  to  every  part  of  the 
vast  realm,  he  first  associated  one  Maximian  with 
himself,  on  equal  terms,  as  Emperor,  or  Augustus, 
and  six  years  later  (A.  D.  293)  he  selected  two 
others  from  among  his  generals  and  invested 
them  with  a  subordinate  sovereignty,  giving  them 
the  title  of  ' '  Cssars. "  The  arrangement  appears 
to  have  worked  satisfactorily  while  Diocletian 
remained  at  the  head  of  his  imperial  college.  But 
in  305  he  wearied  of  the  splendid  burden  that  he 
bore,  and  abdicated  the  throne,  unwillingly  fol- 
lowed by  his  associate,  Maximian.  The  two 
Ciesars,  Constantius  and  Galerius,  were  then  ad- 
vanced to  the  Imperial  rank,  and  two  new  Csesars 
were  named. 

Jealousies,  quarrels,  and  civil  war  were  soon 
rending  the  Empire  again.  The  details  are  un- 
important. 

Constantine  and  Christianity. 

After  nine  years  of  struggle,  two  competitors 
emerged  (A.  D.  314)  alone,  and  divided  the  Em- 
pire between  them.     They  were  Constantine,  son 
of  Constantius,  the   Cfesar,    and  one   Licinius. 
After  nine  years  more,  Licinius  had  disappeared, 
defeated  and  put  to  death,  and  Constantine  (A.  D. 
323)  shared  the  sovereignty  of  Rome  with  none. 
In  its  final  stages,  the  contest  had  become, 
practically,  a  trial  of  strength  between  expiring 
Paganism    in    the  Roman  world   and   militant 
Christianity,  now  grown  to  great  strength.   _  The 
shrewd  adventurer  Constantine  saw  the  polltica'l 
importance  to  which  the  Christian  Church  had 
risen,  and  identified  himself  with  it  by  a  "  con- 
version "  which  has  glorified  his  name  most  un- 
deservedly.    If  to  be  a  Christian  with  sincerity 
is  to  be  a  good  man,  then  Constantine  was  none ; 
for  his  life  was  full  of  evil  deeds,  after  he  pro- 
fessed the  religion  of  Christ,  even  more  than  be- 
fore.    ' '  He  poured  out  the  best  and  noblest  blood 
in  torrents,  more  especially  of  those  nearly  con- 
nected with  himself.  ...  In  a  palace  which  he 
had  made  a  desert,  the  murderer  of  his  father-in- 
law,  his  brothers-in-law,  his  sister,  his  wife,  his 
son,  and  his  nephew,  must  have  felt  the  stings  of 
remorse,    if    hypocritical    priests   and   courtier 
bishops  had  not  lulled  his  conscience  to  rest" 
(Sismondi). 

But  the  so-called  "conversion"  of  Constantine 
was  an  event  of  vast  import  in  history.  It 
changed  immensely,  and  with  suddenness,  the 
position,  the  state,  the  influence,  and  very  con- 
siderably the  character  and  spirit  of  the  Christian 
Church.  The  hierarchy  of  the  Church  became, 
almost  at  once,  the  greatest  power  in  the  Empire, 
next  to  the  Emperor  himself,  and  its  political  as- 
sociations, which  were  dangerous  from  the  be- 
ginning, soon  proved  nearly  fatal  to  Its  spiritual 
integrity.  ' '  Both  the  purity  and  the  freedom  of 
the  Church  were  in  danger  of  being  lost.  State 
and  Church  were  beginning  an  amalgamation 
fraught  with  peril.  The  State  was  becoming  a 
kind  of  Church,  and  the  Church  a  kind  of  Sta,te. 
The  Emperor  preached  and  summoned  councils, 
called  himself,  though  half  in  jest,  a  '  bishop,' 
and  the  bishops  had  become  State  officials,  who, 
like  the  high  dignitaries  of  the  Empire,  travelled 
by  the  imperial  courier-service,  and  frequented 
the  ante-chambers  of  the  palaces  in  Constanti- 
nople." "The  Emperor  determined  what  doc- 
trines were  to  prevail  in  the  Church,  and  banished 


1035 


EUROPE. 


Tlie  Goihs 
in  the  Empire. 


EUROPE. 


Arius  to-day  and  Athanasius  to-morrow. "  "  The 
Church  was  surfeited  with  property  and  privi- 
leges. Tlie  Emperor,  a  poor  financier,  impover- 
ished the  Empire  to  enrich  "  it  (Uhlhorn).  That 
Christianity  had  shared  the  gain  of  the  Christian 
Church  from  these  great  changes,  is  very  ques- 
tionable. 

By  another  event  of  his  reign,  Constantino 
marked  it  in  history  with  lasting  effect.  He  re- 
built with  magnificence  the  Greek  city  of  Byzan- 
tium on  the  Bosphorus,  transferred  to  it  his  im- 
perial residence,  and  raised  it  to  a  nominal  equality 
with  Rome,  but  to  official  and  practical  superior- 
ity, as  the  capital  of  the  Empire.  The  old  Rome 
dwindled  in  rank  and  prestige  from  that  day; 
the  new  Rome  —  the  city  of  Constantine,  or  Con- 
stantinople—  rose  to  the  supreme  place  in  the 
€yes  and  the  imaginations  of  men. 

Julian  and  the  Pagan  Revival. 

That  Constantine  added  the  abilities  of  a  states- 
man to  the  unscrupulous  cleverness  of  an  ad- 
venturer is  not  to  be  disputed ;  but  he  failed  to 
give  proof  of  this  when  he  divided  the  Empire 
between  liis  three  sons  at  his  death  (A.  D.  337). 
The  inevitable  civil  wars  ensued,  until,  after  six- 
teen years,  one  survivor  gathered  the  whole  realm 
under  his  scepter  again.  He  (Constantius),  who 
debased  and  disgraced  the  Church  more  than  his 
father  had  done,  was  succeeded  (A.  D.  361)  by  his 
cousin,  Julian,  an  honest,  thoughtful,  strong  man, 
who,  not  unnaturally,  preferred  the  old  pagan 
Greek  philosophy  to  the  kind  of  Cliristianity 
which  he  had  seen  flourishing  at  the  Byzantine 
court.  He  i^ublicly  restored  the  worship  of  the 
ancient  gods  of  Greece  and  Rome ;  he  excluded 
Christians  from  the  schools,  and  bestowed  his 
favor  on  those  who  scorned  the  Church;  but 
he  entered  on  no  violent  persecution.  His  reign 
was  brief,  lasting  only  two  years.  He  perished 
in  a  hapless  expedition  against  the  Persians,  by 
whom  the  Empire  was  now  almost  incessantly 
harassed. 

Valentinian  and  Valens. 

His  successor,  Jovian,  whom  the  anny  elected, 
died  in  seven  moutlis;  but  Valentinian,  another 
soldier,  raised  by  his  comrades  to  the  throne, 
reigned  vigorously  for  eleven  years.  He  associ- 
ated his  brother,  Valens,  with  him  in  the  sov- 
ereignty, assigning  the  latter  to  the  East,  while  he 
took  the  administration  of  the  West. 

Until  the  death  of  Valentinian,  in  375,  the 
northern  frontiers  of  the  Empire,  along  the 
Rhine  and  the  Danube,  were  well  defended. 
Julian  had  commanded  in  Gaul,  with  Paris  for 
his  capital,  six  years  before  he  became  Emperor, 
and  had  organized  its  defence  most  effectively. 
Valentinian  maintained  the  line  with  success 
against  the  Alenianni;  while  his  lieutenant,  Theo- 
dosius,  delivered  Roman  Britain  from  the  ruinous 
attacks  of  the  Scots  and  Picts  of  its  northern 
region.  On  the  Danube,  there  continued  to  be 
peace  with  the  Goths,  who  held  back  all  other 
barbarians  from  that  northeastern  border. 

The  Goths  in  the  Empire. 

But  the  <lcatli  of  Valentinian  was  the  beginning 
of  fatal  calamities.  His  brother,  Valens,  had 
none  of  his  capability  or  his  vigor,  and  was  un- 
equal to  such  a  crisis  as  now  occurred.  The  terri- 
ble nation  of  the  Huns  had  entered  Europe  from 
the  Asiatic  steppes,  and  the  Western  Goths,  or 


Visigoths,  fled  before  them.  These  fugitives 
begged  to  be  permitted  to  cross  the  Danube  and 
settle  on  vacant  lands  in  McEsia  and  Thrace. 
Valens  consented,  and  the  whole  Visigothic  na- 
tion, 300,000  warriors,  with  their  women  and 
children,  passed  the  river  (A.  D.  376).  It  is  pos- 
sible that  they  might,  by  fair  treatment,  have 
been  converted  into  loyal  citizens,  and  useful  de- 
fenders of  the  land.  But  the  corrupt  officials  of 
the  court  took  advantage  of  their  dependent 
state,  and  wrung  extortionate  prices  from  them 
for  disgusting  food,  until  they  rose  in  desperation 
and  wasted  Thrace  with  fire  and  sword.  Fresh 
bodies  of  Ostrogoths  (Eastern  Goths)  and  other 
barbarians  came  over  to  join  them  (A.  D.  378); 
the  Roman  armies  were  beaten  in  two  great  bat- 
tles, and  Valens,  the  Emperor,  was  slain.  The 
victorious  Goths  swept  on  to  the  very  walls  of 
Constantinople,  which  they  could  not  surmount, 
and  the  whole  open  country,  from  the  Black  Sea 
to  the  Adriatic,  was  ravaged  by  them  at  will. 

Theodosius. 

In  the  meantime,  the  western  division  of  the 
Empire  had  passed,  on  the  death  of  Valentinian, 
under  the  nominal  rule  of  his  two  young  sons, 
Gratian,  aged  sixteen,  and  Valentinian  II.,  aged 
four.  Gratian  had  made  an  attempt  to  bring  help 
to  his  uncle  Valens ;  but  the  latter  fought  his  fatal 
battle  while  the  boy  emperor  was  on  the  way,  and 
the  latter,  upon  hearing  of  it,  turned  back.  Then 
Gratian  performed  his  one  great  act.  He  sought 
a  colleague,  and  called  to  the  throne  the  most 
promising  young  soldier  of  the  day.  This  was 
Theodosius,  whose  father,  Count  Theodosius,  the 
deliverer  of  Britain,  had  been  put  to  death  by 
Valens,  on  some  jealous  accusation,  only  three 
years  before.  The  new  Emperor  took  the  East 
for  his  realm,  having  Gratian  and  Valentinian  II. 
for  colleagues  in  the  West.  He  speedily  checked 
the  ravages  of  the  Goths  and  rcstoi'cd  the  confi- 
dence of  the  Roman  soldiers.  Then  he  brought 
diplomacy  to  bear  upon  the  dangerous  situation, 
and  succeeded  in  arranging  a  peace  with  the 
Gothic  chieftains,  which  enlisted  them  in  the  im- 
perial service  with  forty  thousand  of  their  men. 
But  they  retained  their  distinctive  organization, 
under  their  own  chiefs,  and  were  called  "  fojder- 
ati,"  or  allies.  This  concession  of  a  semi-inde- 
pendence to  so  great  a  body  of  armed  barbarians 
in  the  heart  of  the  Empire  was  a  fatal  mistake, 
as  was  proved  before  many  years. 

For  the  time  being  it  secured  peace,  and  gave 
Theodosius  opportunity  to  attend  to  other  things. 
The  controversies  of  the  Church  were  among 
the  subjects  of  his  consideration,  and  by  taking 
the  side  of  the  Athanasians,  whom  his  predecessor 
had  persecuted,  he  gave  a  final  victory  to  Trini- 
tarianism,  in  the  Roman  world.  His  reign  was 
signalized,  moreover,  by  the  formal,  official  abo- 
lition of  paganism  at  Rome. 

The  weak  but  amiable  Gratian,  reigning  at 
Paris,  lost  his  throne  and  his  life,  in  383.  as  the 
consequence  of  a  revolt  which  began  in  Britain 
and  spread  to  Gaul.  The  successfid  rebel  and 
usurper,  Maximus,  seemed  so  strong  that  Theo- 
dosius made  terms  with  him,  and  acknowledged 
his  sovereignty  for  a  number  of  years.  But,  not 
content  with  a  dominion  which  embraced  Brit- 
ain, Gaul  and  Spain,  Maximus  sought,  after  a 
time,  to  add  Italy,  where  the  youth,  Valentinian 
II.,  was  still  enthroned  (at  Milan,  not  Rome), 
under  the  tutelage  of  his  mother.     Valentinian 


1036 


EUROPE. 


Division,  decay, 
and  the  coming  of  Alaric. 


EUROPE. 


fled  to  Theodosius ;  the  Eastern  Emperor  adopted 
his  cause,  and  restored  him  to  liis  throne,  defeat- 
ing the  usurper  and  putting  him  to  death  (A.  D. 
388).  Four  years  later  Valentinian  II.  died; 
another  usurper  arose,  and  again  Theodosius 
(A..  D.  394)  recovered  the  throne. 

Final  Division  of  the  Empire. 

Theodosius  was  now  alone  in  the  sovereignty. 
The  Empire  was  once  more,  and  for  the  last  time, 
in  its  full  extent,  united  under  a  single  lord.  It 
remained  so  for  but  a  few  months.  At  the  be- 
ginning of  the  year  39.5,  Theodosius  died,  and 
his  two  weak  sons,  Arcadius  and  Honorius,  divi- 
ded the  perishing  Empire  between  them,  only  to 
augment,  in  its  more  venerable  seat,  the  distress 
of  the  impending  fall. 

Arcadius,  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  took  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  East ;  Honorius,  a  child  of  eleven, 
gave  his  name  to  the  administration  of  the  West. 
Each  emperor  was  under  the  guardianship  of  a 
minister  chosen  by  Theodosius  before  he  died. 
Rutinus,  who  held  authority  at  Constantinople, 
was  worthless  in  all  ways ;  Stilicho,  who  held  the 
reins  at  Milan,  was  a  Vandal  by  birth,  a  soldier 
and  a  statesman  of  vigorous  powers. 

Decay  of  the  Western  Empire. 

The  West  seemed  more  fortunate  than  the 
East,  in  this  division ;  yet  the  evil  days  now  fast 
coming  near  fell  crushingly  on  the  older  Rome, 
while  the  New  Rome  lived  through  them,  and 
endured  for  a  thousand  years.  No  doubt  the 
Empire  had  weakened  more  on  its  elder  side; 
had  suffered  more  exhaustion  of  vital  powers. 
It  had  little  organic  vitality  now  left  in  it.  If 
no  swarms  of  barbaric  invaders  had  been  waiting 
and  watching  at  its  doors,  and  pressing  upon  it 
from  every  point  with  increasing  fierceness,  it 
seems  i)robable  that  it  would  have  gone  to  pieces 
ere  long  through  mere  decay.  And  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  could  have  kept  the  vigorous  life 
of  its  best  republican  days,  it  might  have  defied 
Teuton  and  Slav  forever.  But  all  the  diseases, 
political  and  social,  which  the  Republic  engen- 
dered in  itself,  had  been  steadily  consuming  the 
state,  with  their  virulence  even  increased,  since 
it  took  on  the  imperial  constitution.  All  that 
imperialism  did  was  to  gather  waning  energies 
in  hand,  and  make  the  most  of  them  for  external 
use.  It  stopped  no  decay.  The  industrial  palsy, 
induced  by  an  ever-widening  system  of  slave- 
labor,  continued  to  spread.  Production  de- 
creased ;  the  sum  of  wealth  shrunk  in  the  hands 
of  each  succeeding  generation ;  and  yet  the  great 
fortunes  and  great  estates  grew  bigger  from  age 
to  age.  The  gulf  between  rich  and  poor  opened 
deeper  and  wider,  and  the  bridges  once  built 
across  it  by  middle-class  thrift  were  fallen  down. 
The  burden  of  imperial  government  had  become 
an  unendurable  weight;  the  provincial  munici- 
palities, which  had  once  been  healthy  centers  of 
a  local  political  life,  were  strangled  by  the  nets 
of  taxation  flung  over  them.  Men  sought  refuge 
even  in  death  from  the  magistracies  which  made 
them  responsible  to  the  imperial  treasury  for 
revenues  which  they  could  not  collect.  Popula- 
tion dwindled,  year  by  year.  Recruiting  from 
the  body  of  citizens  for  the  common  needs  of  the 
army  became  more  impossible.  The  state  was 
fully  dependent,  at  last,  on  barbaric  mercenaries 
of  one  tribe  for  its  defence  against  barbaric  in- 
vaders of  another ;  and  it  was  no  longer  able,  as 


of  old,  to  impress  its  savage  servitors  with  awe 
of  its  majesty  and  its  name. 

Stilicho  and  Alaric. 

Stilicho,  for  a  time,  stoutly  breasted  the  rising 
flood  of  disaster.  He  checked  the  Picts  and 
Scots  of  Northern  Britain,  and  the  Alemanni  and 
their  allies  on  the  frontiers  of  Gaul.  But  now 
there  arose  again  the  more  dreadful  barbarian 
host  which  had  footing  in  the  Empire  itself,  and 
which  Theodosius  had  taken  into  pay.  The 
Visigoths  elected  a  king  (A.  D.  393),  and  were 
persuaded  with  ease  to  carve  a  kingdom  for  him 
out  of  the  domain  which  seemed  waiting  to  be 
snatched  from  one  or  both  of  the  feeble  monarchs, 
who  sat  in  mockery  of  state  at  Constantinople 
and  Milan.  Alaric,  the  new  Gothic  king,  moved 
first  against  the  capital  on  the  Bosphorus ;  but 
Ruflnus  persuaded  him  to  pass  on  into  Greece, 
where  he  went  pillaging  and  destroying  for  a 
year.  Stilicho,  the  one  manly  defender  of  the 
Empire,  came  over  from  Italy  with  an  army  to 
oppose  him ;  but  he  was  stopped  on  the  eve  of 
battle  by  orders  from  the  Eastern  Court,  which 
sent  him  back,  as  an  officious  meddler.  This  act 
of  mischief  and  malice  was  the  last  that  Rufinus 
could  do.  He  was  murdered,  soon  afterwards, 
and  Arcadius,  being  free  from  his  influence, 
then  called  upon  Stilicho  for  help.  The  latter 
came  once  more  to  deliver  Greece,  and  did  so 
with  success.  But  Alaric,  though  expelled  from 
the  peninsula,  was  neither  crushed  nor  disarmed, 
and  the  Eastern  Court  had  still  to  make  terms 
with  him.  It  did  so  for  the  moment  by  conferring 
on  him  the  government  of  that  part  of  Illyricum 
which  the  Servia  and  Bosnia  of  the  present  day 
coincide  with,  very  nearly.  He  rested  there  in 
peace  for  four  years,  and  then  (A.  D.  400)  he 
called  his  people  to  arms  again,  and  led  the 
whole  nation,  men,  women  and  children,  into 
Italy.  The  Emperor,  Honorius,  fled  from  Milan 
to  Ravenna,  which,  being  a  safe  shelter  behind 
marshes  and  streams,  became  tlie  seat  of  the 
court  for  years  tliereafter.  Stilicho,  stripping 
Britain  and  Gaul  of  troops,  gathered  forces  with 
which,  at  Eastertide  in  the  year  403,  and  again 
in  the  following  year,  he  defeated  the  Goths,  and 
forced  them  to  retreat. 

He  had  scarcely  rested  from  these  exertions, 
when  the  valiant  Stilicho  was  called  upon  to  con- 
front a  more  savage  leader,  Radagaisus  by  name, 
who  came  from  beyond  the  lines  (A.  D.  405), 
with  a  vast  swarm  of  mixed  warriors  from  many 
tribes  pouring  after  him  across  the  Alps.  Again 
Stilicho,  by  superior  skill,  worsted  the  invaders, 
entrapping  them  in  the  mountains  near  Fiesole 
(modern  Florence),  and  starving  them  there  till 
they  yielded  themselves  to  slavery  and  their 
chieftain  to  death. 

This  was  the  last  great  service  to  the  dying 
Roman  state  which  Stilicho  was  permitted  to  do. 
Undermined  by  the  jealousies  of  the  cowardly 
court  at  Ravenna,  he  seems  to  have  lost  suddenly 
the  power  by  which  he  held  himself  so  high. 
He  was  accused  of  treasonable  designs  and  was 
seized  and  instantly  executed,  by  the  Emperor's 
command. 

Alaric  and  his  Goths  in  Rome. 

Stilicho  dead,  there  was  no  one  in  Italy  for 
Alaric  to  fear,  and  he  promptly  returned  across 
the  Alps,  with  the  nation  of  the  Visigoths  behind 
him.     There  was  no  resistance  to  his  march,  and 


1037 


EUROPE. 


7%€  inriish 
of  Barbarians. 


EUROPE. 


he  advanced  straight  upon  Rome.  He  did  not 
assail  the  walls,  but  sat  down  before  the  gates 
(A.  D.  408),  until  the  starving  citizens  paid  him 
a  great  ransom  in  silver  and  gold  and  precious 
spices  and  silken  robes.  With  this  booty  he  re- 
tired for  the  winter  into  Tuscany,  where  his  army 
was  swelled  by  thousands  of  fugitive  barbarian 
slaves,  and  by  reinforcements  of  Goths  and  Huns. 
From  his  camp  he  opened  negotiations  with 
Honorius,  demanding  the  government  of  Dal- 
matia,  Venetia  and  Noricum,  with  certain  sub- 
sidies of  money  and  corn.  The  contemptible 
court,  skulking  at  Ravenna,  could  neither  make 
war  nor  make  concessions,  and  it  soon  exhausted 
the  patience  of  the  barbarian  by  its  puerilities. 
He  marched  again  to  Rome  (A.  D.  409),  seized 
the  port  of  Ostia,  with  its  supplies  of  grain,  and 
forced  the  helpless  capital  to  join  him  in  pro- 
claiming a  rival  emperor.  The  prefect  of  the 
city,  one  Attains,  accepted  the  purple  at  his 
hands,  and  played  the  puppet  for  a  few  months 
in  imperial  robes.  But  the  scheme  proved  un- 
profitable, Attains  was  deposed,  and  negotiations 
were  reopened  with  Honorius.  Their  only  result 
was  a  fresh  provocation  which  ssnt  Alaric  once 
more  against  Rome,  and  this  time  with  wrath  and 
vengeance  in  his  heart.  Then  the  great,  august 
capital  of  the  world  was  entered,  through  treach- 
ery or  by  surprise,  on  the  night  of  the  24th  of 
August,  410,  and  suffered  all  that  the  lust,  the 
ferocity  and  the  greed  of  a  barbarous  army  let 
loose  could  inflict  on  an  unresisting  city.  It  was 
her  first  experience  of  that  supreme  catastrophe 
of  war,  since  Brennus  and  the  Gauls  came  in; 
but  it  was  not  to  be  the  last. 

From  the  sack  of  Rome,  Alaric  moved  south- 
ward, intending  to  conquer  Sicily ;  but  a  sudden 
illness  brought  his  career  to  an  end. 

The  Barbarians  Swarming  in. 

The  Empire  was  now  like  a  dying  quarry, 
pulled  down  by  fierce  hunting  packs  and  torn  on 
every  side.  The  Goths  were  at  its  throat ;  the 
tribes  of  Germany  —  Sueves,  Vandals,  Burgun- 
dians,  Alans  —  had  leaped  the  Rhine  (A.  D.  406) 
and  swarmed  upon  its  flanks,  throughout  Gaul 
and  Spain.  The  inrush  began  after  Stilicho,  to 
defend  Italy  against  Alaric  and  Radagaisus,  had 
stripped  the  frontiers  of  troops.  Sueves,  Van- 
dals, and  Alans  passed  slowly  through  the  prov- 
inces, devouring  their  wealth  and  making  havoc 
of  their  civilization  as  they  went.  After  three 
years,  they  had  reached  and  surmounted  tlie  Pyr- 
enees, and  were  spreading  the  same  destruction 
through  Spain. 

The  confederated  tribes  of  the  Franks  had  al- 
ready been  admitted  as  allies  into  northwestern 
Gaid,  and  were  settled  there  in  peace.  At  first, 
they  stood  faithful  to  the  Roman  alliance,  and 
valiantly  resisted  the  new  invasion ;  but  its  num- 
bers overpowered  them,  and  tlieir  fidelity  gave 
way  when  they  saw  the  pillage  of  the  doomed 
provinces  going  on.  They  presently  joined  the 
barbarous  mob,  and  with  an  energy  which  se- 
cured the  lion's  sliare  of  plunder  and  domain. 

The  Burgundians  did  not  follow  the  Vandals 
and  Sueves  to  the  southwest,  but  took  possession 
of  the  left  bank  of  the  middle  Rhine,  whence 
they  gradually  spread  into  western  Switzerland 
and  Savoy,  and  down  the  valleys  of  the  Rhone 
and  Saone,  establishing  in  time  an  important 
kingdom,  to  which  they  gave  their  name. 


No  help  from  Ravenna  or  Rome  came  to  the 
perishing  provincials  of  Gaul  in  the  extremity  of 
their  distress ;  but  a  pretender  arose  in  Britain,  who 
assumed  the  imperial  title  and  promised  deliver- 
ance. He  crossed  over  to  Gaul  in  407  and  was 
welcomed  with  eagerness,  both  there  and  in 
Spain,  to  which  he  advanced.  He  gained  some 
success,  partly  by  enlisting  and  partly  by  resist- 
ing the  invaders ;  but  his  career  was  brief.  Other 
pretenders  appeared  in  various  provinces  of  the 
West ;  but  the  anarchy  of  the  time  was  too  great 
for  any  authority,  legitimate  or  revolutionary,  to 
establish  itself. 

The  Visigoths  in  Gaul. 

And,  now,  into  the  tempting  country  of  the 
afflicted  Gauls,  already  crowded  with  rapacious 
freebooters,  the  Visigoths  made  their  way.  Their 
new  king,  Ataulph,  or  Adolphus,  who  succeeded 
Alaric,  passed  into  Gaul,  but  not  commissioned, 
as  sometimes  stated,  to  restore  the  imperial 
sovereignty  there.  He  moved  with  his  nation,  as 
Alaric  had  moved,  and  Italy,  by  his  departure, 
was  relieved;  but  Narbonne,  Toulouse,  Bordeaux, 
and  the  Aquitainian  country  at  large,  was  soon 
subject  to  his  command  (A.  D.  412-419),  He 
passed  the  Pyrenees  and  entered  Spain,  where  an 
assassin  took  his  life.  His  successor,  Wallia, 
drove  the  Sueves  into  the  mountains  and  the  Van- 
dals into  the  South ;  but  did  not  take  possession 
of  the  country  until  a  later  time.  The  Visigoths, 
returning  to  Aquitaine,  found  there,  at  last,  the 
kingdom  which  Alaric  set  out  from  the  Danube 
to  seek,  and  they  were  established  in  it  with  the 
Roman  Emperor's  consent.  It  was  known  as  the 
kingdom  of  Gothia,  or  Septimania,  but  is  more 
commonly  called,  from  its  capital,  the  kingdom 
of  Toulouse. 

The  Eastern  Empire. 

Affairs  in  the  Eastern  Empire  had  never  arrived 
at  so  desperate  a  state  as  in  the  AVest.  With 
the  departure  of  Alaric,  it  had  been  relieved  from 
its  most  dangerous  immediate  foe.  There  had 
been  tumults,  disorders,  assassinations,  court 
conspiracies,  fierce  religious  strifes,  and  every 
evidence  of  a  government  with  no  settled  au- 
thority and  no  title  to  respect ;  but  yet  the  Em- 
pire stood  and  was  not  yet  seriously  shaken.  In 
408  Arcadius  died.  His  death  was  no  loss,  though 
he  left  an  infant  son  to  take  his  place ;  for  he  also 
left  a  daughter,  Pulcheria,  who  proved  to  be  a 
woman  of  rare  virtue  and  talents,  and  who  reigned 
in  her  brother's  name. 

Aetius  and  the  Huns. 

The  imbecile  Honorius,  with  whose  name  the 
failing  sovereignty  of  Rome  had  been  so  dis- 
astrously linked  for  eight  and  twenty  years,  died 
in  423.  An  infant  nephew  was  his  heir,  and  Pla- 
cidia,  the  mother,  ruled  at  Ravenna  for  a  fourth 
of  a  century,  in  the  name  of  her  child.  Her  reign 
was  far  stronger  than  her  wretched  brother's  had 
been,  because  she  gave  loyal  support  to  a  valiant 
and  able  man.  who  stood  at  her  side.  Aetius, 
her  minister,  did  all,  perhaps,  that  man  could  do 
to  hold  some  parts  of  Gaul,  and  to  play  barbarian 
against  barbarian  —  Hun  against  Goth  and  Frank 
—  in  skilful  diplomacy  and  courageous  war.  But 
nothing  that  he  won  was  any  lasting  gain. 

In  his  youth,  Aetius  had  been  a  hostage  in  the 
camps  of  both  the  Goths  and  the  Huns,  and  had 
made  acquaintances  among  the  chieftains  of  both 


1038 


EUROPE. 


Huns  and 
Vandals. 


EUROPE. 


■which  served  his  policy  many  times.  He  had 
employed  the  terrible  Huns  in  the  early  years  of 
his  ministry,  and  perhaps  they  had  learned  too 
much  of  the  weakness  of  the  Roman  State.  These 
most  fearful  of  all  the  barbarian  peoples  then 
surging  in  Europe  had  been  settled,  for  some 
years,  in  the  region  since  called  Hungary,  under 
Attila,  their  most  formidable  king.  He  terrorized 
all  the  surrounding  lands  and  exercised  a  lord- 
ship from  the  Caspian  to  the  Baltic  and  the  Rhine. 
The  imperial  court  at  the  East  stooped  to  pay 
him  annual  tribute  for  abstaining  from  the  in- 
vasion of  its  domain.  But  in  450,  when  the  re- 
gent Pulcheria  became  Empress  of  the  East,  by 
her  brother's  death,  and  married  a  brave  old 
soldier,  Marcian,  in  order  to  give  him  the  gov- 
erning power,  a  new  tone  was  heard  in  the  voice 
from  Constantinople  which  answered  Attila's  de- 
mands. 

Defeat  of  Attila. 
The  Hun  then  appears  to  have  seen  that  the 
sinking  Empire  of  the  West  offered  a  more  cer- 
tain victim  to  his  terrors  and  his  arms,  and  he 
turned  them  to  that  side.  First  forming  an  al- 
liance with  the  Vandals  (who  had  crossed  from 
Spain  to  Africa  in  439,  had  ravaged  and  sub- 
dued the  Roman  provinces,  and  had  established  a 
kingdom  on  the  Carthaginian  ground,  with  a 
naval  power  in  the  Carthaginian  Sea),  Attila  led 
his  huge  army  into  suffering  Gaul.  There  were 
Ostrogoths,  and  warriors  from  many  German 
tribes,  as  well  as  Huns,  in  the  terrific  host ;  for 
Attila's  arm  stretched  far,  and  his  subjects  were 
forced  to  follow  when  he  led.  His  coming  into 
Gaul  affrighted  Romans  and  barbarians  alike, 
and  united  them  in  a  common  defense.  Aetius 
formed  an  alliance  with  Theodoric,  the  Visi- 
gothic  king,  and  their  forces  were  joined  by  Bur- 
gundians  aud  Franks.  They  met  Attila  near 
Chalons,  and  there,  on  a  day  in  June,  A.  D.  451, 
upon  the  Catalaunian  fields,  was  fought  a  battle 
that  is  always  counted  among  the  few  which 
gave  shape  to  all  subsequent  history.  The 
Huns  were  beaten  back,  and  Europe  was  saved 
from  the  hopeless  night  that  must  have  followed 
a  Tartar  conquest  in  that  age. 

Attila  threatening  Rome. 

Attila  retreated  to  Germany,  foiled  but  not 
daunted.  The  next  year  (A.  D.  452)  he  invaded 
Italy  and  laid  siege  to  Aquileia,  an  important 
city  which  stood  in  his  path.  It  resisted  for 
three  months  and  was  then  utterly  destroyed. 
The  few  inhabitants  who  escaped,  with  fugitives 
from  neighboring  ports,  found  a  refuge  in  some 
islands  of  the  Adriatic  coast,  and  formed  there  a 
sheltered  settlement  which  grew  into  the  great 
city  and  republican  state  of  Venice.  Aetius 
made  strenuous  exertions  to  gather  forces  for 
another  battle  with  the  Huns ;  but  the  resources 
of  the  Empire  had  sunk  very  low.  While  he 
labored  to  collect  troops,  the  effect  of  a  pacific 
embassy  was  despairingly  tried,  and  it  went  forth 
to  the  camp  of  Attila,  led  by  the  venerable  bishop 
of  Rome  —  the  first  powerful  Pope  —  Leo  I., 
called  the  Great.  The  impression  which  Leo 
made  on  the  Hunnish  king,  by  his  venerable  pres- 
ence, and  by  the  persuasiveness  of  his  words,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  extraordinary.  At  all  events, 
Attila  consented  to  postpone  his  designs  on  Rome ; 
though  he  demanded  and  received  promise  of  an 
annual  tribute.  The  next  winter  he  died,  and 
Rome  was  troubled  by  him  no  more. 


Rome  Sacked  by  the  'Vandals. 

But  another  enemy  came,  who  rivalled  Attila 
in  ruthlessness,  and  who  gave  a  name  to  bar- 
barity which  it  has  kept  to  this  day.  The  Van- 
dal king,  Genseric,  who  now  swept  the  Mediter- 
ranean with  a  piratical  fleet,  made  his  appearance 
in  the  Tiber  (A.  D.  455)  and  found  the  Roman 
capital  powerless  to  resist  his  attack.  The  venera- 
ble Pope  Leo  again  interceded  for  the  city,  and 
obtained  a  promise  that  captives  should  not  be 
tortured  nor  buildings  burned, — which  was  the 
utmost  stretch  of  mercy  that  the  Vandal  could 
afford.  Once  more,  then,  was  Rome  given  up, 
for  fourteen  days  and  nights,  to  pillage  and  the 
horrors  of  barbaric  debauch.  "Whatever  had 
survived  the  former  sack,—  whatever  the  luxury 
of  the  Roman  Patriciate,  during  the  intervening 
forty-five  years,  had  accumulated  in  reparation 
of  their  loss, —  the  treasures  of  the  imperial 
palace,  the  gold  and  silver  vessels  employed  in 
the  churches,  the  statues  of  pagan  divinities  and 
men  of  Roman  renown,  the  gilded  roof  of  the 
temple  of  Capitolian  Jove,  the  plate  and  orna- 
ments of  private  individuals,  were  leisurely  con- 
veyed to  the  Vandal  fleet  and  shipped  off  to 
Africa  "  (Sheppard). 

The  Vandal  invasion  had  been  preceded,  in  the 
same  year,  by  a  palace  revolution  which  brought 
the  dynasty  of  Theodosius  to  an  end.  Placidia 
was  dead,  and  her  unworthy  son,  Valentinian  III., 
provoked  assassination  by  dishonoring  the  wife 
of  a  wealthy  senator,  Maximus,  who  mounted  to 
his  place.  "Maximus  was  slain  by  a  mob  at  Rome, 
just  before  the  Vandals  entered  the  city.  The 
Empire  was  now  without  a  head,  and  the  throne 
without  an  heir.  In  former  times,  the  Senate  or 
the  army  would  have  filled  the  vacant  imperial 
seat;  now,  it  was  a  barbarian  monarch,  Theo- 
doric, the  Visigothic  king,  who  made  choice  of 
a  successor  to  the  Caesars.  He  named  a  Gallic 
noble,  Avitus  by  name,  who  had  won  his  esteem, 
and  the  nomination  was  confirmed  by  Marcian, 
Emperor  of  the  East. 

Ricimer  and  Majorian. 

But  the  influence  of  Theodoric  in  Roman 
affairs  was  soon  rivalled  by  that  of  Count  Rici- 
mer, another  Goth,  or  Sueve,  who  held  high 
command  in  the  imperial  army,  and  who  resented 
the  elevation  of  Avitus.  The  latter  was  de- 
posed, after  reigning  a  single  year,  and  Majorian, 
a  soldier  of  really  noble  and  heroic  character, 
was  promoted  to  the  throne.  He  was  too  great 
and  too  sincere  a  man  to  be  Ricimer's  tool,  and 
the  same  hand  which  raised  him  threw  him 
down,  after  he  had  reigned  four  years  (A.  D. 
457-461).  He  was  in  the  midst  of  a  powerful 
undertaking  against  the  Vandals  when  he  per- 
ished. Majorian  was  the  last  Emperor  in  the 
Western  line  who  deserves  to  be  named. 

The  last  Emperors  in  the  'West. 
Ricimer  ruled  Italy,  with  the  rigor  of  a  despot, 
under  the  modest  title  of  Patrician,  until  473. 
His  death  was  soon  followed  by  the  rise  of 
another  general  of  the  barbarian  troops,  Orestes, 
to  like  autocracy,  and  he,  in  turn,  gave  way  to  a 
third,  Odoacer,  who  slew  him  and  took  his  place. 
The  creatures,  half  a  dozen  in  number,  who  put 
on  and  put  off  the  purple  robe,  at  the  command 
of  these  adventurers,  who  played  with  the  maj- 
esty of  Rome,  need  no  further  mention.     The 


1039 


EUHOPE. 


Ostrogothic  Kingdom 
of  Theodoric. 


EUROPE. 


last  of  them  was  Romulus  Augustulus,  son  of 
Orestes,  who  escaped  his  father's  fate  by  for- 
mally resigning  the  throne.  He  was  the  last  Ro- 
man Emperor  in  the  West,  until  Charlemagne 
revived  the  title,  three  centuries  and  a  quarter 
later.  "The  succession  of  the  "Western  Emper- 
ors came  to  an  end,  and  the  way  in  which  it 
came  to  an  end  marks  the  way  in  which  the 
names  and  titles  of  Rome  were  kept  on,  while  all 
power  was  passing  into  the  hands  of  the  barba- 
rians. The  Roman  Senate  voted  that  one  Em- 
peror was  enough,  and  that  the  Eastern  Emperor, 
Zeno,  should  reign  over  the  whole  Empire.  But 
at  the  same  time  Zeno  was  made  to  entrust  the 
government  of  Italy,  with  the  title  of  Patrician, 
to  Odoacer,  .  .  .  Thus  the  Roman  Empire  went 
on  at  Constantinople,  or  New  Rome,  while  Italy 
and  the  Old  Rome  itself  passed  into  the  power 
of  the  Barbarians.  Still  the  Roman  laws  and 
names  went  on,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  any 
man  in  Italy  would  have  been  much  surprised  if 
he  had  been  told  that  the  Roman  Empire  had 
come  to  an  end"  (Freeman). 

Odoacer. 

The  government  of  Odoacer,  who  ruled  with 
the  authority  of  a  king,  though  pretending  to 
kingship  only  in  his  own  nation,  was  firm  and 
strong.  Italy  was  better  protected  from  its 
lawless  neighbors  than  it  had  been  for  nearly 
a  century  before.  But  nothing  could  arrest  the 
decay  of  its  population  —  the  blight  that  had 
fallen  upon  its  prosperity.  Nor  could  that  tur- 
bulent age  afford  any  term  of  peace  that  would 
be  long  enough  for  even  the  beginning  of  the 
cure  of  such  maladies  and  such  wounds  as  had 
brought  Italy  low.  For  fourteen  years  Odoacer 
ruled;  and  then  he  was  overthrown  by  a  new 
kingdom  seeking  barbarian,  who  came,  like 
Alaric,  out  of  the  Gothic  swarm. 

Theodoric  the  Ostrogoth. 

The  Ostrogoths  had  now  escaped,  since  Attila 
died,  from  the  yoke  of  the  Huns,  and  were  pre- 
pared, under  an  able  and  ambitious  young  king, 
Theodoric,  who  had  been  reared  as  a  hostage  at 
Constantinople,  to  imitate  the  career  of  their 
cousins,  the  Visigoths.  Having  troubled  tlie 
Eastern  Court  until  it  stood  in  fear  of  him,  Tlieo- 
doric  asked  for  a  commission  to  overthrow 
Odoacer,  in  Italy,  and  received  it  from  the  Em- 
peror's hand.  Thus  empowered  by  one  still  rec- 
ognized as  lawful  lord  on  both  sides  of  the  Adri- 
atic, Theodoric  crossed  the  Julian  Alps  (A.  D. 
489)  with  the  families  of  his  nation  and  their 
household  goods.  Three  battles  made  him  mas- 
ter of  the  peninsula  and  decided  the  fate  of  his 
rival.  Odoacer  held  out  in  Ravenna  for  two 
years  and  a  half,  and  surrendered  on  a  promise 
of  equal  sovereignty  with  the  Ostrogothic  king. 
But  Theodoric  did  not  scruple  to  kill  him  with 
his  own  sword,  at  the  first  opportunity  which 
came.  In  that  act,  the  native  savagery  in  him 
broke  loose ;  but  through  most  of  his  life  he  kept 
his  passions  decently  tamed,  and  acted  the  bar- 
barian less  frequently  than  the  civilized  states- 
man and  king.  He  gave  Italy  peace,  security, 
and  substantial  justice  for  thirty  years.  With 
little  war,  he  extended  his  sovereignty  over 
Illyrium,  Pannonia,  Noricum,  Rhffitia  and  Pro- 
vence, in  south-eastern  Gaul.  If  the  exten- 
sive kingdom  which  he  formed  —  with  more 
enlightenment  than  any  other  among  those  who 


divided  the  heritage  of  Rome  —  could  have  en- 
dured, the  parts  of  Europe  which  it  covered 
might  have  fared  better  in  after  times  than  they 
did.  "Italy  might  have  been  spared  six  hun- 
dred years  of  gloom  and  degradation."  But 
powerful  influences  were  against  it  from  the 
first,  and  they  were  influences  which  proceeded 
mischievously  from  the  Christian  Church.  Had 
the  Goths  been  pagans,  the  Church  might  have 
turned  a  kindly  face  to  them,  and  wooed  them 
to  conversion  as  she  wooed  the  Franks.  But 
they  were  Christians,  of  a  heretic  stamp,  and  the 
orthodox  Christianity  of  Rome  held  them  in 
deadly  loathing.  While  still  beyond  the  Dan- 
ube, they  had  received  the  faith  from  an  Arian 
apostle,  at  the  time  of  the  great  conflict  of  Atha- 
nasius  against  Arius,  and  were  stubbojn  in  the 
rejection  of  Trinitarian  dogma.  Hence  the 
Church  in  the  AVest  was  never  reconciled  to  the 
monarchy  of  Theodoric  in  Italy,  nor  to  that  of 
the  Visigoths  at  Toulouse ;  and  its  hostility  was 
the  ultimate  cause  of  the  failure  of  both. 

The  Empire  in  the  East. 

To  understand  the  events  which  immediately 
caused  tlie  fall  of  the  Ostrogothic  power,  we 
must  turn  back  for  a  moment  to  the  Empire  in 
the  East.  Marcian,  whom  Pulclieria,  the  wise 
daughter  of  Arcadius,  made  Emperor  by  marry- 
ing him,  died  in  457,  and  Aspar,  the  barbarian 
who  commanded  the  mercenaries,  selected  his 
successor.  He  chose  his  own  steward,  one  Leo, 
who  proved  to  have  more  independence  than  his 
patron  expected,  and  who  succeeded  in  destroy- 
ing the  latter.  After  Leo  I.  came  (474)  his  infant 
grandson,  Leo  II.,  whose  father,  an  Isaurian 
chieftain,  took  his  place  when  he  died,  within  the 
year.  The  Isaurian  assumed  a  Greek  name,  Zeno, 
and  occupied  the  throne  —  with  one  interval  of 
flight  and  exile  for  twenty  months  —  during  seven 
years.  When  he  died,  his  widow  gave  her  hand 
in  marriage  to  an  excellent  oflicer  of  the  palace, 
Anastasius  by  name,  and  he  wag  sovereign  of  the 
Empire  for  twenty-seven  years. 

The  reign  of  Justinian. 

After  Anastasius,  came  Justin  I. ,  born  a  peas- 
ant in  Dacia  (modern  Roumania),  but  advanced  as 
a  soldier  to  the  command  of  the  imperial  guards, 
and  thence  to  the  throne.  He  had  already 
adopted  and  educated  his  nephew,  Justinian,  and 
before  dying,  in  527,  he  invested  him  with  sov- 
ereignty as  a  colleague.  The  reign  of  Justinian 
was  the  most  remarkable  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  Empire  in  the  East.  Without  breadth  of 
understanding,  or  notable  talents  of  any  kind; 
without  courage ;  without  the  least  nobility  of 
character ;  without  even  the  virtue  of  fidelity  to 
his  ministers  and  friends,—  this  remarkable  mon- 
arch contrived  to  be  splendidly  served  by  an  ex- 
traordinary generation  of  great  soldiers,  great 
jurists,  great  statesmen,  who  gave  a  brilliance  to 
his  reign  that  was  never  rivalled  while  the  Byzan- 
tine seat  of  Empire  stood.  It  owes,  in  modern 
esteem,  its  greatest  fame  to  the  noble  collection 
of  Roman  laws  which  was  made,  in  the  Pandects 
and  the  Code,  under  the  direction  of  the  wise  and 
learned  Tribonian.  Transiently  it  was  glorified 
by  conquests  that  bore  a  likeness  to  the  march  of 
tiie  resistless  legions  of  ancient  Rome ;  and  the 
laurelled  names  of  Belisarius  and  Narses  claimed 
a  place  on  the  columns  of  victory  with  the  names 
of  Caesar  and  Pompeius.     But  the  splendors  of 


1040 


EUROPE. 


Justinian^s 
Recovery  of  Italy. 


EUBOPE. 


the  reign  were  much  more  than  offset  by  miseries 
and  calamities  of  the  darkest  kind.  "  The  reign 
of  Justinian,  from  its  length,  its  glory  and  its 
disasters,  may  be  compared  to  the  reign  of  Louis 
XIV. ,  which  exceeded  it  in  length,  and  equalled 
it  in  glory  and  disaster.  ...  He  extended  the 
limits  of  his  empire ;  but  he  was  unable  to  defend 
the  territory  he  had  received  from  his  predeces- 
sors. Every  one  of  the  thirty-eight  years  of  his 
reign  was  marked  by  an  invasion  of  the  barbari- 
ans ;  and  it  has  been  said  that,  reckoning  those 
who  fell  by  the  sword,  who  perished  from  want, 
or  were  led  into  captivity,  each  invasion  cost 
200, 000  subjects  to  the  emp'ire.  Calamities  which 
human  prudence  is  unable  to  resist  seemed  to 
combine  against  the  Romans,  as  if  to  compel 
them  to  expiate  their  ancient  glory.  ...  So  that 
the  very  period  which  gave  birth  to  so  many 
monuments  of  greatness,  may  be  looked  back 
upon  with  horror,  as  that  of  the  widest  desola- 
tion and  the  most  terrific  mortality  "  (Sismondi). 
The  first  and  longest  of  tlie  wars  of  Justinian 
was  the  Persian  war,  which  he  inherited  from 
his  predecessors,  and  which  scarcely  ceased  while 
the  Persian  monarchy  endured.  It  was  in  these 
Asiatic  campaigns  that  Belisarius  began  his 
career.  But  his  lirst  great  achievement  was  the 
overthrow  and  extinction  of  the  Vandal  power  in 
Africa,  and  the  restoration  of  Roman  authority 
(the  empire  of  the  new  Rome)  in  the  old  Cartha- 
ginian province  (A.  D.  533-534).  He  accom- 
plished this  with  a  force  of  but  10,000  foot  and 
5,000  horse,  and  was  hastily  recalled  by  his  jeal- 
ous lord  on  the  instant  of  his  success. 

Conquests  of  Belisarius  in  Italy. 

But  the  ambition  of  Justinian  was  whetted  by 
this  marvellous  conquest,  and  he  promptly  pro- 
jected an  expedition  against  the  kingdom  of  the 
Eastern  Goths.  The  death  of  Theodoric  had 
occurred  in  536.  His  successor  was  a  child  of 
ten  years,  his  grandson,  whose  mother  exercised 
the  regency.  Amalsuentha,  the  queen-regent, 
was  a  woman  of  highly  cultivated  mind,  and  she 
offended  her  subjects  by  too  marked  a  Romani- 
zation  of  her  ideas.  Her  son  died  in  his  eigh- 
teenth year,  and  she  associated  with  herself  on  the 
throne  the  next  heir  to  it,  a  worthless  nephew  of 
Theodoric,  who  was  able,  in  a  few  weeks,  to  strip 
all  her  power  from  her  and  consign  her  to  a  dis- 
tant prison,  where  she  was  soon  put  to  death  (A.  D. 
535).  She  had  previously  opened  negotiations 
with  Justinian  for  the  restoration  of  his  suprem- 
acy in  Italy,  and  the  ambitious  Emperor  assumed 
with  eagerness  a  right  to  avenge  her  deposition  and 
death.  The  fate  of  Amalsuentha  was  his  excuse, 
the  discontent  of  Roman  orthodoxy  with  the  rule 
of  the  heretic  Goths  was  his  encouragement,  to 
send  an  army  into  Italy  with  Belisarius  at  its  head. 

First  taking  possession  of  Sicily,  Belisarius 
landed  in  Italy  in  536,  took  Naples  and  advanced  on 
Rome.  An  able  soldier,  Vitiges,  had  been  raised 
to  the  Gothic  throne,  and  he  evacuated  Rome  in 
December ;  but  he  returned  the  following  March 
and  laid  siege  to  the  ancient  capital,  which  Beli- 
sarius had  occupied  with  a  moderate  force.  It 
was  defended  against  him  for  an  entire  year,  and 
the  strength  of  the  Gothic  nation  was  consumed 
on  the  outer  side  of  the  walls,  while  the  inhabi- 
tants within  were  wasted  by  famine  and  disease. 
The  Goths  invoked  the  aid  of  the  Franks  in 
Gaul,  and  those  fierce  warriors,  crossing  the  Alps 
lA.  D.  538),  assailed  both  Goths  and  Greeks,  with 


indiscriminate  hostility,  destroyed  Milan  and 
Genoa,  and  mostly  perished  of  hunger  themselves 
before  they  retreated  from  the  wasted  Cisalpine 
country. 

Released  from  Rome,  Belisarius  advanced  in  his 
turn  against  Ravenna,  and  took  the  Gothic  capi- 
tal, making  Vitiges  a  prisoner  (A.  D.  539).  His 
reward  for  these  successes  was  a  recall  from  com- 
mand. The  jealous  Emperor  could  not  afford 
his  generals  too  much  glory  at  a  single  winning. 
As  a  consequence  of  his  folly,  tlie  Goths,  under 
a  new  king,  Totila,  were  allowed  to  recover  so 
much  ground  in  the  next  four  years  that,  when, 
in  544,  Belisarius  was  sent  back,  almost  without 
an  army,  the  work  of  conquest  had  to  be  done 
anew.  Rome  was  still  being  held  against  Totila, 
who  besieged  it,  and  the  great  general  went  by 
sea  to  its  relief.  He  forced  the  passage  of  the 
Tiber,  but  failed  through  the  misconduct  of  the 
commander  in  the  city  to  accomplish  an  entry, 
and  once  more  the  great  capital  was  entered  and 
yielded  to  angry  Goths  (A.  D.  546).  They  spared 
the  lives  of  the  few  people  they  found,  and  the 
chastity  of  the  women ;  but  they  plundered  with- 
out restraint. 

Rome  a  Solitude  for  Forty  Days. 

Totila  commanded  the  total  destruction  of  the 
city ;  but  his  ruthless  hand  was  stayed  by  the  re- 
monstrances of  Belisarius.  After  demolishing  a 
third  of  the  walls,  he  withdrew  towards  the 
South,  dragging  the  few  inhabitants  with  him, 
and,  during  forty  days,  Rome  is  said  to  have 
been  an  unpeopled  solitude.  The  scene  which 
this  offers  to  the  imagination  comes  near  to  being 
the  most  impressive  in  history.  At  the  end  of 
that  period  it  was  entered  by  Belisarius,  who 
hastily  repaired  the  walls,  collected  his  forces, 
and  was  prepared  to  defend  himself  when  Totila 
came  back  by  rapid  marches  from  Apulia.  The 
Goths  made  three  assaults  and  were  bloodily  re- 
pulsed. 

End  of  the  Ostrogothic  Kingdom. 

But  again  Belisarius  was  recalled  by  a  mean 
and  jealous  court,  and  again  the  Gothic  cause 
was  reanimated  and  restored.  Rome  was  taken 
again  from  its  feeble  garrison  (A.  D.  549),  and 
this  time  it  was  treated  with  respect.  Most  of 
Italy  and  Sicily,  with  Corsica  and  Sardinia,  were 
subdued  by  Totila's  arms,  and  that  king,  now 
successful,  appealed  to  Justinian  for  peace.  It 
was  refused,  and  in  553  a  vigorous  prosecution 
of  the  war  resumed,  under  a  new  commander  — 
the  remarkable  eunuch  Narses,  who  proved  him- 
self to  be  one  of  the  great  masters  of  war. 
Totila  was  defeated  and  slain  in  the  first  battle 
of  the  campaign ;  Rome  was  again  beleaguered 
and  taken;  and  the  last  blow  needed  to  extin- 
guish the  Gothic  kingdom  in  Italy  was  given  the 
following  year  (A.  D.  553),  when  Totila's  suc- 
cessor. Tela,  ended  his  life  on  another  disastrous 
field  of  battle. 

The  Exarchate. 

Italy  was  restored  for  the  moment  to  the  Em- 
pire, and  was  placed  under  the  government  of 
an  imperial  viceroy,  called  Exarch,  which  high 
otfice  the  valiant  Narses  was  the  first  to  fill.  His 
successors,  known  in  history  as  the  Exarchs  of  Ra- 
venna, resided  in  that  capital  for  a  long  period, 
while  the  arm  of  their  authority  was  steadily 
shortened  by  the  conquests  of  new  invaders, 
whose  story  is  yet  to  be  told. 


66 


1041 


EUROPE. 


Beginning 
of  English  History, 


EUROPE. 


Events  in  the  West. 

Leaving  Italy  and  Rome,  once  more  in  the  im- 
perial fold,  but  mere  provinces  now  of  a  distant 
and  alienated  sovereignty,  it  is  necessary  to  turn 
back  to  the  West,  and  glance  over  the  regions  in 
■which,  -when  we  looked  at  them  last,  the  institu- 
tions of  Roman  government  and  society  were  be- 
ing dissolved  and  broken  up  by  flood  upon  flood 
of  barbaric  invasion  from  the  Teutonic  North. 

Teutonic  Conquest  of  Britain. 

If  we  begin  at  the  farthest  West  which  the 
Roman  dominion  reached,  we  shall  find  that  the 
island  of  Britain  was  abandoned,  practically,  by 
the  imperial  government  earlier  than  the  year 
410,  when  Rome  was  sinking  under  the  blows  of 
Alaric.  From  that  time  the  Inhabitants  were  left 
to  their  own  government  and  their  own  defense. 
To  the  inroads  of  the  savage  Caledonian  Picts 
and  Irish  Scots,  there  were  added,  now,  the  coast 
ravages  of  a  swarm  of  ruthless  pirates,  which 
the  tribes  of  northwestern  Europe  had  begun  to 
launch  upon  the  German  or  North  Sea.  The 
most  cruel  and  terrible  of  these  ocean  freebooters 
were  the  Saxons,  of  the  Elbe,  and  they  gave  their 
name  for  a  time  to  the  whole.  Their  destructive 
raids  upon  the  coasts  of  Britain  and  Gaul  had 
commenced  more  than  a  century  before  the 
Romans  withdrew  their  legions,  and  that  part 
of  the  British  coast  most  exposed  to  their  ravages 
was  known  as  the  Saxon  Shore.  For  about 
thirty  years  after  the  Roman  and  Romanized 
inhabitants  of  Britain  had  been  left  to  defend 
themselves,  they  held  their  ground  with  good 
courage,  as  appears;  but  the  incessant  attacks  of 
the  Picts  wore  out,  at  last,  their  confidence  in 
themselves,  and  they  were  fatally  led  to  seek 
help  from  their  other  enemies,  who  scourged 
them  from  the  sea.  Their  invitation  was  given, 
not  to  the  Saxons,  but  to  a  band  of  Jutes  —  war- 
riors from  that  Danish  peninsula  in  which  they 
have  left  their  name.  The  Jutes  landed  at  Ebbs- 
fleet,  in  the  Isle  of  Thanet  (A.  D.  449  or  450), 
with  two  chiefs,  Hengest  and  Horsa,  at  their 
head.  They  came  as  allies,  and  fought  by  the 
side  of  the  Britons  against  the  Picts  with  excel- 
lent success.  Then  came  quarrels,  and  presently, 
in  455,  the  arms  of  Hengest  and  Horsa  were 
turned  against  their  employers.  Ten  years  later 
the  Jutes  had  secure  possession  of  the  part  of 
Britain  now  called  Kent,  and  Hengest  was  their 
king,  Horsa  having  fallen  in  the  war.  This  was 
the  beginning  of  the  transformation  of  Roman- 
Celtic  Britain  into  the  Teutonic  England  of  later 
history.  The  success  of  the  Jutes  drew  their 
cousins  and  piratical  comrades,  the  Saxons  and 
the  Angles,  to  seek  kingdoms  in  the  same  rich 
island.  The  Saxons  came  first,  landing  near  Sel- 
sey,  in  477,  and  taking  gradual  possession  of  a 
district  which  became  known  as  the  kingdom  of 
the  South  Saxons,  or  Sussex.  The  next  invasion 
was  by  Saxons  under  Cerdic,  and  Jutes,  who 
joined  to  form  the  kingdom  of  the  West  Saxons, 
or  Wessex,  covering  about  the  territory  of  modern 
Hampshire.  So  much  of  their  conquest  was 
complete  by  the  year  519.  At  about  the  same 
time,  other  colonies  were  established  and  gave 
their  names,  as  East  Saxons  and  Middle  Saxons, 
to  the  Essex  and  Jliddlesex  of  modern  English 
geography.  A  tliird  tribe  from  the  German 
shore,  the  Angles,  now  came  (A.  D.  547)  to  take 
their  part  in  the  conquest  of  the  island,  and  these 


laid  their  hands  upon  kingdoms  in  the  East  and 
North  of  England,  so  much  larger  than  the  mod- 
est Jute  and  Saxon  realms  in  the  south  that  their 
name  fixed  itself,  at  last,  upon  the  whole  country, 
when  it  lost  the  name  of  Britain.  Northumber- 
land, which  stretched  from  the  Humber  to  the 
Firth  of  Forth,  Mercia,  which  covered  at  one 
time  the  whole  middle  region  of  England,  and 
East  Anglia,  which  became  divided  into  the  two 
English  counties  of  Norfolk  (North-folk)  and 
SulSolk  (South-folk),  were  the  three  great  king- 
doms of  the  Angles. 

The  Making  of  England. 

Before  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  almost  the 
whole  of  modern  England,  and  part  of  Scotland, 
on  its  eastern  side,  as  far  to  the  north  as  Edin- 
burgh, was  in  possession  of  the  German  invaders. 
They  had  not  merely  subdued  the  former  posses- 
sors—Britons and  Roman  provincials  (if  Romans 
remained  in  the  island  after  their  domination 
ceased), — but,  in  the  judgment  of  the  best  in- 
vestigators of  the  subject,  they  had  practically 
swept  them  from  all  the  parts  of  the  island  in 
which  their  own  settlements  were  established. 
That  is  to  say,  the  prior  population  was  either 
exterminated  by  the  merciless  swords  of  these 
Saxon  and  English  pagans,  or  was  driven  into  the 
mountains  of  Wales,  into  the  peninsula  of  Corn- 
wall and  Devon,  or  into  the  Strathclyde  comer 
of  Scottish  territory, —  in  all  which  regions  the 
ancient  British  race  has  maintained  itself  to  this 
day.  Scarcely  a  vestige  of  its  existence  remains 
elsewhere  in  England, —  neither  in  language,  nor 
in  local  names,  nor  in  institutions,  nor  in  survi- 
vals of  any  other  kind ;  which  shows  that  the  in- 
habitants were  effaced  by  the  conquest,  as  the 
inhabitants  of  Gaul,  of  Spain,  and  of  Italy,  for 
example,  were  not. 

The  new  society  and  the  new  states  which  now 
arose  on  the  soil  of  Britain,  and  began  to  shape 
themselves  into  the  England  of  the  future,  were 
as  purely  Germanic  as  Q  they  had  grown  up  in 
the  Jutish  peninsula  or  on  the  Elbe.  The  institu- 
tions, political  and  social,  of  the  immigrant 
nations,  had  been  modified  by  changed  circum- 
stances, but  they  had  incorporated  almost  nothing 
from  the  institutions  which  they  found  existing 
in  their  new  home  and  which  they  supplanted. 
Broadly  speaking,  nothing  Roman  and  nothing 
Celtic  entered  into  them.  They  were  constructed 
on  German  lines  throughout. 

The  barbarism  of  the  Saxons  and  their  kin  when 
they  entered  Britain  was  far  more  immitigated 
than  that  of  most  of  the  Teutonic  tribes  which 
overwhelmed  the  continental  provinces  of  Rome 
had  been.  The  Goths  had  been  influenced  to 
some  extent  and  for  quite  a  period  by  Roman 
civilization,  and  had  nominally  accepted  Chris- 
tian precepts  and  beliefs,  before  they  took  arms 
against  the  Empire.  The  Franks  had  been  allies 
of  Rome  and  in  contact  with  the  refinements  of 
Roman  Gaul,  for  a  century  or  two  before  they 
became  masters  in  that  province.  !Most  of  the 
other  nations  which  transplanted  themselves  in 
the  fifth  century  from  bej'ond  the  Rhine  to  new 
homes  in  the  provinces  of  Rome,  had  been  living 
for  generations  on  the  borders  of  the  Empire,  or 
near;  had  acquired  some  acquaintance,  at  least, 
with  the  civilization  which  they  did  not  share, 
and  conceded  to  it  a  certain  respect :  while  some 
of  them  had  borne  arms  for  the  Emperor  and 
taken  his  pay.      But  the  Saxons,   Angles  ana 


1042 


EUROPE. 


Kingdom 
of  the  Franks. 


EUROPE. 


Jutes  had  thus  far  been  remote  from  every  influ- 
ence or  experience  of  the  kind.  They  knew  the 
Romans  only  as  rich  strangers  to  be  plundered 
and  foes  to  be  fought.  Christianity  represented 
nothing  to  them  but  an  insult  to  their  gods. 
There  seems  to  be  little  doubt,  therefore,  that 
the  civilizing  work  which  Rome  had  done  in 
western  Europe  was  obliterated  nowhere  else  so 
ruthlessly  and  so  wantonly  as  in  Britain. 

Christianity,  still  sheltered  and  strong  in  Ire- 
land, was  wholly  extinguished  in  England  for  a 
century  and  more,  until  the  memorable  mission  of 
Augustine,  sent  by  Pope  Gregory  the  Great 
(A.  D.  597),  began  the  conversion  of  the  savage 
islanders. 

The  Kingdom  of  the  Franks. 

In  Gaul,  meanwhile,  and  in  southwestern  Ger- 
many, the  Franks  had  become  the  dominant 
power.  They  had  moved  tardily  to  the  con- 
quest, but  when  they  moved  it  was  with  rapid 
strides.  While  they  dwelt  along  the  Lower 
Rhine,  they  were  in  two  divisions:  the  Salian 
Franks,  who  occupied,  first,  the  country  near 
the  mouth  of  the  river,  and  then  spread  south- 
wards, to  the  Somme,  or  beyond;  and  the  Ripu- 
arians,  who  lived  farther  up  the  Rhine,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Cologne,  advancing  thence  to 
the  Moselle.  In  the  later  part  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury a  Roman  Patrician,  Syagrius,  still  exer- 
cised some  kind  of  authority  in  northern  Gaul ; 
but  in  486  he  was  defeated  and  overthrown  by 
Chlodvig,  or  Clovis,  the  chief  of  the  Salian 
Franks.  Ten  years  later,  Clovis,  leading  both 
the  Salian  and  the  Ripuarian  Franks  in  an  attack 
upon  the  German  Alemanni,  beyond  the  Upper 
Rhine,  subdued  that  people  completely,  and  took 
their  country.  Their  name  survived,  and  ad- 
hei-ed  to  the  whole  people  of  Germany,  whom 
the  Franks  and  their  successors  the  French  have 
called  Allemands  to  this  day.  After  his  con- 
quest of  the  Alemanni,  Clovis,  who  had  married 
a  Christian  wife,  accepted  her  faith  and  was 
baptized,  with  three  thousand  of  his  chief  men. 
The  professed  conversion  was  as  fortunate  politi- 
cally for  him  as  it  had  been  for  Constantine. 
He  adopted  the  Christianity  which  was  that  of 
the  Roman  Church  —  the  Catholic  Christianity 
of  the  Athanasian  creed  —  and  he  stood  forth  at 
once  as  the  champion  of  orthodo.vy  against  the 
heretic  Goths  and  Biu'gundians,  whose  religion 
had  been  poisoned  by  the  condemned  doctrines 
of  Arius.  The  blessings,  and  the  more  substan- 
tial endeavors,  of  the  Roman  Church  were,  there- 
fore, on  his  side,  when  he  attacked  the  Burguu- 
dians  and  made  them  tributary,  and  when,  a  few 
years  later,  he  expelled  the  Goths  from  Aqui- 
taine  and  drove  them  into  Spain  (A.D.  500-508). 
Beginning,  apparently,  as  one  of  several  chiefs 
among  the  Salian  Franks,  he  ended  his  career 
(510)  as  sole  king  of  the  whole  Frank  nation,  and 
master  of  all  Gaul  except  a  Gothic  corner  of  Pro- 
vence, with  a  considerable  dominion  beyond  the 
Rhine. 

The  Merovingian  Kings. 

But  Clovis  left  his  realm  to  four  sons,  who 
divided  it  into  as  many  kingdoms,  with  capitals 
at  Metz,  Orleans,  Paris,  and  Soissons.  There 
was  strife  and  war  between  them,  until  one  of 
the  brothers,  Lothaire,  united  again  the  whole 
kingdom,  which,  meantime,  had  been  enlarged 
by  the  conquest  of  Thuringia  and  Provence,  and 
by  the  extinction  of  the  tributary  Burgundian 


kings.  When  he  died,  his  sons  rent  the  king- 
dom again,  and  warred  with  one  another,  and 
once  more  it  was  brought  together.  Says  Hal- 
lam:  "It  is  a  weary  and  unprofitable  task  to 
follow  these  changes  in  detail,  through  scenes  of 
tumult  and  bloodshed,  in  which  the  eye  meets 
with  no  sunshine,  nor  can  rest  upon  an}'  interest- 
ing spot.  It  would  be  diflicult,  as  Gibbou  has 
justly  observed,  to  find  anywhere  more  vice  or  less 
virtue."  But,  as  Dean  Church  has  remarked,  the 
Franks  were  maintained  in  their  ascendancy  by 
the  favor  of  the  clergy  and  the  circumstances  of 
their  position,  despite  their  divisions  and  the 
worthless  and  detestable  character  of  their  kings, 
after  Clovis.  "  They  occupied  a  land  of  great 
natural  wealth,  and  great  geographical  advan- 
tages, which  had  been  prepared  fof  them  by 
Latin  culture ;  they  inherited  great  cities  which 
they  had  not  built,  and  fields  and  vineyards 
which  they  had  not  planted;  and  they  had  the 
wisdom,  not  to  destroy,  but  to  use  their  con- 
quest. They  were  able  with  singular  ease  and 
confidence  to  employ  and  trust  the  services,  civil 
and  military,  of  the  Latin  population.  .  .  .  The 
bond  between  the  Franks  and  the  native  races 
was  the  clergy.  .  .  .  The  forces  of  the  whole 
nation  were  at  the  disposal  of  the  ruling  race ; 
and  under  Frank  chiefs,  the  Latins  and  Gauls 
learned  once  more  to  be  warriors."  This  no 
doubt  suggests  a  quite  true  explanation  of  the 
success  of  the  Franks;  but  too  much  may  easily 
be  inferred  from  it.  It  will  not  be  safe  to  con- 
clude that  the  Franks  were  protectors  of  civili- 
zation in  Gaul,  and  did  not  lay  destroying  hands 
upon  it.  We  shall  presently  see  that  it  sank  to 
a  very  darkened  state  under  their  rule,  though 
the  eclipse  may  have  been  less  complete  than  in 
some  other  of  the  barbarized  provinces  of  Rome. 

Rise  of  the  Carolingians. 

The  division  in  the  Prankish  dominion  which 
finally  marked  itself  deeply  and  became  permanent 
was  that  which  separated  the  East  Kingdom,  or 
Austrasia,  from  the  West  Kingdom,  or  Neustria. 
In  Austrasia,  the  Germanic  element  prevailed ;  In 
Neustria,  the  Roman  and  Gallic  survivals  entered 
most  largely  into  the  new  society.  Austrasia 
widened  into  the  Germany  of  later  history ;  Neus- 
tria into  France.  In  both  these  kingdoms,  the 
Prankish  kings  sank  lower  and  lower  in  charac- 
ter, until  their  name  (of  Merwings  or  Mero- 
vingians, from  an  ancestor  of  Clovis)  became  a 
byword  for  sloth  and  worthlessness.  In  each  king- 
dom there  arose,  beside  the  nominal  monarch,  a 
strong  minister,  called  the  Maj  or  Domus,  or  Mayor 
of  the  Palace,  who  exercised  the  real  power 
and  governed  in  the  king's  name.  During  the 
last  half  of  the  seventh  century,  the  Austrasian 
Mayor,  Pippin  of  Heristal,  and  the  Neustrian 
Mayor,  Ebroin,  converted  the  old  antagonism  of 
the  two  kingdoms  into  a  personal  rivalry  and 
struggle  for  supremacy.  Ebroin  was  murdered, 
and  Pippin  was  the  final  victor,  in  a  decisive  bat- 
tle at  Testry  (687),  which  made  him  virtual  mas- 
ter of  the  whole  Frank  realm,  although  the  idle 
Merwings  still  sat  on  their  thrones.  Pippin's  son, 
Charles  Martel,  strengthened  and  extended  the 
domination  which  his  father  had  acquired.  He 
drove  back  the  Saxons  and  subdued  the  Frisians 
in  the  North,  and,  in  the  great  and  famous  battle 
of  Tours  (732)  he  repelled,  once  for  all,  the  at- 
tempt of  the  Arab  and  Moorish  followers  of  Ma- 
homet,  already  lodged  in  Spain,  to  push  their 


1043 


EUROPE. 


Mafiomet 
and  the  East. 


EUROPE. 


conquests  beyond  the  Pyrenees.  The  next  of 
the  family,  Pippin  the  Short,  son  of  Charles 
Martel,  put  an  end  to  the  pretence  of  governing 
in  the  name  of  a  puppet-king.  The  last  of 
the  Merovingians  was  quietly  deposed  —  lacking 
even  importance  enough  to  be  put  to  death  — 
and  Pippin  received  tlie  crown  at  the  hands  of 
Pope  Zachary  (A.  D.  751).  He  died  in  768,  and  the 
reign  of  his  son,  who  succeeded  him —  the  Great 
Charles  —  the  Charlemagne  of  mediaeval  history 
—  is  the  introduction  to  so  new  an  era,  and  so 
changed  an  order  of  circumstances  in  the  Euro- 
pean world,  that  it  will  be  best  to  finish  with  all 
that  lies  behind  it  in  our  hasty  survey  before  we 
take  it  up. 

The  Conquests  of  Islam. 

Outside  of  Europe,  a  new  and  strange  power 
had  now  risen,  and  had  spread  its  forces  with  ex- 
traordinary rapidity  around  the  southern  and 
eastern  circuit  of  the  Mediterranean,  until  it 
troubled  both  extremities  of  the  northern  shore. 
This  was  the  power  of  Islam  —  the  proselyting, 
war-waging  religion  of  Slahomet,  the  Arabian 
prophet.  At  the  death  of  Mahomet,  in  633,  he 
was  lord  of  Arabia,  and  his  armies  had  just 
crossed  the  border,  to  attack  the  S3'rian  posses- 
sions of  the  Eastern  Roman  Empire.  In  seven 
years  from  that  time,  the  whole  of  Palestine  and 
Syria  had  been  overrun,  Jerusalem,  Damascus, 
Antioch,  and  all  the  strong  cities  taken,  and  Ro- 
man authority  expelled.  In  two  years  more, 
they  had  dealt  the  last  blow  to  the  Sassanian 
monarchy  in  Persia  and  shattered  it  forever.  At 
the  same  time  they  were  besieging  Alexandria 
and  adding  Egypt  to  their  conquests.  In  668, 
only  thirty-six  years  after  the  death  of  the 
Prophet,  they  were  at  the  gates  of  Constantino- 
ple, making  the  first  of  their  many  attempts  to 
gain  possession  of  the  New  Rome.  In  698  they 
had  taken  Carthage,  had  occupied  all  North  Af- 
rica to  the  Atlantic  coast,  had  converted  the 
Mauretanians,  or  Moors,  and  absorbed  them  into 
their  body  politic  as  well  as  into  their  commu- 
nion. In  711  the  commingled  Arabs  and  Moors 
crossed  the  Straits  and  entered  Spain,  and  the 
overthrow  of  the  Christian  kingdom  of  the  Visi- 
goths was  practically  accomplished  in  a  single 
battle  that  same  year.  Within  two  years  more, 
the  floors  (as  they  came  to  be  most  commonly 
called)  were  in  possession  of  the  whole  southern, 
central,  and  eastern  parts  of  the  Spanish  penin- 
sula, treating  the  inhabitants  who  had  not  fled 
with  a  more  generous  toleration  than  differing 
Christians  were  wont  to  offer  to  one  another. 
The  Spaniards  (a  mixed  population  of  Roman, 
Suevic,  Gothic,  and  aboriginal  descent)  who  did 
not  submit,  took  refuge  in  the  mountainous  re- 
gion of  the  Asturias  and  Galicia,  where  they 
maintained  their  independence,  and,  in  due  time, 
became  aggressive,  until,  after  eight  centuries, 
they  recovered  their  whole  land. 

The  Eastern  Empire. 

At  the  East,  as  we  have  seen,  the  struggle  of 
the  Empire  with  the  Arabs  began  at  the  first 
moment  of  their  career  of  foreign  conquest. 
They  came  upon  it  when  it  was  weak  from  many 
wounds,  and  exhausted  by  conflict  with  many 
foes.  Before  the  death  of  Justinian  (56.5),  the 
transient  glories  of  his  reign  had  been  waning 
fast.  His  immediate  successor  saw  the  work  of 
Belisarius  and  Narses  undone,  for  the  most  part, 


and  the  Italian  peninsula  overrun  by  a  new 
horde  of  barbarians,  more  rapacious  and  more 
savage  than  the  Goths.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Persian  war  broke  out  again,  and  drained  the 
imperial  resources  to  pay  for  victories  that  had 
no  fruit.  Two  better  and  stronger  emperors  — 
Tiberius  and  Maurice — who  came  after  him, 
only  made  an  honorable  struggle,  without  leav- 
ing the  Empire  in  a  better  state.  Then  a  brutal 
creature  —  Phocas  —  held  the  throne  for  eight 
years  (602-610)  and  sunk  it  very  low  b}'  his 
crimes.  The  hero,  Heraclius,  who  was  now 
raised  to  power,  came  too  late.  Assailed  sud- 
denly, at  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign,  by  a 
fierce  Persian  onset,  he  was  powerless  to  resist. 
Syria,  Egypt  and  Asia  Minor  were  successively 
ravaged  and  conquered  by  the  Persian  arms. 
They  came  even  to  the  Bosphorus,  and  for 
ten  years  they  held  its  eastern  shore  and  main- 
tained a  camp  within  sight  of  Constantinople 
itself;  while  the  wild  Tartar  nation  of  the 
Avars  raged,  at  the  same  time,  through  the 
northern  and  western  provinces  of  the  Empire, 
and  threatened  the  capital  on  its  landward 
sides.  The  Roman  Empire  was  reduced,  for  a 
time,  to  "the  walls  of  Constantinople,  with  the 
remnant  of  Greece,  Italy,  and  Africa,  and  some 
maritime  cities,  from  Tyre  to  Trebizond.  of  the 
Asiatic  coast."  But  in  633  Heraclius  turned  the 
tide  of  disaster  and  rolled  it  back  upon  his 
enemies.  Despite  an  alliance  of  the  Persians 
with  the  Avars,  and  their  combined  assault 
upon  Constantinople  in  626,  he  repelled  the  lat- 
ter, and  wrested  from  the  former,  in  a  series  of 
remarkable  campaigns,  all  the  territory  they 
had  seized.  He  had  but  just  accomplished  this 
great  deliverance  of  his  dominions,  when  the 
Arabs  came  upon  him,  as  stated  above.  There 
was  no  strength  left  in  the  Empire  to  resist  the 
terrible  prowess  of  these  warriors  of  the  desert. 
They  extinguished  its  authority  in  Syria  and 
Egypt,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  first  years  of  their 
career;  but  then  turned  their  arms  to  the  East 
and  the  West,  and  were  slow  in  disputing  Asia 
Minor  with  its  Christian  lords.  ' '  From  the  time 
of  Heraclius  the  Byzantine  theatre  is  contracted 
and  darkened :  the  line  of  empire  which  had  been 
defined  by  the  laws  of  Justinian  and  the  arms  of 
Belisarius  recedes  on  all  sides  from  our  view" 
(Gibbon).  There  was  neither  vigor  nor  virtue  in 
the  descendants  of  Heraclius;  and  when  the  last 
of  them  was  destroyed  by  a  popular  rising 
against  his  vicious  tyranny  (711),  revolution  fol- 
lowed revolution  so  quickly  that  three  reigns 
were  begun  and  ended  in  six  years. 

The  so-called  Byzantine  Empire. 

Then  came  to  the  throne  a  man  of  strong 
character,  who  redeemed  it  at  least  from  contempt ; 
who  introduced  a  dynasty  which  endured  for  a 
century,  and  whose  reign  is  the  beginning  of  a 
new  era  in  the  history  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  so 
marked  that  the  Empire  has  taken  from  that  time, 
in  the  common  usage,  a  changed  name,  and  is 
known  thenceforth  as  the  Byzantine,  rather  than 
the  Eastern  or  the  Greek.  This  was  Leo  the  Isau- 
rian,  who  saved  Constantinople  from  a  second  des- 
perate Moslem  siege ;  who  checked  for  a  consider- 
able period  the  Mahometan  advance  in  the  East ; 
who  reorganized  the  imperial  administration  on 
lasting  lines ;  and  whose  suppression  of  image- 
worship  in  the  Christian  churches  of  his  empire 
led  to  a  rupture  with  the  Roman  Church  in  the 


1044 


EUROPE. 


Rise  of 
Papal  power. 


EUROPE. 


^est, —  to  the  breaking  of  all  relations  of  de- 
pendence in  Rome  and  Italy  upon  the  Empire  in 
the  East,  and  to  the  creating  of  a  new  imperial 
sovereignty  in  Western  Europe  which  claimed 
succession  to  that  of  Rome. 

Lombard  Conquest  of  Italy. 

On  the  conquest  of  Italy  by  Belisarius  and 
Narses,  for  Justinian,  the  eunuch  Narses,  as 
related  before,  was  made  governor,  residing  at 
Ravenna,  and  bearing  the  title  of  Exarch.  In  a 
few  years  he  was  displaced,  through  the  influ- 
ence of  a  palace  intrigue  at  Constantinople.  To 
be  revenged,  it  is  said  that  he  persuaded  the 
Lombards,  a  German  tribe  lately  become  threaten- 
ing on  the  Upper  Danube,  to  enter  Italy.  They 
came,  under  their  leader  Alboin,  and  almost  the 
whole  northern  and  middle  parts  of  the  peninsula 
submitted  to  them  with  no  resistance.  Pavia 
stood  a  siege  for  three  years  before  it  surrendered 
to  become  the  Lombard  capital ;  Venice  received 
an  added  population  of  fugitives,  and  was  safe 
in  her  lagoons  —  like  Ravenna,  where  the  new 
Exarch  watched  the  march  of  Lombard  conquest, 
and  scarcely  opposed  it.  Rome  was  preserved, 
with  part  of  southern  Italy  and  with  Sicily ;  but 
no  more  than  a  shadow  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
Empire  now  stretched  westward  beyond  the 
Adriatic. 

Temporal  Power  of  the  Popes. 

The  city  of  Rome,  and  the  territory  surround- 
ing it,  still  owned  a  nominal  allegiance  to  the 
Emperor  at  Constantinople ;  but  their  immediate 
and  real  ruler  was  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  had 
already  acquired,  in  a  special  way,  the  fatherly 
name  of  "Papa"  or  Pope.  Many  circumstances 
had  combined  to  place  both  spiritual  and  temporal 
power  in  the  hands  of  these  Christian  pontiffs  of 
Rome.  They  may  have  been  originally,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  on  an  equal  footing  of  ec- 
clesiastical authority  with  the  four  other  chiefs  of 
the  hierarchy  —  the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople, 
Alexandria,  Antioch  and  Jerusalem;  but  the 
great  name  of  Rome  gave  them  prestige  and 
weight  of  superior  influence  to  begin  with.  Then, 
they  stood,  geographically  and  sympathetically, 
in  nearest  relations  with  that  massive  Latin  side 
of  Christendom,  in  western  Europe,  which  was 
never  much  disturbed  by  the  raging  dogmatic 
controversies  that  tore  and  divided  the  Church 
on  its  Eastern,  Greek  side.  It  was  inevitable  that 
the  Western  Church  should  yield  liomage  to  one 
head  —  to  one  bishopric  above  all  other  bishop- 
rics; and  it  was  more  inevitable  that  the  See 
of  Rome  should  be  that  one.  So  the  spiritual 
supremacy  to  which  the  Popes  arrived  is  easily 
enough  explained.  The  temporal  authority 
which  they  acquired  is  accounted  for  as  obvi- 
ously. Even  before  the  interruption  of  the  line 
of  emperors  in  the  West,  the  removal  of  the  im- 
perial residence  for  long  periods  from  Rome,  to 
Constantinople,  to  Milan,  to  Ravenna,  left  the 
Pope  the  most  impressive  and  influential  person- 
age in  the  ancient  capital.  Political  functions 
were  forced  on  him,  whether  he  desired  to  ex- 
ercise them  or  not.  It  was  Pope  Leo  who  headed 
the  embassy  to  Attila,  and  saved  the  city  from 
the  Huns.  It  was  the  same  Pope  who  pleaded 
for  it  with  the  Vandal  king,  Genseric.  And  still 
more  and  more,  after  the  imperial  voice  which 
uttered  occasional  commands  to  his  Roman  sub- 
jects was  heard  from  a  distant  palace  in  Con- 


stantinople, and  in  accents  that  had  become 
wholly  Greek,  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  grew  throne- 
like, —  the  respect  paid  to  the  Pope  in  civil  mat- 
ters took  on  the  spirit  of  obedience,  and  his  as- 
pect before  the  people  became  that  of  a  temporal 
prince. 

This  process  of  the  political  elevation  of  the 
Papacy  was  completed  by  the  Lombard  conquest 
of  Italy.  The  Lombard  kings  were  bent  upon 
the  acquisition  of  Rome ;  the  Popes  were  resolute 
and  successful  in  holding  it  against  them.  At 
last  the  Papacy  made  its  memorable  and  momen- 
tous alliance  with  the  Carolingian  cliiefs  of  the 
Franks.  It  assumed  the  tremendous  super-im- 
perial right  and  power  to  dispose  of  crowns,  by 
taking  that  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Franks  from 
Childeric  and  giving  it  to  Pippin  (751);  and  this 
was  the  first  assumption  of  that  right  by  the 
chief  priest  of  Western  Christendom.  In  return. 
Pippin  led  an  army  twice  to  Italy  (754-755),  hum- 
bled the  Lombards,  took  from  them  the  exarch- 
ate of  Ravenna  and  the  Pentapolis  (a  district  east 
of  the  Appenines,  between  Aucona  and  Ferrara), 
and  transferred  this  whole  territory  as  a  con- 
queror's "donation"  to  the  Apostolic  See.  The 
temporal  sovereignty  of  the  Popes  now  rested  on 
a  base  as  political  and  as  substantial  as  that  of 
the  most  worldly  and  vulgar  potentates  around 
them. 

Charlemagne's  restored  Roman  Empire. 

Pippin's  greater  son,  Charlemagne,  renewed 
the  alliance  of  his  house  with  the  Papacy,  and 
strengthened  it  by  completing  the  conquest  of  the 
Lombards,  extinguishing  their  kingdom  (774),  and 
confirming  his  father's  donation  of  the  States  of 
the  Church.  Charlemagne  was  now  supreme  in 
Italy,  and  the  Pope  became  the  representative  of 
his  sovereignty  at  Rome, —  a  position  which  last- 
ingly enhanced  the  political  importance  of  the 
Roman  See  in  the  peninsula.  But  while  Pope 
and  King  stood  related,  in  one  view,  as  agent  and 
principal,  or  subject  and  sovereign,  another  very 
different  relationship  slowly  shaped  itself  in  the 
thoughts  of  one,  if  not  of  both.  The  Western 
Church  had  broken  entirely  with  the  Eastern,  on 
the  question  of  image-worship ;  the  titular  sov- 
ereignty of  the  Eastern  Emperor  in  the  ancient 
Roman  capital  was  a  worn-out  fiction ;  the  reign 
of  a  female  usurper,  Irene,  at  Constantinople 
afforded  a  good  occasion  for  renounotng  and  dis- 
carding it.  But  a  Roman  Emperor  there  must 
be,  somewhere,  for  lesser  princes  and  sovereigns 
to  do  homage  to ;  the  political  habit  and  feeling  of 
the  European  world,  shaped  and  fixed  by  the  long 
domination  of  Rome,  still  called  for  it.  "Nor 
could  the  spiritual  head  of  Christendom  dispense 
with  the  temporal ;  without  the  Roman  Empire 
there  could  not  be,"  according  to  the  feeling  of 
the  ninth  century,  "a  Roman,  nor  by  necessary 
consequence  a  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church." 
For  "men  could  not  separate  in  fact  what  was 
indissoluble  in  thought:  Cliristianity  must  stand 
or  fall  along  with  the  great  Christian  state ;  they 
were  but  two  names  for  one  and  the  same  thing  " 
(Bryce).  Therefore  the  head  of  the  Church,  boldly 
enlarging  the  assumption  of  his  predecessor  who 
bestowed  the  crown  of  the  Merovingians  upon 
Pippin,  now  took  it  upon  himself  to  set  the  diadem 
of  the  Cfesars  on  the  head  of  Charlemagne.  On 
the  Christmas  Day,  in  the  year  800,  in  the  basilica 
of  St.  Peter,  at  Rome,  the  solemn  act  of  corona- 
tion was  performed  by  Pope  Leo  III. ;  the  Roman 


1045 


EUROPE. 


The  Northmen. 


EUROPE. 


Empire  lived  again,  in  the  estimation  of  tliat  age, 
and  Charles  the  Great  reopened  the  interrupted 
line  of  successors  to  Augustus. 

Before  this  imperial  coronation  of  Charlemagne 
occurred,  he  had  already  made  his  dominion  im- 
perial in  extent,  by  the  magnitude  of  his  con- 
quests. North,  south,  east,  and  west,  his  armies 
had  been  everywhere  victorious.  In  eighteen 
campaigns  against  the  fierce  and  troublesome 
Saxons,  he  subdued  those  stubborn  pagans  and 
forced  them  to  submit  to  a  Christian  baptism  — 
'  -with  how  much  of  immediate  religious  effect  may 
'be  easily  surmised.  But  by  opening  a  way  for 
the  more  Christ-like  missionaries  of  the  cross, 
who  followed  him,  this  missionary  of  the  battle- 
ax  did,  no  doubt,  a  very  real  apostolic  work. 
He  checked  the  ravages  of  the  piratical  Danes. 
He  crushed  the  Avars  and  took  their  country, 
which  comprised  parts  of  the  Austria  and  Hun- 
gary of  the  present  day.  He  occupied  Bavaria, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  Brittany  on  the  other.  He 
crossed  the  Pyrenees  to  measure  swords  with  the 
Saracens,  and  drove  them  from  the  north  of 
Spain,  as  far  as  the  Ebro.  His  lordship  in  Italy 
has  been  noticed  already.  He  was  unquestion- 
ably one  of  the  greatest  monarchs  of  any  age, 
and  deserves  the  title  Magnus,  afiixed  to  his 
name,  if  that  title  ever  has  been  deserved  by  the 
kings  who  were  flattered  with  it.  There  was 
much  more  in  his  character  than  the  mere  aggres- 
sive energy  which  subjugated  so  wide  a  realm'. 
He  was  a  man  of  enlightenment  far  beyond  his 
time ;  a  man  who  strove  after  order,  in  that  dis- 
orderly age,  and  who  felt  oppressed  by  the  igno- 
rance "into  which  the  world  had  sunk.  He  was  a 
seeker  after  learning,  and  the  friend  and  patron 
of  all  in  his  day  who  groped  in  the  darkness  and 
felt  their  way  towards  the  light.  He  organized 
his  Empire  with  a  sense  of  political  system  which 
was  new  among  the  Teutonic  masters  of  Western 
Europe  (except  as  shown  by  Theodoric  in  Italy) ; 
but  there  were  not  years  enough  in  his  own  life 
for  the  organism  to  mature,  and  his  sons  brought 
back  chaos  again. 

Appearance  of  the  Northmen. 

Before  Charlemagne  died  (814)  he  saw  the  west- 
em  coasts  and  river  valleys  of  his  Empire  harried 
by  a  fresh  outpouring  of  sea-rovers  from  the  far 
North,  and  it  is  said  that  he  had  sad  forebodings 
of  the  affliction  they  would  become  to  his  people 
thereafter.  These  new  pirates  of  the  North  Sea, 
who  took  up,  after  several  centuries,  the  aban- 
doned trade  of  their  kinsmen,  the  Saxons  (now 
retired  from  their  wild  courses  and  respectablj' 
settled  on  one  side  of  the  water,  while  subdued 
and  kept  in  order  on  the  other),  were  of  the  bold 
and  rugged  Scandinavian  race,  which  inhabited 
the  countries  since  known  as  Denmark,  Sweden 
and  Norway.  They  are  more  or  less  confused 
under  the  general  name  of  Northmen,  or  Norse- 
men —  men  of  the  North ;  but  that  term  appears 
to  have  been  applied  more  especially  to  the  free- 
booters from  the  Norwegian  coast,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  "Danes  of  the  lesser  penin- 
sula. It  is  convenient,  in  so  general  a  sketch  as 
this,  to  ignore  the  distinction,  and  to  speak  of  tlie 
Northmen  as  inclusive,  for  that  age,  of  the  whole 
Scandinavian  race. 

Their  visitations  began  to  terrify  the  coasts  of 
England,  France  and  Germany,  and  the  lower 
valleys  of  the  rivers  which  they  found  it  possible 
to  ascend,  some  time  in  the  later  halt  of  the 


eighth  century.  It  is  probable  that  their  appear- 
ance on  the  sea  at  this  time,  and  not  before,  was 
due  to  a  revolution  which  united  Norway  under 
a  single  king  and  a  stronger  government,  and 
which,  by  suppressing  independence  and  disorder 
among  the  petty  chiefs,  drove  many  of  them  to 
their  ships  and  sent  them  abroad,  to  lead  a  life  of 
lawlessness  more  agreeable  to  their  tastes.  It  is 
also  probable  that  the  northern  countries  had  be- 
come populated  beyond  their  resources,  as  seemed 
to  have  happened  before,  when  the  Goths 
swarmed  out,  and  that  the  outlet  by  sea  was 
necessarily  and  deliberately  opened.  Whatever 
the  cause,  these  Norse  adventurers,  in  fleets  of 
long  boats,  issued  with  some  suddenness  from 
their  "vies,"  or  fiords  (whence  the  name  "vi- 
king "),  and  began  an  extraordinary  career.  For 
more  than  half  a  centur}'  their  raids  had  no  ob- 
ject but  plunder,  and  what  they  took  they  car- 
ried home  to  enjoy.  First  to  the  Frisian  coast, 
then  to  the  Rhine  —  the  Seine  —  the  Loire, —  they 
came  again  and  again  to  pillage  and  destroy; 
crossing  at  the  same  time  to  the  shores  of  their 
nearest  kinsmen — but  heeding  no  kinship  in 
their  savage  and  relentless  forays  along  the  Eng- 
lish coasts  —  and  around  to  Ireland  and  the  Scot 
tish  islands,  where  their  earliest  lodgments  were 
made. 

The  Danes  in  England. 

About  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  they 
began  to  seize  tracts  of  land  in  England  and  to 
settle  themselves  there  in  permanent  homes. 
The  Angles  in  the  northern  and  eastern  parts 
and  the  Saxons  in  the  southern  part  of  England 
had  weakened  themselves  and  one  another  by 
rivalry  and  war  between  their  divided  kingdoms. 
There  had  been  for  three  centuries  an  unceasing 
struggle  among  them  for  supremacy.  At  the 
time  of  the  coming  of  the  Danes  (who  were 
prominent  in  the  English  invasion  and  gave  their 
name  to  it),  the  West  Saxon  kings  had  won  a 
decided  ascendancy.  The  Danes,  by  degrees, 
stripped  them  of  what  they  had  gained.  North- 
umberland, Mercia  and  East  Anglia  were  occupied 
in  succession,  and  Wessex  itself  was  attacked. 
King  Alfred,  the  great  and  admirable  hero  of 
early  English  historj',  who  came  to  the  throne  in 
871,  spent  the  first  eight  years  of  his  reign  in  a 
deadly  struggle  with  the  invaders.  He  was 
obliged  in  the  end  to  concede  to  them  the  whole 
northeastern  part  of  England,  from  the  Thames 
to  the  Tyne,  which  was  known  thereafter  as 
' '  the  Danelaw  " ;  but  they  became  his  vassals,  and 
submitted  to  Christian  baptism.  A  century  later, 
the  Norse  rovers  resumed  their  attacks  upon 
England,  and  a  cowardly  English  king,  dis- 
trusting the  now  settled  and  peaceful  Danes, 
ordered  an  extensive  massacre  of  them  (1003). 
The  rage  which  this  provoked  in  Denmark  led  to 
a  great^  invasion  of  the  country.  England  was 
completely  conquered,  and  remained  subject  to 
the  Danish  kings  until  1042,  when  its  throne  was 
recovered  for  a  brief  space  of  time  by  the  Eng- 
lish line. 

The  Normans  in  Normandy. 

Meanwhile  the  Northmen  had  gained  a  much 
firmer  and  more  important  footing  in  the  terri- 
tory of  the  Western  Pranks  —  which  had  not  yet 
acquired  the  name  of  France.  The  Seine  and 
its  valley  attracted  them  again  and  again,  and 
after  repeated  expeditions  up  the  river,  even  to 
the  city  of  Paris,  which  they  besieged  several 


1046 


EUROPE. 


The  Feudal 
System. 


EUROPE. 


times,  one  of  their  ctiiefs,  Rolf  or  Rollo,  got  pos- 
session of  Rouen  and  began  a  permanent  settle- 
ment in  tlie  country.  The  Frank  King,  Charles 
the  Simple,  now  made  terms  witli  Rollo  and 
granted  him  a  district  at  the  mouth  of  the  Seine, 
(913),  the  latter  acknowledging  the  suzerainty  or 
feudal  superiority  of  Charles,  and  accepting  at 
the  same  time  the  doubly  new  character  of  a 
baptised  Christian  and  a  Frankish  Duke.  The 
Northmen  on  the  Seine  were  known  thenceforth 
as  Normans,  their  dukedom  as  Normandy,  and 
they  played  a  great  part  in  European  history 
during  the  next  two  centuries. 

The  Northmen  in  the  West. 

The  northern  sea-rovers  who  had  settled  neither 
in  Ireland,  England,  nor  Frankland,  went  farther 
afield  into  the  West  and  North  and  had  wonder- 
ful adventures  there.  They  took  possession  of 
the  Orkneys,  the  Shetlands,  the  Hebrides,  and 
other  islands  in  those  seas,  including  Man,  and 
founded  a  powerful  island-kingdom,  which  they 
held  for  a  long  period.  Thence  they  passed  on 
to  Faroe  and  Iceland,  and  in  Iceland,  where  they 
lived  peaceful  and  quiet  lives  of  necessity,  they 
founded  an  Interesting  republic,  and  developed  a 
very  remarkable  civilization,  adorned  by  a  litera- 
ture which  the  world  is  learning  more  and  more 
to  admire.  From  Iceland,  it  was  a  natural  step 
to  the  discovery  of  Greenland,  and  from  Green- 
land, there  is  now  little  doubt  that  they  sailed 
southwards  and  saw  and  touched  the  continent 
of  America,  five  centuries  before  Columbus  made 
his  voyage. 

The  Northmen  in  the  East. 

While  the  Northmen  of  the  ninth  and  tenth 
centuries  were  exciting  and  disturbing  all  West- 
ern Europe  by  their  naval  exploits,  other  adven- 
turers from  the  Swedish  side  of  the  Scandinavian 
country  were  sallying  eastwards  under  different 
names.  Both  as  warriors  and  as  merchants,  they 
made  their  way  from  the  Baltic  to  the  Black 
Sea  and  the  Bosphorus,  and  bands  of  them  en- 
tered the  service  of  the  Eastern  Emperor,  at 
Constantinople,  where  they  received  the  name 
of  Varangians,  from  the  oath  by  which  they 
bound  themselves.  One  of  the  Swedish  chiefs, 
Rurik  by  name,  was  chosen  by  certain  tribes  of 
the  country  now  called  Russia,  to  be  their  prince. 
Rurik's  capital  was  Novgorod,  where  he  formed 
the  nucleus  of  a  kingdom  which  grew,  through 
many  vicissitudes,  into  the  modern  empire  of 
Russia.  His  successors  transferred  their  capital 
to  Kief,  and  ultimately  it  was  shifted  again  to 
Moscow,  where  the  Muscovite  princes  acquired 
the  title,  the  power,  and  the  great  dominion  of 
the  Czars  of  all  the  Russias. 

The  Slavonic  Race. 

The  Russian  sovereigns  were  thus  of  Swedish 
origin;  but  their  subjects  were  of  another  race. 
They  belonged  to  a  branch  of  the  great  Aryan 
stock,  called  the  Slavic  or  Slavonic,  which  was  the 
last  to  become  historically  known.  The  Slavonians 
bore  no  important  part  in  events  that  we  have 
knowledge  of  until  several  centuries  of  the 
Christian  era  had  passed.  They  were  the  ob- 
scure inhabitants  in  that  period  of  a  wide  region 
in  Eastern  Europe,  between  the  Vistula  and  the 
Caspian.  In  the  sixth  century,  pressed  by  the 
Avars,  they  crossed  the  Vistula,  moving  west- 
wards, along  the  Baltic ;  and,  about  the  same  time 


they  moved  southwards,  across  the  Danube,  and 
established  the  settlements  which  formed  the 
existing  Slavonic  states  in  South-eastern  Europe 

—  Servia,  Croatia  and  their  lesser  neighbors. 
But  the  principal  seat  of  the  Slavonic  race  within 
historic  times  has  always  been  in  the  region  still 
occupied  by  its  principal  representatives,  the 
Russians  and  the  Poles. 

Mediaeval  Society. — The  Feudal  System. 

We  have  now  come  to  a  period  in  European 
history  —  the  middle  period  of  the  Middle  Ages 

—  when  it  is  appropriate  to  consider  the  peculiar 
state  of  society  which  had  resulted  from  the 
transplanting  of  the  Germanic  nations  of  the 
North  to  the  provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
and  from  placing  the  well  civilized  surviving 
inhabitants  of  the  latter  in  subjection  to  and  in 
association  with  masters  so  vigorous,  so  capable 
and  so  barbarous.  In  Gaul,  the  conquerors,  un- 
used to  town-life,  not  attracted  to  town  pursuits, 
and  eager  for  the  possession  of  land,  had  gener- 
ally spread  themselves  over  the  country  and  left 
the  cities  more  undisturbed,  except  as  they  pil- 
laged them  or  extorted  ransom  from  them.  The 
Roman-Gallic  population  of  the  country  had 
sought  refuge,  no  doubt,  to  a  large  extent,  in 
the  cities ;  the  agricultural  laborers  were  already, 
for  the  most  part,  slaves  or  half -slaves  —  the 
coloni  of  the  Roman  system  — and  remained  in 
their  servitude;  while  some  of  the  poorer  class 
of  freemen  may  have  sunk  to  the  same  condition. 

How  far  the  new  masters  of  the  country  had 
taken  possession  of  its  land  by  actual  seizure, 
ousting  the  former  owners,  and  under  what 
rules,  if  any,  it  was  divided  among  them,  are 
questions  involved  in  great  obscurity.  In  the 
time  of  Charlemagne,  there  seems  to  have  been 
a  large  number  of  small  landowners  who  cul- 
tivated their  own  holdings,  which  they  owned, 
not  conditionally,  but  absolutely,  by  the  tenure 
called  allodial.  But  alongside  of  these  peasant 
proprietors  there  was  another  landed  class  whose 
estates  were  held  on  very  different  terms,  and 
this  latter  class,  at  the  time  now  spoken  of,  was 
rapidly  absorbing  the  former.  It  was  a  class 
which  had  not  existed  before,  neither  among  the 
Germans  nor  among  the  Romans,  and  the  system 
of  land  tenure  on  which  it  rested  was  equally 
new  to  both,  although  both  seem  to  have  con- 
tributed something  to  the  origin  of  it.  This  was 
the  Feudal  System,  which  may  be  described,  in 
the  words  of  Bishop  Stubbs,  as  being  "a  com- 
plete organization  of  society  through  the  medium 
of  land  tenure,  in  which,  from  the  king  down  to 
the  landowner,  all  are  bound  together  by  obliga- 
tion of  service  and  defence :  the  lord  to  protect 
his  vassal,  the  vassal  to  do  service  to  his  lord; 
the  defence  and  service  being  based  on,  and  regu- 
lated by,  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  land  held 
by  the  one  of  the  other. "  Of  course,  the  service 
exacted  was,  in  the  main,  military,  and  the  sys- 
tem grew  up  as  a  military  system,  expanding 
into  a  general  governing  system,  during  a  time 
of  loose  and  ineffective  administration.  That  it 
was  a  thing  of  gradual  growth  is  now  fairly 
well  settled,  although  little  is  clearly  known  of 
the  process  of  growth.  It  came  to  its  perfection 
in  the  tenth  century,  by  which  time  most  other 
tenures  of  land  had  disappeared.  The  allodial 
tenure  gave  way  before  it,  because,  in  those  dis- 
orderly times,  men  of  small  or  moderate  property 
in  land  were  in  need  of  the  protection  which  a 


1047 


EUROPE. 


Formation  of 
France. 


EUROPE. 


powerful  lord,  who  had  many  retainers  at  his 
bacli,  or  a  strong  monastery,  could  give,  and 
were  induced  to  surrender,  to  one  or  the  other, 
their  free  ownership  of  the  land  they  held,  receiv- 
ing it  back  as  tenants,  in  order  to  establish  the 
relation  wliicli  secured  a  protector. 

In  its  final  organization,  the  feudal  system,  as 
stated  before,  embraced  the  whole  society  of  the 
kingdom.  Theoretically,  the  king  was  the  pin- 
nacTe  of  the  system.  In  the  political  view  of  the 
time  —  so  far  as  a  political  view  existed  —  he  was 
the  over-lord  of  the  realm  rather  by  reason  of 
being  its  ultimate  land-lord,  than  by  being  the 
center  of  authority  and  the  guardian  of  law.  The 
greater  subordinate  lordships  of  the  kingdom  — 
the  dukedoms  and  counties —  were  held  as  huge 
estates,  called  fiefs,  derived  originally  by  grant 
from  the  king,  subject  to  the  obligation  of  mili- 
tary service,  and  to  certain  acts  of  homage,  ac- 
knowledging the  dependent  relationship.  The 
greater  feudatories,  or  vassals,  holding  immedi- 
ately from  the  king,  were  lords  in  their  turn  of 
a  second  order  of  feudatories,  who  held  lands 
under  them ;  and  they  again  might  divide  their 
territories  among  vassals  of  a  third  degree ;  for 
the  process  of  subinfeudation  went  on  until  it 
reached  the  cultivator  of  the  soil,  who  bore  the 
whole  social  structure  of  society  on  his  bent 
back. 

But  the  feudal  system  would  have  wrought 
few  of  the  effects  which  it  did  if  it  had  involved 
nothing  but  laud  tenure  and  military  service.  It 
became,  however,  as  before  intimated,  a  system 
of  government,  and  one  which  inevitably  pro- 
duced a  disintegration  of  society  and  a  destruc- 
tion of  national  bonds.  A  grant  of  territory 
generally  carried  with  it  almost  a  grant  of  sov- 
ereignty over  the  inliabitants  of  the  territory, 
limited  only  by  certain  rights  and  powers  re- 
served to  the  king,  which  he  found  extreme  diffi- 
culty in  exercising.  The  system  was  one  "in 
which  every  lord  judged,  taxed,  and  commanded 
the  class  next  below  him,  in  which  abject  slavery 
formed  the  lowest  and  irresponsible  tyranny  the 
highest  grade,  in  wliich  private  war,  private 
coinage,  private  prisons,  took  the  place  of  the 
imperial  institutions  of  government "  (Stubbs). 

This  was  the  singular  system  which  had  its 
original  and  special  growth  among  the  Franks, 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  and  which  spread  from  them, 
under  the  generally  similar  conditions  of  the  age, 
to  other  countries,  with  various  degrees  of  modi- 
fication and  limitation.  Its  influence  was  ob- 
viously opposed  to  political  unity  and  social 
order,  and  to  the  development  of  institutions 
favorable  to  the  people. 

But  an  opposing  influence  had  kept  life  in  one 
part  of  society  which  feudalism  was  not  able  to 
envelope.  That  was  in  cities.  The  cities,  as 
before  stated,  had  been  the  refuge  of  a  large  and 
perhaps  a  better  part  of  tlie  Roman-Gallic  free 
population  which  survived  the  barbarian  con- 
quest. Tliey,  in  conjunction  with  the  Church, 
preserved,  without  doubt,  so  much  of  the  plant 
of  Roman  civilization  as  escaped  destruction. 
They  certainly  sufliered  heavily,  and  languished 
for  several  centuries ;  but  a  slow  revival  of  in- 
dustries and  arts  went  on  in  them, —  trade  crept 
again  into  its  old  channels,  or  found  new  ones, — 
and  wealth  began  to  be  accumulated  anew.  With 
the  consciousness  of  wealth  came  feelings  of  inde- 
pendence ;  and  such  towns  were  now  beginning 
to  acquire  the  spirit  which  made  them,  a  little 


later,  important  instruments  in  the  weakening  and 
breaking  of  the  feudal  system. 

Rise  of  the  Kingdom  of  France. 

During  the  period  between  the  deatli  of  Char- 
lemagne and  the  settlement  of  the  Normans  in 
the  Carlovingian  Empire,  that  Empire  had  be- 
come permanently  divided.  The  final  separation 
had  taken  place  (887)  between  the  kingdom  of 
the  East  Franks,  or  Germany,  and  tlie  kingdom 
of  the  West  Franks,  which  presently  became 
France.  Between  them  stretched  a  region  in 
dispute  called  Lotharingia,  out  of  whicli  came 
the  duchy  of  Lorraine.  Tlie  kingdom  of  Bur- 
gundy (sometimes  cut  into  two)  and  the  kingdom 
of  Italy,  had  regained  a  separate  existence;  and 
the  Empire  which  Charlemagne  had  revived  was 
nothing  but  a  name.  The  last  of  the  Carlovin- 
gian emperors  was  Arnulf,  who  died  in  899.  The 
imperial  title  was  borne  afterwards  by  a  number 
of  petty  Italian  potentates,  but  lost  all  imperial 
significance  for  two-thirds  of  a  century,  until  it 
was  restored  to  some  grandeur  again  and  to  a 
lasting  influence  in  history,  by  another  German 
king. 

Before  this  occurred,  the  Carlovingian  race  of 
kings  had  disappeared  from  both  the  Frank  king- 
doms. During  the  last  hundred  years  of  their 
reign  in  the  West  kingdom,  the  tlirone  had  been 
disputed  with  them  two  or  three  times  by  mem- 
bers of  a  rising  family,  the  Counts  of  Paris  and 
Orleans,  who  were  also  called  Dukes  of  the 
French,  and  whose  duchy  gave  its  name  to  the 
kingdom  which  they  finally  made  their  own.  The 
kings  of  the  old  race  held  their  capital  at  Laon, 
with  little  power  and  a  small  dominion,  until 
987,  when  the  last  one  died.  The  then  Count  of 
Paris  and  Duke  of  the  French,  Hugh,  called 
Capet,  became  king  of  the  French,  by  election ; 
Paris  became  the  capital  of  the  kingdom,  and 
the  France  of  modern  times  had  its  birth,  though 
very  far  from  its  full  growth. 

The  royal  power  had  now  declined  to  extreme 
weakness.  The  development  of  feudalism  had 
undennined  all  central  authority,  and  Hugh 
Capet  as  king  had  scarcely  more  power  than  he 
drew  from  his  own  large  fief.  "At  first  he  was 
by  no  means  acknowledged  in  the  kingdom;  but 
.  .  .  the  chief  vassals  ultimately  gave  at  least  a 
tacit  consent  to  the  usurpation,  and  permitted 
the  royal  name  to  descend  undisputed  upon  his 
posterity.  But  this  was  almost  the  sole  attribute 
of  sovereignty  which  the  first  kings  of  the  third 
dynasty  enjoyed.  For  a  long  period  before  and 
after  the  accession  of  that  family  France  has, 
properly  speaking,  no  national  history"  (Hallam). 

The  Communes. 

When  the  royal  power  began  to  gain  ascen- 
dancy, it  seems  to  have  been  largely  in  consequence 
of  a  tacitly  formed  alliance  between  tlie  kings 
and  the  commons  or  burghers  of  the  towns.  The 
latter,  as  noted  before,  were  acquiring  a  spirit 
of  independence,  born  of  increased  prosperity, 
and  were  converting  their  guilds  or  trades  unions 
into  crude  forms  of  municipal  organization,  as 
"  communes  "  or  commons.  Sometimes  b}'  pur- 
chase and  sometimes  by  force,  they  were  ridtling 
themselves  of  the  feudal  pretensions  wliich  neigh- 
boring lords  held  over  them,  and  were  obtaining 
charters  which  defined  and  guaranteed  municipal 
freedom  to  them.  One  or  two  kings  of  the  time 
happened  to  be  wise  enough  to  give  encourage 


1048 


k 


EUROPE. 


Tlie  Holy 
Roman  Empire, 


EUROPE. 


ment  to  this  movement  towards  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  the  communes,  and  it  proved  to  have  an 
important  influence  in  weakening  feudalism  and 
strengthening  royalty. 

Germany. 

In  the  German  kingdom,  much  the  same  pro- 
cesses of  disintegration  had  produced  much  the 
same  results  as  in  France.  The  great  fiefs  into 
whicli  it  was  divided  —  the  duchies  of  Saxony, 
Francouia,  S  wabia  and  Bavaria  —  were  even  more 
powerful  than  the  great  fiefs  of  France.  When 
the  Carlovingian  dynasty  came  to  an  end,  in 
911,  the  nobles  made  choice  of  a  king,  electing 
Conrad  of  Franconia,  and,  after  him  (919),  Henry 
the  Fowler,  Duke  of  Saxony.  The  monarchy 
continued  thereafter  to  be  elective,  actually  as 
well  as  in  theory,  for  a  long  period.  Three  times 
the  crown  was  kept  in  the  same  family  during 
several  successive  generations:  in  the  House  of 
Saxony  from  919  to  1024;  in  the  House  of  Fran- 
conia from  1034  to  1137;  in  the  House  of  the 
Hohenstaufens,  of  Swabia,  from  1137  to  1354: 
but  it  never  became  an  acknowledged  heritage 
until  long  after  the  Hapsburgs  won  possession 
of  it;  and  even  to  the  end  the  forms  of  election 
were  preserved. 

The  Holy  Roman  Empire. 

The  second  king  of  the  Saxon  dynasty,  Otho  I., 
called  the  Great,  recovered  the  imperial  title, 
which  had  become  extinct  again  in  the  "West, 
added  the  crown  of  Lombardy  to  the  crown  of 
Germany,  and  founded  anew  the  Germanic  Roman 
Empire,  which  Charlemagne  had  failed  to  es- 
tablish enduringly,  but  which  now  became  one 
of  the  conspicuous  facts  of  Euroi^ean  history  for 
more  than  eight  hundred  years,  although  seldom 
more  than  a  shadow  and  a  name.  But  the 
shadow  and  the  name  were  those  of  the  great 
Rome  of  antiquity,  and  the  mighty  memory  it 
had  left  in  the  world  gave  a  superior  dignity  and 
rank  to  these  German  emperors,  even  while  it 
diminished  their  actual  power  as  kings  of  Ger- 
many. It  conferred  upon  them,  indeed,  more 
than  rank  and  dignity;  it  bestowed  an  "  oiiice  " 
which  the  ideas  and  feelings  of  that  age  could 
not  suffer  to  remain  vacant.  The  Imperial  office 
seemed  to  be  required,  in  matters  temporal,  to 
balance  and  to  be  the  complement  of  the  Papal 
office  in  matters  spiritual.  "  In  nature  and  com- 
pass the  government  of  these  two  potentates  is 
the  same,  differing  only  in  the  sphere  of  its  work- 
ing ;  and  it  matters  not  whether  we  call  the  Pope 
a  spiritual  Emperor,  or  the  Emperor  a  secular 
Pope. "  "  Thus  the  Holy  Roman  Church  and  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  are  one  and  the  same  thing, 
in  two  aspects ;  and  Catholicism,  the  principle  of 
the  universal  Cliristian  society,  is  also  Romanism ; 
that  is,  rests  upon  Rome  as  the  origin  and  type 
of  its  universality "  (Bryce).  These  mediaeval 
ideas  of  the  ' '  Holy  Roman  Empire, "  as  it  came  to 
be  called  (not  immediately,  but  after  a  time),  gave 
importance  to  the  imperial  coronation  thenceforth 
claimed  bj^  tlie  German  kings.  It  was  a  facti- 
tious importance,  so  far  as  concerned  the  inune- 
diate  realm  of  those  kings.  In  Germany,  while  it 
brought  no  increase  to  their  material  power,  it 
tended  to  alarm  feudal  jealousies;  it  tended  to 
draw  the  kings  away  from  their  natural  identifi- 
cation with  their  own  country ;  it  tended  to  dis- 
tract them  from  an  effective  royal  policy  at  home, 
by  foreign  ambitions  and  aims ;  and  altogether 


it  interfered  seriously  witli  the  nationalization  of 
Germany,  and  gave  a  longer  play  to  the  disrupt- 
ing influences  of  feudalism  in  that  country  than 
in  any  other. 

Italy,  the  Empire  and  the  Papacy. 

Otto  I.  had  won  Italy  and  the  Imperial  crown 
(963)  very  easily.  For  more  than  half  a  century 
the  peninsula  had  been  in  a  deplorable  state. 
The  elective  Lombard  crown,  quarreled  over  by 
the  ducal  houses  of  Friuli,  Spoleto,  Ivrea,  Prov- 
ence, and  others,  settled  nowhere  with  any  sure- 
ness,  and  lost  all  dignity  and  strength,  though 
several  of  the  petty  kings  who  wore  it  had  been 
crowned  emperors  by  the  Pope.  At  Rome,  all 
legitimate  government,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  had 
disappeared.  The  city  and  the  Church  had  been 
for  years  imder  the  rule  of  a  family  of  courte- 
sans, who  made  popes  of  their  lovers  and  their 
sons.  Southern  Italy  was  being  ravaged  by  the 
Saracens,  who  occupied  Sicily,  and  Northern 
Italy  was  desolated  by  the  Hungarians.  Under 
these  circumstances,  Otto  I.,  the  German  Idng, 
listened  to  an  appeal  from  an  oppressed  queen, 
Adelaide,  widow  of  a  murdered  king,  and  crossed 
the  Alps  (951),  like  a  gallant  knight,  to  her  re- 
lief. He  chastised  and  humbled  the  oppressor, 
rescued  the  queen,  and  married  her.  A  few 
years  later,  on  further  provocation,  he  entered 
Italy  again,  deposed  the  troublesome  King  Ber- 
engar,  caused  himself  to  be  crowned  King  of 
Italy,  and  received  the  imperial  crown  at  Rome 
(963)  from  one  of  the  vilest  of  a  vile  brood  of 
popes,  John  XII.  Soon  afterwards,  he  was  im 
polled  to  convoke  a  synod  which  deposed  this 
disgraceful  pope  and  elected  in  his  place  Leo 
VIII. ,  who  had  been  Otto's  chief  secretary.  The 
citizens  now  conceded  to  the  Emperor  an  absolute 
veto  on  papal  elections,  and  the  new  pope  con- 
firmed their  act.  The  German  sovereigns,  from 
that  time,  for  many  years,  asserted  their  right  to 
control  the  filling  of  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  and 
exercised  the  right  on  many  occasions,  though 
always  with  difficulty. 

Nominally  they  were  sovereigns  of  Rome  and 
Italy ;  but  during  their  long  absences  from  the 
country  they  scarcely  made  a  show  of  adminis- 
trative government  in  it,  and  their  visits  were 
generally  of  the  nature  of  expeditions  for  a  re- 
conquest  of  the  land.  Their  claims  of  sover- 
eignty were  resisted  more  and  more,  politically 
throughout  Italy  and  ecclesiastically  at  Rome. 
The  Papacy  emancipated  itself  from  their  con- 
trol and  acquired  a  natural  leadership  of  Italian 
opposition  to  German  imperial  pretensions.  The 
conflict  between  these  two  forces  became,  as  will 
be  seen  later  on,  one  of  the  dominating  facts  of 
European  liistory  for  four  centuries  —  from  the 
eleventh  to  the  fourteenth. 

The  Italian  City-republics. 

The  disorder  that  had  been  scarcely  checked  in 
Italy  since  the  Goths  came  into  it, —  the  practical 
extinction  of  central  authority  after  Charlemagne 
dropped  his  sceptre,  and  the  increasing  conflicts 
of  the  nobles  among  themselves,  —  had  one  con- 
sequence of  remarkable  importance  in  Italian  his- 
tory. It  opened  opportunities  to  many  cities  in 
the  northern  parts  of  the  peninsula  for  acquiring 
municipal  freedom,  whicli  they  did  not  lack 
spirit  to  improve.  They  led  the  movement  and 
set  the  example  which  created,  a  little  later,  so 
many  vigorous  communes  in  Flanders  and  France. 


1049 


EUROPE. 


Emperors  and 
Popes. 


EUKOPB. 


and  Imperial  free  cities  in  Germany  at  a  still  later 
day.  They  were  earlier  in  winning  their  liber- 
ties, and  they  pushed  them  farther, —  to  the  point 
in  many  cases  of  creating,  as  at  Pisa,  Genoa, 
Florence,  and  Venice,  a  republican  city  state. 
Venice,  growing  up  in  the  security  of  her  la- 
goons, from  a  cluster  of  fishing  villages  to  a  great 
city  of  palaces,  had  been  independent  from  the 
beginning,  except  as  she  acknowledged  for  a  time 
the  nominal  supremacy  of  the  Eastern  Emperor. 
Others  won  their  way  to  independence  through 
struggles  that  are  now  obscure,  and  developed, 
before  these  dark  centuries  reached  their  close, 
an  energy  of  life  and  a  splendor  of  genius  that 
come  near  to  comparison  with  the  power  and  the 
genius  of  the  Greeks.  But,  like  the  city-republics 
of  Greece,  they  were  perpetually  at  strife  with 
one  another,  and  sacrificed  to  their  mutual  jeal- 
ousies, in  the  end,  the  precious  liberty  which 
made  them  great,  and  which  they  might,  by  a 
well  settled  union,  have  preserved. 

The  Saxon  line  of  Emperors. 

Such  were  the  conditions  existing  or  taking 
shape  in  Italy  when  the  Empire  of  the  West  — 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  later  times  —  was 
founded  anew  by  Otho  the  Great.  Territorially, 
the  Empire  as  be  left  it  covered  Germany  to  its 
full  extent,  and  two-thirds  of  Ital}',  with  the  Em- 
peror's superiority  acknowledged  by  the  subject 
states  of  Burgundy,  Bohemia,  Moravia,  Poland, 
Denmark,  and  Hungary  —  the  last  named  with 
more  dispute. 

Otho  the  Great  died  in  973.  His  two  immediate 
successors,  Otho  II.  (973-983)  and  Otho  III.  (983- 
1002)  accomplished  little,  though  the  latter  had 
great  ambitions,  planning  to  raise  Rome  to  her 
old  place  as  the  capital  of  the  world ;  but  he  died 
in  his  youth  in  Ital_y,  and  was  succeeded  by  a 
cousin,  Henry  II.,  whose  election  was  contested 
by  rivals  in  Germany,  and  repudiated  in  Italy. 
In  the  latter  country  the  great  nobles  placed 
Ardoin,  marquis  of  Ivrea,  on  the  Lombard  throne ; 
but  the  factions  among  them  soon  caused  his  over- 
throw, and,  Henry,  crossing  the  Alps,  reclaimed 
the  crown. 

The  Franconian  Emperors. 

Henry  II.  was  the  last  of  the  Saxon  line,  and 
upon  his  death,  in  1024,  the  House  of  Franconia 
came  to  the  throne,  by  the  election  of  Conrad  II. , 
called  "  the  Salic."  Under  Conrad,  the  kingdom 
of  Burgundy,  afterwards  called  the  kingdom  of 
Aries  (which  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the 
French  Duchy  of  Burgundy  —  the  northwestern 
part  of  the  old  kingdom),  was  reunited  to  the 
Empire,  by  the  bequest  of  its  last  king,  Rudolph 
III.  Conrad's  son,  grandson,  and  great  grand- 
son succeeded  him  in  due  order ;  Henry  III.  from 
1039  to  1056;  Henry  IV.  from  1056  to  1106; 
Henry  V.  from  1106  to  1135.  Under  Henry  III. 
the  Empire  was  at  the  summit  of  its  power. 
Henry  II.,  exercising  the  imperial  prerogative, 
had  raised  the  Duke  of  Hungary  to  royal  rank, 
giving  him  the  title  of  king.  Henry  III.  now 
forced  the  Hungarian  king  to  acknowledge  the 
imperial  supremacy  and  pay  tribute.  The  Ger- 
man kingdom  was  ruled  with  a  strong  hand 
and  peace  among  its  members  compelled.  "In 
Rome,  no  German  sovereign  had  ever  been  so 
absolute.  A  disgraceful  contest  between  three 
claimants  of  the  papal  chair  had  shocked  even 
the  reckless  apathy   of  Italy.     Henry  deposed 


them  all  and  appointed  their  successor."  "  The 
synod  passed  a  decree  granting  to  Henry  the 
right  of  nominating  the  supreme  pontiff ;  and  the 
Roman  priesthood,  who  had  forfeited  the  respect 
of  the  world  even  more  by  habitual  simony  than 
by  the  flagrant  corruption  of  their  manners,  were 
forced  to  receive  German  after  German  as  their 
bishop,  at  the  bidding  of  a  ruler  so  powerful,  so 
severe,  and  so  pious.  But  Henry's  encroach- 
ments alarmed  his  own  nobles  no  less  than  the 
Italians,  and  the  reaction,  which  might  have 
been  dangerous  to  himself,  was  fatal  to  his  suc- 
cessor. A  mere  chance,  as  some  might  call  it, 
determined  the  course  of  history.  The  great 
Emperor  died  suddenly  in  A.  D.  1056,  and  a 
child  was  left  at  the  helm,  while  storms  were 
gathering  that  might  have  demanded  the  wisest 
hand  "  (Bryce). 

Hildebrand  and  Henry  IV. 

The  child  was  Henry  IV.,  of  unfortunate 
memory ;  the  storms  which  beset  him  blew  from 
Rome.  The  Papacy,  lifted  from  its  degradation 
by  Henry's  father  and  grandfather,  had  recov- 
ered its  boldness  of  tone  and  enlarged  its  pre- 
tensions and  claims.  It  had  come  under  the 
influence  of  an  extraordinary  man,  the  monk 
Hildebrand,  who  swayed  the  councils  of  four  popes 
before  he  became  pope  himself  (1073),  and  whose 
pontifical  reign  as  Gregory  VII.  is  the  epoch  of 
greatest  importance  in  the  history  of  the  Roman 
Church.  The  overmastering  ascendancy  of  the 
popes,  in  the  Church  and  over  all  who  acknowl- 
edge its  communion,  really  began  when  this  in- 
vincible monk  was  raised  to  the  papal  throne. 
He  broke  the  priesthood  and  the  whole  hierarchy 
of  the  West  to  blind  obedience  by  his  relentless 
discipline.  He  isolated  them,  as  an  order  apart, 
by  enforcing  celibacy  upon  them ;  and  he  extin- 
guished the  corrupting  practices  of  simony. 
Then,  when  he  had  marshalled  the  forces  of  the 
Church,  he  proclaimed  its  independence  and  its 
supremacy  in  absolute  terms.  In  the  growth  of 
feudalism  throughout  Europe,  the  Church  had 
become  compromised  in  many  ways  with  the 
civil  powers.  Its  bishoprics  and  abbeys  had 
acquired  extensively  the  nature  of  fiefs,  and  bish- 
ops and  abbots  were  required  to  do  homage  to  a 
secular  lord  before  they  could  receive  an  "inves- 
titure "  of  the  rich  estates  which  had  become 
attached  by  a  feudal  tenure  to  their  sees.  The 
ceremony  of  investiture,  moreover,  included  de- 
livery of  the  crozier  and  the  pastoral  ring,  which 
were  the  very  symbols  of  their  spiritual  ofiice. 
Against  this  dependence  of  the  Church  upon 
temporal  powers,  Gregory  now  arrayed  it  in  re- 
volt, and  began  the  "War  of  Investitures," 
which  lasted  for  half  a  century.  The  great 
battle  ground  was  Germany ;  the  Emperor,  of 
necessity,  was  the  chief  opponent;  and  Henry 
IV.,  whose  youth  had  been  badly  trained,  and 
whose  authority  had  been  weakened  by  a  long, 
ill-guardianed  minority,  was  at  a  disadvantage 
in  the  contest.  His  humiliation  at  Canossa 
(1077),  when  he  stood  through  tliree  winter  days, 
a  suppliant  before  the  door  of  the  castle  which 
lodged  his  haughty  enemy,  praying  to  be  released 
from  the  dread  penalties  of  excommunication,  is 
one  of  the  familiar  tableaux  of  history.  He  had 
a  poor  revenge  seven  years  later,  when  he  took 
Rome,  drove  Gregory  into  the  castle  St.  Angelo, 
and  seated  an  anti-pope  in  the  Vatican.  But  his 
triumph  was  brief.     There  came  to  the  rescue 


1050 


EUROPE. 


Norman  Conquests. 


EUROPE. 


of  the  beleaguered  Pope  certain  new  actors  in 
Italian  history,  whom  it  is  now  necessary  to  in- 
troduce. 

The  Normans  in  Italy  and  Sicily. 

The  settlement  of  predatory  Northmen  on  the 
Seine,  which  took  the  name  of  Normandy  and  the 
constitution  of  a  ducal  fief  of  France,  had  long 
since  grown  into  an  important  half-independent 
state.  Its  people  —  now  called  Normans  in  the 
smoother  speech  of  the  South  —  had  lost  some- 
thing of  their  early  rudeness,  and  had  fallen  a 
little  under  the  spell  of  the  rising  chivalry  of  the 
age ;  but  the  goad  of  a  warlike  temper  which  drove 
their  fathers  out  of  Norway  still  pricked  the  sons 
and  sent  them  abroad,  in  restless  search  of  ad- 
ventures and  gain.  Some  found  their  way  into 
the  south  of  Italy,  where  Greeks,  Lombards  and 
Saracens  were  fighting  merrily,  and  where  a  good 
sword  and  a  tough  lance  were  tools  of  the  only 
industry  well-paid.  Presently  there  was  banded 
among  them  there  a  little  army,  which  found 
itself  a  match  for  any  force  that  Greek  or  Lom- 
bard, or  other  opponent,  could  bring  against  it, 
and  which  proceeded  accordingly  to  work  its 
own  will  in  the  land.  It  seized  Apulia  (1043)  and 
divided  it  into  twelve  countships,  as  an  aristo- 
cratic republic.  Pope  Leo  IX.  led  an  army  against 
it  and  was  beaten  and  taken  prisoner  (1053).  To 
release  himself  he  was  compelled  to  grant  the 
duchy  they  had  taken  to  them,  as  a  fief  of  the 
Church,  and  to  extend  his  grant  to  whatever  they 
might  succeed  in  taking,  beyond  it.  The  chiefs 
of  the  Normans  thus  far  had  been,  in  succession, 
three  sons  of  a  poor  gentleman  in  the  Cotentin, 
Tancred  by  name,  who  now  sent  a  fourth  son  to 
the  scene.  This  new  comer  was  Robert,  having 
the  surname  of  Guiscard,  who  became  the  fourth 
leader  of  the  Norman  troop  (1057),  and  who,  in  a 
few  years,  assumed  the  title  of  Duke  of  Calabria 
and  Apulia.  His  duchies  comprised,  substan- 
tially, the  territory  of  the  later  kingdom  of 
Naples.  A  fifth  brother,  Roger,  had  meantime 
crossed  to  Sicily,  with  a  small  following  of  his 
countrymen,  and,  between  1060  and  1090,  had  ex- 
pelled the  Saracens  from  that  island,  and  pos- 
sessed it  as  a  flef  of  his  brother's  duchy.  But  in 
the  next  generation  these  relations  between  the 
two  conquests  were  practically  reversed.  The 
son  of  Roger  received  the  title  of  King  of  Sicily 
from  the  Pope,  and  Calabria  and  Apulia  were  an- 
nexed to  his  kingdom,  through  the  extinction  of 
Robert's  family. 

These  Normans  of  Southern  Italy  were  the  al- 
lies who  came  to  the  rescue  of  Pope  Gregory, 
when  the  Emperor,  Henry  IV.,  besieged  him  in 
Castle  St.  Angelo.  He  summoned  Robert  Guis- 
card as  a  vassal  of  the  Church,  and  the  response 
was  prompt.  Henry  and  his  Germans  retreated 
when  the  Normans  came  near,  and  the  latter  en- 
tered Rome  (1084).  Accustomed  to  pillage,  they 
began,  soon,  to  treat  the  city  as  a  captured  place, 
and  the  Romans  rose  against  them.  They  retali- 
ated with  torch  and  sword,  and  once  more  Rome 
suffered  from  the  destroying  rage  of  a  barba- 
rous soldiery  let  loose.  "Neither  Goth  nor  Van- 
dal, neither  Greek  nor  German,  brought  such 
desolation  on  the  city  as  this  capture  by  the  Nor- 
mans "  (Milman).  Duke  Robert  made  no  attempt 
to  hold  the  ruined  capital,  but  v/ithdrew  to  his 
own  dominions.  The  Pope  wcsi  with  him,  and 
died  soon  afterwards  (1085),  unable  to  return  to 
Rome.  But  the  imperious  temper  he  had  imparted 


to  the  Church  was  lastingly  fixed  in  it,  and  his 
lofty  pretensions  were  even  surpassed  by  the  pon- 
tiffs who  succeeded  him.  He  spoke  for  the  Papacy 
the  first  syllables  of  that  awful  proclamation  that" 
was  sounded  in  its  finality,  after  eight  hundred 
years,  when  the  dogma  of  infallibility  was  put 
forth. 

Norman  Conquest  of  England. 

The  Normans  in  Italy  established  no  durable 
power.  In  another  quarter  they  were  more  for- 
tunate. Their  kinsmen,  the  Danes,  who  subju- 
gated England  and  annexed  it  to  their  own  king- 
dom in  1016,  had  lost  it  again  in  1043,  when  the 
old  line  of  kings  was  restored,  in  the  person  of 
Edward,  called  the  Confessor.  But  William, 
Duke  of  Normandy,  had  acquired,  in  the  course 
of  these  shiftings  of  the  English  crown,  certain 
claims  which  he  put  forth  when  Edward  died, 
and  when  Harold,  son  of  the  great  Earl  Godwine, 
was  elected  king  to  succeed  him,  in  1066.  To  en- 
force his  claim,  Duke  William,  commissioned  by 
the  Pope,  invaded  England,  in  the  early  autumn 
of  that  year,  and  won  the  kingdom  in  the  great 
and  decisive  battle  of  Senlac,  or  Hastings,  where 
Harold  was  slain.  On  Christmas  Day  he  was 
crowned,  and  a  few  years  sufficed  to  end  all  re- 
sistance to  his  authority.  He  established  on  the 
English  throne  a  dynasty  which,  though  shifting 
sometimes  to  collateral  lines,  has  held  it  to  the 
present  day. 

The  Norman  Conquest,  as  estimated  by  its- 
greatest  historian.  Professor  Freeman,  wrought 
more  good  effects  than  ill  to  the  English  people. 
It  did  not  sweep  away  their  laws,  customs  or  lan- 
guage, but  it  modified  them  all,  and  not  unfavor- 
ably ;  while  ' '  it  aroused  the  old  national  spirit  to 
fresh  life,  and  gave  the  conquered  people  fellow- 
workers  in  their  conquerors."  The  monarchy 
was  strengthened  by  William's  advantages  as  a 
conqueror,  used  with  the  wisdom  and  moderation 
of  a  statesman.  Feudalism  came  into  England 
stripped  of  its  disrupting  forces ;  and  the  possible 
alternative  of  absolutism  was  hindered  by  po- 
tent checks.  At  the  same  time,  the  Conquest 
brought  England  into  relations  with  the  Continent 
which  might  otherwise  have  arisen  very  slowly, 
and  thus  gave  an  early  importance  to  the  nation 
in  European  history. 

The  Crusades. 
At  the  period  now  reached  in  our  survey,  all 
Europe  was  on  the  eve  of  a  profounder  excite- 
ment and  commotion  than  it  had  ever  before 
known — -one  which  stirred  it  for  the  first  time 
with  a  common  feeling  and  with  common 
thoughts.  A  great  cry  ran  through  it,  for  help 
to  deliver  the  holy  places  of  the  Christian  faith 
from  the  infidels  who  possessed  them.  The 
pious  and  the  adventurous,  the  fanatical  and 
the  vagrant,  rose  up  in  one  motley  and  tumul- 
tuous response  to  the  appeal,  and  mobs  and 
armies  (hardly  distinguishable)  of  Crusaders  — 
warriors  of  the  Cross  —  began  to  whiten  the  high- 
ways into  Asia  with  their  bones.  The  first  move- 
ment, in  1096,  swept  300,000  men,  women  and 
children,  under  Peter  the  Hermit,  to  their  death, 
with  no  other  result;  but  nearly  at  the  same 
time  there  went  an  army,  French  and  Norman 
for  the  most  part,  which  made  its  way  to  Jerusa- 
lem, took  the  city  by  assault  (1099)  and  founded 
a  kingdom  there,  which  defended  itself  for  almost 
a  hundred  years.  Long  before  it  fell,  it  was 
pressed  sorely  by  the  surrounding  Moslems  and 


1061 


EUROPE. 


Turks,  Byzantines 
and  Crusaders. 


EUROPE. 


cried  to  Europe  for  help.  A  Second  Crusade,  in 
1147,  accomplished  nothiag  for  its  relief,  but 
spent  vast  multitudes  of  lives;  and  when  the 
feeble  kingdom  disappeared,  in  1187,  and  the 
Sepulchre  of  the  Saviour  was  defiled  again  by 
unbelievers,  Christendom  grew  wild,  once  more, 
with  passion,  and  a  Third  Crusade  was  led  by 
the  redoubtable  Emperor  Frederick  Barbarossa, 
of  Germany,  King  Richard  Coeur  de  Lion,  of 
England,  and  King  Philip  Augustus  of  France. 
The  Emperor  perished  miserably  on  the  way  and 
his  army  was  wasted  in  its  march;  the  French 
and  English  exhausted  themselves  in  sieges  which 
won  nothing  of  durable  advantage  to  the  Chris- 
tian world ;  the  Sultan  Saladin  gathered  most  of 
the  laurels  of  the  war. 

The  Turks  on  the  Scene. 

The  armies  of  Islam  which  the  Crusaders  en- 
countered in  Asia  Minor  and  the  Holy  Land  were 
no  longer,  in  their  leadership,  of  the  race  of  Ma- 
homet. The  religion  of  the  Prophet  was  still 
triumphant  in  the  East,  but  his  nation  had  lost 
its  lordship,  and  Western  Asia  had  submitted  to 
new  masters.  These  were  the  Turks  —  Turks  of 
the  House  of  Seljuk — first  comers  of  their  swarm 
from  the  great  Aral  basin.  First  they  had  been 
disciples,  won  by  the  early  armed  missionaries 
of  the  Crescent ;  then  servants  and  mercenaries, 
hired  to  fight  its  battles  and  guard  its  princes, 
when  the  vigor  of  the  Arab  conquerors  began  to 
be  sapped,  and  their  character  to  be  corrupted  by 
luxur_y  and  pride ;  then,  at  last,  they  were  masters. 
About  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  the  Caliph 
at  Bagdad  became  a  puppet  in  their  hands,  and 
the  Jloslem  Empire  in  Asia  (Africa  and  Spain 
being  divided  between  rival  Caliphs)  soon  passed 
under  their  control. 

These  were  the  possessors  of  Jerusalem  and  its 
sacred  shrines,  whose  grievous  and  insulting 
treatment  of  Christian  pilgrims,  in  the  last  years 
of  the  eleventh  century,  had  stirred  Europe  to 
wrath  and  provoked  the  great  movement  of  the 
Crusades.  The  movement  had  Important  conse- 
quences, both  immediate  and  remote ;  but  its  first 
effects  were  small  in  moment  compared  with 
those  which  lagged  after.  To  understand  either, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  glance  back  at  the  later 
course  of  events  in  the  Eastern  or  Byzantine 
Empire. 

The  Byzantine  Empire. 

The  fortunes  of  the  Empire,  since  it  gave  up 
Syria  and  Egypt  to  the  Saracens,  had  been,  on 
the  whole,  less  unhappy  than  the  dark  prospect 
at  that  time.  It  had  checked  the  onrush  of  Arabs 
at  the  Taurus  mountain  range,  and  retained  Asia 
Minor;  it  had  held  Constantinople  against  them 
through  two  terrible  sieges;  it  had  fought  for 
three  centuries,  and  finally  subdued,  a  new  Tu- 
ranian enemy,  the  Bulgarians,  who  had  estab- 
lished a  kingdom  south  of  the  Danube,  where 
their  name  remains  to  the  present  day.  The  his- 
tory of  its  court,  during  much  of  the  period,  had 
been  a  black  and  disgusting  record  of  conspira- 
cies, treacheries,  murders,  mutilations,  usurpa- 
tions and  foul  vices  of  every  description ;  with 
now  and  then  a  manly  figure  climbing  to  the 
throne  and  doing  heroic  things,  for  the  most  part 
uselessly;  but  the  system  of  governmental  ad- 
ministration seems  to  have  been  so  well  con 
structed  that  it  worked  with  a  certain  indepen- 
dence of  its  vile  or  imbecile  heads,  and  the  country 


was  probably  better  and  better  governed  than  its 

court. 

At  Constantinople,  notwithstanding  frequent 
tumults  and  revolutions,  there  had  been  material 
prosperity  and  a  great  gathering  of  wealth.  The 
Saracen  conquests,  by  closing  other  avenues  of 
trade  between  the  East  and  the  West,  had  concen- 
trated that  most  profitable  commerce  in  the  By- 
zantine capital.  The  rising  commercial  cities  of 
Italy  —  Amalphi,  Venice,  Genoa,  Pisa  —  seated 
their  enterprises  there.  Art  and  literature,  which 
had  decayed,  began  then  to  revive,  and  Byzan- 
tine culture,  on  its  surface,  took  more  of  superi- 
ority to  that  of  Teutonic  Europe. 

The  conquests  of  the  Seljuk  Turks  gave  a 
serious  check  to  this  improvement  of  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Empire.  Momentarily,  by  divid- 
ing the  Moslem  power  in  Asia,  they  had  opened 
an  opportunity  to  an  energetic  Emperor,  J^iceph- 
orus  Phocas.  to  recover  northern  Syria  and 
Cilicia  (961-969).  But  when,  in  the  next  cen- 
tury, they  had  won  a  complete  mastery  of  the 
dominions  of  the  Caliphate  of  Bagdad,  they 
speedily  swept  back  the  Byzantines,  and  overran 
and  occupied  the  most  of  Asia  Minor  and  Ar- 
menia. Adecisive  victory  at  Manzikert,  in  1071, 
when  the  emperor  of  the  moment  was  taken 
prisoner  and  his  army  annihilated,  gave  them 
well  nigh  the  whole  territory  to  the  Hellespont. 
The  Empire  was  nearly  reduced  to  its  European 
domain,  and  suffered  ten  years  of  civil  war  be- 
tween rivals  for  the  throne. 

At  the  end  of  th;it  time  it  acquired  a  ruler,  in 
the  person  of  Alexius  Comueuus,  who  is  the  gen- 
erally best  known  of  all  the  Byzantine  line,  be- 
cause he  figures  notably  in  the  stories  of  the 
First  Crusade.  He  was  a  man  of  crafty  abili- 
ties and  complete  unscrupulousness.  He  took 
the  Empire  at  its  lowest  state  of  abasement  and 
demoralization.  In  the  first  year  of  his  reign  he 
had  to  face  a  new  enemy.  Robert  Guiscard,  the 
Norman,  who  had  conquered  a  dukedom  in 
Southern  Italy,  thought  the  situation  favorable 
for  an  attack  on  the  Eastern  Empire,  and  for 
winning  the  imperial  crown.  Twice  he  invaded 
the  Greek  peninsula  (1081-1084)  and  defeated 
the  forces  brought  against  him  by  Alexius ;  but 
troubles  in  Italy  recalled  him  on  the  first  occa- 
sion, and  his  death  brought  the  second  expedi- 
tion to  naught. 

Such  was  the  situation  of  the  Byzantines  when 
the  waves  of  the  First  Crusade,  rolling  Asia- ward, 
surged  up  to  the  gates  of  Constantinople.  It 
was  a  visitation  that  might  well  appal  them, — 
these  hosts  of  knights  and  vagabonds,  fanatics 
and  freebooters,  who  claimed  and  proffered  help 
in  a  common  Christian  war  with  the  infidels,  and 
who,  nevertheless,  had  no  Christian  communion 
with  them  —  schismatics  as  they  were,  outside 
the  fold  of  the  Roman  shepherd.  There  is  not 
a  doubt  that  they  feared  the  crusading  Franks 
more  than  they  feared  the  Turks.  They  knew 
them  less,  and  the  little  hearsay  knowledge  they 
had  was  of  a  lawless,  barbarous,  fighting  feu- 
dalism in  the  countries  of  the  West, —  more  rough 
and  uncouth,  at  least,  than  their  own  defter 
methods  of  murdering  and  mutilating  one  another. 
They  received  their  dangerous  visitors  with  ner- 
vousness and  suspicion ;  but  Alexius  Coranenus 
proved  equal  to  the  delicate  position  in  which 
he  found  himself  placed.  He  burdened  his  soul 
with  lies  and  perfidies;  but  he  managed  affairs 
so  wonderfully  that  the  Empire  plucked  the  best 


1052 


EUROPE. 


Effects  of  the 
Crusades. 


EUROPE. 


fruits  of  the  first  Crusades,  by  recovering  a 
great  part  of  Asia  Minor,  with  all  the  coasts  of 
the  Euxine  and  the  ^gean,  from  the  weakened 
Turks.  The  latter  were  so  far  shaken  and  de- 
pi'essed  by  the  hard  blows  of  the  Crusaders  that 
they  troubled  the  Byzantines  very  little  in  the 
century  to  conae. 

But  against  this  immediate  gain  to  the  Eastern 
Empire  from  the  early  Crusades,  there  were 
seriou.s  later  offsets.  The  commerce  of  Constanti- 
nople declined  rapidly,  as  soon  as  the  Moslem 
blockade  of  the  Syrian  coast  line  was  broken.  It 
lost  its  monopoly.  Trade  ran  back  again  into  other 
reopened  channels.  The  Venetians  and  Genoese 
became  more  independent.  Formerly,  they  had 
received  privileges  in  the  Empire  as  a  gracious 
concession.  Now  they  dictated  the  terms  of 
their  commercial  treaties  and  their  naval  alliances. 
Their  rivalries  with  one  another  involved  the 
Empire  in  quarrels  with  both,  and  a  state  of 
things  was  brought  about  which  had  much  to  do 
with  the  catastrophe  of  1304,  when  tlie  fourth 
Crusade  was  diverted  to  the  conquest  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  a  Latin  Empire  supplanted  the 
Empire  of  the  Roman-Greeks. 

Effects  of  the  Crusades. 

Briefly  noted,  these  were  the  consequences  of 
the  early  Crusades  in  the  East.  In  western 
Europe  they  had  slower,  but  deeper  and  more 
lasting  effects.  They  weakened  feudalism,  by 
sending  abroad  so  many  of  the  feudal  lords,  and 
by  impoverishing  so  many  more ;  whereby  the 
towns  gained  more  opportunity  for  enfranchise- 
ment, and  the  crown,  in  Prance  particularly,  ac- 
quired more  power.  They  checked  smaller  wars 
and  private  quarrels  for  a  time,  and  gave  in 
many  countries  unwonted  seasons  of  peace,  dur- 
ing which  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of  men  were 
acted  on  by  more  civilizing  influences.  They 
brought  men  into  fellowship  who  were  only  ac- 
customed to  fight  one  another,  and  thus  softened 
their  provincial  and  national  antipathies.  They 
expanded  the  knowledge  —  the  experience  —  the 
ideas  —  of  the  whole  body  of  those  who  visited 
tlie  East  and  who  survived  the  adventurous  ex- 
pedition; made  them  acquainted  with  civiliza- 
tions at  least  more  polished  than  their  own; 
taught  them  many  things  which  they  could  only 
learn  in  those  days  by  actual  sight,  and  sent 
them  back  to  their  homes  throughout  Europe,  to 
be  instructors  and  missionaries,  who  did  much  to 
prepare  "Western  Cliristendom  for  the  Renaissance 
or  new  birth  of  a  later  time.  The  twelfth  cen- 
tury — the  century  of  the  great  Crusades  —  saw 
the  gray  day-break  in  Europe  after  the  long  night 
of  darkness  which  settled  down  upon  it  in  the 
fifth.  In  the  thirteenth  it  reached  the  brighten- 
ing dawn,  and  in  the  fifteenth  it  stood  iu  the 
full  morning  of  the  modern  day.  Among  all  the 
movements  by  which  it  was  pushed  out  of  dark- 
ness into  light,  that  of  the  Crusades  would  appear 
to  have  been  the  most  important ;  important  in 
itself,  as  a  social  and  political  movement  of  great 
change,  and  important  in  the  seeds  that  it  scattered 
for  a  future  harvest  of  effects. 

In  both  the  Byzantine  and  Arabian  civiliza- 
tions of  the  East  there  was  much  for  western 
Europe  to  learn.  Perhaps  there  was  more  in  the 
last  named  than  in  the  first ;  for  the  Arabs,  when 
they  came  out  from  behind  their  deserts,  and  ex- 
changed the  nomadic  life  for  the  life  of  cities, 
had  shown  an  amazing  avidity  for  the  lingering 


science  of  old  Greece,  which  they  encountered  in 
Egypt  and  Syria.  They  had  preserved  far  more 
of  it,  and  more  of  the  old  fineness  of  feeling  that 
went  with  it,  than  had  survived  in  Greece  it- 
self, or  in  any  part  of  the  Teutonized  empire  of 
Rome.  The  Crusaders  got  glimpses  of  its  in- 
fluence, at  least,  and  a  curiosity  was  wakened, 
which  sent  students  into  Moorish  Spain,  and 
opened  scholarly  interchanges  which  greatly  ad- 
vanced learning  in  Europe. 

Rising  Power  of  the  Church. 

Not  the  least  important  effect  of  the  Crusades 
was  the  atmosphere  of  religion  which  they  caused 
to  envelope  the  great  affairs  of  the  time,  and 
which  they  made  common  in  politics  and  so- 
ciety. The  influence  of  the  Church  was  increased 
by  this ;  and  its  organization  was  powerfully 
strengthened  by  the  great  monastic  revival  that 
followed  presently:  the  rise  of  purer  and  more 
strictly  disciplined  orders  of  the  "  regular"  (that 
is  the  secluded  or  monastic)  clergy  —  Cistercians, 
Benedictines,  Franciscans,  Dominicans,  etc. ;  as 
well  as  the  creation  of  the  great  military-religious 
orders  —  Knights  Templars,  Knights  of  the  Hos- 
pital of  St.  John,  Teutonic  Knights,  and  others, 
which  were  immediately  connected  with  the 
Crusades. 

To  say  that  the  Church  gained  influence  is  to 
say  that  the  clergy  gained  it,  and  that  the  chief 
of  the  clergy,  the  Pope,  concentrated  the  gain  in 
himself.  The  whole  clerical  body  was  making 
encroachments  in  every  field  of  politics  upon  the 
domain  of  the  civil  authority,  using  shrewdly  the 
advantages  of  superior  learning,  and  busying 
itself  more  and  more  in  temporal  affairs.  The 
popes  after  Gregory  VII.  maintained  his  high 
pretensions  and  [pursued  his  audacious  course. 
In  most  countries  they  encountered  resistance 
from  the  Crown;  but  the  brunt  of  the  conflict 
still  fell  upon  the  emperors,  who,  in  some  re- 
spects, were  the  most  poorly  armed  for  it. 

Guelfs  and  Ghibellines. 

Henry  IV.,  who  outlived  his  struggle  with 
Gregory,  was  beaten  down  at  last  —  dethroned 
by  a  graceless  son,  excommunicated  by  a  relent- 
less Church  and  denied  burial  when  he  died  (1106) 
by  its  clergy.  The  rebellious  son,  Henry  V.,  in 
his  turn  fought  the  same  battle  over  for  ten  years, 
and  forced  a  compromise  which  saved  about  half 
the  rights  of  investiture  that  his  father  had 
claimed.  His  death  (1135)  ended  the  Franconian 
line,  and  the  imperial  crown  returned  for  a  few 
years  to  the  House  of  Saxony,  by  the  election  of 
the  Duke  Lothaire.  But  the  estates  of  the  Fran- 
conian family  had  passed,  by  his  mother,  to 
Frederick  of  Hohenstaufen,  duke  of  Swabia;  and 
now  a  bitter  feud  arose  between  the  House  of 
Saxony  and  the  House  of  Hohenstaufen  or  Swa- 
bia,—  a  feud  that  was  the  most  memorable  and 
the  longest  lasting  in  history,  if  measured  by  the 
duration  of  party  strifes  which  began  in  it  and 
which  took  their  names  from  it.  For  the  raging 
factions  of  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines  which  divided 
Italy  for  two  centuries  had  their  beginning  in 
this  Swabian-Saxon  feud,  among  the  Germans. 
The  Guelfs  were  the  partisans  of  the  House  of 
Saxony ;  the  Ghibellines  were  the  party  of  the 
Hohenstaufens.  The  Hohenstaufens  triumphed 
when  Lothaire  died  (1138),  and  made  Conrad  of 
their  House  Emperor.  They  held  the  crown, 
moreover,  in  their  family  for  four  generations, 


1053 


EUROPE. 


Gnelfs 
and  Ghibellines. 


EUROPE. 


extending  through  more  than  a  century ;  and  so  it 
happened  that  the  German  name  of  the  German 
party  of  the  Hohenstaufens  came  to  be  identified 
in  Italy  with  the  party  or  faction  in  that  country 
which  supported  imperial  interests  and  claims  in 
the  free  cities  and  against  the  popes.  AVhereupon 
the  opposed  party  name  was  borrowed  from  Ger- 
many likewise  and  applied  to  the  Italian  faction 
which  took  ground  against  the  Emperors  —  al- 
though these  Italian  Guelfs  had  no  objects  in 
common  with  the  partisans  of  Saxony. 

The  Hohenstaufens  in  Italy. 

The  first  Hohenstauf  en  emperor  was  succeeded 
(1152)  by  his  nephew  Frederick  I.,  called  Bar- 
barossa.  because  of  his  red  beard.  The  long 
reign  of  Frederick,  until  1190,  was  mainly  filled 
with  wars  and  contentions  in  Italy,  where  he 
pushed  the  old  quarrel  of  the  Empire  with  the 
Papacy,  and  where,  furthermore,  he  resolutely 
undertook  to  check  the  growing  independence  of 
the  Lombard  cities.  Five  times  during  his  reign 
he  led  a  great  army  into  the  peninsula,  like  a 
hostile  invader,  and  his  destroying  marches 
through  the  country,  of  which  he  claimed  to  be 
sovereign,  were  like  those  of  the  barbarians  who 
came  out  of  the  North  seven  centuries  before. 
The  more  powerful  cities,  like  Milan,  were  un- 
doubtedly oppressing  their  weaker  neighbors, 
and  Barbarossa  assumed  to  be  the  champion  of 
the  latter.  But  he  smote  impartially  the  weak 
and  the  strong,  the  village  and  the  town,  which 
provoked  his  arrogant  temper  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree. Jlilan  escaped  his  wrath  on  the  first  visi- 
tation, but  went  down  before  it  when  he  came 
again  (1158),  and  was  totally  destroyed,  the  in- 
habitants being  scattered  in  other  towns.  Even 
the  enemies  of  Milan  were  moved  to  compassion 
by  the  savageness  of  this  punishment,  and  joined, 
a  few  years  later,  in  rebuilding  the  prostrate  walls 
and  founding  Milan  anew.  A  great  ' '  League  of 
Lombardy  "  was  formed  by  all  the  northern  towns, 
to  defend  their  freedom  against  the  hated  Em- 
peror, and  the  party  of  the  Ghibellines  was  re- 
duced for  the  time  to  a  feeble  minority.  Mean- 
time Barbarossa  had  forced  his  way  into  Rome, 
stormed  the  very  Church  of  St.  Peter,  and  seated 
an  anti-pope  on  the  throne.  But  a  sudden  pesti- 
lence fell  upon  his  army,  and  he  tied  before  it, 
out  of  Italy,  almost  alone.  Yet  he  never  relaxed 
his  determination  to  bend  both  the  Papacy  and 
the  Lombard  republics  to  his  will.  After  seven 
years  he  returned,  for  the  fifth  time,  and  it 
proved  to  be  the  last.  The  League  met  him  at 
Legnano  (1176)  and  administered  to  him  an  over- 
whelming defeat.  Even  his  obstinacy  was  then 
overcome,  and  after  a  truce  of  six  years  he  made 
peace  with  the  League  and  the  Pope,  on  terms 
which  conceded  most  of  the  liberties  that  the 
cities  claimed.  It  was  in  the  reign  of  Frederick 
that  the  name  "  Holy  Roman  Empire  "  began,  it 
seems,  to  be  used. 

Frederick  died  while  on  a  crusade  and  was 
succeeded  (1190)  by  his  son,  Henry  VI.,  who  had 
married  the  daughter  and  heiress  of  the  King  of 
Sicily  and  who  acquired  that  kingdom  in  her 
right.  His  short  reign  was  occupied  mostlj'  in 
subduing  the  Sicilian  possession.  When  lie  died 
(1197)  his  son  Frederick  was  a  child.  Frederick 
succeeded  to  the  crown  of  Sicily,  but  his  rights 
in  Germany  (where  his  father  had  already  caused 
him  to  be  crowned  "King  of  the  Romans" — 
the   step   preliminary   to  an   imperial   election) 


were  entirely  ignored.  The  German  crown  was 
disputed  between  a  Swabian  and  a  Saxon  claim- 
ant, and  the  Saxon,  Otho,  was  King  and  Em- 
peror in  name,  until  1218,  when  he  died.  But 
he,  too,  quarreled  with  a  pope,  about  the  lands 
of  the  Countess  Matilda,  which  she  gave  to  the 
Church;  and  his  quarrel  was  with  Innocent  III., 
a  pope  who  realized  the  autocracy  which  Hilde- 
brand  had  looked  forward  to,  and  who  lifted  the 
Papacy  to  the  greatest  Iieight  of  power  it  ever 
attained.  To  cast  down  Otho,  Innocent  took  up 
the  cause  of  Frederick,  who  received  the  royal 
crown  a  second  time,  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  (1215) 
and  the  imperial  crown  at  Rome  (1220).  Fred- 
eiick  II.  (his  designation)  was  one  of  the  few 
men  of  actual  genius  who  have  ever  sprung 
from  the  sovereign  families  of  the  world ;  a  man 
so  far  in  advance  of  his  time  that  he  appears 
like  a  modern  among  his  mediaeval  contempo- 
raries. He  was  superior  to  the  superstitions  of 
his  age, —  superior  to  its  bigotries  and  its  pro- 
vincialisms. His  large  sympathies  and  cosmo- 
politan frame  of  mind  were  acted  upon  by  all 
the  new  impulses  of  the  epoch  of  the  crusades, 
and  made  him  reflect,  in  his  brilliant  character, 
as  in  a  mirror,  the  civilizing  processes  that  were 
working  on  his  generation. 

Between  such  an  emperor  as  Frederick  II.  and 
such  popes  as  Innocent  III.  and  his  immediate 
successors,  there  could  not  fail  to  be  collision  and 
strife.  The  man  who  might,  perhaps,  under 
other  circumstances,  have  given  some  quicker 
movement  to  the  hands  which  measure  human 
progress  on  the  dial  of  time,  spent  his  life  in 
barely  proving  his  ability  to  live  and  reign 
under  tlic  anathemas  and  proscriptions  of  the 
Church.  But  he  fought  a  losing  fight,  even 
when  he  seemed  to  be  winning  victories  in  north- 
ern Italy,  over  the  Guelf  cities  of  Lombardy, 
and  when  the  party  of  the  Ghibellines  appeared 
to  be  ascendant  throughout  the  peninsula.  His 
death  (1250)  was  the  end  of  the  Hohenstaufens 
as  an  imperial  family.  His  son,  Conrad,  who 
survived  him  four  years,  was  king  of  Sicily  and 
had  been  crowned  king  of  Germany;  but  he 
never  wore  the  crown  imperial.  Conrad's  ille- 
gitimate brother,  Manfred,  succeeded  on  the 
Sicilian  throne ;  but  the  implacable  Papacy  gave 
his  kingdom  to  Charles  of  Anjou,  brother  of 
King  Louis  IX.  of  France,  and  invited  a  crusade 
for  the  conquest  of  it.  Manfred  was  slain  in 
battle,  Conrad's  young  son,  Couradin,  perished 
on  the  scaffold,  and  the  Hohenstaufens  disap- 
peared from  history.  Their  rights,  or  claims,  in 
Sicily  and  Naples,  passed  to  the  Spanish  House 
of  Aiagon,  by  the  marriage  of  Manfred's  daugh- 
ter to  the  Aragonese  king;  whence  long  strife 
between  the  House  of  Anjou  and  the  House  of 
Aragon,  and  a  troubled  history  for  the  Neapoli- 
tans and  the  Sicilians  during  some  centuries.  In 
the  end,  Anjou  kept  Naples,  while  Aragon  won 
Sicil}';  the  kings  in  both  lines  called  themselves 
Kings  of  Sicily,  and  a  subsequent  re-union  of 
the  two  crowns  created  a  very  queerly  named 
"Kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies." 

Germany  and  the  Empire. 

After  the  death  of  Frederick  II. ,  the  German 
kings,  while  maintaining  the  imperial  title, 
practically  abandoned  their  serious  attempts  to 
enforce  an  actual  sovereignty  in  Italy.  The 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  as  a  political  factor  com- 
prehending more  than  Germany,  now  ceased  in 


1054 


EUROPE. 


Germany. 


EUROPE. 


reality  to  exist.  The  name  lived  on,  but  only  to 
represent  a  flattering  fiction  for  magnifying  the 
rank  and  importance  of  the  German  kings.  In 
Italy,  the  conflict,  as  between  Papacy  and  Em- 
pire, or  between  Lombard  republican  cities  and 
Empire,  was  at  an  end.  No  further  occasion 
existed  for  an  imperial  party,  or  an  anti-imperial 
party.  The  Guelf  and  Ghibelline  names  and 
divisions  had  no  more  the  little  meaning  that 
first  belonged  to  them.  But  Guelfs  and  Ghibel- 
lines  raged  against  one  another  more  furiously 
than  before,  and  generations  passed  before  their 
feud  died  out. 

While  the  long,  profitless  Italian  conflict  of 
the  Emperors  went  on,  their  kingship  in  Ger- 
many suffered  sorely.  As  they  grasped  at  a 
shadowy  imperial  title,  the  substance  of  royal 
authority  slipped  from  them.  Their  frequent 
prolonged  absence  in  Italy  gave  opportunities  for 
enlarged  independence  to  the  German  princes 
and  feudal  lords;  their  difiiculties  beyond  the 
Alps  forced  them  to  buy  support  from  their  vas- 
sals at  home  by  fatal  concessions  and -grants; 
their  neglect  of  German  affairs  weakened  the  ties 
of  loyaUy,  and  provoked  revolts.  The  result 
might  have  been  a  dissolution  of  Germany  so 
complete  as  to  give  rise  to  two  or  three  strong 
states,  if  another  potent  influence  had  not  worked 
injury  in  a  different  way.  This  came  from  the 
custom  of  equalized  inheritance  which  prevailed 
among  the  Germans.  The  law  of  primogeniture, 
which  already  governed  hereditary  transmissions 
of  territorial  sovereignty  in  many  countries,  even 
where  it  did  not  give  an  undivided  private  es- 
tate, as  in  England,  to  the  eldest  son  of  a  family, 
got  footing  in  Germany  very  late  and  very 
slowly.  At  the  time  now  described,  it  was  the 
quite  common  practice  to  divide  principalities 
between  all  the  sons  surviving  a  deceased  duke 
or  margrave.  It  was  this  practice  which  gave 
rise  to  the  astonishing  number  of  petty  states 
into  which  Germany  came  to  be  divided,  and 
the  forms  of  which  are  still  intact.  It  was  this, 
in  the  main,  which  prevented  the  growth  of 
any  states  to  a  power  that  would  absorb  the  rest. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  flimsy,  half  fictitious 
general  constitution  which  the  Empire  substi- 
tuted for  such  an  one  as  the  Kingdom  of  Ger- 
many would  naturally  have  grown  into,  made 
an  effective  centralization  of  sovereignty  —  easy 
as  the  conditions  seemed  to  be  prepared  for  it  — 
quite  impossible. 

Free  Cities  in  Germany  and  their  Leagues. 

One  happy  consequence  of  this  state  of  things 
was  the  enfranchisement,  either  wholly  or  nearly 
so,  of  many  thriving  cities.  The  growth  of  cities, 
as  centers  of  industry  and  commerce,  and  the 
development  of  municipal  freedom  among  them, 
was  considerably  later  in  Germany  than  in  Italy, 
France  and  the  Netherlands;  but  the  indepen- 
dence gained  by  some  among  them  was  more  en- 
tire than  in  the  Low  Countries  or  in  France,  and 
more  lasting  than  in  Italy. 

Most  of  the  free  cities  of  Germany  were  di- 
rectly or  immediately  subject  to  the  Emperor, 
and  wholly  independent  of  the  princes  whose 
territories  surrounded  them ;  whence  they  were 
called  "  imperial  cities. "  This  relationship  bound 
them  to  the  Empire  by  strong  ties ;  they  had  less 
to  fear  from  it  than  from  the  nearer  small  poten- 
tates of  their  country ;  and  it  probably  drew  a 
considerable  part  of  such  strength  as  it  possessed, 


in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  from  their 
support.  Their  own  power  was  being  aug- 
mented at  this  period  by  the  formation  of  exten- 
sive Leagues  among  them,  for  common  defense, 
and  for  the  protection,  regulation  and  extension 
of  their  trade.  In  that  age  of  lawless  violence, 
there  was  so  little  force  in  government,  every- 
where, and  so  entire  a  want  of  cooperation  be- 
tween governments,  that  the  operations  of  trade 
were  exposed  to  piracy,  robbery,  and  black-mail, 
on  every  sea  and  in  every  land.  By  the  organi- 
zation of  their  Leagues,  the  energetic  merchants 
of  north-western  Europe  did  for  themselves  what 
their  half-civilized  governments  failed  to  do  for 
them.  They  not  only  created  effective  agencies 
for  the  protection  of  their  trade,  but  they  legis- 
lated, nationally  and  internationally,  for  them- 
selves, establishing  codes  and  regulations,  nego- 
tiating commercial  treaties,  making  war,  and 
exercising  many  functions  and  powers  that  seem 
strange  to  modem  times.  The  great  Hansa,  or 
Hanseatic  League,  which  rose  to  importance  in  the 
thirteenth  century  among  the  cities  in  the  north 
of  Germany,  was  the  most  extensive,  the  longest 
lasting  and  the  most  formidable  of  these  confed- 
erations. It  controlled  the  trade  between  Ger- 
many, England,  Russia,  the  Scandinavian  coun- 
tries, and  the  Netherlands,  and  through  the  latter 
it  made  exchanges  with  southern  Europe  and  the 
East.  It  waged  successful  war  with  Denmark, 
Sweden  and  Norway  combined,  in  defiance  of  the 
opposition  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope.  But 
the  growth  of  its  power  engendered  an  arrogance 
which  provoked  enmity  in  all  countries,  while 
the  slow  crystalizing  of  nationalities  in  Europe, 
with  national  sentiments  and  ambitions,  worked 
in  all  directions  against  the  commercial  monopoly 
of  the  Hansa  towns.  By  the  end  of  the  fifteenth 
century  their  league  had  begun  to  break  up  and 
its  power  to  decline.  The  lesser  associations  of 
similar  character  —  such  as  the  Rhenish  and  the 
Swabian  —  had  been  shorter-lived. 

The  Great  Interregnum. 

These  city -confederations  represented  in  their 
time  the  only  movement  of  concentration  that  ap- 
peared in  Germany.  Every  other  activity  seemed 
tending  toward  dissolution.  Headship  there  was 
none  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  Frederick 
II.  died.  The  election  of  the  Kings,  who  took 
rank  and  title  as  Emperors  when  crowned  by  the 
Pope,  had  now  become  the  exclusive  privilege 
of  three  prince-bishops  and  four  temporal  princes, 
who  acquired  the  title  of  Electors.  Jealous  of 
one  another,  and  of  all  the  greater  lords  outside 
their  electoral  college,  it  was  against  their  policy 
to  confer  the  scepter  on  any  man  who  seemed 
likely  to  wield  it  with  a  strong  hand.  For  twenty 
years  —  a  period  in  German  history  known  as  the 
Great  Interregnum  — they  kept  the  throne  prac- 
tically vacant.  Part  of  the  Electors  were  bribed 
to  choose  Richard,  Earl  of  Cornwall,  brother  of 
the  English  King  Henry  III. ,  and  the  other  part 
gave  their  votes  to  Alfonso,  King  of  Castile.  Al- 
fonso never  came  to  be  crowned,  either  as  King 
or  Emperor ;  Richard  was  crowned  King,  but  exer- 
cised no  power  and  lived  mostly  in  his  own  coun- 
try. The  Empire  was  virtually  extinct;  the 
Kingdom  hardly  less  so.  Burgundy  fell  away 
from  the  imperial  jurisdiction  even  more  than 
Italy  did.  Considerable  parts  of  it  passed  to 
France. 


1055 


EUROPE. 


"Rise  of  the  House  of  Austria. 


France  in  the 
Twelfth  Century. 


EUROPE. 


At  last  in  1273,  the  interregnum  was  ended 
by  the  election  of  a  German  noble  to  be  Kmg 
of  Germany.  This  was  Rodolph,  Count  of 
Hapsburg,— lord  of  a  small  domain  and  of  little 
importance  from  his  own  possessions,  which  ex- 
plains, without  doubt,  his  selection.  But  Ko- 
-dolph  proved  to  be  a  vigorous  king,  and  he 
founded  a  family  of  such  lasting  stamina  and  such 
self-seeking  capability  that  it  secured  in  time 
permanent  possession  of  the  German  crown,  and 
acquired,  outside  of  Germany,  a  great  dominion 
of  its  own.  He  began  the  aggrandizement  of 
his  House  by  taking  the  fine  duchy  of  Austria 
from  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia  and  bestowing  it 
upon  his  sons.  He  was  energetic  in  improving 
opportunities  like  this,  and  energetic,  too,  in  de- 
stroying the  castles  of  robber-knights  and  hang- 
ing the  robbers  on  their  own  battlements;  but 
of  substantial  authority  or  power  he  had  little 
enough.  He  never  went  to  Rome  for  the  imperial 
crown ;  nor  troubled  himself  much  with  Italian 

On  Rodolph's  death  (1291),  his  son  Albert  of 
Austria  was  a  candidate  for  the  crown.     The 
Electors  rejected  him  and  elected  another  poor 
noble,  Adolphus  of  Nassau;  but  Adolphus  dis- 
pleased them  after  a  few  years,  and  they  decreed 
Ibis  deposition,  electing  Albert  in  his  place.   War 
followed  and  Adolphus  was  killed.      Albert's 
reign  was  one  of  vigor,  but  he   accomplished 
little  of  permanent  effect.     He  planted  one  of 
his  sons  on  the  throne  of  Bohemia,  where  the 
reigning  family  had  become  extinct;  but  the 
new  king  died  in  a  few  months,  much  hated,  and 
the   Bohemians  resisted  an  Austrian  successor. 
In  1308,  Albert  was  assassinated,  and  the  electors 
raised  Count  Henry  of  Luxemburg  to  the  throne, 
as  Henry  VII.     Henry  VII.  was  the  first  king  of 
■Germany  since  the  Hohenstaufens  who  went  to 
Italy  (1310)  for  the  crown  of  Lombardy  and  the 
■crown  of  the  CcBsars,  both  of  which  he  received. 
The  Ghibelline  party  was  still  strong  among  the 
Italians.     In  the  distracted  state  of  that  country 
there  were  many  patriots  —  the  poet  Dante  promi- 
nent among   them  — who    hoped    great  things 
from  the  reappearance  of  an  emperor;  but  the 
enthusiastic   welcome  he    received  was  mainly 
from  those  furious  partisans  who  looked  for  a 
party  triumph  to  be  vion  under  the  new  emper- 
or's lead.     When  they  found  that  he  would  not 
let  himself  be  made  an  instrument  of  faction  in 
the  unhappy  country,  they  turned  against  him. 
His  undertakings  in  Italy  promised  nothing  but 
failure,   when    he  died    suddenly  (1313),   from 
poison,  as  the  Germans  believed.     His  successor 
in  Germany,  chosen  by  the  majority  of  the  elec- 
tors, was  Lewis  of  Bavaria;  but  Frederick  the 
Fair  of  Austria,  supported  by  a  minority,  dis- 
puted the  election,  and  there  was  civil  war  for 
twelve  years,  until  Frederick,  a  prisoner,  so  won 
the  heart  of  Lewis  that  the  latter  divided  the 
throne  with  him  and  the  two  reigned  together. 

France  under  the  Capetians. 

While  Germany  and  the  fictitious  Empire 
linked  with  it  were  thus  dropping  from  the  fore- 
most place  in  western  Europe  into  the  back- 
ground, several  kingdoms  were  slowly  emerging 
out  of  the  anarchy  of  feudalism,  and  acquiring 
the  organization  of  authority  and  law  which 
creates  stable  and  substantial  power.     France  for 


two  centuries,    under  the   first  three  Capetian 
kings,  had  made  little  progress  to  that  end.     At 
the  accession  (1108)  of  the  fourth  of  those  kings, 
namely,  Louis  VI. ,  it  is  estimated  that  the  actual 
possessions  of  the  Crown,  over  which  it  exercised 
sovereignty  direct,  equalled  no  more  than  about 
five  of  the  modern  departments  of  France ;  while 
twenty -nine  were  in  the  great  fiefs  of  Flanders, 
Burgundy,    Champagne,    Normandy,    Brittany, 
Anjou,  Vermandois,  and  Boulogne,  where  the 
royal  authority  was  but  nominal;  thirty-three, 
south  of  the  Loire,  were  hardly  connected  with 
the  Crown,  and  twenty-one  were  then  dependent 
on  the  Empire.     The  actual ' '  France, "  as  a  king- 
dom, at  that  time,  was  very  small.     "The  real 
domain  of  Louis  VI.  was  almost  confined  to  the 
five  towns  of  Paris,  Orieans,  Estampes,  Melun, 
and  Compiegne,  and  to  estates  in  their  neighbour- 
hood."    But  the  strengthening  of  the  Crown 
was  slightly  begun  in  the  reign  of  this  king,  by 
his  wise  policy  of  encouraging  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  the  communes,  as  noted  before,  which 
introduced  a  helpful  alliance  between  the  mon- 
archy and  the  burgher-class,  or  third  estate,  as  it 
came  to  be  called,  of  the  cities,  agamst  the  feudal 
aristocracy. 

But  progress  in  that  direction  was  slight  at 
first  and  slowly  made.  Louis  VII.,  who  came  to 
the  throne  in  1137,  acquired  momentarily  the 
great  duchy  of  Aquitaine,  or  Guienne,  by  his 
marriage  with  Eleanor,  who  inherited  it ;  but  he 
divorced  her,  and  she  married  Henry  Plantagenet, 
who  became  Henry  II.,  King  of  England,  being 
at  the  same  time  Duke  of  Normandy,  by  inheri- 
tance from  his  mother,  and  succeeding  his  father 
in  Anjou,  Maine  and  Touraine.  Eleanor  having 
carried  to  him  the  great  Aquitanian  domain  of 
her  family,  he  was  sovereign  of  a  larger  part  of 
modern  France  than  owned  allegiance  to  the 
French  king. 

French  recovery  of  Normandy  and  Anjou. 
But  the  next  king   in   France,  Philip, _  called 
Augustus  (1180),  who  was  the  son  of  Louis  VII., 
wrought  a  change  of  these  circumstances.     He 
was  a  prince  of  remarkable  vigor,  and  he  rallied 
with  rare  ability  all  the  forces  that  the  Crown 
could  command.     He  wrested  Vermandois  from 
the  Count  of  Flanders,  and  extorted  submission 
from  the  rebellious   Duke   of  Burgundy.     Sus- 
pending his  projects  at  home  for  a  time,  to  go 
crusading  to  the  Holy  Land  in  company  with 
King  Richard  of  England,  he  resumed  them  with 
fresh  energy  after  Richard's  death.     The  latter 
was  succeeded  by  his  mean  brother  John,  who 
seems  to  have  been  hated  with  unanimity.     John 
was  accused  of  the  murder  of  his  young  nephew, 
Arthur  of  Brittany,  who  disputed  the  inheritance 
from   Richard.      As    Duke   of    Normandy   and 
Anjou     John,    thoua;h   King  of    England,  was 
nevertheless  a  vassal  of  the   King  of    Prance 
Philip  summoned  him,  on  charges,  to  be  tned 
by  his  peers.     John  failed  to  answer  the  sum- 
mons and  the  forfeiture  of  his  fiefs  was  promptly 
declared.     The  French  king  stood  well  prepared 
to  make  the  confiscation  effective,  while  John,  in 
serious  trouble  with  his  Engli.sh  subjects,  could 
offer  little  resistance.     Thus  the  Norman  realm 
of  the  English  kings  — their  original  dominion -- 
was  lost  beyond  recovery,  and  with  it  Anjou  and 
Maine      They  held  Guienne  and  Poitou  for  some 
years;  but  the  bases  of  the   French  monarchy 
were  broadened  immensely  from  the  day  when 


1056 


EUROPE. 


Philip  Augustus  and 
Saint  Louis. 


EUROPE. 


the   great  Norman  and   Angevin  flefs  became 
royal  domain. 

The  Albigenses. 

Events  in  the  south  of  France,  during  Philip's 
reign,  prepared  the  way  for  a  further  aggrandise- 
ment of  the  Crown.  Ancient  Latin  civilization 
had  lingered  longer  there,  in  spirit,  at  least,  than 
in  the  central  and  northern  districts  of  the  king- 
dom, and  the  state  of  society  intellectually  was 
both  livelier  and  more  refined.  It  was  the  region 
of  Europe  where  thought  first  showed  signs  of  in- 
dependence, and  where  the  spiritual  despotism  of 
Rome  was  disputed  first.  A  sect  arose  in  Lan- 
guedoc  which  took  its  name  from  the  district  of 
Albi,  and  which  offended  the  Church  perhaps 
more  by  the  freedom  of  opinion  that  it  claimed 
than  by  the  heresy  of  the  opinions  themselves. 
These  Albigeois,  or  Albigenses,  had  been  at  issue 
with  the  clergy  of  their  country  and  with  the 
Papacy  for  some  years  before  Innocent  III.,  the 
pontifical  autocrat  of  his  age,  proclaimed  a  cru- 
sade against  them  (1208),  and  launched  his  sen- 
tence of  excommunication  against  Raymond, 
Count  of  Toulouse,  who  gave  them  countenance 
if  not  sympathy.  The  fanatical  Simon  de  Mont- 
fort,  father  of  the  great  noble  of  like  name  who 
figures  more  grandly  in  English  history,  took  the 
lead  of  the  Crusade,  to  which  bigots  and  brutal 
adventurers  flocked  together.  Languedoc  was 
wasted  with  fire  and  sword,  and  after  twenty 
years  of  intermittent  war,  in  which  Peter  of  Ara- 
gon  took  part,  assisting  the  Albigeois,  the  Count 
of  Toulouse  purchased  peace  for  his  ruined  land 
by  ceding  part  of  it  to  the  king  of  France,  and 
giving  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  the  king's 
brother  Alphonso, —  by  which  marriage  the  re- 
mainder of  the  country  was  transferred,  a  few 
years  later,  to  the  French  crown. 

The  Battle  of  Bouvines. 
Philip  Augustus,  in  whose  reign  this  brutal 
crushing  of  Proven9al  France  began,  took  little 
part  in  it,  but  he  saw  with  no  unwillingness 
another  too  powerful  vassal  brought  low.  The 
next  blow  of  like  kind  he  struck  with  his  own 
hand.  John  of  England  had  quarreled  with  the 
mighty  Pope  Innocent  III. ;  his  kingdom  had 
been  placed  under  interdict  and  his  subjects  ab- 
solved from  their  allegiance.  Philip  of  France 
eagerly  offered  to  become  the  executor  of  the 
papal  decree,  and  gathered  an  army  for  the  in- 
vasion of  England,  to  oust  Jolm  from  his  throne. 
But  John  hastened  now  to  make  peace  with  the 
Church,  submitting  himself,  surrendering  his 
kingdom  to  the  Pope,  and  receiving  it  back  as  a 
papal  fief.  This  accomplished,  the  all-powerful 
pontiff  persuaded  the  French  king  to  turn  his 
army  against  the  Count  of  Flanders,  who  had 
never  been  reduced  to  a  proper  degree  of  sub- 
mission to  his  feudal  sovereign.  He  seems  to 
have  become  the  recognized  head  of  a  body  of 
nobles  who  showed  alarm  and  resentment  at  the 
growing  power  of  the  Crown,  and  the  war  which 
ensued  was  quite  extraordinary  in  its  political  im- 
portance. King  John  of  England  came  person- 
ally to  the  assistance  of  the  Flemish  Count,  be- 
cause of  the  hatred  he  felt  towards  Philip  of 
France.  Otho,  Emperor  of  Germany,  who  had 
been  excommunicated  and  deposed  by  the  Pope, 
and  who  was  struggling  for  his  crown  with  the 
young  Hohenstaufen,  Frederick  II.,  took  part 
in  the  melee,  because  Jolm  was  his  uncle,  and  be- 


cause the  Pope  was  for  Philip,  and  because  Ger- 
many dreaded  the  rising  power  of  France.  So 
the  war,  which  seemed  at  first  to  be  a  trifling  af- 
fair in  a  corner,  became  in  fact  a  grand  clearing 
storm,  for  the  settlement  of  many  large  issues, 
important  to  all  Europe.  The  settlement  waa 
accomplished  by  a  single  decisive  battle,  fought 
at  Bouvines  (1214).  not  far  from  Tournay.  It  es- 
tablished effectively  in  France  the  feudal  supe- 
riority and  actual  sovereignty  of  the  king.  It 
evoked  a  national  spirit  among  the  French  people, 
having  been  their  flrst  national  victory,  won 
under  the  banners  of  a  deflnite  kingdom,  over 
foreign  foes.  It  was  a  triumph  for  the  Papacy 
and  the  Church  and  a  crushing  blow  to  those  who 
dared  resist  the  mandates  of  Rome.  It  sent  King 
John  back  to  England  so  humbled  and  weakened 
that  he  had  little  stomach  for  the  contest  which 
awaited  him  there,  and  the  grand  event  of  the 
signing  of  Magna  Charta  next  year  was  more 
easily  brought  about.  It  settled  the  fate  of  Otho 
of  Germany,  and  cleared  the  bright  opening  of 
the  stormy  career  of  Frederick  II.,  his  successor. 
Thus  the  battle  of  Bouvines,  which  is  not  a  famous 
field  in  common  knowledge,  must  really  be  num- 
bered among  the  great  and  important  battles  of 
the  world. 

When  Philip  Augustus  died  in  1323,  the  re- 
gality which  he  bequeathed  to  his  son,  Louis 
VIII.,  was  something  vastly  greater  than  that 
which  came  to  him  from  his  predecessors.  He 
had  enhanced  both  the  dignity  and  the  power, 
both  the  authority  and  the  prestige,  of  the  Crown, 
and  made  a  substantial  kingdom  of  France. 
Louis  VIII.  enlarged  his  dominions  by  the  con- 
quest of  Lower  Poitou  and  the  taking  of  Ro- 
chelle  from  the  English ;  but  he  sowed  the  seeds 
of  future  weakness  in  the  monarchy  by  creating 
great  duchies  for  his  children,  which  became  as 
troublesome  to  later  kings  as  Normandy  aad 
Anjou  had  been  to  those  before  him. 

Saint  Louis. 

Louis  IX. —  Saint  Louis  in  the  calendar  of  the 
Catholic  Church  — who  came  to  the  throne  in 
1226,  while  a  child  of  eleven  years,  was  a  king 
of  so  noble  a  type  that  he  stands  nearly  alone  in 
history.  Marcus  Aurelius,  the  Emperor,  and 
King  Alfred  of  England,  are  the  only  sovereigns 
who  seem  worthy  to  be  compared  with  him; 
and  even  the  purity  of  those  rare  souls  is  not 
quite  so  simple  and  so  selfless,  perhaps,  as  that 
which  shines  in  the  beautiful  character  of  this 
most  Christian  king.  His  goodness  was  of  that 
quality  which  rises  to  greatness  —  above  all  other 
measures  of  greatness  in  the  distinction  of  men. 
It  was  of  that  quality  which  even  a  wicked  world 
is  compelled  to  feel  and  to  bend  to  as  a  power, 
much  exceeding  the  power  of  state-craft  or  of 
the  sword.  Of  all  the  kings  of  his  line,  this  Saint 
Louis  was  probably  the  one  who  had  least 
thought  of  a  royal  interest  in  France  distinct 
from  the  interest  of  the  people  of  France ;  and 
the  one  who  consciously  did  least  to  aggrandize 
the  monarchy  and  enlarge  its  powers;  but  no 
king  before  him  or  after  him  was  so  much  the 
true  architect  of  the  foundations  of  the  absolute 
French  monarchy  of  later  times.  His  constant 
purpose  was  to  give  peace  to  his  kingdom  and 
justice  to  his  people;  to  end  violence  and  wrong- 
doing. In  pursuing  this  purpose,  he  gave  a  new 
character  and  a  new  influence  to  the  royal  courts, 
—  established  them  m  public  confidence,—  accua- 


67 


1057 


EUROPE 


I*ya7ice  under 
Philip  the  Fair. 


EUROPE. 


tomed  his  subjects  to  appeal  to  them;  he  de- 
nounced the  brutal  senselessness  of  trials  by  com- 
bat, and  commanded  their  abolition;  he  gave 
encouragement  to  the  study  and  the  introduction 
of  Roman  law,  and  so  helped  to  dispel  the  crude 
political  as  well  as  legal  ideas  that  feudalism 
rested  on.  His  measures  in  these  directions  all 
tended  to  the  undermining  of  the  feudal  system 
and  to  the  breaking  down  of  the  independence  of 
the  great  vassals  who  divided  sovereignty  with 
the  king.  At  the  same  time  the  upriglit  soul  of  I 
King  Louis,  devotedljf  pious  son  of  the  Church 
as  he  was,  yielded  his  conscience  to  it,  and  the 
just  ordinances  of  his  kingdom,  no  more  than  he 
yielded  to  the  haughty  turbulence  of  the  great 
vassals  of  the  crown. 

The  great  misfortunes  of  the  reign  of  Saint 
Louis  were  the  two  calamitous  Crusades  in  which 
he  engaged  (1248-1354,  and  1270),  and  in  the  last 
of  which  he  died.  They  were  futile  in  every 
way  —  as  unwisely  conducted  as  they  were  un- 
wisely conceived ;  but  they  count  among  the  few 
errors  of  a  noble,  great  life.  Regarded  altogether, 
in  the  light  which  after-history  throws  back  upon 
it,  the  reign  of  Louis  IX.  is  more  loftily  distin- 
guished than  any  other  in  the  annals  of  France. 

Philip  the  Fair  and  Pope  Boniface. 

There  is  little  to  distinguish  the  reign  of  St. 
Louis'  son,  Philip  IIL,  "le  Hardi,"  "the  Rash" 
(1270-1285),  though  the  remains  of  the  great  fief 
of  Toulouse  were  added  in  his  time  to  the  royal 
domain;  but  under  the  grandson  of  St.  Louis, 
the  fourth  Philip,  surnamed  "le  Bel,"  there  was 
a  season  of  storms  in  France.  This  Philip  was 
unquestionably  a  man  of  clear,  cold  intellect,  and 
of  powerful,  unbending  will.  There  was  nothing 
of  the  soldier  in  him,  much  of  the  lawyer-like 
mind  and  disposition.  The  men  of  the  gown 
were  his  counsellors ;  he  advanced  their  influence, 
and  promoted  the  acceptance  in  France  of  the 
principles  of  the  Roman  or  civil  law,  which  were 
antagonistic  to  feudal  ideas.  In  his  attitude 
towards  the  Papacy  —  which  had  declined  greatly 
in  character  and  power  within  the  century  past 
—  he  was  extraordinarily  bold.  His  famous 
quarrel  with  Pope  Boniface  VIII.  resulted  in 
humiliations  to  the  head  of  the  Church  from 
which,  in  some  respects,  there  was  no  recovery. 
The  quarrel  arose  on  questions  Connected  chiefly 
with  the  taxing  of  the  clergy.  The  Pope  launched 
one  angry  Bull  after  another  against  the  auda- 
cious king,  and  the  latter  retorted  with  Ordi- 
nances which  were  as  effective  as  the  Bulls.  Ex- 
communication was  defied ;  the  Inquisition  was 
suppressed  in  France ;  appeal  taken  to  a  General 
Council  of  the  Church.  At  last  Boniface  suf- 
fered personal  violence  at  the  hands  of  a  party  of 
hired  rufiians,  in  French  pay,  who  attacked  him 
at  his  country  residence,  and  received  such  in- 
dignities that  he  expired  soon  after  of  shame  and 
rage.  The  pope  immediately  succeeding  died  a 
few  months  later,  and  dark  suspicions  as  to  the 
cause  of  his  death  were  entertained ;  for  he  gave 
place  (1305)  to  one,  Clement  V.,  who  was  the 
tool  of  the  French  king,  bound  to  him  by  pledges 
and  guarantees  before  his  election.  This  Pope 
Clement  removed  the  papal  residence  from  Rome 
to  Avignon,  and  for  a  long  period  —  the  period 
known  as  ' '  the  Babylonish  Captivity  " —  the  Holy 
See  was  subservient  to  the  monarchy  of  France. 

In  this  contest  with  the  Papacy,  Philip  threw 
himself  on  the  support  of  the  whole  body  of  his 


people,  convoking  (1302)  the  first  meeting  of  the 
Three  Estates  —  the  first  of  the  few  general  Par- 
liaments—  ever  assembled  in  France. 

Destruction  of  the  Templars. 

A  more  sinister  event  in  the  reign  of  Pliilip 
IV.  was  his  prosecution  and  destruction  of  the 
famous  Order  of  the  Knights  Templars.  The 
dark,  dramatic  story  has  been  told  many  times, 
and  its  incidents  are  familiar.  Perhaps  there 
will  never  be  agreement  as  to  the  bottom  of 
truth  that  might  exist  in  the  charges  brought 
against  the  Order;  but  few  question  the  fact 
that  its  blackest  guilt  in  the  eyes  of  the  French 
King  was  its  wealth,  which  he  coveted  and 
which  he  was  resolved  to  find  reasons  for  taking 
to  himself.  The  knights  were  accused  of  infi- 
delity, blasphemy,  and  abominable  vices.  They 
were  tried,  tortured,  tempted  to  confessions, 
burned  at  the  stake,  and  their  lands  and  goods 
were  divided  between  the  Crown  and  the  Knights 
of  St.  John. 

Flemish  Wealth  and  Independence. 

The  wilful  king  had  little  mercy  in  his  cold 
heart  and  few  scruples  in  his  calculating  brain. 
His  character  was  not  admirable ;  but  the  ends 
which  he  compassed  were  mostly  good  for  the 
strength  and  independence  of  the  monarchy  of 
France,  and,  on  the  whole,  for  the  welfare  of 
the  people  subject  to  it.  Even  the  disasters  of 
his  reign  had  sometimes  their  good  effect:  as 
in  the  case  of  his  failure  to  subjugate  the  great 
county  of  Flanders.  Originally  a  fief  of  the 
Kings  of  France,  it  had  been  growing  apart 
from  the  French  monarchy,  through  the  inde- 
pendent interests  and  feelings  that  rose  in  it  with 
the  increase  of  wealth  among  its  singularly  in- 
dustrious and  thrifty  people.  The  Low  Coun- 
tries, or  Netherlands,  on  both  sides  of  the  Rhine, 
had  been  the  first  in  western  Europe  to  develop 
industrial  arts  and  the  trade  that  goes  with  them 
in  a  thoroughly  intelligent  and  systematic  way. 
The  Flemings  were  leaders  in  this  industrial  de- 
velopment. Their  country  was  full  of  busy 
cities, — communes,  with  large  liberties  in  pos- 
session,—  where  prosperous  artisans,  pursuing 
many  crafts,  were  organized  in  gilds  and  felt 
strong  for  the  defense  of  their  chartered  rights. 
Ghent  exceeded  Paris  in  riches  and  population 
at  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Bruges 
was  nearly  its  equal;  and  there  were  many  of 
less  note.  The  country  was  already  a  prize  to 
be  coveted  by  kings ;  and  the  kings  of  France, 
who  claimed  the  rights  of  feudal  superiority 
over  its  count,  had  long  been  seeking  to  make 
their  sovereignty  direct,  while  the  spirit  of  the 
Flemings  carried  them  more  and  more  toward 
independence. 

In  1294,  Philip  IV.  became  involved  in  war 
with  Edward  I.  of  England  over  Guienne. 
Flanders,  which  traded  largely  with  England 
and  was  in  close  friendship  with  the  English 
king  and  people,  took  sides  with  the  latter,  and 
was  basely  abandoned  when  Philip  and  Edward 
made  peace,  in  1302.  The  French  king  then 
seized  his  opportunity  to  subjugate  the  Flem- 
ings, which  he  practically  accomplished  for  a 
time,  mastering  all  of  their  cities  except  Ghent. 
His  need  and  his  greed  made  the  burden  of  taxes 
which  he  now  laid  on  these  new  subjects  very- 
heavy  and  they  were  soon  in  revolt.  By  acci- 
dent, and  the  folly  of  the  French,  they  won  a 


1058 


EUROPE. 


England  under  the 
Norman  Kings. 


EUROPE. 


fearfully  decisive  victory  at  Courtray,  where  some 
thousands  of  the  nobles  and  knights  of  France 
charged  blindly  into  a  canal,  and  were  drowned, 
suffocated  and  slaughtered  in  heaps.  The  car- 
nage was  so  great  that  it  broke  the  strength  of  the 
feudal  chivalry  of  France,  and  the  French  crown, 
while  it  lost  Flanders,  yet  gained  power  from  the 
very  disaster. 

In  1314,  Philip  IV.  died,  leaving  three  sons, 
who  occupied  the  throne  for  brief  terms  in  suc- 
cession: Louis  X.,  surnamedHutin  (disorder),  who 
survived  his  father  little  more  than  a  year ;  Philip 
v.,  called  "the  Long "  (1316-1322),  and  Charles 
rV.,  known  as  "  the  Fair  "  (1322-1328).  With  the 
death  of  Charles  the  Pair,  the  direct  line  of  the 
Capetian  Kings  came  to  an  end,  and  Philip,  Count 
of  Valois,  first  cousin  of  the  late  kings,  and  grand- 
son of  Philip  III. ,  came  to  the  throne,  as  Philip 
VI.  —  introducing  the  Valois  line  of  kings. 

Claims  of  Edward  III.  of  England. 

The  so-called  Salic  law,  excluding  females,  in 
France,  from  the  throne,  had  now,  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  these  recent  successions,  been  affirmed  and 
enforced.  It  was  promptly  disputed  by  King 
Edward  III.  of  England,  who  claimed  the  French 
crown  by  right  of  his  mother,  daughter  of  Philip 
IV.  and  sister  of  the  last  three  kings.  His  at- 
tempt to  enforce  this  claim  was  the  beginning  of 
the  wicked,  desolating  " Hundred  Years  War" 
between  England  and  France,  which  well-nigh 
ruined  the  latter,  while  it  contributed  in  the 
former  to  the  advancement  of  the  commons  in 
political  power. 

England  after  the  Norman  Conquest. 

The  England  of  the  reign  of  Edward  III.,  when 
the  Hundred  Years  War  began,  was  a  country 
quite  different  in  condition  from  that  which  our 
narrative  left,  at  the  time  it  had  yielded  (about 
1071)  to  William  the  Norman  conqueror.  The 
English  people  were  brought  low  by  that  subju- 
gation, and  the  yoke  which  the  Normans  laid 
upon  them  was  heavy  indeed.  They  were  stripped 
of  their  lands  by  confiscation;  they  were  dis- 
armed and  disorganized;  every  attempt  at  re- 
bellion failed  miserably,  and  every  failure  brought 
wider  confiscations.  The  old  nobility  suffered 
most  and  its  ranks  were  thinned.  England  be- 
came Norman  iu  its  aristocracy  and  remained 
English  in  its  commons  and  its  villeinage. 

Modified  Feudalism  in  England. 

Before  the  Conquest,  feudalism  had  crept  into 
its  southern  parts  and  was  working  a  slow  change 
of  its  old  free  Germanic  institutions.  But  the 
Normans  quickened  the  change  and  widened  it. 
At  the  same  time  they  controlled  it  in  certain 
ways,  favorably  both  to  the  monarchy  and  the 
people.  They  established  a  feudal  system,  but 
it  was  a  system  different  from  that  which  broke 
up  the  unity  of  both  kingdoms  of  the  Franks. 
William,  shrewd  statesman  that  he  was,  took 
care  that  no  dangerous  great  fiefs  should  be  cre- 
ated ;  and  he  took  care,  too,  that  every  landlord 
in  England  should  swear  fealty  direct  to  the  king, 
—  thus  placing  the  Crown  in  immediate  relations 
with  all  its  subjects,  permitting  no  intermediary 
lord  to  take  their  first  allegiance  to  himself  and 
pass  it  on  at  second  hand  to  a  mere  crowned  over- 
lord. 

The  effect  of  this  diluted  organization  of  feu- 
dalism in  England  was  to  make  the  monarchy  so 


strong,  from  the  beginning,  that  both  aristocracy 
and  commons  were  naturally  put  on  their  defence 
against  it,  and  acquired  a  feeling  of  association, 
a  sense  of  common  interest,  a  habit  of  alliance, 
which  became  very  important  influences  in  the 
political  history  of  the  nation.  In  France,  as  we 
have  seen,  there  had  been  nothing  of  this.  There, 
at  the  beginning,  the  feudal  aristocracy  was 
dominant,  and  held  itself  so  haughtily  above  the 
commons,  or  Third  Estate,  that  no  political  co- 
operation between  the  two  orders  could  be 
thought  of  when  circumstances  called  for  it.  The 
kings  slowly  undermined  the  aristocratic  power, 
using  the  communes  in  the  process;  and  when, 
at  last,  the  power  of  the  monarchy  had  become 
threatening  to  both  orders  in  the  state,  they  were 
separated  by  too  great  an  alienation  of  feeling 
and  habit  to  act  well  together. 

It  was  the  great  good  fortune  of  England  that 
feudalism  was  curbed  by  a  strong  monarchy.  It 
was  the  greater  good  fortune  of  the  English 
people  that  their  primitive  Germanic  institu- 
tions —  their  folk-moots,  and  their  whole  simple 
popular  system  of  local  government  —  should 
have  had  so  long  and  sturdy  a  growth  before  the 
feudal  scheme  of  society  began  seriously  to  in- 
trude upon  them.  The  Norman  conqueror  did 
no  violence  to  those  institutions.  He  claimed  to 
be  a  lawful  English  king,  respecting  English 
laws.  The  laws,  the  customs,  the  organization 
of  government,  were,  indeed,  greatly  modified 
in  time ;  but  the  modification  was  slow,  and  the 
base  of  the  whole  political  structure  that  rose  in 
the  Anglo-Norman  kingdom  remained  wholly 
English. 

Norman  Influences  in  England. 

The  Normans  brought  with  them  into  England 
a  more  active,  enterprising,  enquiring  spirit  than 
had  animated  the  land  before.  They  brought  an 
increase  of  learning  and  of  the  appetite  for  knowl- 
edge. They  brought  a  more  educated  taste  in 
art,  to  improve  the  building  of  the  country  and 
its  workmanship  in  general.  They  brought  a 
wider  acquaintance  with  the  affairs  of  the  out- 
side world,  and  drew  England  into  political  re- 
lations with  her  continental  neighbors,  which 
were  not  happy  for  her  in  the  end,  but  which 
may  have  contributed  for  a  time  to  her  develop- 
ment. They  brought,  also,  a  more  powerful  or- 
ganization of  the  Church,  which  gave  England 
trouble  in  later  days. 

The  Conqueror's  Sons. 

When  the  Conqueror  died  (1087),  his  eldest 
son  Robert  succeeded  him  in  Normandy,  but  he 
wished  the  crown  of  England  to  go  to  his  son 
William,  called  Rufus,  or  "  the  Red."  He  could 
not  settle  the  succession  by  his  will,  because  in 
theory  the  succession  was  subject  to  the  choice 
or  assent  of  the  nobles  of  the  realm.  But,  in 
fact,  William  Rufus  became  king  through  mere 
tardiness  of  opposition ;  and  when,  a  few  months 
after  his  coronation,  a  formidable  rebellion  broke 
out  among  the  Normans  in  England,  who  pre- 
ferred his  wayward  brother  Robert,  it  was  the  na- 
tive English  who  sustained  him  and  established 
him  on  the  throne.  The  same  thing  occurred 
again  after  William  Rufus  died  (1100).  The  Nor- 
man English  tried  again  to  bring  in  Duke  Robert, 
while  the  native  English  preferred  the  younger 
brother,  Henry,  who  was  born  among  them.  They 
won  the  day.     Henry  I. ,  called  Beauclerc,  the 


1059 


EUROPE. 


England  under  the 
Angevins. 


EUROPE. 


Scholar,  was  seated  on  the  throne.  Unlike  William 
Rufus,  who  had  no  gratitude  for  the  support  the 
English  gave  him,  and  ruled  them  harshly, 
Henry  showed  favor  to  his  English  subjects, 
and,  during  his  reign  of  thirty-five  years,  the 
two  races  were  so  eflfectually  reconciled  and 
drawn  together  that  little  distinction  between 
them  appears  thereafter. 

Henry  acquired  Normandy,  as  well  as  Eng- 
land, uniting  again  the  two  sovereignties  of  his 
father.  His  thriftless  brother,  Robert,  had 
pledged  the  dukedom  to  William  Rufus,  who 
lent  him  money  for  a  crusading  expedition.  Re- 
turning penniless,  Robert  tried  to  recover  his 
heritage ;  but  Henry  claimed  it  and  made  good 
the  claim. 

Anarchy  in  Stephen's  Reign. 

At  Henry's  death,  the  succession  fell  into  dis- 
pute. He  had  lost  his  only  son.  His  daughter, 
Matilda,  first  married  to  the  Emperor  Henry  V., 
had  subsequently  wedded  Count  Geoffrey  of 
Anjou,  by  whom  she  had  a  son.  Henry  strove, 
during  his  life,  to  bind  his  nobles  by  oath  to  ac- 
cept Matilda  and  her  son  as  his  successors.  But 
on  his  death  (1135)  their  promises  were  broken. 
They  gave  the  crown  to  Stephen  of  Blois,  whose 
mother  was  Henry's  sister;  whereupon  there  en- 
sued the  most  dreadful  period  of  civil  war  and 
anarchy  that  England  ever  knew.  Stephen,  at 
his  coronation,  swore  to  promises  whicli  he  did 
not  keep,  losing  many  of  his  supporters  for  that 
reason ;  the  Empress  Matilda  and  her  young  son 
Henry  had  numerous  partisans;  and  eacli  side 
was  able  to  destroy  effectually  the  authority  of 
the  other.  "The  price  of  the  support  given  to 
both  was  the  same  —  absolute  licence  to  build 
castles,  to  practise  private  war,  to  hang  their 
private  enemies,  to  plunder  their  neighbours,  to 
coin  their  money,  to  e-xercise  their  petty  tyran- 
nies as  they  pleased."  "Castles  innumerable 
sprang  up,  and  as  fast  as  they  were  built  they 

'Were  filled  with  devils;  each  lord  judged  and 
taxed  and  coined.     The  feudal  spirit  of  disinte- 

■  gration  had  for  once  its  full  play.  Even  party 
union  was  at  an  end,  and  every  baron  fought  on 
his  own  behalf.  Feudalism  had  its  day,  and  the 
completeness  of  its  triumph  ensured  its  fall " 
(Stubbs). 

Angevin  Kings  of  England. 

At  length,  in  11.53,  peace  was  made  by  a  treaty 
which  left  Stephen  in  possession  of  the  throne 
during  his  life,  but  made  Henry,  already  recog- 
nized as  Duke  of  Normandy,  his  heir.  Stephen 
died  the  following  year,  and  Henry  II.,  now 
twenty-one  years  old,  came  quietly  into  his  king- 
dom, beginning  a  new  royal  line,  called  the 
Angevin  kings,  because  of  tlieir  descent  from 
Geoffrey  of  Anjou;  also  taking  the  name  Plan- 
tagenets  from  Geoffrey's  fashion  of  wearing  a  bit 
of  broom,  Planta  Genista,  in  his  hat. 

Henry  II.  proved,  happily,  to  be  a  king  of  the 
strong  character  that  was  needed  in  tlie  England 
of  that  wretched  time.  He  was  bold  and  ener- 
getic, yet  sagacious,  prudent,  politic.  He  loved 
power  and  he  used  it  with  an  unsparing  hand ; 
but  he  used  it  with  wise  judgment,  and  England 
was  the  better  for  it.  He  struck  liard  and  per- 
sistently at  the  lawlessness  of  feudalism,  and 
practically  ended  it  forever  as  a  menace  to  order 
and  unity  of  government  in  England.  He  de- 
stroyed hundreds  of  the  castles  which  had  sprung 


up  throughout  the  land  in  Stephen's  time,  to  be 
nests  of  robbers  and  strongholds  of  rebellion.  He 
humbled  the  turbulent  barons.  He  did  in  Eng- 
land, for  the  promotion  of  justice,  and  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  royal  authority,  what  Louis 
IX.  did  a  little  later  in  France:  that  is,  he  re- 
organized and  strengthened  the  king's  courts, 
creating  a  judicial  system  which,  in  its  most 
essential  features,  has  existed  to  the  present  time. 
His  organizing  hand  brought  system  and  effi- 
ciency into  every  department  of  the  government. 
He  demanded  of  the  Church  that  its  clergy 
should  be  subject  to  the  common  laws  of  the 
kingdom,  in  matters  of  crime,  and  to  trial  before 
the  ordinary  courts;  and  it  was  this  most  just 
reform  of  a  crying  abuse  —  the  exemption  of 
clerics  from  the  jurisdiction  of  secular  courts  — 
which  brought  about  the  memorable  collision  of 
King  Henry  with  Thomas  Becket,  the  inflexible 
archbishop  of  Canterbury.  Becket's  tragical 
death  made  a  martyr  of  him,  and  placed  Henry 
in  a  penitential  position  which  checked  his  great 
works  of  reform ;  but,  on  the  whole,  his  reign 
was  one  of  splendid  success,  and  shines  among 
the  epochs  that  throw  light  on  the  great  after- 
career  of  the  English  nation. 

Aside  from  his  importance  as  an  English  states- 
man, Henry  II.  figured  largely,  in  his  time,  among 
tlie  most  powerful  of  the  monarchs  of  Europe. 
His  dominions  on  the  continent  embraced  much 
more  of  the  territory  of  modern  France  than  was 
ruled  directly  by  the  contemporary  French  king, 
though  nominally  he  held  them  as  a  vassal  of 
the  latter.  Normandy  came  to  him  from  his 
grandfather;  from  his  father  he  inherited  the 
large  possessions  of  the  House  of  Anjou;  by  his 
marriage  with  Eleanor  of  Aquitaine  (divorced  by 
Louis  VII.  of  France,  as  mentioned  already)  he 
acquired  her  wide  and  rich  domain.  On  the  con- 
tinent, therefore,  he  ruled  Normandy,  JIaine, 
Touraine,  Anjou,  Guienne,  Poitou  and  Gascony. 
He  may  be  said  to  have  added  Ireland  to  his 
English  kingdom,  for  lie  began  the  conquest.  He 
held  a  great  place,  in  liis  century,  and  historically 
he  is  a  notable  figure  in  the  time. 

His  rebellious,  undutiful  son  Richard,  Coeurde 
Lion,  the  Crusader,  the  hard  fighter,  the  knight 
of  many  rude  adventures,  who  succeeded  Henry 
II.  in  1189,  is  popularly  better  known  than  he; 
but  Richard's  noisy  brief  career  shows  poorly 
when  compared  with  Ins  father's  life  of  thought- 
ful statesmanship.  It  does  not  show  meanly, 
however,  like  that  of  the  younger  son,  John,  who 
came  to  the  throne  in  1199.  'The  story  of  John's 
probable  murder  of  his  young  nephew,  Arthur, 
of  Brittany,  and  of  his  consequent  loss  of  all  the 
Angevin  lands,  and  of  Normandy  (excepting  only 
the  Norman  islands,  the  Jerseys,  which  have  re- 
mained English  to  our  own  day)  has  been  briefly 
told  heretofore,  when  the  reign  of  Philip  Augus- 
tus of  France  was  under  review. 

The  whole  reign  of  John  was  ignominious. 
He  quarreled  with  the  Pope  —  with  the  inflexible 
Innocent  III.,  who  humbled  many  kings  —  over 
a  nomination  to  tlie  Archbishopric  of  Canterbury 
(1205);  his  kingdom  was  put  under,  interdict 
(1308);  he  was  threatened  with  deposition;  and 
when,  in  affright,  he  surrendered,  it  was  so 
abjectly  done  that  he  swore  fealty  to  the  Pope, 
as  a  vassal  to  his  suzerain,  consenting  to  hold 
his  kingdom  as  a  fief  of  the  Apostolic  See. 

The  triumph  of  the  Papacy  in  this  dispute 
brought  one  great  good  to  England.     It  made 


1060 


EUROPE. 


The  English 
Parliament. 


EUROPE. 


Stej'hen  Langton  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and 
ther<iby  gave  a  wise  and  righteous  leader  to  the 
opponents  of  the  king's  oppressive  rule.  Lords 
and  commons,  laity  and  clergy,  were  all  alike 
sufferers  from  John's  greed,  his  perfidy,  his  mean 
devices  and  his  contempt  of  law.  Langton  ral- 
lied them  to  a  sober,  stern,  united  demonstration, 
which  awed  King  John,  and  compelled  him  to 
put  his  seal  to  Magna  Charta —  the  grand  Char- 
ter of  English  liberties  (1315).  A  few  weeks  later 
he  tried  to  annul  what  he  had  done,  with  en- 
couragement from  the  Pope,  who  anathematized 
the  Charter  and  all  who  had  to  do  with  it.  Then 
certain  of  the  barons,  in  their  rage,  offered  the 
English  crown  to  the  heir  of  France,  afterwards 
Louis  Vin. ;  and  the  French  prince  actually  came 
to  England  (1216)  with  an  army  to  secure  it.  But 
before  the  forces  gathered  on  each  side  were 
brought  to  any  decisive  battle,  John  died.  Louis' 
partisans  then  dropped  away  from  him  and  the 
next  year,  after  a  defeat  at  sea,  he  returned  to 
France. 

Henry  III.  and  the  Barons'  War. 

John  left  a  son,  a  lad  of  nine  years,  who  grew 
to  be  a  better  man  than  himself,  though  not  a 
good  king,  for  he  was  weak  and  untruthful  in 
character,  though  amiable  and  probably  well- 
meaning,  lie  held  the  throne  for  fifty-six  years, 
during  which  long  time,  after  his  minority  was 
passed,  no  minister  of  ability  and  honorable  char- 
acter could  get  aud  keep  office  in  the  royal  ser- 
vice. He  was  jealous  of  ministers,  preferring 
mere  administrative  clerks ;  while  he  was  docile 
to  favorites,  and  picked  them  for  the  most  part 
from  a  swarm  of  foreign  adventurers  whom  the 
nation  detested.  The  Great  Charter  of  his  father 
had  been  reaffirmed  in  his  name  soon  after  he  re- 
ceived the  crown,  and  in  1325  he  was  required  to 
issue  it  a  third  time,  as  the  condition  of  a  grant  of 
money;  but  he  would  not  rule  honestly  in  com- 
pliance with  its  provisions,  and  sought  continu- 
ally to  lay  and  collect  heavy  taxes  in  unlawful 
ways.  He  spent  money  extravagantly,  and  was 
foolish  and  reckless  in  foreign  undertakings,  ac- 
cepting, for  example,  the  Kingdom  of  Sicily, 
offered  to  his  son  Edmund  by  the  Pope,  whose 
gift  could  only  be  made  good  by  force  of  arms. 
At  the  same  time  he  was  servile  to  the  popes, 
whose  increasing  demands  for  money  from  Eng- 
land were  rousing  even  the  clergy  to  resistance. 
So  the  causes  of  discontent  grew  abundantly 
until  they  brought  it  to  a  serious  head.  All  classes 
of  the  people  were  drawn  together  again,  as  they 
had  been  to  resist  the  aggressions  of  John.  The 
great  councils  of  the  kingdom,  or  assemblies  of 
barons  and  bishops  (which  had  taken  the  place 
of  the  witenagemot  of  the  old  English  time,  and 
which  now  began  to  be  called  Parliaments),  be- 
came more  and  more  united  against  the  king.  At 
last  the  discontent  found  a  leader  of  high  capacity 
and  of  heroic  if  not  blameless  character,  in  Simon 
de  Montfort,  Earl  of  Leicester.  Simon  de  Jlont- 
fort  was  of  foreign  birth, —  son  of  that  fanatical 
crusader  of  the  same  name,  who  spread  ruin  over 
the  fair  country  of  the  Albigeois.  The  English 
earldom  of  Leicester  had  passed  to  his  family,  and 
the  younger  Simon,  receiving  it,  came  to  England 
and  became  au  Englishman.  After  some  years  he 
threw  himself  into  the  struggle  with  the  Crown, 
aud  his  leadership  was  soon  recognized.  In  1258, 
a  parliament  held  at  London  compelled  the  king 
to  consent  to  the  appointment  of  an  extraordinary 


commission  of  twenty-four  barons,  clothed  with 
full  power  to  reform  the  government.  The  com- 
mission was  named  at  a  subsequent  meeting  of 
parliament,  the  same  year,  at  Oxford,  where  the 
grievances  to  be  redressed  were  set  forth  in  a 
paper  known  as  the  Provisions  of  Oxford.  From 
the  twenty-four  commissioners  there  were  chosen 
fifteen  to  be  the  King's  Council.  This  was  really 
the  creation  of  a  new  constitution  for  the  king- 
dom, and  Henry  swore  to  observe  it.  But  ere 
long  he  procured  a  bull  from  the  Pope,  absolving 
him  from  his  oath,  and  he  began  to  prepare  for 
throwing  off  the  restraints  that  had  been  put 
upon  him.  The  other  side  took  up  arms,  under 
Simon's  lead ;  but  peace  was  preserved  for  a  time 
by  referring  all  questions  in  dispute  to  the  arbi- 
tration of  Louis  IX.  of  France.  The  arbiter 
decided  against  the  barons  (1264)  and  Montfort's 
party  refused  to  abide  by  the  award.  Then  fol- 
lowed the  civil  conflict  known  as  the  Barons' 
War.  The  king  was  defeated  and  taken  prisoner, 
and  was  obliged  to  submit  to  conditions  which 
practically  transferred  the  administration  of  the 
government  to  three  counsellors,  of  whom  Simon 
de  Montfort  was  the  chief. 

Development  of  the  English  Parliament. 

In  January,  1365,  a  memorable  parliament  was 
called  together.  It  was  the  first  national  assem- 
bly in  which  the  larger  element  of  the  English 
Commons  made  its  appearance ;  for  Montfort  had 
summoned  to  it  certain  representatives  of  borough 
towns,  along  witli  the  barons,  the  bishops  and 
tlie  abbots,  and  along,  moreover,  with  represen- 
tative knights,  who  had  been  gaining  admittance 
of  late  years  to  what  now  became  a  convocation 
of  the  'Three  Estates.  The  parliamentary  mode) 
thus  roughly  shaped  by  the  great  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter was  not  continuously  followed  until  another 
generation  came ;  but  it  is  his  glory,  nevertheless, 
to  have  given  to  England  the  norm  and  principle 
on  which  its  imexampled  parliament  was  framed. 

By  dissensions  among  themselves,  Simon  de 
Montfort  and  his  party  soon  lost  the  great  advan- 
tage they  had  won,  and  on  another  appeal  to 
arms  they  were  defeated  (1265)  by  the  king's 
valiant  and  able  son,  afterwards  King  Edward  I., 
and  Montfort  was  slain.  It  was  seven  years  after 
tliis  before  Edward  succeeded  his  father,  and 
nine  before  he  came  to  the  throne,  because  he 
was  absent  on  a  Crusade;  but  when  he  did, 
it  was  to  prove  himself,  not  merely  one  of  the 
few  statesmen-kings  of  England,  but  one  large 
enough  in  mind  to  take  lessons  from  the  van- 
quished enemies  of  the  Crown.  He,  in  reality, 
took  up  the  half-planned  constitutional  work  of 
Simon  de  Jlontfort,  in  the  development  of  the 
English  Parliament  as  a  body  representative  of 
all  orders  in  tlie  nation,  and  carried  it  forward  to 
substantial  completion.  He  did  it  because  he 
had  wit  to  see  that  the  people  he  ruled  could  be 
led  more  easily  than  they  could  be  driven,  and 
that  their  free-giving  of  supplies  to  the  Crown 
would  be  more  open-handed  than  their  giving 
under  compulsion.  The  year  1395  "witnessed 
the  first  summons  of  a  perfect  and  model  parlia- 
ment; the  clergy  represented  by  their  bishops, 
deans,  archdeacons,  and  elected  proctors;  the 
barons  summoned  severally  in  person  by  the 
king's  special  writ,  aud  the  commons  summoned 
by  writs  addressed  to  the  sheriffs,  directing  them 
to  send  up  two  elected  knights  from  each  shire, 
two  elected  citizens   from  each  city,  and  two 


1061 


EUKOPE. 


Christian  Spain 
and  the  Moors. 


EUROPE. 


elected  burghers  from  each  borough  "  (Stubbs). 
Two  years  later,  the  very  fundamental  principle 
of  the  English  Constitution  was  established,  by 
a  Confirmation  of  the  Charters,  conceded  in  Ed- 
ward's absence  by  his  son,  but  afterwards  assented 
to  by  him,  which  definitely  renounced  the  right 
of  the  king  to  tax  the  nation  without  its  consent. 

Thus  the  reign  of  Edward  I.  was  really  the 
most  important  in  the  constitutional  history  of 
England.  It  was  scarcely  less  important  in  the 
historj'  of  English  jurisprudence;  for  Edward 
was  in  full  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  an  age  in 
which  the  study  and  reform  of  the  law  were 
wonderfully  awakened  throughout  Europe.  The 
great  statutes  of  his  reign  are  among  the  monu- 
ments of  Edward's  statesmanship,  and  not  the 
least  important  of  them  are  those  by  which  he 
checked  the  encroachments  of  the  Church  and 
its  dangerous  acquisition  of  wealth. 

At  the  same  time,  the  temper  of  this  vigorous 
king  was  warlike  and  aggressive.  He  subdued 
the  Welsh  and  annexed  Wales  as  a  principality 
to  England.  He  enforced  the  feudal  supremacy 
which  the  English  kings  claimed  over  Scotland, 
and,  upon  the  Scottish  throne  becoming  vacant, 
in  1290,  seated  John  Baliol,  as  a  vassal  who  did 
homage  to  him.  The  war  of  Scottish  Indepen- 
dence then  ensued,  of  which  William  Wallace  and 
Robert  Bruce  were  the  heroes.  Wallace  perished 
on  an  English  scaffold  in  1305;  Bruce,  the  next 
year,  secured  the  Scottish  crown,  and  eventually 
broke  the  bonds  in  which  his  country  was  held. 

Edward  I.  died  in  1307,  and  his  kingly  capa- 
bility died  with  him.  He  transmitted  neither 
spirit  nor  wisdom  to  his  son,  the  second  Edward, 
who  gave  himself  and  his  kingdom  up  to  foreign 
favorites,  as  his  grandfather  had  done.  His 
angry  subjects  practically  took  the  government 
out  of  his  hands  (1310),  and  confided  it  to  a  body 
of  twenty-one  members,  called  Ordainers.  His 
reign  of  twenty  years  was  one  of  protracted 
strife  and  disorder;  but  the  constitutional  power 
of  Parliament  made  gains.  In  outward  appear- 
ance, however,  there  was  nothing  to  redeem  the 
wretchedness  of  the  time.  The  struggle  of  fac- 
tions was  pushed  to  civil  war ;  while  Scotland, 
by  the  great  blow  struck  at  Bannockburn  (1314), 
made  her  independence  complete.  In  1322, 
Thomas,  Earl  of  Lancaster,  whose  descent  was 
as  royal  as  the  king's,  but  who  headed  the  oppo- 
nents of  Edward  and  Edward's  unworthy  favor- 
ites, was  defeated  in  battle,  taken  prisoner,  and 
brought  to  the  block.  This  martyrdom,  as  it 
was  called,  embalmed  Lancaster's  memory  in  the 
hearts  of  the  people. 

Edward  III.  and  his  French  Claims. 

The  queen  of  Edward  II.,  Isabella  of  France, 
daughter  of  Philip  the  Fair,  made,  at  last,  com- 
mon cause  with  his  enemies.  In  January,  1327, 
he  was  forced  to  formally  resign  the  crown,  and 
in  September  of  the  same  year  he  was  murdered, 
the  queen,  with  little  doubt,  assenting  to  the 
deed.  His  son,  Edward  III.,  who  now  came  to 
the  throne,  founded  claims  to  the  crown  of 
France  upon  the  rights  of  his  mother,  whose 
three  brothers,  as  we  have  seen,  had  been  crowned 
in  succession  and  had  died,  bringing  the  direct 
line  of  royalty  in  France  to  an  end.  By  this 
claim  the  two  countries  were  plunged  into  the 
miseries  of  the  dreadful  Hundred  Years  War, 
and  the  progress  of  civilization  in  Europe  was 
seriously  checked. 


Recovery  of  Christian  Spain. 

Before  entering  that  dark  century  of  war,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  go  back  a  little  in  time,  and 
carry  our  survey  farther  afield,  in  the  countries 
of  Europe  more  remote  from  the  center  of  the 
events  we  have  already  scanned.  In  Spain,  for 
example,  there  should  be  noticed,  very  briefly,  the 
turning  movement  of  the  tide  of  Mahometan  con- 
quest which  drove  the  Spanish  Christians  into 
the  mountains  of  the  North.  In  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, their  little  principality  of  Asturia  had 
widened  into  the  small  kingdom  of  Leon,  and  the 
eastern  county  of  Leon  had  taken  the  name  of 
Castelja  (Castile)  from  the  number  of  forts  or 
castles  with  which  it  bristled,  on  the  Moorish 
border.  East  of  Leon,  in  the  Pyrenees,  there 
grew  up  about  the  same  time  the  kingdom  of 
Navarre,  which  became  important  in  the  eleventh 
century,  under  an  enterprising  king,  Sancho  the 
Great,  who  seized  Castile  and  made  a  separate 
kingdom  of  it,  which  he  bequeathed  to  his  son. 
The  same  Navarrese  king  extended  his  dominion 
over  a  considerable  part  of  the  Spanish  March, 
which  Charlemagne  had  wrested  from  the  Moors 
in  the  ninth  century,  and  out  of  this  territory  the 
kingdom  of  Aragon  was  presently  formed.  These 
four  kingdoms,  of  Leon,  Navarre,  Castile,  and 
Aragon,  were  shuffled  together  and  divided  again, 
in  changing  combinations,  many  times  during  the 
next  century  or  two ;  but  Castile  and  Leon  were 
permanently  united  in  1230.  Meantime  Portugal, 
wrested  from  the  Moors,  became  a  distinct  king- 
dom ;  while  Navarre  was  reduced  in  size  and  im- 
portance. Castile,  Aragon,  and  Portugal  are 
from  that  time  the  Christian  Powers  in  the  Pe- 
ninsula which  carried  on  the  unending  war  with 
their  Moslem  neighbors.  By  the  end  of  the 
thirteenth  century  they  had  driven  the  Jloors  into 
the  extreme  south  of  the  peninsula,  where  the 
latter,  thenceforth,  held  little  beyond  the  small 
kingdom  of  Granada,  which  defended  itself  for 
two  centuries  more. 

Moorish  Civilization  and  its  Decay. 

The  Christians  were  winners  and  the  ^Moslems 
were  losers  in  this  long  battle,  because  adversity 
had  disciplined  the  one  and  prosperity  had  re- 
laxed and  vitiated  the  other.  Success  bred  dis- 
union, and  the  spoils  of  victory  engendered  cor- 
ruption, among  the  followers  of  Mahomet,  very 
quickly  in  their  career.  The  middle  of  the  eighth 
century  was  hardly  passed  when  the  huge  empire 
they  had  conquered  broke  in  twain,  and  two 
Caliphates  on  one  side  of  the  Mediterranean,  imi- 
tated the  two  Roman  Empires  on  the  other.  We 
have  seen  how  the  Caliphate  of  the  East,  with 
its  seat  at  Bagdad,  went  steadily  to  wreck ;  but 
fresh  converts  of  Islam,  out  of  deserts  at  the 
North,  were  in  readiness,  there,  to  gather  the 
fragments  and  construct  a  new  Mahometan 
power.  In  tlie  West,  where  the  Caliphs  held 
their  court  at  Cordova,  the  same  crumbling  of 
their  power  befell  them,  through  feuds  and  jeal- 
ousies and  the  decay  of  a  sensuous  race ;  but 
there  were  none  to  rebuild  it  in  the  Prophet's 
name.  The  Moor  gave  way  to  the  Castilian  in 
Spain  for  reasons  not  differing  very  much  from 
the  reasons  which  explain  the  supplanting  of  the 
Arab  by  the  Turk  in  the  East. 

While  its  grandeur  lasted  in  Spain, —  from  the 
eighth  to  tlie  eleventh  centuries  —  the  empire  of 
the  Saracens,  or  Moors,  was  the  most  splendid  of 
its  age.     It  developed  a  civilization  which  must 


1062 


EUROPE. 


Spanish 
Free  InstitutiOTis. 


EUROPE. 


have  been  far  finer,  in  the  superficial  showing, 
and  in  much  of  its  spirit  as  well,  than  anything 
found  in  Christian  Europe  at  that  time.  Its  re- 
ligious temper  was  less  fierce  and  intolerant. 
Its  intellectual  disposition  was  towards  broader 
thinking  and  freer  inquiry.  Its  artistic  feeling 
was  truer  and  more  instinctive.  It  took  lessons 
from  classic  learning  and  philosophy  before  Ger- 
manized Europe  had  become  aware  of  the  exis- 
tence of  either,  and  it  gave  the  lessons  at  second 
hand  to  its  Christian  neighbors.  Its  industries 
were  conducted  with  a  fciowledge  and  a  skill 
that  could  be  found  among  no  other  people. 
Says  Dr.  Draper:  "Europe  at  the  present  day 
•does  not  offer  more  taste,  more  refinement,  more 
elegance,  than  might  have  been  seen,  at  the  epoch 
of  which  we  are  speaking,  in  the  capitals  of  the 
Spanish  Arabs.  Their  streets  were  lighted  and 
solidly  paved.  Their  houses  were  frescoed  and 
carpeted;  they  were  warmed  in  winter  by  fur- 
naces, and  cooled  in  summer  with  perfumed  air 
brought  by  underground  pipes  from  flower  beds. 
They  had  baths,  and  libraries,  and  dining  halls, 
fountains  of  quicksilver  and  water.  City  and 
country  were  full  of  conviviality,  and  of  dancing 
to  lute  and  mandolin.  Instead  of  the  drunken 
and  gluttonous  wassail  orgies  of  their  northern 
neighbors,  the  feasts  of  the  Saracens  were  marked 
with  sobriety." 

The  brilliancy  of  the  Moorish  civilization  seems 
like  that  of  some  short-lived  flower,  which  may 
spring  from  a  thin  soil  of  no  lasting  fertility. 
The  qualities  which  yielded  it  had  their  season 
of  ascendancy  over  the  deeper-lying  forces  that 
worked  in  the  Gothic  mind  of  Christian  Spain; 
but  time  exhausted  the  one,  while  it  matured  the 
other. 

Mediaeval  Spanish  Character. 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  long 
conflict  of  races  and  religions  in  the  peninsula 
affected  the  character  of  the  Spanish  Christians 
more  profoundly,  both  for  good  and  for  ill,  than 
it  affected  the  people  with  whom  they  strove. 
It  hardened  and  energized  them,  preparing  them 
for  the  bold  adventures  they  were  soon  to  pursue 
in  a  new-found  world,  and  for  a  lordly  career  in 
all  parts  of  the  rounded  globe.  It  embittered 
and  gave  fierceness  to  a  sentiment  among  them 
which  bore  some  likeness  to  religion,  but  which 
was,  in  reality,  the  partisanship  of  a  church,  and 
not  the  devotion  of  a  faith.  It  tended  to  put 
bigotry  in  the  place  of  piety  — •  religious  rancor 
in  the  place  of  charity  —  priests  and  images  in 
the  place  of  Christ  —  much  more  among  the 
Spaniards  than  among  other  peoples ;  for  they, 
alone,  were  Crusaders  against  the  Moslem  for 
eight  hundred  years. 

Early  Free  Institutions  in  Spain. 

The  political  effects  of  those  centuries  of  strug- 
gle in  the  peninsula  were  also  remarkable  and 
strangely  mixed.  In  all  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
national  development,  until  the  close  of  the  me- 
dieval period,  there  seems  to  have  been  as  prom- 
ising a  growth  of  popular  institutions,  in  most 
directions,  as  can  be  found  in  England  itself. 
Apparently,  there  was  more  good  feeling  be- 
tween classes  than  elsewhere  in  Europe.  Nobles, 
knights  and  commons  fought  side  by  side  in 
so  continuous  a  battle  that  they  were  more 
friendly  and  familiar  in  acquaintance  with  one 
another.  Moreover,  the  ennobled  and  the 
knighted  were  greatly  more  numerous  in  Spain 


than  in  the  neighboring  countries.  The  kings 
were  lavish  of  such  honors  in  rewarding  valor, 
on  every  battlefield  and  after  every  campaign. 
It  was  impossible,  therefore,  for  so  great  a  dis- 
tance to  'widen  between  the  grandee  and  the 
peasant  or  the  burgher  as  that  which  separated 
the  lord  and  the  citizen  in  Germany  or  France. 

The  division  of  Christian  Spain  into  several 
petty  kingdoms,  and  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  were  placed,  retarded  the  growth  of 
monarchical  power,  and  yet  did  not  tend  to  a 
feudal  disintegration  of  society;  because  the 
pressure  of  its  perpetual  war  with  the  infidels 
forced  the  preservation  of  a  certain  degree  of 
unity,  suflicient  to  be  a  saving  influence.  At 
the  same  time,  the  Spanish  cities  became  pros- 
perous, and  naturally,  in  the  circumstances  of 
the  country,  acquired  much  freedom  and  many 
privileges.  The  inhabitants  of  some  cities  in 
Aragon  enjoyed  the  privileges  of  nobility  as  a 
body ;  the  magistrates  of  other  cities  were  en- 
nobled. Both  in  Aragon  and  Castile,  the  towns 
had  deputies  in  the  Cortes  before  any  represen- 
tatives of  boroughs  sat  in  the  English  Parliament ; 
and  the  Cortes  seems  to  have  been,  in  the  twelfth 
and  thirteenth  centuries,  a  more  potent  factor  in 
government  than  any  assembly  of  estates  in  any 
other  part  of  Europe. 

But  something  was  wanting  in  Spain  that  was 
not  wanting  in  England  and  in  the  Netherlands, 
for  example,  to  complete  the  evolution  of  a  pop- 
ular government  from  this  hopeful  beginning. 
And  the  primary  want,  it  would  seem,  was  a 
political  sense  or  faculty  in  the  people.  To  illus- 
trate this  in  one  particular :  the  Castilian  Com- 
mons did  not  grasp  the  strings  of  the  national 
purse  when  they  had  it  in  their  hands,  as  the 
practical  Englishmen  did.  They  allowed  the 
election  of  deputies  from  the  towns  to  slip  out 
of  their  hands  and  to  become  an  ofiicial  function 
of  the  municipalities,  where  it  was  corrupted 
and  controlled  by  the  Crown.  In  Aragon,  the 
popular  rights  were  more  efliciently  maintained, 
perhaps ;  but  even  there  the  political  faculty  of 
the  people  must  have  been  defective,  as  compared 
with  that  of  the  nations  in  the  North  which  de- 
veloped free  government  from  less  promising 
germs.  And,  yet,  it  is  possible  that  the  whole 
subsequent  failure  of  Spain  may  be  fully  ex- 
plained by  the  ruinous  prosperity  of  her  career 
in  the  sixteenth  century, —  by  the  fatal  gold  it 
gave  her  from  America,  and  the  independent 
power  it  put  into  the  hands  of  her  kings. 

Northern  and  North-eastern  Europe. 

While  the  Spaniards  in  their  southern  penin- 
sula were  wrestling  with  the  infidel  Moor,  their 
Gothic  kindred  of  Sweden,  and  the  other  Norse 
nations  of  that  opposite  extremity  of  Europe, 
had  been  casting  off  paganism  and  emerging 
from  the  barbarism  of  their  piratical  age,  very 
slowly.  It  was  not  until  the  tenth  and  eleventh 
centuries  that  Christianity  got  footing  among 
them.  It  was  not  until  the  thirteenth  century 
that  unity  and  order,  the  fruits  of  firm  govern- 
ment, began  to  be  really  fixed  in  any  part  of  the 
Scandinavian  peninsulas. 

The  same  is  substantially  true  of  the  greater 
Slavic  states  on  the  eastern  side  of  Europe.  The 
Poles  had  accepted  Christianity  in  the  tenth  cen- 
tury, and  their  dukes,  in  the  same  century,  had 
assumed  the  title  of  kings.  In  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury they  had  acquired  a  large  dominion  and 


1063 


EUROPE. 


The  Tliirteenth  and 
FourteenVi  Centuries. 


EUROPE. 


exercised  great  power;  but  the  kingdom  was 
divided,  was  brought  into  collision  with  the  Teu- 
tonic Knights,  who  conquered  Prussia,  and  it  fell 
into  a  disordered  state.  The  Russians  had  been 
Christianized  in  the  same  missionary  century  — 
the  tenth;  but  civilization  made  slow  progress 
among  them,  and  their  nation  was  being  divided 
and  re-divided  in  shifting  principalities  by  con- 
tending families  and  lords.  In  the  thirteenth 
century  they  were  overwhelmed  by  the  fearful 
calamity  of  a  conquest  by  Mongol  or  Tartar 
hordes,  and  fell  under  the  brutal  domination  of 
the  successors  of  Genghis  Khan. 

Latin  Conquest  of  Constantinople. 

At  Constantinople,  the  old  Greek-Roman  Em- 
pire of  the  East  had  been  passing  through  singu- 
lar changes  since  we  noticed  it  last.  The  dread 
with  which  Alexius  Comnenius  saw  the  coming 
of  the  Crusaders  in  1097  was  justified  by  the  ex- 
perience of  his  successors,  after  little  more  than  a 
hundred  years.  In  1204,  a  crusade,  which  is 
sometimes  numbered  as  the  fourth  and  some- 
times as  the  fifth  in  the  crusading  series,  was 
diverted  by  Venetian  influence  from  the  rescue 
of  Jerusalem  to  the  conquest  of  Constantinople, 
ostensibly  in  the  interest  of  a  claimant  of  the 
Imperial  throne.  The  city  was  taken  and  pil- 
laged, and  the  Greek  line  of  Emperors  was  sup- 
planted by  a  Frank  or  Latin  line,  of  which  Bald- 
win, Count  of  Flanders,  was  the  first.  But  this 
Latin  Empire  was  reduced  to  a  fraction  of  the 
conquered  dominion,  the  remainder  being  divided 
among  several  partners  in  the  conquest;  while 
two  Greek  princes  of  the  fallen  house  saved  frag- 
ments of  the  ancient  realm  in  Asia,  and  throned 
themselves  as  emperors  at  Trebizond  and  Nicoea. 
The  Latin  Empire  was  maintained,  feebly  and 
without  dignity,  a  little  more  than  half  a  cen- 
tury; and  then  (1361)  it  was  extinguished  by  the 
sovereign  of  its  Nicsean  rival,  Michael  Palteolo- 
gus,  who  took  Constantinople  by  a  night  sur- 
prise, helped  by  treachery  within.  Thus  the 
Greek  or  Byzantine  Empire  was  restored,  but 
much  shorn  of  its  former  European  possessions, 
and  much  weakened  by  loss  of  commerce  and 
wealth.  It  was  soon  involved  in  a  fresh  struggle 
for  life  with  the  Turks. 

The  Thirteenth  Century. 

We  have  now,  in  our  general  survey  of  Euro- 
pean liistory,  just  passed  beyond  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  it  will  be  instructive  to  pause  here 
a  moment  and  glance  back  over  the  movements 
and  events  which  distinguish  that  remarkable 
age.  For  the  thirteenth  century,  while  it  be- 
longs chronologically  to  mediaeval  times,  seems 
nearer  in  spirit  to  the  Renaissance  —  shows  more 
of  the  travail  of  the  birth  of  our  modern  mind 
and  life  —  than  the  fourteenth,  and  even  more 
than  the  greater  part  of  the  years  of  the  fifteenth 
century. 

For  England,  it  was  the  century  in  which  the 
enduring  bases  of  constitutional  government 
were  laid  down ;  within  which  Magna  Charta  and 
its  Confirmations  were  signed ;  within  which  the 
Parliament  of  Simon  de  Montfort  and  the  Parlia- 
ments of  Edward  I.  gave  a  representative  form, 
and  a  controlling  power  to  the  wonderful  legis- 
lature of  the  English  nation.  In  France,  it  was 
the  century  of  the  Albigenses;  of  Saint  Louis 
and  liis  judicial  reforms;  and  it  stretched  within 
two  years  of  the  first  meeting   of  the   States- 


General  of  the  kingdom.  In  Switzerland,  it  was 
the  century  which  began  the  union  of  the  three 
forest  cantons.  In  Spain,  it  was  the  century 
which  gave  Aragon  the  "General  Privilege"  of 
Peter  III. ;  in  Hungary,  it  was  the  century  of  its 
Golden  Bull.  In  Italy  it  was  the  century  of 
Frederick  II., —  the  man  of  modem  spirit  set  in 
mediaeval  circumstances ;  and  it  was  the  century, 
too,  which  moulded  the  city-republics  that  re- 
sisted and  defeated  his  despotic  pretensions. 
Everywhere,  it  was  an  age  of  impulses  toward 
freedom,  and  of  mighty  upward  strivings  out  of 
the  chaos  and  darkness  of  the  feudal  state. 

It  was  an  age  of  vast  energies,  directed  with 
practical  judgment  and  power.  It  organized  the 
great  league  of  the  Hansa  Towns,  which  sur- 
passed, as  an  enterprise  of  combination  in  com- 
mercial affairs,  the  most  stupendous  undertakings 
of  the  present  time.  It  put  the  weavers  and 
traders  of  Flanders  on  a  footing  with  knights 
and  princes.  In  Venice  and  Genoa  it  crowned 
the  merchant  like  a  king.  It  sent  Marco  Polo  ta 
Cathay,  and  inoculated  men  with  the  itch  of  ex- 
ploration from  which  they  find  no  ease  to  this  day. 

It  was  the  century  which  saw  painting  revived 
as  a  living  art  in  the  world  by  Cimabue  and 
Giotto,  and  sculpture  restored  by  Is  iccola  Pisano. 
It  was  the  age  of  great  church-building  in  Italy, 
in  Germany  and  in  France.  It  was  the  century 
of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  and  of  the  creation  of 
the  mendicant  orders  in  the  Church, — a  true  re- 
ligious reformation  in  its  spirit,  however  unhappy 
in  effect  it  may  have  been.  It  was  the  time  of 
the  high  tide  of  mediaeval  learning ;  the  epoch  of 
Aquinas,  of  Duns  Scotus,  of  Roger  Bacon;  the 
true  birth-time  of  the  Universities  of  Paris  and 
Oxford.  It  was  the  century  which  educated 
Dante  for  his  immortal  work. 

The  Fourteenth  Century. 

The  century  which  followed  was  a  period  of 
many  wars  —  of  ruinous  and  deadly  wars,  and 
miserable  demoralizations  and  disorders,  which 
depressed  all  Europe  by  their  effects.  In  the 
front  of  them  all  was  the  wicked  Hundred  Years 
War,  forced  on  France  by  the  ambition  of  an 
English  king  to  wear  two  crowns ;  while  with  it 
came  the  bloody  insurrection  of  the  Jacquerie, 
the  ravages  of  the  free  companies,  and  ruinous- 
anarchy  everywhere.  Then,  in  Italy,  there  was 
a  duel  to  the  death  between  Venice  and  Genoa; 
and  a  long,  wasting  contest  of  rivals  for  the  pos- 
session of  Naples.  In  Germany,  a  contested  im- 
perial election,  and  the  struggle  of  the  Swiss 
against  the  Austrian  Dukes.  In  Flanders,  re- 
peated revolts  under  the  two  Artevelds.  In 
the  East,  the  terrible  fight  of  Christendom  with 
the  advancing  Turk.  And  while  men  were 
everywliere  so  busily  slaying  one  another,  there 
came  the  great  pestilence  which  they  called  the 
Black  Death,  to  help  them  in  the  grim  work,  and 
Europe  was  half  depopulated  by  it.  At  the 
same  time,  the  Church,  which  might  have  kin- 
dled some  beacon  lights  of  faith  and  hope  in  the 
midst  of  all  this  darkness  and  terror,  was  sinking 
to  its  lowest  state,  and  Rome  had  become  an  un- 
ruled robbers'  den. 

There  were  a  few  voices  heard,  above  the  wail- 
ing and  the  battle-din  of  the  afflicted  age,  which 
charmed  and  comforted  it ;  voices  which  preached 
the  pure  gospel  of  Wycliffe  and  Huss, — which 
recited  the  great  epic  of  Dante, — which  syllabled 
the  melodious  verse  of  Petrarch  and  Chaucer, — 


1064 


EUROPE. 


The  Hundred 
Years  IVar. 


EUROPE. 


which  told  the  gay  tales  of  Boccaccio;  but  the 
pauses  of  peace  in  which  men  might  listen  to 
such  messages  and  give  themselves  to  such  de- 
lights were  neither  many  nor  long. 

The  Hundred  Years  War. 

The  conflict  between  England  and  France  be- 
gan in  Flanders,  then  connected  with  the  Eng- 
lish very  closely  in  trade.  Philip  VI.  of  France 
forced  the  Count  of  Flanders  to  e.xpel  English 
merchants  from  his  territory.  Edward  III.  re- 
taliated (1336)  by  forbidding  the  exportation  of 
wool  to  Flanders,  and  this  speedily  reduced  the 
Flemish  weavers  to  idleness.  They  rose  in  revolt, 
drove  out  their  count,  and  formed  an  alliance  with 
England,  under  the  lead  of  Jacob  van  Arteveld, 
a  brewer,  of  Ghent.  The  next  year  (1387)  Edward 
joined  the  Flemings  with  an  army  and  entered 
Prance;  but  made  no  successful  advance,  al- 
though his  fleet  won  a  victory,  in  a  sea-fight  ofE 
Sluys,  and  hostilities  were  soon  suspended  by  a 
truce.  In  1341  they  were  renewed  in  Brittany, 
over  a  disputed  succession  to  the  dukedom,  and 
the  scattered  sieges  and  chivalric  combats  which 
made  up  the  war  in  that  region  for  two  years  are 
described  with  minuteness  by  Froissart,  the  gos- 
sipy chronicler  of  the  time.  After  a  second 
truce,  the  grimly  serious  stage  of  the  war  was 
readied  in  1346.  It  was  in  that  year  that  the 
English  won  the  victory  at  Crecy,  which  was  the 
pride  and  boast  of  their  nation  for  centuries ;  and 
the  next  season  they  took  Calais,  which  they  held 
for  more  than  two  hundred  years. 

Philip  died  in  1350  and  was  succeeded  by  his 
son  John.  In  1355,  Edward  of  England  repeated 
his  invasion,  ravaging  Artois,  whUe  his  son,  the 
Black  Prince,  from  Guienne  (which  the  English 
had  held  since  the  Angevin  time),  devastated  Lau- 
guedoc.  The  next  year,  this  last  named  prince 
made  another  sally  from  Bordeaux,  northwards, 
towards  the  Loire,  and  was  encountered  by  the 
Frencli  king,  with  a  splendid  army,  at  Poitiers. 
The  victory  of  the  English  in  this  case  was  more 
overwhelming  than  at  Crecy,  although  they 
were  greatly  outnumbered.  King  John  was 
taken  prisoner  and  conveyed  to  London.  His 
kingdom  was  in  confusion.  The  dauphin  called 
together  the  States-General  of  France,  and  that 
body,  in  whicii  the  commons,  or  third  estate,  at- 
tained to  a  majority  in  numbers,  assumed  powers 
and  compelled  assent  to  reforms  which  seemed 
likely  to  place  it  on  a  footing  of  equal  impor- 
tance with  the  Parliament  of  England.  The 
leader  of  the  third  estate  in  these  measures  was 
Etienne  or  Stephen  JIarcel.  provost  of  Paris,  a 
man  of  commanding  energy  and  courage.  The 
dauphin,  under  orders  from  his  captive  father, 
attempted  to  nullify  the  ordinances  of  the  States- 
General.  Paris  rose  at  the  call  of  JIarcel  and  the 
frightened  prince  became  submissive;  but  the 
nobles  of  the  provinces  resented  these  high-handed 
proceedings  of  the  Parisians  and  civil  war  ensued. 
The  peasants,  who  were  in  great  misery,  took 
advantage  of  the  situation  to  rise  in  support  of 
the  Paris  burgesses,  and  for  the  redressing  of 
their  own  wrongs.  This  insurrection  of  the 
Jacquerie,  as  it  is  known,  produced  horrible 
deeds  of  outrage  and  massacre  on  botli  sides,  and 
seems  to  have  had  no  other  result.  Paris,  mean- 
time (1358),  was  besieged  and  hard  pressed; 
Marcel,  suspected  of  an  intended  treachery,  was 
killed,  and  with  his  death  the  whole  attempt  to 
assert  popular  rights  fell  to  the  ground. 


The  state  of  France  at  this  time  was  one  of 
measureless  misery.  It  was  overrun  with  free- 
booters—  discharged  soldiers,  desperate  homeless 
and  idle  men,  and  the  ruffians  who  always  bestir 
themselves  when  authority  disappears.  They 
roamed  the  country  in  bands,  large  and  small, 
stripped  it  of  what  war  had  spared,  and  left  fam- 
ine behind  them. 

At  length,  in  1360,  terms  of  peace  were  agreed 
upon,  in  a  treaty  signed  at  Bretigny,  and  fight- 
ing ceased,  except  in  Brittany,  where  the  war 
went  on  for  four  years  more.  By  the  treaty, 
all  French  claims  upon  Aquitaine  and  the  de- 
pendencies were  given  up,  and  Edward  acquired 
full  sovereignty  there,  no  longer  owing  homage, 
as  a  vassal,  to  the  king  of  France.  Calais,  too, 
was  ceded  to  England,  and  so  heavy  a  ransom 
was  exacted  from  the  captive  King  John  that 
he  failed  to  collect  money  for  the  payment  of  it 
and  died  in  London  (1364). 

Charles  the  Wise. 

Charles  V. ,  who  now  ruled  independently,  as 
he  had  ruled  for  some  years  in  his  father's  name, 
proved  to  be  a  more  prudent  and  capable  prince, 
and  his  counsellors  and  captains  were  wisely 
chosen.  He  was  a  man  of  studious  tastes  and  of 
considerable  learning  for  tliat  age,  with  intelli- 
gence to  see  and  understand  the  greater  sources  of 
evil  in  his  kingdom.  Above  all,  he  had  patience 
enough  to  plant  better  things  in  the  seed  and 
wait  for  them  to  grow,  which  is  one  of  the 
grander  secrets  of  statesmanship.  By  careful, 
judicious  measures,  he  and  those  who  shared  the 
task  of  government  with  him  slowly  improved 
the  discipline  and  condition  of  their  armies.  The 
"great  companies"  of  freebooters,  too  strong  to 
be  put  down,  were  lured  out  of  the  kingdom  by 
an  expedition  into  Spain,  which  the  famous  war- 
rior Du  Guesclin  commanded,  and  which  was 
sent  against  the  detestable  Pedro,  called  the 
Cruel,  of  Castile,  whom  the  English  supported. 
A  stringent  economy  in  public  expenditure  was 
introduced,  and  the  management  of  the  finances 
was  improved.  The  towns  were  encouraged  to 
strengthen  their  fortifications,  and  the  state  and 
feeling  of  the  whole  country  were  slowly  lifted 
from  the  gloomy  depth  to  which  the  war  had 
depressed  them. 

At  length,  in  1369,  Cliarles  felt  prepared  to 
challenge  another  encounter  with  the  English, 
by  repudiating  the  ignominious  terms  of  the 
treaty  of  Bretigny.  Before  the  year  closed,  Ed- 
ward's armies  were  in  the  country  again,  but  ac- 
complished nothing  beyond  the  havoc  which  they 
wrought  as  they  marched.  The  French  avoided 
battles,  and  their  cities  were  well  defended. 
Next  year  the  English  returned,  and  the  Black 
Prince  earned  infamy  by  a  ferocious  massacre  of 
three  thousand  men,  women,  and  children,  in 
the  city  of  Limoges,  when  he  had  taken  it  by 
storm.  It  was  his  last  campaign.  Already  suf- 
fering from  a  mortal  disease,  he  returned  to  Eng- 
land, and  died  a  few  years  later.  The  war  went 
on,  with  no  decisive  results,  until  1375,  when  it 
was  suspended  by  a  truce.  In  1377,  Edward 
III.  died,  and  the  French  king  began  war  again 
with  great  success.  Within  three  years  he  ex- 
pelled the  English  from  every  part  of  France 
except  Bayonne,  Bordeaux,  Brest,  Cherbourg 
and  Calais. 

If  he  had  lived  a  little  longer,  there  might  soon 
have  been  an  end  of  the  war.     But  he  died  in 


1065 


EUROPE. 


Burgundian^  and 
AiTtiagnac^. 


EUROPE. 


1380,  and   fresh  calamities  fell   upon  unhappy 
France. 

Rising  Power  of  Burgundy. 

The  son  who  succeeded  him,  Charles  VI., 
was  an  epileptic  boy  of  twelve  years,  who  liad 
three  greedy  and  selfish  uncles  to  quarrel  over 
the  control  of  him,  and  to  plunder  the  Crown  of 
territory  and  treasures.  One  of  these  was  tlie 
Duke  of  Burgundy,  the  first  prince  of  a  new 
great  house  which  King  John  had  foolishly 
created.  Just  before  that  fatuous  liing  died, 
the  old  line  of  Burgundian  dukes  came  to  an  end, 
and  he  had  the  opportunity,  which  wise  kings 
before  him  would  have  improved  very  eagerly, 
to  annex  that  fief  to  the  crown.  Instead  of  doing 
so,  he  gave  it  as  an  appanage  to  his  son  Philip, 
called  "the  Bold,"  and  thus  rooted  anew  plant 
of  feudalism  in  France  which  was  destined  to 
cause  much  trouble.  Another  of  the  uncles  was 
Louis,  Duke  of  Anjou,  heir  to  the  crown  of 
Naples  under  a  will  of  the  lately  murdered 
Queen  Joanna,  and  who  was  preparing  for  an 
expedition  to  enforce  his  claim.  The  third  was 
Duke  of  Berry,  upon  whom  his  father.  King 
John,  had  conferred  another  great  appanage,  in- 
cluding Berry,  Poitou  and  Auvergne. 

The  pillage  and  misgovernraent  of  the  realm 
under  these  rapacious  guardians  of  the  young 
king  was  so  great  that  desperate  risings  were 
provoked,  the  most  formidable  of  which  broke 
out  in  Paris.  They  were  all  suppressed,  and 
with  merciless  severity.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Flemings,  who  had  again  submitted  to  their 
count,  revolted  once  more,  under  the  lead  of 
Philip  van  Arteveld,  son  of  their  f onner  leader. 
The  French  moved  an  army  to  the  assistance  of 
the  Count  of  Flanders,  and  the  sturdy  men  of 
Ghent,  who  confronted  it  almost  alone,  suffered 
a  crushing  defeat  at  Roosebeke  (1382).  Philip 
van  Arteveld  fell  in  the  battle,  with  twenty-si.\ 
thousand  of  his  men.  Two  years  later,  the 
Count  of  Flanders  died,  and  the  Duke  of  Bur- 
gundy, who  had  married  his  daughter,  acquired 
that  rich  and  noble  possession.  This  beginning 
of  the  union  of  Burgundy  and  the  Netherlands, 
creating  a  power  by  the  side  of  the  throne  of 
France  which  threatened  to  overshadow  it,  and 
having  for  its  ultimate  consequence  the  casting 
of  the  wealth  of  the  Low  Countries  into  the  lap 
of  the  House  of  Austria  and  into  the  coffers  of 
Spain,  is  an  event  of  large  importance  in  Euro- 
pean history. 

Burgundians  and  Armagnacs, 

AVhen  Charles  VI.  came  of  age,  he  took  the  gov- 
ernment into  his  own  hands,  and  for  some  years 
it  was  administered  by  capable  men.  But  in 
1393  the  king's  mind  gave  way,  and  his  uncles 
regained  control  of  affairs.  Philip  of  Burgundy 
maintained  the  ascendancy  until  his  death,  in 
1404.  Then  the  controlling  influence  passed  to 
the  king's  brother,  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  between 
whom  and  the  new  Duke  of  Burgundy,  John, 
called  the  Fearless,  a  bitter  feud  arose.  John, 
who  was  unscrupulous,  employed  assassins  to 
waylay  and  murder  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  which 
they  did  in  November,  1407.  This  foul  deed 
gave  rise  to  two  parties  in  France.  Those  who 
sought  vengeance  ranged  themselves  under  the 
leadership  of  the  Count  of  Armagnac,  and  were 
called  by  his  name.  The  Burgundians,  who 
sustained  Duke  John,  were  in  the  main  a  party 
of  the  people ;  for  the  Duke  had  cultivated  pop- 


ularity, especially  in  Paris,  by  advocating  liberal 
measures  and  extending  the  rights  and  priv- 
ileges of  the  citizens. 

The  kingdom  was  kept  in  turmoil  and  terror 
for  years  by  the  war  of  these  factions,  especially 
in  and  about  Paris,  where  the  guild  of  the 
butchers  took  a  prominent  part  in  affairs,  on  the 
Burgundian  side,  arming  a  riotous  body  of  men 
who  were  called  Cabochiens,  from  their  leader's 
name.  In  1413  the  Armagnacs  succeeded  in  re- 
covering possession  of  the  capital  and  the  Cabo- 
chiens were  suppressed. 

Second  Stage  of  the  Hundred  Years  War. 

Meantime,  Henry  V.  of  England,  the  ambi- 
tious young  Lancastrian  king  who  came  to  the 
throne  of  tliat  country  in  1413,  saw  a  favorable 
opportunity,  in  the  distracted  state  of  France,  to 
reopen  the  questions  left  unsettled  by  the  break- 
ing of  the  treaty  of  Bretigny.  He  invaded 
France  in  1415,  as  the  rightful  king  coming  to 
dethrone  a  usurper,  and  began  by  taking  Har- 
fleur  at  the  mouth  of  the  Seine,  after  a  siege 
which  cost  him  so  heavily  that  he  found  it  pru- 
dent to  retreat  towards  Calais.  The  French  in- 
tercepted him  at  Agincourt  and  forced  him  to 
give  them  battle.  He  liad  only  twenty  thousand 
men,  but  they  formed  a  well  disciplined  and  well 
ordered  army.  The  French  had  gathered  eighty 
thousand  men,  but  they  were  a  feudal  mob.  The 
battle  ended,  like  those  of  Crecy  and  Poitiers,  in 
the  routing  and  slaughter  of  the  French,  with 
small  loss  to  Henry's  force.  His  army  remained 
too  weak  in  numbers,  however,  for  operations  in 
a  hostile  country,  and  the  English  king  returned 
home,  with  a  great  train  of  captive  princes  and 
lords. 

He  left  the  Armagnacs  and  Burgundians  still 
fighting  one  another,  and  disabling  France  as 
effectually  as  he  could  do  if  he  stayed  to  ravage 
the  land.  In  1417  he  came  back  and  began  to 
attack  the  strong  cities  of  Normandy,  one  by 
one,  taking  Caen  first.  In  the  next  year,  by  a 
horrible  massacre,  the  Burgundian  mob  in  Paris 
overcame  the  Armagnacs  there,  and  reinstated 
Duke  John  of  Burgundy  in  possession  of  the 
capital.  The  latter  was  already  in  negotiation 
with  the  English  king,  and  evidently  prepared 
to  sacrifice  the  kingdom  for  whatever  might 
seem  advantageous  to  himself.  But  in  1419' 
Henry  V.  took  Rouen,  and,  when  all  of  Nor- 
mandy submitted  with  its  capital,  he  demanded 
nothing  less  than  that  great  province,  with  Brit- 
tany, Guienne,  Maine,  Anjou  and  Touraine  in 
addition,  —  or,  substantially,  the  western  half  of 
France. 

Burgundian  and  English  Alliance. 

Parleyings  were  brought  to  an  end  in  Septem- 
ber of  that  year  by  the  treacherous  murder  of 
Duke  John.  The  Armagnacs  slew  him  foully, 
at  an  interview  to  which  he  had  been  enticed,  on 
the  bridge  of  Montereau.  His  son,  Duke  Philip 
of  Burgundy,  now  reopened  negotiations  with 
the  invader,  in  conjunction  with  Queen  Isabella 
(wife  of  the  demented  king),  who  had  played  an 
evil  part  in  all  the  factious  troubles  of  the  time. 
These  two,  having  control  of  the  king's  person, 
concluded  a  treaty  with  Henry  V.  at  Troyes, 
according  to  the  terms  of  which  Henry  should 
marry  the  king's  daughter  Catherine ;  should  be 
administrator  of  the  kingdom  of  France  while 
Charles  VI.  lived,  and  should  receive  the  crowa 


1066 


EUROPE. 


The  Maid  of 
Orleans. 


EUROPE. 


when  the  latter  died.  The  marriage  took  place 
at  once,  and  almost  the  whole  of  France  north 
of  the  Loire  seemed  submissive  to  the  arrange- 
ment. The  States- General  and  the  Parliament 
of  Paris  gave  official  recognition  to  it ;  the  disin- 
herited dauphin  of  France,  whose  own  mother 
had  signed  away  his  regal  heritage,  retired,  with 
his  Armagnac  supporters,  to  the  country  south 
of  the  Loire,  and  had  little  apparent  prospect  of 
holding  even  that. 

Two  Kings  in  France. 

But  a  mortal  malady  had  already  stricken 
King  Henry  v.,  and  he  died  in  August,  1432. 
The  unfortunate,  rarely  conscious  French  king, 
whose  crown  Henry  had  waited  for,  died  seven 
weeks  later.  Each  left  an  heir  who  was  pro- 
claimed king  of  France.  The  English  pretender 
(Henry  VL  in  England,  Henry  II.  in  France) 
was  an  innocent  infant,  ten  months  old ;  but  his 
court  was  in  Paris,  his  accession  was  proclaimed 
with  due  ceremony  at  St.  Denis,  his  sovereignty 
was  recognized  by  the  Parliament  and  the  Uni- 
versity of  that  city,  and  the  half  of  France 
appeared  resigned  to  the  lapse  of  nationality 
which  its  acceptance  of  him  signified.  The  true 
heir  of  the  royal  house  of  France  (Charles  VIL) 
was  a  young  man  of  nearly  mature  age  and  of 
fairly  promising  character;  but  he  was  pro- 
claimed in  a  little  town  of  Berry,  by  a  small 
following  of  lords  and  knights,  and  the  nation 
for  which  he  stood  hardly  seemed  to  exist. 

The  English  supporters  of  the  English  king  of 
France  were  too  arrogant  and  overbearing  to  re- 
tain very  long  the  good  will  of  their  allies  among 
the  French  people.  Something  like  a  national 
feeling  in  northern  France  was  aroused  by  the 
hostility  they  provoked,  and  the  strength  of  the 
position  in  which  Henry  V.  left  them  was  steadily 
but  slowly  lost.  Charles  proved  incapable,  how- 
ever, of  using  any  advantages  which  opened  to 
him,  or  of  giving  his  better  counsellors  an  op- 
portunity to  serve  him  with  good  effect,  and  no 
important  change  took  place  in  the  situation  of 
affairs  until  the  English  laid  siege,  in  1428,  to 
the  city  of  Orleans,  which  was  the  stronghold  of 
the  French  cause. 

Jeanne  d'Arc,  the  Maid  of  Orleans. 

Then  occurred  one  of  the  most  extraordinary 
episodes  in  history :  the  appearance  of  the  young 
peasant  girl  of  Lorraine,  Jeanne  d'Arc,  whose 
coming  upon  the  scene  of  war  was  like  the  de- 
scent of  an  angel  out  of  Heaven,  sent  with  a 
Divine  commission  to  rescue  France.  Belief  in 
the  inspiration  of  this  simple  maiden,  who  had 
faith  in  her  own  visions  and  voices,  was  easier 
for  that  age  than  belief  in  a  rational  rally  of 
public  energies,  and  it  worked  like  a  miracle  on 
the  spirit  of  the  nation.  But  it  could  not  have 
done  so  with  effect  if  the  untaught  country  girl 
of  Domremy  had  not  been  endowed  in  a  wonder- 
ful way,  with  a  wise  mind,  as  well  as  with  an 
imaginative  one,  and  with  courage  as  well  as 
with  faith.  When  the  belief  in  her  inspired  mis- 
sion gave  her  power  to  lead  the  foolish  king,  and 
authority  to  command  his  disorderly  troops,  she 
acted  almost  invariably  with  understanding,  with 
good  sense,  with  a  clear,  unclouded  judgment, 
with  straightforward  singleness  of  purpose,  and 
with  absolute  personal  fearlessness.  She  saw 
the  necessity  for  saving  Orleans;  and  when  that 
had  been  done  under  her  own  captaincy  (1439), 


she  saw  how  greatly  King  Charles  would  gain  in 
prestige  if  he  made  his  way  to  Rheims,  and  re- 
ceived, like  his  predecessors,  a  solemn  coronation 
and  consecration  in  the  cathedral  of  that  city. 
It  was  by  force  of  her  gentle  obstinacy  of  de- 
termination that  this  was  done,  and  the  effect 
vindicated  the  sagacity  of  the  Maid.  Then  she 
looked  upon  her  mission  as  accomplished,  and 
would  have  gone  quietly  home  to  her  village ;  for 
she  seems  to  have  remained  as  simple  in  feeling  as 
when  she  left  her  father's  house,  and  was  inno- 
cent to  the  end  of  any  selfish  pleasure  in  the 
fame  she  had  won  and  the  importance  she  had 
acquired.  But  those  she  had  helped  would  not 
let  her  go ;  and  yet  they  would  not  be  guided  by 
her  without  wrangle  and  resistance.  She  wished 
to  move  the  army  straight  from  Rheims  to  Paris, 
and  enter  that  city  before  it  had  time  to  recover 
from  the  consternation  it  was  in.  But  other 
counsellors  retarded  the  march,  by  stopping  to 
capture  small  towns  on  the  way,  until  the  op- 
portunity for  taking  Paris  was  lost.  The  king, 
who  had  been  braced  up  to  a  little  energy  by  her 
influence,  sank  back  into  his  indolent  pleasures, 
and  faction  and  frivolity  possessed  the  court 
again.  Jeanne  strove  with  high  courage  against 
malignant  opposition  and  many  disheartenments, 
in  the  siege  of  Paris  and  after,  exposing  herself 
in  battle  with  the  bravery  of  a  seasoned  warrior ; 
and  her  reward  was  to  find  herself  abandoned  at 
last,  in  a  cowardly  way,  to  the  enemy,  when  she 
had  led  a  sortie  from  the  town  of  Compifigne,  to 
drive  back  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  who  was  be- 
sieging it.  Taken  prisoner,  she  was  given  up  to 
the  Duke,  and  sold  by  him  to  the  English  at 
Rouen. 

That  the  Maid  acted  with  supernatural  powers 
was  believed  by  the  English  as  firmly  as  by  the 
French ;  but  those  powers,  in  their  belief,  came, 
not  from  Heaven,  but  from  Hell.  In  their  view 
she  was  not  a  saint,  but  a  sorceress.  They  paid 
a  high  price  to  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  for  his 
captive,  in  order  to  put  her  on  trial  for  the  witch- 
craft which  they  held  she  had  practised  against 
them,  and  to  destroy  her  mischievous  power.  No 
consideration  for  her  sex,  or  her  youth,  or  for  the 
beauty  and  purity  of  character  that  is  revealed  in 
all  the  accounts  of  her  trial,  moved  her  judges  to 
compassion.  They  condemned  her  remorselessly 
to  the  stake,  and  she  was  burned  on  the  31st  of 
May,  1431,  with  no  effort  put  forth  on  the  part 
of  the  French  or  their  ungrateful  king  to  save 
her  from  that  horrible  fate. 

End  of  the  Hundred  Years  War. 

After  this,  things  went  badlj^vith  the  English, 
though  some  years  passed  before  Charles  VIL 
was  roused  again  to  any  display  of  capable  pow- 
ers. At  last,  in  1435,  a  general  conference  of  all 
parties  in  the  war  was  brought  about  at  Arras. 
The  English  were  offered  Normandy  and  Aqui- 
taine  in  full  sovereignty,  but  they  refused  it,  and 
withdrew  from  the  conference  when  greater  con- 
cessions were  denied  to  them.  The  Duke  of 
Burgundy  then  made  terms  with  King  Charles, 
abandoning  the  English  alliance,  and  obtaining 
satisfaction  for  the  murder  of  his  father.  Charles 
was  now  able,  for  the  first  time  in  his  reign,  to 
enter  the  capital  of  his  kingdom  (May,  1436),  and  it 
is  said  that  he  found  it  so  wasted  by  a  pestilence 
and  so  ruined  and  deserted,  that  wolves  came  into 
the  city,  and  that  forty  persons  were  devoured 
by  them  in  a  single  week,  some  two  years  later. 


1067 


EUROPE. 


England  during 
the  loar  in  Et-ajice. 


EUROPE. 


Charles  now  began  to  show  better  qualities 
than  had  aijpeared  in  his  character  before.  He 
adopted  strong  measures  to  suppress  the  bands 
of  marauders  who  harassed  and  wasted  the 
country,  and  to  bring  all  armed  forces  in  the 
kingdom  under  the  control  and  command  of  the 
Crown.  He  began  the  creation  of  a  disciplined 
and  regulated  militia  in  France.  He  called  into 
his  service  the  greatest  French  merchant  of  the 
day,  Jacques  Coeur,  who  successfully  reorgan- 
ized the  finances  of  the  state,  and  whose  reward, 
after  a  few  years,  was  to  be  prosecuted  and 
plundered  by  malignant  courtiers,  while  the  king 
looked  passively  on,  as  he  had  looked  on  at  the 
trial  and  execution  of  Jeanne  d'Arc. 

In  1449,  a  fresh  attack  upon  the  English  in 
Normandy  was  begun ;  and  as  civil  war  —  the 
War  of  the  Roses  —  was  then  at  the  point  of  out- 
break in  England,  they  could  make  no  effective 
resistance.  Within  a  year,  the  whole  of  Nor- 
mandy had  become  obedient  again  to  the  rule  of 
the  king  of  France.  In  two  years  more  Guienne 
had  been  recovered,  and  when,  in  October,  1453, 
the  French  king  entered  Bordeaux,  the  English 
had  been  finally  expelled  from  every  foot  of  the 
realm  except  Calais  and  its  near  neighborhood. 
The  Hundred  Years  War  was  at  an  end. 

England  under  Edward  III. 

The  century  of  the  Hundred  Years  War  had 
been,  in  England,  one  of  few  conspicuous  events ; 
and  when  the  romantic  tale  of  that  war  —  the  last 
sanguinary  romance  of  expiring  Chivalry  —  is 
taken  out  of  the  English  annals  of  the  time,  there 
is  not  much  left  that  looks  interesting  on  the  sur- 
face of  things.  Below  the  surface  there  are 
movements  of  no  little  importance  to  be  found. 

When  Edward  III.  put  forward  his  claim  to 
the  crown  of  France,  and  prepared  to  make  it 
good  by  force  of  arms,  the  English  nation  had 
absolutely  no  interest  of  its  own  in  the  enter- 
prise, from  which  it  could  derive  no  possible  ad- 
vantage, but  which  did,  on  the  contrary,  promise 
harm  to  it,  very  plainly,  whatever  might  be  the 
result.  If  the  king  succeeded,  his  English  realm 
would  become  a  mere  minor  appendage  to  a  far 
more  imposing  continental  dominion,  and  he  and 
his  successors  might  easily  acquire  a  power  in- 
dependent and  absolute,  over  their  subjects.  If 
he  failed,  the  humiliation  of  failure  would  wound 
the  pride  and  the  prestige  of  the  nation,  while  its 
resources  would  have  been  drained  for  naught. 
But  these  rational  considerations  did  not  suffice 
to  breed  any  discoverable  opposition  to  King 
Edward's  ambitious  undertaking.  The  Parlia- 
ment gave  sanction  to  it;  most  probably  the 
people  at  large  approved,  witli  exultant  expec- 
tations of  national  glory ;  and  when  Crecy  and 
Poitiers,  with  victories  over  the  hostile  Scots,  filled 
the  measure  of  England's  glory  to  overflow- 
ing, they  were  intoxicated  by  it,  and  had  little 
thought  then  of  the  cost  or  the  consequences. 

But  long  before  Edward's  reign  came  to  an  end, 
the  splendid  pageantries  of  the  war  had  passed 
out  of  sight,  and  a  new  generation  was  looking 
at,  and  was  suffering  from,  the  miseries  and  mor- 
tifications that  came  in  its  train.  The  attempt  to 
conquer  France  had  failed ;  the  fruits  of  the  vic- 
tories of  Crecy  and  Poitiers  had  been  lost;  even 
Guienne,  whicli  had  been  English  ground  since 
the  days  of  Henry  II.,  was  mostly  given  up. 
And  England  was  weak  from  the  drain  of  money 
and  men  which  the  war  had  caused.     The  awful 


plague  of  the  14th  century,  the  Black  Death, 
had  smitten  her  people  hard  and  left  diminished 
numbers  to  bear  the  burden.  There  had  been 
famine  in  the  land,  and  grievous  distress,  and 
much  sorrow. 

But  the  calamities  of  this  bitter  time  wrought 
beneficent  effects,  which  no  man  then  living  is 
likely  to  have  clearly  understood.  By  plague, 
famine  and  battle,  labor  was  made  scarce,  wages 
were  raised,  the  half -enslaved  laborer  was  speed- 
ily emancipated,  despite  the  efforts  of  Parlia- 
ment to  keep  him  in  bonds,  and  land-owners 
were  forced  to  let  their  lands  to  tenant-farmers, 
who  strengthened  the  English  middle-class.  By 
the  demands  of  the  war  for  money  and  men,  the 
king  was  held  more  in  dependence  on  Parliament 
than  he  might  otherwise  have  been,  and  the 
plant  of  constitutional  government,  which  began 
its  growth  in  the  previous  century,  took  deeper 
root. 

In  the  last  years  of  his  life  Edward  III.  lost 
all  of  his  vigor,  and  fell  under  the  influence  of  a 
woman,  Alice  Ferrers,  who  wronged  and  scan- 
dalized the  nation.  The  king's  eldest  son,  the 
Black  Prince,  was  slowly  dying  of  an  incurable 
disease,  and  took  little  part  in  affairs ;  when  he 
Interfered,  it  seems  to  have  been  with  some 
leanings  to  the  popular  side.  The  next  in  age  of 
the  livmg  sons  of  Edward  was  a  turbulent,  proud, 
self-seekmg  prince,  who  gave  England  much 
trouble  and  was  hated  profoundly.  This  was 
John,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  called  John  of  Gaunt, 
or  Ghent,  because  of  his  birth  in  that  city. 

England  under  Richard  II. 

The  Black  Prince,  dying  in  1376,  left  a  young 
son,  Richard,  then  ten  years  old,  who  was  imme- 
diately recognized  as  the  heir  to  the  throne,  and 
who  succeeded  to  it  in  the  following  year,  when 
Edward  III.  died.  The  Duke  of  Lancaster  had 
been  suspected  of  a  design  to  set  Richard  aside 
and  claim  the  crown  for  himself.  But  he  did  not 
venture  the  attempt ;  nor  was  he  able  to  secure 
even  the  regency  of  the  kingdom  during  the 
young  king's  minority.  The  distrust  of  him  was 
so  general  that  Parliament  and  the  lords  pre- 
ferred to  invest  Richard  with  full  sovereignty 
even  in  his  boyhood.  But  John  of  Gaunt,  not- 
withstanding these  endeavors  to  exclude  him 
from  any  place  of  authority,  contrived  to  attain 
a  substantial  mastery  of  the  government,  man- 
aging the  war  in  France  and  the  expenditure  of 
public  moneys  in  his  own  way,  and  managing 
them  very  badly.  At  least,  he  was  held  chiefly 
responsible  for  what  was  bad,  and  his  name  was 
heard  oftenest  in  the  mutterings  of  popular 
discontent.  The  peasants  were  now  growing 
very  impatient  of  the  last  fetters  of  villeinage 
which  they  wore,  and  very  conscious  of  their 
right  to  complete  freedom.  Tliose  feelings  were 
strongly  stirred  in  them  by  a  heavy  poll-tax 
which  Parliament  levied  in  1381.  "The  conse- 
quence was  an  outbreak  of  insurrection,  led  by 
one  Wat  the  Tyler,  which  became  formidable 
and  dangerous.  The  insurgents  began  by  making 
everybody  they  encountered  swear  to  be  true  to 
King  Richard,  and  to  submit  to  no  king  named 
John,  meaning  John  of  Gaunt.  They  increased 
in  numbers  and  boldness  until  they  entered  and 
took  possession  of  the  city  of  London,  where 
they  beheaded  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  other  obnoxious  persons ;  but  permitted  no 
thieving  to  be  done.     'The  day  after  this  occurred, 


1068 


EUROPE. 


Wat  Tyler  and 
Wyclif. 


EUROPE. 


Wat  Tyler  met  the  young  king  at  Smithfleld,  for 
a  conference,  and  was  suddenly  killed  by  one  of 
those  who  attended  tlie  king.  The  e.xcuse  made 
for  the  deed  was  some  word  of  insolence  on  the 
part  of  the  insurgent  leader ;  but  there  is  every 
appearance  of  a  foul  act  of  treachery  in  the  affair. 
Richard  on  this  occasion  behaved  boldly  and 
with  much  presence  of  mind,  acquiring  by  his 
courage  and  readiness  a  command  over  the  angry 
rebels,  which  resulted  in  their  dispersion. 

The  Wat  Tyler  rebellion  appears  to  have 
manifested  a  more  radically  democratic  state  of 
thinking  and  feeling  among  the  common  people 
than  existed  again  in  England  before  the  seven- 
teenth century.  John  Ball,  a  priest,  and  others 
who  were  associated  with  Wat  Tyler  in  the 
leadership,  preached  doctrines  of  social  equality 
that  would  nearly  have  satisfied  a.  Jacobin  of  the 
French  Revolution. 

This  temper  of  political  radicalism  had  no  ap- 
parent connection  with  the  remarkable  religious 
feeling  of  the  time,  which  the  great  reformer, 
Wyclif,  had  aroused ;  }'et  the  two  movements  of 
the  English  mind  were  undoubtedly  started  by 
one  and  the  same  revolutionary  shock,  which  it 
took  from  the  grave  alarms  and  an.xieties  of  the 
age,  and  for  which  it  had  been  prepared  by  the 
awakening  of  the  previous  century.  Wyclif  was 
the  first  English  Puritan,  and  more  of  the  spirit 
of  the  reformation  of  religion  which  he  sought, 
than  the  spirit  of  Luther's  reformation,  went  into 
the  Protestantism  that  ultimately  took  form  in 
England.  The  movement  he  stirred  was  a  more 
wonderful  anticipation  of  the  religious  revolt  of 
the  sixteenth  century  than  any  other  which  oc- 
curred in  Europe ;  for  that  of  Huss  in  Bohemia 
took  its  impulse  from  Wyclif  and  the  English 
Lollards,  as  AVyclif's  followers  were  called. 

Richard  was  a  weak  but  wilful  king,  and  the 
kingdom  was  kept  in  trouble  by  his  fitful  at- 
tempts at  independence  and  arbitrary  rule.  He 
made  enemies  of  most  of  the  great  lords,  and  lost 
the  good  will  and  confidence  of  Parliament.  He 
did  what  was  looked  upon  as  a  great  wrong  to 
Henry  of  Bolingbroke,  son  of  John  of  Gaunt,  by 
banishing  both  him  and  the  Duke  of  Norfolk 
from  the  kingdom,  when  he  should  have  judged 
between  them ;  and  he  made  the  wrong  greater  by 
seizing  the  lands  of  the  Lancastrian  house  when 
John  of  Gaunt  died.  This  caused  his  ruin. 
Henry  of  Bolingbroke,  now  Duke  of  Lancaster, 
came  back  to  England  (1399),  encouraged  by  the 
discontent  in  the  kingdom,  and  was  immediately 
joined  by  so  many  adherents  that  Richard  could 
offer  little  resistance.  He  was  deposed  by  act  of 
Parliament,  and  the  Duke  of  Lancaster  (a  grand- 
son of  Edward  IIL,  as  Richard  was),  was  elected 
to  the  throne,  which  he  ascended  as  Henry  IV. 
By  judgment  of  King  and  Parliament,  Richard 
was  presently  condemned  to  imprisonment  for 
life  in  Pomtret  Castle ;  and,  early  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  after  a  conspiracy  in  his  favor  had 
been  discovered,  he  died  mysteriously  in  his 
prison. 

England  Under  Henry  IV. 

The  reign  of  Henry  IV. ,  which  lasted  a  little 
more  than  thirteen  years,  was  troubled  by  risings 
and  conspiracies,  all  originating  among  the  nobles, 
out  of  causes  purely  personal  or  factious,  and 
having  no  real  political  significance.  But  no 
events  in  English  history  are  more  commonly 
familiar,  or  seem  to  be  invested  with  a  higher 


importance,  than  the  rebellions  of  Owen  Glen- 
dower  and  the  Percys, — Northumberland  and 
Harry  Hotspur, — simply  because  Shakespeare 
has  laid  his  magic  upon  what  otherwise  would 
be  a  story  of  little  note.  Wars  with  the  always 
hostile  Scots  supplied  other  stirring  incidents  to 
the  record  of  the  time ;  but  these  came  to  a  sum- 
mary end  in  1405,  when  the  crown  prince,  James, 
of  Scotland,  voyaging  to  France,  was  driven  by 
foul  winds  to  the  English  coast  and  taken  pris- 
oner. The  prince's  father,  King  Robert,  died  on 
hearing  the  news,  and  James,  the  captive,  was 
now  entitled  to  be  king.  But  the  English  held 
him  for  eighteen  years,  treating  him  as  a  guest 
at  their  court,  rather  than  as  a  prisoner,  and 
educating  him  with  care,  but  withholding  him 
from  his  kingdom. 

To  strengthen  his  precarious  seat  upon  the 
throne,  Henry  cultivated  the  friendship  of  the 
Church,  and  seems  to  have  found  this  course 
expedient,  even  at  considerable  cost  to  his  popu- 
laritj'.  For  the  attitude  of  the  commons  towards 
the  Church  during  his  reign  was  anything  but 
friendly.  They  went  so  far  as  to  pass  a  bill 
for  the  confiscation  of  Church  property,  which 
the  Lords  rejected;  and  they  seem  to  have  re- 
pented of  an  Act  passed  early  in  his  reign, 
under  which  a  cruel  persecution  of  the  Lollards 
was  begun.  The  clergy  and  the  Lords,  with  the 
favor  of  the  king,  maintained  the  barbarous  law, 
and  England  for  the  first  time  saw  men  burned 
at  the  stake  for  heresy. 

England  Under  Henry  V.  and  Henry  VI. 

Henry  IV.  died  in  1413,  and  was  succeeded  by 
his  spirited  and  able,  but  too  ambitious  son, 
Henry  V.,  the  Prince  Hal  of  Shakespeare,  who 
gave  up  riotous  living  when  called  to  the  grave 
duties  of  government  and  showed  himself  to  be 
a  man  of  no  common  mould.  The  war  in  France, 
which  he  renewed,  and  the  chief  events  of  which 
have  been  sketched  already,  filled  up  most  of 
his  brief  reign  of  nine  years.  His  early  death 
(1423)  left  two  crowns  to  an  infant  nine  months 
old.  The  English  crown  was  not  disputed.  The 
French  crown,  though  practically  won  by  con- 
quest, was  not  permanently  secured,  but  was 
still  to  be  fought  for;  and  in  the  end,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  was  lost.  No  more  need  be  said  of  the 
incidents  of  the  war  which  had  that  result. 

The  infant  king  was  represented  in  France  by 
his  elder  uncle,  the  Duke  of  Bedford.  In  Eng- 
land, the  government  was  carried  on  for  him 
during  his  minority  by  a  council,  in  which  his 
younger  uncle,  Humphrey,  Duke  of  Gloucester, 
occupied  the  chief  place,  but  with  powers  that 
were  jealously  restricted.  While  the  war  in 
Prance  lasted,  or  during  most  of  the  thirty-one 
years  through  which  it  was  protracted  after 
Henry  V.'s  death,  it  engrossed  the  English  mind 
and  overshadowed  domestic  interests,  so  that  the 
time  has  a  meagre  history. 

Soon  after  he  came  of  age,  Henry  VI.  married 
(1444)  Margaret  of  Anjou,  daughter  of  Rene, 
Duke  of  Anjou,  who  claimed  to  be  King  of 
Naples  and  Jerusalem.  The  marriage,  which 
aimed  at  peace  with  France,  and  which  had  been 
brought  about  by  the  cession  to  that  country  of 
Maine  and  Anjou,  was  unpopular  in  England. 
Discontent  with  the  feeble  management  of  the 
war,  and  with  the  general  weakness  and  incapa- 
bility of  the  government,  grew  apace,  and 
showed    itself,   among    other  exhibitions,  in  a 


1069 


EUROPE. 


Wars  of  the  Roses 
and  their  effects. 


EUROPE. 


rebellion  (1450)  known  as  Jack  Cade's,  from  the 
name  of  an  Irishman  who  got  the  lead  of  it. 
Jack  Cade  and  his  followers  took  possession  of 
London  and  held  it  for  three  days,  only  yielding 
at  last  to  an  offer  of  general  pardon,  after  they 
had  beheaded  Lord  Say,  the  most  obnoxious  ad- 
viser of  the  king.  A  previous  mob  had  taken 
the  head  of  the  Earl  of  Suffolk,  who  was  detested 
still  more  as  the  contriver  of  the  king's  marriage 
and  of  the  humiliating  policy  in  France. 

The  Wars  of  the  Roses. 

At  length,  the  Duke  of  York,  representing  an 
elder  line  of  royal  descent  from  Edward  IIL, 
took  the  lead  of"  the  discontented  in  the  nation, 
and  civil  war  was  imminent  in  1452 ;  but  pacific 
counsels  prevailed  for  the  moment.  The  king, 
who  had  always  been  weak-minded,  and  entireljf 
under  the  influence  of  the  queen,  now  sank  for 
a  time  into  a  state  of  complete  stupor,  and  was 
incapable  of  any  act.  The  Lords  in  Parliament 
thereupon  appointed  the  Duke  of  York  Protector 
of  England,  and  the  government  was  vigorously 
conducted  by  him  for  a  few  months,  until  the 
king  recovered.  The  queen,  and  the  councillors 
she  favored,  now  regained  their  control  of  affairs, 
and  the  opposition  took  arms. 

The  long  series  of  fierce  struggles  between 
these  two  parties,  which  is  commonly  called  the 
Wars  of  the  Roses,  began  on  the  23d  of  ^lay, 
1455,  with  a  battle  at  St.  Albans  —  the  first  of 
two  that  were  fought  on  the  same  ground.  At 
the  beginning,  it  was  a  contest  for  the  possession 
of  the  unfortunate,  irresponsible  king,  and  of  the 
royal  authority  which  resided  nominally  in  his 
person.  But  it  became,  ere  long,  a  contest  for 
the  crown  which  Henry  wore,  and  to  which  the 
Duke  of  York  denied  his  right.  The  Duke 
traced  his  ancestry  to  one  son  of  Edward  IIL, 
and  King  Henry  to  another  son.  But  the  Duke's 
forefather,  Lionel,  was  prior  in  birth  to  the 
King's  forefather,  John  of  Gaunt,  and,  as  an 
original  proposition,  the  House  of  York  was 
clearly  nearer  than  the  House  of  Lancaster  to 
the  royal  line  which  had  been  interrupted  when 
Richard  II.  was  deposed.  The  rights  of  the 
latter  House  were  such  as  it  had  gained  prescrip- 
tively  by  half  a  century  of  possession. 

At  one  time  it  was  decided  by  the  Lords  that 
Henry  should  be  king  until  he  died,  and  that  tlie 
Duke  of  York  and  his  heirs  should  succeed  him. 
But  Queen  Margaret  would  not  yield  the  rights 
of  her  son,  and  renewed  the  war.  The  Duke  of 
York  was  killed  in  the  next  battle  fought.  His 
son,  Edward,  continued  the  contest,  and  early 
in  1461,  having  taken  possession  of  London,  he 
was  declared  king  by  a  council  of  Lords,  which 
formally  deposed  Henry.  The  Lancastrians  were 
driven  from  the  kingdom,  and  Edward  held  the 
government  with  little  disturbance  for  eight 
years.  Then  a  rupture  occurred  between  him 
and  his  most  powerful  supporter,  the  Earl  of 
"Warwick,  Warwick  put  himself  at  the  head  of 
a  rebellion  which  failed  in  the  first  instance,  but 
which  finally,  when  Warwick  had  joined  forces 
with  Queen  Margaret,  drove  Edward  to  flight. 
The  latter  took  refuge  in  the  Netherlands  (1470), 
where  he  received  protection  and  assistance  from 
the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  who  was  his  brother-in- 
law.  Henry  VI.  was  now  restored  to  the  throne ; 
but  for  no  longer  a  time  than  six  months.  At 
the  end  of  that  period  Edward  landed  again  in 
England,  with  a  small  force,  professing  that  he 


came  only  to  demand  his  dukedom.  As  soon  as 
he  found  himself  well  received  and  strongly  sup- 
ported, he  threw  off  the  mask,  resumed  the  title 
of  king,  and  advanced  to  London,  where  the 
citizens  gave  him  welcome.  A  few  days  later 
(April  14,  1471)  he  went  out  to  meet  Warwick 
and  defeated  and  .slew  him  in  the  fierce  battle  of 
Barnet.  One  more  fight  at  Tewkesbury,  where 
Queen  Margaret  was  taken  prisoner,  ended  the 
war.  King  Henry  died,  suspiciously,  in  the 
Tower,  on  the  very  night  of  his  victorious  rival's 
return  to  London,  and  Edward  IV.  had  all  his 
enemies  under  his  feet. 

England  under  the  House  of  York. 

For  a  few  years  England  enjoyed  peace  within 
her  borders,  «nd  the  material  cifects  of  the  pro- 
tracted civil  wars  were  rapidly  efliaced.  Indeed, 
the  greater  part  of  England  appears  to  have  been 
lightly  touched  by  those  effects.  The  people  at 
large  had  taken  little  part  in  the  conflict,  and 
had  been  less  disturbed  by  it,  in  their  industries 
and  in  their  commerce,  than  miglit  have  been  ex- 
pected. It  had  been  a  strife  among  the  great 
families,  enlisting  the  gentry  to  a  large  extent, 
no  doubt,  but  not  the  middle  class.  Hence  its 
chief  consequence  had  been  the  thinning  and 
weakening  of  the  aristocratic  order,  which  rela- 
tively enhanced  the  political  importance  of  the 
commons.  But  the  commons  were  not  yet  trained 
to  act  independently  in  political  affairs.  Their 
rise  in  power  had  been  through  joint  action  of 
lords  and  commons  against  the  Crown,  with  the 
former  in  the  lead ;  they  were  accustomed  to  de- 
pend on  aristocratic  guidance,  and  to  lean  on 
aristocratic  support.  For  this  reason,  they  were 
not  only  unprepared  to  take  advantage  of  the 
great  opportunity  which  now  opened  to  them, 
for  decisively  grasping  the  control  of  govern- 
ment, but  they  were  unfitted  to  hold  what  they 
had  previously  won,  without  the  help  of  the 
class  above  them.  As  a  consequence,  it  was  the 
king  who  profited  by  the  decimation  and  im- 
poverishment of  the  nobles,  grasping  not  only 
the  power  which  they  lost,  but  the  power  which 
the  commons  lacked  skill  to  use.  For  a  century 
and  a  half  following  the  Wars  of  the  Roses,  the 
English  monarchy  approached  more  nearly  to 
absolutism  than  at  any  other  period  before  or 
after. 

The  unsparing  confiscations  by  which  Edward 
IV.  and  his  triumphant  party  crushed  their  op- 
ponents enriched  the  Crown  for  a  time  and  made 
it  independent  of  parliamentary  subsidies.  When 
supply  from  that  source  began  to  fall  short,  the 
king  invented  another.  He  demeaned  himself  so 
far  as  to  solicit  gifts  from  the  wealthy  merchants 
of  the  kingdom,  to  which  he  gave  the  name  of 
"benevolences,"  and  he  practiced  this  system  of 
royal  beggary  so  persistently  and  effectually  that 
he  had  no  need  to  call  Parliament  together.  He 
thus  began,  in  a  manner  hardly  perceived  or  re- 
sisted, the  arbitrary  and  unconstitutional  mode  of 
government  whicli  his  successors  carried  further, 
until  the  nation  roused  itself  and  took  back  its 
stolen  liberties  with  vengeance  and  wrath. 

Richard  III.  and  the  first  of  the  Tudors. 

Edward  IV.  died  in  1483,  leaving  two  young 
sons,  the  elder  not  yet  thirteen.  Edward's 
brother,  Richard,  contrived  with  amazing  ability 
and  unscrupulousness  to  acquire  control  of  the 
government,  first  as  Protector,  and  presently  as 


1070 


EUROPE. 


Origin  of  the 
Swiss  Confederacy. 


EUROPE. 


King.  The  young  princes,  confined  in  the  Tower, 
were  murdered  there,  and  Richard  III.  might 
have  seemed  to  be  secure  on  his  wickedly  won 
throne ;  for  he  did  not  lack  popularity,  notwith- 
standing his  crimes.  But  an  avenger  soon  came, 
in  the  person  of  Henry,  Earl  of  Richmond,  who 
claimed  the  Crown.  Henry's  claim  was  not  a 
strong  one.  Through  his  mother,  he  traced  his 
lineage  to  John  of  Gaunt,  as  the  Lancastrians 
had  done ;  but  it  was  the  mistress  and  not  the 
wife  of  that  prince  who  bore  Henry's  ancestor. 
His  grandfather  was  a  Welsh  chieftain,  Sir  Owen 
Tudor,  who  won  the  heart  of  the  widowed  queen 
of  Henry  V.,  Catherine  of  France,  and  married 
her.  But  the  claim  of  Henry  of  Richmond,  if  a 
weak  one  genealogically,  sufficed  for  the  over- 
throw of  the  red-handed  usurper,  Richard. 
Henry,  who  had  been  in  exile,  landed  in  England 
in  August,  1485,  and  was  quickly  joined  by  large 
numbers  of  supporters.  Richard  hastened  to  at- 
tack them,  and  was  defeated  and  slain  on  Bos- 
worth  Field.  With  no  more  opposition,  Henry 
won  the  kingdom,  and  founded,  as  Henry  VII., 
the  Tudor  dynasty  which  held  the  throne  until 
the  death  of  Elizabeth. 

Under  that  dynasty,  the  history  of  England 
took  on  a  new  character,  disclosing  new  ten- 
dencies, new  impulses,  new  currents  of  influence, 
new  promises  of  the  future.  We  will  not  enter 
upon  it  until  we  have  looked  at  some  prior  events 
in  other  regions. 

Germany. 

If  we  return  now  to  Germany,  we  take  up  the 
thread  of  events  at  an  interesting  point.  We 
parted  from  the  ailairs  of  that  troubled  country 
while  two  rival  Empei-ors,  Louis  IV.,  or  Ludwig, 
of  Bavaria,  and  Frederick  of  Austria,  were  en- 
deavoring (1325)  to  settle  thei  r  dispute  in  a  friendly 
way,  by  sharing  the  throne  together.  Before 
noting  the  result  of  that  chivalric  and  remarkable 
compromise,  let  us  glance  backward  for  a  moment 
at  the  most  memorable  and  important  incident  of 
the  civil  war  which  led  to  it. 

Birth  of  the  Swiss  Confederacy. 

The  three  cantons  of  Switzerland  which  are 
known  distinctively  as  the  Forest  Cantons,  name- 
ly, Schwytz  (which  gave  its  name  in  time  to  the 
whole  country),  Uri,  and  Unterwalden,  had  stood 
in  peculiar  relations  to  the  Hapsburg  family 
since  long  before  Rudolph  became  Emperor  and 
his  house  became  the  House  of  Austria.  In  those 
cantons,  the  territorial  rights  were  held  mostly 
by  great  monasteries,  and  the  counts  of  Haps- 
burg for  generations  past  had  served  the  abbots 
and  abbesses  in  the  capacity  of  advocates,  or 
champions,  to  rule  their  vassals  for  them  and  to 
defend  their  rights.  Authority  of  their  own  in 
the  cantons  they  had  none.  At  the  same  time, 
the  functions  they  performed  so  continually  de- 
veloped ideas  in  their  minds,  without  doubt, 
which  grew  naturally  into  pretensions  that  were 
offensive  to  the  bold  mountaineers.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  circumstances  of  the  situation  were 
calculated  to  breed  notions  and  feelings  of  in- 
dependence among  the  men  of  the  mountains. 
They  gave  their  allegiance  to  the  Emperor  —  to 
the  high  sovereign  who  ruled  over  all,  in  the 
name  of  Rome  —  and  they  opposed  what  came 
between  them  and  him.  It  is  manifest  that  a 
threatening  complication  for  thera  arose  when 
the  Count  of  Hapsburg  became  Emperor,  which 


occurred  in  1273.  They  had  no  serious  difficulty 
with  Rudolph,  in  his  time ;  but  they  wisely  pre- 
pared themselves  for  what  might  come,  by  form- 
ing, or  by  renewing,  in  1291,  a  league  of  the 
three  cantons, — the  beginning  and  nucleus  of  the 
Swiss  Confederation,  which  has  maintained  its 
independence  and  its  freedom  from  that  day  to 
this.  The  league  of  1291  had  existed  something 
more  than  twenty  years  when  the  confederated 
cantons  were  first  called  upon  to  stand  together 
in  resistance  to  the  Austrian  pretensions.  This 
occurred  in  1315,  during  the  war  between  Louis 
and  Frederick,  when  Leopold,  Duke  of  Austria, 
invaded  the  Forest  Cantons  and  was  disastrously 
beaten  in  a  fight  at  the  pass  of  Morgarten.  The 
victory  of  the  confederates  and  the  independence 
secured  by  it  gave  them  so  much  prestige  that 
neighboring  cities  and  cantons  sought  admis- 
sion to  their  league.  In  1332  Luzern  was  re- 
ceived as  a  member;  in  1351,  1352,  and  1358, 
Zurich,  Glarus,  Zug,  and  Bern  came  in,  increasing 
the  membership  to  eight.  It  took  the  name  of 
the  Old  League  of  High  Germany,  and  its  mem- 
bers were  known  as  Eidgenossen,  or  Confeder- 
ates. 

Such,  in  brief,  are  the  ascertained  facts  of  the 
origin  of  the  Swiss  Confederacy.  There  is  noth- 
ing found  in  authentic  history  to  substantiate  the 
popular  legend  of  William  Tell. 

The  questions  between  the  league  and  the 
Austrian  princes,  which  continued  to  be  trouble- 
some for  two  generations,  were  practically  ended 
by  the  two  battles  of  Sempach  and  Naefels, 
fought  in  1386  and  1388,  in  both  of  which  the 
Austrians  were  overthrown. 

The  Emperor  Louis  IV.  and  the  Papacy. 

While  the  Swiss  were  gaining  the  freedom 
which  they  never  lost,  Germany  at  large  was 
making  little  progress  in  any  satisfactory  direc- 
tion. Peace  had  not  been  restored  by  the  friendly 
agreement  of  1325  between  Ludwig  and  Frede- 
rick. The  partisans  of  neither  were  contented 
with  it.  Frederick  was  broken  in  health  and  soon 
retired  from  the  government;  in  1380  he  died. 
The  Austrian  house  persisted  in  hostility  to  Louis ; 
but  his  more  formidable  enemies  were  the  Pope 
and  the  King  of  France.  The  period  was  that 
known  in  papal  history  as  "the  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity," when  the  popes  resided  at  Avignon  and 
were  generally  creatures  of  the  French  court  and 
subservient  to  its  ambitions  or  its  animosities. 
Philip  of  Valois,  who  now  reigned  in  France,  as- 
pired to  the  imperial  crown,  which  the  head  of 
the  Church  had  conferred  on  the  German  kings, 
and  which  the  same  supreme  pontiff  might  claim 
authority  to  transfer  to  the  sovereigns  of  France. 
This  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  secret  of  the  re- 
lentless hostility  with  which  Louis  was  pursued 
by  the  Papacy  —  himself  excommunicated,  his 
kingdom  placed  under  interdict,  and  every  effort 
made  to  bring  about  his  deposition  by  the  princes 
of  Germany.  But  divided  and  depressed  as  the 
Germans  were,  they  revolted  against  these  mal- 
evolent pretensions  of  the  popes,  and  in  1388  the 
electoral  princes  issued  a  bold  declaration,  as- 
serting the  sufficiency  of  the  act  of  election  to 
confer  imperial  dignity  and  power,  and  denying 
the  necessity  for  any  papal  confirmation  what- 
ever. Had  Louis  been  a  commanding  leader,  and 
independent  of  the  Papacy  in  his  own  feelings, 
he  could  probably  have  rallied  a  national  senti- 
ment on  this  issue  that  would  have  powerfully 


1071 


EUROPE. 


Hiiss,  and  the 
Bohemian  Reformation. 


EUROPE. 


affected  the  future  of  Grerman  history.  But  he 
lacked  the  needful  character,  and  his  troubles 
continued  until  he  died  (1347).  A.  year  before 
his  death,  his  opponents  had  elected  and  put  for- 
ward a  rival  emperor,  Charles,  the  son  of  King 
John  of  Bohemia.  Charles  (IV.)  was  subse- 
quently recognized  as  king  without  dispute,  and 
secured  the  imperial  crown.  "  It  may  be  affirmed 
with  truth  that  the  genuine  ancient  Empire, 
which  contained  a  German  kingdom,  came  to  an 
end  with  the  Emperor  Ludwig  the  Bavarian. 
None  strove  again  after  his  death  to  restore  the 
imperial  power.  The  golden  bull  of  his  succes- 
sor Charles  IV.  sealed  the  fate  of  the  old  Empire. 
Through  it,  and  indeed  through  the  entire  con- 
duct of  Charles  IV. ,  King  of  Bohemia  as  he  really 
was,  and  emperor  scarcely  more  than  in  name,  the 
imperial  government  passed  more  and  more  into 
the  hands  of  the  prince -electors,  who  came  to  re- 
gard the  emperor  no  longer  as  their  master,  but 
as  the  president  of  an  assembly  in  which  he  shared 
the  power  with  themselves."  "From  the  time 
of  Charles  IV.  the  main  object  and  chief  occu- 
pation of  the  emperors  was  not  the  Empire,  but 
the  aggrandisement  and  security  of  their  own 
house.  The  Empire  served  only  as  the  means 
and  instrument  of  their  purpose  "  (DOllinger). 

The  Golden  Bull  of  Charles  IV. 

The  Golden  BuU  referred  to  by  Dr.  Dollinger 
was  an  instrument  which  became  the  constitu- 
tion, so  to  speak,  of  the  Holy  Roman  or  Ger- 
manic Empire.  It  prescribed  the  mode  of  the 
election  of  the  King,  and  definitively  named  the 
seven  Electors.  It  also  conferred  certain  special 
powers  and  privileges  on  these  seven  princes, 
which  raised  them  much  above  their  fellows  and 
gave  them  an  independence  that  may  be  said  to 
have  destroyed  every  hope  of  Germanic  unity. 
This  was  the  one  mark  which  the  reign  of  Charles 
IV.  left  upon  the  Empire.  His  exertions  as  Em- 
peror were  all  directed  to  the  aggrandizement  of 
his  own  family,  and  with  not  much  lasting  re- 
sult. In  his  own  kingdom  of  Bohemia  he  ruled 
with  better  effect.  He  made  its  capital,  Prague, 
an  important  city,  adorning  it  with  noble  build- 
ings and  founding  in  it  the  most  ancient  of  Ger- 
man universities.  This  University  of  Prague 
soon  sowed  seeds  from  which  sprang  the  first 
movement  of  religious  reformation  in  Germany. 

Charles  IV. ,  dying  in  1378,  was  succeeded  by 
his  son  Wenzel,  or  Wenceslaus,  on  the  Imperial 
throne  as  well  as  the  Bohemian.  Wenceslaus  neg- 
lected both  the  Empire  and  the  Kingdom,  and 
the  confusion  of  things  in  Germany  grew  worse. 
Some  of  the  principal  cities  continued  to  secure 
considerable  freedom  and  prosperity  for  them- 
selves, by  the  combined  efforts  of  their  leagues; 
but  everywhere  else  great  disorder  and  oppres- 
sion prevailed.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  Swa- 
bian  towns,  to  the  number  of  forty-one,  formed  a 
union  and  waged  unsuccessful  war  with  a  league 
which  the  nobles  entered  into  against  them.  They 
were  defeated,  and  crushingly  dealt  with  by  the 
Emperor. 

In  1400  Wenceslaus  was  deposed  and  Rupert  of 
the  Palatinate  was  elected,  producing  another 
civil  war,  and  reducing  the  imperial  government 
to  a  complete  nullity.  Rupert  died  in  1410,  and, 
after  some  contention,  Sigmund,  or  Sigismund, 
brother  of  Wenceslaus,  was  raised  to  the  throne. 
He  was  Margrave  of  Brandenburg  and  King  of 


Hungary,  and  would  become  King  of  Bohemia 
when  Wenceslaus  died. 

The  Reformation  of  Huss  in  Bohemia. 

Bohemia  was  about  to  become  the  scene  of  an 
extraordinary  religious  agitation,  which  John 
Huss,  teacher  and  preacher  in  the  new  but 
already  famous  University  of  Prague,  was  be- 
ginning to  stir.  Huss,  who  drew  more  or  less  of 
his  inspiration  from  Wyclif,  anticipated  Luther 
in  the  boldness  of  his  attacks  upon  iniquities  in 
the  Church.  In  his  case  as  in  Luther's,  the 
abomination  which  he  could  not  endure  was  the 
sale  of  papal  indulgences ;  and  it  was  by  his  denun- 
ciation of  that  impious  fraud  that  he  drew  on 
himself  the  deadly  wrath  of  the  Roman  hierarchy. 
He  was  summoned  before  the  great  Council  of 
the  Church  which  opened  at  Constance  in  1414. 
He  obeyed  the  summons  and  went  to  the  Coun- 
cil, bearing  a  safe-conduct  from  the  Emperor 
which  pledged  protection  to  him  until  he  re- 
turned. Notwithstanding  this  imperial  pledge, 
he  was  imprisoned  for  seven  months  at  Constance, 
and  was  then  impatiently  listened  to  and  con- 
demned to  the  stake.  On  the  6th  of  July,  1415, 
he  was  burned.  In  the  following  May,  his  friend 
and  disciple,  Jerome  of  Prague,  suffered  the 
same  martyrdom.  The  Emperor,  Sigismund, 
blustered  a  little  at  the  insolent  violation  of  his 
safe-conduct;  but  dared  do  nothing  to  make  it 
effective. 

In  Bohemia,  the  excitement  produced  bj'  these 
outrages  was  universal.  The  whole  nation 
seemed  to  rise,  in  the  first  wide-spread  aggressive 
popular  revolt  that  the  Church  of  Rome  had  yet 
been  called  upon  to  encounter.  In  1419  there 
was  an  armed  assembl}'  of  40,000  men,  on  a 
mountain  which  they  called  Tabor,  who  placed 
themselves  under  the  leadership  of  John  Ziska,  a 
nobleman,  one  of  Huss'  friends.  The  followers 
of  Ziska  soon  displayed  a  violence  of  temper  and 
a  radicalism  which  repelled  the  more  moderate 
Hussites,  or  Reformers,  and  two  parties  appeared, 
one  known  as  the  Taborites,  the  other  as  the  Ca- 
lixtines,  or  Utraquists.  The  former  insisted  on 
entire  separation  from  the  Church  of  Rome ;  the 
latter  confined  their  demands  to  four  reforms, 
namely:  Free  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God; 
the  giving  of  the  Eucharistic  cup  to  the  laity ; 
the  taking  of  secular  powers  and  of  worldly 
goods  from  the  clergy ;  the  enforcing  of  Chris- 
tian discipline  by  all  authorities.  So  much  stress 
was  laid  by  the  Calixtines  on  their  claim  to  the 
chalice  or  cup  (communion  in  both  kinds)  that  it 
gave  them  their  name.  The  breach  between 
these  parties  widened  until  they  were  as  hostile 
to  each  other  as  to  the  Catholics,  and  the  Bohe- 
mian reform  movement  was  ruined  in  the  end  by 
their  division. 

In  1419,  the  deposed  Emperor  Wenceslaus,  who 
had  still  retained  his  kingdom  of  Bohemia,  was 
murdered  in  his  palace,  at  Prague.  His  brother, 
the  Emperor  Sigismund,  was  his  heir;  but  the 
Hussites  refused  the  crown  to  him,  and  resisted 
his  pretensions  with  arms.  This  added  a  politi- 
cal conflict  to  the  religious  one,  and  Bohemia  was 
afflicted  with  a  frightful  civil  war  for  fifteen 
years.  Ziska  fortified  mount  Tabor  and  took 
possession  of  Prague.  The  Emperor  and  the 
Pope  allied  themselves,  to  crush  an  insurrection 
which  was  aimed  against  both.  They  sum- 
moned Christendom  to  a  new  crusade,  and  Sigis- 
mund led  100,000  men  against  Prague,  in  1420. 


1072 


EUEOPE. 


The  Great  Schism. 


EUROPE. 


Ziska  met  him  and  defeated  him,  and  drove  him, 
with  his  crusaders,  from  the  country.  The  Ta- 
borites  were  now  maddened  by  their  success,  and 
raged  over  the  land,  destroying  convents  and 
burning  priests.  Their  doctrines,  moreover,  be- 
gan to  take  on  a  socialistic  and  republican  char- 
acter, threatening  property  in  general  and  ques- 
tioning monarchy,  too.  The  well-to-do  and 
conservative  classes  were  more  and  more  repelled 
from  them. 

In  1431  a  second  crusading  army,  300,000 
strong,  invaded  Bohemia  and  was  scattered  like 
chaff  by  Ziska  (now  blind)  and  his  peasant  sol- 
diery. The  next  year  they  defeated  the  Emperor 
again ;  but  in  1434  Ziska  died,  and  a  priest  called 
Procopius  the  Great  took  his  place.  Under  their 
new  leader,  the  fierce  Taborites  were  as  invinci- 
ble as  they  had  been  under  Ziska.  They  routed 
an  imperial  army  in  1436,  and  then  carried  the 
war  into  Austria  and  Silesia,  committing  fearful 
ravages.  Still  another  crusade  was  set  in  motion 
against  them  by  the  Pope,  and  still  another  dis- 
astrous failure  was  made  of  it.  Then  Germany 
again  suffered  a  more  frightful  visitation  from 
the  vengeful  Hussites  than  before.  Towns  and 
villages  were  destroyed  by  hundreds,  and  wide 
tracks  of  ruin  and  death  were  marked  on  the  face 
of  the  land,  to  its  very  center.  Once  more,  and 
for  the  last  time,  in  1431,  the  Germans  rallied  a 
great  force  to  retaliate  these  attacks,  and  they  met 
defeat,  as  in  all  previous  encounters,  but  more  com- 
pletely than  ever  before.  Then  the  Pope  and  the 
Emperor  gave  up  hope  of  putting  down  the  in- 
domitable revolutionists  by  force,  and  opened 
parleyings.  The  Pope  called  a  council  at  Basel 
for  the  discussion  of  questions  with  the  Hussites, 
and,  finally,  in  1433,  their  moderate  party  was 
prevailed  upon  to  accept  a  compromise  which 
really  conceded  nothing  to  them  except  the  use 
of  the  cup  in  the  communion.  The  Taborites 
refused  the  terms,  and  the  two  parties  grappled 
each  other  in  a  fierce  struggle  for  the  control  of 
the  state.  But  the  extremists  had  lost  much  of 
their  old  strength,  and  the  Utraquists  vanquished 
them  in  a  decisive  battle  at  Lipan,  in  May,  1434. 
Two  years  later  Sigismund  was  formally  acknowl- 
edged King  of  Bohemia  and  received  in  Prague. 
In  1437  he  died.  His  son-in-law,  Albert  of  Aus- 
tria, who  succeeded  him,  lived  but  two  years, 
and  the  heir  to  the  throne  then  was  a  son,  Ladis- 
laus,  born  after  his  father's  death.  This  left  Bo- 
hemia in  a  state  of  great  confusion  and  disorder 
for  several  years,  until  a  strong  man,  George 
Podiebrad,  acquired  the  control  of  affairs. 

Meantime,  tlie  Utraquists  had  organized  a  Na- 
tional Church  of  Bohemia,  considerably  divergent 
from  Rome.  It  failed  to  satisfy  the  deeper  re- 
ligious feelings  that  were  widely  current  among 
the  Bohemians  in  that  age,  and  there  grew  up  a 
sect  which  took  the  name  of  "  Unitas  Fratrum," 
or  "Unity  of  the  Brethren,"  but  which  after- 
wards became  incorrectly  known  as  the  Moravian 
Brethren.  This  sect,  still  existing,  has  borne  an 
important  part  in  the  missionary  history  of  the 
Christian  world. 


The  Papacy.— The  Great  Schism. 

The  Papacy,  at  the  time  of  its  conflict  with 
the  Hussites,  in  Bohemia,  was  rapidly  sinking  to 
that  lowest  level  of  debasement  which  it  reached 
In  the  later  part  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Its 
state  was  not  yet  so  abhorrent  as  it  came  to  be 
under  the  Borgias ;  but  it  had  been  brought  even 

^^  1073 


more  into  contempt,  perhaps,  by  the  divisions 
and  contentions  of  "  the  Great  Schism. "  The  so- 
called  "Babylonish  Captivity"  of  the  series  of 
popes  who  resided  for  seventy  years  at  Avignon 
(1305-1376),  and  who  were  under  French  in- 
fluence, had  been  humiliating  to  the  Church ;  but 
the  schism  which  immediately  followed  (1378- 
1417),  when  a  succession  of  rival  popes,  or  popes 
and  antipopes,  thundered  anathemas  and  excom- 
munications at  one  another,  from  Rome  and  from 
Avignon,  was  even  more  scandalous  and  shame- 
ful. Christendom  was  divided  by  the  quarrel. 
France,  Spain,  Scotland,  and  some  lesser  states, 
gave  their  allegiance  to  the  pope  at  Avignon; 
England,  Germany  and  the  northern  kingdoms 
adhered  to  the  pope  at  Rome.  In  1403,  an  at- 
tempt to  heal  the  schism  was  made  by  a  general 
Council  of  the  Church  convened  at  Pisa.  It  de- 
creed the  deposition  of  both  the  contending  pon- 
tiffs, and  elected  a  third;  but  its  authority  was 
not  recognized,  and  the  confusion  of  the  Church 
was  only  made  worse  by  bringing  three  popes 
into  the  quarrel,  instead  of  two.  Twelve  years 
later,  another  Council,  held  at  Constance, —  the 
same  which  burned  Huss, —  had  more  success. 
Europe  had  now  grown  so  tired  of  the  scandal, 
and  so  disgusted  with  the  three  pretenders  to 
spiritual  supremacy,  that  the  action  of  the  Coun- 
cil was  backed  by  public  opinion,  and  they  were 
suppressed.  A  fourth  pope,  ^Martin  V.,  whom 
the  Council  then  seated  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter 
(1417),  was  universally  acknowledged,  and  the 
Great  Schism  was  at  an  end. 

But  other  scandals  and  abuses  in  the  Church, 
which  public  opinion  in  Europe  had  already  be- 
gun to  cry  loudly  against,  were  untouched  by 
these  Councils.  A  subsequent  Council  at  Basel, 
which  met  in  1431,  attempted  some  restraints 
upon  papal  extortion  (ignoring  the  more  serious 
moral  evils  that  claimed  attention);  but  was 
utterly  beaten  in  the  conflict  with  Pope  Eugenius 
IV.,  which  this  action  brought  on,  and  its  decrees 
lost  all  effect.  So  the  religious  autocracy  at 
Rome,  sinking  stage  by  stage  below  the  foulest 
secular  courts  of  the  time,  continued  without 
check  to  insult  and  outrage,  more  and  more,  the 
piety,  the  common  sense,  and  the  decent  feeling 
of  Christendom,  until  the  habit  of  reverence  was 
quite  worn  out  in  the  minds  of  men  throughout 
the  better  half  of  Europe. 

Rome  and  the  last  Tribune,  Rienzi. 

The  city  of  Rome  had  fallen  from  all  greatness 
of  its  own  when  it  came  to  be  dependent  on  the 
fortunes  of  the  popes.  Their  departure  to  Avig- 
non had  reduced  it  to  a  lamentable  state.  They 
took  with  them,  in  reality,  the  sustenance  of  the 
city ;  for  it  lived,  in  the  main,  on  the  revenues 
of  the  Papacy,  and  knew  little  of  commerce  be- 
yond the  profitable  traffic  in  indulgences,  absolu- 
tions, benefices,  relics  and  papal  blessings,  which 
went  to  Avignon  with  the  head  of  the  Church. 
Authority,  too,  departed  with  the  Pope,  and  the 
wretched  city  was  given  up  to  anarchy  almost 
uncontrolled.  A  number  of  powerful  families  — 
the  Colonna,  the  Orsini,  and  others  —  perpetually 
at  strife  with  one  another,  fought  out  their  feuds 
in  the  streets,  and  abused  and  oppressed  their 
neighbors  with  impunity.  Their  houses  were 
impregnable  castles,  and  their  retainers  were  a 
formidable  army. 

It  was  while  this  state  of  things  was  at  its 
worst  that  the  famous  Cola  di  Rienzi,  "last  of 


EUROPE. 


Troubles  in  Italy, 


EUROPE. 


the  Tribunes,"  accomplished  a  revolution  which 
was  short-lived  but  extraordinary.  He  roused 
the  people  to  action  against  their  oppressors  and 
the  disturbers  of  their  peace.  He  appealed  to 
them  to  restore  the  republican  institutions  of  an- 
cient Rome,  and  when  they  responded,  in  1347, 
by  conferring  on  him  the  title  and  authority  of  a 
Tribune,  he  actually  succeeded  in  expelling  the 
turbulent  nobles,  or  reducing  them  to  submis- 
siou,  and  established  in  Rome,  for  a  little  time, 
what  he  called  "the  Good  Estate."  But  his  head 
was  quickly  turned  by  his  success;  he  was  in- 
flated with  conceit  and  vanity ;  he  became  arro- 
gant and  despotic ;  the  people  tired  of  him,  and 
after  a  few  months  of  rule  he  was  driven  from 
Rome.  In  1354  he  came  back  as  a  Senator,  ap- 
pointed by  the  Pope,  who  thought  to  use  him  for 
the  restoration  of  papal  authority;  but  his  in- 
fluence was  gone,  and  he  was  slain  by  a  riotous 
mob. 

The  return  of  the  Pope  to  Rome  in  1376  was 
an  event  so  long  and  ardently  desired  by  the 
Roman  people  that  they  submitted  themselves 
eagerly  to  his  government.  But  his  sovereignty 
over  the  States  of  the  Church  was  substantially 
lost,  and  the  regaining  of  it  was  the  principal 
object  of  the  exertions  of  the  popes  for  a  long 
subsequent  period. 

The  Two  Sicilies. 

In  Southern  Italy  and  Sicily,  since  the  fall  of 
the  Hohenstaufens  (1368),  the  times  had  been 
continuously  evil.  The  rule  of  the  French  con- 
queror, Charles  of  Anjou,  was  hard  and  unmerci- 
ful, and  the  power  he  established  became  threat- 
ening to  the  Papacj',  which  gave  the  kingdom 
to  him.  In  1282,  Sicily  freed  itself,  by  the  savage 
massacre  of  Frenchmen  which  bears  the  name 
of  the  Sicilian  Vespers.  The  King  of  Aragon, 
Peter  III.,  whose  queen  was  the  Hohenstaufen 
heiress,  supported  the  insurrection  promptly  and 
vigorously,  took  possession  of  the  island,  and 
was  recognized  by  tlie  people  as  their  king.  A 
war  of  twenty  years'  duration  ensued.  Botli 
Charles  and  Peter  died  and  their  sons  continued 
the  battle.  In  the  end,  the  Angevin  house  held 
the  mainland,  as  a  separate  kingdom,  with  Naples 
for  its  capital,  and  a  younger  branch  of  tlie  royal 
family  of  Aragon  reigned  in  the  island.  But 
both  sovereigns  called  themselves  Kings  of  Sicily, 
so  that  History,  ever  since,  has  been  forced  to 
speak  puzzlingly  of  "Two  Sicilies."  For  con- 
venience it  seems  best  to  distinguish  them  by 
calling  one  the  kingdom  of  Naples  and  the  other 
the  kingdom  of  Sicily.  On  the  Neapolitan  throne 
there  came  one  estimable  prince,  in  Robert,  who 
reigned  from  1809  to  1343,  and  who  was  a  friend 
of  peace  and  a  patron  of  arts  and  letters.  But 
after  him  the  throne  was  befouled  by  crimes  and 
vices,  and  the  kingdom  was  made  miserable  by 
civil  wars.  His  grand-daugliter  Joanna,  or  Jane, 
succeeded  him.  Robert's  elder  brother  Caribert 
had  become  King  of  Hungary,  and  Joanna  now 
married  one  of  that  Icing's  sons  —  her  cousin 
Andrew.  At  the  end  of  two  years  he  was  mur- 
dered (1345)  and  the  queen,  a  notoriously  vicious 
woman,  was  accused  of  the  crime.  Andrew's 
brother,  Louis,  who  had  succeeded  to  the  throne 
in  Hungary,  invaded  Naples  to  avenge  his  death, 
and  Joanna  was  driven  to  flight.  'The  country 
then  suffered  from  the  worst  form  of  civil  war  — 
a  war  carried  on  by  the  hireling  ruffians  of  the 
"free  companies  "  who  roamed  about  Italy  in 


that  age,  selling  their  swords  to  the  highest  bid- 
ders. In  1351  a  peace  was  brought  about  which 
restored  Joanna  to  the  throne.  The  Hungarian 
King's  son,  known  as  Cliarles  of  Durazzo,  was 
her  recognized  heir,  but  she  saw  fit  to  disinherit 
him  and  adopt  Louis,  of  the  Second  House  of 
Anjou,  brother  of  Charles  V.  in  France.  Charles 
of  Durazzo  invaded  Naples,  took  the  queen 
prisoner  and  put  her  to  death.  Louis  of  Anjou 
attempted  to  displace  him,  but  failed.  In  1383 
Louis  died,  leaving  his  claims  to  his  son.  Charles 
of  Durazzo  was  called  to  Hungary,  after  a  time, 
to  take  the  crown  of  that  kingdom,  and  left  his 
young  son,  Ladislaus,  on  the  Neapolitan  throne. 
The  Angevin  claimant,  Louis  II. ,  was  then  called 
in  by  his  partisans,  and  civil  war  was  renewed 
for  years.  When  Ladislaus  reached  manhood 
he  succeeded  in  expelling  Louis,  and  he  held  the 
kingdom  until  his  death,  in  1414.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  sister,  Joanna  II. ,  who  proved  to 
be  as  wicked  and  dissolute  a  woman  as  her  pre- 
decessor of  the  same  name.  She  incurred  the 
enmity  of  the  Pope,  who  persuaded  Louis  III. , 
son  of  Louis  II. ,  to  renew  the  claims  of  his  liouse. 
The  most  renowned  "  condottiere  "  (or  military 
contractor,  as  the  term  might  be  translated),  of 
the  day,  Attendolo  Sforza,  was  engaged  to  make 
war  on  Queen  Joanna  in  the  interest  of  Louis. 
On  her  side  she  obtained  a  champion  by  promis- 
ing her  dominions  to  Alfonso  V.,  of  Aragon  and 
Sicily.  The  struggle  went  on  for  years,  with 
varying  fortunes.  The  fickle  and  treacherous 
Joanna  revoked  her  adoption  of  Alfonso,  after  a 
time,  and  made  Louis  her  heir.  When  Louis 
died,  she  bequeathed  her  crown  to  his  brother 
Rene,  Duke  of  Lorraine.  Her  death  occurred  in 
1435,  but  still  the  war  continued,  and  nearly  all 
Italy  was  involved  in  it,  taking  one  side  or  the 
other.  Alfonso  succeeded  at  last  (1442)  in  estab- 
lishing himself  at  Naples,  and  Rene  practically 
gave  up  the  contest,  although  he  kept  the  title 
of  King  of  Naples.  He  was  the  father  of  the 
famous  English  Queen  Margaret  of  Anjou,  who 
fought  for  her  weak-minded  husband  and  her  son 
in  the  Wars  of  the  Roses. 

While  the  Neapolitan  kingdom  was  passing 
through  these  endless  miseries  of  anarchy,  civil 
war,  and  evil  government,  the  Sicilian  kingdom 
enjoyed  a  more  peaceful  and  prosperous  exis- 
tence. The  crown,  briefly  held  by  a  cadet  branch 
of  the  House  of  Aragon,  was  soon  reunited  to 
that  of  Aragon;  and  under  Alfonso,  as  we  have 
seen,  it  was  once  more  joined  with  that  of  Naples, 
in  a  " Kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies."  But  both 
these  unions  were  dissolved  on  the  death  of 
Alfonso,  who  bequeathed  Aragon  and  Sicily  to 
his  legitimate  heir,  and  Naples  to  a  bastard  son. 

The  Despots  of  Northern  Italy. 

In  Northern  Italy  a  great  change  in  the  political 
state  of  many  among  the  formerly  free  common- 
wealths had  been  going  on  since  the  thirteenth 
century.  The  experience  of  the  Greek  city-re- 
publics had  been  repeated  in  them.  In  one  way 
and  another,  they  had  fallen  under  the  domina- 
tion of  powerful  families,  who  had  established  a 
despotic  rule  over  them,  sometimes  gatliering 
several  cities  and  their  surrounding  territory  into 
a  considerable  dominion,  and  obtaining  fronj  the 
Emperor  or  the  Pope  a  formally  conferred  and 
hereditary  title.  Thus  the  Visconti  had  estab- 
lished themselves  at  Milan,  and  had  become  a 
ducal  house.     After  a  few  generations  they  gave 


1074 


EUROPE. 


The  Florentine 
Republic, 


EUROPE. 


way  to  the  military  adventurer,  Francesco  Sforza, 
son  of  the  Sforza  who  made  war  for  Louis  III.  of 
Anjou  on  Joanna  II.  of  Naples.  In  Verona,  the 
Delia  Scala  family  reigned  for  a  time,  until  Venice 
overcame  them;  at  Modena  and  Ferrara,  the 
Estes ;  at  Mantua,  the  Gonzagas ;  at  Padua,  the 
Carraras. 

The  Italian  Republics. 

In  other  cities,  the  political  changes  were  of  a 
different  character.  Venice,  which  grew  rich 
and  powerful  with  extraordinary  rapidity,  was 
tyrannically  governed  by  a  haughty  and  exclu- 
sive aristocracy.  In  commerce  and  in  wealth  she 
surpassed  all  her  rivals,  and  her  affairs  were  more 
shrewdly  conducted.  She  held  large  possessions 
in  the  Bast,  and  she  was  acquiring  an  extensive 
dominion  on  the  Italian  mainland.  The  Geno- 
ese, who  were  the  most  formidable  competitors 
of  Venice  in  commerce,  preserved  their  democracy, 
but  at  some  serious  expense  to  the  administra- 
tive efficiency  of  their  government.  They  were 
troubled  by  a  nobility  which  could  only  be  tur- 
bulent and  could  not  control.  They  fought  a 
desperate  but  losing  fight  with  the  Venetians, 
and  were  several  times  in  subjection  to  the  dukes 
of  Milan  and  the  kings  of  France.  Pisa,  which 
had  led  both  Venice  and  Genoa  in  the  commercial 
race  at  the  beginning,  was  ruined  by  her  wars 
with  the  latter,  and  with  Florence,  and  sank,  in 
the  fourteenth  century,  under  the  rule  of  the 
Visconti,  who  sold  their  rights  to  the  Florentines. 

Florence. 

The  wonderful  Florentine  republic  was  the  one 
which  preserved  its  independence  under  popular 
institutions  the  longest,  and  in  which  they  bore 
the  most  splendid  fruit.  For  a  period  that  began 
in  the  later  part  of  the  thirteenth  century,  the 
government  of  Florence  was  so  radically  demo- 
cratic that  the  nobles  (grandi)  were  made  ineli- 
gible to  office,  and  could  only  qualify  themselves 
for  election  to  any  place  in  the  magistracy  by 
abandoning  their  order  and  engaging  in  the  labor 
of  some  craft  or  art.  The  vocations  of  skilled  in- 
dustry were  all  organized  in  gilds,  called  Arti,  and 
were  divided  into  two  classes,  one  representing 
what  were  recognized  as  the  superior  arts  (Arti 
JIajor,  embracing  professional  and  mercantile 
callings,  with  some  others) ;  the  other  including  the 
commoner  industries,  known  as  the  Arti  Minori. 
From  the  heads,  or  Priors,  of  the  Arti  were 
chosen  a  Signory,  changed  every  two  months, 
which  was  entrusted  with  the  government  of  the 
republic.  This  popular  constitution  was  main- 
tained in  its  essential  features  through  the  better 
part  of  a  century,  but  with  continual  resistance 
and  disturbance  from  the  excluded  nobles,  on  one 
side,  and  from  the  common  laboring  people,  on 
the  other,  who  belonged  to  no  art-gild  and  who, 
therefore,  were  excluded  likewise  from  partici- 
pation in  political  affairs.  Between  these  two 
upper  and  lower  discontents,  the  bourgeois  con- 
stitution gave  way  at  last.  The  mob  got  control 
for  a  time ;  but  only,  as  always  happens,  to  bring 
about  a  reactionary  revolution,  which  placed  an 
oligarchy  in  power;  and  the  oligarchy  made 
smooth  the  way  for  a  single  family  of  great 
wealth  and  popular  gifts  and  graces  to  rise  to 
supremacy  in  the  state.  This  was  the  renowned 
family  which  began  to  rule  in  Florence  in  1435, 
when  Cosimo  de'  Medici  entered  on  the  office  of 
Gonfaloniere.     The  Medici  were  not  despots,  of 


the  class  of  the  Visconti,  or  the  Sforzas,  or  the 
Estes.  They  governed  under  the  old  constitu- 
tional forms,  with  not  much  violation  of  any- 
thing except  the  spirit  of  them.  They  acquired 
no  princely  title,  until  the  late,  declining  days  of 
the  house.  Their  power  rested  on  influence  and 
prestige,  at  first,  and  finally  on  habit.  They 
developed,  and  enlisted  in  their  own  support,  as 
something  reflected  from  themselves,  the  pride 
of  the  city  in  itself,— r  in  its  magnificence, —  in  its 
great  and  liberal  wealth,  —  in  its  patronage  of 
letters  and  art, —  in  its  fame  abroad  and  the  ad- 
miration with  which  men  looked  upon  it. 

Through  all  the  political  changes  in  Florence 
there  ran  an  unending  war  of  factions,  the  bitter- 
est and  most  inveterate  in  history.  The  control 
of  the  city  belonged  naturally  to  the  Guelfs,  for 
it  was  the  head  and  front  of  the  Guelfic  party  in 
Italy.  "Without  Florence,"  says  one  historian, 
' '  there  would  have  been  no  Guelfs. "  But  neither 
party  scrupled  to  call  armed  help  from  the  out- 
side into  its  quarrels,  and  the  Ghibellines  were 
able,  nearly  as  often  as  the  Guelfs,  to  drive  their 
opponents  from  the  city.  For  the  ascendancy  of 
one  faction  meant  commonly  the  flight  or  expul- 
sion of  every  man  in  the  other  who  had  importance 
enough  to  be  noticed.  It  was  thus  that  Dante, 
an  ardent  Ghibelline,  became  an  exile  from  his 
beloved  Florence  during  the  later  years  of  his 
life.  But  the  strife  of  Guelfs  with  Ghibellines 
did  not  suffice  for  the  parti-san  rancor  of  the  Flor- 
entines, and  they  complicated  it  with  another 
split  of  factions,  which  bore  the  names  of  the 
Bianchi  and  the  Neri,  or  the  Whites  and  the 
Blacks. 

For  two  or  three  centuries  the  annals  of  Flor- 
ence are  naught,  one  tliinks  in  reading  them,  but 
an  unbroken  tale  of  strife  within,  or  war  without 
—  of  tumult,  riot,  revolution,  disorder.  And  yet, 
underneath,  there  is  an  amazing  story  to  be  found, 
of  thrift,  industry,  commerce,  prosperity,  wealth, 
on  one  side,  and  of  the  sublimest  genius,  on  an- 
other, giving  itself,  in  pure  devotion,  to  poetry 
and  art.  The  contradiction  of  circumstances 
seems  irreconcilalile  to  our  modern  experience, 
and  we  have  to  seek  an  explanation  of  it  in  the 
very  different  conditions  of  mediieval  life. 

It  is  with  certainty  a  fact  that  Florence,  in  its 
democratic  time,  was  phenomenal  in  genius,  and 
in  richness  of  life, — in  prosperity  both  material 
and  intellectual ;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  credit  to 
that  time  the  planting  and  the  growing  of  fruits 
which  ripened  surpassingly  in  the  Medicean  age. 

The  Ottomans  and  the  Eastern  Empire. 

So  little  occasion  has  arisen  for  any  mention  of 
the  lingering  Eastern  Empire,  since  Michael  Pal- 
feologus,  the  Greek,  recovered  Constantinople 
from  the  Franks  (1261),  that  its  existence  might 
easily  be  forgotten.  It  had  no  importance  until 
it  fell,  and  then  it  loomed  large  again,  in  history, 
not  only  by  the  tragic  impression  of  its  fall  upon 
the  imaginations  of  men,  but  by  the  potent  con- 
sequences of  it. 

For  nearly  two  hundred  years,  the  successors 
of  PalEBologus,  still  calling  themselves  "Emper- 
ors of  the  Romans,"  and  ruling  a  little  Thracian 
and  Macedonian  corner  of  the  old  dominion  of 
the  Eastern  Caesars,  struggled  with-  a  new  race 
of  Turks,  who  had  followed  the  Seljuk  horde 
out  of  the  same  Central  Asian  region.  One  of 
the  first  known  leaders  of  this  tribe  was  Osman, 
or  Othman,  after  whom  they  are  sometimes  called 


1075 


EUROPE. 


The  Turks  in 
Europe. 


EUROPE. 


Osmanlis,  but  more  frequently  Ottoman  Turks. 
They  appeared  in  Asia  Minor  about  the  middle 
of  tlie  thirteenth  century,  attacking  both  Cliris- 
tian  and  Mahometan  states,  and  gradually  ex- 
tending their  conquest  over  the  whole.  About 
the  end  of  the  first  century  of  their  career,  they 
passed  the  straits  and  won  a  footing  in  Europe. 
In  1361,  they  took  Hadrianople  and  made  it  their 
capital.  Their  sultan  at  this  time  was  Amurath. 
As  yet,  they  did  not  attack  Constantinople. 
The  city  itself  was  too  strong  in  its  fortifications ; 
but  beyond  the  walls  of  the  capital  there  was  no 
strength  in  the  little  fragment  of  Empire  that 
remained.  It  appealed  vainly  to  Western  Eu- 
rope for  help.  It  sought  to  make  terras  with 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Nothing  saved  it  for  the 
moment  but  the  evident  disposition  of  the  Turk 
to  regard  it  as  fruit  which  would  drop  to  his 
hand  in  due  time,  and  which  he  might  safely 
leave  waiting  while  he  turned  his  arms  against 
its  more  formidable  neighbors.  He  contented 
himself  with  exacting  tribute  from  the  emperors, 
and  humiliating  them  by  commands  which  they 
dared  not  disobey.  In  the  Servians,  the  Bos- 
nians, and  the  Bulgarians,  Amurath  found  wor- 
thier foes.  He  took  Sophia,  their  principal  city, 
from  the  latter,  in  1383 ;  in  1889  he  defeated  the 
two  former  nations  in  the  great  battle  of  Kos- 
sova.  At  tlie  moment  of  victory  he  was  assassi- 
nated, and  his  son  Bajazet  mounted  the  Ottoman 
throne.  The  latter,  at  Nicopolis  (1396),  over' 
whelmed  and  destroyed  the  one  army  which  West- 
ern Europe  sent  to  oppose  the  conquering  march 
of  his  terrible  race.  Six  years  later,  lie  himself 
was  vanquished  and  taken  prisoner  in  Asia  by 
a  still  more  terrible  conqueror, — the  fiendish 
Timour  or  Tamerlane,  then  scourging  the  eastern 
Continent.  For  some  years  the  Turks  were  para- 
lyzed by  a  disputed  succession;  but  under  Am- 
urath II.,  who  came  to  the  throne  in  1431,  their 
advance  was  resumed,  and  in  a  few  years  more 
their  long  combat  with  the  Hungarians  began. 

Hungary  and  the  Turks. 

The  original  line  of  kings  of  Hungary  having 
died  out  in  1301,  the  influence  of  the  Pope,  who 
claimed  the  kingdom  as  a  fief  of  the  papal  see, 
secured  the  election  to  the  throne  of  Charles  Rob- 
ert, or  Caribert,  of  the  Naples  branch  of  the  House 
of  Anjou.  He  and  his  son  Louis,  called  the  Great, 
raised  the  kingdom  to  notable  importance  and 
power.  Louis  added  the  crown  of  Poland  to  that 
of  Hungary,  and  on  his  death,  leaving  two  daugh- 
ters, the  Polish  crown  passed  to  the  husband  of  one 
and  the  Hungarian  crown  to  the  husband  of  the 
other.  This  latter  was  Sigismund  of  Luxemburg, 
who  afterwards  became  Emperor,  and  also  King  of 
Bohemia.  Under  Sigismund,  Hungary  was  threat- 
ened on  one  side  by  the  Turks,  and  ravaged  on  the 
other  by  the  Hussites  of  Bohemia.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded (1437)  by  his  son-in-law,  Albert  of  Austria, 
who  lived  only  two  years,  and  the  latter  was  fol- 
lowed by  Wladislaus,  King  of  Poland,  who  again 
united  the  two  crowns,  though  at  the  cost  of  a  dis- 
tracting civil  war  with  partisans  of  the  infant  son 
of  Albert.  It  was  in  the  reign  of  this  prince  that 
the  Turks  began  their  obstinate  attacks  on  Hun- 
gary, and  thenceforth,  for  two  centuries  and  more, 
that  afflicted  country  served  Christendom  as  a 
battered  bulwark  which  the  new  waiTiors  of 
Islam  could  beat  and  disfigure  but  could  not 
break  down.  The  hero  of  these  first  Hungarian 
wars  with  the  Turks  was  John  Huniades.  orHun- 


yady,  a  Wallaohian,  who  fought  them  with  suc- 
cess until  a  peace  was  concluded  in  1444.  But 
King  Wladislaus  was  persuaded  the  same  year 
by  a  papal  agent  to  break  the  treaty  and  to  lead 
an  expedition  against  the  enemy's  lines.  The 
result  was  a  calamitous  defeat,  the  death  of  the 
king,  and  the  almost  total  destruction  of  his 
army.  Huniades  now  became  regent  of  the 
kingdom,  during  the  minority  of  the  late  King 
Albert's  young  son,  Ladislaus. 

He  suffered  one  serious  defeat  at  the  hands  of 
the  Turks,  but  avenged  it  again  and  again,  with 
help  from  an  army  of  volunteers  raised  in  all 
parts  of  Europe  by  the  exertions  of  a  zealous 
monk  named  Capistrano.  When  Huniades  died, 
in  1456,  his  enemies  already  controlled  the  worth- 
less young  king,  Ladislaus,  and  the  latter  pur- 
sued him  in  his  grave  with  denunciations  as  a 
traitor  and  a  villain.  In  1458,  Ladislaus  died, 
and  Mathias,  a  son  of  Huniades,  was  elected 
king.  After  he  had  settled  himself  securely 
upon  the  throne,  Mathias  turned  his  arms,  not 
against  the  Turks,  but  against  the  Hussites  of 
Bohemia,  in  an  attempt  to  wrest  the  crown  of  that 
kingdom  from  George  Podiebrad. 

The  Fall  of  Constantinople. 

Meantime,  the  Turkish  Sultan,  Mohammed  II., 
had  accomplished  the  capture  of  Constantinople 
and  brought  the  venerable  Empire  of  the  East  — 
Roman,  Greek,  or  Byzantine,  as  we  choose  to 
name  it  —  to  an  end.  He  was  challenged  to  the 
undertaking  by  the  folly  of  the  last  Emperor, 
Constantine  Paloeologus,  who  threatened  to  sup- 
port a  pretender  to  Mohammed's  throne.  The 
latter  began  serious  preparations  at  once  for  a 
siege  of  the  long  coveted  city,  and  opened  his 
attack  in  April,  1453.  The  Greeks,  even  in  that 
hour  of  common  danger,  were  too  hotly  engaged 
in  a  religious  quarrel  to  act  defensively  together. 
Their  last  preceding  emperor  had  gone  person- 
ally to  the  Council  of  the  Western  Church,  at 
Florence,  in  1439,  with  some  of  the  bishops  of 
the  Greek  Church,  and  had  arranged  for  the  sub- 
mission of  the  latter  to  Rome,  as  a  means  of  pro- 
curing help  from  Catholic  Europe  against  the 
Turks.  His  successor,  Constantine,  adhered  to 
this  engagement,  professed  the  Catholic  faith  and 
observed  the  Catholic  ritual.  His  subjects  in 
general  repudiated  the  imperial  contract  with 
scorn,  and  avowedly  preferred  a  Turkish  master 
to  a  Roman  shepherd.  Hence  they  took  little 
part  in  the  defense  of  the  city.  Constantine,  with 
the  small  force  at  his  command,  fought  the  host 
of  besiegers  with  noble  courage  and  obstinacy 
for  seven  weeks,  receiving  a  little  succor  from 
the  Genoese,  but  from  no  other  quarter.  On  the 
39th  of  May  the  walls  were  carried  by  storm; 
the  Emperor  fell,  fighting  bravely  to  the  last ;  and 
the  Turks  became  masters  of  the  city  of  Con- 
stantine. There  was  no  extensive  massacre  of 
the  inhabitants;  the  city  was  given  up  to  pillage, 
but  not  to  destruction,  for  the  conqueror  intended 
to  make  it  his  capital.  A  number  of  fugitives 
had  escaped,  before,  or  during  the  siege,  and 
made  their  way  into  Italy  and  other  parts  of  Eu- 
rope, carrying  an  influence  which  was  impor-- 
tantly  felt,  as  we  shall  presently  see;  but  60,000 
captives,  men,  women  and  children,  were  sold 
into  slavery  and  scattered  throughout  the  Otto- 
man Empire. 

Greece  and  most  of  the  islands  of  the  JEgean 
soon  shared  the  fate  of  Constantinople,  and  the 


1076 


EUROPE. 


Renaissance. 


EUROPE. 


subjugation  of  Servia  and  Bosnia  was  made 
complete.  Mohammed  was  even  threatening 
Italy  when  he  died,  in  1481. 

Renaissance. 

We  have  now  come,  in  our  liasty  survey  of 
European  history,  to  the  stretch  of  time  within 
which  historians  have  quite  generally  agreed  to 
place  the  ending  of  the  state  of  things  character- 
istic of  tlie  Middle  Ages,  and  the  beginning  of 
the  changed  conditions  and  the  different  spirit 
that  belong  to  the  modern  life  of  the  civilized 
world.  The  transition  in  European  society  from 
mediaeval  to  modern  ways,  feelings,  and  thoughts 
has  been  called  Renaissance,  or  newbirtli;  but 
the  figure  under  which  this  places  the  concep- 
tion before  one's  mind  does  not  seem  to  be  really 
a  happy  one.  There  was  no  birth  of  anything 
new  in  the  nature  of  the  generations  of  men  who 
passed  through  that  change,  nor  in  the  societies 
which  they  formed.  AVliat  occurred  to  make 
changes  in  both  was  an  e.xpansion,  a  liberation, 
an  enlightenment  —  an  opening  of  eyes,  and  of 
ears,  and  of  inner  senses  and  sensibilities.  There 
was  no  time  and  no  place  that  can  be  marked 
at  which  this  began ;  and  there  is  no  cause 
nor  chain  of  causes  to  which  it  can  be  traced. 
We  have  found  signs  of  its  coming,  here  and 
there,  in  one  token  of  movement  and  another, 
all  the  way  tlirougli  later  medLTival  times  —  at 
least  since  the  first  Crusades.  In  tlie  thirteenth 
century  there  was  a  wonderful  quickening  of  all 
the  many  processes  whicli  made  it  up.  In  the 
fourteenth  century  they  were  checked  ;  but  still 
they  went  on.  In  the  fifteenth  they  revived  with 
greater  energy  than  before ;  and  in  the  sixteenth 
they  rose  to  their  climax  in  intensity  and  effect. 

That  which  took  place  in  European  society 
was  not  a  re-naissance  so  much  as  the  re-wakening 
of  men  to  a  day-light  existence,  after  a  thousand 
years  of  sunless  night, —  moonlighted  at  the 
best.  The  truest  descriptive  figure  is  that  which 
represents  these  preludes  to  our  modern  age  as  a 
morning  dawn  and  daybreak. 

Probably  foremost  among  the  causes  of  the 
change  in  Western  Europe  from  the  medieval  to 
the  modern  state,  we  must  place  those  infiuences 
that  extinguished  the  disorganizing  forces  in 
feudalism.  Habits  and  forms  of  the  feudal  ar- 
rangement remained  troublesome  in  society,  as 
they  do  in  some  measure  to  the  present  day ;  but 
feudalism  as  a  system  of  social  disorder  and  dis- 
integration was  by  this  time  cleared  away.  We 
have  noted  in  passing  some  of  tlie  undermining 
agencies  by  which  it  was  destroyed :  the  crusad- 
ing movements ;  the  growtli  and  enfranchisement 
of  cities ;  the  spread  of  commerce ;  tlie  rise  of  a 
middle  class ;  the  study  of  Roman  law ;  the  conse- 
quent increase  of  royal  authority  in  France, — all 
these  were  among  the  causes  of  its  decline.  But 
possibly  none  among  them  wrought  such  quick 
and  deadly  harm  to  feudalism  as  the  introduction 
of  gunpowder  and  fire-arms  in  war,  whicli  oc- 
curred in  tlie  fourteenth  century.  When  his 
new  weapons  placed  the  foot-soldier  on  a  fairly 
even  footing  in  battle  with  the  mailed  and 
mounted  knight,  the  feudal  military  organiza- 
tion of  society  was  ruined  beyond  remedy.  The 
changed  conditions  of  warfare  made  trained 
armies,  and  therefore  standing  armies,  a  neces- 
sity ;  standing  armies  implied  centralized  au- 
thority; with  centralized  authority  the  feudal 
condition  disappeared. 


If  these  agencies  in  the  generating  of  the  new 
movement  of  civilization  which  we  call  Modem 
are  placed  before  the  subtler  and  more  powerful 
influence  of  the  printing  press,  it  is  because  they 
had  to  do  a  certain  work  in  the  world  before  the 
printing  press  could  be  an  efficient  educator. 
Some  beginning  of  a  public,  in  our  modern  sense, 
required  to  be  created,  for  letters  to  act  upon. 
Until  that  came  about,  the  copyists  of  the  mon- 
asteries and  of  the  few  palace  libraries  existing 
were  more  than  sufficient  to  satisfy  all  demands 
for  the  multiplication  of  ancient  writings  or  the 
publication  of  new  ones.  The  printer,  if  he  had 
existed,  would  have  starved  for  want  of  employ- 
ment. He  would  have  lacked  material,  more- 
over, to  work  upon ;  for  it  was  the  rediscovery 
of  a  great  ancient  literature  which  made  him 
busy  when  he  came. 

Invention  of  Printing. 

The  preparation  of  Europe  for  an  effective  use 
of  the  art  of  printing  may  be  said  to  have  begun 
in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  wlien  the 
great  universities  of  Paris,  Bologna,  Naples, 
Padua,  Modena,  and  others,  came  into  existence, 
to  be  centers  of  intellectual  irritation  —  disputa- 
tion—  challenge  —  groping  inquiry.  But  it  was 
not  until  the  fourteenth  century,  when  the  labors 
and  the  influence  of  Petrarch  and  other  scholars 
and  men  of  genius  roused  interest  in  the  forgot- 
ten literature  of  ancient  Rome  and  Greece,  that 
the  craving  and  seeking  for  books  grew  consider- 
able. Scholars  and  pretended  scholars  from  the 
Greek  Empire  then  began  to  find  employment,  In 
Italy  more  especially,  as  teachers  of  the  Greek 
language,  and  a  market  was  opened  for  man- 
uscripts of  the  older  Greek  writings,  which 
brought  many  precious  ones  to  light,  after  long 
burial,  and  multiplied  copies  of  them.  From 
Italy,  this  revival  of  classic  learning  crept  west- 
ward and  northward  somewhat  slowly,  but  it 
went  steadily  on,  and  the  book  as  a  commodity 
in  the  commerce  of  the  world  rose  year  by  year 
in  importance,  until  the  printer  came  forward, 
about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  to 
make  it  abundant  and  cheap. 

AVhether  John  Gutenberg,  at  Mentz,  in  1454, 
or  Laurent  Coster,  at  Haarlem,  twenty  years 
earlier,  executed  the  first  printing  with  movable 
types,  is  a  question  of  small  importance,  except 
as  a  question  of  justice  between  the  two  possible 
Inventors,  in  awarding  a  great  fame  which  be- 
longs to  one  or  both.  The  grand  fact  is,  that 
thought  and  knowledge  took  wings  from  that 
sublime  invention,  and  ideas  were  spread  among 
men  with  a  swift  diffusion  that  the  world  had 
never  dreamed  of  before.  The  slow  wakening  that 
had  gone  on  for  two  centuries  became  suddenly 
so  quick  tluit  scarcely  more  than  fifty  years, from 
the  printing  of  the  first  Bible,  sufficed  to  inocu- 
late half  of  Europe  with  the  independent  think- 
ing of  a  few  boldly  enlightened  men. 

The  Greek  Revival. 

If  Gutenberg's  printing  of  Pope  Nicholas' 
letter  of  indulgence,  in  1454,  was  really  the  first 
achievement  of  the  new-born  art,  then  it  followed 
by  a  single  year  the  event  commonly  fixed  upon 
for  the  dating  of  our  Modern  Era,  and  it  derived 
much  of  its  earliest  importance  indirectly  from 
that  event.  For  the  fall  of  Constantinople,  in 
1453,  was  preceded  and  followed  by  a  flight  of 
Greeks  to  Western  Europe,  bearing  such  treas- 


1077 


EUROPE. 


Geographical 
Discovery. 


EUROPE. 


ures  as  they  could  save  from  the  Turks.  Happily 
those  treasures  included  precious  manuscripts; 
and  among  the  fugitives  was  no  small  number 
of  educated  Greeks,  who  became  teachers  of  their 
language  in  the  West.  Thus  teaching  and  text 
were  offered  at  the  moment  when  the  printing 
press  stood  ready  to  make  a  common  gift  of  them 
to  every  hungering  student.  This  opened  the 
second  of  the  three  stages  which  the  late  John 
Addington  Symonds  defined  in  the  history  of 
scholarship  during  the  Renaissance :  "The  first 
is  the  age  of  passionate  desire ;  Petrarch  poring 
over  a  Homer  he  could  not  understand,  and  Boc- 
caccio in  his  maturity  learning  Greek,  in  order 
that  he  miglit  drink  from  the  well-head  of  poetic 
inspiration,  are  the  heroes  of  this  period.  They 
inspired  the  Italians  with  a  tliirst  for  antique 
culture.  Ne.xt  comes  the  age  of  acquisition  and 
of  libraries.  Nicholas  V.,who  founded  the  Vati- 
can Library  in  1453,  Cosmo  de'  Medici,  who  began 
the  IMedicean  Collection  a  little  earlier,  and  Pog- 
gio  Bracciolani,  who  ransacked  all  the  cities  and 
convents  of  Europe  for  manuscripts,  together 
with  the  teachers  of  Greek,  who  in  the  first  half 
of  the  fifteenth  century  escaped  from  Constanti- 
nople with  precious  freights  of  classic  literature, 
are  the  heroes  of  this  second  period."  "Then 
came  the  third  age  of  scholarship  —  the  age  of 
the  critics,  philologers,  and  printers.  .  .  .  Flor- 
ence, Venice,  Basle,  and  Paris  groaned  with  print- 
ing presses.  The  Aldi,  the  Stephani,  and  Froben, 
toiled  by  night  and  day,  employing  scores  of 
scholars,  men  of  supreme  devotion  and  of  mighty 
brain,  whose  work  it  was  to  ascertain  the  right 
reading  of  sentences,  to  accentuate,  to  punctuate, 
to  commit  to  tlie  press,  and  to  place  beyond  the 
reach  of  monkish  hatred  or  of  envious  time,  that 
everlasting  solace  of  humanity  which  exists  in 
the  classics.  All  subsequent  achievements  in  the 
field  of  scholarship  sink  into  insignificance  be- 
side the  labours  of  these  men,  who  needed  genius, 
enthusiasm,  and  the  sympathy  of  Europe  for  the 
accomplishment  of  their  titanic  task.  Virgil  was 
printed  in  1470,  Homer  in  1488,  Aristotle  in  1498, 
Plato  in  1513.  They  then  became  the  inalienable 
heritage  of  mankind.  .  .  .  This  third  age  in  the 
history  of  the  Renaissance  Scholarship  may  be 
said  to  have  reached  its  climax  in  Erasmus  [1465- 
1536] ;  for  by  this  time  Italy  had  handed  on  the 
torch  of  learning  to  the  northern  nations"  (Sy- 
monds). 

Art  had  already  had  its  new  birth  in  Italy ;  but 
it  shared  with  everything  spiritual  and  intellec- 
tual the  wonderful  quickening  of  the  age,  and 
produced  the  great  masters  of  the  fifteenth  and 
sixteenth  centuries:  Michael  Angelo,  Leonardo 
da  Vinci,  Raphael,  Titian,  in  Italy,  the  Brothers 
Van  Eyck  in  Flanders,  Holbein  and  Diirer,  in 
Germany,  and  the  host  of  their  compeers  in  that 
astonishing  age  of  artistic  genius. 

Portuguese  Explorations. 

A  ruder  and  more  practical  direction  in  which 
the  spirit  of  the  age  manifested  itself  conspicu- 
ously and  with  prodigious  results  was  that  of 
exploring  navigation,  to  penetrate  the  unknown 
regions  of  the  globe  and  find  their  secrets  out. 
But,  strangely,  it  was  none  of  the  older  maritime 
and  commercial  peoples  who  led  the  way  in  this: 
neither  the  Venetians,  nor  the  Genoese,  nor  the 
Catalans,  nor  the  Flemings,  nor  the  Hansa  Lea- 
guers, nor  the  English,  were  early  in  the  search 
for  new  countries  and  new  routes  of  trade.    The 


grand  exploit  of  "business  enterprise"  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  which  changed  tlie  face  of  com- 
merce throughout  the  world,  was  left  to  be  per- 
formed by  the  Portuguese,  whose  prior  com- 
mercial experience  was  as  slight  as  that  of  any 
people  in  Europe.  And  it  was  one  great  man 
among  them,  a  younger  son  in  their  royal  family, 
Prince  Henry,  known  to  later  times  as  "the 
Navigator,"  who  woke  tlie  spirit  of  exploration 
in  them  and  pushed  them  to  the  achievement 
which  placed  Portugal,  for  a  time,  at  the  head  of 
the  maritime  states.  Beginning  in  1434,  Prince 
Henry  sent  expedition  following  expedition  down 
the  western  coast  of  Africa,  searching  for  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  continent,  and  a  way 
round  it  to  the  eastward  —  to  the  Indies,  the 
goal  of  commercial  ambition  then  and  long  after. 
In  our  own  day  it  seems  an  easy  thing  to  sail 
down  the  African  coast  to  the  Cape ;  but  it  was 
not  easy  in  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century ; 
and  when  Prince  Henry  died,  in  1460,  his  ships 
had  only  reached  the  mouth  of  the  Gambia,  or  a 
little  way  beyond  it.  His  countrymen  had  grown 
interested,  however,  in  the  pursuit  which  he  be- 
gan, and  expeditions  were  continued,  not  eagerly 
but  at  intervals,  until  Bartolomew  Diaz,  in  1486, 
rounded  the  southern  point  of  the  continent  with- 
out knowing  it,  and  Vasco  da  Gama,  in  1497, 
passed  beyond,  and  sailed  to  the  coast  of  India. 

Discovery  of  America. 

Five  years  before  this,  Columbus,  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  of  Spain,  had 
made  the  more  venturesome  voyage  westward, 
and  had  found  the  New  World  of  America.  That 
the  fruits  of  that  surpassing  discovery  fell  to 
Spain,  is  one  of  the  happenings  of  history  which 
one  need  not  try  to  explain ;  since  (if  we  except 
the  Catalans  among  them)  there  were  no  people 
in  Europe  less  inclined  to  ocean  adventure  than 
the  Spaniards.  But  they  had  just  finished  the 
conquest  of  the  Moors ;  their  energies,  long  exer- 
cised in  that  struggle,  demanded  some  new  out- 
let, and  the  Genoese  navigator,  seeking  money 
and  ships,  and  baffled  in  all  more  promising 
lands,  came  to  them  at  the  right  moment  for  a 
favorable  hearing.  So  Castile  won  the  amazing 
prize  of  adventure,  which  seems  to  have  be- 
longed by  more  natural  riglit  to  Genoa,  or  Venice, 
or  Bruges,  or  Lubeck,  or  Bristol. 

The  immediate  material  effects  of  the  finding 
of  the  new  way  to  tlie  Asiatic  side  of  the  world 
were  far  more  important  than  the  effects  of  the 
discovery  of  America,  and  they  were  promptly 
felt.  No  sooner  had  the  Portuguese  secured  their 
footing  in  the  eastern  seas,  and  on  the  route  thither, 
which  they  proceeded  vigorously  to  do,  than  the 
commerce  of  Europe  with  that  rich  region  of 
spices  and  silks,  and  curious  luxuries  which 
Europe  loved,  abandoned  its  ancient  channels 
and  ran  quickly  into  the  new  one.  There  were 
several  strong  reasons  for  this:  (1)  the  carriage 
of  goods  by  the  longer  ocean  route  was  cheaper 
than  by  caravan  routes  to  the  Mediterranean ;  (3) 
the  pestilent  Moorish  pirates  of  the  Barbary  Coast 
were  escaped;  (3)  European  merchants  found 
heavy  advantages  in  dealing  directly  with  the 
East  instead  of  trading  at  second  hand  through 
Arabs  and  Turks.  So  the  commerce  of  the  Indies 
fled  suddenly  away  from  the  Mediterranean  to 
the  Atlantic ;  fled  from  Venice,  from  Genoa,  from 
Marseilles,  from  Barcelona,  from  Constantinople, 
from  Alexandria;  fled,  too,  from  many  cities  of 


1078 


EUROPE. 


Nationalization. 


EUROPE. 


the  arrogant  Hanse  league  iu  the  North,  which 
had  learned  the  old  ways  of  traffic  and  were  slow 
to  catch  tlie  idea  of  a  possible  change.  At  the 
outset  of  the  rearrangement  of  trade,  the  Por- 
tuguese won  and  held,  for  a  time,  the  tirst  hand- 
ling of  East  Indian  commodities,  while  Dutch, 
English  and  German  traders  —  especially  the  first 
named  —  met  them  at  Lisbon  and  took  their  wares 
for  distribution  through  central  and  northern 
Europe.  But,  iu  no  long  time,  tlie  Dutch  and 
English  went  to  India  on  their  own  account,  and 
ousted  the  Portuguese  from  their  profitable  mo- 
nopoly. 

Commercially,  the  discovery  of  America  had 
little  effect  on  Europe  for  a  century  or  two. 
Politically,  it  had  vast  consequences  in  tlie  six- 
teenth century,  which  came,  in  the  main,  from 
the  power  and  prestige  that  accrued  to  Spain. 
But  perhaps  its  most  important  effects  were 
those  moral  and  intellectual  ones  which  may  be 
attributed  to  the  sudden,  surprising  enlargement 
of  the  geographical  horizon  of  men.  The  lifting 
of  the  curtain  of  mystery  which  had  hung  so  long 
between  two  halves  of  the  world  must  have  com- 
pelled every  man,  who  thought  at  all,  to  suspect 
that  other  curtains  of  mystery  might  be  hiding 
facts  as  simple  and  substantial,  waiting  for  their 
•Columbus  to  disclose  them ;  and  so  the  bondage 
of  the  medifeval  mind  to  that  cowardice  of  su- 
perstition which  fears  inquiry,  must  surely  have 
■been  greatly  loosened  by  the  startling  event. 
But  the  Spaniards,  who  rushed  to  tlie  possession 
of  the  new-found  world,  showed  small  signs  of 
any  such  effect  upon  their  minds ;  and  perhaps 
it  was  tlie  greedy  thought  of  their  possession 
which  excluded  it. 

Nationalization  of  Spain. 

The  Spaniards  were  one  of  half-a-dozen  peo- 
ples in  Western  Europe  who  had  just  arrived, 
in  this  fifteenth  century,  at  a  fairly  consolidated 
nationality,  and  were  prepared,  for  the  first  time 
in  their  history,  to  act  with  something  like  or- 
ganic unity  in  the  affairs  of  the  world.  It  was 
one  of  tlie  singular  birth-marks  of  the  new  era 
in  history,  that  so  many  nations  passed  from  the 
inchoate  to  the  definite  form  at  so  nearly  the 
same  time.  The  marriage  of  Isabella  of  Castile 
to  Ferdinand  of  Aragon,  in  1469,  effected  a  per- 
manent union  of  the  two  crowns,  and  a  substan- 
tial incorporation  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
Spanish  peninsula  into  a  single  strong  kingdom, 
made  yet  stronger  in  1491  by  the  conquest  of 
Grenada  and  subjugation  of  the  last  of  the 
Spanish  Moors. 

Louis  XI.  and  the  Nationalizing  of  France. 

The  nationalizing  of  France  had  been  a  simul- 
taneous but  quite  different  process.  From  the 
miserably  downfallen  and  divided  state  in  which 
it  was  left  by  the  Hundred  Years  War,  it  was 
raised  by  a  singular  king,  who  employed  strange, 
ignoble  methods,  but  employed  them  with  re- 
markable success.  This  was  Louis  XL,  who 
owes  to  Sir  Walter  Scott's  romance  of  "  Quentin 
Durward "  an  introduction  to  common  fame 
which  he  could  hardly  have  secured  otherwise ; 
since  popular  attention  is  not  often  drawn  to  the 
kind  of  cunning  and  hidden  work  in  politics 
which  he  did. 

Louis  XL,  on  coming  to  the  throne  in  1461, 
found  himself  surrounded  by  a  state  of  things 
•which  seemed  much  like  a  revival  of  the  feudal 


state  at  its  worst,  when  Philip  Augustus  and 
Louis  IX.  had  to  deal  with  great  vassals  who 
rivalled  or  overtopped  them  in  power.  The 
reckless  granting  of  appanages  to  children  of 
the  royal  family  liad  raised  up  a  new  group  of 
nobles,  too  powerful  and  too  proud  to  be  loyal 
and  obedient  subjects  of  the  monarchy.  At  the 
head  of  them  was  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  whose 
splendid  dominion,  extended  by  marriage  over 
most  of  the  Netherlands,  raised  him  to  a  place 
among  the  greater  princes  of  Europe,  and  who 
quite  outshone  the  King  of  France  in  ever3'tliing 
but  the  royal  title.  It  was  impossible,  under 
the  circumstances,  for  the  crown  to  establish  its 
supremacy  over  these  powerful  lords  by  means 
direct  and  open.  The  craft  and  dishonesty  of 
Louis  found  methods  more  effectual.  He  cajoled, 
beguiled,  betrayed  and  cheated  his  antagonists, 
one  by  one.  He  pla}'ed  the  selfishness  and  am- 
bitions of  each  against  the  others,  and  he  skilfully 
evoked  something  like  a  public  opinion  in  his 
kingdom  against  the  whole.  At  the  outset  of 
his  reign  the  nobles  formed  a  combination  against 
him  which  they  called  the  League  of  the  Public 
Weal,  but  which  aimed  at  nothing  but  fresh 
gains  to  the  privileged  class  and  advantages  to 
its  chiefs.  Of  alliance  with  the  people  against 
the  crown,  as  in  England,  there  was  no  thought. 
Louis  yielded  to  the  League  iu  appearance,  and 
cunningly  went  beyond  its  demands  in  his  con- 
cessions, making  it  odious  to  the  kingdom  at 
large,  and  securing  to  himself  the  strong  support 
of  the  States-General  of  France,  when  he  ap- 
pealed to  it. 

The  tortuous  policy  of  Louis  was  aided  by 
many  favoring  circumstances  and  happenings. 
It  was  favored  not  least,  perhaps,  by  the  hot- 
headed character  of  Charles  the  Bold,  who  suc- 
ceeded his  father,  Philip,  in  the  Duchy  of  Bur- 
gundy, in  1467.  Charles  was  inspired  with  a 
great  and  not  unreasonable  ambition,  to  make 
his  realm  a  kingdom,  holding  a  middle  place  be- 
tween France  and  Germany.  He  had  abilities, 
but  he  was  of  a  passionate  and  hauglity  temper, 
and  no  match  for  the  cool,  perfidious,  plotting 
King  of  France.  The  latter,  by  skilful  intrigue, 
involved  him  in  a  war  with  the  Swiss,  which  he 
conducted  imprudently,  and  in  which  he  was 
defeated  and  killed  (1477).  His  death  cleared 
Louis'  path  to  complete  mastery  in  France,  and 
he  made  the  most  of  his  opportunity.  Charles 
left  only  a  daughter,  Mary  of  Burgundy,  and 
her  situation  was  helpless.  Louis  lost  no  time  in 
seizing  the  Duchy  of  Burgundy,  as  a  fief  of 
France,  and  in  the  pretended  exercise  of  his 
rights  as  godfather  of  the  Duchess  Mary.  He 
also  took  possession  of  Franche  Comte,  which 
was  a  fief  of  the  Empire,  and  he  put  forward 
claims  in  Flanders.  Artois,  and  elsewhere.  But 
the  Netherlanders,  while  they  took  advantage  of 
the  young  duche-ss'  situation,  and  exacted  large 
concessions  of  chartered  privileges  from  her,  yet 
maintained  her  rights;  and  before  the  first  year 
of  her  orphanage  closed,  she  obtained  a  cliam- 
pion  by  marriage  with  the  Archduke  Maximilian 
of  Austria,  son  of  the  Emperor,  Frederick  III. 
Maximilian  was  successful  in  war  with  Louis; 
but  the  latter  succeeded,  after  all,  in  holding 
Burgundy,  which  was  thenceforth  absorbed  in 
the  royal  domain  of  France  and  gave  no  further 
trouble  to  the  monarchy,  while  he  won  some  im- 
portant extensions  of  the  northwestern  frontiers 
of  his  kingdom. 


1079 


EUROPE. 


The  French  in 
Italy. 


EUROPE. 


Before  the  deatli  of  Louis  XI.  the  French 
crown  regained  Anjou,  Maine,  and  Provence,  by 
inheritance  from  the  last  representative  of  the 
great  second  House  of  Anjou.  Thus  the  liing- 
dom  which  he  left  to  his  son,  Charles  VIII.  (1483), 
was  a  consolidated  nation,  containing  in  its  cen- 
tralized government  the  germs  of  the  absolute 
monarchy  of  a  later  day. 

Italian  Expedition  of  Charles  VIII. 

Charles  VIII.  was  a  loutish  and  uneducated 
boy  of  eight  years  when  his  father  died.  His 
capable  sister  Anne  carried  on  the  government 
for  some  years,  and  continued  her  father's  work 
by  defeating  a  revolt  of  the  nobles,  and  by 
marrying  the  young  king  to  the  heiress  of  Brit- 
tany —  thereby  uniting  to  the  crown  the  last  of 
the  great  semi-independent  fiefs.  When  Charles 
came  of  age,  lie  conceived  the  idea  of  recovering 
the  kingdom  of  Naples,  which  the  House  of 
Anjou  claimed,  and  which  he  looked  upon  as 
part  of  liis  inheritance  from  that  House.  He 
was  incited  to  the  enterprise,  moreover,  by  Ludo- 
vico  il  Moro,  or  Louis  the  Moor,  an  intriguing 
uncle  of  the  young  Duke  of  Milan,  who  con- 
spired to  displace  his  nephew.  In  1494  Charles 
crossed  the  Alps  with  a  large  and  well-disciplined 
army,  and  met  with  no  effectual  opposition.  The 
Medici  of  Florence  and  the  Pope  had  agreed  to- 
gether to  resist  this  French  intrusion,  which  they 
feared ;  but  the  invading  force  proved  too  formid- 
able, and  the  Florentines,  then  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Savonarola,  looked  to  it  for  their  libera- 
tion from  the  Medicean  rule,  already  oppressive. 
Accordingly  Charles  marched  triumphantly 
through  the  peninsula,  making  some  stay  at 
Rome.  On  his  approach  to  Naples,  the  Arago- 
nese  King,  Alfonso,  abdicated  in  favor  of  his 
son,  Ferdinand  II.,  and  died  soon  after.  Ferdi- 
nand, shut  out  of  Naples  by  an  insurrection,  fled 
to  Sicily,  and  Charles  entered  the  city,  where  the 
populace  welcomed  him  with  warmth.  Most  of 
the  kingdom  submitted  within  a  few  weeks,  and 
the  conquest  seemed  complete,  as  it  had  been 
easy. 

But  what  they  had  won  so  easily  the  French 
held  with  a  careless  hand,  and  they  lost  it  with 
equal  ease.  While  they  revelled  and  caroused  in 
Naples,  abusing  the  hospitality  of  their  new  sub- 
jects, and  gathering  plunder  with  reckless  greed, 
a  dangerous  combination  was  formed  against 
them,  throughout  the  peninsula.  Before  they 
were  aware,  it  had  put  them  in  peril,  and  Charles 
was  forced  to  retreat  with  haste,  in  the  spring  of 
1495,  leaving  an  inadequate  garrison  to  hold  the 
Neapolitan  capital.  In  Lombardy,  he  had  to 
fight  with  the  Venetians,  and  with  his  protege, 
Louis  the  Moor,  now  Duke  of  Milan.  He  defeated 
them,  and  regained  France  in  November.  Long 
before  that  time,  the  small  force  he  left  at  Naples 
had  been  overcome,  and  Ferdinand  had  recovered 
his  kingdom. 

In  one  sense,  the  French  had  nothing  to  show 
for  this  their  first  expedition  of  conquest.  In 
another  sense  they  had  much  to  show  and  their 
gain  was  great.  They  had  made  their  first  ac- 
quaintance with  the  superior  culture  of  Italy. 
They  had  breathed  the  air  beyond  the  Alps, 
which  was  then  surcharged  with  the  inspirations 
of  the  Renaissance.  Both  the  ideas  and  the  spoil 
they  brought  back  were  of  more  value  to  France 
than  can  be  easily  estimated.  They  had  re- 
turned laden  with  booty,  and  much  of  it  was  in 


treasures  of  art,  every  sight  of  which  was  a  les 
son  to  the  sense  of  beauty  and  the  taste  of  the 
people  among  whom  they  were  shown.  The  ex- 
perience and  the  influence  of  the  Italian  expedi- 
tion were  undoubtedly  very  great,  and  the  Re- 
naissance in  Prance,  as  an  artistic  and  a  literary 
birth,  is  reasonably  dated  from  it. 

Italian  Wars  of  Louis  XII. 

Charles  VIII.  died  suddenly  in  1498  and  was 
succeeded  by  his  cousin,  of  the  Orleans  branch  of 
the  Valois  family,  Louis  XII.  The  new  king  was 
weak  in  character,  but  not  wicked.  His  first 
thought  on  mounting  the  throne  was  of  the 
claims  of  his  family  to  other  thrones,  in  Italy. 
Besides  the  standing  Angevin  claim  to  the 
kingdom  of  Naples,  he  asserted  rights  of  his  own 
to  the  duchy  of  Milan,  as  a  descendant  of  Valen- 
tina  Visconti,  heiress  of  the  ducal  house  which 
the  Sforzas  supplanted.  In  1499  he  sent  an 
army  against  Louis  the  Moor,  and  the  latter  fled 
from  Milan  without  an  attempt  at  resistance. 
Louis  took  possession  of  the  duchy  with  the 
greatest  good  will  of  the  people;  but,  before 
half  a  year  had  passed,  French  taxes,  French 
government,  and  French  manners  had  disgusted 
them,  and  they  made  an  attempt  to  restore  their 
former  tyrant.  The  attempt  failed,  and  Louis 
the  Moor  was  imprisoned  in  France  for  the  re- 
mainder of  his  life. 

Milan  secured,  Louis  XII.  began  preparations 
to  repeat  the  undertaking  of  Charles  VIII. 
against  Naples.  The  Neapolitan  crown  had 
now  passed  to  an  able  and  popular  king,  Frede- 
rick, and  Frederick  had  every  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  would  be  supported  and  helped  by  his 
kinsman,  Ferdinand  of  Aragon,  the  well-known 
consort  of  Isabella  of  Castile.  Ferdinand  had 
the  power  to  hold  the  French  king  in  check ;  but 
instead  of  using  it  for  the  defense  of  the  Neapoli- 
tan branch  of  his  house,  he  secretly  and  treacher- 
ously agreed  with  Louis  to  divide  the  kingdom 
of  Naples  with  him.  Under  these  circumstances, 
the  conquest  was  easily  accomplished  (1501).  The 
betrayed  Frederick  surrendered  to  Louis,  and 
lived  as  a  pensionary  in  France  until  his  death. 
The  Neapolitan  branch  of  the  House  of  Aragon 
came  to  an  end. 

Louis  and  Ferdinand  speedily  quarreled  over 
the  division  of  their  joint  conquest.  The  treach- 
erous Spaniard  cheated  the  French  king  in  treaty 
negotiations,  gaining  time  to  send  forces  into 
Italy  which  expelled  the  French.  It  was  in  this 
war  that  the  Spanish  general,  Gonsalvo  di  Cor- 
dova, won  the  reputation  which  gave  him  the 
name  of  "the  Great  Captain";  and  it  was  like- 
wise in  this  war  that  the  chivalric  French  knight, 
Bayard,  began  the  winning  of  his  fame. 

The  League  of  Cambrai  and  the  Holy 
League. 

Naples  had  again  slipped  from  the  grasp  of- 
France,  and  this  time  it  had  passed  to  Spain. 
Louis  XII.  abandoned  the  tempting  kingdom  to 
his  rival,  and  applied  himself  to  the  establishing 
of  his  sovereignty  over  Milan  and  its  domain. 
Some  territory  formerly  belonging  to  the  Milaness 
had  been  ceded  to  Venice  by  the  Sforzas.  He 
himself  had  ceded  another  district  or  two  to  the 
republic  in  payment  for  services  rendered.  Fer- 
dinand of  Spain  had  made  payments  in  the  same 
kind  of  coin,  from  his  Neapolitan  realm,  for  Vene- 
tian help  to  secure  it.     The  warlike  Pope  Julius 


1080 


EUROPE. 


The  black  age  of 
the  Papacy. 


EUROPE. 


II.  saw  Rimini  and  other  towns  former!}'  be- 
longing to  tlie  States  of  the  Churcli  now  counted 
among  the  possessions  of  the  proud  mistress  of 
the  Adriatic.  All  of  these  disputants  in  Italy 
resented  the  gains  which  Venice  had  gathered  at 
their  expense,  and  envied  and  feared  her  some- 
what insolent  prosperity.  They  according!}'  sus- 
pended their  quarrels  with  one  another,  to  form 
a  league  for  Ijreaking  her  down  and  for  despoil- 
ing her.  The  Emperor  Maximilian,  who  had 
grievances  of  his  own  against  the  Venetians, 
joined  the  combination,  and  Florence  was  bribed 
to  become  a  party  to  it  by  the  betrayal  of  Pisa 
into  her  hands.  Thus  was  formed  the  shameful 
League  of  Cambrai  (1508).  The  French  did 
most  of  the  fighting  in  the  war  tliat  ensued, 
though  Pope  Julius,  who  toolc  the  field  in  per- 
son, easily  proved  himself  a  better  soldier  than 
priest.  The  Venetians  were  driven  for  a  time 
from  the  greater  part  of  the  dominion  tliey  had 
acquired  on  the  mainland,  and  were  sorely  pressed. 
But  they  made  terms  with  the  Pope,  and  it  then 
became  his  interest,  not  merely  to  stop  the  con- 
quests of  his  allies,  but  to  press  them  out  of 
Italy,  if  possible.  He  began  accordingly  to  in- 
trigue against  the  French,  and  presently  had  a 
new  league  in  operation,  making  war  upon  them. 
It  was  called  a  Holy  League,  because  the  head 
■of  the  Church  was  its  promoter,  and  it  embraced 
the  Emperor,  King  Ferdinand  of  Spain,  King 
Henry  VIII.  of  England,  and  the  Republic  of 
Venice.  As  the  result  of  the  ruthless  and  de- 
structive war  which  they  waged,  Louis  XII.,  be- 
fore he  died,  in  1.515,  saw  all  that  he  liad  won  in 
Lombardy  stripped  from  him  and  restored  to  the 
Sforzas  —  the  old  family  of  the  Dukes  of  Milan; 
Venice  recovered  most  of  her  possessions,  but 
never  regained  her  former  power,  since  the  dis- 
covery of  the  ocean  route  to  India,  round  the 
Cape  of  Good  Hope,  was  now  turning  the  rich 
trade  of  the  East,  the  great  source  of  her  wealth, 
into  the  hands  of  the  Portuguese ;  the  temporal 
dominion  of  the  Popes  was  enlarged  by  the  re- 
covery of  Bologna  and  Perugia  and  by  the  addi- 
tion of  Parma  and  Piacenza ;  and  Florence,  which 
had  been  a  republic  since  the  death  of  Savonarola, 
was  forced  to  submit  anew  to  the  Medici. 

The  Age  of  Infamous  Popes. 

The  fighting  Pope,  Julius  II.,  who  made  war 
and  led  armies,  while  professing  to  be  the  vicar  of 
Him  wlio  brought  the  message  of  good-will  and 
peace  to  mankind,  was  very  far  from  being  the 
worst  of  the  popes  of  his  age.  He  was  only 
worldly,  thinking  much  of  his  political  place  as 
a  temporal  sovereign  in  Italy,  and  little  of  his 
spiritual  office  as  the  head  of  the  Church  of 
Christ.  As  the  sovereign  of  Rome  and  the  Papal 
States,  Julius  11.  ran  a  brilliant  career,  and  is  one 
of  the  splendid  figures  of  the  Italian  renaissance. 
Patron  of  Michael  Angelo  and  Raphael,  projector 
of  St.  Peter's,  there  is  a  certain  grandeur  in  his 
character  to  be  admired,  if  we  could  forget  the 
pretended  apostolic  robe  which  he  smirched  with 
perfidious  politics  and  stained  with  blood. 

But  the  immediate  predecessors  of  Julius  II., 
Sixtus  IV.  and  Alexander  VI. ,  had  had  nothing 
in  their  characters  to  lure  attention  from  the  hid- 
eous examples  of  bestial  wickedness  which  they 
set  before  the  world.  Alexander,  especially, 
the  infamous  Borgia, — systematic  murderer 
and  robber,  liar  and  libertine,  —  accomplished 
practitioner  of  every  crime  and  every  vice  that 


was  known  to  the  worst  society  of  a  depraved 
generation,  and  shamelessly  open  in  the  foulest  of 
his  doings, —  there  is  scarcely  a  pagan  monster 
of  antiquity  that  is  not  whitened  by  comparison 
with  him.  Yet  he  sat  in  the  supposed  seat  of 
St.  Peter  for  eleven  years,  to  be  venerated  as  the 
Vicar  of  Christ,  the  "Holy  Father "  of  the  Cliris- 
tian  Church ;  his  declarations  and  decrees  in 
matters  of  faith  to  be  accepted  as  infallible  in- 
spirations ;  his  absolution  to  be  craved  as  a  pass- 
port to  Heaven ;  his  anathema  to  be  dreaded  as  a 
condemnation  to  Hell ! 

This  evil  and  malignant  being  died  in  1503. 
poisoned  by  one  of  his  own  cups,  which  he  had 
brewed  for  another.  Julius  II.  reigned  until 
1513;  and  after  him  came  the  Medicean  Pope, 
LeoX.,  son  of  Lorenzo  the  Magnificent, — princely 
and  worldly  as  Julius,  but  in  gentler  fashion; 
loving  ease,  pleasure,  luxury,  art,  and  careless 
of  all  that  belonged  to  religion  beyond  its  cere- 
monies and  its  comfortable  establishment  of 
clerical  estates.  Is  it  strange  that  Christendom 
was  prepared  to  give  ear  to  Luther  ? 

Luther  and  the  Reformation. 

When  Luther  raised  his  voice,  he  did  hue  renew 
a  protest  which  many  pure  and  pious  and  coura- 
geous men  before  him  had  uttered,  against  evils 
in  the  Church  and  falsities  and  impostures  in  the 
Papacy.  But  some  of  them,  like  Arnold  of 
Brescia,  like  Peter  Waldo,  and  the  Albigenses, 
had  been  too  far  in  advance  of  their  time,  and 
their  revolt  was  hopeless  from  the  beginning. 
Wyclif's  movement  had  been  timed  unfortu- 
nately in  an  age  of  great  commotions,  which 
swallowed  it  up.  That  of  Huss  had  roused  an 
ignorant  peasantry,  too  uncivilized  to  represent  a 
reformed  Christianity,  and  had  been  ruined  by 
the  fierceness  of  their  misguided  zeal.  The 
Reformation  of  Savonarola,  at  Florence,  had 
been  nobly  begun,  but  not  wisely  led,  and  it  had 
spent  its  influence  at  the  end  on  aims  less  reli- 
gious than  political. 

But  there  occurred  a  combination,  when  Luther 
arose,  of  character  in  himself,  of  circumstances 
in  his  country,  and  of  temper  in  his  generation, 
which  made  his  protest  more  lastingly  effective. 
He  had  high  courage,  without  rashness.  He  had 
earnestness  and  ardor,  without  fanaticism.  He 
had  the  plain  good  sense  and  sound  judgment 
which  win  public  confidence.  His  substantial 
learning  put  him  on  terms  with  the  scholars  of 
his  day,  and  he  was  not  so  much  refined  by  it  as 
to  lose  touch  with  the  common  people.  A  cer- 
tain coarseness  in  his  nature  was  not  offensive  to 
the  time  in  which  he  lived,  but  rather  belonged 
among  the  elements  of  power  in  him.  His  spirit- 
uality was  not  fine,  but  it  was  strong.  He  was 
sincere,  and  men  believed  in  him.  He  was  open, 
straightforward,  manly,  commanding  respect. 
His  qualities  showed  themselves  in  his  speech, 
which  went  straight  to  its  mark,  in  the  simplest 
words,  moulding  the  forms  and  phrases  of  the 
German  language  with  more  lasting  effect  than 
the  speech  of  any  other  man  who  ever  used  it. 
Not  many  have  lived  in  any  age  or  any  country 
who  possessed  the  gift  of  so  persuasive  a  tongue, 
with  so  powerful  a  character  to  command  the 
hearing  for  it. 

And  the  generation  to  which  Luther  spoke 
really  waited  for  a  bold  voice  to  break  into  the 
secret  of  its  thoughts  concerning  the  Church- 
It  had   inherited   a  centurv  of  alienation   from 


1081 


EUROPE. 


Lutker  and 
the  Reformation. 


EUROPE. 


quarreling  popes  and  greedy,  corrupted  priests; 
and  now  there  had  been  added  in  its  feeling  the 
deep  abhorrence  roused  by  such  villains  as  the 
Borgia  in  the  papal  chair,  and  by  their  creatures 
and  minions  in  the  priesthood  of  the  Church.  If 
it  is  crediting  too  much  to  the  common  multi- 
tude of  the  time  to  suppose  them  greatly  sick- 
ened by  the  vices  and  corruptions  of  their  priests, 
we  may  be  sure,  at  least,  that  they  were  wearied 
and  angered  by  the  exactions  from  them,  which 
a  vicious  hierarchy  continually  increased.  The 
extravagance  of  the  Papacy  kept  pace  with  its 
degradation,  and  Christendom  groaned  under  the 
burden  of  the  taxes  that  were  wrung  from  it  in 
the  name  of  the  lowly  Saviour  of  mankind. 

Nowhere  in  Europe  were  the  extortions  of  the 
Church  felt  more  severely  than  in  Germany, 
where  the  serfdom  of  the  peasants  was  still  real 
and  hard,  and  where  the  depressing  weight  of 
the  feudal  system  had  scarcely  been  lifted  from 
society  at  all.  Feudalism  had  given  way  in  that 
country  less  than  iu  an}-  other.  Central  authority 
remained  as  weak,  and  national  solidification  as 
far  away,  as  ever.  Of  organic  unity  in  the  het- 
erogeneous bundle  of  electoral  principalities, 
duchies,  margravates  and  free  cities  which  made 
up  the  nominal  realm  of  the  King  of  the  Romans, 
there  was  no  more  at  the  beginning  of  the  six- 
teenth century  than  there  had  been  in  the  twelfth. 
But  that  very  brokenness  and  division  in  the  po- 
litical state  of  Germany  proved  to  be  one  of 
the  circumstances  which  favored  the  Protestant 
Reformation  of  the  Church.  Had  monarchical  au- 
thority established  itself  there  as  in  France,  then 
the  Austro-Spanish  family  which  wielded  it,  with 
the  concentrated  bigotry  of  their  narrow-minded 
race,  would  have  crushed  the  religious  revolt  as 
completely  in  Saxony  as  they  did  in  Austria  and 
Bohemia. 

The  Ninety-five  Theses. 

The  main  events  of  the  Reformation  in  Ger- 
many are  so  commonly  known  that  no  more  than 
the  slightest  sketching  of  them  is  needed  here. 
Letters  of  indulgence,  purporting  to  grant  a  re- 
mission of  the  temporal  and  purgatorial  penalties 
of  sin,  had  been  sold  by  the  Church  for  centuries ; 
but  none  before  Pope  Leo  X.  had  made  merchan- 
dize of  them  in  so  peddlar-like  and  shameful  a 
fashion  as  that  which  scandalized  the  intelligent 
piety  of  Europe  in  1517.  Luther,  then  a  profes- 
sor in  the  new  University  of  "Wittenberg,  Saxony, 
could  not  hide  his  indignation,  as  most  men  did. 
He  stood  forth  boldly  and  challenged  the  impious 
fraud,  in  a  series  of  propositions  or  theses,  which, 
after  the  manner  of  the  time,  he  nailed  to  the 
door  of  Wittenberg  Church.  Just  that  bold  ac- 
tion was  needed  to  let  loose  the  pent-up  feeling 
of  the  German  people.  The  ninety -five  theses 
were  printed  and  went  broadcast  through  the 
land,  to  be  read  and  to  be  listened  to,  and  to  stir 
every  class  with  independent  ideas.  It  was  the 
first  great  appeal  made  to  the  public  opinion  of 
the  world,  after  the  invention  of  printing  had  put 
a  trumpet  to  the  mouths  of  eloquent  men,  and 
the  effect  was  too  amazing  to  be  believed  by  the 
careless  Pope  and  his  courtiers. 

Political  Circumstances. 

But  more  than  possibly — probably,  indeed  — 
the  popular  feeling  stirred  up  would  never  have 
accomplished  the  rupture  with  Rome  and  the  re- 
ligious independence  to  which  North  Germany 


atttained  in  the  end,  if  political  motives  had  not 
coincided  with  religious  feelings  to  bring  certain 
princes  and  great  nobles  into  sympathy  with  the 
Monk  of  AVittenberg.  The  Elector  of  Saxony,. 
Luther's  immediate  sovereign,  had  long  been  in 
opposition  to  the  Papacy  on  the  subject  of  its  enor- 
mous collections  of  money  from  his  subjects,  and 
he  was  well  pleased  to  have  the  hawking  of  indul- 
gences checked  in  his  dominions.  Partly  for 
this  reason,  partl.y  because  of  the  pride  and  in- 
terest with  which  he  cherished  his  new  Uni- 
versity, partly  from  personal  liking  and  admira- 
tion of  Luther,  and  partly,  too,  no  doubt,  in. 
recognition  of  the  need  of  Church  reforms,  he 
gave  Luther  a  quiet  protection  and  a  concealed- 
support.  He  was  the  strongest  and  most  influ- 
ential of  the  princes  of  the  Empire,  and  his  ob- 
vious favor  to  the  movement  advanced  it  power- 
fully and  rapidh'. 

At  first,  there  was  no  intention  to  break  with- 
the  Papac}'  and  the  Papal  Church, —  certainly 
none  in  Luther's  mind.  His  attitude  towards  both 
was  conciliatory  in  every  way,  except  as  con- 
cerned the  falsities  and  iniquities  which  he  had 
protested  against.  It  was  not  until  the  Pope, 
in  June,  1530,  launched  against  him  the  famous- 
Bull,  "  Exurge  Domine,"  which  left  no  alterna- 
tive between  abject  submission  and  open  war, 
that  Luther  and  his  followers  cast  off  the  author- 
ity of  the  Roman  Church  and  its  head,  and 
grounded  their  faith  upon  Holy  Scripture  alone. 
By  formally  burning  the  Bull,  Luther  accepted 
the  papal  challenge,  and  those  who  believed  with 
him  were  ready  for  the  contest. 

The  Diet  of  'Worms. 

In  1521,  the  reformer  was  summoned  before  a 
Diet  of  the  Empire,  at  "Worms,  where  a  hearing 
was  given  him.  The  influence  of  the  Church, 
and  of  the  young  Austro-Spanish  Emperor, 
Charles  V.,  who  adhered  to  it,  was  still  great 
enough  to  procure  his  condemnation;  but  they 
did  not  dare  to  deal  with  him  as  Huss  had 
been  dealt  with.  He  was  suffered  to  depart 
safely,  pursued  by  an  imperial  edict  which  placed 
the  ban  of  the  Empire  on  all  who  should  give 
him  countenance  or  support.  His  friends  among 
the  nobles  spirited  him  away  and  concealed  him 
in  a  castle,  the  "Wartburg,  where  he  remained 
for  several  months,  employed  in  making  his 
translation  of  the  Bible.  Meantime,  the  Emperor 
had  been  called  away  from  Germany  by  his  mul- 
tifarious affairs,  in  the  Netherlands  and  Spain, 
and  had  little  attention  to  give  to  Luther  and  the 
questions  of  religion  for  half-a-dozen  years.  He 
was  represented  in  Germany  by  a  Council  of  Re- 
gency, with  the  Elector  of  Saxony  at  the  head  of 
it ;  and  the  movement  of  reformation,  if  not  en- 
couraged in  his  absence,  was  at  least  considerably 
protected.  It  soon  showed  threatening  signs  of 
wildness  and  fanaticism  in  many  quarters ;  but 
Luther  proved  himself  as  powerful  in  leadership 
as  he  had  been  in  agitation,  and  the  religious 
passion  of  the  time  was  controlled  effectively, 
on  the  whole. 

Organization  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

Before  the  close  of  the  year  lo'Jl,  Pope  Leo  X. 
died,  and  his  successor,  Adrian,  while  insisting^ 
upon  the  enforcement  of  the  Edict  of  Worms 
against  Luther  and  his  supporters,  yet  acknow- 
ledged the  corruptions  of  the  Church  and  prom- 
ised a  reformation  of  them.     His  promises  came 


1082 


EUROPE. 


The  realms  of 
Charles  V. 


EUROPE. 


too  late ;  his  confession.s  only  gave  testimony  to 
the  independent  reformers  which  their  opponents 
could  not  impeach.  There  was  no  longer  any 
thought  of  cleansing  the  Church  of  Rome,  to 
abide  in  it.  A  separated  —  a  restored  Church  — 
was  clearly  determined  on,  and  Luther  framed 
a  system  of  faith  and  discipline  which  was 
adopted  in  Saxony,  and  then  accepted  very  gen- 
erally by  the  reformed  Churches  throughout 
Germany.  In  1525,  the  Elector  Frederick  of  Sax- 
ony died.  He  had  quieth'  befriended  the  Luther- 
ans and  tolerated  the  reform,  but  never  identified 
himself  with  them.  His  brother,  John,  who  suc- 
ceeded him,  made  public  profession  of  his  belief 
in  the  Lutheran  doctrines,  and  authoritatively 
established  the  church  system  which  Luther  had 
introduced.  The  Landgrave  of  Hesse  Cassel, 
the  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  and  the  Dukes  of 
Mecklenburg,  Pomerania  and  Zell,  followed  his 
example ;  while  the  imperial  cities  of  Frankfort, 
Nuremberg,  Bremen,  Strasburg,  Brunswick, 
Nordhausen,  and  others,  formally  ranged  them- 
selves on  the  same  side.  By  the  year  1526,  wlien 
a  diet  at  Spires  declared  the  freedom  of  each 
state  in  the  Empire  to  deal  with  the  religious 
reform  according  to  its  own  will,  the  Reforma- 
tion in  Germany  was  a  solidly  organized  fact. 
But  those  of  the  reform  had  not  yet  received 
their  name,  of  "Protestants."  That  came  to 
them  three  years  later,  when  the  Roman  party 
had  rallied  its  forces  in  a  new  diet  at  Spires,  to 
undo  the  declaration  of  152G,  and  the  leaders  of 
the  Lutheran  party  recorded  their  solemn  protest. 

The  Austro-Burgundian  Marriage. 

To  understand  the  situation  politically,  dur- 
ing the  period  of  struggle  for  and  against  the 
Reformation,  it  will  be  necessary  to  turn  back 
a  little,  for  the  noting  of  important  occurrences 
which  have  not  been  mentioned. 

When  Albert  IL,  who  was  King  of  Hungary 
and  Bohemia,  as  well  as  King  of  the  Romans 
(Emperor-clect,  as  the  title  came  to  be,  soon  after- 
wards), died,  in  1439,  he  was  succeeded  by  his 
second  cousin  Frederick  IIL,  Duke  of  Styria, 
and  from  that  time  the  Roman  or  imperial  crown 
was  held  continuously  in  the  Austrian  family, 
becoming  practically  hereditary.  But  Frederick 
did  not  succeed  to  the  duchy  of  Austria,  and  he 
failed  of  election  to  the  throne  in  Hungary  and 
Bohemia.  Hence  his  position  as  Emperor  was 
peculiarly  weak  and  greatly  impoverished, 
through  want  of  revenue  from  any  considerable 
possessions  of  his  own.  During  his  whole 
long  reign,  of  nearly  fifty-four  years,  Frederick 
was  humiliated  and  hampered  by  his  poverty; 
the  imperial  authority  was  brought  very  low,  and 
Germany  was  in  a  greatly  disordered  state. 
There  were  frequent  wars  between  its  members, 
and  between  Austria  and  Bohemia,  with  rebel- 
lions in  Vienna  and  elsewhere;  while  the  Hun- 
garians were  left  to  contend  with  the  aggressive 
Turks,  almost  unhelped. 

But  in  1477  a  remarkable  change  in  the  cir- 
cumstances and  prospects  of  the  family  of  the 
Emperor  Frederick  III.  was  made  by  the  mar- 
riage of  his  son  and  heir,  Maximilian,  to  Mary, 
the  daughter  and  heiress  of  the  wealthy  and 
powerful  Duke  of  Burgundy,  Charles  the  Bold. 
The  bridegroom  was  so  poor  that  the  bride  is 
said  to  have  loaned  him  the  money  which  en- 
abled him  to  make  a  fit  appearance  at  the  wed- 
ding     She   had  lost,   as  we  saw,  the  duchy  of 


Burgundy,  but  the  valiant  arm  of  Maximilian 
enabled  her  to  hold  the  Burgundian  county, 
Franche  Comte,  and  the  rich  provinces  of  the 
Netherlands,  which  formed  at  that  time,  perhaps, 
the  most  valuable  principality  in  Europe.  The 
Duchess  Mary  lived  only  five  years  after  her 
marriage;  but  she  left  a  son,  Philip,  who  in- 
herited the  Netherlands  and  Franche  Comte,  and 
Maximilian  ruled  them  as  his  guardian. 

In  1493,  the  Emperor  Frederick  died,  and 
Maximilian,  who  had  been  elected  King  of  the 
Romans  some  years  before,  succeeded  him  in  the 
imperial  office.  He  was  never  crowned  at  Rome, 
and  he  took  the  title,  not  used  before,  of  King  of 
Germany  and  Emperor-elect.  He  was  Archduke 
of  Austria,  Duke  of  Styria,  Carinthia  and  Car- 
niola,  and  Count  of  Tyrol ;  and,  with  his  guar- 
dianship in  the  Low  Countries,  he  rose  greatly 
in  importance  and  power  above  his  father.  But 
he  accomplished  less  than  might  possibly  have 
been  done  by  a  ruler  of  more  sureness  of  judg- 
ment and  fixity  in  purpose.  His  plans  were 
generally  beyond  his  means,  and  the  failures  In 
his  imdertakings  were  numerous.  He  was  eager 
to  interfere  with  the  doings  of  Charles  VIII.  and 
Louis  XIII.  in  Italy ;  but  the  Germanic  diet  gave 
him  so  little  support  that  he  could  do  nothing 
effective.  He  joined  the  League  of  Cambrai 
against  Venice,  and  the  Holy  League  against 
France,  but  bore  no  Important  part  in  either. 
His  reign  was  signalized  in  Germany  by  the 
division  of  the  nation  into  six  administrative 
"Circles,"  afterwards  increased  to  ten,  and  by 
the  creation  of  a  supreme  court  of  appeal,  called 
the  Imperial  Chamber,  —  both  of  which  measures 
did  something  towards  the  diminution  of  private 
wars  and  disorders. 

The   Austro-Spanish   Marriage. — Charles  V. 

But  Maximilian  figures  most  conspicuously  in 
history  as  the  immediate  ancestor  of  the  two 
great  sovereign  dynasties — the  Austrian  and 
the  Austro-Spanish  —  which  sprang  from  his 
marriage  with  Mary  of  Burgundy  and  which 
dominated  Europe  for  a  century  after  his  death. 
His  son  Philip,  heir  to  the  Burgundian  sover- 
eignty of  the  Netherlands,  married  (1496)  Jo- 
anna, daughter  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  of 
Spain.  Two  children,  Charles  and  Ferdinand, 
were  the  fruit  of  this  marriage.  Charles,  the 
elder,  inherited  more  crowns  and  coronets  than 
were  ever  gathered,  in  reality,  by  one  sovereign, 
before  or  since.  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  had 
united  by  their  marriage  the  kingdoms  of  Ara- 
gon  and  Castile,  and,  by  the  conquest  of  Granada 
and  the  partial  conquest  of  Navarre,  the  entire 
peninsula,  except  Portugal,  was  subsequently 
added  to  their  joint  dominion.  Joanna  inherited 
the  whole,  on  the  death  of  Isabella,  in  1504,  and 
the  death  of  Ferdinand,  in  1516.  She  also  in- 
herited from  her  father,  Ferdinand,  the  kingdom 
of  the  Two  Sicilies  —  which  he  had  reunited  — 
and  the  island  of  Sardinia.  Philip,  on  his  side, 
already  iu  possession  of  the  Netherlands  and 
Franche  Comte,  was  heir  to  the  domain  of  the 
House  of  Austria.  Both  of  these  great  inheri- 
tances descended  in  due  course  to  Charles,  and  he 
had  not  long  to  wait  for  them.  His  father, 
Philip,  died  in  1506,  and  his  mother,  Joanna, 
lost  her  mind,  through  grief  at  that  event.  The 
death  of  his  Spanish  grandfather,  Ferdinand,  oc- 
curred in  1516,  and  that  of  his  Austrian  grand- 
father, the  Emperor  Maximilian,  followed  three 


1083 


EUROPE. 


Beginning  of 
the  ruin  of  Spain. 


EUROPE. 


years  later.     At  the  age  of  twenty  years  (repr 
8enting  bis  mother  in  her   incapacity)   Charh 


)  re- 
nting bis  mother  in  her  incapacity)  Charles 
found  himself  sovereign  of  Spain,  and  America, 
of  Sicily,  Naples,  Sardinia,  the  Low  Countries, 
Franche  Comte,  Austria,  and  the  duchies  associ- 
ated with  it.  The  same  year  (1519)  he  was 
chosen  King  of  Germany  and  Emperor-elect, 
after  a  keen  contest  over  the  imperial  crown,  in 
which  Francis  I.  of  France  and  Henry  VIII.  of 
England  were  his  competitors.  On  attaining 
this  dignity,  he  conferred  the  Austrian  posses- 
sions on  his  brother  Ferdinand.  But  he  remained 
the  most  potent  and  imposing  monarch  that 
Europe  had  seen  since  Charlemagne.  He  came 
upon  the  stage  just  as  Luther  had  marshalled, 
in  Germany,  the  reforming  forces  of  the  new 
era,  against  intolerable  iniquities  in  the  Papal 
Church.  Unfortunately,  he  came,  with  his  vast 
armament  of  powers,  to  resist  the  demands  of 
his  age,  and  to  be  the  champion  of  old  falsities 
and  wrongs,  both  in  Church  and  State.  There 
was  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  man,  nor  in  his 
education,  nor  in  the  influences  which  bore  upon 
him,  from  either  the  Spanish  or  the  Austrian 
side  of  his  family,  to  put  him  in  sympathy  with 
lifting  movements  or  with  liberal  ideas.  He 
never  formed  a  conception  of  the  world  in  which 
it  looked  larger  to  his  eyes,  or  signified  more  to 
him,  than  the  globe  upon  his  scepter. 

So,  naturally  enough,  this  Cfesar  of  the  Re- 
naissance (Charles  V.  in  German}-  and  Charles  I. 
in  Spain)  did  his  utmost,  from  the  day  he 
climbed  the  throne,  to  thrust  Europe  back  into 
the  murk  of  the  fourteenth  century,  which  he 
found  it  pretty  nearly  escaped  from.  He  did  not 
succeed ;  but  he  gave  years  of  misery  to  several 
countries  by  his  exertions,  and  he  resigned  the 
task  to  a  successor  whom  the  world  is  never 
likely  to  tire  of  abhorring  and  despising. 

The  end  of  popular  freedom  in  Spain. 

The  affairs  which  called  Charles  V.  away  from 
Germany,  after  launching  his  ineffectual  edict  of 
Worms  against  Luther  and  Luther's  supporters, 
grew  in  part  out  of  disturbances  in  his  kingdom 
of  Spain.  His  election  to  the  imperial  olHce  had 
not  been  pleasing  to  the  Spaniards,  who  antici- 
pated the  complications  they  would  be  dragged 
into  by  it,  the  foreign  character  which  their  sover- 
eign (already  foreign  in  mind  by  his  education  in 
the  Netherlands)  would  be  confirmed  in,  and  the 
indifference  with  which  their  grievances  would 
be  regarded.  For  their  grievances  against  the 
monarchy  had  been  growing  serious  in  the  last 
years  of"  Ferdinand,  and  since  his  death.  The 
crown  had  gained  power  in  the  process  of  politi- 
cal centralization,  and  its  aggrandizement  from 
the  possession  of  America  began  to  loom  start- 
liugly  in  the  light  of  the  conquest  of  Mexico, 
just  achieved.  During  the  absence  of  Charles  in 
^Germany,  his  former  preceptor,  Cardinal  Adrian, 
of  Utrecht,  being  in  charge  of  the  government  as 
regent,  a  revolt  broke  out  at  Toledo  which  spread 
widely  and  became  alarming.  The  insurgents 
organized  their  movement  under  the  name  of  the 
Santa  Junta,  or  Holy  League,  and  having  ob- 
tained possession  of  the  demented  Queen,  Joanna, 
they  assumed  to  act  for  her  and  with  her  author- 
ity. This  rebellion  was  suppressed  with  diffi- 
culty; but  the  suppression  was  accomplished 
(1531-1522),  and  it  proved  to  be  the  last  struggle 
for  popular  freedom  in  Spain.  The  government 
used  its  victory  with  an  unsparing  determination 


to  establish  absolute  powers,  and  it  succeeded. 
The  conditions  needed  for  absolutism  were  already 
created,  in  fact,  by  the  deadly  blight  which  the 
Inquisition  had  been  casting  upon  Spain  for  forty 
years.  Since  the  beginning  of  the  frightful  work 
of  Torquemada,  in  1-183,  it  had  been  diligently 
searching  out  and  destroying  every  germ  of  free 
thought  and  manly  character  that  gave  the 
smallest  sign  of  fruitfulness  in  the  kingdom ;  and 
the  crushing  of  the  Santa  Junta  may  be  said  to 
have  left  few  in  Spain  who  deserved  a  better 
fate  than  the  political,  the  religious  and  the  in- 
tellectual servitude  under  which  the  nation  sank. 

Persecution  of  the  Spanish  Moriscoes. 

Charles,  whose  mind  was  dense  in  its  bigotry, 
urged  on  the  Inquisition,  and  pointed  its  dread- 
ful engines  of  destruction  against  the  unfortu- 
nate Moriscoes,  or  Moors,  who  had  been  forced  to 
submit  to  Christian  baptism  after  their  subjuga- 
tion. Many  of  these  followers  of  Mahomet  had 
afterwards  taken  up  again  the  prayers  and  prac- 
tices of  their  own  faith,  either  secretly  or  in  quiet 
ways,  and  their  relapse  appears  to  have  been 
winked  at,  more  or  less.  For  they  were  a  most 
useful  people,  far  surpassing  the  Spaniards  in 
industry,  in  thrift  and  luiowledge  of  agriculture, 
and  in  mechanical  skill.  JIany  of  the  arts  and 
manufactures  of  the  kingdom  were  entirely  in 
their  hands.  It  was  ruinous  to  interfere  with 
their  peaceful  labors.  But  Charles,  as  heathenish 
as  the  Grand  Turk  when  it  suited  his  ends  to  be 
so,  could  look  on  these  well-behaved  and  useful 
Moors  with  no  eyes  but  the  eyes  of  an  orthodox 
piety,  and  could  take  account  of  nothing  but 
their  infidel  faith.  He  began,  therefore,  in  1524, 
the  heartless,  senseless  and  suicidal  persecution 
of  the  Jloriscoes  which  exterminated  them  or 
drove  them  from  the  land,  and  which  contributed 
signally  to  the  making  of  Spain  an  exemplary 
pauper  among  the  nations. 

Despotism  of  Charles  V.  in  the  Netherlands. 

In  his  provinces  of  the  Low  Countries,  Charles 
found  more  than  in  Spain  to  provoke  his  despotic 
bigotry.  The  Flemings  and  the  Dutch  had  been 
tasting  of  freedom  too  much  for  bis  liking,  in 
recent  years,  and  ideas,  both  political  and  re- 
ligious," bad  laeen  spreading  among  them,  which 
were  not  the  ideas  of  his  august  mind,  and  must 
therefore,  of  necessity,  be  false.  They  had  al- 
ready become  infected  with  the  rebellious  anti- 
papal  doctrines  of  Luther.  Indeed,  they  had 
been  even  riper  than  Luther's  countrymen  for  a 
religious  revolution,  when  he  sounded  tlie  signal 
note  which  echoed  through  all  northern  Europe. 
In  Germany,  the  elected  emperor  could  fulminate 
an  edict  against  the  audacious  reformers,  but  he 
had  small  power  to  give  force  to  it.  In  the 
Netherlands,  he  possessed  a  sovereignty  more 
potent,  and  he  took  instant  measures  to  exercise 
the  utmost  arbitrariness  of  which  he  could  make 
it  capable.  The  Duchess  Margaret,  his  aunt, 
who  had  been  governess  of  the  provinces,  was 
confirmed  by  him  in  that  office,  and  he  enlarged 
the  powers  in  her  commission.  His  commands 
practically  superseded  the  regular  courts,  and 
subjected  the  whole  administration  of  justice  to 
his  arbitrary  will  and  that  of  his  representative. 
At  the  same  time  they  stripped  the  States  of 
their  legislative  functions  and  reduced  them  to 
insignificance.  Having  thus  trampled  on  the 
civil  liberties  of  the  provinces,  he  borrowed  the 


1084 


EUROPE. 


Charles  V.  and 
Francis  L 


EUROPE. 


infernal  enginery  of  the  Inquisition,  and  intro- 
duced it  for  the  destruction  of  religious  freedom. 
Its  first  victims  were  two  Augustine  monks,  con- 
victed of  Lutherauism,  who  were  burned  at 
Brussels,  in  July,  1533.  The  first  martyr  in  Hol- 
land was  a  priest  who  suffered  impalement  as 
well  as  burning,  at  the  Hague,  in  1525.  From 
these  beginnings  the  persecution  grew  cruder  as 
the  alienation  of  the  stubborn  Netherlanders  from 
the  Church  of  Rome  widened ;  and  Charles  did 
not  cease  to  fan  its  fires  with  successive  procla- 
mations or  ' '  placards, "  which  denounced  and  for- 
bade every  reading  of  Scripture,  every  act  of 
devotion,  every  conversation  of  religion,  in  pub- 
lic or  private,  which  the  priests  of  the  Church 
did  not  conduct.  ' '  The  number  of  Netherlanders 
who  were  burned,  strangled,  beheaded,  or  buried 
alive,  in  obedience  to  his  edicts,  .  .  .  have  been 
placed  as  high  as  100,000  by  distinguished  au- 
thorities, and  have  never  been  put  at  a  lower 
mark  than  50,000." 

Charles  V.  and  Francis  I.  in  Italy. 

These  exercises  of  an  autocratic  piety  in  Spain 
and  the  Low  Countries  may  be  counted,  perhaps, 
among  the  pleasures  of  the  young  Emperor  dur- 
ing the  earlier  years  of  his  reign.  His  more  seri- 
ous affairs  were  connected  mainly  with  his  in- 
terests or  ambitions  in  Italy,  which  seemed  to  be 
threatened  by  the  King  of  France.  The  throne 
in  that  countr)'  was  now  occupied  by  Francis  I. ,  a 
cousin  of  Louis  XII.  .who  had  succeeded  the  latter 
in  1515,  and  who  had  taken  up  anew  the  Italian 
projects  in  which  Louis  failed.  In  the  first  year 
of  his  reign,  he  crossed  the  Alps  with  an  army, 
defeated  the  Swiss  whom  the  Duke  of  Milan  em- 
ployed against  him,  and  won  the  whole  duchy 
by  that  single  fight.  This  re-establishment  of  the 
French  at  Milan  was  regarded  with  exceeding 
jealousy  by  the  Austrian  interest,  and  by  the 
Pope.  Maximilian,  shortly  before  his  death,  had 
made  a  futile  effort  to  dislodge  them,  and  Charles 
v.,  on  coming  to  the  throne,  lost  no  time  in  or- 
ganizing plans  to  the  same  end.  He  entered 
into  an  alliance  with  Pope  Leo  X.,  by  a  treaty 
which  bears  the  same  date  as  the  Edict  of  Worms 
against  Luther,  and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that 
the  two  instruments  were  part  of  one  under- 
standing. Both  parties  courted  the  friendship  of 
Henry  VIII.  of  England,  whose  power  and  im- 
portance had  risen  to  a  high  mark,  and  Henry's 
able  minister.  Cardinal  Wolsey,  figured  notably 
in  the  diplomatic  intrigues  which  went  on  during 
many  years. 

War  began  in  1531,  and  in  three  mouths  the 
French  were  expelled  from  nearly  every  part  of 
the  Milanese  territory.  Pope  Leo  X.  lived  just 
long  enough  to  receive  the  news.  His  successor 
was  Adrian  VI.,  former  tutor  of  the  Emperor, 
who  made  vain  attempts  to  arrange  a  peace. 
Wolsey  had  brought  Henry  VIII.  of  England 
into  the  alliance  against  Francis,  expecting  to 
win  the  papal  tiara  through  the  Emperor's  in- 
fluence ;  but  he  was  disappointed. 

Francis  made  an  effort  ir.  1533  to  recover  Milan ; 
but  was  crippled  at  the  moment  of  sending  his 
expedition  across  the  Alps  by  the  treason  of  the 
most  powerful  noble  of  France,  the  Constable, 
Charles,  Duke  of  Bourbon.  The  Constable  had 
been  wronged  and  affronted  by  the  King's  mother, 
and  by  intriguers  at  court,  and  he  revenged  him- 
self basely  b}'  going  over  to  the  enemies  of  his 
country.    In  the  campaigns  which  followed  (1523- 


1524),  the  French  had  ill-success,  and  lost  their 
chivalrous  and  famous  knight,  Bayard,  in  one  of 
the  last  skirmishes  of  their  retreat.  Another 
change  now  occurred  in  the  occupancy  of  the 
papal  throne,  and  Wolsey's  ambitious  schemes 
were  foiled  again.  The  new  Pope  was  Giulio 
de'Medici,  who  took  the  name  of  Clement  VII. 

Once  more  the  King  of  France,  in  October. 
1524,  led  his  forces  personally  into  Italy  and  laid 
siege  to  Pavia.  It  was  a  ruinous  undertaking. 
He  was  defeated  overwhelmingly  in  a  battle 
fought  before  Pavia  (February  24,  1535)  and 
taken  prisoner.  After  a  captivity  in  Spain  of 
nearly  a  year,  he  regained  his  freedom  disgrace- 
fully, by  signing  and  solemnly  swearing  to  a 
treaty  which  he  never  intended  to  observe.  By 
this  treaty  he  not  only  renounced  all  claims  to 
Milan,  Naples,  Genoa,  and  other  Italian  territory, 
but  he  gave  up  the  duchy  of  Burgundy.  Re- 
leased in  good  faith  on  these  terms,  in  the  early 
part  of  1536,  he  perfidiously  repudiated  the  treaty, 
and  began  fresh  preparations  for  war.  He  found 
the  Italians  now  as  ready  to  oust  the  Spaniards 
from  their  peninsula  with  French  help,  as  they 
had  been  ready  before  to  expel  the  French  with 
help  from  Spain.  The  papal  interest  was  in 
great  alarm  at  the  power  acquired  by  the  Em- 
peror, and  Venice  and  Jlilan  shared  the  feeling. 
A  new  "Holy  Alliance  "  was  accordingly  formed, 
with  the  Pope  at  its  head,  and  with  Henry  VIII. 
of  England  for  its  "Protector."  But  before  this 
League  took  the  field  with  its  forces.  Rome  and 
Italy  were  stricken  and  trampled,  as  though  by 
a  fresh  invasion  of  Goths. 

Sack  of  Rome,  by  the  army  of  the  Constable. 

The  imperial  army,  quartered  in  the  duchy  of 
Milan,  under  the  command  of  the  Constable  Bour- 
bon, was  scantily  paid  and  fed.  The  soldiers 
were  forced  to  plunder  the  city  and  country  for 
their  subsistence,  and,  of  course,  under  those  cir- 
cumstances, there  was  little  discipline  among 
them.  The  region  which  they  terrorized  was 
soon  exhausted,  by  their  robberies  and  by  the 
stoppage  of  industries  and  trade.  It  then  be- 
came necessary  for  the  Constable  to  lead  them  to 
new  fields,  and  he  moved  southwards.  His 
forces  were  made  up  in  part  of  Spaniards  and  in 
part  of  Germans  —  the  latter  under  a  Lutheran 
commander,  and  enlisted  for  war  with  the  Pope 
and  for  pillage  in  Italy.  He  directed  the  march 
to  Rome,  constrained,  perhaps,  by  the  demands 
of  his  soldiery,  but  expecting,  likewise,  to  crush 
the  League  by  seizing  its  apostolic  head.  On 
the  5th  of  May,  1537,  his  40,000  brigands  arrived 
before  the  city.  At  daybreak,  the  next  morning, 
they  assaulted  the  walls  irresistibly  and  swarmed 
over  them.  Bourbon  was  killed  in  the  assault, 
and  his  men  were  left  uncontrolled  masters  of 
the  venerable  capital  of  the  world.  They  held  it 
for  seven  months,  pillaging  and  destroying,  com- 
mitting every  possible  excess  and  every  imagi- 
nable sacrilege.  Rome  is  believed  to  have  suffered 
at  their  hands  more  lasting  defacement  and  loss 
of  the  splendors  of  its  art  than  from  the  sacking 
of  Vandals  or  Goths. 

The  Pope  held  out  in  Castle  St.  Angelo  for  a 
month  and  then  surrendered.  The  hypocritical 
Charles  V. ,  when  he  learned  what  his  imperially 
commissioned  bandits  had  done,  made  haste  to 
express  horror  and  grief,  but  did  not  hasten  to 
check  or  repair  the  outrage  in  the  least.  Pope 
Clement  was  not  released  from  captivity  until  a 


108.3 


EUROPE. 


Jiff  airs 
in  Germany. 


EUROPE. 


great  money-payment  had  been  extorted  from 
him,  with  the  promise  of  a  general  council  of  the 
Church  to  reform  abuses  and  to  eradicate  Luther- 
anism. 

Spanish  Domination  in  Italy. 

Europe  was  shocked  by  the  barbarity  of  the  cap- 
ture of  Rome,  and  the  enemies  leagued  against 
Charles  were  stimulated  to  more  vigorous  exer- 
tions. Assisted  with  money  from  England,  Fran- 
cis sent  another  army  into  Italy,  which  took 
Genoa  and  Pavia  and  marched  to  Naples,  block- 
ading the  city  by  sea  and  land.  But  the  siege 
proved  fatal  to  the  French  army.  So  many  per- 
ished of  disease  that  the  survivors  were  left  at 
the  mercy  of  the  enemy,  and  capitulated  in  Sep- 
tember, 1528. 

The  great  Genoese  Admiral,  Andrea  Doria,  had 
been  offended,  meantime,  by  King  Francis,  and 
had  excited  his  fellow  citizens  to  a  revolution, 
which  made  Genoa,  once  more,  an  independent 
republic,  with  Doria  at  its  head.  Shortly  before 
this  occurred,  Florence  had  expelled  the  Medici 
and  reorganized  her  government  upon  the  old 
republican  basis.  But  the  defeat  of  the  French 
before  Naples  ended  all  hope  of  Italian  liberty ; 
since  the  Pope  resigned  himself  after  that  event 
to  the  will  of  the  Emperor,  and  the  papal  and 
imperial  despotisms  became  united  as  one,  to  ex- 
terminate freedom  from  the  peninsula.  Florence 
was  the  first  victim  of  the  combination.  The  city 
was  besieged  and  taken  by  tlie  Emperor's  troops, 
in  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  the  Pope,  and 
the  Medici,  his  relatives,  were  restored.  Francis 
continued  war  feebly  until  1529,  when  a  peace 
called  the  "Ladies  Peace  "  was  brought  about,  by 
negotiations  between  the  French  King's  mother 
and  the  Emperor's  aunt.  This  was  practically 
the  end  of  the  long  French  wars  in  Italy. 

Germany. 

Such  were  the  events  which,  in  different 
quarters  of  the  world,  diverted  the  attention  of 
the  Emperor  during  several  years  from  Luther 
and  the  Reformation  in  Germany.  The  religious 
movement  in  those  years  had  been  making  a 
steady  advance.  Yet  its  enemies  gained  control 
of  another  Diet  held  at  Spires  in  1529  and  re- 
versed the  ordinance  of  the  Diet  of  1526,  by 
which  each  state  had  been  left  free  to  deal  in  its 
own  manner  with  the  edict  of  Worms.  Against 
this  action  of  the  Diet,  the  Lutheran  princes  and 
the  representatives  of  the  Lutheran  towns  entered 
their  solemn  protest,  and  so  acquired  the  name, 
' '  Protestants, "  which  became  in  time  the  ac- 
cepted and  adopted  name  of  all,  in  most  parts  of 
the  world,  who  witlidrew  from  the  Roman  com- 


The  Peasants'  War  and  the  Anabaptists. 

Before  this  time,  the  Reform  had  passed  through 
serious  trials,  coming  from  excesses  in  the  very 
spirit  out  of  which  itself  had  risen  and  to  which 
it  gave  encouragement.  The  long  suffering, 
much  oppressed  peasantry  of  Germany,  who  had 
found  bishops  as  pitiless  extortioners  as  lords, 
caught  eagerly  at  a  hope  of  relief  from  the  over- 
throw of  the  ancient  Church.  Several  times 
witliin  the  preceding  half-century  they  had  risen 
in  formidable  revolts,  with  a  peasants'  clog,  or 
bundschuh  for  their  banner.  In  1535  fresh  risings 
occurred  in  Swabia,  Franconia,  Alsace,  Lorraine, 
Bavaria,  Thuringia  and  elsewhere,  and  a  great 


Peasants'  War  raged  for  months,  with  ferocity 
and  brutality  on  both  sides.  The  number  who 
perished  in  the  war  is  estimated  at  100,000.  The 
demands  made  by  the  peasants  were  for  measures 
of  the  simplest  justice  —  for  the  poorest  rights 
and  privileges  in  life.  But  their  cause  was  taken 
up  by  half-crazed  religious  fanatics,  who  became 
in  some  parts  their  leaders,  and  such  a  character 
was  given  to  it  that  reasonable  reformers  were 
justified,  perhaps,  in  setting  themselves  sternly 
against  it.  The  wildest  prophet  of  the  outbreak 
was  one  Thomas  Ml'inzer,  a  precursor  of  the 
frenzied  sect  of  the  Anabaptists.  Mlinzer  per- 
ished in  the  wreck' of  the  peasants'  revolt;  but 
some  of  his  disciples,  who  fled  into  Westphalia 
and  the  Netherlands,  made  converts  so  rapidly 
in  the  town  of  Miinster  that  in  1535  they  con- 
trolled the  city,  expelled  every  inhabitant  who 
would  not  join  their  communion,  elected  and 
crowned  a  king,  and  exhibited  a  madness  in  their 
proceedings  that  is  hardly  equalled  in  history. 
The  experience  at  Miinster  may  reasonably  be 
thought  to  have  proved  the  soundness  of  Luther's 
judgment  in  refusing  countenance  to  the  cause 
of  the  oppressed  peasants  when  they  rebelled. 

At  all  events,  his  opposition  to  them  was  hard 
and  bitter.  And  it  has  been  remarked  that  what 
may  be  called  Luther's  political  position  in  Ger- 
many had  become  by  tliis  time  quite  changed. 
"Instead  of  the  man  of  the  people,  Luther  be- 
came tlie  man  of  tlie  ijrinces ;  the  mutual  confi- 
dence between  him  and  the  masses,  which  had 
supported  the  first  faltering  steps  of  the  move- 
ment, was  broken ;  the  democratic  element  was 
supplanted  by  the  aristocratic ;  and  the  Reforma- 
tion, which  at  first  had  promised  to  lead  to  a 
great  national  democracy,  ended  in  establishing 
the  territorial  supremacy  of  the  German  princes. 
.  .  .  The  Reformation  was  gradually  assuming 
a  more  secular  character,  and  leading  to  great 
political  combinations  "  (Dyer). 

Progress  of  Lutheranism  in  Germany. 

By  the  year  1530,  the  Emperor  Charles  was 
prepared  to  give  more  attention  to  affairs  in  Ger- 
many and  to  gratify  his  animosity  towards  the 
movement  of  Reformation.  He  had  effectually 
beaten  his  rival,  the  King  of  France,  had  estab- 
lished his  supremacy  in  Italy,  had  humbled  the 
Pope,  and  was  quite  willing  to  be  the  zealous 
champion  of  a  submissive  Church.  His  brother 
Ferdinand,  the  Archduke  of  Austria,  had  secured, 
against  much  opposition,  both  the  Hungarian  and 
the  Bohemian  crowns,  and  so  firmly  that  neither 
was  ever  again  wrested  from  his  family,  though 
they  continued  for  some  time  to  be  nominally 
elective.  The  dominions  of  Ferdinand  had  suf- 
fered a  great  Turkish  invasion,  in  1529,  under  the 
Sultan  Solyman,  who  penetrated  even  to  Vienna 
and  besieged  the  city,  but  without  success,  losing 
heavily  in  his  retreat. 

In  May,  1530,  Charles  re-entered  Germany  from 
Italy.  The  following  month  he  opened  the  sit- 
ting of  the  Diet,  which  had  been  convened  at 
Augsburg.  His  first  act  at  Augsburg  was  to 
summon  the  protesting  princes,  of  Saxony,  Hesse, 
Brandenburg,  and  other  states,  before  him  and 
to  signify  to  them  his  imperial  command  that  the 
toleration  of  Lutheranism  in  their  dominions  must 
cease.  He  expected  the  mandate  to  suffice ;  when 
he  found  it  ineffectual,  he  required  an  abstract 
of  the  new  religious  doctrines  to  be  laid  before 
him.     This   was  prepared  by  Melancthon,  and, 


1086 


EUROPE. 


TliC  Schmalkaldic 
War. 


EUROPE. 


afterwards  known  as  the  Confession  of  Augsburg, 
became  the  Lutheran  standard  of  faith.  The 
Catholic  theologians  prepared  a  reply  to  it,  and 
both  were  submitted  to  the  Emperor.  He  made 
some  attempt  to  bring  about  a  compromise  of  tlie 
differences,  but  he  demanded  of  tlie  Protestants 
that  they  should  submit  themselves  to  the  Pope, 
pending  tlie  final  decisions  of  a  proposed  general 
Council  of  tlie  Church.  When  this  was  refused, 
the  Diet  formally  condemned  their  doctrines  and 
required  them  to  reunite  themselves  with  the 
Catholic  Church  before  the  15th  of  April  follow- 
ing. The  Emperor,  in  November,  issued  a  de- 
cree accordingly,  renewing  the  Edict  of  Worms 
and  commanding  its  enforcement. 

The  Protestant  princes,  tlius  threatened,  assem- 
bled in  conference  at  Schmalkald  at  Christmas, 
1530,  and  there  organized  their  famous  armed 
league.  But  fresh  preparations  for  war  by  the 
Turk  now  compelled  Charles  to  make  terms  with 
his  Lutheran  subjects.  They  refused  to  give  any 
assistance  to  Austria  or  Hungary  against  the 
Sultan,  while  threatened  by  the  Augsburg  de- 
cree. The  gravity  of  the  danger  forced  a  conces- 
sion to  them,  and  by  the  Peace  of  Nuremberg 
(1533)  it  was  agreed  that  the  Protestants  should 
have  freedom  of  worship  until  the  next  Diet 
should  meet,  or  a  General  Council  should  be  held. 
This  peace  was  several  times  renewed,  and  there 
were  ten  years  of  quiet  under  it,  in  Germany,  dur- 
ing which  time  the  cause  of  Protestantism  made 
rapid  advances.  By  the  year  1540,  it  had  estab- 
lished an  ascendancy  in  Wftrtemberg,  among  the 
states  of  the  South,  and  in  tlie  imperial  cities  of 
Nuremberg,  Augsburg,  Ulra,  Constance,  and 
Strasburg.  Its  doctrines  had  been  adopted  by 
"the  whole  of  central  Germany,  Thuringia,  Sax- 
ony, Hesse,  part  of  Brunswick,  and  the  territory 
of  the  Guelphs ;  in  the  north  by  the  bishoprics  of 
Magdeburg,  Halberstadt,  and  Naumburg  .  .  .  ; 
by  East  Priesland,  the  Hanse  Towns,  Holstein  and 
Sclileswig,  Pomerania,  Mecklenburg,  Anhalt,  Si- 
lesia, the  Saxon  states,  Brandenburg,  and  Prussia. 
Of  the  larger  states  that  were  closed  against  it 
there  remained  only  Austria,  Bavaria,  the  Palati- 
nate and  the  Rhenish  Electorates  "  (Hausser).  In 
1543,  Duke  Henry  of  Brunswick,  the  last  of  the 
North  German  princes  who  adhered  to  the  Papal 
Church,  was  expelled  from  his  duchy  and  Protes- 
tantism established.  About  the  same  time  the 
Archbishop-Elector  of  Cologne  announced  his 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  the  Protestant  doctrines. 

The  Schmalkaldic  War. 

Charles  was  still  too  much  involved  in  foreign 
wars  to  venture  upon  a  struggle  with  the  Lu- 
therans ;  but  a  few  years  more  sufficed  to  free  his 
hands.  The  Treaty  of  Crespy,  in  1544,  ended  his 
last  conflict  with  Francis  I.  In  the  same  year. 
Pope  Paul  III.  summoned  the  long  promised 
General  Council  of  the  Church  to  meet  at  Trent 
the  following  spring  —  by  which  appointment  a 
term  was  put  to  the  toleration  conceded  in  the 
Peace  of  Nuremberg.  The  Protestants,  though 
greatly  increased  in  numbers,  were  now  less 
united  than  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
Schmalkaldic  League.  There  was  much  division 
among  the  leading  princes.  They  yielded  no 
longer  to  the  influence  of  their  wisest  and  ablest 
chief,  Philip  of  Hesse.  Luther,  whose  counsels 
had  always  been  for  peace,  approached  his  end, 
and  died  in  1546.  The  circumstances  were  favor- 
able to  the  Emperor,  when  he  determined  to  put 


a  stop  to  the  Reformation  by  force.  He  secured 
an  important  ally  in  tlie  very  heart  of  Protestant 
Germany,  winning  over  to  his  side  the  selfish 
sclieriier,  Duke  Maurice  of  Saxony  —  now  the  head 
of  tlie  Albertine  branch  of  the  Saxon  house.  In 
1546  he  felt  prepared  and  war  began.  The  suc- 
cesses were  all  on  the  imperial  side.  There  was 
no  energy,  no  unity,  no  forethoughtfulness  of 
plan,  among  tlie  Lutherans.  The  Elector.  John 
Frederick,  of  Saxony,  and  Philip  of  Hesse,  both 
fell  into  the  Emperor's  hands  and  were  barbar- 
ously imprisoned.  The  former  was  compelled  to 
resign  his  Electorate,  and  it  was  conferred  upon 
the  renegade  Duke  Maurice.  Philip  was  kept 
in  vile  places  of  confinement  and  inhumanly 
treated  for  years.  The  Protestants  of  Germany 
were  entirely  beaten  down,  for  the  time  being, 
and  the  Emperor  Imposed  upon  them  in  1548  a 
confession  of  faith  called  "the  Interim,"  the  chief 
missionaries  of  which  were  the  Spanish  soldiers 
whom  he  had  brought  into  the  country.  But  if 
the  Lutherans  had  suffered  themselves  to  be  over- 
come, they  were  not  ready  to  be  trodden  upon  in 
so  despotic  a  manner.  Even  Maurice,  now  Elec- 
tor of  Saxony,  recoiled  from  the  tyranny  which 
Charles  sought  to  establish,  while  he  resented  the 
inhuman  treatment  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  who  was 
his  father-in-law.  He  headed  a  new  league,  there- 
fore, which  was  formed  against  the  Emperor,  and 
which  entered  into  a  secret  alliance  with  Henry 
II.  of  France  (Francis  I.  having  died  in  1547). 
Charles  was  taken  by  surprise  when  the  revolt 
broke  out,  in  1553.  and  barely  escaped  capture. 
The  operations  of  Maurice  were  vigorous  and  ably 
conducted,  and  in  a  few  weeks  the  Protestants 
had  recovered  all  the  ground  lost  in  1546-7 ;  while 
the  French  had  improved  the  opportunity  to  seize 
the  three  bishoprics  of  Metz,  Toul  and  Verdun. 
The  ultimate  result  was  the  so-called  "  Religious 
Peace  of  Augsburg,"  concluded  in  1555,  which 
gave  religious  freedom  to  the  ruling  princes  of 
Germany,  but  none  whatever  to  the  people.  It 
put  the  two  religions  on  the  same  footing,  but  it 
was  simply  a  footing  of  equal  intolerance.  Each 
ruler  had  the  right  to  choose  his  own  creed,  and 
to  impose  it  arbitrarily  upon  his  subjects  if  he 
saw  fit  to  do  so.  As  a  practical  consequence,  the 
final  division  of  Germany  between  Protestantism 
and  Catholicism  was  substantially  determined  by 
the  princes  and  not  by  the  people. 

The  humiliating  failure  of  Charles  V.  to  crush 
the  Reformation  iu  Germany  was  no  doubt  prom- 
inent among  the  experiences  which  sickened  him 
of  the  imperial  oflSce  and  determined  him  to  ab- 
dicate the  throne,  which  he  did  in  the  autumn  of 
1.556. 

Reformation  in  Switzerland. 

A  generation  had  now  passed  since  the  Lu- 
theran movement  of  Reformation  was  begun  in 
Germany,  and,  within  that  time,  not  only  had 
the  wave  of  influence  from  Wittenberg  swept 
over  all  western  Europe,  but  other  reformers 
had  risen  independently  and  contemporaneously, 
or  nearly  so,  in  other  countries,  and  had  co-opera- 
ted powerfully  in  making  the  movement  general. 
The  earliest  of  these  was  the  Swiss  reformer, 
Ulrich  Zwingli,  who  began  preaching  against  in- 
dulgences and  other  flagrant  abuses  in  the  Church, 
at  Zurich,  in  1519,  the  same  year  in  which  Luther 
opened  his  attack.  The  effect  of  his  preaching 
was  so  great  that  Zurich,  four  years  later,  had 
practically    separated    itself    from    the  Roman 


1087 


EUROPE. 


BVance  and 
the  Reformation. 


EUEOPE. 


Church.  From  that  beginning  the  Reformation 
spread  so  rapidly  that  in  half-a-dozen  years  it  had 
mastered  most  of  the  Cantons  of  Switzerland 
outside  of  the  five  Forest  Cantons,  where  Cathol- 
icism held  its  ground  with  stubbornness.  The 
two  religions  were  then  represented  by  two  par- 
ties, which  absorbed  in  themselves  all  the  political 
as  well  as  tlie  religious  questions  of  the  day,  and 
which  speedily  came  to  blows.  The  Catholics 
allied  themselves  with  Ferdinand  of  Austria,  and 
the  Protestants  with  several  of  the  imperial  cities 
of  Germany.  But  such  an  union  between  the 
Swiss  and  the  German  Protestants  as  seemed 
plainly  desirable  was  prevented,  mainly,  b}'  the 
dictatorial  obstinacy  of  Luther.  Zwingli's  re- 
forming ideas  were  broader,  and  at  the  same 
time  more  radical,  than  Luther's,  and  the  latter 
opposed  them  with  irreconcilable  hostility.  He 
still  held  with  the  Catholics  to  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  which  the  Swiss  reformer  re- 
jected. Hence  Zwingli  was  no  less  a  heretic  in 
Luther's  eyes  than  in  the  eyes  of  the  pope,  and  the 
anathemas  launched  against  him  from  Witten- 
berg were  hardly  less  thunderous  than  those  from 
Rome.  So  the  two  contemporaneous  reforma- 
tion movements,  German  and  Swiss,  were  held 
apart  from  one  another,  and  went  on  side  by  side, 
with  little  help  or  sympathy  from  one  another. 
In  1531  the  Forest  Cantons  attacked  and  de- 
feated the  men  of  Zurich,  and  Zwingli  was  slain  in 
the  battle.  Peace  was  then  concluded  on  terms 
which  left  each  canton  free  to  establish  its  own 
creed,  and  each  congregation  free  to  do  the  same 
In  the  common  territories  of  the  confederation. 

Reformation  in  France. 

In  France,  the  freer  ideas  of  Christianity  —  the 
ideas  less  servile  to  tradition  and  to  Rome  —  that 
were  in  the  upper  air  of  European  culture  when 
the  sixteenth  century  began,  had  found  some  e.x- 
pression  even  before  Luther  spoke.  The  influence 
of  the  new  classical  learning,  and  of  the  "human- 
ists" who  imbibed  its  spirit,  tended  to  that  libera- 
tion of  the  mind,  and  was  felt  in  the  greatest  cen- 
ter of  the  learning  of  the  time,  the  University  of 
Paris.  But  not  suiBciently  to  overcome  the  con- 
servatism of  the  Sorbonne —  the  theological  fac- 
ulty of  the  University ;  for  Luther's  writings  were 
solemnly  condemned  and  burned  by  it  in  1521,  and 
a  persecution  of  those  inclined  toward  the  new 
doctrines  was  early  begim.  Francis  I.,  in  whose 
careless  and  coarse  nature  tliere  was  some  taste  for 
letters  and  learning,  as  well  as  for  art,  and  who 
patronized  in  an  idle  way  the  Renaissance  move- 
ments of  his  reign,  seemed  disposed  at  the  begin- 
ning to  be  friendly  to  the  religious  Reformers. 
But  he  was  too  shallow  a  creature,  and  too  pro- 
foundly unprincipled  and  false,  to  stand  firmly  in 
any  cause  of  righteousness,  and  face  such  a  power 
as  that  of  Rome.  His  nobler  sister,  Margaret  of 
Angouleme,  who  embraced  the  reformed  doctrines 
witli  conviction,  exerted  a  strong  influence  upon 
the  king  in  their  favor  while  she  was  by  his 
side ;  but  after  her  marriage  to  Henry  d'Albret, 
King  of  Navarre,  and  after  Francis  had  suffered 
defeat  and  shame  in  his  war  with  Charles  V.,  he 
was  ready  to  make  himself  the  servant  of  the 
Papacy  for  whatever  it  willed  against  his  Protes- 
tant subjects,  in  order  to  have  its  alliance  and 
support.  So  the  persecution  grew  steadily  more 
fierce,  more  systematic,  and  more  determined, 
as  the  spirit  of  the  Reformation  spread  more 
widely  through  the  kingdom. 


Calvin  at  Geneva. 

One  of  the  consequences  of  the  persecution 
was  the  flight  from  France,  in  1534,  of  John 
Calvin,  who  subsequently  became  tiie  founder 
and  the  exponent  of  a  system  of  Protestant  theol- 
ogy which  obtained  wider  acceptance  in  Europe 
than  that  of  Luther.  All  minor  differences  were 
practically  merged  in  the  great  division  between 
these  two  theologies — the  Lutheran  and  the 
Calvinistic  — which  split  the  Reformation  in 
twain.  After  two  years  of  wandering,  Calvin 
settled  in  the  free  city  of  Geneva,  where  his  in- 
fluence very  soon  rose  to  so  extraordinary  a  height 
that  he  transformed  the  commonwealth  and  ruled 
it,  unselfishly,  and  in  perfect  piety,  but  with  iron- 
handed  despotism,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century. 

The  French  Court. 

The  reign  of  Francis  I.  has  one  other  mark  in 
history,  besides  that  of  his  persecution  of  the 
Reformers,  his  careless  patronage  of  arts  and 
letters,  and  his  unsuccessful  wars  with  the  Em- 
peror. He  gave  to  the  French  Court  —  at  least 
more  than  his  predecessors  had  done  —  the  char- 
acter which  made  it  in  later  French  history  so 
evil  and  mischievous  a  center  of  dissoluteness,  of 
base  intrigue,  of  national  demoralization.  It 
was  invested  in  his  time  with  the  fascinations 
wliich  drew  into  it  the  nobles  of  France  and  its 
men  of  genius,  to  corrupt  them  and  to  destroy 
their  independence.  It  was  in  his  time  that  the 
Court  began  to  seem  to  be,  in  its  own  eyes,  a 
kind  of  self-centered  society,  containing  all  of 
the  French  nation  which  needed  or  deserved  con- 
sideration, and  holding  its  place  in  the  order  of 
things  quite  apart  from  the  kingdom  which  it 
helped  its  royal  master  to  rule.  Not  to  be  of  the 
Court  was  to  be  non-existent  in  its  view ;  and  thus 
every  ambition  in  France  was  invited  to  push  at 
its  fatal  doors. 

Catherine  de'  Medici  and  the  Guises. 

Francis  I.  died  in  1547,  and  was  followed  on 
the  throne  by  his  son  Henry  II.,  whose  marriage 
to  Catherine  de'  Medici,  of  the  renowned  Floren- 
tine family,  was  the  most  important  personal  act 
of  his  life.  It  was  important  in  the  malign 
fruits  which  it  bore;  since  Catherine,  after  his 
death,  gave  an  evil  Italian  bend-sinister  to  French 
politics,  which  had  no  lack  of  crookedness  before. 
Henry  continued  the  war  with  Charles  V. ,  and 
was  afterwards  at  war  with  Philip  II. ,  Charles' 
son,  and  with  England,  the  latter  country  losing 
Calais  in  the  contest, —  its  last  French  possession. 
Peace  was  made  in  1559,  and  celebrated  with 
splendid  tournaments,  at  one  of  which  the  French 
king  received  a  wound  that  caused  his  death. 

He  left  three  sons,  all  weaklings  in  body  and 
character,  who  reigned  successively.  The  elder, 
Francis  II.,  died  the  year  following  his  acces- 
sion. Although  aged  but  seventeen  when  he 
died,  he  had  been  married  some  two  years  to  Mary 
Stuart,  the  j'oung  queen  of  Scots.  This  marriage 
had  helped  to  raise  to  great  power  in  the  king- 
dom a  family  known  as  the  Guises.  They  were 
a  branch  of  the  ducal  House  of  Lorraine, 
whose  duchy  was  at  that  time  independent  of 
France,  and,  although  the  father  of  the  family, 
made  Duke  of  Guise  by  Francis  I. ,  had  become 
naturalized  in  France  in  1505,  his  sons  were 
looked  upon  as  foreigners  by  the  jealous  French- 
men whom  they  supplanted  at  Court.     Of  the  six 


1088 


EUROPE. 


Catherine  rfe'  Medici,  the  Guises, 
and  ttie  Huguenots. 


EUROPE. 


sons,  there  were  two  of  eminence,  one  (the  second 
duke  of  Guise)  a  famous  general  in  his  day,  the 
other  a  powerful  cardinal.  Five  sisters  com- 
pleted the  family  in  its  second  generation.  The 
elder  of  these,  Mary,  had  married  James  V.  of  Scot- 
land (whose  mother  was  the  English  princess, 
Margaret,  sister  of  Henry  VIII.),  and  Mary  Stuart, 
queen  of  Scots,  born  of  that  marriage,  was  there- 
fore a  niece  of  the  Guises.  They  had  brought 
about  her  marriage  to  Francis  II. ,  while  he  was 
dauphin,  and  they  mounted  with  her  to  supreme 
influence  in  the  kingdom  when  she  ascended  the 
throne  with  her  husband.  The  queen-mother, 
Catherine  de'  Medici,  was  as  eager  as  the  Guises 
to  control  the  government,  in  what  appeared  to 
her  eyes  the  interest  of  her  children ;  but  during 
the  short  reign  of  Francis  II.  she  was  quite 
thrust  aside,  and  the  queen's  uncles  ruled  the 

The  death  of  Francis  II.  (1560)  brought  a 
change,  and  with  the  accession  of  Charles  IX. ,  a 
boy  of  ten  years,  there  began  a  bitter  contest  for 
ascendancy  between  Catherine  and  the  Guises; 
and  this  struggle  became  mixed  and  strangely 
complicated  with  a  deadly  conflict  of  religions, 
which  the  steady  advance  of  the  Reformation  in 
France  had  brought  at  this  time  to  a  crisis. 


The  Huguenots. 

Under  the  powerful  leadership  which  Calvin 
assumed,  at  Geneva,  the  reformed  religion  in 
France  had  acquired  an  organized  firmness  and 
strength  which  not  only  resisted  the  most  cruel 
persecution,  but  made  rapid  headway  against 
it.  "Protestantism  had  become  a  party  which 
did  not,  like  Lutheranism  in  Germany,  spring 
up  from  the  depths."  "It  numbered  its  chief 
adherents  among  the  middle  and  upper  grades 
of  society,  spread  its  roots  rather  among  the 
nobles  than  the  citizens,  and  among  learned 
men  and  families  of  distinction  rather  than 
among  the  people."  "  Some  of  the  highest  aris- 
tocracy, who  were  discontented,  and  submitted 
unwillingly  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Guises,  had 
joined  the  Calvinistic  opposition  —  some  undoubt- 
edly from  policy,  others  from  conviction.  The 
Turennes,  the  Rohans,  and  Soubises,  pure  no- 
bles, who  addressed  the  king  as  'mon  cousin,' 
especially  the  Bourbons,  the  agnates  of  the  royal 
house,  had  adopted  the  new  faith  "  (Hausser). 
One  branch  of  the  Bourbons  had  lately  ac- 
quired the  crown  of  Navarre.  The  Spanish  part 
of  the  old  Navarrese  kingdom  had  been  sub- 
jugated and  absorbed  by  Ferdinand  of  Aragon; 
but  its  territory  on  the  French  side  of  the  Pyre- 
nees—  Beam  and  other  counties — still  maintained 
a  half  independent  national  existence,  with  the 
dignity  of  a  regal  government.  When  Margaret 
of  Angouleme,  sister  of  Francis  I.,  married  Henry 
d'Albret,  King  of  Navarre,  as  mentioned  before, 
she  carried  to  that  small  court  an  earnest  inclina- 
tion towards  the  doctrines  of  the  Reform.  Under 
her  protection  Navarre  became  largely  Protes- 
tant, and  a  place  of  refuge  for  the  persecuted  of 
France.  Margaret's  daughter,  the  famous  Jeanne 
d'Albret,  espoused  the  reformed  faith  fully,  and 
her  husband,  Antoine  de  Bourbon,  as  well  as 
Antoine's  brother,  Louis  de  Conde,  found  it  poli- 
tic to  profess  the  same  belief.  For  the  Protes- 
tants (who  were  now  acquiring,  in  some  unknown 
way,  the  name  of  Huguenots)  had  become  so 
numerous  and  so  compactly  organized  as  to  form 
a  party  capable   of  being  wielded   with  great 

"^  1089 


effect,  in  the  strife  of  court  factions  which  the 
rivalry  of  Catherine  and  the  Guises  produced. 
Hence  politics  and  religion  were  inextricably  con- 
fused in  the  civil  wars  which  broke  out  shortly 
after  the  death  of  Francis  II.  (1560),  and  the  ac- 
cession of  the  boy  king,  Charles  IX.  These  wars 
belong  to  a  different  movement  in  the  general 
current  of  European  events,  and  we  will  return 
to  them  after  a  glance  at  the  religious  Reforma- 
tion, and  at  the  political  circumstances  connected 
with  it,  in  England  and  elsewhere. 

England. 

Henry  Tudor,  Earl  of  Richmond,  made  king 
of  England  by  his  victory  at  Bosworth,  estab- 
lished himself  so  lirmly  in  the  seat  of  power  that 
three  successive  rebellions  failed  to  disturb  him. 
In  one  of  these  (1487)  a  pretender,  Lambert  Sim- 
nel,  was  put  forward,  who  claimed  to  be  the 
Earl  of  Warwick.  In  another  (1491-1497)  a  second 
pretender,  Perkin  Warbeck,  personated  one  of 
the  young  princes  whom  Richard  III.  had  caused 
to  be  murdered  in  the  tower.  Neither  of  the  im- 
postures had  much  success  in  the  kingdom. 
Henry  VII.  was  not  a  popular  king,  but  he  was 
able  and  strong,  and  he  solidified  all  the  bases  of 
monarchical  independence  which  circumstances 
had  enabled  Edward  IV.  to  begin  laying  down. 

It  was  in  the  reign  of  Henry  that  America  was 
discovered,  and  he  might  have  been  the  patron 
of  Columbus,  the  beneficiary  of  the  great  voy- 
age, and  the  proprietor  and  lord  of  the  grand 
realm  which  Isabella  and  Ferdinand  secured. 
But  he  lacked  the  funds  or  the  faith  —  apparently 
both  —  and  put  aside  his  unequaled  opportunity. 
When  the  field  of  westward  exploration  had  been 
opened,  however,  he  was  early  in  entering  it, 
and  sent  the  Cabots  upon  those  voyages  which 
gave  England  her  claim  to  the  North  American 
coasts. 

During  the  reign  of  Henry  VII.  there  were 
two  quiet  marriages  in  his  family  which  strangely 
influenced  subsequent  history.  One  was  the 
marriage,  in  1501,  of  the  king's  eldest  son,  Arthur, 
to  Catherine  of  Aragon,  youngest  daughter  of 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella.  The  other,  in  1503, 
united  the  king's  daughter,  Margaret,  to  James 
IV.,  King  of  Scotland.  It  was  through  this  lat- 
ter marriage  that  the  inheritance  of  the  English 
crown  passed  to  the  Scottish  House  of  Stuart, 
exactly  one  hundred  years  later,  upon  the  failure 
of  the  direct  line  of  descent  in  the  Tudor  family. 
The  first  marriage,  of  Prince  Arthur  to  Catherine 
of  Aragon,  was  soon  dissolved  by  the  death  of  the 
prince,  in  1.503.  Seven  years  afterwards  the 
widowed  Catherine  married  her  late  husband's 
brother,  just  after  he  became  Henry  VIII.,  King 
of  England,  upon  the  death  of  his  father,  in  1509. 
Whence  followed  notable  consequences  which  will 
presently  appear. 

Henry  VIII.  and  his  breach  with  Rome. 

It  was  the  ambition  of  Henry  VIII.  to  play  a 
conspicuous  part  in  European  affairs;  and  as 
England  was  rich  and  strong,  and  as  the  king 
had  obtained  nearly  the  absoluteness  of  the  crown 
in  France,  the  parties  to  the  great  contests  then 
going  on  were  all  eagerly  courting  his  alliance. 
His  ambitions  ran  parallel,  too,  with  those  of  the 
able  minister,  Thomas  Wolsey,  who  rose  to  high 
influence  at  his  side  soon  after  his  reign  began. 
Wolsey  aspired  to  the  Papal  crown,  with  the 
cardinal's  cap  as  a  preparatory  adornment,  and  he 


EUROPE. 


Henry  VIII.  and  his 
breach  with  Rome. 


EUROPE. 


drew  England,  as  we  have  seen,  into  the  stormy 
politics  of  the  sixteenth  century  in  Europe,  with 
no  gain,  of  glory  or  otherwise,  to  the  nation,  and 
not  much  result  of  any  kind.  When  tlie  Emperor 
Slaximilian  died,  in  1519,  Henry  entered  the  li.sts 
against  Maximilian's  grandson,  Charles  of  Spain, 
and  Francis  I.  of  France,  as  a  candidate  for  the 
imperial  crown.  In  the  subsequent  wars  which 
broke  out  between  his  two  rivals,  he  took  the 
side  of  the  successful  Charles,  now  Emperor,  and 
helped  him  to  climb  to  supremacy  in  Europe 
over  the  prostrate  French  Idng.  He  had  dreams 
of  conquering  France  again,  and  casting  the 
glories  of  Henry  V.  in  the  shade ;  but  he  carried 
his  enterprise  little  beyond  the  dreaming.  When 
it  was  too  late  to  check  the  growth  of  Charles' 
overshadowing  power,  he  changed  his  side  and 
took  Francis  into  alliance. 

But  Henry's  motives  were  always  selfish  and 
personal  —  never  political ;  and  the  personal  mo- 
tives had  now  taken  on  a  most  despicable  char- 
acter. He  had  tired  of  his  wife,  the  Spanish 
Catherine,  who  was  six  years  older  than  himself. 
He  had  two  pretexts  for  discontent  with  his  mar- 
riage: 1,  that  his  queen  had  borne  him  only  a 
daughter,  whereas  England  needed  a  male  heir 
to  the  throne ;  3,  that  he  was  troubled  with  scru- 
ples as  to  the  lawfulness  of  wedlock  with  his 
brother's  widow.  On  this  latter  ground  he  be- 
gan intrigues  to  win  from  the  Pope,  not  a  divorce 
in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term,  but  a  declara- 
tion of  the  nullity  of  his  marriage.  This  chal- 
lenged the  opposition  of  the  Emperor,  Catherine's 
nephew,  and  Henry's  alliances  were  naturally 
changed. 

The  Pope,  Clement  VII.,  refused  to  annul  the 
marriage,  and  Henry  turned  his  unreasoning 
wrath  upon  Cardinal  Wolsey,  who  had  conducted 
negotiations  with  the  Pope  and  failed  in  them. 
Wolsey  was  driven  from  the  Court  in  disgrace 
and  died  soon  afterwards.  He  was  succeeded  in 
the  king's  favor  by  a  more  uncrupulous  man, 
Thomas  Cromwell.  Henry  had  not  yet  despaired 
of  bringing  the  Pope  to  compliance  with  his 
wishes ;  and  he  began  attacks  upon  the  Church 
and  upon  the  papal  revenues  which  might  shake, 
as  he  hoped,  the  firmness  of  the  powers  at  Rome. 
With  the  help  of  a  pliant  minister  and  a  sub- 
servient Parliament,  he  forced  the  clergy  (1.531- 
1532)  in  Convocation  to  acknowledge  him  to  be 
the  Supreme  Head  of  the  English  Church,  and 
to  submit  themselves  entirely  to  his  authority. 
At  the  same  time  he  grasped  the  "annates,"  or 
first  year's  income  of  bishoprics,  which  had  been 
the  richest  perquisite  of  the  papal  treasury. 

In  all  these  proceedings,  the  English  king  was 
acting  on  a  line  parallel  to  that  of  the  continental 
rising  against  Rome ;  but  it  was  not  in  friendli- 
ness toward  it  nor  in  sympathy  with  it  that  he 
did  so.  He  had  been  among  the  bitterest  enemies 
of  the  Reformation,  and  he  never  ceased  to  be 
so.  He  had  won  from  the  Pope  the  empty  title 
of  "Defender  of  the  Faith,"  by  a  foolish  book 
against  Luther,  and  the  faitli  which  he  defended 
in  1521  was  the  faith  in  which  he  died.  But 
when  he  found  that  the  influence  of  Charles  V. 
at  Rome  was  too  great  to  be  overcome,  and  that 
the  Pope  could  be  neither  bribed,  persuaded  nor 
coerced  to  sanction  the  putting  away  of  his  wife, 
he  resolved  to  make  the  English  Church  suffi- 
cient in  authority  to  satisfy  his  demand,  by  estab- 
lishing its  ecclesiastical  independence,  with  a 
pontiff  of  its  own,   in  himself.     He  purposed 


nothing  more  than  this.  He  contemplated  no 
change  of  doctrine,  no  cleansing  of  abuses.  He 
permitted  no  one  whose  services  he  commanded 
in  the  undertaking  to  bring  such  changes  into 
contemplation.  So  far  as  concerned  Henry's  in- 
itiative, there  was  absolutely  nothing  of  religious 
Reformation  in  the  movement  which  separated 
the  Church  of  England  from  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  accomplished  its  sole  original  end 
when  it  gave  finality  to  the  decree  of  an  English 
ecclesiastical  court,  on  the  question  of  the  king's 
marriage,  and  barred  queen  Catherine's  appe;il 
from  it.  It  was  the  intention  of  Henry  VIII. 
that  the  Church  under  his  papacy  should  remain 
precisely  what  it  had  been  under  the  Pope  at 
Rome,  and  he  spared  neither  stake  nor  gibbet  in 
his  persecuting  zeal  against  impudent  reformers. 

But  the  spirit  of  Reformation  which  was  in 
the  atmosphere  of  that  time  lent  itself,  neverthe- 
less, to  King  Henry's  project,  and  made  that 
practicable  which  could  hardly  have  been  so  a 
generation  before.  The  influence  of  Wyclif  had 
never  wholly  died  out;  the  new  learning  was 
making  its  way  in  England  and  broadening  men's 
minds ;  the  voice  of  Luther  and  his  fellow  work- 
ers on  the  continent  had  been  heard,  and  not 
vainly.  England  was  ripe  for  the  religious  revo- 
lution, and  her  king  promoted  it,  without  inten- 
tion. But  while  his  reign  lasted,  and  his  despot- 
ism was  heavy  on  the  land,  there  was  nothing 
accomplished  but  the  breaking  of  the  old  Church 
fetters,  and  the  binding  of  the  nation  anew  with 
green  withes,  which,  presently,  it  would  burst 
asunder. 

The  conspicuous  events  of  Henry's  reign  are 
familiarly  known.  Most  of  them  bear  the  stamp 
of  his  monstrous  egotism  and  selfishness.  He 
was  the  incomparable  tyrant  of  English  history. 
The  monarch  who  repudiated  two  wives,  sent 
two  to  the  block,  and  shared  his  bed  with  yet 
two  more ;  who  made  a  whole  national  church 
the  servant  of  his  lusts,  and  who  took  the  lives 
of  the  purest  men  of  his  kingdom  when  they 
would  not  bend  their  consciences  to  say  that  he 
did  well  —  has  a  pedestal  quite  his  own  in  the 
gallery  of  infamous  kings. 

Edward  VI.  and  the  Reformation. 

Dying  in  1.547,  Henry  left  three  children: 
Mary,  daughter  of  Catherine  of  Aragon,  Eliza- 
beth, daughter  of  Anne  Boleyn,  and  Edward, 
son  of  Jane  Seymour.  The  latter,  in  his  tenth 
year,  became  King  (Edward  VI.),  and  his  uncle, 
the  Duke  of  Somerset,  acquired  the  control  of 
the  government,  with  the  title  of  Protector. 
Somerset  headed  a  party  which  had  begun  be- 
fore the  death  of  the  king  to  press  for  more 
changes  in  the  character  of  the  new  Church  of 
England  and  less  adherence  to  the  pattern  of 
Rome.  There  seems  to  be  little  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  the  court  leaders  of  this  party  were 
much  moved  in  the  matter  by  any  interest  of  a 
religious  kind ;  but  the  growth  of  thinking  and 
feeling  in  England  tended  that  way,  and  the  side 
of  Reformation  had  become  the  stronger.  They 
simply  gave  way  to  it,  and  abandoned  the  re- 
pression which  Henry  had  persisted  in.  At  the 
same  time,  their  new  policy  gave  them  more  free- 
dom to  grasp  the  spoils  of  the  old  Church,  which 
Henry  VIII.  had  begun  to  lay  hands  on,  by 
suppression  of  monasteries  and  confiscation  of 
their  estates.  The  wealth  thus  sequestered  went 
largely  into  private  hands. 


1090 


EUROPE. 


Tlie  Reformation 
in  the  North. 


EUROPE. 


It  was  in  the  short  reign  of  Edward  VI.  that 
the  Church  of  England  really  took  on  its  organic 
form  as  one  of  the  Churches  of  the  Reformation, 
by  the  composition  of  its  first  prayer-books,  and 
by  the  framing  of  a  definite  creed. 

Lady  Jane  Grey. 

In  1553,  the  young  king  died.  Somerset  had 
fallen  from  power  the  previous  year  and  had 
suffered  death.  He  had  been  supplanted  by 
Dudley,  Earl  of  Warwick  and  Duke  of  Northum- 
berland, and  that  minister  had  persuaded  Edward 
to  bequeath  his  crown  to  Lady  Jane  Grey,  grand- 
daughter of  the  younger  sister  of  Henry  VIII. 
But  Northumberland  was  hated  by  the  people, 
and  few  could  recognize  the  right  of  a  boy  on  the 
throne  to  change  the  order  of  regal  succession  by 
his  will.  Parliament  had  formally  legitimated 
both  Catherine's  daughter,  JIary,  and  Anne 
Boleyn's  daughter,  Elizabeth,  and  had  placed 
them  in  the  line  of  inheritance.  Mary's  legal 
title  to  the  crown  was  clear.  She  had  adhered 
with  her  mother  to  the  Roman  Church,  and  her 
advent  upon  the  throne  would  mean  the  subjec- 
tion of  the  English  Church  to  the  Papacy  anew ; 
since  the  constitution  of  the  Church  armed  the 
sovereign  with  supreme  and  indisputable  power 
over  it.  The  Protestants  of  the  kingdom  knew 
what  to  expect,  and  were  in  great  fear;  but  they 
submitted.  Lady  Jane  Grey  was  recommended 
to  them  by  her  Protestant  belief,  and  by  her 
beautiful  character;  but  her  title  was  too  defec- 
tive and  her  supporters  too  much  distrusted. 
There  were  few  to  stand  by  the  poor  young  girl 
when  Northumberland  proclaimed  her  queen, 
and  she  was  easily  dethroned  by  the  partisans  of 
Mary.     A  year  later  she  was  sent  to  the  block. 

Catholicism  was  now  ascendant  again,  and 
England  was  brought  to  share  in  the  great  reac- 
tion against  the  Reformation  which  prevailed 
generally  tlirough  Europe  and  which  we  shall 
presently  consider.  Before  doing  so,  let  us 
glance  briefly  at  the  religious  state  of  some  other 
countries  not  yet  touched  upon. 

The  Reformation  in  Scotland. 

In  Scotland,  a  deep  undercurrent  of  feeling 
against  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  had  been 
repressed  by  resolute  persecutions,  until  after 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Wars  with 
England,  and  the  close  connection  of  the  Scottish 
Court  with  the  Guises  of  France,  had  both  tended 
to  retard  the  progress  of  a  reform  sentiment,  or 
to  delay  the  manifestation  of  it.  But  when  the 
pent-up  feeling  began  to  respond  to  the  voice  of 
the  great  Calvinistic  evangelist  and  organizer, 
John  Knox,  it  swept  the  nation  like  a  storm. 
Knox's  first  preaching,  after  his  captivity  in 
France  and  exile  to  Geneva,  was  in  1555.  In 
1560,  the  authority  of  the  Pope  was  renounced, 
the  mass  prohibited,  and  the  Geneva  confession 
of  faith  adopted,  by  the  Scottish  Estates.  After 
that  time  the  Reformed  Church  in  Scotland  — 
the  Church  of  Presbyterianism  —  had  only  to  re- 
sist the  futile  hostility  of  JIary  Stuart  for  a  few 
years,  until  it  came  to  its  great  struggle  against 
English  Episcopacy,  under  Mary's  son  and  grand- 
son, James  and  Charles. 

The  Reformation  in  the  North. 

In  the  three  Scandinavian  nations  the  ideas  of 
the  Reformation,  diffused  from  Germany,  had 
won  early  favor,  both  from  kings  and  people. 


and  had  soon  secured  an  enduring  foothold. 
They  owed  their  reception  quite  as  much,  per- 
haps, to  the  political  situation  as  to  the  religious 
feeling  of  the  northern  peoples. 

When  the  ferment  of  the  Reformation  move- 
ment began,  the  three  crowns  were  worn  by  one 
king,  as  they  had  been  since  the  "  Union  of  Cal- 
mar,"  in  1397,  and  the  King  of  Denmark  was  the 
sovereign  of  the  Union.  His  actual  power  in 
Sweden  and  Norway  was  slight ;  his  theoretical 
authority  was  suflicient  to  irritate  both.  In 
Sweden,  especially,  the  nobles  chafed  under  the 
yoke  of  the  profitless  federation.  Christian  II., 
the  last  Danish  king  of  the  three  kingdoms, 
crushed  their  disaffection  by  a  harsh  conquest  of 
the  country  (1520),  and  by  savage  executions, 
so  perfidious  and  so  numerous  that  they  are 
known  in  Swedish  history  as  the  Massacre  of 
Stockholm.  But  this  brutal  and  faithless  king 
became  so  hateful  in  his  own  proper  kingdom 
that  the  Danish  nobles  rose  against  him  in  1523 
and  he  was  driven  from  the  land.  The  crown 
was  given  to  his  uncle,  Frederick,  Duke  of 
Schleswig-IIolstein.  In  that  German  Duchy, 
Lutheranism  had  already  made  its  way,  and 
Frederick  was  in  accord  with  it.  On  coming  to 
the  throne  of  Denmark,  where  Catholicism  still 
prevailed,  he  pledged  himself  to  attempt  no  in- 
terference with  it ;  but  he  felt  no  obligation,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  protect  it.  He  demanded  and 
established  a  toleration  for  both  doctrines,  and 
gave  to  the  reformers  a  freedom  of  opportunity 
which  speedily  undermined  the  old  faith  and 
overthrew  it. 

In  the  meantime,  Sweden  had  undergone  the 
important  revolution  of  her  history,  which  placed 
the  national  hero,  Gustavus  Vasa,  on  the  throne. 
Gustavus  was  a  young  noble  whose  title  to  the 
crown  was  not  derived  from  his  lineage,  but 
from  his  genius.  After  Christian  II.  had  bloodily 
exterminated  the  elder  leaders  of  the  Swedish 
state,  this  young  lord,  then  a  hostage  and  pris- 
oner in  the  tyrant's  hands,  made  his  escape  and 
took  upon  himself  the  mission  of  setting  his 
country  free.  For  three  years  Gustavus  lived  a 
life  like  that  of  Alfred  the  Great  in  England, 
when  he,  too,  struggled  with  the  Danes.  His 
heroic  adventures  were  crowned  with  success, 
and  Sweden,  led  to  independence  by  its  natural 
king,  bestowed  the  regal  title  upon  him  (1533) 
and  seated  him  upon  its  ancient  throne.  The 
new  Danish  king,  Frederick,  acknowledged  the 
revolution,  and  the  Union  of  Calmar  was  dis- 
solved. Sweden  under  Gustavus  Vasa  recovered 
from  the  state  of  great  disorder  into  which  It 
had  fallen,  and  grew  to  be  a  nation  of  important 
strength.  As  a  measure  of  policy,  he  encour- 
aged the  introduction  of  Lutheranism  and  pro- 
moted the  spread  of  it,  in  order  to  break  the 
power  of  the  Catholic  clergy,  and  also,  in  order, 
without  doubt,  to  obtain  possession  of  the  property 
of  the  Church,  which  secured  to  the  Crown  the 
substantial  revenues  it  required. 

Italy. 

In  Italy,  the  reformed  doctrines  obtained  no 
popular  footing  at  any  time,  though  many  among 
the  cultivated  people  regarded  them  with  favor, 
and  would  gladly  have  witnessed,  not  only  a 
practical  purging  of  the  Church,  but  a  revision 
of  those  Catholic  dogmas  most  offensive  to  a 
rational  mind.  But  such  little  movement  as 
stirred  in  that  direction  was  soon  stopped  by  the 


1091 


EUROPE. 


The  Catholic 
reaction. 


EUROPE. 


success  of  the  Emperor,  Charles  V.,  in  his  Italian 
wars  with  Francis  I. ,  and  by  the  Spanish  domi- 
nation in  the  peninsula  which  ensued  thereon. 
The  Spain  of  that  age  was  like  the  bloodless 
octopus  which  paralyzes  the  victim  in  its  clutch, 
and  Italy,  gripped  in  half  of  its  many  principali- 
ties by  the  deadly  tentacles  thrust  out  from 
Madrid,  showed  no  consciousness  for  the  next 
two  centuries. 

The  Council  of  Trent. 

The  long  demanded,  long  promised  General 
Council,  for  considering  the  alleged  abuses  in 
the  Church  and  the  alleged  falsities  in  its  doc- 
trine, and  generally  for  discussion  and  action 
upon  the  questions  raised  by  the  Reformation, 
assembled  at  Trent  in  December,  1545.  The 
Emperor  seems  to  have  desired  with  sincerity 
that  the  Council  might  be  one  which  the  Protes- 
tants would  have  confidence  in,  and  in  which 
they  might  be  represented,  for  a  full  discussion 
of  their  differences  with  Rome.  But  this  was 
made  impossible  from  the  beginning.  The  Prot- 
estants demanded  that  "final  appeal  on  all  de- 
bated points  should  be  made  to  the  sole  authority 
of  Holy  Scripture,"  and  this  being  refused  by 
the  Pope  (Paul  III),  there  remained  no  ground 
on  which  the  two  parties  could  meet.  The  Ital- 
ian prelates  who  composed  the  majority  of  the 
Council  made  haste,  it  would  seem,  to  take  action 
which  closed  the  doors  of  conciliation  against 
the  Reformers.  "First,  they  declared  that  divine 
revelation  was  continuous  in  the  Church  of  which 
the  Pope  was  the  head ;  and  that  the  chief  writ- 
ten depository  of  this  revelation  —  namely,  the 
Scriptures — had  no  authority  except  in  the  ver- 
sion of  the  Vulgate.  Secondly,  they  condemned 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  Faith.  .  .  . 
Thirdly,  they  confirmed  the  efficacy  and  the  bind- 
ing authority  of  the  Seven  Sacraments."  "  The 
Council  terminated  in  December  [1563]  with  an 
act  of  submission,  which  placed  all  its  decrees  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  Papal  sanction.  Pius  [Pius 
IV.  became  Pope  in  1560]  was  wise  enough  to 
pass  and  ratify  the  decrees  of  the  Tridentine 
fathers  by  a  Bull  dated  on  December  26,  1563, 
reserving  to  the  Papal  sovereign  the  sole  right  of 
interpreting  them  in  doubtful  or  disputed  cases. 
This  he  could  well  afford  to  do ;  for  not  an  article 
had  been  penned  without  his  concurrence,  and 
not  a  stipulation  had  been  made  without  a  pre- 
vious understanding  with  the  Catholic  powers. 
The  very  terms,  moreover,  by  which  his  ratification 
was  conveyed,  secured  his  supremac}',  and  con- 
ferred upon  his  successors  and  himself  the  privi- 
leges of  a  court  of  ultimate  appeal.  At  no  pre- 
vious period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  had  so 
wide,  so  undefined,  and  so  unlimited  an  authority 
been  accorded  to  the  See  of  Rome  "  (Symonds). 

Some  practical  reforms  in  the  Church  were 
wrought  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  but  its  disci- 
plinary decrees  were  less  important  than  the  dog- 
matic. From  beginning  to  end  of  its  sessions, 
which,  broken  by  many  suspensions  and  adjourn- 
ments, dragged  through  eighteen  years,  it  ad- 
dressed itself  to  the  task  of  solidifying  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  left  bj'  the  Protestant  schism, 
—  not  of  healing  the  schism  itself  or  of  remov- 
ing the  provocations  to  it.  The  work  which  the 
Council  did  in  that  direction  was  of  vast  impor- 
tance, and  profoundly  affected  the  future  of  the 
Papacy  and  of  its  spiritual  realm.  It  gave  a 
firm  dogmatic  footing  to  the  great  reactionary 


new  forces  which  now  came  into  play,  with  ag- 
gressive enthusiasm  and  zeal,  to  arrest  the  ad- 
vance of  the  Reformation  and  roll  it  back. 

The  Catholic  reaction. 

The  extraordinary  revival  of  Catholicism  and 
thrusting  back  of  Protestantism  which  occurred 
in  the  later  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  had 
several  causes  behind  it  and  within  it. 

1.  The  spiritual  impulse  from  which  the  Ref- 
ormation started  had  considerably  spent  itself,  or 
had  become  debased  by  a  gross  admixture  of 
political  and  mercenary  aims.  In  Germany,  the 
spoils  derived  from  the  suppressing  of  monastic 
establishments  and  the  secularizing  of  ecclesias- 
tical fiefs  and  estates,  appeared  very  early  among 
the  potent  inducements  by  which  mercenary 
princes  were  drawn  to  the  side  of  the  Lutheran 
reform.  Later,  as  the  opposing  leagues,  Protes- 
tant and  Catholic,  settled  into  chronic  opposition 
and  hostility,  the  struggle  between  them  took  on 
more  and  more  the  character  of  a  great  political 
game,  and  lost  more  and  more  the  spirit  of  a  battle 
for  free  conscience  and  a  free  mind.  In  France, 
as  we  have  noticed,  the  political  entanglements  of 
the  Huguenot  party  were  such,  by  this  time,  that 
it  could  not  fail  to  be  lowered  by  them  in  its  re- 
ligious tone.  In  England,  every  breath  of  spirit- 
uality in  the  movement  had  so  far  (to  the  death 
of  Henry  VIII.)  been  stifled,  and  it  showed  noth- 
ing but  a  brazen  political  front  to  the  world.  In 
the  Netherlands,  the  struggle  for  religious  free- 
dom was  about  to  merge  itself  in  a  fight  of  forty 
years  for  self-government,  and  the  fortitude  and 
valor  of  the  citizen  were  more  surely  developed 
in  that  long  war  than  the  faith  and  fervor  of  the 
Christian.  And  so,  generally  throughout  Eu- 
rope. Protestantism,  in  its  conflict  with  the  pow- 
ers of  the  ancient  Church,  had  descended,  ere  the 
sixteenth  century  ran  far  into  its  second  half,  to 
a  distinctly  lower  plane  than  it  occupied  at  first. 
On  that  lower  plane  Rome  fronted  it  more  for- 
midably, with  stronger  arms,  than  on  the  higher. 

2.  Broadly  stating  the  fact,  it  may  be  said  that 
Protestantism  made  all  its  great  inroads  upon  the 
Church  of  Rome  before  partisanship  came  to  the 
rescue  of  the  latter,  and  closed  the  open  mind 
with  which  Luther,  and  Zwingli,  and  Farel,  and 
Calvin  were  listened  to  at  first.  It  happens  al- 
ways, when  new  ideas,  combative  of  old  ones, 
whether  religious  or  political,  are  first  put  for- 
ward in  the  world,  they  are  listened  to  for  a  time 
with  a  certain  disinterestedness  of  attention  —  a 
certain  native  candor  in  the  mind  —  which  gives 
them  a  fair  hearing.  If  they  seem  reasonable, 
they  obtain  ready  acceptance,  and  spread  rapidly, 
—  until  the  conservatism  of  the  beliefs  assailed 
takes  serious  alarm,  and  the  radicalism  of  the 
innovating  beliefs  becomes  ambitious  and  ram- 
Itant ;  until  the  for  and  the  against  stiffen  them- 
selves in  opposing  ranks,  and  the  voice  of  argu- 
ment is  drowned  by  the  cries  of  party.  That 
ends  all  shifting  of  masses  from  the  old  to  the 
new  ground.  That  ends  conversion  as  an  epi- 
demic and  dwindles  it  to  the  sporadic  character. 

3.  Protestantism  became  bitterly  divided  within 
itself  at  an  early  stage  of  its  career  by  doctrinal 
differences,  first  between  Zwinglians  and  Luther- 
ans, and  then  between  Lutherans  and  Calvinists, 
while  Catholicism,  under  attack,  settled  into 
more  tmity  and  solidity  than  before. 

4.  The  tremendous  power  in  Europe  to 
which   the  Spanish  monarchy,  with  its  subject 


1092 


EUROPE. 


Philip  11.  a7id 
the  ruin  of  Spain. 


EUROPE. 


dominions,  and  its  dynastic  relations,  had  now 
risen,  passed,  in  1556,  to  a  dull-brained  and  soul- 
less bigot,  who  saw  but  one  use  for  it,  namely,  the 
extinction  of  all  dissent  from  his  own  beliefs,  and 
all  opposition  to  his  own  will.  Philip  II.  differed 
from  his  father,  Charles  V.,  not  in  the  enormity 
of  his  bigoted  egotism  —  the}'  were  equals,  per- 
haps, in  that  —  but  in  the  exclusiveness  of  it. 
There  was  something  else  in  Charles,  something 
sometimes  faintly  admirable.  He  did  have  some 
interests  in  life  that  were  not  purely  malignant. 
But  his  horrid  vampire  of  a  son,  the  most  re- 
pulsive creature  of  his  kind  in  all  history,  had 
nothing  in  him  that  was  not  as  deadly  to  man- 
kind as  the  venom  secreted  behind  the  fang  of  a 
cobra.  It  was  a  frightful  day  for  the  world 
when  a  despotism  which  shadowed  Spain,  Sicily, 
Italy  and  the  Low  Countries,  and  which  had  be- 
gun to  drag  unbounded  treasure  from  America, 
fell  to  the  possession  of  such  a  being  as  this. 
Nothing  substantial  was  taken  away  from  the 
potent  malevolence  of  Philip  by  his  failure  of 
election  in  Germany  to  the  Imperial  throne.  On 
the  contrary,  he  was  the  stronger  for  it,  because 
all  his  dominion  was  real  and  all  his  authority 
might  assume  to  be  absolute.  His  father  had 
been  more  handicapped  than  helped  by  his  Ger- 
man responsibilities  and  embarrassments,  which 
Philip  escaped.  It  is  not  strange  that  his  con- 
centration of  the  vast  enginery  under  his  hands 
to  one  limited  aim,  of  exterminating  what  his 
dull  and  ignorant  mind  conceived  to  be  irreligion 
and  treason,  had  its  large  measure  of  success. 
The  stranger  thing  is,  that  there  was  fortitude  and 
courage  to  resist  such  power,  in  even  one  corner 
of  his  realm. 

5.  The  Papacy  was  restored  at  this  time  to  tlie 
purer  and  higher  character  of  its  best  ages,  by 
well-guided  elections,  which  raised  in  succession 
to  the  throne  a  number  of  men,  very  different  in 
ability,  and  quite  different,  too,  in  the  spirit  of 
their  piety,  but  generally  alike  in  dignity  and 
decency  of  life,  and  in  qualities  which  command 
respect.  The  fiery  Neapolitan  zealot,  Caraffa, 
who  became  Pope  in  1555  as  Paul  IV. ;  his  cool- 
tempered  diplomatic  successor,  Pius  IV.,  who 
manipulated  the  closing  labors  of  the  Council  of 
Trent ;  the  austere  inquisitor,  Pius  V. ;  the  more 
commonplace  Gregory  XIII.,  and  the  powerful 
Sixtus  v.,  were  pontiffs  who  gave  new  strength 
to  Catholicism,  in  their  different  ways,  both  by 
what  they  did  and  by  what  they  were. 

6.  The  revival  of  zeal  in  the  Roman  Church, 
naturally  following  the  attacks  upon  it,  gave  rise 
to  many  new  religious  organizations  within  its 
elastic  fold,  some  reformatory,  some  missionary 
and  militant,  but  all  bringing  an  effectual  rein- 
forcement to  it,  at  the  time  when  its  assailants 
began  to  show  faltering  signs.  Among  these 
was  one  —  Loyola's  Society  of  Jesus  —  which 
marched  promptly  to  the  front  of  the  battle,  and 
which  contributed  more  than  any  other  single 
force  in  the  field  to  the  rallying  of  the  Church, 
to  the  stopping  of  retreat,  and  to  the  facing  of 
its  stubborn  columns  forward  for  a  fresh  ad- 
vance. The  Jesuits  took  such  a  lead  and  accom- 
plished such  results  by  virtue  of  the  military 
precision  of  discipline  under  which  they  had 
been  placed  and  to  which  they  were  singularlj' 
trained  by  the  rules  of  the  founder;  and  also 
by  effect  of  a  certain  subtle  sophistry  that  runs 
through  their  ethical  maxims  and  their  counsels 
of  piety.     They  fought  for  their  faith  with  a 


sublime  courage,  with  a  devotion  almost  unpar- 
alleled, with  an  earnestness  of  belief  that  cannot 
be  questioned ;  but  they  used  weapons  and  modes 
of  warfare  which  the  higher  moral  feeling  of 
civilized  mankind,  whether  Christian  or  Pagan, 
has  always  condemned.  It  is  not  Protestant 
enemies  alone  who  say  this.  It  is  the  accusation 
that  has  been  brought  against  them  again  and 
again  in  their  own  Church,  and  which  has  ex- 
pelled them  from  Catholic  countries,  again  and 
again..  In  the  first  century  or  more  of  their 
career,  this  plastic  conscience,  moulded  by  a  pas- 
sionate zeal,  and  surrendered,  with  every  gift  of 
mind  and  body,  to  a  service  of  obedience  which 
tolerated  no  evasion  on  one  side  nor  bending  on 
the  other,  made  the  Jesuits  the  most  invinci- 
ble and  dangerous  body  of  men  that  was  ever 
organized  for  defense  and  aggression  in  any 
cause. 

The  order  was  founded  in  1540,  by  a  bull  of 
Pope  Paul  III.  At  the  time  of  Loyola's  death, 
in  1556,  it  numbered  about  one  thousand  mem- 
bers, and  under  Lainez,  the  second  general  of  the 
order,  who  succeeded  Loyola  at  the  head,  it  ad- 
vanced rapidly,  in  numbers,  in  efficiency  of  or- 
ganization, and  in  wide-spread  influence. 

Briefly  stated,  these  are  the  incidents  and  cir- 
cumstances which  help  to  explain  —  not  fully, 
perhaps,  but  almost  sufficiently  —  the  check  to 
Protestantism  and  the  restored  energy  and  ag- 
gressiveness of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  the  later 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

The  Ruin  of  Spain. 

In  his  kingdoms  of  Spain,  Philip  II.  may  be  said 
to  have  finished  the  work  of  death  which  his 
father  and  his  father's  grand-parents  committed 
to  him.  They  began  it,  and  appointed  the  lines 
on  which  it  was  to  be  done.  The  Spain  of  their 
day  had  the  fairest  opportunity  of  any  nation  in 
Europe  for  a  great  and  noble  career.  The  golden 
gates  of  her  opportunity  were  unlocked  and 
opened  by  good  Queen  Isabella;  but  the  pure 
hands  of  the  same  pious  queen  threw  over  the 
neck  of  her  country  the  noose  of  a  strangler,  and 
tightened  it  prayerfully.  Her  grandson,  who 
was  neither  pious  nor  good,  flung  his  vast  weight 
of  power  upon  it.  But  the  strangling  halter  of 
the  Spanish  Inquisition  did  not  extinguish  signs 
of  life  in  his  kingdom  fast  enough  to  satisfy  his 
royal  impatience,  and  he  tightened  other  cords 
upon  the  suffering  body  and  all  its  limbs.  Philip, 
when  he  came  to  take  up  the  murderous  task, 
found  every  equipment  for  it  that  he  could  de- 
sire. He  had  only  to  gather  the  strands  of  the 
infernal  mesh  into  his  hands,  and  bring  the  strain 
of  his  awful  sovereignty  to  bear  upon  them :  then 
sit  and  watch  the  palsy  of  death  creep  over  his 
dominions. 

Of  political  life,  Charles  really  left  nothing  for 
his  son  to  kill.  Of  positive  religious  life,  there 
can  have  been  no  important  survival,  for  he  and 
his  Inquisition  had  been  keenly  vigilant;  but 
Philip  made  much  of  the  little  he  could  discover. 
As  to  the  industrial  life  of  Spain,  father  and  son 
were  alike  active  in  the  murdering  of  it,  and 
alike  ingenious.  They  paralyzed  manufactures, 
in  the  first  instance,  by  persecuting  and  expelling 
the  thrifty  and  skilful  Moriscoes ;  then  they  made 
their  work  complete  by  heavy  duties  on  raw  ma- 
terials. To  extinguish  the  agricultural  indus- 
tries of  the  kingdom,  they  had  happy  inspira- 
tions.    They  prohibited  the  exportation  of  one 


1093 


EUKOPE. 


Revolt  of 
the  Netherlands. 


EUROPE. 


commodity  after  another — com,  cattle,  wool, 
cloth,  leather,  and  the  like  —  until  they  had 
brought  Spain  practically  to  the  point  of  being 
dependent  on  other  countries  for  many  products 
of  skill,  and  j'et  of  having  nothing  to  offer  in  ex- 
change, except  the  treasure  of  precious  metals 
which  she  drew  from  America.  Hence  it  hap- 
pened that  the  silver  and  gold  of  the  Peruvian 
and  Mexican  mines  ran  like  quicksand  through 
her  fingers,  into  the  coffers  of  the  merchants  of 
the  Low  Countries  and  of  England;  and,  ^jrob- 
ably,  no  other  country  in  Europe  saw  so  little  of 
them,  had  so  little  of  benefit  from  them,  as  the 
country  they  were  supposed  to  enrich. 

If  the  killing  of  Spain  needed  to  be  made  com- 
plete by  anything  more,  Philip  supplied  the  need, 
in  the  deadliness  of  his  taxation.  Spending  vast 
sums  in  his  attempt  to  repeat  upon  the  Nether- 
lands the  work  of  national  murder  he  had  accom- 
plished in  Spain;  losing,  by  the  same  act,  the 
rich  revenues  of  the  thrifty  provinces ;  launching 
into  new  expenditures  as  he  pursued,  by  clumsy 
warfare,  his  mission  of  death  into  fresh  fields, 
aiming  now  at  the  life  of  France,  and  now  at  the 
life  of  England,— he  squeezed  the  cost  of  his 
armies  and  armadas  from  a  country  in  which  he 
had  strangled  production  already,  and  made  pov- 
erty the  common  estate.  It  was  the  last  draining 
of  the  life-blood  of  a  nation  which  ought  to  have 
been  strong  and  great,  but  which  suffered  mur- 
der most  foul  and  unnatural. 

"We  hardly  exaggerate  even  in  figure  when  we 
say  that  Spain  was  a  dead  nation  when  Philip 
quitted  the  scene  of  his  arduous  labors.  It  is 
true  that  his  successors  still  found  something  for 
their  hands  to  do,  in  the  ways  that  were  pleasant 
to  their  race,  and  burned  and  bled  and  crushed 
the  unhappy  kingdom  with  indefatigable  persis- 
tency ;  but  it  was  really  tlie  corpse  of  a  nation 
which  they  practised  on.  The  life  of  Spain,  as  a 
breathing,  sentient  state,  came  to  an  end  under 
the  hands  of  Philip  II. ,  first  of  the  Thugs. 

Philip  II.  and  the  Netherlands. 

The  hand  of  Charles  V.  had  been  heavy  on  the 
Netherlands ;  but  resistance  to  such  a  power  as 
that  of  Spain  in  his  day  was  hardly  dreamed  of. 
It  was  not  easy  for  Philip  to  outdo  his  father's 
despotism ;  less  easy  to  drive  the  laborious  Hol- 
landers and  Flemings  to  desperation  and  force 
them  into  rebellious  war.  But  he  accomplished 
it.  He  filled  the  country  with  Spanish  troops. 
He  reorganized  and  stimulated  the  Inquisition. 
He  multiplied  bishoprics  in  the  Provinces,  against 
the  wish  of  even  the  Catholic  population.  He 
scorned  the  counsels  of  the  great  nobles,  and 
gave  foreign  advisers  to  the  Regent,  his  half-sis- 
ter, Margaret  of  Parma,  illegitimate  daughter  of 
Charles  V.,  whom  he  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
government.  His  oppressions  were  endured, 
with  increasing  signs  of  hidden  passion,  for  ten 
j-ears.  Then,  in  1.566,  the  first  movement  of  pa- 
triotic combination  appeared.  It  was  a  league 
among  certain  of  the  nobles;  its  objects  were 
peaceful,  its  plans  were  legal;  but  it  was  not 
countenanced  by  the  wiser  of  the  patriots,  who 
saw  that  events  were  not  ripe.  The  members  of 
the  league  went  in  solemn  procession  to  the 
Regent  with  a  petition;  whereupon  one  of  her 
councillors  denounced  them  as  "a  troop  of  beg- 
gars."' They  promptly  seized  the  epithet  and 
appropriated  it.  A  beggar's  wallet  became  their 
emblem;  the  idea  was  caught  up  and  carried 


through  the  country,  and  a  visible  party  rose 
quickly  Into  existence. 

The  religious  feeling  now  gained  boldness. 
Enormous  field-meetings  began  to  be  held,  under 
arms,  in  every  part  of  the  open  country,  defy- 
ing edicts  and  Inquisition.  There  followed  a 
little  later  some  fanatical  and  riotous  outbreaks 
in  several  cities,  breaking  images  and  desecrat- 
ing churches.  Upon  these  occurrences,  Philip 
despatched  to  the  Netherlands,  in  the  summer  of 
1567,  a  fresh  army  of  Spanish  troops,  commanded 
by  a  man  who  was  after  his  own  heart — as  mean, 
as  false,  as  merciless,  as  little  in  soul  and  mind, 
as  himself,  —  the  Duke  of  Alva.  Alva  brought 
with  him  authority  which  practically  superseded 
that  of  the  Regent,  and  secret  instructions  which 
doomed  every  man  of  worth  in  the  Provinces. 

At  the  head  of  the  nobility  of  the  country,  bj' 
eminence  of  character,  no  less  than  by  precedence 
in  rank,  stood  "William  of  Nassau,  Prince  of 
Orange,  who  derived  his  higher  title  from  a  petty 
and  remote  principality,  but  whose  large  family 
possessions  were  in  Flanders,  Brabant,  Holland 
and  Luxemburg.  Associated  closely  with  him, 
in  friendship  and  in  political  action,  were  Count 
Egraont,  and  the  Admiral  Count  Horn,  the  lat- 
ter of  a  family  related  to  the  Montmorencies  of 
France.  These  three  conspicuous  nobles  Philip 
had  marked  with  special  malice  for  the  heads- 
man, though  their  solitary  crime  had  been  the 
giving  of  advice  against  his  tyrannies.  "William 
of  Orange — "the  Silent,"  as  he  came  to  be  known 
—  far-seeing  in  his  wisdom,  and  well-advised  by 
trusty  agents  in  Spain,  withdrew  into  Germany 
before  Alva  arrived.  He  warned  his  friends  of 
their  danger  and  implored  them  to  save  them- 
selves; but  they  were  blinded  and  would  not 
listen.  The  perfidious  Spaniard  lured  them  with 
flatteries  to  Brussels  and  thrust  them  into  prison. 
They  were  to  be  the  first  victims  of  the  appalling 
sacriflce  required  to  appease  the  dull  rage  of  the 
king.  "Within  three  months  they  had  eighteen 
hundred  companions,  condemned  like  themselves 
to  the  scaffold,  by  a  council  in  which  Alva  pre- 
sided and  which  the  people  called  "the  Council 
of  Blood."  In  June,  1568,  they  were  brought  to 
the  block. 

Meantime  Prince  "William  and  his  brother, 
Louis  of  Nassau,  had  raised  forces  in  Germany 
and  attempted  the  rescue  of  the  terrorized  Prov- 
inces ;  but  their  troops  were  ill-paid  and  mutinous 
and  they  suffered  defeat.  For  the  time  being, 
the  Netherlands  were  crushed.  As  many  of  the 
people  as  could  escape  had  fled ;  commerce  was 
at  a  standstill ;  workshops  were  idle ;  the  cities, 
once  so  wealthy,  were  impoverished;  death, 
mourning,  and  terror,  were  everywhere.  Alva 
had  done  very  perfectly  what  he  was  sent  to  do. 

The  first  break  in  the  blackness  of  the  clouds 
appeared  in  April,  1573,  when  a  fleet,  manned  by 
refugee  adventurers  who  called  themselves  Sea- 
Beggars,  attacked  and  captured  the  town  of 
Brill.  From  that  day  the  revolt  had  its  right 
footing,  on  the  decks  of  the  ships  of  the  best  sail- 
ors in  the  world.  It  faced  Philip  from  that  day  as 
a  maritime  power,  which  would  grow  by  the  very 
feeding  of  its  war  with  him,  until  it  had  con- 
sumed everything  Spanish  within  its  reach.  The 
taking  of  Brill  soon  gave  the  patriots  control  of  so 
many  places  in  Holland  and  Zealand  that  a  meet- 
ing of  deputies  was  held  at  Don,  in  July,  1572, 
which  declared  AVilliam  of  Orange  to  be  "the 
King's  legal  Stadtholder  in   Holland,  Zealand, 


1094 


EUROPE. 


Independence  of 
the  United  Brovinces, 


EUROPE. 


Friesland  and  Utrecht,"  and  recommended  to 
the  other  Provinces  that  he  be  appointed  Pro- 
tector of  all  the  Netherlands  during  the  King's 
absence. 

Alva's  reign  of  terror  had  failed  so  signally 
that  even  he  was  discouraged  and  asked  to  be 
recalled.  It  was  his  boast  when  he  retired  that 
he  had  put  eighteen  thousand  and  six  hundred  of 
the  Netherlanders  to  death  since  they  were  de- 
livered into  his  hands,  above  and  beyond  the 
'horrible  massacres  by  which  he  had  half  depopu- 
lated every  captured  town.  Under  Alva's  suc- 
cessor, Don  Louis  de  Requesens,  a  man  of  more 
justice  and  liumanity,  the  struggle  went  on,  ad- 
versely, upon  the  whole,  to  the  patriots,  though 
they  triumphed  gloriously  in  the  famous  defense 
of  Leyden.  To  win  help  from  England,  they 
offered  the  sovereignty  of  their  country  to  Queen 
Elizabeth ;  but  in  vain.  They  made  no  headway 
in  the  southern  provinces,  where  Catholicism 
prevailed,  and  where  the  religious  difference  drew 
people  more  to  the  Spanish  side.  But  when 
Requesens  died  suddenly,  in  tlie  spring  of  1576, 
and  the  Spanish  soldiery  broke  into  a  furious 
mutiny,  sacking  Antwerp  and  other  cities,  then 
the  nobles  of  Flanders  and  Brabant  applied  to 
the  northern  provinces  for  help.  The  result  was 
a  treaty,  called  the  Pacitication  of  Ghent,  which 
contemplated  a  general  effort  to  drive  the  Span- 
iards from  the  whole  land.  But  not  much  came 
of  this  confederacy ;  the  Catholic  provinces  never 
co-operated  with  the  Protestant  provinces,  and 
the  latter  went  their  own  way  to  freedom  and 
prosperity,  while  the  former  sank  back,  submis- 
sive, to  their  chains. 

For  a  short  time  after  the  death  of  Requesens, 
Philip  was  represented  in  the  Netherlands  by  his 
illegitimate  half-brother,  Don  John  of  Austria; 
but  Don  John  died  in  October,  1578,  and  then 
came  the  great  general,  Alexander  Farnese,  Prince 
of  Parma,  who  was  to  try  the  patriots  sorely  by 
his  military  skill.  In  1579,  the  Prince  of  Orange 
drew  them  more  closely  together,  in  the  Union 
of  Utrecht,  which  Holland,  Zealand,  Gelderland, 
Zutphen,  Utrecht,  Overyssel,  and  Groningen,  sub- 
scribed, and  which  was  practically  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Dutch  republic,  though  allegiance 
to  Philip  was  not  yet  renounced.  Tliis  followed 
two  years  later,  in  July,  1581,  when  the  States 
General,  assembled  at  the  Hague,  passed  a  solemn 
Act  of  Abjuration,  which  deposed  Philip  from 
his  sovereignty  and  transferred  it  to  the  Duke  of 
Anjou,  a  prince  of  the  royal  family  of  France, 
wlio  did  nothing  for  the  Provinces,  and  who  died 
soon  after.  At  the  same  time,  the  immediate 
sovereignty  of  Holland  and  Zealand  was  conferred 
on  the  Prince  of  Orange. 

In  March,  1583,  Philip  made  his  first  deliber- 
ate attempt  to  procure  the  assassination  of  the 
Prince.  He  had  entered  Into  a  contract  for  the 
purpose,  and  signed  it  with  his  own  hand.  The 
assassin  employed  failed  only  because  the  savage 
pistol  wound  he  inflicted,  In  the  neck  and  jaw  of 
his  victim,  did  not  kill.  The  master-murderer, 
at  Madrid,  was  not  discouraged.  He  launched 
his  assassins,  one  following  the  other,  until  six 
had  made  their  trial  in  two  years.  The  sixth, 
one  Balthazar  Gerard,  accomplished  that  for 
which  lie  was  sent,  and  William  the  Silent,  wise 
statesman  and  admirable  patriot,  fell  imder  his 
hand  (July  10,  1584).  Philip  was  so  immeasur- 
ably delighted  at  this  success  that  he  conferred 
three  lordships  on  the  parents  of  the  murderer. 


William's  son,  Maurice,  though  but  eighteen 
years  old,  was  immediately  chosen  Stadtholder 
of  Holland,  Zealand  and  Utrecht,  and  High  Ad- 
miral of  the  Union.  In  the  subsequent  years  of 
the  war,  he  proved  himself  a  general  of  great  ca- 
pacity. Of  the  details  of  the  war  it  is  impossible 
to  speak. '  Its  most  notable  event  was  the  siege 
of  Antwerp,  whose  citizens  defended  themselves 
against  the  Duke  of  Parma,  with  astonishing 
courage  and  obstinacy,  for  many  months.  They 
capitulated  in  the  end  on  honorable  terras;  but 
the  prosperity  of  their  city  had  received  a  blow 
from  which  it  never  revived. 

Once  more  the  sovereignty  of  the  Provinces  was 
offered  to  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England,  and  once 
more  declined;  but  the  queen  sent  her  favorite, 
tlie  Earl  of  Leicester,  with  a  few  thousand  men, 
to  help  the  struggling  Hollanders  (1585).  This 
was  done,  not  in  sj'mpathy  with  them  or  their 
cause,  but  purely  as  a  self-defensive  measure 
against  Spain.  The  niggardliness  and  the  vacil- 
lations of  Elizabeth,  combined  with  the  incom- 
petency of  Leicester,  caused  troubles  to  the  Prov- 
inces nearly  equal  to  the  benefit  of  the  forces  lent 
them.  Philip  of  Spain  was  now  involved  in  his 
undertakings  with  the  Guises  and  the  League  in 
France,  and  in  his  plans  against  England,  and 
was  weakened  in  the  Netherlands  for  some  years. 
Parma  died  in  1593,  and  Count  Mansfield  took 
his  place,  succeeded  in  his  turn  by  the  Marquis 
Spinola.  The  latter,  at  last,  made  an  honest  re- 
port, that  the  subjugation  of  the  United  Prov- 
inces was  impracticable,  and,  Philip  II.  being 
now  dead,  the  Spanish  government  was  induced 
in  1607  to  agree  to  a  suspension  of  arms.  A 
truce  for  twelve  years  was  arranged ;  practically 
it  was  the  termination  of  the  war  of  indepen- 
dence, and  practically  it  placed  the  United  Prov- 
inces among  the  nations,  although  the  formal 
acknowledgment  of  their  independence  was  not 
yielded  by  Spain  until  1648. 

England  under  Mary. 

While  the  Netherlands  had  offered  to  Philip  of 
Spain  a  special  field  for  his  malice,  there  were 
others  thrown  open  to  him  which  he  did  not 
neglect.  He  may  be  said,  in  fact,  to  have  whetted 
his  appetite  for  blood  and  for  burned  human 
tlesh  in  England,  whither  he  went,  as  a  young 
prince,  in  1554,  to  marry  his  elderly  second 
cousin,  Queen  Mary.  We  may  be  sure  that  he 
did  not  check  the  ardor  of  his  consort,  when  she 
hastened  to  re-establish  the  supremacy  of  the 
Pope,  and  to  rekindle  the  fires  of  religious  perse- 
cution. The  two-hundred  and  seventy-seven  her- 
etics whom  she  is  reckoned  to  have  burned  may 
liave  seemed  to  him,  even  then,  an  insignificant 
handful.  He  quickly  tired  of  her,  if  not  of  her 
congenial  work,  and  left  her  in  1555.  In  1558 
she  died,  and  the  Cliurch  of  Rome  fell  once  more, 
never  to  regain  its  old  footing  of  authority. 

England  under  Elizabeth. 

Elizabeth,  daughter  of  Anne  Boleyn,  who  now 
came  to  the  throne,  was  Protestant  by  the  neces- 
sities of  her  position,  whether  doctrinally  con- 
vinced or  no.  The  Catholics  denied  her  legiti- 
macy of  birth,  and  disputed,  therefore,  her  right 
to  the  crown.  She  depended  upon  the  Protes- 
tants for  her  support,  and  Protestantism,  either 
active  or  passive,  had  become,  without  doulit, 
the  dominant  faitli  of  the  nation.  But  the  mild 
schism  which  formerly  took  most  of  its  direction 


1095 


EUROPE. 


Qxieen  Elizabeth 
and  Mary  Stuart. 


EUROPE. 


from  Luther,  had  now  been  powerfully  acted 
upon  by  the  influence  of  Calvin.  Geneva  had 
been  tlie  refuge  of  many  ministers  and  teachers 
who  fled  from  Mary's  fires,  and  they  returned  to 
spread  and  deepen  in  England  the  stern,  strong, 
formidable  piety  which  Calvin  evoked.  These 
Calvinistic  Protestants  now  made  themselves  felt 
as  a  party  in  the  state,  and  were  known  ere  long 
by  that  name  which  the  next  century  rendered 
famous  in  English  and  American  history  —  the 
great  name  of  the  Puritans.  They  were  not 
satisfied  with  the  stately,  decorous,  ceremonious 
Church  which  Elizabeth  reconstructed  on  the 
pattern  of  the  Church  of  Edward  VI.  At  the 
same  time,  no  party  could  be  counted  on  more 
surely  for  the  support  of  the  queen,  since  the 
hope  of  Protestantism  in  England  depended  upon 
her,  even  as  she  was  dependent  upon  it. 

The  Catholics,  denying  legitimacy  to  Eliza- 
beth, recognized  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  as  the  law- 
ful sovereign  of  England.  And  Mary  was,  in 
fact,  the  next  in  succession,  tracing  her  lineage, 
as  stated  before,  to  the  elder  sister  of  Henry  VIII. 
If  Elizabeth  had  been  willing  to  frankly  acknowl- 
edge Mary's  heirship,  failing  heirs  of  her  own 
body,  it  seems  ijrobable  tliat  the  partisans  of  the 
Scottish  queen  would  have  been  quieted,  to  a 
great  extent.  But  Mary  had  angered  her  by 
assuming,  while  in  Prance,  the  arras  and  style  of 
Queen  of  England.  She  distrusted  and  disliked 
her  Stuart  cousin,  and,  moreover,  the  whole  idea 
of  a  settlement  of  the  succession  was  repugnant 
to  her  mind.  At  the  same  time,  she  could  not  be 
brought  to  marry,  as  her  Protestant  subjects 
wished.  She  coquetted  with  the  notion  of  mar- 
riage through  half  her  reign,  but  never  to  any 
purpose. 

Such  were  the  elements  of  agitation  and  trouble 
in  England  under  Elizabeth.  The  history  of  well- 
nigh  half-a-century  was  shaped  in  almost  all  its 
events  by  the  threatening  attitude  of  Catholicism 
and  its  supporters,  domestic  and  foreign,  toward 
the  English  queen.  She  was  supported  by  the 
majority  of  her  subjects  with  staunch  loyalty  and 
fidelity,  even  though  she  treated  them  none  too 
well,  and  troubled  them  in  their  very  defense  of 
her  by  her  whims  and  caprices.  They  identified 
her  cause  with  themselves,  and  took  such  pride 
in  her  courage  that  they  shut  their  eyes  to  the 
many  weaknesses  that  went  with  it.  She  never 
grasped  the  affairs  she  dealt  with  in  a  broadly 
capable  way.  She  never  acted  on  them  with  well 
considered  judgment.  Her  ministers,  it  is  clear, 
were  never  able  to  depend  upon  a  reasonable  ac- 
tion of  her  mind.  Her  vanity  or  her  jealousy 
might  put  reason  in  eclipse  at  any  moment,  and 
a  skilful  flatterer  could  make  the  queen  as  foolish 
as  a  milkmaid.  But  she  had  a  royal  courage  and 
a  royal  pride  of  country,  and  she  did  make  the 
good  and  glory  of  England  her  aim.  So  she  won 
the  afl'ection  of  all  Englishmen  whose  hearts  were 
not  in  the  keeping  of  the  Pope,  and  no  monarch 
so  arbitrary  was  ever  more  ardently  admired. 

Mary,  Queen  of  Scots. 

In  1567,  Mary  Stuart  was  deposed  by  her  own 
subjects,  or  forced  to  abdicate  in  favor  of  her  in- 
fant son,  James.  She  had  alienated  the  Scottish 
people,  first  by  her  religion,  and  then  by  her  sus- 
pected personal  crimes.  Having  married  her 
second  cousin,  Henry  Stuart,  Lord  Darnley,  she 
was  accused  of  being  false  to  him.  Darnley  re- 
venged his  supposed  wrongs  as  a  husband  by 


murdering  her  secretary,  David  Rizzio.  In  the 
next  year  (1567)  Darnley  was  killed;  the  hand  of 
the  Earl  of  Bothwell  appeared  quite  plainly  in 
the  crime,  and  the  queen's  complicity  was  be- 
lieved. She  confirmed  the  suspicions  against  her- 
self by  marrying  Bothwell  soon  afterwards.  Then 
her  subjects  rose  against  her,  imprisoned  her  in 
Loch  Leven  Castle,  and  made  the  Earl  of  Murray 
regent  of  the  Kingdom.  In  1568  Mary  escaped 
from  her  Scottish  prison  and  entered  England. 
From  that  time  until  her  death,  in  1587,  she  was 
a  captive  in  the  hands  of  her  rival.  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, and  was  treated  with  slender  magnanimity. 
More  than  before,  she  became  the  focus  of  in- 
trigues and  conspiracies  which  threatened  both 
the  throne  and  the  life  of  Elizabeth,  and  a  grow- 
ing feeling  of  hostility  to  the  wretched  woman 
was  inevitable. 

In  1570,  Pope  Pius  V.  issued  against  Elizabeth 
his  formal  bull  of  excommunication,  absolving 
her  subjects  from  their  allegiance.  'This  quick- 
ened, of  course,  the  activity  of  the  plotters  against 
the  queen  and  set  treason  astir.  Priests  from  the 
English  Catholic  Seminary  at  Douai,  afterwards 
at  Rheims,  began  to  make  their  appearance  in  the 
country;  a  few  Jesuits  came  over;  and  both  were 
active  agents  of  the  schemes  on  foot  which  con- 
templated the  seating  of  Mary  Stuart  on  the  throne 
of  Elizabeth  Tudor.  Some  of  these  emissaries 
were  executed,  and  they  are  counted  among  the 
martyrs  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  is  a  seri- 
ous mistake.  The  Protestantism  of  the  sixteenth 
century  was  quite  capable  of  religious  persecu- 
tion, even  to  death ;  but  it  has  no  responsibilities 
of  that  nature  in  these  Elizabethan  cases.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  religion  of  the  Jesuit  sufferers 
in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  was  a  mere  incident  at- 
taching itself  to  a  high  political  crime,  which  no 
nation  has  ever  forgiven. 

The  plotting  went  on  for  twenty  years,  keep- 
ing the  nation  In  unrest;  while  beyond  it  there 
were  thickening  signs  of  a  great  project  of  inva- 
sion in  the  sinister  mind  of  Philip  II.  At  last, 
in  1586,  the  coolest  councillors  of  Elizabeth  per- 
suaded her  to  bring  Mary  Stuart  to  trial  for 
alleged  complicity  in  a  conspiracy  of  assassina- 
tion which  had  lately  come  to  light.  Convicted, 
and  condemned  to  death,  Mary  ended  her  sad 
life  on  the  scaffold,  at  Potheringay,  on  the  8th 
of  February,  1587.  Whether  guilty  or  guiltless 
of  any  knowledge  of  what  had  been  done  in  her 
name,  against  the  peace  of  England  and  against 
the  life  of  the  English  queen,  it  cannot  be  thought 
strange  that  Protestant  England  took  her  life. 

The  Spanish  Armada. 

A  great  burst  of  wrath  in  Catholic  Europe  was 
caused  by  the  execution  of  Mary,  and  Philip  of 
Spain  hastened  forward  his  vast  preparations  for 
the  invasion  and  conquest  of  England.  In  1588, 
the  "invincible  armada,"  as  it  was  believed  to 
be,  sailed  out  of  the  harbors  of  Portugal  and 
Spain,  and  wrecked  itself  with  clumsy  imbecility 
on  the  British  and  Irish  coasts.  It  scarcely  did 
more  than  give  sport  to  the  eager  English  sailors 
who  scattered  its  helpless  ships  and  hunted  them 
down.  Philip  troubled  England  no  more,  and 
conspiracy  ceased. 

England  at  Sea. 

But  the  undeclared,  half-piratical  warfare 
which  private  adventurers  had  been  carrying  on 
against  Spanish  commerce  for  many  years  now 


1096 


EUROPE. 


Wars  of  Religion 
in  France. 


EUEOPE. 


acquired  fresh  energy.  Drake,  Hawkins,  Fro- 
bisbcr,  Grenvil,  Raleigh,  were  the  heroic  spirits 
of  this  enterprising  warfare;  but  they  had  many 
fellows.  It  was  the  school  of  the  future  navy  of 
England,  and  the  foundations  of  the  British  Em- 
pire were  laid  down  by  those  who  carried  it  on. 
Otherwise,  Elizabeth  had  little  war  upon  her 
hands,  except  in  Ireland,  where  the  state  of  misery 
and  disorder  had  already  been  long  chronic.  The 
first  really  complete  conquest  of  the  island  was 
accomplished  by  Lord  Mountjoy  between  1600 
and  1603. 

Intellectual  England. 

But  neither  the  political  troubles  nor  the  naval 
and  military  triumphs  of  England  during  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth  are  of  much  importance,  after 
all,  compared  with  the  wonderful  flowering  of 
the  genius  of  the  nation  which  took  place  in 
that  age.  Shakespeare,  Spenser,  Bacon,  Ben 
Jonson,  Marlowe,  Hooker,  Raleigh,  Sidney,  are 
the  great  facts  of  Elizabeth's  time,  and  it  shines 
with  the  luster  of  their  names,  the  period  most 
glorious  in  English  history. 

The  Religious  Wars  in  France. 

Wherever  the  stealthy  arm  of  the  influence  of 
Philip  II.  of  Spain  could  reach,  there  the  Catho- 
lic reaction  of  his  time  took  on  a  malignant 
form.  In  France,  it  is  quite  probable  that  the 
Catholics  and  the  Huguenots,  if  left  to  them- 
selves, would  have  come  to  blows ;  but  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  meddling  fingers  of  the  Spanish 
king  put  fierceness  and  fury  into  the  wars  of  re- 
ligion, which  raged  from  1562  to  1596,  and  that 
they  were  prolonged  by  his  encouragement  and 
help. 

Catherine  de'  Medici,  to  strengthen  herself 
against  the  Guises,  after  the  death  of  Francis  II., 
offered  attentions  for  a  time  to  the  Huguenot 
nobles,  and  encouraged  them  to  expect  a  large 
and  lasting  measui'e  of  toleration.  She  went  so 
far  that  the  Huguenot  influence  at  court,  sur- 
rounding the  young  king,  became  very  seriously 
alarming  to  Catholic  onlookers,  both  at  home  and 
abroad.  Among  the  many  remonstrances  ad- 
dressed to  the  queen-regent,  the  one  which  ap- 
pears to  have  been  decisive  in  its  effect  came 
from  Philip.  He  coldly  sent  her  word  that  he 
intended  to  interfere  in  France  and  to  establish 
the  supremacy  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  that  he 
should  give  his  support  for  that  purpose  to  any 
true  friend  of  the  Church  who  might  request  it. 
Whether  Catherine  had  entertained  an  honest 
purpose  or  not,  in  her  dealing  with  the  Hugue- 
nots, this  threat,  with  what  lay  behind  it,  put  an 
end  to  the  hope  of  justice  for  them.  It  is  true 
that  an  assembly  of  notables,  in  January,  1563, 
did  propose  a  law  which  the  queen  put  forth, 
in  what  is  known  as  the  "Edict  of  January," 
whereby  the  Huguenots  were  given,  for  the  first 
time,  a  legal  recognition,  ceasing  to  be  outlaws, 
and  were  permitted  to  hold  meetings,  in  the  day- 
time, in  open  places,  outside  of  walled  cities; 
but  their  churches  were  taken  away  from  them, 
they  were  forbidden  to  build  more,  and  they 
could  hold  no  meetings  in  walled  towns.  It  was 
a  measure  of  toleration  very  different  from  that 
which  they  had  been  led  to  expect;  and  even  the 
little  meted  out  by  this  Edict  of  January  was 
soon  shown  to  have  no  guarantee.  AVithin  three 
months,  the  Duke  of  Guise  had  found  an  oppor- 
tunity for  exhibiting  his  contempt  of  the  new 


law,  by  ordering  his  armed  followers  to  attack  a 
congregation  at  Vassy,  killing  fifty  and  wounding 
two  hundred  of  the  peaceful  worshippers.  This 
outrage  drove  the  Huguenots  to  arms  and  the 
civil  wars  began. 

The  frivolous  Anthony,  King  of  Navarre,  had 
been  won  back  to  the  Catholic  side.  His  staunch 
wife,  Jeanne  d'Albret,  with  her  young  son,  the 
future  Henry  IV.,  and  his  brother,  Louis,  Prince 
of  Conde,  remained  true  to  their  faith.  Conde 
was  the  chief  of  the  party.  Next  to  him  in 
rank,  and  first  in  real  worth  and  weight,  was  the 
noble  Admiral  Coligny.  The  first  war  was  brief, 
though  long  enough  to  end  the  careers  of  An- 
thony of  Navarre,  killed  in  battle,  and  the  Duke 
of  Guise,  assassinated.  Peace  was  made  in  1563 
through  a  compromise,  which  conceded  certain 
places  to  the  Huguenots,  wherein  they  might 
worship  God  in  their  own  way.  But  it  was  a 
hollow  peace,  and  the  malicious  finger  of  the 
great  master  of  assassins  at  JIadrid  never  ceased 
picking  at  it.  In  1.566,  civil  war  broke  out  a 
second  time,  continuing  until  1.570.  Its  principal 
battles  were  that  of  .Jarnac,  in  which  Conde  was 
taken  prisoner  and  basely  assassinated  by  his  cap- 
tors, and  that  of  Moncontour.  The  Huguenots 
were  defeated  in  both.  After  the  death  of  Conde, 
young  Henry  of  Navarre,  who  had  reached  his 
fifteenth  year,  was  chosen  to  be  the  chief  of  the 
party,  with  Coligny  for  his  instructor  in  war. 

Again  peace  was  made,  on  a  basis  of  slight 
concessions.  Henry  of  Navarre  married  the 
King's  sister,  Margaret  of  Valois;  prior  to  which 
he  and  his  mother  took  up  their  residence  with 
the  court,  at  Paris,  where  Jeanne  d'Albret  soon 
sickened  and  died.  The  Admiral  Coligny  ac- 
quired, apparently,  a  marked  influence  over  the 
mind  of  the  young  king;  and  once  more  there 
seemed  to  be  a  smiling  future  for  the  Reformed. 
But  damnable  treacheries  were  hidden  underneath 
this  fair  showing.  The  most  hideous  conspiracy 
of  modern  times  was  being  planned,  at  the  very 
moment  of  the  ostentatious  peace-marriage  of 
the  King  of  Navarre,  and  the  chief  parties  to  it 
were  Catherine  de'  Medici  and  the  Guises,  whose 
evil  inclinations  in  common  had  brought  them 
together  at  last.  On  the  32d  of  August,  1573, 
Coligny  was  wounded  by  an  assassiu,  employed 
by  the  widow  and  son  of  the  late  Duke  of  Guise, 
whose  death  they  charged  against  him,  notwith- 
standing his  protestations  of  innocence.  Two 
days  later,  the  monstrous  and  almost  incredible 
Massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Day  was  begun. 
Paris  was  full  of  Huguenots  —  the  heads  of  the 
party  —  its  men  of  weight  and  influence  —  who 
had  been  drawn  to  the  capital  by  the  King  of 
Navarre's  marriage  and  by  the  supposed  new 
era  of  favor  in  which  they  stood.  To  cut  these 
off  was  to  decapitate  Protestantism  in  Frauce, 
and  that  was  the  purpose  of  the  infernal  sclieme. 
The  weak-minded  young  king  was  not  an  original 
party  to  the  plot.  When  everything  had  been 
planned,  he  was  easily  excited  by  a  tale  of  pre- 
tended Huguenot  conspiracies,  and  his  assent  to 
summary  measures  of  prevention  was  secured. 
A  little  after  midnight,  on  the  morning  of  Sun- 
day, August  24,  the  signal  was  given,  by  Cath- 
erine's order,  which  let  loose  a  waiting  swarm  of 
assassins,  throughout  Paris,  on  the  victims  who 
had  been  marked  for  them.  The  Huguenots  had 
had  no  warning ;  they  were  taken  everywhere  by 
surprise,  and  they  were  easily  murdered  in  their 
beds,  or  hunted  down  In  their  hopeless  flight. 


1097 


EUROPE. 


Henry  of  Valois 
and  Henry' of  Navarre. 


EUROPE. 


The  noble  Coligny,  prostrated  by  the  Tvound  he 
had  received  two  days  before,  was  killed  in  his 
chamber,  and  his  body  flung  out  of  the  window. 
The  young  Duke  of  Guise  stood  waiting  in  the 
court  below,  to  gloat  on  the  corpse  and  to  basely 
spurn  it  with  his  foot. 

The  massacre  in  Paris  was  carried  on  through 
two  nights  and  two  days ;  and,  for  more  than  a 
month  following,  the  example  of  the  capital  was 
imitated  in  other  cities  of  France,  as  tlie  news  of 
what  were  called  "the  Paris  Matins"  reached 
them.  The  total  number  of  victims  in  the  king- 
dom is  estimated  variously  to  have  been  between 
twenty  thousand  and  one  "hundred  thousand. 

Henry  of  Navarre  and  the  young  Prince  of 
Coude  escaped  the  massacre,  but  they  saved  their 
lives  by  a  hypocritical  abjuration  of  their  religion. 

Tlie  strongest  town  in  the  possession  of  the 
Huguenots  was  La  Rochelle,  and  great  numbers 
of  their  ministers  and  people  of  mark  who  sur- 
vived the  massacre  now  took  refuge  in  that  city, 
with  a  considerable  body  of  armed  men.  The 
royal  forces  laid  siege  to  the  city,  but  made  no 
impression  on  its  defences.  Peace  was  conceded 
in  the  end  on  terms  which  again  promised  the 
Huguenots  some  liberty  of  worship.  But  there 
w.is  no  sincerity  in  it. 

In  1574,  Charles  IX.  died,  and  his  brother,  the 
Duke  of  Anjou,  who  had  lately  been  elected 
King  of  Poland,  ran  away  from  his  Polish  capi- 
tal with  disgraceful  haste  and  secrecy,  to  secure 
the  French  crown.  He  was  the  most  worthless 
of  the  Valois-Medicean  brood,  and  the  French 
court  in  his  reign  attained  its  lowest  depth  of  deg- 
radation. The  contending  religions  were  soon 
at  war  again,  with  the  accustomed  result,  in 
1576,  of  another  short-lived  peace.  The  Catho- 
lics were  divided  into  two  factions,  one  fanatical, 
following  the  Guises,  the  other  composed  of 
moderate  men,  calling  themselves  the  Politiques, 
who  hated  the  Spanish  influence  under  which  the 
Guises  were  always  acting,  and  who  were  willing 
to  make  terms  with  the  Huguenots.  The  Guises 
and  the  ultra-Catholics  now  organized  through- 
out France  a  great  oath-bound  "Holy  League", 
which  became  so  formidable  in  power  that  the 
king  took  fright,  put  himself  at  the  head  of  it, 
and  reopened  war  with  the  Reformed. 

More  and  more,  the  conflict  of  religions  became 
confused  with  questions  of  politics  and  mixed 
with  personal  quarrels.  At  one  time,  the  king's 
younger  brother,  the  Duke  of  Alengon,  had  gone 
over  to  the  Huguenot  side;  but  stayed  only  long 
enough  to  extort  from  the  court  some  appoint- 
ments which  he  desired.  The  king,  more  de- 
spised by  his  subjects  than  any  king  of  France 
before  him  had  ever  been,  grew  increasingly 
jealous  and  afraid  of  the  popularity  and  strength 
of  the  Duke  of  Guise,  who  was  proving  to  be  a 
man  quite  superior  to  his  father  in  capability. 
Guise,  on  his  side,  was  made  arrogant  by  his 
sense  of  power,  and  his  ambition  soared  high. 
There  were  reasons  for  believing  that  he  did  not 
look  upon  the  throne  itself  as  beyond  his  reach. 

After  1584,  when  the  Duke  of  Alenpon  (Duke 
of  Anjou  under  his  later  title)  died,  a  new  politi- 
cal question,  vastl}'  disturbing,  was  brought  into 
affairs.  That  death  left  no  heir  to  the  crown  in 
the  Valois  line,  and  the  King  of  Navarre,  of  the 
House  of  Bourbon,  was  now  nearer  in  birth  to 
the  throne  than  any  other  living  person.  Henry 
had,  long  ere  this,  retracted  his  abjuration  of 
1572,  had  rejoined  the  Huguenots  and  taken  his 


place  as  their  chief.  The  head  of  the  Huguenots 
was  now  the  heir  presumptive  to  the  crown,  and 
the  wretched,  incapable  king  was  being  impelled 
by  his  fear  of  Guise  to  look  to  his  Huguenot  heir 
for  support.  It  was  a  strange  situation.  In 
1588  it  underwent  a  sinister  change.  Guise  and 
his  brother,  the  Cardinal,  were  both  assassinated 
by  the  king's  bodj'-guard,  acting  under  the 
king's  orders,  in  the  royal  residence  at  the  Castle 
of  Blois.  When  tlie  murder  had  been  done,  the 
cowardly  king  spurned  his  dead  enemy  with 
his  foot,  as  Guise,  sixteen  years  before,  had 
spurned  the  murdered  Coligny,  and  said  "  I  ar.i 
King  at  last. "  He  was  mistaken.  His  authority 
vanished  with  the  vile  deed  by  which  he  expected 
to  reinvigorate  it.  Paris  broke  into  open  rebel- 
lion. The  League  renewed  its  activity  through- 
out France.  The  king,  abandoned  and  cursed 
on  all  sides,  had  now  no  course  open  to  him  but 
an  alliance  with  Henry  of  Navan'e  and  the 
Huguenots.  The  alliance  was  effected,  and  the 
two  Henrys  joined  forces  to  subdue  insurgent 
Paris.  While  the  siege  of  the  city  was  in  prog- 
ress (1589),  Henry  III.  fell  a  victim,  in  his  turn, 
to  the  murderous  mania  of  his  depraved  age  and 
court.     He  was  assassinated  by  a  fanatical  monk. 

Henry  of  Navarre. 

Henry  of  Navarre  now  steps  into  the  fore- 
ground of  French  historj-,  as  Henry  IV.,  lawful 
King  of  France  as  well  as  of  Navarre,  and  ready 
to  prove  his  roj'al  title  b)'  a  more  useful  reign 
than  the  French  nation  had  known  since  it 
buried  St.  Louis,  his  last  ancestor  on  the  throne. 
But  his  title  was  recognized  at  first  by  few  out- 
side the  party  of  the  Huguenots.  The  League 
went  openly  into  alliance  with  Philip  of  Spain, 
who  even  half-stopped  his  war  in  the  Netherlands 
to  send  money  and  troops  into  France.  The  en- 
ergies of  his  insignificant  soul  were  all  concen- 
trated on  the  desire  to  keep  the  heretical  Bear- 
nese  from  the  throne  of  France.  But  happily 
his  powers  were  no  longer  equal  to  his  malice; 
he  was  still  staggering  under  the  blow  which  de- 
stroyed his  great  Armada. 

Henr}'  received  some  help  in  money  from 
Queen  Elizabeth,  and  5,000  English  and  Scotch 
came  over  to  join  his  army.  He  was  an  abler 
general  than  any  among  his  opponents,  and  he 
made  headway  against  them.  His  splendid  vic- 
tory at  Ivry,  on  the  14th  of  March,  1590,  inspir- 
ited his  followers  and  took  heart  from  the  League. 
He  was  driven  from  his  subsequent  siege  of 
Paris  hy  a  Spanish  army,  under  the  Duke  of 
Parma ;  but  the  very  interference  of  the  Spanish 
king  helped  to  turn  French  feeling  in  Henry's 
favor.  On  the  25th  of  July,  1593,  he  practically 
extinguished  the  opposition  to  himself  by  his 
final  submission  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  was 
an  easy  thing  for  him  to  do.  His  religion  sat 
lightly  on  him.  He  had  accepted  it  from  his 
mother;  he  had  adhered  to  it  —  not  faithfully  — 
as  the  creed  of  a  party.  He  could  give  it  up,  in 
exchange  for  the  crown  of  France,  and  feel  no 
trouble  of  conscience.  But  the  Reformed  re- 
ligion In  France  was  really  benefited  by  his 
apostacy.  Peace  came  to  the  kingdom,  as  the 
consequence, — a  peace  of  many  years, — and  the 
Huguenots  were  sheltered  in  considerable  reli- 
gious freedom  by  the  peace.  Henry  secured  it  to 
them  in  1598  by  the  famous  Edict  of  Nantes, 
which  remained  in  force  for  nearly  a  hundred 
years. 


1098 


EUROPE. 


The  Thirty  Tears 
War. 


EUROPE. 


The  reign  of  Henry  FV.  was  one  of  the  satis- 
factory periods  in  tlie  life  of  France,  so  far  as 
concerns  the  material  prosperity  of  the  nation. 
He  was  a  man  of  strong,  keen  intellect,  with 
firmness  of  will  and  elasticity  of  temper,  bnt 
weak  on  the  moral  side.  He  was  of  those  who 
win  admiration  and  friendship  easily,  and  he  re- 
mains traditionally  the  most  popular  of  French 
kings.  He  had  the  genius  for  government 
which  so  rarely  coincides  with  royal  birth.  A 
wise  minister,  the  Duke  of  Sully,  gave  stability 
to  his  measures,  and  between  them  they  suc- 
ceeded in  remarkably  improving  and  promoting 
the  agricultural  and  the  manufacturing  indus- 
tries of  France,  effacing  the  destructive  effects 
of  the  long  civil  wars,  and  bringing  economy  and 
order  into  the  finances  of  the  overburdened  na- 
tion. His  useful  career  was  ended  by  an  assassin 
in  1610. 

Germany  and  the  Thirty  Years  War. 

The  reactionary  wars  of  religion  in  Germany 
came  half-a-oentury  later  than  in  France.  While 
the  latter  country  was  being  torn  by  the  long 
civil  conflicts  which  Henry  IV.  brought  to  an 
end,  the  former  was  as  nearly  in  the  enjoyment 
of  religious  peace  as  the  miserable  contentions  in 
the  bosom  of  Protestantism,  between  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  (the  latter  more  commonly  called 
"the  Reformed "),  would  permit.  On  the  abdi- 
cation of  Charles  V.,  in  1556,  he  had  fortunately 
failed  to  bring  about  the  election  of  his  son  Philip 
to  the  imperial  throne.  His  brother  Ferdinand, 
Archduke  of  Austria  and  King  of  Boliemia  and 
Hungary,  was  chosen  Emperor,  and  that  sover- 
eign had  too  many  troubles  in  his  immediate  do- 
minions to  be  willing  to  invite  a  collision  with 
the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany  at  large.  The 
Turks  had  overrun  Hungary  and  established 
themselves  in  possession  of  considerable  parts  of 
the  country.  Ferdinand  obtained  peace  with  the 
redoubtable  Sultan  Suleiman,  but  only  by  pa_y- 
ments  of  money  which  bore  a  strong  likeness  "to 
tribute.  He  succeeded,  through  his  prudent  and 
skilful  policy,  in  making  both  the  Hungarian 
and  the  Bohemian  crowns  practically  hereditary 
in  the  House  of  Austria. 

Dying  in  1564,  Ferdinand  transmitted  both 
those  kingdoms,  with  the  Austrian  Archduchy 
and  the  imperial  office,  to  his  son.  Maximilian  II., 
the  broadest  and  most  liberal  minded  of  his  race. 
Though  educated  in  Spain,  and  in  companion- 
ship with  his  cousin,  Philip  II.,  Ma.ximilian  ex- 
hibited the  most  tolerant  spirit  that  appears  any- 
where in  his  age.  Perhaps  it  was  the  hatefulness 
of  orthodox  zeal  as  exemplified  in  Philip  which 
drove  the  more  generous  nature  of  Maximilian 
to  revolt.  He  adhered  to  the  Roman  commu- 
nion ;  but  he  manifested  so  much  respect  for  the 
doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  that  his  father  felt 
called  upon  at  one  time  to  make  apologies  for 
him  to  the  Pope.  Throughout  his  reign  he  held 
himself  aloof  from  religious  disputes,  setting  an 
example  of  tolerance  and  spiritual  intelligence  to 
all  his  subjects,  Lutherans,  Calvinists  and  Catho- 
lics alike,  which  ought  to  have  influenced  them 
more  for  their  good  than  it  did.  Under  the  shel- 
ter of  the  toleration  which  Maximilian  gave  it. 
Protestantism  spread  quickly  over  Austria,  where 
it  had  had  no  opportunity  before ;  revived  the  old 
Hussite  reform  in  Bohemia ;  made  great  gains  in 
Hungary,  and  advanced  in  all  parts  of  his  domin- 
ions except  the  Tyrol.     The  time  permitted  to  it 


for  this  progress  was  short,  since  Maximilian 
reigned  but  twelve  years.  He  died  in  1576,  and 
his  son  Rudolph,  who  followed  him,  brought 
evil  changes  upon  the  country  in  all  things.  He, 
too,  had  been  educated  in  Spain,  but  with  a  very 
different  result.  He  came  back  a  creature  of  the 
Jesuits;  but  so  weakly  wilful  a  creature  that 
even  they  could  do  little  with  him.  Authority 
of  government  went  to  pieces  in  his  incompetent 
hands,  and  at  last,  in  1606,  a  family  conclave  of 
princes  of  the  Austrian  house  began  measures 
which  aimed  at  dispossessing  Rudolph  of  his 
various  sovereignties,  so  far  as  possible,  in  favor 
of  his  brother  Matthias.  Rudolph  resisted  with 
some  effect,  and  in  the  contests  which  ensued 
the  Protestants  of  Austria  and  Bohemia  improved 
their  opportunity  for  securing  an  enlargement  of 
their  rights.  Matthias  made  the  concession  of 
complete  toleration  in  Austria,  while  Rudolph,  in 
Bohemia,  granted  the  celebrated  charter,  called 
the  Letter  of  Majesty  (1609),  which  gave  entire 
religious  liberty  to  all  sects. 

These  concessions  were  offensive  to  two  princes, 
the  Archduke  Ferdinand  of  Styria,  and  Duke 
Maximilian  of  Bavaria,  who  had  already  taken 
the  lead  in  a  vigorous  movement  of  Catholic  re- 
action. Some  proceedings  on  the  part  of  Maxi- 
milian, which  the  Emperor  sanctioned,  against 
the  Protestant  free  city  of  Donauw5rth,  had 
caused  certain  Protestant  princes  aAl  cities,  in 
1608,  to  form  a  defensive  Union.  But  the  Elector 
Palatine,  who  attached  himself  to  the  Reformed 
or  Calvinist  Church,  was  at  the  head  of  this 
Union,  and  the  bigoted  Lutherans,  especially 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  looked  with  coldness 
upon  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Catholic  states 
formed  a  counter-organization  —  a  Holy  League 
—  which  was  more  compact  and  effective.  The 
two  parties  being  thus  set  in  array,  there  rose 
suddenly  between  them  a  political  question  of 
the  most  disturbing  character.  It  related  to  the 
right  of  succession  to  an  important  duchy,  that 
of  Juliers,  Clfives,  and  Berg.  There  were  several 
powerful  claimants,  in  both  of  the  Saxon  fam- 
ilies, and  including  also  the  Elector  of  Bran- 
denburg and  the  Palsgrave  of  Neuberg,  two 
members  of  the  Union.  As  usual,  the  political 
question  took  possession  of  the  religious  issue 
and  used  it  for  its  own  purposes.  The  Protestant 
Union  opened  negotiations  with  Henry  IV.  of 
France,  who  saw  an  opportunity  to  weaken  the 
House  of  Austria  and  to  make  some  gains  for 
France  at  the  expense  of  Germany.  A  treaty 
was  concluded,  and  Henry  began  active  prepara- 
tions for  campaigns  in  both  Germany  and  Italy, 
with  serious  intent  to  humble  and  diminish  the 
Austrian  power.  The  Dutch  came  into  the  alli- 
ance, likewise,  and  James  I.  of  England  prom- 
ised his  co-operation.  The  combination  was 
formidable,  and  might  have  changed  very  exten- 
sively the  course  of  events  that  awaited  unhappy 
Germany,  if  the  whole  plan  had  not  been  frus- 
trated by  the  assassination  of  Henry  IV.,  in  1610. 
All  the  parties  to  the  alliance  drew  back  after 
that  event,  and  both  sides  waited. 

In  1611,  Rudolph  was  deposed  in  Bohemia,  and 
the  following  year  he  died.  Matthias,  already 
King  of  Hungary,  succeeded  Rudolph  in  Bohe- 
mia and  in  the  Empire.  But  Matthias  was 
scarcely  stronger  in  mind  or  body  than  his 
Drother,  and  the  same  family  pressure  which  had 
pushed  Rudolph  aside  now  forced  Matthias  to 
accept  a  coadjutor,  in  the  person  of  the  vigorous 


1099 


EUROPE. 


The  Thirty  Tears 
War. 


EUROPE. 


Ferdinand,  Archduke  of  Styria.  For  the  remain- 
der of  his  reign  Matthias  was  a  cipher,  and  all 
power  in  the  government  was  exercised  by  Fer- 
dinand. His  bitter  opposition  to  the  tolerant 
policy  which  had  prevailed  generally  for  half-a- 
century  was  well  understood.  Hence,  his  rise  to 
supremacy  in  the  Empire  gave  notice  that  the 
days  of  religious  peace  were  ended.  The  out- 
break of  civil  war  was  not  long  in  coming. 

Beginning  of  the  war  in  Bohemia. 

It  began  in  Bohemia.  A  violation  of  the  Prot- 
estant rights  guaranteed  by  the  Letter  of  Majesty 
provoked  a  rising  under  Count  Thurn.  Two  of 
the  king's  councilors,  with  their  secretary,  were 
flung  from  a  high  window  of  the  royal  castle, 
and  this  act  of  violence  was  followed  by  more 
revolutionary  measures.  A  provisional  govern- 
ment of  thirty  Directors  was  set  up  and  the 
king's  authority  set  wholly  aside.  The  Protes- 
tant Union  gave  prompt  support  to  the  Bohemian 
insurrection  and  sent  Count  Mansfield  with  three 
thousand  soldiers  to  its  aid.  The  Thirty  Years 
War  was  begun  (1618). 

Early  in  these  disturbances,  Matthias  died 
(1619).  Ferdinand  had  already  made  his  succes- 
sion secure,  in  Austria,  Bohemia  and  Hungary, 
and  the  imperial  crown  was  presently  conferred 
on  him.  But  the  Bohemians  repudiated  his 
kingship  and  offered  their  crown  to  Frederick, 
the  Elector  Palatine,  lately  married  to  the  Prin- 
cess Elizabeth,  daughter  of  James  I.  of  JEngland. 
The  Elector,  persuaded,  it  is  said,  by  his  am- 
bitious young  wife,  unwisely  accepted  the  tempt- 
ing bauble,  and  went  to  Prague  to  receive  it. 
But  he  had  neither  prudence  nor  energy  to  justifv 
his  bold  undertaking.  Instead  of  strengthening 
himself  for  his  contest  with  Ferdinand,  he  began 
immediately  to  enrage  his  new  subjects  by  press- 
ing Calvinistic  forms  and  doctrines  upon  them, 
and  by  arrogantly  interfering  with  their  modes 
of  worship.  His  reign  was  so  brief  that  he  is 
known  in  Bohemian  annals  as  ' '  the  winter  king. " 
A  single  battle,  won  by  Count  Tilly,  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  Catholic  League  and  of  its  chief, 
Maximilian,  Duke  of  Bavaria,  ended  his  sover- 
eignty. He  lost  his  Electorate  as  well  as  his 
kingdom,  and  was  a  wandering  fugitive  for  the 
remainder  of  his  life.  Bohemia  was  mercilessly 
dealt  with  by  the  victorious  Ferdinajid.  Not 
only  was  Protestantism  crushed,  and  Catholicism 
established  as  the  exclusive  religion,  but  the  very 
life  of  the  country,  intellectually  and  materially, 
was  extinguished ;  so  that  Bohemia  never  again 
stood  related  to  the  civilization  of  Europe  as  it 
had  stood  before,  when  Prague  was  an  important 
center  of  learning  and  thought.  To  a  less  extent, 
Austria  suffered  the  same  repression,  and  its 
Protestantism  was  uprooted. 

In  this  sketch  it  is  unnecessary  to  follow  the 
details  of  the  frightful  Thirty  Years  War,  which 
began  as  here  described.  During  the  first  years 
it  was  carried  on  mainly  by  the  troops  of  the 
Catholic  League,  under  Tilly,  acting  against  Prot- 
estant forces  which  had  very  little  coherence  or 
unity,  and  which  were  led  by  Count  Mansfield, 
Christian  of  Anhalt,  and  other  nobles,  in  consid- 
erable independence  of  one  another.  In  163.5  the 
first  intervention  from  outside  occurred.  Chris- 
tian IV.  of  Denmark  took  up  the  cause  of  threat- 
ened Protestantism.  As  Duke  of  Schleswig- 
Holstein,  he  was  a  prince  of  the  Empire,  and  he 
joined  with  other  Protestant  princes  in  condemn- 


ing the  deposition  of  the  Elector-Palatine,  whose 
electorate  had  been  conferred  on  Maximilian 
of  Bavaria.  King  Christian  entered  into  an  al- 
liance with  England  and  Holland,  which  powers 
promised  help  for  the  reinstatement  of  the  Elec- 
tor. But  the  aid  given  was  trifling,  and  slight 
successes  which  Christian  and  his  German  allies 
obtained  against  Tilly  were  soon  changed  to  seri- 
ous reverses. 

Wallenstein. 

For  the  first  time  during  the  war,  the  Emperor 
now  brought  into  the  field  an  army  acting  in  his 
own  name,  and  not  in  that  of  the  League.  It 
was  done  in  a  singular  manner  —  by  contract,  so 
to  speak,  with  a  gr^at  soldier  and  wealthy  noble- 
man, the  famous  Wallenstein.  Wallenstein  of- 
fered to  the  Emperor  the  services  of  an  army  of 
50,000  men,  which  he  would  raise  and  equip  at 
his  own  expense,  and  which  should  be  maintained 
without  public  cost  —  that  is,  by  plunder.  His 
proposal  was  accepted,  and  the  formidable  body 
of  trained  and  powerfully  handled  brigands  was 
launched  upon  Germany,  for  the  torture  and  de- 
struction of  every  region  in  which  it  moved.  It 
was  the  last  appearance  in  European  warfare  of 
the  "condottiere  "  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Wallen- 
stein and  Tilly  swept  all  before  them.  The 
former  failed  only  before  the  stubborn  town  of 
Stralsund,  which  defied  his  siege.  Mansfield 
and  Christian  of  Anhalt  both  died  in  1627.  Peace 
was  forced  upon  the  Danish  king.  The  Protes- 
tant cause  was  prostrate,  and  the  Emperor  de- 
spised its  weakness  so  far  that  he  issued  an 
"Edict  of  Restitution,"  commanding  the  sur- 
render of  certain  bishoprics  and  ecclesiastical 
estates  which  had  fallen  into  Protestant  hands 
since  the  Treaty  of  Passau.  At  the  same  time, 
he  yielded  to  the  jealousy  which  Wallenstein's 
power  had  excited,  by  dismissing  that  commander 
from  his  service. 

Gustavus  Adolphus. 

The  time  was  an  unfavorable  one  for  such  an 
experiment.  A  new  and  redoubtable  champion  of 
Protestantism  had  just  appeared  on  the  scene 
and  was  about  to  revive  the  war.  "This  was 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  King  of  Sweden,  who  had 
ambitions,  grievances  and  religious  sympathies, 
all  urging  him  to  rescue  the  Protestant  states  of 
Germany  from  the  Austrian-Catholic  despotism 
which  seemed  to  be  impending  over  them.  His 
interference  was  jealously  resented  at  first  by 
the  greater  Protestant  princes.  The  Elector  of 
Brandenburg  submitted  to  an  alliance  with  him 
only  under  compulsion.  The  Elector  of  Saxony 
did  not  join  the  Swedish  king  until  (1631)  Tilly 
had  ravaged  his  territories  with  ferocity,  burning 
200  villages.  When  Gustavus  had  made  his  foot- 
ing in  the  country  secure,  he  quickly  proved 
himself  the  greatest  soldier  of  his  age.  Tilly 
was  overwhelmed  in  a  battle  fought  on  the 
Breitenfeld,  at  Leipsic.  The  following  spring  he 
was  again  beaten,  on  the  Lech,  m  Bavaria,  and 
died  of  wounds  received  in  the  battle.  Mean- 
time, the  greater  part  of  Germany  was  at  the 
feet  of  the  Swedish  king ;  and  a  sincere  co-opera- 
tion between  him  and  the  German  princes  would 
probably  have  ended  the  war.  But  small  con- 
fidence existed  between  these  allies,  and  Riche- 
lieu, the  shrewd  Cardinal  who  was  ruling  France, 
had  begun  intrigues  which  made  the  Thirty 
Years  War  profitable  in  tlie  end  to  France.     The 


1100 


EUROPE. 


Peace  of 
Westphalia. 


EUROPE. 


victories  of  Gustavus  seemed  to  bear  little  fruit. 
Wallenstein  was  summoned  once  more  to  save 
the  Emperor's  cause,  and  reappeared  in  tlie  field 
with  40,000  men.  The  heroic  Swede  fought  liini 
at  Liitzen,  on  the  16th  of  November,  1633,  and 
routed  him,  but  fell  in  the  battle  among  the  slain. 
With  the  death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus,  the 
possibility  of  a  satisfactory  conclusion  of  tlie 
war  vanished.  The  Swedish  army  remained  in 
Germany,  under  the  military  command  of  Duke 
Bernhard  of  Saxe  Weimar  and  General  Horn, 
but  under  the  political  direction  of  Axel  Oxen- 
stiern,  the  able  Swedish  Chancellor.  On  the  Im- 
perial side,  Wallenstein  again  incurred  distrust 
and  suspicion.  His  power  was  so  formidable 
that  his  enemies  were  afraid  to  let  him  live. 
They  plotted  his  death  by  assassination,  and  he 
was  murdered  on  the  25th  of  February,  1634. 
The  Emperor's  son  Ferdinand  now  took  the  com- 
mand of  the  Imperial  forces,  and,  a  few  months 
later,  having  received  reinforcements  from  Spain, 
he  had  the  good  fortune  to  defeat  the  Swedes  at 
N5rdlingen. 

The  French  in  the  War. 

The  Elector  of  Saxony,  and  other  Protestant 
princes,  then  made  peace  with  the  Emperor,  and 
the  war  was  only  prolonged  by  the  intrigues  of 
Richelieu  and  for  the  aggrandizement  of  Prance. 
In  this  final  stage  of  it,  when  the  original  ele- 
ments of  contention,  and  most  of  the  original 
contestants,  had  disappeared,  it  lasted  for  yet 
fourteen  years.  Ferdinand  II.  died  in  1637,  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  son  Ferdinand  III.  Duke 
Bernhard  died  in  1639.  In  the  later  years  of 
the  war,  Piccolomini  on  the  Imperial  side,  Baner, 
Torstenson  and  Wrangel  at  the  head  of  the 
Swedes,  and  Turenne  and  Conde  in  command  of 
the  French,  were  the  soldiers  who  made  great 
names. 

Destructiveness  of  the  War. 

In  1648,  the  long  suffering  of  Germany  was 
eased  by  the  Peace  of  AVestphalia.  Years  of 
quiet,  and  of  order  fairly  restored,  would  be 
needed  to  heal  the  bleeding  wounds  of  the  coun- 
try and  revive  its  strength.  From  end  to  end,  it 
had  been  trampled  upon  for  a  generation  by 
armies  which  plundered  and  destroyed  as  they 
passed.  There  is  notliing  more  sickening  in  the 
annals  of  war  than  the  descriptions  which  eye- 
witnesses have  left  of  the  misery,  the  horror,  the 
desolation  of  that  frightful  period  in  German 
history.  "Especially  in  the  south  and  west, 
Germany  was  a  wilderness  of  ruins ;  places  that 
were  formerly  the  seats  of  prosperity  were  the 
haunts  of  wolves  and  robbers  for  many  a  long 
year.  It  is  estimated  that  the  population  was 
diminished  by  twenty,  by  some  even  by  fifty,  per 
cent.  The  population  of  Augsburg  was  reduced 
from  80,000  to  18,000;  of  Frankentlial,  from 
18,000  to  324  inhabitants.  In  Wurtemberg,  in 
1641,  of  400,000  inhabitants,  48,000  remained;  in 
the  Palatinate,  in  1636,  there  were  201  pea.sant 
farmers ;  and  in  1648,  but  a  fiftieth  part  of  the 
population  remained'  (Hilusser). 

The  Peace  of  Westphalia. 

By  the  treaties  of  Westphalia,  the  religious 
question  was  settled  with  finality.  Catholics, 
Lutherans,  and  the  Reformed  (Calvinists),  were 
put  on  an  equal  footing  of  religious  liberty. 
Politically,  the  effects  of  the  Peace  were  radical 


and  lasting  in  their  injury  to  the  German  people. 
The  few  bonds  of  Germanic  unity  which  had 
survived  the  reign  of  feudalism  were  dissolved. 
The  last  vestige  of  autliority  in  the  Empire  was 
destroyed.  "From  this  time  German}' long  re- 
mained a  mere  lax  confederation  of  petty  despot- 
isms and  oligarchies  witli  hardly  any  national 
feeling.  Its  boundaries  too  were  cut  short  in 
various  ways.  The  independence  of  the  two  free 
Confederations  at  tlie  two  ends  of  the  Empire, 
those  of  Switzerland  and  the  United  Provinces, 
wliicli  had  long  been  practically  cut  off  from  the 
Empire,  was  now  formally  acknowledged.  And, 
what  was  far  more  important,  the  two  foreign 
kingdoms  which  had  had  the  chief  share  in  the 
war,  Prance  and  Sweden,  obtained  possessions 
within  the  Empire,  and  moreover,  as  guarantors 
or  sureties  of  the  peace,  they  obtained  a  general 
right  of  meddling  in  its  affairs."  "Tlie  right  of 
Prance  to  the  "Three  Lotharingian  Bishoprics,' 
which  had  been  seized  nearly  a  hundred  years  be- 
fore, was  now  formally  acknowledged,  and,  be- 
sides this,  the  possessions  and  rights  of  the  House 
of  Austria  in  Elsass,  the  German  land  between 
the  Rhine  and  the  Vosges,  called  in  Prance  Al- 
sace, were  given  to  France.  The  free  city  of 
Strasburg  and  other  places  in  Elsass  still  re- 
mained independent,  but  the  whole  of  South 
Germany  now  lay  open  to  France.  This  was  the 
greatest  advance  that  France  had  yet  made  at 
the  expense  of  the  Empire.  Within  Germany 
itself  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  also  received 
a  large  increase  of  territory  "  (Freeman). 

Among  tlie  treaties  which  made  up  the  Peace 
of  Westphalia  was  one  signed  by  Spain,  acknowl- 
edging the  independence  of  the  United  Provinces, 
and  renouncing  all  claims  to  them. 

France  under  Richelieu. 

The  great  gains  of  France  from  the  Thirty 
Years  AVar  were  part  of  tlie  fruit  of  bold  and 
cunning  statesmanship  which  Richelieu  had  ri- 
]5ened  and  plucked  for  that  now  rising  nation. 
For  a  time  after  the  death  of  Henry  IV.,  chaos 
had  seemed  likely  to  return  again  in  France.  His 
son,  Louis  XIII.,  was  but  nine  years  old.  The 
mother,  Marie  de'  Medici,  who  secured  the  re- 
gency, was  a  foolish  woman,  ruled  by  Italian 
favorites,  who  made  themselves  odious  to  the 
French  people.  As  soon  as  the  young  king  ap- 
proached manhood,  he  put  himself  in  opposition 
to  his  mother  and  her  favorites,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  set  of  rivals  no  more  worthy,  and 
Prance  was  carried  to  the  verge  of  civil  war  by 
tlieir  puerile  hostilities.  Happily  there  was 
something  in  the  weak  character  of  Louis  XIII. 
which  bent  him  under  the  influence  of  a  really 
great  mind  wlien  circumstances  had  brought  him 
within  its  reach.  Richelieu  entered  the  King's 
council  in  1624.  The  king  was  soon  an  instru- 
ment in  his  hands,  and  he  ruled  France,  as  though 
the  scepter  was  his  own,  for  eigliteen  years.  He 
was  as  pitiless  a  despot  as  ever  set  heel  on  a  na- 
tion's neck;  but  the  power  which  he  grasped 
with  what  seemed  to  be  a  miserly  and  common- 
place greed,  was  all  gathered  for  the  aggran- 
dizement of  the  monarchy  that  he  served.  He 
believed  that  the  nation  needed  to  have  one 
master,  sole  and  unquestioned  in  his  sovereignty. 
That  he  enjoyed  being  that  one  master,  in  reality, 
while  he  lived,  is  hardly  doubtful ;  but  liis  wliole 
ambition  is  not  so  explained.  He  wrought  ac- 
cording to  his  belief  for  Prance,  and  the  king, 


1101 


EUROPE. 


Richelieu  and 
Mazarin. 


EUROPE. 


in  his  eyes,  was  the  embodiment  of  France.  He 
erected  the  pedestal  on  which  ' '  the  grand  mon- 
arch "  of  the  next  generation  posed  with  theatri- 
cal effect. 

Three  things  Richelieu  did :  1.  He  enforced 
the  royal  authority,  with  inexorable  rigor,  against 
the  great  families  and  personages,  who  had  not 
learned,  even  under  Henry  IV.,  that  they  were 
subjects  in  the  absolute  sense.  3.  He  struck 
the  Huguenots,  not  as  a  religious  sect,  but  as  a 
political  party,  and  peremptorily  stopped  their 
growth  of  strength  in  that  character,  which  had 
clearly  become  threatening  to  the  state.  3.  He 
organized  hostility  in  Europe  to  the  overbearing 
and  dangerous  Austro-Spanish  power,  put  France 
at  the  head  of  it,  and  took  for  her  the  lion's 
share  of  the  conquests  by  which  the  Hapsburgs 
were  reduced. 

Mazarin  and  the  Fronde. 

The  great  Cardinal  died  near  the  close  of  the 
year  1643 ;  and  Louis  XIU.  followed  him  to  the 
grave  in  the  succeeding  May,  leaving  a  son,  Louis 
XIV.,  not  yet  five  years  of  age,  under  the  re- 
gency of  his  mother,  Anne  of  Austria.  The  min- 
ister. Cardinal  Mazarin,  who  enjoyed  the  confi- 
dence of  the  queen-regent,  and  who  was  sup- 
posed to  enjoy  her  affections  as  well,  had  been 
Richelieu's  disciple,  and  took  the  helm  of  gov- 
ernment on  Richelieu's  recommendation.  He 
was  an  adroit  politician,  with  some  statesmanlike 
sagacity,  but  he  lacked  the  potent  spirit  by  which 
his  master  had  awed  and  ruled  every  circle  into 
which  he  came,  great  or  small.  Mazarin  had  the 
Thirty  Years  War  to  bring  to  a  close,  and  he  man- 
aged the  difficult  business  with  success,  wasting 
nothing  of  the  effect  of  the  brilliant  victories  of 
Conde  and  Turenne.  But  the  war  had  been 
very  costly.  Mazarin  was  no  better  financier 
than  Richelieu  had  been  before  him,  and  the  bur- 
dens of  taxation  were  greater  than  wise  manage- 
ment would  have  made  them.  There  was  inev- 
itable discontent,  and  Mazarin,  as  a  foreigner, 
was  inevitably  unpopular.  With  public  feeling 
in  this  state,  the  Court  involved  itself  in  a  fool- 
ish conflict  with  the  Parliament  of  Paris,  and 
presently  there  was  a  Paris  revolution  and  a  civil 
war  afoot  (1649).  It  was  a  strange  affair  of  froth 
and  empty  rages — this  war  of  "The  Fronde,  "as 
it  was  called  —  having  no  depth  of  earnestness 
in  it  and  no  honesty  of  purpose  anywhere  visible 
in  its  complications.  The  men  and  women  wlio 
sprang  to  a  lead  in  it —  the  women  more  actively 
and  rancorously  than  the  men  —  were  mere  actors 
of  parts  in  a  great  play  of  court  intrigue,  for  the 
performance  of  which  unhappy  France  had  lent 
its  grand  stage.  There  seems  to  have  been  never, 
in  any  other  civil  conflict  which  history  describes, 
so  extraordinary  a  mixture  of  treason  and  lib- 
ertinism, of  political  and  amorous  intrigue,  of 
heartlessness  and  frivolity,  of  hot  passion  and 
cool  selfishness.  The  people  wlio  fought  most 
and  suffered  most  hardly  appear  as  noticeable 
factors  in  the  contest.  The  court  performers 
amused  themselves  with  the  stratagems  and 
bloody  doings  of  the  war  as  they  might  have 
done  with  the  tricks  of  a  masquerade. 

It  was  in  keeping  witli  the  character  of  the 
Frondeurs  that  they  went  into  alliance,  at  last, 
with  Spain,  and  that,  even  after  peace  within  the 
nation  had  been  restored,  "the  Great  Conde"  re- 
mained in  the  Spanish  service  and  fought  against 
his  own  countrymen.     Mazarin  regained  control 


of  affairs,  and  managed  them  on  the  whole  ably 
and  well.  He  brought  about  an  alliance  with 
England,  under  Cromwell,  and  humbled  Spain  to 
the  acceptance  of  a  treaty  which  considerably 
raised  the  position  of  France  among  the  Euro- 
pean Powers.  By  this  Treaty  of  the  Pyrenees 
(1659),  the  northwestern  frontier  of  the  kingdom 
was  both  strengthened  and  advanced ;  Lorraine 
was  shorn  of  some  of  its  territory  and  prepared 
for  the  absorption  which  followed  after  no  long 
time ;  there  were  gains  made  on  the  side  of  the 
Pyrenees;  and,  finally,  Louis  XIV.  was  wedded 
to  the  infanta  of  Spain,  with  solemn  renuncia- 
tions on  her  part,  for  herself  and  her  descendants, 
of  all  claims  upon  the  Spanish  crown,  or  upon 
Flanders,  or  Burgundy,  or  Charolais.  Not  a 
claim  was  extinguished  by  these  solemn  renun- 
ciations, and  the  Treaty  of  the  Pyrenees  is  made 
remarkable  by  the  number  of  serious  wars  and 
important  events  to  which  it  gave  rise. 

Cardinal  Mazarin  died  in  1661  and  the  govern- 
ment was  assumed  personally  by  Louis  XIV., 
then  twenty-three  years  old. 

England  Under  the  Stuarts. 

While  Germany  and  France  had,  each  in  turn, 
been  disordered  by  extremely  unlike  civil  wars, 
one  to  the  unmitigated  devastation  and  prostra- 
tion of  the  laAH,  the  other  to  the  plain  putting  in 
proof  of  the  nothingness  of  the  nation  at  large,  as 
against  its  monarchy  and  court,  the  domestic 
peace  of  England  had  been  ruffled  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent way,  and  with  very  different  effects. 

The  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth  united  the  crown 
of  England  witli  that  of  Scotland,  on  the  head 
of  James,  son  of  the  unhappy  Mary  Stuart.  In 
England  he  was  James  I. ,  in  Scotland  James  VI. 
His  character  combined  shrewdness  in  some  direc- 
tions with  the  most  foolish  simplicity  in  others. 
He  was  not  vicious,  he  was  not  in  any  particular  a 
bad  man ;  but  he  was  exasperating  in  his  opin- 
ionated self-conceit,  and  in  his  gaueheries  of  mind 
and  body.  The  Englishmen  of  those  days  did 
not  love  the  Scots;  and,  all  things  considered, 
we  may  wonder,  perhaps,  that  James  got  on  so 
well  as  he  did  with  his  English  subjects.  He 
had  high  notions  of  kingsliip,  and  a  superlativ»e 
opinion  of  his  own  king-craft,  as  he  termed  tlie 
art  of  government.  He  scarcely  deviated  from 
the  arbitrary  lines  which  Elizabeth  had  laid 
down,  though  he  Iiad  nothing  of  Elizabeth's 
popularity.  He  offended  the  nation  by  truckling 
to  its  old  enemy,  the  King  of  Spain,  and  pressing 
almost  shamefully  for  a  marriage  of  his  elder  son 
to  the  Spanisli  infanta.  The  favorites  he  en- 
riched and  lavished  honors  upon  were  insolent 
upstarts.  His  treatment  of  the  growing  Puritan- 
ism in  English  religious  feeling  was  contemptu- 
ous. There  was  scarcely  a  point  on  which  any 
considerable  number  of  his  subjects  could  feel  in 
agreement  with  him,  or  entertain  towards  him 
a  cordial  sentiment  of  loyalty  or  respect.  Yet 
his  reign  of  twenty-two  years  was  disturbed  by 
nothing  more  serious  than  the  fatuous  ' '  gun- 
powder plot"  (160.5)  of  a  few  discontented  Catho- 
lics. But  his  son  had  to  suffer  the  retarded  con- 
sequences of  a  loyalty  growing  weak,  on  one  side, 
while  royalty  strained  its  prerogatives  on  the 
other. 

The  reign  of  James  I.  witnessed  the  effective 
beginnings  of  Englisli  colonization  in  America, — 
the  planting  of  a  durable  settlement  in  Virginia 
and  the  migration  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  New 


1102 


EUROPE. 


England 
under  the  Stuarts. 


EUROPE. 


England.  The  latter  movement  (1620)  was  one 
of  voluntary  exile,  produced  by  the  hard  treat- 
ment inflicted  on  those  "Separatists"  or  "Inde- 
pendents "  who  could  not  reconcile  themselves  to 
a  state-established  Church.  Ten  years  later,  the 
Pilgrim  movement,  of  Independents,  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  greater  migration  of  Puritans  — 
quite  different  in  class,  in  character  and  in  spirit. 

Charles  I. 

James  died  in  1633,  and  the  troubled  reign  of 
his  son,  Charles  I.,  began.  Charles  took  over 
from  his  father  a  full  measure  of  popular  dis- 
content, along  with  numerous  active  springs  in 
operation  for  increasing  it.  The  most  productive 
of  these  was  the  favorite,  Buckingham,  who 
continued  to  be  the  sole  counselor  and  minister 
of  the  young  king,  as  he  had  been  of  the  older 
one,  and  who  was  utterly  hateful  to  England,  for 
good  reasons  of  incapacity  and  general  worth- 
lessness.  In  the  king  himself,  though  he  had 
virtues,  there  was  a  coldness  and  a  falsity  of 
nature  which  were  sure  to  widen  the  breach  be- 
tween him  and  his  people. 

Faihng  the  Spanish  marriage,  Charles  had 
wedded  (1634)  a  French  princess,  Henrietta  Ma- 
ria, sister  of  Louis  XIII.  The  previous  subser- 
viency to  Spain  had  then  been  followed  by  a 
war  with  that  country,  which  ca#e  to  Charles 
among  his  inheritances,  and  which  Buckingham 
mismanaged,  to  the  shame  of  England.  In  1637 
another  war  began,  but  this  time  with  France, 
on  account  of  the  Huguenots  besieged  at  La 
Rochelle.  Again  the  meddlesome  hand  of  Buck- 
ingham wrought  disaster  and  national  disgrace, 
and  public  indignation  was  greatly  stirred. 
When  Parliament  endeavored  to  call  the  in- 
capable minister  to  account,  and  to  obtain  some 
security  for  a  better  management  of  affairs,  the 
king  dissolved  it.  Twice  was  this  done,  and 
Charles  and  his  favorite  employed  every  arbi- 
trary and  questionable  device  that  could  be  con- 
trived for  them,  to  raise  money  without  need  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people.  At  length,  in 
1638,  they  were  driven  to  face  a  third  Parlia- 
ment, in  order  to  obtain  supplies.  By  this  time 
the  Commons  of  England  were  wrought  up  to  a 
high  and  determined  assertion  of  their  rights,  as 
against  the  Crown,  and  the  Puritans  had  gained 
a  majority  in  the  popular  representation.  In  the 
lower  House  of  Parliament,  therefore,  the  de- 
mands of  the  king  for  money  were  met  by  a  coun- 
ter-demand for  guarantees  to  protect  the  people 
from  royal  encroachments  on  their  liberties. 
The  Commons  were  resolute,  and  Charles  gave 
way  to  them,  signing  with  mucli  reluctance  the 
famous  instrument  known  as  the  ' '  Petition  of 
Right,"  which  pledged  the  Crown  to  abstain  in 
future  from  forced  loans,  from  ta.xes  imposed 
without  Parliamentary  grant,  from  arbitrary  im- 
prisonments, without  cause  shown,  and  from 
other  despotic  proceedings.  In  return  for  his 
signature  to  the  Petition  of  Right,  Charles  re- 
ceived a  grant  of  money ;  but  the  Commons 
refused  to  authorize  his  collection  of  certain 
customs  duties,  called  Tonnage  and  Poundage, 
beyond  a  single  year,  and  it  began  attacks  on 
Buckingham, — whereupon  the  king  prorogued 
it.  Shortly  afterwards  Buckingham  was  assas- 
sinated ;  a  second  expedition  to  relieve  Rochelle 
failed  miserably ;  and  early  in  1639  Parliament 
was  assembled  again.  This  time  the  Puritan 
temper  of  the  House  began  to  show  itself  in 


measures  to  put  a  stop  to  some  revivals  of  an- 
cient ceremony  which  had  appeared  in  certain 
churches.  At  the  same  time  officers  of  the  king, 
who  had  seized  goods  belonging  to  a  member  of 
the  House,  for  non-payment  of  Tonnage  and 
Poundage,  were  summoned  to  the  bar  to  answer 
for  it.  The  king  protected  them,  and  a  direct 
conflict  of  authority  arose.  On  the  3d  of  March, 
the  king  sent  an  order  to  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Commons  for  adjournment;  but  the 
Speaker  was  forcibly  held  in  his  chair,  and  not 
permitted  to  announce  the  adjournment,  until 
three  resolutions  had  been  read  and  adopted,  de- 
nouncing as  an  enemy  to  the  kingdom  every 
person  who  brought  in  innovations  in  religion, 
or  who  advised  the  levying  of  Tonnage  and 
Poundage  without  parliamentary  grant,  or  who 
voluntarily  paid  such  duties,  so  levied.  This 
done,  the  members  dispersed ;  the  king  dissolved 
Parliament  immediately,  and  his  resolution  was 
taken  to  govern  England  thenceforth  on  his  own 
authority,  with  no  assembly  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people  to  question  or  criticise  him. 
He  held  to  that  determination  for  eleven  years, 
during  which  long  time  no  Parliament  sat  in 
England,  and  the  Constitution  was  practically 
obliterated. 

The  leaders  of  the  Commons  in  their  recent 
proceedings  were  arrested  and  imprisoned.  Sir 
John  Eliot,  the  foremost  of  them,  died  in  harsh 
confinement  within  tlie  Tower,  and  others  were 
held  in  long  custody,  refusing  to  recognize  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  king's  judges  over  things  done 
in  Parliament. 

Wentworth  and  Laud. 

One  man,  of  great  ability,  who  had  stood  at  the 
beginning  with  Sir  John  Eliot,  and  acted  with 
the  party  which  opposed  the  king,  now  went 
over  to  the  side  of  the  latter  and  rose  high  in 
royal  favor,  until  he  came  in  the  end  to  be  held 
chiefly  responsible  for  the  extreme  absolutism  to 
which  the  government  of  Charles  was  pushed. 
This  was  Sir  Thomas  Wentworth,  made  Earl  of 
Strafford  at  a  later  day,  in  the  tardy  rewarding  of 
his  services.  But  William  Laud,  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don, and  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
was  the  evil  counselor  of  the  king,  much  more 
than  Wentworth,  in  the  earlier  years  of  the  dec- 
ade of  tyrannj'.  It  was  Laud's  part  to  organize 
the  system  of  despotic  monarchy  on  its  ecclesias- 
tical side;  to  uproot  Puritanism  and  all  dissent, 
and  to  cast  religion  for  England  and  for  Scotland 
in  one  mould,  as  rigid  as  that  of  Rome. 

For  some  years,  the  English  nation  seemed  ter- 
rorized or  stupefied  by  the  audacity  of  the  com- 
plete overthrow  of  its  Constitution.  The  king 
and  his  servants  might  easily  imagine  that  the 
day  of  troublesome  Parliaments  and  of  inconve- 
nient laws  was  passed.  At  least  in  those  early 
years  of  their  success,  it  can  scarcely  have  oc- 
curred to  their  minds  that  a  time  of  accounting 
for  broken  laws,  and  for  the  violated  pledges  of 
the  Petition  of  Right,  might  come  at  the  end. 
At  all  events  they  went  their  way  with  seeming 
satisfaction,  and  tested,  year  by  year,  the  patient 
endurance  of  a  people  which  has  always  been 
slow  to  move.  Their  courts  of  Star  Chamber  and 
of  High  Commission,  finding  a  paramount  law 
in  the  will  and  pleasure  of  tlie  king,  imprisoned, 
fined,  pilloried,  flogged  and  mutilated  in  quite 
the  spirit  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  though  they 
did  not    burn.      They  collected  Tonnage    and 


1103 


EUROPE. 


Civil  War 
in  England. 


Poundage  without  parliamentary  consent,  and 
servile  iudees  enforced  the  payment.  Ihey  in- 
vented a  claim  for  "  ship-money  ".  (m  commuta- 
tion of  an  ancient  demand  for  ships  to  serve  in 
the  King's  navy)  from  inland  towns  and  counties, 
as  well  as  from  the  commercial  ports;  and  when 
John  Hampden,  a  squire  in  Buckinghamshire,  re- 
fused payment  of  the  unlawful  tax,  their  ohedient 
iudges  gave  judgment  against  him  And  still 
the  people  endured;  but  they  were  laying  up  in 
memory  many  things,  and  gathering  a  store  ot 
reasons  for  the  action  that  would  by  and   by 

be ''in 

"  Rebellion  in  Scotland. 

At  last,  it  was  Scotland,   not  England,   that 
moved  to  rebel.     Laud  and   the  king   had  de- 
termined to  break  down  Presbyterianisni  in  the 
northern  kingdom  and  to  force  a  Prayer  Book  on 
the  Scottish  Church.     There  was  a  consequent 
riot  at   St.  Giles,  In  Edinburgh  (1637);   Jenny 
Geddes  threw  her  stool  at  the  bishop,  and  Scot- 
land presently  was  in  revolt,  signing  a  National 
Covenant  and  defying   the  king.     Charles    at- 
tempting to  frighten  the  resolute  Scots  with  an 
army  which  he  could  not  pay,  was  soon  driven 
to  a  treaty  with  them  (1639)  which  he  had  not 
honesty  enough  to  keep.     Wentworth  who  had 
been  Lord  Deputy  of  Ireland  since  1632,  and 
who  had  framed  a  model  of  absolutism  in  that 
island    for  the  admiration  of  his  colleagues  in 
England,  now  returned   to  the  king's  side  and 
became  his  chief    adviser.     He  counselled  the 
callin''  of  a  Parliament,  as  the  only  means  by 
which  English  help  could  be  got  for  the  restor- 
ing of  royal  authority  in  Scotland.     The  Parlia- 
ment was  summoned  and  met  in  April,  lb4U.    At 
once    it  showed  a  temper  which  alarmed   the 
kino-  and  he  dissolved  it  in  three  weeks.  _  Again 
Charles  made  the  attempt  to  put  down  his  Scot- 
tish subjects  without  help  from  an  English  Par- 
liament, and  again  the  attempt  failed. 


EUROPE. 


Civil  ■War. 


The  Long  Parliament. 
Then  the  desperate  king  summoned  another 
Parliament,  which  concentrated  in  itself,  when  it 
came  together,  the  suppressed  rebellion  that  had 
been  in  the  heart  of  England  for  ten  years,  and 
which  broke  his  flimsy  fabric  of  absolutism,  al- 
most at  a  single  blow.     It  was  the  famous  Long 
Parliament  of  English  history,  which  met  in  No- 
vember   1640,  and  which  ruled  England  for  a 
dozen  years,  until  it  gave  way  to  the  Cromwellian 
dictatorship.     It  sent  Laud  and  Strafford  to  the 
Tower  impeached  the  latter  and  brought  him  to 
the  block,  within  six  months  from  the  beginning 
of  its  session;  and  the  king  gave  up  his  minister 
to  the  vengeance  of  the  angry  Commons  with 
hardly  one  honest  attempt  to  protect  him.    Laud 
waited  in  prison  five  years  before  he  suffered  the 
same  fate.     The  Parliament  declared  itself  to  be 
indissoluble  by  any  royal  command;   and  the 
king  assented.     It  abolished  the  Star  Chamber 
and  the  Court  of   High  Commission;    and  the 
king  approved.    It  swept  ship-money,  and  forest 
claims  and  all  of  Charles'  lawless  money-getting 
devices  into  the  limbo;   and  he  put  his  signature 
to  its  bills       But  all  the  time  he  was  intriguing 
with  the  Scots  for  armed  help  to  overtlirow  his 
masterful  English  Parliament,  and  he  was  listen- 
ino-  to  Irish  emissaries  who  oflfered  an  army  for 
the    same    purpose,  on  condition  that  Ireland 
should  be  surrendered  to  the  Catholics. 


Charles  had  arranged  nothing  on  either  of  these 
treacherous  plans,  nor  had  he  gained  anything  yet 
from  the  division  between  radicals  and  moderates 
that  was  beginning  to  show  itself  in  the  popular 
party,  when  he  suddenly  brought  the  strained 
situation  to  a  crisis,  in  January,   1643,  by  his 
most  foolish  and  arrogant  act.      He  invaded  the 
House  of  Commons  in  person,  with  a  large  body 
of  armed  men,  for  the  purpose  of  arresting  five 
members  — Pym,    Hampden,   Holies,   Hazlerigg 
and  Strode  — whom  he  accused  of  having  nego- 
tiated treasonably  with  the  Scots  in  1640.      The 
five  members  escaped ;  the  House  appealed  to  the 
citizens  of    London  for    protection;    king  and 
Parliament  began  immediately  to  raise  troops; 
the  nation  divided  and  arrayed  itself  on  the  two 
sides— most  of  the  gentry,  the  Cavahers,  sup- 
porting the  king,  and  most  of  the  Puritan  mid- 
dle-class, wearing   close-cut  hair  and  receiving 
the  name  Roundheads,  being  ranged  in  the  party 
of  Parliament.     Thev  came  to  blows  in  October, 
when  the  first  battle  was  fought,  at  Edgehill. 

In  the  early  period  of  the  war,  the  parliamen- 
tary forces  were  commanded  by  the  Earl  of  Essex ; 
and  Sir  Thomas  Fairfax  was  their  general  at  a 
later  stage ;  but  tlie  true  leader  on  that  side,  tor 
war  and  for  politics  alike,  was  soon  found  in 
Oliver  Cromwell,  a  member  of  Parliament,  whose 
extraordinary  capacity  was  first  shown  in  the 
military  organization  of  the  Eastern  Counties, 
from  which  he  came.  After  1645,  when  the 
army  was  remodeled,  with  Cromwell  as  second 
in  rank  his  real  chieftainship  was  scarcely  dis- 
guised The  decisive  battle  of  the  war  was 
fought  that  year  at  Naseby,  where  the  king  s 
cause  suffered  an  irrecoverable  defeat. 

The  Presbyterians  of  Scotland  had  now  allied 
themselves  with  the  English  Roundheads  on  con- 
dition that  the  Church  of  England  should  be  re- 
modeled in  the  Presbyterian  form.  The  Puri- 
tan majority  in  Parliament  being  favorable  to 
that  form,  a  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  be- 
tween the  two  nations  had  been  entered  into,  m 
1643  and  an  Assembly  of  Divmes  was  convened 
at  Westminster  to  frame  the  contemplated  sys- 
tem of  the  Church.  But  tlie  Independents,  who 
disliked  Presbyterianism,  and  who  were  more 
tolerantly  inclined  in  their  views,  had  greatly  in- 
creased in  numbers,  and  some  of  the  stronger 
men  on  the  Parliament  side,  including  Cromwell, 
the  strongest  of  all,  were  among  them.  Ihis 
difference  brought  about  a  sharp  struggle  withm 
the  popular  party  for  the  control  of  the  fruits  ot 
the  triumph  now  beginning  to  seem  secure 
Under  Cromwell,  the  Army  became  a  powerful 
organization  of  religious  Independency,  while 
Parliament  sustained  Presbyterianism,  and  the 
two  stood  against  each  other  as  rival  powers  in 

At  the  beginning  of  the  year  1646  the  fortunes 
of  Charles  had  fallen  very  low.  His  partisan, 
Montrose,  in  Scotland,  had  been  beaten;  his  in- 
trio-ues  in  Ireland,  for  the  raising  of  a  Catholic 
army  had  only  alarmed  and  disgusted  his  Eng- 
lish friends;  he  was  at  the  end  of  his  resources, 
and  he  gave  himself  up  to  the  Scots.  The  latter, 
in  coniunction  with  the  Presbyterian  ma3ority  in 
Parliament,  were  willing  to  make  terms  with 
him  and  restore  him  to  his  throne,  on  conditions 
whiih  included  the  signing  of  the  Covenant 
and  the  establishing  of  Presbyterianism  in  the 


1104 


EUEOPE. 


Commonwealth,  Pro- 
tectorate, and  Restoration. 


EUROPE. 


Churches  of  both  kingdoms.  He  refused  the 
proposal,  being  dehided  by  a  belief  that  the 
quarrel  of  Independents  and  Presbyterians  would 
open  his  way  to  the  recovery  of  power  without 
any  concessions  at  all.  The  Scots  then  surren- 
dered him  to  the  English,  and  he  was  held  in  con- 
finement by  the  latter  for  the  next  two  years, 
scheming  and  pursuing  intrigues  iu  many  direc- 
tions, and  convincing  all  who  dealt  with  him  that 
his  purposes  were  never  straightforward  —  that 
he  was  faithless  and  false  to  the  core. 

Ill-will  and  suspicion,  meanwhile,  were  widen- 
ing the  breach  between  Parliament  and  the 
Army.  Political  and  religious  agitators  were 
gaining  influence  in  the  latter  and  republican 
ideas  were  spreading  fast.  At  length  (Decem- 
ber, 1648),  the  Army  took  matters  into  its  own 
hands ;  expelled  from  Parliament  those  members 
who  favored  a  reconciliation  with  the  king,  on 
the  basis  of  a  Presbyterian  establishment  of  the 
Church,  and  England  passed  under  military  rule. 
The  "purged  "  Parliament  (or  rather  the  purged 
House  of  Commons,  which  now  set  the  House  of 
Lords  aside,  declaring  itself  to  be  the  sole  and 
supreme  power  in  the  state)  brought  King 
Charles  to  trial  in  the  following  month,  before  a 
High  Court  of  Justice  created  for  the  occasion. 
He  was  convicted  of  treason,  in  making  war 
upon  his  subjects,  and  was  beheaded  on  the  30tli 
of  January,  1649. 

The   Commonwealth   and    the    Protectorate. 


The  king  being  thus  disposed  of,  the  House 
of  Commons  proclaimed  England  a  Common- 
wealth, "without  a  King  or  House  of  Lords," 
took  to  itself  the  name  of  Parliament,  and  ap- 
pointed an  executive  Council  of  State,  forty-one 
in  number.  The  new  government,  in  its  first 
year,  had  a  rebellion  in  Ireland  to  deal  with,  and 
sent  Cromwell  to  the  scene.  He  crushed  it  with 
a  merciless  hand.  The  next  year  Scotland  was 
in  arms,  for  the  late  king's  son,  now  called 
Charles  II.,  who  had  entered  the  country,  ac- 
cepted Presbyterianism,  and  signed  the  Cove- 
nant. Again  Cromwell  was  the  man  for  the  oc- 
casion, and  in  a  campaign  of  two  months  he 
ended  the  Scottish  war,  with  such  decision  that 
he  had  no  more  fighting  to  do  on  English  or 
Scottish  soil  while  he  lived.  There  was  war 
with  the  Dutch  iul653, 1653  and  1654,  over  ques- 
tions of  trade,  and  the  long  roll  of  English  naval 
victories  was  opened  by  the  great  soldier-seaman, 
Robert  Blake. 

But  the  power  which  upheld  and  carried  for- 
ward all  things  at  this  time  was  the  power  of 
Oliver  Cromwell,  master  of  the  Army,  and,  there- 
fore, master  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  surviv- 
ing fragment  of  the  Long  Parliament  was  an 
anomaly,  a  fiction;  men  called  it  "the  Rump." 
In  April,  1653,  Cromwell  drove  the  members  of 
it  from  their  chamber  and  formally  took  to  him- 
self the  reins  of  government  which  in  fact  he  had 
been  holding  before.  A  few  months  later  he  re- 
ceived from  his  immediate  supporters  the  title  of 
Lord  Protector,  and  an  Instrument  of  Govern- 
ment was  framed,  which  served  as  a  constitution 
during  the  next  three  years.  Cromwell  was  as 
unwilling  as  Charles  had  been  to  share  the  gov- 
ernment with  a  freely  elected  and  representative 
Parliament.  The  first  House  which  he  called  to- 
gether was  dissolved  at  the  end  of  five  months 
(1655),  because  it  persisted  in  discussing  a  revision 
of    the  constitution.      His  second    Parliament, 

1105 


which  he  summoned  the  following  year,  required 
to  be  purged  by  the  arbitrary  exclusion  of  about 
a  hundred  members  before  it  could  be  brought 
to  due  submission.  This  tractable  body  then 
made  certain  important  changes  in  the  constitu- 
tion, by  an  enactment  called  the  ' '  Humble  Petition 
and  Advice."  It  created  a  second  house,  to  take 
the  place  of  the  House  of  Lords,  and  gave  to  the 
Lord  Protector  the  naming  of  persons  to  be  life- 
members  of  such  upper  house.  It  also  gave  to 
the  Protector  the  right  of  appointing  his  own 
successor,  a  right  which  Cromwell  exercised  on 
his  death-bed,  in  1658,  by  designating  his  son 
Richard. 

The  responsible  rule  of  Cromwell,  from  the  ex- 
pulsion of  the  Rump  and  his  assumption  of  the 
dignity  of  Lord  Protector,  covered  only  the 
period  of  five  years.  But  in  that  brief  time  he 
made  the  world  respect  the  power  of  England  as 
it  had  never  been  respected  before.  His  govern- 
ment at  home  was  as  absolute  and  arbitrary  as 
the  government  of  the  Stuarts,  but  it  was  infi- 
nitely wiser  and  more  just.  Cromwell  was  a 
statesman  of  the  higher  order;  a  man  of  vast 
power,  in  intellect  and  will.  That  he  did  not 
belong  to  the  yet  higher  order  of  commanding 
men,  whose  statesmanship  is  pure  in  patriotism 
and  uncolored  by  selfish  aims,  is  proved  by  his 
failure  to  even  plan  a  more  promising  settlement 
of  the  government  of  England  than  that  which 
left  it,  an  anomalous  Protectorate,  to  a  man  with- 
out governing  qualities,  who  happened  to  be  his 
son. 


Restoration  of  the  Stuarts. 

Richard  Cromwell  was  brushed  aside  after 
eight  months  of  an  absurd  attempt  to  play  the 
part  of  Lord  Protector.  The  officers  of  the  Army 
and  the  resuscitated  Rump  Parliament,  between 
them,  managed  affairs,  in  a  fashion,  for  almost  a 
year,  and  then  they  too  were  pushed  out  of  the 
way  by  the  army  which  had  been  stationed  in 
Scotland,  under  General  George  Monk.  By  the 
action  of  Monk,  with  the  consent,  and  with  more 
than  the  consent,  of  England  at  large,  the  Stuart 
monarchy  was  restored.  Charles  II.  was  invited 
to  return,  and  in  May,  1660,  he  took  his  seat  on 
the  re-erected  throne. 

The  nation,  speaking  generally,  was  tired  of  a 
military  despotism;  tired  of  Puritan  austerity; 
tired  of  revolution  and  political  uncertainty ;  — 
so  tired  that  it  threw  itself  down  at  the  feet  of 
the  most  worthless  member  of  the  most  worthless 
royal  family  in  its  history,  and  gave  itself  up  to 
him  without  a  condition  or  a  guarantee.  For 
twenty -five  years  it  endured  both  oppression  and 
disgrace  at  his  hands.  It  suffered  him  to  make 
a  brothel  of  his  Court;  to  empty  the  national 
purse  into  the  pockets  of  his  shameless  mistresses 
and  debauched  companions ;  to  revive  the  eccle- 
siastical tyranny  of  Laud;  to  make  a  crime  of 
the  religious  creeds  and  the  worship  of  more  than 
half  his  subjects;  to  sell  himself  and  sell  the 
honor  of  England  to  the  king  of  France  for  a 
secret  pension,  and  to  be  in  every  possible  way 
as  ignoble  and  despicable  as  his  father  had  been 
arrogant  and  false.  When  he  died,  in  1685,  the 
prospects  of  the  English  nation  were  not  im- 
proved by  the  accession  of  his  brother,  the  Duke 
of  York,  who  became  James  II.  James  had  more 
honesty  than  his  brother  or  his  father;  but  the 
narrowness  and  meanness  of  the  Stuart  race  were 
in  his  blood.    He  had  made  himself  intolerable. 


EUROPE. 


William  of  Orange 
and  his  House. 


EUROPE. 


to  his  subjects,  both  English  and  Scotch,  by  en- 
tering the  Catholic  Church,  openly,  while  Charles 
was  believed  to  have  done  the  same  in  secret. 
His  religion  was  necessarily  bigotry,  because  of 
the  smallness  of  his  nature,  and  he  opposed  it  to 
the  Protestantism  of  the  kingdom  with  a  kind  of 
brutal  aggressiveness.  In  the  first  year  of  his 
reign  there  was  a  rebellion  undertaken,  in  the  in- 
terest of  a  bastard  son  of  Charles  II.,  called 
Duke  of  Monmouth;  but  it  was  savagely  put 
down,  first  by  force  of  arms,  at  Sedgemoor,  and 
afterwards  by  the  "  bloody  assizes  "  of  the  ruth- 
less Judge  Jeffreys.  Encouraged  by  this  success 
against  his  enemies  James  began  to  ignore  the 
'  •  Test  Act, "  which  excluded  Catholics  from  office, 
and  to  suiTound  himself  by  men  of  his  own  re- 
ligion. The  Test  Act  was  an  unrighteous  law, 
and  the  "Declaration  of  Indulgence"  which 
James  issued,  for  the  toleration  of  Catholics  and 
Dissenters,  was  just  in  principle,  according  to  the 
ideas  of  later  times ;  but  the  action  of  the  king 
with  respect  to  both  was,  nevertheless,  a  gross 
and  threatening  violation  of  law.  England  had 
submitted  to  worse  conduct  from  Charles  II.,  but 
its  Protestant  temper  was  now  roused,  and  the 
loyalty  of  the  subject  was  consumed  by  the 
fierceness  of  the  Churchman's  wrath.  James' 
daughter,  Mary,  and  her  husband,  William, 
Prince  of  Orange,  were  invited  from  Holland  to 
come  over  and  displace  the  obnoxious  father 
from  his  throne.  They  accepted  the  invitation, 
November,  1688;  the  nation  rose  to  welcome 
them;  James  fled, —  and  the  great  Revolution, 
which  ended  arbitrary  monarchy  in  England  for- 
ever, and  established  constitutional  government 
on  clearly  defined  and  lasting  bases,  was  accom- 
plished without  the  shedding  of  a  drop  of  blood. 

The  House  of  Orange  and  the  Dutch  Republic. 

William  of  Orange,  who  thus  acquired  a  place 
in  the  line  of  English  kings,  held,  at  the  same 
time,  the  nearly  regal  office  of  Stadtholder  of 
Holland ;  but  the  office  had  not  remained  con- 
tinuously in  his  family  since  William  the  Silent, 
whose  great-grandson  he  was.  Maurice,  the  son 
of  the  murdered  William  the  Silent,  had  been 
chosen  to  the  stadtholdership  after  his  father's 
death,  and  had  carried  forward  his  father's  work 
with  success,  so  far  as  concerned  the  liberation  of 
the  United  Provinces  from  the  Spanish  yoke. 
He  was  an  abler  soldier  than  William,  but  not 
his  equal  as  a  statesman,  nor  as  a  man.  The 
greater  statesman  of  the  period  was  John  of 
Barneveldt,  between  whom  and  the  Stadtholder 
an  opposition  grew  up  which  produced  jealousy 
and  hostility,  more  especially  on  the  part  of  the 
latter.  A  shameful  religious  conflict  had  arisen 
at  this  time  between  the  Calvinists,  who  num- 
bered most  of  the  clergy  in  their  ranks,  and  a 
dissenting  body,  led  by  Jacob  Hermann,  or  Ar- 
niinius,  which  protested  against  the  doctrine  of 
predestination.  Barneveldt  favored  the  Armin- 
ians.  The  Stadtholder,  Jlaurice,  without  any 
apparent  theological  conviction  in  the  matter, 
threw  his  whole  weight  of  influence  on  the  side 
of  the  Calvinists;  and  was  able,  with  the  help  of 
the  Calvinist  preachers,  to  carry  the  greater  part 
of  the  common  people  into  that  faction.  The 
Arminians  were  everywhere  put  down  as  heretics, 
barred  from  preaching  or  teaching,  and  otherwise 
silenced  and  ill  treated.  It  is  a  singular  fact 
that,  at  the  very  time  of  this  outburst  of  C'al- 
vinistic  fury,  the  Dutch  were  exhibiting  other- 


wise a  far  more  tolerant  temper  in  religion  than 
any  other  people  in  Europe,  and  had  thrown  open 
their  country  as  a  place  of  shelter  for  the  perse- 
cuted of  other  lands, —  both  Christian  sectaries 
and  Jews.  We  infer,  necessarily,  that  the  bitter- 
ness of  the  Calvinists  against  the  Arminians  was 
more  political  than  religious  in  its  source,  and 
that  the  source  is  realh^  traceable  to  the  fierce 
ambition  of  Prince  Maurice,  and  the  passion  of 
the  party  which  supported  his  suspicious  politi- 
cal aims. 

Barneveldt  lost  influence  as  the  consequence  of 
the  Calvinistic  triumph,  and  was  exposed  help- 
lessly to  the  vindictive  hatred  of  Prince  Maurice, 
who  did  not  scruple  to  cause  his  arrest,  his  trial 
and  execution  (1619),  on  charges  which  none  be- 
lieved. Maurice,  whose  memory  is  blackened  by 
this  great  crime,  died  in  1625,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  half-brother,  Frederic  Henry.  The  war 
with  Spain  had  been  renewed  in  1631,  at  the  end 
of  the  twelve  years  truce,  and  more  than  willingly 
renewed;  for  the  merchant  class,  and  the  mari- 
time interest  in  the  cities  which  felt  secure,  pre- 
ferred war  to  peace.  Under  a  hostile  flag  they 
pushed  their  commerce  into  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese seas  from  which  a  treaty  of  peace  would 
undoubtedly  exclude  them;  and,  so  long  as 
Spanish  American  silver  fleets  were  afloat,  the 
spoils  of  ocean  war  were  vastly  enriching.  It 
was  during  these  years  of  war  that  the  Dutch 
got  their  footing  on  the  farther  sides  of  the  world, 
and  nearly  won  the  mastery  of  the  sea  which 
their  slower  but  stronger  English  rivals  wrested 
from  them  in  the  end.  Not  until  the  general 
Peace  of  Westphalia,  in  1648,  was  a  final  settle- 
ment of  issues  between  Spain  and  the  United 
Provinces  brought  about.  The  freedom  and  in- 
dependence of  the  Provinces,  as  sovereign  states, 
was  then  acknowledged  by  the  humbled  Span- 
iard, and  favorable  arrangements  of  trade  were 
conceded  to  them.  The  southern,  Catholic 
Provinces,  which  Spain  had  held,  were  retained  in 
their  subjection  to  her. 

Frederic  Henry,  the  third  Stadtholder,  was  suc- 
ceeded in  1647  by  his  son,  William  II,  The  latter 
wasted  his  short  career  of  less  than  four  years  in 
foolish  plotting  to  revolutionize  the  government 
and  transform  the  stadtholdership  into  a  mon- 
archy, supported  by  France,  for  the  help  of 
which  country  he  seemed  willing  to  pay  any  base 
and  treasonable  price.  Dying  suddenly  in  the 
midst  of  his  scheming,  he  left  an  unborn  son  — 
the  future  William  III.  of  England  —  who  came 
into  the  world  a  week  after  his  father  had  left  it. 
Under  these  circumstances  the  stadtholdership 
was  suspended,  with  strong  feelings  against  the 
revival  of  it,  resulting  from  the  conduct  of  Wil- 
liam II.  The  lesser  provinces  then  fell  under 
the  domination  of  Holland  —  so  much  so  that  the 
name  of  Holland  began  soon  to  be  applied  to  the 
confederation  at  large,  and  is  very  commonly 
used  with  that  meaning  for  a  long  subsequent 
time.  The  chief  minister  of  the  Estates  of  Hol- 
land, known  as  the  Grand  Pensionary,  became 
the  practical  head  of  the  federal  government. 
After  1653  the  office  of  Grand  Pensionary  was 
filled  by  a  statesman  of  high  ability,  John  de 
Witt,  the  chief  end  of  whose  policy  appears  to 
have  been  the  prevention  of  the  return  of 
the  House  of  Orange  to  power.  The  govern- 
ment thus  administered,  and  controlled  by  the 
commercial  class,  was  successful  in  promoting 
the  general  prosperity  of  the  provinces,  and  in 


1106 


EUROPE. 


The  rise  of 
Prussia, 


EUROPE. 


advancing  their  maritime  importance  and  power. 
It  conducted  two  wars  with  England  —  one  with 
the  Commonwealth  and  one  with  the  restored 
monarchy  —  and  could  claim  at  least  an  equal 
share  of  the  naval  glory  won  in  each.  But  it 
neglected  tlie  land  defense  of  the  country,  and 
was  found  shamefully  unprepared  in  1672,  when 
the  Provinces  were  attacked  by  a  villainous  com- 
bination, formed  between  Louis  XIV.  of  France 
and  his  servile  pensioner,  Charles  II.  of  England. 
The  republic,  humbled  and  distressed  by  the 
rushing  conquests  of  the  French,  fixed  its  hopes 
upon  the  young  Prince  of  Orange,  heir  to  the 
prestige  of  a  great  historic  name,  and  turned 
its  wrath  against  the  party  of  De  Witt.  The 
Prince  was  made  Stadtholder,  despite  the  oppo- 
sition of  John  de  Witt,  and  the  latter,  with  his 
brother  Cornelius,  was  murdered  by  a  mob  at  Am- 
sterdam. William  of  Orange  proved  both  wise 
and  heroic  as  a  leader,  and  the  people  were  roused 
to  a  new  energy  of  resistance  by  his  appeals  and 
his  example.  They  cut  their  dykes  and  flooded 
the  land,  subjecting  themselves  to  unmeasured 
loss  and  distress,  but  peremptorily  stopping  the 
French  advance,  until  time  was  gained  for  awaken- 
ing public  feeling  in  Europe  against  the  aggres- 
sions of  the  unscrupulous  French  king.  Then 
William  of  Orange  began  that  which  was  to  be 
his  great  and  important  mission  in  life, —  the  or- 
ganizing of  resistance  to  Louis  XIV.  Without 
the  foresight  and  penetration  of  French  designs 
which  he  evinced, — without  his  unflagging  exer- 
tions for  the  next  thirty  years, — without  his  diplo- 
matic tact,  his  skill  of  management,  his  patience 
in  war,  his  obstinate  perseverance, —  it  seems  to 
be  a  certainty  that  tlie  ambitious  "grand  mon- 
arch," concentrating  the  whole  power  of  France 
in  himself,  would  have  been  able  to  break  the 
surrounding  nations  one  by  one,  and  they  would 
not  have  combined  their  strength  for  an  effective 
self-protection.  The  revolution  of  1688-9  in 
England,  which  gave  the  crown  of  that  kingdom 
to  William,  and  his  wife  Mary,  contributed  greatly 
to  his  success,  and  was  an  event  nearly  as  impor- 
tant in  European  politics  at  large  as  it  was  in 
the  constitutional  history  of  Great  Britain. 

Germany  after  the  Thirty  Years  War. 

In  a  natural  order  of  things,  Germany  should 
have  supplied  the  main  resistance  to  Louis  XIV. 
and  held  his  unscrupulous  ambition  in  check. 
But  Germany  had  fallen  to  its  lowest  state  of 
political  demoralization  and  disorder.  The  very 
idea  of  nationality  had  disappeared.  The  Em- 
pire, even  collapsed  to  the  Germanic  sense,  and 
even  reduced  to  a  frame  and  a  form,  had  almost 
vanished  from  practical  affairs.  The  numerous 
petty  states  which  divided  the  German  people 
stood  apart  from  one  another,  in  substantial  in- 
dependence, and  were  sundered  by  small  jealous- 
ies and  distrusts.  Little  absolute  principalities 
they  were,  each  having  its  little  court,  which 
aped,  in  a  little  way,  the  grand  court  of  the 
grand  monarch  of  France  —  central  object  of  the 
admiration  and  the  envy  of  all  small  souls  in  its 
time.  Half  of  them  were  ready  to  bow  down  to 
the  splendid  being  at  Versailles,  and  to  be  his 
creatures,  if  he  condescended  to  bestow  a  nod  of 
patronage  and  attention  upon  them.  The  French 
king  had  more  influence  among  them  than  their 
nominal  Emperor.  More  and  more  distinctly  the 
latter  drew  apart  in  his  immediate  dominions  as 
an  Austrian  sovereign ;  and  more  and  more  com- 


pletely Austrian  interests  and  Austrian  policy 
became  removed  and  estranged  from  the  interests 
of  the  Germanic  people.  The  ambitions  and  the 
cares  of  the  House  of  Hapsburg  were  increasingly 
in  directions  most  opposite  to  the  German  side 
of  its  relations,  tending  towards  Italy  and  the 
southeast;  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  narrow 
church  influence  which  depressed  the  Austrian 
states  widened  a  hopeless  intellectual  difference 
between  them  and  the  northern  German  people. 

Brandenburg. —  Prussia. 

The  most  notable  movements  in  dull  Ger- 
man affairs  after  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  were 
those  which  connected  themselves  with  the  set- 
tling and  centering  in  Brandenburg  of  a  nucleus 
of  growing  power,  around  which  the  nationaliz- 
ing of  Germany  has  been  a  crystalizing  process 
ever  since.  The  Mark  of  Brandenburg  was  one 
of  the  earliest  conquests  (tenth  century)  of  the 
Germans  from  the  Wends.  Prussia,  afterwards 
united  with  Brandenburg,  was  a  later  conquest 
(thirteenth  century)  from  Wendish  or  Slavonic 
and  other  pagan  inhabitants,  and  its  subjugation 
was  a  missionary  enterprise,  accomplished  by  the 
crusading  Order  of  Teutonic  Knights,  under  the 
autliority  and  direction  of  the  Pope.  The  Order, 
which  held  the  country  for  more  than  two  cen- 
turies, and  ruled  it  badly,  became  degenerate, 
and  about  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  it 
was  overcome  in  war  by  Casimir  IV.  of  Poland, 
who  took  away  from  it  the  western  part  of  its 
territory,  and  forced  it  to  do  homage  to  him  for 
the  eastern  part,  as  a  fief  of  the  Polish  crown. 
Sixty  years  later,  the  Reformation  movement  in 
Germany  brought  about  the  extinguishment  of 
the  Teutonic  Order  as  a  political  power.  The 
Grand  Master  of  the  Order  at  that  time  was 
Albert,  a  Hoheuzollern  prince,  belonging  to  a 
younger  branch  of  the  Brandenburg  family.  He 
became  a  Lutheran,  and  succeeded  in  persuading 
the  Polish  king,  Sigismund  I. ,  to  transfer  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  East  Prussian  fief  to  him  person- 
ally, as  a  duchy.  He  transmitted  it  to  his  de- 
scendants, who  held  it  for  a  few  generations ;  but 
the  line  became  extinct  in  1618,  and  the  Duchy 
of  Prussia  then  passed  to  the  elder  branch  of  the 
family  and  was  united  with  Brandenburg.  The 
Mark  of  Brandenburg  had  been  raised  to  the 
rank  of  an  Electorate  in  1356  and  had  been  ac- 
quired by  the  Hohenzollern  family  in  1417.  The 
superior  weight  of  the  Brandenburg  electors  in 
northern  Germany  may  be  dated  from  their  ac- 
quisition of  the  important  Duchy  of  Prussia;  but 
they  made  no  mark  on  affairs  until  the  time  of 
Frederick  William  I. ,  called  the  Great  Elector, 
who  succeeded  to  the  Electorate  in  1640,  near  the 
close  of  the  Thirty  Years  War.  In  the  arrange- 
ments of  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  he  secured 
East  Pomerania  and  other  considerable  additions 
of  territory.  In  1657  he  made  his  Duchy  of 
Prussia  independent  of  Poland,  by  treaty  with 
the  Polish  king.  In  1673  and  1674  he  had  the 
courage  and  the  independence  to  join  the  allies 
against  Louis  XIV.,  and  when  the  Swedes,  in 
alliance  with  Louis,  invaded  his  dominions,  he 
defeated  and  humbled  them  at  Fehrbellen,  and 
took  from  them  the  greater  part  of  their  Pome- 
ranian territory.  When  the  Great  Elector  died, 
in  1688,  Brandenburg  was  the  commanding 
North-German  power,  and  the  Hohenzollern 
family  had  fully  entered  on  the  great  career  it 
has  since  pursued. 


1107 


EUROPE. 


Poland,  Russia  and 
the  Turks. 


EUROPE. 


Frederick  William's  son  Frederick,  with  none 
of  his  father's  talent,  had  a  pushing  but  shallow 
ambition.  He  aspired  to  be  a  king,  and  circum- 
stances made  his  friendship  so  important  to  the 
Emperor  Leopold  I.  that  the  latter,  exercising 
the  theoretical  super-sovereignty  of  the  Caesars, 
endowed  liim  with  the  regal  title.  He  was  made 
King  of  Prussia,  not  of  Brandenburg,  because 
Brandenburg  stood  in  vassalage  to  the  Empire, 
while  Prussia  was  an  independent  state. 

Poland  and  Russia. 

When  Brandenburg  and  Prussia  united  began 
to  rise  to  importance,  the  neighboring  kingdom 
of  Poland  had  already  passed  the  climax  of  its 
career.  Under  the  Jagellon  dynasty,  sprung  from 
the  Duke  Jagellon  of  Lithuania,  who  married 
Hedwig,  Queen  of  Poland,  in  1386,  and  united 
the  two  states,  Poland  was  a  great  power  for 
two  centuries,  and  seemed  more  likely  than  Rus- 
sia to  dominate  the  Slavonic  peoples  of  Europe. 
The  Russians  at  that  time  were  under  the  feet  of 
the  Mongols  or  Tartars,  whose  terrific  sweep 
westwards,  from  the  steppes  of  Asia,  had  over- 
whelmed them  completely  and  seemed  to  bring 
their  independent  history  to  an  end.  Slowlj'  a 
Russian  duchy  had  emerged,  having  its  seat  of 
doubtful  sovereignty  at  Moscow,  and  being  sub- 
ject quite  humbly  to  the  Mongol  Khan.  About 
1477  the  Muscovite  duke  of  that  time,  Ivan 
Vasilovitch,  broke  the  Tartar  yoke  and  acquired 
independence.  But  his  dominion  was  limited. 
The  Poles  and  Lithuanians,  now  united,  had 
taken  possession  of  large  and  important  territories 
formerly  Russian,  and  the  ^Muscovite  state  was 
entirely  cut  off  from  the  Baltic.  It  began,  how- 
ever, in  the  next  century,  under  Ivan  the  Terri- 
ble, first  of  the  Czars,  to  make  conquests  south- 
ward and  south-eastward,  from  the  Tartars, 
until  it  had  reached  the  Caspian  Sea.  The  do- 
minion of  the  Czar  stretched  northward,  at  tlie 
same  time,  to  the  White  Sea,  at  the  single 
port  of  which  trade  was  opened  with  the  Russian 
country  by  English  merchant  adventurers  in  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth.  Late  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury the  old  line  of  rulers,  descended  from  the 
Scandinavian  Ruric,  came  to  an  end,  and  after  a 
few  years  Michael  Romanoff  established  the  dy- 
nasty which  has  reigned  since  his  time. 

As  between  the  two  principal  Slavonic  nations, 
Russia  was  now  gaining  stability  and  weight, 
while  Poland  had  begun  to  lose  both.  It  was  a 
fatal  day  for  the  Poles  when,  in  1573,  on  the 
death  of  the  last  of  the  Jagellons,  they  made 
their  monarchy  purely  elective,  abolishing  the 
restriction  to  one  family  which  had  previously 
prevailed.  The  election  was  by  the  suffrage  of 
the  nobles,  not  the  people  at  large  (who  were 
generally  serfs),  and  the  government  became  an 
oligarchy  of  the  most  unregulated  kind  known 
in  history.  The  crown  was  stripped  of  power, 
and  the  unwillingness  of  the  nobility  to  submit 
to  any  national  authorit}',  even  that  of  its  own 
assembly,  reached  a  point,  about  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  at  which  anarchy  was 
virtually  agreed  upon  as  the  desirable  political 
state.  The  extraordinary  "  liberum  veto,"  then 
made  part  of  the  Polish  constitution,  gave  to 
each  single  member  of  the  assemblies  of  the 
nobles,  or  of  the  deputies  representing  them,  a 
right  to  forbid  any  enactment,  or  to  arrest  the 
whole  proceedings  of  the  body,  by  his  unsupported 
negative.     This  amazing  prerogative  appears  to 


have  been  exercised  very  rarely  in  its  fullness; 
but  its  theoretical  existence  effectually  extin- 
guished public  spirit  and  paralyzed  all  rational 
legislation.  Linked  with  the  singular  feebleness 
of  the  monarchy,  it  leaves  small  room  for  sur- 
prise at  the  ultimate  shipwreck  of  the  Polish 
state. 

The  royal  elections  at  Warsaw  came  to  be 
prize  contests  at  which  all  Europe  assisted. 
Every  Court  set  up  its  candidate  for  the  paltry 
titular  place ;  every  candidate  emptied  his  purse 
into  the  Polish  capital,  and  bribed,  intrigued, 
corrupted,  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  Once,  at 
least  (1674),  when  the  game  was  on,  a  sudden 
breeze  of  patriotic  feeling  swept  the  traffickers 
out  of  the  diet,  and  inspired  the  election  of  a 
national  hero,  John  Sobieski,  to  whom  Europe 
owes  much ;  for  it  was  he  wlio  drove  back  the 
Turks,  in  1683,  when  their  last  bold  push  into 
central  Europe  was  made,  and  when  they  were 
storming  at  the  gates  of  Vienna.  But  when 
Sobieski  died,  in  1696,  the  old  scandalous  vendue 
of  a  crown  was  re-opened,  and  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  was  the  buyer.  During  most  of  the  last 
two  centuries  of  its  history,  Poland  sold  its 
throne  to  one  alien  after  another,  and  allowed 
foreign  states  to  mix  and  meddle  with  its  affairs. 
Of  real  nationality  there  was  not  much  left  to 
extinguish  when  the  time  of  extinction  came. 
There  were  patriots,  and  very  noble  patriots, 
among  the  Poles,  at  all  periods  of  their  history ; 
but  it  seems  to  have  been  the  very  hopelessness 
of  the  state  into  which  their  country  had  drifted 
which  intensified  their  patriotic  feeling. 

Russia  had  acquired  magnitude  and  strength 
as  a  barbaric  power,  in  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries ;  but  it  was  not  until  the  reign 
of  Peter  the  Great,  which  opened  in  1682,  that 
the  great  Slavonic  empire  began  to  take  on  a 
European  character,  with  European  interests  and 
influences,  and  to  assimilate  the  civilization  of 
the  West.  Peter  may  be  said  to  have  knotted 
Russia  to  Europe  at  both  extremities,  by  pushing 
his  dominions  to  the  Baltic  on  the  north  and  to  the 
Black  Sea  on  the  south,  and  by  putting  his  own 
ships  afloat  in  both.  From  his  day,  Russia  has 
been  steadily  gathering  weight  in  each  of  the 
two  continents  over  which  her  vast  bulk  of  em- 
pire is  stretched,  and  moving  to  a  mysterious 
great  destiny  in  time  to  come. 

The  Turks. 

The  Turks,  natural  enemies  of  all  the  Christian 
races  of  eastern  and  southeastern  Europe,  came 
practically  to  the  end  of  their  threatening  career 
of  conquest  about  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  when  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  died 
(1566).  He  had  occupied  a  great  part  of  Hun- 
gary ;  seated  a  pasha  in  Buda ;  laid  siege  to 
Vienna ;  taken  Rhodes  from  the  Knights  of  St. 
John ;  attacked  them  in  Malta ;  made  an  alliance 
with  the  King  of  France;  brought  a  Turkish 
fleet  into  the  western  ^Mediterranean,  and  held 
Europe  in  positive  terror  of  an  Ottoman  domi- 
nation for  half  a  century.  His  son  Selim  added 
Cyprus  to  the  Turkish  conquests;  but  was  hum- 
bled in  the  Mediterranean  by  the  great  Christian 
victory  of  Lepanto,  won  by  the  combined  fleets 
of  Spain,  Venice  and  the  Pope,  under  Don  John 
of  Austria.  After  that  time  Europe  had  no  great 
fear  of  the  Turk ;  though  he  still  fought  hard 
with  the  Venetians,  the  Poles,  the  Russians,  the 
Hungarians,  and,  once  more,  carried  his  arms 


1108 


EUROPE. 


Wars 
of  Louis  XrV. 


EUROPE. 


even  to  Vienna.      But,  on  the  whole,  it  was  a 
losing  fight ;  the  crescent  was  on  the  wane. 

Last  glories  of  Venice. 

In  the  whole  struggle  with  the  Ottomans, 
through  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth,  and  seventeenth 
centuries,  the  republic  of  Venice  bore  a  noble 
part.  She  contested  with  them  foot  by  foot  the 
Greek  islands,  Peloponnesus,  and  the  eastern 
shores  of  the  Adriatic.  Even  after  her  commerce 
began  to  slip  from  her  control,  and  the  strength 
which  came  from  it  sank  rapidly,  she  gave  up 
her  eastern  possessions  but  slowly,  one  by  one, 
and  after  stout  resistance.  Crete  cost  the  Turks 
a  war  of  twenty-four  years  (IGlo-lGeO).  Fifteen 
years  afterwards  the  Venetians  gathered  their 
energies  afresh,  assumed  the  aggressive,  and  con- 
quered the  whole  Peloponnesus,  which  they  held 
for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  Then  it  was  lost 
again,  and  the  Ionian  Islands  alone  remained 
Venetian  territory  in  the  East. 

Rise  of  the  House  of  Savoy. 

Of  Italy  at  large,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
lying  prostrate  under  the  heavy  hand  of  Spain, 
there  is  no  history  to  claim  attention  in  so  brief 
a  sketch  as  this.  One  sovereign  family  in  the 
northwest,  long  balanced  on  the  Alps,  in  uncer- 
tainty between  a  cis-Alpine  and  a  trans-Alpine 
destiny,  but  now  clearly  committed  to  Italian 
fortunes,  had  begun  to  win  its  footing  among  the 
noticeable  smaller  powers  of  the  day  by  sheer 
de.xterity  of  trimming  and  shifting  sides  in  the 
conflicts  of  the  time.  This  was  the  House  of 
Savoy,  whose  first  possessions  were  gathered  in 
the  crumbling  of  the  old  kingdom  of  Burgundy, 
and  lay  on  both  slopes  of  the  Alps,  commanding 
several  important  passes.  On  the  western  and 
northern  side,  the  counts,  afterwards  dukes,  of 
Savoy  had  to  contend,  as  time  went  on,  with  the 
expanding  kingdom  of  Prance  and  with  the  stout- 
hearted communities  which  ultimately  formed 
the  Swiss  Confederacy.  They  fell  back  before 
both.  At  one  period,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
their  dominion  had  stretched  to  the  Saone,  and 
to  the  lake  of  Neufchatel,  on  both  sides  of  it, 
surrounding  the  free  city  of  Geneva,  which  they 
were  never  able  to  overcome,  and  the  lake  of 
Geneva  entire.  Aftfer  that  time,  the  Savoyards 
gradually  lost  territory  on  the  Gallic  side  and  won 
compensations  on  the  Italian  side,  in  Piedmont, 
and  at  the  expense  of  Genoa  and  the  duchy  of 
Milan.  The  Duke  Victor  Amadeus  II.  was  the 
most  successful  winner  for  his  house,  and  he 
made  his  gains  by  remarkable  manoeuvering  on 
both  sides  of  the  wars  of  Louis  XIV.  One  of 
his  acquisitions  (1713)  was  the  island  kingdom  of 
Sicily,  which  gave  him  a  royal  title.  A  few 
years  later  he  exchanged  it  with  Austria  for  the 
island  kingdom  of  Sardinia  —  a  realm  more  de- 
sirable to  him  for  geographical  reasons  only. 
The  dukes  of  Savoy  and  princes  of  Piedmont 
thus  became  kings  of  Sardinia,  and  the  name  of 
the  kingdom  was  often  applied  to  their  whole 
dominion,  down  to  the  recent  time  when  the 
House  of  Savoy  attained  the  grander  kingship  of 
united  Italy. 

First  wars  of  Louis  XIV. 

The  wars  of  Louis  XIV.  gave  little  opportunity 
for  western  and  central  Europe  to  make  any 
other  history  than  that  of  struggle  and  battle, 
invasion  and  devastation,  intrigue  and  faithless 


diplomacy,  shifting  of  political  landmarks  and 
traffic  in  border  populations,  as  though  they  were 
pastured  cattle,  for  fifty  years,  in  the  last  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century  and  the  first  part  of  the 
eighteenth  (1665-171.5).  It  will  be  remembered 
that  when  this  King  of  France  married  the  In- 
fanta of  Spain,  he  joined  in  a  solemn  renuncia- 
tion of  all  rights  on  her  part  and  on  that  of  her 
children  to  such  dominions  as  she  might  other- 
wise inherit.  But  such  a  renunciation,  with  no 
sentiment  of  honor  behind  it,  was  worthless,  of 
course,  and  Louis  XIV.,  in  his  own  esteem,  stood 
on  a  height  quite  above  the  moral  considerations 
that  have  force  with  common  men.  When  PhUip 
IV.  of  Spain  died,  in  1665,  Louis  promptly  began 
to  put  forward  the  claims  which  he  had  pledged 
himself  not  to  make.  He  demanded  part  of  the 
Netherlands,  and  Franche  Comte — the  old  county 
(not  the  duchy)  of  Burgundy  —  as  belonging  to 
his  queen.  It  was  his  good  fortune  to  be  served 
by  some  of  the  greatest  generals,  military  en- 
gineers and  administrators  of  the  day  —  by  Tu- 
renne,  Conde,  Vauban,  Louvois,  and  others  —  and 
when  he  sent  his  armies  of  invasion  into  Flanders 
and  Franche  Comte  they  carried  all  before  them. 
Holland  took  alarm  at  these  aggressions  which 
came  so  near  to  her,  and  formed  an  alliance  with 
England  and  Sweden  to  assist  Spain.  But  the 
unprincipled  English  king,  Charles  II.,  was 
easily  bribed  to  betray  his  ally;  Sweden  was 
bought  over;  Spain  submitted  to  a  treaty  which 
gave  the  Burgundian  county  back  to  her,  and 
surrendered  an  important  part  of  the  Spanish 
Netherlands  to  France.  Louis'  first  exploit  of 
national  brigandage  had  thus  been  a  glorious 
success,  as  glory  is  defined  in  the  vocabulary  of 
sovereigns  of  his  class.  He  had  stolen  several 
valuable  towns,  killed  some  thousands  of  people, 
carried  misery  into  the  lives  of  some  thousands 
more,  and  provoked  the  Dutch  to  a  challenge  of 
war  that  seemed  promising  of  more  glory  of  like 
kind. 

In  1673  he  prepared  himself  to  chastise  the 
Dutch,  and  his  English  pensioner,  Charles  II., 
with  several  German  princes,  joined  him  in  the 
war.  It  was  this  war,  as  related  already,  which 
brought  about  the  fall  and  the  death  of  John  de 
Witt,  Grand  Pensionary  of  Holland ;  which  raised 
William  of  Orange  to  the  restored  stadtholdership, 
and  which  gave  him  a  certain  leadership  of  in- 
fluence in  Europe,  as  against  the  French  king. 
It  was  this  war,  likewise,  which  gave  the  Hohen- 
zollerns  their  first  great  battle-triumph,  in  the 
defeat  of  the  Swedes,  allies  of  the  French,  at 
Fehrbellin.  For  Frederick  William,  the  Great 
Elector,  had  joined  the  Emperor  Leopold  and  the 
King  of  Spain  in  another  league  with  Holland 
to  resist  the  aggressions  of  France ;  while  Sweden 
now  took  sides  with  Louis.  England  was  soon 
withdrawn  from  the  contest,  by  the  determined 
action  of  Parliament,  which  forced  its  king  to 
make  peace.  Otherwise  the  war  became  general 
in  western  Europe  and  was  frightful  in  the  death 
and  misery  it  cost.  Generally  the  French  had 
the  most  success.  Turenne  was  killed  in  1675 
and  Conde  retired  the  same  year ;  but  able  com- 
manders were  found  in  Luxemburg  and  Crequi 
to  succeed  them.  In  opposition  to  William  of 
Orange,  the  Dutch  made  peace  at  Nimeguen,  in 
1678,  and  Spain  was  forced  to  give  up  Franche 
Comte,  with  another  fraction  of  her  Netherland 
territories;  but  Holland  lost  nothing.  xVgain 
Louis  XIV.  had  beaten  and  robbed  his  neighbors 


1109 


EUROPE. 


Wars 
of  Louis  XIV. 


EUROPE. 


with  success,  and  was  at  the  pinnacle  of  his 
glory.  France,  it  is  true,  was  oppressed  and 
exhausted,  but  her  king  was  a  "  grand  monarch, " 
and  she  must  needs  be  content. 

For  a  few  years  the  grand  monarch  contented 
himself  with  small  fllchings  of  territory,  which 
kept  his  conscience  supple  and  gave  practice  to 
his  sleight-of-hand.  On  one  pretext  and  another 
he  seized  town  after  town  in  Alsace,  and,  at  last, 
1681,  surprised  and  captured  the  imperial  free 
city  of  Strasburg,  in  a  time  of  entire  peace.  He 
bombarded  Genoa,  took  Avignon  from  the  Pope, 
bullied  and  abused  feeble  Spain,  made  large 
claims  on  the  Palatinate  in  the  name  of  his 
sister-in-law,  but  against  her  will,  and  did  nearly 
what  he  was  pleased  to  do,  without  any  effective 
resistance,  until  after  William  of  Orange  had 
been  called  to  the  English  throne.  That  com- 
pleted a  great  change  in  the  European  situation. 

Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes. 

The  change  had  already  been  more  than  half 
brought  about  by  a  foul  and  foolish  measure 
which  Louis  had  adopted  in  his  domestic  ad- 
ministration. Cursed  by  a  tyrant's  impatience  at 
the  idea  of  free  thought  and  free  opinion  among 
his  subjects,  he  had  been  persuaded  by  Catholic 
zealots  near  his  person  to  revoke  the  Edict  of 
Nantes  and  revive  persecution  of  the  Huguenots. 
This  was  done  in  1685.  The  fatal  effects  with- 
in France  resembled  those  which  followed  the 
persecution  of  the  Moriscoes  of  Spain.  The 
Huguenots  formed  a  large  proportion  of  the  best 
middle  class  of  the  kingdom, —  its  manufacturers, 
its  merchants,  its  skilled  and  thrifty  artisans. 
Infamous  efforts  were  made  to  detain  them  in  the 
country  and  there  force  them  to  apostacy  or  hold 
them  under  punishment  if  they  withstood.  But 
there  was  not  power  enough  in  the  monarchy, 
with  all  its  absolutism,  to  enclose  France  in  such 
a  wall.  Vast  numbers  escaped  —  half  a  million 
it  is  thought — carrying  their  skill,  their 
knowledge,  their  industry  and  their  energy  into 
Holland,  England,  Switzerland,  all  parts  of 
Protestant  Germany,  and  across  the  ocean  to 
America.     France  was  half  ruined  by  the  loss. 

The  League  of  Augsburg. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Protestant  allies  in 
Germany  and  the  North,  whom  Louis  had  Iield  in 
subserviency  to  himself  so  long,  were  angered 
and  alarmed  by  his  act.  They  joined  a  new  de- 
fensive league  against  him,  formed  at  Augsburg, 
in  1686,  which  embraced  the  Emperor,  Spain, 
Holland,  and  Sweden,  at  first,  and  afterwards 
took  in  Savoy  and  other  Italian  states,  along 
with  Germany  almost  entire.  But  the  League 
was  miserably  unprepared  for  war,  and  hardly 
hindered  the  march  of  Louis'  armies  when  he 
suddenly  moved  them  into  the  Rhenish  electorates 
in  1688.  For  the  second  time  in  his  reign,  and 
under  his  orders,  the  Palatinate  was  fearfully 
devastated  with  fire  and  sword.  But  this  attack 
on  Germany,  occupying  thearmsof  France,  gave 
William  of  Orange  his  opportunity  to  enter  Eng- 
land unopposed  and  take  the  English  crown. 
That  accomplished,  he  speedily  brought  England 
into  the  League,  enlarging  it  to  a  "grand  alli- 
ance "  of  all  western  Europe  against  the  danger- 
ous monarch  of  Prance,  and  inspiring  it  with 
some  measure  of  his  own  energy  and  courage. 

France  had  now  to  deal  with  enemies  on  every 
side.     They  swarmed  on  all  her  frontiers,  and 


the  strength  and  valor  with  which  she  met  them 
were  amazing.  For  three  years  the  French  more 
than  held  their  own,  not  only  in  land-fighting, 
but  on  the  sea,  where  they  seemed  likely,  for 
a  time,  to  dispute  the  supremacy  of  the  English 
and  the  Dutch  with  success.  But  the  frightful 
draft  made  on  the  resources  of  the  nation,  and 
the  strain  on  its  spirit,  were  more  than  could  be 
kept  up.  The  obstinacy  of  the  king,  and  his  in- 
difference to  the  sufferings  of  his  people,  pro- 
longed the  war  until  1697,  but  with  steady  loss 
to  the  French  of  the  advantages  with  which  they 
began.  Two  years  before  the  end,  Louis  had 
bought  over  the  Duke  of  Savoy,  by  giving  back 
to  him  all  that  France  had  taken  from  his  Italian 
territories  since  Richelieu's  time.  When  the 
final  peace  was  settled,  at  Ryswick,  like  surren- 
ders had  to  be  made  in  the  Netherlands,  Lor- 
raine, and  beyond  the  Rhine;  but  Alsace,  with 
Strasburg,  was  kept,  to  be  a  German  graft  on 
France,  until  the  sharp  Prussian  pruning  knite, 
in  our  own  time,  cut  it  away. 

War  of  the  Spanish  Succession. 

There  were  three  years  of  peace  after  the 
treaty  of  Ryswick,  and  then  a  new  war  —  longer, 
more  bitter,  and  more  destructive  than  those  be- 
fore it  —  arose  out  of  questions  connected  with 
the  succession  to  the  crown  of  Spain.  Charles 
II.,  last  of  the  Austro-Spanish  or  Spanish-Haps- 
burg  kings,  died  in  1700,  leaving  no  heir.  The 
nearest  of  his  relatives  to  the  throne  were  the 
descendants  of  his  two  sisters,  one  of  whom  had 
married  Louis  XIV.  and  the  other  the  Emperor 
Leopold,  of  the  Austrian  House.  Louis  XIV.,  as 
we  know,  had  renounced  all  the  Spanish  rights 
of  his  queen  and  her  issue ;  but  that  renuncia- 
tion had  been  shown  already  to  be  wasted  paper. 
Leopold  had  renounced  nothing ;  but  he  had  re- 
quired a  renunciation  of  her  Spanish  claims  from 
the  one  daughter,  Maria,  of  his  Spanish  wife, 
and  he  put  forward  claims  to  the  Spanish  suc- 
cession, on  his  own  behalf,  because  his  mother 
had  been  a  princess  of  that  nation,  as  well  as  his 
wife.  He  was  willing,  however,  to  transfer  his 
own  rights  to  a  younger  son,  fruit  of  a  second 
marriage,  the  Archduke  Charles. 

The  question  of  the  Spanish  succession  was 
one  of  European  interest  and  importance,  and 
attempts  had  been  made  to  settle  it  two  years 
before  the  death  of  the  Spanish  king,  in  1698, 
by  a  treaty,  or  agreement,  between  France, 
England,  and  Holland.  By  that  treaty  these 
outside  powers  (consulting  Spain  not  at  all)  un- 
dertook a  partition  of  the  Spanish  monarchy,  in 
what  they  assumed  to  be  the  interest  of  the 
European  balance  of  power.  They  awarded 
Naples,  Sicily,  and  some  lesser  Italian  posses- 
sions to  a  grandson  of  Louis  XIV. ,  the  Milanese 
territory  to  the  Archduke  Charles,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Spanish  dominions  to  an  infant  son  of 
Maria,  the  Emperor's  daughter,  who  was  mar- 
ried to  the  elector  of  Bavaria.  But  the  infant 
so  selected  to  wear  the  crown  of  Spain  died  soon 
afterwards,  and  a  second  treaty  of  partition  was 
framed.  This  gave  the  Milanese  to  the  Duke  of 
Lorraine,  in  exchange  for  his  own  duchy,  which 
he  promised  to  cede  to  France,  and  the  whole 
remainder  of  the  Spanish  inheritance  was  con- 
ceded to  the  Austrian  archduke,  Charles.  In 
Spain,  these  arrangements  were  naturally  re- 
sented, by  both  people  and  king,  and  the  latter 
was   persuaded    to    set    against    them    a   will, 


1110 


EUROPE. 


War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession. 


EUROPE. 


bequeathing  all  that  he  ruled  to  the  younger 
grandson  of  Louis  XIV.,  Philip  of  Anjou,  on 
condition  that  the  latter  renounce  for  himself 
and  for  his  heirs  all  claims  to  the  crown  of 
France.  The  inducement  to  this  bequest  was 
the  power  which  the  King  of  Prance  possessed 
to  enforce  it,  and  so  to  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
Spanish  realm.  That  the  argument  and  the 
persuasion  came  from  Louis'  own  agents,  while 
other  agents  amused  England,  Holland  and 
Austria  with  treaties  of  partition,  is  tolerably 
clear. 

Near  the  end  of  the  year  1700,  the  King  of 
Spain  died ;  his  will  was  disclosed ;  the  treaties 
were  as  coolly  ignored  as  the  prior  renunciation 
had  been,  and  the  young  French  prince  was  sent 
pompously  into  Spain  to  accept  the  proffered 
crown.  For  a  time,  there  was  indignation  in 
Europe,  but  no  more.  William  of  Orange  could 
persuade  neither  England  nor  Holland  to  war, 
and  Austria  could  not  venture  hostilities  without 
their  help.  But  that  submissiveness  only  drew 
from  the  grand  monarch  fresh  displays  of  his 
dishonesty  and  his  insolence.  Philip  of  Anjou's 
renunciation  of  a  possible  succession  to  the 
French  throne,  while  occupying  that  of  Spain, 
was  practically  annulled.  The  government  of 
Spain  was  guided  from  Paris  like  that  of  a  de- 
pendency of  France.  Dutch  and  English  com- 
merce was  injured  by  hostile  measures.  Move- 
ments alarming  to  Holland  were  made  on  the 
frontiers  of  the  Spanish  Netherlands.  Finally, 
when  the  fugitive  ex-king  of  England,  James 
II.,  died  at  St.  Germains,  in  September,  1701, 
Louis  acknowledged  James'  son,  the  Pretender, 
as  King  of  England.  This  insult  roused  the  war 
spirit  in  England  which  King  William  had  striven 
so  hard  to  evoke.  He  had  already  arranged  the 
terms  of  a  new  defensive  Grand  Alliance  with 
Holland,  Austria,  and  most  of  the  German  states. 
There  was  no  difficulty  now  in  making  It  an  offen- 
sive combination. 

But  William,  always  weak  in  health,  and 
worn  by  many  cares  and  harassing  troubles,  died 
in  March,  1703,  before  the  war  which  he  desired 
broke  out.  His  death  made  no  pause  in  the 
movement  of  events.  Able  statesmen,  under 
Queen  Anne,  his  successor,  carried  forward  his 
policy  and  a  great  soldier  was  found,  in  the  per- 
son of  John  Churchill,  Duke  of  Marlborough,  to 
command  the  armies  of  England  and  the  Dutch. 
Another  commander,  of  remarkable  genius. 
Prince  Eugene  of  Savoy,  took  service  with  the 
Emperor,  and  these  two,  acting  cordially  to- 
gether, humbled  the  overweening  pride  of  Louis 
XIV.  in  the  later  years  of  his  reign.  He  had 
worn  out  France  by  his  long  exactions.  His 
strong  ministers,  Colbert,  Louvois  and  others, 
were  dead,  and  he  did  not  find  successors  for  them. 
He  had  able  generals,  but  none  equal  to  Turenne, 
Conde  or  Luxemburg, — none  to  cope  with  Marl- 
borough and  Prince  Eugene.  "The  war  was 
■widespread,  on  a  stupendous  scale,  and  it  lasted 
for  twelve  years.  Its  campaigns  were  fought  in 
the  Low  Countries,  in  Germany,  in  Italy  and  in 
Spain.  It  glorified  the  reign  of  Anne,  in  English 
history,  by  the  shining  victories  of  Blenheim, 
Ramilies,  Oudeuarde  and  Malplaquet,  and  by 
the  capture  of  Gibraltar,  the  padlock  of  the 
Mediterranean.  The  misery  to  which  France 
was  reduced  in  the  later  years  of  the  war  was 
probably  the  greatest  that  the  much  suffering 
nation  ever  knew. 


The  Peace  of  Utrecht. 

Louis  sought  peace,  and  was  willing  to  go  far 
in  surrenders  to  obtain  it.  But  the  allies  pressed 
him  too  hard  in  their  demands.  They  would  have 
him  not  only  abandon  the  Bourbon  dynasty  that 
he  had  set  up  in  Spain,  but  join  them  in  over- 
throwing it.  He  refused  to  negotiate  on  such 
terms,  and  Fortune  approved  his  resolution,  by 
giving  decisive  victories  to  his  arms  in  Spain, 
while  dealing  out  disaster  and  defeat  in  every 
other  field.  England  grew  weary  of  the  war 
when  it  came  to  appear  endless,  and  Marlborough 
and  the  Whigs,  who  had  carried  it  on,  were 
ousted  from  power.  The  Tories,  under  Harley 
and  Bolingbroke,  came  into  office  and  negotiated 
tlie  famous  Peace  of  Utrecht  (1713),  to  which  all 
the  belligerents  in  the  war,  save  tlie  Emperor, 
consented.  The  Emperor  yielded  to  a  supple- 
mentary treaty,  signed  at  Rastadt  the  next  year. 
These  treaties  left  the  Bourbon  King  of  Spain, 
Philip  v.,  on  his  throne,  but  bound  him,  by  fresh 
renunciations,  not  to  be  likewise  King  of  France. 
The}'  gave  to  England  Gibraltar  and  Minorca,  at 
the  expense  of  Spain,  and  Nova  Scotia,  New- 
foundland and  Hudson's  Bay  at  the  expense  of 
France.  They  took  much  more  from  Spain. 
They  took  Sicily,  which  they  gave  to  the  Duke 
of  Savoy,  with  the  title  of  King;  they  took 
Naples,  Milan,  Mantua  and  Sardinia,  which  they 
gave  to  Austria,  or,  more  strictly  speaking,  to 
the  Emperor ;  and  they  took  the  Spanish  Nether- 
lands, which  they  gave  to  Austria  in  the  main, 
with  some  liarrier  towns  to  the  Dutch.  They 
took  from  France  her  conquests  on  the  right  bank 
of  the  Rhine ;  but  they  left  her  in  possession  of 
Alsace,  with  Strasburg  and  Landau.  The  great 
victim  of  the  war  was  Spain. 

France  at  the  death  of  Louis  XIV. 

Louis  XIV.  was  near  the  end  of  his  reign  when 
this  last  of  the  fearful  wars  which  he  caused 
was  brought  to  a  close.  He  died  in  Septem- 
ber, 1715,  leaving  a  kingdom  which  had  reasons  to 
curse  his  memory  in  every  particular  of  its  state. 
He  had  foiled  the  exertions  of  as  wise  a  minister, 
Jean  Colbert,  as  ever  strove  to  do  good  to  France. 
He  had  dried  the  sources  of  national  life  as  with 
a  searching  and  monstrous  sponge.  He  had  re- 
pressed everything  which  he  could  not  absorb  in 
his  flaunting  court,  in  his  destroying  armies, 
and  in  himself.  He  had  dealt  with  France  as 
with  a  dumb  beast  that  had  been  given  him  to 
bestride ;  to  display  himself  upon,  before  the  gaze 
of  an  envious  world ;  to  be  bridled,  and  spurred  at 
his  pleasure,  and  whipped ;  to  toil  for  him  and 
bear  burdens  as  he  willed;  to  tread  upon  his 
enemies  and  trample  his  neighbors'  fields.  It  was 
he,  more  than  all  others  before  or  after,  who 
made  France  that  dumb  creature  which  suffered 
and  was  still  for  a  little  longer  time,  and  then 
began  thinking  and  went  mad. 

Charles  XII.  of  Sweden. 

While  the  Powers  of  western  Europe  were 
wrestling  in  the  great  war  of  the  Spanish  Succes- 
sion, the  nations  of  the  North  and  East  were 
tearing  each  other,  at  the  same  time,  with  equal 
stubbornness  and  ferocity.  The  beginning  of 
their  conflict  was  a  wanton  attack  from  Russia. 
Poland  and  Denmark,  on  the  possessions  of 
Sweden.  Sweden,  in  the  past  century,  had  made 
extensive  conquests,  and  her  territories,  outside 


1111 


EUROPE. 


Charles  XII.  of 

Sweden. 


EUROPE. 


of  the  Scandinavian  peninsula,  were  thrust  pro- 
vokingly  into  the  sides  of  all  these  three  neighbors. 
There  had  been  three  Charleses  on  the  Swedish 
throne  in  succession,  following  Christina,  the 
daughter  of  Gustavus  Adolphus.  Queen  Chris- 
tina, an  eccentric  character,  had  abdicated  in 
1654,  in  order  to  join  the  Catholic  Church,  and 
had  been  succeeded  by  her  cousin,  Charles  X. 
The  six  years  reign  of  this  Charles  was  one  of 
constant  war  with  the  Danes  and  the  Poles,  and 
almost  uniformly  he  was  the  aggressor.  His 
son  and  successor,  Charles  XI.,  suffered  the  great 
defeat  at  Fehrbellin  which  gave  prestige  to 
Brandenburg ;  but  he  was  shielded  by  the  puis- 
sant arm  of  Louis  XIV.,  his  ally,  and  lost  no 
territory.  More  successful  in  his  domestic  policy 
than  in  his  wars,  he,  both  practically  and  for- 
mally, established  absolutism  in  the  monarchy. 
Inheriting  from  his  father  that  absolute  power, 
while  inheriting  at  the  same  time  the  ruthless 
ambition  of  his  grandfather,  Charles  XII.  came 
to  the  throne  in  1697. 

In  the  first  two  years  of  his  reign,  this  extraor- 
dinary young  autocrat  showed  so  little  of  his 
character  that  his  royal  neighbors  thought  him  a 
weakling,  and  Peter  the  Great,  of  Russia,  con- 
spired with  Augustus  of  Poland  and  Frederick 
IV.  of  Denmark  to  strip  him  of  those  parts  of  his 
dominion  which  they  severally  coveted.  The 
result  was  like  the  rousing  of  a  lion  by  hunters 
who  went  forth  to  pursue  a  hare.  The  young 
Swede,  dropping,  instantly  and  forever,  all 
frivolities,  sprang  at  his  assailants  before  they 
dreamed  of  finding  him  awake,  and  the  game 
was  suddenly  reversed.  The  hunters  became  the 
hunted,  and  they  had  no  rest  for  nine  years  from 
the  implacable  pursuit  of  them  which  Charles 
kept  up.  He  defeated  the  Danes  and  the  Rus- 
sians in  the  first  year  of  the  war  (1700).  In  1703 
he  invaded  Poland  and  occupied  Warsaw ;  in 
1704  he  forced  the  deposition  of  the  Saxon  King 
of  Poland,  Augustus,  and  the  election  of  Stanis- 
laus Leczinski.  Not  yet  satisfied,  he  followed 
Augustus  into  his  electorate  of  Saxony,  and  com- 
pelled him  there  to  renounce  the  Polish  crown 
and  the  Russian  alliance.  In  1708  he  invaded 
Russia,  marching  on  Moscow,  but  turning  aside 
to  meet  an  expected  ally,  Mazeppa  the  Cossack. 
It  was  the  mistake  which  Napoleon  repeated  a 
century  later.  The  Swedes  exhausted  themselves 
in  the  march,  and  the  Russians  bided  their  time. 
Peter  the  Czar  had  devoted  eight  years,  since 
Charles  defeated  him  at  Narva,  to  making  sol- 
diers, well-trained,  out  of  the  mob  which  that 
fight  scattered.  When  Charles  had  worn  his 
army  down  to  a  slender  and  disheartened  force, 
Peter  struck  and  destroyed  it  at  Pulto wa.  Charles 
escaped  from  the  wreck  and  took  refuge,  with 
a  few  hundreds  of  his  guards,  in  the  Turkish 
province  of  Bessarabia,  at  Bender.  In  that 
shelter,  which  the  Ottomans  hospitably  accorded 
to  him,  he  remained  for  five  j'ears,  intriguing  to 
bring  the  Porte  into  war  with  his  Muscovite 
enemy,  while  all  the  fruits  of  his  nine  years  of  con- 
quest in  the  North  were  stripped  from  him  by 
the  old  league  revived.  Augustus  returned  to 
Poland  and  recovered  his  crown.  Peter  took 
possession  of  Livonia,  Ingria,  and  a  great  part 
of  Finland.  Frederick  IV. ,  of  Denmark,  attacked 
Sweden  itself.  The  kingless  kingdom  made  a 
valiant  defense  against  the  crowd  of  eager  ene- 
mies ;  but  Charles  had  used  the  best  of  its  ener- 
gies and  its  resources,  and  it  was  not  strong. 


Near  the  end  of  1710,  Charles  succeeded  in  push- 
ing the  Sultan  into  war  with  the  Czar,  and  the  lat- 
ter, advancing  Into  Moldavia,  rashly  placed  him- 
self in  a  position  of  great  peril,  where  the  Turks 
had  him  really  at  their  mercy.  But  Catherine,  the 
Czarina,  who  was  present,  found  means  to  bribe 
the  Turkish  vizier  in  command,  and  Peter  escaped 
with  no  loss  more  serious  than  the  surrender  of 
Azov.  That  ended  the  war,  and  the  hopes  of 
the  Swedish  king.  But  still  the  stubborn  Charles 
wearied  the  Porte  with  his  importunities,  until 
he  was  commanded  to  quit  the  country.  Even 
then  he  refused  to  depart,  —  resisted  when  force 
was  used  to  expel  him,  and  did  not  take  his  leave 
until  late  in  November,  1714,  when  he  received 
intelligence  that  his  subjects  were  preparing  to 
appoint  his  sister  regent  of  the  kingdom  and  to 
make  peace  with  the  Czar.  That  news  hun-ied 
him  homeward ;  but  only  for  continued  war.  He 
was  about  to  make  terms  with  Russia,  and  to 
secure  her  alliance  against  Denmark,  Poland  and 
Hanover,  when  he  was  killed  during  an  invasion 
of  Norway,  in  the  siege  of  Friedrickshall  (Decem- 
ber, 1718).  The  crown  of  Sweden  was  then  con- 
ferred upon  his  sister,  but  shorn  of  absolute 
powers,  and  practically  dependent  upon  the 
nobles.  All  the  wars  in  which  Charles  XII.  had 
involved  his  kingdom  were  brought  to  an  end 
by  great  sacrifices,  and  Russia  rose  to  the  place 
of  Sweden  as  the  chief  power  in  the  North.  The 
Swedes  paid  heavily  for  the  career  of  their 
"  Northern  Alexander." 

Alliance  against  Spain. 

Before  the  belligerents  in  the  North  had  quieted 
themselves,  those  of  the  West  were  again  in  arms. 
Spain  had  fallen  under  the  influence  of  two  eager 
and  restless  ambitions,  that  of  the  queen,  Eliza- 
beth of  Parma,  and  an  Italian  minister.  Cardinal 
Alberoni ;  and  the  schemes  into  which  these  two 
drew  the  Bourbon  king,  Philip  V.,  soon  ruptured 
the  close  relations  with  France  which  Louis  XIV. 
had  ruined  his  kingdom  to  bring  about.  To 
check  them,  a  triple  alliance  was  formed  (1717) 
between  France,  England  and  Holland,  —  en- 
larged the  next  year  to  a  quadruple  alliance  by 
the  adhesion  of  Austria.  At  the  outset  of  the 
war,  Spain  made  a  conquest  of  Sardinia,  and 
almost  accomplished  the  same  in  Sicily;  but  the 
English  crushed  her  navy  and  her  rising  com- 
merce, while  the  French  crossed  the  Pyrenees 
with  an  army  which  the  Spaniards  could  not 
resist.  A  vast  combination  which  Alberoni  was 
weaving,  and  which  took  in  Charles  XII.,  Peter 
the  Great,  the  Stuart  pretender,  the  English 
Jacobites,  and  the  opponents  of  the  regency  in 
France,  fell  to  pieces  when  the  Swedish  king  fell. 
Alberoni  was  driven  from  Spain  and  all  his  plans 
were  given  up.  The  Spanish  king  withdrew 
from  Sicily  and  surrendered  Sardinia.  The  Em- 
peror and  the  Duke  of  Savoy  exchanged  islands, 
as  stated  before,  and  the  former  (holding  Naples 
already)  revived  the  old  Kingdom  of  the  Two 
Sicilies,  while  the  latter  became  King  of  Sardinia. 

War  of  the  Polish  Succession. 

These  disturbances  ended,  there  were  a  few 
years  of  rest  in  Europe,  and  then  another  war, 
of  the  character  peculiar  to  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, broke  out.  It  had  its  cause  in  the  Polish 
election  of  a  king  to  succeed  Augustus  II.  As 
usual,  the  neighboring  nations  formed  a  betting 
ring  of  onlookers,  so  to  speak,  and  "backed" 


1112 


EUROPE. 


War  of  the 
Austrian  Succession. 


EUROPE. 


their  several  candidates  heavily.  The  deposed 
and  exiled  king,  Stanislaus  Leczinski,  who  re- 
ceived his  crown  from  Charles  XII.  and  lost  it 
after  Pultowa,  was  the  French  candidate;  for  he 
had  married  his  daughter  to  Louis  XV.  Fred- 
erick Augustus  of  Saxony,  son  of  the  late  King 
Augustus,  was  the  Russian  and  Austrian  candi- 
date. The  contest  resulted  in  a  double  election 
(1733),  and  out  of  that  came  war.  Spain  and 
Sardinia  .joined  France,  and  the  Emperor  had  no 
allies.  Hence  the  House  of  Austria  suffered 
greatly  in  the  war,  losing  the  Two  Sicilies,  which 
went  to  Spain,  and  were  conferred  on  a  younger 
son  of  the  king,  creating  a  third  Bourbon  mon- 
archy. Part  of  the  duchy  of  Milan  was  also 
yielded  by  Austria  to  the  King  of  Sardinia ;  and 
the  Duke  of  Lorraine,  husband  of  the  Emperor's 
daughter,  Maria  Theresa,  gave  up  his  duchy  to 
Stanislaus,  who  renounced  therefor  his  claim  on 
the  crown  of  Poland.  The  Duke  of  Lorraine 
received  as  compensation  a  right  of  succession  to 
the  grand  duchy  of  Tuscany,  where  the  Medi- 
ceau  House  was  about  to  expire.  These  were 
the  principal  consequences,  humiliating  to  Aus- 
tria, of  what  is  known  as  the  First  Family  Com- 
pact of  the  French  and  Spanish  Bourbons. 

War  of  Jenkins'  Ear. 

This  alliance  between  the  two  courts  gave  en- 
couragement to  hostile  demonstrations  In  the 
Spanish  colonies  against  English  traders,  who 
were  accused  of  extensive  smuggling,  and  the 
outcome  was  a  petty  war  (1739),  called  "the  War 
of  Jenkins'  Ear." 

War  of  the  Austrian  Succession. 

Before  these  hostilities  were  ended,  another 
"war  of  succession,"  more  serious  than  any  be- 
fore it,  was  wickedly  brought  upon  Europe. 
The  Emperor,  Charles  VI.,  died  in  1740,  leaving 
no  son,  but  transmitting  his  hereditary  domin- 
ions to  his  eldest  daughter,  the  celebrated  Maria 
Theresa,  married  to  the  ex-Duke  of  Lorraine. 
Years  before  his  death  he  had  sought  to  provide 
against  any  possible  disputing  of  the  succession, 
by  an  Instrument  known  as  the  Pragmatic  Sanc- 
tion, to  which  he  obtained,  first,  the  assent  of 
the  estates  of  all  the  provinces  and  kingdoms  of 
the  Austrian  realm,  and,  secondly,  the  guaranty 
by  solemn  treaty  of  almost  every  European 
Power.  He  died  in  the  belief  that  he  had  estab- 
lished his  daughter  securely,  and  left  her  to  the 
enjoyment  of  a  peaceful  reign.  It  was  a  pitiful 
Illusion.  He  was  scarcely  in  his  grave  before 
half  the  guarantors  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction 
were  putting  forward  claims  to  this  part  and 
that  part  of  the  Austrian  territories.  The  Elec- 
tor of  Bavaria,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  (in  his 
wife's  name)  and  the  King  of  Spain,  claimed  the 
whole  succession;  the  two  first  mentioned  on 
grounds  of  collateral  lineage,  the  latter  (a  Bour- 
bon cuckoo  in  the  Spanish-Hapsburg  nest)  as 
being  the  heir  of  the  Hapsburgs  of  Spain. 

While  these  larger  pretensions  were  still  jos- 
tling each  other  in  the  diplomatic  stage,  a  minor 
claimant,  who  said  little  but  acted  powerfully, 
sent  his  demands  to  the  Court  of  Vienna  with  an 
army  following  close  at  their  heels.  Tliis  was 
Frederick  II.  of  Prussia,  presently  known  as 
Frederick  the  Great,  who  resuscitated  an  obso- 
lete claim  on  Silesia  and  took  possession  of  the 
province  (1740-41)  without  waiting  for  debate.  If, 
nuywhere,   there  had  been  virtuous  hesitations 


before,  his  bold  stroke  ended  them.  France 
could  not  see  her  old  Austrian  rival  dismem- 
bered without  hastening  to  grasp  a  share.  She 
contracted  with  the  Spanisli  king  and  the  Elec- 
tor of  Bavaria  to  enforce  the  latter's  claims,  and  ta 
take  the  Austrian  Netherlands  in  prospect  for  com- 
pensation, while  Spain  should  find  indemnity  in 
the  Austro-Italian  states.  Frederick  of  Prussia, 
having  Silesia  in  hand,  offered  to  join  Maria 
Theresa  in  the  defense  of  her  remaining  domin- 
ions ;  but  his  proposals  were  refused,  and  he  en- 
tered the  league  against  her.  Saxony  did  the 
same.  England  and  Sardinia  were  alone  in  be- 
friending Austria,  and  England  was  only  strong 
at  sea.  Maria  Theresa  found  her  heartiest  sup- 
port in  Hungary,  where  she  made  a  personal 
a])peal  to  her  subjects,  and  enlarged  their  con- 
stitutional privileges.  In  1743  the  Elector  of 
Bavaria  was  elected  Emperor,  as  Charles  VII. 
In  the  same  year,  JIaria  Theresa,  acting  under 
pressure  from  England,  gave  up  the  greater 
part  of  Silesia  to  Frederick,  by  treaty,  as  a  price 
paid,  not  for  the  help  he  had  offered  at  first,  but 
barely  for  his  neutrality.  He  abandoned  his 
allies  and  withdrew  from  the  war.  His  retire- 
ment produced  an  immense  difference  in  the  con- 
ditions of  the  contest.  Saxony  made  peace  at 
the  same  time,  and  became  an  active  ally  on  the 
Austrian  side.  So  rapidly  did  the  latter  then 
recover  their  ground  and  the  French  slip  back 
that  Frederick,  after  two  years  of  neutrality, 
became  alarmed,  and  found  a  pretext  to  take  up 
arms  again.  The  scale  was  now  tipped  to  the 
side  on  which  he  threw  himself,  but  not  immedi- 
ately; and  when,  in  1745,  the  Emperor,  Charles 
VII.,  died  suddenly,  Maria  Theresa  was  able  to 
secure  the  election  of  her  husband,  Francis  of 
Lorraine  (or  Tuscany),  which  founded  the  Haps- 
burg-Lorraine  dynasty  on  the  imperial  throne. 
This  was  in  September.  In  the  following  De- 
cember Frederick  was  in  Dresden,  and  Saxony  — 
the  one  effective  ally  left  to  the  Austrians,  since 
England  had  withdrawn  from  the  war  in  the 
previous  August  —  was  at  his  feet.  Maria  The- 
resa, having  the  Spaniards  and  the  French  still  to 
fight  in  Italy  and  the  Netherlands,  could  do  noth- 
ing but  make  terms  with  the  terrible  Prussian 
king.  The  treaty,  signed  at  Dresden  on  Christ- 
mas Day,  1745,  repeated  the  cession  of  Silesia  to 
Frederick,  with  Gtlatz,  and  restored  Saxony  to 
the  humbled  Elector. 

Treaty  of  Aix-la-Chapelle. 

France  and  Spain,  deserted  the  second  time  by 
their  faithless  Prussian  ally,  continued  the  war 
until  1748,  when  the  influence  of  England  and 
Holland  brought  about  a  treaty  of  peace  signed 
at  Aix-la-Chapelle.  France  gained  nothing  from 
the  war,  but  had  suffered  a  loss  of  prestige,  dis- 
tinctly. Austria,  besides  giving  up  Silesia  to 
Frederick  of  Prussia,  was  required  to  surrender 
a  bit  of  Lombardy  to  the  King  of  Sardinia,  and 
to  make  over  Parma,  Piacenza  and  Guastalla  to 
Don  Philip  of  Spain,  for  a  hereditary  principal- 
ity. Under  the  circumstances,  the  result  to 
Maria  Theresa  was  a  notable  triumph,  and  she 
shared  with  her  enemy,  Frederick,  the  fruitage 
of  fame  harvested  in  the  war.  But  antagonism 
between  these  two,  and  between  the  interests  and 
ambitions  which  they  respectively  represented  — 
dynastic  on  one  side  and  national  on  the  other  — 
was  henceforth  settled  and  irreconcilable,  and 
could  leave  in  Germany  no  durable  peace. 


1113 


EUROPE. 


The  Seven  Years 
War. 


EUROPE. 


Colonial  conflicts  of  France  and  England. 

The  peace  was  broken,  not  for  Germany  alone, 
but  for  Europe  and  for  almost  the  world  at  large, 
in  six  3'ears  after  the  signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Aix- 
la-Chapelle.  The  rupture  occurred  first  very  far 
from  Europe — on  the  other  sides  of  the  globe,  in 
America  and  Hindostan,  where  England  and 
France  were  eager  rivals  in  colonial  conquest. 
In  America,  they  had  quarreled  since  the  Treaty 
of  Utrecht  over  the  boundaries  of  Acadia,  or 
Nova  Scotia,  which  that  treaty  transferred  to 
England.  Latterly,  they  had  come  to  a  more 
serious  collision  in  the  interior  of  the  continent. 
The  English,  rooting  their  possession  of  the  At- 
lantic seaboard  by  strong  and  stable  settlements, 
had  been  tardy  explorers  and  slow  in  passing  the 
Alleganies  to  the  region  inland.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  French,  nimble  and  enterprising  in  ex- 
ploration, and  in  military  occupation,  but  super- 
ficial and  artificial  in  colonizing,  had  pushed  their 
way  by  a  long  circuit  from  Canada,  through  the 
great  lakes  to  the  head  waters  of  the  Ohio,  and 
were  fortifying  a  line  in  the  rear  of  the  British 
colonies,  from  the  valley  of  the  St.  Lawrence  to 
the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  before  the  English 
were  well  aware  of  their  intent.  Then  the  colo- 
nists, Virginians  and  Pennsylvanians,  took  arms, 
and  the  career  of  George  Washington  was  begun  as 
leader  of  an  expedition  in  1754  to  drive  the  French 
from  the  Ohio.  It  was  not  successful,  and  a 
strong  force  of  regular  troops  was  sent  overnest 
year  by  the  British  government,  under  Braddock, 
to  repeat  the  attempt.  A  frightful  catastrophe, 
worse  than  failure,  came  of  this  second  undertak- 
ing, and  open  war  between  France  and  England, 
which  had  not  yet  been  declared,  followed  soon. 
This  colonial  conflict  of  England  and  France 
fired  the  train,  so  to  speak,  which  caused  a  great 
explosion  of  suppressed  hostilities  in  Europe. 

The  House  of  Hanover  in  England. 

If  the  English  crown  had  not  been  worn  by  a 
German  king,  having  a  German  principality  to 
defend,  the  French  and  English  might  have 
fought  out  their  quarrel  on  the  ocean,  and  in  the 
wilderness  of  America,  or  on  the  plains  of  the 
Camatic,  without  disturbing  their  continental 
neighbors.  But  England  was  now  under  a  new, 
foreign-bred  line  of  sovereigns,  descended  from 
that  daughter  of  James  I.,  the  princess  Elizabeth, 
who  married  the  unfortunate  Elector  Palatine 
and  was  queen  of  Bohemia  for  a  brief  winter 
term.  After  William  of  Orange  died,  his  wife, 
Queen  Mary,  having  preceded  him  to  the  grave, 
and  no  children  having  been  born  to  them,  Anne, 
the  sister  of  Mary,  had  been  called  to  the  throne. 
It  was  in  her  reign  that  the  brilliant  victories  of 
Marlborough  were  won,  and  in  her  reign  that  the 
Union  of  Scotland  with  England,  under  one  par- 
liament as  well  as  one  sovereign,  was  brought 
about.  On  Anne's  death  (1714),  her  brother,  the 
son  of  James  II.,  called  "the  Pretender,"  was 
still  excluded  from  the  throne,  because  of  his 
religion,  and  the  next  heir  was  sought  and  sum- 
moned, in  the  person  of  the  Elector  George,  of 
Hanover,  whose  remote  ancestress  was  Elizabeth 
Stuart.  George  I.  had  reigned  thirteen  years, 
and  his  son,  George  II.,  had  been  twenty-seven 
years  on  the  throne,  when  these  quarrels  with 
France  arose.  Throughout  the  two  reigns,  until 
1742,  the  English  nation  had  been  kept  mostly 
at  peace,  by  the  potent  influence  of  a  great  min- 


ister, Sir  Robert  Walpole,  and  had  made  a  splen- 
did advance  in  material  prosperity  and  strength; 
while  the  system  of  ministerial  government, 
responsible  to  Parliament  and  independent  of  the 
Crown,  which  has  been  in  later  times  the  peculiar 
feature  of  the  British  constitution,  was  taking 
shape.  In  1742,  Walpole  fell  from  power,  and 
the  era  of  peace  for  England  was  ended.  But 
her  new  dynasty  had  been  firmly  settled,  and  po- 
litically, industrially,  and  commercially,  the  na- 
tion was  so  sound  in  its  condition  as  to  be  well 
prepared  for  the  series  of  wars  into  which  it 
plunged.  In  the  War  of  the  Austrian  Succession 
England  had  taken  a  limited  part,  and  with  small 
results  to  herself.  She  was  now  about  to  enter, 
under  the  lead  of  the  high-spirited  and  ambitious 
Pitt,  afterwards  Earl  of  Chatham,  the  greatest 
career  of  conquest  in  her  history. 

The  Seven  Years  War. 

As  before  said,  it  was  the  anxiety  of  George 
II.  for  his  electorate  of  Hanover  which  caused  an 
explosion  of  hostilities  in  Europe  to  occur,  as 
consequence  of  the  remote  fighting  of  French 
and  English  colonists  in  America.  For  the 
strengthening  of  Hanover  against  attacks  from 
France,  he  sought  an  alliance  with  Frederick  of 
Prussia.  This  broke  the  long-standing  anti- 
French  alliance  of  England  with  Austria,  and 
Austria  joined  fortunes  with  her  ancient  Bourbon 
enemy,  in  order  to  be  helped  to  the  revenge  which 
Maria  Theresa  now  promised  herself  the  pleas- 
ure of  executing  upon  the  Prussian  king.  As 
the  combination  finally  shaped  itself  on  the 
French  side,  it  embraced  France,  Austria,  Rus- 
sia, Sweden,  Poland,  Saxony,  and  the  Palatinate, 
and  its  inspiring  purpose  was  to  break  Prussia 
down  and  partition  her  territories,  rather  than  to 
support  France  against  England.  The  agree- 
ments to  this  end  were  made  in  secret;  but 
Frederick  obtained  knowledge  of  them,  and 
learned  that  papers  proving  the  conspiracy 
against  him  were  in  the  archives  of  the  Saxony 
government,  at  Dresden.  His  action  was  decided 
with  that  promptitude  which  so  often  discon- 
certed his  enemies.  He  did  not  wait  to  be  at- 
tacked by  the  tremendous  league  formed  against 
him,  nor  waste  time  in  efforts  to  dissolve  it,  but 
defiantly  struck  the  first  blow.  He  poured  his 
army  into  Saxony  (August,  1756),  seized  Dresden 
by  surprise,  captured  the  documents  he  desired, 
and  published  them  to  the  world  in  vindication 
of  his  summary  precipitation  of  war.  Then, 
blockading  the  Saxon  army  in  Pirna,  he  pressed 
rapidly  into  Bohemia,  defeated  the  Austriaus  at 
Lowositz,  and  returned  as  rapidly,  to  receive  the 
surrender  of  the  Saxons  and  to  enlist  most  of 
them  in  his  own  ranks.  This  was  the  European 
opening  of  the  Seven  Tears  War,  wliich  raged, 
first  and  last,  in  all  quarters  of  tlie  globe. 

In  the  second  year  of  the  war,  Frederick  gained 
an  important  victory  at  Prague  and  suffered  a 
serious  reverse  at  Kolin,  which  threw  most  of 
Silesia  into  the  hands  of  the  Austriaus.  Close 
following  that  defeat  came  crushing  news  from 
Hanover,  where  the  incompetent  Duke  of  Cum- 
berland, commanding  for  his  father,  the  English 
King  George,  had  allowed  the  French  to  force 
him  to  an  agreement  which  disbanded  his  army, 
and  left  Prussia  alone  in  the  terrific  fight. 
Frederick's  position  seemed  desperate;  but  his 
energy  retrieved  it.  He  fought  and  defeated  the 
French  at  Rossbach,  near  Liitzen,  on  the  5th  of 


1114 


r 


=.m£l;x^. 


EUROPE. 


Russia  and  the 
Czarinas. 


EUROPE. 


November,  and  the  Austrians.  at  Leuthen,  near 
Breslau,  exactly  one  month  later.  In  the  cam- 
paigns of  1758,  lie  encountered  the  Russians 
at  Zorndorf,  winning  a  bloody  triumph,  and  he 
sustained  a  defeat  at  Hochkirk,  in  battle  with  the 
Austrians.  But  England  had  repudiated  Cum- 
berland's convention  and  recalled  him ;  English 
and  Hanoverian  forces  were  again  put  into  the 
field,  under  the  capable  command  of  Prince 
Frederick  of  Brunswick,  who  turned  the  tide  in 
that  quarter  against  the  French,  and  the  results 
of  the  year  were  generally  favorable  to  Frederick. 
In  1759,  the  Hanoverian  army,  under  Prince 
Ferdinand,  improved  the  situation  on  that  side ; 
but  the  prospects  of  the  King  of  Prussia  were 
clouded  by  heavy  disasters.  Attempting  to  push 
a  victory  over  the  Russians  too  far,  at  Kuners- 
dorf,  he  was  terribly  beaten.  He  lost  Dresden, 
and  a  great  part  of  Saxony.  In  the  next  year  he 
recovered  all  but  Dresden,  which  he  wantonly 
and  inhumanly  bombarded.  The  war  was  now 
being  carried  on  with  great  difficulty  by  all  the 
combatants.  Prussia,  France  and  Austria  were 
suffering  almost  etjually  from  exhaustion;  the 
misery  among  their  people  was  too  great  to  be 
ignored ;  the  armies  of  each  had  dwindled.  The 
opponents  of  Pitt's  war  policy  In  England  over- 
came him,  in  October,  1761,  whereupon  he  re- 
signed, and  the  English  subsidy  to  Frederick  was 
withdrawn.  But  that  was  soon  made  up  to  him 
by  the  withdrawal  of  Russia  from  the  war,  at  the 
beginning  of  1762,  when  Peter  of  Holstein,  who 
admired  Frederick,  became  Czar.  Sweden  made 
peace  a  little  later.  The  remainder  of  the  worn 
and  wearied  fighters  went  on  striking  at  each 
other  until  near  the  end  of  the  year. 

Meantime,  on  the  colonial  and  East  Indian  side 
of  it,  this  prodigious  Seven  Years  "War,  as  a  great 
struggle  for  world-empire  between  England  and 
France,  had  been  adding  conquest  to  conquest 
and  triumph  to  triumph  for  the  former.  In  1759, 
"Wolfe  hacl  taken  Quebec  and  died  on  the  Heights 
of  Abraham  in  the  moment  of  victory.  Another 
twelve  months  saw  the  whole  of  Canada  clear  of 
Frenchmen  in  arms.  In  the  East,  to  use  the 
language  of  Macaulay,  "conquests  equalling  in 
rapidity  and  far  surpassing  in  magnitude  those 
of  Cortes  and  Pizarro,  had  been  achieved."  "In 
the  space  of  three  years  the  English  had  founded 
a  mighty  empire.  The  French  had  been  defeat- 
ed in  every  part  of  India.  Chandernagore  had 
yielded  toClive,  Pondicherry  to  Coote.  Through- 
out Bengal,  Bahar,  Orissa,  and  the  Carnatic,  the 
authority  of  the  East  India  Company  was  more 
absolute  than  that  of  Acbar  or  Aurungzebe  had 
ever  been." 

Treaties  of  Paris  and  Hubertsburg. 

In  February,  1763,  two  treaties  of  peace  were 
concluded,  one  at  Paris,  on  the  10th,  between 
England,  France  and  Spain  (the  latter  Power 
having  joined  France  in  the  war  as  late  as 
January,  1763) ;  the  other  at  Hubertsburg,  on  the 
15th,  between  Prussia  and  Austria.  France  gave 
up  to  England  all  her  possessions  in  North 
America,  except  Louisiana  (which  passed  to 
Spain),  and  yielded  Minorca,  but  recovered  the 
Philippines.  She  surrendered,  moreover,  consid- 
erable interests  in  the  "West  Indies  and  in  Africa. 
The  colonial  aspirations  of  the  French  were  cast 
down  by  a  blow  that  was  lasting  in  its  effect. 
As  between  Prussia  and  Austria,  the  triumphs  of 
the  peace  and  the  glories  of  the  war  were  won 


entirely  by  the  former.  Frederick  came  out  of 
it,  "  Frederick  the  Great, "  the  most  famous  man 
of  his  century,  as  warrior  and  as  statesman,  both. 
He  had  defended  his  little  kingdom  for  seven 
years  against  three  great  Powers,  and  yielded 
not  one  acre  of  its  territory.  He  had  raised 
Prussia  to  the  place  in  Germany  from  which  her 
subsequent  advance  became  easy  and  almost  in- 
evitable. But  the  great  fame  he  earned  is  spotted 
with  many  falsities  and  much  cynical  indiflierence 
to  the  commonest  ethics  of  civilization.  His 
greatness  is  of  that  character  which  requires  to 
be  looked  at  from  selected  standpoints. 

Russia. 

Another  character,  somewhat  resembling  that 
of  Frederick,  was  flow  drawing  attention  on  the 
eastern  side  of  Europe.  Since  the  death  of  Peter 
the  Great,  the  interval  in  Russian  history  had 
been  covered  by  six  reigns,  with  a  seventh  just 
opening,  and  the  four  sovereigns  who  really  ex- 
ercised power  were  women.  Peter's  widow, 
Catherine  I.,  had  succeeded  him  (1735)  for  two 
years.  His  son,  Alexis,  he  had  put  to  death; 
but  Alexis  left  a  son,  Peter,  to  whom  Catherine 
bequeathed  the  crown.  Peter  II.  died  after  a 
brief  reign,  in  1730;  and  the  nearest  heirs  were 
two  daughters  of  Peter  the  Great,  Anne  and 
Elizabeth.  But  they  were  set  aside  in  favor  of 
another  Anne  —  Anne  of  Courland  —  daughter  of 
Peter  the  Great's  brother.  Anne's  reign  of  ten 
years  was  under  the  influence  of  German  favorites 
and  ministers,  and  nearly  half  of  it  was  occupied 
with  a  Turkish  War,  in  cooperation  with  Austria. 
For  Austria  the  war  had  most  humiliating  re- 
sults, costing  her  Belgrade,  all  of  Servia,  part 
of  Bosnia  and  part  of  "Wallachia.  Russia  won 
back  Asov,  with  fortifications  forbidden,  and  that 
was  all.  Anne  willed  her  crown  to  an  infant 
nephew,  who  appears  in  the  Russian  annals  as 
Ivan  "VI. ;  but  two  regencies  were  overthrown 
by  palace  revolutions  within  little  more  than  a 
year,  and  the  second  one  carried  to  the  throne 
that  Princess  Elizabeth,  younger  daughter  of 
Peter  the  Great,  who  had  been  put  aside  eleven 
years  before.  Elizabeth,  a  woman  openly 
licentious  and  intemperate,  reigned  for  twenty- 
one  years,  during  the  whole  important  period 
of  the  "War  of  the  Austrian  Succession,  and  almost 
to  the  end  of  the  Seven  Years  "War.  She  was 
bitterly  hostile  to  Frederick  the  Great,  whose 
sharp  tongue  had  offended  her,  and  she  joined 
Maria  'Theresa  with  eagerness  in  the  great  effort 
of  revenge,  which  failed.  In  the  early  part  of 
her  reign,  war  with  Sweden  had  been  more  suc- 
cessful and  had  added  South  Finland  to  the 
Russian  territories.  It  is  claimed  for  her  domes- 
tic government  that  the  general  prosperity  of  the 
country  was  advanced. 

Catherine  II. 

On  the  death  of  Elizabeth,  near  the  end  of  the 
year  1761,  the  crown  passed  to  her  nephew,  Peter 
of  Holstein,  son  of  her  eldest  sister,  Anne,  who 
had  married  the  Duke  of  Holstein.  This  prince 
had  been  the  recognized  heir,  living  at  the 
Russian  court,  during  the  whole  of  Elizabeth's 
reign.  He  was  an  ignorant  boor,  and  he  had  be- 
come a  besotted  drunkard.  Since  1744  he  had 
been  married  to  a  young  German  princess,  of 
the  Anhalt  Zerbst  family,  who  took  the  bap- 
tismal name  of  Catherine  when  she  entered  the 
Greek  Church.  Catherine  possessed  a  superior 


1115 


EUROPE. 


Catherine  II.  and 
the  Partition  of  Poland. 


EUROPE. 


intellect  and  a  strong  character ;  but  the  vile  court 
into  which  she  came  as  a  young  girl,  bound  to  a 
disgusting  husband,  had  debauched  her  in  morals 
and  lowered  her  to  its  own  vileness.  She  gained 
so  great  an  ascendancy  that  the  court  was  sub- 
servient to  her,  from  the  time  that  her  incapable 
husband,  Peter  III.,  succeeded  to  the  throne.  He 
reigned  by  sufferance  for  a  year  and  a  half,  and 
then  (July,  1762)  he  was  easily  deposed  and  put 
to  death.  In  the  deposition,  Catlierine  was  the 
leading  actor.  Of  the  subsequent  murder,  some 
historians  are  disposed  to  acquit  her.  She  did 
not  scruple,  at  least,  to  accept  the  benefit  of  both 
deeds,  which  raised  her,  alone,  to  the  throne  of 
the  Czars. 

Partition  of  Poland. 

Peter  III. ,  in  his  short  reign,  had  made  one  im- 
portant change  in  Russian  policy,  by  withdraw- 
ing from  the  league  against  Frederick  of  Prussia, 
whom  he  greatly  admired.  Catherine  found  rea- 
sons, quite  aside  from  those  of  personal  admira- 
tion, for  cultivating  the  friendship  of  the  King 
of  Prussia,  and  a  close  understanding  with  that 
astute  monarch  was  one  of  the  earliest  objects  of 
her  endeavor.  She  had  determined  to  put  an  end 
to  the  independence  of  Poland.  As  she  first  en- 
tertained the  design,  there  was  probably  no 
thought  of  the  partitioning  afterwards  contrived. 
But  her  purpose  was  to  keep  the  Polish  kingdom 
in  disorder  and  weakness,  and  to  make  Russian 
influence  supreme  in  it,  with  views,  no  doubt, 
that  looked  ultimately  to  something  more.  On 
the  death  of  the  Saxon  king  of  Poland,  Augus- 
tus III.,  in  1763,  Catherine  put  forward  a  native 
candidate  for  the  vacant  throne,  in  the  person  of 
Stanislaus  Poniatowsky,  a  Russianized  Pole  and  a 
former  lover  of  herown.  The  King  of  Prussia  sup- 
ported her  candidate,  and  Poniatowsky  was  duly 
elected,  with  10,000  Russian  troops  in  Warsaw  to 
see  that  it  was  properly  done.  The  Poles  were 
submissive  to  the  invasion  of  their  political  in- 
dependence ;  but  when  Catherine,  who  sought  to 
create  a  Russian  party  in  Poland  by  protecting 
the  members  of  the  Greek  Church  and  the  Prot- 
estants, against  the  intolerance  of  the  Polish 
Catholics,  forced  a  concession  of  civil  equality 
to  the  former  (1768),  there  was  a  wide-spread 
Catholic  revolt.  In  the  fierce  war  which  followed, 
a  band  of  Poles  was  pursued  across  the  Turkish 
border,  and  a  Turkish  town  was  burned  by  the 
Russian  pursuers.  The  Sultan,  who  professed 
sympathy  with  the  Poles,  then  declared  war 
against  Russia.  The  Russo-Turkish  war,  in  turn, 
excited  Austria,  which  feared  Russian  conquests 
from  the  Turks,  and  another  wide  disturbance  of 
the  peace  of  Europe  seemed  threatening.  In  the 
midst  of  the  excitement  there  came  a  whispered 
suggestion,  to  the  ear  of  the  courts  of  Vienna  and 
St.  Petersburg,  that  they  severally  satisfy  their 
territorial  cravings  and  mutually  assuage  each 
other's  jealousy,  at  the  expense  of  the  crumbUng 
kingdom  of  Poland.  The  whisper  may  have 
come  from  Frederick  II.  of  Prussia,  or  it  may 
not.  There  are  two  opinions  on  the  point.  From 
whatever  source  it  came,  it  found  favorable  con- 
sideration at  Vienna  and  St.  Petersburg,  and  be- 
tween February  and  August,  1773,  the  details  of 
the  partition  were  worked  out. 

Poland  was  not  yet  extinguished.  The  kingdom 
ivas  only  shorn  of  some  160,000  square  miles  of 
territory,  more  than  half  of  which  went  to  Russia, 
a  third  to  Austria,  and  the  remainder,  less  than 


10,000  square  miles,  to  Prussia.  This  last  men- 
tioned annexation  %vas  the  old  district  of  West 
Prussia  which  the  Polish  king,  Casimir  IV.,  had 
wrested  from  the  Teutonic  Knights  in  146(5,  be- 
fore Brandenburg  had  aught  to  do  with  Prus- 
sian lands  or  name.  After  three  centuries, 
Frederick  reclaimed  it. 

The  diminished  kingdom  of  Poland  showed 
more  signs  of  a  true  national  life,  of  an  earnest 
national  feeling,  of  a  sobered  and  rational  patriot- 
ism, than  had  appeared  in  its  former  history. 
The  fatal  powers  monopolized  by  the  nobles,  the 
deadly  "  liberum  veto,"  the  corrupting  elective 
kingship,  were  looked  at  in  their  true  light,  and  in 
May,  1791,  a  new  constitution  was  adopted  which 
reformed  those  evils.  But  a  few  nobles  opposed 
the  reformation  and  appealed  to  Russia,  supply- 
ing a  pretext  to  Catherine  on  which  she  filled  Po- 
land with  her  troops.  It  was  in  vain  that  the 
patriot  Kosciusko  led  the  best  of  his  country- 
men in  a  brave  struggle  with  the  invader.  They 
were  overborne  (1793-1794) ;  the  unhappy  nation 
was  put  in  fetters,  while  Catherine  and  a  new 
King  of  Prussia,  Frederick  William  II.,  arranged 
the  terms  of  a  second  partition.  This  gave  to 
Prussia  an  additional  thousand  square  miles,  in- 
cluding the  important  towns  of  Danzig  and 
Thorn,  while  Russia  took  four  times  as  much. 
A  year  later,  the  small  remainder  of  Polish  ter- 
ritory was  dismembered  and  divided  between 
Russia,  Prussia  and  Austria,  and  thus  Poland  dis- 
appeared from  the  map  of  Europe  as  a  state. 

Russia  as  left  by  Catherine  11. 

Meantime,  in  her  conflicts  with  the  Turks, 
Catherine  was  extending  her  vast  empire  to  the 
Dneister  and  the  Caucasus,  and  opening  a  passage 
for  her  fleets  from  the  Black  Sea  to  the  Mediter- 
ranean. By  treaty  in  1774  she  placed  the  Tartars 
of  the  Crimea  in  independence  of  the  Turks,  and 
so  isolated  them  for  easy  conquest.  In  1783  the 
conquest  was  made  complete.  By  the  same 
treaty  she  secured  a  right  of  remonstrance  on  be- 
half of  the  Christian  subjects  of  the  Sultan,  in 
the  Danubian  principalities  and  in  the  Greek 
Church  at  Constantinople,  which  opened  many 
pretexts  for  future  interference  and  for  war  at 
Russian  convenience.  The  aggressions  of  the 
strong-willed  and  powerful  Czarina,  and  their 
dazzling  success,  filled  her  subjects  with  pride, 
and  effaced  all  remembrance  of  her  foreign  origin 
and  her  want  of  right  to  the  seat  which  she  filled. 
She  was  ambitious  to  improve  the  empire,  as  well 
as  to  expand  it;  for  her  liberal  mind  took  in  the 
large  ideas  of  that  speculative  age  and  was  much 
moved  by  them.  She  attempted  many  reforms ; 
but  most  things  that  she  tried  to  do  for  the  bet- 
tering of  civilization  and  the  lifting  of  the  people 
were  done  imperiously,  and  spoiled  by  the  auto- 
cratic method  of  the  doing.  In  her  later  years, 
her  inclination  towards  liberal  ideas  was  checked, 
and  the  French  Revolution  put  an  end  to  it. 

State  of  France  in  the  Eighteenth  Century. 

In  tracing  the  destruction  of  Poland  and  the 
aggrandizement  of  Russia,  we  have  passed  the 
date  of  that  great  catastrophe  in  France  which 
ended  the  old  modern  order  of  things,  and  intro- 
duced a  new  one,  not  for  France  only,  but  for 
Europe  at  large.  It  was  a  catastrophe  toward 
which  the  abused  French  people  had  been  slowly 
slipping  for  generations,  pushed  unrelentingly  to 
it  by  blind  rulers  and  a  besotted  aristocracy.     By 


1116 


EUROPE. 


State  of  France  before 
the  Revolution. 


EUROPE. 


nature  a  people  ardent  and  lively  in  temper,  hope- 
ful and  brave  in  spirit,  full  of  intelligence,  they  had 
been  held  down  in  dumb  repression :  silenced  in 
voice,  even  for  the  uttering  of  their  complaints; 
the  national  meeting  of  their  representative  States 
suppressed  for  nearly  two  centuries ;  taxes  wrung 
from  them  on  no  measure  save  the  will  of  a 
wanton-minded  and  ignorant  king ;  their  beliefs 
prescribed,  their  laws  ordained,  their  courts  of 
justice  commanded,  their  industries  directed, 
their  trade  hedged  round,  their  rights  and  per- 
missions in  all  particulars  meted  out  to  them  by 
the  same  blundering  and  irresponsible  autocracy. 
How  long  would  they  bear  it  ?  and  would  their 
deliverance  come  by  the  easing  of  their  yoke,  or 
by  the  breaking  of  it?  —  were  the  only  ques- 
tions. 

Their  state  was  probably  at  its  worst  in  the 
later  years  of  Louis  XIV.  That  seems  to  be  the 
conclusion  which  the  deepest  study  has  now 
reached,  and  the  picture  formerly  drawn  by 
historians,  of  a  society  continually  sinking  into 
lower  miseries,  is  mostly  put  aside.  The  worst 
state,  seemingly,  was  passed,  or  nearly  so,  when 
Louis  XIV.  died.  It  began  to  mend  under  his 
despicable  successor,  Louis  XV.  (1715-1774), — 
perhaps  even  during  the  regency  of  the  profligate 
Orleans  (1715-1733).  Why  it  mended,  no  his- 
torian has  clearly  explained.  The  cause  was  not 
in  better  government ;  for  the  government  grew 
worse.  It  did  not  come  from  any  rise  in  charac- 
ter of  the  privileged  classes ;  for  the  privileged 
classes  abused  their  privileges  with  increasing 
selfishness.  But  general  influences  were  at  work 
in  the  world  at  large,  stimulating  activities  of  all 
kinds, —  industrj-,  trade,  speculation,  combina- 
tion, invention,  experiment,  science,  philosophy, 
—  and  whatever  improvement  occurred  in  the 
material  condition  and  social  state  of  the  common 
people  of  France  may  find  its  explanation  in 
these.  There  was  an  augmentation  of  life  in  the 
air  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  France  took 
some  Invigoration  from  it,  despite  the  many 
maladies  in  its  social  system  and  the  oppressions 
of  government  under  which  it  bent. 

But  the  difference  between  the  France  of 
Louis  XIV.  and  the  France  of  Louis  XVI.  was 
more  in  the  people  than  in  their  state.  If  their 
misery  was  a  little  less,  their  patience  was  less, 
and  by  not  a  little.  The  stimulations  of  the  age, 
which  may  have  given  more  effectiveness  to  labor 
and  more  energy  to  trade,  had  likewise  set  think- 
ing astir,  on  the  same  practical  lines.  Men  whose 
minds  in  former  centuries  would  have  labored 
on  riddles  dialectical,  metaphysical  and  theo- 
logical, were  now  bent  on  the  pressing  problems 
of  daily  life.  The  mysteries  of  economic  science 
began  to  challenge  them.  Every  aspect  of  sur- 
rounding society  thrust  questions  upon  them, 
concerning  its  origin,  its  history,  its  inequalities, 
Its  laws  and  their  principles,  its  government  and 
the  source  of  authority  in  it.  The  so-called 
"philosophers"  of  the  age,  Rousseau,  Voltaire 
and  the  encyclopiEdists  —  were  not  the  only  ques- 
tioners of  the  social  world,  nor  did  the  question- 
ing all  come  from  what  they  taught.  It  was  the 
intellectual  epidemic  of  the  time,  carried  into  all 
countries,  penetrating  all  classes,  and  nowhere 
with  more  diffusion  ttian  in  France. 

After  the  successful  revolt  of  the  English  col- 
onies in  America,  and  the  conspicuous  blazoning 
of  the  doctrines  of  political  equality  and  popu- 
lar self-government  in  their  declaration  of  inde- 


pendence and  their  republican  constitution,  the 
ferment  of  social  free-thinking  in  France  was 
naturally  increased.  The  French  had  helped 
the  colonists,  fought  side  by  side  with  them, 
watched  their  struggle  with  intense  interest,  and 
all  the  issues  involved  in  the  American  revolu- 
tion were  discussed  among  them,  with  partiality 
to  the  republican  side.  Franklin,  most  republi- 
can representative  of  the  young  republic,  came 
among  them  and  captivated  every  class.  He 
recommended  to  them  the  ideas  for  which  he 
stood,  perhaps  more  than  we  suspect. 

Louis  XVI.  and  his  reign. 

And  thus,  by  many  influences,  the  French  peo- 
ple of  all  classes  except  the  privileged  nobility, 
and  even  in  that  class  to  some  small  extent,  were 
made  increasingly  impatient  of  their  misgovern- 
ment  and  of  the  wrongs  and  miseries  going  with 
it.  Louis  XVI.,  who  came  to  the  throne  in 
1774,  was  the  best  in  character  of  the  Bourbon 
kings.  He  had  no  noxious  vices  and  no  baleful 
ambitions.  If  he  had  found  right  conditions 
prevailing  in  his  kingdom  he  would  have  made 
the  best  of  them.  But  he  had  no  capacity  for  re- 
forming the  evils  that  he  inherited,  and  no 
strength  of  will  to  sustain  those  who  had.  He 
accepted  an  earnest  reforming  minister  with 
more  than  willingness,  and  approved  the  wise 
measures  of  economy,  of  equitable  taxation,  and 
of  emancipation  for  manufactures  and  trade, 
which  Turgot  proposed.  But  when  protected 
interests,  and  the  privileged  order  which  fat- 
tened on  existing  abuses,  raised  a  storm  of  oppo- 
sition, he  weakly  gave  way  to  it,  and  dismissed 
the  man  (1776)  wlio  might  possibly  have  made 
the  inevitable  revolution  a  peaceful  one.  Another 
minister,  the  Genevan  banker,  Necker,  who 
aimed  at  less  reform,  but  demanded  economy, 
suffered  the  same  overthrow  (1781).  The  waste, 
the  profligate  expenditure,  the  jobbery,  the 
leeching  of  the  treasury  by  high-born  pension- 
ers and  sinecure  office-holders,  went  on,  scarcely 
checked,  until  the  beginnings  of  actual  bank- 
ruptcy had  appeared. 

The  States-General. 

Then  a  cry,  not  much  heeded  before,  for  the 
convocation  of  the  States-general  of  the  king- 
dom— the  ancient  great  legislature  of  France, 
extinct  since  the  year  1614  —  became  loud  and 
general.  The  king  yielded  (1788).  The  States- 
general  was  called  to  meet  on  the  1st  of  May, 
1789,  and  the  royal  summons  decreed  that  the  dep- 
uties chosen  to  it  from  the  third  estate  —  the 
common  people  —  should  be  equal  in  number  to 
the  deputies  of  the  nobility  and  the  clergy  to- 
gether. So  the  dumb  lips  of  France  as  a  nation 
were  opened,  its  tongue  unloosed.  Its  common 
public  opiniou  and  public  feeling  made  articu- 
late, for  the  first  time  in  one  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-five years.  And  the  word  that  it  spoke 
was  the  mandate  of  Revolution. 

The  States-general  assembled  at  VersaUles  on 
the  5th  of  May,  and  a  conflict  between  the  third 
estate  and  the  nobles  occurred  at  once  on  the 
question  between  three  assemblies  and  one. 
Should  the  three  orders  deliberate  and  vote  to- 
gether as  one  body,  or  sit  and  act  separately  and 
apart.  The  commons  demanded  the  single  as- 
sembly. The  nobles  and  most  of  the  clergy  re- 
fused the  union,  in  which  their  votes  would  be 
overpowered. 


1117 


EUROPE. 


Beginn  ing  of  the 
Revolution. 


EUROPE. 


The  National  Assembly. 

After  some  weeks  of  dead-lock  on  this  funda- 
mental issue,  the  third  estate  brought  it  to 
a  summary  decision,  by  boldly  asserting  its 
own  supremacy,  as  representative  of  the  mass  of 
the  nation,  and  organizing  itself  in  the  character 
of  the  "  National  Assembly  "  of  France.  Under 
that  name  and  character  it  was  joined  by  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  humbler  clergy,  and  by 
some  of  the  nobles, — additional  to  a  few,  like 
Mirabeau,  who  sat  from  the  beginning  with  the 
third  estate,  as  elected  representatives  of  the 
people.  The  king  made  a  weak  attempt  to  annul 
this  assumption  of  legislative  sufficiency  on  the 
part  of  the  third  estate,  and  only  hurried  the  ex- 
posure of  his  own  powerlessness.  Persuaded 
by  his  worst  advisers  to  attempt  a  stronger  dem- 
onstration of  the  royal  authority,  he  filled  Paris 
with  troops,  and  inflamed  the  excitement,  which 
had  risen  already  to  a  jiassionate  heat. 

Outbreak  of  the  Revolution. 

Necker,  who  had  been  recalled  to  the  ministry 
when  the  meeting  of  the  States-general  was  de- 
cided upon,  now  received  his  second  dismissal 
(July  11),  and  the  news  of  it  acted  on  Paris  like 
a  signal  of  insurrection.  The  city  next  day  was 
in  tumult.  On  the  14th  the  Bastile  was  attacked 
and  taken.  The  king's  government  vanished 
utterly.  His  troops  fraternized  with  the  riotous 
people.  Citizens  of  Paris  organized  themselves 
as  a  National  Guard,  on  which  every  hope  of 
order  depended,  and  Lafayette  took  command. 
The  frightened  nobility  began  flight,  first  from 
Paris,  and  then  from  the  provinces,  as  mob  vio- 
lence spread  over  the  kingdom  from  the  capital. 
In  October  there  were  rumors  that  the  king  had 
planned  to  follow  the  "emigres"  and  take  refuge 
in  Metz.  Then  occurred  the  famous  rising  of  the 
women ;  their  procession  to  Versailles ;  the  crowd 
of  men  which  followed,  accompanied  but  not 
controlled  by  Lafayette  and  his  National  Guards ; 
the  conveyance  of  the  king  and  royal  family  to 
Paris,  where  they  remained  during  the  subse- 
quent year,  practically  in  captivity,  and  at  the 
mercy  of  the  Parisian  mob. 

Meanwhile,  the  National  Assembly,  negligent 
of  the  dangers  of  the  moment,  while  actual  an- 
archy prevailed,  busied  itself  with  debates  on 
constitutional  theory,  with  enactments  for  the 
abolition  of  titles  and  privileges,  and  with  the 
creating  of  an  inconvertible  paper  money,  based 
on  confiscated  church  lands,  to  supply  the  needs  of 
the  national  treasury.  Meantime,  too,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  and  their  supporters  outside 
of  it  were  breaking  into  parties  and  factions,  di- 
vided by  their  different  purposes,  principles  and 
aims,  and  forming  clubs, — centers  of  agitation  and 
discussion, — clubs  of  the  Jacobins,  the  Cordeliers, 
the  Feuillants  and  the  like, — where  fear,  distrust 
and  jealousy  were  soon  engendering  ferocious 
conflicts  among  the  revolutionists  themselves. 
And  outside  of  France,  on  the  border  where  the 
fugitive  nobles  lurked,  intrigue  was  always  ac- 
tive, striving  to  enlist  foreign  help  for  King  Louis 
against  his  subjects. 

The  First  Constitution. 

In  April,  1791,  Mirabeau,  whose  influence  had 
been  a  powerful  restraint  upon  the  Revolution, 
died.  In  June,  the  king  made  an  attempt  to 
escape  from  his  durance  in  Paris,  but  was  cap- 
tured at  Varennes  and  brought  back.     Angry  de- 


mands for  his  deposition  were  now  made,  and  a 
tumultuous  republican  demonstration  occurred, 
on  the  Champ  de  Mars,  which  Lafayette  and  the 
mayor  of  Paris,  Bailly,  dispersed,  with  bloodshed. 
But  republicanism  had  not  yet  got  its  footing. 
In  the  constitution,  which  the  Assembly  com- 
pleted at  this  time,  the  throne  was  left  undis- 
turbed. The  king  accepted  the  instrument,  and 
a  constitutional  monarchy  appeared  to  have 
quietly  taken  the  place  of  the  absolute  monarchy 
of  the  past. 

The  Girondists. 

It  was  an  appearance  not  long  delusive.  The 
Constituent  National  Assembly  being  dissolved, 
gave  way  to  a  Legislative  Assembly  (October, 
1791)  elected  under  the  new  constitution.  In  the 
Legislative  Assembly  the  republicans  appeared 
with  a  strength  which  soon  gave  them  control  of 
it.  They  were  divided  into  various  gi-oups ;  but 
the  most  eloquent  and  energetic  of  these,  coming 
from  Bordeaux  and  the  department  of  the  Gi- 
ronde,  fixed  the  name  of  Girondists  upon  the  party 
to  which  they  belonged.  The  king,  as  a  consti- 
tutional sovereign,  was  forced  presently  to  choose 
ministers  from  the  ranks  of  the  Girondists,  and 
they  controlled  the  government  for  several 
months  in  the  spring  of  1793.  The  earliest  use 
they  made  of  their  control  was  to  hurry  the  coun- 
try into  war  with  the  German  powers,  which  were 
accused  of  giving  encouragement  to  the  hostile 
plans  of  the  emigres  on  the  border.  It  is  now  a 
well-determined  fact  that  the  Emperor  Leopold 
was  strongly  opposed  to  war  with  France,  and 
used  all  his  influence  for  the  preservation  of 
peace.  It  was  revolutionary  France  which 
opened  the  conflict,  and  it  was  the  Girondists  who 
led  and  shaped  the  policy  of  wi^r. 

Overthrowr  of  the  Monarchy. 

In  the  first  encounters  of  the  war,  the  undisci- 
plined French  troops  were  beaten,  and  Paris  was 
in  panic.  Measures  were  adopted  which  tlie  king 
refused  to  sanction,  and  he  dismissed  his  Giron- 
dist ministers.  Lafayette,  who  was  commanding 
one  division  of  the  army  in  the  field,  approved  the 
king's  course,  and  wrote  an  unwise  letter  to  the 
Assembly,  intimating  that  the  army  would  not 
submit  to  a  violation  of  the  constitution.  The 
republicans  were  enraged.  Everything  seemed 
proof  to  them  of  a  treasonable  connivance  with 
the  enemies  of  France,  to  bring  about  the  sub- 
jugation of  the  country,  and  a  forcible  restora- 
tion of  the  old  regime,  absolutism,  aristocratic 
privilege  and  all.  On  the  20th  of  June  there  was 
another  rising  of  the  Paris  mob,  unchecked  by 
those  who  could,  as  yet,  have  controlled  it.  The 
rioters  broke  into  the  Tuilcries  and  humiliated 
the  king  and  queen  with  insults,  but  did  no  vio- 
lence. Lafayette  came  to  Paris  and  attempted 
to  reorganize  his  old  National  Guard,  for  the  de- 
fense of  the  constitution  and  the  preservation  of 
order,  but  failed.  The  extremists  then  resolved 
to  throw  down  the  toppling  monarchy  at  once, 
by  a  sudden  blow.  In  the  early  morning  of 
August  10,  they  expelled  the  Council-General  of 
the  Municipality  of  Paris  from  the  Hotel  de  Ville, 
and  placed  the  government  of  the  city  under  the 
control  of  a  provisional  Commune,  with  Dantou 
at  its  head.  At  the  same  hour,  the  mob  which 
these  conspirators  held  in  readiness,  and  which 
they  directed,  attacked  the  Tuileries  and  mas- 
sacred the  Swiss  guard,  while  the  king  and  the 


1118 


EUROPE. 


The  Reign  of 
Ten'or. 


EUROPE. 


royal  family  escaped  for  refuge  to  the  Chamber 
of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  near  at  hand.  There, 
in  the  king's  presence,  on  a  formal  demand  made 
bj"  the  new  self -constituted  j\Iunicipality  or  Com- 
mune of  Paris,  the  Assembly  declared  his  suspen- 
sion from  executive  functions,  and  invited  the 
people  to  elect  -without  delay  a  National  Conven- 
tion for  the  revising  of  the  Constitution.  Com- 
missioners, hastily  sent  out  to  the  provinces  and 
the  armies  in  the  field,  were  received  everywhere 
with  submission  to  the  change  of  government, 
except  by  Lafayette  and  his  army,  in  and  around 
Sedan.  The  Marquis  placed  them  under  arrest 
and  took  from  his  soldiers  a  new  oath  of  fidelity 
to  the  constitution  and  the  king.  But  lie  found 
himself  unsupported,  and,  yielding  to  the  sweep 
of  events,  he  obeyed  a  dismissal  by  the  new  gov- 
ernment from  his  command,  and  left  France,  to 
wait  in  exile  for  a  time  when  he  might  serve  his 
country  with  a  conscience  more  assured. 

The  Paris  Commune. 

Pending  the  meeting  of  the  Convention,  the 
Paris  Commune,  increased  in  number  to  two  hun- 
dred and  eighty-eiglit,  and  dominated  by  Danton 
and  Robespierre,  became  the  governing  power  in 
France.  The  Legislative  Assembly  was  subservi- 
ent to  it ;  the  kingless  Ministry,  which  had  Dan- 
ton  in  association  with  the  restored  Girondists, 
was  no  less  so.  It  was  the  fierce  vigor  of  the 
Commune  which  caused  the  king  and  the  royal 
family  to  be  imprisoned  in  the  Temple  ;  which 
instituted  a  special  tribunal  for  the  summary 
trial  of  political  prisoners ;  whicli  searched  Paris 
for  "suspects,"  on  the  night  of  August  29-30, 
gathered  three  thousand  men  and  women  into  the 
prisons  and  convents  of  the  city,  planned  and 
ordered  the  "September  Massacres"  of  the  fol- 
lowing week,  and  thus  thinned  the  whole  number 
of  these  "  suspects"  by  a  half. 

Fall  of  the  Girondists. 

On  the  22d  of  September  the  National  Con- 
vention assembled.  The  Jacobins  who  con- 
trolled the  Commune  Tvere  found  to  have  carried 
Paris  overwhelmingly  and  all  France  largely 
with  them,  in  the  election  of  representatives.  A 
furious,  fanatical  democracy,  a  bloodthirsty  an- 
archism, was  in  the  ascendant.  The  republican 
Girondists  were  now  the  conservative  party  in 
the  Convention.  They  struggled  to  hold  their 
ground,  and  very  soon  they  were  struggling  for 
their  lives.  The  Jacobin  fury  was  tolerant  of 
no  opposition.  What  stood  in  its  path,  with  no 
deadlier  weapon  than  an  argument  or  an  appeal, 
must  be,  not  merely  overcome,  but  destroyed. 
The  Girondists  would  have  saved  the  king  from 
the  guillotine,  but  they  dared  not  adopt  his  de- 
fense, and  their  own  fate  was  sealed  when  they 
gave  votes,  under  fear,  which  sent  him  in  Janu- 
ary to  his  death.  Five  months  longer  they  con- 
tended irresolutely,  as  a  failing  faction,  with 
their  terrible  adversaries,  and  then,  in  June,  1793, 
they  were  proscribed  and  their  arrest  decreed. 
Some  escaped  and  raised  futile  insurrections  in 
the  provinces.  Some  stayed  and  faced  the  death 
which  awaited  them  in  the  fast  approaching 
"reign  of  terror." 

"The  Mountain"  and  "  the  Terror." 

The  fall  of  the  Girondists  left  the  Jacobin 
"Mountain"  (so-called  from  the  elevation  of  the 
seats  on  which  its  deputies  sat  in  the  Conven- 


tion) unopposed.  Their  power  was  not  only 
absolute  in  fact,  but  unquestioned,  and  they  in- 
evitably ran  to  riot  in  the  exercise  of  it.  The 
same  madness  overcame  them  in  the  mass  which 
overcame  Nero,  Caligula,  Caracalla,  as  individ- 
uals ;  for  it  is  no  more  strange  that  the  unnat- 
ural and  awful  feeling  of  unlimited  dominion 
over  one's  fellows  should  turn  the  brain  of  a 
suddenly  triumphant  faction,  than  that  it  should 
madden  a  single  shallow-minded  man.  The  men 
of  "the  Mountain"  were  not  only  masters  of 
France  —  except  in  La  Vendee  and  the  neighbor- 
ing region  south  of  the  Loire,  wliere  an  obstinate 
insurrection  had  broken  out  —  but  the  armies 
which  obeyed  them  had  driven  back  the  invad- 
ing Germans,  had  occupied  the  Austrian  Nether- 
lands and  taken  possession  of  Savoy  and  Nice. 
Intoxicated  by  these  successas,  the  Convention 
had  proclaimed  a  crusade  against  all  monarchi- 
cal government,  offering  the  help  of  France  to 
every  people  which  would  rise  against  existing 
authorities,  and  declaring  enmity  to  those  who 
refused  alliance  with  the  Revolution.  Holland 
was  attacked  and  England  forced  to  war.  The 
spring  of  1793  found  a  great  European  coalition 
formed  against  revolutionary  France,  and  justi- 
fied by  the  aggressions  of  the  Jacobinical  gov- 
ernment. 

For  effective  exercise  of  the  power  of  the 
.lacobins,  the  Convention  as  a  whole  proved  too 
large  a  body,  even  when  it  had  been  purged  of 
Girondist  opposition.  Its  authority  was  now 
gathered  into  the  hands  of  the  famous  Commit- 
tee of  Public  Safety,  which  became,  in  fact,  the 
Revolutionary  Government,  controlling  the  na- 
tional armies,  and  the  whole  administration  of 
domestic  and  foreign  affairs.  Its  reign  was  the 
Reign  of  Terror,  and  the  fearful  Revolutionary 
Tribunal,  which  began  its  bloody  work  with  the 
guillotine  in  October,  1793,  was  the  chief  instru- 
ment of  its  power.  Robespierre,  Bar&re,  St. 
Just,  Couthon,  Billaud-Varennes,  Collot  d'  Her- 
bois  and  Carnot  —  the  latter  devoted  to  the  busi- 
ness of  the  war  —  were  the  controlling  members 
of  the  Committee.  Danton  withdrew  from  it, 
refusing  to  serve. 

In  September,  the  policy  of  terrorism  was 
avowedly  adopted,  and,  in  the  language  of  the 
Paris  Commune,  "the  Reign  of  Terror"  became 
' '  the  order  of  the  day. "  The  arraignment  of 
"suspects"  before  the  Revolutionary  Tribunal 
began.  On  the  14th  of  October  Marie  Antoinette 
was  put  on  trial ;  on  the  16th  she  met  her  death. 
On  the  31st  the  twenty-one  imprisoned  Girondist 
deputies  were  sent  to  the  guillotine ;  followed  on 
the  10th  of  November  by  the  remarkable  woman, 
JIadame  Roland,  who  was  looked  upon  as  the 
real  leader  of  their  party.  From  that  time  until 
the  mid-summer  following,  the  blood-madness 
raged ;  not  in  Paris  alone,  but  throughout  France, 
at  Lyons,  Marseilles,  Toulon,  Bordeaux,  Nantes, 
and  wherever  a  show  of  insurrection  and  resis- 
tance had  challenged  the  ferocity  of  the  Com- 
missioners of  the  Revolutionary  Government, 
who  had  been  sent  into  the  provinces  with  un- 
limited death-dealing  powers. 

But  when  Jacobinism  had  destroyed  all  ex- 
terior opposition,  it  began  very  soon  to  break 
into  factions  within  itself.  There  was  a  pitch  in 
its  excesses  at  wliich  even  Danton  and  Robes- 
pierre became  conservatives,  as  against  Hebert 
and  the  atheists  of  his  faction.  A  brief  struggle 
ensued,  and  the  Hebertists,  in  March,  1794,  passed 


1119 


EUROPE. 


Rise  of  Napoleon 
Bonaparte. 


EUROPE. 


under  the  knife  of  the  guillotine.  A  month  later 
Danton's  enemies  had  rallied  and  he,  with  his 
followers,  went  down  before  their  attack,  and 
the  sharp  knife  in  the  Place  de  la  Revolution 
silenced  his  bold  tongue.  Robespierre  remained 
dominant  for  a  few  weeks  longer  in  the  still 
reigning  Committee  of  Public  Safety;  but  his 
domination  was  already  undermined  by  many 
fears,  distrusts  and  jealousies  among  his  col- 
leagues and  throughout  his  party.  His  down- 
fall came  suddenly  on  the  27th  of  July.  On  the 
morning  of  that  day  he  was  the  dictator  of  the 
Convention  and  of  its  ruling  committee ;  at  night 
he  was  a  headless  corpse,  and  Paris  was  shouting 
with  joy. 

On  the  death  of  Robespierre  the  Reign  of 
Terror  came  quickly  to  an  end.  The  reaction 
was  sudden  and  swift.  The  Committee  of  Pub- 
lic Safety  was  changed;  of  the  old  members 
only  Carnot,  indispensable  organizer  of  war, 
remained.  The  Revolutionary  Tribunal  was  re- 
modeled. The  Jacobin  Club  was  broken  up. 
The  surviving  Girondist  deputies  came  back  to 
the  Convention.  Prosecution  of  the  Terrorists 
for  their  crimes  began.  A  new  struggle  opened, 
between  the  lower  elements  in  Parisian  and 
French  society,  the  sansculotte  elements,  which 
had  controlled  the  Revolution  thus  far,  and 
the  middle  class,  the  bourgeoisie,  long  cowed 
and  suppressed,  but  now  rallying  to  recover  its 
share  of  power.  Bourgeoisie  triumphed  in  the 
contest.  The  Sansculottes  made  their  last  effort 
in  a  rising  on  the  1st  Prairial  (May  20,  1795) 
and  were  put  down.  A  new  constitution  was 
framed  which  organized  the  government  of  the 
Republic  under  a  legislature  in  two  chambers, — 
a  Council  of  Five  Hundred  and  a  Council  of 
Ancients, —  with  an  executive  Directory  of  Five. 
But  only  one  third  of  the  legislature  first  as- 
sembled was  to  be  freely  elected  by  the  people. 
The  remaining  two  thirds  were  to  be  taken  from 
the  membership  of  the  existing  Convention. 
Paris  rejected  this  last  mentioned  feature  of  the 
constitution,  while  France  at  large  ratified  it. 
The  National  Guard  of  Paris  rose  in  insurrection 
on  the  13th  Vendemiare  (October  5),  and  it  was 
on  this  occasion  that  the  young  Corsican  officer. 
Napoleon  Bonaparte,  got  his  foot  on  the  first 
round  of  the  ladder  by  which  he  climbed  after- 
wards to  so  great  a  height.  Put  in  command  of 
the  regular  troops  in  Paris,  which  numbered  only 
5,000,  against  30,000  of  the  National  Guards,  he 
crushed  the  latter  in  an  action  of  an  hour.  That 
hour  was  the  opening  hour  of  his  career. 

The  government  of  the  Directory  was  insti- 
tuted on  the  27th  of  October  following.  Of  its 
five  members,  Carnot  and  Barras  were  the  only 
men  of  note,  then  or  afterwards. 

The  war  with  the  Coalition. 

While  France  was  cowering  under  "the 
Terror,"  its  armies,  under  Jourdan,  Hoche,  and 
Pichegru,  had  withstood  the  great  European 
combination  with  astonishing  success.  The  allies 
were  weakened  by  ill  feeling  between  Prussia 
and  Austria  over  the  second  partition  of  Poland, 
and  generally  by  a  want  of  concert  and  capable 
leadership  in  their  action.  On  the  other  side,  the 
democratic  military  sj'stem  of  the  Republic,  under 
Carnot's  keen  eyes,  was  continually  bringing 
forward  fresh  soldierly  talent  to  the  front.  The 
fall  of  the  Jacobins  made  no  change  in  that  vital 
department  of  the  administration,  and  the  suc- 


cesses of  the  French  were  continued.  In  the 
summer  of  1794  they  carried  the  war  into  ■ 
Germany,  and  expelled  the  allies  from  the 
Austrian  Netherlands.  Thence  they  invaded 
Holland,  and  before  the  end  of  January,  1795, 
they  were  masters  of  the  country;  the  Stadt- 
holder  had  fled  to  England,  and  a  Batavian  Re- 
public had  been  organized.  Spain  had  suffered 
losses  in  battle  with  them  along  the  Pyrenees, 
and  the  King  of  Sardinia  had  yielded  to  them  the 
passes  of  the  Maritime  Alps.  In  April  the  King 
of  Prussia  made  peace  with  France.  Before  the 
close  of  the  year  1795  the  revolt  in  La  Vendee 
was  at  an  end ;  Spain  had  made  peace ;  Pichegru 
had  attempted  a  great  betrayal  of  the  armies  on 
the  Rhine,  and  had  failed. 

Napoleon  in  Italy. 

This  in  brief  was  the  situation  at  the  opening 
of  the  year  1796,  when  the  "little  Corsican 
officer,"  who  won  the  confidence  of  the  new 
government  of  the  Directory  by  saving  its  con- 
stitution on  the  13th  Vendemiare,  planned  the 
campaign  of  the  year,  and  received  the  command 
of  the  army  sent  to  Ital}'.  He  attacked  the  Sar- 
dinians in  April,  and  a  single  month  sufficed  to 
break  the  courage  of  their  king  and  force  him  to 
a  treaty  of  peace.  On  the  10th  of  ]May  he  de- 
feated the  Austrians  at  Lodi;  on  the  15th  he  was 
in  Milan.  Lombardy  was  abandoned  to  him ;  all 
central  Italy  was  at  his  mercy,  and  he  began  to 
act  the  sovereign  conqueror  in  the  peninsula, 
with  a  contempt  for  the  government  at  Paris 
which  he  hardly  concealed.  Two  ephemeral  re- 
publics were  created  under  his  direction,  the 
Cisalpine,  in  Lombardy,  and  the  Cispadane,  em- 
bracing Modena,  Ferrara  and  Bologna.  The 
Papacy  was  shorn  of  part  of  its  territories. 

Every  attempt  made  by  the  Austrians  to  shake 
the  hold  which  Bonaparte  had  fastened  on  the 
peninsula  only  fixed  it  more  firmly.  In  the 
spring  he  began  movements  beyond  the  Alps, 
in  concert  with  Hoche  on  the  Rhine,  which 
threatened  Vienna  itself  and  frightened  Austria 
into  proposals  of  peace.  Preliminaries,  signed 
in  April,  foreshadowed  the  hard  terms  of  the 
treaty  concluded  at  Campo  Formio  in  the  fol- 
lowing October.  Austria  gave  up  her  Nether- 
land  provinces  to  France,  and  part  of  her  Italian 
territories  to  the  Cisalpine  Republic;  but  re- 
ceived, in  partial  compensation,  the  city  of 
Venice  and  a  portion  of  the  dominions  of  the 
Venetian  state;  for,  between  the  armistice  and 
the  treaty,  Bonaparte  had  attacked  and  over- 
thrown the  venerable  republic,  and  now  divided 
it  with  his  humbled  enemy. 

France  under  the   Directory. 

The  masterful  Corsican,  who  handled  these 
great  matters  with  the  airs  of  a  sovereign,  may 
have  known  himself  already  to  be  the  coming 
master  of  France.  For  the  inevitable  submission 
again  of  the  many  to  one  was  growing  plain  to 
discerning  eyes.  The  frightful  school-teaching 
of  the  Revolution  had  not  impressed  practical 
lessons  in  politics  on  the  mind  of  the  untrained 
democracy,  so  much  as  suspicions,  distrusts,  and 
alarms.  All  the  sobriety  of  temper,  the  confi- 
dence of  feeling,  the  constraining  habit  of  pub- 
lic order,  without  which  the  self-government  of  a 
people  is  impracticable,  were  yet  to  be  acquired. 
French  democracy  was  not  more  prepared  for 
republican  institutions  in  1797  than  it  had  been 


1120 


EUROPE. 


Tlie  First  Consul. 


EUROPE. 


in  1789.  There  was  no  more  temperance  in  its 
factions,  no  more  balance  between  parties,  no 
more  of  a  steadying  potency  in  public  opinion. 
But  it  had  been  brought  to  a  state  of  feeling 
that  would  prefer  the  sinking  of  all  factions  un- 
der some  vigorous  autocracy,  rather  than  another 
appeal  of  their  quarrels  to  the  guillotine.  And 
events  were  moving  fast  to  a  point  at  which 
that  choice  would  require  to  be  made.  The 
summer  of  1797  found  the  members  of  the  Di- 
rectory in  hopeless  conflict  with  one  another  and 
with  the  legislative  councils.  On  the  4th  of 
September  a  "  coup  d'  etat,"  to  which  Bonaparte 
contributed  some  help,  purged  both  the  Direc- 
tory and  the  Councils  of  men  obnoxious  to  the 
violeHt  faction,  and  e.xiled  them  to  Guiana.  Per- 
haps the  moment  was  favorable  then  for  a  soldier, 
with  the  great  prestige  that  Bonaparte  had  won, 
to  mount  to  the  seat  of  power;  but  he  did  not  so 
judge. 

The  Expedition  to  Egypt. 

He  planned,  instead,  an  expedition  to  Egypt, 
directed  against  the  British  power  in  the  East, 
—  an  expedition  that  failed  in  every  object  it 
could  have,  except  the  absence  in  which  it  kept 
him  from  increasing  political  disorders  at  home. 
He  was  able  to  maintain  some  appearance  of 
success,  by  his  subjugation  of  Egypt  and  his  in- 
vasion of  Syria ;  but  of  harm  done  to  England, 
or  of  gain  to  France  in  the  Mediterranean,  there 
was  none ;  since  Nelson,  at  the  battle  of  the  Nile, 
destroyed  the  French  fleet,  and  Turkey  was 
added  to  the  Anglo- Austrian  coalition.  The 
blunder  of  the  expedition,  as  proved  by  its 
whole  results,  was  not  seen  by  the  French  peo- 
ple so  plainly,  however,  as  they  saw  the  growing 
hopelessness  of  their  own  political  state,  and 
the  alarming  reverses  which  their  armies  in 
Italy  and  on  the  Rhine  had  sustained  since  Bona- 
parte went  away. 

French  Aggressions. — The  new  Coalition. 

Continued  aggressions  on  the  part  of  the  French 
had  provoked  a  new  European  coalition,  formed 
in  1798.  In  Switzerland  they  had  overthrown 
the  ancient  constitution  of  the  confederacy,  or- 
ganizing a  new  Helvetic  Republic  on  the  Gallic 
model,  but  taking  Geneva  to  themselves.  In 
Italy  they  had  set  up  a  third  republic,  the 
Roman,  removing  the  Pope  forcibly  from  his 
sovereignty  and  from  Rome.  Every  state  with- 
in reach  had  then  taken  fresh  alarm,  and  even 
Russia,  undisturbed  in  the  distance,  was  now 
enlisted  against  the  troublesome  democracy  of 
France. 

The  unwise  King  of  Naples,  entering  rashly 
into  the  war  before  his  allies  could  support  him, 
and  hastening  to  restore  the  Pope,  had  been 
driven  (December,  1798)  from  his  kingdom,  which 
underwent  transformation  into  a  fourth  Italian 
republic,  the  Parthenopeian.  But  this  only 
stimulated  the  efforts  of  the  Coalition,  and  in 
the  course  of  the  following  year  the  French  were 
expelled  from  all  Italy,  saving  Genoa  alone,  and 
the  ephemeral  republics  they  had  set  up  were  ex- 
tinguished. On  the  Rhine  they  had  lost  ground ; 
but  they  had  held  their  own  in  Switzerland,  after 
a  fierce  struggle  with  the  Russian  forces  of  Su- 
warrow. 

Napoleon  in  power. 

When  news  of  these  disasters,  and  of  the  ripe- 
ness of  the  situation  at  Paris  for  a  new  coup 

'^  1121 


d'  etat,  reached  Bonaparte,  in  Egypt,  he  deserted 
his  army  there,  leaving  it,  under  Kleber,  in  a 
helpless  situation,  and  made  his  way  back  to 
France.  He  landed  at  Frejus  on  the  9th  of  Octo- 
ber. Precisely  a  month  later,  by  a  combination 
with  Sieyfes,  a  veteran  revolutionist  and  maker 
of  constitutions,  he  accomplished  the  overthrow 
of  the  Directory.  Before  the  year  closed,  a 
fresh  constitution  was  in  force,  which  vested 
substantially  monarchical  powers  in  an  execu- 
tive called  the  First  Consul,  and  the  chosen  First 
Consul  was  Napoleon  Bonaparte.  Two  asso- 
ciate Consuls,  who  sat  with  him,  had  no  pur- 
pose but  to  conceal  for  a  short  time  the  real 
absoluteness  of  his  rule. 

From  that  time,  for  fifteen  years,  the  history 
of  France — it  is  almost  possible  to  say  the  his- 
tory of  Europe — is  the  story  of  the  career  of  the 
extraordinary  Corsican  adventurer  who  took  pos- 
session of  the  French  nation,  with  unparalleled 
audacity,  and  wlio  used  it,  with  all  that  pertained 
to  it  —  iives,  fortunes,  talents,  resources  —  in  the 
most  prodigious  and  the  most  ruthless  undertak- 
ings of  personal  ambition  that  the  modern  world 
has  ever  seen.  He  was  selfishness  incarnate ;  and 
he  was  the  incarnation  of  genius  in  all  those 
modes  of  intellectual  power  which  bear  upon  the 
mastery  of  momentary  circumstances  and  the 
mastery  of  men.  But  of  the  higher  genius  that 
might  have  worthily  employed  such  vast  powers, 
— that  might  have  enlightened  and  inspired  a 
really  great  ambition  in  the  man,  to  make  himself 
an  enduring  builder  of  civilization  in  the  world, 
he  had  no  spark.  The  soul  behind  his  genius 
was  ignoble,  the  spirit  was  mean.  And  even  on 
the  intellectual  side,  his  genius  had  its  narrow- 
ness. His  projects  of  selfishness  were  extraor- 
dinary, but  never  sagacious,  never  far-sighted, 
tlioughtfully  studied,  wisely  planned.  There  is 
no  appearance  in  any  part  of  his  career  of  a 
pondered  policy,  guiding  him  to  a  well-deter- 
mined end  in  what  he  did.  The  circumstances 
of  any  moment,  whether  on  the  battle-field  or  in 
the  political  arena,  he  could  handle  with  a  swift 
apprehension,  a  mastery  and  a  power  that  may 
never  have  been  surpassed.  But  much  com- 
moner men  have  apprehended  and  have  com- 
manded in  a  larger  and  more  successful  way  the 
general  sweep  of  circumstances  in  their  lives. 
It  is  that  fact  which  belittles  Napoleon  in  the 
comparison  often  made  between  him  and  Coesar. 
He  was  probably  Ccesar's  equal  in  war.  But 
who  can  imagine  Cassar  in  Napoleon's  place 
committing  the  blunders  of  blind  arrogance 
which  ruined  the  latter  in  Germany  and  Spain, 
or  making  his  fatuous  attempt  to  shut  Eng- 
land, the  great  naval  power,  out  of  continental 
Europe '? 

His  domestic  administration  was  beneficial  to 
France  in  many  ways.  He  restored  order,  and 
maintained  it,  with  a  powerful  hand.  He  sup- 
pressed faction  effectually,  and  eradicated  for  the 
time  all  the  political  insanities  of  the  Revolution. 
He  exploited  the  resources  of  the  country  with 
admirable  success ;  for  his  discernment  in  such 
matters  was  keen  and  his  practical  judgment  was 
generally  sound.  But  he  consumed  the  nation 
faster  than  he  gave  it  growth.  His  wars  —  the 
wars  in  which  Europe  was  almost  unceasingly 
kept  by  the  aggression  of  his  insolence  and  his 
greed — were  the  most  murderous,  the  most  de- 
vouring, that  any  warrior  among  the  civilized 
races  of  mankind  has  ever  been  chargeable  with. 


EUROPE. 


Hie  First  Empire. 


EUROPE. 


His  blood-guiltiness  in  these  wars  is  tlie  one 
glaring  fact  which  ought  to  be  foremost  in  every 
thought  of  them.  But  it  is  not.  There  is  a 
pitiable  readiness  in  mankind  to  be  dazzled  and 
cheated  by  red  battle-lights,  when  it  looks  into 
history  for  heroes;  and  few  figures  have  been 
glorified  more  illusively  in  the  world's  eye  than 
the  marvelous  warrior,  the  vulgar-minded  adven- 
turer, the  prodigy  of  self -exalting  genius,  Napo- 
leon Bonaparte. 

In  the  first  year  of  his  Consulate,  Bonaparte 
recovered  Italy,  by  the  extraordinary  Marengo 
campaign,  while  Moreau  won  the  victory  of  Ho- 
henlinden,  and  the  Treaty  of  Luneville  was 
brought  about.  Austria  obtained  peace  again  by 
renewing  the  concessions  of  Campo  Pormio,  and 
by  taking  part  in  a  reconstruction  of  Germany, 
under  Bonaparte's  dictation,  which  secularized 
the  ecclesiastical  states,  extinguished  the  freedom 
of  most  of  the  imperial  cities,  and  aggrandized 
Bavaria,  Wlirtemberg,  Baden  and  Saxony,  as 
proteges  and  dependencies  of  France.  England 
was  left  alone  in  the  war,  with  much  hostile  feel- 
ing raised  against  her  in  Europe  and  America  by 
the  arrogant  use  she  had  made  of  her  mastery  of 
the  sea.  The  neutral  powers  had  all  been  em- 
bittered by  her  maritime  pretensions,  and  Bona- 
parte now  brought  about  the  organization  among 
them  of  a  Northern  League  of  armed  neutrality. 
England  broke  it  with  a  single  blow,  by  Nel- 
son's bombardment  of  Copenhagen.  Napoleon, 
however,  had  conceived  the  plan  of  starving 
English  industries  and  ruining  British  trade 
by  a  "continental  system"  of  blockade  against 
them,  which  involved  the  compulsory  exclusion 
of  British  ships  and  British  goods  from  all 
European  countries.  This  impossible  project 
committed  him  to  a  desperate  struggle  for  the 
subjugation  of  Europe.  It  was  the  fundamen- 
tal cause  of  his  ruin. 

The  First  Empire. 

In  1802  the  First  Consul  advanced  his  restora- 
tion of  absolutism  in  France  a  second  step,  by 
securing  the  Consulate  for  life.  A  short  inter- 
val of  peace  with  England  was  arranged,  but 
war  broke  out  anew  the  following  year,  and  the 
English  for  a  time  had  no  allies.  The  French 
occupied  Hanover,  and  the  Germans  were  quies- 
cent. But  in  1804,  Bonaparte  shocked  Europe 
by  the  abduction  and  execution  of  the  Bourbon 
prince.  Due  d'Enghien,  and  began  to  challenge 
again  the  interference  of  the  surrounding  pow- 
ers by  a  new  series  of  aggressive  measures. 
His  ambition  had  thrown  off  all  disguises;  he 
had  transformed  the  Republic  of  France  into  an 
Empire,  so  called,  and  himself,  by  title,  into  an 
Emperor,  with  an  imposing  crown.  "The  Cis- 
alpine or  Italian  Republic  received  soon  after- 
wards the  constitution  of  a  kingdom,  and  he 
took  the  crown  to  himself  as  King  of  Italy. 
Genoa  and  surrounding  territory  (the  Liguriau 
Republic)  were  annexed,  at  nearly  the  same 
time,  to  France;  several  duchies  were  declared 
to  be  dependencies,  and  an  Italian  principality 
was  given  to  Napoleon's  elder  sister.  The  effect 
produced  in  Europe  by  such  arbitrary  and  ad- 
monitory proceedings  as  these  enabled  Pitt,  the 
younger,  now  at  the  head  of  the  English  gov- 
ernment, to  form  an  alliance  (1805),  first  with 
Russia,  afterwards  with  Austria,  Sweden  and 
Naples,  and  finally  with  Prussia,  to  break  the 
yoke  which  the  French  Emperor  had  put  upon 


Italy,  Holland,  Switzerland   and  Hanover,  and 

to  resist  his  further  aggressions. 

Austerlitz  and  Trafalgar. 

The  amazing  energy  and  military  genius  of 
Napoleon  never  had  more  astonishing  proof 
than  in  the  swift  campaign  which  broke  this  coali- 
tion at  Ulm  and  Austerlitz.  Austria  was  forced  to 
another  humiliating  treaty,  which  surrendered 
Venice  and  Venetia  to  the  conqueror's  new  King- 
dom of  Italy ;  gave  up  Tyrol  to  Bavaria ;  yielded 
other  territory  to  Wurtemberg,  and  raised  both 
electors  to  the  rank  of  kings,  while  making  Baden 
a  grand  duchy,  territorially  enlarged.  Prussia  was 
dragged  by  force  into  alliance  with  France,  and 
took  Hanover  as  pay.  But  England  triumphed  at 
the  same  time  on  her  own  element,  and  Napoleon's 
dream  of  carrying  his  legions  across  the  Chan- 
nel, as  CiEsar  did,  was  forever  dispelled  by  Nel- 
son's dying  victory  at  Trafalgar.  That  battle, 
which  destroyed  the  combined  navies  of  France 
and  Spain,  ended  hope  of  contending  success- 
fully with  the  relentless  Britons  at  sea. 

End  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. 

France  was  never  permitted  to  learn  the  seri- 
ousness of  Trafalgar,  and  it  put  no  check  on  the 
vaulting  ambition  in  Napoleon  which  now  be- 
gan to  o'erleap  itself.  He  gave  free  rein  to  his 
arrogance  in  all  directions.  The  King  of  Naples 
was  expelled  from  his  kingdom  and  the  crown 
conferred  on  Joseph  Bonaparte.  Louis  Bona- 
parte was  made  King  of  Holland.  Southern 
Germany  was  suddenly  reconstructed  again. 
The  little  kingdoms  of  Napoleon's  creation  and 
the  small  states  surrounding  them  were  declared 
to  be  separated  from  the  ancient  Empire,  and 
were  formed  into  a  Confederation  of  the  Rhine, 
under  the  protection  of  France.  Warned  by  this 
rude  announcement  of  the  precarious  tenure  of 
his  imperial  title  as  the  head  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  Francis  II.  resigned  it,  and  took  to  him- 
self, instead,  a  title  as  meaningless  as  that  which 
Napoleon  had  assumed, —  the  title  of  Emperor 
of  Austria.  The  venerable  fiction  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  disappeared  from  history  on  the 
6th  of  August,  1806. 

Subjugation  of  Prussia. 

But  while  Austria  had  become  submissive  to 
the  offensive  measures  of  Napoleon,  Prussia  be- 
came now  fired  with  unexpected,  sudden  wrath, 
and  declared  war  in  October,  1806.  It  was  a 
rash  explosion  of  national  resentment,  and  the 
rashness  was  dearlj'  paid  for.  At  Jena  and 
Auerstadt,  Prussia  sank  under  the  feet  of  the 
merciless  conqueror,  as  helplesslj'  subjugated  as 
a  nation  could  be.  Russia,  attempting  her  res- 
cue, was  overcome  at  Eylau  and  Friedland ;  and 
both  the  vanquished  powers  came  to  terms  with 
the  victor  at  Tilsit  (July,  1807).  The  King  of 
Prussia  gave  up  all  his  kingdom  west  of  the 
Elbe,  and  all  that  it  had  acquired  in  the  second 
and  third  partitions  of  Poland.  A  new  German 
kingdom,  of  Westphalia,  was  constructed  for  Na- 
poleon's youngest  brother,  Jerome.  A  free  state 
of  Danzig,  dependent  on  France,  and  a  Grand 
Duchy  of  Warsaw,  were  created.  The  Russian 
Czar,  bribed  by  some  pieces  of  Polish  Prussia,  and 
by  prospective  acquisitions  from  Turkey  and  Swe- 
den, became  an  all}'  of  Napoleon  and  an  accom- 
plice in  his  plans  for  the  subjection  of  Europe. 
He    enlisted    his    empire    in    the    "continental 


1122 


EUROPE. 


Napoleo7i''s 
Decline  and  Fall. 


EUROPE. 


system "  against  England,  and  agreed  to  the 
enforcement  of  the  decree  which  Napoleon  is- 
sued from  Berlin,  declaring  the  British  islands 
in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  prohibiting  ti'ade 
with  them.  The  British  government  retorted  by 
its  "orders  in  council,"  which  blockaded  in  the 
like  paper-fashion  all  ports  of  France  and  of  the 
allies  and  dependencies  of  France.  And  so 
England  and  Napoleon  fought  one  another  for 
years  in  the  peaceful  arena  of  commerce,  to  the 
exasperation  of  neutral  nations  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  legitimate  trade  of  the  world. 

The  crime  against  Spain. 

And  now,  having  prostrated  Germany,  and  cap- 
tivated the  Czar,  Napoleon  turned  toward  another 
field,  which  had  scarcely  felt,  as  yet,  his  intrusive 
hand.  Spain  had  been  in  servile  alliance  with 
France  for  ten  years,  while  Portugal  adhered 
steadily  to  her  friendship  with  Great  I5ritain,  and 
now  refused  to  be  obedient  to  the  Berlin  Decree. 
Napoleon  took  prompt  measures  for  the  punish- 
ment of  so  bold  a  defiance.  A  delusive  treaty 
with  the  Spanish  court,  for  the  partition  of  the 
small  kingdom  of  the  Braganzas,  won  permis- 
sion for  an  army  under  Junot  to  enter  Portugal, 
through  Spain.  No  resistance  to  it  was  made. 
The  royal  family  of  Portugal  quitted  Lisbon, 
setting  sail  for  Brazil,  and  Junot  took  posses- 
sion of  the  kingdom.  But  this  accomplished 
only  half  of  Napoleon's  design.  He  meant  to 
have  Spain,  as  well ;  and  he  found,  in  the  miser- 
able state  of  the  country,  his  opportunity  to 
work  out  an  ingenious,  unscrupulous  scheme  for 
its  acquisition.  His  agents  set  on  foot  a  revolu- 
tionary movement,  in  favor  of  the  worthless 
crown  prince,  Ferdinand,  against  his  equally 
worthless  father,  Charles  IV. ,  and  pretexts  were 
obtained  for  an  interference  by  French  troops. 
Charles  was  first  coerced  into  an  abdication; 
then  Ferdinand  was  lured  to  an  interview  with 
Napoleon,  at  Bayonne,  was  made  prisoner  there, 
and  compelled  in  his  turn  to  relinquish  the 
crown.  A  vacancy  on  the  Spanish  throne  hav- 
ing been  thus  created,  the  Emperor  gathered  at 
Bayonne  a  small  assembly  of  Spanish  nota- 
bles, who  offered  the  seat  to  Joseph  Bonaparte, 
already  King  of  Naples.  Joseph,  obedient  to  his 
imperial  brother's  wish,  resigned  the  Neapolitan 
crown  to  Murat,  his  sister's  husband,  accepted 
the  crown  of  Spain,  and  was  established  at  Mad- 
rid with  a  French  army  at  his  back. 

This  was  one  of  the  two  most  ruinous  of  the 
political  blunders  of  Napoleon's  life.  He  had 
cheated  and  insulted  the  whole  Spanish  nation, 
in  a  way  too  contemptuous  to  be  endured  even 
by  a  people  long  cast  down.  There  was  a  revolt 
which  did  not  spring  from  any  momentary  pas- 
sion, but  which  had  an  obstinac}^  of  deep  feeling 
behind  that  made  effective  suppression  of  it  im- 
possible. French  armies  could  beat  Spanish 
armies,  and  disperse  them,  but  they  could  not 
keep  them  dispersed ;  and  they  could  not  break 
up  the  organization  of  a  rebellion  which  or- 
ganized itself  in  every  province,  and  which  went 
on,  when  necessary,  without  any  organization 
at  all.  England  sent  forces  to  the  peninsula,  un- 
der Wellington,  for  the  support  of  the  insurgent 
Spaniards  and  Portuguese;  and  thenceforward, 
to  the  end  of  his  career,  the  most  inextricable 
difficulties  of  Napoleon  were  those  in  which  he 
had  entangled  himself  on  the  southern  side  of 
the  Pyrenees. 


The  chastening  of  Germany. 

The  other  cardinal  blunder  in  Napoleon's  con- 
duct, which  proved  more  destructive  to  him  than 
the  crime  in  Spain,  was  his  exasperating  treatment 
of  Germany.  There  was  neither  magnanimity 
on  the  moral  side  of  him  nor  real  wisdom  on  the 
intellectual  side,  to  restrain  him  from  using  his 
victory  with  immoderate  insolence.  He  put  as 
much  shame  as  he  could  invent  into  the  humilia- 
tions of  the  German  people.  He  had  Prussia 
under  his  heel,  and  he  ground  the  heel  upon  her 
neck  with  the  whole  weight  of  his  power.  The 
consequence  was  a  pain  and  a  passion  which 
wrought  changes  like  a  miracle  in  the  temper  and 
character  of  the  abused  nation.  There  were 
springs  of  feeling  opened  and  currents  of  na- 
tional life  set  in  motion  that  might  never  have 
been  otherwise  discovered.  Enlightened  men 
and  strong  men  from  all  parts  of  Germany  found 
themselves  called  to  Prussia  and  to  the  front  of 
its  affairs,  and  their  way  made  easy  for  them  in 
labors  of  restoration  and  reform.  Stein  and 
Hardenburg  remodeled  the  administration  of  the 
kingdom,  uprooted  the  remains  of  serfdom  in  it, 
and  gave  new  freedom  to  its  energies.  Scharn- 
horst  organized  the  military  system  on  which 
rose  in  time  the  greatest  of  military  powers. 
Humboldt  planned  the  school  system  which  edu- 
cated Prussia  beyond  all  her  neighbors,  in  the 
succeeding  generations.  Even  the  philosophers 
came  out  of  their  closets  and  took  part,  as  Fichte 
did,  in  the  stirring  and  uplifting  of  the  spirit  of 
their  countrymen.  So  it  was  that  the  outrages  of 
Napoleon  in  Germany  revenged  themselves,  by 
summoning  into  existence  an  unsuspected  energy 
that  would  be  turned  against  him  to  destroy  him, 
in  the  end. 

But  the  time  of  destruction  was  not  yet  come. 
He  had  a  few  years  of  triumph  still  before  him, 
—  of  triu  niph  every  where  except  in  Portugal  and 
Spain.  Austria,  resisting  him  once  more  (1809), 
was  once  more  crushed  at  Wagram,  and  to  such 
submissiveness  that  it  gave  a  daughter  of  the 
imperial  house  in  marriage  to  the  parvenu 
sovereign  of  France,  next  year,  when  he  divorced 
his  wife  Josephine.  He  was  at  the  summit  of 
his  renown  that  year,  but  already  declining  from 
the  greatest  height  of  his  power.  In  1811  there 
was  little  to  change  the  situation. 

The  fall  of  Napoleon. 

In  1813  the  downfall  of  Napoleon  was  begun 
by  his  fatal  expedition  to  Russia.  The  next 
year  Prussia,  half  regenerated  within  the  brief 
time  since  Jena  and  Tilsit,  went  into  alliance  with 
Russia,  and  the  War  of  Liberation  was  begun. 
Austria  soon  joined  the  alliance;  and  at  Leipzig 
(Oct.  18,  1813)  the  three  nations  shattered  at  last 
the  yoke  of  oppression  that  had  bound  Europe  so 
long.  At  the  same  time,  the  French  armies  in 
Spain  were  expelled,  and  Wellington  entered 
France  through  the  Pyrenees,  to  meet  the  allies 
who  pursued  Napoleon  across  the  Rhine.  Forced 
to  abdicate  and  retire  to  the  little  island  of  Elba 
(the  sovereignty  of  which  was  ceded  to  him),  he 
remained  there  in  quiet  from  May,  1814,  until 
March,  181-5,  when  he  escaped  and  reappeared  in 
France.  Army  and  people  welcomed  him.  The 
Bourbon  monarchy,  which  had  been  restored  by 
the  allies,  fell  at  his  approach.  The  king, 
Louis  XVIII.,  fled.  Napoleon  recovered  his 
throne  and  occupied  It  for  a  few  weeks.     But  the 


1123 


EUROPE. 


The  Holy  Alliance. 


EUROPE. 


alliance  -whicli  had  expelled  him  from  it  refused 
to  permit  his  recovery  of  power.  The  question 
was  settled  finally  at  Waterloo,  on  the  18th  of 
June,  when  a  British  army  under  AVellington  and 
a  Prussian  army  under  Blilcher  won  a  victory 
which  left  no  hope  to  the  beaten  Emperor.  He 
surrendered  himself  to  the  commander  of  a  British 
vessel  of  war,  and  was  sent  to  confinement  for 
the  remainder  of  his  life  on  the  remote  island  of 
St.  Helena. 

The  Congress  of  Vienna. 

But  Europe,  delivered  from  one  tyrannical 
master,  was  now  given  over  to  several  of  them, 
in  a  combination  which  oppressed  it  for  a  genera- 
tion. The  sovereigns  who  had  united  to  de- 
throne Napoleon,  with  the  two  emperors,  of 
Austria  and  Russia,  at  their  head,  and  with  the 
Austrian  minister,  Metternich,  for  their  most 
trusted  counselor,  assumed  first,  in  the  Congress 
of  Vienna,  a  general  work  of  political  rearrange- 
ment, to  repair  the  Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic 
disturbances,  and  then,  subsequently,  an  authori- 
tative supervision  of  European  politics  which 
proved  as  meddlesome  as  Napoleon's  had  been. 
Their  first  act,  as  before  stated,  was  to  restore 
the  Bourbon  monarchy  in  France,  indifferent  to 
the  wishes  of  the  people.  In  Spain,  Ferdinand 
had  already  taken  the  throne,  when  Joseph  fled. 
In  Italy,  the  King  of  Sardinia  was  restored  and 
Genoa  transferred  to  him ;  Lombardy  and  Venetia 
were  given  back  to  Austria;  Tuscany,  Modena 
and  some  minor  duchies  received  Hapsburg 
princes ;  the  Pope  recovered  his  States,  and  the 
Bourbons  returned  to  Naples  and  Sicily.  In 
Germany,  the  Prussian  kingdom  was  enlarged 
again  by  several  absorptions,  including  part  of 
Saxony,  but  some  of  its  Polish  territory  was 
given  to  the  Czar ;  Hanover  became  a  kingdom ; 
Austria  resumed  the  provinces  which  Napoleon 
had  conveyed  to  his  Rhenish  proteges;  and, 
finally,  a  Germanic  Confederation  was  formed,  to 
take  the  place  of  the  extinct  Empire,  and  with 
no  more  efflciency  in  its  constitution.  In  the 
Netherlands,  a  new  kingdom  was  formed,  to  bear 
the  Netherland  name,  and  to  embrace  Holland 
and  Belgium  in  union,  with  the  House  of  Orange 
on  the  throne. 

The  Holy  Alliance. 

Between  the  Czar,  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  and 
the  King  of  Prussia,  there  was  a  personal  agree- 
ment that  went  with  these  arrangements  of  the 
Congress  of  Vienna,  and  which  was  prolonged 
for  a  number  of  years.  In  the  public  under- 
standing, this  was  associated,  perhaps  wrongly, 
with  a  written  declaration,  known  as  the  Holy 
Alliance,  in  which  the  three  sovereigns  set  forth 
their  intention  to  regulate  their  foreign  and  do- 
mestic policy  by  the  precepts  of  Christianity, 
and  invited  all  princes  to  join  their  alliance  for 
the  maintenance  of  peace  and  the  promotion  of 
brotherly  love.  Whether  identical  as  a  fact  with 
this  Holy  Alliance  or  secreted  behind  it,  there 
was,  and  long  continued  to  be,  an  undoubted 
league  between  these  sovereigns  and  others,  which 
had  aims  very  different  from  the  promotion  of 
brotherly  love.  It  was  wholly  reactionary,  hostile 
to  all  political  liberalism,  and  repressive  of  all 
movements  in  the  interest  of  the  people.  Met- 
ternich was  its  skilful  minister,  and  the  deadly, 
soulless    system    of    beaureaucratlc    absolutism 


which  he  organized  in  Austria  was  the  model  of 
government  that  it  strove  to  introduce. 

In  Italy,  the  governments  generally  were  re- 
duced to  the  Austrian  model,  and  the  political 
state  of  the  peninsula,  for  forty  years,  was  scarcely 
better,  if  at  all,  than  it  had  been  under  the  Span- 
ish rule  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies. 

Germany,  as  divided  as  ever,  under  a  federal 
constitution  which  federated  nothing  else  so  much 
as  the  big  and  little  courts  and  their  reactionary 
ideas,  was  profoundly  depressed  in  political 
spirit,  while  prospering  materially  and  showing 
notable  signs  of  intellectual  life. 

France  was  not  slow  in  finding  that  the  restored 
Bourbons  and  the  restored  emigres  had  forgotten 
nothing  and  learned  nothing,  in  the  twenty-five 
years  of  their  exile.  They  put  all  their  strength 
into  the  turning  back  of  the  clock,  trying  to 
make  it  strike  again  the  hours  in  which  the  Rev- 
olution and  Napoleon  had  been  so  busy.  It  was 
futile  work;  but  it  sickened  and  angered  the 
nation  none  the  less.  After  all  the  stress  and 
struggle  it  had  gone  through,  there  was  a  strong 
nation  yet  to  resist  the  Bourbonism  brought 
back  to  power.  It  recovered  from  the  exhaus- 
tion of  its  wars  with  a  marvellous  quickness. 
The  millions  of  peasant  land-owners,  who  were 
the  greatest  creation  of  the  Revolution,  dug 
wealth  from  its  soil  with  untiring  free  arms,  and 
soon  made  it  the  most  prosperous  land  in  Europe. 
Through  country  and  city,  the  ideas  of  the  Revo- 
lution were  in  the  brains' of  the  common  people, 
while  its  energies  were  in  their  brawn,  and  Bour- 
bonism needed  more  wisdom  than  it_  ever  pos- 
sessed to  reconcile  them  to  its  restoration. 

Revolutions  of  1820-1821. 

It  was  not  in  France,  however,  but  in  Spain, 
that  the  first  rising  against  the  restored  order  of 
things  occurred,  Ferdinand  VII. ,  when  released 
from  his  French  imprisonment  in  1814,  was 
warmly  received  in  Spain,  and  took  the  crown 
with  quite  general  consent.  He  accepted  the 
constitution  under  which  the  country  had  been 
governed  since  1813,  and  made  large  lying  prom- 
ises of  a  liberal  rule.  But  when  seated  on  the 
throne,  he  suppressed  the  constitution,  restored 
the  Inquisition,  revived  the  monasteries,  called 
back  the  expelled  Jesuits,  and  opened  a  deadly 
persecution  of  tlie  liberals  in  Spanish  politics. 
No  effective  resistance  to  him  was  organized 
until  1820,  when  a  revolutionary  movement  took 
form  which  forced  the  king,  in  March,  to  re- 
establish the  constitution  and  call  different  men 
to  his  council.  Portugal,  at  the  same  time, 
adopted  a  similar  constitution,  and  the  exiled 
king,  John  VI.,  returning  now  from  Brazil,  ac- 
cepted it. 

The  revolution  in  Spain  set  fire  to  the  discon- 
tent that  had  smouldered  in  Italy.  The  latter 
broke  forth,  in  the  summer  of  1830,  at  Naples, 
where  the  Bourbon  king  made  no  resistance  to  a 
sudden  revolt  of  soldiers  and  citizens,  but  yielded 
the  constitution  they  demanded  at  once.  Sar- 
dinia followed,  in  the  next  spring,  with  a  rising 
of  the  Piedmontese,  requiring  constitutional  gov- 
ernment. The  king,  Victor  Emmanuel  I. ,  who  was 
very  old,  resigned  the  crown  to  his  brother,  Charles 
Felix.  The  latter  refused  the  demands  of  the  con- 
stitutionalists and  called  upon  Austria  for  help. 
These  outbreaks  of  the  revolutionary  spirit 
were  alarming  to  the  sovereigns  of  the  Holy 


1124 


EUROPE. 


Revolutions 
of  1820  and  1830. 


EUROPE. 


Alliance  and  excited  them  to  a  vigorous  ac- 
tivity. They  convened  a  Congress,  first  at 
Troppau,  in  October,  1820,  afterwards  at  Lay- 
bach,  and  finally  at  Verona,  to  plan  concerted 
action  for  the  suppressing  of  the  popular  move- 
ments of  the  time.  As  tlie  result  of  these  con- 
ferences, the  congenial  duty  of  restoring  abso- 
lutism in  the  Two  Sicilies,  and  of  helping  the 
King  of  Sardinia  against  his  subjects,  was  im- 
posed upon  Austria  and  willingly  performed ; 
while  the  Bourbon  court  of  France  was  solicited 
to  put  an  end  to  tlie  bad  example  of  constitu- 
tional government  in  Spain.  Both  commissions 
were  executed  with  fidelity  and  zeal.  Italy  was 
flung  down  and  fettered  again ;  French  troops  oc- 
cupied Spain  from  1833  until  1837.  England, 
alone,  protested  against  this  flagrant  policing  of 
Europe  by  the  Holy  Alliance.  Canning,  its  spir- 
ited minister,  "called  in  the  New  World,"  as  he 
described  his  policy,  "to  redress  the  balance  of 
the  old,"  by  recognizing  the  independence  of  the 
Spanish  colonies  in  America,  which,  Cuba  ex- 
cepted, were  now  separated  forever  from  the 
crown  of  Spain.  Brazil  in  like  manner  was  cut 
loose  from  the  Portuguese  crown,  and  assumed 
the  constitution  of  an  empire,  under  Dom  Pedro, 
the  eldest  son  of  John  VI. 

Greek  War  of  Independence. 

These  stifled  revolutions  in  western  Europe 
failed  to  discourage  a  more  obstinate  insurrection 
which  began  in  the  East,  among  the  Cliristian 
subjects  of  the  Turks,  in  1831.  The  Ottoman 
government  had  been  growing  weaker  and  more 
vicious  for  many  years.  Tlie  corrupted  and  tur- 
bulent Janissaries  were  the  masters  of  the  empire, 
and  a  sultan  who  attempted,  as  Selim  III.  (1789- 
1807)  had  done,  to  introduce  reforms,  was  put  to 
death.  Russia,  under  Alexander  I.,  liad  been 
continuing  to  gain  ground  at  the  expense  of  the 
Turks,  and  assuming  more  and  more  of  a  pat- 
ronage of  the  Christian  subjects  of  the  Porte. 
There  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  the  rising  be- 
gun In  1821,  which  had  its  start  in  Moldavia,  and 
its  first  leader  in  a  Greek,  Ypsilanti,  who  had 
been  an  oflicer  in  the  Russian  service,  received 
encouragement  from  the  Czar.  But  Alexander 
turned  his  back  on  it  when  the  Greeks  sprang  to 
arms  and  seriously  appealed  to  Europe  for  help 
in  a  war  of  national  Independence.  Tlie  Congress 
of  Verona  condemned  the  Greek  rising,  in  com- 
mon with  that  of  Spain.  Again,  England  alone 
showed  "Sympathy,  but  did  notliing  as  a  govern- 
ment, and  left  the  struggling  Greeks  to  such  help 
as  they  might  win  from  individual  friends.  Lord 
Byron,  with  others,  went  to  Greece,  carrying 
money  and  arms;  and,  generally,  these  volun- 
teers lost  much  of  their  ardor  in  the  Greek  cause 
when  they  came  into  close  contact  with  its  native 
supporters.  But  the  Greeks,  however  lacking  in 
liigh  qualities,  made  an  obstinate  figlit,  and  held 
their  ground  against  the  Turks,  until  the  feeling 
of  sympathy  with  them  had  grown  too  strong  in 
England  and  in  France  for  the  governments  of 
tliose  countries  to  be  heedless  of  it.  Moreover, 
in  Russia,  Alexander  I.  had  been  succeeded  (1835) 
by  the  aggressive  Nicholas,  who  had  not  patience 
to  wait  for  the  slow  crumbling  of  the  Ottoman 
power,  but  was  determined  to  break  it  as  sum- 
marily as  he  could.  He  joined  France  and  Eng- 
land, therefore,  in  an  alliance  and  in  a  naval 
demonstration  against  the  Turks  (1827),  which 
had  its  result  in  the  battle  of  Navarino.     The 


allies  of  Nicholas  went  no  farther ;  but  he  pur- 
sued the  undertaking,  in  a  war  which  lasted  until 
the  autumn  of  1839.  Turkey  at  the  end  of  it 
conceded  the  independence  of  Greece,  and  prac- 
tically that  of  Wallachia  and  Moldavia.  In  1830, 
a  conference  at  London  established  the  Greek 
kingdom,  and  in  1833  a  Bavarian  prince,  Otho  I., 
was  settled  on  the  throne. 

Revolutions  of  1830. 

Before  this  result  was  reached,  revolution  in 
western  Europe,  arrested  in  1831-33,  had  broken 
out  afresh.  Bourbonism  had  become  unendura- 
ble to  France.  Cliarles  X. ,  who  succeeded  his 
brother  Louis  XVIH.  in  1821,  showed  not  only  a 
more  arbitrary  temper,  but  a  disposition  more 
deferential  t«  tlie  Church  than  his  predecessor. 
He  was  fond  of  the  Jesuits,  whom  his  subjects 
very  commonly  distrusted  and  disliked.  He  at- 
tempted to  put  shackles  on  the  press,  and  when 
elections  to  the  chamber  of  deputies  went  repeat- 
edly against  the  government,  he  undertook  prac- 
tically to  alter  the  suffrage  by  ordinances  of  his 
own.  A  revolution  seemed  then  to  be  the  only 
remedy  that  was  open  to  the  nation,  and  it  was 
adopted  in  July,  1830,  the  veteran  Lafayette 
taking  the  lead.  Charles  X.  was  driven  to 
abdication,  and  left  France  for  England.  The 
crown  was  transferred  to  Louis  Philippe,  of 
the  Orleans  branch  of  the  Bourbon  family, —  sou 
of  the  Philip  figalite  who  joined  the  Jacobins 
in  the  Revolution. 

The  July  Revolution  in  France  proved  a  signal 
for  more  outbreaks  in  other  parts  of  Europe  than 
had  followed  the  Spanish  rising  of  teu  years 
before. 

Belgium  broke  away  from  the  union  with 
Holland,  which  had  never  satisfied  its  people, 
and,  after  some  struggle,  won  recognized  inde- 
pendence, as  a  new  kingdom,  with  Leopold  of 
Saxe  Coburg  raised  to  the  throne. 

Russian  Poland,  bearing  the  name  of  a  consti- 
tutional kingdom  since  1815,  but  having  the  Czar 
for  its  king  and  the  Czar's  brother  for  viceroy, 
found  no  lighter  oppression  than  before,  and 
made  a  hopeless,  brave  attempt  to  escape  from 
its  bonds.  The  revolt  was  put  down  with  un- 
merciful severity,  and  thousands  of  the  hapless 
patriots  went  to  exile  In  Siberia. 

In  Germany,  there  were  numerous  demonstra- 
tions in  the  smaller  states,  which  succeeded  more 
or  less  in  extorting  constitutional  concessions; 
but  there  was  no  revolutionary  movement  on  a 
larger  scale. 

Italy  remained  quiet  in  both  the  north  and  the 
south,  where  disturbances  had  arisen  before ;  but 
commotions  occurred  in  the  Papal  states,  and  in 
Modena  and  Parma,  which  required  the  arms  of 
Austria  to  suppress. 

In  England,  the  agitations  of  the  continent 
hastened  forward  a  revolution  which  went  far 
beyond  all  other  popular  movements  of  the  time 
in  the  lasting  importance  of  its  effects,  and  which 
exhibited  in  their  first  great  triumjili  the  peace- 
ful forces  of  the  Platform  and  the  Press. 

England  under  the  last  two  Georges. 

But  we  have  given  little  attention  to  affairs  in 
Great  Britain  during  the  past  half  century  or 
more,  and  need  to  glance  backward. 

Under  the  third  of  the  Georges,  there  was  dis- 
tinctly a  check  given  to  the  political  progress 
which    England    had    been    making   since    the 


1125 


EUROPE. 


Tlie  Reform  Era 
in  England, 


EUROPE. 


Revolution  of  1688.  The  wilfulness  of  the  king 
fairly  broke  down,  for  a  considerable  period,  the 
system  of  responsible  cabinet  government  which 
had  been  taking  shape  and  root  under  the  two  ear- 
lier Hanoverians,  and  ministers  became  again,  for 
a  time,  mere  mouthpieces  of  the  royal  will.  The 
rupture  with  the  American  colonies,  and  the  un- 
successful war  which  ended  in  their  indepen- 
dence, brought  in  another  influence,  adverse,  for 
the  time  being,  to  popular  claims  in  government. 
For  it  was  not  King  George,  alone,  nor  Lord 
North,  nor  any  small  Tory  faction,  that  prose- 
cuted and  upheld  the  attempt  to  make  the  colo- 
nists in  America  submissive  to  "taxation  with- 
out representation. "  The  English  nation  at  large 
approved  the  war;  English  national  sentiment 
was  hostile  to  the  Americans  in  their  indepen- 
dent attitude,  and  the  Whigs  —  the  liberals  then 
In  English  politics  —  were  a  discredited  and 
weakened  party  for  many  years  because  of  their 
leaning  to  the  American  side  of  the  questions  in 
dispute.  Following  close  upon  the  American 
war,  came  the  French  Revolution,  which  fright- 
ened into  Toryism  great  numbers  of  people  who 
did  not  by  nature  belong  there.  In  England,  as 
everywhere  else,  the  reaction  lasted  long,  and 
government  was  more  arbitrary  and  repressive 
than  it  could  possibly  have  continued  to  be  under 
different  circumstances. 

Meantime  extraordinary  social  changes  had 
taken  place,  which  tended  to  mark  more  strongly 
the  petrifying  of  things  in  the  political  world. 
The  great  age  of  mechanical  invention  had  been 
fully  opened.  Machines  had  begun  to  do  the 
work  of  human  hands  in  every  industry,  and 
steam  had  begun  "to  move  the  machines.  The 
organization  of  labor,  too,  had  assumed  a  new 
phase.  The  factory  system  had  arisen ;  and  with 
it  had  appeared  a  new  growth  of  cities  and  towns. 
Production  was  accelerated ;  wealth  was  accu- 
mulating more  rapidly,  and  the  distribution  of 
wealth  was  following  different  lines.  The  Eng- 
lish middle  class  was  rising  fast  as  a  money- 
power  and  was  gathering  the  increased  energies 
of  the  kingdom  into  its  hands. 

Parliamentary  Reform  in  England. 

But  while  the  tendency  of  social  changes  had 
been  to  increase  vastly  the  importance  of  this 
powerful  middle  class,  the  political  conditions 
had  actually  diminished  its  weight  in  public 
affairs.  In  Parliament,  it  had  no  adequate  rep- 
resentation. The  old  boroughs,  which  sent  mem- 
bers to  the  House  of  Commons  as  they  had  sent 
them  for  generations  before,  no  longer  contained 
a  respectable  fraction  of  the  "  commons  of  Eng- 
land," supposed  to  be  represented  in  the  House, 
and  those  who  voted  in  the  boroughs  were  not 
at  all  the  better  class  of  the  new  England  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Great  numbers  of  the  bor- 
oughs were  mere  private  estates,  and  tlie  few 
votes  polled  in  them  were  cast  by  tenants  who 
elected  their  landlords'  nominees.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  large  cities  and  the  numerous  towns  of 
recent  growth  had  either  no  representation  in 
Parliament,  or  they  had  equal  representation 
with  the  "rotten  boroughs"  which  cast  two  or 
three  or  half-a-dozen  votes. 

That  the  commons  of  England,  with  all  the 
gain  of  substantial  strengtli  tliey  had  been 
making  in  the  last  half  of  the  eighteentli  century 
and  the  first  quarter  of  the  nineteenth,  endured 
this  travesty  of  popular  representation  so  long 


as  until  1832,  is  proof  of  the  potency  of  the  con- 
servatism wliich  the  French  Revolution  induced. 
The  subject  of  parliamentary  reform  had  been 
now  and  then  discussed  since  Chatham's  time; 
but  Toryism  had  always  been  able  to  thrust  it 
aside  and  bring  the  discussion  to  naught.  At 
last  there  came  the  day  when  the  question  would 
no  longer  be  put  down.  The  agitations  of  1830, 
combined  with  a  very  serious  depression  of  in- 
dustry and  trade,  produced  a  state  of  feeling 
which  could  not  be  defied.  King  and  Parliament 
yielded  to  the  public  demand,  and  the  First  Re- 
form Bill  was  passed.  It  widened  the  suffrage 
and  amended  very  considerably  the  inequities  of 
the  parliamentary  representation;  but  both  re- 
forms have  been  carried  much  farther  since,  by 
two  later  bills. 

Repeal  of  the  English  Corn  Laws. 

The  reform  of  Parliament  soon  brouglit  a 
broader  spirit  into  legislation.  Its  finest  fruits 
began  to  ripen  about  1838,  when  an  agitation  for 
the  repeal  of  the  foolish  and  wicked  English 
"corn-laws "  was  opened  by  Cobden  and  Bright. 
In  the  day  of  the  "rotten  boroughs,"  when  the 
landlords  controlled  Parliament,  they  imagined 
that  they  had  "protected"  the  farming  interest, 
and  secured  higher  rents  to  themselves,  by  laying 
heavy  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  bread- 
stuffs.  A  famous  ' '  sliding  scale  "  of  such  duties 
had  been  invented,  which  raised  the  duties  when 
prices  in  the  home  market  dropped,  and  lowered 
them  proportionately  when  home  prices  rose. 
Thus  the  consumers  were  always  deprived,  as 
much  as  possible,  of  any  cheapening  of  their 
bread  which  bountiful  Nature  might  offer,  and 
paid  a  heavy  tax  to  increase  the  gains  of  the 
owners  aud  cultivators  of  land. 

Now  that  other  ' '  interests  "  besides  the  agri- 
cultural had  a  voice  in  Parliament,  and  had  be- 
come very  strong,  they  began  to  cry  out  against 
this  iniquity,  and  demand  that  the  "  corn  laws" 
be  done  away  with.  The  famous  "anti-corn-law 
league,"  organized  mainly  by  the  exertions  of 
Richard  Cobden,  conducted  an  agitation  of  the 
question  which  brought  about  the  repeal  of  the 
laws  in  1846. 

But  the  effect  of  the  agitation  did  not  end  there. 
So  thorough  and  prolonged  a  discussion  of  the 
matter  had  enlightened  the  English  people  upon 
the  whole  question  between  "protection"  and 
free  trade.  The  manufacturers  and  mechanics, 
who  had  led  the  movement  against  protective 
duties  on  food-stuffs,  were  brought  to  see  that 
they  were  handicapped  more  than  protected  by 
duties  on  imports  in  their  own  departments  of 
production.  So  Cobden  and  his  party  continued 
their  attacks  on  the  theory  of  "  protection"  until 
every  vestige  of  it  was  cleared  from  the  English 
statute  books. 

The  Revolutions  of  1848. 

Another  year  of  revolutions  throughout  Europe 
came  in  1848,  and  the  starting  point  of  excite- 
ment was  not,  this  time,  at  Paris,  but,  strangely 
enough,  in  the  Vatican,  at  Rome.  Pius  IX.  had 
been  elected  to  the  papal  chair  in  1846,  and  had 
immediately  rejoiced  the  hearts  and  raised  the 
hopes  of  the  patriots  in  misgoverned  Italy  by  his 
liberal  measures  of  reform  and  his  promising 
words.  The  attitude  of  the  Pope  gave  encour- 
agement to  popular  demonstrations  in  various 
Italian  states  during  the  later  part  of  1847 ;  and 


1126 


EUROPE. 


Revolutions  of 

1848. 


EUROPE. 


in  January  1848  a  formidable  rising  occurred  in 
Sicily,  followed  in  February  by  another  in 
Naples.  King  Ferdinand  II.  was  compelled  to 
change  his  ministers  and  to  concede  a  constitu- 
'  tion,  which  he  did  not  long  respect. 

Lombardy  was  slow  this  time  in  being  kindled ; 
but  when  the  flame  of  revolution  burst  out  it 
was  very  fierce.  The  Austrians  were  driven  first 
from  Milan  (March,  1848),  and  then  from  city 
after  city,  until  they  seemed  to  be  abandoning 
their  Italian  possessions  altogether.  Venice  as- 
serted its  republican  independence  under  the 
presidency  of  Daniel  Mauin.  Charles  Albert, 
King  of  Sardinia,  tliought  the  time  favorable  for 
recovering  Lombardy  to  himself,  and  declared 
war  against  Austria.  The  expulsion  of  the  Aus- 
trians became  the  demand  of  the  entire  penin- 
sula, and  even  the  Pope,  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tus- 
cany, and  the  King  of  Naples  were  forced  to 
join  the  patriotic  movement  in  appearance, 
though  not  with  sincerity.  But  the  King  of  Sar- 
dinia brought  ruin  ou  the  whole  undertaking,  by 
sustaining  a  fatal  defeat  in  battle  at  Custozza,  in 
July,  1848. 

France  had  been  for  some  time  well  prepared 
for  revolt,  and  was  quick  to  be  moved  by  the 
first  whisper  of  it  from  Italy.  The  short-lived 
popularity  of  Louis  Philippe  was  a  thing  of  the 
past.  There  was  widespread  discontent  with 
many  things,  and  especially  with  the  limited  suf- 
frage. The  French  people  had  the  desire  and 
the  need  of  something  like  that  grand  measure  of 
electoral  reform  which  England  secured  so  peace- 
fully in  1833  ;  but  they  could  not  reach  it  in  the 
peaceful  way.  The  aptitude  and  the  habit  of 
handling  and  directing  the  great  forces  of  public 
opinion  effectively  in  such  a  situation  were  alike 
wanting  among  them.  There  was  a  mixture, 
moreover,  of  social  theories  and  dreams  in  their 
political  undertaking,  which  heated  the  move- 
ment and  made  it  more  certainly  explosive.  The 
Parisian  mob  took  arms  and  built  barricades 
on  the  33d  of  February.  The  next  day  Louis 
Philippe  signed  an  abdication,  and  a  week  later 
he  was  an  exile  in  England.  For  the  remainder 
of  the  year  France  was  strangely  ruled :  first  by 
a  self-constituted  provisional  government,  La- 
martine  at  its  head,  which  opened  national  work- 
shops, and  attempted  to  give  employment  and 
pay  to  135,000  enrolled  citizens  in  need;  after- 
wards by  a  Constituent  National  Assembly,  and 
an  Executive  Commission,  which  found  the  na- 
tional workshops  a  devouring  monster,  difficult 
to  control  and  hard  to  destroy.  Paris  got  rid  of 
the  shops  in  June,  at  the  cost  of  a  battle  which 
lasted  four  days,  and  in  which  more  than  8,000 
people  were  wounded  or  slain.  In  November  a 
republican  constitution,  framed  by  the  Assembly, 
was  adopted,  and  on  the  lOtli  of  December  Louis 
Napoleon  Bonaparte,  son  of  Louis  Bonaparte, 
once  King  of  Holland,  and  of  Hortense  Beau- 
harnais,  daughter  of  the  Empress  Josephine,  was 
elected  President  of  the  Republic  by  an  enor- 
mous popular  vote. 

The  revolutionary  shock  of  1848  was  felt 
in  Germany  soon  after  the  fall  of  the  monarchy 
in  France.  In  March  there  was  rioting  in  Berlin 
and  a  collision  with  the  troops,  which  alarmed 
the  king  so  seriously  that  he  yielded  promises  to 
almost  every  demand.  Similar  risings  in  other 
capitals  had  about  the  same  success.  At  Vienna, 
the  outbreak  was  more  violent  and  drove  both 
Metternich  and  the  Emperor  from  the  city.     In 


the  first  flush  of  these  popular  triumphs  there 
came  about  a  most  hopeful-looking  election  of  a 
Germanic  National  Assembly,  representative  of 
all  Germany,  and  gathered  at  Frankfort,  on  the 
invitation  of  the  Diet,  for  a  revision  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Confederation.  But  the  Assembly 
contained  more  learned  scholars  than  practical 
statesmen,  and  its  constitutional  work  was  wasted 
labor.  A  Constituent  Assembly  elected  in  Prus- 
sia accomplished  no  more,  and  was  dispersed  in 
the  end  without  resistance ;  but  the  king  granted 
a  constitution  of  his  own  framing.  The  revolu- 
tionary movement  in  Germany  left  its  effects,  iu 
a  general  loosening  of  the  bonds  of  harsh  gov- 
ernment, a  general  broadening  of  political  ideas, 
a  final  breaking  of  the  Metternich  influence, 
even  iu  Austria ;  but  it  passed  over  the  existing 
institutions  of  the  much-divided  country  with  a 
very  light  touch. 

In  Hungary  the  revolution,  stimulated  by  the 
eloquence  of  Kossuth,  was  carried  to  the  pitch 
of  serious  war.  The  Hungarians  had  resolved  to 
be  an  independent  nation,  and  iu  the  struggle 
which  ensued  they  approached  very  near  the 
attainment  of  their  desire ;  but  Russia  came  to 
the  help  of  the  Hapsburgs,  and  the  armies  of  the 
two  despotisms  combined  were  more  than  the 
Hungarians  could  resist.  Their  revolt  was  aban- 
doned in  August,  1849,  and  Kossuth,  with  other 
leaders,  escaped  through  Turkish  territory  to 
other  lands. 

The  suppression  of  the  Hungarian  revolt  was 
followed  by  a  complete  restoration  of  the  despot- 
ism and  domination  of  the  Austrians  in  Italy. 
Charles  Albert,  of  Sardinia,  had  taken  courage 
from  the  struggle  in  Hungary  and  had  renewed 
hostilities  iu  March,  1849.  But,  again,  he  was 
crushingly  defeated,  at  Novara,  and  resigned,  in 
despair,  the  crown  to  his  son,  Victor  Emmanuel 
II.  Venice,  which  had  resisted  a  long  siege  with 
heroic  constancy,  capitulated  in  August  of  the 
same  year.  The  whole  of  Lombardy  and  Veuetia 
was  bowed  once  more  under  the  merciless  tyr- 
anny of  the  Austrians,  and  savage  revenges 
were  taken  upon  the  patriots  who  failed  to  es- 
cape. Rome,  whence  the  Pope  —  no  longer  a 
patron  of  liberal  politics  — had  fled,  and  where 
a  republic  had  been  once  more  set  up,  with  Gari- 
baldi and  JIazzini  in  its  constituent  assembly, 
was  besieged  and  taken,  and  the  republic  over- 
turned, by  troops  sent  from  republican  France. 
The  Neapolitan  king  restored  his  atrocious  abso- 
lutism without  help,  by  measures  of  the  greatest 
brutality, 

A  civil  war  in  Switzerland,  which  occurred 
simultaneously  with  the  political  collisions  in 
surrounding  countries,  is  hardly  to  be  classed 
with  them.  It  was  rather  a  religious  conflict, 
between  the  Roman  Catholics  and  their  oppo- 
nents. The  Catholic  cantons,  united  in  a  League, 
called  the  Sonderbund.were  defeated  in  the  war; 
the  Jesuits  were  expelled  from  Switzerland  in 
consequence,  and,  in  September,  1848,  a  new 
constitution  for  the  confederacy  was  adopted. 

The  Second  Empire  in  France. 

The  election  of  Louis  Napoleon  to  the  Presi- 
dency of  the  French  Republic  was  ominous  of  a 
disposition  among  the  people  to  bring  back  a 
Napoleonic  regime,  with  all  the  falsities  that  it 
might  imply.  He  so  construed  the  vote  which 
elected  him,  and  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
mistaken.      Having    surrounded    himself   with 


1127 


EUROPE. 


Unification  of 
Italy. 


EUROPE. 


unprincipled  adventurers,  and  employed  three 
years  of  his  presidency  in  preparations  for  the 
attempt,  lie  executed  a  coup  d'  etat  on  the  2d  of 
December,  dispersing  the  National  Assembly, 
arresting  influential  republicans,  and  submitting 
to  popular  vote  a  new  constitution  which  pro- 
longed his  presidency  to  ten  years.  This  was 
but  the  first  step.  A  year  later  he  secured  a 
"plebiscite"  which  made  him  hereditary  Em- 
peror of  the  French.  The  new  Empire  —  the 
Second  Empire  in  France  —  was  more  vulgar, 
more  false,  more  fraudulent,  more  swarmingly  a 
nest  of  self-seeking  and  dishonest  adventurers, 
than  the  First  had  been,  and  with  nothing  of  the 
saving  genius  that  was  in  the  First.  It  rotted 
for  eighteen  years,  and  then  it  fell,  France 
with  it. 

The  Crimean  War. 

A  certain  respectability  was  lent  to  this  sec- 
ond Napoleonic  Empire  by  the  alliance  of  Eng- 
land with  it  in  1854,  against  Russia.  The  Czar, 
Nicholas,  had  determined  to  defy  resistance  in 
Europe  to  his  designs  against  the  Turks.  He 
first  endeavored  to  persuade  England  to  join  him 
in  dividing  the  possessions  of  "the  sick  man," 
as  he  described  the  Ottoman,  and,  that  proposal 
being  declined,  he  opened  on  his  own  account  a 
quarrel  with  the  Porte.  France  and  England 
joined  forces  in  assisting  the  Turks,  and  the 
little  kingdom  of  Sardinia,  from  motives  of  far- 
seeing  policy,  came  into  the  alliance.  The  prin- 
cipal campaign  of  the  war  was  fought  in  the 
Crimea,  and  its  notable  incident  was  the  long 
siege  of  Sebastopol,  which  the  Russians  de- 
feuded  until  September,  1855.  An  armistice 
was  concluded  the  following  January,  and  the 
terms  of  peace  were  settled  at  a  general  conference 
of  powers  in  Paris  the  next  March.  The  results  of 
the  war  were  a  check  to  Russia,  but  an  improve- 
ment of  the  condition  of  the  Sultan's  Christian 
subjects.  Moldavia  and  Wallachia  were  soon 
afterwards  united  under  the  name  of  Roumania, 
paying  tribute  to  the  Porte,  but  otherwise  inde- 
pendent. 

Liberation  and  Unification  of  Italy. 

The  part  taken  by  Sardinia  in  the  Crimean 
War  gave  that  kingdom  a  standing  in  European 
politics  which  had  never  been  recognized  before. 
It  was  a  measure  of  sagacious  policy  due  to  the 
able  statesman.  Count  Cavour,  wlio  had  become 
the  trusted  minister  of  Victor  Emmanuel,  the 
Sardinian  king.  The  king  and  his  minister 
were  agreed  in  one  aim  —  the  unification  of  Italy 
under  the  headship  of  the  House  of  Savoy. 
By  her  participation  in  the  war  with  Russia, 
Sardinia  won  a  position  which  enabled  her  to 
claim  and  secure  admission  to  the  Congress  of 
Paris,  among  the  greater  powers.  At  that  con- 
ference. Count  Cavour  found  an  opportunity  to 
direct  attention  to  the  deplorable  state  of  affairs 
in  Italy,  under  the  Austrian  rule  and  influence. 
No  action  by  the  Congress  was  taken ;  but  the 
Italian  question  was  raised  in  importance  at 
once  by  the  discussion  of  it,  and  Italy  was  rallied 
to  the  side  of  Sardinia  as  the  necessary  head  of 
any  practicable  movement  toward  liberation. 
More  than  that :  France  was  moved  to  sympathy 
with  the  Italian  cause,  and  Louis  Napoleon  was 
led  to  believe  that  his  throne  would  be  strength- 
ened by  espousing  it.  He  encouraged  Cavour  and 
Victor  Emmanuel,  therefore,  in  an  attitude  toward 


Austria  which  resulted  in  war  (1859),  and  when  the 
Sardinians  were  attacked  he  went  to  their  assis- 
tance with  a  powerful  force.  At  Magenta  and 
Solferino  the  Austrians  were  decisively  beaten, 
and  the  French  emperor  then  abruptly  closed 
the  war,  making  a  treaty  which  ceded  Lombardy 
alone  to  Sardinia,  leaving  Venetia  still  under 
the  oppressor,  and  the  remainder  of  Italy  un- 
changed in  its  state.  For  payment  of  the  ser- 
vice he  had  rendered,  Louis  Napoleon  exacted 
Savoy  and  Nice,  and  Victor  Emmanuel  was 
compelled  to  part  with  the  original  seat  of  his 
House. 

■  There  was  bitter  disappointment  among  the 
Italian  patriots  over  the  meagerness  of  the  fruit 
yielded  by  the  splendid  victories  of  Magenta  and 
Solferino.  Despite  the  treaty  of  Villafranca, 
they  were  determined  to  have  more,  and  they 
did.  Tuscany,  Parma,  Modena  and  Romagna 
demanded  annexation  to  Sardinia,  and,  after  a 
plebiscite,  they  were  received  (March,  1860)  into 
the  kingdom  and  represented  in  its  parliament. 
In  the  Two  Sicilies  there  was  an  intense  longing 
for  deliverance  from  the  brutalities  of  the  Nea- 
politan Bourbons.  Victor  Emmanuel  could  not 
venture  an  attack  upon  the  rotten  kingdom,  for 
fear  of  resentments  in  France  and  elsewhere. 
But  the  adventurous  soldier.  Garibaldi,  now 
took  on  himself  the  task  of  completing  the  lib- 
eration of  Italy.  With  an  army  of  volunteers,  he 
first  swept  the  Neapolitans  out  of  Sicily,  and 
then  took  Naples  itself,  within  the  space  of  four 
months,  between  May  and  September,  1860. 
The  whole  dominion  was  annexed  to  what  now 
became  the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  and  which  em- 
braced the  entire  peninsula  except  Rome,  garri- 
soned for  the  Pope  by  French  troops,  and  Vene- 
tia, still  held  in  the  clutches  of  Austria.  In 
1862,  Garibaldi  raised  volunteers  for  an  attack 
on  Rome;  but  the  unwise  movement  was  sup- 
pressed by  Victor  Emmanuel.  Two  years  later, 
the  King  of  Italy  brought  about  an  agreement 
with  the  French  emperor  to  withdraw  his  garri- 
son from  Rome,  and,  after  that  had  been  done, 
the  annexation  of  Rome  to  the  Italian  kingdom 
was  a  mere  question  of  time.  It  came  about 
in  1870,  after  the  fall  of  Louis  Napoleon,  and 
Victor  Emmanuel  transferred  his  capital  to  the 
Eternal  City.  The  Pope's  domain  was  then  lim- 
ited to  the  precincts  of  the  Vatican. 

The  Austro-Prussian  War. 

The  unification  of  Italy  was  the  first  of  a  re- 
markable series  of  nationalizing  movements 
which  have  been  the  most  significant  feature  of 
the  history  of  the  last  half  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. The  next  of  these  movements  to  begin 
was  in  Germany  —  the  much  divided  country  of 
one  peculiarly  homogeneous  and  identical  race. 
Influences  tending  toward  unification  had  been 
acting  on  the  Germans  since  Prussia  rose  to 
superiority  in  the  north.  By  the  middle  of  the 
century,  the  educated,  military  Prussia  that  was 
founded  after  1806  had  become  a  power  capable 
of  great  things  in  capable  hands ;  and  the  capa- 
ble "hands  received  it.  In  1861,  William  I.  suc- 
ceeded his  brother  as  king;  in  1863,  Otto  von 
Bismarck  became  his  prime  minister.  It  was  a 
remarkable  combination  of  qualities  and  talents, 
and  remarkable  results  came  from  it. 

In  1864,  Prussia  and  Austria  acted  together  in 
taking  Schleswig  and  Holstein,  as  German  states, 
from  Denmark.     The  next  year  they  quarreled 


1128 


EUROPE. 


Germany  and 
France. 


EUROPE. 


over  the  administration  of  the  duchies.  In  1866, 
they  fought,  and  Austria  was  entirely  vanquished 
in  a  "seven  weeks  war."  The  superiority  of 
Prussia,  organized  by  her  great  military  admin- 
istrator and  soldier,  Moltke,  was  overpowering. 
Her  rival  was  left  completely  at  her  mercy.  But 
Bismarck  and  his  king  were  wisely  magnani- 
mous. They  refrained  from  inflicting  on  the  Aus- 
trians  a  humiliation  that  would  rankle  and  keep 
enmities  alive.  They  foresaw  the  need  of  future 
friendship  between  the  two  powers  of  central 
Europe,  as  against  Russia  on  the  one  side  and 
France  on  the  other,  and  they  shaped  their  policy 
to  secure  it.  It  sufficed  them  to  have  put  Aus- 
tria out  of  the  German  circle,  forever;  to  have 
ended  the  false  relation  in  which  the  Hapsburgs 
—  rulers  of  an  essentially  Slavonic  and  Magyar 
dominion  —  had  stood  towards  Germany  so 
long. 

Prussia  now  dominated  the  surrounding  Ger- 
man states  so  commandingly  tliat  the  mode  and 
the  time  of  their  unification  may  be  said  to  have 
been  within  her  own  control.  Hanover,  Hesse- 
Cassel,  Nassau,  Schleswig-Holstein,  and  Frank- 
fort were  incorporated  in  the  Prussian  kingdom 
at  once.  Saxony  and  the  other  states  of  the 
north  were  enveloped  in  a  North  German  Con- 
federation, with  the  King  of  Prussia  for  its  he- 
reditary president  and  commander  of  its  forces. 
The  states  of  southern  Germany  were  left  un- 
federated  for  the  time  being,  but  bound  them- 
selves by  treaty  to  put  their  armies  at  the  dis- 
posal of  Prussia.  Thus  Germany  as  a  whole 
was  already  made  practically  one  power,  under 
the  control  of  King  William  and  his  great  min- 
ister. 

Final  Expulsion  of  Austria  from  Italy. 

The  same  war  which  unified  Germany  carried 
forward  the  nationalization  of  Italy  another  step. 
Victor  Emmanuel  had  shrewdly  entered  into  an 
alliance  with  Prussia  before  the  war  began,  and 
attacked  Austria  in  Venetia  simultaneously  with 
tlie  German  attack  on  the  Bohemian  side.  The 
Italians  were  beaten  at  Custozza,  and  their  navy 
was  defeated  in  the  Adriatic ;  but  tlie  victorious 
Prussians  exacted  Venetia  for  them  in  the  settle- 
ment of  peace,  and  Austria  had  no  more  footing 
in  the  peninsula. 

Austria-Hungary. 

It  is  greatly  to  the  credit  of  Austria,  long 
blinded  and  stupefied  by  the  narcotic  of  abso- 
lutism, that  the  lessons  of  the  war  of  1866  sank 
deep  into  her  mind  and  produced  a  very  genuine 
enlightenment.  The  whole  policy  of  the  court 
of  Vienna  was  changed,  and  with  it  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Empire.  The  statesmen  of  Hungary 
were  called  into  consultation  with  the  statesmen 
of  Austria,  and  the  outcome  of  their  discussions 
was  an  agreement  which  swept  away  the  old 
Austria,  holding  Hungary  in  subjection,  and 
created  in  its  place  a  new  power  —  a  federal 
Austria- Hungary — equalized  in  its  two  princi- 
pal parts,  and  united  under  the  same  sovereign 
■with  distinct  constitutions. 

The  Franco-German  War. 

The  surprising  triumph  of  Prussia  in  the  Seven 
Weeks  War  stung  Louis  Napoleon  with  a 
jealousy  which  he  could  not  conceal.  He  was 
incapable  of  perceiving  what  it  signified, — of 
perfection  in  the  organization  of  the  Prussian 


kingdom  and  of  power  in  its  resources.  He  was 
under  illusions  as  to  the  strengtli  of  his  own  Em- 
pire. It  had  been  honeycombed  by  the  ras- 
calities that  attended  and  surrounded  him,  and 
he  did  not  know  it.  He  imagined  France  to  be 
capable  of  putting  a  check  on  Prussian  aggran- 
dizement ;  and  he  began  very  early  after  Sadowa 
to  pursue  King  WiUiam  with  demands  which 
were  tolerably  certain  to  end  in  war.  When  the 
war  came,  in  July,  1870,  it  was  by  his  own 
declaration ;  yet  Prussia  was  prepared  for  it  and 
Prance  was  not.  In  six  weeks  time  from  the 
declaration  of  war, —  in  one  month  from  the  first 
action, — Napoleon  himself  was  a  prisoner  of  war 
in  the  hands  of  the  Germans,  surrendered  at 
Sedan,  with  the  whole  army  wliich  he  personally 
commanded ;  the  Empire  was  in  collapse,  and  a 
provisional  government  had  taken  the  direction 
of  affairs.  On  the  30th  of  September  Paris  was 
invested ;  on  the  28th  of  October  Bazaine,  with  an 
army  of  150, 000  men,  capitulated  at  Metz.  A  hope- 
less attempt  to  rally  the  nation  to  fresh  efforts  of 
defence  in  the  interior,  on  the  Loire,  was  valiantly 
made  imder  the  lead  of  Gambetta ;  but  it  was  too 
late.  When  the  year  closed,  besieged  Paris  was 
at  the  verge  of  starvation  and  all  attempts  to  re- 
lieve the  city  had  failed.  On  the  28th  of  January, 
1871,  an  armistice  was  sought  and  obtained ;  on 
the  30th,  Paris  was  surrendered  and  the  Germans 
entered  it.  The  treaty  of  peace  negotiated  sub- 
sequently ceded  Alsace  to  Germany,  with  a  fifth 
of  Lorraine,  and  bound  France  to  pay  a  war  in- 
demnity of  five  milliards  of  francs. 

The  Paris  Commune. 

In  February,  1871,  the  provisional  "  Govern- 
ment of  National  Defense  "  gave  way  to  a  Na- 
tional Assembly,  duly  elected  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  armistice,  and  an  executive  was 
instituted  at  Bordeaux,  under  the  presidency  of 
M.  Thiers.  Early  in  March,  the  German  forces 
were  withdrawn  from  Paris,  and  control  of  the 
city  was  immediately  seized  by  that  dangerous 
element  —  Jacobinical,  or  Red  Republican,  or 
Communistic,  as  it  may  be  variously  described  — 
which  always  shows  itself  with  promptitude  and 
power  in  the  French  capital,  at  disorderly  times. 
The  Commune  was  proclaimed,  and  the  national 
government  was  defied.  From  the  2d  of  April 
until  the  28th  of  May  Paris  was  again  under  siege, 
this  time  by  forces  of  the  Frencli  government, 
fighting  to  overcome  the  revolutionists  within. 
The  proceedings  of  the  latter  were  more  wantonly 
destructive  than  those  of  the  Terrorists  of  the 
Revolution,  and  scarcely  less  sanguinary.  The 
Commime  was  suppressed  in  the  end  with  great 
severity. 

The  Third  French  Republic. 

M.  Thiers  held  the  presidency  of  the  Third  Re- 
public in  France  until  1873,  when  he  resigned 
and  was  succeeded  by  Marslial  SlacMahon.  In 
1875  the  constitution  which  has  since  remained, 
with  some  amendments,  in  force,  was  framed 
and  adopted.  In  1878  Marshal  MacMahon  gave 
place  to  M.  Jules  Grevy,  and  the  latter  to  M. 
Sadi  Carnot  in  1887.  Republican  government 
seems  to  be  firmly  and  permanently  established 
in  France  at  last.  The  country  is  in  a  prosper- 
ous state,  and  nothing  but  its  passionate  desire 
to  recover  Alsace  and  to  avenge  Sedan  appears 
threatening  to  its  future. 


1129 


EUROPE. 


The  new  German  Empire. 


England  and 
Ireland, 


EUROPE. 


While  the  army  of  the  Germans  was  still  be- 
sieging Paris,  and  King  William  and  Prince 
Bismarck  were  at  Versailles,  in  January,  1871, 
the  last  act  wliioh  completed  the  unification  and 
nationalization  of  Germany  was  performed.  This 
was  the  assumption  of  the  title  of  Emperor  by 
King  William,  in  response  to  the  prayer  of  the 
princes  of  Germany  and  of  the  North  German 
Parliament.  On  the  16th  of  the  following  April, 
a  constitution  for  the  German  Empire  was  pro- 
claimed. 

The  long  and  extraordinary  reign  of  the  Em- 
peror William  I.  was  ended  by  his  death  in  1888. 
His  son,  Frederick  III,  was  dying  at  the  time  of 
an  incurable  disease,  and  survived  his  father  only 
three  months.  The  son  of  Frederick  III., 
William  11.,  signalized  the  beginning  of  his 
reign  by  dismissing,  after  a  few  months,  the 
great  minister.  Count  Bismarck,  on  whom  his 
strong  grandfather  had  leaned,  and  who  had 
wrought  such  marvels  of  statesmanship  and 
diplomacy  for  the  German  race.  What  may  lie 
at  the  end  of  the  reign  which  had  this  self- 
suflBcient  beginning  is  not  to  be  foretold. 

The  Russo-Turkish  War. 

Since  the  Franco-German  War  of  1870-1871, 
the  peace  of  Europe  has  been  broken  but  once  by 
hostilities  within  the  European  boundary.  In 
1875  a  rising  against  the  unendurable  misrule  of 
the  Turks  began  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  and 
was  imitated  the  next  year  in  Bulgaria.  Servia 
and  Montenegro  declared  war  against  Turkey 
and  were  overcome.  Russia  then  espoused  the 
cause  of  the  struggling  Slavs,  and  opened,  in 
1877,  a  most  formidable  new  attempt  to  crush 
the  Ottoman  power,  and  to  accomplish  her  cov- 
eted extension  to  the  Mediterranean.  From  May 
until  the  following  January  the  storm  of  war 
raged  fiercely  along  the  Balkans.  The  Turks 
fought  stubbornly,  but  they  were  beaten  back, 
and  nothing  but  a  dangerous  opposition  of  feel- 
ing among  the  other  powers  in  Europe  stayed 
the  hand  of  the  Czar  from  being  laid  upon  Con- 
stantinople. The  powers  required  a  settlement 
of  the  peace  between  Russia  and  Turkey  to  be 
made  by  a  general  Congress,  and  it  was  held  at 
Berlin  in  June,  1878.  Bulgaria  was  divided 
by  the  Congress  into  two  states,  one  tributary 
to  the  Turk,  but  freely  governed,  the  other 
subject  to  Turkey,  but  under  a  Christian  gov- 
ernor. This  arrangement  was  set  aside  seven 
years  later  by  a  bloodless  revolution,  which 
formed  one  Bulgaria  in  nominal  relations  of  de- 
pendence upon  the  Porte.  This  was  the  third 
Important  nationalizing  movement  within  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  and  it  is  likely  to  go  farther 
in  southeastern  Europe,  until  it  settles,  perhaps, 
"the  Eastern  question,"  so  far  as  the  European 
side  of  it  is  concerned. 

Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  were  given  to  Austria 
by  the  Congress  of  Berlin ;  the  independence  of 
Roumania,  Servia,  and  Montenegro  was  made 
more  complete ;  the  island  of  Cyprus  was  turned 
over  to  Great  Britain  for  administration. 

Spain  in  the  last  half  Century. 

A  few  words  will  tell  sufficiently  the  story  of 
Spain  since  the  successor  of  Joseph  Bonaparte 
quitted  the  scene.  Ferdinand  VH.  died  in  1833, 
and  his  infant  daughter  was  proclaimed  queen, 


as  Isabella  II. ,  with  her  mother,  Christina,  regent. 
Isabella's  title  was  disputed  by  Don  Carlos,  the 
late  king's  brother,  and  a  civil  war  between  Carl- 
ists  and  Christinos  went  on  for  years.  When 
Isabella  came  of  age  she  proved  to  be  a  dissolute 
woman,  with  strong  proclivities  toward  arbitrary 
government.  A  liberal  party,  and  even  a  re- 
pulilican  party,  had  been  steadily  gaining  ground 
in  Spain,  and  the  queen  placed  herself  in  contlict 
with  it.  In  1868  a  revolution  drove  her  into 
France.  The  revolutionists  offered  the  crown  to 
a  prince  distantly  related  to  the  royal  family  of 
Prussia.  It  was  this  incident  that  gave  Louis 
Napoleon  a  pretext  for  quarreling  with  the  King 
of  Prussia  in  1870  and  declaring  war.  Declined 
by  the  Hohenzollern  prince,  the  Spanish  crown 
was  then  offered  to  Amadeo,  sou  of  the  King  of 
Italy,  who  accepted  it,  but  resigned  it  again  in 
1873,  after  a  reign  of  two  years,  in  disgust  with 
the  factions  which  troubled  him.  Castelar,  the 
distinguished  republican  orator,  then  formed  a 
republican  government  which  held  the  reins  for 
a  few  months,  but  could  not  establish  order  in 
the  troubled  land.  The  monarchy  was  restored 
In  December,  187-1,  by  the  coronation  of  Alfonso 
XII.,  son  of  the  exiled  Isabella.  Since  that  time 
Spain  has  preserved  a  tolerably  peaceful  and 
contented  state. 

England  and  Ireland. 

In  recent  years,  the  part  which  Great  Britain 
has  taken  in  Continental  affairs  has  been  slight ; 
and,  indeed,  there  has  been  little  in  those  affairs 
to  bring  about  important  international  relations. 
In  domestic  politics,  a  single  series  of  questions, 
concerning  Ireland  and   the  connection   of   Ire- 
land with  the  British  part  of  the  United  King- 
dom,   has    mastered    the    field,    overriding    all 
others  and  compelling  the  statesmen  of  the  day 
to  take  them  in  hand.    The  sudden  imperiousness 
of  these  questions  affords  a  peculiar  manifesta- 
tion of  the  political  conscience  in  nations  which 
the  nineteenth  century  has  wakened  and  set  astir. 
Through  all  the  prior  centuries  of  their  subjec- 
tion, the  treatment  of  the  Irish  people  by  the 
English  was  as  cruel  and  as  heedless  of  justice 
and  right  as  the  treatment  of  Poles  by  Russians 
or    of    Greeks    by  Turks.     They    were    trebly 
oppressed:   as  conquered  subjects  of  an   alien 
race,  as  religious  enemies,  as  possible  rivals  in 
production  and  trade.     They  were  deprived  of 
political  and  civil  rights ;  they  were  denied  the 
ministrations  of  their  priests ;  the  better  employ- 
ments   and    more    honorable    professions    were 
closed  to  them;  the  industries  which  promised 
prosperity  to  their  country  were  suppressed.     A 
small  minority  of  Protestant  colonists  became 
the  recognized  nation,  so  far  as  a  nationality  in 
Ireland  was  recognized  at  all.     When  Ireland 
was  said  to  have  a  Parliament,  it  was  the  Parlia- 
ment of  the  minority  alone.     No  Catholic  sat  in 
it;  no   Catholic  was  represented  in  it.     Wlien 
Irishmen   were  permitted  to  bear    arms,    they 
were  Protestant  Irishmen  only  who  formed  the 
privileged  militia.     Seven-tenths  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  island  were  politically  as  non-exist- 
ent as  actual  serfdom  could  have  made  thern. 
For  the  most  part  they  were  peasants  and  their 
state  as  such  scarcely  above  the  condition  of 
serfs.     They  owned  no  land;  their  leases  were 
insecure;  the  laws  protected  them  in  the  least 
possible  degree ;  their  landlords  were  mostly  of 
the    hostile    creed    and    race.     No  country    in 


1130 


EUROPE. 


Ccmclusion. 


EUROPE. 


Europe  showed  conditions  better  calculated  to 
distress  and  degrade  a  people. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  in  Ireland  until 
nearly  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century.  In 
1783  legislative  independence  was  conceded ;  but 
the  independent  legislature  was  still  the  Parlia- 
ment in  which  Protestants  sat  alone.  In  1793 
Catholics  were  admitted  to  the  franchise;  but 
seats  in  Parliament  were  still  denied  to  them  and 
they  must  elect  Protestants  to  represent  them. 
In  1800  the  Act  of  Union,  creating  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  ex- 
tinguished the  Parliament  at  Dublin  and  pro- 
vided for  the  introduction  of  Irish  peers  and 
members  to  represent  Irish  constituencies  in  the 
greater  Parliament  at  London;  but  still  no 
Catholic  could  take  a  seat  in  either  House.  Not 
until  1829,  after  eighteen  years  of  the  tierce  agi- 
tation which  Daniel  O'Connell  stirred  up,  were 
Catholic  disabilities  entirely  removed  and  the 
people  of  that  faith  placed  on  an  equal  footing 
with  Protestants  in  political  and  civil  rights. 

O'Connell's  agitation  was  not  for  Catholic 
emancipation  alone,  but  for  the  repeal  of  the  Act 
of  Union  and  the  restoration  of  legislative  inde- 
pendence and  national  distinctness  to  Ireland. 
That  desire  has  been  hot  in  the  Irish  heart  from 
the  day  the  Union  was  accomplished.  After 
O'Connell's  death,  there  was  quiet  on  the  subject 
for  a  time.  The  fearful  famine  of  1845-7  dead- 
ened all  political  feeling.  Then  there  was  a  re- 
currence of  the  passionate  animosity  to  British 
rule  which  had  kindled  unfortunate  rebellions 
in  1798  and  1803.  It  produced  the  Fenian  con- 
spiracies, which  ran  their  course  from  about  18.58 
to  1867.  But  soon  after  that  time  Irish  national- 
ism resumed  a  more  politic  temper,  and  doubled 
the  energy  of  its  eilorts  by  confining  them  to 
peaceful  and  lawful  ways.  The  Home  Rule 
movement,  which  began  in  1873,  was  aimed  at 
the  organization  of  a  compact  and  well-guided 
Irish  party  in  Parliament,  to  press  the  demand 
for  legislative  independence  and  to  act  with 
united  weight  on  lines  of  Irish  policy  carefully 
laid  down.  This  Home  Rule  party  soon  acquired 
a  powerful  leader  in  Mr.  Charles  Parnell,  and 
was  successful  in  carrying  questions  of  reform  in 
Ireland  to  the  forefront  of  English  politics. 

Under  the  influence  of  its  great  leader,  Mr. 
Gladstone,  the  Liberal  party  had  already,  before 
the  Home  Rule  party  came  into  the  field,  begun 
to  adopt  measures  for  the  redress  of  Irish  wrongs. 
In  1869,  the  Irish  branch  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, calling  itself  the  Church  of  Ireland,  was 
disestablished.  The  membership  of  that  churcli 
was  reckoned  to  be  one-tenth  of  the  population ; 
but  it  had  been  supported  by  the  taxation  of  the 
whole.  The  Catholics,  the  Presbyterians  and 
other  dissenters  were  now  released  from  this 
unjust  burden.  In  1870,  a  Land  Bill  —  the  first 
of  several,  which  restrict  the  power  of  Irish  land- 
lords to  oppress  their  tenants,  and  which  protect 
the  latter,  while  opening  opportunities  of  land- 
ownership  to  them  —  was  passed.  The  land 
question  became  for  a  time  more  prominent  than 
the  Home  Rule  question,  and  the  party  of  Mr. 
Parnell  was  practically  absorbed  in  an  Irish  Na- 
tional Land  League,  formed  to  force  landlords  to 
a  reduction  of  rents.  The  methods  of  coercion 
adopted  brought  the  League  into  collision  with 
the  Liberal  Government,  notwithstanding  the 
general  sympathy  of  the  latter  with  Irish  com- 
plaints.   For  a  time  the  Irish  Nationalists  went 


into  alliance  with  the  English  Conservatives ;  but 
in  1886  Mr.  Gladstone  became  convinced,  and 
convinced  the  majority  of  his  party,  that  just 
and  harmonious  relations  between  Ireland  and 
Great  Britain  could  never  be  established  without 
the  concession  of  Home  Rule  to  the  fomier.  A 
bill  which  he  introduced  to  that  end  was  defeated 
in  the  House  of  Commons  and  Mr.  Gladstone  re- 
signed. In  1893  lie  was  returned  to  power,  and 
in  September  of  the  following  year  lie  carried  in 
the  House  of  Commons  a  bill  for  the  transferring 
of  Irish  legislation  to  a  distinct  Parliament  at 
Dublin.  It  was  defeated,  however,  in  the  House 
of  Lords,  and  the  question  now  rests  in  an  un- 
settled state.  Mr.  Gladstone's  retirement  from 
the  premiership  and  from  the  leadership  of  his 
party,  which  occuiTed  in  March,  1894,  may  affect 
the  prospects  of  the  measure;  but  the  English 
Liberals  are  committed  to  its  principle,  and  it 
appears  to  be  certain  that  the  Irish  question  will 
attain  some  solution  within  no  very  long  time. 

Conclusion. 

The  beginning  of  the  year  1894,  when  this  is 
written,  finds  Europe  at  peace,  as  it  has  been  for 
a  number  of  years.  But  the  peace  is  not  of 
friendship,  nor  of  honorable  confidence,  nor  of 
good  will.  The  greater  nations  are  lying  on 
their  arms,  so  to  speak,  watching  one  another 
with  strained  eyes  and  with  jealous  hearts. 
France,  Germany,  Italy,  Austria,  Russia,  are 
marshaling  armies  in  the  season  of  peace  that, 
not  many  years  ago,  would  have  seemed  mon- 
strous for  war.  E.xactions  of  military  service 
and  taxation  for  military  expenditure  are  pressed 
upon  their  people  to  the  point  of  last  endurance. 
The  preparation  for  battle  is  so  vast  in  its  scale, 
so  unceasing,  so  increasing,  so  far  in  the  lead 
over  all  other  efforts  among  men,  that  it  seems 
like  a  new  affirmation  of  belief  that  war  is  the 
natural  order  of  the  world. 

And  yet,  the  dread  of  war  is  greater  in  the 
civilized  world  than  ever  before.  The  interests 
and  influences  that  work  for  peace  are  more 
powerful  than  at  any  former  time.  The  wealth 
which  war  threatens,  the  commerce  which  it  in- 
terrupts, the  industry  which  it  disturbs,  the  in- 
telligence which  it  offends,  the  humanity  which 
it  shocks,  the  Christianity  which  it  grieves,  grow 
stronger  to  resist  it,  year  by  year.  The  states- 
man and  the  diplomatist  are  under  checks  of  re- 
sponsibility which  a  generation  no  older  than 
Palmerston's  never  felt.  The  arbitrator  and  the 
tribunal  of  arbitration  have  become  familiar 
within  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The  spirit  of  the 
age  opposes  war  with  rising  earnestness  and  in- 
creasing force ;  while  the  circumstance  and  fact 
of  the  time  seem  arranged  for  it  as  the  chief  busi- 
ness of  mankind.  It  is  a  singular  and  a  critical 
situation ;  the  outcome  from  it  is  impenetrably 
hidden. 

Within  itself,  too,  each  nation  is  troubled  with 
hostilities  that  the  world  has  not  known  before. 
Democracy  in  politics  is  bringing  in,  as  was  in- 
evitable, democracy  in  the  whole  social  system; 
and  the  period  of  adjustment  to  it,  which  we 
are  passing  through,  could  not  fail  to  be  a  period 
of  trial  and  of  many  dangers.  The  Anarchist, 
the  Nihilist,  the  Socialist  in  his  many  variations 
—  what  are  they  going  to  do  in  the  time  that  lies 
before  us  ? 

Europe,  at  the  present  stage  of  its  history,  is  in 
the  thick  of  many  questions ;  and  so  we  leave  it 


1131 


EURYSEEDON. 


EXCOMMUNICATIONS. 


EURYMEDON,  Battles  of  the  (B.  C.  466). 

See  Athens;  B.  C.  470-i66. 

EUSKALDUNAC.     See  Basques. 

EUTAW  SPRINGS,  Battle  of  (1781).  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  178(>--1781. 

EUTHYNI,  The.     See  Logist^. 

EUTYCHIAN  HERESY.  See  Nestoriau 
AKD  Moxophtsite  Controvt:rsy. 

EUXINE,  The.— Euxinus  Pontus.  or  Pontus 
Eu.xinus,  the  Black  Sea,  as  named  by  the  Greeks. 

EVACUATION  DAY.— The  anniversary  of 
the  evacuation  of  New  York  by  the  British,  Nov. 
25,  1783.  See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1783  (No%t;mbeh  —  December). 

EVANGELICAL  UNION  OF  GER- 
MANY, The.     See  Germany:  A.  D.  1608-1618. 

EVELYN  COLLEGE.  See  Educatioit, 
Modern:  Reforms:  A.  D.  1804-1891. 

EVER  VICTORIOUS  ARMY,  The.  See 
China  :  A.  D.  1850-1864. 

EVESHAM,  Battle  of  (1265).— The  battle 
which  finished  the  civil  war  in  England  known 
as  the  Barons'  War.  It  was  fought  Aug.  3, 1265, 
and  Earl  Simon  de  Montfort.  the  soul  of  the 
popular  cause,  was  slain,  with  most  of  his  fol- 
lowers.    See  England  :   X.  D.  1216-1274. 

EVICTIONS,  Irish.  See  Irelaot>:  A.  D. 
1886. 

EXARCHS  OF  RAVENNA.  See  Rome: 
A.  D.  554-800. 

EXARCHS  OF  THE  DIOCESE.  See 
Primates. 

EXCHEQUER.— EXCHEQUER  ROLLS. 
—  EXCHEQUER  TALLIES.— "The  E.\-- 
chequer  of  the  Norman  kings  was  the  court  in 
which  the  whole  tiuancial  business  of  the  country 
was  transacted,  and  as  the  whole  administration 
of  justice,  and  even  the  military  organisation, 
was  dependent  upon  the  fiscal  oflicers,  the  whole 
framework  of  society  may  be  said  to  have  passed 
annually  under  its  review.  It  derived  its  name 
from  the  chequered  cloth  which  covered  the  table 
at  which  the  accounts  were  taken,  a  name  which 
suggested  to  the  spectator  the  idea  of  a  game  at 
chess  between  the  receiver  and  the  payer,  the 
treasurer  and  the  sheriff.  .  .  .  The  record  of  the 
business  was  preserved  in  three  great  rolls ;  one 
kept  by  the  Treasurer,  another  by  the  Chancel- 
lor, and  a  third  by  an  officer  nominated  by  the 
king,  who  registered  the  matters  of  legal  and 
special  importance.  The  rolls  of  the  Treasurer 
and  Chancellor  were  duplicates;  that  of  the 
former  was  called  from  its  shape  the  great  roll 
of  the  Pipe,  and  that  of  the  latter  the  roll  of  the 
Chancery.  These  documents  are  mostly  still  in 
existence.  The  Pipe  Rolls  are  complete  from 
the  second  year  of  Henry  II.  and  the  Chancellor's 
Rolls  nearly  so.  Of  the  preceding  period  only 
one  roll,  that  of  the  thirty -first  year  of  Henry  I., 
Is  preserved,  and  this  with  Domesday  book  is  the 
most  valuable  store  of  information  which  exists 
for  the  administrative  history  of  the  age.  The 
financial  reports  were  made  to  the  barons  by  the 
sheriffs  of  the  counties.  At  Easter  and  Michael- 
mas each  of  these  magistrates  produced  his  own 
accounts  and  paid  in  to  the  Exchequer  such  an 
instalment  or  proffer  as  he  could  afford,  retain- 
ing in  hand  sufficient  money  for  current  expenses. 
In  token  of  receipt  a  tally  was  made ;  a  long  piece 
of  wood  in  which  a  number  of  notches  were  cut, 
marking  the  pounds,  shillings,  and  pence  re- 
ceived ;  this  stick  was  then  split  down  the  mid- 
dle, each  half  contained  exactly  the  same  num- 


ber of  notches,  and  no  alteration  could  of  course 
be  made  without  certain  detection.  .  .  .  The  fire 
which  destroyed  the  old  Houses  of  Parliament  is 
said  to  have  originated  in  the  burning  of  the  old 
Exchequer  tallies." — W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of 
Eiig.,  ch.  11,  sect.  126. — "The  wooden  'tallies' 
on  which  a  large  notch  represented  £1,000,  and 
smaller  notches  other  suras,  while  a  halfpenny 
was  denoted  by  a  small  round  hole,  were  actually 
in  use  at  the  Exchequer  until  the  year  1824." — 
Sir  J.  Lubbock,  Preface  to  Hall's  "Antiquities 
and  Curiosities  of  the  Exchequer." 

Axso  Df:  E.  F.  Henderson,  Select  Hist.  Doc's 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  hk.  1,  no.  5. — See,  also.  Curia 
Regis  and  Chess. 

EXCHEQUER,  Chancellor  of  the.— In  the 
reign  of  Henry  III. ,  of  England,  ' '  was  created  the 
ofilce  of  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer,  to  whom 
the  Exchequer  seal  was  entrusted,  and  who  with 
the  Treasurer  took  part  in  the  equitable  j  urisdic- 
tion  of  the  Exchequer,  although  not  in  the  com- 
mon law  jurisdiction  of  the  barons,  which  ex- 
tended itself  as  the  legal  fictions  of  pleading 
brought  common  pleas  into  this  court." — W. 
Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng..  ch.  15,  sect.  237. 

EXCLUSION  BILL,  The.  See  Englaot): 
A.  D.  1679-1681. 

EXCOMMUNICATIONS  AND  INTER- 
DICTS.—  "Excommunication,  whatever  opin- 
ions may  be  entertained  as  to  its  religious  effi- 
cacy, was  originally  nothing  more  in  appearance 
than  the  exercise  of  a  right  which  every  society 
claims,  the  expulsion  of  refractory  members  from 
its  body.  No  direct  temporal  disadvantages  at- 
tended this  penalty  for  several  ages;  but  as  it 
was  the  most  severe  of  spiritual  censures,  and 
tended  to  exclude  the  object  of  it,  not  only  from 
a  participation  in  religious  rites,  but  in  a  con- 
siderable degree  from  the  intercourse  of  Christian 
society,  it  was  used  sparingly  and  upon  the 
gravest  occasions.  Gradually,  as  the  church  be- 
came more  powerful  and  more  imperious,  ex- 
communications were  issued  upon  every  provoca- 
tion, rather  as  a  weapon  of  ecclesiastical  warfare 
than  with  any  regard  to  its  original  intention. 
.  .  .  Princes  who  felt  the  inadequacy  of  their 
own  laws  to  secure  obedience  called  in  the  assis- 
tance of  more  formidable  sanctions.  Several  ca- 
pitularies of  Charlemagne  denounce  the  penalty 
of  excommunication  against  incendiaries  or  de- 
serters from  the  army.  Charles  the  Bald  pro- 
cured similar  censures  against  his  revolted  vas- 
sals. Thus  the  boundary  between  temporal  and 
spiritual  offences  grew  every  day  less  distinct; 
and  the  clergy  were  encouraged  to  fresh  encroach- 
ments, as  they  discovered  the  secret  of  rendering 
them  successful.  .  .  .  The  support  due  to  church 
censures  by  temporal  judges  is  vaguely  declared 
in  the  capitularies  of  Pepin  and  Charlemagne. 
It  became  in  later  ages  a  more  established  prin- 
ciple in  France  and  England,  and,  I  presume,  in 
other  countries.  By  our  common  law  an  excom- 
municated person  is  incapable  of  being  a  witness 
or  of  bringing  an  action ;  and  he  may  be  detained 
in  prison  until  he  obtains  absolution.  By  the 
Establishments  of  St.  Louis,  his  estate  or  person 
might  be  attached  by  the  magistrate.  These 
actual  penalties  were  attended  by  marks  of  ab- 
horrence and  ignominy  still  more  calculated  to 
make  an  impression  on  ordinary  minds.  They 
were  to  be  shunned,  like  men  infected  with  lep- 
rosy, by  their  servants,  their  friends,  and  their 
families.  .  .  .  But  as  excommunication,   which 


1132 


EXCOMMUNICATIONS. 


FACTORY  LEGISLATION. 


attacked  only  one  and  perhaps  a  hardened  sinner, 
was  not  always  efficacious,  the  church  had  re- 
course to  a  more  comprehensive  punishment. 
For  the  offence  of  a  nobleman  she  put  a  county, 
for  that  of  a  prince  his  entire  kingdom,  under  an 
interdict  or  suspension  of  religious  offices.  No 
stretch  of  her  tyranny  was  perhaps  so  outra- 
geous as  this.  During  an  interdict  the  churches 
were  closed,  the  bells  silent,  the  dead  unburied, 
no  rite  but  those  of  baptism  and  extreme  unction 
performed.  The  penalty  fell  upon  those  who 
had  neither  partaken  nor  could  have  prevented 
the  offence;  and  the  offence  was  often  but  a 
private  dispute,  in  which  the  pride  of  a  pope  or 
bishop  had  been  wounded.  Interdicts  were  so 
rare  before  the  time  of  Gregory  VII.,  that  some 
have  referred  them  to  him  as  their  author ;  in- 
stances may  however  be  found  of  an  earlier 
date."— H.  HaUam,  The  Middle  Ages,  ch.  7,  pt.  1. 

Also  in:  M.  Gosselin,  77/e  Power  of  tlis  Pope 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  pt.  3,  ch.  1,  art.  3. — H.  C. 
Lea,  Studies  in  Church  Hist.,  pt.  3. — P.  Schaff, 
Uist.  of  the  Christian  Church,  r.  4,  ch.  8,  sect.  86. 

EXECUTIVE  SESSIONS.  See  Congress 
OF  THE  United  St.\tes. 

EXEGET./E,  The. —  Aboard  of  three  per- 
sons in  ancient  Athens  "to  whom  application 
might  be  made  in  all  matters  relating  to  sacred 
law,  and  also,  probably,  with  regard  to  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  Diosemia,  or  celestial  phenomena 
and  other  signs  by  which  future  events   were 


foretold." — G.  F.  Sch5mann,  Antiq.  of  Greece: 
The  State,  pt.  3,  ch.  3. 

EXETER,  Origin  of. — "  Isca Damnoniorum, 
Caer  Wise,  Exanceaster,  Exeter,  keeping  essen- 
tially the  same  name  under  all  changes,  stands 
distinguished  as  the  one  great  English  city  which 
has,  in  a  more  marked  way  than  any  other,  kept 
its  unbroken  being  and  its  unbroken  position 
throughout  all  ages.  The  Citj'  on  the  Exe,  in 
all  ages  and  in  all  tongues  keeping  its  name  as 
the  City  on  the  Exe,  allows  of  an  easy  definition. 
...  It  is  the  one  city  [of  England]  in  which  we 
can  feel  sure  that  human  habitation  and  city  life 
have  never  ceased  from  the  days  of  the  early 
Csesars  to  our  own." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Exeter, 
eh.  1-3. 

EXILARCH,  The.  See  Jews  :  7th  Cen- 
tury. 

EXODUS  FROM  EGYPT,  The.  See 
Jews:  The  Route  of  the  Exodus. 

EXPLORATION,  African  and  Polar.  See 
Africa,  and  Polar. 

EYLAU,  Battle  of  (1807).  See  Germany: 
A.  D.  1806-1807. 

EYRE,  Governor,  and  the  Jamaica  insur- 
rection.    See  Jamaica  :  A.  D.  1865. 

EYSTEIN  I.,  King  of  Norway,  A.  D.  1116- 
1123 Eystein  II.,  11.55-1157. 

EZZELINO,  OR  ECCELINO  DI  RO- 
MANO, The  tyranny  of,  and  the  crusade 
against.     See  Verona:  A.  D.  1236-1359. 


F. 


FABIAN  POLICY.— FABIAN  TACTICS. 

—  The  policy  pursued  by  Q.  Fabius  Maximus, 
the  Roman  Dictator,  called  "the  Cunctator"  or 
Lingerer,  in  his  campaigns  against  Hannibal. 
See  Punic  War,  The  Second. 

FACTORY  LEGISLATION,  English.— 
"  During  the  17th  and  18th  centuries,  when  the 
skill  of  the  workmen  had  greatly  improved,  and 
the  productiveness  of  labour  had  increased,  vari- 
ous methods  were  resorted  to  for  the  purpose 
of  prolonging  the  working  day.  The  noontide 
nap  was  first  dispensed  with,  then  other  intervals 
of  rest  were  curtaDed,  and  ultimately  artificial 
light  was  introduced,  which  had  the  effect  of 
abolishing  the  difference  between  the  short  days 
of  winter  and  the  long  days  of  summer,  thus 
equalising  the  working  day  throughout  the  year. 
The  opening  of  the  19th  century  was  signalised 
by  a  new  cry,  namely,  for  a  reduction  in  the 
hours  of  labour ;  this  was  in  consequence  of  the 
introduction  of  female  and  child  labour  into  the 
factories,  and  the  deterioration  of  the  workers  as 
a  result  of  excessive  overwork.  .  .  .  The  over- 
work of  the  young,  and  particularly  the  exces- 
sive hours  in  the  factories,  became  such  crying 
evils  that  in  1801  the  first  Act  was  passed  to  re- 
strict the  hours  of  labour  for  apprentices,  who 
were  prohibited  from  working  more  than  12 
hours  a  day,  between  six  A.  M.  and  nine  P.  M., 
and  that  provision  should  be  made  for  teaching 
them  to  read  and  write,  and  other  educational 
exercises.  This  Act  further  provided  that  the 
mills  should  be  whitewashed  at  least  once  a 
year;  and  that  doors  and  windows  should  be 
made  to  admit  fresh  air.  This  Act  was  followed 
by  a  series  of  commissions  and  committees  of  in- 
quiry, the  result  being  that  it  was  several  times 
amended.     The  details  of  the  evidence  given  be- 


fore the  several  commissions  and  committees  of 
inquiry  are  sickening  in  the  extreme ;  the  medical 
testimony  was  unanimous  in  its  verdict  that  the 
children  were  physically  ruined  by  overwork; 
those  who  escaped  with  their  lives  were  so  crip- 
pled and  maimed  that  they  were  unable  to  main- 
tain themselves  in  after  life,  and  became  paupers. 
It  was  proven  that  out  of  4,000  who  entered  the 
factory  before  they  were  30  years  of  age,  only  600 
were  to  be  found  in  the  mills  after  that  age.  By 
Sir  Robert  Peel's  Bill  in  1819  it  was  proposed  to 
limit  the  hours  to  11  per  day  with  one  and  a  half 
for  meals,  for  those  under  16  years  of  age.  But 
the  mill-owners  prophesied  the  ruin  of  the  manu- 
facturers of  the  country — they  could  not  compete 
with  the  foreign  markets,  it  was  an  interference 
with  the  freedom  of  labour,  the  spare  time  given 
would  be  spent  in  debauchery  and  riot,  and  that 
if  passed,  other  trades  would  require  the  same 
provisions.  The  Bill  was  defeated,  and  the  hours 
fixed  at  72  per  week;  the  justices,  that  is  to  say 
the  manufacturers,  were  entrusted  with  the  en- 
forcement of  the  law.  In  1825  a  new  law  was 
passed  defining  the  time  when  breakfast  and 
dinner  was  to  be  taken,  and  fixing  the  time  to 
half  an  hour  for  the  first  repast,  and  a  full  hour 
for  dinner;  the  traditional  term  of  apprentices 
was  dropped  and  the  modern  classification  of 
children  and  young  persons  was  substituted, 
and  children  were  once  more  prohibited  from 
working  more  than  13  hours  a  day.  But  every 
means  was  adopted  to  evade  the  law.  .  .  .  After 
thousands  of  petitions,  and  numerous  angry  de- 
bates in  Parliament,  the  Act  of  1833  was  passed, 
which  limited  the  working  hours  of  children  to 
48  hours  per  week,  and  provided  that  each  child 
should  have  a  certain  amount  of  schoolmg,  and 
with  it  factory  inspectors  were  appointed  to 


113c 


FACTORY  LEGISLATION. 


FALAISE. 


enforce  the  law.  But  the  law  was  not  to  come 
Into  operation  until  March  1,  1836,  during  which 
time  it  had  to  be  explained  and  defended  in  one 
session,  amended  in  a  second,  and  made  binding 
in  a  third.  After  several  Royal  Commissions 
and  Inquiries  by  select  committees,  this  Act  has 
been  eight  times  amended,  until  the  working 
hours  of  children  are  now  limited  to  sis  per  day, 
and  for  young  persons  and  women  to  56  per 
week ;  these  provisions  with  certain  modifications 
are  now  extended  to  workshops,  and  the  whole 
law  is  being  consolidated  and  amended.  .  .  . 
The  whole  series  of  the  Factory  Acts,  dating 
from  43  George  III,  c.  73,  to  the  37  and  38  Vic- 
toria 1874,  forms  a  code  of  legislation,  in  regard 
to  working  people,  unexampled  in  any  age  and 
unequalled  in  any  country  in  the  world.  .  .  . 
Outside  Parliament  efforts  have  been  constantly 
made  to  further  reduce  the  working  hours. " — G. 
Howell,  The  Conflicts  of  Capital  and  Labour,  pp. 
298-301.  —  "The  continental  governments,  of 
course,  have  been  obliged  to  make  regulations 
covering  kindred  subjects,  but  rarely  have  they 
kept  pace  with  English  legislation.  America 
has  enacted  progressive  laws  so  far  as  the  condi- 
tion of  factoiy  workers  has  warranted.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  the  abuses  which  crept  into 
the  system  in  England  never  existed  in  this  coun- 
try in  any  such  degree  as  we  know  they  did  in 
the  old  country.  Yet  there  are  few  States  in 
America  where  manufactures  predominate  or 
hold  an  important  position  in  which  law  has  not 
stepped  in  and  restricted  either  the  hours  of 
labor,  or  the  conditions  of  labor,  and  insisted 
upon  the  education  of  factory  children,  although 
the  laws  are  usually  silent  as  to  children  of  agri- 
cultural laborers.  It  is  is  not  wholly  in  the  pas- 
sage of  purely  factory  acts  that  the  factory  sys- 
tem has  influenced  the  legislation  of  the  world. 
England  may  have  suffered  temporarily  from  the 
effects  of  some  of  her  factory  legislation,  and  the 
recent  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  to  nine  and 
one-half  per  day,  less  than  in  any  other  country, 
has  had  the  effect  of  placing  her  works  at  a  dis- 
advantage; but,  in  the  long  run,  England  will 
be  the  gainer  on  account  of  all  the  work  she  has 
done  in  the  way  of  legislative  restrictions  upon 
labor.  In  this  she  has  changed  her  whole  policy. 
Formerly  trade  must  be  restricted  and  labor  al- 
lowed to  demoralize  itself  under  the  specious 
plea  of  being  free ;  now,  trade  must  be  free  and 
labor  restricted  in  the  interests  of  society,  which 
means  in  the  interest  of  good  morals.  The 
factory  system  has  not  only  wrought  this  change, 
but  has  compelled  the  economists  to  recognize 
the  distinction  between  commodities  and  services. 
There  has  been  greater  and  greater  freedom 
of  contract  in  respect  to  commodities,  but  the 
contracts  which  involve  labor  have  become 
more  and  more  completely  under  the  authority 
and  supervision  of  the  State.  '  Seventy -five 
years  ago  scarcely  a  single  law  existed  in  any 
country  for  regulating  the  contract  for  services 
in  the  interest  of  the  laboring  classes.  At  the 
same  time  the  contract  for  commodities  was 
everywhere  subject  to  minute  and  incessant  reg- 
ulations' [Hon.  F.  A.  Walker].  Factory  legis- 
lation in  England,  as  elsewhere,  has  had  for  its 
chief  object  the  regulation  of  the  labor  of  chil- 
dren and  women;  but  its  scope  has  constantly 
increased  by  successive  and  progressive  amend- 
ments until  they  have  attempted  to  secure  the 
physical  and  moral  well-being  of  the  working- 


man  in  all  trades,  and  to  give  him  every  condi- 
tion of  salubrity  and  of  personal  safety  in  the 
workshops.  The  excellent  effect  of  factory  leg- 
islation has  been  made  manifest  throughout  the 
whole  of  Great  Britain.  '  Physically,  the  factory 
child  can  bear  fair  comparison  with  the  child 
brouglit  up  in  the  fields,'  and,  intellectually, 
progress  is  far  greater  with  the  former  than  with 
the  latter.  Public  opinion,  struck  by  these  re- 
sults, has  demanded  the  extension  of  protective 
measures  for  children  to  every  kind  of  industrial 
labor,  until  parliament  has  brought  under  the 
influence  of  these  laws  the  most  powerful  in- 
dustries. To  carry  the  factory  regulations  and 
those  relative  to  schooling  into  effect,  England 
has  an  efficient  corps  of  factory  inspectors.  The 
manufacturers  of  England  are  unanimous  in  ac- 
knowledging that  to  the  activity,  to  the  sense  of 
impartiality,  displayed  by  these  inspectors,  is 
due  the  fact  that  an  entire  application  of  the  law 
has  been  possible  without  individual  interests 
being  thereby  jeopardized  to  a  very  serious  ex- 
tent. ...  In  no  other  country  is  there  so  elab- 
orate a  code  of  factory  laws  as  the  '  British  factory 
and  workshop  act'  of  1878  (41  Vict.,  chap.  16), 
it  being  an  act  consolidating  all  the  factory  acts 
since  Sir  Robert  Peel's  act  of  1802." — C.  D. 
Wright,  Factory  Legislation  (Tenth  Census  of  the 
XT.  S.,  V.  2). 

Also  in:  Mrst  annual  Bep't  of  the  Factory  In- 
spectors of  the  State  of  New  York,  1886,  appendix. 
— C.  Knight,  Popular  Hist,  of  Encj.,  v.  8,  ch.  22 
and  37. — H.  Martineau,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Tears' 
Peace,  v.  3,  pp.  513-515. — See,  also,  England: 
A.  D.  1833-1833. 

FADDILEY,  Battle  of.— Fought  success- 
fully by  the  Britons  with  the  West  Saxons,  on  the 
border  of  Cheshire,  A.  D.  583.— J.  R.  Green, 
T/ie  Making  of  England,  p.  306. 

FAENZA,  Battle  of  (A.  D.  542).  See  Rome: 
A.  D.  53.5-553. 

FjESUL^E.  See  Florence,  Origin  and 
Name. 

FAGGING.  See  Education,  Modern:  Euro- 
pean Countries.— England. — The  Great  Pub- 
lic Schools. 

FAGGIOLA,  Battle  of  (1425).  See  Itai,t: 
A.  D.  1413-1447. 

FAINEANT  KINGS.  See  Franks:  A.  D. 
511-753. 

FAIR  OAKS,  Battle  of.  See  United  States 
OP  Am.  :  A.  D.  1863  (Mat:  Virginia). 

FAIRFAX  AND  THE  PARLIAMEN- 
TARY ARMY.  See  England:  A.  D.  1645 
(January — April),  and  (June);  1647  (April- 
August)  ;  1648  (November)  ;  1649  (February). 

FALAISE.— "The  Castle  [in  Normandy] 
where  legend  fixes  the  birth  of  William  of  Nor- 
mandy, and  where  history  fixes  the  famous  hom- 
age of  William  of  Scotland,  is  a  vast  donjon  of 
the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century.  One  of  the 
grandest  of  those  massive  square  keeps  which  I 
have  already  spoken  of  as  distinguishing  the  ear- 
liest military  architecture  of  Normandy  crowns 
the  summit  of  a  precipitous  rook,  fronted  by  an- 
other mass  of  rock,  wilder  still,  on  which  the  can- 
non of  England  were  planted  during  Henry's 
siege.  To  these  rocks,  these  '  felsen, '  the  spot 
owes  its  name  of  Falaise.  .  .  .  Between  these 
two  rugged  heights  lies  a  narrow  dell.  .  .  .  The 
dell  is  crowded  with  mills  and  tanneries,  but  the 
mills  and  tanneries  of  Falaise  have  their  share 
in   the   historic  interest  of    the   place.  ...  In 


1134 


PALAISB. 


FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION. 


every  form  which  the  story  has  taken  in  history 
or  legend,  the  mother  of  the  Conqueror  appears 
as  the  daughter  of  a  tanner  of  Faliiise." — E.  A. 
Freeman.  Xnrman  Conquest,  ch.  8,  sect.  1. 

FAL AISE,  Peace  of  (i  175).  See  Scotland  : 
A.  D.  1174-1189. 

FALK  LAWS,  The.  See  Gebmahy:  A.  D. 
1873-1887. 

FALKIRK,  Battles  of  (1298  and  1746).  See 
Scotl.vnd:  a.  D.  1390-1305;  and  1745-1746. 

FAMAGOSTA:  A.  D.  1571.— Takenby  the 
Turks.     See  Turks:  A.  D.  1566-1571. 

FAMILIA. — Roman  slaves  of  one  master 
ivere  collectively,  called  familia. 

FAMILISTERE.  See  Social  Movements: 
A,  D.  1859-1887. 

FAMILY  COMPACT,  The  First  Bourbon. 

See  France:  A.  D.  1733 The  Second.     See 

France:  A.  D.  1743  (October) The  Third. 

See  Prance:  A.  D.  1761  (August). 

FAMILY  COMPACT  IN  CANADA,  The. 
See  Canada:  A.  D.  1820-1837. 

FAMINE,  The  Cotton.  See  England: 
A.  D.  1861-1865. 

FAMINE,  The  Irish.  See  Ireland:  A.  D. 
1845-1847. 

FANARIOTS.     See  Phanaeiots. 

FANEUIL  HALL.— "The  fame  of  Faneuil 
Hall  [Boston,  ilass.]  is  as  wide  as  the  country 
itself.  It  has  been  called  the  '  Cradle  of  Liberty,' 
because  dedicated  by  that  early  apostle  of  free- 
dom, James  Otis,  to  the  cause  of  liberty,  in  a 
speech  delivered  in  the  hall  in  March,  1763.  .  .  . 
Its  walls  have  echoed  to  the  voices  of  the  great 
departed  in  times  gone  by,  and  in  every  great 
public  exigency  the  people,  with  one  accord,  as- 
sembled together  to  take  counsel  within  its  hal- 
lowed precincts.  .  .  .  The  Old  Market-house 
.  .  .  existing  in  Dock  Square  in  1734,  was  de- 
molished by  a  mob  in  1736-37.  There  was  con- 
tention among  the  people  as  tQ  whether  they 
would  be  served  at  their  houses  in  the  old  way, 
or  resort  to  fixed  localities,  and  one  set  of  dispu- 
tants took  this  summary  method  of  settling  the 
question.  ...  In  1740,  the  question  of  the  Mar- 
ket-house being  revived,  Peter  Faneuil  proposed 
to  build  one  at  his  own  cost  on  the  town's  land 
in  Dock  Square,  upon  condition  that  the  town 
should  legally  authorize  it,  enact  proper  regula- 
tions, and  maintain  it  for  the  purpose  named. 
Mr.  Faneuil's  noble  offer  was  courteously  re- 
ceived, but  such  was  the  division  of  opinion  on 
the  subject  that  it  was  accepted  by  a  majority 
of  only  seven  votes,  out  of  727  persons  voting. 
The  building  was  completed  in  September,  1742, 
and  three  days  after,  at  a  meeting  of  citizens, 
the  hall  was  formally  accepted  and  a  vote  of 
thanks  passed  to  the  donor.  .  .  .  The  town  voted 
that  the  hall  should  be  called  Faneuil  Hall  for- 
ever. .  .  .  The  original  size  of  the  building  was 
40  by  100  feet,  just  half  the  present  width;  the 
hall  would  contain  1,000  persons.  At  the  fire  of 
January  13,  1763,  the  whole  interior  was  de- 
stroyed, but  the  town  voted  to  rebuild  in  March, 
and  the  State  authorized  a  lottery  in  aid  of  the 
design.  The  first  meeting  after  the  rebuilding 
was  held  on  the  14th  March,  1763,  when  James 
Otis  delivered  the  dedicatory  address.  In  1806 
the  Hall  was  enlarged  in  width  to  80  feet,  and 
by  the  addition  of  a  third  story. " —  S.  A.  Drake, 
Old  Landmarks  of  Boston,  ch.  4. 

FANNIAN  LAW,  The.  See  Orchian,  Pan- 
nian,  DmiAN  Laws, 


FARM.    See  Perm. 

FARMERS'  ALLIANCE.  See  United 
States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1877-1891. 

FARMER'S  LETTERS.The.  See  United 
States  op  Am.  :  A.  I).  1767-1768. 

FARNESE,  Alexander,  Duke  of  Parma,  in 
the  Netherlands.  See  Netherlands:  A.  D. 
1577-1581,  to  1588-1593. 

FARNESE,  The  House  of.  See  Parma: 
A.  D.  154.5-1592. 

FARRAGUT,  Admiral  David  G.— Capture 
of  New  Orleans.  See  United  States  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1862  (April:  On  the  Mississippi) At- 
tack on  Vicksburg.  See  United  States  op 
Am.:  a.  D.  1863  (May— .July;  On  the  Missis- 
sippi)  Victory  in  Mobile  Bay.    See  United 

States  OF  Am.  :  A.  D.  1864  (August:  Alabama). 

FARSAKH,  OR  FARSANG,  The.  See 
Parasang. 

FASCES.     See  Lictors. 

FASTI. — "Dies  Fasti  were  the  days  upon 
which  the  Courts  of  Justice  [in  ancient  Rome] 
were  open,  and  legal  business  could  be  trans- 
acted before  the  Praetor ;  the  Dies  Nefasti  were 
those  upon  which  the  Courts  were  closed.  .  .  . 
All  days  consecrated  to  the  worship  of  the  Gods 
by  sacrifices,  feasts  or  games,  were  named  Festi. 
.  .  .  For  nearly  four  centuries  and  a-half  after 
the  foundation  of  the  city  the  knowledge  of  the 
Calendar  was  confined  to  the  Pontifices  alone. 
.  .  .  These  secrets  which  might  be,  and  doubt- 
less often  were,  employed  for  political  ends,  were 
at  length  divulged  in  the  year  B.  C.  314,  by  Cn. 
Flavins,  who  drew  up  tables  embracing  all  this 
carefully-treasured  information,  and  hung  them 
up  in  the  Forum  for  the  inspection  of  the  pub- 
lic. From  this  time  forward  documents  of  this 
description  were  known  by  the  uame  of  Fasti. 
.  .  .  'These  Fasti,  in  fact,  corresponded  very 
closely  to  a  modern  Almanac.  .  .  .  The  Fasti 
just  described  have,  to  prevent  confusion,  been 
called  Calendaria,  or  Fasti  Calendares,  and  must 
be  carefully  distinguished  from  certain  composi- 
tions also  named  Fasti  by  the  ancients.  These 
were  regular  chronicles  in  which  were  recorded 
each  year  the  names  of  the  Consuls  and  other 
magistrates,  together  with  the  remarkable  events, 
and  the  days  on  which  they  occurred.  The  most 
important  were  the  Annales  Maximi,  kept  by  the 
Pontifex  Maximus." — W.  Ramsay,  Manual  of 
Roman  Antiq.,  ch.  11. 

FATIMITE  CALIPHS,  The.  See  Ma- 
hometan Conquest  and  Empire:  A.  D.  908- 
1171 ;  also.  Assassins. 

FAURE,  President,  Election.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1894-1895. 

FEAST  OF  LIBERTY.  See  Greece:  B.  C. 
479:  Persian  Wars. — Plat^a. 

FEAST  OF  REASON,  The.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1793  (November). 

FEAST  OF  THE  FEDERATION,  The. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1789-1791. 

FEAST  OF  THE  SUPREME  BEING, 
The.  See  France:  A.  D.  1793-1794  (Novem- 
ber— June). 

FECIALES.— FETIALES.    SeeFETUiES. 

FEDELI.     See  Catt.vnl 

FEDERAL  CITY,  The.  See  Washington 
(City):  A.  D.  1791. 

FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION  OF  SWIT- 
ZERLAND. See  Constitution  op  the  Swiss 
Confederation. 


1135 


FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AM.  See  Constitu- 
tion OP  THE  United  States. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT.— FEDER- 
ATIONS.— "  Two  requisites  seem  necessary  to 
constitute  a  Federal  Government  in  .  .  .  its  most 
perfect  form.  On  tiie  one  hand,  each  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Union  must  be  "wholly  independent  in 
t  hose  matters  which  concern  each  member  only. 
On  the  other  hand,  all  must  be  subject  to  a 
common  power  in  those  matters  which  concern 
the  whole  body  of  members  collectively.  Thus 
each  member  will  fix  for  itself  the  laws  of  its 
criminal  jurisprudence,  and  even  the  details  of 
its  political  constitution.  And  it  will  do  this, 
not  as  a  matter  of  privilege  or  concession  from 
any  higher  power,  but  as  a  matter  of  absolute 
right,  by  virtue  of  its  inherent  powers  as  an  inde- 
pendent commonwealth.  But  in  all  matters  which 
concern  the  general  body,  the  sovereignty  of  the 
several  members  will  cease.  Each  member  is 
perfectly  independent  within  its  own  sphere ;  but 
there  is  another  sphere  in  which  its  independence, 
or  rather  its  separate  existence,  vanishes.  It  is 
Invested  with  every  right  of  sovereignty  on  one 
class  of  subjects,  but  there  is  another  class  of  sub- 
jects on  which  it  is  as  incapable  of  separate  politi- 
cal action  as  any  province  or  city  of  a  monarchy 
or  of  an  indivisible  republic.  .  .  .  Four  Federal 
Commonwealths  .  .  .  stand  out,  in  four  different 
ages  of  the  world,  as  commanding,  above  all 
others,  the  attention  of  students  of  political  his- 
tory. Of  these  four,  one  belongs  to  what  is  usu- 
ally known  as  '  ancient,'  another  to  what  is  com- 
monly called  '  mediaeval '  history ;  a  third  arose  in 
the  period  of  transition  between  mediaeval  and 
modern  history ;  the  creation  of  the  fourth  may 
have  been  witnessed  by  some  few  of  those  who  are 
still  counted  among  living  men.  .  .  .  These  four 
Commonwealths  are,  First,  the  Achaian  League 
[see  Greece  :  B.  C.  280-146]  in  the  later  days  of 
Ancient  Greece,  whose  most  flourishing  period 
comes  within  the  third  century  before  our  era. 
Second,  the  Confederation  of  the  Swiss  Cantons 
[see  Constitution  op  the  Swiss  Conpedera- 
tion],  which,  with  many  changes  in  its  extent 
and  constitution,  has  lasted  from  the  thirteenth 
century  to  our  own  day.  Third,  the  Seven  United 
Provinces  of  the  Netherlands  [see  Netherlands  : 
A.  D.  1577-1581,  and  after],  whose  Union  arose 
in  the  War  of  Independence  against  Spain,  and 
lasted,  in  a  republican  form,  till  the  war  of  the 
French  Revolution.  Fourth,  the  United  States 
of  North'  America  [see  Constitution  op  the 
United  States  op  Am.],  which  formed  a  Fed- 
eral Union  after  their  revolt  from  the  British 
Crown  under  George  the  Third,  and  whose  des- 
tiny forms  one  of  the  most  important,  and  cer- 
tainly the  most  interesting,  of  the  political  prob- 
lems of  our  own  time.  Of  these  four,  three 
come  sufficiently  near  to  the  full  realization  of 
the  Federal  idea  to  be  entitled  to  rank  among 
perfect  Federal  Governments.  The  Achaian 
League,  and  the  United  States  since  the  adoption 
of  the  present  Constitution,  are  indeed  the  most 
perfect  developments  of  the  Federal  principle 
which  the  world  has  ever  seen.  The  Swiss  Con- 
federation, in  its  origin  a  Union  of  the  loosest 
kind,  has  gradually  drawn  the  Federal  bond 
tighter  and  tighter,  till,  within  our  own  times,  it 
has  assumed  a  form  which  fairly  entitles  it  to 
rank  beside  Achaia  and  America.     The  claim  of 


the  United  Provinces  is  more  doubtful;  their 
union  was  at  no  period  of  their  republican  being 
so  close  as  that  of  Achaia,  America,  and  modern 
Switzerland." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist,  of  Federal 
Oovernment,  v.  1,  pp.  3-6. 

Classification  of  Federal  Governments. — 
"  To  the  classification  of  federal  governments 
publicists  have  given  great  attention  with  unsat- 
isfactory results.  History  shows  a  great  variety 
of  forms,  ranging  from  the  lowest  possible  or- 
ganization, like  that  of  the  Amphictyonic  Coun- 
cil [see  Amphikttonic  Council]  to  the  highly 
centralized  and  powerful  German  Empire.  Many 
writers  deny  that  any  fixed  boundaries  can  be 
described.  The  usual  classification  is,  however, 
into  three  divisions, —  the  Staatenstaat,  or  state 
founded  on  states ;  the  Staatenbund,  or  union  of 
states  —  to  which  the  term  Confederacy  nearly 
corresponds;  and  the  Bundesstaat,  or  united 
state,  which  answers  substantially  to  the  term 
federation  as  usually  employed.  The  Staaten- 
staat is  defined  to  be  a  state  in  which  the  units 
are  not  individuals,  but  states,  and  which,  there- 
fore, has  no  operation  directly  on  individuals, 
but  deals  with  and  legislates  for  its  corporate 
members ;  they  preserve  undisturbed  their  powers 
of  government  over  their  own  subjects.  The 
usual  example  of  a  Staatenstaat  is  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  [see  Roman  Empire,  The  Holy]. 
This  conception  ...  is,  however,  illogical  in 
theory,  and  never  has  been  carried  out  in  prac- 
tice. .  .  .  Historically,  also,  the  distinction  is 
untenable.  The  Holy  Roman  Empire  had  courts, 
taxes,  and  even  subjects  not  connected  with  the 
states.  In  theory  it  had  superior  claims  upon 
all  the  individuals  within  the  Empire ;  in  practice 
it  abandoned  control  over  the  states.  The  second 
category  is  better  established.  JeUinek  says: 
'  When  states  form  a  permanent  political  alli- 
ance, of  which  common  defence  is  at  the  very 
least  the  purpose,  with  permanent  federal  organs, 
there  arises  a  Staatenbund.'  This  form  of  gov- 
ernment is  distinguished  from  an  alliance  by  the 
fact  that  it  has  permanent  federal  organs ;  from 
a  commercial  league  by  its  political  purpose; 
from  a  Bundesstaat  by  its  limited  purpose.  In 
other  words,  under  Staatenbund  are  included  the 
weaker  forms  of  true  federal  government,  in 
which  there  is  independence  from  other  powers, 
and,  within  the  purposes  of  the  union,  indepen- 
dence from  the  constituent  states.  .  .  .  The  • 
Staatenbund  form  includes  most  of  the  federal 
governments  which  have  existed.  The  Greek 
confederations  (except  perhaps  the  Lycian  and 
Achaean)  and  all  the  mediaeval  leagues  were  of 
this  type :  even  the  strong  modern  unions  of  the 
United  States,  Germany,  and  Switzerland,  have 
gone  through  the  Staatenbund  stage  in  their 
earlier  history.  Between  the  Staatenbund  and 
the  more  highly  developed  form,  the  Bundesstaat, 
no  writer  has  described  an  accurate  boundary. 
There  are  certain  governments,  notably  those  of 
Canada,  Germany,  Switzerland,  and  the  United 
States,  in  which  is  found  an  elaborate  and  powerful 
central  organism,  including  federal  courts ;  to  this 
organism  is  assigned  all  or  nearly  all  the  common 
concerns  of  the  nation ;  within  its  exclusive  con- 
trol are  war,  foreign  affairs,  commerce,  colonies, 
and  national  finances;  and  there  is  an  efficient 
power  of  enforcement  against  states.  Such  gov- 
ernments undoubtedly  are  Bundesstaateu." — A. 
B.  Hart,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  Federal  Gov't 
(Harvard  Historical  Monographu,  no.  2),  ch.  1. 


1136 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


Greek  Federations. —  "Under  the  conditions 
of  the  Grseco-Roman  civic  life  there  were  but  two 
practicable  methods  of  forming  a  great  state  and 
diminishing  the  quantity  of  warfare.  The  one 
method  was  conquest  with  incorporation,  the 
other  method  was  federation.  .  .  .  Neither 
method  was  adopted  by  the  Greeks  in  their  day 
of  greatness.  The  Spartan  method  of  extending 
its  power  was  conquest  without  incorporation: 
when  Sparta  conquered  another  Greek  city,  she 
sent  a  harmost  to  govern  it  like  a  tyrant ;  in  other 
words  she  virtually  enslaved  the  subject  city. 
The  efforts  of  Athens  tended  more  in  the  direction 
of  a  peaceful  federalism.  In  the  great  Delian 
confederacy  [see  Greece:  B.  C.  478^77,  and 
Athens:  B.  C.  466^54],  which  developed  into 
the  maritime  empire  of  Athens,  the  ^gean  cities 
were  treated  as  allies  rather  than  subjects.  As 
regards  their  local  affairs  they  were  in  no  way 
interfered  with,  and  could  they  have  been  repre- 
sented in  some  Idnd  of  a  federal  council  at  Ath- 
ens, the  course  of  Grecian  history  might  have 
been  wonderfully  altered.  As  it  was,  they  were 
all  deprived  of  one  essential  element  of  sover- 
eignty, —  the  power  of  controlling  their  own 
military  forces.  ...  In  the  century  following 
the  death  of  Alexander,  in  the  closing  age  of 
Hellenic  independence,  the  federal  idea  appears 
in  a  much  more  advanced  stage  of  elaboration, 
though  in  a  part  of  Greece  which  had  been  held 
of  little  account  in  the  great  days  of  Athens  and 
Sparta.  Between  the  Achaian  federation,  framed 
in  374  B.  C,  and  the  United  States  of  America, 
there  are  some  interesting  points  of  resemblance 
which  have  been  elaborately  discussed  by  Mr. 
Freeman,  in  his  '  History  of  Federal  Govern- 
ment. '  About  the  same  time  the  ^tolian  League 
[see  jEtolian  League]  came  into  prominence 
in  the  north.  Both  these  leagues  were  instances 
of  true  federal  government,  and  were  not  mere 
confederations;  that  is,  the  central  government 
acted  directly  upon  all  the  citizens  and  not  merely 
upon  the  local  governments.  Each  of  these 
leagues  had  for  its  chief  executive  officer  a  Gen- 
eral elected  for  one  year,  with  powers  similar  to 
those  of  an  American  President.  In  each  the 
supreme  assembly  was  a  primary  assembly  at 
which  every  citizen  from  every  city  of  the  league 
had  a  right  to  be  present,  to  speak,  and  to  vote ; 
but  as  a  natural  consequence  these  assemblies 
shrank  into  comparatively  aristocratic  bodies. 
In  jEtolia,  which  was  a  group  of  mountain  can- 
tons similar  to  Switzerland,  the  federal  union 
was  more  complete  than  in  Achaia,  which  was  a 
group  of  cities.  ...  In  so  far  as  Greece  con- 
tributed anything  towards  the  formation  of  great 
and  pacific  political  aggregates,  she  did  it  through 
attempts  at  federation.  But  in  so  low  a  state  of 
political  development  as  that  which  prevailed 
throughout  the  Mediterranean  world  in  pre- 
Christian  times,  the  more  barbarous  method  of 
conquest  with  incorporation  was  more  likely  to 
be  successful  on  a  great  scale.  This  was  well 
illustrated  in  the  history  of  Rome, —  a  civic  com- 
munity of  the  same  generic  type  with  Sparta  and 
Athens,  but  presenting  specific  differences  of  the 
highest  importance.  .  .  .  Rome  early  succeeded 
in  freeing  itself  from  that  insuperable  prejudice 
which  elsewhere  prevented  the  ancient  city  from 
admitting  aliens  to  a  share  in  its  franchise.  And 
In  this  victory  over  primeval  political  ideas  lay 
the  whole  secret  of  Rome's  mighty  career." — J. 
Fiske,  An^rican  Political  Ideas,  led.  3. 


Medisval  Leagues  in  Germany. —  "It  is 
hardly  too  much  to  say  that  the  Lombard  League 
led  naturally  to  the  leagues  of  German  cities. 
The  exhausting  efforts  of  the  Hohenstaufen  Em- 
perors to  secure  dominion  in  Italy  compelled 
them  to  grant  privileges  to  the  cities  in  Germany ; 
the  weaker  emperors,  who  followed,  bought  sup- 
port with  new  charters  and  privileges.  The  in- 
ability of  the  Empire  to  keep  the  peace  or  to 
protect  commerce  led  speedily  to  the  formation 
of  great  unions  of  cities,  usually  commercial  in 
origin,  but  very  soon  becoming  political  forces  of 
prime  importance.  The  first  of  these  was  the 
Rhenish  League,  formed  in  1354.  The  more  im- 
portant cities  of  the  Rhine  valley,  from  Basle  to 
Cologne,  were  the  original  members;  but  it 
eventually  had  seventy  members,  including  sev- 
eral princes  and  ruling  prelates.  The  league 
had  Colloquia,  or  assemblies,  at  stated  intervals ; 
but,  beyond  deciding  upon  a  general  policy,  and 
■  the  assignment  of  military  quotas,  it  had  no  legis- 
lative powers.  There  was,  however,  a  Kommis- 
sion,  or  federal  court,  which  acted  as  arbiter  in 
disputes  between  the  members.  The  chief  po- 
litical service  of  the  league  was  to  maintain  peace 
during  the  interregnum  in  the  Empire  (1256- 
1373).  During  the  fourteenth  century  it  fell 
apart,  and  many  of  its  members  joined  the  Hansa 
or  Suabian  League.  ...  In  1377  seventeen  Sua- 
bian  cities,  which  had  been  mortgaged  by  the 
Emperor,  united  to  defend  their  liberties.  They 
received  many  accessions  of  German  and  Swiss 
cities;  but  in  1388  they  were  overthrown  by 
Leopold  III.  of  Austria,  and  all  combinations  of 
cities  were  forbidden.  A  federal  govenament 
they  cannot  be  said  to  have  possessed ;  but  po- 
litical, almost  federal  relations  continued  during 
the  fifteenth  century.  The  similar  leagues  of 
Frankfort  and  Wetterau  were  broken  up  about 
the  same  time.  Other  leagues  of  cities  and  can- 
tons were  in  a  like  manner  formed  and  dissolved, 
— -among  them  the  leagues  of  Hauenstein  and 
Burgundy ;  and  there  was  a  confederation  in 
Franche  Comte,  afterward  French  territory.  All 
the  mediseval  leagues  thus  far  mentioned  were 
defensive,  and  had  no  extended  relations  beyond 
their  own  borders.  The  great  Hanseatic  League 
[see  Hai^sa  Towns],  organized  as  a  commercial 
union,  developed  into  a  political  and  international 
power,  which  negotiated  and  made  war  on  its 
own  account  with  foreign  and  German  sover- 
eigns ;  and  which  was  for  two  centuries  one  of 
the  leading  powers  of  Europe." — A.  B.  Hart, 
Iiitrod.  to  the  Study  of  Federal  Gov't  (Harvard 
Historical  Mon/fr/raphs,  tw.  3),  ch.  3. 

Mediaeval  League  of  Lombardy. —  When 
Frederick  Barbarossa  entered  Italy  for  the  fifth 
time  in  1163,  to  enforce  the  despotic  sovereignty 
over  that  country  which  tlie  German  kings,  as 
emperors,  were  then  claiming  (see  Italy:  A.  D. 
961-1039),  a  league  of  the  Lombard  cities  was 
formed  to  resist  him.  "Verona,  Vicenza,  Padua, 
and  Treviso,  the  most  powerful  towns  of  the 
Veronese  marches,  assembled  their  consuls  in 
congress,  to  consider  of  the  means  of  putting  an 
end  to  a  tyranny  which  overwhelmed  them.  The 
consuls  of  these  four  towns  pledged  themselves 
by  oath  in  the  name  of  their  cities  to  give 
mutual  support  to  each  other  in  the  assertion  of 
their  former  rights,  and  in  the  resolution  to  re- 
duce the  imperial  prerogatives  to  the  point  at 
which  they  were  fixed  under  the  reign  of  Henry 
IV.     Frederick,   informed    of    this  association. 


113T 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


returned  hastily  into  Northern  Italy,  to  put  it 
down  .  .  .  but  he  soon  perceived  that  the  spirit 
of  liberty  had  made  progress  in  the  Ghibeline 
cities  as  well  as  in  those  of  the  Guelphs.  .  .  . 
Obliged  to  bend  before  a  people  which  he  con- 
sidered only  as  revolted  subjects,  he  soon  re- 
nounced a  contest  so  humiliating,  and  returned 
to  Germany,  to  levy  an  army  more  submissive  to 
him.  Other  and  more  pressing  interests  diverted 
his  attention  from  this  object  till  the  autumn  of 
1166.  .  .  .  When  Frederick,  in  the  month  of 
October,  1166,  descended  the  mountains  of  the 
Grisons  to  enter  Italy  by  the  territory  of  Brescia, 
he  marched  his  army  directly  to  Lodi,  without 
permitting  any  act  of  hostility  on  the  way.  At 
Lodi,  he  assembled,  towards  the  end  of  Novem- 
ber, a  diet  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  at  which  he 
promised  the  Lombards  to  redress  the  grievances 
occasioned  by  the  abuses  of  power  by  his  podes- 
tas,  and  to  respect  their  just  liberties;  ...  to 
give  greater  weight  to  his  negotiation,  he 
marched  his  army  into  Central  Italy.  .  .  .  The 
towns  of  the  Veronese  marches,  seeing  the 
emperor  and  his  army  pass  without  daring  to 
attack  them,  became  bolder:  they  assembled  a 
new  diet,  in  the  beginning  of  April,  at  the  con- 
vent of  Pontida,  between  Jlilau  and  Bergamo. 
The  consuls  of  Cremona,  of  Bergamo,  of  Brescia, 
of  Mantua  and  Ferrara  met  there,  and  joined 
those  of  the  marches.  The  uuion  of  the  Guelphs 
and  Ghibelines,  for  the  common  liberty,  was 
hailed  with  universal  joy.  The  deputies  of  the 
Cremonese,  who  had  lent  their  aid  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  Milan,  seconded  those  of  the  Milanese 
villages  in  imploring  aid  of  the  confederated 
towns  to  rebuild  the  city  of  Milan.  This  con- 
federation was  called  the  League  of  Lombardy. 
The  consuls  took  the  oath,  and  their  constituents 
afterwards  repeated  it,  that  every  Lombard 
should  unite  for  tlie  recovery  of  the  common  lib- 
erty ;  that  the  league  for  this  purpose  should  last 
twenty  years ;  and,  finally,  that  they  should  aid 
each  other  in  repairing  in  common  any  damage 
experienced  in  this  sacred  cause,  by  any  one 
member  of  the  confederation :  extending  even  to 
the  past  this  contract  for  reciprocal  security,  the 
league  resolved  to  rebuild  Milan.  .  .  .  Lodi  was 
soon  afterwards  compelled,  by  force  of  arms,  to 
take  the  oath  to  the  league ;  while  the  towns  of 
Venice,  Placentia,  Parma,  Modena,  and  Bologna 
voluntarily  and  gladly  joined  the  association." — 
J.  C.  L.  de  Sismondi,  History  of  the  Italian  Re- 
publics, ch.  3. — In  1226  the  League  was  revived 
or  renewed  against  Frederick  II.  (see  Italy: 
A.  D.  1183-1350).— "Milan and  Bologna  took  the 
lead,  and  were  followed  by  Piacenza,  Verona, 
Brescia,  Faenza,  Mantua,  Vercelli,  Lodi,  Ber- 
gamo, Turin,  Alessandria,  Vicenza,  Padua,  and 
Treviso.  .  .  .  Nothing  could  be  more  unlike, 
than  the  First  and  the  Second  Lombard  Leagues, 
That  of  1167,  formed  against  Frederick  the  First 
after  the  most  cruel  provocation,  was  sanctioned 
by  the  Pope,  and  had  for  its  end  the  deliverance 
of  Lombardy.  That  of  1336,  formed  against 
Frederick  the  Second,  after  no  provocation  re- 
ceived, was  discountenanced  by  the  Pope,  and 
resulted  in  the  frustration  of  the  Crusade  and  in 
sowing  the  germ  of  endless  civil  wars.  This 
year  is  fixed  upon  by  the  Brescian  Chronicler  as 
the  beginning  of  '  those  plaguy  factious  of  Guelf 
and  Ghibelline,  which  were  so  engrained  into  the 
minds  of  our  forefathers,  that  the}'  have  handed 
them  down  as  an  heir-loom  to  their  posterity. 


never  to  come  to  an  end.'  " — T.  L.  Kington,  Hist. 
of  Frederick  the  Second,  t\  1,  ?j.  265-366. 

Modern  Federations. —  "A  remarkable  phe- 
nomenon of  the  last  hundred  years  is  the  im- 
petus that  has  been  given  to  the  development  of 
Federal  institutions.  There  are  to-day  contem- 
poraneously existing  no  less  than  eight  distinct 
Federal  Governments.  First  and  foremost  is  the 
United  States  of  America,  where  we  have  an  ex- 
ample of  the  Federal  Union  in  the  most  perfect 
form  yet  attained.  Then  comes  Switzerland,  of 
less  importance  than  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, but  most  nearly  approaching  it  in  perfection. 
Again  we  have  the  German  Empire  [see  Con- 
stitution OP  Germany],  that  great  factor  in 
European  politics,  which  is  truly  a  Federal  Union, 
but  a  cumbrous  one  and  full  of  anomalies.  Next 
in  importance  comes  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
[see  Constitution  of  Canada],  which  is  the 
only  example  of  a  country  forming  a  Federal 
Union  and  at  the  same  time  a  colony.  Lastly 
come  the  Argentine  Republic,  Mexico,  and  the 
States  of  Colombia  and  Venezuela  [see  Constitu- 
tions]. This  is  a  very  remarkable  list  when  we 
consider  that  never  before  the  present  century  did 
more  than  two  Federal  Unions  ever  coexist,  and 
that  very  rarel}',  and  that  even  those  unions 
were  far  from  satisfj'ing  the  true  requirements 
of  Federation.  Nor  is  this  all.  Throughout  the 
last  hundred  years  we  can  mark  a  growing  ten- 
dency in  countries  that  have  adopted  the  Federal 
type  of  Government  to  perfect  that  Federal  type 
and  make  it  more  truly  Federal  than  before.  In 
the  United  States  of  America,  for  instance,  the 
Constitution  of  1789  was  more  truly  Federal  than 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  certainly  since 
the  Civil  War  we  hear  less  of  State  Rights,  and 
more  of  Union.  It  has  indeed  been  remarked 
that  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  be- 
come fond  of  applying  the  words  '  Nation '  and 
'  National '  to  themselves  in  a  manner  formerly 
unknown.  We  can  mark  the  same  progress  in 
Switzerland.  Before  1789,  Switzerland  formed 
a  very  loose  system  of  Confederated  States  —  in 
1815,  a  constitution  more  truly  Federal  was  de- 
vised; in  1848,  the  Federal  Union  was  more 
firmly  consolidated;  and  lastly,  in  1874,  such 
changes  were  made  in  the  Constitution  that 
Switzerland  now  presents  a  very  fairly  perfect 
example  of  Federal  Government.  In  Germany 
we  may  trace  a  similar  movement.  In  1815,  the 
Germanic  Confederation  was  formed ;  but  it  was 
only  a  system  of  Confederated  States,  or  what 
the  Germans  call  Staatenbund ;  but  after  various 
changes,  amongst  others  the  exclusion  of  Austria 
in  1866,  it  became,  in  1871,  a  composite  State  or, 
in  German  language,  a  Bundestaat.  Beyond 
this,  we  have  to  note  a  further  tendency  to 
Federation.  In  the  year  1886,  a  Bill  passed  the 
Imperial  Parliament  to  permit  of  the  formation  of 
an  Australasian  Council  for  the  purposes  of  form- 
ing the  Australasian  Colonies  into  a  Federation. 
Then  we  hear  of  further  aspirations  for  applying 
the  Federal  system,  as  though  there  were  some 
peculiar  virtue  ortalismanic  effect  about  it  which 
rendered  it  a  panacea  for  all  political  troubles. 
There  has,  also,  been  much  talk  about  Imperial 
Federation.  Lastly,  some  people  think  they  see 
a  simple  solution  of  the  Irish  Question  in  the 
application  of  Federation,  particularly  the  Cana- 
dian form  of  it,  to  Ireland. "  —  Federal  Govern- 
ment  (Westminster  Rev.,  May,  1888,  pp.  573-574). 
— "The   federal  is  one  of  the  oldest  forms  of 


1138 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


government  known,  and  its  adaptability  to  the 
largest  as  well  as  to  the  smallest  states  is  shown 
in  all  political  formations  of  late  years.  States 
iu  the  New  and  in  the  Old  World,  all  in  their 
aggregation,  alike  show  ever  a  stronger  tendency 
to  adopt  it.  Already  all  the  central  states  of 
Europe  are  federal  —  Switzerland,  Germany, 
Austria  [see  AusTRi.\ :  A.  D.  1866-1867,  and  1866- 
1887] ;  and  if  ever  the  various  Sclav  principalities 
in  south-eastern  Europe  —  the  Serb,  the  Alban- 
ian, the  Rouman,  the  Bulgar,  and  the  Czech — are 
to  combine,  it  will  probably  be  (as  Mr.  Freeman 
so  long  ago  as  1863  remarked)  under  a  federal 
form, —  though  whether  under  Russian  or  Aus- 
trian auspices,  or  neither,  remains  to  be  seen. 
...  In  the  German  lands  from  early  ages  there 
has  existed  an  aggregation  of  tribes  and  states, 
some  of  them  even  of  non-German  race,  each  of 
which  preserved  for  domestic  purposes  its  own 
arrangements  and  laws,  but  was  united  with  the 
rest  under  one  supreme  head  and  central  authority 
as  regards  its  relation  to  all  external  powers. 
Since  1871  all  the  states  of  Germany  '  form  an 
eternal  union  for  the  protection  of  the  realm  and 
the  care  of  the  welfare  of  the  German  people.' 
For  legislative  purposes,  under  the  Emperor  as 
head,  are  the  two  Houses  of  Assembly;  first, 
the  Upper  House  of  the  Federated  States,  con- 
sisting of  63  members,  who  represent  the  indi- 
vidual States,  and  thus  as  the  guardian  of  State 
rights,  answers  very  closely  to  the  Senate  of  the 
American  Union,  except  that  the  number  of 
members  coming  from  each  state  is  not  uniform, 
but  apportioned.  .  .  .  Each  German  state  has  its 
own  local  constitution  and  home  rule  for  its  in- 
ternal affairs.  Generally  there  are  two  chambers, 
except  in  some  of  the  smallest  states,  the  popula- 
tion of  which  does  not  much  exceed  in  some  cases 
that  of  our  larger  towns.  .  .  .  Since  1867  the 
Austro-Hungarian  monarchy  has  been  a  political 
Siamese  twin,  of  which  Austria  is  the  one  body, 
and  Hungary  the  other;  the  population  of  the 
Austrian  half  is  34  millions,  and  that  of  Hungary 
about  16  millions.  Each  of  the  two  has  its  own 
parliament ;  the  connecting  link  is  the  sovereign 
(whose  civil  list  is  raised  half  by  one  and  half  by 
the  other)  and  a  common  army,  navy,  and  diplo- 
matic service,  and  another  Over-parliament  of  130 
members,  one-half  chosen  by  the  legislature  of 
Hungary,  and  the  other  half  by  the  legislature 
of  Austria  (the  Upper  House  of  each  twin  returns 
twenty,  and  the  Lower  of  each  forty  delegates 
from  their  own  number,  who  thus  form  a  kind  of 
Joint  Committee  of  the  Four  Houses).  The  juris- 
diction of  this  Over-parliament  is  limited  to 
foreign  affairs  and  war.  .  .  .  The  western  or 
Austrian  part  of  the  twin  ...  is  a  federal  gov- 
ernment in  itself.  .  .  .  Federated  Austria  con- 
sists of  seventeen  distinct  states.  The  German 
element  constitutes  36  per  cent,  of  the  inhabitants 
of  these,  and  the  Sclav  57  per  cent.  There  are  a 
few  Magyars,  Italians,  and  Roumanians.  Each 
of  these  seventeen  states  has  its  own  provincial 
parliament  of  one  House,  partly  composed  of  ex- 
officio  members  (the  bishops  and  archbishops  of 
the  Latin  and  Greek  Churches,  and  the  chancel- 
lors of  the  universities),  but  chiefly  of  repre- 
sentatives chosen  by  all  the  inhabitants  who  pay 
direct  taxation.  Some  of  these  are  elected  by 
the  landowners,  others  by  the  towns,  others  by 
the  trade-guilds  and  boards  of  commerce ;  the  re- 
presentatives of  the  rural  communes,  however,  are 
elected  by  delegates,  as  in  Prussia.     They  legis- 


late concerning  all  local  matters,  county  taxa- 
tion, land  laws  and  farming,  education,  public 
worship,  and  public  works.  .  .  .  Turning  next 
to  the  oldest  federation  in  Europe,  that  of  Swit- 
zerland, which  with  various  changes  has  survived 
from  1308,  though  its  present  constitution  dates 
only  from  1874,  we  find  it  now  embraces  three 
nationalities —  German,  French,  Italian.  The 
original  nucleus  of  the  State,  however,  was  Ger- 
man, and  even  now  three-fourths  of  the  popula- 
tion are  German.  Tlie  twenty-two  distinct  states 
are  federated  under  one  president  elected  an- 
nually, and  the  Federal  Assembly  of  two  cham- 
bers. .  .  .  Each  of  the  cantons  is  sovereign  and 
independent,  and  has  its  own  local  parliament, 
scarcely  any  two  being  the  same,  but  all  based 
on  universal  suffrage.  Each  canton  has  its  own 
budget  of  revenue  and  expenditure,  and  its  own 
public  debt." — J.  N.  Dalton,  Tlw  Federal  States 
of  the  World  {Nineteenth  Century,  July,  1884). 

Canadian  Federation. — "A  convention  of 
thirty-three  representative  men  was  held  in  the 
autumn  of  1864  in  the  historic  city  of  Quebec, 
and  after  a  deliberation  of  several  weeks  the  re- 
sult was  the  unanimous  adoption  of  a  set  of 
seventy-two  resolutions  embodying  the  terms  and 
conditions  on  which  the  provinces  through  their 
delegates  agreed  to  a  federal  union  in  many  re- 
spects similar  in  its  general  features  to  that  of 
the  United  States  federation,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  principles  of  the  English  constitution. 
These  resolutions  had  to  be  laid  before  the  vari- 
ous legislatures  and  adopted  in  the  shape  of  ad- 
dresses to  the  queen  whose  sanction  was  neces- 
sary to  embody  the  wishes  of  the  provinces  in  an 
imperial  statute.  ...  In  the  early  part  of  1867 
the  imperial  parliament,  without  a  division,  passed 
the  statute  known  as  the  '  British  North  America 
Act,  1867,'  which  united  in  the  first  instance  the 
province  of  Canada,  now  divided  into  Ontario 
and  Quebec,  with  Nova  Scotia  and  New  Bruns- 
\vick  and  made  provisions  for  the  coming  iu  of  the 
other  provinces  of  Prince  Edward  Island,  New- 
fo  mdland,  British  Columbia,  and  the  admission 
of  Kupert's  Land  and  the  great  North-west.  Be- 
tween 1867  and  1873  the  provinces  just  named, 
with  the  exception  of  Newfoundland,  which  has 
persistently  remained  out  of  the  federation,  be- 
came parts  of  the  Dominion  and  the  vast  North- 
west Territory  was  at  last  acquired  on  terms 
eminently  satisfactory  to  Canada  and  a  new  prov- 
ince of  great  promise  formed  out  of  that  immense 
region,  with  a  complete  system  of  parliamentary 
government.  .  .  .  When  the  terms  of  the  Union 
came  to  be  arranged  between  the  provinces  in 
1864,  their  conflicting  interest  had  to  be  carefully 
considered  and  a  system  adopted  which  would 
always  enable  the  Dominion  to  expand  its  limits 
and  bring  in  new  sections  until  it  should  embrace 
the  northern  half  of  the  continent,  which,  as  we 
have  just  shown,  now  constitutes  the  Dominion. 
It  was  soon  found,  after  due  deliberation,  that 
the  most  feasible  plan  was  a  confederation  rest- 
ing on  those  principles  which  experience  of  the 
working  of  the  federation  of  the  United  States 
showed  was  likely  to  give  guarantees  of  elasticity 
and  permanency.  The  maritime  provinces  had 
been  in  the  enjoyment  of  an  excellent  system  of 
laws  and  representative  institutions  for  many 
years,  and  were  not  willing  to  yield  their  local 
autonomy  in  its  entirety.  The  people  of  the 
province  of  Quebec,  after  experience  of  a  union 
that  lasted  from  1841  to   1867,  saw  decidedly 


1139 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


great  advantages  to  themselves  and  their  institu- 
tions in  having  a  provincial  government  under 
their  own  control.  The  people  of  Ontario  recog- 
nized equal  advantages  in  having  a  measure  of 
local  government,  apart  from  French  Canadian 
influences  and  interference.  The  consequence  vpas 
the  adoption  of  the  federal  system,  which  now, 
after  twenty-six  years'  experience,  we  can  truly 
say  appears  on  the  whole  well  devised  and  equal 
to  the  local  and  national  requirements  of  the 
people." — J.  G.  Bourinot,  Federal  Gov't  in  Can- 
ada (Johns  Hopkins  Univ.  Studies,  1th  Series,  nos. 
;  10-13),  led.  1-3. 

Britannic  Federation,  Proposed. — "The  great 
change  which  has  taken  place  in  the  public  mind 
in  recent  years  upon  the  importance  to  the  Em- 
pire of  maintaining  the  colonial  connection  found 
expression  at  a  meeting  held  at  the  Westminster 
Palace  Hotel  in  July  1884,  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Right  Hon.  W.  E.  Forster,  who  occupied 
the  chair.  At  that  meeting  —  which  was  at- 
tended by  a  large  number  of  members  of  Parlia- 
ment of  both  parties,  and  representatives  of  the 
colonies  —  It  was  moved  by  the  Right  Hon.  W. 
H.  Smith:  'That,  in  order  to  secure  the  perma- 
nent unity  of  the  Empire,  some  form  of  federa- 
tion is  essential.'  That  resolution  was  seconded 
by  the  Earl  of  Rosebery,  and  passed  unani- 
mously. In  November  of  the  same  year  the  Im- 
perial Federation  League  was  formed  to  carry 
out  the  objects  of  that  resolution ;  and  the  sub- 
ject has  received  considerable  attention  since. 
...  I  believe  all  are  agreed  that  the  leading 
objects  of  the  Imperial  Federation  League  are  to 
find  means  by  which  the  colonies,  the  outlying 
portions  of  the  Empire,  may  have  a  certain  voice 
and  weight  and  influence  in  reference  to  the 
foreign  policy  of  this  country,  in  which  they  are 
all  deeply  interested,  and  sometimes  more  deeply 
interested  than  the  United  Kingdom  itself.  In 
the  next  place,  that  measures  may  be  taken  by 
which  all  the  power  and  weight  and  influence 
that  these  great  British  communities  in  Austral- 
asia, in  South  Africa,  and  in  Canada  possess 
shall  be  brought  into  operation  for  the  strength- 
ening and  defence  of  the  Empire.  The  discus- 
sion of  these  questions  has  led  to  a  great  deal  of 
progress.  We  have  got  rid  of  a  number  of  fal- 
lacies that  obtained  in  the  minds  of  a  good  many 
persons  in  relation  to  the  means  by  which  those 
objects  are  to  be  attained.  Most  people  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  stated  by  Lord  Rosebery 
at  the  Mansion  House,  that  a  Parliamentary 
Federation,  if  practicable,  is  so  remote,  that  dur- 
ing the  coming  century  it  is  not  likely  to  make 
any  very  great  advance.  We  have  also  got  rid 
of  the  fallacy  that  it  was  practicable  to  have  a 
common  tariff  throughout  the  Empire.  It  is 
not,  in  my  opinion,  consistent  with  the  constitu- 
tion either  of  England  or  of  the  autonomous  colo- 
nies. The  tariff  of  a  country  must  rest  of  ne- 
cessity mainly  with  the  Government  of  the  day, 
and  involves  such  continual  change  and  altera- 
tion as  to  make  uniformity  impracticable.  .  .  . 
I  regard  the  time  as  near  at  hand  when  the  great 
provinces  of  Australasia  will  be  confederated 
under  one  Government.  .  .  .  AVhen  that  has  been 
done  it  will  be  followed,  I  doubt  not,  at  a  verj^ 
early  day,  by  a  similar  course  on  the  part  of  South 
Africa,  and  then  we  shall  stand  in  the  position  of 
having  three  great  dominions,  commonwealths, 
or  realms,  or  whatever  name  is  found  most  de- 
sirable on  the  part  of  the  people  who  adopt  them 


—  three  great  British  communities,  each  under 
one  central  and  strong  Government.  When  that 
is  accomplished,  the  measure  which  the  Marquis 
ot  Lome  has  suggested,  of  having  the  representa- 
tives of  these  colonies  during  the  term  of  their 
ofiice  here  in  London,  practically  Cabinet  Minis- 
ters, will  give  to  the  Government  of  England  an 
opportunity  of  learning  in  the  most  direct  and 
complete  manner  the  vie  ws  and  sentiments  of  each 
of  those  great  British  communities  in  regard  to 
all  questions  of  foreign  policy  affecting  the  colo- 
nies. I  would  suggest  that  the  representatives 
of  those  three  great  British  communities  here  in 
London  should  be  leading  members  of  the  Cabi- 
net of  the  day  of  the  country  they  represent,  go- 
ing out  of  ofiice  when  their  Government  is 
changed.  In  that  way  they  would  always  repre- 
sent the  country,  and  necessarily  the  views  of 
the  party  in  power  in  Canada,  in  Australasia, 
and  in  South  Africa.  That  would  involve  no 
constitutional  change ;  it  would  simply  require 
that  whoever  represented  those  dominions  in 
London  should  have  a  seat  in  their  own  Parlia- 
ment, and  be  a  member  of  the  Administration." 
— C.  Tupper,  Federatinu  the  Empire  (Nimteenth 
Cent.,  Oct.,  1891). — "Recent  expensive  wars  at 
the  Cape,  annexations  of  groups  of  islands  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Australia,  the  Fishery  and 
other  questions  that  have  arisen,  and  may  arise, 
on  the  North  American  continent,  have  all  com- 
pelled us  to  take  a  review  of  our  responsibilities, 
in  connection  with  our  Colonies  and  to  consider 
how  far,  in  the  event  of  trouble,  we  may  rely 
upon  tlieir  assistance  to  adequately  support  the 
commercial  interests  of  our  scattered  Empire. 
It  is  remarkable  that,  although  the  matters  here 
indicated  are  slowly  coming  to  the  surface,  and 
have  provoked  discussion,  they  have  not  been 
forced  upon  the  public  attention  suddenly,  or  by 
any  violent  injury  or  catastrophe.  The  review 
men  are  taking  of  our  position,  and  the  debates 
as  to  how  best  we  can  make  our  relationships  of 
standing  value,  have  been  the  natural  outcome 
of  slowly  developing  causes  and  effects.  Poli- 
ticians belonging  to  both  of  the  great  parties  in 
the  State  have  joined  the  Federation  League. 
The  leaders  have  expressly  declared  that  they  do 
not  desire  at  the  present  moment  to  propound 
any  definite  theories,  or  to  push  any  premature 
scheme  for  closer  union  of  the  Empire.  The  so- 
ciety has  been  formed  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
cussing any  plans  proposed  for  such  objects. 
The  suggestions  actually  made  have  varied  in 
importance  from  comprehensive  projects  of  uni- 
versal commercial  union  and  common  contribu- 
tions for  a  world-wide  military  and  naval  or- 
ganization, to  such  a  trivial  proposal  as  the 
personal  recognition  of  distinguished  colonists 
by  a  nomination  to  the  peerage." — The  Mar- 
quis of  Lome,  Imperial  Federation,  ch.  1. — 
"Many  schemes  of  federation  have  been  pro- 
pounded, and  many  degrees  of  federal  union  are 
possible.  Lord  Rosebery  has  not  gone  further, 
as  yet,  than  the  enunciation  of  a  general  princi- 
ple. '  The  federation  we  aim  at  (he  has  said)  is 
the  closest  possible  union  of  the  various  self- 
governing  States  ruled  by  the  British  Crown,  con- 
sistentlj'  with  that  free  development  which  is  the 
birthright  of  British  subjects  all  over  the  world 

—  the  closest  union  in  sympathy,  in  external 
action,  and  in  defence.'.  .  .  The  representation 
of  the  Colonies  in  the  Privy  Council  lias  been 
viewed  with  favour,  both  by  statesmen  and  by 


]140 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


theoretical  writers.  Eari  Grey  has  proposed  the 
appointment  of  a  Federal  Committee,  selected 
from  the  Privy  Council,  to  advise  with  the  Sec- 
retary of  State  for  the  Colonies.  The  idea  thus 
shadowed  forth  has  been  worked  out  witli  greater 
amplitude  of  detail  by  Mr.  Creswell,  in  an  essay 
to  wliich  the  prize  offered  by  the  London  Cham- 
ber of  Commerce  was  awarded.  '  The  Imperial 
assembly  which  we  want,'  says  Mr.  Creswell, 
'  must  be  an  independent  body,  constitutional  in 
its  origin,  representative  in  its  ciiaracter,  and 
supreme  in  its  decisions.  Sucli  a  body  we  have 
already  in  existence  in  the  Privy  Council.  Its 
members  are  chosen,  irrespective  of  party  con- 
siderations, from  among  the  most  eminent  of 
those  who  have  done  service  to  the  State.  To 
this  body  colonists  of  distinguished  public  service 
could  be  elected.  In  constituting  the  Imperial 
Committee  of  the  Privy  Council,  representation 
might  be  given  to  every  part  of  the  empire,  in 
proportion  to  the  several  contributions  to  expen- 
diture for  Imperial  defence.'  Tlie  constitution 
of  a  great  Council  of  the  Empire,  with  similar 
functions  in  relation  to  foreign  affairs  to  those 
which  are  exercised  in  the  United  States  by  a 
Committee  of  the  Senate,  is  a  step  for  which 
public  opinion  is  not  yet  prepared.  In  the  mean- 
while the  utmost  consideration  is  being  paid  at 
the  Foreign  Office  to  Colonial  feelings  and  inter- 
ests. No  commitments  or  engagements  are  taken 
which  would  not  be  approved  by  Colonial  opin- 
ion. Another  proposal  which  has  been  warmly 
advocated,  especially  by  the  Protectionists,  is 
that  for  a  customs-union  between  the  Mother- 
country  and  the  Colonies.  It  cannot  be  said  that 
at  the  present  time  proposals  for  a  customs-union 
are  ripe  for  settlement,  or  even  for  discussion,  at 
a  conference  of  representatives  from  all  parts  of 
the  empire.  The  Mother-country  has  been  com- 
mitted for  more  than  a  generation  to  the  princi- 
ple of  Free-trade.  By  our  policy  of  free  imports 
of  food  and  raw  materials  we  have  so  cheapened 
production  that  we  are  able  to  compete  success- 
fully with  all  comers  in  the  neutral  markets  of 
the  world.  ...  It  would  be  impossible  to  enter- 
tain the  idea  of  a  reversal  of  our  fiscal  policy,  in 
however  restricted  a  sense,  without  careful  and 
exhaustive  inquiry.  .  .  .  Lord  Rosebery  has  re- 
cently declared  that  in  his  opinion  it  is  impracti- 
cable to  devise  a  scheme  of  representation  for 
the  Colonies  in  the  House  of  Commons  and 
House  of  Lords,  or  in  the  Privy  Council.  The 
scheme  of  an  Imperial  customs-union,  ably  put 
forward  by  Jlr.  Hoffmeyer  at  the  last  Colonial 
Conference,  he  equally  rejects.  Lord  Rosebery 
would  limit  the  direct  action  of  the  Imperial 
Government  for  the  present  to  conferences,  sum- 
moned at  frequent  intervals.  Our  first  confer- 
ence was  summoned  by  the  Government  at  the 
instance  of  the  Imperial  Federation  League.  It 
was  attended  by  men  of  the  highest  distinction 
in  the  Colonies.  Its  deliberations  were  guided  by 
Lord  Knutsford  with  admirable  tact  and  judg- 
ment ;  it  considered  many  important  questions  of 
common  interest  to  the  diflerent  countries  of  the 
empire;  it  arrived  at  several  important  decisions, 
and  it  cleared  the  air  of  not  a  few  doubts  and 
delusions.  The  most-  tangible,  the  most  impor- 
tant, and  the  most  satisfactory  result  of  that  con- 
ference was  the  recognition  by  the  Australian 
colonies  of  the  necessity  for  making  provision 
for  the  naval  defence  of  their  own  waters  by 
means  of  ships,  provided  by  the  Government  of 


the  United  Kingdom,  but  maintained  by  the 
Australian  Governments.  Lord  Rosebery  holds 
that  the  question  of  Imperial  Federation  depends 
for  the  present  on  frequent  conferences.  In  his 
speech  at  the  Mansion  House  he  laid  down  the 
conditions  essential  to  the  success  of  conferences 
in  the  future.  They  must  be  held  periodically 
and  at  stated  intervals.  The  Colonies  must  send 
the  best  men  to  represent  them.  The  Govern- 
ment of  the  Mother-country  must  invest  these 
periodical  congresses  with  all  the  authority  and 
splendour  which  it  is  in  their  power  to  give.  The 
task  to  be  accomplished  will  not  be  the  produc- 
tion of  statutes,  but  the  production  of  recom- 
mendations. Those  who  think  that  a  congress 
that  only  meets  to  report  and  recommend  has  but 
a  neutral  task  before  it,  have  a  very  Inadequate 
idea  of  the  influence  whicli  would  be  exercised 
by  a  conference  representing  a  quarter  of  the 
human  race,  and  the  immeasurable  opulence  and 
power  that  have  been  garnered  up  by  the  past 
centuries  of  our  history.  If  we  have  these  con- 
ferences, if  they  are  allowed  to  discuss,  as  they 
must  be  allowed  to  discuss,  all  topics  which  any 
parties  to  these  conferences  should  recommend  to 
be  discussed.  Lord  Rosebery  carmot  apprehend 
that  they  would  be  wanting  in  authority  or  in 
weight.  Lord  Salisbury,  in  his  speeches  recently 
delivered  in  reply  to  the  Earl  of  Dunraven  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  and  in  reply  to  the  deputation 
of  the  Imperial  Federation  League  at  the  Foreign 
Office,  has  properly  insisted  on  the  chief  practical 
obstacle  to  a  policy  of  frequent  conferences.  At- 
tendance at  conferences  involves  grave  incon- 
venience to  Colonial  statesmen.  ...  In  appeal- 
ing to  the  Imperial  Federation  League  for  some 
practical  suggestions  as  to  tlie  means  by  which 
the  several  parts  of  the  British  Empire  may  be 
more  closely  knit  together.  Lord  Salisbury  threw 
out  some  pregnant  hints.  To  make  a  united  em- 
pire both  a  ZoUverein  and  a  Kriegsverein  must 
be  formed.  In  the  existing  state  of  feeling  in 
the  Mother-country  a  Zollverein  would  be  a 
serious  difficulty.  The  reasons  have  been  already 
stated.  A  Kriegsverein  was,  perhaps,  more  prac- 
ticable, and  certainly  more  urgent.  The  space 
which  separates  the  Colonies  from  possible  ene- 
mies was  becoming  every  year  less  and  less  a  pro- 
tection. We  may  take  concerted  action  for  de- 
fence without  the  necessity  for  constitutional 
changes  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  carry 
out." — Lord  Brassey,  Imperial  Federation:  An, 
English  View  (Nineteenth  Cent.,  Sept.,  1891). 
— "The  late  Mr.  Forster  launched  under  the 
high-sounding  title  of  the  '  Imperial  Federation 
League,'  a  scheme  by  which  its  authors  proposed 
to  solve  all  the  problems  attending  the  adminis- 
tration of  our  colonial  empire.  From  first  to  last 
the  authors  of  this  scheme  have  never  conde- 
scended on  particulars.  'Imperial  federation,' 
we  were  always  told,  was  the  only  specific  against 
the  disintegration  of  the  Empire,  but  as  to  what 
this  specific  really  was,  no  information  was 
vouchsafed.  ...  It  is  very  natural  that  the  citi- 
zens of  a  vast  but  fragmentary  empire,  whose 
territorial  atoms  (instead  of  forming,  like  those 
of  the  United  States,  a  '  ring-fence '  domain)  are 
scattered  over  the  surface  of  the  globe,  should 
cast  about  for  some  artificial  links  to  bind  to- 
gether the  colonies  we  have  planted,  and  'the 
thousand  tribes  nourished  on  strange  religions 
and  lawless  slaveries '  which  we  have  gathered 
under  our  rule.     This  anxiety  has  been  naturally 


1141 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


augmented  by  a  chronic  agitation  for  the  aban- 
donment of  all  colonies  as  expensive  and  useless. 
For  though  there  may  be  little  to  boast  of  in  the 
fact  that  Great  Britain  has  in  the  course  of  less 
than  three  centuries  contrived  by  war,  diplomacy, 
and  adventure,  to  annex  about  a  fifth  of  the 
globe,  it  can  hardly  be  expected  that  she  should 
relinquish  without  an  effort  even  the  nominal 
sway  she  still  holds  over  her  colonial  empire. 
Hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  any  scheme  which 
seems  to  supply  the  needed  links  is  caught  up  by 
those  who,  possessing  slight  acquaintance  with 
the  past  history  or  the  present  aspirations  of  our 
colonists,  are  simply  looking  out  for  some  new 
contrivance  by  which  they  may  hope  that  an  en- 
during bond  of  union  may  be  provided.  '  Im- 
perial federation '  is  the  last  new  '  notion '  which 
has  cropped  up  in  pursuance  of  this  object.  .  .  . 
Some  clue  ...  to  its  objects  and  aims  may  be 
gained  by  a  reference  to  the  earliest  exposition  by 
Mr.  Forster  of  his  motives  contained  in  his  answer 
five  years  ago  to  the  question,  '  Why  was  the 
League  formed  at  all  ?'  '  For  this  reason,'  says 
Mr.  Forster,  '  because  in  giving  self-government 
to  our  colonies  we  have  introduced  a  principle 
which  must  eventually  shake  off  from  Great 
Britain,  Greater  Britain,  and  divide  it  into  sepa- 
rate states,  which  must,  in  short,  dissolve  the 
union  unless  counteracting  measures  be  taken  to 
preserve  it.'  Believing,  as  we  do,  that  it  has 
only  been  by  conceding  to  our  larger  groups  of 
colonies  absolute  powers  of  self-govermnent  that 
we  have  retained  them  at  all,  and  that  the  secret 
of  our  protracted  empire  lies  in  the  fact  of  this 
abandonment  of  central  arbitrary  power,  the  re- 
tention of  which  has  caused  the  collapse  of  all 
the  European  empires  which  preceded  us  in  the 
path  of  colonisation,  we  are  bound  to  enter  our 
emphatic  protest  against  an  assumption  so  utterly 
erroneous  as  that  propounded  by  Mr.  Forster. 
So  far  from  believing  that  the  permanent  imion  of 
the  British  Empire  is  to  be  secured  by  '  measures 
which  may  counteract  the  workings  of  colonial 
self-government,'  we  are  convinced  that  the  only 
safety  for  our  Empire  lies  in  the  unfettered  action 
of  that  self-government  which  we  have  ourselves 
granted  to  our  colonies.  It  would  almost  seem 
that  for  Lord  Rosebery  and  his  fellow  workers 
the  history  of  the  colonial  empires  of  Portugal, 
Spain,  Holland,  and  France  had  been  written  in 
vain.  For  if  we  ask  why  these  colonial  empires 
have  dwindled  and  decayed,  the  answer  is  simply 
because  that  self-government  which  is  the  life  of 
British  colonies  was  never  granted  to  their  depen- 
dencies. There  was  a  time  when  one  hundred 
and  fifty  sovereign  princes  paid  tribute  to  the 
treasury  of  Lisbon.  For  two  hundred  years, 
more  than  half  the  South  American  continent 
was  an  appanage  of  Spain.  Ceylon,  the  Cape, 
Guiana,  and  a  vast  cluster  of  trade  factories  in 
the  East  were  at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth 
century  colonies  of  Holland;  while  half  North 
America,  comprising  the  vast  and  fertile  valleys 
of  the  St.  Lawrence,  the  Mississippi,  and  the  Ohio, 
obeyed,  a  little  more  than  a  century  ago,  the 
sceptre  of  France.  Neither  Portugal,  nor  Spain, 
nor  Holland,  nor  France,  has  lacked  able  rulers 
or  statesmen,  but  the  colonial  empire  of  all  these 
states  has  crumbled  and  decayed.  The  excep- 
tional position  of  Great  Britain  in  this  respect 
can  only  be  ascribed  to  the  relinquishment  of  all 
the  advantages,  political  and  commercial,  ordi- 
narily presumed  to  result  to  dominant  states  from 


the  possession  of  dependencies.  .  .  .  The  ro- 
mantic dreams  of  the  Imperial  Federation  League 
were  in  fact  dissipated  beforehand  by  the  irrevo- 
cable grant  of  independent  legislatures  to  all 
our  most  important  colonies,  and  Lord  Rose- 
bery may  rest  assured  that,  charm  he  never  so 
wisely,  they  will  not  listen  to  his  blandish- 
ments at  the  cost  of  one  iota  of  the  political 
privileges  already  conferred  on  them." — Im- 
perial Federation  (Edinburgh  Rev.,  July,  1889). — 
"  'Britannic  Confederation'  is  defined  to  be  an 
union  of  '  the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  British  North  America,  British 
South  Africa,  and  Australasia.'  The  West  Indies 
and  one  or  two  other  British  Dependencies  seem 
here  to  be  shut  out;  but,  at  any  rate,  with 
this  definition  we  at  least  know  where  we  are. 
The  terms  of  the  union  we  are  not  told ;  but,  as 
the  word  '  confederation '  is  used,  I  conceive  that 
they  are  meant  to  be  strictly  federal.  That  is  to 
say,  first  of  all,  the  Parliament  of  the  United 
Kingdom  will  give  up  its  right  to  legislate  for 
British  North  America,  British  South  Africa, 
and  Australasia.  Then  the  Lj^nited  Kingdom, 
British  North  America,  British  South  Africa  and 
Australasia  will  enter  into  a  federal  relation  with 
one  another.  They  may  enter  either  as  single 
members  (States  or  Cantons)  or  as  groups  of 
members.  That  is.  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
might  enter  as  a  single  State  of  the  Confedera- 
tion, or  England,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Wales  —  or 
possibly  smaller  divisions  again  —  might  enter 
as  separate  States.  Or  Great  Britain,  Australia, 
Canada,  &c.,  might  enter  as  themselves  Leagues, 
members  oi  a  greater  League,  as  in  the  old  state 
of  things  in  Graublinden.  I  am  not  arguing  for 
or  against  any  of  these  arrangements.  I  am  only 
stating  them  as  possible.  But  whatever  the 
units  are  to  be  —  Great  Britain  and  Australia, 
England  and  Victoria,  or  anything  larger  or 
smaller  —  if  the  confederation  is  to  be  a  real  one, 
each  State  must  keep  some  powers  to  itself,  and 
must  yield  some  powers  to  a  central  body.  That 
Central  body,  in  which  all  the  States  must  be  rep- 
resented in  some  way  or  other,  will  naturally 
deal  with  all  international  matters,  all  matters 
that  concern  the  Britannic  Confederation  as  a 
whole.  The  legislatures  of  Great  Britain  and 
Australia,  England  and  Victoria,  or  whatever 
the  units  fixed  on  may  be,  will  deal  only  with 
the  internal  affairs  of  those  several  cantons.  Now 
such  a  scheme  as  this  is  theoretically  possible. 
That  is,  it  involves  no  contradiction  in  terms,  as 
the  talk  about  Imperial  Federation  does.  It 
is  purely  federal ;  there  is  nothing  '  imperial ' 
about  it.  It  is  simply  applying  to  certain  politi- 
cal communities  a  process  which  has  been  actu- 
ally gone  through  by  certain  other  political  com- 
munities. It  is  proposing  to  reconstruct  a  certain 
political  constitution  after  the  model  of  certain 
other  political  constitutions  which  are  in  actual 
working.  It  is  therefore  something  better  than 
mere  talk  and  theory.  But,  because  it  is  theo- 
retically possible,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is 
practically  possible,  that  is,  that  it  is  possible  in 
this  particular  case.  ...  Of  the  federations  ex- 
isting at  this  time  the  two  chief  are  Switzerland 
and  the  United  States  of  America.  They  differ 
in  this  point,  that  one  is  verj'  large  and  the  other 
very  small;  they  agree  in  this,  that  the  terri- 
tory of  both  is  continuous.  But  the  proposed 
Britannic  Confederation  will  be  scattered,  scat- 
tered over  every  part  of  the  world.     I  know  of 


1142 


FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT. 


PEHDERECHT. 


no  example  in  any  age  of  a  scattered  confedera- 
tion, a  scattered  Bundesstaat.  The  Hanse  Towns 
were  not  a  Bundesstaat;  they  were  hardly  a 
Staatenbund.  Of  the  probable  working  of  such 
a  body  as  that  which  is  now  proposed  the  experi- 
ence of  history  can  teach  us  nothing ;  we  can  only 
guess  what  may  be  likely.  The  Britannic  Con- 
federation will  have  its  federal  congress  sitting 
somewhere,  perhaps  at  Westminster,  perhaps  at 
Melbourne,  perhaps  at  some  Washington  called 
specially  into  being  at  some  point  more  central 
than  either.  .  .  .  For  a  while  their  representa- 
tives will  think  it  grand  to  sit  at  Westminster ; 
presently,  as  the  spirit  of  equality  grows,  they 
are  not  unlikely  to  ask  for  some  more  central 
place ;  they  may  even  refuse  to  stir  out  of  their 
own  territory.  That  is  to  say,  they  will  find 
that  the  sentiment  of  national  unity,  which  they 
undoubtedly  have  in  no  small  measure,  needs 
some  physical  and  some  political  basis  to  stand 
on.  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  States  which  are 
united  only  by  a  sentiment,  which  have  so  much, 
both  political  and  physical,  to  keep  them  asun- 
der, will  be  kept  together  for  ever  by  a  sentiment 
only.  And  we  must  further  remember  that  that 
sentiment  is  a  sentiment  for  the  mother-country, 
and  not  for  one  another.  .  .  .  Canada  and  Aus- 
tralia care  a  great  deal  for  Great  Britain;  we 
may  doubt  whether,  apart  from  Great  Britain, 
Canada  and  Australia  care  very  much  for  one 
another.  There  may  be  American  States  which 
care  yet  less  for  one  another;  but  in  their 
case  mere  continuity  produces  a  crowd  of  inter- 
ests and  relations  common  to  all.  We  may 
doubt  whether  the  confederation  of  States  so 
distant  as  the  existing  colonies  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, whether  the  bringing  them  into  closer  rela- 
tions with  one  another  as  well  as  with  Great 
IBritain,  will  at  all  tend  to  the  advance  of  a 
common  national  unity  among  them.  We  may 
doubt  whether  it  will  not  be  likely  to  bring  out 
some  hidden  tendencies  to  disunion  among  them. 
...  In  the  scattered  confederation  all  questions 
and  parties  are  likely  to  be  local.  It  is  hard  to 
see  what  will  be  the  materials  for  the  formation 
of  great  national  parties  among  such  scattered 
elements." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Tlis  Physical  and 
Political  Bases  of  National  Unity  {Britannic  Con- 
federation, ed.  by  A.  S.  White). — "I  have  the 
greatest  respect  for  the  aspirations  of  the  Im- 
perial Federationists,  and  myself  most  earnestly 
desire  the  moral  unity  of  our  race  and  its 
partnership  in  achievement  and  grandeur.  But 
an  attempt  at  formal  Federation,  such  as  is  now 
proposed,  would  in  the  first  place  exclude  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  who  form  the  largest 
portion  of  the  English-speakiag  race,  and  in 
the  second  place  it  would  split  us  all  to  pieces. 
It  would,  I  am  persuaded,  call  into  play  centrifu- 
gal forces  against  which  the  centripetal  forces 
could  not  contend  for  an  hour.  What  interests 
of  the  class  with  which  a  Federal  Parliament 
would  deal  have  Australia  and  Canada  in  com- 
mon ?  What  enemy  has  either  of  them  whom 
the  other  would  be  inclined  to  fight  ?  Australia, 
it  seems,  looks  forward  to  a  stniggle  with  the 
Chinese  for  ascendency  in  that  quarter  of  the 
globe.  Canada  cares  no  more  about  a  struggle 
between  the  Australians  and  the  Chinese  at  the 
other  extremity  of  the  globe  than  the  Australians 
would  care  about  a  dispute  between  Canada  and 
her  neighbours  in  the  United  States  respecting 
Canadian  boundaries  or  the  Fisheries  Question. 


The  circumstances  of  the  two  groups  of  colonies, 
to  which  their  policy  must  conform,  are  totally 
different.  Australia  lies  in  an  ocean  by  herself; 
Canada  is  territorially  interlocked  and  commer- 
cially bound  up,  as  well  as  socially  almost  fused, 
with  the  great  mass  of  English-speaking  popu- 
lation which  occupies  the  larger  portion  of  her 
continent.  Australia  again  is  entirely  British. 
Canada  has  in  her  midst  a  great  block  of  French 
population,  constituting  a  distinct  nationality, 
which  instead  of  being  absorbed  is  daily  growing 
in  intensity ;  and  she  would  practically  be  unable 
to  take  part  in  any  enterprise  or  support  any 
policy,  especially  any  policy  entailing  an  in- 
crease of  taxation,  to  which  the  French  Can- 
adians were  opposed.  Of  getting  Canada  to 
contribute  out  of  her  own  resources  to  wars 
or  to  the  maintenance  of  armaments,  for  the 
objects  of  British  diplomacy  in  Europe  or  in 
the  East,  no  one  who  knows  the  Canadians  can 
imagine  that  there  would  be  the  slightest  hope 
The  very  suggestion,  at  the  time  of  the  Soudan 
Expedition,  called  forth  emphatic  protests  on  all 
sides.  The  only  results  of  an  experiment  in  for- 
mal Federation,  I  repeat,  would  be  repudiation 
of  Federal  demands,  estrangement  and  dissolu- 
tion. " —  Goldwin  Smith,  Straining  the  Silken 
Tliread(Macmillan's  Magazine.  Avg.,  1888). 

European  Federation. — "  While  it  is  obvious 
that  Imperial  Federation  of  the  British  Empire 
would  cover  many  of  the  defects  in  our  relation- 
ship with  the  colonies,  it  is  equally  apparent  that 
it  is  open  to  the  fatal  objection  of  merely  making 
us  a  more  formidable  factor  in  the  field  of  inter- 
national anarchy.  Suppose  the  colonies  under- 
took to  share  equitably  the  great  cost  of  imperial 
defence  in  the  present  state  of  things  throughout 
Europe  —  and  that  is  a  very  large  assumption  — 
England  would  be  entirely  dependent,  in  case  of 
war,  for  the  supply  of  food  on  the  fleet,  any  ac- 
cident to  which  would  place  us  at  the  enemy's 
mercy.  Even  without  actual  hostilities,  how- 
ever, our  additional  strength  would  cause  another 
increase  of  foreign  armaments  to  meet  the  case 
of  war  with  us.  This  process  has  taken  place  in- 
variably on  the  increase  of  armaments  of  any 
European  state,  and  may  be  taken  to  be  as  certain 
as  that  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow.  But  all  the 
benefits  accruing  from  Imperial  Federation  may 
be  secured  by  European  Federation,  plus  a  reduc- 
tion of  military  liability,  which  Imperial  Federa- 
tion would  not  only  not  reduce,  but  increase. 
There  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  self-governing 
colonies  from  joining  in  a  European  Federation, 
and  thus  enlarging  the  basis  of  that  institution 
enormously,  and  cutting  off  in  a  corresponding 
degree  the  chance  of  an  outbreak  of  violence  in 
another  direction,  which  could  not  fail  to  have 
serious  consequences  to  the  colonies  at  any  rate." 
• — C.  D.  Farquharson,  Federation,  the  Polity  of  the 
Future  (  Westminster  Rev. ,  Dec. ,  1891),  pp.  602-603. 

FEDERALIST,  The.  See  United  States 
OP  Am.  :  A.  D.  1787-1789. 

FEDERALISTS,  The  party  of  the.  See 
United  States  op  Am.:  A.  D.  1789-1792;  also 
1812;  and  1814  (December):  The  Hartford 
Convention. 

FEDS.— CONFEDS.     See  Bots  in  Blue. 

FEE.     See  FErDALisM. 

FEHDERECHT.— The  right  of  private  war- 
fare, or  diffldation,  exercised  in  mediaeval  Ger- 
many.   See  Landpreede. 


1143 


FEHRBELLIN. 


FEUDAL  AIDS. 


FEHRBELLIN,  Battle  of  (1675).  See 
Brandenburg:  A.  D.  1640-1688;  and  Scandi- 
navian States  (Sweden)  :  A.  D.  1644-1697. 

FEIS  OF  TARA.     See  Tara. 

FELICIAN  HERESY.     See  Adoptianibm. 

FELIX  v.,  Pope,  A.  D.  1439-1449  (elected 
by  the  Council  of  Basle). 

FENIAN  MOVEMENT,  The.  See  Ire- 
land: A.  D.  18D8-1867;  and  Canada:  A.  D. 
1866-1871. 

FENIAN :  Origin  of  the  Name. — An  Irish 
poem  of  the  ninth  centry  called  the  Duan  Eirean- 
nach,  or  Poem  of  Ireland,  preserves  a  mythical 
story  of  the  origin  of  the  Irish  people,  according 
to  which  they  sprang  from  one  Fenius  Farsaidh 
who  came  out  of  Scythia.  Nel,  or  Niul,  the  son 
of  Fenius,  travelled  into  Egypt  and  married 
Scota,  a  daughter  of  Forann  (Pharaoh).  "Niul 
had  a  son  named  Gaedhuil  Glas,  or  Green  Gael ; 
and  we  are  told  that  it  is  from  him  the  Irish  are 
called  Gaedhil  (Gael)  or  Gadelians,  while  from 
his  mother  is  derived  the  name  of  Scoti,  or  Scots, 
and  from  Fenius  that  of  Feni  or  Fenians. " — M. 
Haverty,  Hist,  of  Ireland,  p.  10. — From  this  legend 
was  derived  the  name  of  the  Fenian  Brotherhood, 
organized  in  Ireland  and  America  for  the  libera- 
tion of  the  former  from  British  rule,  and  which 
played  a  disturbing  but  unsuccessful  part  in 
Irish  affairs  from  about  186.5  to  1871. 

FEODORE.     See  Theodore. 

FEODUM.     See  Feudalism. 

FEOF.     See  Feudalism. 

FEORM  FULTUM.     See  Ferm. 

FERDINAND,  King  of  Portugal,  A.  D. 
1367-1383 Ferdinand  I.,  Emperor  of  Aus- 
tria and  King  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia,  183.5- 

1848 Ferdinand     I.,     Germanic    Emperor, 

1558-1564;  Archduke  of  Austria,  and  King  of 
Hungary  and  Bohemia,  1536-1564 ;  King  of  the 

Romans,  1531-1558 Ferdinand  I.,  King  of 

Aragon  and  Sicily,  1412-1416 Ferdinand  I., 

King  of  Castile,   1035-1065;    King   of  Leon, 

1037-106.5 Ferdinand  I.,    King  of  Naples, 

1458-1494 Ferdinand  II.,  Germanic  Em- 
peror  and   King  of  Bohemia   and   Hungary, 

1619-1637 Ferdinand  II.,  King  of  Aragon, 

1479-1516;  V.  of  Castile  (King-Consort  of 
Isabella  of  Castile  and  Regent),  1474-1516; 
II.  of  Sicily,  1479-1516;   and  III.   of   Naples, 

1503-1516 Ferdinand  II.,    King  of   Leon, 

1157-1188 Ferdinand  II.,  King  of  Naples, 

1495-1496 Ferdinand    II.,   called    Bomba, 

King  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  1830-1859 Ferdi- 
nand III.,  Germanic  Emperor,  and  King  of 
Hungary  and  Bohemia,  1637-1657 Ferdi- 
nand III.,  King  of  Castile,  1317-1230;  King  of 
Leon  and  Castile,  united,  1230-1253 Fer- 
dinand IV.,  King  of  Leon  and  Castile,  1395- 

1312 Ferdinand  IV.,  King  of  Naples,  and 

I.   of  the  Two  Sicilies,   1759-1806;  and  181.5- 

1825 Ferdinand  VI.,  King  of  Spain,  1746- 

1759 Ferdinand  VII.,  King  of  Spain,  1808; 

and  1814-1833. 

FERI.(E.     See  Ludi. 

FERM.— FIRM  A.— FARM.— "A  sort  of 
composition  for  all  the  profits  arising  to  the  king 
[in  England,  Norman  period]  from  his  ancient 
claims  on  the  land  and  from  the  judicial  proceed- 
ings of  the  shire-moot;  the  rent  of  detached 
pieces  of  demesne  land,  the  remnants  of  the  an- 
cient folk-land ;  the  payments  due  from  corporate 
bodies  and  individuals  for  the  primitive  gifts, 
the  offerings  made  in  kind,  or  the  hospitality  — 


the  feorm-fultum  —  which  the  kings  had  a  right 
to  exact  from  their  subjects,  and  which  were  be- 
fore the  time  of  Domesday  generally  commuted 
for  money ;  the  fines,  or  a  portion  of  the  fines, 
paid  in  the  ordinary  process  of  the  county  courts, 
and  other  small  miscellaneous  incidents.  These 
had  been,  soon  after  the  composition  of  Domes- 
day, estimated  at  a  fixed  sum,  which  was  re- 
garded as  a  sort  of  rent  or  composition  at  which 
the  county  was  let  to  the  sherill  and  recorded  in 
the  'Rotulus  Exactorious ' ;  for  this,  under  the 
name  of  ferm,  he  answered  annually ;  if  his  re- 
ceipts were  in  excess,  he  retained  the  balance 
as  his  lawful  profit,  the  wages  of  his  service ;  if 
the  proceeds  fell  below  the  ferm,  he  had  to  pay 
the  difference  from  his  own  purse.  .  .  .  The 
farm,  ferm,  or  flrma,  the  rent  or  composition  for 
the  ancient  feorm-fultum,  or  provision  payable 
in  kind  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings.  The  history 
of  the  word  in  its  French  form  would  be  interest- 
ing. The  use  of  the  word  for  a  pecuniary  pay- 
ment is  traced  long  before  the  Norman  Con- 
quest."—  W.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  11, 
sect.  126,  and  note. 

FERNANDO.     See  Ferdinand. 

FEROZESHUR,  Battle  of  (1845).  See 
India:  A.  D.  1845-1849. 


FERRARA :  The  House  of  Este.    See  Este. 

A.  D.  1275. — Sovereignty  of  the  Pope  con- 
firmed by  Rodolph  of  Hapsburg.  See  Ger- 
many: A.  D.  1373-1308. 

A.  D.  1597. — Annexation  to  the  states  of  the 
Church. — End  of  the  house  of  Este. — Decay 
of  the  city  and  duchy.  See  Papacy:  A.  D. 
1597. 

A.  D.  1797.— Joined  to  the  Cispadine  Repub- 
lic. See  France:  A.  D.  1796-1797  (October- 
April). 

FERRY  BRIDGE,  Battle  of  (1461).  See 
England:  A.  D.  1455-1471. 

FETIALES.— FECIALES.— "  The  duties 
of  the  fecialea,  or  fetiales  [among  the  Romans], 
extended  over  every  branch  of  international  law. 
They  gave  advice  on  all  matters  of  peace  or  war, 
and  the  conclusion  of  treaties  and  alliances.  .  .  . 
They  fulfilled  the  same  functions  as  heralds,  and, 
as  such,  were  frequently  entrusted  with  impor 
tant  communications.  They  were  also  sent  on 
regular  embassies.  To  them  was  entrusted  the 
reception  and  entertainment  of  foreign  envoys. 
They  were  required  to  decide  on  the  justice  of  a 
war  about  to  commence,  and  to  proclaim  and 
consecrate  it  according  to  certain  established  for- 
malities. .  .  .  The  College  of  Feciales  consisted 
of  nearly  twenty  members,  with  a  president,  who 
was  called  Pater  Patratus,  because  it  was  neces- 
sary that  he  should  have  both  father  and  children 
living,  that  he  might  be  supposed  to  take  greater 
interest  in  the  welfare  of  the  State,  and  look 
backwards  as  well  as  forwards.  .  .  .  Tlie  name 
of  Feciales  .  .  .  still  existed  under  the  emperors, 
as  well  as  that  of  Pater  Patratus,  though  only  as 
a  title  of  honour,  while  the  institution  itself  was 
for  ever  annihilated ;  and,  after  the  reign  of  Ti- 
berius, we  cannot  find  any  trace  of  it." — E.  C. 
G.  Murray,  Embassies  and  Foreign  Courts,  pp. 
8-10. — See,  also.  Augurs. 

FEUDAL  AIDS.— "In  theory  the  duty  of 
the  noble  vassal  towards  his  lord  was  a  purely 
personal  one  and  to  commute  it  for  a  monej'  pay- 


1144 


FEUDAL  AIDS. 


FEUDALISM. 


ment  was  a  degradation  of  the  whole  feudal  re- 
lation. The  payment  of  money,  especially  if  it 
were  a  fixed  and  regular  payment,  carried  with 
it  a  certain  ignoble  idea  against  which,  in  the 
form  of  state  taxation,  the  feudal  spirit  re- 
belled to  the  last.  When  the  vassal  agreed  to 
pay  something  to  his  lord,  he  called  it,  not  a  tax, 
but  an  '  aid '  (auxilium),  and  made  it  generally 
payable,  not  regularly,  like  the  tax-bill  of  the 
citizen,  but  only  upon  certain  occasions  —  a 
present,  as  it  were,  coming  out  of  his  good- will 
and  not  from  compulsion  ;  e.  g.,  whenever  a  fief 
was  newly  granted,  when  it  changed  its  lord,  and 
sometimes  when  it  changed  its  vassal,  it  was  from 
the  beginning  customary  to  acknowledge  the  in- 
vestiture by  a  small  gift  to  the  lord,  primarily  as 
a  symbol  of  the  grant;  then,  as  the  institution 
grew  and  manners  became  more  luxurious,  the 
gift  increased  in  value  and  was  thought  of  as  an 
actual  price  for  the  investiture,  until  finally,  at 
the  close  of  our  period,  it  suffered  the  fate  of  all 
similar  contributions  and  was  changed  into  a 
definite  money  payment,  still  retaining,  however, 
its  early  name  of  'relief.' .  .  .  The  occasions  for 
levying  the  aids  were  various  but  always,  in  the- 
ory, of  an  exceptional  sort.  The  journey  of  a 
lord  to  the  court  of  his  suzerain,  or  to  Rome,  or 
to  join  a  cru.sade,  the  knighting  of  his  eldest 
son,  the  marriage  of  his  eldest  daughter,  and  his 
ransom  from  imprisonment  are  among  the  most 
frequent  of  the  feudal  'aids.'  The  right  of  the 
lord  to  be  entertained  and  provisioned,  together 
with  all  his  following,  was  one  of  the  most  bur- 
densome, and  at  the  same  time,  most  difficult  to 
regulate.  Its  conversion  into  a  money-tax  was, 
perhaps  for  this  reason,  earlier  than  that  of  many 
other  of  the  feudal  contributions." — E.  Emerton, 
Mediceval  Europe,  ch.  14. 

FEUDAL  TENURES.— "After  the  feudal 
system  of  tenure  had  been  fully  established, 
all  lands  were  held  subject  to  certain  additional 
obligations,  which  were  due  either  to  the  King, 
(not  as  sovereign,  but  as  feudal  lord)  from  the 
original  grantees,  called  tenants-in-chief  (tenentes 
in  capite),  or  to  the  tenants-in-chief  themselves 
from  their  under  tenants.  Of  these  obligations 
the  most  honourable  was  that  of  knight-service. 
This  was  the  tenure  by  which  the  King  granted 
out  fiefs  to  his  followers,  and  by  which  they  in 
turn  provided  for  their  own  military  retainers. 
The  lands  of  the  bishops  and  dignified  ecclesias- 
tics, and  of  most  of  the  religious  foundations, 
were  also  held  by  this  tenure.  A  few  exceptions 
only  were  made  in  favour  of  lands  which  had 
been  immemorially  held  in  frankalmoign,  or  free- 
alms.  On  the  grant  of  a  fief,  the  tenant  was 
publicly  invested  with  the  land  by  a  symbolical 
or  actual  delivery,  termed  livery  of  seisin.  He 
then  did  homage,  so  called  from  the  words  used 
in  the  ceremony:  'Je  deveigne  votre  homme' 
['  I  become  your  man ']....  In  the  case  of  a 
subtenant  (vavassor),  his  oath  of  fealty  was 
guarded  by  a  reservation  of  the  faith  due  to  his 
sovereign  lord  the  King.  For  every  portion  of 
land  of  the  annual  value  of  .£'20,  which  consti- 
tuted a  knight's  fee  [in  England],  the  tenant  was 
bound,  whenever  required,  to  render  the  services 
of  a  knight  properly  armed  and  accoutred,  to 
serve  in  the  field  forty  days  at  his  own  expense. 
.  .  .  Tenure  by  knight-service  was  also  subject 
to  several  other  incidents  of  a  burdensome 
character.  .  .  .  There  was  a  species  of  tenancy 
in  chief  by  Grand  Serjeanty,  .  .  .  whereby  the 


tenant  was  bound,  instead  of  serving  the  King 
generally  in  his  wars,  to  do  some  special  service 
in  his  own  proper  person,  as  to  carry  the  King's 
banner  or  lance,  or  to  be  his  champion,  butler,  or 
other  officer  at  his  coronation.  .  .  .  Grants  of 
land  were  also  made  by  the  King  to  his  inferior 
followers  and  personal  attendants,  to  be  held  by 
meaner  services.  .  .  .  Hence,  probably,  arose 
tenure  by  Petit  Serjeanty,  though  later  on  we 
find  that  term  restricted  to  tenure  '  in  capite  '  by 
the  service  of  rendering  yearly  some  implement 
of  war  to  the  King.  .  .  .  Tenure  in  Free  Socage 
(which  still  subsists  under  the  modern  denomina- 
tion of  Freehold,  and  may  be  regarded  as  the 
representative  of  the  primitive  alodial  owner- 
ship) denotes,  in  its  most  general  and  extensive 
signification,  a  tenure  by  anj'  certain  and  deter- 
minate service,  as  to  pay  a  fixed  money  rent,  or 
to  plough  the  lord's  land"  for  a  fixed  number  of 
days  in  the  year.  .  .  .  Tenure  in  Burgage  was 
a  kind  of  town  socage.  It  applied  to  tenements 
in  any  ancient  borough,  held  by  the  burgesses, 
of  the  King  or  other  lord,  by  fixed  rents  or  ser- 
vices. .  .  .  This  tenure,  which  still  subsists,  is 
subject  to  a  variety  of  local  customs,  the  most 
remarkable  of  which  is  that  of  borough-English, 
by  which  the  burgage  tenement  descends  to  the 
youngest  instead  of  to  the  eldest  son.  Gavelkind 
is  almost  confined  to  the  county  of  Kent.  .  .  . 
The  lands  are  held  by  suit  of  court  and  fealty,  a 
service  in  its  nature  certain.  The  tenant  in 
Gavelkind  retained  many  of  the  properties  of 
alodial  ownership  :  his  lands  were  devisable  by 
will ;  in  case  of  intestacy  they  descended  to  all 
his  sons  equally  ;  they  were  not  liable  to  escheat 
for  felony  .  .  .  and  they  could  be  aliened  by  the 
tenant  at  the  age  of  fifteen.  Below  Free  Socage 
was  the  tenure  in  Villeinage,  by  which  the  agri- 
cultural labourers,  both  free  and  servile,  held  the 
land  which  was  to  them  in  lieu  of  money  wages." 
— T.  P.  Taswell-Langmead,  Eng.  Const.  Hut., 
pp.  58-65. 

FEUDALISM.— "Feudalism,  the  compre- 
hensive idea  which  includes  the  whole  govern- 
mental policy  of  the  French  kingdom,  was  of 
distinctly  Frank  growth.  The  principle  which 
underlies  it  may  be  universal ;  but  the  historic 
development  of  it  with  which  the  constitutional 
history  of  Europe  is  concerned  may  be  traced 
step  by  step  under  Frank  influence,  from  its  first 
appearance  on  the  conquered  soil  of  Roman  Gaul 
to  its  full  development  in  the  jurisprudence  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  In  the  form  which  it  has 
reached  at  the  Norman  Conquest,  it  may  be  de- 
scribed as  a  complete  organisation  of  society 
through  the  medium  of  land  tenure,  in  which 
from  the  king  down  to  the  lowest  landowner  all 
are  bound  together  by  obligation  of  service  and 
defence  :  the  lord  to  protect  his  vassal,  the  vassal 
to  do  service  to  his  lord  ;  the  defence  and  service 
being  based  on  and  regulated  by  the  natiu'e  and 
extent  of  the  land  held  by  the  one  of  the  other. 
In  those  states  which  have  reached  the  territorial 
stage  of  development,  the  rights  of  defence  and 
service  are  supplemented  by  the  right  of  juris- 
diction. The  lord  judges  as  well  as  defends  his 
vassal ;  the  vassal  does  suit  as  well  as  service  to 
his  lord.  In  states  in  which  feudal  government 
has  reached  its  utmost  growth,  the  political, 
financial,  judicial,  every  branch  of  public  ad- 
ministration, is  regulated  by  the  same  conditions. 
The  central  authority  is  a  mere  shadow  of  a 
name.     This  institution  had  grown  up  from  two 


1145 


FEUDALISM. 


FEUDALISM. 


great  sources  —  the  beneficium,  and  the  practice 
of  commeudation,  —  and  had  been  specially  fos- 
tered on  Gallic  soil  by  the  existence  of  a  subject 
population  which   admitted   of   any  amount  of 
extension  in  the  methods  of  dependence.     The 
beneficiary  system  originated  partly  in  gifts  of 
land  made  by  the  kings  out  of  their  own  estates  to 
their  kinsmen  and  servants,  with  a  special  under- 
taking to  be  faithful  ;  partly  in  the  surrender  by 
landowners  of  their  estates  to  churches  or  power- 
ful men,  to  be  received  back  again  and  held  by 
them  as  tenants  for  rent  or  service.    By  the  latter 
arrangement  the  weaker  man  obtained  the  protec- 
tion of  the  stronger,  and  he  who  felt  himself  in- 
secure placed  his  title  under  the  defence  of  the 
church.     By  the   practice  of  commendation,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  inferior  put  himself  under  the 
personal  care  of  a  lord,  but  without  altering  his 
title  or  divesting  himself  of  his  right  to  his  es- 
tate ;  he  became  a  vassal  and  did  homage.  .  .  . 
The  union   of  the   beneficiary  tie  with  that  of 
commendation  completed  the  idea  of  feudal  obli- 
gation :  the  two-fold  hold  on  the  land,  that   of 
the  lord  and  that  of  the  vassal,  was  supplemented 
by  the  two-fold  engagement,  that  of  the  lord  to 
defend,  and  that  of  the  vassal  to  be  faithful.     A 
third  ingredient  was  supplied  by  the  grants  of 
immunity  by  which  in  the  Frank  empire,  as  in 
England,  the  possession  of  land  was  united  with 
the  right  of  judicature:  the  dwellers  on  a  feudal 
property  were  placed  under  the  tribunal  of  the 
lord,  and  the  rights  which  had  belonged  to  the 
nation  or  to  its  chosen  head  were  devolved  upon 
the  receiver  of  a  fief.     The  rapid  spread  of  the 
system  thus  originated,  and  the  assimilation  of 
all  other  tenures  to  it,  may  be  regarded  as  the 
work  of  the  tenth  century.  .  .  .  The  word  feu- 
dum,  fief,  or  fee,  is  derived  from  the  German 
word  for  cattle ;  .  .  .  the  secondary  meaning  be- 
ing goods,  especially  money ;  hence  property  in 
general." — W.  Stubbs,  Con«<.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  9, 
sect.  93,  and  rwtes  {v.  1). — "  Hardly  any  point  in 
the  whole  history  of  European  institutions  has 
been  the  subject  of  so  violent  controversy  as  this 
of  the  origin  of  Feudalism.  .  .   .  The  first  person 
to  represent  what  we  may  call  the  modern  view 
of  the  feudal  system  was  Georg  Waitz,  in  the 
first  edition  of  his  History  of  the  German  Consti- 
tution, in  the  years  1844-47.     Waitz  presented 
the  thing  as  a  gradual  growth  during  several 
centuries,  the  various  elements  of  which  it  was 
composed    growing    up    side   by  side   without 
definite  chronological  sequence.     This  view  was 
met  by  Paul  Roth  in  his  History  of  the  Institu- 
tion of  the  Benefice,  in  the  year  1850.     He  main- 
tained that  royal  benefices  were  unknown  to  the 
Merovingian  Franks,  and  that  they  were  an  in- 
novation of    the    earliest    Carolingians.      They 
were,  so  he  believed,  made  possible  by  a  grand 
confiscation  of  the  lands  of  the  Church,  not  by 
Charles  Martel,  as  the  earlier  writers  had  believed, 
but  by  his  sons,  Pippin  and    Karlraann.      The 
first  book  of  Roth  was  followed  in  the  year  1863 
by  another  on  Feudalism  and  the  Relation  of  the 
Subject  to  the  State  (Feudalitiit  und  Unterthan- 
enverband),  in  which  he  attempted  to  show  that 
the  direct  subjection   of   the  individual  to  the 
government  was  not  a  strange  idea  to  the  early 
German,  but  that  it  pervaded  all  forms  of  Ger- 
manic life  down  to  the  Carolingian  times,  and 
that  therefore  the  feudal  relation  was  a  something 
entirely  new,  a  break  in  the  practice  of  the  Ger- 
mans.    In  the  years  1880-1885  appeared  a  new 


edition  of  Waltz's  History  of  the  German  Consti- 
tution, in  which,  after  acknowledging  the  great 
services  rendered  by  Roth  to  the  cause  of  learn- 
ing, he  declares  himself  unable  to  give  up  his 
former  point  of  view,  and  brings  new  evidence  in 
support  of  it.  Thus  for  more  than  thirty  years 
this  question  has  been  before  the  world  of  scholars, 
and  may  be  regarded  as  being  quite  as  far  from  a 
settlement  as  ever." — E.  Emerton,  An  Introduc- 
tion, to  the  Study  of  the  Middle  Ages,  p.  236  {foot- 
note).— "The  latest  investigations  of  Brunner 
.  .  .  have  established  the  proof  that  feudalism 
originated  in  consequence  of  the  introduction  of 
cavalry  service  into  the  military  system  of  the 
Prankish  kingdom,  and  that  it  retained  its  orig- 
inal character  until  well  on  towards  the  close  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  The  Franks,  like  the  Lom- 
bards, learned  the  use  of  cavalry  from  the  Moors 
or  Saracens.  Charles  Martel  was  led  by  his  ex- 
periences after  the  battle  of  Poictiers  to  the  con- 
clusion that  only  with  the  help  of  mounted  armies 
could  these  enemies  be  opposed  with  lasting  suc- 
cess. It  was  between  732  and  758  that  the  intro- 
duction of  cavalry  service  into  the  Prankish  army 
took  place ;  it  had  hitherto  consisted  mainly 
of  infantry.  The  attempt  was  first  made,  and 
with  marked  success,  in  Aciuitaine  and  Septi- 
mania ;  almost  contemporaneously  also  among 
the  Lombards.  In  order  to  place  the  secular 
nobles  in  condition  to  fit  out  larger  masses  of 
cavairy  a  forced  loan  from  the  church  was  car- 
ried through  by  Charles  Martel  and  his  sons,  it 
being  under  the  latter  that  the  matter  was  first 
placed  upon  a  legal  footing.  The  nobles  re- 
ceived ecclesiastical  benefices  from  the  crown  and 
regranted  them  in  the  way  of  sub-loans.  The 
custom  of  having  a  'following'  and  the  old  ex- 
isting relationships  of  a  vassal  to  his  lord  fur- 
nished a  model  for  the  responsibilities  of  those 
receiving  benefices  at  first  and  at  second  hand. 
The  secular  ilobles  became  thus  at  once  vassals 
of  the  crown  and  lords  (seigneurs)  of  those  to 
whom  they  themselves  in  turn  made  grants.  The 
duty  of  the  vassals  to  do  cavalry  service  was 
based  on  the  '  commendation ' :  their  fief  was  not 
the  condition  of  their  doing  service  but  their  re- 
ward for  it.  Hence  the  custom  of  denominating 
the  fief  (Lehu)  as  a  '  fee '  (feudura)  —  a  designa- 
tion which  was  first  appUed  in  southern  France, 
and  which  in  Germany,  occasionally  in  the  elev- 
enth and  even  more  frequently  in  the  twelfth 
century,  is  used  side  by  side  with  the  older  term 
'  benefice,'  until  in  the  course  of  the  first  half  of 
the  13th  century  it  completely  displaces  it.  With 
the  further  development  of  cavalry  service  that 
of  the  feudal  system  kept  regular  pace.  Already 
in  the  later  Carolingian  period  Lorraine  and 
Burgundy  followed  southern  Prance  and  Italy  in 
becoming  feudalized  states.  To  the  east  of  the 
Rhine  on  the  contrary  the  most  floiu'ishing  time 
of  cavalry  service  and  of  the  feudal  system  falls 
in  the  time  of  the  Hohenstaufens,  having  im- 
doubtedly  been  furthered  by  the  Crusades.  Here 
even  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century 
the  horsemen  preferred  dismounting  and  fighting 
with  the  sword  because  they  could  not  yet  man- 
age their  steeds  and  the  regular  cavalry  weapons, 
the  shield  and  the  spear,  like  their  western  neigh- 
bors. But  never  in  Germany  did  feudalism 
make  its  way  into  daily  life  as  far  as  it  did  in 
Prance,  where  the  maxim  held  true  :  '  nulle  terre 
sans  seigneur.'  There  never  was  here  a  lack  of 
considerable  allodial  possessions,  although  occa- 


1146 


FEUDALISM. 


FIELD  OF  LIES. 


sionally,  out  of  respect  for  the  feudal  theory, 
these  were  put  dowu  as  '  fiefs  of  the  sun.'  The 
principle,  too,  was  firmly  maintained  that  a  fief 
granted  from  one's  own  property  was  no  true  fief  ; 
for  so  thoroughly  was  feudal  law  the  law  govern- 
ing the  realm  that  a  true  fief  could  only  be  founded 
on  the  fief  above  it,  in  such  manner  that  the  king 
was  always  the  highest  feudal  lord.  That  was 
the  reason  why  a  fief  without  homage,  that  is, 
without  the  relationship  of  vassalage  and  the  need 
of  doing  military  service  for  the  state,  could  not 
be  looked  upon  as  a  true  fief.  The  knight's  fee 
only  (feudum  militare)  was  such,  and  only  a  man 
of  knightly  character,  who  united  a  knightly 
manner  of  living  with  knightly  pedigree,  was 
'perfect  in  feudal  law,'  —  in  possession,  namely, 
of  full  feudal  rights  or  of  the  '  Heerschild.' 
Whether  or  not  he  had  been  personally  dubbed 
knight  made  no  difference  ;  the  fief  of  a  man  who 
was  still  a  squire  was  also  a  true  fief.  .  .  .  The 
object  of  the  feudal  grant  could  be  anything 
which  assured  a  regular  emolument, —  especially 
land,  tithes,  rents,  and  other  sources  of  income, 
tolls  and  jurisdictions,  churches  and  monasteries  ; 
above  all,  oflices  of  state.  In  course  of  time  the 
earlier  distinction  between  the  office  and  the  fief 
which  was  meant  to  go  with  the  office  ceased  to 
be  made.  .  .  .  The  formal  course  of  procedure 
when  granting  was  a  combination,  exactly  on  the 
old  plan,  of  the  act  of  commendation,  now  called 
Hulde,  which  was  the  basis  of  vassalage,  and  the 
act  of  conferring  (investiture)  which  established 
the  real  right  of  the  man  to  the  fief.  .  .  .  The 
Hulde  consisted  in  giving  the  hand  (^the  perform- 
ing of  mannschaft,  homagium,  hominium,  Hulde) 
often  combined  with  the  giving  of  a  kiss  and  the 
biking  of  an  oath  (the  swearing  of  fldelitas  or 
Hulde)  by  which  the  man  swore  to  be  '  true,  loyal 
and  willing '  as  regarded  his  lord.  The  custom 
earlier  connected  with  commendation  of  present- 
ing a  weapon  had  lost  its  former  significance  and 
had  become  merged  in  the  ceremony  of  investi- 
ture :  the  weapon  had  become  a  symbol  of  in- 
vestitxire.  .  .  .  These  symbols  of  investiture 
were  in  part  the  same  as  in  territorial  law :  the 
glove,  the  hat,  the  cape,  the  staff,  tlie  twig ; 
occasionally  probably  also  a  ring,  but  quite 
especially  the  sword  or  spear.  As  regarded  the 
principalities  it  had  quite  early  become  the 
custom  to  fasten  a  banner  on  the  end  of  the  spear 
in  token  of  the  royal  rights  of  supremacy  that 
were  to  be  conferred.  'Thus  the  banner  became 
the  sole  symbol  of  investiture  in  the  granting  of 
secular  principalities  and  the  latter  themselves 
came  to  be  called  'banner  fiefs.'  The  installa- 
tion of  the  ecclesiastical  princes  by  the  king  took 
place  originally  without  any  distinction  being 
made  between  the  oflace  and  the  appanage  of 
the  office.  It  was  done  by  conferring  the  pas- 
toral staff  (ferula,  virga  pastoralis)  of  the  former 
bishop  or  abbot ;  in  the  case  of  bishops  since  the 
time  of  Henry  III.  by  handing  the  ring  and 
crosier.  In  the  course  of  the  struggle  concern- 
ing the  ecclesiastical  investitures  both  sides  came 
to  the  conviction  that  a  distinction  could  be  made 
between  the  appanaging  of  the  church  with  sec- 
ular estates  and  jurisdictions  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  office  itself  and  the  immediate  appurte- 
nances of  the  church  —  the  so-called  '  sacred  ob- 
jects'  on  the  other.  A  union  was  arrived  at  in 
the  Concordat  of  Worms  which  provided  that  for 
the  granting  of  the  former  (the  so-called  Regalia) 
the  secular  symbol  of  the  sceptre  might  replace 


the  purely  ecclesiastical  symbols.  As  this  cus- 
tom was  retained  even  after  the  incorporation  of 
the  ecclesiastical  principalities  in  the  feudalized 
state-system,  the  ecclesiastical  principalities,  as 
opposed  to  the  secular  banner-fiefs,  were  distin- 
guished as  'sceptre-fiefs.'  " — Schroder,  Lehrbvch 
der  deutschen  lieclUsr/eschichte  (1889)  pp.  381-388. 
— "  By  the  time  at  which  we  have  arrived  (the  Ho- 
henstaufen  Period)  the  knights  themselves,  '  ordo 
equestris  major,'  had  come  to  form  a  class  so 
distinct  and  so  exclusive  that  no  outsiders  could 
enter  it  except  in  the  course  of  three  generations 
or  by  special  decree  of  the  king.  Only  to  those 
whose  fathers  and  grandfathers  were  of  knightly 
origin  could  fiefs  now  be  granted ;  only  such 
could  engage  in  judicial  combat,  in  knightly 
sports  and,  above  all,  in  the  tournament  or  joust. 
.  .  .  Feudalism  did  much  to  awaken  a  moral 
sentiment ;  fidelity,  truth  and  sincerity  were  the 
suppositions  upon  wliich  the  whole  system  rested, 
and  a  great  solidarity  of  interests  came  to  exist 
between  the  lord  and  his  vassals.  The  latter 
might  bring  no  public  charges  against  their  mas- 
ter in  matters  affecting  his  life,  limb  or  honor ; 
on  three  grand  occasions,  in  case  of  captivity, 
the  knighting  of  his  son,  the  marriage  of  his 
daughter,  they  were  obliged  to  furnish  him  with 
pecuniary  aid.  Knightly  honor  and  knightly 
graces  come  in  the  twelfth  century  to  be  a  mat- 
ter of  fashion  and  custom  ;  a  new  and  important 
element,  too,  the  adoration  of  woman,  is  intro- 
duced. A  whole  literature  arises  that  has  to  do 
almost  exclusively  with  knightly  prowess  and 
with  knightly  love." — E.  F.  Henderson,  A  His- 
tory of  Oermany  in  the  Middle  Ages,  pp.  424-435. 
—See,  also,  Fiiancb  :  A.  D.  987-1337. 

FEUILLANTS,  Club  and  Party  of  the. 
See  France  :  A.  D.  1790,  and  1791  (October). 

FEZ  :  Founding  of  the  city  and  kingdom. 
See  Edrisites. 

FEZZAN.  The  Phazania  of  the  ancient  Ro- 
mans ;  a  part  of  the  Sahara  region  in  northern 
Africa  which  has  been  attached  since  1842  to  the 
Turkish  province  of  Tripoli. 

FIANNA  EIRINN.— The  ancient  militia  of 
Erin,  famous  in  old  Irish  romance  and  song. — 
T.  Moore.  IIi.9t.  of  Ireland,  v.  1,  c!i.  7. 

FIDENiE. — An  ancient  city  on  the  Tiber,  at 
war  with  Rome  until  the  latter  destroyed  it, 
B.  C.  436. 

FIEFS.  See  Feudal  Tenures  ;  and  Feu- 
dalism. 

FIELD  OF  LIES,  The.— Ludwig,  or  Louis, 
the  Pious,  son  and  successor  of  Charlemagne, 
was  a  man  of  gentle  character,  and  good  inten- 
tions—  too  amiable  and  too  honest  in  his  virtues 
for  the  commanding  of  a  great  empire  in  times 
so  rude.  He  lost  the  control  of  his  state,  and 
his  family,  alike.  His  own  sons  headed  a  suc- 
cession of  revolts  against  his  authority.  The 
second  of  these  insurrections  occurred  in  the 
year  833.  Father  and  sons  confronted  one 
another  with  hostile  armies,  on  the  plain  of 
Rothfeld,  not  far  from  Colmar  in  Alsace.  In- 
trigue instead  of  battle  settled  the  controversy, 
for  the  time  being.  The  adherents  of  the  old 
emperor  were  all  enticed  away  from  him.  To 
signify  the  treacherous  methods  by  which  this 
defection  was  brought  about,  the  "Rothfeld" 
(Red-field)  on  which  it  occurred  received  the 
name  of  "  Lligenfeld,"  or  Field  of  Lies. — J.  C.  L. 
de  Sismondi,  The  French  under  the  Carlovingians; 
tr.  by  Bellingham,  ch.  7. 


1147 


FIELD  OF  THE  CLOTH  OF  GOLD. 


FIJI  ISLANDS. 


FIELD  OF  THE  CLOTH  OF  GOLD, 
The. — The  place  of  the  famous  meeting  of  Henry 
VIII.  of  England  with  Francis  I.  of  France, 
which  took  place  in  the  summer  of  1520  [see 
France:  A.  D.  1520-1523],  is  notable  in  history, 
from  the  maenificence  of  the  preparations  made 
for  it,  as  The"  Field  of  the  Cloth  of  Gold.  It  was 
at  Guisnes,  or  between  Guisnes  and  Arde,  near 
Calais  (then  English  territory).  "Guisnes  and 
its  castle  offered  little  attraction,  and  if  possible 
less  accommodation,  to  the  gay  throng  now  to 
be  gathered  within  its  walls.  .  .  .  But  on  the 
castle  green,  within  the  limits  of  a  few  weeks, 
and  in  the  face  of  great  difficulties,  the  English 
artists  of  that  day  contrived  a  summer  palace, 
more  like  a  vision  of  romance,  the  creation  of 
some  fairy  dream  (if  the  accounts  of  eye-witnesses 
of  all  classes  may  be  trusted),  than  the  dull 
every-day  reality  of  clay-born  bricks  and  mortar. 
No  '  palace  of  art '  in  these  beclouded  climates 
of  the  "West  ever  so  truly  deserved  its  name.  .  .  . 
The  palace  was  an  exact  square  of  328  feet.  It 
was  pierced  on  every  side  with  oriel  windows 
and  clerestories  curiously  glazed,  the  mullions 
and  posts  of  which  were  overlaid  with  gold. 
An  embattled  gate,  ornamented  on  both  sides 
with  statues  representing  men  in  various  atti- 
tudes of  war,  arid  flanked  by  an  embattled  tower, 
guarded  the  entrance.  From  this  gate  to  the 
entrance  of  the  palace  arose  in  long  ascent  a 
sloping  dais  or  hall-pace,  along  which  were 
grouped  '  images  of  sore  and  terrible  counte- 
nances,' in  armour  of  argentine  or  bright  metal. 
At  the  entrance,  under  an  embowed  landing 
place,  facing  the  great  doors,  stood  '  antique ' 
(classical)  figures  girt  with  olive  branches.  The 
passages,  the  roofs  of  the  galleries  from  place  to 
place  and  from  chamber  to  chamber,  were  ceiled 
and  covered  with  white  silk,  fluted  and  embowed 
with  silken  hanging  of  divers  colours  and  braided 
cloths,  '  which  showed  like  bullions  of  fine  bur- 
nished gold.'  The  roofs  of  the  chambers  were 
studded  with  roses,  set  in  lozenges,  and  diapered 
on  a  ground  of  fine  gold.  Panels  enriched  with 
antique  carving  and  gilt  bosses  covered  the 
spaces  between  the  windows;  whilst  all  along 
the  corridors  and  from  every  window  hung  tap- 
estry of  silk  and  gold,  embroidered  with  fig- 
ures. ...  To  the  palace  was  attached  a  spacious 
chapel,  still  more  sumptuously  adorned.  Its 
altars  were  hung  with  cloth  of  gold  tissue  em- 
broidered with  pearls ;  cloth  of  gold  covered  the 
walls  and  desks.  .  .  .  Outside  the  palace  gate, 
on  the  greensward,  stood  a  gilt  fountain,  of  an- 
tique workmanship,  with  a  statue  of  Bacchus 
'  birlying  the  wine. '  Three  runlets,  fed  by  secret 
conduits  hid  beneath  the  earth,  spouted  claret, 
hypocras,  and  water  into  as  many  silver  cups, 
to  quench  the  thirst  of  all  comers.  ...  In  long 
array,  in  the  plain  beyond,  2,800  tents  stretched 
their  white  canvas  before  the  eyes  of  the  spec- 
tator, gay  with  the  pennons,  badges,  and  devices 
of  the  various  occupants;  whilst  miscellaneous 
followers,  in  tens  of  thousands,  attracted  by  profit 
or  the  novelty  of  the  scene,  camped  on  the  grass 
and  filled  the  surrounding  slopes,  in  spite  of  the 
severity  of  provost-marshal  and  reiterated  threats 
of  mutilation  and  chastisement.  .  .  .  From  the  4th 
of  June,  when  Henry  first  entered  Guisnes,  the 
festivities  continued  with  unabated  splendour 
for  twenty  days.  .  .  .  The  two  kings  parted  on 
the  best  of  terms,  as  the  world  thought." — J.  S. 
Brewer,  Beign  of  Henry  VIII.,  ch.  12. 


Also  in  :  Lady  Jackson,  The  Court  of  Fi-ance 
in  the  \Qth  Century,  i:  1,  ch.  11-12.— Miss  Pardoe, 
The  Court  and  Reign  of  Francis  I,  v.  1,  eh.  14. 

FIESCO,  Conspiracy  of.  See  Genoa:  A.  D. 
1528-1559. 

FIESOLE.  See  Florence:  Origin  and 
Najie. 

FIFTEEN,  The  (Jacobite  Rebellion).  See 
Scotland:  A.  D.  1715. 

FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT,  The.  See 
United  States  of  Aji.  :  A.  D.  1809-1870. 

FIFTH  MONARCHY  MEN.— One  of  the 
most  extremely  fanatical  of  the  i)olitico-religious 
sects  or  factions  which  rose  in  England  during 
the  commonwealth  and  the  Protectoral  reign  of 
Cromwell,  was  that  of  the  so-called  Fifth  Mon- 
archy Men,  of  whom  Major-General  Harrison 
was  the  chief.  Their  belief  is  thus  described  by 
Carlyle:  "The  common  mode  of  treating  Uni- 
■(•^rsal  History,  .  .  .  not  yet  entirely  fallen  ob- 
solete in  this  country,  though  it  has  been  aban- 
doned with  much  ridicule  everywhere  else  for 
half  a  century  now,  was  to  group  the  Aggregate 
Transactions  of  the  Human  Species  into  Four 
Monarchies :  the  Assyrian  Monarchy  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar and  Company ;  the  Pereian  of  Cyrus  and 
ditto;  the  Greek  of  Alexander;  and  lastly  the 
Roman.  These  I  think  were  they;  but  am  no 
great  authority  on  the  subject.  Under  the  dregs 
of  this  last,  or  Roman  Empire,  which  is  maintained 
yet  by  express  name  in  Germany,  '  Das  heilige 
Romische  Reich,'  we  poor  moderns  still  live. 
But  now  say  Major-General  Harrison  and  a  num- 
ber of  men,  founding  on  Bible  Prophecies,  Now 
shall  be  a  Fifth  Monarchy,  by  far  Wie  blessedest 
and  the  only  real  one, — the  Jlonarchy  of  Jesus 
Christ,  his  Saints  reigning  for  Him  here  on  Earth, 
—  if  not  He  himself,  which  is  probable  or  pos- 
sible,—  for  a  thousand  years,  &c.,  &c. O 

Heavens,  there  are  tears  for  human  destiny ;  and 
immortal  Hope  itself  is  beautiful  because  it  is 
steeped  in  Sorrow,  and  foolish  Desire  lies  van- 
quished under  its  feet !  They  who  merely  laugh 
at  Harrison  take  but  a  small  portion  of  his  mean- 
ing with  them." — T.  Carlyle,  Oliver  Cromwell's 
Letters  and  Speeclies,  pt.  8,  speech  2. — The  Fifth 
Monarchy  fanaticism,  sternly  repressed  by  Oliver 
Cromwell,  gave  some  signs  of  turbulence  during 
Richard  Cromwell's  protectorate,  and  broke  out 
in  a  mad  way  the  year  after  the  Restoration.  The 
attempted  insurrection  in  London  was  headed  by 
one  Venner,  and  was  called  Venner's  Insurrec- 
tion. It  was  easily  put  down.  "  It  came  as  the 
expiring  flash  of  a  fanatical  creed,  which  had 
blended  itself  with  Puritanism,  greatly  to  the 
detriment  of  the  latter;  and,  dying  out  rather 
slowly,  it  left  behind  the  quiet  element  of  Mil- 
lenarianism." — J.  Stoughtou,  Hist,  of  Religion  in 
Eng.,  jj.  3,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  D.  Masson,  Life  of  John  Milton,  v.  5, 
p.  16. 

"FIFTY-FOUR  FORTY  OR  FIGHT." 
See  Oregon:  A.  T>.  1S44-1846. 

FIJI  ISLANDS,  The.— "The  Fiji  Group 
comprises  more  than  eighty  inhabited  islands  in 
the  South  Pacific,  between  longitude  176°  east  and 
178°  west,  and  latitude  16°  and  21°  south,  and  is 
situated  1760  miles  N.E.  of  Sydney,  and  1175  N. 
of  Auckland.  Viti  Levu  (or  Big  Fiji),  the  largest 
island  of  the  group,  is  half  as  large  as  Jamaica, 
and  larger  than  Cyprus ;  the  second  island  of 
importance,  Vanua  Levu,  is  three  times  the  size 
of  Mauritius,  and  ten  times  that  of  Barbadoes, 


1148 


FIJI  ISLANDS. 


FILL 


and  the  aggregate  area  of  the  whole  is  greater 
than  all  the  British  West  Indies.  .  .  .The  coun- 
try is  well  watered  by  numerous  rivers,  several 
of  them  being  of  respectable  size.  The  Rewa  in 
Viti  Levu  is  navigable  by  vessels  of  light  draught 
for  50  miles,  and  on  the  banks  of  this  river  there 
are  thousands  of  acres  of  the  richest  alluvial  flats, 
with  soil  14  or  15  feet  deep.  .  .  .  The  first 
known  European  who  mentions  Fiji  is  the  Dutch 
navigator  Tasman,  who  in  1643  passed  between 
the  islands  of  Taviuni  and  Kaimea,  and  the 
straits  to  this  day  bear  his  name.  He  christened 
the  group  Priuce  William's  Islands.  Captains 
Cook,  Bligh,  and  Wilson  are  among  the  early 
discoverers  who  mention  the  group,  ...  In 
1808  a  brig  called  the  Elisa  was  wrecked  off  the 
reef  of  Nairai.  and  the  escaped  crew  and  passen- 
gers, mostly  runaway  convicts  from  New  South 
Wales,  found  there  were  seven  powerful  chiefs 
in  the  group,  that  of  Verata  being  leader.  The 
sailors  and  convicts,  however,  under  the  com- 
mand of  a  certain  Charley  Savage,  took  the  side 
of  the  Bau  people  [Bau  being  one  of  the  small 
islands  of  the  group].  Powder  and  shot  soon 
settled  the  question  of  ascendancy,  and  since  the 
Elisa  was  lost  Bau  has  retained  it.  The  chief  of 
Bau  at  this  time  was  a  certain  Na  Ulivou,  and 
was  a  brave  leader  of  men.  So  great  was  his 
success  that  he  was  accorded  the  title  of  Vuni 
Valu.  '  Root  of  War,'  or  as  some  translators  have 
it,  '  Source  of  Power,'  —  a  distinction  which  has 
since  been  hereditary  in  the  chiefs  of  Bau.  In- 
ternecine fighting  chiefly  constituted  the  Fijian 
life  of  those  days,  but  the  Vuni  Valu  of  the  time 
maintained  the  position  he  had  won.  He  died  in 
1839,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  brother  Tanoa, 
who,  after  a  troubled  reign,  five  years  of  which 
were  passed  in  exile,  died  on  the  8th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1853." — H.  Stonehewer  Cooper,  Coral  Lands, 
V.  1,  ch.  3  and  4. — "After  1835,  two  Wesleyan 
missionaries,  bold  pioneers  of  civilisation,  pene- 
trated to  the  Fiji  Islands.  They  found  there  a 
frightful  state  of  things  ;  wars,  massacres,  and 
banquets  of  human  flesh  were  the  order  of  the 
day.  But  they  found  there  also  a  certain  organi- 
sation, a  sort  of  customary  law,  fourteen  king- 
lets, statesmen,  politicians,  and  persons  whose 
business  it  was  to  carry  from  tribe  to  tribe  the 
news  of  the  day.  .  .  .  Among  the  great  chiefs 
of  the  Fijian  archipelago,  Thakombau  [spelt, 
after  the  orthography  invented  by  the  mission- 
aries, Cakobau,  which  does  not  correspond  with 
the  sound  of  the  word]  occupied  the  first  rank, 
thanks  to  his  intelligence,  his  energy,  and  the 
extent  of  his  dominions.  For  greater  personal 
safety,  he  resided  in  the  little  island  of  Bau.  He 
succeeded  even  in  getting  himself  proclaimed 
King  of  Fiji  by  a  certain  number  of  great  chiefs. 
But  an  attempt  of  his  to  sub  j  ugate  the  other  tribes 
became  the  cause  of  his  down  fall.  .  .  .  The  mis- 
sionaries had  endeavoured  in  vain  to  convert 
him ;  but  this  task  was  accomplished  by  the 
King  of  Tonga.  Thakombau,  menaced  by  a 
formidable  coalition  of  Fijian  chiefs,  had  applied 
to  King  George  of  Tonga  for  assi.stauee.  The 
latter  came  at  the  head  of  an  imposing  force, 
rescued  the  King  of  the  Fijis,  who  was  then  be- 
sieged in  his  small  island,  re-establi.shed  his  au- 
thority, and  enjoined  him  to  embrace  the  faith 
of  the  whites.  He  obeyed,  and  the  other  chiefs 
followed  his  example.  Thus  it  was  that  in  1857 
('hristianity  was  introduced  into  the  archipelago. 
The  second  part  of  Thakombau' s  reign  was,  so  far 


as  he  was  personally  concerned,  an  alternation  of 
ups  and  downs,  but  for  his  country,  a  period  of 
progress,  inasmuch  as  the  manners  of  the  people 
became  more  and  more  civilised,  and  cannibalism 
gradually  disappeared.  The  credit  of  this  was, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  great  part  due  to  the  mis- 
sionaries, who  had  acquired  a  great  influence  in 
political  matters,  and  also  to  the  English  Con- 
sulate, then  recently  established  at  Levuka.  But 
the  wars  continued,  and  the  prestige  of  the  king 
declined ;  so,  following  the  advice  of  his  white 
friends,  he  endeavoured  to  get  rid  of  the  dangers 
that  surrounded  him  by  granting  his  subjects  a 
constitution  similar  to  "that  which  the  American 
missionaries  had  introduced  in  the  Sandwich 
Islands.  But  it  appeared  that  the  worthy  Fiji- 
ans  were  not  yet  ripe  for  these  blessings.  The 
king's  position  got  worse  and  worse,  and  in  the 
end  became  altogether  untenable.  One  means 
of  escape  alone  remained :  to  cede  his  kingdom 
to  the  British  Crown,  and  this  he  did  in  1874. 
In  the  latter  years  of  his  reign,  his  two  principal 
advisers  were  his  daughter,  the  Princess  Andi- 
quilla,  and  an  English  resident,  Mr,  Thurston. 
.  .  .  From  his  abdication  to  his  death  in  1883, 
Thakombau  lived  a  retired  life,  with  his  numer- 
ous family,  at  his  former  capital,  Bau,  maintain, 
ing  the  most  friendly  relations  with  the  English 
authorities,  and  sometimes  giving  them  useful 
advice.  .  .  .  For  now  [1884]  nearly  ten  years 
the  Fijian  Archipelago,  including  the  group  of 
the  Exploring  Islands,  has  been  under  British 
rule.  It  owes  to  that  rule  undeniable  benefits : 
a  comparative  degree  of  prosperity  ;  domestic 
peace,  notwithstanding  tribal  animosities  which 
in  spite  of  restraint  still  continue  in  a  latent 
form  ;  perfect  security  of  life  and  property  ;  in- 
direct but  effectual  protection  against  the  entice- 
ments of  kidnappers,  and  finally,  an  organisation 
adapted  as  far  as  is  possible  to  local  traditions 
and  usages.  ...  A  small  body  of  troops,  com- 
posed exclusively  of  natives,  protects  the  lives  of 
the  Governor  and  his  family,  as  well  as  his  staff 
and  the  white  residents.  Excepting  the  young 
ofiicer  who  commands  these  raw  recruits,  there 
is  not  an  English  military  man  in  these  islands. 
And  note  this  well:  the  coloured  subjects  of  the 
Queen  form  98  per  cent  of  the  whole  population 
of  the  Archipelago.  There  are  other  wonders 
which  might  be  recorded.  Nevertheless,  it  must 
be  confessed  that  the  opinions  expressed  by 
the  old  residents,  who  are  best  qualified  to  know 
the  country,  differ  amazingly.  Some  of  them 
ascribe  the  merit  of  the  advantages  already  ob- 
tained to  the  Government,  others  to  the  working 
of  the  new  constitution,  to  the  missionaries,  or 
to  the  influence  of  Europeans.  But  there  are 
also  those,  not  less  entitled  to  speak  .  .  .  who 
seriously  maintain  that  the  Pijians,  so  far  from 
having  been  savages,  had  attained  a  high  degree 
of  civilisation  before  the  introduction  of  Christian- 
ity."— Baron  von  Hiibuer,  Through  the  British  Em- 
pire, «.  Z,pt.  5,  ch.  3. — See,  also,  Tonga  Islands. 
FILL — A  class  of  poets  among  the  early  Irish, 
who  practiced  originally  certain  rites  of  incanta- 
tion. Their  art  was  called  Filidecht.  ' '  The  bards, 
who  recited  poems  and  stories,  formed  at  first  a 
distinct  branch  from  the  Fill.  According  as  the 
true  Filiducht  fell  into  desuetude,  and  the  Fill  be- 
came simply  a  poet,  the  two  orders  practically 
coalesced  and  the  names  Fill  and  bard  became 
synonymous.  ...  In  Pagan  times  and  during 
the  Middle  Ages  the  Irish  bards,  like  the  Gaulish 


1149 


FILL 


FISHERIES. 


ones,  accompanied  their  recitation  of  poems  on  a 
stringed  instrument  called  a  crut.  .  .  .  The  bard 
was  therefore  to  the  Fill,  or  poet,  what  the 
Jogler  was  to  the  Troubadour." — W.  K.  Sulli- 
van, Article,  Celtic  Literature,  Encyc.  Brit. 

FILIBUSTER.— "The  difference  between  a 
filibuster  and  a  freebooter  is  one  of  ends  rather 
than  of  means.  Some  authorities  say  that  the 
words  have  a  common  etymology;  but  others, 
including  Charlevoix,  maintain  that  the  filibuster 
derived  his  name  from  his  original  occupation, 
that  of  a  cruiser  in  a  '  flibote,'  or  '  Vly-boat,'  first 
used  on  the  river  Vly,  in  Holland.  Yet  another 
writer  says  that  the  name  was  first  given  to  the 
gallant  followers  of  Dominique  de  Gourgues, 
who  sailed  from  Finisten'e,  or  Finibuster,  in 
France,  on  the  famous  expedition  against  Fort 
Carolme in  1567  [see  Florida:  A.  D.  1567-1568]. 
The  name,  whatever  its  origin,  was  long  current 
in  the  Spanish  as  'filibustero'  before  it  became 
adopted  into  the  English.  So  adopted,  it  has 
been  used  to  describe  a  type  of  adventurer  who 
occupied  a  curious  place  in  American  history 
during  the  decade  from  1850  to  1860." — J.  J. 
Roche,  The  Story  of  the  Filibusters,  ch.  1. — See, 
also,  America:  A.  D.  1639-1700. 

FILIBUSTERING  EXPEDITIONS  OF 
LOPEZ  AND  WALKER.  See  Cuba:  A.  D. 
1845-1860;  and  Nicaragua:  A.  D.  1855-1860. 

FILIOQUE  CONTROVERSY,  The. — 
"The  Council  of  Toledo,  held  under  King  Rec- 
cared,  A.  D.  589,  at  which  the  Visigothic  Church 
of  Spain  formally  abjured  Arianism  and  adopted 
the  orthodox  faith,  put  forth  a  version  of  the 
great  creed  of  Nictea  in  which  they  had  inter- 
polated an  additional  clause,  which  stated  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the  Father  '  and 
from  the  Son '  (Filioque).  Under  what  influence 
the  council  took  upon  itself  to  make  an  addition 
to  the  creed  of  the  universal  Church  is  unknown. 
It  is  probable  that  the  motive  of  the  addition 
was  to  make  a  stronger  protest  against  the  Arian 
denial  of  the  co-equal  Godhead  of  the  Son.  The 
Spanish  Church  naturally  took  a  special  interest 
in  the  addition  it  had  made  to  the  symbol  of 
Nicsea,  and  sustained  it  in  subsequent  councils. 
.  .  .  The  Frankish  Church  seems  to  have  early 
adopted  it  from  their  Spanish  neighbours.  .  .  . 
The  question  was  brought  before  a  council  held 
at  Aix  in  A.  D.  809.  .  .  .  The  council  formally 
approved  of  the  addition  to  the  creed,  and  Charles 
[Charlemagne]  sent  two  bishops  and  the  abbot  of 
Corbie  to  Rome  to  request  the  pope's  concurrence 
in  the  decision.  Leo,  at  a  conference  with  the 
envoys,  expressed  his  agreement  with  the  doc- 
trine, but  strongly  opposed  its  insertion  into  the 
creed.  .  .  .  Notwithstanding  the  pope's  protest, 
the  addition  was  adopted  throughout  the  Frank- 
ish Empire.  When  the  Emperor  Henry  V.  was 
crowned  at  Rome,  A.  D.  1014,  he  induced  Pope 
Benedict  VIII.  to  allow  the  creed  with  the  filio- 
que to  be  chanted  after  the  Gospel  at  High  Mass; 
so  it  came  to  be  generally  used  in  Rome ;  and  at 
length  Pope  Nicholas  I.  insisted  on  its  adoption 
throughout  the  West.  At  a  later  period  the  con- 
troversy was  revived,  and  it  became  the  ostensi- 
ble ground  of  the  final  breach  (A.  D.  1054)  be- 
tween the  Churches  of  the  West  and  those  of  the 
East." — E.  L.  Cutts,  Gharlemayne,  ch.  23. — "The 
Filioque  controversy  relates  to  the  eternal  pro- 
cession of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is  a  continuation 
of  the  trinitarian  controversies  of  the  Nicene  age. 
It  marks  the  chief  and  almost  the  only  important 


dogmatic  difference  between  the  Greek  and  Latin 
churches,  .  .  .  and  has  occasioned,  deepened,  and 
perpetuated  the  greatest  schism  in  Christendom. 
The  single  word  Filioque  keeps  the  oldest,  largest 
and  most  nearly  related  churches  divided  since 
the  ninth  century,  and  still  forbids  a  reunion." — 
P.  Schaff,  Hist,  of  the  Ch.  Church,  ».  4,  ch.  11, 
sect.  107. 

Also  m:  6.  B.  Howard,  The  Schism  betioeen 
the  Onental  and  Western  Churches. — See,  Chris- 
tianity: A.  D.  330-1054. 

FILIPPO  MARIA,  Duke  of  Milan,  A.  D. 
1413-1447. 

FILLMORE,  Millard.—  Vice-Presidential 
Election. —  Succession  to  the  Presidency. — 
Administration.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1848,  to  1853. 

FINE,  The. — A  clan  or  sept  division  of  the 
tribe  in  ancient  Ireland. 

FINGALL.  See  Normans. —  Northmen: 
8th-9th  centuries;  also,  Ikbland:  9th-10th 
centuries. 

FINLAND:  A.  D.  1808-1810.— Conquest 
by  and  peculiar  annexation  to  Russia. — Con- 
stitutional independence  of  the  Finnish  grand 
duchy  confirmed  by  the  Czar.  See  Scandi- 
navian States:  A.  D.  1807-1810. 

FINN  GALLS.  See  Ireland:  9th-10th 
centuries. 

FINNS.     See  Hungarians. 

F I O  D  H-I N I S.     See  Ireland,  The  Name. 

FIRBOLGS,  The.— One  of  the  races  to  which 
Irish  legend  ascribes  the  settlement  of  Ireland ; 
said  to  have  come  from  Thrace.  See  Neme- 
DiANS,  and  Ireland:  The  Primitive  Inhabi- 
tants. 

FIRE  LANDS,  The.  See  Omo :  A.  D.  1786- 
1796. 

FIRMA.     See  Fkrm. 

FIRST  CONSUL  OF  FRANCE,  The. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1799  (November — Decem- 
ber). 

FIRST  EMPIRE  (FRENCH),  The.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1804-1805,  to  1815. 

FIRST-FRUITS.     See  Annates. 

FIRST  REPUBLIC  (FRENCH),  The. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1792  (September— Novem- 
ber), to  1804-1805. 

FISCALINI.  See  Slavery,  Medleval; 
France. 

FISCUS,  The.—"  The  treasury  of  the  senate 
[in  the  early  period  of  the  Roman  empire]  re- 
tained the  old  republican  name  of  the  serarium ; 
that  of  the  emperor  was  denominated  the  fiscus, 
a  term  which  ordinarily  signified  the  private 
property  of  an  individual.  Hence  the  notion 
rapidly  grew  up,  that  the  provincial  resources 
constituted  the  emperor's  private  purse,  and 
when  in  process  of  time  the  control  of  the  senate 
over  the  taxes  gave  way  to  their  direct  adminis- 
tration by  the  emperor  himself,  the  national 
treasury  received  the  designation  of  fiscus,  and  the 
idea  of  the  empire  being  nothing  else  than  Cfesar's 
patrimony  became  fixed  ineradicably  in  men's 
minds." — C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Romans,  ch.  33. 

FISHER,  Fort,  The  capture  of.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1864-1865  (December- 
January:  N.  Carolina). 


FISHERIES,  North  American:  A.  D.  1501- 
1578. — The  Portuguese,  Norman,  Breton  and 
Basque  fishermen  on  the  Newfoundland  Banks. 
See  Newfoundland:  A.  D.  1501-1578. 


1150 


FISHERIES. 


FISHERIES. 


A.  D.  1610-1655.— Growth  of  the  English 
interest.  See  Newfoundland:  A.  D.  1610- 
1655. 

A.  D.  1620. — Monopoly  granted  to  the  Coun- 
cil for  New  England.  See  New  Engl.\nd: 
A.  D.  1630-1633. 

A.  D.  1660-1688.— The  French  gain  their 
footing  in  Newfoundland.  See  ISewfocind- 
LA^D:  A.  D.  1660-1688. 

A.  D.  1713.- Newfoundland  relinquished  to 
England,  with  fishing  rights  reserved  to 
France,  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht.  See  New- 
foundland: A.  D.  1713. 

A.  D.  1720-1745.— French  interests  pro- 
tected by  the  fortification  of  Louisbourg.  See 
Cape  Breton:  A.  D.  1720-1  T-1.5. 

A.  D.  1748.— St.  Pierre  and  Michelon  islands 
on  the  Newfoundland  coast  ceded  to  France. 
See  New  England  :  A.  D.  1745-1748. 

A.  D.  1763.— Rights  secured  to  France  on 
the  island  of  Newfoundland  and  in  the  Gulf  of 
St.  Lawrence  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris.— Articles 
V.  and  VI.  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  (1763),  which 
transferred  Canada  and  all  its  islands  from  France 
to  England,  are  in  the  following  language :  "The 
subjects  of  France  shall  have  the  liberty  of  fish- 
ing and  drying,  on  a  part  of  the  coasts  of  the 
island  of  Newfoundland,  such  as  it  is  specified  in 
the  13th  Article  of  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht;  which 
article  is  renewed  and  confirmed  by  the  present 
treaty  (except  what  relates  to  the  island  of  Cape 
Breton,  as  well  as  to  the  other  islands  and  coasts, 
in  the  mouth  and  in  the  gulph  of  St.  Laurence): 
and  his  Britannic  majesty  consents  to  leave  to 
the  subjects  of  the  most  Christian  king  the  liberty 
of  fishing  in  the  gulph  of  St.  Laurence,  on  condi- 
tion that  the  subjects  of  France  do  not  exercise 
the  said  fishery,  but  at  the  distance  of  three 
leagues  from  all  the  coasts  belonging  to  Great 
Britain,  as  well  those  of  the  continent,  as  those 
of  the  islands  situated  in  the  said  gulph  of  St. 
Laurence.  And  as  to  what  relates  to  the  fishery 
on  the  coasts  of  the  island  of  Cape  Breton  out  of 
the  said  gulph,  the  subjects  of  the  most  Christian 
king  shall  not  be  permitted  to  exercise  the  said 
fishery,  but  at  the  distance  of  15  leagues  from 
the  coasts  of  the  island  of  Cape  Breton ;  and  the 
fishery  on  the  coasts  of  Nova  Scotia  or  Acadia, 
and  everywhere  else  out  of  the  said  gulph,  shall 
remain  on  the  foot  of  former  treaties.  Art.  VI. 
The  King  of  Great  Britain  cedes  the  islands  of 
St.  Peter  and  Miquelon,  in  full  right,  to  his  most 
Christian  majesty,  to  serve  as  a  shelter  to  the 
French  fishermen:  and  his  said  most  Christian 
majesty  engages  not  to  fortify  the  said  islands; 
to  erect  no  buildings  upon  them,  but  merely  for 
the  convenience  of  the  fishery ;  and  to  keep  upon 
them  a  guard  of  50  men  only  for  the  police." — 
Text  of  the  Treaty  {Parliamentary  Hist.,  v.  15,  p. 
1^95). 

A.  D.  1778. —  French  fishery  rights  recog- 
nized in  the  treaty  between  France  and  the 
United  States.  See  United  States  of  Am  • 
A.  D.  1778  (February). 

A.  D.  1783.— Rights  secured  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1783  (September). 

A.  D.  1814-1818.— Disputed  rights  of  Ameri- 
can fishermen  after  the  War  of  i8i2.— Silence 
of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent.— The  Convention  of 
1818.— Under  the  Treaty  of  Paris  (1783)  "we 
claimed  that  the  liberty  which  was  secured  to  the 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States  to  take  fish  on 


the  coasts  of  Newfoundland,  under  the  limitation 
of  not  drying  or  curing  the  same  on  that  island, 
and  also  on  the  other  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks, 
together  with  the   limited  rights  of  drying  or 
curing  fish  on  the  coasts  of  Nova  Scotia,  Magda- 
len Islands,  and  Labrador,  were  not  created  or 
conferred  by  that  treaty,  but  were  simply  recog- 
nized by  it  as  already  existing.     They  had  been 
enjoyed  before  the  Revolution  by  the  Americans 
in  common  with  other  subjects  of  Great  Britain, 
and  had,  indeed,  been  conquered,  from  the  French 
chiefly,  through  the  valor  and  sacrifices  of  the 
colonies  of  New  England  and  New  York.     The 
treaty  was  therefore  considered  analogous  to  a 
deed  of  partition.     It  defined  the  boundaries  be- 
tween the  two  countries  and  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  belonging  to  them.     We  insisted  that 
the  article  respecting  fisheries  was  therefore  to  be 
regarded  as  identical  with  the  possession  of  land 
or    the    demarcation    of    boundary.      We  also 
claimed  that  the  treaty,   being  one  that  recog- 
nized independence,  conceded  territory,  and  de- 
fined boundaries,  belonged  to  that  class  which  is 
permanent  in  its  nature  and  is  not  affected  by 
subsequent  suspension  of  friendly  relations.    The 
English,  however,  insisted  that  this  treaty  was 
not  a  unity;  that  while  some  of  its  provisions 
were  permanent,  other  stipulations  were  tempo- 
rary and  could  be  abrogated,  and  that,  in  fact, 
they  were  abrogated  by  the  war  of  1812 ;  that 
the  very  difference  of  the  language  used  showed 
that  while  the   rights  of  deep-sea  fishing  were 
permanent,  the  liberties  of  fishing  were  created 
and  conferred  by  that  treaty,  and  had  therefore 
been  taken  away  by  the  war.     These  were  the 
two  opposite  views  of  the  respective   govern- 
ments at  the  conferences  which  ended  in  the 
treaty  of  Ghent,  of  1814."    No  compromise  ap- 
pearing to    be    practicable,    the  commissioners 
agreed,  at  length,  to  drop  the  subject  from  con- 
sideration.      "For    that    reason   the   treaty  of 
Ghent  is  entirely  silent  as  to  the  fishery  question 
[see  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1814  (Decem- 
ber)]. ...  In  consequence  of  conflicts  arising 
between  our  fishermen  and  the  British  authorities, 
our  point  of  view  was  very  strongly  maintained 
by  Mr.  Adams  in   his  correspondence  with   the 
British  Foreign  Office,  and  finally,  on  October  20, 
1818,  Mr.  Rush,  then  our  minister  at  London, 
assisted  by  Mr.  Gallatin,  succeeded  in  signing  a 
treaty,   which  among  other  things  settled   our 
rights  and  privileges  by  the  first  article,  as  fol- 
lows: .  .  .   'It  is  agreed  between  the  high  con- 
tracting parties  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  said 
United  States  shall  have  forever,  in  common  with 
the  subjects  of  his  Britannic  Majesty,  the  liberty 
of  taking  fish  of  any  kind  on  that  part  of  the 
southern  coast  of  Newfoundland  which  extends 
from  Cape  Ray  to  the  Rameau  Islands ;  on  the 
western  and  northern  coasts  of  Newfoundland 
from  the  said  Cape  Ray  to  the  Qurpon  Islands ; 
on  the  shores  of  the  Magdalen  Islands,  and  also  on 
the  coasts,  bays,  harbors,  and  creeks  from  Mont 
Joly,  on  the  southern  coast  of  Labrador,  to  and 
through  the  straits  of  Belle  Isle,  and  thence  north- 
wardly indefinitely  along  the  coast.     And  that 
the  American  fishermen  shall  have  liberty  forever 
to  dry  and  cure  fish  in  any  of  the  unsettled  bays, 
harbors,  and  creeks  in  the  southern  part  of  New- 
foundland  herein-before  described,  and   of   the 
coasts  of  Labrador ;  but  as  soon  as  the  same,  or 
any  portion  thereof,  shall  be  settled,  It  shall  not 
be  lawful  for  said  fishermen  to  dry  or  cure  fish 


1151 


FISHERIES. 


FISHING  CREEK. 


at  such  portion,  so  settled,  without  previous 
agreement  for  such  purpose  with  the  inhabitants, 
proprietors,  or  possessors  of  the  ground.  And 
the  United  States  hereby  renounces  forever  any 
liberty  heretofore  enjoyed,  claimed  by  the  inhabi- 
tants thereof  to  take,  dry,  or  cure  fish  on  or 
within  three  marine  miles  of  any  of  the  coasts, 
bays,  creeks,  or  harbors  of  his  Britannic  Majes- 
ty's dominions  in  America  not  included  in  the 
above-mentioned  limits.  Provided,  however, 
That  the  American  fishermen  shall  be  permitted 
to  enter  such  bays  or  harbors  for  the  purpose  of 
shelter,  of  repairing  damages  therein,  of  pur- 
cliasing  wood,  and  obtaining  water,  and  for  no 
other  purpose  whatever.  But  they  shall  be  under 
such  restrictions  as  shall  be  necessary  to  prevent 
their  taking,  drying,  or  curing  fish  therein, 
or  in  any  other  manner  whatever  abusing  the  priv- 
ileges hereby  secured  to  them. '  The  American 
plenipotentiaries  evidently  labored  to  obtain  as 
extensive  a  district  of  territory  as  possible  for  in- 
shore fishing,  and  were  willing  to  give  up  priv- 
ileges, then  apparently  of  small  amount,  but  now 
much  more  important,  than  of  using  other  bays 
and  harbors  for  shelter  and  kindred  purposes. 
For  that  reason  they  acquiesced  in  omitting  the 
word  '  bait '  in  the  first  sentence  of  the  proviso 
after  '  water. ' .  .  .  The  power  of  obtaining  bait 
for  use  in  the  deep-sea  fisheries  is  one  which  our 
fishermen  were  afterward  very  anxious  to  secure. 
But  the  mackerel  fisheries  in  those  waters  did  not 
begin  until  several  years  later.  The  only  con- 
tention then  was  about  the  cod  fisheries." — E. 
Schuyler,  American  Diplomacy,  ch.  8. — Treaties 
and  Conventions  between  the  United  States  and 
other  Powers  {ed.  of  1889),  pp.  415-418. 

A.  D.  1854-1866. — Privileges  defined  under 
the  Canadian  Reciprocity  Treaty.  See  Takipp 
Legislation  (United  States  and  Canada): 
A.  D.  18.54-1866. 

A.  D.  1871. — Reciprocal  privileges  adjusted 
between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
by  the  Treaty  of  Washington.  See  Alabama 
Claims:  A.  D.  1871. 

A.  D.  1877-1888.— The  Halifax  award.— Ter- 
mination of  the  Fishery  articles  of  the  Treaty 
of  Washington. — The  rejected  Treaty  of  1888. 
— In  accordance  with  the  terms  of  articles  23  and 
23  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington  (see  Alabama 
Claims:  A.  D.  1871),  a  Commission  appointed  to 
award  compensation  to  Great  Britain  for  the  su- 
perior value  of  the  fishery  privileges  conceded  to 
the  citizens  of  the  United  States  by  that  treaty, 
met  at  Halifa.\;  on  the  5th  of  June,  1877.  The 
United  States  was  represented  on  the  Commis- 
sion by  Hon.  E.  H.  Kellogg,  of  Massachusetts, 
and  Great  Britain  by  Sir  Alexander  F.  Gault,  of 
Canada.  The  two  governments  having  failed  to 
agree  in  the  selection  of  the  third  Commissioner, 
the  latter  was  named,  as  the  Treaty  provided,  by 
the  Austrian  Ambassador  at  London,  who  desig- 
nated M.  Maurice  Delfosse,  Belgian  Minister  at 
Washington.  The  award  was  made  November 
27,  1877,  when,  "by  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  the 
Commissioners  decided  that  the  United  States  was 
to  pay  $5,500,000  for  the  use  of  the  fishing  priv- 
ileges for  12  years.  The  decision  produced  pro- 
found astonishment  in  the  United  States."  Dis- 
satisfaction with  the  Halifax  award,  and  generally 
with  the  main  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington relating  to  the  fisheries,  was  so  great  in 
the  United  States  that,  when,  in  1878,  Congress 
appropriated   money   for   the    payment   of   the 


award,  it  inserted  in  the  bill  a  clause  to  the  effect 
that  "Articles  18  and  21  of  the  Treaty  between 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  concluded  on 
the  8th  of  May,  1871,  ought  to  be  terminated  at 
the  earliest  period  consistent  with  the  provisions 
of  Article  33  of  the  same  Treaty."  "  It  is  a  curi- 
ous fact  that  during  the  time  intervening  between 
the  signing  of  the  treaty  of  Washington  and  the 
Halifax  award  an  almost  complete  change  took 
place  in  the  character  of  the  fisheries.  The 
method  of  taking  mackerel  was  completely  revo- 
lutionized by  the  introduction  of  the  purse-seine, 
by  means  of  which  vast  quantities  of  the  fish 
were  captured  far  out  in  the  open  sea  by  enclos- 
ing them  in  huge  nets.  .  .  .  This  change  in  the 
method  of  fishing  brought  about  a  change  in  the 
fishing  grounds.  .  .  .  The  result  of  this  change 
was  very  greatly  to  diminish  the  value  of  the 
North-eastern  Fisheries  to  the  United  States  fisher- 
men." On  the  1st  of  July,  1883,  "  in  pursuance  of 
instructions  from  Congress,  the  President  gave  the 
required  notice  of  the  desire  of  the  United  States 
to  terminate  the  Fishery  Articles  of  the  Treaty  of 
Washington,  which  consequently  came  to  an  end 
the  1st  of  July,  1885.  The  termination  of  the 
treaty  fell  in  the  midst  of  the  fishing  season,  and, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  British  Minister,  Secre- 
tary Bayard  entered  into  a  temporary  arrange- 
ment whereby  the  American  fishermen  were 
allowed  the  privileges  of  the  treaty  during  the 
remainder  of  the  season,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  President  should  bring  the  question  be- 
fore Congress  at  its  next  session  and  recommend 
a  joint  Commission  by  the  Governments  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain. "  This  was  done ; 
but  Congress  disapproved  the  recommendation. 
The  question  of  rights  under  former  treaties,  es- 
pecially that  of  1818,  remained  open,  and  became 
a  subject  of  much  irritation  between  the  United 
States  and  the  neighboring  British  American 
provinces.  The  local  regulations  of  the  latter 
were  enforced  with  stringency  and  harshness 
against  American  fishermen ;  the  latter  solicited 
and  procured  retaliatory  legislation  from  Con- 
gress. To  end  this  unsatisfactory  state  of  affairs, 
a  treaty  was  negotiated  at  Washington  in  Febru- 
ary, 1888,  by  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  Secretary  of 
State,  WilUam  L.  Putnam  and  James  B.  Angell, 
plenipotentiaries  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
and  Joseph  Chamberlain,  M.  P. ,  Sir  L.  S.  Sack- 
ville  West  and  Sir  Charles  Tupper,  plenipoten- 
tiaries on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  which  treaty 
was  approved  by  the  President  and  sent  to  the 
Senate,  but  rejected  by  that  body  on  the  21st  of 
August,  by  a  negative  vote  of  30,  against  27  in 
its  favor. — C.  B.  Elliott,  The  United  States  and 
the  North-eastern  Fisheries,  pp.  79-100. 

Also  in  :  J.  H.  De  Ricci,  The  Fisheries  Dis- 
pute (\^%S).— Annual  Ueport  of  United  States 
Commission  of  Fish  and  Fisheries  for  1886. — 
Corr.  relative  to  proposed  Fisheries  Treaty  (Senate 
Ex.  Doc,  No.  113;  50«/t  Cong.,  \st  Sess.).— Doc's 
and  Proceedings  of  Halifax  Comm'n  (E.  R  Ex. 
Doc,  No.  89;  Anth  Cong.,  2(Z  Sess.). 


FISHER'S  HILL,  Battle  of.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1864  (August— October: 

VlUGINIA). 

FISHING  CREEK,  Battle  of.  See  United 
States  op  Am.:  A.  D.  1862  (January— Febru- 
ART:  Kentucky — Tennessee). 

FISKE  UNIVERSITY.  See  Education, 
Modern  :  America  :  A.  D.  1865-1881. 


1152 


PITCH. 


FLAMENS 


FITCH,  John,  and  the  beginnings  of  steam 
navigation.     See  Steam  Navu;ation. 

FITZGERALD'S  (LORDTHOMAS)RE- 
BELLION  IN  IRELAND.  See  Ireland  : 
A.  D.  1535-15.53. 

FIVE  ARTICLES  OF  PERTH,  The.  See 
Scotland,  A.  D.  16is. 

FIVE  BLOODS,  The.  See  Ireland  :  13th- 
14Tn  Centuries. 

FIVE  BOROUGHS,  The.— A  confederation 
of  towns  occupied  by  the  Danes  in  England,  in- 
cluding Derby,  Lincoln,  Leicester,  Nottingham 
and  Stamford,  which  played  a  part  in  the  events 
of  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries.  It  after- 
wards became  Seven  Boroughs  by  addition  of 
York  and  Chester. 

FIVE  FORKS,  Battle  of.  See  United 
States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1865  (March — April  : 
Virginia). 

FIVE  HUNDRED,  The  French  Council  of. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1795  (.June — September). 

FIVE  HUNDRED  AT  ATHENS,  The. 
See  Athens  :  B.  C.  510-.507. 

FIVE  MEMBERS,  King  Charles' attempt 
against  the.  See  England  :  A.  D.  164'3  (Janu- 
ary). 

FIVE  MILE  ACT,  The.      See  England: 

A.  D.  1662-1065. 

FIVE  NATIONS  OF  INDIANS,  The.— 
The  five  original  tribes  of  the  Iroquois  Confeder- 
acy, —  the  Mohawks,  Oneidas,  Onondagas,  Cayu- 
gas,  and  Senecas,  —  were  commonly  called  bj' 
the  English  the  Five  Nations.  Subsequently,  in 
1715,  a  sixth  tribe,  the  Tuscaroras,  belonging  to 
the  same  stock,  was  admitted  to  the  confederacy, 
and  its  members  were  then  known  as  the  Si.t 
Nations.  See  American  Aborigines  :  Iroquois 
Confederacy,  and  Iroquois  Tribes  of  the 
South. 

FIVE  THOUSAND,    The.     See  Athens: 

B.  C.  413-111. 

FIVE  YEARS'  TRUCE,  The.  See 
Athens  :  B.  C.  460-149, 

FLAG,  The  American. — At  the  outbreak  of 
the  revolt  of  the  colonies,  a  variety  of  devices 
appeared  on  the  flags  borne  by  the  Continental 
troops.  A  pine  tree  seems  to  have  been  the  fa- 
vorite New  England  emblem  ;  a  coiled  serpent, 
with  the  motto,  "Beware,"  or  "Don't  tread  on 
me,"  was  that  of  the  South.  A  representation 
of  the  thirteen  colonies  by  alternate  red  and 
white  stripes  on  a  flag  is  said  to  have  been  made 
first  at  Washington's  headquarters,  Cambridge, 
on  the  2d  of  .January,  1776.  The  blue  field  of 
white  stars,  in  the  corner  (the  part  of  a  flag  called 
"the  union"),  was  introduced,  by  order  of 
Cougre.ss,  on  the  14th  of  June,  1777.  There 
seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  first  flag,  thus  de- 
termined by  law  to  be  the  fl.ag  of  the  United 
States,  was  made  by  Mrs.  Betsey  Ross,  an  up- 
holsterer, on  Arch  street,  Philadelphia,  and,  ac- 
cording to  tradition,  Washington  pencilled  the 
plan  of  it.  The  first  military  use  of  the  flag  is 
claimed  to  have  been  at  Fort  Stanwix  (now 
Rome,  N.  Y.),  when  the  fort  was  besieged  in 
August,  1777.  The  banner  was  improvised  on 
that  occasion,  out  of  a  red  petticoat,  a  white 
shirt,  and  Col.  Gansevoort's  blue  cloak.  In  1818, 
Congress  decided  that  the  number  of  stripes  in 
the  flag  should  thereafter  be  the  original  thirteen, 
but  that  the  stars  in  "  the  union  '  should  increase 
in  number  with  the  growing  number  of  the 
states. 


FLAG,  The  British. — In  the  national  flag  of 
the  United  Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
the  rectangular  red  cross  of  St.  George  (original 
emblem  of  England),  the  diagonal  white  cross  of 
St.  Andrew  (emblem  of  Scotland),  and  the  red 
diagonal  cross  of  St.  Patrick  (emblem  of  Ireland) 
are  ingeniously  united,  on  a  blue  field,  so  that 
each  is  shown.  This  constitutes  w-hat  is  some- 
times called  the  "royal  jack,"  .sometimes  the 
"  union  jack,"  covering  for  some  uses  the  whole 
flag,  and  for  others,  only  the  upper  left-hand 
corner  of  a  red  or  blue  ensign. 

FL  AGE  LL  ANTS.— "Although  the 
Church's  forgiveness  for  sin  might  now  [14th 
century]  be  easily  obtained  in  other  ways,  still 
flagellation  was  not  only  greatly  admired  among 
the  religious,  but  was  also  held  in  such  high  es- 
timation by  the  common  people,  that  in  case  of 
any  calamity  or  plague,  they  thought  they  could 
propitiate  the  supposed  wrath  of  God  in  no  more 
efl'ectual  manner  than  by  scourging,  and  proces- 
sions of  scourgers  ;  just  as  though  the  Church's 
ordinary  means  of  atonement  were  insufficient 
for  extraordinary  cases,  .  .  .  Clement  VI.  put 
an  end  to  the  public  processions  of  Flagellants, 
which  were  already  widely  prevalent ;  but  pen- 
ance by  the  scourge  was  only  thus  forced  into 
couceaiinent.  .  .  .  Thus  there  now  rose  heretical 
Flagellants,  called  also  by  the  common  name  of 
Beghards.  .  .  .  When  the  Whitemen  (Bianchi) 
[see  White  Penitents],  scourging  themselves 
as  they  went,  descended  from  the  Alps  into  Italy, 
they  were  received  almost  everywhere  with  en- 
thusiasm by  the  clergy  and  the  people  :  but  in  the 
Papal  territory  death  was  prepared  for  their 
leader,  and  the  rest  accordingly  disperst  them- 
selves."— J.  C.  L.  Gieseler,  Oomyendium  of 
Ecclesiastical  Hist.,  sect.  123  {v.  4). — "Divided 
into  companies  of  male  and  female  devotees,  un- 
der a  leader  and  two  masters,  they  stripped  them- 
selves naked  to  the  waist,  and  publicly  scourged 
themselves,  or  each  other,  till  their  shoulders 
were  covered  with  blood.  This  expiatory  cere- 
mony was  repeated  every  morning  and  afternoon 
for  thirty- three  days,  equal  in  number  to  the 
years  which  Christ  is  thought  to  have  lived  upon 
earth.  .  .  .  The  Flagellants  appeared  first  in  Hun- 
gary :  but  missionary  societies  were  soon  formed, 
and  they  hastened  to  impart  the  knowledge  of 
the  new  gospel  to  foreign  nations.  .  .  .  A  colony 
reached  England,  and  landed  in  London.  .  .  . 
The  missionaries  made  not  a  single  proselyte." 
— J.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Enqland.  v.  4,  ch.  1. 

FLAMENS.  —  FLAMINES.— "  The  ponti- 
fices,  like  several  other  priestly  brotherhoods  [of 
ancient  Rome]  .  .  .  had  sacrificial  priests  (fa- 
mines) attached  to  them,  whose  name  was  de- 
rived from  'flare'  (to  blow  the  fire).  The  num- 
ber of  flamines  attached  to  the  pontifices  was 
fifteen,  the  three  highest  of  whom,  .  .  .  viz,,  the 
Flamen  Dialis,  Martialis,  and  Quirinalis,  were 
always  chosen  from  old  patrician  families.  .  .  . 
Free  from  all  civil  duties,  the  Flamen  Dialis, 
with  his  wife  and  children,  exclusively  devoted 
himself  to  the  service  of  the  deity.  His  house 
.  .  .  lay  on  the  Palatine  hill.  His  marriage  was 
dissoluble  by  death  only  ;  he  was  not  allowed  to 
take  an  oath,  mount  a  horse,  or  look  at  an  army. 
He  was  forbidden  to  remain  a  night  away  from 
his  house,  and  his  hand  touched  nothing  unclean, 
for  which  reason  he  never  approached  a  corpse 
or  a  burial-place,  ...  In  the  daytime  the  Fla- 
i  men  Dialis  was  not  allowed  to  take  off  his  head- 


73 


1153 


FLAMENS. 


FLANDERS. 


dress,  and  he  was  obliged  to  resign  his  office  in 
case  it  fell  off  by  accident.  In  his  belt  he  carried 
the  sacrificial  knife,  and  in  his  hand  he  held  a 
rod,  in  order  to  keep  off  the  people  on  his  way 
to  the  sacrifice.  For  the  same  purpose  he  was 
preceded  by  a  lictor,  who  compelled  everybody 
on  the  way  "to  lay  down  his  work,  the  flamen  not 
being  allowed  to  see  the  business  of  daily  life." 
— E.  Guhl  and  W.  Koner,  Life  of  the  Greeks  and 
Romans,  aect.  103.— See  Augurs. 

FLAMINIAN  WAY.  See  Rome:  B.  C. 
295—191 

FLAMINIUS,  The  defeat  of.  See  Punic 
Wae,  The  Second. 


FLANDERS:  A.  D.  863.— Creation  of 
the  County. — Judith,  daughter  of  Charles  the 
Bald,  of  France  (not  yet  called  France),  and  a 
twice  widowed  queen  of  England,  though  hardly 
yet  out  of  her  girlhood  (she  had  wedded  Ethel- 
wulf  and  Ethelbald,  father  and  son,  in  succes- 
sion), took  a  mate,  at  last,  more  to  her  liking,  by 
a  runaway  match  with  one  of  her  father's  forest- 
ers, named  Baudouin,  or  Baldwin,  Bras-de-fer. 
This  was  in  862.  King  Charles,  in  his  wrath, 
caused  the  impudent  forester  to  be  outlawed  and 
excommunicated,  both ;  but  after  a  year  of  inter- 
cession and  mediation  he  forgave  the  pair  and 
established  them  in  a  suitable  fief.  Baudouin 
was  made  Count  or  Marquis  of  Flanders.  "Pre- 
viously to  Baudouin 's  era,  Flanders  or  '  Flandria ' 
is  a  designation  belonging,  as  learned  men  con- 
jecture, to  a  Gau  or  Pagus,  afterwards  known  as 
the  Franc  de  Bruges,  and  noticed  only  in  a  sin- 
gle charter.  Popularly,  the  name  of  Flanders 
had  obtained  with  respect  to  a  much  larger  sur- 
rounding Belgic  country.  .  .  .  The  name  of 
'  Flanders  '  was  thus  given  to  the  wide,  and  in  a 
degree  indefinite  tract,  of  which  the  Forester 
Baudouin  and  his  predecessors  had  the  official 
range  or  care.  According  to  the  idiom  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  the  term  '  Forest '  did  not  exactly 
convey  the  idea  which  the  word  now  suggests, 
not  being  applied  exclusively  to  wood-land,  but 
to  any  wild  and  unreclaimed  region.  .  .  .  Any 
etymology  of  the  name  of  Flamingia,  or  Flan- 
ders, which  we  can  guess  at,  seems  intended  to 
designate  that  the  land  was  so  called  from  being 
half-drowned.  Thirty-five  inundations,  which 
afficted  the  country  at  various  intervals  from 
the  tenth  to  the  sixteenth  century,  have  entirely 
altered  the  coast-line;  and  the  interior  features 
of  the  country,  though  less  affected,  have  been 
much  changed  by  the  diversions  which  the  river- 
courses  have  sustained.  .  .  .  Whatever  had  been 
the  original  amplitude  of  the  districts  over  which 
Baudouin  had  any  control  or  authority,  the  boun- 
daries were  now  enlarged  and  defined.  Kneeling 
before  Charles-Ie-Chauve,  placing  his  hands  be- 
tween the  hands  of  the  Sovereign,  he  received 
his  '  honour ' :  —  the  Forester  of  Flanders  was 
created  Count  or  Marquis.  All  the  countries 
between  the  Scheldt,  the  Somme  and  the  sea, 
became  his  benefice ;  so  that  only  a  narrow  and 
contested  tract  divided  Baudouin's  Flanders  from 
Normandy.  According  to  an  antient  nomen- 
clature, ten  counties,  to  wit,  Theerenburch,  Arras, 
Boulogne,  Guisnes,  Saint-Paul,  Hesdin,  Blande- 
mont,  Bruges,  Harlebec,  and  Tournay,  were 
comprehended  in  the  noble  grant  which  Bau- 
douin obtained  from  his  father-in-law." — Sir  F. 
Palgrave,  Uist.  of  Normandy  and  of  England, 
bk.  1,  ch.  4. 


A.  D.  1096.— The  Crusade  of  Count  Robert. 

See  Crusades:  A.  D.  1O9G-1O90. 

A.  D.  1201-1204. — The  diverted  Crusade  of 
Count  Baldwin  and  the  imperial  crown  he  won 
at  Constantinople.  See  Crusades;  A.  D.  1301- 
120.3;  and  Byzantine  Empire  :  A.  D.  1304-1305. 

A.  D.  1214. — Humbled  at  the  battle  of  Bou- 
vines.     See  Boimj;Es. 

13th  Century. — The  industry,  commerce  and 
wealth  of  the  Flemings. — "In  the  13th  cen- 
tury, Flanders  was  the  most  populous  and  the 
richest  country  in  Europe.  She  owed  the  fact 
to  the  briskness  of  her  manufacturing  and  com- 
mercial undertakings,  not  only  amongst  her 
neighbours,  but  throughout  Southern  and  East- 
ern Europe.  .  .  .  Cloth,  and  all  manner  of  woolen 
stuffs,  were  the  principal  articles  of  Flemish  pro- 
duction, and  it  was  chiefly  from  England  that 
Flanders  drew  her  supply  of  wool,  the  raw  ma- 
terial of  her  industry.  Thence  arose  between 
the  two  countries  commercial  relations  which 
could  not  fail  to  acquire  political  importance. 
As  early  as  the  middle  of  the  13th  century,  sev- 
eral Flemish  towns  formed  a  society  for  found- 
ing in  England  a  commercial  exchange,  which 
obtained  great  privileges,  and,  under  the  name 
of  the  Flemish  hanse  of  London,  reached  rapid 
development.  The  merchants  of  Bruges  had 
taken  the  initiative  in  it;  but  soon  all  the  towns 
of  Flanders  —  and  Flanders  was  covered  with 
towns  —  Ghent,  Lille,  Ypres,  Courtrai,  Fumes, 
Alost,  St.  Omer,  and  Douai,  entered  the  confed- 
eration, and  made  unity  as  well  as  extension  of 
liberties  in  respect  of  Flemish  commerce  the  ob- 
ject of  their  joint  efforts.  Their  prosperity  be- 
came celebrated;  and  its  celebrity  gave  it  in- 
crease. It  was  a  burgher  of  Bruges  who  was 
governor  of  the  hanse  of  London,  and  he  was 
called  the  Count  of  the  Hanse.  The  fair  of 
Bruges,  held  in  the  month  of  May,  brought 
together  traders  from  the  whole  world.  '  Thither 
came  for  exchange,'  saj's  the  most  modem  and 
most  enlightened  historian  of  Flanders  (Baron 
Kervyn  de  Lettenhove,  '  Histoire  de  Flandre, " 
t.  ii.,  p.  300),  'the  produce  of  the  North  and 
the  South,  the  riches  collected  in  the  pilgrimages 
to  Novgorod,  and  those  brought  over  by  the 
caravans  from  Samarcand  and  Bagdad,  the  pitch 
of  Norway  and  the  oils  of  Andalusia,  the  furs  of 
Russia  and  the  dates  from  the  Atlas,  the  metals 
of  Hungary  and  Bohemia,  the  figs  of  Granada, 
the  honey  of  Portugal,  the  wax  of  Morocco,  and 
the  spice  of  Egypt;  whereby,  says  an  ancient 
manuscript,  no  land  is  to  be  compared  in  mer- 
chandise to  the  land  of  Flanders. "...  So  much 
prosperity  made  the  Counts  of  Flanders  very 
puissant  lords.  'Marguerite  II.,  called  "the 
Black,"  Countess  of  Flanders  and  Hainault,  from 
1244  to  1280,  was  extremely  rich,'  says  a  chroni- 
cler, '  not  only  in  lands,  but  in  furniture,  jewels, 
and  money ;  .  .  .  insomuch  that  she  kept  up  the 
state  of  queen  rather  than  countess. '  Nearly  all 
the  Flemish  towns  were  strongly  organised  com- 
munes, in  which  prosperity  had  won  liberty,  and 
which  became  before  long  small  republics,  suf- 
ficiently powerful  not  only  for  the  defence  of  their 
municipal  rights  against  the  Counts  of  Flanders, 
their  lords,  but  for  offering  an  armed  resistance 
to  such  of  the  sovereigns  their  neighbours  as  at- 
tempted to  conquer  them  or  to  trammel  them  in 
their  commercial  relations,  or  to  draw  upon  their 
wealth  by  forced  contributions  or  by  plunder. " 
— F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  France,  ch.  18. 


1154 


FLANDERS. 


FLANDERS. 


Ai.so  IN :  J.  Hutton,  James  and  PJiilip  Van 
Arteveld.  pt.  1,  ch.  2.     See,  also,  Trade. 

A.  D.  1299-1304. — The  war  with  Philip  the 
Fair. — As  the  Flemings  advanced  in  wealth  and 
consequence,  the  feudal  dependence  of  their 
country  upon  the  French  crown  grew  increasingly 
irksome  and  oppressive  to  them,  and  their  atti- 
tude towards  France  became  one  of  conlirmcd 
hostility.  At  the  same  time,  they  were  drawn  to 
a  friendly  leaning  towards  England  by  common 
commercial  interests.  This  showed  itself  de- 
cisively on  the  occasion  of  the  quarrel  that  arose 
(A.  D.  129.5)  between  Philip  IV.,  called  the  Fair, 
and  Edward  I.  of  England,  concerning  the  rule  of 
the  latter  iu  Aquitaine  or  Guienne.  The  French 
king  found  allies  in  Scotland ;  the  English  king 
found  allies  in  Flanders.  An  alliance  of  mar- 
riage, iu  fact,  had  been  arranged  to  take  place 
between  king  Edward  and  the  daughter  of  Guy 
de  Dampierre,  count  of  Flanders ;  but  Philip  con- 
trived treacherously  to  get  possession  of  the  per- 
sons of  the  count  and  his  daughter  and  imprisoned 
them  both  at  Paris,  declaring  the  states  of  the 
count  to  be  forfeited.  In  1399  the  two  kings 
settled  their  quarrel  and  abandoned  their  allies 
on  both  sides  —  Scotland  to  the  tender  mercies  of 
Edward,  and  Flanders  to  the  vengeance  of  the 
malignant  king  Philip  the  Fair.  The  territory 
of  the  Flemings  was  annexed  to  the  crown  of 
France,  and  Jacques  de  Chatillon,  uncle  of  the 
queen,  was  appointed  governor.  Before  two 
years  had  passed  the  impatient  Flemings  were 
in  furious  revolt.  The  insurrection  began  at 
Bruges,  May  18,  1303,  and  more  than  3,000 
Frenchmen  in  that  city  were  massacred  in  the 
first  rage  of  the  insurgents.  This  massacre  was 
called  the  Bruges  Matins.  A  French  army  entered 
Flanders  to  put  down  the  rising  and  was  con- 
fronted at  Courtrai  (July  11,  A.  D.  1303)  by  the 
Flemish  militia.  The  latter  were  led  by  young 
Guy  of  Dampierre  and  a  few  knights,  who  dis- 
mounted to  fight  on  equal  terms  with  their  fel- 
lows. "About  20,000  militia,  armed  only  with 
pikes,  which  they  employed  also  as  implements 
of  husbandry,  resolved  to  abide  the  onset  of  8,000 
Knights  of  gentle  blood,  10,000  archers,  and 
30,000  foot-soldiers,  animated  by  the  presence 
and  directed  by  the  military  skill  of  Robert 
Count  of  Artois,  and  of  Raoul  de  Nesle,  Con- 
stable of  France.  Courtrai  was  the  object  of 
attack,  and  the  Flemings,  anxious  for  its  safety, 
arranged  themselves  on  a  plain  before  the  town, 
covered  in  front  by  a  canal."  An  altercation 
which  occurred  between  the  two  French  com- 
manders led  to  the  making  of  a  blind  and 
furious  charge  on  the  part  of  the  French  horse- 
men, ignorant  and  heedless  of  the  canal,  into 
which  they  plunged,  horses  and  riders  together, 
in  one  inextricable  mass,  and  where,  in  their 
helplessness,  they  were  slain  without  scruple 
by  the  Flemings.  "Philip  had  lost  his  most 
experienced  Generals,  and  the  flower  of  his 
troops ;  but  his  obstinacy  was  unbending. "  In 
repeated  campaigns  during  the  next  two  years, 
Philip  strove  hard  to  retrieve  the  disaster  of 
Courtrai.  He  succeeded,  at  last  (A.  D.  1304), 
in  achieving,  with  the  help  of  the  Genoese,  a 
naval  victory  in  the  Zuruck-Zee,  followed  by  a 
victory,  personally  his  own,  at  Mons-en-Puelle, 
in  September  of  the  same  year.  Then,  finding 
the  Flemings  as  dauntlessly  ready  as  ever  to  re- 
new the  fight,  he  gave  up  to  their  obstinacy  and 
acinowledged  the  independence  of  the  county. 


A  treaty  was  signed,  in  which  "the  indepen- 
dence of  Flanders  was  acknowledged  under  its 
Count,  Robert  de  Bethune  (the  eldest  son  of  Guy 
de  Dampierre),  who,  together  with  his  brothers 
and  all  the  other  Flemish  prisoners,  was  to  be 
restored  to  liberty.  The  Flemings,  on  the  other 
hand,  consented  to  surrender  those  districts  be- 
yond the  Lys  in  which  the  French  language  was 
vernacularly  spoken ;  and  to  this  territory  were 
added  the  cities  of  Douai,  Lille,  and  their  depen- 
dencies. They  engaged,  moreover,  to  furnish 
by  instalments  200,000  livres  in  order  to  cover 
the  expenses  which  Philip  had  incurred  by  their 
invasion." — E.  Sraedley,  Hist,  of  Prance,  pt.  1, 
ch.  7. 

Also  in:  J.  Hutton,  James  and  Philip  Van 
Arteveld,  pt.  1,  ch.  2-3. — J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of 
France,  bk.  5,  ch.  %. 

A.  D.  1314. — Dishonesty  of  Philip  of  France. 
— Philip  was  one  of  the  most  treacherous  of 
princes,  and  his  treaty  with  the  Flemings  did 
not  secure  them  against  him.  "The  Flemings, 
who  had  paid  the  whole  of  the  money  stipulated 
by  the  treaty  of  1305,  demanded  the  restitution 
of  that  part  of  Flanders  which  had  been  given 
up  as  a  pledge ;  but  Philippe  refused  to  restore 
it  on  the  plea  that  it  had  been  given  to  him  ab- 
solutely and  not  conditionally.  He  commenced 
hostilities  [A.  D.  1314]  by  seizing  upon  the 
counties  of  Nevers  and  Rethel,  belonging  to  the 
count  of  Flanders  and  his  eldest  son,  who  replied 
by  laying  siege  to  Lille."  Philippe  was  making 
great  exertions  to  raise  money  for  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war,  when  he  died  suddenly, 
Nov.  35,  1314,  as  the  result  of  an  accident  in 
hunting. — T.  Wright,  Hist,  of  Fi'ance,  v.  1,  bk. 
2,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1328.— The  Battle  of  Cassel.— The 
first  act  of  Philip  of  Valois,  King  of  France,  after 
his  coronation  in  1338,  was  to  take  up  the  cause 
of  his  cousin,  Louis  de  Nevers,  Count  of  Flanders, 
who  had  been  driven  from  his  territories  by  the 
independent  burghers  of  Bruges,  Ypres,  and 
other  cities,  and  who  had  left  to  him  no  town 
save  Ghent,  in  which  he  dared  to  appear.  The 
French  king  "gathered  a  great  host  of  feudal 
lords,  who  rejoiced  in  the  thought  of  Flemish 
spoil,  and  marched  to  Arras,  and  thence  onwards 
into  Flanders.  He  pitched  his  tent  under  the 
hill  of  Cassel,  '  with  the  fairest  and  greatest  host 
in  the  world '  around  him.  The  Flemish,  under 
Glaus  Dennequin,  lay  on  the  hill-top :  thence  they 
came  down  all  unawares  in  three  columns  on  the 
French  camp  in  the  evening,  and  surprised  the 
King  at  supper  and  all  but  took  him.  The 
French  soon  recovered  from  the  surprise;  'for 
God  would  not  consent  that  lords  should  be  dis- 
comfitted  by  such  riffraff':  they  slew  the  Flem- 
ish Captain  Dennequin,  and  of  the  rest  but  few 
escaped ;  '  for  they  deigned  not  to  flee,'  so  stub- 
bom  were  those  despised  weavers  of  Flanders. 
This  little  battle,  with  its  great  carnage  of  Flem- 
ish, sufficed  to  lay  all  Flanders  at  the  feet  of  its 
count." — G.  W.  Kitchin,  Hist,  of  Pi'ance,  bk.  4, 
cJi.  1. — "  Sixteen  thousand  Flemings  had  marched 
to  the  attack  in  three  divisions.  Three  heaps  of 
slain  were  counted  on  the  morrow  in  the  French 
lines,  amounting  altogether  to  13,000  corpses; 
and  it  is  said  that  Louis  .  .  .  inflicted  death  upon 
10,000  more  of  the  rebels."— E.  Smedley,  Hist, 
of  France,  pt.  1,  ck.  8. 

Also  in  :  Froissart  (Johnes),  Chronicles,  bk.  1, 
ch.  21-32. 


1155 


FLANDERS,  1335-1337. 


Jcu^ques 
Van  Arteveld. 


FLANDERS,  1379-1381. 


A.  D.  1335-1337.  —  The  revolt  under 
Jacques  Van  Arteveld. — The  alliance  with 
England. —  The  most  important  measure  by 
which  Edward  III.  of  England  prepared  himself 
lor  the  invasion  of  France,  as  a  claimant  of  the 
French  crown  [See  France:  A.  D.  1328-1339] 
was  the  securing  of  an  alliance  with  the  Flem- 
ish burghers.  This  was  made  easy  for  him  by 
his  enemies.  "The  Flemings  happened  to  have 
!i  count  who  was  wholly  French — Louis  de 
jSTevers  —  who  was  only  count  through  the 
battle  of  Cassel  and  the  humiliation  of  his 
country,  and  who  resided  at  Paris,  at  the  court 
of  Philippe  de  Valois.  Without  consulting  his 
subjects,  he  ordered  a  general  arrest  of  all  the 
English  throughout  Flanders ;  on  which  Edward 
liad  all  the  Flemings  in  England  arrested.  The 
commerce,  which  was  the  life-blood  of  each 
country,  was  thus  suddenly  broken  off.  To 
attack  the  English  through  Guyenne  and  Flan- 
ders was  to  wound  them  In  their  most  sensible 
parts,  to  deprive  them  of  cloth  and  wine.  They 
sold  their  wool  at  Bruges,  in  order  to  buy  wine 
at  Bordeaux.  On  the  other  hand,  without 
English  wool,  the  Flemings  were  at  a  stand- 
still. Edward  prohibited  the  exportation  of 
wool,  reduced  Flanders  to  despair,  and  forced 
her  to  fling  herself  into  his  arms.  At  first,  a  crowd 
of  Flemish  workmen  emigrated  into  England, 
whither  they  were  allured  at  any  cost,  and  by 
every  kind  of  flattery  and  caress.  ...  I  take  it 
that  the  English  character  has  been  seriously 
modified  by  these  emigrations,  which  went  on 
during  the  whole  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
Previously,  we  find  no  indications  of  that 
patient  Industry  which  now  distinguishes  the 
English.  By  endeavouring  to  separate  Flanders 
and  England  the  French  king  only  stimulated 
Flemish  emigration,  and  laid  the  foundation  of 
England's  manufactures.  Meanwhile,  Flanders 
did  not  resign  herself.  The  towns  burst  into 
insurrection.  They  had  long  hated  the  count, 
either  because  he  supported  tlie  country  against 
the  monopoly  of  the  towns,  or  because  he  ad- 
mitted the  foreigners,  the  Frenchmen,  to  a  share 
of  their  commerce.  The  men  of  Ghent,  who 
undoubtedly  repented  of  having  withheld  their 
aid  from  those  of  Ypres  and  of  Bruges  at  the 
battle  of  Cassel,  chose,  in  1337,  as  their  leader, 
the  brewer,  Jacquemart  Artaveld.  Supported  by 
the  guilds,  and,  in  particular,  by  the  fullers  and 
clothiers,  Artaveld  organized  a  vigorous  tyranny. 
He  assembled  at  Ghent  the  men  of  the  three 
great  cities,  '  and  showed  them  that  they  could 
not  live  without  the  king  of  England  ;  for 
all  Flanders  depended  on  cloth-making,  and, 
without  wool,  one  could  not  make  cloth ;  there- 
fore he  recommended  them  to  keep  the  English 
king  their  friend.'  " — J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France, 
bk.  6,  ch.  1. 

Also    in    F.    P.    Guizot,    Popular    Hist,    of 
France,  ch.    20. — J.  Hutton,    James  and  Philip 
Van  Artevelde,  pt.  3. — .J.  Froissart,   Chronicles 
{Johnes's  trans.),  bk.  1,  ch.  29. 

A.  D.  134s. —  The  end  of  Jacques  Van 
Artaveld. —  "Jacob  von  Artaveld,  the  citizen 
of  Ghent  that  was  so  much  attached  to  the 
king  of  England,  still  maintained  the  same 
despotic  power  over  all  Flanders.  He  had  prom- 
ised the  king  of  England,  that  he  would  give 
him  the  inheritance  of  Flanders,  invest  his  son 
the  prince  of  Wales  with  it,  and  make  it  a  duchy 
instead  of  an  earldom.      Upon  which  account 


the  king  was,  at  this  period,  about  St.  John  the 
Baptist's  day,  1345,  come  to  Sluys,  with  a  nu- 
merous attendance  of  barons  and  knights.  He 
had  brought  the  prince  of  Wales  with  him,  in 
order  that  Jacob  von  Artaveld's  promises  might 
be  realized.  The  king  remained  on  board  his 
fleet  in  the  harbour  of  Sluys,  where  he  kept  his 
court.  His  friends  in  Flanders  came  thither  to 
see  and  visit  him ;  and  there  were  many  confer- 
ences between  the  king  and  Jacob  Von  Artaveld 
on  one  side,  and  the  councils  from  the  different 
capital  towns  on  the  other,  relative  to  the  agree- 
ment before  mentioned.  .  .  .  When  on  his  return 
he  [Van  Artaveld]  came  to  Ghent  about  mid- 
day, the  townsmen  who  were  informed  of  the 
hour  he  was  expected,  had  assembled  in  the 
street  that  he  was  to  pass  through ;  as  soon  as 
they  saw  him,  they  began  to  murmur,  and  put 
their  heads  close  together,  saying,  '  Here  comes 
one  who  is  too  much  the  master,  and  wants  to 
order  in  Flanders  according  to  his  will  and 
pleasure,  which  must  not  be  longer  borne. '  With 
this  they  had  also  spread  a  rumour  through  the 
town,  that  Jacob  von  Artaveld  had  collected  all 
the  revenues  of  Flanders,  for  nine  years  and 
more.  ...  Of  this  great  treasure  he  had  sent 
part  into  England.  This  information  inflamed 
those  of  Ghent  with  rage;  and,  as  he  was  riding 
up  the  streets,  he  perceived  that  there  was  some- 
thing in  agitation  against  him;  for  those  who 
were  wont  to  salute  him  very  respectfully,  now 
turned  their  backs,  and  went  into  their  houses. 
He  began  therefore  to  suspect  all  was  not  as 
usual ;  and  as  soon  as  he  had  dismounted,  and 
entered  his  hotel,  he  ordered  the  doors  and  win- 
dows to  be  shut  and  fastened.  Scarcely  had  his 
servants  done  this,  when  the  street  which  he  in- 
habited was  filled  from  one  end  to  the  other  with 
all  sorts  of  people,  but  especially  by  the  lowest 
of  the  mechanics.  His  mansion  was  surrounded 
on  every  side,  attacked  and  broken  into  by  force. 
Those  within  did  all  they  could  to  defend  it,  and 
killed  and  wounded  many :  but  at  last  they  could 
not  hold  out  against  such  vigorous  attacks,  for 
three  parts  of  the  town  were  there.  When  Jacob 
von  Artaveld  saw  what  efforts  were  making,  and 
how  hardly  he  was  pushed,  he  came  to  a  window  ; 
and,  with  his  head  uncovered,  began  to  use  hum- 
ble and  fine  language.  .  .  .  When  Jacob  von 
Artaveld  saw  that  he  could  not  appease  or  calm 
them,  he  shut  the  window,  and  intended  getting 
out  of  his  house  the  back  way,  to  take  shelter  in 
a  church  adjoining;  but  his  hotel  was  already 
broke  into  on  that  side,  and  upwards  of  four 
hundred  were  there  calling  out  for  him.  At  last 
he  was  seized  by  them,  and  slain  without  mercy: 
his  death-stroke  was  given  him  by  a  sadler,  called 
Thomas  Denys.  In  this  manner  did  Jacob  von 
Artaveld  end  his  days,  who  in  his  time  had  been 
complete  master  of  Flanders.  Poor  men  first 
raised  him,  and  wicked  men  slew  him," — J. 
Froissart  (Johnes),  Chronicles,  bk.  1,  eh.  115  (b.  1). 
A.  D.  1379-1381. —  The  revolt  of  the  White 
Hoods. —  "We  will  .  .  .  speak  of  the  war  in 
Flanders,  which  began  about  this  time  [A.  D. 
1379].  The  people  were  very  murderous  and 
cruel,  and  multitudes  were  slain  or  driven  out 
of  the  country.  The  country  itself  was  so  much 
ruined,  that  it  was  said  a  himdred  years  would 
not  restore  it  to  the  situation  it  was  in  before  the 
war.  Before  the  commencement  of  these  wars 
in  Flanders,  the  country  was  so  fertile,  and 
everything  in  such  abundance,  that  it  was  mar- 


1156 


FLANDERS,   1379-1381. 


Revolt  of  the 
White  Hoods. 


FLANDERS,  1382. 


vellous  to  see ;  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  prin- 
cipal towns  lived  in  very  grand  state.  You 
must  know  that  this  war  originated  in  the  pride 
and  hatred  that  several  of  the  chief  towns  bore 
to  each  other:  those  of  Ghent  against  Bruges, 
and  others,  in  like  manner,  vying  with  each 
other  through  envy.  However,  this  could  not 
have  created  a  war  without  the  consent  of  their 
lord,  the  earl  of  Flanders,  who  was  so  much 
loved  and  feared  that  no  one  dared  anger  him. " 
It  is  in  these  words  that  the  old  court  chronicler, 
Froissart,  begins  his  fully  detailed  and  graphic 
narrative  of  the  miserable  years,  from  1379  to 
1384,  during  which  the  communes  of  Flanders 
were  at  war  with  one  another  and  at  war  with 
their  worthless  and  oppressive  count,  Luis  de 
Maele.  The  picturesque  chronicle  is  colored 
with  the  prejudices  of  Froissart  against  the 
Flemish  burghers  and  in  favor  of  their  lord; 
but  no  one  can  doubt  that  the  always  turbulent 
citizens  were  jealous  of  rights  which  the  always 
rapacious  lord  never  ceased  to  encroach  upon. 
As  Froissart  tells  the  story,  the  outbreak  of  war 
began  with  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  men 
of  Bruges,  to  dig  a  canal  which  would  divert  the 
waters  of  the  river  Lys.  When  those  of  Ghent 
had  news  of  this  unfriendly  undertaking,  they 
took  counsel  of  one  John  Yoens,  or  John  Lyon, 
a  burgher  of  much  cunning,  who  had  formerly 
been  in  favor  with  the  count,  but  whom  his  ene- 
mies had  supplanted.  "  When  he  [John  Lyon] 
was  prevailed  on  to  speak,  he  said:  'Gentlemen, 
if  you  wish  to  risk  this  business,  and  put  an  end 
to  it,  you  must  renew  an  ancient  custom  that 
formerly  subsisted  in  the  town  of  Ghent:  I 
mean,  you  must  first  put  on  white-hoods,  and 
choose  a  leader,  to  whom  every  one  may  look, 
and  rally  at  his  signal.'  This  harangue  was 
eagerly  listened  to,  and  they  all  cried  out,  '  We 
will  have  it  so,  we  will  have  it  so !  now  let  us 
put  on  white-hoods.'  White-hoods  were  directly 
made,  and  given  out  to  those  among  them  who 
loved  war  better  than  peace,  and  had  nothing  to 
lose.  John  Lyon  was  elected  chief  of  the  White 
Hoods.  He  very  willingly  accepted  of  this  office, 
to  avenge  himself  on  his  enemies,  to  embroil 
the  towns  of  Ghent  and  Bruges  with  each  other 
and  with  the  earl  their  lord.  He  was  ordered, 
as  their  chief,  to  march  against  the  pioneers  and 
diggers  from  Bruges,  and  had  with  him  200 
such  people  as  preferred  rioting  to  quiet." — 
Froissart  (Johnes)  Chronicles,  bk.  2,  ch.  36-103  — 
When  the  White  Hoods  had  driven  the  ditchers 
of  Bruges  from  their  canal,  they  returned  to 
Ghent,  but  not  to  disband.  Presently  the  jealous 
count  required  them  to  lay  aside  the  peculiar 
badge  of  their  association,  which  they  declined 
to  do.  Then  Count  Louis  sent  his  bailiff  into 
Ghent  with  200  horsemen,  to  arrest  John  Lyon, 
and  some  others  of  his  band.  The  AVhite  Hoods 
rallied,  slew  the  bailiff  and  drove  his  posse  from 
the  town;  after  which  unmistakable  deed  Ghent 
and  the  count  were  distinctly  at  war.  The  city 
of  the  White  Hoods  took  prompt  measures  to 
secure  the  alliance  and  support  of  its  neighbors. 
Some  nine  or  ten  thousand  of  its  citizens 
marched  to  Bruges,  and  partly  by  persuasion, 
partly  by  force,  partly  by  the  help  of  the  popu- 
lar party  in  the  town,  they  effected  a  treaty  of 
friendship  and  alliance —  which  did  not  endure, 
however,  very  long.  Courtray,  Damme,  Tpres 
and  other  cities  joined  the  league  and  it  soon 
presented    a    formidable    array.      Oudenarde, 

11 


strongly  fortified,  by  the  count,  became  the  key 

of  the  situation,  and  was  besieged  by  the  citizen- 
miiitia.  In  the  midst  of  the  siege,  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  son-in-law  of  the  count,  made  suc- 
cessful efforts  to  bring  about  a  peace  (Dec.  1379). 
'  'The  count  promised  to  forget  the  past  and  return 
to  his  residence  in  Ghent.  This  peace,  however, 
was  of  short  duration ;  and  the  count,  after  pass- 
ing only  two  or  three  days  in  Ghent,  alleged  some 
cause  of  dissatisfaction  and  returned  to  Lille,  to 
recommence  hostilities,  in  the  course  of  which, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  richer  citizens,  he 
made  himself  master  of  Bruges.  Another  peace 
was  signed  in  the  August  of  1380,  which  was  no 
more  durable  than  the  former,  and  the  count  re- 
duced Ypres;  and,  at  the  head  of  an  army  of 
60,000  men,  laid  siege  to  Ghent  itself,  the  chief 
and  soul  of  the  popular  confederacy,  in  the 
month  of  September.  But  the  citizens  of  Ghent 
defended  themselves  so  well  that  he  was  obliged 
to  raise  the  siege  in  the  middle  of  November,  and 
agree  to  a  truce.  This  truce  also  was  broken  by 
the  count's  party,  the  war  renewed  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  year  1381,  and  the  men  of  Ghent 
experienced  a  disastrous  defeat  In  the  battle  of 
Nevelle  towards  the  middle  of  May.  It  was  a 
war  of  extermination,  and  was  carried  on  with 
extreme  ferocity.  .  .  .  Ghent  itself,  now  closely 
blockaded  by  the  count's  troops,  was  only  saved 
by  the  great  qualities  of  Philip  Van  Artevelde 
[son  of  Jacques  Van  Arteveld,  of  the  revolution 
of  1337],  who,  by  a  sort  of  peaceful  revolution, 
was  placed  at  the  head  of  affairs  [Jan.  25,  1381]. 
The  victory  of  Beverholt,  in  which  the  count 
was  defeated  with  great  slaughter,  and  only  es- 
caped with  difHculty,  made  the  town  of  Ghent 
again  master  of  Flanders." — T.  Wright,  Hist,  of 
France,  bk.  2,  ch.  8. 

Also  in  J.  Hutton,  James  and  Philip  Van 
Artereld.  ch.  14-16. — W.  C.  Taylor,  Remlutiotis, 
Insurrections  and  Conspiracies  of  Europe,  v.  2, 
ch.  7-9. 

A.  D.  1382.  —  The  rebellion  crushed. — By 
the  marriage  of  Philip,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  to 
the  daughter  and  heiress  of  the  Count  of  Flan- 
ders, that  powerful  French  prince  had  become 
interested  in  the  suppression  of  the  revolt  of  the 
Flemish  burghers  and  the  restoration  of  the 
count  to  his  lordship.  His  nephew,  the  young 
king  of  France,  Charles  VI.,  was  easily  per- 
suaded to  undertake  a  campaign  to  that  end, 
and  an  army  of  considerable  magnitude  was 
personally  led  northwards  by  the  monarch  of 
fourteen  years.  "The  object  of  the  expedition 
was  not  only  to  restore  to  the  Count  of  Flanders 
his  authority,  but  to  punish  the  turbulent  com- 
mons, who  stirred  up  those  of  France  to  imitate 
their  example.  Froissart  avows  it  to  have  been 
a  war  between  the  commons  and  the  aristocracy. 
The  Flemings  were  commanded  by  Artaveldt, 
son  of  the  famous  brewer,  the  ally  of  Edward 
III.  The  town  of  Ghent  had  been  reduced  to 
the  extreme  of  distress  and  famine  by  the  count 
and  the  people  of  Bruges,  who  supported  him. 
Artaveldt  led  the  people  of  Ghent  in  a  forlorn 
hope  against  Bruges,  defeated  the  army  of  the 
count,  and  broke  into  the  rival  town,  which  he 
took  and  plundered.  After  this  disaster,  the 
count  had  recourse  to  France.  The  passage  of 
the  river  Lys,  which  defended  Flanders,  was 
courageously  undertaken,  and  effected  with 
some  hazard  by  the  French.  The  Flemings 
were    rather    dispirited    by   this  first  success: 

57 


FLAJI^DERS,  1383. 


Under  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy. 


FLANDERS,  1383. 


nevertheless,  they  assembled  their  forces;  and 
the  two  armies  of  French  knights  and  Flemish 
citizens  met  at  Rosebecque  [or  Roosebeck], 
between  Ypres  and  Courtray.  The  27th  of 
November,  1383,  was  the  day  of  battle.  Arta- 
veldt  had  stationed  his  army  on  a  height,  to 
await  the  attack  of  the  French,  but  their  im- 
patience forced  him  to  commence.  Forming 
his  troops  into  one  solid  square,  Artaveldt  led 
them  against  the  French  centre.  Froissart 
compares  their  charge  to  the  lieadlong  rush  of  a 
wild  boar.  It  broke  the  opposite  line,  penetrat- 
ing into  its  ranks:  but  the  wings  of  the  French 
turned  upon  the  flank  of  the  Flemings,  which, 
not  having  the  advantage  of  a  charge  or  im- 
pulse, were  beaten  by  the  French  men  at  arms. 
Pressed  upon  one  another,  the  Flemings  had 
not  room  to  fight:  they  were  hemmed  in,  sur- 
rounded, and  slaughtered :  no  quarter  was  asked 
or  given;  nearly  30,000  perished.  The  9,000 
Ghentois  that  had  marched  under  their  banner 
were  counted,  to  a  man,  amongst  the  slain: 
Artaveldt,  their  general,  was  among  the  fore- 
most who  had  fallen.  Charles  ordered  his  body 
to  be  hung  upon  a  tree.  It  was  at  Courtray, 
very  near  to  the  field  where  this  battle  was 
fought,  that  Robert  of  Artois,  with  a  French 
army,  had  perished  beneath  the  swords  of  the 
Flemings,  nearly  a  century  previous.  The  gilded 
spurs  of  the  French  knights  still  adorned  the 
walls  of  the  cathedral  of  Courtray.  The  victory 
of  Rosebecque  in  the  eyes  of  Charles  had  not 
sufficiently  repaid  the  former  defeat :  the  town 
of  Co'u-tray  was  pillaged  and  burnt;  its  famous 
clock  was  removed  to  Dijon,  and  formed  the 
third  wonder  of  this  kind  in  France,  Paris  and 
Sens  alone  possessing  similar  ornaments.  The 
battle  of  Rosebecque  proved  more  unfortunate  for 
the  communes  of  France  than  for  those  of  Flan- 
ders. Ghent,  notwithstanding  her  loss  of  9,000 
slain,  did  not  yield  to  the  conqueror,  but  held  out 
the  war  for  two  years  longer ;  and  did  not  finally 
submit  until  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  at  the 
death  of  their  count,  guaranteed  to  the  burghers 
the  full  enjoyment  of  their  privileges.  The  king 
avenged  himself  on  the  mutinous  city  of  Paris; 
entered  it  as  a  conqueror ;  took  the  chains  from 
the  streets  and  unhinged  the  gates :  one  hundred 
of  the  citizens  were  sent  to  the  scaffold ;  the 
property  of  the  rich  was  confiscated ;  and  all  the 
ancient  and  most  onerous  taxes,  the  gabelle,  the 
duty  on  sales,  as  well  as  that  of  entry,  were 
declared  by  royal  ordinance  to  be  established 
anew.  The  principal  towns  of  the  kingdom 
were  visited  with  the  same  punishments  and 
exactions.  The  victory  of  Rosebecque  over- 
threw the  commons  of  France,  which  were 
crushed  under  the  feet  of  the  young  monarch 
and  his  nobles." — E.  E.  Crowe,  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  4. 

Also  in  Sir  J.  Froissart  (Johnes)  Chronicles, 
bk.  3,  ch.  111-130.— J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  liVance, 
bk.  7,  ch.  1  (b.  2).— F.  p.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist, 
of  France,  ch.  28  (v.  3). 

A.  D.  1383. — The  Bishop  of  Norwich's  Cru- 
sade.— The  crushing  defeat  of  the  Flemings  at 
Roosebeke  produced  alarm  in  England,  where 
the  triumph  of  the  French  was  quickly  felt  to  be 
threatening.  "English  merchants  were  expelled 
from  Bruges,  and  their  property  was  confiscated. 
Calais  even  was  in  danger.  The  French  were  at 
Dunkirk  and  Gravelines,  and  might  by  a  sudden 
dash  on  Calais  drive  the  English  out."     There 


had  been  aid  from  England  promised  to  Van  Ar- 
tevelde,  but  the  promise  had  only  helped  on  the 
ruin  of  the  Ghent  patriot  by  misleading  him. 
No  help  had  come  when  he  needed  it.  Now, 
when  it  was  too  late,  the  English  bestirred  them- 
selves. For  some  months  there  had  been  on  foot 
among  them  a  Crusade,  which  Pope  Urban  VI. 
had  proclaimed  against  the  supporters  of  the 
rival  Pope  Clement  VII.  —  the  "Schismatics." 
France  took  the  side  of  the  latter  and  was  counted 
among  the  Schismatics.  Accordingly,  Pope  Ur- 
ban's  Crusade,  so  far  as  the  English  people  could 
be  moved  to  engage  in  it.  was  now  directed 
against  the  French  in  Flanders.  It  was  led  by 
the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  who  succeeded  in  rous- 
ing a  very  considerable  degree  of  enthusiasm  in 
the  country  for  the  movement,  despite  the  ear- 
nest opposition  of  Wyclif  and  his  followers.  The 
crusading  army  assembled  at  Calais  in  the  spring 
of  1383,  professedly  for  a  campaign  in  France ; 
but  the  Bishop  found  excuses  for  leading  it  into 
Flanders.  Gravelines  was  first  attacked,  carried 
by  storm,  and  its  male  defenders  slaughtered  to 
a  man.  An  army  of  French  and  Flemings,  en- 
countered near  Dunkirk,  was  routed,  with  fear- 
ful carnage,  and  the  whole  coast,  including  Dun- 
kirk, fell  into  the  hands  of  the  English.  Then 
they  laid  siege  to  Ypres,  and  there  their  disas- 
ters began.  The  city  held  out  with  stubbornness 
from  the  9th  of  June  until  the  10th  of  August, 
when  the  baffled  besiegers — repulsed  in  a  last 
desperate  assault  which  they  had  made  on  tlie 
8th — marched  away.  "Ypres  might  rejoice,  but 
the  disasters  of  the  long  siege  proved  final.  Her 
stately  faubourgs  were  not  rebuilt,  and  she  has 
never  again  taken  her  former  rank  among  the 
cities  of  Flanders."  In  September  a  powerful 
French  army  entered  Flanders,  and  the  English 
crusaders  could  do  nothing  but  retreat  before  it, 
giving  up  Cassel  ( which  the  French  burned ),  then 
Bergues,  then  Bourbourg,  after  a  siege,  and, 
finally,  setting  fire  to  Gravelines  and  abandoning 
that  place.  "  Gravelines  was  utterly  destroyed, 
but  the  French  soon  began  to  rebuild  it.  It  was 
repeopled  from  the  surrounding  country,  and 
fortified  strongly  as  a  menace  to  Calais."  The 
Crusaders  returned  to  Englaud  "  'dripping  with 
blood  and  disgracing  their  country.  Blessed  be 
God  who  confounds  the  proud,' says  one  sharp 
critic,  who  appears  to  have  been  a  monk  of  Can- 
terbury."—  G.  M.  Wrong,  The  Crusade  of 
MCCCLXXXIII. 

Also  in  Sir  .1.  Froissart,  (.lohnes)  Chronicles 
bk.  3,  ch.  130-145  (e.  1-2). 

A.  D.  1383 — Joined  to  the  Dominions  of  the 
Duke  of  Burgundy. —  "  Charles  V.  [of  France] 
had  formed  the  design  of  obtaining  Flanders 
for  his  brother  Philip.  Duke  of  Burgundy,  after- 
wards known  as  Philip  the  Bold  —  by  marrying 
him  to  Margaret  [daughter  and  heiress  of  Louis 
de  Maele,  count  of  Flanders].  To  gain  the  good 
will  of  the  Communes,  he  engaged  to  restore  the 
three  bailiwicks  of  Lille,  Douai,  and  Orchies 
as  a  substitute  for  the  10,000  livres  a  year  prom- 
ised to  Louis  de  Maele  and  his  successors  in  1351, 
as  well  as  the  towns  of  Peronne.  Crfivecoeur,  Ar- 
leiix  and  Chateau-Chinon,  assigned  to  him  in 
13.58.  ...  On  the  13th  May,  1369,  the  'Lion 
of  Flanders '  once  more  floated,  after  an  interval 
of  half  a  century,  over  the  walls  of  Lille,  Douai, 
and  Orchies,  and  at  the  same  time  Flemish  gar- 
risons marched  into  St.  Omer,  Aire,  Bethune  and 
Hesdin.     The  marriage  ceremony  took  place  at 


1158 


FLANDERS. 


FLORENCE. 


Ghent  on  the  19th  of  June."  The  Duke  of 
Burgundy  waited  fourteen  years  for  the  heritage 
of  his  wife.  In  January,  1383,  Count  Louis  died, 
and  Flanders  was  added  to  the  great  and  grow- 
ing dominion  of  the  new  Burgundian  house. — 
J.  Hutton,  James  and  Philip  can  Artecdd,  ch. 
14  and  18. 

See  Burgundy  (The  Fbench  Dtjkedom): 
A.  D.  1364. 

A.  D.  1451-1453.— Revolt  against  the  Bur- 
gundian Gabelle.  See  Ghent:  A.  D.  14.51- 
1453. 

A.  D.  1477.— Severance  from  Burgundy. — 
Transference  to  the  Austrian  House  by  mar- 
riage of  Mary  of  Burgundy.  See  Nether- 
lands: A.  D.  1477. 

A.  D.  1482-1488.— Resistance  to  Maximil- 
ian.   See  Netherlands:   A.  D.  1483-1493. 

A.  D.  1494-1588.— The  Austro-Spanish  sov- 
ereignty and  its  oppressions.— The  great 
revolt  and  its  failure  in  the  Flemish  provinces. 
See  Netherlands:   A.  D.  1494-1519,  and  after. 

A.  D.  1529. — Pretensions  of  the  king  of 
France  to  Suzerainty  resigned.  See  Italy: 
A.  D.  1527-1539. 

A.  D.  1539-1540.— The  unsupported  revolt 
of  Ghent.     See  Ghent:   A.  D.  1.539-1540. 

A.  D.  1594-1884.— Later  history.  See  Neth- 
erlands:  A.  D.  1594-1609,  to  1830-1884. 


FLATHEAD  INDIANS,  The.  See  Ameri- 
can Aborigines  :  Flatheads. 

FLAVIA  CiESARIENSIS.  See  Britain: 
A.  D.  323-337. 

FLAVIAN  AMPHITHEATRE,  The.    See 

Colossedm. 

FLAVIAN  FAMILY,  The.— "We  have 
designated  the  second  period  of  the  [Roman] 
Empire  by  the  name  of  the  Flavian  family  —  the 
family  of  Vespasian  [Titus  Flavius  Vespasian]. 
The  nine  Emperors  who  were  successively  in- 
vested with  the  purple,  in  the  space  of  the  123 


years  from  his  accession,  were  not  all,  however, 
of  Flavian  race,  even  by  the  rites  of  adoption, 
which  in  Rome  was  become  a  second  nature; 
but  the  respect  of  the  world  for  the  virtues  of 
Flavius  Vespasian  induced  them  all  to  assume 
his  name,  and  most  of  them  showed  themselves 
worthy  of  such  an  affiliation.  Vespasian  had 
been  invested  with  the  purple  at  Alexandria,  on 
the  1st  of  July,  A.  D.  69;  he  died  in  79.  His 
two  sons  reigned  in  succession  after  him; 
Titus,  from  79  to  81 ;  Domitian,  from  81  to  96. 
The  latter  having  been  assassinated,  Nerva,  then 
an  old  man,  was  raised  to  the  throne  by  the 
Senate  (A.  D.  96-98).  He  adopted  Trajan  (98- 
117);  who  adopted  Adrian  (117-138).  Adrian 
adopted  Antoninus  Pius  (138-161);  who  adopted 
Marcus  Aurelius  (161-180);  and  Commodus  suc- 
ceeded his  father,  Marcus  Aurelius  (180-192). 
No  period  in  history  presents  such  a  succession 
of  good  and  great  men  upon  any  throne :  two 
i  monsters,  Domitian  and  Commodus,  interrupt 
and  terminate  it.  "—J.  C.  L.  Sismondi,  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  ch.  2. 

FLEETWOOD,  OR  BRANDY  STA- 
TION, Battle  of.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1863  (June:  Vibqinla). 

FLEIX,  The  Peace  of.    See  France:  A.  D. 

1578-1580. 

FLEMINGS.— Flemish.    See  Flanders. 

FLEMISH  GUILDS.  See  Guilds  op 
Flanders. 

FLEURUS,  Battle  of  (1622).  See  Nether- 
lands: A.  D.  1621-1633. 

FLEURUS,  Battle  of  (1690).  See  France: 
A.  D.  1689-1690. 

FLEURUS,  Battle  of  (1794).  See  France: 
A.  D.  1794  (March— July). 

FLODDEN,   Battle  of  (A.  D.  1513).    See 

Scotland:  A.  D.  1513. 

FLORALIA,  The.     See  Ludl 

FLORE AL,  The  month.  See  France:  A. 
D.  1793  (October). 


FLORENCE. 


Origin  and  Name:  "Faesulse  was  situated 
on  a  hill  above  Florence.  Florentine  traditions 
call  it  the  metropolis  of  Florence,  which  would 
accordingly  be  a  colony  of  Fajsulae ;  but  a  state- 
ment in  Machiavelli  and  others  describes  Florence 
as  a  colony  of  Sulla,  and  this  statement  must 
have  been  derived  from  some  local  chronicle. 
Psesulae  was  no  doubt  an  ancient  Etruscan  town, 
probably  one  of  the  twelve.  It  was  taken  in  the 
war  of  Sulla  [B.  C.  82-81].  ...  My  conjecture 
is,  that  Sulla  not  only  built  a  strong  fort  on  the 
top  of  the  hill  of  FiEsulae,  but  also  the  new 
colony  of  Florentia  below,  and  gave  to  it  the 
'ager  Faesulanus.'"— B.  G.  Niebuhr,  Lects.  on 
Ancient  Ethnog.  and  Geog.  v.  2,  p.  228.  — "We 
can  reasonably  suppose  that  the  ancient  trading 
nations  may  have  pushed  their  small  craft  up 
the  Arno  to  the  present  site  of  Florence,  and 
thus  have  gained  a  more  immediate  communica- 
tion with  the  flourishing  city  of  Piesole  than 
they  could  through  other  ports  of  Etruria,  from 


whatever  race  its  people  might  have  sprung. 
Admitting  the  high  antiquity  of  Fiesole,  the 
imagined  work  of  Atlas,  and  the  tomb  of  his 
celestial  daughter,  we  may  easily  believe  that  a 
market  was  from  very  early  times  established  in 
the  plain,  where  both  by  land  and  water  the 
rural  produce  could  be  brought  for  sale  without 
ascending  the  steep  on  which  that  city  stood. 
Such  arrangements  would  naturally  result  from 
the  common  course  of  events,  and  a  more  con- 
venient spot  could  scarcely  be  found  than  the 
present  site  of  Florence,  to  which  the  Arno  ia 
still  navigable  by  boats  from  its  mouth,  and  at 
that  time  perhaps  by  two  branches.  ..."  There 
were,' says  Villani,  ' inhabitants  round  San  Gio- 
vanni, because  the  people  of  Fiesole  held  their 
market  there  one  day  in  the  week,  and  it  was 
called  the  Field  of  Mars,  the  ancient  name :  how- 
ever it  was  always,  from  the  first,  the  market 
of  the  Fiesolines,  and  thus  it  was  called  before 
Florence    existed.'      And  again:    'The  Praetor 


1159 


FLORENCE. 


The 
City  Republic. 


FLORENCE,  12TH  CENTURY. 


Florinus,  with  a  Roman  army,  encamped  beyond 
the  Arno  towards  Fiesole  and  luid  two  small 
villages  there,  .  .  .  where  the  people  of  Fiesole 
one  day  in  the  week  held  a  general  market  with 
the  neighbouring  towns  and  villages.  ...  On 
the  site  of  this  camp,  as  we  are  also  assured  by 
Villani,  was  erected  the  city  of  Florence,  after 
the  capture  of  Fiesole  by  Pompey,  Csesar,  and 
Martins  ;  but  Leonardo  Aretiuo,  following 
Malespini,  asserts  that  it  was  the  work  of 
Sylla's  legions,  who  were  already  in  possession 
of  Fiesole.  .  .  .  The  variety  of  opinions  almost 
equals  the  number  of  authors.  ...  It  may  be 
reasouably  concluded  that  Florence,  springing 
originally  from  Fiesole,  finally  rose  to  the  rank 
of  a  Roman  colony  and  the  seat  of  provincial 
government;  a  miniature  of  Rome,  with  its 
Campus  Martins,  its  Capitol,  Forum,  temple  of 
Mars,  aqueducts,  baths,  theatre  and  amphi- 
theatre, all  erected  in  imitation  of  the  '  Eternal 
City ; '  for  vestiges  of  all  these  are  still  existing 
either  in  name  or  substance.  The  name  of 
Florence  is  as  dark  as  its  origin,  and  a  thousand 
derivations  have  confused  the  brains  of  anti- 
quarians and  their  readers  without  much  enlight- 
ening them,  while  the  beautiful  Giagiolo  or 
Iris,  the  city's  emblem,  still  clings  to  her  old 
grey  walls,  as  if  to  assert  its  right  to  be  con- 
sidered as  the  genuine  source  of  her  poetic 
appellation.  From  the  profusion  of  these 
flowers  that  formerly  decoratad  the  meads 
.  between  the  rivers  Mugnone  and  Arno,  has 
sprung  one  of  the  most  popular  opinions  on  the 
subject ;  for  a  white  plant  of  the  same  species 
having  shown  itself  amongst  the  rising  fabrics, 
the  incident  was  poetically  seized  upon  and  the 
Lily  then  first  assumed  its  station  in  the  crimson 
banner  of  Florence. " — H.  E.  Napier,  Florentine 
History,  bk.  1,  ch.  1. 

A.  D,  406.— Siege  by  Radagaisus.— Deliv- 
erance by  Stilicho.  See  Rome  :  A.  D.  404-408. 
12th  Century. — Acquisition  of  republican  in- 
dependence.—  "There  is  .  .  .  an  assertion  by 
Villani.  that  Florence  contained  '  twenty-two 
thousand  fighting  men,  without  counting  the  old 
men  and  children,'  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century ;  and  modern  statisticians  have  based  on 
this  statement  an  estimate  which  would  make  the 
population  of  the  city  at  that  period  about  sixty- 
one  thousand.  There  are  reasons  too  for  believ- 
ing that  very  little  difference  in  the  population 
took  place  during  several  centuries  after  that 
time.  Then  came  the  sudden  increase  arising 
from  the  destruction,  more  or  less  entire,  of  Pie- 
sole,  and  the  incorporation  of  its  inhabitants  with 
those  of  the  newer  city,  which  led  to  the  build- 
ing of  the  second  walls.  .  .  .  An  estimate  taking 
the  inhabitants  of  the  city  at  something  between 
seventy  and  eighty  thousand  at  the  period  re- 
specting which  we  are  inquiring  [beginning  of 
the  13th  century]  would  in  all  probability  be  not 
very  wide  of  the  mark.  The  government  of  the 
city  was  at  that  time  lodged  in  the  hands  of 
magistrates  exercising  both  legislative  and  ad- 
ministrative authority,  called  Consuls,  assisted 
by  a  senate  composed  of  a  hundred  citizens  of 
worth  —  buoni  uomini.  These  Consuls  '  guided 
everything,  and  governed  the  city,  and  decided 
causes,  and  administered  justice. '  They  remained 
in  office  for  one  year.  How  long  this  form  of 
government  had  been  established  in  Florence  is 
uncertain.  It  was  not  in  existence  in  the  year 
897;  but  it  was  in  activity  in  1103.     From  1138 


we  have  a  nearly  complete  roll  of  the  names  of 
tlie  consuls  for  each  year  down  to  1219.  .  .  . 
The  first  recorded  deeds  of  the  young  community 
thus  governed,  and  beginning  to  feel  conscious 
and  proud  of  its  increasing  strength,  were  char- 
acteristic enough  of  the  tone  of  opinion  and  senti- 
ment which  prevailed  within  its  walls,  and  of 
the  career  on  which  it  was  entering.  '  In  the 
year  1107,'  says  Malispini,  'the  city  of  Florence 
being  much  increased,  the  Florentines,  wishing 
to  extend  their  territory,  determined  to  make  war 
against  any  castle  or  fortress  which  would  not 
be  obedient  to  them.  And  in  that  year  they  took 
by  force  Monte  Orlando,  which  belonged  to  cer- 
tain gentlemen  who  would  not  be  obedient  to  the 
city.  And  they  were  defeated,  and  the  castle 
was  destroyed.'  These  '  gentlemen,'  so  styled  by 
the  civic  historian  wlio  thus  curtly  records  the 
destruction  of  their  home,  in  contradistinction  to 
the  citizens  who  by  no  means  considered  them- 
selves such,  were  the  descendants  or  representa- 
tives of  those  knights  and  captains,  mostly  of 
German  race,  to  whom  the  Emperors  had  made 
grants  of  the  soil  according  to  the  feudal  practice 
and  system.  They  held  directly  of  the  Empire, 
and  in  no  wise  owed  allegiance  or  obedience  of 
any  sort  to  the  community  of  Florence.  But 
they  occupied  almost  all  the  country  around  the 
rising  city ;  and  the  citizens  '  wanted  to  extend 
their  territory.'  Besides,  these  territorial  lords 
were,  as  has  been  said,  gentlemen,  and  lived  as 
such,  stopping  wayfarers  on  the  highways,  levy- 
ing tolls  in  the  neighbourhood  of  their  strong- 
holds, and  in  many  ways  making  themselves  dis- 
agreeable neighbours  to  peaceable  folks.  .  .  .  The 
next  incident  on  the  record,  however,  would 
seem  to  show  that  peaceful  townsfolk  as  well  as 
marauding  nobles  were  liable  to  be  overrun  by 
the  car  of  manifest  destiny,  if  they  came  in  the 
way  of  it.  '  In  the  same  year, '  says  the  curt  old 
historian,  '  the  men  of  Prato  rebelled  against  the 
Florentines;  wherefore  they  went  out  in  battle 
against  it,  and  took  it  by  siege  and  destroyed  it. ' 
Prato  rebelled  against  Florence!  It  is  a  very 
singular  statement ;  for  there  is  not  the  shadow 
of  a  pretence  put  forward,  or  the  smallest  ground 
for  imagining  that  Florence  had  or  could  have 
claimed  any  sort  of  suzerainty  over  Prato.  .  .  . 
The  territorial  nobles,  however,  who  held  castles 
in  the  district  around  Florence  were  the  principal 
objects  of  the  early  prowess  of  the  citizens;  and 
of  course  offence  against  them  was  offence  against 
the  Emperor.  .  .  .  In  1113,  accordingly,  we  find 
an  Imperial  vicar  residing  in  Tuscany  at  St. 
Miniato ;  not  the  convent-topped  hill  of  that 
name  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Flor- 
ence, but  a  little  mountain  city  of  the  same  name, 
overlooking  the  lower  Valdarno,  about  half  way 
between  Florence  and  Pisa.  .  .  .  There  the  Im- 
perial Vicars  perched  themselves  hawk-like,  with 
their  Imperial  troops,  and  swooped  down  from 
time  to  time  to  chastise  and  bring  back  such 
cities  of  the  plain  as  too  audaciously  set  at  naught 
the  authority  of  the  Emperor.  And  really  these 
upstart  Florentines  were  taking  the  bit  between 
their  teeth,  and  going  on  in  a  way  that  no  Im- 
perial Vicar  could  tolerate.  ...  So  the  indig- 
nant cry  of  the  harried  Counts  Cadolingi,  and  of 
several  other  nobles  holding  of  the  Empire,  whose 
houses  had  been  burned  over  their  heads  by  these 
audacious  citizens,  went  up  to  the  ears  of  '  Mes- 
ser  Ruberto,'  the  Vicar,  in  San  Miniato.  "Where- 
upon that  noble  knight,  indignant  at  the  wrong 


IIGO 


FLORENCE,  12TH  CENTURY. 


Ouelfs  and 
OhtbelUnes. 


FLORENCE,  1315-1350. 


done  to  his  fellow  nobles,  as  well  as  at  the  offence 
against  the  authority  of  his  master  the  Emperor, 
forthwith  put  lance  in  rest,  called  out  his  men,  and 
descended  from  his  mountain  fortress  to  take 
summary  vengeance  on  the  audacious  city.  On 
his  way  thither  he  had  to  pass  through  that  very 
gorge  where  the  castle  of  Monte  Orlando  had 
stood,  and  under  the  ruins  of  the  house  from 
which  the  nohle  vassals  of  the  Empire  had  been 
harried.  .  .  .  There  were  the  leathern-jerkined 
citizens  on  the  very  scene  of  their  late  misdeed, 
come  out  to  oppose  the  further  progress  of  the 
Emperor's  Vicar  and  his  soldiers.  And  there, 
as  the  historian  writes,  with  curiously  impassi- 
ble brevity,  '  the  said  Messer  Ruberto  was  dis- 
comfited and  killed.'  And  nothing  further  is 
heard  of  him,  or  of  any  after  consequences  re- 
sulting from  tlie  deed.  Learned  legal  antiquaries 
Insist  much  on  the  fact,  that  the  independence  of 
Florence  and  the  other  Communes  was  never 
'  recognised '  by  the  Emperors ;  and  they  are  no 
doubt  perfectly  accurate  in  saying  so.  One 
would  think,  however,  that  that  unlucky  Vicar 
of  theirs,  Messer  Ruberto,  must  have  '  recog- 
nised '  the  fact,  though  somewhat  tardily. " — T. 
A.  TroUope,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Flor- 
ence, hk.  1,  ch.  1  (b.  1). —  Countess  Matilda,  the 
famous  friend  of  Pope  Gregory  VIL,  whose  wide 
dominion  included  Tuscany,  died  in  1115,  be- 
queathing her  vast  possessions  to  the  Church  (see 
Papacy:  A.  D.  1077-1103).  "  In  reality  she  was 
only  entitled  thus  to  bequeath  her  allodial  lands, 
the  remainder  being  imperial  fiefs.  But  as  it 
was  not  always  easy  to  distinguish  between  the 
two  sorts,  and  the  popes  were  naturally  anxious 
to  get  as  much  as  they  could,  a  fresh  source  of 
contention  was  added  to  the  constant  quarrels 
between  the  Empire  and  the  Church.  '  Henry 
IV.  immediately  despatched  a  representative  into 
Tuscany,  who  under  the  title  of  Marchio,  Judex, 
or  Praeses,  was  to  govern  the  Marquisate  in  his 
name.'  ' Nobody, 'says  Professor  Villari,  'could 
legally  dispute  his  right  to  do  this:  but  the  op- 
position of  the  Pope,  the  attitude  of  the  towns 
which  now  considered  themselves  independent 
and  the  universal  confusion  rendered  the  Mar- 
quis's authority  illusory.  The  imperial  repre- 
sentatives had  no  choice  but  to  put  themselves  at 
the  head  of  the  feudal  nobility  of  the  contado 
and  imite  it  into  a  Germanic  party  hostile  to  the 
cities.  In  the  documents  of  the  period  the  mem- 
bers of  this  party  are  continually  described  as 
Teutonici. '  By  throwing  herself  in  this  j  uncture 
on  the  side  of  the  Pope,  and  thus  becoming  the 
declared  opponent  of  the  empire  and  the  feudal 
lords,  Florence  practically  proclaimed  her  in- 
dependence. The  grandi,  having  the  same  in- 
terests with  the  working  classes,  identified  them- 
selves with  these;  became  their  leaders,  their 
consuls  in  fact  if  not  yet  in  name.  Thus  was 
the  consular  commune  born,  or,  rather,  thus  did 
it  recognize  itself  on  reaching  manhood ;  for  born, 
in  reality,  it  had  already  been  for  some  time,  only 
so  quietly  and  unconsciously  that  nobody  had 
marked  its  origin  or,  until  now,  its  growth.  The 
first  direct  consequence  of  this  self-recognition 
was  that  the  rulers  were  chosen  out  of  a  larger 
number  of  families.  As  long  as  Matilda  had 
chosen  the  oflicers  to  whom  the  government  of 
the  town  was  entrusted,  the  Uberti  and  a  few 
others  who  formed  their  clan,  their  kinsmen,  and 
their  connections  had  been  selected,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  mass  of  the  citizens.     Now  more 


people  were  admitted  to  a  share  in  the  adminis- 
tration :  the  ofBces  were  of  shorter  duration,  and 
out  of  those  selected  to  govern  each  family  had 
its  turn.  But  those  who  had  formerly  been 
privileged  —  the  Uberti  and  others  of  the  same 
tendencies  and  influence  —  were  necessarily  dis- 
contented with  this  state  of  things,  and  there  are 
indications  in  Villani  of  burnings  and  of  tumults 
such  as  later,  when  the  era  of  faction  fights  had 
fairly  begun,  so  often  desolated  the  streets  of 
Florence." — B.  Duffy,  The  Tuscan  Republics,  ch. 
6.— See  Italy:  A.  D.  1056-1152. 

A.  D.  1215-1250. — The  beginning,  the  causes 
and  the  meaning  of  the  strife  of  the  Guelfs 
and  Ghibellines. — Nearly  from  the  beginning  of 
the  13th  century,  all  Italy,  and  Florence  more 
than  other  Italian  communities,  became  distracted 
and  convulsed  by  a  contest  of  raging  factions. 
"  The  main  distinction  was  that  between  Ghibel- 
lines and  Guelphs  —  two  names  in  their  origin 
far  removed  from  Italy.  They  were  first  heard 
in  Germany  in  1140,  when  at  Winsberg  in  Suabia 
a  battle  was  fought  between  two  contending 
claimants  of  the  Empire ;  the  one,  Conrad  of 
HohenstaufEen,  Duke  of  Franconia,  chose  for  his 
battle-cry  'Waiblingen,'  the  name  of  his  patri- 
monial castle  in  Wilrtemburg ;  the  other,  Henry 
the  Lion,  Duke  of  Saxony,  chose  his  own  family 
name  of  '  Welf , '  or  '  W51f . '  Conrad  proved  vic- 
torious, and  his  kindred  to  the  fourth  ensuing 
generation  occupied  the  imperial  throne;  yet 
both  war-cries  survived  the  contest  which  gave 
them  birth,  lingering  on  in  Germany  as  equiva- 
lents of  Imperialist  and  anti-Imperialist.  By  a 
process  perfectly  clear  to  philologists,  they  were 
modified  in  Italy  into  the  forms  Ghibellino  and 
Guelfo;  and  the  Popes  being  there  the  great 
opponents  of  the  Emperors,  an  Italian  Guelph 
was  a  Papalist.  The  cities  were  mainly  Guelph ; 
the  nobles  most  frequently  Ghibelline.  A  private 
feud  had  been  the  means  of  involving  Florence 
in  the  contest." — M.  F.  Rossetti,  A  Shadow  of 
Dante,  ch.  3. — "The  Florentines  kept  themselves 
united  till  the  year  1315,  rendering  obedience  to 
the  ruling  power,  and  anxious  only  to  preserve 
their  own  safety.  But,  as  the  diseases  which  at- 
tack our  bodies  are  more  dangerous  and  mortal 
in  proportion  as  they  are  delayed,  so  Florence, 
though  late  to  take  part  in  the  sects  of  Italy,  was 
afterwards  the  more  afflicted  by  them.  The 
cause  of  her  first  division  is  well  known,  having 
been  recorded  by  Dante  and  many  other  writers; 
I  shall,  however,  briefly  notice  it.  Amongst  the 
most  powerful  families  of  Florence  were  the 
Buondelmonti  and  the  Uberti;  next  to  these  were 
the  Amidei  and  the  Donati.  Of  the  Donati 
family  there  was  a  rich  widow  who  had  a  daugh- 
ter of  exquisite  beauty,  for  whom,  in  her  own 
mind,  she  had  fixed  upon  Buondelmonti,  a  young 
gentleman,  the  head  of  the  Buondelmonti  family, 
as  her  husband ;  but  either  from  negligence,  or 
because  she  thought  it  might  be  accomplished  at 
any  time,  she  had  not  made  known  her  intention, 
when  it  happened  that  the  cavalier  betrothed 
himself  to  a  maiden  of  the  Amidei  family.  This 
grieved  the  Donati  widow  exceedingly ;  but  she 
hoped,  with  her  daughter's  beauty,  to  disturb 
the  arrangement  before  the  celebration  of  the 
marriage ;  and  from  an  upper  apartment,  seeing 
Buondelmonti  approach  her  house  alone,  she  de- 
scended, and  as  he  was  passing  she  said  to  him, 
'  I  am  glad  to  learn  you  have  chosen  a  wife, 
although  I  had  reserved  my  daughter  for  you'; 


1161 


FLOBENCE,  1315-1250. 


Guflfs  Olid 
Ghibellines. 


FLORENCE,  1348-1278. 


and,  pushing  the  door  open,  presented  her  to  his 
view.  The  cavalier,  seeing  the  beauty  of  the 
girl,  .  .  .  became  inflamed  with  such  an  ardent 
desire  to  possess  her,  that,  not  thinking  of  the 
promise  given,  or  the  injury  he  committed  in 
breaking  it,  or  of  the  evils  which  his  breach  of 
faith  might  bring  upon  himself,  said,  '  Since  you 
have  reserved  her  for  me,  I  should  be  very  un- 
grateful indeed  to  refuse  her,  being  yet  at  liberty 
to  choose ' ;  and  without  any  delay  married  her. 
As  soon  as  the  fact  became  known,  the  Amidei 
and  the  Uberti,  whose  families  were  allied,  were 
filled  with  rage,"  and  some  of  them,  lying  iu 
wait  for  him,  assassinated  him  as  he  was  riding 
through  the  streets.  "  This  murder  divided  tLie 
whole  city;  one  party  espousing  the  cause  of  the 
Buondelmonti,  the  other  that  of  the  Uberti ;  and 
.  .  .  they  contended  with  each  other  for  many 
years,  without  one  being  able  to  destroy  the 
other.  Florence  continued  in  tliese  troubles  till 
the  time  of  Frederick  II.,  who,  being  king  of 
Naples,  endeavoured  to  strengthen  himself  against 
the  church ;  and,  to  give  greater  stability  to  his 
power  in  Tuscany,  favoured  the  Uberti  and  their 
followers,  who,  with  his  assistance,  expelled  the 
Buondelmonti ;  thus  our  city,  as  all  the  rest  of 
Italy  had  long  time  been,  became  divided  into 
Guelphsand  Ghibellines. " — N.  Machiavelli,  Hist. 
of  Florence,  bk.  2,  ch.  1. — "Speaking  generallj'. 
the  Ghibellines  were  the  party  of  the  emperor. 
and.  the  Guelphs  the  party  of  the  Pope;  the 
Ghibellines  were  on  the  side  of  authority,  or 
sometimes  of  oppression,  the  Guelphs  were  on 
the  side  of  liberty  and  self-government.  Again, 
the  Ghibellines  were  the  supporters  of  an  univer 
sal  empire  of  which  Italy  was  to  be  the  head,  the 
Guelphs  were  on  the  side  of  national  life  and 
national  individuality.  ...  If  these  definitions 
could  be  considered  as  exhaustive,  there  would 
be  little  doubt  as  to  the  side  to  which  our  sympa- 
thies should  be  given.  .  .  .  We  should  .  .  .  ex- 
pect all  patriots  to  be  Guelphs,  and  the  Ghibel- 
line  party  to  be  composed  of  men  who  were  too 
spiritless  to  resist  despotic  power,  or  too  selfish 
to  surrender  it.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
must  never  forget  that  Dante  was  a  Ghibelline. " 
— O.  Browning,  Ouelphs  and  OhibelUiies,  ch.  2. 
— See,  also,  Italy:  A.  D.  1215. 

A.  D.  1248-1278.— The  wars  of  a  genera- 
tion of  the  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines. —  In  1248, 
the  Ghibellines,  at  the  instigation  of  Frederick 
II. ,  and  with  help  from  his  German  soldiery,  ex- 
pelled the  Guelfs  from  the  city,  after  desperate 
fighting  for  several  days,  and  destroyed  the  man- 
sions of  their  chiefs,  to  the  number  of  38.  In 
1250  there  was  a  rising  of  the  people  —  of  the 
under-stratum  which  the  cleavage  of  parties 
hardly  penetrated  —  and  a  popular  constitution 
of  government  was  brought  into  force.  At  the 
same  time,  the  high  towers,  which  were  the  strong- 
holds of  the  contending  nobles,  were  thro  wn  do  wn. 
An  attempt  was  then  made  by  the  leaders  of  the 
people  to  restore  peace  between  the  Ghibellines 
and  the  Guelfs,  but  the  effort  was  vain  ;  where- 
upon the  Guelfs  (in  January,  1251)  came  back 
to  the  city,  and  tlie  Ghibellines  were  either 
driven  away  or  were  shut  up  iu  their  city  castles, 
to  which  they  had  retired  when  the  people  rose. 
In  1258  the  restless  Ghibellines  plotted  with 
Manfred,  King  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  to  regain  pos- 
session of  Florence.  The  plot  was  discovered, 
and  the  enraged  people  drove  the  last  lingerers 
of  the  faction  from  their  midst  and  pulled  down 


their  palaces.  The  great  palace  of  the  Uberti 
family,  most  obnoxious  of  all,  was  not  only 
razed,  but  a  decree  was  made  that  no  building 
should  ever  stand  again  on  its  accursed  site. 
The  exiled  Ghibellines  took  refuge  at  Siena,  and 
there  plotted  again  with  King  Manfred,  who 
sent  troops  to  aid  them.  The  Florentines  did 
not  wait  to  be  attacked,  but  marched  out  to  meet 
them  on  Sienese  territory,  and  suffered  a  terrible 
defeat  at  Montaperti  (September  4,  1360),  in  the 
battle  that  Dante  refers  to,  ' '  which  coloured  the 
river  Arbiared. "  "  '  On  that  day,'  says  Villani, 
.  .  .  '  was  broken  and  destroyed  the  old  popu- 
lar government  of  Florence,  which  had  existed 
for  ten  years  with  so  great  power  and  dignity, 
and  had  won  so  many  victories.'  Few  events 
have  ever  left  a  more  endurable  impression  on 
the  memory  of  a  people  than  this  great  battle  be- 
tween two  cities  and  parties  animated  both  of 
them  by  the  most  unquenchable  hatred.  The 
memory  of  that  day  has  lasted  through  600 
years,  more  freshly  perhaps  in  Siena  than  in 
Florence. "  As  a  natural  consequence  of  their  de- 
feat at  Montaperti,  the  Guelfs  were  again  forced  to 
fly  into  exile  from  Florence,  and  this  expatriation 
included  a  large  number  of  even  the  commoner 
people.  "  So  thorough  had  been  the  defeat,  so 
complete  the  Ghibelline  ascendency  resulting 
from  it,  that  in  every  city  the  same  scene  on  a 
lesser  scale  was  taking  place.  Many  of  the 
smaller  towns,  which  had  always  been  Guelph 
in  their  sympathies,  were  now  subjected  to  Ghi- 
belline despotism.  One  refuge  alone  remained 
in  Tuscany  —  Lucca.  .  .  .  And  thither  the 
whole  body  of  the  expatriated  Guelphs  betook 
themselves.  .  .  .  The  Ghibellines  entered  Flor- 
ence in  triumph  on  the  16th  of  September,  three 
days  after  their  enemies  had  left  it.  .  .  .  The 
city  seemed  like  a  desert.  The  gates  were  stand- 
ing open  and  unguarded ;  the  streets  were 
empty ;  the  comparatively  few  Inhabitants  who 
remained,  almost  entirely  of  the  lowest  class  of 
the  populace,  were  shut  up  in  their  obscure 
dwellings,  or  were  on  their  knees  in  the  churches. 
And  what  was  worse,  the  conquerors  did  not 
come  back  alone.  They  had  invited  a  foreign 
despot  to  restore  order ; "  and  so  King  Manfred's 
general,  Giordano  da  Anglona,  established  Count 
Guido  Novello  in  Florence  as  Manfred's  vicar. 
"All  the  constitutional  authorities  established 
by  the  people,  and  the  whole  frame-work  of  the 
former  government,  were  destroyed,  and  the 
city  was  ruled  entirely  by  direction  transmitted 
from  the  King's  Sicilian  court."  There  were 
serious  proposals,  even,  that  Florence  itself 
should  be  destroyed,  and  the  saving  of  the  noble 
city  from  that  untimely  fate  is  credited  to  one 
patriotic  noble,  of  the  t  berti  family,  who  with- 
stood the  proposition,  alone.  "The  Ghibelline 
army  marched  on  Lucca,  and  had  not  much  mcffe 
difficulty  in  reducing  that  city.  The  govern- 
ment was  put  into  Ghibelline  hands,  and  Lucca 
became  a  Ghibelline  city  like  all  the  rest  of  Tus- 
cany. The  Lucchese  were  not  required  by  the 
victors  to  turn  their  own  Guelphs  out  of  the  city. 
But  it  was  imperatively  insisted  on  that  every 
Guelph  not  a  native  citizen  should  be  thrust 
forth  from  the  gates."  The  unfortunate  Flor- 
entines, thus  made  homeless  again,  now  found 
shelter  at  Bologna,  and  presently  helped  their 
friends  at  Modena  and  Reggio  to  overcome 
the  Ghibellines  in  those  cities  and  recover  con- 
trol.    But  for  five  years  their  condition  was  one 


1162 


FLORENCE,  1248-1378. 


Florentine  Con- 
stitution. 


FLORENCE.  1289. 


of  wretchedness.  Then  Charles  of  Anjou  was 
brought  into  Italy  (1265)  by  the  Pope,  to  snatch 
the  crown  of  the  Two  Sicilies  from  King  Man- 
fred, and  succeeded  in  his  undertaking. —  See 
Italy  (Southekn)  :  A.  D.  1250-1268.  The  prop 
of  the  Ghibellines  was  broken.  Guido  Novello 
and  his  troopers  rode  away  from  Florence ;  800 
French  horsemen,  sent  by  the  new  Angevine  king, 
under  Guy  de  Montfort,  took  their  places;  the 
Guelfs  swarmed  in  again  —  the  Ghibellines 
swarmed  out;  the  popular  constitution  was 
restored,  with  new  features  more  popular  than 
before.  In  1273  there  was  a  great  attempt  made 
by  Pope  Gregory  X.  in  person,  to  reconcile  the 
factions  in  Florence;  but  it  had  so  little  suc- 
cess that  the  Holy  Father  left  the  city  in  disgust 
and  pronounced  it  under  interdict  for  three 
years.  In  1278  the  attempt  was  renewed  with 
somewhat  better  success.  "'And  now,  says 
Villani,  '  the  Ghibellines  were  at  liberty  to  re- 
turn to  Florence,  they  and  their  families.  .  .  . 
And  the  said  Ghibellines  had  back  again  their 
goods  and  possessions ;  except  that  certain  of  the 
leading  families  were  ordered,  for  the  safety  of 
the  city,  to  remain  for  a  certain  time  beyond  the 
boundaries  of  the  Florentine  territory. '  In  fact, 
little  more  is  heard  henceforward  of  the  Ghibel- 
lines as  a  faction  within  the  walls  of  Florence. 
The  old  name,  as  a  rallying  cry  for  the  Tory  or 
Imperialist  party,  was  still  raised  here  and  there 
in  Tuscany;  and  Pisa  still  called  herself  Ghibel- 
line.  But  the  stream  of  progress  had  run  past 
them  and  left  them  stranded." —  T.  A.  Trollope, 
Sist.  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Florence,  bk.  1,  ch. 
4-5,  and  bk.  3,  ch.  1  (v.  1). 

Also  in  N.  Machiavelli,  Florentine  Histories, 
bk.  1. — J.  C.  L.  de  Sismondi,  Hist  of  the  Italian. 
Republics,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1250-1293. — Development  of  the  popu- 
lar constitution  of  the  Commonwealth. — 
"When  it  became  clear  that  the  republic  was  to 
rule  itself  henceforth  untrammelled  by  imperial 
interference,  the  people  [in  1350]  divided  them- 
selves into  six  districts,  and  chose  for  each  dis- 
trict two  Ancients,  who  administered  the  gov- 
ernment in  concert  with  the  Potesta  and  the 
Captain  of  the  People.  The  Ancients  were 
a  relic  of  the  old  Roman  municipal  organization. 
.  .  .  The  body  of  the  citizens,  or  the  popolo, 
were  ultimately  sovereigns  in  the  State.  Assem- 
bled under  the  banners  of  their  several  companies, 
they  formed  a  parlamento  for  delegating  their 
own  power  to  each  successive  government. 
Their  representatives,  again,  arranged  in  two 
councils,  called  the  Council  of  the  People  and 
the  Council  of  the  Commune,  under  the  presi- 
dency of  the  Captain  of  the  People  and  the 
Potesta,  ratified  the  measures  which  had  previ- 
ously been  proposed  and  carried  by  the  executive 
authority  or  signoria.  Under  this  simple  State 
system  the  Florentines  placed  themselves  at  the 
head  of  the  Tuscan  League,  fought  the  battles 
of  the  Church,  asserted  their  sovereignty  by 
issuing  the  golden  florin  of  the  republic,  and 
flourished  until  1366.  In  that 'year  an  important 
change  was  effected  in  the  Constitution.  The 
whole  population  of  Florence  consisted,  on  the 
one  hand,  of  nobles  or  Graudi,  as  they  wore 
called  in  Tuscany,  and  on  the  other  hand 
of  working  people.  The  latter,  divided  into 
traders  and  handicraftsmen,  were  distributed  in 
guilds  called  Arti ;  and  at  that  time  there  were 
seven  Greater  and  five  Lesser  Arti,  the  most 


influential  of  all  being  the  Guild  of  the  Wool 
Merchants.  These  guilds  had  their  halls  for 
meeting,  their  colleges  of  chief  officers,  their 
heads,  called  Consoli  or  Priors,  and  their  flags. 
In  1366  it  was  decided  that  the  administration  of 
the  commonwealth  should  be  placed  simply  and 
wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  Arti,  and  the  Priors 
of  these  industrial  companies  became  the  lords  or 
Signory  of  Florence.  No  inhabitant  of  the  city 
who  had  not  enrolled  himself  as  a  craftsman  in 
one  of  the  guilds  could  exercise  any  function  of 
burghership.  To  be  scioperato,  or  without 
industry,  was  to  be  without  power,  without  rank 
or  place  of  honour  in  the  State.  The  revolution 
which  placed  the  Arts  at  the  head  of  the  repub- 
lic had  the  practical  effect  of  excluding  the 
Grandi  altogether  from  the  government.  .  .  . 
In  1293,  after  the  Ghibellines  had  been  defeated 
in  the  great  battle  of  Campaldino,  a  series  of 
severe  enactments,  called  the  Ordinances  of  Jus- 
tice, were  decreed  against  the  unruly  Grandi. 
All  civic  rights  were  taken  from  them ;  the 
severest  penalties  were  attached  to  their  slight- 
est infringement  of  municipal  law ;  their  titles  to 
land  were  limited ;  the  privilege  of  living  within 
the  city  walls  was  allowed  them  only  under 
galling  restrictions ;  and  last  not  least,  a  supreme 
magistrate,  named  the  Gonfalonier  of  Justice, 
was  created  for  the  special  purpose  of  watching 
them  and  carrying  out  the  penal  code  against 
them.  Henceforward  Florence  was  governed 
exclusively  by  merchants  and  artisans.  The 
Grandi  hastened  to  enroll  themselves  in  the 
guilds,  exchanging  their  former  titles  and  dig- 
nities for  the  solid  privilege  of  burghership. 
The  exact  parallel  to  this  industrial  constitution 
for  a  commonwealth,  carrying  on  wars  with 
emperors  and  princes,  holding  haughty  captains 
in  its  pay,  and  dictating  laws  to  subject  cities, 
cannot,  I  think,  be  elsewhere  found  in  history. 
It  is  as  unique  as  the  Florence  of  Dante  and 
Giotto  is  unique." — J.  A.  Symonds,  Florence  and 
tlie  Medici  (Sketches  and  Studies  in  Italy,  ch.  5). 
Also  in  C.  Balbo,  Life  and  Times  of  Dante,  «. 
1,  Int. — A.  Von  Reumont,  Lorenzo  de  Medici,  bk. 
1,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1284-1293. — War  with  Pisa.  See 
Pisa:   A.  D.  1063-1293 

A.  D.  1289. — The  victory  of  Campaldino.. 
and  the  jealousy  among  its  heroes. — In  1289 
the  Ghibellines  of  Arezzo  having  expelled  the 
Guelfs  from  that  city,  the  Florentines  made  war  in 
the  cause  of  the  latter  and  won  a  great  victory 
at  Campaldino.  This  "raised  the  renown  and  the 
military  spirit  of  the  Guelf  party,  for  the  fame 
of  the  battle  was  very  great ;  the  hosts  contained 
the  choicest  chivalry  of  either  side,  armed  and 
appointed  with  emulous  splendour.  The  fight- 
ing was  hard,  there  was  brilliant  and  con- 
spicuous gallantry,  and  the  victory  was  com- 
plete. It  sealed  Guelf  a.scendency.  The 
Ghibelline  warrior-bishop  of  Arezzo  fell,  with 
three  of  the  Uberti,  and  other  Ghibelline  chiefs. 
....  In  this  battle  the  Guelf  leaders  had  won 
great  glory.  The  hero  of  the  day  was  the 
proudest,  handsomest,  craftiest,  most  winning, 
most  ambitious,  most  unscrupulous  Guelf  noble 
in  Florence — one  of  a  family  who  inherited  the 
spirit  and  recklessness  of  the  proscribed  Uberti. 
and  did  not  refuse  tlie  popular  epithet  of 
'  Malefami ' — Corso  Donati.  He  did  not  come 
back  from  the  fleld  of  Campaldino,  where  he 


1163 


FLOREISTCE,  1389. 


Dante  and  the 
Factio^w, 


FLORENCE,  1301-1313. 


had  won  the  battle  by  disobeying  orders,  with 
any  increased  disposition  to  yield  to  rivals,  or 
court  the  populace,  or  respect  other  men's 
rights.  Those  rivals,  too  —  and  they  also  had 
fought  gallantly  in  the  post  of  honour  at 
Campaldino  —  were  such  as  he  hated  from  his 
soul  —  rivals  whom  he  despised,  and  who  yet 
were  too  strong  for  him  [the  family  of  the 
Cerchi].  His  blood  was  ancient,  they  were 
upstarts;  he  was  a  soldier,  they  were  traders; 
he  was  poor,  they  the  richest  men  in  Florence. 
.  .  .  They  had  crossed  him  in  marriages,  bar- 
gains, inheritances.  .  .  .  The  glories  of 
Campaldino  were  not  as  oil  on  these  troubled 
waters.  The  conquerors  flouted  each  other  all 
the  more  fiercely  in  the  streets  on  their  return, 
and  ill-treated  the  lower  people  with  less 
scruple." — R.  W.  Church,  Dante  and  Other 
Essays,  pp.  27-81. 

Also  in  C.  Balbo,  Life  and  Times  of  Dante, 
ft.  1,  cU.  6  (».  1). 

A.  D.  1295-1300. — New  factions  in  the  city, 
and  Dante's  relations  to  them.^The  Bianchi 
and  the  Neri  (Whites  and  Blacks).— Among 
the  Nobles  "who  resisted  the  oppression  of  the 
people,  Corso  Donati  must  have  been  the  chief, 
but  he  did  not  at  first  come  forward ;  with  one 
of  his  usual  stratagems,  however,  he  was  the 
cause  of  a  new  revolution  [January,  1295],  which 
drove  Giano  della  Bella,  the  leader  of  the 
people,  from  the  city.  .  .  .  Notwithstanding 
the  fall  of  Giano,  the  Nobles  did  not  return  into 
power.  He  was  succeeded  as  a  popular  leader 
by  one  much  his  Inferior,  one  Pecora,  surnamed, 
from  his  trade,  the  Butcher.  New  disputes  arose 
between  the  nobles  and  the  people,  and  between 
the  upper  and  lower  ranks  of  the  people  itself. 
Villani  tells  us  that,  in  the  year  1295,  '  many 
families,  who  were  neither  tyrannical  nor  power- 
ful, withdrew  from  the  order  of  the  nobles,  and 
enrolled  themselves  among  the  people,  diminish- 
ing the  power  of  the  nobles  and  increasing  that 
of  the  people. '  Dante  must  have  been  precisely 
one  of  those  nobles  '  who  were  neither  tyrannical 
nor  powerful;'  and  ...  it  is  certain  that  he 
was  among  those  who  passed  over  from  their 
own  order  to  that  of  the  Popolani,  by  being 
matriculated  in  one  of  the  Arts.  In  a  register 
from  1297  to  1300,  of  the  Art  of  the  physicians 
and  druggists,  the  fifth  of  the  seven  major  Arts, 
he  is  found  matriculated  in  these  words :  '  Dante 
d'Aldighiero  degli  Aldighieri  poeta  fiorentino.' 
.  .  .  Dante,  by  this  means,  obtained  office  under 
the  popular  government.  .  .  .  The  new  factions 
that  arose  in  Florence,  in  almost  all  Tuscany, 
and  in  some  of  the  cities  in  other  parts  of  Italy, 
were  merely  subdivisions  of  the  Guelf  party ; 
merely  what,  in  time,  happens  to  every  faction 
after  a  period  of  prosperity,  a  division  of  the 
ultras  and  of  the  moderates,  or  of  those  who 
hold  more  or  less  extravagant  views.  .  .  .  All 
this  happened  to  the  Guelf  party  in  a  very  few 
years,  and  the  Neri  and  Bianchi,  the  names  of 
the  two  divisions  of  that  party,  which  had 
arisen  in  1300,  were  no  longer  mentioned  ten 
years  afterwards,  Imt  were  again  lost  in  the 
primitive  appellations  of  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines. 
Thus  this  episode  would  possess  little  interest, 
and  would  be  scarcely  mentioned  in  the  history 
of  Italy,  or  even  of  Florence,  had  not  the  name 
of  our  sublime  Poet  been  involved  in  it ;  and, 
after  his  love,  it  is  the  most  important  circum- 
stance of  his  life,  and  the  one  to  which  he  most 


frequently  alludes  in  his  Commedia.  It  thus 
becomes  a  subject  worthy  of  history.  .  .  . 
Florentine  historians  attribute  Corso  Donati's 
hatred  towards  Vieri  de  Cerchi  to  envy.  .  .  . 
This  envy  arose  to  such  a  height  between  Dante's 
neighbours  in  Florence  that  he  has  rendered  it 
immortal.  'Through  envy,'  says  Villani,  'the 
citizens  began  to  divide  into  factions,  and  one  of 
the  principal  feuds  began  in  the  Sesto  dello  Scan- 
dalo,  near  the  gate  of  St.  Pietro,  between  the 
families  of  the  Cerchi  and  the  Donati  [from  which 
latter  family  came  Dante's  wife].  .  .  .  Messer 
Vieri  was  the  head  of  the  House  of  the  Cerchi,  and 
he  and  his  house  were  powerful  in  affairs,  possess- 
ing a  numerous  kindred ;  they  were  very  rich 
merchants,  for  their  company  was  one  of  the 
greatest  in  the  world. '  "  'The  state  of  animosity 
between  these  two  families  ' '  was  existing  in 
Florence  in  the  beginning  of  1300,  when  it  was 
increased  by  another  rather  similar  family 
quarrel  that  had  arisen  in  Pistoia.  .  .  .  '  There 
was  in  Pistoia  a  family  which  amounted  to  more 
than  100  men  capable  of  bearing  arms ;  it  was 
not  of  great  antiquity,  but  was  powerful, 
wealthy,  and  numerous ;  it  was  descended  from 
one  Cancellieri  Notaio,  and  from  him  they  had 
preserved  Cancellieri  as  their  family  name. 
From  the  children  of  the  two  wives  of  this  man 
were  descended  the  107  men  of  arms  that  have 
been  enumerated ;  one  of  the  wives  having  been 
named  Madonna  Bianca,  her  descendants  were 
called  Cancellieri  Bianchi  (White  Cancellieri); 
and  the  descendants  of  the  other  wife,  in  opposi- 
tion, were  called  Cancellieri  Neri  (Black  Can- 
cellieri).'" Between  these  two  branches  of  the 
family  of  the  Cancellieri  there  arose,  some  time 
near  the  end  of  the  thirteenth  century,  an  im- 
placable feud.  "Florence  .  .  .  exercised  a 
supremacy  over  Pistoia  ....  and  fearing  that 
these  internal  dissensions  might  do  injury  to  the 
Guelf  party,  she  took  upon  herself  the  lordship 
or  supremacy  of  that  city.  The  principal  Can- 
cellieri, both  Bianchi  and  Neri,  were  banished 
to  Florence  itself;  'the  Neri  took  up  their  abode 
in  the  house  of  the  Frescobaldi,  beyond  the 
Arno ;  the  Bianchi  at  the  house  of  the  Cerchi,  in 
the  Garbo,  from  being  connected  with  them  by 
kindred.  But  as  one  sick  sheep  infects  another, 
and  is  injurious  to  the  tiock,  so  this  cursed  seed 
of  discord,  that  had  departed  from  Pistoia  and 
had  now  entered  Florence,  corrupted  all  the 
Florentines,  and  divided  them  into  two  parties.' 
.  .  .  The  Cerchi,  formerly  called  the  Forest 
party  (parte  selvaggia),  now  assumed  the  name 
of  Bianchi ;  and  those  who  followed  the  Donati 
were  now  called  Neri.  .  .  .  '  There  sided  with 
[the  Bianchi,  says  Villani]  the  families  of  the 
Popolani  and  petty  artisans,  and  all  the  Ghibel- 
lines, whether  Nobles  or  Popolani.'  .  .  .  Thus 
the  usual  position  in  which  the  two  parties  stood 
was  altered;  for  hitherto  the  Nobles  had  almost 
always  been  Ghibellines,  and  the  Popolani 
Guelfs;  but  now,  if  the  Popolani  were  not 
Ghibellines,  they  were  at  least  not  such  strong 
Guelfs  as  the  nobles.  Sometimes  these  parties  are 
referred  to  as  White  Guelfs  and  Black  Guelfs." 
— C.  Balbo,  Life  and  Times  of  Dante,  eh.  10. 

Also  ts  H.  E.  Napier,  Florentine  History,  bk. 
1,  ch.  14  (i).  1).— N.  Machiavelli,  Tlie  Florentine 
Histories,  bk\  3. 

A.  D.  1301-1313.— Triumph  of  the  Neri. — 
Banishment  of  Dante  and  his  party. — Down- 
fall and  death  of  Corso  Donati.— "In  the  year 


1164 


FLORENCE,  1301-1313. 


Banishment  of 
Dante. 


FLORENCE,  1341-1343. 


1301,  a  serious  affray  took  place  between  the 
two  parties  [the  Bianchi  and  the  Neri]  ;  the 
whole  city  was  in  arms  ;  the  law,  and  the 
authority  of  the  Signoria,  among  wliom  was 
the  poet  Dante  Alighieri,  was  set  at  naught  by 
the  great  men  of  each  side,  while  the  best 
citizens  looked  on  with  fear  and  trembling. 
The  Donati,  fearing  that  unaided  they  would 
not  be  a  match  for  their  adversaries,  proposed 
that  they  should  put  themselves  under  a  ruler 
of  the  family  of  the  king  of  France.  Such  a 
direct  attack  on  the  independence  of  the  state 
was  not  to  be  borne  by  the  Signoria,  among 
whom  the  poet  had  great  influence.  At  his 
instigation  they  armed  the  populace,  and  with 
their  assistance  compelled  the  heads  of  the  con 
tending  parties  to  lay  down  their  arms,  and  sent 
into  exile  Messer  Donati  and  others  who  had 
proposed  the  calling  in  of  foreigners.  A  sentence 
of  banishment  was  also  pronounced  against  the 
most  violent  men  of  the  party  of  the  Bianchi,  most 
of  whom,  however,  were  allowed,  under  various 
pretences,  to  return  to  their  country.  The  party 
of  the  Donati  in  their  exile  carried  on  those 
intrigues  which  they  had  commenced  while  at 
home.  They  derived  considerable  assistance 
from  the  king  of  France's  brother,  Charles  of 
Valois,  whom  Pope  Boniface  had  brought  into 
Italy.  That  prince  managed,  by  means  of 
promises,  which  he  subsequently  violated,  to 
get  admission  for  himself,  together  with  several 
of  the  Neri,  and  the  legate  of  the  pope,  into 
Florence.  He  then  produced  letters,  generally 
suspected  to  be  forgeries,  charging  the  leaders 
of  the  Bianchi  with  conspiracy.  The  popularity 
of  the  accused  party  had  already  been  on  the 
wane,  and  after  a  violent  tumult,  the  chief  men 
among  them,  including  Dante,  were  obliged  to 
leave  the  city  ;  their  goods  were  confiscated,  and 
their  houses  destroyed.  .  .  .  From  this  time 
Corso  Donati,  the  head  of  the  faction  of  the 
Neri,  became  the  chief  man  at  Florence.  The 
accounts  of  its  state  at  this  period,  taken  from 
the  most  credible  historians,  warrant  us  in  think- 
ing that  the  severe  invectives  of  Dante  are  not 
to  be  ascribed  merely  to  indignation  or  resent- 
ment at  the  harsh  treatment  he  had  received. 
.  .  .  The  city  was  rent  by  more  violent  dis- 
sensions than  ever.  There  were  now  three 
distinct  sources  of  contention— the  jealousy 
between  the  people  and  the  nobles,  the  disputes 
between  the  Bianchi  and  the  Neri,  and  those 
between  the  Ghibellines  and  the  Guelfs.  It  was 
In  vain  that  the  legate  of  Pope  Benedict,  a  man 
of  great  piety,  went  thither  for  the  sake  of  try- 
ing to  restore  order.  The  inhabitants  showed 
how  little  they  respected  him  by  exhibiting  a 
scandalous  representation  of  hell  on  the  river 
Arno  ;  and,  after  renewing  his  efforts  without 
success,  he  cursed  the  city  and  departed  [1302]. 
The  reign  of  Corso  Donati  ended  like  that  of 
most  of  those  who  have  succeeded  to  power  by 
popular  violence.  Six  years  after  the  banish- 
ment of  his  adversaries  he  was  suspected,  not 
without  reason,  of  endeavouring  to  make  him- 
self independent  of  constitutional  restraints. 
The  Siguori  declared  him  guilty  of  rebellion. 
After  a  protracted  resistance  he  made  his  escape 
from  the  city,  but  was  pursued  and  taken  at 
Rovesca  [1308].  When  he  was  led  captive 
by  those  among  whom  his  authority  had  lately 
been  paramount,  he  threw  himself  under  his 
horse,   and,    after  having   been    dragged    some 


distance,  he  was  dispatched  by  one  of  the  cap- 
tors. .  .  .  The  party  that  had  been  raised  by 
Corso  Donati  continued  to  hold  the  chief  power 
at  Florence  even  after  the  death  of  their  chief. 
The  exiled  faction,  in  the  words  of  one  of  their 
leaders,  .  .  .  had  not  learned  the  art  of  return- 
ing to  their  country  as  well  as  their  adversaries. 
Four  years  after  the  events  alluded  to,  the 
Emperor,  Henry  VII.,  made  some  negotiations 
in  their  favour,  which  but  imperfectly  succeeded. 
The  Florentines,  however,  were  awed  when  he 
approached  their  city  at  the  head  of  his  army; 
and  in  the  extremity  of  their  danger  they 
implored  the  assistance  of  King  Robert  of 
Naples,  and  made  him  Lord  of  their  city  for  the 
space  of  five  years.  The  Emperor's  mysterious 
death  [August  34,  1313]  at  Buonconvento  freed 
them  from  their  alarm." — W.  P.  Urquhart,  Life 
and  Times  of  Pi-ancesco  Sforza,  bk.  1,  ch.  3  (i>.  1). 

Also  in  Mrs.  Oliphant,  The  Makers  of  Florence, 
ch.  3. — B.  Duffy,  2'Ae  Tuscan  Republics,  ch.  13. 

A.  D.  1310-1313. — Resistance  to  the  Em- 
peror, Henry  VII. — Siege  by  the  imperial  army. 
See  Italy:  A.  D.  1310-1313. 

A.  D.  1313-1328. — Wars  with  Pisa  and  with 
Castruccio  Castracani,  of  Lucca. — Disastrous 
battles  of  Montecatini  and  Altopascio.  See 
Italy:  A.  D.  1313-1330. 

A.  D.  1336-1338. —  Alliance  with  Venice 
against  Mastino  della  Scala.  See  Vebona: 
A.  D.  1260-1338. 

A.  D.  1341-1343. — Defeat  by  the  Pisans 
before  Lucca. — The  brief  tyranny  of  the 
Duke  of  Athens. — In  1341,  Mastino  della  Scala, 
of  Verona,  who  had  become  master  of  Lucca  in 
1335  by  treachery,  offered  to  sell  that  town  to  the 
Florentines.  The  bargain  was  concluded;  "but 
it  appeared  to  the  Pisans  the  signal  of  their  own 
servitude,  for  it  cut  off  all  communication 
between  them  and  the  Ghibelines  of  Lombardy. 
They  immediately  advanced  their  militia  into 
the  Lucchese  states  to  prevent  the  Florentines 
from  taking  possession  of  the  town ;  vanquished 
them  in  battle,  on  the  3d  of  October,  1341,  under 
the  walls  of  Lucca ;  and,  on  the  6th  of  July  fol- 
lowing, took  possession  of  that  city  for  them- 
selves. The  people  of  Florence  attributed  this 
train  of  disasters  to  the  incapacity  of  their  magis- 
trates. ...  At  this  period,  Gauttier  [Walter] 
de  Brienne,  duke  of  Athens,  a  French  noble,  but 
born  in  Greece,  passed  through  Florence  on  his 
way  from  Naples  to  France.  The  duchy  of 
Athens  had  remained  in  his  family  from  the  con- 
quest of  Constantinople  till  it  was  taken  from 
his  father  in  1313.  ...  It  was  for  this  man  the 
Florentines,  after  their  defeat  at  Lucca,  took  a 
sudden  fancy.  .  .  .  On  the  1st  of  August,  1343, 
they  obliged  the  signoria  to  confer  on  him  the 
title  of  captain  of  justice,  and  to  give  him  the 
command  of  their  militia."  A  month  later,  the 
duke,  by  his  arts,  had  worked  such  a  ferment 
among  the  lower  classes  of  the  population  that 
they  "proclaimed  him  sovereign  lord  of  Florence 
for  his  life,  forced  the  public  palace,  drove  from 
it  the  gonfalonier  and  the  priori,  and  installed 
him  there  in  their  place.  .  .  .  HappUy,  Florence 
was  not  ripe  for  slavery :  ten  months  sufficed  for 
the  duke  of  Athens  to  draw  from  it  400,000 
golden  florins,  which  he  sent  either  to  France  or 
Naples ;  but  ten  months  sufficed  also  to  undeceive 
all  parties  who  had  placed  any  confidence  in 
him,"  and  by  a  universal  rising,  in  July,  1348, 


1165 


FLORENCE,  1341-1343. 


The  Great  Plague. 


FLORENCE,  1858. 


he  was  driven  from  the  city. —  J.  C.  L.  de  Sis- 
mondi.  Hist,  of  the  Italian  Republics,  ch.  6. 

At, an  IN:  T.  A.  TroUope,  Hist,  of  tM  Common- 
veaWi  of  Florence,  bk.  3,  ch.  4  (i).  2). 

14th  Century. — Industrial  Prosperity  of  the 
City. —  "John  Villani  has  given  us  an  ample  and 
precise  account  of  the  state  of  Florence  in  the 
earlier  part  of  the  14th  century.  The  revenue 
of  the  Republic  amounted  to  300,000  florins,  a 
sum  which,  allowing  for  the  depreciation  of  the 
precious  metals,  was  at  least  equivalent  to  600,  - 
000  pounds  sterling ;  a  larger  sum  than  England 
and  Ireland,  two  centuries  ago,  yielded  annually 
to  Elizabeth — a  larger  sum  than,  according  to 
any  computation  which  we  have  seen,  the  Grand 
Duke  of  Tuscany  now  derives  from  a  territory  of 
much  greater  extent.  The  manufacture  of  wool 
alone  employed  300  factories  and  30,000  work- 
men. The  cloth  annually  produced  sold,  at  an 
average,  for  1,200,000 florins;  asum  fairly  equal, 
in  exchangeable  value,  to  two  millions  and  a 
half  of  our  money.  Pour  hundred  thousand 
florins  were  annually  coined.  Eighty  banks  con- 
ducted the  commercial  operations,  not  of  Flor- 
ence only,  but  of  all  Europe.  The  transactions 
of  these  establishments  were  sometimes  of  a 
magnitude  which  may  surprise  even  the  contem- 
poraries of  the  Barings  and  the  Rothschilds. 
Two  houses  advanced  to  Edward  the  Third  of 
England  upwards  of  300,000  marlis,  at  a  time 
when  the  mark  contained  more  silver  than  50 
shillings  of  the  present  day,  and  when  the  value 
of  silver  was  more  than  quadruple  of  what  it 
now  is.  The  city  and  its  environs  contained  170,- 
000  inhabitants.  In  the  various  schools  about 
10,000  children  were  taught  to  read;  1,300  studied 
arithmetic;  600  received  a  learned  education. 
The  progress  of  elegant  literature  and  of  the  fine 
arts  was  proportioned  to  that  of  the  public  pros- 
perity. .  .  .  Early  in  the  14th  century  came  forth 
the  Divine  Comedy,  beyond  comparison  the  great- 
est work  of  imagination  which  had  appeared  since 
the  poems  of  Homer.  The  following  generation 
produced  indeed  no  second  Dante:  but  it  was 
eminently  distinguished  by  general  intellectual 
activity.  The  study  of  the  Latin  writers  had 
never  been  wholly  neglected  in  Italy.  But  Pe- 
trarch introduced  a  more  profound,  liberal,  and 
elegant  scholarship;  and  communicated  to  his 
countrymen  that  enthusiasm  for  the  literature, 
the  history,  and  the  antiquities  of  Rome,  which 
divided  his  own  heart  with  a  frigid  mistress  and 
a  more  frigid  Muse.  Boccaccio  turned  their  at- 
tention to  the  more  sublime  and  graceful  models 
of  Greece." — Lord  Macaulay,  Machiavelli {Essays, 
V.  1). 

A.  D.  1348.— The  Plague.— "  In  the  year  then 
of  our  Lord  1348,  there  happened  at  Florence, 
the  finest  city  in  all  Italy,  a  most  terrible  plague ; 
which,  whether  owing  to  the  influence  of  the 
planets,  or  that  it  was  sent  from  God  as  a  just 
punishment  for  our  sins,  had  broken  out  some 
years  before  in  the  Levant,  and  after  passing 
from  place  to  place,  and  making  incredible  havoc 
all  the  way,  had  now  reached  the  west.  There, 
spite  of  all  the  means  that  art  and  human  fore- 
sight could  suggest,  such  as  keeping  the  city 
clear  from  filth,  the  exclusion  of  all  suspected 
persons,  and  the  publication  of  copious  instruc- 
tions for  the  preservation  of  health ;  and  notwith- 
standing manifold  humble  supplications  offered 
to  God  in  processions  and  otherwise ;  it  began  to 
show  itself  in  the  spring  of  the  aforesaid  year,  in 


a  sad  and  wonderful  manner.  Unlike  what  had 
been  seen  in  the  east,  where  bleeding  from  the 
nose  is  the  fatal  prognostic,  here  there  appeared 
certain  tumours  in  the  groin  or  under  the  arm- 
pits, some  as  big  aa  a  small  apple,  others  as  an 
egg ;  and  afterwards  purple  spots  in  most  parts 
of  the  body :  in  some  cases  large  and  but  few  in 
number,  in  others  smaller  and  more  numerous  — 
both  sorts  the  usual  messengers  of  death.  To  the 
cure  of  this  malady,  neither  medical  knowledge 
nor  the  power  of  drugs  was  of  any  effect.  .  .  . 
Nearly  all  died  the  third  day  from  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  the  symptoms,  some  sooner,  some 
later,  without  any  fever  or  other  accessory  symp- 
toms. What  gave  the  more  virulence  to  this 
plague,  was  that,  by  being  communicated  from 
the  sick  to  the  hale,  it  spread  daily,  like  fire  when 
it  comes  in  contact  with  large  masses  of  combusti- 
bles. Nor  was  it  caught  only  by  conversing  with, 
or  coming  near  the  sick,  but  even  by  touching 
their  clothes,  or  anything  that  they  had  before 
touched.  .  .  .  These  facts,  and  others  of  the  like 
sort,  occasioned  various  fears  and  devices  amongst 
those  who  survived,  all  tending  to  the  same  un- 
charitable and  cruel  end;  which  was,  to  avoid 
the  sick,  and  everything  that  had  been  near  them, 
expecting  by  that  means  to  save  themselves.  And 
some  holding  it  best  to  live  temperately,  and  to 
avoid  excesses  of  all  kinds,  made  parties,  and  shut 
themselves  up  from  the  rest  of  the  world.  .  .  . 
Others  maintained  free  living  to  be  a  better  pre- 
servative, and  would  baulk  no  passion  or  appetite 
they  wished  to  gratify,  drinking  and  revelling 
incessantly  from  tavern  to  tavern,  or  in  private 
houses  (which  were  frequently  found  deserted  by 
the  owners,  and  therefore  common  to  every  one), 
yet  strenuously  avoiding,  with  all  this  brutal  in- 
dulgence, to  come  near  the  infected.  And  such, 
at  that  time,  was  the  public  distress,  that  the 
laws,  human  and  divine,  were  no  more  regarded; 
for  the  ofiicers  to  put  them  in  force  being  either 
dead,  sick,  or  in  want  of  persons  to  assist  them, 
every  one  did  just  as  he  pleased.  .  .  .  I  pass  over 
the  little  regard  that  citizens  and  relations  showed 
to  each  other ;  for  their  terror  was  such  that  a 
brother  even  fled  from  a  brother,  a  wife  from  her 
husband,  and,  what  is  more  uncommon,  a  parent 
from  his  own  child.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  cruelty 
of  Heaven,  and  perhaps  of  men,  that  between 
March  and  July  following,  according  to  authen- 
tic reckonings,  upwards  of  100,000  souls  perished 
in  the  city  only ;  whereas,  before  that  calamity, 
it  was  not  supposed  to  have  contained  so  many 
inhabitants.  What  magnificent  dwellings,  what 
noble  palaces,  were  then  depopulated  to  the  last 
inhabitant!" — G.  Boccaccio,  The  Decameron, 
iiitrod. — See,  also.  Black  Death. 

A.  D.  1358. — The  captains  of  the  Guelf  Party 
and  the  "  Ammoniti." — "The magistracy  called 
the  '  Capitani  di  Parte  Guelf  a,' — the  Captains  of 
the  Guelph  party, —  was  instituted  in  the  year 
1267;  and  it  was  remarked,  when  the  institution 
of  it  was  recorded,  that  the  conception  of  a  mag- 
istracy avowedly  formed  to  govern  a  community, 
not  only  by  the  authority  of,  but  in  the  interest 
of  one  section  only  of  its  members,  was  an  extra- 
ordinary proof  of  the  unfitness  of  the  Florentines 
for  self-government,  and  a  forewarning  of  the 
infallible  certainty  that  the  attempt  to  rule  the 
Commonwealth  on  such  principles  would  come 
to  a  bad  ending.  In  the  year  1358,  a  little  less 
than  a  century  after  the  first  establishment  of 
this  strange  magistracy,  it  began  to  develop  the 


1166 


FLORENCE,  1358. 


Tumult  of  the 
Ciompi. 


FLORENCE,  137&-1427. 


mischievous  capabilities  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  it,  in  a  very  alarming  manner.  ...  In  1358 
this  magistracy  consisted  of  four  members.  .  .  . 
These  men,  'born,'  says  Ammirato,  'for  the 
public  ruin,  under  pretext  of  zeal  for  the  Guelph 
cause "...  caused  a  law  to  be  passed,  according 
to  which  any  citizen  or  Florentine  subject  who 
had  ever  held,  or  should  thereafter  hold,  any 
office  in  the  Commonwealth,  might  be  either 
openly  or  secretly  accused  before  the  tribunal  of 
the  Captains  of  the  Guelph  Party  of  being  Ghi- 
belline,  or  not  genuine  Guelph.  If  the  accusa- 
tion was  supported  by  six  witnesses  worthy  of 
belief,  the  accused  might  be  condemned  to  death 
or  to  fine  at  the  discretion  of  the  Captains.  .  .  . 
It  will  be  readily  conceived  that  the  passing  of 
such  a  law,  iu  a  city  bristling  with  party  hatreds 
and  feuds,  was  the  signal  for  the  commencement 
of  a  reign  of  terror. "  The  citizens  proscribed 
were  "said  to  be  'admonished';  and  the  con- 
demnations were  called  'admonitions';  and 
henceforward  for  many  years  the  '  araraonizioni ' 
[or  '  ammoniti ']  play  a  large  part  in  the  domestic 
history  and  political  struggles  of  Florence." — T. 
A.  Trollope,  Hist,  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Flor- 
ence, bk.  3,  ch.  7  (v.  2). 

Also  m:  H.  E.  Napier,  Florentine  History, 
ch.  23  (v.  2). 

A.  D.  1359-1391. — The  Free  Company  of  Sir 
John  Hawkwood  and  the  wars  with  Pisa, 
with  Milan,  and  with  the  Pope.  See  Italy: 
A.  D.  1343-1393. 

A.  D.  1375-1378. — War  with  the  Pope  in 
support  of  the  oppressed  States  of  the  Church. 
— The  Eight  Saints  of  War. — A  terrible  ex- 
communication.— In  1375,  the  Florentines  be- 
came engaged  in  war  with  Pope  Gregory  XI., 
supporting  a  revolt  of  the  States  of  the  Church, 
which  were  heavily  oppressed  by  the  representa- 
tives of  their  papal  sovereign  (see  Papacy:  A.  D. 
1352-1378).  "Nevertheless,  so  profoundly  rev- 
erenced was  the  church  that  even  the  sound 
of  war  against  a  pope  appeared  to  many  little 
less  than  blasphemy :  numbers  opposed  on  this 
pretence,  but  really  from  party  motives  alone." 
But  ' '  a  general  council  assembled  and  declared 
the  cause  of  liberty  paramount  to  every  other 
consideration  ;  the  war  was  affirmed  to  be  rather 
against  the  injustice  and  tyranny  of  foreign  gov- 
ernors than  the  church  itself.  .  .  .  All  the  eccle- 
siastical cities  then  groaning  under  French  op- 
pression were  to  be  invited  to  revolt  and  boldly 
achieve  their  independence.  These  spirited  reso- 
lutions were  instantly  executed,  and  on  the  8th 
of  August  1375  Alessandro  de'  Bardi  [and  seven 
other  citizens]  .  .  .  were  formed  into  a  supreme 
council  of  war  called  'Gli  Otto  della  Guerra'; 
and  afterwards,  from  their  able  conduct,  'Gli 
Otto  Santl  della  Guerra '  [The  Eight  Saints  of 
War] ;  armed  with  the  concentrated  power  of 
the  whole  Florentine  nation  in  what  regarded 
war."  A  terrible  sentence  of  excommunication 
was  launched  against  the  Florentines  by  the 
Pope.  "Their  souls  were  solemnly  condemned 
to  the  pains  of  hell ;  fire  and  water  were  Inter- 
dicted ;  their  persons  and  property  outlawed  in 
every  Christian  land,  and  they  were  finally  de- 
clared lawful  prey  for  all  who  chose  to  sell, 
plunder,  or  kill  them  as  though  they  were  mere 
slaves  or  infidels." — H.  E.  Napier,  Florentine 
History,  bk.  1,  ch.  36  (0.  2). 

A.  D.  1378-1427. — Completer  democratizing 
of  the  commonwealth. — The   Tumult   of  the 


Ciompi. — First  appearance  of  the  Medici  in 
Florentine  history. — •  Though  the  reign  of  the 
Duke  of  Athens  lasted  rather  less  than  a  year, 
"  it  bore  important  fruits ;  for  the  tyrant,  seeking 
to  support  himself  upon  the  favour  of  the  com- 
mon people,  gave  political  power  to  the  Lesser 
Arts  at  the  expense  of  the  Greater,  and  confused 
the  old  State-system  by  enlarging  the  democracy. 
The  net  result  of  these  events  for  Florence  was, 
first,  that  the  city  became  habituated  to  rancor- 
ous party-strife,  involving  exiles  and  proscrip- 
tions, and,  secondly,  that  it  lost  its  primitive 
social  hierarchy  of  classes.  .  .  .  Civil  strife  now 
declared  itself  as  a  conflict  between  labour  and 
capital.  The  members  of  the  Lesser  Arts,  crafts- 
men who  plied  trades  subordinate  to  those  of  the 
Greater  Arts,  rose  up  against  their  social  and 
political  superiors,  demanding  a  larger  share  ki 
the  government,  a  more  equal  distribution  of 
profits,  higher  wages,  and  privileges  that  should 
place  them  on  an  absolute  equality  with  the 
wealthy  merchants.  It  was  in  the  year  1378  that 
the  proletariate  broke  out  into  rebellion.  Pre- 
vious events  had  prepared  the  way  for  this  re- 
volt. First  of  all,  the  republic  had  been  demo- 
cratised through  the  destruction  of  the  Grand! 
and  through  the  popular  policy  pursued  to  gain 
his  own  ends  by  the  Duke  of  Athens.  Secondly, 
society  had  been  shaken  to  its  very  foundation  by 
the  great  plague  of  1348  .  .  .  nor  had  30  years 
sufficed  to  restore  their  relative  position  to  grades 
and  ranks  confounded  by  an  overwhelming  ca- 
lamity. .  .  .  Rising  in  a  mass  to  claim  their 
privileges,  the  artisans  ejected  the  Signory  from 
the  Public  Palace,  and  for  awhile  Florence  was 
at  the  mercy  of  the  mob.  It  is  worthy  of  notice 
that  the  Medici,  whose  name  is  scarcely  known 
before  this  epoch,  now  come  for  one  moment  to 
the  front.  Salvestro  de'  Medici  was  Gonfalonier 
of  Justice  at  the  time  when  the  tumult  first  broke 
out.  He  followed  the  faction  of  the  handicrafts- 
men, and  became  the  hero  of  the  day.  I  cannot 
discover  that  he  did  more  than  extend  a  sort  of 
passive  protection  to  their  cause.  Yet  there  is 
no  doubt  that  the  attachment  of  the  working 
classes  to  the  house  of  Medici  dates  from  tliis 
period.  The  rebellion  of  1378  is  known  in  Flor- 
entine history  as  the  Tumult  of  the  Ciompi.  The 
name  Ciompi  strictly  means  the  Wool-Carders. 
One  set  of  operatives  in  the  city,  and  that  the 
largest,  gave  its  title  to  the  whole  body  of  the 
labourers.  For  some  months  these  craftsmen 
governed  the  republic,  appointing  their  own 
Signory  and  passing  laws  in  their  own  interest ; 
but,  as  is  usual,  the  proletariate  found  itself  in- 
capable of  sustained  government.  The  ambition 
and  discontent  of  the  Ciompi  foamed  themselves 
away,  and  industrious  workingmen  began  to  see 
that  trade  was  languishing  and  credit  on  the  wane. 
By  their  own  act  at  last  they  restored  the  gov- 
ernment to  the  Priors  of  the  Greater  Arti.  Still 
the  movement  had  not  been  without  grave  con- 
sequences. It  completed  the  levelling  of  classes, 
which  had  been  steadily  advancing  from  the  first 
in  Florence.  After  the  Ciompi  riot  there  was  no 
longer  not  only  any  distinction  between  noble 
and  burgher,  but  the  distinction  between  greater 
and  lesser  guilds  was  practically  swept  away. 
.  .  .  The  proper  political  conditions  had  been 
formed  for  unscrupulous  adventurers.  Florence 
had  become  a  democracy  without  social  organi- 
sation. .  .  .  The  time  was  come  for  the  Albizzi 
to  attempt  an  oligarchy,  and  for  the  Medici  to 


1167 


FLORENCE,  1378-1427. 


Rise  of  the  Medici. 


FLORENCE,  1390-1402. 


begin  the  enslavement  of  the  State.  The  Con- 
stitution of  Florence  offered  many  points  of 
weakness  to  the  attacks  of  such  intriguers.  In 
the  first  place  it  was  in  its  origin  not  a  political 
but  an  industrial  organisation  —  a  simple  group 
of  guilds  invested  with  the  sovereign  authority. 
...  It  had  no  permanent  head,  like  the  Doge 
of  Venice,  no  fixed  senate  like  the  Venetian 
Grand  Council ;  its  chief  magistrates,  the  Signory, 
were  elected  for  short  periods  of  two  months, 
and  their  mode  of  election  was  open  to  the  gravest 
criticism.  Supposed  to  be  chosen  by  lot,  they 
were  really  selected  from  lists  drawn  up  by  the 
factions  in  power  from  time  to  time.  These  fac- 
tions contrived  to  exclude  the  names  of  all  but 
their  adherents  from  the  bags,  or  'borse,'  in 
which  the  burghers  eligible  for  election  had  to 
be  inscribed.  Furthermore,  it  was  not  possible 
for  this  shifting  Signory  to  conduct  affairs  re- 
quiring sustained  effort  and  secret  deliberation ; 
therefore  recourse  was  being  continually  had  to 
dictatorial  Commissions.  The  people,  summoned 
in  parliament  upon  the  Great  Square,  were  asked 
to  confer  plenipotentiary  authority  upon  a  com- 
mittee called  Balia  [see  Balia  op  Florence], 
who  proceeded  to  do  what  they  chose  in  the 
State ;  and  who  retained  power  after  the  emer- 
gency for  which  they  were  created  passed  away. 
...  It  was  through  these  [and  other  specified] 
defects  that  the  democrac}'  merged  gradually 
into  a  despotism.  The  art  of  the  Medici  consisted 
in  a  .scientific  comprehension  of  these  very  imper- 
fections, a  methodic  use  of  them  for  their  own 
purposes,  and  a  steady  opposition  to  any  at- 
tempts made  to  substitute  a  stricter  system.  .  .  . 
Florence,  in  the  middle  of  the  14th  century,  was 
a  vast  beehive  of  industry.  Distinctions  of  rank 
among  burghers,  qualified  to  vote  and  hold  office, 
were  theoretically  unknown.  Highly  educated 
men,  of  more  than  princely  wealth,  spent  their 
time  in  shops  and  counting-houses,  and  trained 
their  sons  to  follow  trades.  Military  service  at 
this  period  was  abandoned  by  the  citizens ;  they 
preferred  to  pay  mercenary  troops  for  the  con- 
duct of  their  wars.  Nor  was  there,  as  in  Venice, 
any  outlet  for  their  energies  upon  the  seas.  Flor- 
ence had  no  navy,  no  great  port  —  she  only  kept 
a  small  fleet  for  the  protection  of  her  commerce. 
Thus  the  vigour  of  the  commonwealth  was  con- 
centrated on  itself;  while  the  influence  of  citi- 
zens, through  their  affiliated  trading-houses,  cor- 
respondents, and  agents,  extended  like  a  network 
over  Europe.  .  .  .  Accordingly  we  find  that  out 
of  the  very  bosom  of  the  people  a  new  plutocratic 
aristocracy  begms  to  rise.  .  .  .  These  nobles  of 
the  purse  obtained  the  name  of  '  Popolani  Nobili ' ; 
and  it  was  they  who  now  began  to  play  at  high 
stakes  for  the  supreme  power.  .  .  .  The  opening 
of  the  second  half  of  the  14th  century  had  been 
signalised  by  the  feuds  of  two  great  houses,  both 
risen  from  the  people.  These  were  the  Albizzi 
and  the  Ricci."  The  Albizzi  triumphed,  in  the 
conflict  of  the  two  houses,  and  became  all-power- 
ful for  a  time  in  Florence ;  but  the  wars  with  the 
Visconti,  of  Milan,  in  which  they  engaged  the 
city,  made  necessary  a  heavy  burden  of  taxa- 
tion, which  they  rendered  more  grievous  by  dis- 
tributing it  unfairly.  "This  Imprudent  financial 
policy  began  the  ruin  of  the  Albizzi.  It  caused 
a  clamour  in  the  city  for  a  new  system  of  more 
just  taxation,  which  was  too  powerful  to  be  re- 
sisted. The  voice  of  the  people  made  itself 
loudly  heard ;  and  with  the  people  on  this  occa- 


sion sided  Giovanni  de'  Medici.  This  was  in 
1427.  It  is  here  that  the  Medici  appear  upon 
that  memorable  scene  where  in  the  future  they 
are  to  play  the  first  part.  Giovanni  de'  Medici 
did  not  belong  to  the  same  branch  of  his  family 
as  the  Salvestro  who  favoured  the  people  at  the 
time  of  the  Ciompi  Tumult.  But  he  adopted  the 
same  popular  policy.  To  his  sons  Cosimo  and 
Lorenzo  he  bequeathed  on  his  death-bed  the  rule 
that  they  should  invariably  adhere  to  the  cause 
of  the  multitude,  found  their  influence  on  that, 
and  avoid  the  arts  of  factious  and  ambitious 
leaders."  —  J.  A.  Symonds,  Flm-ence  and  the 
Medici  {Sketches  and  Studies  in  Italy,  ch.  5). 

Also  m :  A.  von  Reumont,  Lorenzo  de"  Medici, 
bk.  1,  ch.  2  (I'.  1).— T.  A.  Trollope,  Hist,  of  the 
Comnionwealth  of  Florence,  bk.  4-5  («.  2). 

A.  D.  1390-1402.— War  with  Gian  Galeazzo 
Visconti,  Duke  of  Milan.— "Already  in  1386, 
the  growing  power  of  Giangaleazzo  Visconti, 
the  tenth  duke  of  Milan  of  that  family,  began  to 
give  umbrage,  not  only  to  all  the  sovereign 
princes,  his  neighbours,  but  also  to  Florence  [see 
Milan:  A.  D.  1377-1447].  .  .  .  Florence  .  .  . 
had  cause  enough  to  feel  uneasy  at  the  progress 
of  such  a  man  in  his  career  of  successful  invasion 
and  usurpation; — Florence,  no  more  specially 
than  other  of  the  free  towns  around  her,  save 
that  Florence  seems  always  to  have  thought  that 
she  had  more  to  lose  from  the  loss  of  her  liberty 
than  any  of  the  other  cities  .  .  .  and  felt  always 
called  upon  to  take  upon  herself  the  duty  of 
standing  forward  as  the  champion  and  supporter 
of  the  principles  of  republicanism  and  free  gov- 
ernment. .  .  .  The  Pope,  Urban  VI.,  added 
another  element  of  disturbance  to  the  condition 
of  Italy.  For  in  his  anxiety  to  recover  sundry 
cities  mainly  in  Umbria  and  Roraagna  ...  he 
was  exceedingly  unscrupulous  of  means,  and 
might  at  any  moment  be  found  allying  himself 
with  the  enemies  of  free  government  and  of  the 
old  Guelph  cause  in  Italy.  Venice,  also,  having 
most  improvidently  and  unwisely  allied  herself 
with  Visconti,  constituted  another  element  of 
danger,  and  an  additional  cause  of  uneasiness 
and  watchfulness  to  the  Florentine  government. 
In  the  spring  of  1388,  therefore,  a  board  of  ten, 
'  Dieci  di  Balia, '  was  elected  for  the  general 
management  of  '  all  those  measures  concerning 
war  and  peace  which  should  be  adopted  by  the 
entire  Florentine  people.'"  The  first  war  with 
Visconti  was  declared  by  the  republic  in  May, 
1390,  and  was  so  successfully  conducted  for  the 
Florentines  by  Sir  John  Hawkwood  that  it  ter- 
minated in  a  treaty  signed  January  26,  1392, 
which  boimd  the  Duke  of  Milan  not  to  meddle 
in  any  way  with  the  affairs  of  Tuscany.  For 
ten  years  this  agreement  seems  to  have  been  tol- 
erably well  adhered  to ;  but  in  1402  the  rapacious 
Duke  entered  upon  new  encroachments,  which 
forced  the  Florentines  to  take  up  arms  again. 
Their  only  allies  were  Bologna  and  Padua  (or 
Francesco  Carrara  of  Padua),  and  the  armies  of 
the  three  states  were  defeated  in  a  terribly  bloody 
battle  fought  near  Bologna  on  the  26th  of  June. 
"Bologna  fell  into  the  hands  of  Visconti.  Great 
was  the  dismay  and  terror  in  Florence  when  the 
news  .  .  .  reached  the  city.  It  was  neither  more 
nor  less  than  the  fall,  as  the  historian  says,  of  the 
fortress  which  was  the  bulwark  of  Florence. 
Now  she  lay  absolutely  open  to  the  invader." 
But  the  invader  did  not  come.  He  was  stricken 
with  the  plague  and  died,  in   September,  and 


1168 


FLORENCE,  1390-1402. 


Commerce,  Wealth 
and  Culture. 


FLORENCE,  1433-1464. 


Florence  and  Italy  were  saved  from  the  tyranny 
which  he  had  seemed  able  to  extend  over  the 
whole. — T.  A.  Trollope,  Hist,  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Florence,  bk.  4,  ch.  4-5  (».  2). 

I4th-i5th  Centuries. —  Commercial  enter- 
prise, industrial  energy,  wealth  and  culture  of 
the  city. — "During  the  14th  and  15th  centuries 
Florentine  wealth  increased  in  an  extraordinary 
degree.  Earlier  generations  had  compelled  the 
powerful  barons  of  the  district  to  live  in  the  city ; 
and  even  yet  the  exercise  of  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship was  dependent  on  having  a  residence  there. 
The  influx  of  outsiders  was,  however,  much  more 
owing  to  the  attractions  offered  by  the  city, 
whether  in  business,  profession,  or  pleasure,  than 
to  compulsion.  .  .  .  The  situation  of  the  city  is 
not  favorable  to  the  natural  growth  of  commerce, 
especially  under  the  conditions  which  preceded 
the  building  of  railroads.  At  a  considerable  dis- 
tance from  the  sea,  on  a  river  navigable  only  for 
very  small  craft,  and  surrounded  by  hills  which 
rendered  difficult  the  construction  of  good  roads, 
—  the  fact  that  the  city  did  prosper  so  marvel- 
lously is  in  itself  proof  of  the  remarkable  energy 
and  ability  of  its  people.  They  needed  above 
all  things  a  sea-port,  and  to  obtain  a  good  one 
they  waged  some  of  their  most  exhausting 
wars.  Their  principal  wealth,  however,  came 
through  their  fiiiaucial  operations,  which  extended 
throughout  Europe,  and  penetrated  even  to  Mo- 
rocco and  the  Orient.  Their  manufactures  also, 
especially  of  wool  and  silk,  brought  in  enormous 
returns,  and  made  not  only  the  fortunes  but  also, 
in  one  famous  case  at  least,  the  name  of  the 
families  engaged  in  them.  Their  superiority 
over  the  rest  of  Christendom  in  these  pursuits 
was  but  one  side  of  that  remarkable,  universal 
talent  which  is  the  most  astonishing  feature  of 
the  Florentine  life  of  that  age.  With  the  hardi- 
hood of  youth,  they  were  not  only  ready  but 
eager  to  engage  in  new  enterprises,  whether  at 
home  or  abroad.  ...  As  a  result  of  their  energy 
and  ability,  riches  poured  into  their  coffers, —  a 
mighty  stream  of  gold,  in  the  use  of  which  they 
showed  so  much  judgment,  that  the  after  world 
has  feasted  to  our  day,  and  for  centuries  to  come, 
will  probably  continue  to  feast  without  satiety 
on  the  good  things  which  they  caused  to  be  made, 
and  left  behind  them.  Of  all  the  legacies  for 
which  we  have  to  thank  Florence,  none  are  so 
well  known  and  so  universally  recognized  as  the 
treasures  of  art  created  by  "her  sons,  many  of 
which  yet  remain  within  her  walls,  the  marvel 
and  delight  of  all  who  behold  them.  As  the 
Florentines  were  ready  to  try  experiments  in  poli- 
tics, manufactures,  and  commerce,  so  also  in  all 
branches  of  the  fine  arts  they  tried  experiments, 
left  the  old,  beaten  paths  of  their  forefathers,  and 
created  something  original,  useful,  and  beautiful 
for  themselves.  Christian  art  from  the  time  of 
the  Roman  Empire  to  Cimabue  had  made  com- 
paratively little  progress ;  but  a  son  of  the  Flor- 
entine fields  was  to  start  a  revolution  which 
should  lead  to  the  production  of  some  of  the  most 
marvellous  works  which  have  proceeded  from 
the  hand  of  man.  The  idea  that  the  fine  arts  are 
more  successfully  cultivated  under  the  patronage 
of  princes  than  under  republican  rule  is  very 
widespread,  and  is  occasionally  accepted  almost 
as  a  dogma ;  but  the  history  of  Athens  and  of 
Florence  teaches  us  without  any  doubt  that  the 
two  most  artistic  epochs  in  the  history  of  the 
world  have  had  their  rise  in  republics.  .  .  .  Some 
74 

1169 


writers,  dazzled  by  the  splendors  of  the  Medici, 
entirely  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  both  Dante 
and  Petrarch  were  dead  before  the  Medici  were 
even  heard  of,  and  that  the  greatest  works,  at 
least  in  architecture,  were  all  begun  long  before 
they  were  leaders  in  Florentine  affairs.  That 
family  did  much,  yes  very  much,  for  the  advance- 
ment of  art  and  letters ;  but  they  did  not  do  all 
or  nearly  all  that  was  done  in  Florence.  .  .  . 
Though  civil  discord  and  foreign  war  were  very 
frequent,  Florentine  life  is  nevertheless  an  illus- 
tration rather  of  what  Herbert  Spencer  calls  the 
commercial  stage  of  civilization,  than  of  the  war- 
like period.  Her  citizens  were  above  all  things 
merchants,  and  were  generally  much  more  will- 
ing to  pay  to  avoid  a  war  than  to  conduct  one. 
They  strove  for  glory,  not  in  feats  of  arms,  but 
in  literary  contests  and  in  peaceful  emulation  in 
the  encouragement  of  learning  and  the  tine  arts." 
— W.  B.  Scaife,  Florentine  Life.  pp.  16-19.  See, 
also,  Tu.\DE,  and  ^Ioney  and  Bankino. 

A.  D.  1405-1406. —  Purchase  and  conquest 
of  Pisa.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1402-1406. 

A.  D.  1409-1411. — League  against  and  v^ar 
with  Ladislas,  King  of  Naples.  See  Italy 
(Southern):  A.  D.  1386-1414. 

A.  D.  1423-1447.— War  with  the  Duke  of 
Milan. — League  with  Venice,  Naples,  and 
other  States.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1413-1447. 

A.  D.  1433-1464.— The  ascendancy  of  Cos- 
imo  de'  Medici. — In  1433,  Cosmo,  or  Cosimo  de' 
Medici,  the  son  of  Giovanni  de'  Medici,  was  the 
recognized  leader  of  the  opposition  to  the  oli- 
garchy controlled  bj'  Rinaldo  de'  Albizzi.  Cosmo 
inherited  from  his  father  a  large  fortune  and  a 
business  as  a  merchant  and  banker  which  he 
maintained  and  increased.  "He  lived  splen- 
didly; he  was  a  great  supporter  of  all  literary 
men,  and  spent  and  distributed  his  great  wealth 
amongst  his  fellow  citizens.  He  was  courteous 
and  liberal,  and  was  looked  upon  with  almost 
unbounded  respect  and  affection  by  a  large  party 
in  the  state.  Rinaldo  was  bent  upon  his  ruin, 
and  in  1433,  when  he  had  a  Signoria  devoted  to 
his  party,  he  cited  Cosmo  before  the  Council, 
and  shut  him  up  in  a  tower  of  the  Public  Palace. 
Great  excitement  was  caused  by  this  violent 
step,  and  two  days  after  the  Signoria  held  a  par- 
liament of  the  people.  The  great  bell  of  the  city 
was  tolled,  and  the  people  gathered  round  the 
Palace.  Then  the  gates  of  the  Palace  were 
thrown  open,  and  the  Signoria,  the  Colleges  of 
Arts,  and  the  Gonfaloniere  came  forth,  and  asked 
the  people  if  they  would  have  a  Balia.  So  a 
Balia  was  appointed,  the  names  being  proposed 
b}'  the  Signoria,  to  decide  on  the  fate  of  Cosmo. 
At  first  it  was  proposed  to  kill  him,  but  he  was 
only  banished,  much  against  the  will  of  Rinaldo, 
who  knew  that,  if  he  lived,  he  would  some  day 
come  back  again.  The  next  year  the  Signoria 
was  favourable  to  him ;  another  Balia  was  ap- 
pointed ;  the  party  of  the  Albizzi  was  banished, 
and  Cosmo  was  recalled.  He  was  received  with 
a  greeting  such  as  men  give  to  a  conqueror,  and 
was  hailed  as  the  '  Father  of  his  Country. '  'This 
triumphant  return  gave  the  Medici  a  power  in 
the  Republic  which  they  never  afterwards  lost. 
The  banished  party  fled  to  the  court  of  the  Duke 
of  Milan,  and  stirred  him  up  to  war  against  the 
city." — W.  Hunt,  Hist,  of  Italy,  ch.  6,  sect.  5. — 
"  Cosimo  de'  Medici  did  not  content  himself  with 
rendering  his  old  opponents  harmless;  he  took 
care  also  that  none  of  his  adherents  should  become 


FLORENCE,  1433-1464. 


The  Medici. 


FLORENCE,  1458-1459. 


too  powerful  and  dangerous  to  him.  There- 
fore, remarks  Francesco  Guicciardini,  lie  retained 
the  Signoria,  as  well  as  the  taxes,  in  his  hand, 
in  order  to  be  able  to  promote  or  oppress  indi- 
viduals at  -will.  In  other  things  the  citizens  en- 
joyed greater  freedom  and  acted  more  according 
to  their  own  pleasure  than  later,  in  the  days  of 
liis  grandson,  for  he  let  the  reins  hang  loose  if  he 
was  only  sure  of  his  own  position.  It  was  just 
in  this  "that  his  great  art  lay,  to  guide  things 
according  to  his  will,  and  yet  to  make  his  parti- 
sans believe  that  he  shared  his  authority  with 
them.  ...  '  It  is  well  known '  remarks  [Guicciar- 
dini] .  .  .  '  how  much  nobility  and  wealth  were 
destroyed  by  Cosimo  and  his  descendants  by 
taxation.  The  Medici  never  allowed  a  fixed 
method  and  legal  distribution,  but  always  re- 
served to  themselves  the  power  of  bearing 
heavily  upon  individuals  according  to  their 
pleasure.  ...  He  [Cosimo]  maintained  great 
reserve  in  his  whole  manner  of  life.  For  a  quar- 
ter of  a  century  he  was  the  almost  absolute  di- 
rector of  the  State,  but  he  never  assumed  the 
show  of  his  dignity.  .  .  .  The  ruler  of  the  Flor- 
entine State  remained  citizen,  agriculturist,  and 
merchant.  In  his  appearance  and  bearing  there 
was  nothing  which  distinguished  him  from 
others.  ...  He  ruled  the  money  market,  not  only 
in  Italy,  but  throughout  Europe.  He  had  banks 
in  all  the  western  countries,  and  his  experience 
and  the  excellent  memory  which  never  failed 
him,  with  his  strong  love  of  order,  enabled  him 
to  guide  everything  from  Florence,  which  he 
never  quitted  after  1438."  The  death  of  Cosimo 
occurred  on  the  1st  day  of  August,  1464. — A. 
von  Reumont,  Lorenzo  de'  Medici,  bk.  1,  ch.  6  and 
8  (v.  1). — "The  last  troubled  days  of  the  Floren- 
tine democracy  had  not  proved  quite  unpro- 
ductive of  art.  It  was  the  time  of  Giotto's  un- 
disputed sway.  Many  works  of  which  the  15th 
century  gets  the  glory  because  it  finished  them 
were  ordered  and  begun  amidst  the  confusion 
and  terrible  agitation  of  the  demagogy.  .  .  . 
Under  the  oligarch}',  in  the  relative  calm  that 
came  with  oppression,  a  taste  for  art  as  well  as 
for  letters  began  to  develop  in  Florence  as  else- 
where." But  "Cosimo  de'  Medicis  had  rare 
good  fortune.  In  his  time,  and  under  his  rule, 
capricious  chance  united  at  Florence  talents  as 
numerous  as  they  were  diverse  —  the  universal 
Brunelleschi,  the  polished  and  elegant  Ghiberti, 
the  rough  and  powerful  Donatello,  the  suave 
Angelico,  the  masculine  Masaccio.  .  .  .  Cosimo 
lived  long  enough  to  see  the  collapse  of  the  ad- 
mirable talent  which  flourished  upon  the  banks 
of  the  Arno,  and  soon  spread  throughout  Italy, 
and  to  feel  the  void  left  by  it.  It  is  true  his 
grandson  saw  a  new  harvest,  but  as  inferior  to 
that  which  preceded  it,  as  it  was  to  that  which 
followed  it."— F.-T.  Perrens,  Hist,  of  Florence, 
1434-1531,  bk.  1,  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1450-1454. — Alliance  with  Francesco 
Sforza,  of  Milan,  and  war  with  Venice,  Na- 
ples, Savoy,  and  other  States.  See  Milan: 
A.  D.  1447-1 4r)4. 

A.  D.  1458-1469. — Lucas  Pitti,  and  the  build- 
ing of  the  Pitti  Palace. — Piero  de'  Medici  and 
the  five  agents  of  his  tyranny. — Until  1455, 
Cosmo  de'  Medici  shared  the  government  of 
Florence  in  some  degree  with  Neri  Capponi,  an 
able  statesman,  who  had  taken  an  eminent  part 
in  public  affairs  for  many  years  —  during  the 
domination  of  the  Albizzi,  as  well  as  afterwards. 


"  When  Neri  Capponi  died,  the  council  refused  to 
call  a  new  parliament  to  replace  the  balia,  whose 
power  expired  on  the  1st  of  July,  1455.  .  .  .  The 
election  of  the  signoria  was  again  made  fairly  by 
lot,  .  .  .  the  contribu.tions  were  again  equitablj' 
apportioned, —  the  tribunals  ceased  to  listen  to 
the  recommendations  of  those  who,  till  then,  had 
made  a  traffic  of  distributive  justice."  This  re- 
covery of  freedom  in  Florence  was  enjoyed  for 
about  three  years;  but  when,  in  14.58,  Lucas 
Pitti,  "rich,  powerful,  and  bold,"  was  named 
gonfalonier,  Cosmo  conspired  with  him  to  reim 
pose  the  yoke.  "Pitti  assembled  the  parlia- 
ment ;  but  not  till  he  had  filled  all  the  avenues 
of  the  public  square  with  soldiers  or  armed 
peasants.  The  people,  menaced  and  trembling 
within  this  circle,  consented  to  name  a  new 
balia,  more  violent  and  tyrannical  than  any  of 
the  preceding.  It  was  composed  of  352  persons, 
to  whom  was  delegated  all  the  power  of  the  re- 
public. They  exiled  a  great  number  of  the 
citizens  who  had  shown  the  most  attachment  to 
liberty,  and  they  even  put  some  to  death." 
When,  in  1463,  Cosmo's  second  son,  Giovanni, 
on  whom  his  hopes  were  centered,  died,  Lucas 
Pitti  ' '  looked  on  himself  henceforth  as  the  only 
chief  of  the  state.  It  was  about  this  time  that 
he  undertook  the  building  of  that  magnificent 
palace  which  now  [1833]  forms  the  residence  of 
the  grand-dukes.  The  republican  equality  was 
not  only  offended  by  the  splendour  of  this  regal 
dwelling;  but  the  construction  of  It  afforded 
Pitti  an  occasion  for  marking  his  contempt  of 
liberty  and  the  laws.  He  made  of  this  building 
an  asylum  for  all  fugitives  from  justice,  whom 
no  public  officer  dared  pursue  when  once  he 
[they'?]  took  part  in  the  labour.  At  the  same 
time  individuals,  as  well  as  communities,  who 
would  obtain  some  favour  from  the  republic, 
knew  that  the  only  means  of  being  heard  was  to 
offer  Lucas  Pitti  some  precious  wood  or  marble 
to  be  employed  In  the  construction  of  his  palace. 
When  Cosmo  de'  Medici  died,  at  his  country- 
house  of  Careggi.  on  the  1st  of  August,  1464, 
Lucas  Pitti  felt  himself  released  from  the  control 
imposed  by  the  virtue  and  moderation  of  that 
great  citizen.  .  .  .  His  [Cosmo's]  son,  Pietro  de' 
Sledici,  then  48  years  of  age,  supposed  that  he 
should  succeed  to  the  administration  of  the  re- 
public, as  he  had  succeeded  to  the  wealth  of  his 
father,  by  hereditary  right :  but  the  state  of  his 
health  did  not  admit  of  his  attending  regularly 
to  business,  or  of  his  inspiring  his  rivals  with 
much  fear.  To  diminish  the  weight  of  affairs 
which  oppressed  him,  he  resolved  on  withdraw- 
ing a  part  of  his  immense  fortune  from  com- 
merce ;  recalling  all  his  loans  made  in  partner- 
ship with  other  merchants ;  and  laying  out  this 
money  in  land.  But  this  unexpected  demand  of 
considerable  capital  occasioned  a  fatal  shock  to 
the  commerce  of  Florence ;  at  the  same  time  that 
it  alienated  all  the  debtors  of  the  house  of  Medici, 
and  deprived  it  of  much  of  its  popularity.  The 
death  of  Sforza,  also,  which  took  place  on  the 
8th  of  March,  1466,  deprived  the  Medicean 
party  of  its  firmest  support  abroad.  .  .  .  The 
friends  of  liberty  at  Florence  soon  perceived  that 
Lucas  Pitti  and  Pietro  de'  Medici  no  longer 
agreed  together;  and  they  recovered  courage 
when  the  latter  proposed  to  the  council  the  call- 
ing of  a  parliament,  in  order  to  renew  the  balia, 
the  power  of  which  expired  on  the  1st  of  Sep- 
tember, 1465;  his  proposition  was  rejected.     The 


1170 


FLORENCE,  1458-1469. 


Lorenzo 
the  Magnificent. 


FLORENCE,  1469-1492. 


magistracy  began  again  to  be  drawn  by  lot 
from  among  tlie  members  of  the  party  victorious 
in  1434.  This  return  of  liberty,  however,  was 
but  of  short  duration.  Pitti  and  Medici  were 
reconciled :  they  agreed  to  call  a  parliament,  and 
to  direct  it  in  concert;  to  intimidate  it,  they  sur- 
rounded it  with  foreign  troops.  But  Medici,  on 
the  nomination  of  the  balia,  on  the  2d  of  Septem- 
ber, 1466,  found  means  of  admitting  his  own 
partisans  only,  and  excluding  all  those  of  Lucas 
Pitti.  The  citizens  who  had  shown  any  zeal  for 
liberty  were  all  exiled.  .  .  .  Lucag  Pitti  ruined 
himself  in  building  his  palace.  His  talents  were 
judged  to  bear  no  proportion  to  his  ambition : 
the  friends  of  liberty,  as  well  as  those  of  Medici, 
equally  detested  him ;  and  he  remained  deprived 
of  all  power  in  a  city  which  he  had  so  largely 
contributed  to  enslave.  Italy  became  filled  with 
Florentine  emigrants:  every  revolution,  even 
every  convocation  of  parliament,  was  followed 
by  the  exile  of  many  citizens.  ...  At  Florence, 
the  citizens  who  escaped  proscription  trembled  to 
see  despotism  established  in  their  republic ;  but 
the  lower  orders  were  in  general  contented,  and 
made  no  attempt  to  second  Bartolomeo  Coleoni, 
when  he  entered  Tuscany,  in  1467,  at  the  head 
of  the  Florentine  emigrants,  who  had  taken  him 
into  their  pay.  Commerce  prospered ;  manufac- 
tures were  carried  on  with  great  activity ;  high 
wages  supported  in  comfort  all  who  lived  by 
their  labour;  and  the  Medici  entertained  them 
with  shows  and  festivals,  keeping  them  in  a  sort 
of  perpetual  carnival,  amidst  which  the  people 
soon  lost  all  thought  of  liberty.  Pietro  de' 
Medici  was  always  in  too  bad  a  state  of  health 
to  exercise  in  person  the  sovereignty  he  had 
usurped  over  his  country ;  he  left  it  to  five  or  six 
citizens,  who  reigned  in  his  name.  .  .  .  They 
not  only  transacted  all  business,  but  appropriated 
to  themselves  all  the  profit ;  they  sold  their  in- 
fluence and  credit ;  they  gratified  their  cupidity 
or  their  vengeance ;  but  they  took  care  not  to  act 
in  their  own  names,  or  to  pledge  their  own  re- 
sponsibility;  they  left  that  to  the  house  of 
Medici.  Pietro,  during  the  latter  months  of  his 
life,  perceived  the  disorder  and  corruption  of  his 
agents.  He  was  afflicted  to  see  his  memory  thus 
stained,  and  he  addressed  them  the  severest 
reprimands ;  he  even  entered  into  correspondence 
with  the  emigrants,  whom  he  thought  of  recall- 
ing, when  he  died,  on  the  2d  of  December,  1469. 
His  two  sons,  Lorenzo  and  Giuliano,  the  elder 
of  whom  was  not  21  years  of  age,  .  .  .  given 
up  to  all  the  pleasures  of  their  age,  had  yet  no 
ambition.  The  power  of  the  state  remained  in 
the  hands  of  the  five  citizens  who  had  exercised 
it  under  Pietro." — J.  C.  L.  de  Sismondi,  Hist,  of 
the  Italian  Republics,  eh.  11. 

A.  D.  1469-1492.  —  The  conspiracy  of  the 
Pazzi. — The  government  of  Lorenzo  the  Mag- 
nificent.— The  death  of  liberty. — The  golden 
age  of  letters  and  art. — "Lorenzo  inherited  his 
grandfather's  political  sagacity  and  far  surpassed 
him  in  talent  and  literary  culture.  In  many 
respects  too  he  was  a  very  different  man.  Cosimo 
never  left  his  business  office ;  Lorenzo  neglected 
it,  and  had  so  little  commercial  aptitude  that  he 
was  obliged  to  retire  from  business,  in  order  not 
to  lose  his  abundant  patrimony.  Cosimo  was 
frugal  in  his  personal  expenses  and  lent  freely  to 
others;  Lorenzo  loved  splendid  living,  and  thus 
gained  the  title  of  the  Magnificent ;  he  spent  im- 
moderately for  the  advancement  of  literary  men ; 


he  gave  himself  up  to  dissipation  which  ruined 
his  health  and  shortened  his  days.     His  manner 
of  living  reduced  him  to  such  straits,  that  he  had 
to  sell  some  of  his  possessions  and  obtain  money 
from  his  friends.     Nor  did  this  suffice;  for  he 
even  meddled  with  the  public  money,  a  thing 
that  had  never  happened  in  Cosimo's  time.    Very 
often,  in  his  greed  of  unlawful  gain,  he  had  the 
Florentine  armies  paid  by  his  own  bank ;  he  also 
appropriated  the  sums  collected   in  the  Monte 
Comune  or  treasury  of  the  public  debt,  and  those 
in  the  Jloute  delle  JTanciulle  where  were  marriage 
portions    accumulated    by     private    savings  — 
money  hitherto  held  sacred  by  all.     Stimulated 
by. the  same  greed,  he,  in  the  year  1472  joined 
the  Florentine  contractors  for  the  wealthy  alum 
mines  of  Volterra,  at  the  moment  in  which  that 
city  was  on  the  verge  of  rebellion  in  order  to  free 
itself  from  a  contract  which  it  deemed  unjust. 
And  Lorenzo,  with  the  weight  of  his  authority, 
pushed  matters  to  such  a  point  that  war  broke 
out,  soon  to  be  followed  by  a  most  cruel  sack  of 
the  unhappy   city,   a    very    unusual    event    in 
Tuscany.    Forall  tins  he  was  universally  blamed. 
But  he  was  excessively  haughty  and  cared  for  no 
man ;  he  would  tolerate  no  equals,  would  be  first 
in  everything  —  even  in  games.     He  interfered 
in  all  matters,  even  in  private  concerns  and  in  mar- 
riages :  nothing  could  take  place  without  his  con- 
sent.    In  overthrowing  the  powerful  and  exalt- 
ing men  of  low  condition,  he  showed  none  of  the 
care  and  precaution  so  uniformly   observed  by 
Cosimo.     It  is  not  then  surprising  if  his  enemies 
increased  so  fast  that  the  formidable  conspiracy 
of  the  Pazzi  broke  out  on  the  26th  April  1478. 
In  this  plot,  hatched  in  the  Vatican  itself  where 
Sixtus  IV.   was  Lorenzo's    determined  enemy, 
many  of  the  mightiest  Florentine  families  took 
part.     In  the  cathedral,   at  the  moment  of  the 
elevation  of  the  Host,  the  conspirators'  daggers 
were    unsheathed.       Giuliano   dei    Medici    was 
stabbed  to  death,  but  Lorenzo  defended  himself 
with  his  sword  and  saved  his  own  life.  The  tumult 
was  so  great  that  it  seemed  as  though  the  walls 
of  the  church  were  shaken.     The  populace  rose  to 
the  cry  of  '  Palle !  Palle ! '  the  Medici  watchword, 
and  the  enemies  of  the  Medici  were  slaughtered 
in  the  streets  or  hung  from  the  windows  of  the 
Palazzo  Vecchio.      There,  among  others,   were 
seen  the  dangling  corpses  of  Archbishop  Salviati 
and  of  Francesco  Pazzi,  who  in  their  last  strug' 
gles  had  gripped  each  other  with  their  teeth  and 
remained  thus  for  some  time.     More  than  seventy 
persons  perished  on  that  day,  and  Lorenzo,  tak- 
ing advantage  of  the  opportunity,  pushed  mat- 
ters to  extremity   by   his  confiscations,   banish- 
ments,   and   sentences   of  death.      Thereby   his 
power  would  have  been  infinitely  increased  if 
Pope  Sixtus  IV.,  blinded  by  rage,  had  not  been 
induced  to  excommunicate  Florence,  and  make 
war  against  it,  in  conjunction  with  Ferdinand  of 
Aragon.      On   this    Lorenzo,    without  losing  a 
moment,  went  straight  to  Naples,  and  made  the 
king  understand  how  much  better  it  served  his 
interests  that  Florence  should  have  but  one  ruler 
instead  of  a  republican  government,  always  lia- 
ble to  change  and   certainly   never  friendly  to 
Naples.    So  he  returned  with  peace  re-established 
and  boundless  authority  and  popularity.     Now 
indeed  he  might  have  called  himself  lord  of  the 
city,  and  it  must  have  seemed  easy  to  him  to 
destroy  the  republican  govermnent  altogether. 
I  With  his  pride  and  ambition  it  is  certain  that  he 


1171 


FLORENCE,  1469-1493. 


Lorenzo 
the  Magnificent. 


FLORENCE,  1469-1492. 


had  an  intense  desire  to  stand  on  the  same  level 
with  the  other  princes  and  tyrants  of  Italy,  the 
more  so  as  at  that  moment  success  seemed  en- 
tirely within  his  grasp.  But  Lorenzo  showed 
that  his  political  shrewdness  was  not  to  be 
blinded  by  prosperity,  and  knowing  Florence 
well,  he  remained  firm  to  the  traditional  policy 
of  his  house,  that  of  dominating  the  Republic, 
while  apparently  respecting  it.  He  was  well  de- 
tei-mined  to  render  his  power  solid  and  durable ; 
but  to  that  end  he  had  recourse  to  a  most  inge- 
nious reform,  by  means  of  which,  without  aban- 
doning the  old  road,  he  thoroughly  succeeded  in 
his  object.  In  place  of  the  usual  five-yearly 
Balia,  he  instituted,  in  1480,  the  Council  of 
Seventy,  which  renewed  itself  and  was  like  a 
permanent  Balia  with  still  wider  power.  This, 
composed  of  men  entirely  devoted  to  his  cause, 
secured  the  government  to  him  forever.  By  this 
Council,  say  the  chroniclers  of  the  time,  liberty 
was  wholly  buried  and  undone,  but  certainly  the 
most  important  affairs  of  the  State  were  caiTied 
on  in  it  by  intelligent  and  cultivated  men,  who 
largely  promoted  its  material  prosj^erity.  Flor- 
ence still  called  itself  a  republic,  nominally  the 
old  institutions  were  still  in  existence,  but  all 
this  seemed  and  was  nothing  but  an  empty 
mockery.  Lorenzo,  absolute  lord  of  all,  might 
certainly  be  called  a  tyrant,  surrounded  by  lack- 
eys and  courtiers.  .  .  .  Yet  he  dazzled  all  men 
by  the  splendour  of  his  rule,  so  that  [Guicciar^ 
dini]  observes,  that  though  Lorenzo  was  a  tyrant, 
'  it  would  be  impossible  to  imagine  a  better  and 
more  pleasing  tyrant.'  Industry,  commerce, 
public  works  had  all  received  a  mighty  impulse. 
In  no  city  in  the  world  had  the  civil  equality  of 
modern  States  reached  the  degree  to  which  it  had 
attained  not  merely  in  Florence  itself,  but  in  its 
whole  territory  and  throughout  all  Tuscany. 
Administration  and  secular  justice  proceeded 
regularly  enough  in  ordinary  cases,  crime  was  di- 
minished, and,  above  all,  literary  culture  had  be- 
come a  substantial  element  of  the  new  State. 
Learned  men  were  emploj'ed  in  public  oflices, 
and  from  Florence  spread  a  light  that  illuminated 
the  world.  .  .  .  But  Lorenzo's  policy  could  found 
nothing  that  was  permanent.  Unrivalled  as  a 
model  of  sagacity  and  prudence,  it  promoted  in 
Florence  the  development  of  all  the  new  elements 
of  which  modern  society  was  to  be  the  outcome, 
without  succeeding  in  fusing  them  together;  for 
his  was  a  policy  of  equivocation  and  deceit, 
directed  by  a  man  of  much  genius,  who  had  no 
higher  aim  than  his  own  interest  and  that  of  his 
family,  to  which  he  never  hesitated  to  sacrifice 
the  interests  of  his  people." — P.  Villari,  Machia- 
velli  and  his  Times,  ch.  3,  sect.  2  (».  1). — "The 
state  of  Florence  at  this  period  was  very  remark- 
able. The  most  Independent  and  tumultuous 
of  towns  was  spellbound  under  the  sway  of 
Lorenzo  de'  Medici,  the  grandson  of  Cosimo  who 
built  San  Marco;  and  scarcely  seemed  even  to 
recollect  its  freedom,  so  absorbed  was  it  in  the 
present  advantages  conferred  by  '  a  strong  gov- 
ernment," and  solaced  by  shows,  entertainments, 
festivals,  pomp,  and  display  of  all  kinds.  It  was 
the  very  height  of  that  classic  revival  so  famous 
in  the  later  history  of  the  world,  and  the  higher 
classes  of  society,  having  shaken  themselves 
apart  with  graceful  contempt  from  the  lower, 
had  begun  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  a 
pagan  model,  leaving  the  other  and  much  big- 
ger half  of  the  world  to  pursue  its  superstitions 


undisturbed.  Florence  was  as  near  a  pagan  city 
as  it  was  possible  for  its  rulers  to  make  it.  Its 
intellectual  existence  was  entirely  given  up  to 
the  past;  its  days  were  spent  in  that  worship  of 
antiquity  which  has  no  power  of  discrimination, 
and  deifies  not  only  the  wisdom  but  the  triviali- 
ties of  its  golden  epoch.  Lorenzo  reigned  in  the 
midst  of  a  lettered  crowd  of  classic  parasites  and 
flatterers,  writing  poems  which  his  courtiers 
found  better  than  Alighieri's,  and  surrounding 
himself  with  those  eloquent  slaves  who  make  a 
prince's  name  more  famous  than  arms  or  victories, 
and  who  have  still  left  a  prejudice  in  the  minds 
of  all  literature-loving  people  in  favour  of  their 
patron.  A  man  of  superb  health  and  physical 
power,  who  can  give  himself  up  to  debauch  all 
night  without  interfering  with  his  power  of 
working  all  day,  and  whose  mind  is  so  versatile 
that  he  can  sack  a  town  one  morning  and  dis- 
course upon  the  beauties  of  Plato  the  next,  and 
weave  joyous  ballads  through  both  occupations 
—  gives  his  flatterers  reason  when  they  applaud 
him.  The  few  righteous  men  in  the  city,  the 
citizens  who  still  thought  of  Florence  above 
all,  kept  apart,  overwhelmed  by  the  tide  which 
ran  in  favour  of  that  leading  citizen  of  Florence 
who  had  gained  the  control  of  the  once  high- 
spirited  and  freedom-loving  people.  Society 
had  never  been  more  dissolute,  more  selfish,  or 
more  utterly  deprived  of  any  higher  aim.  Bar- 
ren scholarship,  busy  over  grammatical  ques- 
tions, and  elegant  philosophy,  snipping  and 
piecing  its  logical  systems,  formed  the  top  dres- 
sing to  that  half-brutal,  half-superstitious  igno- 
rance which  in  such  communities  is  the  general 
portion  of  the  poor.  The  dilettante  world 
dreamed  hazily  of  a  restoration  of  the  worship 
of  the  pagan  gods;  Cardinal  Bembo  bade  his 
friend  beware  of  reading  St.  Paul's  epistles,  lest 
their  barbarous  style  should  corrupt  his  taste; 
and  even  such  a  man  as  Pico  delta  Mirandola 
declared  the  '  Divina  Commedia '  to  be  inferior 
to  the  '  Canti  Carnascialeschi '  of  Lorenzo  de' 
Medici.  .  .  .  Thus  limited  intellectually,  the  age 
of  Lorenzo  was  still  more  hopeless  morally,  full 
of  debauchery,  cruelty,  and  corruption,  violat- 
ing oaths,  betraying  trusts,  believing  in  nothing 
but  Greek  manuscripts,  coins,  and  statues,  caring 
for  nothing  but  pleasure.  "This  was  the  world 
in  which  Savonarola  found  himself. " — Jlrs.  Oli- 
phant,  T/ie  Makers  of  Florence,  ch.  9.  —  "Terrible 
municipal  enmities  had  produced  so  much  evil 
as  to  relax  ancient  republican  energy.  After  so 
much  destruction  repose  was  necessary.  To  an- 
tique sobriety  and  gravity  succeed  love  of 
pleasure  and  the  quest  of  luxury.  The  bel- 
ligerent class  of  great  nobles  were  expelled  and 
the  energetic  class  of  artisans  crushed.  Bourgeois 
rulers  were  to  rule,  and  to  rule  tranquilly.  Like 
the  Medicis,  their  chiefs,  they  manufacture, 
trade,  bank  and  make  fortunes  in  order  to  expend 
them  in  intellectual  fashion.  War  no  longer 
fastens  its  cares  upon  them,  as  formerly,  with  a 
bitter  and  tragic  grasp ;  they  manage  it  through 
the  paid  bands  of  condottieri,  and  these  as  cun- 
ning traflickers,  reduce  it  to  cavalcades;  when 
they  slaughter  each  other  it  is  by  mistake ;  his- 
torians cite  battles  in  which  three,  and  sometimes 
only  one  soldier  remains  on  the  field.  Diplomacy 
takes  the  place  of  force,  and  the  mind  expands 
as  character  weakens.  Through  this  mitigation 
of  war  and  through  the  establishment  of  princi- 
palities or  of  local  tyraunies,  it  seems  that  Italy, 


1172 


FLORENCE,   1469-1493. 


Lorenzo 
the  Magnificent. 


FLORENCE,  1490-1498. 


like  tlie  great  European  monarchies,  had  just  at- 
tained to  its  equilibrium.  Peace  is  partially 
established  and  the  useful  arts  germinate  in  all 
directions  upon  an  improved  social  soil  like  a 
good  harvest  on  a  cleared  and  well-ploughed 
field.  The  peasant  is  no  longer  a  serf  of  tlie  glebe, 
but  a  metayer;  he  nominates  his  own  municipal 
magistrates,  possesses  arms  and  a  communal 
treasury ;  he  lives  in  enclosed  bourgs,  the  houses 
of  which,  built  of  stone  and  cement,  are  large, 
convenient,  and  often  elegant.  Near  Florence 
he  erects  walls,  and  near  Lucca  he  constructs 
turf  terraces  in  order  to  favor  cultivation. 
Lombardy  has  its  irrigations  and  rotation  of 
crops;  entire  districts,  now  so  many  deserts 
around  Lombardy  and  Rome,  are  still  inhabited 
and  richly  productive.  In  the  upper  class  the 
bourgeois  aud  the  noble  labor  since  the  chiefs  of 
Florence  are  hereditary  bankers  and  commercial 
interests  are  not  endangered.  Marble  quarries 
are  worked  at  Carrara,  and  foundry  fires  are 
lighted  in  the  JIaremmes.  AVc  find  in  the  cities 
manufactories  of  silk,  glass,  paper,  books,  flax, 
wool  and  hemp ;  Italy  alone  produces  as  much  as 
all  Europe  and  furnishes  to  it  all  its  luxuries. 
Thus  diffused  commerce  and  industry  are  not 
servile  occupations  tending  to  narrow  or  debase 
the  mind.  A  great  merchant  is  a  pacific  general, 
whose  mind  expands  in  contact  with  men  and 
things.  Like  a  military  chieftain  he  organizes 
expeditions  and  enterprises  and  makes  discover- 
ies. .  .  .  The  Medicis  possess  sixteen  banking- 
houses  in  Europe ;  they  bind  together  through 
their  business  Russia  and  Spain,  Scotland  and 
Syria;  they  possess  mines  of  alum  throughout 
Italy,  paying  to  tlie  Pope  for  one  of  them  a  hun- 
dred thousand  florins  per  annum ;  they  entertain 
at  their  court  representatives  of  all  the  powers  of 
Europe  and  become  the  councillors  and  modera- 
tors of  all  Italy.  In  a  small  state  like  Florence, 
and  in  a  country  without  a  national  army  like 
Italy,  such  an  influence  becomes  ascendant  in  and 
through  itself;  a  control  over  private  fortunes 
leads  to  a  management  of  the  public  funds,  and 
without  striking  a  blow  or  using  violence, a  private 
individual  finds  himself  director  of  the  state. 
.  .  .  These  banking  magistrates  are  liberal  as  well 
as  capable.  In  thirty-seven  years  the  ancestors  of 
Lorenzo  expend  si.x  hundred  and  sixty  thousand 
florins  in  works  of  charity  and  of  public  utility. 
Lorenzo  himself  is  a  citizen  of  the  antique  stamp, 
almost  a  Pericles,  capable  of  rushing  into  the  arms 
of  his  enemy,  the  king  of  Naples,  in  order  to  avert, 
through  personal  seductions  and  eloquence,  a 
war  which  menaces  the  safety  of  his  country. 
His  private  fortune  is  a  sort  of  puljlic  treasury, 
and  his  palace  a  second  hotel-de-ville.  He  en- 
tertains the  learned,  aids  them  with  his  purse, 
makes  friends  of  them,  corresponds  with  them, 
defrays  the  expenses  of  editions  of  their  works, 
purchases  manuscripts,  statues  and  medals,  pat- 
ronizes promising  young  artists,  opens  to  them 
his  gardens,  his  collections,  his  house  and  his 
table,  and  with  that  cordial  familiarity  and  that 
openness,  sincerity  and  simplicity  of  heart  which 
place  the  protected  on  a  footing  of  equality 
with  the  protector  as  man  to  man  and  not  as 
an  inferior  in  relation  to  a  superior.  This  is  the 
representative  man  whom  his  contemporaries  all 
accept  as  the  accomplished  man  of  the  century, 
no  longer  a  Farinata  or  an  Alighieri  of  ancient 
Florence,  a  spirit  rigid,  exalted  and  militant  to 
its  utmost  capacity,  but  a  balanced,  moderate 


and  cultivated  genius,  one  who,  through  the 
genial  sway  of  his  serene  and  beneficent  intellect, 
binds  up  into  one  sheaf  all  talents  and  all  beauties. 
It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  them  expanding  around 
him.  On  the  one  hand  writers  are  restoring  and, 
on  the  other,  constructing.  From  the  time  of 
Petrarch  Greek  and  Latin  manuscripts  are  sought 
for,  and  now  they  are  to  be  exhumed  in  the  con- 
vents of  Italy,  Switzerland,  Germany  and  France. 
They  are  deciphered  and  restored  with  the  aid  of 
the  savants  of  Constantinople.  A  decade  of 
Livy  or  a  treatise  by  Cicero,  is  a  precious  gift 
solicited  by  princes;  some  learned  man  passes 
ten  years  of  travel  in  ransacking  distant  libraries 
in  order  to  find  a  lost  book  of  Tacitus,  while  the 
sixteen  authors  rescued  from  oblivion  by  the 
Poggios  are  counted  as  so  many  titles  to  immor- 
tal fame.  .  .  .  Style  again  becomes  noble  and 
at  the  same  time  clear,  and  the  health,  joy  and 
serenity  diffused  through  antique  life  re-enters 
the  human  mind  with  the  harmonious  propor- 
tions of  language  aud  the  measured  graces  of 
diction.  From  refined  language  they  pass  to 
vulgar  language,  and  the  Italian  is  born  by  the 
side  of  the  Latin.  .  .  .  Here  in  the  restored 
paganism,  shines  out  epicurean  gaity,  a  deter- 
mination to  enjoy  at  any  and  all  hours,  and  that 
instinct  for  pleasure  which  a  grave  philosophy 
and  political  sobriety  had  thus  far  tempered  and 
restrained.  With  Pulci,  Berni,  Bibiena,  Ariosto, 
Bandelli,  Aretino,  and  so  many  others,  we  soon 
see  the  advent  of  voluptuous  debauchery  and 
open  skepticism,  and  later  a  cynical  unbounded 
licentiousness.  These  joyous  and  refined  civiliza- 
tions based  on  a  worship  of  pleasure  and  intel- 
lectuality—  Greece  of  the  fourth  centur}^,  Pro- 
vence of  the  twelfth,  and  Italy  of  the  sixteenth 
—  were  not  enduring.  Man  in  these  lacks  some 
checks.  After  sudden  outbursts  of  genius  and 
creativeness  he  wanders  away  in  the  direction  of 
license  and  egotism;  the  degenerate  artist  and 
thinker  makes  room  for  the  sophist  and  the  dilet- 
tant.  But  in  this  transient  brilliancy  his  beauty 
was  charming.  ...  It  is  in  this  world,  again 
become  pagan,  that  painting  revives,  and  the 
new  tastes  she  is  to  gratify  show  beforehand  the 
road  she  is  to  follow ;  henceforth  she  is  to  decorate 
the  houses  of  rich  merchants  who  love  antiquity 
and  who  desire  to  live  daintily." — H.  A.  Taine, 
Italy,  Floreric-e  and  Venice,  hk.  3,  ch.  2. 

Also  in  :  A.  von  Reumont,  Lorenzo  de' Medici. 
— AV.  Roscoe,  Life  of  Lorenzo  de' Medici.- — F.-T. 
Perrens,  Hist,  of  Florence,  1434^1531,  bk.  2,  ch. 
2-6. 

A.  D.  1490-1498. — The  preaching  of  Savona- 
rola.— The  coming  of  Charles  VIII.  of  France, 
and  expulsion  of  the  Medici. — The  great  re- 
ligious revival  and  Christianization  of  the 
Comraonvsrealth. — Conflict  with  the  Church 
and  fall  of  Savonarola. — Girolamo,  or  Jerome 
Savonarola,  a  Dominican  monk,  born  at  Ferrara 
in  1452,  educated  to  be  a  physician,  but  led  by 
early  disgust  with  the  world  to  renounce  his  in- 
tended profession  and  give  himself  to  the  religous 
life,  was  sent  to  the  convent  of  St.  JIark,  in 
Florence,  in  1490,  when  he  had  reached  the  age 
of  87.  "  He  began  his  career  as  a  reader  and 
lecturer,  and  his  lectures,  though  only  intended 
for  novices,  drew  a  large  audience.  He  then 
lectured  in  the  garden  of  the  cloister,  under  a 
large  rosebush,  where  many  Intellectual  men 
came  from  the  city  to  hear  him.  At  length  he 
began  to  preach  in  the  Church  of  St.  Mark's,  and 


117; 


FLORENCE,  1490-1498. 


Savonarola. 


FLORENCE,  1490-1498. 


his  subject  was  the  Apocalypse,  out  of  which  he 
predicted  the  restoration  of  the  Church  in  Italy, 
which  he  declared  God  would  bring  about  by  a 
severe  visitation.  Its  influence  upon  his  hearers 
was  overpowering;  there  was  no  room  in  the 
church  for  the  brethren;  his  fame  spread  abroad, 
and  he  was  next  appointed  to  preach  the  sermons 
in  the  cathedral.  .  .  .  Amid  the  luxurious, 
tcsthetic,  semi-pagan  life  of  Florence,  in  the  ears 
of  the  rich  citizens,  the  licentious  youth,  the 
learned  Platonists,  he  denounced  the  revival  of 
paganism,  the  corruptions  of  the  Church,  the 
ignorance  and  consequent  slavery  of  the  people, 
and  declared  that  God  would  visit  Italy  with 
some  terrible  punishment,  and  that  it  would 
soon  come.  He  spoke  severe  words  about  the 
priests,  declared  to  the  people  that  the  Scriptures 
were  the  only  guides  to  salvation ;  that  salvation 
did  not  come  from  external  works,  as  the  Church 
taught,  but  from  faith  in  Christ,  from  giving  up 
the  heart  to  Him,  and  if  He  forgave  sin,  there 
was  no  need  for  any  other  absolution.  Scarcely 
had  he  been  a  year  in  Florence  when  he  was  made 
prior  of  the  monastery.  There  was  a  custom  in 
vogue,  a  relic  of  the  old  times,  for  every  new 
prior  to  go  to  the  king  or  ruler  and  ask  his  favour. 
This  homage  was  then  due  to  Lorenzo  di  Medici, 
but  Savonarola  declared  he  would  never  submit 
to  It,  saying — 'From  whom  have  I  received  my 
office,  from  God  or  Lorenzo  ?  Let  us  pray  for 
grace  to  the  Highest.'  Lorenzo  passed  over  this 
slight,  being  anxious  to  acquire  the  friendship 
of  one  whom  he  clearly  saw  would  exert  great 
influence  over  the  Florentines.  Burlaraaclii,  his 
contemporary  biographer,  tells  us  that  Lorenzo 
tried  all  kinds  of  plans  to  win  the  friendship  of 
Savonarola :  he  attended  the  church  of  St.  Mark ; 
listened  to  his  sermons ;  gave  large  sums  of  money 
to  him  for  the  poor ;  loitered  in  the  garden  to  at- 
tract his  attention  —  but  with  little  success.  Sa- 
vonarola treated  him  with  respect,  gave  his  money 
away  to  the  poor,  but  avoided  him  and  denounced 
him.  Another  plan  was  tried :  five  distinguished 
men  waited  on  Savonarola,  and  begged  him  to 
spare  such  elevated  persons  in  his  sermons,  to 
treat  more  of  generalities,  and  not  to  foretell  the 
future.  They  received  a  prophetic  answer:  'Go 
tell  your  master,  Lorenzo,  to  repent  of  his  sins, 
or  God  will  punish  him  and  his.  Does  he  threaten 
me  with  banishment  ?  Well,  I  am  but  a  stranger, 
and  he  is  the  first  citizen  in  Florence,  but  let  him 
know  that  I  shall  remain  and  he  must  soon  de- 
part ! '  What  happened  shortly  after  caused  the 
people  to  begin  to  regard  Savonarola  as  a  prophet, 
and  won  him  that  terrible  fame  which  caused  his 
downfall.  .  .  .  Lorenzo  died  on  the  8th  April, 
1493,  and  from  that  time  Savonarola  becomes 
more  prominent.  He  directed  his  exertions  to 
the  accomplishment  of  three  objects  —  the  refor- 
mation of  his  monastery,  the  reformation  of  the 
Florentine  State,  and  the  reformation  of  the 
Church.  He  changed  the  whole  character  of  his 
monastery.  .  .  .  Then  he  proceeded  to  State 
matters,  and  in  this  step  we  come  to  the  problem 
of  his  life  —  was  he  a  prophet  or  a  fanatic  1  Let 
the  facts  speak  for  themselves.  Lorenzo  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Pietro,  who  was  vastly  in- 
ferior to  his  father  in  learning  and  statesmanship. 
His  only  idea  appears  to  have  been  a  desire  to 
imite  Florence  and  Naples  into  one  principality; 
this  created  for  him  many  enemies,  and  men  be- 
gan to  fancy  that  the  great  house  of  Medici 
would  terminate  with    him.      So,   it    appears, 


thought  Savonarola,  and  announced  the  fact  at 
first  privately  amongst  his  friends;  in  a  short 
time,  however,  he  began  to  prophecy  their  down- 
fall publicly.  During  the  years  1493  and  1494, 
he  was  actively  engaged  in  preaching.  In  Ad- 
vent of  the  former  year,  he  began  his  thirteea 
sermons  upon  Noah's  Ark.  In  1493  he  preached 
the  Lent  sermons  at  Bologna,  and  upon  his  return 
he  began  preaching  in  the  cathedral.  In  these 
sermons  he  predicted  the  approaching  fall  of  the 
State  to  the  astonishment  of  all  his  hearers,  who 
had  not  the  slightest  apprehension  of  danger: 
'  The  Lord  has  declared  that  His  sword  shall 
come  upon  the  land  swiftly  and  soon.'  This  was 
the  burden  of  a  sermon  preached  on  Advent 
Sunday,  1493.  At  the  close  of  1493,  and  as  the 
new  year  approached,  he  spoke  out  more  plainly 
and  definitely.  He  declared  that  one  should 
come  over  the  Alps  who  was  called,  like  Cyrus,  of 
whom  Jeremiah  wrote ;  and  he  should,  sword  in 
hand,  wreak  vengeance  upon  the  tyrants  of  Italy. 
.  .  .  His  preaching  had  always  exerted  a  mar- 
vellous influence  upon  people,  as  we  shall  here- 
after note,  but  they  could  not  understand  the 
cause  of  these  predictions.  The  city  was  at 
peace;  gay  and  joyous  as  usual,  and  no  fear  was 
entertained;  but  towards  the  end  of  the  year 
came  the  fulfilment.  Charles  VIII.,  King  of 
France,  called  into  Italy  by  Duke  Ludovico  of 
Milan,  came  over  the  Alps  with  an  immense 
army,  took  Naples,  and  advanced  on  Florence. 
The  expulsion  of  the  Medici  from  Florence  soon 
followed.  Pietro,  being  captured,  signed  an 
agreement  to  deliver  up  all  his  strongholds  to 
Charles  VIII.,  and  to  pay  him  300,000  ducats 
[see  Italy:  A.  D.  1494-1496].  The  utmost  in- 
dignation seized  the  Florentines  when  they  heard 
of  this  treaty.  The  Signori  sent  heralds  to 
Charles,  to  negociate  for  milder  terms,  and  their 
chief  was  Savonarola,  who  addressed  the  King 
like  a  prophet,  begged  him  to  take  pity  on  Italy, 
and  save  her.  His  words  had  the  desired  eiiect. 
Charles  made  more  easy  terms,  and  left  it  to  the 
Florentine  people  to  settle  their  own  State.  In 
the  meantime  Pietro  returned,  but  he  found 
Florence  in  the  greatest  excitement  —  the  royal 
palace  was  closed ;  stones  were  thrown  at  him ; 
he  summoned  his  guards,  but  the  people  took  to 
arms,  and  he  was  compelled  to  fly  to  his  brothers 
Giovanni  and  Giuliauo.  The  Signori  declared 
them  to  be  traitors,  and  set  a  price  upon  their 
heads.  Their  palace  and  its  treasures  fell  into 
the  hands  of  the  people.  The  friends  of  the 
Medici,  however,  were  not  all  extinct;  and  as  a 
discussion  arose  which  was  likely  to  lead  to  a 
struggle,  Savonarola  summoned  the  people  to 
meet  under  the  dome  of  St.  Mark.  ...  In 
fact,  the  formation  of  the  new  State  fell  upon 
Savonarola,  for  the  people  looked  up  to  him  as 
an  inspired  prophet.  He  proposed  that  3,300 
citizens  should  form  themselves  into  a  general 
council.  Then  they  drew  lots  for  a  third  part, 
who  for  six  months  were  to  act  together  as  an 
executive  body  and  represent  the  general  coun- 
cil, another  one-third  for  the  next  three  months, 
and  so  on ;  so  that  every  citizen  had  his  turn  in 
the  council  every  eighteen  months.  They  ulti- 
mately found  it  convenient  to  reduce  the  number 
to  80  —  in  fact,  Savonarola's  Democracy  was  rap- 
idly becoming  oligarchic.  Each  of  these  80  rep- 
resentatives was  to  be  40  years  of  age;  they 
voted  with  black  and  white  beans,  six  being  a 
legal  majority.     But  the  Chief  of  the  State  was 


1174 


FLORENCE,  1490-1498. 


Savonarola. 


FLORENCE,  1498-1500. 


to  be  Christ ;  He  was  to  be  the  new  monarch. 
His  next  step  was  to  induce  them  to  proclaim  a 
general  amnesty,  in  which  he  succeeded  only 
through  vigorously  preaching  to  them  that  for- 
giveness was  sweeter  than  vengeance  —  that  free- 
dom and  peace  were  more  loving  than  strife  and 
hatred.  ...  He  was  now  at  the  height  of  his 
power ;  his  voice  ruled  the  State ;  he  is  the  only 
instance  in  Europe  of  a  monk  openly  leading  a 
republic.  The  people  regarded  him  as  something 
more  than  human :  they  knew  of  his  nights  spent 
in  prayer;  of  his  long  fasts;  of  his  unbounded 
charity.  .  .  .  Few  preachers  ever  exerted  such 
influence  upon  the  minds  of  crowds,  such  a 
vitalizing  influence ;  he  changed  the  whole  char- 
acter of  Florentine  society.  Libertines  abandoned 
their  vices ;  the  theatres  and  taverns  were  empty ; 
there  was  no  card  playing,  nor  dice  throwing; 
the  love  of  fasting  grew  so  general,  that  meat 
could  not  be  sold ;  the  city  of  Florence  was  God's 
city,  and  its  government  a  Theocracy.  There 
was  a  custom  in  Florence,  during  Carnival  time, 
for  the  children  to  go  from  house  to  house  and 
bid  people  give  up  their  cherished  pleasures; 
and  so  great  was  the  enthusiasm  at  this  period 
that  people  gave  up  their  cards,  their  dice  and 
backgammon  boards,  the  ladies  their  perfumed 
waters,  veils,  paint-pots,  false  hair,  musical  in- 
struments, harps,  lutes,  licentious  tales,  especi- 
ally those  of  Boccaccio,  dream  books,  romances, 
and  popular  songs.  All  this  booty  was  gathered 
together  in  a  heap  in  the  market  place,  the  people 
assembled,  the  Signori  took  their  places,  and 
children  clothed  in  white,  with  olive  branches  on 
their  heads,  received  from  them  the  burning 
torches,  and  set  fire  to  the  pile  amid  the  blast  of 
trumpets  and  chant  of  psalms,  which  were  con- 
tinued till  the  whole  was  consumed.  .  .  .  His 
fame  had  now  reached  other  countries ;  foreign- 
ers visited  Florence  solely  for  the  purpose  of  see- 
ing and  hearing  him.  The  Sultan  of  Turkey 
allowed  his  sermons  to  be  translated  and  circu- 
lated in  his  dominions.  But  in  the  midst  of  his 
prosperity  his  enemies  were  not  idle :  as  he  pro- 
gressed their  jealousy  increased:  his  preaching 
displeased  them,  terrified  them,  and  amongst 
these  the  most  bitter  and  virulent  were  the  young 
sons  of  the  upper  classes:  they  called  his  follow- 
ers '  howlers '  (Piagnoni),  and  so  raged  against 
him  that  they  gained  the  name,  now  immortalised 
in  history,  of  the  Arrabiati  (the  furies):  this 
party  was  increased  by  the  old  friends  of  the 
Medici,  who  called  him  a  rebel  and  leader  of  the 
lower  classes.  Dolfo  Spini,  a  young  man  of 
position  and  wealth,  commanded  this  party,  and 
used  every  effort  to  destroy  the  reputation  of 
Savonarola,  to  incite  the  people  against  him,  and 
to  ruin  him.  They  bore  the  name  of  '  Compag- 
nacci ' ;  they  wrote  satires  about  the  Piagnoni ; 
they  circulated  slanders  about  the  monk  who  was 
making  Florence  the  laughing  stock  of  Europe : 
but  Savonarola  went  on  his  way  indifferent  to 
the  signs  already  manifesting  themselves  amongst 
his  countrymen,  ever  most  sensitive  to  ridicule. 
He  also  strove  to  reform  the  Church;  he  deline- 
ated the  Apostolic  Church  as  a  model  upon  which 
he  would  build  up  that  of  Florence.  .  .  .  By 
this  time,  the  intelligence  of  his  doings,  and  the 
gist  of  his  preaching  and  writing,  which  had 
been  carefully  transmitted  to  Rome  by  his  ene- 
mies, began  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  Pope, 
Alexander  VI. ,  who  tried  what  had  frequently 
proved  an  infallible  remedy,  and  offered  Savona- 


rola a  Cardinal's  hat,  which  he  at  once  refused. 
He  was  then  invited  to  Rome,  but  thought  it 
prudent  to  excuse  himself.  When  the  contro- 
versy between  him  and  the  Pope  appeared  to  ap- 
proach a  crisis,  Savonarola  took  a  step  which 
somewhat  hurried  the  catastrophe.  He  wrote  to 
the  Kings  of  France  and  Spain,  and  the  Emperor 
of  Germany,  to  call  a  General  Council  to  take 
into  consideration  the  Reform  of  the  Church. 
One  of  these  letters  reached  the  Pope,  through  a 
spy  of  Duke  Ludovico  Moro,  of  Milan,  whom 
Savonarola  had  denounced.  The  result  was  the 
issue  of  a  Breve  (October,  1496),  which  forbade 
him  to  preach.  'The  Pope  then  ordered  the  Con- 
gregation of  St.  Mark  to  be  broken  up  and  amal- 
gamated with  another.  For  a  time  Savonarola, 
at  the  advice  of  his  friends,  remained  quiet;  but 
at  this  last  step,  to  break  up  the  institution  he 
had  established,  he  was  aroused  to  action.  He 
denounced  Rome  as  the  source  of  all  the  poison 
which  was  undermining  the  constitution  of  the 
Church;  declared  that  its  evil  fame  stunk  in 
men's  nostrils.  The  Pope  then  applied  to  the 
Signori  to  deliver  up  this  enemy  of  the  Church, 
but  to  no  purpose.  The  Franciscans  were  ordered 
to  preach  against  him,  but  they  made  no  impres- 
sion. Then  came  the  last  thunderbolt ;  a  Bann 
was  issued  (12th  May,  1497),  which  was  an- 
nounced by  the  Franciscans.  During  the  time 
of  his  suspension  and  his  excommunication, 
many  things  happened  which  tended  to  his  down- 
fall, although  his  friends  gathered  round  him: 
the  rapid  change  of  ministry  brought  in  turn 
friends  of  the  Medici  to  the  helm;  they  intro- 
duced the  young  Compagnacci  into  the  Council, 
and  gradually  his  enemies  were  increasing  in  the 
Government  to  a  strong  party."  The  fickle 
Florentine  mob  now  took  sides  with  them  against 
the  monk  whom  it  had  recently  adored,  and  on 
the  7th  of  April,  1498,  in  the  midst  of  a  raging 
tumult,  Savonarola  was  taken  into  custody  by 
the  Signori  of  the  city.  With  the  assent  of  the 
Pope,  he  was  subjected  seven  times  to  torture 
upon  the  rack,  to  force  from  him  a  recantation 
of  all  that  he  had  taught  and  preached,  and  on 
the  23d  of  May  he  was  hanged  and  burned, 
in  company  with  two  of  his  disciples. — O.  T. 
Hill,  Introd.  to  Savonarola's  "  Triumph  of  the 
Oross." 

Also  m:  P.  Villari,  Hist,  of  Savonarola  and 
Ms  Times. — Mrs.  Oliphant,  The  Makers  of  Flor- 
ence.— H.  H.  Milman,  Savotuirola,  Erasynus,  and 
other  Essays. — George  Eliot,  Bomola. — H.  Grimm, 
Life  of  Michael  Angela,  v.  1,  ch.  Z-^. 

A.  D.  1494-1509. — The  French  deliverance 
of  Pisa  and  the  long  war  of  reconquest.  See 
Piba:  a.  D.  1494-1509. 

A.  D.  1498-1500. — Threatened  by  the  Med- 
ici, on  one  side,  and  Caesar  Borgia  on  the 
other. — An  new  division  of  parties. —  "After 
the  death  of  Savonarola  things  changed  with  such 
a  degree  of  rapidity  that  the  Arrabbiati  had  not 
time  to  consider  in  what  manner  they  could  re- 
strict the  government;  but  they  soon  became 
convinced  that  the  only  salvation  for  the  Repub- 
lic was  to  adopt  the  course  which  had  been  rec- 
ommended by  the  Friar.  Piero  and  Giuliano  dei 
Medici  were  in  fact  already  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Florence,  supported  by  a  powerful  Venetian 
army.  It  became,  therefore,  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  Arrabbiati  to  unite  with  the  Piagnoni,  in 
order  to  defend  themselves  against  so  many  dan- 
gers and  so  many  enemies.  By  great  good  fortune. 


1175 


FLORENCE,  1498-1500. 


Mtdicean  Tyranny. 


FLORENCE,  1503-1569. 


the  Duke  of  Milan,  from  jealousy  of  the  Vene- 
tians, came  to  their  assistance  to  ward  off  the 
danger ;  but  who  could  trust  to  his  friendship  — 
who  could  place  any  reliance  on  his  fidelity  1 
As  to  Alexander  Borgia,  he  who  had  held  out 
such  great  hopes,  and  had  made  so  many  prom- 
ises, in  order  to  get  Savonarola  put  to  death,  no 
sooner  was  his  object  attained  than  he  gave  full 
sway  to  his  unbridled  passions.  It  seemed  as  if 
the  death  of  the  poor  Friar  had  released  both  the 
Pope  and  his  son,  Duke  Valentino,  from  all  re- 
straints upon  their  lusts  and  ambition.  The  Pope 
formed  intimate  alliances  with  Turks  and  Jews, 
a  thing  hitherto  unheard  of.  He,  in  one  year,  set 
up  twelve  cardinals'  hats  for  sale.  The  history 
of  the  incests  and  murders  of  the  family  of  Bor- 
gia is  too  well  known  to  render  it  necessary  for 
us  to  enter  into  any  detailed  account  of  them 
here.  The  great  ob j  ect  of  the  Pope  was  to  form 
a  State  for  his  son  iu  the  Romagua;  and  so  great 
was  the  ambition  of  Duke  Valentino,  that  he 
contemplated  extending  his  power  over  the  whole 
of  Italy,  Tuscany  being  the  first  part  he  meant 
to  seize  upon.  With  that  view  he  was  always 
endeavouring  to  create  new  dangers  to  the  Re- 
public ;  at  one  time  he  caused  Arezzo  to  rise 
against  it ;  at  another  time  he  threatened  to  bring 
back  Piero  de'  Medici ;  and  he  was  continually 
ravaging  their  territory.  The  consequence  was, 
that  the  Florentines  were  obliged  to  grant  him 
an  annual  subsidy  of  36,000  ducats,  under  the 
name  of  condotta  (military  pay) ;  but  even  that 
did  not  restrain  him  from  every  now  and  then, 
under  various  pretexts,  overrunning  and  laying 
waste  their  territory.  Thus  did  Alexander  Bor- 
gia fulfil  those  promises  to  the  Republic  by  which 
they  had  been  induced  to  murder  Savonarola. 
The  Arrabbiati  were  at  length  convinced  that  to 
defend  themselves  against  the  IVIedici  and  Borgia, 
their  only  course  was  to  cultivate  the  alliance 
with  France,  and  unite  in  good  faith  with  the 
Piagnoni.  Thus  they  completely  adopted  the 
line  of  policy  which  Savonarola  had  advised ;  and 
the  consequence  was,  that  their  affairs  got  order 
and  their  exertions  were  attended  with  a  success 
far  beyond  what  could  have  been  anticipated." 
— P.  Villari,  Hist,  of  Savonarola  and  of  7ns  Times, 
«.  2,  conclusion. — "A  new  division  of  parties 
may  be  said  to  have  taken  place  under  the  three 
denominations  of  '  Palleschi '  [a  name  derived 
from  the  watchword  of  the  Mediceans,  '  palle, 
palle,'  which  alluded  to  the  well-known  balls  in 
the  coat  of  arms  of  the  Medici  family],  '  Otti- 
mati,'  and  'Popolani.'  The  first  .  .  .  were  for 
the  Medici  and  themselves.  .  .  .  The  '  Ottomati ' 
were  in  eager  search  for  a  sort  of  visionary  gov- 
ernment where  a  few  of  the  noblest  blood,  the 
most  illustrious  connexions  and  the  greatest 
riches,  were  to  rule  Florence  without  any  regard 
to  the  Jledici.  .  .  .  The  Popolani,  who  formed 
the  great  majority,  loved  civic  liberty,  therefore 
were  constantly  watching  the  Medici  and  other 
potent  and  ambitious  men." — H.  E.  Napier,  Flnr- 
entine  History,  hk.  2,  ch.  8  (1>.  4). 

A.  D.  1502-1569. — Ten  years  under  Piero 
Soderini. — Restoration  of  the  Medici  and  their 
second  expulsion. — Siege  of  the  city  by  the 
imperial  army. — Final  surrender  to  Medicean 
tyranny. —  Creation  of  the  Grand  Duchy  of 
Tuscany. — "In  1502,  it  was  decreed  that  the 
Gonfalonier  should  hold  office  for  life  —  should 
be  in  fact  a  Doge.  To  tliis  important  post  of 
permanent    president    Piero    Soderini   was    ap- 


pointed ;  and  in  his  hands  were  placed  the  chief 
affairs  of  the  republic.  .  .  .  During  the  ten 
years  which  elapsed  between  1502  and  1513, 
Piero  Soderini  administered  Florence  with  an  out- 
ward show  of  great  prosperity.  He  regained 
Pisa,  and  maintained  an  honourable  foreign 
policy  in  the  midst  of  the  wars  stirred  up  by  the 
League  of  Cambray.  Meanwhile  the  young 
princes  of  the  house  of  Medici  had  grown  to 
manhood  in  exile.  The  Cardinal  Giovanni  was 
37  in  1512.  His  brother  Giuliano  was  33.  Both 
of  these  men  were  better  fitted  than  their  brother 
Piero  to  fight  the  battles  of  the  family.  Gio- 
vanni, in  particular,  had  inherited  no  small  por- 
tion of  the  Medicean  craft.  During  the  troubled 
reign  of  Julius  II.  he  kept  very  quiet,  cementing 
his  connection  with  powerful  men  in  Rome,  but 
making  no  effort  to  regain  his  hold  on  Florence. 
Now  the  moment  for  striking  a  decisive  blow  had 
come.  After  the  battle  of  Ravenna  in  1512,  the 
French  were  driven  out  of  Italy,  and  the  Sforzas 
returned  to  Milan  [see  Italy:  A.  D.  1510-1513]; 
the  Spanish  troops,  under  the  Viceroy  Cardona, 
remained  masters  of  the  coimtry.  Following 
the  camp  of  these  Spaniards,  Giovanni  de'  Medici 
entered  Tuscany  in  August,  and  caused  the  res- 
toration of  the  Medici  to  be  announced  in  Flor- 
ence. The  people,  assembled  by  Soderini,  re- 
solved to  resist  to  the  uttermost.  .  .  .  Yet  their 
courage  failed  on  August  29th,  when  news  reached 
them  of  the  capture  and  the  sack  of  Prato. 
Prato  is  a  sunny  little  city  a  few  miles  distant 
from  the  walls  of  Florence,  famous  for  the 
beauty  of  its  women,  the  richness  of  its  gardens, 
and  the  grace  of  its  buildings.  Into  this  gem  of 
cities  the  savage  soldiery  of  Spain  marched  in 
the  bright  autumnal  weather,  and  turned  the 
jjaradise  into  a  hell.  It  is  even  now  impossible 
to  read  of  what  they  did  in  Prato  without  shud- 
dering. Cruelty  and  lust,  sordid  greed  for  gold, 
and  cold  delight  in  bloodshed,  could  go  no 
further.  Giovanni  de'  Medici,  by  nature  mild 
and  voluptuous,  averse  to  violence  of  all  kinds, 
had  to  smile  approval,  while  the  Spanish  Viceroy 
knocked  thus  with  mailed  hand  for  him  at  the 
door  of  Florence.  The  Florentines  were  para- 
l3'sed  with  terror.  They  deposed  Soderini  and 
received  the  Medici.  Giovanni  and  Giuliano 
entered  their  devastated  palace  in  the  Via  Larga, 
abolished  the  Grand  Council,  and  dealt  with  the 
republic  as  they  listed.  ...  It  is  not  likely  that 
they  would  have  succeeded  in  maintaining  their 
authority  —  for  they  were  poor  and  ill-supported 
by  friends  outside  the  city  —  except  for  one  most 
lucky  circumstance:  that  was  the  election  of 
Giovanni  de'  Medici  to  the  Papacy  in  1513.  The 
creation  of  Leo  X.  spread  satisfaction  through- 
out Ital_y.  .  .  .  Florence  shared  in  the  general 
rejoicing.  ...  It  seemed  as  though  the  Repub- 
lic, swayed  by  him,  might  make  herself  the  first 
city  in  Italy,  and  restore  the  glories  of  her  Guelf 
ascendency  upon  the  platform  of  Renaissance 
statecraft.  There  was  now  no  overt  opposition  to 
the  Medici  in  Florence.  How  to  govern  the  city 
from  Rome,  and  how  to  advance  the  fortunes  of 
his  brother  Giuliano  and  his  nephew  Lorenzo 
(Piero's  son,  a  young  man  of  21),  occupied  the 
Pope's  most  serious  attention.  For  Lorenzo,  Leo 
obtained  the  Duchy  of  Urbino  and  the  hand  of  a 
French  princess.  Giuliano  was  named  Gonfa- 
lonier of  the  Church.  He  also  received  the  French 
title  of  Duke  of  Nemours  and  the  hand  of  Fili- 
berta.  Princess  of  Savoy.  .  .  .  Giulio,  the  Pope's 


1176 


FLORENCE,  1503-1569. 


FLORIDA,  153S-1542. 


bastard  cousin,  was  made  cardinal.  ...  To  Lor- 
enzo, Duke  of  Urbino,  the  titular  head  of  the 
family,  was  committed  the  government  of  Flor- 
ence. .  .  .  Florence  now  for  the  first  time  saw  a 
regular  court  establislied  in  her  midst,  with  a 
prince,  who,  though  he  bore  a  foreign  title,  was 
in  fact  her  master.  The  joyous  days  of  Lorenzo 
the  Magnificent  returned.  .  .  .  But  this  pros- 
perity was  no  less  brief  than  it  was  brilliant.  A 
few  years  sufficed  to  sweep  off  all  the  chiefs  of 
the  great  house.  Giuliauo  died  in  1516,  leaving 
only  a  bastard  son,  Ippolito.  Lorenzo  died  in 
1519,  leaving  a  bastard  sou,  Alessandro,  and  a 
daughter,  six  days  old,  who  lived  to  be  the 
Queen  of  France.  Leo  died  in  1521.  There  re- 
mained now  no  legitimate  male  descendants  from 
the  stock  of  Cosimo.  The  honours  and  preten- 
sions of  the  Medici  devolved  upon  three  bastards, 
—  on  the  Cardinal  Giulio,  and  the  two  boys, 
Alessandro  and  Ippolito.  Of  these,  Alessandro 
was  a  mulatto,  his  mother  having  been  a  Moorish 
slave  in  the  Palace  of  Urbino ;  and  whether  his 
father  was  Giulio,  or  Giuliano,  or  a  base  groom, 
was  not  known  for  certain.  To  such  extremities 
were  the  Medici  reduced.  .  .  .  Giulio  de'  Medici 
was  left  in  1531  to  administer  the  State  of  Flor- 
ence single-handed.  He  was  archbishop,  and  he 
resided  in  the  city,  holding  it  with  the  grasp  of 
an  absolute  ruler.  .  .  .  In  1533,  the  Pope,  Adrian 
VI. ,  expired  after  a  short  papacy,  from  which 
he  gained  no  honour  and  Italy  no  profit.  Giulio 
hurried  to  Rome,  and,  by  the  clever  use  of  his 
large  influence,  caused  himself  to  be  elected  with 
the  title  of  Clement  VIL"  Then  followed  the 
strife  of  France  and  Spain  —  of  Francis  I.  and 
Charles  V. —  for  the  possession  of  Italy,  and  the 
barbarous  sack  of  Rome  in  1537  (see  Italy: 
A.  D.  1533-1537,  1537,  and  1537-1529).  "When 
the  Florentines  knew  what  was  happening  in 
Rome,  they  rose  and  forced  the  Cardinal  Pas- 
serini  [whom  the  Pope  had  appointed  to  act  as 
bis  vicegerent  in  the  government  of  Florence]  to 
depart  with  the  Medicean  bastards  from  the  city. 
.  .  .  The  whole  male  population  was  enrolled  in  a 
militia.  The  Grand  Council  was  reformed,  and 
the  republic  was  restored  upon  the  basis  of  1495. 
Niccolo  Capponi  was  elected  Gonfalonier.  The 
name  of  Christ  was  again  registered  as  chief  of 
the  commonwealth  —  to  such  an  extent  did  the 
memory  of  Savonarola  still  sway  the  popular 
imagination.  The  new  State  hastened  to  form 
an  alliance  with  France,  and  Malatesta  Baglionl 
was  chosen  as  military  Commander-in-Chief. 
Meanwhile  the  city  armed  itself  for  siege  — 
Michel  Angelo  Buonarroti  and  Francesco  da  San 
Gallo  undertaking  the  construction  of  new  forts 


and  ramparts.  These  measures  were  adopted 
with  sudden  decision,  because  it  was  soon  known 
that  Clement  had  made  peace  with  the  Emperor, 
and  that  the  army  which  had  sacked  Rome  was 
going  to  be  marched  on  Florence.  .  .  .  On  Septem- 
ber 4  [1539],  the  Prince  of  Orange  appeared  before 
the  walls,  and  opened  the  memorable  siege.  It 
lasted  eight  months,  at  the  end  of  which  time, 
betrayed  by  their  generals,  divided  among  them- 
selves, and  worn  out  with  delays,  the  Florentines 
capitulated.  .  .  .  The  long  yoke  of  the  Medici 
had  undermined  the  character  of  the  Florentines. 
This,  their  last  glorious  struggle  for  liberty,  was 
but  a  flash  in  the  pan  —  a  final  flare  up  of  the 
dying  lamp.  .  .  .  What  remains  of  Florentine 
history  may  be  briefly  told.  Clement,  now  the 
undisputed  arbiter  of  power  and  honour  in  the 
city,  chose  Alessandro  de'  Medici  to  be  prince. 
Alessandro  was  created  Duke  of  Civitil  di  Penna, 
and  married  to  a  natural  daughter  of  Charles  V. 
Ippolito  was  made  a  cardinal."  Ippolito  was 
subsequently  poisoned  by  Alessandro,  and  Ales- 
sandro was  murdered  by  another  kinsman,  who 
suffered  assassination  in  his  turn.  ' '  When  Ales- 
sandro was  killed  in  1539,  Clement  had  himself 
been  dead  five  years.  Thus  the  whole  posterity 
of  Cosimo  de'  Medici,  with  the  exception  of 
Catherine,  Queen  of  Franco  [daughter  of  Lor- 
enzo, Duke  of  Urbino,  the  son  of  Piero  de' 
Medici],  was  utterly  extinguished.  But  the 
Medici  had  struck  root  so  firmly  in  the  State,  and 
had  so  remodelled  it  upon  the  type  of  tyranny, 
that  the  Florentines  were  no  longer  able  to  do 
without  them.  The  chiefs  of  the  Ottimati  se- 
lected Cosimo,"  a  descendant  from  Lorenzo, 
brother  of  the  Cosimo  who  founded  the  power 
of  the  House.  "He  it  was  who  obtained  [1569] 
the  title  of  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany  from  the 
Pope  —  a  title  confirmed  by  the  Emperor,  forti- 
fied by  Austrian  alliances,  and  transmitted 
through  his  heirs  to  the  present  century." — J.  A. 
Symonds,  Sketches  and  studies  in  Italy,  ch.  5 
{Florence  and  the  Medici). 

Also  in:  H.  Grimm,  Life  of  MicJiael  Angelo, 
ch.  8-15  (v.  1-3).— T.  A.  TroUope,  Sist.  of  the 
Commomoealth  of  Florence,  bk.  9,  ch.  10,  bk.  10 
(v.  4). — H.  E.  Napier,  Florentine  History,  v.  4-5. 
— W.  Roscoe,  Life  and  Pontificate  of  Leo  X.,ch.  9- 
23  (v.  1-2). — P.  Villari,  Machiavelli  and  his  Times, 
V.  3-1. 

A.  D.  1803. — ■  Becomes  the  capital  of  the 
kingdom  of  Etruria.  See  Gekmany:  A.  D. 
1801-1803. 

A.  D.  1865. — Made  temporarily  the  capital 
of  the  kingdom  of  Italy.  See  Italt:  A.  D. 
1862-1866. 


FLORES.     See  Malay  Aughipelago. 


FLORIDA:    The    aboriginal    inhabitants. 

See  American  Aborigines  ;  Apalaciies  ;  JIdsk- 

HOGEAN      FaIULY;      SeMINOLES;      TiMUQDANAN 

Family. 

A.  D.  1512.  —  Discovery  and  Naming  by 
Ponce  de  Leon.     See  America:  A.  D.  1513. 

A.  D.  1528-1542. — The  expeditions  of  Nar- 
vaez  and  Hernando  de  Soto. — Wide  Spanish 
application  of  the  name  Florida. — "The  voy- 
ages of  Garay  [1519-1533]  and  Vasquez  de  Ayl- 
ion  [1530-1536]  threw  new  light  on  the  discoveries 
of  Ponce,  and  the  general  outline  of  the  coasts  of 
Florida  became  known  to  the  Spaniards.  Mean- 
while, Cortes  had  conquered  Mexico,  and  the  fame 


of  that  iniquitous  but  magnificent  exploit  rang 
through  all  Spain.  Many  an  impatient  cavalier 
burned  to  achieve  a  kindred  fortune.  To  the  ex- 
cited fancy  of  the  Spaniards  the  unknown  laud  of 
Florida  seemed  the  seat  of  surpassing  wealth,  and 
Pamphilo  de  Narvaez  essayed  to  possess  himself 
of  its  fancied  treasures.  Landing  on  its  shores 
[1528],  and  proclaiming  destruction  to  the  In- 
dians unless  they  acknowledged  the  sovereignty 
of  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor,  he  advanced  into 
the  forests  with  300  men.  Nothing  could  exceed 
their  sufferings.  Nowhere  could  they  find  the 
gold  they  came  to  seek.  The  village  of  Appa- 
lache,  where  they  hoped  to  gain  a  rich  booty, 
offered  nothing  but  a  few  mean  wigwams.  The 
horses  gave  out  and  the  famished  soldiers  fed 


1177 


FLORIDA,  1538-1543. 


Hernando 
de  Soto's  Conquest. 


FLORIDA,  1563-1563. 


upon  their  flesh.  The  men  sickened,  and  the 
Indians  unceasingly  harassed  their  march.  At 
length,  after  280  leagues  of  wandering,  they 
found  themselves  on  the  northern  shore  of  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  and  desperately  put  to  sea  in 
such  crazy  boats  as  their  skill  and  means  could 
construct.  Cold,  disease,  famine,  thirst,  and  the 
fury  of  the  waves,  melted  them  away.  Narvaez 
himself  perished,  and  of  his  wretched  followers 
no  more  than  four  escaped,  reaching  by  land, 
after  years  of  vicissitude,  the  Christian  settle- 
ments of  New  Spain.  .  .  .  Cabega  de  Vaca  was 
one  of  the  four  who  escaped,  and,  after  living 
for  years  among  the  tribes  of  Mississippi,  crossed 
the  River  Mississippi  near  Memphis,  journeyed 
westward  by  the  waters  of  the  Arkansas  and  Red 
River  to  New  Mexico  and  Chihuahua,  thence  to 
Cinaloa  on  the  Gulf  of  California,  and  thence  to 
Mexico.  The  narrative  is  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable of  the  early  relations.  .  .  .  The  inte- 
rior of  the  vast  country  then  comprehended  under 
the  name  of  Florida  still  remained  unexplored. 
.  .  .  Hernando  de  Soto  .  .  .  companion  of  Pi- 
zarro  in  the  conquest  of  Peru  .  .  .  asked  and 
obtained  permission  [1537]  to  conquer  Florida. 
While  this  design  was  in  agitation,  Cabefa  de 
Vaca,  one  of  those  who  had  survived  the  expe- 
dition of  Narvaez,  appeared  in  Spain,  and  for 
purposes  of  his  own  spread  abroad  the  mischiev- 
ous falsehood  that  Florida  was  the  richest  coun- 
try yet  discovered.  De  Soto's  plans  were  em- 
braced with  enthusiasm.  Nobles  and  gentlemen 
contended  for  the  privilege  of  joining  his  stan- 
dard ;  and,  setting  sail  with  an  ample  armament, 
he  landed  [May,  1539]  at  the  Bay  of  Espiritu 
Santo,  now  Tampa  Bay,  in  Florida,  with  620 
chosen  men,  a  band  as  gallant  and  well  appointed, 
as  eager  in  purpose  and  audacious  in  hope,  as 
ever  trod  the  shores  of  the  New  World.  .  .  .  The 
adventurers  began  their  march.  Their  story  has 
been  often  told.  For  month  after  month  and 
year  after  year,  the  procession  of  priests  and 
cavaliers,  cross-bowmen,  arquebusiers,  and  In- 
dian captives  laden  with  the  baggage,  still  wan- 
dered on  through  wild  and  boundless  wastes, 
lured  hither  and  thither  by  the  ignis-fatuus  of 
their  hopes.  They  traversed  great  portions  of 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi,  everywhere 
inflicting  and  enduring  misery,  but  never  ap- 
proaching their  phantom  El  Dorado.  At  length, 
in  the  third  year  of  their  journeying,  they 
reached  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  133  years 
before  its  second  [or  third  ?]  discovery  by  Mar- 
quette. .  .  .  The  Spaniards  crossed  over  at  a 
point  above  the  mouth  of  the  Arkansas.  They 
advanced  westward,  but  found  no  treasures,^ 
nothing  indeed  but  hardships,  and  an  Indian 
enemy,  furious,  writes  one  of  their  officers,  'as 
mad  dogs.'  They  heard  of  a  country  towards 
the  north  where  maize  could  not  be  cultivated 
because  the  vast  herds  of  wild  cattle  devoured  it. 
They  penetrated  so  far  that  they  entered  the 
range  of  the  roving  prairie-tribes.  .  .  .  Finding 
neither  gold  nor  the  South  Sea,  for  both  of  which 
they  had  hoped,  they  returned  to  the  banks  of 
the  Mississippi.  De  Soto  .  .  .  fell  into  deep 
dejection,  followed  by  an  attack  of  fever,  and 
soon  after  died  miserably  [May  31,  1542].  To 
preserve  his  body  from  the  Indians  his  followers 
sank  it  at  midnight  in  the  river,  and  the  sullen 
waters  of  the  Mississippi  buried  his  ambition  and 
his  hopes.  The  adventurers  were  now,  with  few 
exceptions,  disgusted  with  the  enterprise,  and 


longed  only  to  escape  from  the  scene  of  their 
miseries.  After  a  vain  attempt  to  reach  Mexico 
by  land,  they  again  turned  back  to  the  Jlissis- 
sippi,  and  labored,  with  all  the  resources  which 
their  desperate  necessity  could  suggest,  to  con- 
struct vessels  in  which  they  might  make  their 
way  to  some  Christian  settlement.  .  .  .  Seven 
brigantiues  were  finished  and  launched ;  and, 
trusting  their  lives  on  board  these  frail  vessels, 
they  descended  the  Mississippi,  running  the 
gauntlet  between  hostile  tribes  who  fiercely  at- 
tacked them.  Reaching  the  Gulf,  though  not 
without  the  loss  of  eleven  of  their  number,  they ' 
made  sail  for  the  Spanish  settlement  on  the  River 
Panuco,  where  they  arrived  safely,  and  where 
the  inhabitants  met  them  with  a  cordial  welcome. 
Three  hundred  and  eleven  men  thus  escaped 
with  life,  leaving  behind  them  the  bones  of  their 
comrades,  strewn  broadcast  through  the  wilder- 
ness. De  Soto's  fate  proved  an  insufficient  warn- 
ing, for  those  were  still  found  who  begged  a 
fresh  commission  for  the  conquest  of  Florida; 
but  the  Emperor  would  not  hear  them.  A  more 
pacific  enterprise  was  undertaken  by  Cancello 
[or  Cancer],  a  Dominican  monk,  who  with  several 
brother-ecclesiastics  undertook  to  convert  the 
natives  to  the  true  faith,  but  was  murdered  in 
the  attempt.  .  .  .  Not  a  Spaniard  had  yet  gained 
foothold  in  Florida.  That  name,  as  the  Spaniards 
of  that  day  understood  it,  comprehended  the 
whole  country  extending  from  the  Atlantic  on 
the  east  to  the  longitude  of  New  Mexico  on  the 
west,  and  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  River 
of  Palms  indefinitely  northward  towards  the 
polar  Sea.  This  vast  territory  was  claimed  by 
Spain  in  right  of  the  discoveries  of  Columbus, 
the  grant  of  the  Pope,  and  the  various  expedi- 
tions mentioned  above.  England  claimed  it  in 
right  of  the  discoveries  of  Cabot,  while  France 
could  advance  no  better  title  than  might  be  de- 
rived from  the  voyage  of  Verrazano  and  vague 
traditions  of  earlier  visits  of  Breton  adventurers." 
—  F.  Parkman,  Pioneers  of  France  in  ihe  J\'ew 
World,  ch.  1. 

Also  ln:  T.  Irving,  Conquest  of  Florida  by 
De  Soto.  — Discovery  and  Conquest  of  Terra  Flor- 
ida ;  written  by  a  Gentleman  of  Elvas  (Hakliiyt 
Soe.). — J.  W.  Monette,  Discovery  and  Settlement 
of  the  Mississippi  Valley,  ch.  1-4. — J.  G.  Shea, 
Ancient  Florida  {Narrative  and  Critical  Hist,  of 
Am.,  v.  3,  ch.  4). 

A.  D.  1562-1563. — First  colonizing;  attempt 
of  the  French  Huguenots. — About  the  middle 
of  the  16th  century,  certain  of  the  Protestants  of 
France  began  to  turn  their  thoughts  to  the  New 
World  as  a  possible  place  of  refuge  from  the  per- 
secutions they  were  suffering  at  home.  "Some 
of  the  French  sea-ports  became  strong-holds  of 
the  Huguenots.  Their  most  prominent  sup- 
porter, Coligny,  was  high  admiral  of  France. 
These  Huguenots  looked  toward  the  new  coun- 
tries as  the  proper  field  in  which  to  secure  a  re- 
treat from  persecution,  and  to  found  a  new  re- 
ligious commonwealth.  Probablj'  many  of  the 
French  '  corsarios '  following  the  track  of  the 
Portuguese  and  Spaniards  to  the  West  Indies 
and  the  coasts  of  Brazil,  were  Huguenots.  .  .  . 
The  first  scheme  for  a  Protestant  colony  in  the 
new  world  was  suggested  by  Admiral  Coligny  in 
1554,  and  intended  for  the  coast  of  Brazil,  to 
which  an  expedition,  under  Durand  de  Villegagn- 
on,  was  sent  with  ships  and  colonists.  This  expe- 
dition arrived  at  the  Bay  of  Riodc  Janeiro  iu  1555 


1178 


FLORIDA,  1562-1563. 


Huguenot 
Colon  ization. 


FLORIDA,  1564-1565. 


and  founded  there  the  first  European  settlement. 
It  was  followed  the  next  year  by  another  expedi- 
tion. But  the  whole  enterprise  came  to  an  end 
by  divisions  among  the  colonists,  occasioned  by 
the  treacherous,  despotic,  and  cruel  proceedings 
of  its  commander,  a  reputed  Catholic.  The  col- 
ony was  finally  subverted  by  the  Portuguese, 
who,  in  1560,  sent  out  an  armament  against  it, 
and  took  possession  of  the  Bay  of  Rio  de  Janeiro. 
.  .  .  After  the  unfortunate  end  of  the  French  en- 
terprise to  South  America,  Admiral  Coligny,  who 
may  be  styled  the  Raleigh  of  France,  turned  his 
attention  to  the  eastern  shores  of  North  America ; 
the  whole  of  which  had  become  known  in  France 
from  the  voyage  of  Yerrazano,  and  the  French 
expeditions  to  Canada  and  the  Banks  of  New- 
foundland." In  Februarj',  1563,  an  expedition, 
fitted  out  by  Coligny,  sailed  from  Havre  de  Grace, 
under  Jean  Ribault,  with  Rene  de  Laudonnifere 
forming  one  of  the  company.  Ribault  arrived  on 
the  Florida  coast  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
present  harbor  of  St.  Augustine,  and  thence 
sailed  north.  ' '  At  last,  in  about  33°  30'  N.  he 
found  an  excellent  broad  and  deep  harbor,  which 
he  named  Port  Royal,  which  probably  is  the 
present  Broad  River,  or  Port  Royal  entrance. 
.  .  .  He  found  this  port  and  the  surrounding 
country  so  advantageous  and  of  such  '  singular 
beauty,"  that  he  resolved  to  leave  here  a  part  of 
his  men  in  a  small  fort.  ...  A  pillar  with  the 
arms  of  France  was  therefore  erected,  and  a  fort 
constructed,  furnished  with  cannon,  ammunition, 
and  provisions,  and  named  '  Chariest ort. '  Thirty 
volunteers  were  placed  in  it,  and  it  became  the 
second  European  settlement  ever  attempted  upon 
the  east  coast  of  the  United  States.  Its  position 
was  probably  not  far  from  the  site  of  the  present 
town  of  Beaufort,  on  Port  Royal  River.  Having 
accomplished  this,  and  made  a  certain  captain, 
Albert  de  la  Pieria,  '  a  soldier  of  great  experience, ' 
commander  of  Charlesfort,  he  took  leave  of  his 
countrymen,  and  left  Port  Royal  on  the  11th  day 
of  June,"  arriving  in  France  on  the  20th  of  July. 
"On  his  arrival  in  France,  Ribault  found  the 
country  in  a  state  of  great  commotion.  The 
civil  war  between  the  Huguenots  and  the  Catho- 
lics was  raging,  and  neither  the  king  nor  the 
admiral  had  time  to  listen  to  Ribault's  solicita- 
tions, to  send  relief  to  the  settlers  left  in  '  French 
Florida.'  Those  colonists  remained,  therefore, 
during  the  remainder  of  1562,  and  the  following 
■winter,  without  assistance  from  France ;  and 
after  many  trials  and  sufferings,  they  were  at  last 
forced,  in  1563,  to  abandon  their  settlement  and 
the  new  country."  Having  constructed  a  ship, 
with  great  difficulty,  they  put  to  sea ;  but  suf- 
fered horribly  on  the  tedious  voyagej  from  want 
of  food  and  water,  until  they  were  rescued  by  an 
English  vessel  and  taken  to  England. — J.  G. 
Kohl,  Hist,  of  the  Discovery  of  Maine  (Maine 
Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  2d  series,  v.  1),  ch.  11. 

Also  IN:  F.  Parkman,  Pioneers  of  France  in 
tlie  New  World,  ch.  3. — Father  Charlevoix,  Hist, 
of  NexD  France  ;  trans,  by  J.  O.  Shea,  bk.  8  {v.  1). 
— T.  E.  V.  Smith,  Villegaignon  (Am.  Soc.  of  Ch. 
Hist.,  V.  3). 

A.  D.  1564-1565.— The  second  Huguenot 
colony,  and  the  cry  in  Spain  against  it. — 
"After  the  treacherous  peace  between  Charles 
IX.  and  the  Huguenots,  Coligny  renewed  his 
solicitations  for  the  colonization  of  Florida.  The 
king  gave  consent;  in  1564  three  ships  were  con- 
ceded for  the  service ;  and  Laudonnifire,  who,  in 


the  former  voyage,  had  been  upon  the  American 
coast,  a  man  of  great  intelligence,  though  a  sea- 
man rather  than  a  soldier,  was  appointed  to  lead 
forth  the  colony.  ...  A  voyage  of  60  days 
brought  the  fleet,  by  the  way  of  the  Canaries  and 
the  Antilles,  to  the  shores  of  Florida  in  June. 
The  harbor  of  Port  Royal,  rendered  gloomy  by 
recollections  of  misery,  was  avoided;  and,  after 
searching  the  coast,  and  discovering  places  which 
were  so  full  of  amenity  that  melancholy  itself 
could  not  but  change  its  humor  as  it  gazed,  the 
followers  of  Calvin  planted  themselves  on  the 
banks  of  the  river  Jlay  [now  called  the  St.  John's], 
near  St.  John's  bluff.  They  sung  a  psalm  of 
thanksgiving,  and  gathered  courage  from  acts  of 
devotion.  The  fort  now  erected  was  called  Caro- 
lina. .  .  .  The  French  were  hospitably  welcomed 
by  the  natives ;  a  monument,  bearing  the  arms 
of  Prance,  was  crowned  with  laurels,  and  its  base 
encircled  with  baskets  of  corn.  What  need  is 
there  of  minutely  relating  the  simple  manners  of 
the  red  men,  the  dissensions  of  rival  tribes,  the 
largesses  offered  to  the  strangers  to  secure  their 
protection  or  their  alliance,  the  improvident 
prodigality  with  which  careless  soldiers  wasted 
the  supplies  of  food ;  the  certain  approach  of 
scarcity ;  the  gifts  and  the  tribute  levied  from  the 
Indians  by  entreaty,  menace  or  force  ?  By  de- 
grees the  confidence  of  the  red  men  was  ex- 
hausted; they  had  welcomed  powerful  guests, 
who  promised  to  become  their  benefactors,  and 
who  now  robbed  their  humble  granaries.  But 
the  worst  evil  in  the  new  settlement  was  the 
character  of  the  emigrants.  Though  patriotism 
and  religious  enthusiasm  had  prompted  the  ex- 
pedition, the  inferior  class  of  the  colonists  was  a 
motley  group  of  dissolute  men.  Mutinies  were 
frequent.  The  men  were  mad  with  the  passion 
for  sudden  wealth;  and  in  December  a  party, 
under  the  pretence  of  desiring  to  escape  from 
famine,  compelled  LaudonniSre  to  sign  an  order 
permitting  their  embarkation  for  New  Spain. 
No  sooner  were  they  possessed  of  this  apparent 
sanction  of  the  chief  than  they  began  a  career  of 
piracy  against  the  Spaniards.  Tlie  act  of  crime 
and  temerity  was  soon  avenged.  The  pirate 
vessel  was  taken,  and  most  of  the  men  disposed 
of  as  prisoners  or  slaves.  The  few  that  escaped 
In  a  boat  sought  shelter  at  Fort  Carolina,  where 
LaudonniSre  sentenced  the  ringleaders  to  death. 
During  these  events  the  scarcity  became  extreme ; 
and  the  friendship  of  the  natives  was  forfeited 
by  unprofitable  severity.  March  of  1565  was 
gone,  and  there  were  no  supplies  from  France ; 
April  passed  away,  and  the  expected  recruits 
had  not  arrived ;  May  brought  nothing  to  sustain 
the  hopes  of  the  exiles,  and  they  resolved  to  at- 
tempt a  return  to  Europe.  In  August,  Sir  John 
Hawkins,  the  slave  merchant,  arrived  from  the 
"West  Indies.  He  came  fresh  from  the  sale  of  a 
cargo  of  Africans,  whom  he  had  kidnapped  with 
signal  ruthlessness ;  and  he  now  displayed  the 
most  generous  sympathy,  not  only  furnishing  a 
liberal  supply  of  provisions,  but  relinquisliing  a 
vessel  from  his  own  fleet.  The  colony  was  on 
the  point  of  embarking  when  sails  were  descried. 
Ribault  had  arrived  to  assume  the  command, 
bringing  with  him  supplies  of  every  kind,  emi- 
grants with  their  families,  garden-seeds,  imple- 
ments of  husbandry,  and  the  various  kinds  of 
domestic  animals.  The  French,  now  wild  with 
joy,  seemed  about  to  acquire  a  home,  and  Cal- 
vinism to  become  fixed  in  the  inviting  regions  of 


1179 


FLORIDA,  1564-1565. 


The  Spanish 
Massacre. 


FLORIDA,  1565. 


Florida.  But  Spain  had  never  abandoned  her 
claim  to  that  territory,  where,  if  she  had  not 
planted  colonies,  she  had  buried  many  hundreds 
of  her  bravest  sons.  .  .  .  There  had  appeared  at 
the  Spanish  court  a  commander  well  fitted  for 
reckless  acts.  Pedro  Melendez  [or  Menendez] 
de  Aviles  .  .  .  had  acquired  wealth  in  Spanish 
America,  which  was  no  school  of  benevolence, 
and  his  conduct  there  had  provoked  an  inquiry, 
which,  after  a  long  arrest,  ended  in  his  convic- 
tion. .  .  .  Philip  II.  suggested  the  conquest  and 
colonization  of  Florida ;  and  in  May,  1565,  a  com- 
pact was  framed  and  confirmed  by  which  Melen- 
dez, who  desired  an  opportunity  to  retrieve  his 
honor,  was  constituted  the  hereditary  governor 
of  a  territory  of  almost  unlimited  extent.  On 
his  part  he  stipulated,  at  his  own  cost,  in  the 
following  May,  to  invade  Florida  with  500  men ; 
to  complete  its  conquest  within  three  years;  to 
explore  its  currents  and  channels,  the  dangers  of 
its  coasts,  and  the  depth  of  its  havens ;  to  estab- 
lish a  colony  of  at  least  500  persons,  of  whom  100 
should  be  married  men;  with  12  ecclesiastics, 
besides  four  Jesuits.  .  .  .  Meantime,  news  ar- 
rived, as  the  French  writers  assert  through  the 
treachery  of  the  court  of  France,  that  the  Hugue- 
nots had  made  a  plantation  in  Florida,  and  that 
Ribault  was  preparing  to  set  sail  with  re-en- 
forcements. The  cry  was  raised  that  the  here- 
tics must  be  extirpated;  and  Melendez  readily 
obtained  the  forces  which  he  required." — G. 
Bancroft,  Sist.  of  the  U.  S.  {author's  last  rev.), 
pt.  1,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  G.  R.  Fairbanks,  Hist,  of  Florida,  ch. 
7-8.— W.  6.  Simms,  Hist,  of  S.  Carolina,  bk.  1. 

A.  D.  1565.— The  Spanish  capture  of  Fort 
Caroline  and  massacre  of  the  Huguenots. — 
Founding  of  St.  Augustine. — "The  expedi- 
tion under  jNIenendez  consisted  of  an  army  of 
3,600  soldiers  and  officers.  He  sailed  straight 
for  Florida,  intending  to  attack  Fort  Caroline 
with  no  delay.  In  fact  he  sighted  the  mouth  of 
the  port  [Sept.  4,  1565]  two  months  after  start- 
ing; but,  considering  the  position  occupied  by 
the  French  ships,  he  judged  it  prudent  to  defer 
the  attack,  and  make  it,  if  possible,  from  the 
land.  A  council  of  war  was  held  in  Fort  Caro- 
line, presided  over  by  Ribaut.  LaudonniSre  pro- 
posed that,  while  Ribaut  held  the  fort  with  the 
ships,  he,  with  his  old  soldiers,  who  knew  the 
country  well,  aided  by  the  Floridans  as  auxil- 
iaries, should  engage  the  Spaniards  in  tlie  woods, 
and  harass  them  by  perpetual  combats  in  laby- 
rinths to  which  they  were  wholly  unaccustomed. 
The  advice  was  good,  but  it  was  not  followed. 
Ribaut  proposed  to  follow  the  Spanisli  fleet  with 
his  own  —  lighter  and  more  easily  handled  —  fall 
on  the  enemy  when  the  soldiers  were  all  disem- 
barked, and,  after  taking  and  burning  the  ships, 
to  attack  the  army.  In  the  face  of  remonstrances 
from  all  the  officers,  he  persisted  in  this  project. 
Disaster  followed  the  attempt.  A  violent  gale 
arose.  Tlie  French  ships  were  wrecked  upon  the 
Floridan  coast;  the  men  lost  their  arms,  their 
powder,  and  their  clothes ;  they  escaped  with  their 
bare  lives.  There  was  no  longer  the  question  of 
conquering  the  Spaniards,  but  of  saving  them- 
selves. The  garrison  of  Caroline  consisted  of  150 
soldiers,  of  whom  40  were  sick.  The  rest  of  the 
colony  was  composed  of  sick  and  wounded  Prot- 
estant ministers,  workmen,  '  roj'al  commission- 
ers, '  and  so  forth.  Laudonnifcrc  was  in  command. 
They  awaited  the  attack  for  several  days,  yet  the 


Spaniards  came  not.  They  were  wading  miser- 
ably through  the  marshes  in  the  forests,  under 
tropical  rains,  discouraged,  and  out  of  heart." 
But  when,  at  length,  the  exhausted  and  despair- 
ing Spaniards,  toiling  tlirough  the  marshes,  from 
St.  Augustine,  where  they  had  landed  and  es- 
tablished their  settlement,  reached  the  French 
fort  (Sept.  20),  "there  was  actually  no  watch  on 
the  ramparts.  Three  companies  of  Spaniards 
simultaneously  rushed  from  the  forest,  and  at- 
tacked the  fortress  on  the  south,  the  west  and  the 
south-west.  There  was  but  little  resistance  from 
the  surprised  garrison.  There  was  hardly  time 
to  grasp  a  sword.  About  20  escaped  by  flight, 
including  the  Captain,  Laudonnifire ;  the  rest 
were  every  one  massacred.  None  were  spared 
except  women  and  children  under  fifteen ;  and, 
in  the  first  rage  of  the  onslauglit,  even  these  were 
murdered  with  the  rest.  There  still  lay  in  the 
port  three  ships,  commanded  by  Jacques  Ribaut, 
brother  [son]  of  the  unfortunate  Governor.  One 
of  these  was  quickly  sent  to  the  bottom  by 
the  cannon  of  the  fort ;  the  other  two  cut  their 
cables,  and  slipped  out  of  reach  into  the  road- 
stead, where  they  lay,  waiting  for  a  favourable 
wind,  for  three  days.  They  picked  up  the  fugi- 
tives who  had  been  wandering  half-starved  in 
the  woods,  and  then  set  sail  from  this  unlucky 
land.  .  .  .  There  remained,  however,  the  little 
army,  under  Ribaut,  which  had  lost  most  of  its 
arms  in  the  wreck,  and  was  now  wandering  along 
the  Floridan  shore. "  When  Ribaut  and  his  men 
reached  Fort  Caroline  and  saw  the  Spanish  flag 
flying,  they  turned  and  retreated  southward. 
Not  many  days  later,  they  were  intercepted  by 
Menendez,  near  St.  Augustine,  to  which  post  he 
had  returned.  The  first  party  of  the  French 
who  came  up,  200  in  number,  and  who  were  in 
a  starving  state,  surrendered  to  the  Spaniard,  and 
laid  down  their  arms.  "They  were  brought 
across  the  river  in  small  companies,  and  their 
hands  tied  behind  their  backs.  On  landing, 
they  were  asked  if  they  were  Catholics.  Eight 
out  of  the  200  professed  allegiance  to  that 
religion;  the  rest  were  all  Protestants.  Men- 
endez traced  out  a  line  on  the  ground  with  his 
cane.  The  prisoners  were  marched  up  one 
by  one  to  the  line;  on  reaching  it,  they  were 
stabbed.  Next  day,  Ribaut  arrived  with  the  rest 
of  the  army.  The  same  pourparlers  began.  But 
this  time  a  blacker  treachery  was  adopted."  An 
officer,  sent  by  Menendez,  pledged  his  honor  to 
the  French  that  the  lives  of  all  should  be  spared 
if  they  laid  down  their  arms.  "It  is  not  clear 
how  many  of  the  French  accepted  the  conditions. 
A  certain  number  refused  them,  and  escaped  into 
the  woods.  What  is  certain  is,  that  Ribaut,  with 
nearly  all  his  men,  were  tied  back  to  back,  four 
together.  Those  who  said  they  were  Catholics, 
were  set  on  one  side ;  the  rest  were  all  massacred 
as  they  stood.  .  .  .  Outside  the  circle  of  the 
slaughtered  and  the  slaughterers  stood  the  priest, 
Mendoza,  encouraging,  approving,  exhorting  the 
butchers." — W.  Besant,  Gaspard  de  Coligny,  ch. 
7. — The  long  dispatch  in  which  Menendez  re- 
ported his  fiendish  work  to  the  Spanish  king  has 
been  brought  to  light  in  the  archives  at  Seville,  and 
there  is  this  endorsement  on  it,  in  the  hand-writ- 
ing of  Philip  II.  :  "Say  to  him  that,  as  to  those 
he  has  killed,  he  has  done  well ;  and  as  to  those 
he  has  saved,  they  shall  be  sent  to  the  galleys." 
— F.  Parkman,  Pioneers  of  France  in  the  New 
World,  ch.  7-8. 


1180 


FLORIDA,   1565. 


Revenge  of 
Dominic  de  Gourgues. 


FLORIDA,  1779-1781. 


Also  in  :  C.  W.   Baird,  Hist,  of  the  Huguenot 
Emigration  to  Am.,  ■c.  1,  introd. 

A.  D.  1567-1568. — The  vengeance  of  Dom- 
inic de  Gourgues. — "As  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, all  attempts  to  rouse  the  French  court 
into  demanding  redress  were  vain.  Spain,  above 
all  other  nations,  knew  the  arts  by  which  a  cor- 
rupt court  might  be  swayed,  and  the  same  in- 
trigues which,  fifty  years  later,  sent  Raleigh  to 
the  block  and  well-nigh  ended  the  young  colony 
of  Virginia,  now  kept  France  quiet.  But  though 
the  court  refused  to  move,  an  avenger  was  not 
wanting.  Dominic  de  Gourgues  had  already 
known  as  a  prisoner  of  war  the  horrors  of  the 
Spanish  galleys.  Whether  he  was  a  Huguenot 
is  uncertain.  Happily  in  France,  as  the  history 
of  that  and  all  later  ages  proved,  the  religion  of 
the  Catholic  did  not  necessarily  deaden  the  feel- 
ings of  the  patriot.  Seldom  has  there  been  a 
deed  of  more  reckless  daring  than  that  which 
Dominic  de  Gourgues  now  undertook.  With  the 
proceeds  of  his  patrimony  he  bought  three  small 
ships,  manned  by  eighty  sailors  and  a  hundred 
men-at-arms.  He  then  obtained  a  commission  as 
a  slaver  on  the  coast  of  Guinea,  and  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1567  set  sail.  With  these  paltry  resources 
he  aimed  at  overthrowing  a  settlement  which  had 
already  destroyed  a  force  of  twenty  times  his 
number,  and  which  might  have  been  strengthened 
in  the  interval.  .  .  .  To  the  mass  of  his  followers 
he  did  not  reveal  the  true  secret  of  his  voyage 
till  he  had  reached  the  West  Indies.  Theu  he 
disclosed  his  real  purpose.  His  men  were  of  the 
same  spirit  as  their  leader.  Desperate  though 
the  enterprise  seemed,  De  Gourgues'  only  diffi- 
culty was  to  restrain  his  followers  from  undue 
haste.  Happily  for  their  attempt,  they  had  allies 
on  whom  they  had  not  reckoned.  The  tickle 
savages  had  at  first  welcomed  the  Spaniards,  but 
the  tyranny  of  the  new  comers  soon  wrought  a 
change,  and  the  Spaniards  in  Florida,  like  the 
Spaniards  in  every  part  of  the  New  World,  were 
looked  on  as  hateful  tyrants.  So  when  De  Gour- 
gues landed  he  at  once  found  a  ready  body  of 
■  allies.  .  .  .  Three  days  were  spent  in  making 
1  ready,  and  then  De  Gourgues,  with  a  liundred 
and  si.xty  of  his  own  men  and  his  Indian  allies, 
marched  against  the  enemy.  In  spite  of  the  hos- 
tility of  the  Indians,  the  Spaniards  seem  to  have 
taken  no  precaution  against  a  sudden  attack. 
Menendez  himself  had  left  the  colony.  The 
Spanish  force  was  divided  between  three  forts, 
and  no  proper  precautions  were  taken  for  keep- 
ing up  the  communications  between  them.  Each 
was  successively  seized,  the  garrison  slain  or 
made  prisoners,  and,  as  each  fort  fell,  those  in 
the  next  could  only  make  vague  guesses  as  to  the 
extent  of  the  danger.  Even  when  divided  into 
three  the  Spanish  force  outnumbered  that  of  De 
Gourgues,  and  savages  with  bows  and  arrows 
would  have  counted  for  little  against  men  with  tire 
arms  and  behind  walls.  But  after  the  downfall  of 
the  first  fort  a  panic  seemed  to  seize  the  Spaniards, 
and  the  French  achieved  an  almost  bloodless  vic- 
tory. After  the  death  of  Ribault  and  his  follow- 
ers nothing  could  be  looked  for  but  merciless  re- 
taliation, and  De  Gourgues  copied  the  severity, 
though  not  the  perfidy  of  his  enemies.  The  very 
details  of  Menendez'  act  were  imitated,  and  the 
trees  on  which  the  prisoners  were  hung  bore  the 
inscription:  'Not  as  Spaniards,  but  as  traitors, 
robbers,  and  murderers.'  Five  weeks  later  De 
Gourgues  anchored  under  the  walls  of  Rochelle. 


.  .  .  His  attack  did  not  wholly  extirpate  the 
Spanish  power  in  Florida.  Menendez  received 
tlie  blessing  of  the  Pope  as  a  chosen  instrument 
for  the  conversion  of  the  Indians,  returned  to 
America  and  restored  his  settlement.  As  before, 
he  soon  made  the  Indians  his  deadl}'  enemies. 
The  Spanish  settlement  held  on,  but  it  was  not 
till  two  centuries  later  that  its  existence  made 
itself  remembered  by  one  brief  but  glorious  epi- 
sode in  the  history  of  the  English  colonies." — J. 
A.  Doyle,  The  English  in  America :  Virginia,  &c., 
ch.  5. 

Also  in:  W.  W.  Dewhurst,  Hist,  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, Fla.,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1628. — Claimed  by  France,  and  placed, 
with  New  France,  under  the  control  of  the 
Company  of  the  Hundred  Associates.  See 
Canada:  A.  D.  161G-1628. 

A.  D.  1629. — Claimed  in  part  by  England  and 
embraced  in  the  Carolina  grant  to  Sir  Robert 
Heath.     See  America:  A.  D.  1629. 

A.  D.  1680. — Attack  on  the  English  of  Caro- 
lina.    See  South  Carolina:  A.  D.  1680. 

A.  D.  1702. — Adjustment  of  western  boun- 
dary vrith  the  French  of  Louisiana.  See  Louisi- 
ana: A.  D.  1698-1713. 

A.  D.  1740. — Unsuccessful  attack  on  St. 
Augustine  by  the  English  of  Georgia  and 
Carolina.     See  Georgia:  A,  D.  1738-1743. 

A.  D.  1763  (February).  —  Ceded  to  Great 
Britain  by  Spain  in  the  Treaty  of  Paris.  See 
Seven  Years  W.\r. 

A.  D.  1763  (July). — Possession  taken  by  the 
English. — "When,  in  July  [1763],  possession 
was  taken  of  Florida,  its  inhabitants,  of  every 
age  and  sex,  men,  women,  children,  and  servants, 
numbered  but  3,000;  and,  of  these,  the  men  were 
nearly  all  in  the  paj^  of  the  Catholic  king.  The 
possession  of  it  had  cost  him  nearly  $230,000  an- 
nually ;  and  now  it  was  accepted  by  England  as 
a  compensation  for  Havana.  Most  of  the  people, 
receiving  from  the  Spanish  treasury  indemnity 
for  their  losses,  had  migrated  to  Cuba,  taking 
with  them  the  bones  of  their  saints  and  the  ashes 
of  their  distinguished  dead.  The  western  prov- 
ince of  Florida  extended  to  the  Mississippi,  on 
the  line  of  latitude  of  31°.  On  the  20th  of  Octo- 
ber, the  French  surrendered  the  post  of  Mobile, 
with  its  brick  fort,  which  was  fast  crumbling  to 
ruins.  A  month  later,  the  slight  stockade  at 
Tombigbee,  in  the  west  of  the  Chocta  country, 
was  delivered  up.  In  a  congress  of  the  Cataw- 
bas,  Cherokees,  Creeks,  Chicasas,  and  Choctas, 
held  on  the  lOtli  of  November,  at  Augusta,  the 
governors  of  Virginia  and  the  colonies  south  of 
it  were  present,  and  the  peace  with  the  Indians 
of  the  South  and  South-west  was  ratified." — G. 
Bancroft,  Hist,  of  the  V.  S.  {Autlwr's  last  rev.),  v. 
8,  p.  64. 

A.  D.  1763  (October). —  English  provinces, 
East  and  West,  constituted  by  the  King's 
proclamation.  See  Northtwest  Territory  of 
THE  U.  S.  OP  Am.  :  A.  D.  1763. 

A.  D.  1779-1781.  —  Reconquest  of  West 
Florida  by  the  Spanish  commander  at  New 
Orleans. — "In  the  summer  of  1779  Spain  had 
declared  war  against  Great  Britain.  Galvez  [the 
Spanish  commander  at  New  Orleans]  discovered 
that  the  British  were  planning  the  surprise  of 
New  Orleans,  and,  under  cover  of  preparations 
for  defense,  made  haste  to  take  the  offensive. 
Four  days  before  the  time  he  had  appointed  to 
move,  a  hurricane  destroyed  a  large  number  of 


1181 


FLORIDA,  1779-1781. 


Boundary 
question. 


FLORIDA,  1810-1813. 


houses  in  the  town,  and  spread  ruin  to  crops  iind 
dwellings  up  and  down  the  'coast,'  and  sunk  his 
gun  flotilla.  .  .  .  Repairing  his  disasters  as  best 
he  could,  and  hastening  his  ostensibly  defensive 
preparations,  he  marched,  on  the  22d  of  August, 
1779,  against  the  British  forts  on  the  Mississippi. 
His  .  .  .  little  army  of  1,434  men  was  without 
tents,  other  military  furniture,  or  a  single  en- 
gineer The  gun  fleet  followed  in  the  river 
abreast  of  their  line  of  march  along  its  shores, 
carr3'ing  one  24-,  five  18-,  and  four  4-pounders. 
With  this  force,  in  the  space  of  about  three 
weeks.  Fort  Bute  on  bayou  Manchac,  Baton 
Rouge  and  Fort  Panmure,  8  vessels,  556  regu- 
lars, and  a  number  of  sailors,  militia-men,  and 
free  blacks,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards. 
The  next  year,  1780,  re-enforced  from  Havana, 
Galvez  again  left  New  Orleans  by  way  of  the 
Balize  with  3,000  men,  regulars,  militia,  and  free 
blacks,  and  on  the  15th  of  March  took  Fort 
Charlotte  on  Mobile  river.  Galvez  next  con- 
ceived the  much  larger  project  of  taking  Pensa- 
cola.  Failing  to  secure  re-enforcements  from 
Havana  by  writing  for  them,  he  sailed  to  that 
place  in  October,  to  make  his  application  in  per- 
son, intending  to  move  with  them  directly  on  the 
enemy.  After  many  delays  and  disappointments 
he  succeeded,  and  early  in  March,  1781,  appeared 
before  Pensacola  with  a  ship  of  the  line,  two 
frigates,  and  transports  containing  1,400  soldiers 
well  furnished  with  artillery  and  ammunition. 
Here  he  was  joined  by  such  troops  as  could  be 
spared  from  Mobile,  and  by  Don  Estevan  Mir6 
from  New  Orleans,  at  the  head  of  the  Louisiana 
forces,  and  on  the  afternoon  of  the  16th  of 
March,  though  practically  unsupported  by  the 
naval  fleet,  until  dishonor  was  staring  its  jealous 
commanders  in  the  face,  moved  under  hot  fire, 
through  a  passage  of  great  peril,  and  took  up  a 
besieging  position.  ...  It  is  only  necessary  to 
state  that,  on  the  9th  of  May,  1781,  Pensacola, 
with  a  garrison  of  800  men,  and  the  whole 
of  West  Florida,  were  surrendered  to  Galvez. 
Louisiana  had  heretofore  been  included  under 
one  domination  with  Cuba,  but  now  one  of  the 
several  rewards  bestowed  upon  her  governor  was 
the  captain-generalship  of  Louisiana  and  West 
Florida."— 6.  E.  Waring,  Jr.,  and  G.  W.  Cable, 
Hist,  of  JVeio  Orleans  {U.  S.  Tenth  Census,  v.  19). 

Also  in  :  C.  Gayarre,  Hist,  of  Louisiana  : 
Spanish  Domination,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1783-1787.— The  question  of  bounda- 
ries between  Spain  and  the  United  States,  and 
the  question  of  the  navigation  of  the  Missis- 
sippi.—  "By  the  treaty  of  1783  between  Great 
Britain  on  the  one  part  and  the  United  States  and 
her  allies,  France  and  Spain,  on  the  other,  Great 
Britain  acknowledged  the  independence  of  the 
colonies,  and  recognized  as  a  part  of  their  south- 
ern boundary  a  line  drawn  due  east  from  a  point 
in  the  Mississippi  River,  in  latitude  31°  north,  to 
the  middle  of  the  Appalachicola ;  and  at  the  same 
time  she  ceded  to  Spain  by  a  separate  agreement 
the  two  Floridas,  but  without  defining  their 
northern  boundaries.  This  omission  gave  rise 
to  a  dispute  between  Spain  and  the  United  States 
as  to  their  respective  limits.  On  the  part  of  Spain 
it  was  contended  that  by  the  act  of  Great  Britain, 
of  1764,  the  northern  boundary  of  West  Florida 
had  been  fixed  at  the  line  running  due  east  from 
the  mouth  of  the  Yazoo  to  the  Chattahoochee, 
and  that  all  south  of  that  line  had  been  ceded  to 
her ;  whilst  on  the  other  hand,  the  United  States 


as  strenuously  maintained  that  the  act  fixing  and 
enlarging  the  limits  of  West  Florida  was  super- 
seded by  the  recent  treaty,  which  extended  their 
southern  boundary  to  the  81st  degree  of  north 
latitude,  a  hundred  and  ten  miles  further  south 
than  the  line  claimed  by  Spain.  Spain,  however, 
had  possession  of  the  disputed  territory  by  right 
of  conquest,  and  evidently  had  no  intention  of 
giving  it  up.  She  strengthened  her  garrisons 
at  Baton  Rouge  and  Natchez,  and  built  a  fort  at 
Vicksburg,  and  subsequently  one  at  New  Mad- 
rid, on  the  Missouri  side  of  the  Mississippi,  just 
below  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio ;  and  of  the  latter 
she  made  a  port  of  entry  where  vessels  from  the 
Ohio  were  obliged  to  land  and  declare  their  car- 
goes. She  even  denied  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  the  region  between  the  Mississippi  and 
the  Alleghany  Mountains,  which  had  been  ceded 
to  them  by  Great  Britain,  on  the  ground  that  the 
conquests  made  by  Governor  Galvez,  of  West 
Florida,  and  by  Don  Eugenio  Pierre,  of  Fort  St. 
Joseph,  'near  the  sources  of  the  Illinois,'  had 
vested  the  title  to  all  this  country  in  her ;  and  she 
insisted  that  what  she  did  not  own  was  possessed 
by  the  Indians,  and  could  not  therefore  belong 
to  the  United  States.  Even  as  late  as  1795,  she 
claimed  to  have  bought  from  the  Chickasaws  the 
bluffs  which  bear  their  name,  and  which  are  situ- 
ated on  the  east  bank  of  the  Mississippi  some 
distance  north  of  the  most  northerly  boundary 
ever  assigned  by  Great  Britain  to  West  Florida. 
Here,  then,  was  cause  for  '  a  very  pretty  quarrel,' 
and  to  add  to  the  ill  feeling  which  grew  out  of 
it,  Spain  denied  the  right  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  to  the  '  free  navigation  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi,'—  aright  which  had  been  conceded  to 
them  by  Great  Britain  with  all  the  formalities 
with  which  she  had  received  it  from  France.  .  .  . 
What  was  needed  to  make  the  right  of  any  value 
to  the  people  of  the  Ohio  valley  was  the  addi- 
tional right  to  take  their  produce  into  a  Spanish 
port.  New  Orleans,  and  either  sell  it  then  and 
there,  or  else  store  it,  subject  to  certain  condi- 
tions, until  such  time  as  it  suited  them  to  trans- 
fer it  to  sea-going  vessels.  This  right  Spain 
would  not  concede ;  and  as  the  people  of  the  Ohio 
valley  were  determined  to  have  it,  cost  what 
it  might,  it  brought  on  a  series  of  intrigues  be- 
tween the  Spanish  governors  of  Louisiana  and 
certain  influential  citizens  west  of  the  Alleghanies 
which  threatened  the  stability  of  the  American 
Union  almost  before  it  was  formed." — L.  Carr, 
Missouri,  ch.  4. 

Also  in:  E.  Schuyler,  American  Diplomacy, 
ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1810-1813. — Continued  occupation  of 
West  Florida  by  the  Spaniards. —  Revolt  of 
the  inhabitants. — Possession  taken  by  the 
Americans  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Per- 
dido.— "The  success  of  the  French  in  Spain, 
and  the  probability  of  that  kingdom  being  obliged 
to  succumb,  had  given  occasion  to  revolutionary 
movements  in  several  of  the  Spanish  American 
provinces.  This  example  .  .  .  had  been  followed 
also  in  that  portion  of  the  Spanish  province  of 
West  Florida  bordering  on  the  Mississippi.  The 
inhabitants,  most  of  whom  were  of  British  or 
American  birth,  had  seized  the  fort  at  Baton 
Rouge,  had  met  in  convention,  and  had  proclaimed 
themselves  independent,  adopting  a  single  star 
for  their  flag,  the  same  symbol  afterward  assumed 
by  the  republic  of  Texas.  Some  struggles  took 
place   between  the  adherents   of    the    Spanish 


1182 


FLORIDA,  1810-1813. 


First  Seminole 
War. 


FLORIDA,  1816-1818. 


connection  and  these  revolutionists,  who  were  also 
threatened  with  attack  from  Mobile,  still  held  by 
a  Spanish  garrison.  In  this  emergency  they  ap- 
plied, tlirough  Holmes,  governor  of  the  Missis- 
sippi Territory,  for  aid  and  recognition  by  the 
United  States.  .  .  .  The  president,  however,  pre- 
ferred to  issue  a  proclamation,  taking  possession 
of  the  east  bank  of  the  Mississippi,  occupation  of 
which,  under  the  Louisiana  treaty,  had  been  so 
long  delayed,  not,  it  was  said,  from  any  defect 
of  title,  but  out  of  conciliatory  views  toward 
Spain.  .  .  .  Claiborne,  governor  of  the  Orleans 
Territory,  then  at  Washington,  was  dispatched 
post-haste  to  take  possession."  The  following 
January  Congress  passed  an  act  in  secret  session 
"authorizing  the  president  to  take  possession  as 
well  of  East  as  of  West  Florida,  under  any  ar- 
rangement which  had  been  or  might  be  entered 
into  with  the  local  authorities ;  or,  in  case  of  any 
attempted  occupation  by  any  foreign  govern- 
ment, to  take  and  to  maintain  possession  by  force. 
Previously  to  the  passage  of  this  act,  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  east  bank  of  the  Mississippi  had  been 
already  completed  by  Governor  Claiborne;  not, 
however,  without  some  show  of  resistance.  .  .  . 
Captain  Gaines  presently  appeared  before  Mobile 
with  a  small  detachment  of  American  regulars, 
and  demanded  its  surrender.  Colonel  Cushing 
Boon  arrived  from  New  Orleans  with  several  gun- 
boats, artillery,  and  a  body  of  troops.  The  boats 
were  permitted  to  ascend  the  river  toward  Fort 
Stoddard  without  opposition.  But  the  Spanish 
commandant  refused  to  give  up  Mobile,  and  no 
attempt  was  made  to  compel  him."  By  an  act 
of  Congress  passed  in  April,  1812,  "that  part  of 
Florida  recently  taken  possession  of,  as  far  east 
as  Pearl  River,  was  annexed  to  the  new  state 
[of  Louisiana].  The  remaining  territory,  as  far 
as  the  Perdido,  though  Mobile  still  remained  in 
the  hands  of  the  Spaniards,  was  annexed,  by 
another  act,  to  the  Mississippi  Territory."  A  year 
later,  in  April,  1813,  General  Wilkinson  was  in- 
structed to  take  possession  of  Mobile,  and  to  oc- 
cupy all  the  territory  claimed,  to  the  Perdido, 
which  he  accordingly  did,  without  bloodshed.— 
R.  Hildreth,  ITist.  of  the  U.  S.,  2d  series,  eh.  23, 
24,  26  (i\  3). 

A.  D.  I8i6-i8i8. — The  fugitive  negroes  and 
the  first  Seminole  War. — Jackson's  campaign. 
— "The  tranquillity  of  Monroe's  administration 
was  soon  seriously  threatened  by  the  renewal  of 
trouble  with  the  Southern  Indians  [the  Seminoles, 
and  the  refugee  Creeks],  .  .  .  The  origin  of  the 
difficulty  was  twofold:  first,  the  injustice  which 
has  always  marked  the  treatment  of  Indian  tribes 
whose  lands  were  coveted  by  the  whites;  and 
secondly,  the  revival  of  the  old  grievance,  that 
Florida  was  a  refuge  for  the  fugitive  slaves  of 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina.  .  .  .  The  Seminoles 
had  never  withheld  a  welcome  to  the  Georgia 
negro  who  preferred  their  wild  freedom  to  the 
lash  of  an  overseer  on  a  cotton  or  rice  plantation. 
The  Georgians  could  never  forget  that  the  grand- 
children of  their  grandfathers'  fugitive  slaves 
were  roaming  about  the  Everglades  of  Florida. 
...  So  long  as  there  were  Seminoles  in  Florida, 
and  so  long  as  Florida  belonged  to  Spain,  just  so 
long  would  the  negroes  of  Georgia  find  an  asylum 
ia  Florida  with  the  Seminoles.  ...  A  war  with 
the  Indians  of  Florida,  therefore,  was  always 
literally  and  emphatically  a  slave-hunt.  A  re- 
clamation for  fugitives  was  always  repulsed  by 
the  Seminoles  and  the  Spaniards,  and,  as  they 


could  be  redeemed  in  no  other  way,  Georgia  was 
always  urging  the  Federal  Government  to  war." 
— W.  C.  Bryant  and  S.  H.  Gay,  Popular  Hist,  of 
the  U.  8.,  V.  4,  ch.  10.— During  the  Warof  1812- 
14,  the  English,  who  were  permitted  by  Spain  to 
make  use  of  Florida  with  considerable  freedom, 
and  who  received  no  little  assistance  from  the 
refugee  negroes  and  Creek  Indians,  "had  built  a 
fort  on  the  Appalachicola  River,  about  15  miles 
from  its  mouth,  and  had  collected  there  an  im- 
mense amount  of  arms  and  ammunition.  .  .  . 
When  the  war  ended,  the  English  left  the  arms 
and  ammunition  in  the  fort.  The  negroes  seized 
the  fort,  and  it  became  known  as  the  '  Negro 
Fort. '  The  authorities  of  the  United  States  sent 
General  Gaines  to  the  Florida  frontier  with 
troops,  to  establish  peace  on  the  border.  The 
Negro  Fort  was  a  source  of  anxiety  both  to  the 
military  autliorities  and  to  the  slave-owners  of 
Georgia, "  and  a  pretext  was  soon  found  — whether 
valid  or  not  seems  uncertain  —  for  attacking  it. 
"A  hot  shot  penetrated  one  of  the  magazines, 
and  the  whole  fort  was  blown  to  pieces,  July  27, 
1816.  There  were  300  negro  men,  women  and 
children,  and  20  Choctaws  in  the  fort;  270  were 
killed.  Only  three  came  out  unhurt,  and  these 
were  killed  by  the  allied  Indians.  .  .  .  During 
1817  there  were  frequent  collisions  on  the  frontiers 
between  Whites  and  Indians.  ...  On  the  20th 
of  November,  General  Gaines  sent  a  force  of  250 
men  to  Fowltown,  the  headquarters  of  the  chief 
of  the  '  Redsticks.'  or  hostile  Creeks.  They  ap- 
proached the  town  in  the  early  morning,  and 
were  fired  on.  An  engagement  followed.  The 
town  was  taken  and  burned.  .  .  .  The  Indians 
of  that  section,  after  this,  began  general  hostili- 
ties, attacked  the  boats  which  were  ascending 
the  Appalachicola,  and  massacred  the  persons  in 
them.  ...  In  December,  on  receipt  of  intelli- 
gence of  the  battle  at  Fowltown  and  the  attack 
on  the  boats,  Jackson  was  ordered  to  take  com- 
mand in  Georgia.  He  wrote  to  President  Monroe : 
'  Let  it  be  signified  to  me  through  any  channel 
(say  Mr.  J.  Rhea)  that  the  possession  of  the 
Ploridas  would  be  desirable  to  the  United  States, 
and  in  sixty  day s  it  will  be  accomplished. '  Much 
was  afterwards  made  to  depend  on  this  letter. 
Monroe  was  111  when  it  reached  Washington,  and 
he  did  not  see  or  read  it  until  a  year  afterwards, 
when  some  reference  was  made  to  it.  Jackson 
construed  the  orders  which  he  received  from  Cal- 
houn with  reference  to  this  letter.  ...  He  cer- 
tainly supposed,  however,  that  he  had  the  secret 
concurrence  of  the  administration  in  conquering 
Florida.  .  .  .  He  advanced  through  Georgia  with 
great  haste  and  was  on  the  Florida  frontier  in 
Jliirch,  1818.  He  .  .  .  immediately  advanced 
to  St.  Mark's,  which  place  he  captured.  On  his 
way  down  the  Appalachicola  he  found  the  In- 
dians and  negroes  at  work  in  the  fields,  and  un- 
conscious of  any  impending  attack.  Some  of 
them  fled  to  St.  Mark's.  His  theory,  in  which 
he  supposed  that  he  was  supported  by  the  ad- 
ministration, was  that  he  was  to  pursue  the  In- 
dians until  he  caught  them,  wherever  they  might 
go ;  that  he  was  to  respect  Spanish  rights  as  far 
as  he  could  consistently  with  that  purpose ;  and 
that  the  excuse  for  his  proceedings  was  that 
Spain  could  not  police  her  own  territory,  or  re- 
strain the  Indians.  Jackson's  proceedings  were 
based  on  two  positive  b\it  arbitrary  assumptions: 
(1)  That  the  Indians  got  aid  and  encourage- 
ment from  St.  Mark's  and  Pensacola.     (This  the 


1183 


FLORIDA,  1816-1818. 


FLUSHING. 


Spaniards  alway.s  denied,  but  perhaps  a  third  as- 
sumption of  Jacksou  might  be  mentioned :  that 
the  word  of  a  Spanish  official  was  of  no  value.)  (2) 
That  Great  Britain  kept  paid  emissaries  employed 
in  Florida  to  stir  up  trouble  for  the  United 
States.  This  latter  assumption  was  a  matter  of 
profound  belief  generally  in  tlie  United  States." 
Acting  upon  it  with  no  hesitation,  Jackson  caused 
a  Scotch  trader  named  Arbuthnot,  whom  he  found 
at  St.  jNIark's,  and  an  English  ex-lieutenant  of 
marines,  Ambrister  by  name,  who  was  taken 
prisoner  among  the  Seminoles,  to  be  condemned 
by  court  martial  and  executed,  although  no  sub- 
stantial evidence  of  their  being  in  any  way  an- 
swerable for  Indian  hostilities  was  adduced. 
"  It  was  as  a  mere  incident  of  his  homeward 
march  that  Jackson  turned  aside  and  captured 
Pensacola,  May  24,  1818,  because  he  was  told  that 
some  Indians  had  taken  refuge  there.  He  de- 
posed the  Spanish  government,  set  up  a  new  one, 
and  established  a  garrison.  He  then  continued 
his  march  homewards. "  Jackson's  performances 
in  Florida  were  the  cause  of  grave  perplexities 
to  his  government,  which  finally  determined  "that 
Pensacola  and  St.  Mark's  should  be  restored  to 
Spain,  but  that  Jackson's  course  should  be  ap- 
proved and  defended  on  the  grounds  that  he 
pursued  his  enemy  to  his  refuge,  and  tliat  Spain 
could  not  do  the  duty  which  devolved  on  her." 
— W.  G.  Sumner,  Andrew  Jackson  as  a  public 
man,  ch.  3. 

Also  in  :  J.  Parton,  Life  of  Andrew  Jackson, 
t>.  2,  ch.  31-39.— J.  R.  Giddings,  The  Exiles  of 
Florida,  ch.  1-4. 

A.  D.  1819-1821. — Cession  by  Spain  to  the 
United  States. — "Jackson's  vigorous  proceed- 
ings in  Florida  would  seem  not  to  have  been 
without  effect.  Pending  the  discussion  in  Con- 
gress on  his  conduct,  the  Spanish  minister,  under 
new  instructions  from  home,  signed  a  treaty  for 
the  cession  of  Florida,  in  extinction  of  the  various 
American  claims,  for  the  satisfaction  of  which 
the  United  States  agreed  to  pay  to  the  claimants 
$5,000,000.  The  Louisiana  boundary,  as  fixed 
by  tills  treaty,  was  a  compromise  between  the 
respective  offers  heretofore  made,  though  lean- 
ing a  good  deal  to  the  American  side :  the  Sabine 
to  the  82d  degree  of  north  latitude ;  thence  a 
north  meridian  line  to  tlie  Red  River ;  the  course 
of  that  river  to  the  100th  degree  of  longitude 
east  [?  west]  from  Greenwich ;  thence  north  by 
that  meridian  to  the  Arkansas ;  up  that  river  to 
its  head,  and  to  the  42d  degree  of  north  latitude ; 
and  along  that  degree  to  the  Pacific.  This  treaty 
was  immediately  ratified  by  the  Senate,"  but  it 
was  not  until  February,  1821,  that  the  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Spanish,  government  was  received. — 
R.  Hildreth,  Hist,  of  the  IT.  S.,  2d  series,  ch. 
31-32  {v.  3). 

Also  in:  J.  T.  Morse,  John  Quincy  Adams, 
pp.  109-125.- — Treaties  and  Conventions  bet.  tlie 
V.  S.  and  other  countries  {ed.  of  1889),  pp.  1016- 
1022. 

A.  D.  1835-1843.— The  Second  Seminole 
War. — "The  conflict  with  the  Seminoles  was 
one  of  the  legacies  left  by  Jackson  to  Van  Buren ; 
it  lasted  as  long  as  the  Revolutionary  War,  cost 
thirty  millions  of  dollars,  and  baffled  the  efforts 
of  several  generals  and  numerous  troops,  who 
had  previously  shown  themselves  equal  to  any 
in  the  world.  ...  As  is  usually  the  case  in  In- 
dian wars  there  had  been  wrong  done  by  each 
side ;  but  in  this  instance  we  were  the  more  to 


blame,  although  the  Indians  themselves  were  far 
from  being  merely  harmless  and  suffering  inno- 
cents. The  Seminoles  were  being  deprived  of 
their  lands  in  pursuance  of  the  general  policy  of 
removing  all  the  Indians  west  of  the  Mississippi. 
They  had  agreed  to  go,  under  pressure,  and 
influenced,  probablj-,  by  fraudulent  representa- 
tions; but  they  declined  to  fulfill  tlieir  agree- 
ment. If  they  had  been  treated  wisely  and 
firmly  they  might  probably  have  been  allowed 
to  remain  without  serious  injury  to  the  sur- 
rounding whites.  But  no  such  treatment  was 
attempted,  and  as  a  result  we  were  plunged  in 
one  of  the  most  harassing  Indian  wars  we  ever 
waged.  In  their  gloomy,  tangled  swamps,  and 
among  the  unknown  and  untrodden  recesses  of 
the  everglades,  the  Indians  found  a  secure  asy- 
lum ;  and  they  issued  from  their  haunts  to  burn 
and  ravage  almost  all  the  settled  parts  of  Florida, 
fairly  depopulating  five  counties.  .  .  .  The  great 
Seminole  leader,  Osceola,  was  captured  only  by 
deliberate  treachery  and  breach  of  faith  on  our 
part,  and  the  Indians  were  worn  out  rather  than 
conquered.  This  was  partly  owing  to  their 
remarkable  capacities  as  busli-fighters,  but  infi- 
nitely more  to  the  nature  of  their  territory.  Our 
troops  generally  fought  with  great  bravery ;  but 
there  is  very  little  else  in  the  struggle,  either  as 
regards  its  origin  or  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
carried  on,  to  which  an  American  can  look  back 
with  any  satisfaction." — T.  Roosevelt,  Life  of 
Tliomas  H.  Benton,  ch.  10. 

Also  in  :  J.  R.  Giddings,  Th^  Exiles  of  Florida, 
ch.  7-21.— J.  T.  Sprague,  The  Florida  IKar.- See, 
also,  American  Aborigines;  Seminoles. 

A.  D.  1845. — Admission  into  the  Union.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1845. 

A.  D.  i86i  (January). — Secession  from  the 
Union.  See  United  States  of  Am.  ;  A.  D. 
1861  (January — February). 

A.  D.  1862  (February — April). — Temporary 
Union  conquests  and  occupation. — Discour- 
agement of  Unionists.  See  United  States  op 
Am.;  a.  D.  1862  (February — April:  Georgia 
— Florida). 

A.  D.  1864. — Unsuccessful  National  attempt 
to  occupy  the  State. — Battle  of  Olustee.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1864  (January — 
February  ;  Florida). 

A.  D.  1865  (July). — Provisional  government 
set  up  under  President  Johnson's  plan  of  Re- 
construction. See  United  St.\tes  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1865  (M.\Y— July). 

A.  D.  1865-1868.  —  Reconstruction.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1865  (May' — 
July),  and  after,  to  1868-1870. 


FLORIN,  The.— '  The  Republic  of  Florence, 
in  the  year  1252,  coined  its  golden  florin,  of  34 
carats  fine,  and  of  the  weight  of  one  drachm.  It 
placed  the  value  under  the  guarantee  of  pub- 
licity, and  of  commercial  good  faith;  and  that 
coin  remained  unaltered,  as  the  standard  for  all 
other  values,  as  long  as  the  republic  itself  en- 
dured."— J.  C.  L.  deSismondi,  Hist,  of  the  Italian 
Jiepnhlics.  ch.  4. 

FLOTA,  The.     See  Peru;  A.  D.  1550-1816. 

FLOYD,  JOHN  B.,  Treachery  of.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  ;  A.  D.  1860  (December). 


FLUSHING :  A.  D.  1807.- Ceded  to  France. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1807-1808  (November  — 
February. 


1184 


FLUSHING 


FORMOSA. 


A.  D.  1809. — Taken  and  abandoned  by  the 
English.  See  Engl.4.nd:  A.  D.  1809  'Jui.y  — 
December). 

♦ 

FOCKSHANI,  Battle  of  (1789).  See  Turks: 
A.  D.  1776-1T92. 

FODHLA.     See  Ireland  :  The  Name. 

FCEDERATI. — The  bodies  of  barbarians 
taken  into  the  military  service  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire, during  the  period  of  its  decline,  serving 
under  their  hereditary  chiefs,  were  designated 
by  the  name  of  foederati  (confederates  or  allies). 
— T.  Hodgkin,  The  dynasty  of  Theodosius,  ch.  4. 


FOIX,   Rise   of  the  Counts   of.     See  Bur- 
gundy :  A.  D.  103-3. 
The  house  in  Navarre.     See  Navarre  :  A.  D. 

1443-1531. 


FOLCLAND.  —  FOLKLAND .  —  Public 

land,  among  the  early  English.  "  It  comprised 
the  whole  area  that  was  not  at  the  original  allot- 
ment assigned  to  individuals  or  communities, 
and  that  was  not  subsequently  divided  into  es- 
tates of  bookland  [bocland].  The  folkland  was 
the  standing  treasury  of  the  country ;  no  alien- 
ation of  any  part  of  it  could  be  made  without 
the  consent  "of  the  national  council ;  but  it  might 
be  allowed  to  individuals  to  hold  portions  of  it 
subject  to  rents  and  other  services  to  the  state." 
— W.  Stubbs,  C'oiiM.  Hist,  of  Eng.,  ch.  5,  sect.  36. 
— The  theory  here  stated  is  questioned  by  Prof. 
VinogradoU,  who  says :  "I  venture  to  suggest 
that  folkland  need  not  mean  the  land  owned  by 
the  people.  Bookland  is  land  that  is  held  by 
bookright ;  folkland  is  land  that  is  held  by  folk- 
right.  The  folkland  is  what  our  scholars  have 
called  ethel,  and  alod,  and  family-land,  and 
yrfeland  ;  it  is  land  held  under  the  old  restrictive 
common-law,  the  law  which  keeps  land  in  fami- 
lies, as  contrasted  with  land  which  is  held  under 
a  book,  under  a  '  privilegium,'  modelled  on 
Roman  precedents,  expressed  in  Latin  words, 
armed  with  ecclesiastical  sanctions,  and  making 
for  free  alienation  and  individualism." — P.  Vino- 
gradoflf,  Folkland  (English  Hist.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1893). 

Also  in:  J.  M.  Kemble,  The  Saxons  in  Eng., 
bk.  1,  ch.  11. — See,  also,  Alod. 

FOLIGNO,  Truce  of.  See  France:  A.  D, 
1800-1801  (June— February). 

FOLKLAND.     See  Folcland. 

FOLKMOOT.  See  Hundred  ;  also  Shike  ; 
also  Witenagemot  ;  also  Township  and  Town- 
Mketing,  The  New  England. 

FOLKTHING.  — FOLKETING.The.  See 
Scandinavian  States  (Denmark — Iceland)  : 
A.  D.  1849-1874. 

FOLKUNGAS,  The.  See  Scandinavian 
States:  A.  D.  1018-1397. 

FOMORIANS,  OR  FORMORIANS,  The. 
— A  people  mentioned  in  Irish  legends  as  sea- 
rovers.  See  Ireland  :  The  Primitive  Inhab- 
itants :  also,  Nemedians. 

FONTAINE  FRANCAISE,  Battle  of 
(1595).     See  France  :  A.  D.'l593-ir)98. 

FONTAINEBLEAU:  A.  D.  1812-1814.— 
Residence  of  the  captive  Pope.  See  Papacy: 
A.  D.  1808-1814. 

FONTAINEBLEAU,  Treaties  of  (1807). 
See  Portugal  :  A.  D.  1807,  and  Spain  :  A.  D. 

1807-1808 (1814).     See  France  :  A.  D.  1814 

(March — April). 

75  1185 


FONTAINEBLEAU  DECREE,  The.    See 

France:  A.  D.  1806-1810. 

FONTARABIA,  Siege  and  Battle  (1638). 
See  Spain  :  A.  D.  1637-1640. 

FONTENAILLES,     OR     FONTENAY, 

Battle  of,  A.  D.  841. — In  the  civil  war  between 
the  three  grandsons  of  Charlemagne,  which  re- 
sulted in  the  jjailition  of  his  empire  and  the 
definite  separation  of  Germany  and  France,  the 
decisive  battle  was  fought,  June  35,  841,  at 
Fontenailles,  or  Fontenay  (Fontanetum),  near 
Auxerre. 

FONTENOY,  Battle  of  (1745).  See  Nether 
lands  (Austrian  Provinces):  A.  D.  1745. 

FOOT,  The  Roman. — ^"The  unit  of  linea; 
measure  [with  the  Romans]  was  the  Pes,  which 
occupied  the  same  place  in  the  Roman  system  as 
the  Foot  does  in  our  own.  According  to  the 
most  accurate  researches,  the  Pes  was  equal  to 
about  11.64  inches  imperial  measure,  or  .97  of  an 
English  foot.  The  Pes  being  supposed  to  repre- 
sent the  length  of  the  foot  in  a  well  proportioned 
man,  various  divisions  and  multiples  of  the  Pes 
were  named  after  standards  derived  from  the 
human  frame.  Thus :  Pes  ^  16  Digiti,  i.  e. 
finger-breadths,  [or]  4  Palmi,  i.  e.  hand-breadths  ; 
Sesquipes  =  l  cubitus,  i.  e.  length  from  elbow  to 
extremity  of  middle  finger.  The  Pes  was  also 
divided  into  13  Pollices,  i.  e.  thumb-joint-lengths, 
otherwise  called  Unciae  (whence  our  word 
'inch')." — W.  Ramsay,  ManualofBomanAntiq., 
ch.  13. 

FOOTE,  Commodore. — Gun-boat  campaign 
on  the  western  rivers.  See  United  Status  op 
Am.:  a.  D.  1863  (January — February  :  Ken- 
tucky— Tennessee)  ;  (March— April  :  On  the 
Mississippi). 

FORBACH,  OR  SPICHERN,  Battle  of. 
See  France  :  A.  D.  1870  (July— August). 

FORCE  BILL,  The.  See  United  States 
op  Am.  :  A  D.  1871  (April). 

FORESTERS,  Order  of.     See  Insuk.'INCE. 

FORESTS,  Charter  of.  See  England: 
A.  D.  1316-1374. 

FORLI,  Battle  of  (1423).  See  Italy  :  A.  D. 
1413-1447. 

FORMOSA. — "Fonnosa,  or  Taiwan,  as  it  is 
called  by  the  Chinese,  is  about  400  miles  south 
of  the  mouth  of  the  Yang-tse,  and  100  from  the 
mainland  of  China.  It  lies  between  35°  30'  and 
31°  50'  north  latitude,  is  nearly  340  miles  long, 
by  an  average  of  75  miles  wide,  and  has  an  area 
of  about  13.000  square  miles.  It  is  remarkable 
for  its  beauty  and  fertility,  and  also  for  the 
variety  of  its  products.  It  was  formerly  at- 
tached to  the  province  of  Fohkien,  and  governed 
by  a  resident  commissioner  ;  but  since  the  Franco- 
Chinese  War,  during  which  the  French,  under 
Admiral  Courbet,  were  foiled  in  their  efforts  to 
take  possession  of  it,  it  has  been  erected  into  an 
independent  province  by  imperial  decree,  and  is 
now  [1887]  governed  by  Liu  Ming-Ch'uan,  an 
able  and  progressive  man,  with  the  title  and  al- 
most unlimited  authority  of  governor-general. 
The  island  was  once  in  the  possession  of  the 
Spaniards,  who  called  it  Formosa  (beautiful),  but 
did  not  colonize  it.  It  then  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  Dutch,  who  built  Fort  Zealandia, 
and  established  a  trading-post  on  the  southwest 
coast,  near  the  present  city  of  Taiwan-fu,  and 
another  known  as  the  Red  Fort,  at  Tamsui,  on 
the  northwest  coast.  But  the  Dutch  in  turn 
abandoned   the   island  about  the  year  lOGO,  im- 


FORMOSA 


FORUM  ROMANUM. 


mediately  after  which  it  was  occupied  aad  colo- 
nized by  the  Chinese  from  Amoy  and  other 
points  on  the  coast  of  Fohkien.  The  population 
is  now  estimated  by  the  governor-general  at  4,- 
000,000  Chinese  and  60,000  savages,  but  the  first 
figures  are  doubtless  much  too  large.  The  sav- 
ages are  a  fine  race  of  men  of  the  Malay  or 
Polynesian  type,  who  hold  nearly  all  the  east 
coast  and  the  mountain-region,  covering  over 
one  half  the  island.  They  live  mostly  by  hunt- 
ing and  fishing,  or  upon  the  natural  products  of 
the  forest,  and  cultivate  but  little  land." — J.  H. 
Wilson,  China,  ch.  18. — In  1874,  in  order  to  ob- 
tain redress  for  a  murder  of  Japanese  sailors  by 
savages  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Formosa,  the 
Japanese  Government  imdertook  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  southern  part  of  Formosa,  asserting 
that  it  did  not  belong  to  China  because  she  either 
would  not  or  could  not  govern  its  savage  inhab- 
itants. By  the  intervention  of  the  British  min- 
ister. Sir  T.  F.  Wade,  war  was  prevented,  the 
Japanese  withdrawing  and  the  Chinese  remain- 
ing in  control  :  but  the  former  still  coveted  the 
island,  and  finally  secured  it,  as  one  of  the  re- 
sults of  their  war  with  China,  in  1 894-3. — S.  W. 
Williams,  The  Middle  Kingdom,  ch.  36,  «.  2. 

FORNUOVA.  Battle  of  (1495).  See  Italy: 
A.  D.  1494-1496. 

FORREST,  GENERAL,  Cavalry  Opera- 
tions of.  See  United  Statks  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1863-1863  (Dec— Jan.:  Tenn.);  1863  (Feb.— 
Apr.:  Tenn.);  1863-1864 (Dec— Apr.:  Tenn.— 
Miss.);  1864  (Apk-  :  Tenn.);  1864 (Sept.— Oct.: 
Ga.). 

FORT  EDWARD.— FORT  ERIE.— 
FORT  FISHER,  ETC.  See  Edward,  Fort  ; 
Erie,  Fort,  Etc 

FORTRENN,  Men  of.— A  Pictish  people  in 
early  Scottish  history. 

FORTY  FORT.  See  United  States  of 
Am.  :  A.  D,  1778  (July). 

FORTUNATE  ISLANDS.  See  Canary 
Islands,  Discovery  of. 

FORTY-FIVE,  The.— The.Jacobite rebellion 
of  1745  is  often  referred  to  as  "the  Forty-five." 
See  Scotland  :  A.  D.  1745. 

FORTY-SHILLING  FREEHOLDERS. 
See  England  :  A.  D.  1884-1885. 

FORUM,  The  Julian,  and  its  extensions. — 
"From  the  entrance  of  the  Suburra  branched 
out  the  long  streets  which  penetrated  the  hollows 
between  the  Quirinal,  Viminal,  and  Esquiline  to 
the  gates  pierced  in  the  mound  of  Servius.  It 
was  in  this  direction  that  Ca;sar  effected  the  first 
extension  of  the  Forum,  by  converting  the  site 
of  certain  streets  into  an  open  space  which  he 
surrounded  with  arcades,  and  in  the  centre  of 
which  he  erected  his  temple  of  Venus.  By  the 
side  of  the  Julian  Forum,  or  perhaps  in  its  rear, 
Augustus  constructed  a  still  ampler  inclosure, 
which  he  adorned  with  the  temple  of  Mars  the 
Avenger.  S\icceeding  emperor.s  .  .  .  continued 
to  work  out  the  same  idea,  till  the  Argiletum  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  saddle  of  the  Capitoline 
and  Quirinal,  e.^cavated  for  the  purpose,  on  the 
other,  were  both  occupied  by  the.se  constructions, 
the  dwellings  of  the  populace  being  swept  away 
before  them  ;  and  a  space  running  nearly  parallel 
to  the  length  of  the  Roman  Forum,  and  exceed- 
ing it  in  size,  was  thus  devoted  to  public  use. 
extending  from  the  pillar  of  Trajan  to  the  basilica 
of  Constantine." — C.  Merivale,  Hiit.  of  the  lio- 
mans,  ch.  40. 


FORUM  BOARIUM  AND  VELABRUM 
OF  ANCIENT  ROME,  The.— "  The  Vela- 
brum,  the  Forum  Boarium,  the  Vicus  Tuscus, 
and  the  Circus  Maximus  are  names  rich  in  remi- 
niscences of  the  romantic  youth  and  warlike 
manhood  of  the  Roman  people.  The  earliest 
dawn  of  Roman  history  begins  with  the  union  of 
the  Capitoline  and  Palatine  hills  into  one  city. 
In  those  far-distant  times,  however,  no  popula- 
tion was  settled  in  the  Velabrum  or  Circus  val- 
ley ;  for,  as  we  have  seen,  until  the  drainage 
was  permanently  provided  for  by  the  cloacis, 
these  districts  were  uninhabited  swamps ;  and 
the  name  Velabrum  itself  is  said  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  boats  used  in  crossing  from  one 
hill  to  the  other.  Perhaps  such  may  not  have 
been  the  case  with  the  Forum  Boarium,  which  lay 
between  the  Velabrum  and  the  river.  .  .  .  The 
limits  of  the  Forum  Boarium  can  be  clearly  de- 
fined. It  w^as  separated  from  the  Velabrum  at 
the  Arch  of  the  Goldsmiths.  .  .  .  On  the  south- 
eastern side  the  Carceres  of  the  Circus,  and 
the  adjoining  temple  on  the  site  of  S.  Maria  in 
Cosmedin,  bounded  the  district,  on  the  western 
the  Tiber,  and  on  the  northwestern  the  wall  of 
Servius.  .  .  .  The  immediate  neighbourhood  of 
the  river,  the  Forum,  the  Campus  Martius,  and 
the  Palace  of  the  Caesars  would  naturally  render 
this  quarter  one  of  the  most  crowded  thorough- 
fares of  Rome.  .  .  .  The  Forum  itself,  which 
gave  the  name  to  the  distinct,  was  probably  an 
open  space  surrounded  by  shops  and  public 
buildings,  like  the  Forum  Romanum,  but  on  a 
smaller  scale.  In  the  centre  stood  the  bronze 
figure  of  a  bull,  brought  from  ^Silgina,  either  as 
a  symbol  of  the  trade  in  cattle  to  which  the  place 
owed  its  name,  or,  as  Tacitus  observes,  to  mark 
the  supposed  spot  whence  the  plough  of  Romu- 
lus, drawn  by  a  bull  and  a  cow,  first  started  in 
tracing  out  the  Palatine  pomoerium." — R  Burn, 
Borne  and  the  Catiipaqna,  ch.  12. 

FORUM  GALLORUM,  Battle  of  (B,  C. 
43).     See  Rome  :  B.  C.  44^3. 

FORUM  JULII . — A  Roman  colony  and  naval 
station  (modern  Frejus)  founded  on  the  Mediter- 
ranean coast  of  Gaul  by  Augustus. 

FORUM  ROMANUM,  The.— "  The  older 
Forum,  or  Forum  Romanum,  as  it  was  called  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  later  Fora,  which  were 
named  after  their  respective  builders  [Forum  of 
Julius  Cresar,  of  Augustus,  of  Nerva,  of  Ves- 
pasian, of  Trajan,  etc.],  was  an  open  space  of  an 
oblong  shape,  which  extended  in  a  south-easterly 
direction  from  near  the  depression  or  intermon- 
tium  between  the  two  summits  of  the  Capitoline 
Hill  to  a  point  opposite  the  still  extant  temple  of 
Antoninus  and  Faustina,  .  .  .  Round  this  con- 
fined space  were  grouped  the  most  important 
buildings  of  Republican  Rome." — R.  Burn,  Rome 
and  the  Campagna,  ch.  6,  pt.  1. — "Forum,  in 
the  literal  sense  of  the  word  merely  a  market- 
place, derives  its  name  'a  ferendo,'  (from  bring 
ing,  getting,  purchasing).  .  .  .  Narrow  is  the 
arena  on  which  so  great  a  drama  was  enacted  in 
the  Republican  and  Imperial  City  !  the  ascer- 
tainable measurements  of  this  region,  according 
to  good  authorities,  being  671  English  feet  in  the 
extreme  length,  303  in  the  extreme  breadth,  and 
117  feet  at  the  narrower,  the  south-eastern,  side. 
.  .  .  The  Forum,  as  an  enclosed  public  place 
amidst  buildings,  and  surrounded  by  graceful 
porticos,  may  be  said  to  have  owed  its  origin  to 
Tarquinius  Priscus,  between  the  years  616  and 


1186 


FORUM  ROMANUM. 


FRANCE,  A.  D.  843. 


578  B.  C."— C.  I.  Hemaus,  RUtoric  and  Mbnu- 
inental  Rome,  ch.  6. 

Ai.so  rx  :  R.  Lanciani,  Ancient  Home,  pp.75-82. 

FORUM  TREBONII,  Battle  of  (A.  D.2SI). 
See  GoTiis,  First  lNVA>iioNs  of  tue  Roman 
Empihio. 

FOSI,  The.     See  Chauci. 

FOSSA.     See  Castra, 

FOSSE,  The. — One  of  the  great  Roman 
roads  iu  Britain,  which  mu  from  Liucohi  south- 
westwardly  into  Cornwall.  See  Roman  Ruads 
IN  Britain. 

FOSTAT. — The  original  name  of  Cairo, 
Egypt,  signifying  "the  Encampment."  See 
Mahomktax  Conquest  :  A.  D.  640-64G. 

FOTHERINGAY  CASTLE,  Mary  Stu- 
art's execution  at.  See  Scotland  :  A.  D.  1561- 
1568  ;  and  England  :  A.  D.  1585-1.58T. 

FOUNTAIN  OF  YOUTH.Poncede  Leon's 
quest  of  the.     Sec  America:  A.  D.  1513. 

FOUR  HUNDRED  AND  FIVE  THOU- 
SAND AT  ATHENS.  See  Athens:  B.  C. 
413-tll. 

FOUR  HUNDRED  AT  ATHENS,  The. 
See  Athens  :  B.  C.  594. 

FOUR  MASTERS,  The.— Four  Irish  an- 
tiquaries of  the  17th  century,  who  compiled  the 
mi.^ed  collection  of  legend  aiid  history  called  the 
'•Annals  of  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland,"  are  com- 
monly known  as  the  Four  Masters.  They  were 
Michael  O'CIery,  a  lay  brother  of  the  order  of 
St.  Francis  ;  Conaire  O'Clery,  brother  of  Michael  ; 
Cucogry  or  Peregrine  O'Clery,  head  of  the  Tir- 
connell  sept  of  the  OClerys,  to  which  Michael 
and  Conaire  belonged ;  and  Ferfeasa  O'Mulconry, 


of  whom  nothing  is  known,  except  that  he  was 
a  native  of  the  county  of  Roscommon.  The 
"  Annals"  of  the  Four  Masters  have  been  trans- 
lated into  English  from  the  Irish  tongue  by  John 
O'Donovan. — .J.  O'Donovan,  Introd.  to  Annals 
of  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland  by  the  Four  Moxters. 

FOUR  MILE  STRIP,  Cession  of  the.  See 
Pontiac's  War. 

FOURIERISM.  See  Social  Movements: 
A.  D.  1833-1847,  and  1841-1847. 


FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1805-1866  (De- 
cember—April) ;  1866  (June);  1866-1867  (Oc- 
tober— March). 

The  enforcement  of.  See  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1871  (April). 


FOURTH  OF  JULY.— The  anniversary  of 
the  adoption  of  the  American  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence. See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1776  (July). 

FOWEY,  Essex's  surrender  at.  See  Eng- 
land :  A.  D.  1644  (August — September). 

FOWLTOWN,  Battle  of  (1817).  See 
Flokida:  a.  D.  1816-1818. 

FOX  AND  NORTH  COALITION,  The. 
See  England:  A.  D.  1782  ;  1783;  and  1783-1787 

FOX  INDIANS,  The.  See  Ameuican  Abo- 
rigines :  Algonquian  Family,  and  Sacs,  &c.— 
For  an  account  of  the  massacre  of  Fox  Indians  at 
Detroit  in  1712,  see  Canada  :  A.  D.  1711-1713. 
—For  an  account  of  the  Black  Hawk  War,  see 
Illinois  :  A.  D.  1832. 


FRANCE. 


Gallic  and  Roman.  See  Gaul;  and  Tjiade  : 
Ancient. 

A.  D.  481-843.— Under  the  Franks.— Divis- 
ion of  Charlemagne's  Empire.     See  Franks. 

A.  D.  841-911.— Ravages  and  settlements  of 
the  Northmen.  See  Normans:  A.  D.  841  to 
876-911. 

9th  Century. — Introduction  of  the  modern 
name. — At  the  time  of  the  division  of  the  empire 
of  Charlemagne  between  his  three  grand-sons, 
which  was  made  a  definite  and  lasting  political 
separation  by  the  Treaty  of  Verdun,  A.  D.  843, 
"the  people  of  the  West  [western  Europe]  had 
come  to  be  divided,  with  more  and  more  distinct- 
ness, into  two  classes,  those  composed  of  Franks 
and  Germans,  who  still  adhered  to  the  Teutonic 
dialects,  and  those,  composed  of  Franks,  Gallo- 
Romans,  and  Aquitanians,  who  used  the  Romance 
dialects,  or  the  patois  which  had  grown  out  of  a 
corrupted  Latin.  The  former  clung  to  the  name 
of  Germans,  while  the  latter,  not  to  lose  all  share 
in  the  glory  of  the  Prankish  name,  began  to  call 
themselves  Franci,  and  their  country  Francia 
Nova,  or  New  France.  .  .  .  Francia  was  the 
Latin  name  of  Frankenland,  and  had  long  before 
been  applied  to  the  dominions  of  the  Franks  on 
both  sides  of  the  Rhine.  Their  country  was 
then  divided  into  East  and  West  Francia;  but  in 
the  time  of  Karl  the  Great  [Charlemagne]  and 
Ludwig  Pious,  we  find  the  monk  of  St.  Gall 
using  the  terms  Francia  Nova,  in  opposition  to 
the  Francia,  'qusediciturantiqua. '  " — P.  Godwin, 
Hist,  of  France:  Ancient  Oaul.  eh.  18,  loith  note. 
— "As  for  the  mere  name  of  Francia,  like  other 
names  of  the  kind,  it  shifted  its  geographical 


use  according  to  the  wanderings  of  the  people 
from  whom  it  was  derived.  After  many  such 
changes  of  meaning,  it  gradually  settled  down  as 
the  name  for  those  parts  of  Germany  and  Gaul 
where  it  still  abides.  There  are  the  Teutonic  or 
Austrian  [or  Austrasian]  Francia,  part  of  which 
still  keeps  the  name  of  Franken  or  Franconia, 
and  the  Romance  or  Neustrian  Francia,  which 
by  various  annexations  has  grown  into  modern 
France."— E.  A.  Freeman,  Historical  Oeog.  of 
Europe,  v.  1,  ;;.  121.— "As  late  as  the  reign  of 
Frederick  Barbarossa,  the  name  of  Frank  was 
still  used,  and  used  too  with  an  air  of  triumph,  as 
equivalent  to  the  name  of  German.  The  Kings 
and  kingdoms  of  this  age  had  indeed  no  fixed 
titles,  because  all  were  still  looked  on  as  mere 
portions  of  the  great  Prankish  realm.  Another 
step  has  now  been  taken  towards  the  creation  of 
modern  France;  but  the  older  state  of  things 
has  not  yet  wholly  passed  away.  Germany  has 
no  definite  name ;  for  a  long  time  it  is  '  Francia 
Orientalis,'  '  Francia  Teutonica ' ;  then  it  becomes 
'  Regnum  Teutonicum, ' '  Regnum  Teutonicorum. ' 
But  it  is  equally  clear  that,  within  the  limits 
of  that  Western  or  Latin  France,  Francia  and 
Francus  were  fast  getting  their  modern  meanings 
of  Prance  and  Frenchmen,  as  distinguished  from 
Frank  or  German."— E,  A.  Freeman,  The  Franks 
and  the  Gauls  (Historical  Essays,  1st  series,  no.  7). 
A.  D.  843.— The  kingdom  of  Charles  the 
Bald. — The  first  actual  kingdom  of  France  (Fran- 
cia Nova  —  Francia  Occidentalis),  was  formed 
in  the  partition  of  the  empire  of  Charlemagne  be- 
tween his  three  grandsons,  by  the  Treaty  of  Ver- 
dun,   A.  D.  843.     It  was  assigned   to  Charles, 


1187 


FRANCE,  A.   D.   843. 


Founding  of  the 
Capetian  Monarchy. 


FRANCE,  A.  D.  877-987. 


called  "the  Bald,"  and  comprised  the  Neustria 
of  the  older  Frank  divisions,  together  with  Aqui- 
taine.  It  "had  for  its  eastern  boundarj-,  the 
Meuse,  the  Saone  and  the  Rhone ;  which,  never- 
theless, can  only  be  understood  of  the  Upper 
Meuse,  since  Brabant  was  certainly  not  comprised 
in  it  " ;  and  it  extended  southwards  beyond  tlie 
Pyrenees  to  the  Ebro. — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle 
Ages,  ch.  1,  pt.  1,  foot-note. — "Charles  and  his 
successors  have  some  claim  to  be  accounted 
French.  They  rule  over  a  large  part  of  France, 
and  are  cut  away  from  their  older  connexion  with 
Germany.  Still,  in  reality  they  are  Germans  and 
Franks.  They  speak  German,  they  yearn  after 
the  old  imperial  name,  they  have  no  national 
feeling  at  all.  On  the  other  hand,  the  great  lords 
of  Neustria,  as  it  used  to  be  called,  are  ready  to 
move  in  that  direction,  and  to  take  the  first  steps 
towards  a  new  national  life.  They  cease  to 
look  back  to  the  Rhine,  and  occupy  themselves 
in  a  continual  struggle  with  their  kings.  Feudal 
power  is  founded,  and  with  it  the  claims  of  the 
bishops  rise  to  their  highest  point.  But  we  have 
not  yet  come  to  a  kingdom  of  France.  ...  It 
was  no  proper  Frencli  kingdom ;  but  a  dying 
branch  of  the  Empire  of  Charles  tlie  Great.  .  .  . 
Charles  the  Bald,  entering  on  his  part  of  the 
Caroling  Empire,  found  three  large  districts 
which  refused  to  recognise  liim.  These  were 
Aquitaine,  whose  king  was  Pippin  II. :  Septi- 
mania,  in  the  hands  of  Bernard;  and  Brittany 
under  Nominoe.  He  attempted  to  reduce  them ; 
but  Brittany  and  Septimania  defied  him,  while 
over  Aquitaine  he  was  little  more  than  a  nominal 
suzerain." — G.  W.  Kitchin,  Ilist.  of  France,  v.  1, 
bk.  2,  pi.  2,  ch.  5. 

Also  nsr :  E.  A.  Freeman,  Hist.  Oeog.  of  Europe, 
ch.  6,  sect.  1. — See,  also,  Franks  (Carolinoian 
Empire):  A.  D.  814-963. 

A.  D.  86 1. — Origin  of  the  duchy  and  of  the 
house  of  Capet. —  In  861,  Charles  the  Bald,  king 
of  that  part  of  the  dismembered  empire  of  Char- 
lemagne which  grew  into  the  kingdom  of  France, 
was  struggling  with  many  difficulties :  defending 
himself  against  the  hostile  ambition  of  his 
brother,  Louis  the  German ;  striving  to  establish 
his  authority  in  Brittany  and  Aquitaine ;  harried 
and  harassed  by  Norse  pirates ;  surrounded  by 
domestic  treachery  and  feudal  restiveness.  All 
of  his  many  foes  were  more  or  less  in  league 
against  him,  and  the  soul  of  their  combination 
appears  to  have  been  a  certain  bold  adventurer — • 
a  stranger  of  uncertain  origin,  a  Saxon,  as  some 
say  —  who  bore  the  name  of  Robert  the  Strong. 
In  this  alien  enemy.  King  Charles,  who  never 
lacked  shrewdness,  discovered  a  possible  friend. 
He  opened  negotiations  with  Robert  the  Strong, 
and  a  bargain  was  soon  made  which  transferred 
the  sword  and  the  energy  of  the  potent  mercen- 
ary to  the  service  of  the  king.  "  Soon  after,  a 
Placitum  or  Great  Council  was  held  at  Com- 
pifegne.  In  this  assembly,  and  by  the  assent  of 
the  Optimates,  the  Seine  and  its  islands,  and  tliat 
most  important  island  Paris,  and  all  the  country 
between  Seine  and  Loire,  were  granted  to  Robert, 
the  Duchy  of  France,  though  not  yet  so  called, 
moreover  the  Angevine  Marches,  or  County  of 
Outre-Maine,  all  to  be  held  by  Robert-le-Fort  as 
barriers  against  Nortlimen  and  Bretons,  and  by 
whicli  cessions  the  realm  was  to  be  defended. 
Only  a  portion  of  this  dominion  owned  the  obedi- 
ence of  Charles:  the  Bretons  were  in  their  own 
coimtry,  tlie  Northmen  in  the  country  they  were 


making  their  own ;  the  grant  therefore  was  a 
license  to  Robert  to  win  as  much  as  he  could,  and 
to  keep  his  acquisitions  should  he  succeed.  .  .  . 
Robert  kept  the  Nortlimen  in  check,  yet  only  by 
incessant  exertion.  He  inured  the  future  kings 
of  France,  his  two  young  sons,  Eudes  and  Rob- 
ert, to  the  tug  of  war,  making  them  his  com- 
panions in  his  enterprises.  Tlie  banks  of  the 
Loire  were  particularly  guarded  by  him,  for  here 
the  principal  attacks  were  directed."  Robert  the 
Strong  fought  valiantly,  as  he  had  contracted  to 
do,  for  five  years,  or  more,  and  then,  in  an  un- 
lucky battle  with  the  Danes,  one  summer  day  in 
866,  he  fell.  "  Thus  died  the  first  of  tlie  Capets." 
All  the  honors  and  possessions  which  he  had 
received  from  tlie  king  were  then  transferred,  not 
to  his  sons,  but  to  one  Hugh,  Count  of  Bur- 
gundy, who  became  also  Duke  or  Marquis  of 
France  and  Count  of  Anjou.  Twenty  years 
later,  however,  the  older  son  of  Robert,  Eudes, 
turns  up  in  history  again  as  Count  of  Paris,  and 
nothing  is  known  of  tlie  means  by  which  the 
family,  soon  to  become  royal,  had  recovered  its 
footing  and  its  importance. — Sir  P.  Palgrave, 
Hist,  of  Xonnandi/  and  Enghind.  bk.  1.  ch.  3  (r.  1). 
A.  D.  877-987.— The  end  of  the  Carolingian 
monarchy  and  the  rise  of  the  Capetian. — 
Charles  the  Bald  died  in  877  and  was  succeeded 
by  liis  son  Louis,  called  "the  Stammerer,"  who 
reigned  only  two  years.  His  two  sons,  Louis 
and  Carloman,  were  joint  kings  for  a  short  space, 
struggling  with  the  Northmen  and  losing  the 
provinces  out  of  which  Duke  Boson  of  Provence, 
brother-in-hiw  of  Charles  the  Bald,  formed  the 
kingdom  of  Aries.  Louis  died  in  882  and  Carlo- 
man  two  years  afterwards;  thereupon  Cliarles, 
surnamed  "the  Fat,"  king  of  Lombardy  and 
Germany,  and  also  emperor  (nephew  of  Charles 
the  Bald),  became  likewise  king  of  France,  and 
briefly  reunited  under  liis  feebly  handled  sceptre 
the  greater  part  of  the  old  empire  of  Charle- 
magne. When  he  died,  in  888,  a  party  of  the 
nobles,  tired  of  Iiis  race,  met  and  elected  Count 
Eudes  (or  Odo),  the  valiant  Count  of  Paris,  who 
had  just  defended  his  city  with  obstinate  courage 
against  the  Northmen,  to  be  their  king.  The 
sovereignty  of  Eudes  was  not  acknowledged  by 
the  nation  at  large.  His  opponents  found  a 
Carling  to  set  up  against  liim,  in  the  person  of 
the  boy  Charles, — -youngest  son  of  Louis  "the 
Stammerer,"  born  after  his  father's  death, —  who 
appears  in  history  as  Charles  "the  Simple." 
Eudes,  after  some  years  of  war,  gave  up  to 
Charles  a  small  domain,  between  the  Seine  and 
the  Meuse,  acknowledged  his  feudal  superiority 
and  agreed  that  the  whole  kingdom  should  be 
surrendered  to  him  on  his  (Eudes')  death.  In 
accordance  with  this  agreement,  Charles  the 
Simple  became  sole  king  in  898,  when  Eudes 
died,  and  the  country  which  acknowledged  his 
nominal  sovereignty  fell  into  a  more  distracted 
state  than  ever.  Tlie  Northmen  established  them- 
selves in  permanent  occupation  of  the  country 
on  the  lower  Seine,  and  Charles,  iu  911,  made  a 
formal  cession  of  it  to  their  duke,  Rollo,  thus 
creating  the  great  ducliy  of  Normandy.  In  932 
the  nobles  grew  once  more  disgusted  with  the 
feebleness  of  their  king  and  crowned  Duke 
Robert,  brother  of  the  late  king  Eudes,  driving 
Charles  into  his  stronghold  of  Laon.  The  Nor- 
mans came  to  Cliarles'  help  and  his  rival  Robert 
was  killed  in  a  battle.  But  Charles  was  de- 
feated, was  inveigled  into  the  hands  of  one  of  the 


1188 


V 


o 


o 


l;l 

ill 

E 
1 

its 

III 

5  1  1 

JJll 

1 
1 

Sis 

O     K     h 

°  ~  "^ 

iliil 
1  ii= 

£ 

qua 

2  =  ; 
1  >.■? 

1 

113 
III 

3 

a 

Ill 
III 

e 

1 

1 

r  w 

.S           fc           T! 

'£  -■= 

3 
-3 

as 

=    s    a 

* 

i  -S  £  'E    ■■  S  S  S  •=*£-   =  S  "»"  ' 


:  6,!"  = 


ill 

•i  e-S 

c  "  p 
2  3  3 


^•2.S5S2|gEr:s.j-»!l 


ssp2.:'^l=r;?  lilies 

I  ill"l=Niillleti^ 
^  = -A   j   i    jll  i  ^    I'M  I 


^  =  I  :e  J  "  "  1 4  -  -2 

ft :     3   a         fc_    ^  -  ■=  : 


=  ■>  ^  S  " 


siltr?iliilis? 

"  I  =-.  _-  s  £  i  ^  i  -  £  ■=  ^  I  -= 

^  s  s  ^  <  !  -^  i  1.  ^  1 1 


5    £    £         5  J   ' 


>  £  ? 

III  °|  =  l|l 

.^  1  ■=  s  ■=  E  ?  I 


>--x 


FRANCE,  A.  D.  877-987. 


The 
Early  Capetians. 


FRANCE,  A.  D.  987-1337. 


rebel  Lords  —  Herbert  of  Vermandois  —  and  kept 
a  prisoner  until  he  died,  in  929.  One  Rodolf 
of  Burgundy  had  been  chosen  king,  meantime, 
and  reigned  until  his  death,  in  936.  Then  le- 
gitimacy triumphed  again,  and  a  young  son  of 
Charles  the  Simple,  who  liad  been  reared  in  Eng- 
land, was  sent  for  and  crowned.  This  king  — 
Louis  IV. —  liis  son,  Lothair,  and  his  grandson, 
Louis  v.,  kept  possession  of  tlie  shaking  throne 
for  half-a-century ;  but  their  actual  kingdom  was 
much  of  the  time  reduced  to  little  more  than  the 
royal  city  of  Laon  and  its  immediate  territories. 
\\  hen  Louis  died,  in  987,  leaving  no  nearer  heir 
lliau  Ills  uncle,  Cliarlcs,  Duke  of  Lorraine,  tlicic 
was  no  longer  any  serious  attempt  to  keep  up 
the  Carolingian  line.  Hugh,  Duke  of  France 
—  whose  grandfather  Robert,  and  whose  grand- 
uncle  Eudes  had  been  crowned  kings,  before 
him,  and  whose  father,  "Hugh  the  Great,"  had 
been  the  king-maker  of  the  period  since  —  was 
now  called  to  the  throne  and  settled  him- 
self firmly  in  the  seat  which  a  long  line  of  his 
descendants  would  hold.  He  was  known  as 
Hugh  Capet  to  his  contemporaries,  and  it  is 
thought  that  he  got  the  name  from  his  wearing 
of  the  hood,  cap,  or  cape  of  St.  Martin  —  he  be- 
ing the  abbot  of  St.  Martin  at  Tours,  in  addition 
to  his  other  high  dignities. — G.  W.  Kitchin, 
Hist,  of  France,  v.  1,  bk.  2,  pt.  2,  ch.  5/  bk.  3, 
ch.  1. 

Also  in  :  Sir  F.  Palgrave,  Hist,  of  Normandy 
and  England,  bk.  1,  ch.  .5  (».  1). — C.  F.  Keary, 
The  Vikings  in  Western  Chri.Hendom,  ch.  11  arid 
13-1.5. — Sec,  also,  L.\ON. 

A.  D.  987.— Accession  of  Hugh  Capet.— The 
kingdom  of  the  early  Capetians. — "On  the 
accession  of  the  third  race  [the  Capetians], France, 
properly  so  called,  only  comprised  the  territory 
between  the  Somme  and  the  Loire;  it  was 
bounded  by  the  counties  of  Flanders  and  Ver- 
mandois on  the  north ;  by  Normandy  and  Brit- 
tany on  the  west;  by  the  Champagne  on  the 
east ;  by  the  duchy  of  Aquitaine  on  the  south. 
The  territory  within  these  bounds  was  the  duchy 
of  France,  the  patrimonial  possession  of  the 
Capets,  and  constituted  the  royal  domain.  The 
great  fiefs  of  the  crown,  in  addition  to  the  duchy 
of  France,  were  the  duchy  of  Normandy,  the 
duchy  of  Burgundy,  nearly  the  who^le  of"  Flan- 
ders, formed  into  a  county,  the  county  of  Cham- 
pagne, the  duchy  of  Aquitaine,  and  the  county 
of  Toulouse.  .  .  .  The  sovereigns  of  these  vari- 
ous states  were  the  great  vassals  of  the  crown 
and  peers  of  France ;  Lorraine  and  a  portion  of 
Flanders  were  dependent  on  the  Germanic  crown, 
while  Brittany  was  a  fief  of  the  duchy  of  Nor- 
mandy. .  .  .  The  county  of  Barcelona  beyond 
the  Alps  was  also  one  of  the  great  fiefs  of  the 
crown  of  France." — E.  de  Bonnechose,  Hist,  of 
Prance:  second  epoch,  bk.  1,  ch.  2. — "With  the 
exception  of  the  Spanish  March  and  of  part  of 
Flanders,  all  these  states  have  long  been  fully 
incorporated  with  the  French  monarchy.  But 
we  must  remember  that,  under  tlie  earlier  French 
Kings,  the  connexion  of  most  of  these  provinces 
with  their  nominal  suzerain  was  even  looser  than 
the  connexion  of  the  German  princes  after  the 
Peace  of  Westphalia  with  the  Viennese  Emper- 
ors. A  great  French  Duke  was  as  independent 
within  his  own  dominions  as  an  Elector  of  Sax- 
ony or  Bavaria,  and  there  were  no  common  in- 
stitutions, no  Diet  or  assembly  of  any  kind,  to 
bring  him  into  contact  either  with  his  liege  lord 


or  with  his  fellow-vassals.  Aquitaine  and  Tou- 
louse .  .  .  seem  almost  to  have  forgotten  that 
there  was  any  King  of  the  French  at  all,  or  at 
all  events  that  tliey  had  anj'tliing  to  do  with 
him.  They  did  not  often  even  pay  him  the  com- 
pliment of  waging  war  upon  liim,  a  mode  of 
recognition  of  his  existence  which  was  constantly 
indulged  in  by  their  brethren  of  Normandy  and 
Flanders." — E.  A.  Freeman,  The  Pranks  and 
tlie  Gauls  (Historical  Essays,  \st  scries,  no.  7). — 
"When  France  was  detached  from  the  Empire 
in  the  ninth  century,  of  all  tliree  imperial  regions 
she  was  the  one  which  seemed  least  likely  to 
form  a  nation.  There  was  no  unity  in  the  coun- 
try west  of  the  Sclicldt,  the  Meuse,  and  the 
Rhone.  Various  principalities,  duchies,  or  coun- 
ties were  here  formed,  but  each  of  them  was 
divided  into  secular  fiefs  and  ecclesiastical  terri- 
tories. Over  these  fiefs  and  territories  the  au- 
thority of  the  duke  or  tlie  count,  which  was  sup- 
posed to  represent  that  of  tlie  king,  was  exercised 
only  in  case  tliese  seigneurs  had  sufficient  power, 
derived  from  their  own  personal  estates.  Desti- 
tute of  domains  and  almost  starving,  the  king,  in 
official  documents,  asked  what  means  he  might 
find  on  which  to  live  with  some  degree  of  de- 
cency. From  time  to  time,  amid  this  chaos,  he 
discussed  the  theory  of  his  authority.  He  was  a 
lean  and  solemn  phantom,  straying  about  among 
living  men  who  were  ver}'  rude  and  energetic. 
The  phantom  kept  constantly  growing  leaner,  but 
royalty  did  not  vanish.  People  were  accustomed 
to  its  existence,  and  tlie  men  of  those  days  could 
not  conceive  of  a  revolution.  By  the  election  of 
Hugh  Capet,  in  987,  royalty  became  a  reality, 
because  the  king,  as  Duke  of  Francia,  had  lands, 
money,  and  followers.  It  would  be  out  of  place 
to  seek  a  plan  of  conduct  and  a  methodical  line 
of  policy  in  the  actions  of  tlie  Capetians,  for  they 
employed  simultaneously  every  sort  of  expedi- 
ent. During  more  than  three  centuries  they  had 
male  offspring ;  thus  the  chief  merit  of  the  dynasty 
was  that  it  endured.  As  always  happens,  out  of 
the  practice  developed  a  law;  and  this  happy 
accident  produced  a  lawful  hereditary  succession, 
which  was  a  great  element  of  strength.  More- 
over the  king  had  a  whole  arsenal  of  rights :  old 
rights  of  Carolingian  royalty,  preserving  the  re- 
membrance of  imperial  power,  which  the  study 
of  the  Roman  law  was  soon  to  resuscitate,  trans- 
forming these  apparitions  into  formidable  reali- 
ties; old  rights  conferred  by  the  coronation, 
which  were  impossible  to  define,  and  hence  in- 
contestable ;  and  rights  of  suzerainty,  newer  and 
more  real,  which  were  definitely  determined  and 
codified  as  feudalism  developed  and  which, 
joined  to  the  other  rights  mentioned  above, 
made  the  king  jiroprietor  of  France.  These  are 
the  elements  that  Capetian  royalty  contributed 
to  the  play  of  fortuitous  circumstances." — E. 
Lavisse,  General  View  of  the  Political  History  of 
Europe,  ch.  3. —  See,  also,  Twelve  Peers  of 
France. 

A.  D.  987-1327.— The  Feudal  Period.— "The 
period  in  the  history  of  France,  of  which  we  are 
about  to  write,  began  with  the  consecration  of 
Hugues  Capet,  at  Reims,  the  3rd  of  July,  987, 
but  it  is  a  period  which  would  but  improperly 
take  its  name  from  the  Capetians ;  for  throughout 
this  time  royalty  was,  as  it  were,  annihilated  in 
France;  the  social  bond  was  broken,  and  the 
country  which  extends  from  the  Rhine  to  the 
Pyrenees,  and  from  the  English  Channel  to  the 


1189 


FRANCE,  A.  D.  987-1327.     The  Com,, 


FRANCE,  12-13TH  CENTURIES. 


Gulf  of  Lyon,  was  governed  by  a  confederation 
of  princes  rarely  under  the  influence  of  a  com- 
mon will,  and  united  only  by  the  Feudal  System, 
While  France  was  confederated  under  feudal 
administration,  the  legislative  power  was  sus- 
pended. Hugues  Capet  and  liis  successors,  until 
the  accession'of  St.  Louis,  had  not  the  right  of 
making  laws ;  the  nation  had  no  diet,  no  regu- 
larly constituted  assemblies  whose  authority  it 
acknowledged.  The  Feudal  System,  tacitly 
adopted,  and  developed  by  custom,  was  solely 
acknowledged  by  the  numerous  sovereigns  wlio 
divided  the  provinces  among  themselves.  It  re- 
placed the  social  bond,  the  monarch,  and  the 
legislator.  .  .  .  The  period  .  .  .  is  therefore  like 
a  long  interregnum,  during  which  the  royal  au- 
thority was  suspended,  although  the  name  of 
king  was  always  preserved.  He  who  bore  this 
title  in  the  midst  of  a  republic  of  princes  was 
only  distinguished  from  them  by  some  honorary 
prerogative,  and  he  e,xercised  over  them  scarcely 
any  authority.  Until  very  near  the  end  of  the 
11th  century,  these  princes  were  scarcely  less 
numerous  than  the  castles  which  covered  France. 
No  authority  was  acknowledged  at  a  distance, 
and  every  fortress  gave  its  lord  rank  among  the 
sovereigns.  The  conquest  of  England  by  the 
Normans  broke  the  equilibrium  between  the 
feudal  lords;  one  of  the  confederate  princes,  be- 
come a  king  in  1066,  gradually  extended,  until 
1179,  his  domination  over  more  than  half  of 
France ;  and  although  it  was  not  he  who  bore 
the  title  of  king  of  the  French,  it  may  be  imag- 
ined that  in  time  the  rest  of  the  country  would 
also  pass  under  liis  yoke.  Philip  the  August  and 
his  son,  during  the  forty-si.x  last  years  of  the 
same  period,  reconquered  almost  all  the  fiefs 
which  the  English  kings  had  united,  brought  the 
other  great  vassals  back  to  obedience,  and 
changed  the  feudal  confederation  wliich  had 
ruled  France  into  a  monarchy,  which  incorpo- 
rated the  Feudal  System  in  its  constitution." — J. 
C.  L.  de  Sismondi,  France  Under  the  Feudal 
System  {tr.  by  W.  Belli nc/ham),  ch.  1. — "The 
feudal  period,  that  is,  the  period  when  the  feudal 
system  was  the  dominant  fact  of  our  country, 
...  is  comprehended  between  Hugh  Capet  and 
Philippe  de  Valois,  that  is,  it  embraces  the  11th, 
12th  and  13th  centuries.  ...  At  the  end  of  the 
10th  century,  royalty  and  the  commons  were  not 
visible,  or  at  all  events  scarcely  visible.  At  the 
commencement  of  the  14th  century,  royalty  was 
the  head  of  the  state,  the  commons  were  the  body 
of  the  nation.  The  two  forces  to  which  the 
feudal  system  was  to  succumb  had  then  attained, 
not,  indeed,  their  entire  development,  but  a  de- 
cided preponderance.  .  .  .  With  the  14th  cen- 
tury, the  character  of  war  changed.  Then  began 
the  foreign  wars;  no  longer  a  vassal  against 
suzerain,  or  vassal  against  vassal,  but  nation 
against  nation,  government  against  government. 
On  the  accession  of  Philippe  de  Valois,  the  great 
wars  between  the  French  and  the  English  broke 
out  —  the  claims  of  the  kings  of  England,  not 
upon  any  particular  fief,  but  upon  the  whole 
land,  and  upon  the  throne  of  France  —  and  they 
continued  up  to  Louis  XI.  They  were  no  longer 
feudal,  but  national  wars;  a  certain  proof  that 
the  feudal  period  stopped  at  this  limit,  that  an- 
other society  had  already  commenced." — F.  P. 
Guizot,  Hist,  of  Civilization,  2d  course,  led.  1. 

A.  D.  996. — Accession  of  King  Robert  II. 

A.  D.  1031. — Accession  of  King  Henry  I. 


A.  D.  1060. — Accession  of  King  Philip  I. 
A.   D.   1096. — Departure  of  the  First  Cru- 
saders.    See  CRUS.A.DES  :  A.  D.  10i)6-10il!). 
A.  D.  1 100. — The  extent  of  the  kingdom. — 

"When  Louis  [VI. J  was  adopted  by  his  father 
in  1100,  the  crown  had  as  its  own  domain  only 
the  county  of  Paris,  Hurepoi.x,  the  Gatiuais,  the 
Orleanis,  half  the  county  of  Sens,  the  French 
Vexin,  and  Bourges,  together  with  some  ill- 
defined  rights  over  the  episcopal  cities  of  Hheims, 
Beauvais,  Laon,  Noyon,  Soissons,  Amiens.  And 
even  within  these  narrow  limits  the  royal  power 
was  but  thinly  spread  over  the  surface.  The 
barons  in  their  castles  were  in  fact  independent, 
and  oppressed  the  merchants  and  poor  folk  as 
they  would.  The  king  had  also  acknowledged 
rights  of  suzerainty  over  Champagne,  Burgundy, 
Normandy,  Brittany,  Flanders,  and  Boulogne  ; 
but,  iu  most  cases,  the  only  obedience  the  feudal 
lords  stooped  to  was  that  of  duly  performing  the 
act  of  homage  to  the  king  on  first  succession  to 
a  fief.  He  also  claimed  suzerainty,  which  was 
not  conceded,  over  the  South  of  France ;  over 
Provence  and  Lorraine  he  did  not  even  put  forth 
a  claim  of  lordship."— G.  W.  Kitchin,  Hist,  of 
France,  v.  1,  bk.  3,  ch.  5. 

i2-i3th  Centuries. — Rise  of  the  Privileged 
Bourgeoisies  and  the  Communes.  —  The 
double  movement  of  Urban  Emancipation. — 
"  The  12th  and  13th  centuries  Siiw  the  production 
of  that  marvelous  movement  of  emancipation 
which  gave  liberty  to  serfs,  created  privileged 
bourgeoisies  and  independent  communes,  caused 
new  cities  and  fortresses  to  issue  from  the  earth, 
freed  the  corporations  of  merchants  and  artisans, 
in  a  word  placed  at  the  first  stroke,  beside  roy- 
alty, feudality  and  the  church,  a  fourth  social 
force  destined  to  absorb  one  day  the  three  others. 
While  the  cultivator  of  the  soil  passed  by  en- 
franchisement from  the  category  of  things  sold  or 
given  away  into  that  of  tlie  free  people  (the  only 
ambition  permitted  to  the  defenseless  unfortunates 
who  inhabited  isolated  farms  or  uuwalled  vil- 
lages), the  population  grouped  in  the  urban  cen- 
ters tried  to  limit  or  at  least  to  regulate  the  in- 
tolerable exploitation  of  which  it  was  the  object. 
The  bourgeois,  that  is  to  say  the  inhabitants  of 
walled  cities,  born  under  the  shelter  of  a  donjon 
or  an  abbey,  and  the  citoyens  of  the  ancient 
episcopal  cities,  rivaled  each  other  in  efforts  to 
obtiiin  from  the  seigneurial  power  a  condition 
more  endurable  in  "point  of  taxation,  and  the 
suppression  of  the  most  embarrassing  hindrances 
to  their  conunerce  and  manufactures.  These  in- 
habitants of  towns  and  cities  constituted,  if  only 
by  being  grouped  together,  a  force  with  which 
feudality  was  very  so"(:)n  obliged  to  reckon.  Di- 
vided, besides,  into  merchants'  societies  and  com. 
panics  of  workmen,  they  found  within  themselves 
the  germ  of  organization  which  permitted  col- 
lective resistance.  The  seigneur,  intimidated, 
won  by  an  offer  of  money,  or  decided  by  the 
thought  that  his  domination  would  be  more 
lucrative  if  the  city  became  more  prosperous, 
made  the  concessions  which  were  asked  of  him. 
Thanks  to  a  favorable  concurrence  of  circum- 
stances, charters  of  franchises  were  multiplied  in 
all  parts  of  France.  At  the  end  of  the  12th  cen- 
tury, the  national  territory,  in  the  north  as  well 
as  the  south,  was  covered  with  these  privileged 
cities  or  bourgeoisies,  which,  while  remaining 
administered,  judicially  and  politically,  by 
seigneurial   officers,    had   acquired,    in    matters 


1190 


FRANCE,  13-13TH  CENTURIES. 


The 
Communes. 


FRANCE,  ia-13TH  CENTURIES. 


financial,  commercial  and  industrial,  the  liberties 
necessary  to  their  free  development.  Feudality 
very  soon  found  such  an  advantage  iu  regulat- 
ing thus  the  e.vploitatiou  of  tlie  bourgeois,  that  it 
took  the  initiative  itself  in  creating,  in  the  unin- 
habited parts  of  its  domains,  privileged  cities, 
complete  in  all  their  parts,  designed  to  become 
so  many  centers  of  attraction  for  foreigners.  It 
is  the  innumerable  bourgeoisies  and  '  villes 
neuves'  which  represent  the  normal  form  of 
urban  emancipation.  Certain  centers  of  popula- 
tion obtained  at  the  first  stroke  the  most  exten- 
sive civil  and  financial  liberties;  but,  in  the  ma- 
jority of  cases,  the  bourgeois  could  win  their 
franchises  only  bit  by  bit,  at  the  price  of  heavy 
pecuniary  sacrifices,  or  as  the  result  of  an  admir- 
able perseverance  in  watching  for  opportunities 
and  seizing  them.  The  history  of  the  privileged 
cities,  whose  principal  virtue  was  a  long  pa- 
tience, offers  nothing  moving  or  dramatic.  .  .  . 
But  the  spectacle  of  these  laborious  masses  per- 
sisting, in  obscurity  and  silence,  in  the  demand 
for  their  right  to  security  and  well-being,  does 
not  the  less  merit  all  our  attention.  What  forces 
Itself  upon  the  meditations  of  the  historian,  in 
the  domain  of  municipal  institutions,  is  just  the 
progress,  slow  and  obscure,  but  certain,  of  the 
dependent  bourgeoisie.  .  .  .  Thedevelopmentof 
the  seigneurial  cities  oilers  such  a  variety  of 
aspects,  their  progressive  and  regular  conquests 
were  so  important  in  the  constitution  of  our 
rights  public  and  private,  that  too  much  care 
and  effort  cannot  be  devoted  to  retracing  mi- 
nutely their  course.  This  history  is  more  than 
any  other  that  of  the  origin  of  our  third  estate. 
It  was  in  the  privileged  cities,  to  which  the 
great  majority  of  the  urban  population  belonged, 
that  it  began  its  political  education.  The  city 
charters  constituted  the  durable  lower  stratum  of 
its  first  liberties.  In  other  words  tlie  third  estate 
did  not  issue  suddenly  from  the  more  or  less 
revolutionary  movement  which  gave  birth  to  the 
independent  communes :  it  owes  its  formation 
and  its  progress  above  all  to  this  double  pacific 
evolution :  the  possessors  of  fiefs  enfranchising 
their  bourgeoisie  and  the  latter  passing  little  by 
little  entirely  from  the  seigneurial  government 
under  that  of  royalty.  This  was  not  the  opinion 
which  prevailed  at  the  time  when  the  founder  of 
the  science  of  municipal  institutions,  Augustin 
Thierry,  published  in  the  '  Courrier  Fran(;-ais ' 
his  admirable  '  Lettres'  on  the  revolutions  of  the 
communes.  The  commune,  a  city  dowered  with 
judicial  and  political  privileges,  which  conferred 
upon  it  a  certain  independence,  administered  by 
its  elected  magistrates,  proud  of  its  fortified  in- 
closure,  of  its  belfry,  of  its  militia,  —  the  com- 
mune passed  at  that  time  as  the  pre-eminent  type 
of  the  free  city  of  the  middle  ages.  That  great 
movement  of  urban  and  rural  emancipation 
which  stirred  the  France  of  the  ISth  cent\iry  to 
its  very  depths  was  personified  in  it.  So  the 
commune  concentrated  historical  interest  upon 
itself,  leaving  in  the  shade  all  other  forms  of  popu- 
lar evolution.  Guizot,  who  had  the  sense  of 
truth  rather  than  that  of  the  picturesque,  tried 
to  combat  this  exclusive  tendency.  In  the  bril- 
liant lessons  that  he  gave  at  the  Sorbonne  on  the 
history  of  the  origins  of  the  third  estate,  he 
showed,  with  his  customary  clearness,  that  the 
development  of  the  bourgeois  class  was  not  ac- 
complished by  any  single  method  ;  tliat  the  pro- 
gress realized  in  the  cities  where  the  commmunal 

1 


regime  had  never  succeeded  in  establishing  itself 
must  also  be  taken  into  account.  The  impres- 
sion left  by  the  highly  colored  and  dramatic  re- 
citals of  Augustin  Thierry  remained  for  a  long 
time  the  stronger.  .  .  .  Contemporary  science 
has  not  only  assigned  to  itself  the  mission  of 
completing  "the  work  of  the  historians  of  the 
Restoration  :  it  has  desired  also  to  improve  it  by 
rectifying,  upon  many  points,  the  exaggerated 
opinions  and  false  judgments  of  which  the  his- 
tor\'  of  our  urban  institutions  was  at  first  the 
victim.  It  has  been  perceived  that  the  com- 
munal movement  properly  so  called  did  not 
have,  upon  the  destinies  of  the  popular  class,  the 
decisive,  preponderant  influence  wliich  was  at- 
tributed to  it  'a  priori.'  The  commune,  a  bril- 
liant but  ephemeral  form  of  the  emancipation  of 
the  bourgeoisie,  has  been  set  back  little  by  little 
into  its  true  place.  It  is  now  no  longer  regarded 
as  an  essential  manifestation  of  our  fir.st  demo- 
cratic aspirations.  One  might  be  tempted  to 
see  on  the  contrary,  in  that  collective  seigneury, 
often  hostile  to  the  other  social  elements,  im- 
pregnated with  the  spirit  of  '  particularisme,' 
made  for  war  and  agitated  without  cessation  by 
warlike  passions,  an  original  but  tardy  product 
of  the  feudal  principle.  .  .  .  We  must  be  re- 
signed to  a  fact  in  regard  to  which  nothing  can 
be  done  :  the  absence  of  documents  relative  to 
the  municipal  constitution  of  cities  and  towns 
during  four  hundred  years,  from  the  7th  century 
to  the  11th.  From  all  appearances,  this  enor- 
mous hiatus  will  never  be  overcome.  .  .  .  Facts 
being  lacking,  scholars  have  had  recourse  to  con- 
jecture. Some  among  them  have  supposed  that 
the  principal  characteristics  of  the  Gallo-Roman 
municipalities  were  perpetuated  during  this 
period.  At  bottom,  their  hypothesis  rests  prin- 
cipally upon  analogies  of  names.  .  .  .  From 
the  point  of  view  of  positive  science,  the  Ger- 
manic origin  of  the  communes  is  not  more 
easy  of  demonstration.  ...  It  is  even  doubtful 
whether  the  essential  element  of  the  communal 
institution,  the  confederation  formed  by  the  in- 
habitants, under  the  guaranty  of  the  mutual 
oath,  belongs  exclusively  to  the  customs  of  the 
Germans.  The  theory  of  Augustin  Thierry, 
which  made  of  the  commune  a  special  applica- 
tion of  the  Scandinavian  gilde,  has  been  judged 
too  narrow  by  contemporary  scholars.  They 
have  reproached  him  with  reason  for  having  lo- 
calized an  institution  which  belongs  entirely  to 
the  Germanic  race.  But  the  principle  of  asso- 
ciation, applied  in  the  cities,  is  not  a  fact  purely 
German.  .  .  .  Association  is  a  fact  which  is 
neither  Germanic  nor  Roman  ;  it  is  universal, 
and  is  produced  spontaneously  among  all  peo- 
ples, in  all  social  clas.ses,  wlien  circumstances 
exact  and  favor  its  appearance.  The  communal 
revolution  then  is  a  national  event.  The  com- 
mune was  born,  like  other  forms  of  popular 
emancipation,  from  the  need  which  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  cities  had  of  substituting  a  limited 
and  regulated  exploitation  for  the  arbitrary  ex- 
ploitation of  which  they  were  the  victims.  Such 
is  the  point  of  departure  of  the  institution.  We 
must  always  return  to  the  definition  of  it  given 
by  Guibert  de  Nogent.  It  is  true  as  a  basis, 
although  it  does  not  embrace  all  the  characteris- 
tics of  the  object  defined:  'Commune!  new 
name,  detestable  name  !  By  it  the  ccnsitaires  are 
freed  from  all  service  in  consideration  of  a  sim- 
ple annual  tax  ;  by  it  they  are  condemned,  for 

191 


FRANCE,  12-13TH  CENTURIES. 


The 
Communes. 


FRANCE,  13-13TH  CENTURIES. 


the  infraction  of  the  law,   only  to  a  penalty 
legally  determined  ;  by  it,  they  cease  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  other  pecuniary  charges  by  which 
the  serfs  are  overwhelmed.'     At  certain  points, 
this  limitation   of    the  seigneurial   power    was 
made  amicably,  by  pacific  transaction  between 
the  seigneur  and  his  bourgeois.     Elsewhere,  an 
icisurrcction,  more  or  less  prolonged,  was  neces- 
sary iu  order  to  establish  it.     When  this  popular 
movement  had  as  a  result,  not  only  the  assuring 
to  the  people  the  most  necessary  liberties  which 
were  demanded,  but  besides  that  of  abating  to 
their  advantage  the  political  position  of  the  mas- 
ter, by  taking  from  him  a  part  of  his  seigneurial 
prerogatives,  there  arose   not  only  a  free  city, 
but  a  commune,  a  bourgeois  seigneury,  invested 
with  a  certain  political  and  judicial  power.    This 
definition  of  the  commune  implies  that  originally 
it  was  not  possible  to  establish  it  otherwise  than 
by   a   pressure  exerted,   more  or  less  violently, 
upon   the  seigneurial  authority.     We  have  the 
direct  proof  of  it  for  some  of  our  free  municipali- 
ties; but  it  is  presvunable  tliat  many  other  com- 
munes whose  primitive  history  we  do  not  know 
have  owed  equally  to  force  the  winning  of  their 
first  liberties.  .  .  .  We  dO  not  mean  that,  in  the 
first  period  of  the  history  of  urban  emancipation, 
all    the    communes,     without    exception,    were 
obliged  to  pass  tliroughthe  phase  of  insurrection 
or  of  open  resistance.     There  were  some  which 
profited  (as   the  cities  of  the  Flemish  region  in 
1127)  by  a  combination   of  exceptional  circum- 
stances to  attain  political  liberty  without  striking 
a  blow.     Among  these  circumstances  must   be 
mentioned   in  the  first  rank  the  prolonged  va- 
cancy of  an  episcopal  see  and  the  disappearance 
of  a  laic  lord,  dead  without  direct  heir,  leaving 
a  succession  disputed  by  numerous  competitors. 
But  ordinarily,  the  accession  of  the  bourgeoisie 
to  the  rank  of  political  power  did  not  take  place 
pacifically.  Either  the  seigneur  struggled  against 
his  rebellious  subjects,  or  he  feared  the  struggle 
and  bent  before  the  accomplished  fact.     In  all 
cases  it  was  necessary  that  the  people  were  con- 
scious  of   their   power  and  imposed  their  will. 
This  is  proven  by  the  dramatic  episodes  which 
the  narrations  of  Augustin  Thierry  have  forever 
rendered  celebrated.  .  .  .  Later,  in  the  decline 
of  the  12th  century,  it  must  be  recognized  that 
the  opinion  of  the  dominant  class  ceased  to  be  as 
hostile  to  the  communes.     When  the  conviction 
had  been  acquired  that  the  popular  movement 
was  irresistible,  it  was  tolerated  -.  the  best  means 
even  were  sought  to  derive  advantage  from  it. 
The  Church  always  remained   upon  the  defen- 
sive ;  but  the  king  and  the  great  feudal  lords 
perceived  that  in  certain  respects  the  commime 
might  be  a  useful  instrument.     They  accepted 
then  the  communal  organization,  and  they  even 
came  to  create  it  where  it  was  not  spontaneously 
established.     But  it  is  easy  to  convince  one's  self 
that  the  communes  of  this  category,  those  which 
owe  their  creation  to  the  connivance  or  even  to 
the  initiative  of  the  seigneur,  did  not  possess  the 
same  degree  of  independence  as  the  communes 
of  the  primitive  epoch,  founded  by  insurrection. 
On  the  whole,  the  communal  revolution  was  only 
one   of   the  aspects   of   the   vast   movement   of 
political  and  social  reaction  which  the  excesses 
of    the   feudal   regime   engendered  everywhere 
from   the  11  th   to  the   14th   century.  .  .  .  One 
would  like  to  possess  the  text  of  one  of  those 
oaths  by   which  the  bourgeois  of  the  northern 


communes  bound  themselves  together,   for  the 
first  time,  with  or  without  the  consent  of  their 
seigneur,  in  the  most  ancient  period  of  the  com- 
munal evolution.     It  would  be  of  the  highest  in- 
terest  for   the  historian  to  know  how  they  set 
about  it,  what  words  were  pronoimced  to  form 
what   the   contemporary  writers  called    a  '  con- 
juration,'   a    'conspiration,'    a    'confederation.' 
No  document  of  this  natiu'e  and  of  that  primi- 
tive epoch  has  come  down  to  us.  .  .  .  The  sum 
total  of  the  sworn  bourgeois  constituted  the  com- 
mune.    The   commune   was   most  often  called 
'communia,'  but  also,  with  varying  termination, 
'commuua,'  'communio,'  'communitas.'    Prop- 
erly speaking  and  especially  with  reference  to 
the  origin,  the  name   commune  was  given  not 
to  tlie  city,  but  to  the  association  of  the  inhabi- 
tants who  had  taken  oath.     For  this  reason  also 
the    expression    'commune    juree'    was     used. 
Later  the  acceptation  of  the  word  was  enlai'ged  ; 
it  designated  the  city  itself,  considered  as  a  geo- 
graphical unit.   .   .  .  The  members  of  the  com- 
mime, those  who  formed  part  of  the  sworn  asso- 
ciation, were  properly  called  '  the  sworn  (jf  the 
commune.'    'jurati   conmiunie,'   or,   by   abridg- 
ment,  'the  sworn,'  'jurati.'     They  were  desig- 
nated also  by  the  expression:   'the  men  of  the 
commune,'   or,   '  those  who  belong  to  the  com- 
mune,'   'qui   sunt  de  communia.'     They   were 
also    entitled    'bourgeois.'     'burgeuses,'    more 
rarely,  'bourgeois  jures':  .sometimes  also  'voi- 
sins,'    'vicini.'   or   even    'friends,'   'amici.'.  .  . 
We  are  far  from  having  complete  light  on  the 
question   as    to  what  conditions  were  exacted 
from  those  who  entered  the  communal  associa- 
tion, and  to  what  classes  of  persons  the  access  to 
the   bourgeoisie  was  open  or  interdicted.     The 
variety   of  local  usages,  and  above  all  the  im- 
possibility of  finding  texts  which  apply  to  the 
most  ancient  period  of  urban  emancipation,  will 
always  embarrass  the  historian.     To  find  upon 
these   matters  clear  documents,  developed  and 
precise,  we  must  come  down,  generally,  to  the 
end  of  the  13th  century  or  even  to  the  century 
following,  that  is  to  say,  to   the  epoch  of  the 
decadence  of  the  communal  regime.  .  .  .  The 
bourgeois  could  not  be  diseased,  that  is  to  say, 
undoubtedly,  tainted  with  an  incurable  malady, 
and  especially  a  contagious  malady,  as  leprosy. 
.  .  .  The  communal  law  excluded  also  bastards. 
On  this  point  it  was   in   accord  with    the    cus- 
tomary law  of  a  very  great  number  of  French 
regions.  .  .  .  They  refused  also  to  receive  into 
their  number  inhabitants  encumbered  with  debts. 
The  condition  of  debtor  constituted  in  effect  a 
kind  of   servitude.     He  no  longer  belonged  to 
himself;  his  goods  might  become  the  property 
of  the  creditor,  and  he  could  be  imprisoned.   .  .  . 
With  still  more  reason  does  it  ajjpear  inadmis- 
sible that  tlie  serf  should  be  called  to  benefit  by 
the  commune.     The  question  of  urban  serfdom, 
in  its  relations  with  the  communal  institution,  is 
extremely  obscure,  delicate  and  complex.    Tliere 
are  however  two  facts  in  regard  to  which  aflirma- 
tion  is  allowable.     It  cannot  be  doubted  that  at 
the  epoch  of  the  formation  of  the  communes,  at 
the  opening  of  the  13th  century,  there  were  no 
longer  any  serfs  in  many  of  the  urban  centers. 
It  may  be  held  also  as  certain  that  the  desire  to 
bring   about  the  disappearance  of  this  serfdom 
was  one  of  the  principal  motives  which  urged 
the  inhabitants  to  claim  their  independence.   .   .  . 
The   inhabitant   who  united   all  the   conditions 


1192 


FRANCE,  12-13TH  CENTURIES. 


The 
Communes. 


FRANCE,  1180-1334. 


legally  required  for  admission  to  the  bourgeoisie 
was  besides  obliged  to  pay  a  town-due  (' droit 
d'entree').  .  .  .  If  it  was  not  always  easy  to  en- 
ter a  communal  body,  neither  could  one  leave  it 
as  easily  as  might  have  been  desired.  The  '  issue 
de  commune '  exacted  the  performance  of  a  cer- 
tain number  of  troublesome  formalties.  ...  So, 
it  was  necessary  to  pay  to  become  a  communist, 
and  to  pay  yet  more  in  order  to  cease  to  be  one. 
The  bourgeois  was  riveted  to  his  bourgeoisie.  .  .  . 
Up  to  this  point  we  have  examined  only  half  the 
problem  of  the  formation  of  the  commune,  ap- 
proaching it  on  its  general  side.  There  remains 
the  question  whether  all  the  popular  element 
which  existed  in  the  city  formed  part  of  the  body 
of  bourgeoisie,  and  whether  the  privileged  class, 
that  of  the  nobles  and  clergy,  was  not  excluded 
from  it.  .  .  .  We  shall  have  to  admit  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  that  the  nobles  and  the  clergy  while 
taking  oath  to  the  commune,  did  not  in  reality 
enter  it.  What  must  be  rejected,  is  the  sort  of 
absolute,  inviolable  rule  which  has  been  formed 
on  this  opinion.  In  the  middle  ages  especially 
there  was  no  rule  without  exception.  .  .  .  The 
commune  was  an  institution  rather  ephemeral. 
As  a  really  independent  seigneury,  it  scarcely 
endured  more  than  two  centuries.  The  excesses 
of  the  communists,  their  bad  financial  adminis- 
tration, their  intestine  divisions,  the  hostility  of 
the  Church,  the  onerous  patronage  of  the  '  haut 
suzerain,'  and  especially  of  the  king  ;  such  were 
the  immediate  causes  of  this  rapid  decadence. 
The  communes  perished  victims  of  their  own 
faults,  but  also  of  the  hate  of  the  numerous  ene- 
mies interested  in  theirdownfall.  .  .  .  The  prin- 
cipal cause  of  the  premature  downfall  of  the 
communal  regime  is  without  any  doubt  the  con- 
siderable development  of  the  monarchical  power 
in  France  at  the  end  of  the  13th  century.  The 
same  force  which  annihilated  feudality,  to  the 
profit  of  the  national  unit,  was  also  that  which 
caused  the  prompt  disappearance  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  bourgeois  seigneuries.  With  its 
privileges  and  its  autonomy,  the  commune  im- 
peded the  action  of  the  Capetains.  Those  quar- 
relsome and  restless  republics  had  no  reason  for 
existence,  in  the  midst  of  the  peaceful  and  obedi- 
ent bourgeoisie  upon  which  royalty  had  laid  its 
hand.  The  commune  then  was  sacrificed  to  the 
monarchical  iuterest.  In  Italy  and  in  Germany, 
the  free  cities  enjoyed  their  independence  much 
longer,  by  reason  of  the  absence  of  the  central 
power  or  of  its  weakness." — Achille  Luchaire, 
Les  Communes  Fra7ii;aises  a  Vepoque  des  Capetiens 
directs  (trans,  from  the  Prench),  pp.  1-16,  45-56, 
65,  and  288-290. 

A.  D.  iioi. — Disastrous  Crusade  of  French 
princes  and  knights.  See  Crus.^des  :  A.  D. 
llUl-1103. 

A.  D.  1106-1119. — War  with  Henry  I.  of 
England  and  Normandy.  See  England  :  A.  D. 
1087-113.). 

A.  D.  1108-1180. — The  reigns  of  Louis  VI., 
Louis  VII.  and  accession  of  Philip  II. — Gain 
and  loss  of  Aquitaine. — "Louis  VI.,  or  'the 
Fat'  was  the  first  able  man  whom  the  line  of 
Hugh  Capet  had  produced  since  it  mounted  the 
throne.  He  made  the  first  attempt  at  curbing 
the  nobles,  assisted  by  Suger,  the  Abbot  of  St. 
Denys.  The  only  possibility  of  doing  this  was 
to  obtain  the  aid  of  one  party  of  nobles  against 
another ;  and  when  any  unusually  flagrant  oilence 
had  been  committed,  Louis  called  together  the 


nobles,  bishops,  and  abbots  of  his  domain,  and 
obtained  their  consent  and  assistance  in  making 
war  on  the  guilty  man,  and  overthrowing  his 
castle,  thus,  in  some  degree,  lessening  the  sense 
of  utter  impunity  which  had  caused  so  many 
violences  and  such  savage  recklessness.  He  also 
permitted  a  few  of  the  cities  to  purchase  the 
right  of  self-government.  .  .  .  The  royal  au- 
thority had  begun  to  be  respected  by  1137,  when 
Louis'VI.  'died,  having  just  effected  the  marriage 
of  his  son,  Louis  VII..  with  Eleanor,  the  heiress 
of  the  Dukes  of  Aquitaine  —  thus  hoping  to 
make  the  crown  really  more  powerful  than  the 
great  princes  who  owed  it  homage.  At  this  time 
lived  the  great  St.  Bernard.  Abbot  of  Clairvaux, 
who  had  a  wonderful  influence  over  men's 
minds.  .  .  .  Bernard  roused  the  young  king 
Louis  VII.  to  go  on  the  second  crusade  [see 
Crusades:  A.  D.  1147-1149],  which  was  imder- 
taken  by  the  Emperor  and  the  other  princes  of 
Europe  to  relieve  the  distress  of  the  kingdom  of 
Palestine.  .  .  .  Though  Louis  did  reach  Palestine, 
it  was  with  weakened  forces ;  he  could  effect 
nothing  by  his  campaign,  and  Eleanor,  who  had 
accompanied  him,  seems  to  have  been  entirely 
corrupted  by  the  evil  habits  of  the  Franks  set- 
tled in  the  East.  Soon  after  his  return,  Louis 
dissolved  his  marriage  ;  and  Eleanor  became  the 
wife  of  Henry,  Count  of  Anjou,  who  soon  after 
inherited  the  kingdom  of  England  as  our  Henry 
II.,  as  well  as  the  duchy  of  Normandy,  and  be- 
trothed his  third  son  to  the  heiress  of  Brittany 
[see  Aquitaine:  A.  D.  1137-1152].  Eleanor's 
marriage  seemed  to  undo  all  that  Louis  VI.  had 
done  in  raising  the  royal  power  ;  for  Henry  com- 
pletely overshadowed"  Louis,  whose  only  resource 
was  in  feeble  endeavoiws  to  take  part  against 
him  in  his  many  family  quarrels.  The  whole 
reign  of  Louis  the  Young,  the  title  that  adhered 
to  him  on  account  of  his  simple,  childish  nature, 
is  only  a  record  of  weakness  and  disaster,  till  he 
died  in  1180.  .  .  .  Powerful  in  fact  as  Henry  II. 
was,  it  was  his  gathering  so  large  a  part  of 
France  under  his  rule  which  was.  in  the  end.  to 
build  up  the  greatness  of  the  French  kings.  Wliat 
had  held  them  in  check  was  the  existence  of  the 
great  fiefs  or  provinces,  each  with  its  own  line 
of  dukes  or  counts,  and  all  practically  indepen- 
dent of  the  king.  But  now  nearly  all  the  prov- 
inces of  southern  and  western  France  were 
gathered  into  the  hand  of  a  single  ruler  ;  and 
though  he  was  a  Frenchman  in  blood,  yet,  as  he 
was  King  of  England,  this  ruler  seemed  to  his 
French  subjects  no  Frenchman,  but  a  foreigner. 
They  began  therefore  to  look  to  the  French  king 
to  free  them  from  a  foreign  ruler ;  and  the  son 
of  Louis  VII.,  called  Philip  Augustus,  was  ready 
to  take  advantage  of  their  disposition." — C.  M. 
Yonge,  Hist,  of  France  {Hist.  Primers),  ch.  1, 
sect.  6-7. 

A.  D.  1180-1224. — The  kingdom  extended 
by  Philip  Augustus. — Normandy,  Maine  and 
Anjou  recovered  from  the  English  kings. — 
When  the  king  of  England  became  possessed 
of  more  than  one-half  of  France,  "one  might 
venture  perhaps  to  conjecture  that  the  sceptre 
of  France  would  eventually  have  passed  from 
the  Capets  to  the  Plantagenets,  if  the  vexa- 
tious quarrel  witli  Becket  at  one  time,  and  the 
successive  rebellions  fomented  by  Louis  at  a  later 
period,  had  not  embarrassed  the  great  talents 
and  ambitious  spirit  of  Henry.  But  the  scene 
quite  changed   when   Philip   Augustus,  son  of 


1193 


FBANCE,  1180-1224. 


Saint  Louis. 


FRANCE,  1226-1270. 


Louis  VIL,  came  upon  the  stage  [A.  D.  1180]. 
No  prince  comparable  to  him  in  systematic  am- 
bition and  military  enterprise  had  reigned  in 
France  since  Charlemagne.  From  his  reign  the 
French  monarchy  dates  the  recovery  of  its  lustre. 
He  wrested  from  the  count  of  Flanders  the  Ver- 
mandois  (that  part  of  Picardy  which  borders  on 
the  Isle  of  France  and  Champagne),  and  subse- 
quently, the  County  of  Artois.  But  the  most 
important  conquests  of  Philip  were  obtained 
against  the  kings  of  England.  Even  Richard  I., 
with  all  his  prowess,  lost  ground  in  struggling 
against  an  adversary  not  less  active,  and  more 
politic,  than  himself.  But  when  John  not  only 
took  possession  of  his  brother's  dominions,  but 
confirmed  his  usurpation  by  the  murder,  as  was 
very  probably  surmised,  of  the  heir,  Philip,  art- 
fully taking  advantage  of  the  general  indigna- 
tion, summoned  him  as  his  vassal  to  the  court  of 
his  peers.  John  demanded  a  safe-conduct.  Will- 
ingly, said  Philip ;  let  him  come  unmolested. 
And"  return  ?  inquired  the  English  envoy.  If  the 
judgment  of  his  peers  permit  him,  replied  the 
king.  By  all  the  saints  of  France,  he  exclaimed, 
when  further  presseii,  he  shall  not  return  unless 
acquitted.  .  .  .  John,  not  appearing  at  his  sum- 
mons, was  declared  guilty  of  felony,  and  his 
fiefs  confiscated.  The  execution  of  this  sentence 
was  not  intrusted  toa  dilatory  arm.  Philip  poured 
his  troops  into  Normandy,  and  took  town  after 
town,  while  the  king  of  England,  infatuated  by 
his  own  wickedness  and  cowardice,  made  hardly 
an  attempt  at  defence.  In  two  years  [A.  D.  1203- 
1204]  Normandy,  Maine,  and  Anjou  were  irre- 
coverably lost.  Poitou  and  Guienne  resisted 
longer  ;  but  the  conquest  of  the  first  was  com- 
pleted [A.  D.  1334]  bv  Louis  VIII.,  successor  of 
Philip."— H.  Ua\\nm,'nemdflle  Ages,  ch.  1.  pt.  1. 

Also  in:  K.  Norgate,  England  under  the  An- 
gerin  Kings,  v.  2,  ch.  9. — See,  also,  Engl.\jjd  : 
A.  D.  130.5  :  and  Anjou  :  A.  D.  1206-1443. 

A.  D.  1188-1190. — Crusade  of  Philip  Augus- 
tus.    See  Crusades:  A.  D.  1188-1193. 

A.  D.  1201-1203. — The  Fifth  Crusade,  and 
its  diversion  against  Constantinoole.  See 
Crusades  :  A.  1).  1201-1303. 

A.  D.  1209-1229. — The  Albigensian  wars 
and  their  effects.     See  Albigenses. 

A.  D.  1212. — The  Children's  Crusade.  See 
Crus.\des  :  A.  D.  1313. 

A.  D.  1214. — Nationalizing  effects  of  the 
Battle  of  Bouvines.     See  Bouvines. 

A.  D.  1223. — Accession  of  King  Louis  VIII. 

A.  D.  1226-1270. — Reign  and  character  of 
Louis  IX.  (Saint  Louis). — His  great  civilizing 
work  and  influence. — "Of  the  forty-four  years 
of  St.  Louis'  reign,  nearly  fifteen,  with  a"  long 
interval  of  separation,  pertained  to  the  govern- 
ment of  Queen  Blanche  of  Castillo,  rather  than 
that  of  the  king  her  son.  Louis,  at  his  accession 
in  1326,  was  only  eleven ;  and  he  remained  a 
minor  up  to  the  age  of  twenty-one,  in  1236,  for 
the  time  of  majority  in  the  case  of  royalty  was 
not  yet  specially  and  rigorously  fi.xed.  During 
those  ten  years  Queen  Blanche  governed  France ; 
not  at  all,  as  is  commonly  asserted,  with  the 
official  title  of  regent,  but  simply  as  guardian  of 
the  king  her  son.  ...  It  was  not  until  twenty- 
two  years  had  passed,  in  1248,  that  Louis,  on 
starting  for  the  crusade,  ofl5cially  delegated  to  his 
mother  the  kingly  authority,  and  that  Blanche, 
during  her  son's  absence,  really  governed  with 
the  title  of  regent.  .  .  .  During  the  first  period 


of  his  government,  and  so  long  as  her  son's  mi- 
nority lasted,  Queen  Blanche  had  to  grapple  with 
intrigues,  plots,  insiu-rectious,  and  open  war ; 
and,  what  was  still  worse  for  her,  with  the  in- 
sults and  calumnies  of  the  crown's  great  vassals, 
burning  to  seize  once  more,  under  a  woman's 
government,  the  independence  and  power  which 
had  been  effectually  disputed  with  them  by 
Philip  Augustus.  Blanche  resisted  their  at- 
tempts, at  one  time  with  open  and  persevering 
energy,  at  another  dexterously  with  all  the  tact, 
address,  and  allurements  of  a  woman.  Though 
she  was  now  forty  years  of  age  she  was  beauti- 
ful, elegant,  attractive,  full  of  resources  and  of 
grace.  .  .  .  The  malcontents  spread  the  most 
odious  scandals  about  her.  .  .  .  Neither  in  the 
events  nor  in  the  writings  of  the  period  is  it  easy 
to  find  anything  which  can  authorize  the  accu- 
sations made  by  the  foes  of  Queen  Blanche.  .  .  . 
What  St.  Louis  really  owed  to  his  mother,  and  it 
was  a  great  deal,  was  the  steady  triumph  which, 
whether  by  arms  or  by  negotiation,  Blanche 
gained  over  the  great  vassals,  and  the  preponder- 
ance which,  amidst  the  struggles  of  the  feudal 
system,  she  secured  for  the  kingship  of  her  son 
in  his  minority.  .  .  .  AVhen  Louis  reached  his 
majority,  his  entrance  upon  personal  exercise  of 
the  kingly  power  produced  no  change  in  the 
conduct  of  public  affairs.  .  .  .  The  kingship  of 
the  son  was  a  continuance  of  the  mother's  gov- 
ernment."— G.  Masson,  St.  Lonis,  pp.  44-56. — 
"The  fundamental  institution  upon  which  all 
the  social  edifice  rested,  in  the  time  of  Saint 
Louis,  was  royalty.  But  this  royalty,  from  the 
double  point  of  view  of  theory  and  practice,  was 
very  different  from  what  it  had  been  originally. 
In  principle  it  was  the  divine  right,  that  is,  it 
was  an  emanation  from  the  Most  High,  and  the 
king  held  of  no  other  seigneur.  This  is  what  the 
feudal  maxim  expressed  after  its  fashion  :  '  The 
king  holds  only  of  God  and  his  sword.'.  .  . 
Royalty  was  transmitted  by  heredity,  from 
father  to  son,  and  by  primogeniture.  However, 
this  heredity,  which  had  formerly  needed  a  sort 
of  election  to  confirm  it,  or  at  least  popular  ac- 
clamation, needed  now  to  be  hallowed  by  the 
unction  of  the  church.  Consecration,  joined  to 
the  privilege  of  being  the  eldest  of  the  royal 
race,  made  the  king.  ...  It  must  not  be  thought 
however  that  the  ideas  of  the  time  attributed  to 
the  hereditary  principle  a  force  absolute  and  su- 
perior to  all  interests.  .  .  .  The  royal  power, 
besides,  had  not  yet  a  material  force  sufficiently 
great  to  dominate  everywhere  as  absolute  mas- 
ter. Under  the  two  first  lines,  it  was  exercised 
in  the  same  degree  over  all  points  of  the  terri- 
tory ;  from  the  accession  of  the  third,  on  the 
contrary,  it  was  only  a  power  of  two  degrees, 
having  a  very  unequal  action  according  to  the 
territory  and  the  locality.  A  part  of  France 
composed  the  royal  domaiu ;  it  was  the  patri- 
mony of  the  Capetian  house,  increased  by  con- 
quest or  successive  acquisitions.  There,  the  king 
exercised  an  authority  almost  without  limit ;  he 
was  on  his  own  ground.  All  the  rest  formed 
duchies,  counties,  or  seigneuries  of  different 
sorts,  possessed  hereditarily  by  great  vassals, 
more  or  less  independent  originally.  Here  the 
king  was  only  the  suzerain ;  he  had  scarcely  any 
rights  excepting  to  homage,  to  military  service, 
to  pecuniary  assistance  in  certain  stated  cases, 
and  to  some  privileges  called  royal,  as  that  of 
coining  money.     The  entire  royal  policy,  from 


1194 


FRANCE  1326-1270. 


Saint  Louis, 


FRANCE,  1226-1270. 


Philip  Augustus  to  Louis  XL.  consisted  in  sljil- 
fully  increasing  the  first  of  these  parts  by  absorb- 
ing little  by  little  the  second.  .  .  .  The  posses- 
sions of  the  crown  .  .  .  formed  two  or  three 
separate  groups,  cut  up  in  the  most  fantastic 
fashion,  and  connected  only  as  the  result  of  long 
effort.  All  the  rest  of  the  kingdom  was  com- 
posed of  great  fiefs  escaping  the  direct  action  of 
royalty,  and  themselves  subdivided  into  lesser 
fiefs,  which  complicated  infinitely  the  hierarchy 
of  persons  and  lands.  The  principal  were  the 
counties  of  Flanders,  Boulogne,  Saint  Pol,  Pon- 
thieii,  Aumale,  Eu,  Soissons,  Dreux,  Montford- 
I'Amaury ;  the  bishoprics  of  Tournai,  Beauvais, 
Noyon,  Laon,  Lisieux,  Reims,  Langres,  Chalons, 
the  titularies  of  which  were  at  the  same  time 
counts  or  seigneurs;  the  vast  county  of  Cham- 
pagne, uniting  those  of  Rethel,  Grandpre,  Roucy, 
Brienne,  Joigny  and  the  county  Porcien ;  the 
duchy  of  Burgundy,  so  powerful  and  so  exten- 
sive :  the  counties  of  Nevers,  Tonnerre,  Auxerre, 
Beaujeu,  Forez,  Auvergne :  the  seigneury  of 
Bourbon  ;  the  counties  of  Blois  and  of  Chartres  ; 
the  county  or  duchy  of  Brittany  ;  Guienne,  and, 
before  1271,  the  county  of  Toulouse  ;  the  bishop- 
rics of  Albi,  Cahors,  Mende,  Lodfive,  Agde, 
Maguelonne,  belonging  temporally  as  well  as 
spiritually  to  their  respective  bishops  ;  finally 
the  seigneury  of  Montpellier,  holding  of  the  last 
of  these  bishoprics.  To  which  must  yet  be  added 
the  appanages  given  by  Louis  VIIL  to  his 
younger  sons,  that  is,  the  counties  of  Artois, 
Anjou,  Poitiers,  with  their  dependencies.  .  .  . 
So  when  the  government  of  the  kingdom  at  this 
epoch  is  spoken  of,  it  must  be  understood  to 
mean  that  of  only  the  least  considerable  part  of 
the  territory,  — that  is,  of  the  part  which  was 
directly  submitted  to  the  authority  of  the  king. 
In  this  part  the  sovereign  himself  exercised  the 
power,  assisted,  as  ordained  by  the  theories  ex- 
amined above,  by  auxiliaries  taken  from  the 
nation.  There  were  neither  ministers  nor  a 
deliberative  corps,  properly  speaking  ;  however 
there  was  very  nearly  the  equivalent.  On  one 
side,  the  great  officers  of  the  crown  and  the  royal 
council,  on  the  other  the  parliament  and  the 
chamber  of  accounts  (exchequer),  or  at  least  their 
primitive  nucleus,  constituted  the  principal  ma- 
chinery of  the  central  government,  and  had,  each, 
its  special  powers.  The  great  officers,  of  whom 
there  had  at  first  been  five,  were  only  four  from 
the  reign  of  Philip  Augustus,  who  had  suppressed 
the  seneschal  owing  to  the  possibility  of  his  be- 
coming dangerous  by  reason  of  the  progressive 
extension  of  his  jurisdiction ;  they  were  the 
bouteiller,  who  had  become  the  administrator  of 
the  royal  expenditure  ;  the  chambrier,  elevated 
to  the  care  of  the  treasury  ;  the  connetable,  a 
kind  of  military  superintendent ;  and  the  chan- 
celier,  who  had  the  disposition  of  the  royal  seal. 
These  four  personages  represented  in  a  certain 
degree,  secretaries  of  state.  The  two  latter  had 
a  preponderant  influence,  one  in  time  of  peace, 
the  other  in  time  of  war.  To  the  chancellor  be- 
longed the  drawing  up  and  the  proper  execution 
(legalization)  of  the  royal  diplomas  ;  this  power 
alone  made  him  the  arbiter  of  the  interests  of  all 
private  individuals.  As  to  the  constable,  he  had 
the  chief  direction  of  the  army,  and  all  those 
who  composed  it,  barons,  knights,  paid  troops, 
owed  him  obedience.  The  king,  in  person,  had 
the  supreme  command  ;  but  he  frequently  al- 
lowed the  constable  to  exercise  it,  and,  in  order 


not  to  impose  too  heavy  a  burden  upon  him,  or 
rather  to  prevent  his  taking  a  too  exclusive 
authority,  he  had  appointed  as  coadjutors  two 
•  marechaux  de  France '  who  were  second  in 
command.  .  .  .  The  king's  council  had  not  yet 
a  very  fixed  form.  Saint  Louis  submitted  im- 
portant questions  to  the  persons  about  him, 
clerics,  knights  or  men  of  the  people ;  but  he 
chose  these  advisers  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  questions,  having  temporary  counsellors 
rather  than  a  permanent  council.  Among  these 
counsellors  some  were  more  especially  occupied 
with  justice,  others  with  finance,  others  with 
political  affairs.  These  three  categories  are  the 
germ  of  the  parliament,  of  the  exchequer,  and  of 
the  council  of  state  ;  but  they  then  formed  an 
indistinct  ensemble,  called  simply  the  king's 
court.  They  were  not  completely  separated  so 
as  to  form  independent  institutions  initil  the 
time  of  Philippe  le  Bel.  .  .  .  The  superior  juris- 
diction is  represented  by  the  parliament.  The 
organization  of  this  famous  body  was  begun  in 
the  lifetime  of  Philip  Augustus.  Under  the 
reign  of  this  prince  [Saint  Louis],  and  notably 
as  a  result  of  his  absence,  the  '  cour  du  roi '  had 
begim  to  render  more  and  more  frequent  de- 
cisions. The  section  which  was  occupied  with 
judicial  affairs,  appears  to  have  taken  on,  in  the 
time  of  Saint  Louis,  an  individual  and  indepen- 
dent existence.  Instead  of  following  the  sover- 
eign and  meeting  when  he  thought  it  expedient, 
it  became  sedentary.  .  .  .  The  date  at  which 
the  series  of  the  famous  registers  of  the  parlia- 
ment, known  under  the  name  of  Olim,  begins 
may  be  considered  that  of  the  definitive  creation 
of  this  great  institution.  It  will  be  remarked 
that  it  coincides  with  the  general  reform  of  the 
administration  of  the  kingdom  undertaken  by 
the  good  king  on  his  return  from  Syria.  .  .  . 
From  its  birth  the  parliament  tended  to  become, 
in  the  hands  of  royalty,  a  means  of  domination 
over  the  great  vassals.  Not  only  were  the 
seigneurs  insensibly  eliminated  from  it,  to  the 
advantage  of  the  clergy,  the  lawyers,  and  the 
officers  of  the  crown,  but  by  a  series  of  skilful 
victories,  its  action  was  extended  little  by  little 
over  all  the  fiefs  situated  outside  the  royal  do- 
main, that  is,  over  all  France.  It  is  again  Saint 
Louis  who  caused  this  great  and  decisive  ad- 
vance toward  the  authority  of  the  suzerain.  He 
brought  it  about  especially  by  the  abolition  of 
the  judicial  duel  and  by  the  multiplication  of 
appeals  to  the  parliament.  ...  As  for  the  ap- 
peals, the  interdiction  of  'fausser  jugement' 
(refusal  to  submit  to  the  sentence  pronounced) 
was  not  the  only  cause  of  their  multiplication. 
Many  of  the  great  vassals  were  led  to  bring  their 
affairs  before  the  king's  court,  either  on  account 
of  the  confidence  inspired  by  the  well  known 
equity  of  Saint  Louis,  or  by  the  skill  of  the 
royal  agents,  who  neglected  no  opportunity  to 
cause  the  acceptance  of  the  arbitration  of  the 
crown  ;  and  those  who  did  not  resign  themselves 
to  it  were  sometimes  compelled  to  do  so.  The 
appeals  of  their  subjects  naturally  took  the  same 
route  ;  however,  they  continued"  to  employ  the 
medium  of  the  sene'schal's  court  or  that  of  the 
bailli,  while  those  of  the  barons  and  the  princes 
of  the  blood  went  directly  to  Paris.  No  general 
law  was  promulgated  in  regard  to  the  matter. 
Royaltywas  content  to  recover  little  by  little, 
by  partial  measures,  the  superior  jurisdiction 
formerly  usurped  by  the  feudality.      .  .  Above 

1195 


FRANCE,  1226-1270. 


Saint  Louis. 


FRANCE,  1326-1270. 


and  outside  of  the  parliament  justice  was  ren- 
dered by  the  kiug  iu  person.  .  .  .  Saint  Louis, 
always  thoughtful  of  the  interests  of  the  lowly, 
had  a  liking  for  this  expeditious  manner  of  ter- 
minating suits.  Nearly  every  morning,  he  sent 
two  or  three  members  of  his  council  to  inquire, 
at  the  palace  gate,  if  there  were  not  some  private 
individuals  there  wishing  to  discuss  their  affairs 
before  him  ;  from  this  came  the  name  '  plaids  de 
la  porte'  given  to  this  kind  of  audience.  If  his 
counsellors  could  not  bring  the  parties  to  an 
agreement,  he  called  the  latter  into  his  own  room, 
examined  their  case  with  his  scrupulous  impar- 
tiality, and  rendered  the  final  sentence  himself 
on  the  spot.  Joinville,  who  took  part  more  than 
once  in  these  summary  judgments,  thus  describes 
to  us  their  very  simple  mechanism.  '  The  king 
had  his  work  regulated  in  such  a  way,  that  mon- 
seigneur  de  Nesle  and  the  good  count  de  Sois- 
sous,  and  the  rest  of  us  who  were  about  him, 
who  had  heard  our  masses,  want  to  hear  the 
"  plaids  de  la  porte,"  which  are  now  called  "  re- 
quetcs  "  (petitions).  And  when  he  returned  from 
the  monastery,  he  sent  for  us,  seated  himself  at 
the  foot  of  his  bed,  made  us  all  sit  around  him, 
and  asked  us  if  there  were  any  cases  to  despatch 
which  could  not  be  disposed  of  without  him; 
and  we  named  them  to  him.  and  he  sent  for  the 
parties  and  asked  them  :  Why  do  you  not  take 
what  our  people  offer  you  ?  And  they  said  : 
Sire,  because  they  offer  us  little.  Then  he  said 
to  them  :  You  should  take  what  they  are  willing 
to  give  you.  And  the  saintly  man  labored  in 
this  way,  with  all  his  might  to  set  them  in  a  just 
aud  reasonable  path.'  Here  the  great  peace- 
maker is  clearly  seen  ;  private  individuals  as 
well  as  princes,  he  desired  to  reconcile  all,  make 
all  agree.  These  patriarchal  audiences  often  had 
for  theater  the  garden  of  the  palace  or  the  wood 
of  Vincennes." — A.  Lecoyde  la  Marche,  La 
France  sous  Saint  Louis  et  sous  Philippe  le  Hardi, 
liv.  1,  eh.  2,  and  liv.  3,  eh.  1  and  .3. — "St.  Louis 
struck  at  the  spirit  of  the  Middle  Age,  and 
therein  insured  the  downfall  of  its  forms  and 
•whole  embodiment.  He  fought  the  last  battles 
against  feudalism,  because,  by  a  surer  means 
than  battling,  he  took,  and  unconsciously,  the 
life  blood  from  the  opposition  to  the  royal  au- 
thority. Unconsciously,  we  say ;  he  did  not 
look  on  the  old  order  of  things  as  evil,  and  try 
to  introduce  a  better ;  he  did  not  selfishly  con- 
tend for  the  extension  of  his  own  power ;  he  was 
neither  a  great  reformer,  nor  a  (so-called)  wise 
king.  He  undermined  feudalism,  because  he 
hated  injustice;  he  warred  with  the  Middle  Age, 
because  he  could  not  tolerate  its  disregard  of 
human  rights  ;  and  he  paved  the  way  for  Philip- 
le-bel's  struggle  with  the  papacy,  because  he 
looked  upon  religion  and  the  church  as  instru- 
ments for  man's  salvation,  not  as  tools  for  worldly 
aggrandizement.  He  is,  perhaps,  the  only  mon- 
arch on  record  who  failed  in  most  of  what  he 
undertook  of  active  enterprise,  who  was  under 
the  control  of  the  prejudices  of  his  age,  who  was 
a  true  conservative,  who  never  dreamed  of  effect- 
ing great  social  changes,  —  and  who  yet,  by  his 
mere  virtues,  his  sense  of  duty,  his  power  of  con- 
science, made  the  mightiest  "and  most  vital  re- 
forms. One  of  these  reforms  was  the  abolition 
of  the  trial  by  combat.  .  .  .  It  is  not  our  purpose 
to  follow  Louis  either  in  his  first  or  second 
crusade."  [See  Crus.^des  :  A.  D.  1248-1 2.')4.] 
On  returning,  in  1254,   from  his  first  crusade. 


' '  scarce  had  he  landed,  before  he  began  that  course 
of  legislation  which  continued  until  once  more  he 
embarked.  ...  In  his  first  legislative  action, 
Louis  proposed  to  himself  these  objects,  — to  put 
an  end  to  judicial  partiality,  to  prevent  needless 
and  oppressive  imprisoninent  for  debt,  to  stop 
unfounded  criminal  prosecutions,  and  to  mitigate 
the  horrors  of  legalized  torture.  In  connection 
with  these  genei-al  topics,  he  made  laws  to  bear 
oppressively  upon  the  Jews,  to  punish  prostitu- 
tion and  gambling,  and  to  diminish  intemper- 
ance. Aud  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  last 
point  was  to  be  attained  by  forbidding  innkeep- 
ers to  sell  to  any  others  than  travellers,  — a  mea- 
sure now  (six  hundrt>d  years  later)  under  dis- 
cussion in  some  parts  of  our  Union,  with  a  view  to 
the  same  end.  But  the  wish  which  this  rare  mon- 
arch had  to  recompense  all  who  had  been  wronged 
by  himself  and  forefathers  was  the  upper- 
most wish  of  his  soul.  .  .  .  Commissioners  were 
sent  into  every  province  of  the  kingdom  to  exam- 
ine each  alleged  case  of  royal  injustice,  aud  with 
power  in  most  instances  to  make  instant  restitu- 
tion. He  himself  went  forth  to  hear  and  judge 
in  the  neighborhood  of  his  capital,  and  as  far 
north  as  Normandy.  ...  As  he  grew  yet  older, 
the  spirit  of  generosity  grew  stronger  daily  in  his 
bosom.  He  would  have  no  hand  in  the  affairs 
of  Europe,  save  to  act,  wherever  he  could,  as 
peacemaker.  INIany  occasions  occurred  where  all 
urged  him  to  profit  by  power  aud  ashow  of  right, 
a  naked  legal  title,  to  possess  himself  of  valuable 
fiefs;  but  Louis  shook  his  head  sorrowfully  and 
sternly,  aud  did  as  his  inmost  soul  told  him  the  law 
of  God  directed.  .  .  .  There  had  been  for  some 
reigns  back  a  growing  disposition  to  refer  cer- 
tain questions  to  the  king's  tribunals,  as  being 
regal,  not  baronial  questions.  Louis  the  Ninth 
gave  to  this  disposition  distinct  form  and  value, 
and,  under  the  influence  of  the  baron-hating 
legists,  he  so  ordained,  in  conformity  with  the 
Roman  law,  that,  under  given  circumstances,  al- 
most any  case  might  be  referred  to  his  tribunal. 
This,  of  course,  gave  to  the  king's  judgment-seat 
and  to  him  more  of  influence  than  any  other  step 
ever  taken  had  done.  .  .  .  It  .  .  .  threw  at  once 
the  balance  of  power  into  the  royal  hands.  .  .  . 
It  became  necessary  to  make  the  occasional  sitting 
of  the  king's  council  or  parliament,  which  exer- 
cised certain  judicial  functions,  permanent;  and 
to  change  its  composition,  by  diminishing  the 
feudal  and  increasing  the  legal  or  legist  element. 
Thus  everywhere,  in  the  barons'  courts,  the 
king's  court,  and  the  central  parliament,  the 
Roman,  legal,  organized  element  began  to  pre- 
dominate over  the  German,  feudal,  barbaric  ten- 
dencies, and  the  foundation-stones  of  modern 
society  were  laid.  But  the  just  soul  of  Louis 
and  the  prejudices  of  his  Romanized  counsellors 
were  not  arrayed  against  the  old  Teutonic  bar- 
barism alone,  with  its  endless  private  wars  and 
judicial  duels;  they  stood  equally  opposed  to  the 
extravagant  claims  of  the  Roman  hierarchy.  .  .  . 
The  first  calm,  deliberate,  consistent  opposition 
to  the  centralizing  power  of  the  great  see  was 
that  offered  by  its  truest  friend  and  most  honest 
ally,  Louis  of  France.  From  1260  to  1268,  step 
by"  step  was  taken  by  the  defender  of  the  liberties 
of  the  Galilean  church,  luitil.  in  the  year  last 
named,  he  published  his  'Pragmatic  Sanction' 
[see  below]." — Saint  Louis  of  ?>ance  (North 
American  Review,  April,  1846).— See,  also.  Par 

LIAMENT  OF  PaKIS. 


1196 


FRANCE,  1252. 


Philip  TV.,  and 
Pope  Boniface  VIII. 


FRANCE,  1285-1314 


A.  D.  1252. — The  Crusading  movement  of 
the  Pastors.     See  Ckusades  :  A.  D.  1252. 

A.  D.  1266. — Acquisition  of  the  kingdom  of 
Naples  or  the  Two  Sicilies  by  Charles  of  An- 
jou,  the  king's  brother.  See  It.\ly  (Soutiiekx): 
A.  D.  1250-1268. 

A.  D.  1268. — The  Pragmatic  Sanction  of  St. 
Louis. — Assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  Galli- 
can  Church. —  "The  coutinual  usurpations  of 
the  popes  produced  the  celebrated  Pragmatic 
Sanction  of  St.  Louis  [about  A.  D.  1268].  This 
edict,  the  authority  of  which,  though  probably 
without  cause,  has  been  sometimes  disputed,  con- 
tains three  important  provisions;  namely,  that 
all  prelates  and  other  patrons  shall  enjoy  their 
full  rights  as  to  the  collation  of  benefices,  ac- 
cording to  the  canons ;  that  churches  shall  possess 
freely  their  rights  of  election ;  and  that  no  tax  or 
pecuniary  exaction  shall  be  levied  by  the  pope, 
without  consent  of  the  king  and  of  the  national 
church.  We  do  not  find,  however,  that  the 
French  government  acted  up  to  the  spirit  of  this 
ordinance. " — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages,  ch.  7, 
pt.  2. — "This  Edict  appeared  either  during  the 
last  year  of  Clement  IV.,  ...  or  during  the 
vacancy  in  the  Pontificate.  ...  It  became  the 
barrier  against  which  the  encroachments  of  the 
ecclesiastical  power  were  destined  to  break ;  nor 
was  it  swept  away  till  a  stronger  barrier  had 
arisen  in  the  unlimited  power  of  the  French 
crown."  It  "became  a  great  Charter  of  Inde- 
pendence to  the  Galilean  Church." — H.  H.  Mil- 
man,  Hist,  of  Latin  Christianity,  hk.  11,  ch.  4 
{V.  5). 

A.  D.  1270-1285. — The  sons  of  St.  Louis. — 
Origin  of  the  Houses  of  Valois  and  Bourbon. 
— St.  Louis  left  several  sons,  the  elder  of  whom 
succeeded  him  as  Philippe  III.,  and  his  youngest 
son  was  Robert,  Count  of  Clermont  and  Lord  of 
Bourbon,  the  ancestor  of  all  the  branches  of  the 
House  of  Bourbon.  Philippe  III.  died  in  1285, 
when  he  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Philippe  IV. 
A  younger  son,  Charles,  Count  of  Valois,  was 
the  ancestor  of  the  Valois  branch  of  the  royal 
family. 

A.  D.  1285-1314.— Reign  of  Philip  IV.— His 
conflict  -with  the  Pope  and  his  destruction  of 
the  Templars. —  Philippe  IV.,  called  "leBel" 
(the  Handsome),  came  to  the  throne  on  the  death 
of  his  father,  Philippe  "le  Hardi,"  in  1285.  He 
was  presently  involved  in  war  with  Edward  I.  of 
England,  who  crossed  to  Flanders  in  1297,  in- 
tending to  invade  Fi-ance,  but  was  recalled  by 
the  revolt  in  Scotland,  under  Wallace,  and  peace 
was  made  in  1303.  The  Flemings,  who  had  pro- 
voked Philippe  by  their  alliance  with  the  Eng- 
lish, were  thus  left  to  suffer  his  resentment. 
They  bore  themselves  valiantly  in  a  war  which 
lasted  several  years,  and  inflicted  upon  the  knights 
of  France  a  fearful  defeat  at  Courtrai,  in  1302, 
In  the  end,  the  French  king  substantially  failed 
in  his  designs  upon  Flanders  (see  Fl.^kders: 
A.  D.  1299-1304).  "  It  is  probable  that  this  long 
struggle  would  have  been  still  protracted,  but 
for  a  general  quarrel  which  had  sprung  up  some 
time  before  its  close,  between  the  French  king 
and  Pope  Boniface  VIII.,  concerning  the  [taxa- 
tion of  the  clergy  and  the]  right  of  nomination 
to  vacant  bishoprics  within  the  dominions  of 
Philippe.  The  latter,  on  seeing  Bernard  Saissetti 
thrust  into  the  Bishropric  of  Panders  by  the 
pontiff's  sole  authority,  caused  the  Bishop  to  be 
arrested  by  night,  and,  after  subjecting  him  to 


various  indignities,  consigned  him  to  prison  on  a 
charge  of  treason,  heresy,  and  blasphemy.  Boni- 
face remonstrated  against  this  outrage  and  vio- 
lence in  a  bull  known  in  history,  by  its  opening 
words  '  Ausculta,  fill,'  in  which  he  asserted  his 
power  'over  nations  and  kingdoms,  to  root  out 
and  to  pull  down,  to  destroy  and  to  throw  down, 
to  build  and  to  plant,'  and  concluded  by  inform- 
ing Philippe  that  he  had  summoned  all  the  su- 
perior clergy  of  France  to  an  assembly  at  Rome 
on  the  1st  of  the  following  November,  in  order 
to  deliberate  on  the  remedies  for  such  abuses  as 
those  of  which  the  king  had  been  guilty.  Phi- 
lippe, by  no  means  intimidated  by  this  measure, 
convoked  a  full  and  early  assembly  of  the  three 
estates  of  his  kingdom,  to  decide  upon  the  con- 
duct of  him  whom  the  orthodox,  up  to  that  time, 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  deeming  infallible.  This 
(10th  April  1302)  was  the  first  meeting  of  a 
Parliament,  properly  so  called,  in  France.  .  .  . 
The  chambers  unanimously  approved  and  ap- 
plauded the  conduct  of  the  king,  and  resolved  to 
maintain  the  honour  of  the  crown  and  the  nation 
from  foreign  insult  or  domination ;  and  to  mark 
their  decision  more  conclusively,  they  concurred 
with  the  sovereign  in  prohibiting  the  clergy  from 
attending  the  Pope's  summons  to  Rome.  The 
papal  bull  was  burned  as  publicly  as  possible. 
.  .  .  The  Pope,  alarmed  at  these  novel  and  bold 
proceedings,  sought  instantly  to  avert  their  con- 
sequences by  soothing  explanations ;  but  Philippe 
would  not  now  be  turned  aside  from  his  course. 
He  summoned  a  convocation  of  the  Galilean  prel- 
ates, in  which  by  the  mouth  of  William  de  No- 
garet,  his  chancellor,  he  represented  the  occupier 
of  St.  Peter's  chair  as  the  father  of  lies  and  an 
evil-doer;  and  he  demanded  the  seizure  of  this 
pseudo-pope,  and  his  imprisonment  until  he  could 
he.  brought  before  a  legitimate  tribunal  to  receive 
the  punishment  due  to  his  numerous  crimes. 
Boniface  now  declared  that  the  French  king  was 
excommunicated,  and  cited  him  by  his  confessor 
to  appear  in  the  papal  court  at  Rome  within 
three  months,  to  make  submission  and  atonement 
for  his  contumacy.  .  .  .  While  this  unseemly 
quarrel  .  .  .  seemed  to  be  growing  interminable 
in  its  complexities,  the  daring  of  a  few  men 
opened  a  shorter  path  to  its  end  than  could  have 
been  anticipated.  William  of  Nogaret  associat- 
ing to  him  Sciarra  Colonna,  a  noble  Roman,  who, 
having  been  driven  from  his  native  city  by  Boni- 
face and  subjected  to  various  hardships,  had 
found  refuge  in  Paris,  passed,  with  a  train  of 
three  hundred  horsemen,  and  a  much  larger  body 
of  picked  infantry,  secretly  into  Italy,  with  the 
intention  of  surprising  the  Pope  at  his  summer 
residence  in  his  native  town  of  Anagni.  .  .  .  The 
papal  palace  was  captured  after  a  feeble  resis- 
tance, and  the  cardinals  and  personal  attendants 
of  the  Pontiff  fled  for  their  lives.  .  .  .  The  Con- 
dottieri  .  .  .  dragged  the  Pope  from  his  throne, 
and  conveying  him  into  tlie  street,  mounted  him 
upon  a  lean  horse  without  saddle  or  bridle,  with 
his  head  to  the  animal's  tail,  and  thus  conducted 
him  in  a  sort  of  pilgrimage  through  the  town. 
He  was  then  consigned  prisoner  to  one  of  the 
chambers  of  his  palace  and  placed  under  guard ; 
while  the  body  of  his  cajjlors  dispersed  them- 
selves through  the  splendid  apartments  in  eager 
pursuit  of  plunder.  Three  days  were  thus  occu- 
pied ;  but  at  the  end  of  that  time  the  .  .  .  people 
of  Anagni  .  .  .  took  arms  in  behalf  of  their  fel- 
low-townsman and  spiritual  father,  and  falling 


1197 


FRANCE,  1285-1314. 


Destruction  of  the 
Templars. 


FRANCE,  1314-1328. 


upon  the  French  while  still  indulging  in  the 
licence  of  the  sack,  drove  Nogaret  and  Colonna 
from  their  quarters,  and  either  expelled  or  mas- 
sacred the  whole  of  their  followers. "  The  Pope 
returned  to  Korae  in  so  great  a  rage  that  his 
reason  gave  way,  and  soon  afterwards  he  was 
found  dead  in  his  bed.  "The  scandal  of  these 
proceedings  throughout  Christendom  was  im- 
mense; and  Philippe  adopted  every  precaution 
to  avert  evil  consequences  from  himself  by  pay- 
ing court  to  Benedict  XI.  who  succeeded  to  the 
tiara.  This  Pope,  however,  though  he  for  some 
time  temporised,  could  not  be  long  deaf  to  the 
loud  voices  of  the  clergy  which  called  for  pun- 
ishment upon  the  oppressors  of  the  church.  Ere 
he  had  reigned  nine  months  he  found  himself 
compelled  to  excommunicate  the  plunderers  of 
Anagni ;  and  a  few  days  afterwards  he  perished, 
under  circumstances  which  leave  little  doubt  of 
his  having  been  poisoned.  .  .  .  The  king  of 
France  profitted  largely  by  the  crime ;  since,  be- 
sides gaining  time  for  the  subsidence  of  excite- 
ment, he  was  subsequently  enabled,  by  his  in- 
trigues, to  procure  the  election  of  a  person 
pledged  not  only  to  grant  him  absolution  for  all 
past  offences,  but  to  stigmatise  the  memory  of 
Boniface,  to  restore  the  deposed  Colonna  to  his 
honours  and  estates,  to  nominate  several  French 
ecclesiastics  to  the  college  of  cardinals,  and  to 
grant  to  the  king  the  tenths  of  the  Gallican 
church  for  a  term  of  five  years.  The  pontiff  who 
thus  seems  to  have  been  the  first  of  his  race  to 
lower  the  pretensions  of  his  office,  was  Bertrand 
de  Goth,  originally  a  private  gentleman  of  Ba- 
zadors,  and  subsequently  promoted  to  the  Archi- 
episcopal  See  of  Bordeaux.  He  assumed  the 
title  of  Clement  V. ,  and  after  receiving  investi- 
ture at  Lyons,  fixed  the  apostolic  residence  at 
Avignon,  where  it  continued,  under  successive 
occupants,  for  a  period,  the  length  of  which 
caused  it  to  be  denominated  by  the  Italians  the 
Babylonian  captivity.  This  quarrel  settled, 
Philippe  engaged  in  another  undertaking,  the 
safe-conduct  of  which  required  all  his  skill  and 
unscrupulousness.  This  important  enterprise 
was  no  less  than  the  destruction  and  plunder  of 
the  military  order  of  Knights  Templars.  .  .  . 
Public  discontent  .  .  .  had,  by  a  variety  of  cir- 
cumstances, been  excited  throughout  the  realm. 
Among  the  number  of  exactions,  the  coin  had 
been  debased  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  state, 
and  this  obstructing  the  operations  of  commerce, 
and  inflicting  wrongs  to  a  greater  or  less  extent 
upon  all  classes,  every  one  loudly  complained  of 
injustice,  robbery  and  oppression,  and  in  the  end 
several  tumults  occurred,  in  which  the  residence 
of  the  king  himself  was  attacked,  and  the  whole 
population  were  with  difficulty  restrained  from 
insurrection.  In  Burgundy,  Champagne,  Artois 
and  Forez,  indeed,  the  nobles,  and  burgess  class 
having  for  the  first  time  made  common  cause  of 
their  grievances,  spoke  openly  of  revolt  against 
the  royal  authority,  unless  the  administration 
should  be  reformed,  and  equity  be  substituted  in 
the  king's  courts  for  the  frauds,  extortions  and 
malversations,  which  prevailed.  The  sudden 
death  of  Philippe  — owing  to  a  fall  from  his  horse 
while  hunting  the  wild  boar  in  the  forest  of  Fon- 
tainebleau  —  on  the  29th  of  November,  1314,  deliv- 
ered the  people  from  their  tyrant,  and  the  crown 
from  the  consequences  of  a  general  rebellion. 
Pope  Clement,  the  king's  firm  friend,  had  gone  to 
his  last  account  on  the  20th  of  the  preceding 


April.  Louis  X. ,  le  Hutin  (the  Quarrelsome),  as- 
cended the  throne  at  the  mature  age  of  twenty- 
five." — G.  M.  Bussey  and  T.  Gaspey,  Pictorial 
Hist,  of  Prance,  v.  1,  ch.  4. — See,  also.  Papacy: 
A.D.  1394-1348,  and  Templars:  A.D,  1307-1314. 
A.  D.  1314-1328.  —  Louis  X.,  Philip  V., 
Charles  IV. — Feudal  reaction. — Philip-le-Bel 
died  in  1314.  "  Witli  the  accession  of  his  son, 
Louis  X.,  so  well  surnamed  Hutin  (disorder, 
tumult),  comes  a  violent  reaction  of  the  feudal, 
local,  provincial  spirit,  which  seeks  to  dash  in 
pieces  the  still  feeble  fabric  of  unity,  demands 
dismemberment,  and  claims  chaos.  The  Duke  of 
Brittany  arrogates  the  right  of  judgment  without 
appeal ;  so  does  the  exchequer  of  Rouen.  Amiens 
will  not  have  the  king's  sergeants  subpoena  before 
the  barons,  or  his  j^rovosts  remove  any  prisoner 
from  the  town's  jurisdiction.  Burgundy  and 
Nevers  require  the  king  to  respect  the  privileges 
of  feudal  justice.  .  .  .  The  common  demand  of 
the  barons  is  that  the  king  shall  renounce  all  in- 
termeddling with  their  men.  .  .  .  The  young 
monarch  grants  and  signs  all ;  there  are  only 
three  points  to  which  he  demurs,  and  which  he 
seeks  to  defer.  The  Burgundian  barons  contest 
with  him  the  jurisdiction  over  the  rivers,  roads, 
and  consecrated  places.  The  noljles  of  Cham- 
pagne doubt  the  king's  right  to  lead  them  to 
war  out  of  their  own  province.  Those  of  Amiens, 
with  true  Picard  impetuosity,  recjuire  without 
any  circumlocution,  that  all  gentlemen  may  war 
upon  each  other,  and  not  enter  into  securities, 
but  ride,  go,  come,  and  be  armed  for  war,  and  pay 
forfeit  to  one  another.  .  .  .  The  king's  reply  to 
these  absurd  and  insolent  demands  is  merely: 
'  We  will  order  examination  of  the  registers  of 
my  lord  St.  Louis,  and  give  to  the  said  nobles 
two  trustworthy  persons,  to  be  nominated  by 
our  council,  to  verify  and  inquire  diligently  into 
the  truth  of  the  said  article.'  The  reply  was 
adroit  enough.  The  general  cry  was  for  a  re- 
turn to  the  good  customs  of  St.  Louis :  it  being 
forgotten  that  St.  Louis  had  done  his  utmost  to 
put  a  stop  to  private  wars.  But  by  thus  invok- 
ing the  name  of  St.  Louis,  they  meant  to  express 
their  wish  for  the  old  feudal  independence  —  for 
the  opposite  of  the  quasi-legal,  the  venal,  and 
pettifogging  government  of  Philippe-le-Bel.  The 
barons  set  about  destroying,  bit  by  bit,  all  the 
changes  introduced  by  the  late  king.  But  they 
could  not  believe  him  dead  so  long  as  there  sur- 
vived his  Alter  Ego,  his  mayor  of  the  palace, 
Enguerrand  de  Marigny,  who,  in  the  latter  years 
of  his  reign,  had  been  coadjutor  and  rector  of  the 
kingdom,  and  who  had  allowed  his  statue  to  be 
raised  in  the  palace  by  the  side  of  the  king's. 
His  real  name  was  Le  Portier;  but  along  with 
the  estates  lie  bought  the  name  of  Marigny.  .  .  . 
It  was  in  the  Temple,  in  the  very  spot  where 
Marigny  had  installed  his  master  for  the  spolia- 
tion of  the  Templars,  that  the  young  king  Louis 
repaired  to  hear  the  solemn  accusation  brought 
against  him.  His  accuser  was  Philippe-le-Bel's 
brother,  the  violent  Charles  of  Valois,  a  busy 
man,  of  mediocre  abilities,  who  put  himself  at 
the  head  of  the  barons.  ...  To  effect  his  de- 
struction, Charles  of  Valois  had  recourse  to  the 
grand  accusation  of  the  day,  which  none  could 
surmount.  It  was  discovered,  or  presumed,  that 
Marigny 's  wife  or  sister,  in  order  to  effect  his 
acquittal,  or  bewitch  the  king,  had  caused  one 
Jacques  de  Lor  to  make  certain  small  figures: 
'The  said  Jacques,   thrown  into  prison,   hangs 


1198 


FRANCE,  1314-1328. 


End  of  the  direct 
Capetian  line. 


FRANCE,  1314-1328. 


himself  in  despair,  and  then  his  wife,  and  Enguer- 
rand's  sisters  are  thrown  into  prison,  and  Enguer- 
rand  himself,  condemned  before  the  knights  .  .  . 
is  hung  at  Paris  on  the  thieves'  gibbet.'  .  .  . 
Marigny's  best  vengeance  was  that  the  crown, 
so  strong  in  his  care,  sank  after  him  into  the 
most  deplorable  weakness.  Louis-le-Hutin,  need- 
ing money  for  the  Flemish  war,  treated  as  equal 
with  equal,  with  the  city  of  Paris.  The  nobles 
of  Champagne  and  Picardy  hastened  to  take 
advantage  of  the  right  of  private  war  which  they 
had  just  reacquired,  and  made  war  on  the  coun- 
tess of  Artois,  without  troubling  themselves 
about  the  judgment  rendered  by  the  king,  who 
had  awarded  tliis  flef  to  her.  All  the  barons 
had  resumed  the  privilege  of  coining ;  Charles  of 
Valois,  the  king's  imcle,  setting  them  the  ex- 
ample. But  instead  of  coining  for  their  own 
domains  only,  conformably  to  the  ordinances 
ot  Philippe-le-Hanli  and  Philippe-Ie-Bel,  they 
minted  coin  by  wliolesale,  and  gave  it  currency 
throughout  the  kingdom.  On  this,  tlie  king  had 
perforce  to  arouse  himself,  and  return  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  Marigny  and  of  Pliilippe-le-Bel. 
He  denounced  the  coinage  of  the  barons,  (Novem- 
ber tile  19th,  1315;)  ordained  tliat  it  should  pass 
current  on  their  own  lands  only ;  and  fixed  the 
value  of  the  royal  coin  relatively  to  thirteen 
different  coinages,  which  thirty-one  bishops  or 
barons  had  the  right  of  minting  on  their  own 
territories.  In  St.  Louis's  time,  eighty  nobles 
had  enjoyed  this  right.  The  young  feudal  king, 
humanized  by  the  want  of  money,  did  not  dis- 
dain to  treat  with  serfs  and  witli  Jews.  ...  It  is 
curious  to  see  the  son  of  Philippe-le-Bel  admit- 
ting serfs  to  liberty  [see  Sl.wery,  Mediaeval  : 
France]  ;  but  it  is  trouble  lost.  The  merchant 
vainly  swells  his  voice  and  enlarges  on  the  worth 
of  his  merchandise ;  the  poor  serfs  will  have  none 
of  it.  Had  they  buried  in  the  ground  some  bad 
piece  of  money,  they  took  care  not  to  dig  it  up 
to  buy  a  bit  of  parchment.  In  vain  does  the  king 
wax  wroth  at  seeing  them  dull  to  the  value  of  the 
boon  offered.  At  last,  he  directs  tlie  commission- 
ers deputed  to  superintend  the  enfranchisement, 
to  value  the  property  of  such  serfs  as  preferred 
'  remaining  in  the  sorriness  (chetivete)  of  slavery,' 
and  to  tax  them  '  as  sufficiently  and  to  sucli  ex- 
tent as  the  condition  and  wealth  of  the  individu- 
als may  conveniently  allow,  and  as  the  neces- 
sity of  our  war  requires.'  But  with  all  this  it 
is  a  grand  spectacle  to  see  proclamation  made 
from  the  throne  itself  of  the  imprescriptible 
right  of  every  man  to  libert}'.  Tlie  serfs  do  not 
buy  this  right,  but  they  will  remember  both  the 
royal  lesson,  and  the  dangerous  appeal  to 
which  it  instigates  against  the  barons.  The 
short  and  obscure  reign  of  Pliilippe-le-Long 
[Philip  v.,  1316-1333]  is  scarcely  less  important 
as  regards  the  public  law  of  France,  than  even 
that  of  Philippe-le-Bel.  In  the  first  place,  his 
accession  to  the  throne  decides  a  great  question. 
As  Louis  Hutin  left  his  queen  pregnant,  his 
brother  Philippe  is  regent  and  guardian  of  the 
future  infant.  This  child  dies  soon  after  its 
birth,  and  Philippe  proclaims  himself  king  to  the 
prejudice  of  a  daughter  of  his  brother's;  a  step 
which  was  the  more  surprising  from  the  fact  that 
Philippe-le-Bel  had  maintained  the  right  of  fe- 
male succession  in  regard  to  Franche-Comte  and 
Artois.  The  barons  were  desirous  that  daughters 
should  be  excluded  from  inheriting  fiefs,  but  that 
they  should  succeed  to  the  throne  of  France ;  and 


their  chief,  Charles  of  Valois,  favored  his  grand- 
niece  against  his  nephew  Philippe.  Philippe 
assembled  the  States,  and  gained  his  cause, 
which,  at  bottom,  was  good,  by  absurd  reasons. 
He  alleged  in  his  favor  the  old  German  law  of 
the  Franks,  which  excluded  daughters  from  the 
Salic  land;  and  maintained  that  the  crown  of 
France  was  too  noble  a  fief  to  fall  into  hands  used 
to  the  distaff  (' pour  tomber  en  quenouille')  —  a 
feudal  argument,  the  effect  of  which  was  to  ruin 
feudality.  .  .  .  By  thus  rejecting  the  right  of 
the  daughters  at  the  very  moment  it  was  gradu- 
ally triumphing  over  the  fiefs,  the  crown  ac- 
quired its  character  of  receiving  always  without 
ever  giving ;  and  a  bold  revocation,  at  this  time, 
of  all  donations  made  since  St.  Louis's  day, 
seems  to  contain  the  principle  of  the  inalienable- 
ness  of  the  royal  domain.  Unfortunately,  the 
feudal  spirit  which  resumed  strength  under  the 
Valois  in  favor  of  private  wars,  led  to  fatal 
creations  of  appanages,  and  founded,  to  the 
advantage  of  the  different  branches  of  the  royal 
family,  a  princely  feudality  as  embarrassing  to 
Charles  VI.  and  Louis  XI. ,  as  the  other  had  been 
to  Philippe-le-Bel.  Tins  contested  succession 
and  disaifection  of  the  barons  force  Philippe-le- 
Long  into  the  paths  of  Philippe-le-Bel.  He  flat- 
ters the  cities,  Paris,  and,  above  all,  the  Uni- 
versity,—  the  grand  power  of  Paris.  He  causes 
his  barons  to  take  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  him,  in 
presence  of  the  masters  of  the  university,  and 
with  their  approval.  He  wishes  his  good  cities 
to  be  provided  with  armories;  their  citizens  to 
keep  their  arms  in  a  sure  place ;  and  appoints 
them  a  captain  in  each  bailiwick  or  district, 
(March  the  12th,  1816).  .  .  .  Praiseworthy  be- 
ginnings of  order  and  of  government  brought  no 
relief  to  the  sufferings  of  the  people.  During 
the  reign  of  Louis  Hutin,  a  horrible  mortality 
had  swept  off,  it  was  said,  the  third  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  North.  The  Flemish  war  had  ex- 
hausted the  last  resources  of  the  country.  .  .  . 
Men's  imaginations  becoming  excited,  a  great 
movement  took  place  among  the  people.  As  in 
the  days  of  St.  Louis,  a  multitude  of  poor  people, 
of  peasants,  of  shepherds  or  pastoureaux,  as  they 
were  called,  flock  together  and  say  that  they 
seek  to  go  beyond  the  sea.  that  they  are  destined 
to  recover  tlie  Holy  Land.  .  .  .  They  wended 
their  way  towards  the  South,  everywhere  mas- 
sacring the  Jews ;  whom  the  king's  oflicers  vainly 
tried  to  protect.  At  last,  troops  were  got  to- 
gether at  Toulouse,  who  fell  upon  the  Pastour- 
eaux, and  hanging  them  up  by  twenties  and 
thirties  the  rest  dispersed.  .  .  .  Philippe-le-Long 
.  .  .  was  seized  with  fever  in  the  course  of  the 
same  year,  (A.  D.  1331,)  in  the  mouth  of  August, 
without  his  physicians  being  able  to  guess  its 
cause.  He  languished  five  months,  and  died. 
.  .  .  HisbrotherCharles  [Charles IV.,  1323-1338] 
succeeded  him,  without  bestowing  a  thought 
more  on  the  rights  of  Philippe's  daughter,  than 
Philippe  had  done  to  those  of  Louis's  daughter. 
The  period  of  Charles's  reign  is  as  barren  of  facts 
with  regard  to  France,  as  it  is  rich  in  them  re- 
specting Germany,  England,  and  Flanders.  The 
Flemings  imprison  their  count.  The  Germans 
are  divided  between  Frederick  of  Austria  and 
Lewis  of  Bavaria,  who  takes  his  rival  prisoner  at 
Muhldorf.  In  the  midst  of  the  universal  divi- 
sions, France  seems  strong  from  the  circumstance 
of  its  being  one.  Charles-le-Bel  interferes  in 
favor  of  the  count  of  Flanders.     He  attempts, 


1199 


FRANCE,  1314-1328. 


The  House  of 
Valois. 


FRANCE,  1328-1339. 


with  the  pope's  aid,  to  make  himself  emperor; 
and  his  sister,  Isabella,  makes  herself  actual 
queen  of  England  by  the  murder  of  Edward  II. 
.  .  .  Charles-le-Bel  .  .  .  died  almost  at  the  same 
time  as  Edward,  leaving  only  a  daughter ;  so  that 
he  was  succeeded  by  a  cousin  of  his.  All  that 
fine  family  of  princes  who  had  sat  near  their 
father  at  the  Council  of  Vienne  was  extinct.  In 
the  popular  belief,  the  curses  of  Boniface  had 
taken  effect.  .  .  .  This  memorable  epoch,  which 
depresses  England  so  low,  and  in  proportion, 
raises  Prance  so  high,  presents,  nevertheless,  in 
the  two  countries  two  analogous  events.  In  Eng- 
land, the  barons  have  overthrown  Edward  II.  In 
France,  the  feudal  party  places  on  the  throne  the 
feudal  branch  of  the  Valois." — J.  Michelet,  Ilis- 
tory  of  France,  bk.  5-6  (».  1). — See,  also,  Valois, 
The  House  op. 

A.  D.  1314-1347. — The  king's  control  of  the 
Papacy  in  its  contest  with  the  emperor.  See 
Germ.vnt:  a.  D.  1814-1347. 

A.  D.  1328. — The  extent  of  the  royal  domain. 
— The  great  vassals. — The  possessions  of 
foreign  princes  in  France. — On  the  accession  of 
the  House  of  Valois  to  the  French  throne,  in  the 
person  of  Philip  VI.  (A.  D.  1326),  the  royal  do- 
main had  acquired  a  great  increase  of  extent.  In 
the  two  centuries  since  Philip  I.  it  had  gained, 
"by  conquest,  by  confiscation,  or  by  inheritance, 
Berry,  or  the  Viscounty  of  Bourges,  Normandy, 
Maine,  Anjou,  Poitou,  Valois,  Vermandois,  the 
counties  of  Auvergne,  and  Boulogne,  a  part  of 
Champagne  and  Brie,  Lyonnais,  Angoumois, 
Marche,  nearly  the  whole  of  Languedoc,  and, 
lastly,  the  kingdom  of  Navarre,  which  belonging 
in  her  own  right  to  queen  Jeanne,  mother  of  the 
last  three  Capetians  [Jeanne,  heiress  of  the  king- 
dom of  Navarre  and  of  the  counties  of  Cham- 
pagne and  Brie,  was  married  to  Philip  IV.,  and 
was  the  mother  of  Louis  X. ,  Philip  V.  and  Charles 
IV.],  Charles  IV.  united  with  the  crown.  But 
the  custom  among  the  kings  of  giving  apanages 
or  estates  to  the  princes  of  their  house  detached 
afresh  from  the  domain  a  great  part  of  the  re- 
united territories,  and  created  powerful  princely 
houses,  of  which  the  chiefs  often  made  themselves 
formidable  to  the  monarchs.  Among  these  great 
houses  of  the  Capetian  race,  the  most  formidable 
were:  the  house  of  Burgundy,  which  traced 
back  to  king  Robert ;  the  house  of  Dreux,  issue 
of  a  son  of  Louis  the  Big,  and  which  added  b}'  a 
marriage  the  duchy  of  Brittany  to  the  county  of 
that  name;  the  house  of  Anjou,  issue  of  Charles, 
brother  of  Saint  Louis,  which  was  united  in  1390 
with  that  of  Valois;  the  house  of  Bourbon,  de- 
scending from  Robert,  Count  of  Clermont,  sixth 
son  of  Saint  Louis;  and  the  house  of  Alengon, 
which  traced  back  to  Philip  III.,  and  possessed 
the  duchy  of  Alen9on  and  Perche.  Besides 
these  great  princely  houses  of  Capetian  stock, 
which  owed  their  grandeur  and  their  origin  to 
their  apanages,  there  were  many  others  which 
held  considerable  rank  in  France,  and  of  which 
the  possessions  were  transmissible  to  women; 
while  the  apanages  were  all  masculine  fiefs.  The 
most  powerful  of  these  houses  were  those  of 
Flanders,  PenthiSvre,  Chatillon,  Montmorency, 
Brienne,  Coucy,  Vendome,  Auvergne,  Foix,  and 
Armagnac.  "The  vast  possessions  of  the  two  last 
houses  were  in  the  country  of  the  Langue  d'Oc. 
The  counts  of  Foix  were  also  masters  of  Beam, 
and  those  of  Armagnac  possessed  Fezensac, 
Rouergue,  and   other  large  seigniories.     Many 


foreign  princes,  besides,  had  possessions  in 
France  at  the  accession  of  the  Valois.  The  king 
of  England  was  lord  of  Ponthieu,  of  Aunis,  of 
Saintonge,  and  of  the  duchy  of  Aquitaine ;  the 
king  of  Navarre  was  count  of  Evreux,  and  pos- 
sessor of  many  other  towns  in  Normandy ;  the 
king  of  Majorca  was  proprietor  of  the  seigniory 
of  Montpellier;  the  duke  of  Lorraine,  vassal  of 
the  German  empire,  paid  homage  to  the  king  of 
France  for  many  fiefs  that  he  held  in  Champagne ; 
and,  lastly,  the  Pope  possessed  the  county  Ve- 
naissin,  detached  from  Provence." — E.  de  Bonne- 
chose,  Ilist.  of  France,  v.  1,  p.  224. 

A.  D.  1328. — Accession  of  King  Philip  VI. 

A.  D.  1328. — The  splendor  of  the  Monarchy 
on  the  eve  of  the  calamitous  wars. — "Indis- 
putably, the  king  of  France  [Philip  VI.,  or 
Philip  de  Valois]  was  at  this  moment  [A.  D.  1328] 
a  great  king.  He  had  just  reinstated  Flanders  in 
its  state  of  dependence  on  him.  The  king  of 
England  had  done  him  homage  for  his  French 
provinces.  His  cousins  reigned  at  Naples  and  in 
Hungary.  He  was  protector  of  the  king  of  Scot- 
land, He  was  surrounded  by  a  court  of  kings  — 
by  those  of  Navarre,  Majorca,  Bohemia;  and  the 
Scottish  monarch  was  often  one  of  the  circle. 
The  famous  John  of  Bohemia,  of  the  house  of 
Luxembourg,  and  father  to  the  emperor  Charles 
IV.,  declared  that  he  could  not  live  out  of  Paris, 
'  the  most  chivalrous  residence  in  the  world.'  He 
fluttered  over  all  Europe,  but  ever  returned  to 
the  court  of  the  great  king  of  France  —  where 
was  kept  up  one  constant  festival,  where  jousts 
and  tournaments  ever  went  on,  and  the  romances 
of  chivalry,  king  Arthur  and  the  round  table, 
were  realized." — J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France,  bk. 
6,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1328-1339. — The  claim  of  Edward  III. 
of  England  to  the  French  crown. — "History 
tells  us  that  Philip,  king  of  France,  surnamed  the 
Fair,  had  three  sons,  beside  his  beautiful  daugh- 
ter Isabella,  married  to  the  king  of  England  [Ed- 
ward II.].  These  three  sons  were  very  hand- 
some. The  eldest,  Lewis,  king  of  Navarre  during 
the  lifetime  of  his  father,  was  called  Lewis  Hutin 
[Louis  X.] ;  the  second  was  named  Philip  the 
Great,  or  the  Long  [Philip  V.];  and  the  third, 
Charles  [Charles  IV.].  All  these  were  kings  of 
France,  after  their  father  Philip,  by  legitimate 
succession,  one  after  the  other,  without  having  by 
marriage  any  male  heirs ;  yet,  on  the  death  of  the 
last  king,  Charles,  the  twelve  peers  and  barons  of 
France  did  not  give  the  kingdom  to  Isabella,  the 
sister,  who  was  queen  of  England,  because  they 
said  and  maintained,  and  still  do  insist,  that  the 
kingdom  of  France  is  so  noble  that  it  ought  not 
to  go  to  a  woman ;  consequentl_y  neither  to  Isa- 
bella, nor  to  her  son,  the  king  of  England  [Ed- 
ward III.]  ;  for  they  liold  that  the  son  of  a  woman 
cannot  claim  any  right  of  succession,  where  that 
woman  has  none  herself.  For  these  reasons  the 
twelve  peers  and  barons  of  France  unanimously 
gave  the  kingdom  of  France  to  the  lord  Philip  of 
Valois,  nephew  to  king  Philip,  and  thus  put  aside 
the  queen  of  England,  who  was  sister  to  Charles, 
the  late  king  of  Prance,  and  her  son.  Thus,  as 
it  seemed  to  many  people,  the  succession  went 
out  of  the  right  line ;  which  has  been  the  occasion 
of  the  most  destructive  wars  and  devastations  of 
countries,  as  well  in  France  as  elsewhere,  as  you 
will  learn  hereafter ;  the  real  object  of  this  his- 
tory being  to  relate  the  great  enterprises  and 
deeds  of  arms  achieved  in  these  wars,  for  from 


1200 


□nnnn 

i  S  5  ~ 


h 


• 


FRANCE,  1328-1339. 


Beginning  of  the 
Hundred  Years  War. 


FRANCE,  1347-1848. 


the  time  of  good  Charlemagne,  king  of  France, 
never  were  such  feats  performed. " — J.  Froissart, 
Chronicles  {Mines'),  bk.  1,  ch.  4. — "  From  the  mo- 
ment of  Charles  IV. 's  death  [A.  D.  1328],  Edward 
III.  of  England  buoyed  himself  up  with  a  notion 
of  his  title  to  the  crown  of  France,  in  right  of  his 
mother  Isabel,  sister  to  the  three  last  kings.  We 
can  have  no  hesitation  in  condemning  the  injus- 
tice of  this  pretension.  Whether  the  Salic  law 
■were  or  were  not  valid,  no  advantage  could  be 
gained  by  Edward.  Even  if  he  could  forget  the 
express  or  tacit  decision  of  all  France,  there  stood 
in  his  way  Jane,  the  daughter  of  Louis  X.,  three 
[daughters]  of  Philip  the  Long,  and  one  of 
Charles  the  Fair.  Aware  of  this,  Edward  set  up 
a  distinction,  that,  although  females  were  ex- 
cluded from  succession,  the  same  rule  did  not 
apply  to  their  male  issue ;  and  thus,  though  his 
mother  Isabel  could  not  herself  become  queen  of 
France,  she  might  transmit  a  title  to  him.  But 
this  was  contrary  to  the  commonest  rules  of  in- 
heritance ;  and  if  it  could  have  been  regarded  at 
all,  Jane  had  a  son,  afterwards  the  famous  king 
of  Navarre  [Charles  the  Bad],  who  stood  one  de- 
gree nearer  to  the  crown  than  Edward.  It  is  as- 
serted in  some  French  authorities  that  Edward 
preferred  a  claim  to  the  regency  immediately 
after  the  decease  of  Charles  the  Fair,  and  that 
the  States-General,  or  at  least  the  peers  of 
France,  adjudged  that  dignity  to  Philip  deVa- 
lois.  Whether  this  be  true  or  not,  it  is  clear  that 
he  entertained  projects  of  recovering  his  right  as 
early,  though  his  3'outh  and  the  embarrassed  cir- 
cumstances of  his  government  threw  insuperable 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  their  execution.  He  did 
liege  homage,  therefore,  to  Philip  for  Guienne, 
and  for  several  years,  while  the  affairs  of  Scot- 
land engrossed  his  attention,  gave  no  signs  of 
meditating  a  more  magnificent  enterprise.  As  he 
advanced  in  manhood,  and  felt  the  consciousness 
of  his  strength,  his  early  designs  grew  mature, 
and  produced  a  series  of  the  most  important  and 
interesting  revolutions  in  the  fortunes  of  France. " 
— H.  Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages,  ch.  1,  pt.  1.— See, 
also,  Salic  Law:  Application  to  the  Regal 
Succession  in  France. 

A.  D.  1337-1360.  —  The  beginning  of  the 
"  Hundred  Years  War."—  It  was  not  until  1337 
that  Edward  III.  felt  prepared  to  assert  formally 
his  claim  to  the  Freucli  crown  and  to  assume  the 
title  of  King  of  France.  In  July  of  the  follow- 
ing year  he  began  undertakings  to  enforce  his 
pretended  right,  by  crossing  with  a  considerable 
force  to  the  continent.  He  wintered  at  Antwerp, 
concerting  measures  with  the  Flemings,  who 
had  espoused  his  cause,  and  arranging  an  alli- 
ance with  the  emperor-king  of  Germany,  whose 
name  bore  more  weight  than  his  arms.  In  1339 
a  formal  declaration  of  hostilities  was  made  and 
the  long  war  —  the  Hundred  Years  War,  as  it  has 
been  called  —  of  English  kings  for  the  sover- 
eignty of  France,  began.  "  Tliis  great  war  may 
well  iDe  divided  into  five  periods.  The  first  ends 
with  the  Peace  of  Bretigny  in  1360  (A.  D.  1337- 
1360),  and  includes  the  great  days  of  Crecy  [1346] 
and  Poitiers  [1356],  as  well  as  the  taking  of 
Calais :  the  second  runs  to  the  death  of  Charles 
the  Wise  in  1380;  these  are  the  days  of  Du  Gues- 
clin  and  the  English  reverses:  the  third  begins 
with  the  renewal  of  the  war  under  Henry  V.  of 
England,  and  ends  with  the  Regency  of  the  Duke 
of  Bedford  at  Paris,  including  the  field  of  Azin- 
court  [1415]  and  the  Treaty  of  Troyes  (A.  D. 

'•^  1201 


1415-1422):  the  fourth  is  the  epoch  of  Jeanne 
Dare  and  ends  with  the  second  establishment  of 
the  English  at  Paris  (A.  D.  1428-1431):  and  the 
fifth  and  last  runs  on  to  the  final  expulsion  of  the 
English  after  the  Battle  of  Castillon  in  1453. 
Thus,  though  it  is  not  uncommonly  called  the 
Hundred  Years  War,  the  struggle  really  ex- 
tended over  a  period  of  a  hundred  and  sixteen 
years." — G.  W.  Kitchin,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  4, 
ch.  1-7. — "No  war  had  broken  out  in  Europe, 
since  the  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  so  memora- 
ble as  that  of  Edward  III.  and  his  successors 
against  France,  whether  we  consider  its  duration, 
its  object,  or  the  magnitude  and  variety  of  its 
events.  It  was  a  struggle  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  years,  interrupted  but  once  by  a  regu- 
lar pacification,  where  the  most  ancient  and  ex- 
tensive dominion  in  the  civilised  world  was  the 
prize,  twice  lost  and  twice  recovered  in  the  con- 
flict. .  .  .  There  is,  indeed,  ample  room  for  na- 
tional exultation  at  the  names  of  Crecy,  Poitiers 
and  Azincourt.  So  great  was  the  disparity  of 
numbers  upon  those  famous  days,  that  we  cannot, 
with  the  Frencli  historians,  attribute  the  discom- 
fiture of  their  hosts  merely  to  mistaken  tactics 
and  too  impetuous  valour.  .  .  .  These  victories, 
and  the  qualities  that  secured  them,  must  chiefly 
be  ascribed  to  the  freedom  of  our  constitution, 
and  to  the  superior  condition  of  the  people.  Not 
the  nobility  of  England,  not  the  feudal  tenants, 
won  the  battles  of  Crecy  and  Poitiers ;  for  these 
were  fully  matched  in  the  ranks  of  France ;  but 
the  yeomen  who  drew  the  bow  with  strong  and 
steady  arms,  accustomed  to  use  it  in  their  native 
fields,  and  rendered  fearless  by  personal  com- 
petence and  civil  freedom.  .  .  .  Yet  the  glorious 
termination  to  which  Edward  was  enabled,  at 
least  for  a  time,  to  bring  the  contest,  was  rather 
the  work  of  fortune  than  of  valour  and  prudence. 
Until  the  battle  of  Poitiers  [A.  D.  1356]  he  had 
made  no  progress  tovvards  the  conquest  of  France. 
That  country  was  too  vast,  and  his  army  too 
small,  for  such  a  revolution.  The  victory  of 
Crecy  gave  him  nothing  but  Calais.  .  .  .  But  at 
Poitiers  he  obtained  the  greatest  of  prizes,  by 
taking  prisoner  the  king  of  France.  Not  only 
the  love  of  freedom  tempted  that  prince  to  ran- 
som himself  by  the  utmost  sacrifices,  but  his  cap- 
tivity left  France  defenceless  and  seemed  to  an- 
nihilate the  monarchy  itself.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
afliiction  which  did  not  fall  upon  France  during 
this  miserable  period.  .  .  .  Subdued  by  these 
misfortunes,  though  Edward  had  made  but  slight 
progress  towards  the  conquest  of  the  country, 
the  regent  of  France,  afterwards  Charles  V., 
submitted  to  the  peace  of  Bretigni  [A.  D.  1360]. 
By  this  treat}',  not  to  mention  less  important 
articles,  all  Guienne,  Gascony,  Poitou,  Saintonge, 
the  Limousin,  and  the  Angoumois,  as  well  as 
Calais,  and  the  county  of  Ponthieu,  were  ceded 
in  full  sovereignty  to  Edward;  a  price  abun- 
dantly compensating  his  renunciation  of  the  title 
of  France,  which  was  the  sole  concession  stipu- 
lated in  return." — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages, 
ch.  1,  pt.  2. 

Also  in:  J.  Froissart,  Chronicles  {Johnes' 
trans.),  bk.  1,  ch.  1-212. — W.  Longman,  Hist,  of 
Edward  III.,  ■«.  1,  ch.  6-23. —F.  P.  Guizot, 
Popular  Hist,  of  Francs,  ch.  20. — D.  F.  Jamison, 
Life  and  Times  of  Bert  rand  du  Guesclin,  v.  1,  ch. 
4^10. — See,  also,  Poitiers,  Battle  of. 

A.  D.  1347-1348.— The  Black  Plague.— 
"Epochs  of  moral  depression  are  those,  too,  of 


FRANCE,  1347-13-18. 


Step?ten  Marcel. 


FRANCE,  1356-1358. 


great  mortality.  ...  In  the  last  years  of  Phil- 
ippe de  Valois'  reign,  the  depopulation  was  rapid. 
The  misery  and  physical  suffering  which  pre- 
vailed were  insufficient  to  account  for  it ;  for  they 
had  not  reached  the  extreme  at  which  they  sub- 
sequently arrived.  Yet,  to  adduce  but  one  in- 
stance, the  population  of  a  single  town,  Nar- 
bonne,  fell  off  in  the  space  of  four  or  five  years 
from  the  year  1399,  by  500  families.  Upon  this 
too  tardy  diminution  of  the  human  race  followed 
extermination, —  the  great  black  plague,  or  pesti- 
lence, which  at  once  heaped  up  mountains  of 
dead  throughout  Christendom.  It  began  in  Pro- 
vence, in  the  year  13-47,  on  All  Saints'  Day,  con- 
tinued sixteen  months,  and  carried  off  two-thirds 
of  the  inhabitants.  The  same  wholesale  destruc- 
tion befell  Languedoc.  At  Montpellier,  out  of 
twelve  consuls,  ten  died.  At  Narbonne,  30,000 
persons  perished.  In  several  places,  there  re- 
mained only  a  tithe  of  the  inhabitants.  All  that 
the  careless  Froissart  says  of  this  fearful  visita- 
tion, and  that  only  incidentallj',  is  —  '  For  at  this 
time  there  prevailed  throughout  the  world  gener- 
ally a  disease  called  epidemy,  which  destroyed  a 
third  of  its  inhabitants. '  This  pestilence  did  not 
break  out  in  the  north  of  the  kingdom  until  Au- 
gust, 1348,  where  it  first  showed  itself  at  Paris 
and  St.  Denys.  So  fearful  were  its  ravages  at 
Paris,  that,  according  to  some,  800,  according  to 
others,  500,  daily  sank  under  it.  ...  As  there 
was  neither  famine  at  the  time  nor  want  of  food, 
but,  on  the  contrary  great  abundance,  this  plague 
was  said  to  proceed  from  infection  of  the  air  and 
of  the  springs.  The  Jews  were  again  charged 
•with  this,  and  the  people  cruelly  fell  upon  them." 
— J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  6,  ch.  1. — See 
Black  De.\th. 

A.  D.  1350.— Accession  of  King  John  II. 
,  A.  D.  1356-1358.— The  States-General  and 
Etienne  Marcel. — "The  disaster  of  Poitiers 
[1356]  excited  in  the  minds  of  the  people  a  senti- 
ment of  national  grief,  mixed  with  indignation 
and  scorn  at  the  nobility  who  had  fled  before  an 
army  so  inferior  in  number.  Those  nobles  who 
passed  through  the  cities  and  towns  on  their  re- 
turn from  the  battle  were  pursued  with  impreca- 
tions and  outrages.  The  Parisian  bourgeoisie, 
animated  with  enthusiasm  and  courage,  took 
upon  itself  at  all  risks  the  charge  of  its  own  de- 
fense ;  whilst  the  eldest  son  of  the  king,  a  j-outh 
of  only  nineteen,  who  had  been  one  of  the  first 
to  fly,  assumed  the  government  as  lieutenant  of 
his  father.  It  was  at  the  summons  of  this  prince 
that  the  states  assembled  again  at  Paris  before 
the  time  which  they  had  appointed.  The  same 
deputies  returned  to  the  number  of  800,  of  whom 
400  were  of  the  bourgeoisie ;  and  the  work  of 
reform,  rudely  sketched  in  the  preceding  session, 
was  resumed  under  the  same  influence,  with  an 
enthusiasm  which  partook  of  the  character  of 
revolutionary  impulse.  The  assembly  com- 
menced by  concentrating  its  action  in  a  committee 
of  twenty-four  members,  deliberating,  as  far  as 
appears,  without  distinction  of  orders;  it  then 
intimated  its  resolutions  under  the  form  of  peti- 
tions, which  were  as  follow:  The  authority  of 
the  states  declared  supreme  in  all  affairs  of  ad- 
ministration and  finance,  the  impeachment  of  all 
the  counsellors  of  the  king,  the  dismissal  in  a 
body  of  the  oflicers  of  justice,  and  the  creation 
of  a  council  of  reformers  taken  from  the  three 
orders;  lastly,  the  proliibition  to  conclude  any 
truce  without  the  assent  of  the  three  states,  and 


the  right  on  their  part  to  re-assemble  at  their  own 
will  without  a  royal  summons.  The  lieutenant 
of  the  king,  Charles  Duke  of  Normandy,  exerted 
in  vain  the  resources  of  a  precocious  ability  to 
escape  these  imperious  demands;  he  was  com- 
pelled to  yield  everything.  The  States  governed 
in  his  name ;  but  dissension,  springing  from  the 
mutual  jealousy  of  the  different  orders,  was  soon 
introduced  into  their  body.  The  preponderating 
influence  of  the  bourgeois  appeared  intolerable 
to  the  nobles,  who,  in  consequence,  deserted  the 
assembly  and  retired  home.  The  deputies  of  the 
clergy  remained  longer  at  their  posts,  but  they 
also  withdrew  at  last ;  and,  under  the  name  of 
the  States-General,  none  remained  but  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  cities,  alone  charged  with  all 
the  responsibilities  of  the  reform  and  the  affairs 
of  the  kingdom.  Bowing  to  a  necessity  of  cen- 
tral action,  they  submitted  of  their  own  accord 
to  the  deputation  of  Paris ;  and  soon,  by  the  ten- 
dency of  circumstances,  and  in  consequence  of 
the  hostile  attitude  of  the  Regent,  the  question 
of  supremacy  of  the  states  became  a  Parisian 
question,  subject  to  the  chances  of  a  popular 
emeute  and  the  guardianship  of  the  municipal 
power.  At  this  point  appears  a  man  whose 
character  has  grown  into  historical  importance 
in  our  days  from  our  greater  facilities  of  under- 
standing it,  Etienne  [Stephen]  Marcel,  '  prevot 
des  marchands ' — •  that  is  to  say,  mayor  of  the 
municipality  of  Paris.  This  echevin  of  the  14th 
century,  by  a  remarkable  anticipation,  designed 
and  attempted  things  which  seem  to  belong  only 
to  recent  revolutions.  Social  unity,  and  admin- 
istrative uniformity;  political  rights,  co-exten- 
sive and  equal  with  civil  rights ;  the  principle  of 
public  authority  transferred  from  the  crown  to 
the  nation ;  the  States-General  changed,  under 
the  influence  of  the  third  order,  into  a  national 
representation;  the  will  of  the  people  admitted 
as  sovereign  in  the  presence  of  the  depositary  of 
the  royal  power;  the  influence  of  Paris  over  the 
provinces,  as  the  head  of  opinion  and  centre  of 
the  general  movement ;  the  democratic  dictator- 
ship, and  the  influence  of  terror  exercised  in  the 
name  of  the  common  weal ;  new  colours  assumed 
and  carried  as  a  sign  of  patriotic  union  and  sym- 
bol of  reform ;  the  transference  of  royalty  Itself 
from  one  branch  of  the  family  to  the  other,  with 
a  view  to  the  cause  of  reform  and  the  interest  of 
the  people  —  such  were  the  circumstances  and 
the  scenes  which  have  given  to  our  own  as  well 
as  the  preceding  century  their  political  char- 
acter. It  is  strange  to  find  the  whole  of  it  com- 
prised in  the  three  years  over  which  the  name  of 
the  Prevot  ^Marcel  predominates.  His  short  and 
stormy  career  was,  as  it  were,  a  premature  at- 
tempt at  the  grand  designs  of  Providence,  and 
the  mirror  of  the  bloody  changes  of  fortune 
through  which  those  designs  were  destined  to 
advance  to  their  accomplishment  under  the  im- 
pulse of  human  passions.  Marcel  lived  and  died 
for  an  idea  —  that  of  hastening  on,  by  the  force 
of  the  masses,  the  work  of  gradual  equalisation 
commenced  by  the  kings  themselves;  but  it  was 
his  misfortune  and  his  crime  to  be  unrelenting  in 
carrying  out  his  convictions.  To  the  impetuosity 
of  a  tribune  who  did  not  shrink  even  from  murder 
he  added  the  talent  of  organization;  he  left  in 
the  grand  city,  which  he  had  ruled  with  a  stern 
and  absolute  sway,  powerful  institutions,  noble 
works,  and  a  name  which  two  centuries  after- 
wards his  descendants  bore  with  pride  as  a  title 


1202 


FRANCE,  1356-1358. 


The  Jacquerie. 


PRANCE,  1358. 


of  nobility." — A.  Thierry,  Formation  and  Prog- 
ress of  the  Tiers  Etat.  v.  1,  ch.  2.  —  See,  also, 
States-General  of  France  in  the  14th  Cen- 
tury. 

A.  D.  1358. — The  insurrection  of  the  Jac- 
querie.— "  The  miseries  of  France  weighed  more 
and  more  heavily  on  the  peasantry ;  and  none 
regarded  them.  They  stood  apart  from  the 
cities,  knowing  little  of  them ;  tlie  nobles  despised 
them  and  robbed  them  of  their  substance  or  their 
labour.  ...  At  last  the  peasantry  (May,  1358), 
weary  of  their  woes,  rose  up  to  work  their  own 
revenge  and  ruin.  They  began  in  the  Beauvais 
country  and  there  fell  on  the  nobles,  attacking 
and  destroying  castles,  and  slajnng  their  inmates: 
it  was  the  old  unvarying  story.  They  made 
themselves  a  kind  of  king,  a  man  of  Clermont  in 
the  Beauvoisin,  named  William  Callet.  Frois- 
sart  imagines  that  the  name  '  Jacques  Bonhomme  ' 
meant  a  particular  person,  a  leader  in  these  ris- 
ings. Froissart  however  had  no  accurate  knowl- 
edge of  the  peasant  and  his  ways.  Jacques  Bon- 
homme was  tlie  common  nickname,  the  '  Giles ' 
or  '  Hodge '  of  France,  the  name  of  the  peasant 
generally ;  and  from  it  such  risings  as  this  of 
1358  came  to  be  called  the  'Jacquerie,'  or  the  dis- 
turbances of  the  '  Jacques. '  The  nobles  were  soon 
out  against  them,  and  the  whole  land  was  full  of 
anarchy.  Princes  and  nobles,  angry  peasants 
with  their  'iron  shod  sticks  and  knives,'  free- 
lances, Englisli  bands  of  pillagers,  all  made  up 
a  scene  of  utter  confusion :  '  cultivation  ceased, 
commerce  ceased,  security  was  at  an  end.'  The 
burghers  of  Paris  and  Meaux  sent  a  force  to  help 
the  peasants,  wlio  were  besieging  the  fortress  at 
Meau.x,  held  by  the  nobles ;  these  were  suddenly 
attacked  and  routed  by  the  Captal  de  Buch  and 
the  Count  de  Foix,  '  then  on  their  return  from 
Prussia. '  The  King  of  Navarre  also  fell  on  them, 
took  by  stratagem  their  leader  Callet,  tortured 
and  hanged  him.  In  six  weeks  the  fire  was 
quenched  in  blood." — G.  W.  Kitchin,  History  of 
France,  ch.  3,  sect.  3. — "  Froissard  relates  the 
horrible  details  of  the  Jacquerie  witli  the  same 
placid  interest  which  characterises  his  descrip- 
tions of  battles,  tournaments,  and  the  pageantry 
of  chivalry.  The  charm  and  brilliancy  of  his 
narrative  have  long  popularised  his  injustice  and 
his  errors,  which  are  self-apparent  when  com- 
pared with  the  authors  and  chroniclers  of  his 
time.  .  .  .  The  chronicles  contemporary  of  the 
Jacquerie  confine  themselves  to  a  few  words  on 
the  subject,  although,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Continuator  of  Nangis,  they  were  all  hostile  to 
the  cause  of  the  peasants.  The  private  and  local 
documents  on  the  subject  say  very  little  more. 
The  Continuator  of  Nangis  has  drawn  his  infor- 
mation from  various  sources.  He  takes  care  to 
state  that  he  has  witnessed  almost  all  he  relates. 
After  describing  the  sufferings  of  the  peasants, 
he  adds  that  the  laws  of  justice  authorised  them 
to  rise  in  revolt  against  the  nobles  of  Prance. 
His  respected  testimony  reduces  the  insurrection 
to  comparatively  small  proportions.  The  hun- 
dred thousand  Jacques  of  Froissard  are  reduced 
to  something  like  five  or  six  thousand  men,  a 
number  much  more  probable  when  it  is  considered 
that  the  insurrection  remained  a  purely  local  one, 
and  that,  in  consequence  of  the  ravages  we  have 
mentioned,  the  whole  open  country  had  lost  about 
two-thirds  of  its  inhabitants.  He  states  very 
clearly  that  the  peasants  killed  indiscriminately, 
and  without  pity,  men  and  children,  but  he  does 


not  say  anything  of  those  details  of  atrocity  re- 
lated by  Froissard.  He  only  alludes  once  to  a 
report  of  some  outrages  offered  to  some  noble 
ladies ;  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  vague  rumour.  He 
describes  the  insurgents,  after  the  first  explosion 
of  their  vindictive  fury,  as  pausing  —  amazed 
at  their  own  boldness,  and  terrified  at  their  own 
crimes,  and  the  nobles,  recovering  from  their  ter- 
ror, taking  immediate  advantage  of  this  sudden 
torpor  and  paralysis  —  assembling  and  slaughter- 
ing all,  innocent  and  guilty,  burning  houses  and 
villages.  If  we  turn  to  other  writers  contem- 
porary with  the  Jacquerie,  we  find  that  Louvet, 
author  of  the  '  History  of  the  District  of  Beauvais, ' 
does  not  say  much  on  the  subject,  and  evinces 
also  a  sympathy  for  the  peasants:  the  paucity 
of  his  remarks  on  a  subject  represented  by  Frois- 
sard as  a  gigantic,  bloody  tragedy,  raises  legiti- 
mate doubts  as  to  the  veracity  of  the  latter. 
There  is  another  authority  on  the  events  of  that 
period,  which  may  be  considered  as  more  weighty, 
in  consequence  of  its  ecclesiastical  character ;  it 
is  the  '  cartulaire, '  or  journal  of  the  Abbot  of 
Beauvais.  .  .  .  There  is  no  trace  in  it  of  the  horror 
and  indescribable  terror  .  .  .  [the  rising]  must 
have  inspired  if  the  peasants  had  committed  the 
atrocities  attributed  to  them  by  the  feudal  his- 
torian, Froissard.  On  the  contrary,  the  ven- 
geance of  the  peasants  falls  into  the  shade,  as  it 
were,  in  contrast  with  the  merciless  reaction  of 
the  nobles,  along  with  the  sanguinary  oppression 
of  the  English.  The  writer  of  the  'Abbey  of 
Beauvais,' and  the  anonymous  monk,  '  Continu- 
ator of  Nangis,' concur  with  each  other  in  their 
account  of  the  Jacquerie.  Their  judgments  are 
similar,  and  they  manifest  the  same  moderation. 
Their  opinions,  moreover,  are  confirmed  by  a 
higher  authority,  a  testimony  that  must  be  con- 
sidered as  indisputable,  namely,  the  letters  of 
amnesty  of  the  Regent  of  France,  which  are  all 
preserved;  they  bear  the  date  of  10th  August 
1358,  and  refer  to  all  the  acts  committed  on  the 
occasion  of  the  Jacquerie.  In  these  he  proves 
himself  more  severe  upon  the  reaction  of  the 
nobles  than  on  the  revolt  of  the  peasants.  .  .  . 
There  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  the  mon- 
strosities related  by  Froissard,  which  the  Regent 
could  not  have  failed  to  stigmatise,  as  he  is  well 
known  for  having  entertained  an  unscrupulous 
hatred  to  any  popular  movement,  or  any  claims 
of  the  people.  The  manner,  on  the  contrary,  in 
which  the  Jacquerie  are  represented  in  this  official 
document,  is  full  of  signification ;  it  represents 
the  men  of  the  open  country  assembling  spou- 
taneously  in  various  localities,  in  order  to  de- 
liberate on  the  means  of  resisting  the  English, 
and  suddenly,  as  with  a  mutual  agreement, 
turning  fiercely  on  the  nobles,  who  were  the 
real  cause  of  their  misery,  and  of  the  disgrace  of 
France,  on  the  days  of  "Crecy  and  Poitiers.  .  .  . 
It  has  also  been  forgotten  that  many  citizens 
took  an  active  part  in  the  Jacquerie.  The  great 
chronicles  of  France  state  that  the  majority  were 
peasants,  labouring  people,  but  that  there  were 
also  among  them  citizens,  and  even  gentlemen, 
who,  no  doubt,  were  impelled  by  personal  hatred 
and  vengeance.  Many  rich  men  joined  the  peas- 
ants, and  became  their  leaders.  'The  bourgeoisie, 
in  its  struggles  with  royalty,  could  not  refuse  to 
take  advantage  of  such  a  diversion ;  and  Beau- 
vais, Senlis,  Amiens,  Paris,  and  Meaux  accepted 
the  Jacquerie.  Moreover,  almost  all  the  poorer 
classes  of  the  cities  sympathised  with  the  revolted 


1203 


FRANCE.  1358. 


Du  Guesclin  and 
the  Black  Prince. 


FRANCE,  1380-1415. 


peasants.  The  Jacquerie  broke  out  on  the  21st 
of  May  1358,  and  not  in  November  1357,  as  errone- 
ously stated  by  Froissard,  in  the  districts  around 
Beauvais  and  Clermont-sur-Oise.  The  peasants, 
merely  armed  with  pikes,  sticks,  fragments  of 
their  jjloughs,  rushed  on  their  masters,  murdered 
their  families,  and  burned  down  their  castles. 
The  country  comprised  between  Beauvais  and 
Melun  was  the  principal  scene  of  this  war  of  ex- 
termination. .  .  .  The  Jacquerie  had  commenced 
on  the  21st  of  May.  On  the  9th  of  June  ...  it 
was  already  terminated.  It  was,  therefore,  in 
reality,  an  insurrection  of  less  than  three  weeks' 
duration.  The  reprisals  of  the  nobles  had  al- 
ready commenced  on  the  9th  of  June,  and  con- 
tinued through  the  whole  of  July,  and  the  greater 
part  of  August.  Froissard  states  that  the  Jac- 
querie lasted  over  si.x  weeks,  thus  comprising  in 
his  reckoning  three  weeks  of  tlie  ferocious  ven- 
geance of  the  nobles,  and  casting  on  Jacques 
Bonhomme  the  responsibility  of  the  massacres  of 
which  he  had  been  the  victim,  as  well  as  those 
he  had  committed  in  his  furious  despair." — Prof. 
De  Vericour,  The  Jacquerie  (Royal  Hist.  Soc, 
Transactions,  v.  1). 

Also  in  :  Sir  J.  Froissart,  Chronicles  (Johnes' 
trans.),  bk.  1,  ch.  181. 

A.  D.  1360-1380. —  English  conquests  re- 
covered.— ■  The  Peace  of  Bretigny  brought  little 
peace  to  France  or  little  diminution  of  the 
troubles  of  the  kingdom.  In  some  respects  there 
was  a  change  for  the  worse  introduced.  The 
armies  which  had  ravaged  the  country  dissolved 
into  plundering  bands  which  afflicted  it  even 
more.  Great  numbers  of  mercenaries  from  both 
sides  were  set  free,  who  gathered  into  Free  Com- 
panies, as  they  were  called,  under  leaders  of  fit 
recklessness  and  valor,  and  swarmed  over  the 
land,  warring  on  all  prosperity  and  all  the  peace- 
ful industries  of  the  time,  seeking  booty  wherever 
it  might  be  found  [see  It.a.ly:  A.  D.  1343-1393]. 
Civil  war,  too,  was  kept  alive  by  the  intrigues 
and  conspiracies  of  the  Navarrcse  king,  Charles 
the  Bad;  and  war  in  Brittany,  over  a  disputed 
succession  to  the  dukedom,  was  actually  stipu- 
lated for,  by  French  and  English,  in  their  treaty 
of  general  peace.  But  when  the  chivalric  but 
hapless  King  John  died,  in  1864,  the  new  king, 
Charles  V.,  who  had  been  regent  during  his 
captivity,  developed  an  unexpected  capacity  for 
government.  He  brought  to  the  front  the  fa- 
mous Breton  warrior  Du  Guesclin  —  rough,  igno- 
rant, unchivalric  —  but  a  fighter  of  the  first  order 
in  his  hard-fighting  day.  He  contrived  with 
adroitness  to  rid  France,  mostly,,  of  the  Free 
Companies,  by  sending  them,  with  Du  Guesclin 
at  their  head,  into  Spain,  where  they  drove  Peter 
the  Cruel  from  the  throne  of  Castile,  and  fought 
the  English,  who  undertook,  wickedly  and  fool- 
ishly, to  sustain  him.  The  Black  Prince  won  a 
great  battle,  at  Najara  or  Navarette  (A.  D.  1367), 
took  Du  Guesclin  prisoner  and  restored  the  cruel 
Pedro  to  his  throne.  But  it  was  a  victory  fatal 
to  English  interests  in  France.  Half  the  army 
of  the  English  prince  perished  of  a  pestilent  fever 
before  he  led  it  back  to  Aquitaine,  and  he  him- 
self was  marked  for  early  death  by  the  same 
malady.  He  had  been  made  duke  of  Aquitaine, 
or  Guienne,  and  held  the  government  of  the  coun- 
try. The  war  in  Spain  proved  expensive;  he 
taxed  his  Gascon  and  Aquitanian  subjects 
heavily.  He  was  ill,  irritable,  and  treated  them 
harshly.     Discontent  became  widely  spread,  and 


the  king  of  France  subtly  stirred  it  up  until  he 
felt  prepared  to  make  use  of  it  in  actual  war. 
At  last,  in  1368,  he  challenged  a  rupture  of  the 
Peace  of  Bretigny  by  summoning  King  Edward, 
as  his  vassal,  to  answer  complaints  from  Aqui- 
taine. In  April  of  the  next  year  he  formally  de- 
clared war  and  opened  hostilities  the  same  day. 
His  cunning  policy  was  not  to  fight,  but  to  waste 
and  wear  the  enemy  out.  Its  wisdom  was  well- 
proved  by  the  result.  Day  by  day  the  English 
lost  ground ;  the  footing  they  had  gained  in 
France  was  found  to  be  everywhere  insecure. 
The  dying  Black  Prince  achieved  one  hideous 
triumph  at  Limoges,  where  he  slew  3,00(1  peo- 
ple to  punish  a  revolt ;  then  he  was  carried 
home  to  end  his  days  in  England.  In  1376  he 
died,  and  one  year  later  his  father,  King  Ed- 
ward, followed  him  to  the  grave,  and  a  child 
of  eleven  (Richard  II.)  came  to  the  Eit-"  '1 
throne.  But  the  same  calamity  befell  France  in 
1380,  when  Charles  the  Wise  died,  leaving  an 
heir  to  the  throne  only  twelve  years  of  age.  In 
both  kingdoms  the  minority  of  the  sovereign 
gave  rise  to  factious  intrigues  and  distracting 
feuds.  The  war  went  on  at  intervals,  with  fre- 
quent truces  and  armistices,  and  with  little  re- 
sult beyond  the  animosities  which  it  kept  alive. 
But  the  English  possessions,  by  this  time,  had 
been  reduced  to  (ialais  and  Guines,  with  some 
small  parts  of  Aquitaine  adjoining  the  cities  of 
Bordeaux  and  Bayonne.  And  thus,  it  may  be 
said,  the  situation  was  prolonged  through  a 
generation,  until  Henry  V.  of  England  resumed 
afresh  the  undertaking  of  Edward  III. — P.  P. 
Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  France,  ch.  23. 

Also  in:  J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  6, 
di.  4.— T.  Wright,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  2,  ch.  6. 
— E.  A.  Freeman,  Historical  Oeog.  of  Europe,  ch. 
9. — D.  F.  Jamison,  Life  and  Times  of  Bii  Quesdin. 
— Froissart,  Chronicles  {Johnes'  tram.),  bk.  1. — 
See  Sp.«n:  A.  D.  1366-1369. 

A.  D.  1364. — Accession  of  King  Charles  V. 

A.  D.  1378. —  Acquisitions 'in  the  Rhone 
valley  legally  conferred  by  the  Emperor.  See 
Burgundy:  A.  D.  1137-1378. 

A.  D.  1380. — Accession  of  King  Charles  VI. 

A.  D.  1380-1415. — The  reign  of  the  Dukes. 
— The  civil  war  of  Armagnacs  and  Burgundi- 
ans. — "Charles  VI.  had  arrived  at  the  age  of 
eleven  years  and  some  months  when  his  father 
died  [A.  D.  1380].  His  three  paternal  uncles. 
the  Dukes  of  Anjou,  Berry,  and  Burgundy,  and 
his  maternal  uncle,  the  Duke  of  Bourbon,  dis- 
puted among  themselves  concerning  his  guardian- 
ship and  the  regenc)'.  They  agreed  to  eman- 
cipate the  young  King  immediately  after  his 
coronation,  which  was  to  take  place  during  the 
year,  and  the  regency  was  to  remain  until  that 
period  in  the  hands  of  the  eldest,  the  Duke  of 
Anjou. "  But  the  Duke  of  Anjou  was  soon  after- 
wards lured  into  Italy  by  the  fatal  gift  of  a  claim 
to  the  crown  of  Naples  [see  Italy  :  A.  D.  1343- 
1389],  and  perished  in  striving  to  realize  it.  The 
surviving  uncles  misgoverned  the  country  be- 
tween them  until  1389,  when  the  young  king 
was  persuaded  to  throw  off  their  yoke.  The 
nation  rejoiced  for  three  years  in  the  experience 
and  the  prospect  of  administrative  reforms ;  but 
suddenly,  in  July,  1393,  the  young  king  became 
demented,  and  "then  commenced  the  third  and 
fatal  epoch  of  that  disastrous  reign.  The  fac- 
tion of  the  dukes  again  seized  power,"  but  only 
to  waste  and  afflict  the  kingdom  by  dissensions 


1204 


FRANCE,  1380-1415. 


Burgundians  and 
Armagiiacs. 


FRANCE,  1415. 


among  themselves.  The  number  of  the  rival 
dukes  was  now  increased  by  tlie  addition  of  the 
Duke  of  Orleans,  brother  of'  the  king,  who 
showed  himself  as  ruthless  and  rapacious  as  any. 
"Charles  was  still  considered  to  be  reigning; 
each  one  sought  in  turn  to  get  possession  of  him, 
and  each  one  watched  his  lucid  moments  in 
order  to  stand  well  in  power.  His  flaslies  of 
reason  were  still  more  melancholy  than  his  fits 
of  delirium.  Incapable  of  attending  to  his  af- 
fairs, or  of  having  a  will  of  his  own,  always  sub- 
servient to  the  dominant  party,  he  appeared  to 
employ  his  few  glimmerings  of  reason  only  in 
sanctioning  the  most  tyrannical  acts  and  the  most 
odious  abuses.  It  was  in  this  manner  that  the 
kingdom  of  France  was  governed  during  twenty- 
eight  years."  In  1404,  the  Duke  of  Burgundy, 
Philip  tiie  Bold,  having  died,  the  Duke  of  Or- 
leans acquired  supreme  authority  and  exercised 
it  most  oppressively.  But  the  new  Duke  of  Bur- 
gundy, John  the  Fearless,  made  his  appearance 
on  the  scene  ere  long,  arriving  from  his  county 
of  Flanders  with  an  army  and  threatening  civil 
war.  Terms  of  peace,  however,  were  arranged 
between  the  two  dukes  and  an  apparent  recon- 
ciliation took  place.  On  the  very  next  day  the 
Duke  of  Orleans  was  assassinated  (A.  D.  1407), 
and  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  openly  proclaimed 
his  instigation  of  the  deed.  Out  of  that  treacher- 
ous murder  sprang  a  war  of  factions  so  deadly 
that  France  was  delivered  by  it  to  foreign  con- 
quest, and  destroyed,  we  may  say,  for  the  time 
being,  as  a  nation.  The  elder  of  the  young 
princes  of  Orleans,  sons  of  the  murdered  duke, 
had  married  a  daugliter  of  Count  Bernard  of  Ar- 
magnac,  and  Count  Bernard  became  the  leader 
of  the  party  which  supported  them  and  souglit 
to  avenge  them,  as  against  the  Duke  of  Bur- 
gundy and  his  party.  Hence  the  former  ac- 
quired the  name  of  Armagnacs ;  the  latter  were 
called  Burgundians.  Armagnac  led  an  army 
of  Gascons  [A.  D.  1410]  and  threatened  Paris, 
"where  John  the  Fearless  caressed  the  vilest 
populace.  Burgundy  relied  on  the  name  of  the 
king,  whom  he  held  in  his  power,  and  armed 
in  the  capital  a  corps  of  one  hundred  young 
butchers  or  horse-knackers,  who,  from  John  Ca- 
boche,  their  chief,  took  the  name  of  Cabochiens. 
A  frightful  war,  interrupted  by  truces  violated 
on  both  sides,  commenced  between  the  party  of 
Armagnac  and  that  of  Burgundy.  Both  sides 
appealed  to  the  English,  and  sold  France  to 
them.  The  Armagnacs  pillaged  and  ravaged 
the  environs  of  Paris  with  un-heard-of  cruelties, 
while  the  Cabochiens  caused  the  capital  they 
defended  to  tremble.  The  States-General,  con- 
voked for  the  first  time  for  thirty  years,  were 
dumb  —  witliout  courage  and  without  strength. 
The  Parliament  was  silent,  the  university  made 
itself  the  organ  of  the  populace,  and  the  butchers 
made  the  laws.  They  pillaged,  imprisoned  and 
slaughtered  with  impunity,  according  to  their 
savage  fury,  and  found  judges  to  condemn  their 
victims.  .  .  .  The  reaction  broke  out  at  last. 
Tired  of  so  many  atrocities,  the  bourgeoisie  took 
up  arms,  and  shook  off  the  yoke  of  the  horse- 
knackers.  The  Dauphin  was  delivered  by  them. 
He  mounted  on  horseback,  and,  at  the  head  of 
the  militia,  went  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  from 
which  place  he  drove  out  Caboche  and  his  brig- 
ands. The  counter  revolution  was  established. 
Burgundy  departed,  and  the  power  passed  to 
the  Armagnacs.     The  princes  re-entered   Paris, 


and  King  Charles  took  up  the  oriflamme  (the 
royal  standard  of  France),  to  make  war  against 
Jolm  the  Fearless,  whose  instrument  he  had 
been  a  short  time  before.  His  army  was  victori- 
ous. Burgundy  submitted,  and  the  treaty  of 
Arras  [A.  D.  1415]  suspended  the  war,  but  not 
the  executions  and  tlie  ravages.  Henry  V., 
King  of  England,  judged  this  a  propitious  mo- 
ment to  descend  upon  France,  which  had  not  a 
vessel  to  oppose  the  invaders. " —  E.  de  Bonne- 
chose,  Hist.  ofM-ance,  v.  1,  pp.  266-379. 

Also  in  :  E.  de  Monstrelet,  Chronicles  (JoTines' 
trans.),  v.  1,  hk.  1,  ch.  1-140.— T.  Wright,  Hist. 
of  Prance,  bk.  3,  ch.  8-9. 

A.  D.  1383. — Pope  Urban's  Crusade  against 
the  Schismatics.     See  Flanders:  A.  D.  1383. 

A.  D.  1396.  —  The  sovereignty  of  Genoa 
surrendered  to  the  king.  See  Genoa:  A.  D. 
1381-1433. 

A.  D.  1415. — The  Hundred  Years  War  re- 
newed by  Henry  V.  of  England. — ' '  When  Henry 
V.  resolved  to  recover  what  he  claimed  as  the  in- 
heritance of  his  predecessors,  he  had  to  begin,  it 
may  be  said,  the  work  of  conquest  over  again. 
Allies,  however,  he  had,  whose  assistance  he  was 
to  find  very  useful.  The  dynasty  of  De  Mont- 
fort  had  been  established  in  possession  of  the 
dukedom  of  Britanny  in  a  great  measure  by  Eng- 
lish help,  and  though  the  relations  between  the  two 
countries  had  not  been  invariably  friendly  since 
that  time,  the  sense  of  this  obligation,  and,  still 
more  powerfully,  a  jealous  fear  of  the  French 
king,  inclined  Britanny  to  the  English  alliance. 
The  Dukes  of  Burgundy,  though  they  had  no 
such  motives  of  gratitude  towards  England, 
felt  a  far  stronger  hostility  towards  France.  The 
feud  between  the  rival  factions  which  went 
by  the  names  of  Burgundians  and  Armagnacs 
had  now  been  raging  for  several  years;  and 
though  the  attitude  of  the  Burgundians  varied 
—  at  the  great  struggle  of  Agincourt  they  were 
allies,  though  lukewarm  and  even  doubtful  allies, 
of  the  French  —  they  ultimately  ranked  them- 
selves decidedly  on  Henry's  side.  In  1414,  then, 
Henry  formally  demanded,  as  the  heir  of  Isa- 
bella, mother  of  his  great-grandfather  Edward, 
the  crown  of  France.  This  claim  the  French 
princes  wholly  refused  to  consider.  Henry  then 
moderated  his  demands  so  far,  at  least,  as  to  allow 
Charles  to  remain  in  nominal  possession  of  his 
kingdom ;  but  .  .  .  France  was  to  cede  to  Eng- 
land, no  longer  as  a  feudal  superior  making  a 
grant  to  a  vassal,  but  in  full  sovereignty,  the  prov- 
inces of  Normandy,  Maine,  and  Anjou,  together 
with  all  that  was  comprised  in  the  ancient  duchy 
of  Aquitaine.  Half,  too,  of  Provence  was 
claimed,  and  the  arrears  of  the  ransom  of  King 
John,  amounting  to  1,300,000  crowns,  were  also 
to  be  paid.  Finally,  the  French  king  was  to 
give  his  youngest  daughter,  Katharine,  in  mar- 
riage to  Henry,  with  a  portion  of  3, 000, 000  crowns. 
The  French  ministers  offered,  in  answer,  to  yield 
the  duchy  of  Aquitaine,  comprising  the  prov- 
inces of  Anjou,  Gascony,  Guienne,  Poitou,  and 
to  give  the  hand  of  the  princess  Katharine  with  a 
dowry  of  600,000  crowns. "  Negotiations  went  on 
through  several  months,  with  small  chance  of  suc- 
cess, while  Henry  prepared  for  war.  His  prepa- 
rations were  completed  in  the  summer  of  1415, 
and  on  the  11th  of  August  in  that  year  he  set 
sail  from  Southampton,  with  an  army  of  6,000 
men-at-arms  and  34,000  archers,  very  completely 
equipped,  and  accompanied    with  camion  and 


1205 


FRANCE,  1415. 


Battle 
of  Agincourt, 


FRANCE,  1415-1419. 


other  engines  of  war.  Landing  in  the  estuary  of 
the  Seine,  the  invaders  first  captured  tlie  impor- 
tant Norman  seaport  of  Harfleur,  after  a  siege  of 
a  month,  and  expelled  the  inhabitants  from  the 
town.  It  was  an  important  acquisition;  but  it 
had  cost  the  English  heavily.  They  were  ill- 
supplied  with  food ;  they  had  suffered  from  much 
rain;  2,000  had  died  of  an  epidemic  of  dy.sentery. 
The  army  was  in  no  condition  for  a  forward 
movement.  "  The  safest  course  would  now  have 
been  to  return  at  once ;  and  this  seems  to  have 
been  pressed  upon  the  king  by  the  majority  of 
his  counsellors.  But  this  prudent  advice  did 
not  approve  itself  to  Henry's  adventurous  temper. 
.  .  .  He  determined  ...  to  make  what  may  be 
called  a  military  parade  to  Calais.  This  involved 
a  march  of  not  less  than  150  miles  through  a 
hostile  country,  a  dangerous,  and,  but  that  one 
■who  cherishes  such  designs  as  Henry's  must  make 
a  reputation  for  daring,  a  useless  operation ;  but 
the  king's  determined  will  overcame  all  opposi- 
tion." Leaving  a  strong  garrison  at  Harfleur, 
Henry  set  out  upon  his  march.  Arrived  at  the 
Somme,  his  further  progress  was  disputed,  and  he 
was  forced  to  make  a  long  detour  before  he  could 
effect  a  crossing  of  the  river.  On  the  24th  of  Octo- 
ber, he  encountered  tlie  French  army,  strongly 
posted  at  the  village  of  Azincour  or  Agincourt, 
barring  the  road  to  Calais;  and  there,  on  the 
morning  of  the  25th,  after  a  night  of  drenching 
rain,  the  great  battle,  which  shines  with  so  daz- 
zling a  glory  in  English  history,  was  fought. 
There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  English  were 
greatly  outnumbered  by  the  French  —  according 
to  Monstrelet  they  were  but  one  to  six ;  but  the 
masses  on  the  French  side  were  unskilfully 
handled  and  no  advantage  was  got  from  them. 
The  deadly  shafts  of  the  terrible  English  archers 
built  such  a  rampart  of  corpses  in  their  front  that 
it  actually  sheltered  them  from  the  charge  of 
the  French  cavalrj'.  "Everywhere  the  French 
were  routed,  slain,  or  taken.  The  victory  of  the 
English  was  complete.  .  .  The  French  loss  was 
enormous.  Monstrelet  giv.es  a  long  list  of  the 
chief  princes  and  nobles  who  fell  on  that  fatal 
field.  .  .  .  "We  are  disposed  to  trust  his  estimate, 
which,  including  princes,  knights  and  men-at- 
arms  of  every  degree,  he  puts  at  10,000.  .  .  . 
Only  1,600  are  .said  to  have  been  'of  low  de- 
gree. '  .  .  .  The  number  of  knights  and  gentle- 
men taken  prisoners  was  1,500.  Among  them 
were  Charles,  Duke  of  Orleans,  and  the  Duke  of 
Bourbon,  both  princes  of  the  blood-royal.  .  .  . 
Brilliant  as  was  the  victory  which  Henry  had 
won  at  Agincourt,  it  had,  it  may  be  said,  no  im- 
mediate results.  .  .  .  The  army  resumed  its  in- 
terrupted march  to  Calais,  which  was  about  forty 
miles  distant.  At  Calais  a  council  of  war  was 
held  and  the  resolution  to  return  to  England 
unanimously  taken.  A  few  days  were  allowed 
for  refreshment,  and  about  the  middle  of  Novem- 
ber the  army  embarked. " — A.  J.  Church,  Henry 
the  Fifth,  ch.  6-10. 

Also  in  :  E.  de  Monstrelet,  Ghronicles  {Johnes' 
tram.),  v.  1,  bk.  1,  ch.  140-149.— J.  E.  Tyler,  Henry 
of  Monmouth,  ch.  19-23.— G  :M.  Towle,  History 
of  Henry  V.,  ch.  7-8. — Lord  Brougham,  Hist,  of 
Eng.  and  France  under  the  House  of  Lancaster. — 
C.  M.  Yonge,  Camcjs  from  Eng.  Hist.  :  second 
series,  c.  24-26. 

A.  D.  1415-1419.— Massacre  of  Armagnacs. 
— The  murder  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy. — 
"  The  captivity  of  so  many  princes  of  the  blood 


as  had  been  taken  prisoner  at  Agincourt  might 
have  seemed  likely  at  least  to  remove  some  of 
the  elements  of  discord ;  but  it  so  happened 
that  the  captives  were  the  most  moderate  and 
least  ambitious  men.  The  gentle,  poetical  Duke 
of  Orleans,  the  good  Duke  of  Bourbon,  and 
the  patriotic  and  gallant  Arthur  de  Richemont, 
had  been  taken,  while  the  savage  Duke  of  Bur- 
gundy and  the  violent  Gascon  Count  of  Ar- 
magnac.  Constable  of  France,  remained  at  the 
head  of  their  hostile  factions.  .  .  The  Count 
d'Armagnac  now  reigned  supreme;  no  prince 
of  the  blood  came  to  the  councils,  and  the  king 
and  dauphin  were  absolutely  in  his  hands.  .  . 
The  Duke  of  Burgundy  was,  however,  advanc- 
ing with  his  forces,  and  the  Parisians  were  always 
far  more  inclined  to  him  than  to  the  other  party. 
.  .  .  For  a  whole  day's  ride  round  the  environs 
of  the  city,  every  farmhouse  had  been  sacked  or 
burnt.  Indeed,  it  was  said  in  Paris  a  man  had 
only  to  be  called  a  Burgundian,  or  anywhere 
else  in  the  Isle  of  France  an  Armagnac,  to  be 
instantly  put  to  death.  All  the  soldiers  who 
had  been  posted  to  guard  Normandy  and  Picardy 
against  the  English  were  recalled  to  defend 
Paris  against  the  Duke  of  Burgundy ;  and  Henry 
V.  could  have  found  no  more  favourable  moment 
for  a  second  expedition."  The  English  king 
took  advantage  of  his  opportunity  and  landed  in 
Normandy  August  1,  1417,  finding  nobody  to 
oppose  him  in  the  field.  The  factions  were  em- 
ployed too  busily  in  cutting  each  other's  throats, — 
especially  after  the  Burgundians  had  regained 
possession  of  Paris,  which  they  did  in  the  follow- 
ing spring.  Thereupon  the  Parisian  mob  rose 
and  ferociously  massacred  all  the  partisans  of 
Armagnac,  while  the  Burgundians  looked  and 
approved.  "  The  prison  was  forced ;  Armagnac 
himself  was  dragged  out  and  slain  in  the  court. 
.  .  .  The  court  of  each  prison  became  a  slaughter- 
house; the  prisoners  were  called  down  one  by 
one,  and  there  murdered,  till  the  assassins  were 
up  to  their  ankles  in  blood.  The  women  were 
as  savage  as  the  men,  and  dragged  the  corpses 
about  the  streets  in  derision.  The  prison  slaughter 
had  but  given  a  passion  for  further  carnage ;  and 
the  murderers  broke  open  the  houses  in  search  of 
Armagnacs,  killing  not  only  men,  but  women, 
children,  and  even  new-born  babes,  to  whom  in 
their  diabolical  frenzy  they  refused  baptism,  as 
being  little  Armagnacs.  The  massacre  lasted 
from  four  o'clock  on  Sunday  morning  to  ten 
o'clock  on  Monday  Some  say  that  3,000  per- 
ished, others  1,600,  and  the  Duke  of  Burgundy's 
servants  reported  the  numbers  as  only  400." 
Meantime  Henry  V.  was  besieging  Rouen,  and 
starving  Paris  by  cutting  off  the  supplies  for 
which  it  depended  on  the  Seine.  In  August 
there  was  another  rising  of  the  Parisian  mob  and 
another  massacre.  In  January,  1419,  Rouen  sur- 
rendered, and  attempts  at  peace  followed,  both 
parties  making  a  truce  with  the  English  invader. 
The  imperious  demands  of  King  Henry  finally 
impelled  the  two  French  factions  to  draw  to- 
gether and  to  make  a  common  cause  of  the  de- 
fiverance  of  the  kingdom.  Xt  least  that  was  the 
profession  with  which  the  Dauphin  and  the 
Duke  of  Burgundy  met,  in  July,  and  went 
through  the  forms  of  a  reconciliation.  Perhaps 
there  were  treacherous  intentions  on  both  sides. 
On  one  side  the  treachery  was  consummated  a 
month  later  (Sept.  10,  1419),  when,  a  second 
meeting  between  Duke  John   the  Fearless  and 


1206 


FRANCE,   1415-1419. 


Conquests 
of  Henry  V. 


FRANCE,  1429-1431. 


the  Dauphin  taking  place  at  the  Bridge  of  Mon- 
tereau,  the  Duke  was  basely  assassinated  in  the 
Dauphin's  presence.  This  murder,  by  which  the 
Armagnacs,  who  controlled  the  young  Dauphin, 
hoped  to  break  their  rivals  down,  only  kindled 
afresh  the  passions  which  were  destroying  France 
and  delivering  it  an  easy  prey  to  foreign  con- 
quest.—  C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist., 
second  series,  c.  28-29. 

Also  in  :  E.  de  llonstrelet.  Chronicles  (Jolmes' 
trails.),  V.  1,  bk.  1,  ch.  150-211.— J.  Michelet, 
Hist,  of  Franct',  bk.  9,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1417-1422. —  Burgundy's  revenge. — 
Henry  the  Fifth's  triumph. — Two  kings  in 
Paris. — The  Treaty  of  Troyes. — Death  of 
Henry. — "Whilst  civil  war  was  .  .  .  penetrat- 
ing to  the  very  core  of  the  kingship,  foreign  war 
was  making  its  way  again  into  the  kingdom. 
Henry  V.,  after  the  battle  of  Agiucourt,  had 
returned  to  London,  and  had  left  his  army  to  re- 
pose and  reorganize  after  its  sufferings  and  its 
losses.  It  was  not  until  eighteen  months  after- 
wards, on  the  1st  of  August,  1417,  that  he  landed 
at  Touques,  not  far  from  Honfleur,  with  fresh 
troops,  and  resumed  his  campaign  in  France. 
Between  1417  and  1419  he  successively  laid  siege 
to  nearly  all  the  towns  of  importance  in  Nor- 
mandy, to  Caen,  Bayeux,  Falaise,  Evreux,  Cou- 
tances,  Laigle,  St.  L6,  Cherbourg,  &c. ,  &c.  Some 
he  occupied  after  a  short  resistance,  others  were 
sold  to  him  by  their  governors ;  but  when,  in  the 
month  of  July,  1418,  he  undertook  the  siege  of 
Rouen,  he  encountered  there  a  long  and  serious 
struggle.  Rouen  had  at  that  time,  it  is  said,  a 
population  of  150,000  souls,  which  was  animated 
by  ardent  patriotism.  The  Roueunese,  on  the 
approach  of  the  English,  had  repaired  their 
gates,  their  ramparts,  and  their  moats;  had  de- 
manded reinforcements  from  the  King  of  France 
and  the  Duke  of  Burgundy;  and  had  ordered 
every  person  incapable  of  bearing  arms  or  pro- 
curing provisions  for  ten  months  to  leave  the 
city.  Twelve  thousand  old  men,  women  and 
children  were  thus  expelled,  and  died  either 
round  the  place  or  whilst  roving  in  misery  over 
the  neighbouring  country.  .  .  .  Fifteen  thousand 
men  of  city-militia,  4,000  regular  soldiers,  300 
spearmen  and  as  many  archers  from  Paris,  and 
it  is  not  quite  known  how  many  men  at-arms 
sent  by  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  defended  Rouen 
for  more  than  five  months  amidst  all  the  usual 
sufferings  of  strictly-besieged  cities."  On  the 
13th  of  January,  1419,  the  town  was  surrendered. 
"It  was  215  years  since  Philip  Augustus  had 
won  Rouen  by  conquest  from  John  Lackland, 
King  of  England."  After  this  great  success 
there  were  truces  brought  about  between  all 
parties,  and  much  negotiation,  which  came  to 
nothing  —  except  the  treacherous  murder  of  the 
Duke  of  Burgundy,  as  related  above.  Then  the 
situation  changed.  The  son  and  successor  of  the 
murdered  duke,  afterwards  known  as  Philip  the 
Good,  took  sides,  at  once,  with  the  English  king 
and  committed  himself  to  a  war  of  revenge,  in- 
different to  the  fate  of  France.  "On  the  17th  of 
October  [1419]  was  opened  at  Arras  a  congress 
between  the  plenipotentiaries  of  England  and 
those  of  Burgundy.  On  the  20th  of  November  a 
special  truce  was  granted  to  the  Parisians,  whilst 
Henry  V.,  in  concert  with  Duke  Philip  of  Bur- 
gundy, was  prosecuting  the  war  against  the  dau- 
phin. On  the  3d  of  December  the  bases  were  laid 
of  an  agreement  between  the  Englisli  and  the 


Burgundians.  The  preliminaries  of  the  treaty, 
which  was  drawn  up  in  accordance  with  these 
bases,  were  signed  on  the  9th  of  April,  1420,  by 
King  Charles  VI.  [now  controlled  by  the  Bur- 
gundians], and  on  the  20th  communicated  at 
Paris  by  the  chancellor  of  France  to  the  parlia- 
ment." "  On  the  20th  of  May  following,  the  treaty, 
definitive  and  complete,  was  signed  by  Henry  V. 
and  promulgated  at  Troyes.  By  this  treaty  of 
Troyes,  Princess  Catherine,  daughter  of  the  King 
of  France,  was  given  in  marriage  to  King  Henry ; 
Charles  VI.  was  guaranteed  his  possession  of  the 
French  crown  while  he  lived ;  on  his  death,  ' '  the 
crown  and  kingdom  of  France,  with  all  their 
rights  and  appurtenances,"  were  solemnly  con- 
veyed to  Henry  V.  of  England  and  his  heirs,  for- 
ever. "The  revulsion  against  the  treaty  of 
Troyes  was  real  and  serious,  even  in  the  very 
heart  of  the  party  attached  to  the  Duke  of  Bur- 
gundy. He  was  obliged  to  lay  upon  .several  of 
his  servants  formal  injunctions  to  swear  to  this 
peace,  which  seemed  to  them  treason.  ...  In 
the  duchy  of  Burgundy  the  majority  of  the 
towns  refused  to  take  the  oath  to  the  King  of 
England.  The  most  decisive  and  the  most  help- 
ful proof  of  this  awakening  of  national  feeling 
was  the  ease  experienced  by  the  dauphin,  who 
was  one  day  to  be  Charles  VII. ,  in  maintaining 
the  war  which,  after  the  treaty  of  Troyes,  was, 
in  his  fatlier's  and  his  mother's  name,  made  upon 
him  by  the  King  of  England  and  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy.  This  war  lasted  more  than  three 
years.  Several  towns,  amongst  others,  Melun, 
Crotoy,  Meaux,  and  St.  Riquier,  offered  an  ob- 
stinate resistance  to  the  attacks  of  the  English 
and  Burgundians.  .  .  .  It  was  in  Perche,  Anjou, 
Maine,  on  the  banks  of  the  Loire,  and  in  Southern 
France,  that  the  dauphin  found  niost  of  his  enter- 
prising and  devoted  partisans.  The  sojourn  made 
by  Henry  V.  at  Paris,  in  December,  1430,  with 
his  wife.  Queen  Catherine,  King  Charles  VI., 
Queen  Isabel,  and  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  was 
not,  in  spite  of  galas  and  acclamations,  a  sub- 
stantial and  durable  success  for  him.  .  .  .  To- 
wards the  end  of  August,  1432,  Henry  V.  fell 
ill ;  and,  too  stout-hearted  to  delude  himself  as 
to  his  condition,  he  .  .  .  had  himself  removed  to 
Vincennes,  called  his  councillors  about  him,  and 
gave  them  his  last  royal  instructions.  .  .  .  He 
expired  on  the  31st  of  August,  1432,  at  the  age 
of  thirty-four." — F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of 
France,  ch.  23. — At  Paris,  "the  two  sovereigns 
[Henry  V.  and  Charles  VI.]  kept  distinct  courts. 
That  of  Henry  was  by  far  the  most  splendidly 
equipped  and  numerously  attended  of  the  two. 
He  was  the  rising  sun,  and  all  men  looked  to 
him.  All  offices  of  trust  and  profit  were  at  his 
disposal,  and  the  nobles  and  gentlemen  of  Prance 
flocked  into  his  ante-chambers." — A.  J.  Church, 
Henry  the  Fifth,  ch.  15. 

Also  in  :  E.  de  Monstrelet,  Chronicles  (Johnes' 
trans.),  v.  1,  bk.  1,  ch.  171-264.— J.  Michelet.  Hist, 
of  France,  bk.  9,  ch.  2-3. 

A.  D.  1422. — Accessionof  King  Charles  VII. 

A.  D.  1429-1431. — The  Mission  of  the  Maid. 
— "  France  divided  —  two  kings,  two  regencies, 
two  armies,  two  governments,  two  nations,  two 
nobilities,  two  systems  of  justice  —  met  face  to 
face:  father,  son,  mother,  uncles,  nephews,  citi 
zens,  and  strangers,  fought  for  the  right,  the  soil, 
the  throne,  the  cities,  the  spoil  and  the  blood 
of  the  nation.  The  King  of  England  died  at 
Vincennes  [August  31,  1432],  and  was  shortly 


1207 


FRANCE,  1429-1431. 


Jeanne  d\irc,  the 
Maid  of  Orleans. 


FRANCE,  1429-1431. 


followed  [October  22]  by  Charles  VI.,  father  of 
the  twelve  children  of  Isabel,  leaving  the  king- 
dom to  the  stranger  and  to  ruin.  The  Duke  of 
Bedford  insolently  took  possession  of  the  Re- 
gency in  the  name  of  England,  pursued  the 
handful  of  nobles  who  wished  to  remain  French 
with  the  dauphin,  defeated  them  at  the  battle  of 
Verneuil  [August  17,  1424],  and  e.xiled  the  queen, 
who  had  become  a  burden  to  the  government 
after  having  been  an  instrument  of  usurpation. 
He  then  concentrated  the  armies  of  England, 
France  and  B\u-gundy  round  Orleans,  which  was 
defended  by  some  thousands  of  the  partisans  of 
the  dauphin,  and  which  comprised  almost  all  that 
remained  of  the  kingdom  of  France.  The  land 
was  everywhere  ravaged  by  the  passing  and  re- 
passing of  these  bands  —  sometimes  friends, 
sometimes  enemies  —  driving  each  other  on,  wave 
after  wave,  like  the  billows  of  the  Atlantic  ; 
ravaging  crops,  burning  towns,  dispersing,  rob- 
bing, and  ill-treating  the  population.  In  this  dis- 
organization of  the  country,  the  young  dauphin, 
sometimes  awakened  by  the  complaints  of  his 
people,  at  others  absorbed  in  the  pleasures  nat- 
ural to  his  age,  was  making  love  to  Agnes  Sorel 
in  the  castle  of  Loches.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  state 
of  the  nation  when  Providence  showed  it  a 
savior  in  a  child." — A.  de  Lamartine,  Memoirs  of 
Celebrated  Characters :  Joan  of  Arc. — The  child 
was  Jeanne  D'Arc,  or  Joan  of  Arc,  better  known 
in  history  as  the  Maid  of  Orleans,  —  daughter  of 
a  husbandman  who  tilled  his  own  few  acres  at 
the  village  of  Domremy.  in  Upper  Lorraine. 
Research  in  recent  years  has  brought  to  light 
more  than  was  formerly  known  of  the  family 
and  the  circumstances  of  the  heroic  Maid, 
' '  Jacques  d'Arc  and  Isabel'e  de  Vouthon  had 
three  sons,  Jacquemin,  Jean,  and  Pierre,  and  two 
daughters,  the  elder  named  Catherine,  the 
younger  Jeanne  or  rather  Jeannette,  she  who 
was  by  her  heroism  to  immortalize  her  line. 
Two  documents  .  .  .  prove  with  evidence  that 
Jaccpies  d'Arc  figured  in  the  first  rank  of  the 
notables  of  Domremy.  In  the  first  of  these, 
dated  Ma.xey-sur-Meuse,  October  7.  1433.  he  is 
styled  '  doyen '  of  that  village,  and  by  this  title 
comes  immediately  after  the  mayor  and  alder- 
men. 'In  general,'  says  M.  Edward  Bouvalot, 
speaking  of  the  villages  in  the  region  of  the 
Mouse  governed  by  the  famous  charter  of  Beau- 
mont in  Argonne,  'there  is  but  one  doyen  or 
sergeant  in  each  village,  who  convokes  the 
bourgeois  to  the  electoral  assemblies  and  to  the 
sittings  of  the  court ;  it  is  he  also  who  convokes 
the  mayor,  .aldermen  and  the  men  of  the  com- 
mune to  their  reunions,  either  periodical  or 
special ;  it  is  he  who  cries  the  municipal  resolu- 
tions and  ordinances  ;  it  is  he  who  commands  the 
day  and  night  watch  :  it  is  he  who  has  charge  of 
prisoners.  Among  the  privileges  which  he  en- 
joys must  be  cited  the  exemption  from  the  taxes 
(deniers)  of  the  bourgeoisie.  At  Linger,  he  has 
the  same  territorial  advantages  as  the  clerk  of 
the  commune.'  It  is  seen  by  various  documents 
that  the  doyens  were  also  charged  with  the  col- 
lection of  the  '  failles,'  '  rentes '  and  '  rcdevances,' 
and  that  they  were  appointed  to  supervise  bread, 
wine  and  other  commodities  as  well  as  to  test 
weights  and  measures.  In  the  second  document, 
drawn  up  at  Vaucouleurs  March  31,  1427, 
Jacques  d'Arc  appears  as  the  agent  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Domremy  in  a  suit  of  great  impor- 
tance  which   they   then  had  to  sustain  before 


Robert  de  Baudricoiirt,  captain  of  Vaucouleurs. 
.  .  .  Like  the  legendary  beech  of  her  native  vil- 
lage, the  childhood  of  the  virgin  of  Domremy 
sprang  out  of  a  soil  full  of  vigor  and  was  in  the 
main  haunted  by  beneficent  fairies.  Born  in  a 
fertile  and  smiling  corner  of  the  earth,  the  issue 
of  an  honest  family,  whose  laborious  mediocrity 
was  elevated  enough  to  touch  nobility  when  en- 
nobling itself  by  alms-giving,  and  humble  enough 
to  remain  in  contact  with  all  the  poor  ;  endowed 
by  nature  with  a  robust  body,  a  sound  intelli- 
gence and  an  energetic  spirit,  the  little  Jeannette 
d'Arc  became  under  these  gentle  influences  all 
goodness  and  all  love." — S.  Luce.  Jeanne  d'Are 
a  Domremy  (tr.  from  the  French),  ch.  2-3. — Of 
the  visions  of  the  pious  young  maiden  —  of  the 
voices  she  heard  —  of  the  conviction  which  came 
upon  her  that  she  was  called  by  God  to  deliver 
her  country  —  and  of  the  enthusiasm  of  faith 
with  which  she  went  about  her  mission  until  all 
people  bent  to  her  as  the  messenger  and  minister 
of  God  —  the  story  is  a  familiar  one  to  all.  In 
April,  1429,  Joan  was  sent  by  the  king,  from 
Blcis,  with  10,000  or  12,000  men,  to  the  succour 
of  Orleans,  where  Dunois.  the  Bastard  of  Or- 
leans, was  in  command.  She  reformed  the  army, 
purged  it  of  all  vile  followers,  and  raised  its 
confidence  to  that  frenzied  pilch  which  nothing 
can  resist.  On  the  8th  of  May  the  English 
abandoned  the  siege  and  Orleans  was  saved. 
"Joan  wasted  no  time  in  vain  triumphs.  She 
brought  back  the  victorious  army  to  the  dauphin, 
to  assist  him  in  reconquering  city  after  city  of 
his  kingdom.  The  dauphin  and  the  queens  re- 
ceived her  as  the  messenger  of  God,  who  had 
found  and  recovered  the  lost  keys  of  the  kirg- 
dom.  '  I  have  only  another  year.'  she  remarki  d, 
with  a  sad  presentiment,  which  seemed  to  indi- 
cate that  her  victory  led  to  the  scaffold ;  '  I  must 
therefore  set  to  work  at  once.'  She  begged  the 
dauphin  to  go  and  be  crowned  at  Rheims,  al- 
though that  city  and  the  intermediate  provinces 
were  still  in  the  power  of  the  Burgundians,  Flem- 
ings, and  English."  Counsellors  and  generals 
opposed  ;  but  the  sublime  faith  of  the  Maid  over- 
came all  opposition  and  all  difficulties.  The 
king's  route  to  Rheims  was  rapidly  cleared  of  his 
enemies.  At  Patay  (June  18,  1429)  the  English 
suffered  a  heavy  defeat  and  their  famous  soldier, 
Lord  Talbot,  was  taken  prisoner.  Troyes,  Cha- 
lons and  Rheims  opened  their  gates.  ' '  "The  Duke 
of  Bedford,  the  regent,  i-cmained  trembling  in 
Paris.  '  All  our  misfortunes,'  he  wrote  to  the 
Cardinal  of  Winchester,  '  are  owing  to  a  young 
witch,  who.  by  her  sorcery,  has  restored  the  cour- 
age of  the  French.' .  .  .  The  king  was  crowned 
[July  17,  1429],  and  .Joan's  mission  was  accom- 
plished. 'Noble  king,'  said  .she,  embracing  his 
knees  in  the  Cathedral  after  the  coronation,  '  now 
is  accomplished  the  will  of  God,  which  com- 
manded me  to  bring  you  to  this  city  of  Rheims 
to  receive  your  holy  unction  —  now  that  you  at 
last  are  king,  and  that  the  kingdom  of  France  is 
yours.' .  .  .  From  that  moment  a  great  depres- 
sion, and  a  fatal  hesitation  seem  to  have  come 
over  her.  The  king,  the  people,  and  the  army, 
to  whom  she  had  given  victory,  wished  her  to 
remain  always  their  prophetess,  their  guide,  and 
their  enduring  miracle.  But  she  was  now  only 
a  weak  woman,  lost  amid  courts  anil  camps,  and 
she  felt  her  weakness  beneath  her  armor.  Her 
heart  alone  remained  courageous,  but  had  ceased 
to  be  inspired."     She  urged  an  attack  on  Paris 


1208 


FRANCE,  1439-1431. 


Jeanne  d' Arc,  the 
Maid  of  Orleans. 


FRANCE,  1429-1431. 


(Sept.  8,  1439)  and  experienced  her  first  failure, 
being  grievously  wounded  in  the  assault.  The 
following  spring,  Conipi^gne  being  besieged,  she 
entered  the  town  to  take  part  in  the  defence.  The 
same  evening  (May  24,  1430)  she  led  a  sortie 
which  was  repulsed,  and  she  was  taken  prisoner 
in  the  retreat.  Some  think  she  was  betrayed  by 
the  commandant  of  the  town,  who  ordered  the 
raising  of  the  drawbridge  just  as  her  horse  was 
being  spurred  upon  it.  Once  in  the  hands  of  her 
enemies,  the  doom  of  the  unfortunate  Maid  was 
sealed.  Sir  Lionel  de  Ligny,  her  captor,  gave 
his  prisoner  to  the  count  of  L\isembourg,  who 
yielded  her  to  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  who  sur- 
rendered her  to  the  English,  who  delivered  her 
to  the  Inquisition,  by  which  she  was  tried,  con- 
demned and  burned  to  death,  at  Houen,  as  a  witch 
(May  30,  1431).  ''It  was  a  compk'.x  crime,  in 
which  each  party  got  rid  of  responsibility,  but  in 
which  the  accusation  rests  with  Paris  [the  Uni- 
versity of  Paris  was  foremost  among  the  pur- 
suers of  the  wonderful  Maid],  the  cowardice  with 
Luxembourg,  the  sentence  with  the  Inquisition, 
the  blame  and  punishment  with  England,  and 
the  disgrace  and  ingratitude  with  France.  This 
bartering  about  Joan  by  her  enemies,  of  whom 
the  fiercest  were  her  countrymen,  had  lasted  six 
months.  .  .  .  During  these  six  months,  the  in- 
fluence of  this  goddess  of  war  upon  the  troops  of 
Charles  VII.  —  her  spirit,  which  still  guided  the 
carap  and  council  of  the  king  —  the  patriotic, 
though  superstitious,  veneration  of  the  people, 
which  her  captivity  only  doubled,  — and,  lastly, 
the  absence  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy.  ...  all 
these  causes  had  brought  reverse  after  reverse 
upon  the  English,  and  a  series  of  successes  to 
Charles  VII.  Joan,  although  absent,  triumphed 
everywhere." — A.  dcLamartine,  Memoirs  of  Cele- 
brated Characters:  Joan  of  Arc. — "It  seems 
natural  to  ask  what  steps  the  King  of  France  had 
taken  ...  to  avert  her  doom.  We  hear  nothing 
of  any  attempt  at  rescue,  of  any  proposal  for 
ransom  ;  neither  the  most  common  protest  against 
her  trial  .  .  .  nay,  not  even  after  her  death,  one 
single  expression  of  regret  !  Charles  continued 
to  slumber  in  his  delicious  retreats  beyond  the 
Loire,  engrossed  by  dames  of  a  very  different 
character  from  Joan's.  .  .  .  Her  memory  on  the 
other  hand  was  long  endeared  to  the  French 
people,  and  long  did  they  continue  to  cherish  a 
romantic  hope  that  she  might  still  survive.  So 
strong  was  this  feeling,  that  in  the  year  1436  ad- 
vantage was  taken  of  it  by  a  female  impostor, 
who  pretended  to  be  Joan  of  Arc  escaped  from 
her  captivity.  ...  Of  Joan's  person  no  authen- 
tic resemblance  now  remains.  A  statue  to  her 
memory  had  been  rais jd  upon  the  bridge  at  Or- 
leans, at  the  sole  charge  ...  of  the  matrons 
and  maids  of  that  city  ;  this  probably  preserved 
some  degree  of  likeness,  but  unfortunately  per- 
ished,in  the  religious  wars  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. There  is  no  portrait  extant  ;  the  two 
earliest  engravings  are  of  160(5  and  1613,  and 
they  greatly  differ." — Lord  Mahon,  Hist.  Essays, 
pp.  53-57. — "  A  few  days  before  her  death,  when 
urged  to  resume  her  woman's  dress,  she  said : 
'  When  I  shall  have  accomplished  that  for  which 
I  was  sent  from  God,  I  will  take  the  dress  of  a 
woman.'  Yet,  in  one  sense  her  mission  did  end 
at  Rheims.  The  faith  of  the  people  still  fol- 
lowed her,  but  her  enemies  —  not  the  English, 
but  those  in  the  heart  of  the  court  of  Charles  — 
began  to  be  too  powerful  for  her      We  may, 


indeed,   conceive  what  a  hoard    of    envy  and 
malice  was  gathering  in  the  hearts  of  those  hard- 
ened politicians  at  seeing  themselves  supeiseded 
by  a  peasant  girl.     They,  accustomed  to  dark 
and   tortuous  ways,  could   not   comprehend   or 
coalesce  with  the  divine  simplicity  of  her  designs 
and  means.     A  successful  intrigue  was  formed 
against  her.     It  was  resolved  to  keep  her  still  in 
the  camp  as  a  name  and  a  figure,  but  to  take 
from  her  all  power,  all  voice  in  the  direction  of 
affairs.     So  accordingly  it  was  done.  .  .  .  Her 
ways  and  habits  during  the  year  she  was  in  arms 
are  attested  by  a  multitude  of  witnesses.    Dunois 
and  the  Duke  of  Alen^on  bear  testimony  to  what 
they  term  her  extraordinary  talents  for  war,  and 
to  her  perfect  fearlessness  in  action  ;  but  in  all 
other  things  she  was  the  most  simple  of  creatures. 
She  wept  when  she  first  saw  men  slain  in  battle, 
to  think  that  they  should  have  died  without  con- 
fession.     She  wept  at  the  abominable  epithets 
which  the  English  heaped  upon  her  ;  but  she  was 
without  a  trace  of  vindictiveness.     '  Ah,  Glaci- 
das,  Glacidas  ! '  she  said  to  Sir  William  Glasdale 
at   Orleans,    '  you  have  called  me  foul  names  ; 
but  I  have  pity  upon  your  soul  and  the  souls  of 
your  men.     Surrender  to  the  King  of  Heaven  ! ' 
And  she   was  once  seen,   resting  the  liead  of  a 
wounded  Englishman  on  her  lap,  comforting  and 
consoling  him.     In  her  diet  she  was  abstemious 
in  the  extreme,  rarely  eating  until  evening,  and 
then  for  the  most  part,  only  of  bread  and  'water 
sometimes  mixed  with  wine.      In  the  field  she 
slept  in  her  armom-,  but  when  she  came  into  a 
city,  she   always  sought  out  some   honourable 
matron,  under  whose  protection  she  placed  her- 
self, and  there  is  wonderful  evidence  of  the  at- 
mosphere of  purity  which  she  diffused   around 
her,  her   very   presence   banishing    from   men's 
hearts  all  evil  thoughts  and  wishes.     Her  con- 
versation, when  it  was  not  of  the  war,  was  en- 
tirely of  religion.     She  confessed  often,  and  re- 
ceived communion  twice  in  the  week.     '  And  it 
was  her  custom,'  says  Dunois,  'at  twilight  every 
day,  to  retire  to  the  church  and  make  the  bells 
be  rung  for  half  an  hour,  and  she  gathered  the 
mendicant   religious   who   followed    the   King's 
army,  and  made  them  sing  an  antiphon  of  the 
Blessed  Mother  of  God.'    From  presumption,  as 
from  superstition,  she  was  entirely  free.     When 
women  brought  her  crosses  and  chaplets  to  bless, 
she  said  :    '  How  can  I  bless  them  ?  Your  own 
blessing     would    be    as    good    as    mine.'" — J. 
O'Hagan,  Joan  of  Arc.  pp.  61-66.— "What  is  to 
be  thought  of  her  ?    What  is  to  be  thought  of 
the  poor  shepherd  girl  from  the  hills  and  forests 
of   Lorraine,   that  — like   the   Hebrew   shepherd 
boy   from  the  hills  and  forests  of  Judea  —  rose 
suddenly  out  of  the  quiet,  out  of  the  safety,  out 
of  the  religious  inspiration,  rooted  in  deep  pas- 
toral solitudes,  to  a  station  in  the  van  of  armies, 
and  to  the  more  perilous  station  at  the  right  hand 
of   kings  ?     The   Hebrew   boy   inaugurated   his 
patriotic  mission  by  an  act,  by  a  victorious  act, 
such  as  no  man  could  deny.     But  so  did  the  girl 
of  Lorraine,  if  we  read  her  story  as  it  was  read 
by  those  who  saw  lier  nearest.     Adverse  armies 
bore  witness  to  the  boy  as  no  pretender ;  but  so 
they  did  to  the  gentle  girl.    Judged  by  the  voices 
of  all  who  saw  them  from  a  station  of"  good-will, 
both  were  found  true  and  loyal  to  any  promises 
involved  in  their  first  acts.     Enemies  it  was  that 
made   the  difference  between  their  subsequent 
fortunes.     The  boy  rose  to  a   splendour,  and  a 


1209 


FRANCE,  1429-1431. 


Expulsion  of  the 
English. 


FRANCE,  1438. 


noonday  prosperity,  both  personal  and  public, 
that  rang  through  the  records  of  his  people,  and 
became  a  by-word  amongst  his  posterity  for  a 
thousand  years,  until  the  sceptre  was  departing 
from  Judah.  The  poor,  forsaken  girl,  on  the  con- 
trary, drank  not  lierself  from  that  cup  of  rest 
which  she  had  secured  for  France.  .  .  .  This 
pure  creature  —  pure  from  every  suspicion  of 
even  a  visionary  self-interest,  even  as  she  was 
pure  in  senses  more  obvious  —  never  once  did  this 
holy  child,  as  regarded  hereelf,  relax  from  her 
belief  in  the  darkness  that  was  travelling  to  meet 
her.  She  might  not  preligure  the  very  manner 
of  her  death ;  she  saw  not  in  vision,  perhaps,  the 
aerial  altitude  of  the  fiery  scaffold,  the  spectators 
without  end  on  every  road  pouring  into  Rouen 
as  to  a  coronation,  the  surging  smoke,  the  volley- 
ing flames,  the  hostile  faces  all  around,  the  pity- 
ing eye  that  lurked  but  here  and  there,  until 
nature  and  imperishable  truth  broke  loose  from 
artificial  restraints ; —  these  might  not  be  apparent 
through  the  mists  of  the  hurrying  future.  But 
the  voice  that  called  her  to  death,  that  she  heard 
for  ever." — T.  De  Quincey,  Joan  of  Arc. {Collected 
Writings,  ».  5). — A  discussion  of  doubts  that  have 
been  raised  concerning  the  death  of  Joan  at  the 
stake  will  be  found  in  Octave  Delepierre's  His- 
torical Difficulties  and  Contested  Events,  ch.  8. 

Also  m:  J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France,  hk.  10. 
— E.  de  Monstrelet,  Chronicles  {Johnes'  trans.), 
bk.  2,  ch.  57-105.— H.  Parr,  Life  arul  Heath  of  Joan 
of  Arc. — J.  Tuckey,  Joan  of  Arc. — Mrs.  A.  E. 
Bray,  Joan  of  Arc. 

A.  D.  1431-1453. — The  English  expelled.— 
"In  Joan  of  Arc  the  English  certainly  destroyed 
the  cause  of  their  late  reverses.  But  the  impulse 
had  been  given,  and  the  crime  of  base  vengeance 
could  not  stay  it.  Fortune  declared  every  where 
and  in  every  way  against  them.  In  vain  was 
Henry  VI.  brought  to  Paris,  crowned  at  Notre 
Dame,  and  made  to  exercise  all  the  functions  of 
royalty  in  court  and  parliament.  The  duke  of 
Burgundy,  disgusted  with  the  English,  became 
at  last  reconciled  to  Cliarles,  who  spared  no  sacri- 
fice to  win  the  support  of  so  powerfvd  a  subject. 
The  amplest  possible  amends  were  made  for  the 
murder  of  the  late  duke.  The  towns  beyond 
the  Somme  were  ceded  to  Burgundy,  and  the 
reigning  duke  [but  not  his  successors]  was  ex- 
empted from  all  homage  towards  the  king  of 
France.  Such  was  the  famous  treaty  of  Arras 
[Sept.  21,  1435],  which  restored  to  Charles  his 
throne,  and  deprived  the  English  of  all  hopes  of 
retaining  their  conquests  in  the  kingdom.  The 
crimes  and  misrule  of  the  Orleans  faction  were 
forgotten ;  popularity  ebbed  in  favour  of  Charles. 
.  .  .  One  of  the  gates  of  Paris  was  betrayed  by 
the  citizens  to  the  constable  and  Dunois  [April, 
1436].  Willoughby,  the  governor,  was  obliged 
to  shut  himself  up  in  the  Bastile  with  his  garri- 
son, from  whence  they  retired  to  Rouen.  Charles 
VII.  entered  his  capital,  after  twenty  years'  ex- 
clusion from  it,  in  November,  1437.  Thencefor- 
ward the  war  lost  its  serious  character.  Charles 
was  gradually  established  on  his  throne,  and  the 
struggle  between  the  two  nations  was  feebly 
carried  on,  broken  merely  by  a  few  sieges  and 
enterprises,  mostly  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
English.  .  .  .  There  had  been  frequent  endeav- 
ours and  conferences  towards  a  peace  between 
the  French  and  English.  The  demands  on  either 
side  proved  irreconcilable.  A  truce  was  however 
concluded,  in  1444,  which  lasted  four  years;  it 


was  sealed  by  the  marriage  of  Henry  VI.  with 
Margaret  of  Anjou,  daughter  of  Rene,  and 
granddaughter  of  Louis,  who  had  perished  while 
leading  an  ami}'  to  the  conquest  of  Naples.  .  .  . 
In  1449  the  truce  was  allowed  to  expire.  The 
quarrels  of  York  and  Lancaster  had  commenced, 
and  England  was  unable  to  defend  her  foreign 
possessions.  Normandy  was  invaded.  The  gal- 
lant Talbot  could  not  preserve  Rouen  with  a  dis- 
affected population,  and  Charles  recovered  with- 
out loss  of  blood  [1449]  the  second  capital  of  his 
dominions.  The  only  blow  struck  by  the  Eng- 
lish for  the  preservation  of  Normandy  was  at 
Fourmigny  near  Bayeux.  .  .  .  Normandy  was 
for  ever  lost  to  the  English  after  this  action  or 
skirmish.  The  following  year  Guyenne  was  in- 
vaded by  the  count  de  Dunois.  He  met  with  no' 
resistance.  The  great  towns  at  that  day  had 
grown  wealthy,  and  their  maxim  was  to  avoid  a 
siege  at  all  hazards. "  Lord  Talbot  was  killed  in 
an  engagement  at  Castillon  (1450),  and  "with 
that  hero  expired  the  last  hopes  of  his  country 
in  regard  to  France.  Guyenne  was  lost  [A.  D. 
1453]  as  well  as  Normandy,  and  Calais  remained 
to  England  the  only  fruit  of  so  much  blood  spilt 
and  so  many  victories  achieved." — E.  E.  Crowe,. 
Hist,  of  France,  v.  1,  ch.  4. 

Also  ik:  J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  11. 
— E.  de  Monstrelet,  Chronicles  {Johnei'  trails.), 
bk.  2,  ch.  109,  **.  3,  ch.  65.— See,  also,  Aqui- 
taine:  a.  D.  1360-1453. 

A.  D.  1438. — Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Charles 
VII. — Reforming  decrees  of  the  Council  of 
Basel  adopted  for  the  Gallican  church. — After 
the  rupture  between  the  reforming  Council  of 
Basel  and  Pope  Eugenius  IV.  (see  Papacy:  A.  D. 
1431-1448),  Charles  VII.  of  France  "determined 
to  adopt  in  his  own  kingdom  such  of  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  as  were  for  his  advantage,  see- 
ing that  no  opposition  could  be  made  by  the 
Pope.  Accordingly  a  Synod  was  summoned  at 
Bourges  on  May  1,  1438.  The  embassadors  of 
Pope  and  Council  urged  their  respective  causes. 
It  was  agreed  that  the  King  should  write  to  Pope 
and  Council  to  stay  their  hands  in  proceeding 
against  one  another ;  meanwhile,  that  the  refor- 
mation be  not  lost,  some  of  the  Basel  decrees 
should  be  maintained  in  France  by  royal  authority. 
The  results  of  the  s_vnod's  deliberation  were  laid 
before  the  King,  and  on  July  7  were  made  bind- 
ing as  a  pragmatic  sanction  on  the  French  Church. 
The  Pragmatic  Sanction  enacted  that  General 
Councils  were  to  be  held  every  ten  years,  and 
recognised  the  authority  of  the  Council  of  Basel. 
The  Pope  was  no  longer  to  reserve  any  of  the 
greater  ecclesiastical  appointments,  but  elections 
were  to  be  dul}'  made  by  the  rightful  patrons. 
Grants  to  benefices  in  expectancy,  '  whence  all 
agree  that  many  evils  arise,'  were  to  cease,  aa 
well  as  reservations.  In  all  cathedral  churches, 
one  prebend  was  to  be  given  to  a  theologian  who 
had  studied  for  ten  years  in  a  university,  and  who 
was  to  lecture  or  preach  at  least  once  a  week. 
Benefices  were  to  be  conferred  in  future,  one- 
third  on  graduates,  two-thirds  on  deserving 
clergy.  Appeals  to  Rome,  except  for  important 
causes,  were  forbidden.  The  number  of  Cardi- 
nals was  to  be  24,  each  of  the  age  of  30  at  least. 
Annates  and  first-fruits  were  no  longer  to  be  paid 
to  the  Pope,  but  only  the  necessary  legal  fees  on 
institution.  Regulations  were  made  for  greater 
reverence  in  the  conduct  of  Divine  service; 
prayers  were  to  be  said  by  the  priest  in  an  audible 


1210 


FRANCE,  1438. 


Genesis 
of  Absolutism. 


FRANCE,  1461. 


voice;  mummeries  in  cliurches  were  forbidden, 
and  clerical  concubinage  was  to  be  punished 
by  suspension  for  tliree  montlis.  Such  were  the 
chief  reforms  of  its  own  special  grievances, 
which  France  wished  to  establish.  It  was  the 
first  step  in  the  assertion  of  the  rights  of  national 
Churches  to  arrange  for  tliemselves  the  details 
of  their  own  ecclesiastical  organisation." — M. 
Creighton,  Jlist.  of  the  Papacy  during  the  Period 
of  the  Reformation,  hk.  8.  eh.  9  (r.  2). 

A.  D.  1447. — Origin  of  the  claims  of  the 
house  of  Orleans  to  the  duchy  of  Milan.  See 
MiL.w:  A.  D.  1447-1454. 

A.  D.  1453-1461. — The  reconstructed  king- 
dom.— The  new  plant  of  Absolutism. — "At 
the  expulsion  of  tlie  English,  France  emerged 
from  the  chaos  with  an  altered  character  and 
new  features  of  government.  The  royal  author- 
ity and  supreme  jurisdiction  of  the  parliament 
were  universally  recognised.  Yet  there  was  a 
tendency  towards  insubordination  left  among  the 
great  nobility,  arising  in  part  from  tlie  remains 
of  old  feudal  privileges,  but  still  more  from  that 
lax  administration  which,  in  the  convulsive  strug- 
gles of  the  war,  had  been  suffered  to  prevail.  In 
the  south  were  some  considerable  vassals,  the 
houses  of  Foix,  Albret,  and  Armagnac,  who,  on 
account  of  their  distance  from  the  seat  of  empire, 
had  always  maintained  a  very  independent  con- 
duct. The  dukes  of  Britany  and  Burgundy  were 
of  a  more  formidable  character,  and  might  rather 
be  ranked  among  foreign  powers  than  privileged 
subjects.  The  princes,  too,  of  the  royal  blood, 
who,  during  the  late  reign,  had  learned  to  partake 
or  contend  for  the  management,  were  ill-inclined 
towards  Charles  VII.,  himself  jealous,  from  old 
recollections  of  their  ascendancy.  They  saw  that 
the  constitution  was  verging  rapidly  towards  an 
absolute  monarchy,  from  the  direction  of  which 
they  would  studiously  be  excluded.  This  ap- 
prehension gave  rise  to  several  attempts  at  re- 
bellion during  the  reign  of  Charles  VII.,  and  to 
the  war,  commonly  entitled,  for  the  Public  AVeal 
('du  bicn  public'),  under  Louis  XI.  Among  the 
pretenses  alleged  by  the  revolters  in  each  of 
these,  the  injuries  of  the  people  were  not  for- 
gotten ;  but  from  the  people  they  received  small 
support.  Weary  of  civil  dissension,  and  anxious 
for  a  strong  government  to  secure  them  from 
depredation,  the  French  had  no  inducement  to 
intrust  even  their  real  grievances  to  a  few  mal- 
content princes,  whose  regard  for  the  common 
good  they  had  much  reason  to  distrust.  Every 
circumstance  favoured  Charles  VII.  and  his  son 
in  the  attainment  of  arbitrary  power.  The  coun- 
try was  pillaged  by  military  ruffians.  Some  of 
these  had  been  led  by  the  dauphin  to  a  war  in 
Germany,  but  the  remainder  still  infested  the 
high  roads  and  villages.  Charles  established 
his  companies  of  ordonnauce,  the  basis  of  the 
French  regular  army,  in  order  to  protect  the 
country  from  such  depredators.  They  consisted 
of  about  nine  thousand  soldiers,  all  cavalry,  of 
whom  fifteen  hundred  were  heavy-armed ;  a  force 
not  very  considerable,  but  the  first,  except  mere 
body-guards,  which  had  been  raised  in  any  part 
of  Europe  as  a  national  standing  array.  These 
troops  were  paid  out  of  the  produce  of  a  per- 
manent tax,  called  the  taille ;  an  innovation  still 
more  important  than  the  former.  But  the  pres- 
ent benefit  cheating  the  people,  now  prone  to 
submissive  habits,  little  or  no  opposition  was 
made,    except   in   Guienne,    the   inhabitants   of 


which  had  speedy  reason  to  regret  the  mild  gov- 
ernment of  England,  and  vainly  endeavoured  to 
return  to  its  protection.  It  was  not  long  before 
the  new  despotism  exhibited  itself  in  its  harshest 
character.  Louis  XI. ,  son  of  Charles  VII. ,  who 
during  his  father's  reign,  had  been  connected 
with  the  discontented  princes,  came  to  the  throne 
greatly  endowed  with  those  virtues  and  vices 
which  conspire  to  the  success  of  a  king. " — H. 
Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages,  eh.  1,  p«.  2. 

A.  D.  1458-1461. — Renewed  submission  of 
Genoa  to  the  King,  and  renewed  revolt.  See 
Genoa:  A.  D.  14.58-1464. 

A.  D.  1461. — Accession  of  King  Louis  XI. — 
Contemporary  portrait  of  him  by  Commines. — 
"Of  all  the  princes  that  I  ever  knew,  the  wisest 
and  most  dexterous  to  extricate  himself  out  of 
any  danger  or  difficulty  iu  time  of  adversity, 
was  our  master  King  Louis  XI.  He  was  the 
humblest  in  his  conversation  and  habit,  and  the 
most  painful  and  indefatigable  to  win  over  any 
man  to  his  side  that  he  thought  capable  of  doing 
him  either  mischief  or  service :  though  he  was 
often  refused,  he  would  never  give  over  a  man 
that  he  wished  to  gain,  but  still  pressed  and  con- 
tinued his  insinuations,  promising  him  largely, 
and  presenting  him  with  such  sums  and  honours 
as  he  knew  would  gratify  his  ambition ;  and  for 
such  as  he  had  discarded  in  time  of  peace  and 
prosperity,  he  paid  dear  (when  he  had  occasion 
for  them)  to  recover  them  again ;  b\it  when  he 
had  once  reconciled  them,  he  retained  no  enmity 
towards  them  for  what  had  passed,  but  employed 
them  freely  for  the  future.  He  was  naturally 
kind  and  indulgent  to  persons  of  mean  estate,  and 
hostile  to  all  great  men  who  had  no  need  of  him. 
Never  prince  was  so  conversable,  nor  so  inquisi- 
tive as  he,  for  his  desire  was  to  know  everybody 
he  could ;  and  indeed  he  knew  all  persons  of  any 
authority  or  worth  in  England,  Spain,  Portugal 
and  Italy,  iu  the  territories  of  the  Dukes  of  Bur- 
gundy and  Bretagne,  and  among  his  own  sub- 
jects; and  by  those  qualities  he  preserved  the 
crown  upon  his  head,  which  was  in  much  danger 
by  the  enemies  he  had  created  to  himself  upon 
his  accession  to  the  throne.  But  above  all,  his 
great  bounty  and  liberality  did  him  the  greatest 
service :  and  .yet,  as  he  behaved  himself  wisely  in 
time  of  distress,  so  when  he  thought  himself  a 
little  out  of  danger,  though  it  were  but  by  a  truce, 
he  would  disoblige  the  servants  and  officers  of  his 
court  by  mean  and  petty  ways,  which  were  little 
to  his  advantage;  and  as  for  peace,  he  could 
hardly  endure  the  thoughts  of  it.  He  spoke 
slightingly  of  most  people,  and  rather  before 
their  faces,  than  behind  their  backs,  unless 
he  was  afraid  of  them,  and  of  that  sort  there 
were  a  great  many,  for  lie  was  naturally  some- 
what timorous.  When  he  had  done  himself  any 
prejudice  by  his  talk,  or  was  apprehensive  he 
should  do  so,  and  wished  to  make  amends,  he 
would  say  to  the  person  whom  he  had  disobliged, 
'  I  am  sensible  my  tongue  has  done  me  a  great 
deal  of  mischief ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  has 
sometimes  done  me  much  good;  however,  it  is 
but  reason  I  should  make  some  reparation  for 
the  injury.'  And  he  never  used  this  kind  of 
apologies  to  any  person,  but  he  granted  some  fa- 
vour to  the  person  to  whom  he  made  it,  and  it  was 
always  of  considerable  amount.  It  is  certainly  a 
great  blessing  from  God  upon  any  prince  to  have 
experienced  adversity  as  well  as  prosperity,  ^ood 
as  well  as  evil,  and  especially  if  the  good  outweighs 


1211 


FRANCE,  1461. 


Louis  XL 


FRANCE,  1461. 


the  evil,  as  it  did  in  the  king  our  master.  I 
am  of  opinion  that  the  troubles  he  was  involved 
in,  in  his  youth,  when  he  fled  from  his  father, 
and  resided  six  years  together  with  Philip  Duke 
of  Burgundy,  were  of  great  service  to  him ;  for 
there  he  learned  to  be  complaisant  to  such  as  he 
had  occasion  to  use,  which  was  no  slight  advan- 
tage of  adversity.  As  soon  as  he  found  himself 
a  powerful  and  crowned  king,  his  mind  was 
wholly  bent  upon  revenge;  but  he  quickly  found 
the  inconvenience  of  this,  repented  by  degrees  of 
his  indiscretion,  and  made  sufQcient  reparation 
for  his  folly  and  error,  by  regaining  those  he  had 
injured,  as  shall  be  related  hereafter.  Besides, 
I  am  very  confident  that  if  his  education  had  not 
been  different  from  the  usual  education  of  such 
nobles  as  I  have  seen  in  France,  he  could  not  so 
easily  have  worked  himself  out  of  his  troubles ; 
for  they  are  brought  up  to  nothing  but  to  make 
themselves  ridiculous,  both  in  their  clothes  and 
discourse ;  they  have  no  knowledge  of  letters ;  no 
wise  man  is  suffered  to  come  near  them,  to  im- 
prove their  understandings ;  they  have  governors 
who  manage  their  business,  but  they  do  nothing 
themselves. " — Such  is  the  account  of  Louis  XI. 
which  Philip  de  Commines  gives  in  one  of  the 
early  chapters  of  his  delightful  Memoirs.  In  a 
later  chapter  he  tells  naively  of  the  king's  suspi- 
cions and  fears,  and  of  what  he  suffered,  at  the 
end  of  his  life,  as  the  penalty  of  his  cruel  and 
crafty  dealings  with  his  subjects:  "Some  five 
or  six  months  before  his  death,  lie  began  to  sus- 
pect everybody,  especially  those  who  were  most 
capable  and  deserving  of  the  administration  of 
affairs.  He  was  afraid  of  his  son,  and  caused 
him  to  be  kept  close,  so  that  no  man  saw 
or  discoursed  with  him,  but  by  his  special 
command.  At  last  he  grew  suspicious  of  his 
daughter,  and  of  his  son-in-law  the  Duke  of 
Bourbon,  and  required  an  account  of  what  persons 
came  to  speak  with  them  at  Plessis,  and  broke  up 
a  council  which  the  Duke  of  Bourbon  was  hold- 
ing there,  by  his  order.  .  .  .  Behold,  then,  if  he 
had  caused  many  to  live  under  him  in  continual 
fear  and  apprehension,  whether  it  was  not  re- 
turned to  him  again;  for  of  whom  could  lie 
be  secure  when  he  was  afraid  of  his  son-in-law, 
his  daughter,  and  his  own  son?  I  speak  this  not 
only  of  him,  but  of  all  other  princes  who  desire 
to  be  feared,  that  vengeance  never  falls  on  them 
till  they  grow  old,  and  then,  as  a  just  penance, 
they  are  afraid  of  everybody  themselves;  and 
what  grief  must  it  have  been  to  this  poor 
King  to  be  tormented  with  such  terrors  and  pas- 
sions? He  was  still  attended  by  his  physician. 
Master  James  Coctier,  to  wliom  in  five  months' 
time  he  had  given  fifty-four  thousand  crowns  in 
ready  money,  besides  the  bishopric  of  Amiens 
for  his  nephew,  and  other  great  otiices  and 
estates  for  himself  and  his  friends ;  yet  this  doctor 
used  him  very  roughly  indeed ;  one  would  not 
have  given  such  outrageous  language  to  one's 
servants  as  he  gave  the  King,  who  stood  in  such 
awe  of  him,  that  he  durst  not  forbid  him  his 
presence.  It  is  true  he  complained  of  his  impu- 
dence afterwards,  but  he  durst  not  change  him  as 
he  had  done  all  the  rest  of  his  servants ;  because 
he  had  told  him  after  a  most  audacious  manner 
one  day,  '  I  know  well  that  some  time  or  other 
you  will  dismiss  me  from  court,  as  you  have  done 
the  rest;  but  be  sure  (and  he  confirmed  it  with  a 
great  oath)  you  shall  not  live  eight  days  after  it' ; 
with  which  expression  the  King  was  so  terrified, 


that  ever  after  he  did  nothing  but  flatter  and 
bribe  him,  which  must  needs  have  been  a  great 
mortification  to  a  prince  who  had  been  humbly 
obeyed  all  his  life  by  so  many  good  and  brave 
men.  The  King  had  ordered  several  cruel 
prisons  to  be  made ;  some  were  cages  of  iron, 
and  some  of  wood,  but  all  were  covered  with  iron 
plates  both  within  and  without,  with  terrible 
locks,  about  eight  feet  wide  and  seven  high ;  the 
first  contriver  of  them  was  the  Bishop  of  Verdun, 
who  was  immediately  put  in  the  first  of  them 
that  was  made,  where  he  continued  fourteen 
years.  Many  bitter  curses  he  has  had  since  for 
his  invention,  and  some  from  me  as  I  lay  in  one 
of  them  eight  months  together  in  the  minority 
of  our  present  King.  He  also  ordered  heavy 
and  terrible  fetters  to  be  made  in  Germany,  and 
particularly  a  certain  ring  for  the  feet,  which 
was  extremely  hard  to  be  opened,  and  fitted  like 
an  iron  collar,  with  a  thick  weighty  chain,  and  a 
great  globe  of  iron  at  the  end  of  it,  most  un- 
reasonably heavy,  which  engines  were  called  the 
King's  Nets.  ...  As  in  his  time  this  barbarous 
variety  of  prisons  was  invented,  so  before  he 
died  he  himself  was  in  greater  torment,  and  more 
terrible  apprehension  than  those  whom  he  had 
imprisoned ;  which  I  look  upon  as  a  great  mercy 
towards  him,  and  as  a  part  of  his  purgatory; 
and  I  have  mentioned  it  here  to  show  that 
there  is  no  person,  of  what  station  or  dignity 
soever,  but  suffers  some  time  or  other,  either 
publicly  or  privately,  especially  if  he  has  caused 
other  people  to  suffer.  The  King,  towards  the 
latter  end  of  his  days,  caused  his  castle  of  Plessis- 
les-Tours  to  be  encompassed  with  great  bars  of 
iron  in  the  form  of  thick  grating,  and  at  the  four 
corners  of  the  house  four  sparrow-nests  of  iron, 
strong,  massy,  and  thick,  were  built.  The  grates 
were  without  the  wall  on  the  other  side  of  the 
ditch,  and  sank  to  the  bottom.  Several  spikes  of 
iron  were  fastened  into  the  wall,  set  as  thick  by 
one  another  as  was  possible,  and  each  furnished 
with  three  or  four  points.  He  likewise  placed 
ten  bow-men  in  the  ditches,  to  shoot  at  any  man 
that  durst  approach  the  castle  before  the  opening 
of  the  gates ;  and  he  ordered  they  should  lie  in 
the  ditches,  but  retire  to  the  sparrow-nests  upon 
occasion.  He  was  sensible  enough  that  this  for- 
tification was  too  weak  to  keep  out  an  army,  or 
any  great  body  of  men,  but  he  had  no  fear  of 
such  an  attack ;  his  great  apprehension  was,  that 
some  of  the  nobility  of  his  kingdom,  having  in- 
telligence within,  might  attempt  to  make  them- 
selves masters  of  the  castle  by  night.  .  .  .  Is  it  pos- 
sible then  to  keep  a  prince  (with  any  regard  to  his 
quality)  in  a  closer  prison  than  he  kept  himself? 
The  cages  which  were  made  for  other  people  were 
about  eight  feet  square ;  and  he  (though  so  great 
a  monarch)  had  but  a  small  court  of  the  castle  to 
walk  in,  and  seldom  made  use  of  that,  but  gen- 
erally kept  himself  in  the  gallery,  out  of  which 
he  went  into  the  chambers  on  his  way  to  mass, 
but  never  passed  through  the  court.  ...  I  have 
not  recorded  these  things  merely  to  represent  our 
master  as  a  suspicious  and  mistrustful  prince; 
but  to  show,  that  by  the  patience  which  he  ex- 
pressed in  his  sufferings  (like  those  which  he  in- 
flicted on  other  people),  they  may  be  looked  upon, 
in  my  judgment,  as  a  punishment  which  our 
Lord  inflicted  upon  him  in  this  world,  in  order 
to  deal  more  mercifully  with  him  in  the  next, 
as  well  in  regard  to  those  things  before-mentioned 
as  to  the  distempers  of  his  body,  which  were 


1212 


FRANCE,  1461. 


Louis  XI. 


FRANCE,  1461-1468. 


great  and  painful,  and  much  dreaded  by  him  be- 
fore they  came  upon  him ;  and,  likewise,  that  those 
princes  who  may  be  his  successors,  may  learn  by 
his  example  to  be  more  tender  and  indulgent  to 
their  subjects,  and  less  severe  in  their  punish- 
ments than  our  master  had  been :  although  I  will 
not  censure  him,  or  say  I  ever  saw  a  better 
prince;  for  though  he  oppressed  his  subjects 
himself  he  would  never  see  them  injured  by  any- 
body else." — Philip  de  Commines,  Memmrs,  bk. 
1,  ch.  10,  andhk.  6,  ch.  11. 

A.  D.  1461-1468.— The  character  and  reign 
of  Louis  XI.— The  League  of  the  Public  Weal. 
— "Except  St.  Louis,  he  [Louis  XL]  was  the 
first,  as,  indeed  (with  the  solitary  exception  of 
Louis  Philippe),  he  is  still  the  only  king  of  Prance 
whose  mind  was  ever  prepared  for  the  duties  of 
that  high  station  by  any  course  of  severe  and 
systematic  study.  Before  he  ascended  the  throne 
of  his  ancestors  he  had  profoundly  meditated 
the  great  Italian  authors,  and  the  institutions 
and  maxims  of  the  Italian  republics.  From  those 
lessons  he  had  derived  a  low  esteem  of  his  fellow- 
men,  and  especially  of  those  among  them  upon 
whom  wealth,  and  rank,  and  power  had  de- 
scended as  an  hereditary  birthright.  ...  He 
clearly  understood,  and  pursued  with  inflexible 
steadfastness  of  purpose  the  elevation  of  his 
country  and  the  grandeur  of  his  own  royal  house 
and  lineage ;  but  he  pursued  them  with  a  torpid 
imagination,  a  cold  heart,  and  a  ruthless  will. 
He  regarded  mankind  as  a  physiologist  contem- 
plates the  living  subjects  of  his  science,  or  as  a 
chess-player  surveys  the  pieces  on  his  board. 
...  It  has  been  said  of  Louis  XI. ,  that  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  men  of  the  Revolution  of  1789 
first  made  him  intelligible.  .  .  .  Louis  was  the 
first  of  the  terrible  Ideologists  of  France  —  of 
that  class  of  men  who,  to  enthrone  an  idolized 
idea,  will  offer  whole  hecatombs  of  human  sacri- 
fices at  the  shrine  of  their  idol.  The  Idea  of 
Louis  was  that  of  levelling  all  powers  in  the 
state,  in  order  that  the  administration  of  the 
affairs,  the  possession  of  the  wealth,  and  the  en- 
joyment of  the  honours  of  his  kingdom  might 
be  grasped  by  himself  and  his  successors  as  their 
solitary  and  unrivalled  dominion.  .  .  .  Before 
his  accession  to  the  throne,  all  the  great  fiefs  into 
which  France  had  been  divided  under  the  earlier 
Capetian  kings  had,  with  the  exception  of  Bre- 
tagne,  been  either  annexed  to  the  royal  domain, 
or  reduced  to  a  state  of  dependence  on  the  crown. 
But,  under  the  name  of  Apanages,  tliese  ancient 
divisions  of  the  kingdom  into  separate  princi- 
palities had  reappeared.  The  territorial  feudal- 
ism of  the  Middle  Ages  seemed  to  be  reviving  in 
the  persons  of  the  younger  branches  of  the  royal 
house.  The  Dukes  of  Burgundy  had  thus  become 
the  rulers  of  a  state  [see  Burgundy:  A.  D.  1467] 
which,  under  the  government  of  more  politic 
princes,  might  readily,  in  fulfillment  of  their 
desires,  have  attained  the  rank  of  an  independent 
kingdom.  The  Duke  of  Bretagne,  still  asserting 
the  peculiar  privileges  of  his  duchy,  was  rather 
an  ally  than  a  subject  of  the  king  of  France. 
Charles,  Duke  of  Berri,  the  brother  of  Louis,  as- 
pired to  the  possession  of  the  same  advantages. 
And  these  three  great  territorial  potentates,  in 
alliance  with  the  Due  de  Bourbon  and  the  Comte 
de  St.  Pol,  the  brothers-in-law  of  Louis  and 
of  his  queen,  united  together  to  form  that  con- 
federacy against  him  to  wliich  they  gave  tlie  very 
inappropriate  title  of  La  Ligue  du  Bien  Public. 


It  was,  however,  a  title  which  recognized  the 
growing  strength  of  the  Tiers  Etat,  and  of  that 
public  opinion  to  which  the  Tiers  Etat  at  once 
gave  utterance  and  imparted  authority.  Selfish 
ambition  was  thus  compelled  to  assume  the  mask 
of  patriotism.  The  princes  veiled  their  insatiable 
appetite  for  their  own  personal  advantages  under 
the  popular  and  plausible  demands  of  adminis- 
trative reforms —  of  the  reduction  of  imposts  — 
of  the  government  of  the  people  by  their  repre- 
sentatives—  and,  consequently,  of  the  convoca- 
tion of  the  States-General.  To  these  pretensions 
Louis  was  unable  to  make  any  effectual  resis- 
tance." An  indecisive  but  bloody  battle  was 
fought  at  Montlehery,  near  Paris  (July  16,  146.5), 
from  which  both  armies  retreated  with  every  ap- 
pearance of  defeat.  The  capital  was  besieged 
ineffectually  for  some  weeks  by  the  League; 
then  the  king  yielded,  or  seemed  to  do  so,  and 
the  Treat}'  of  Conflans  was  signed.  "He  as- 
sented, in  terms  at  least,  to  all  the  demands  of 
his  antagonists.  He  granted  to  the  Duke  of 
Berri  the  duchy  of  Normandy  as  an  apanage 
transmissible  in  perpetuity  to  his  male  heirs.  .  .  . 
The  confederates  then  laid  down  their  aims. 
The  wily  monarch  bided  his  time.  He  had  be- 
stowed on  them  advantages  which  he  well  knew 
would  destroy  their  popularity  and  so  subvert 
the  basis  of  their  power,  and  which  he  also  knew 
the  state  of  public  opinion  would  not  allow  them 
to  retain.  To  wrest  those  advantages  from  their 
hands,  it  was  only  necessary  to  comply  with 
their  last  stipulation,  and  to  convene  the  States- 
General.  They  met  accordingly,  at  Tours,  on 
the  6th  of  April,  1468."  As  Louis  had  antici- 
pated —  or,  rather,  as  he  had  planned  —  the 
States-General  cancelled  the  grant  of  Normandy 
to  the  Duke  of  Berri  (which  the  king  had  been 
able  already  to  recover  possession  of,  owing  to 
quarrels  between  the  dukes  of  Berri  and  Brit- 
tany) and,  generally,  took  away  from  the  princes 
of  the  League  nearly  all  that  they  had  extorted 
in  the  Treaty  of  Conflans.  On  the  express  invi- 
tation of  the  king  they  appointed  a  commission 
to  reform  abuses  in  the  government  —  which 
commission  "  attempted  little  and  effected  noth- 
ing"—  and,  then,  having  assisted  the  cunning 
king  to  overcome  his  threatening  nobles,  the 
States-General  were  dissolved,  to  meet  no  more 
while  Louis  XI.  occupied  the  throne.  In  a  des- 
perate situation  he  had  used  the  dangerous 
weapon  against  his  enemies  with  effect;  he  was 
too  prudent  to  draw  it  from  the  sheath  a  second 
time. — Sir  J.  Stephen,  Lect's  on  the  Hist,  of 
France,  led.  11. — "The  career  of  Louis  XI.  pre- 
sents a  curious  problem.  How  could  a  ruler 
whose  morality  fell  below  that  of  Jonathan  AVild 
yet  achieve  some  of  the  greatest  permanent  re- 
sults of  patriotic  statesmanship,  and  be  esteemed 
not  only  by  himself  but  by  so  calm  an  observer 
as  Commines  the  model  of  liingly  virtue  ?  As  to 
Louis's  moral  character  and  principles,  or  want 
of  principle,  not  a  doubt  can  be  entertained. 
To  say  he  committed  the  acts  of  a  villain  is  to 
fall  far  short  of  the  truth.  ...  He  possessed  a 
kind  of  religious  belief,  but  it  was  a  species  of 
religion  which  a  respectable  heathen  would  have 
scorned.  He  attempted  to  bribe  heaven,  or  rather 
the  saints,  just  as  he  attempted  to  win  over  his 
Swiss  allies — that  is,  by  gifts  of  money.  .  .  . 
Yet  this  man,  who  was  daunted  by  no  cruelty, 
and  who  could  be  bound  by  no  oath  save  one, 
did  work  which  all  statesmen  must  admire,  and 


1213 


FRANCE,  1461-1468. 


Louis  XI. 


FRANCE,  1461-1468. 


■which  French  patriots  must  fervently  approve. 
He  was  the  creator  of  modem  France.  When  he 
came  to  the  throne  it  seemed  more  than  likely 
that  an  utterly  selfish  and  treacherous  nobility 
would  tear  the  country  in  pieces.  The  English 
still  threatened  to  repeat  the  horrors  of  their  in- 
vasions. The  House  of  Burgundy  overbalanced 
the  power  of  the  crown,  and  stimulated  lawless- 
ness throughout  the  whole  country.  The  peas- 
antry were  miserably  oppressed,  and  the  middle 
classes  could  not  prosper  for  want  of  that  rule  of 
law  which  is  the  first  requisite  for  civilization. 
When  Louis  died,  the  existence  of  Prance  and 
the  power  of  the  French  crown  was  secured: 
'  He  had  extended  the  frontiers  of  his  kingdom ; 
Picardy,  Provence,  Burgundy,  Anjou,  Maine, 
Roussillon  had  been  compelled  to  acknowledge 
the  immediate  authority  of  the  crown.'  He  had 
crushed  the  feudal  oligarchy ;  he  had  seen  his 
most  dangerous  enemy  destroyed  by  the  resis- 
tance of  the  Swiss;  he  had  baffled  the  attempt  to 
construct  a  state  which  would  have  imperilled 
the  national  existence  of  France ;  he  had  put  an 
end  to  all  risk  of  English  Invasion ;  and  he  left 
France  the  most  powerful  country  in  Europe. 
Her  internal  government  was  no  doubt  oppres- 
sive, but,  at  any  rate,  it  secured  the  rule  of  law ; 
and  his  schemes  for  her  benefit  were  still  unfin- 
ished. He  died  regretting  that  he  could  not 
carry  out  his  plans  for  the  reform  of  the  law  and 
for  the  protection  of  commerce;  and,  in  the 
opinion  of  Commines,  if  God  had  granted  him 
the  grace  of  living  five  or  six  years  more,  he 
would  greatly  have  benefited  his  realm.  He 
died  commending  his  soul  to  the  intercession  of 
the  Virgin,  and  the  last  words  caught  from  his 
lips  were :  '  Lord,  in  thee  have  I  trusted ;  let  me 
never  be  confounded. '  Nor  should  this  be  taken 
as  the  expression  of  hopeless  self-delusion  or 
gratuitous  hypocrisy.  In  the  opinion  of  Com- 
mines, uttered  after  the  king's  death,  'he  was 
more  wise,  more  liberal,  and  more  virtuous  in 
all  things  than  any  contemporary  sovereign.' 
The  expressions  of  Commines  were,  it  may  be 
said,  but  the  echo  of  the  low  moral  tone  of  the 
age.  This,  no  doubt,  is  true;  but  the  fact 
that  the  age  did  not  condemn  acts  which,  taken 
alone,  seem  to  argue  the  utmost  depravity,  still 
needs  explanation.  The  matter  is  the  more 
worthy  of  consideration  because  Louis  represents, 
though  in  an  exaggerated  form,  the  vices  and 
virtues  of  a  special  body  of  rulers.  He  was  the 
incarnation,  so  to  speak,  of  kingcraft.  The  word 
and  the  idea  it  represents  have  now  become 
out  of  date,  but  for  about  two  centuries  —  say, 
roughly,  from  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury—  the  idea  of  a  great  king  was  that  of  a 
monarch  who  ruled  by  means  of  cunning,  in- 
trigue, and  disregard  of  ordinary  moral  rules.  We 
here  come  across  the  fact  which  explains  both 
the  career  and  the  reputation  of  Louis  and  of 
others,  such  as  Henry  VII.  of  England,  who 
were  masters  of  kingcraft.  The  universal  feel- 
ing of  the  time,  shared  by  subjects  no  less  than 
by  rulers,  was  that  a  king  was  not  bound  by  the 
rules  of  morality,  and  especially  by  the  rules  of 
honesty,  which  bind  other  men.  Until  you  real- 
ize this  fact,  nothing  is  more  incomprehensible 
than  the  adulation  lavished  by  men  such  as 
Bacon  or  Casaubon  on  a  ruler  such  as  James  I. 
.  .  .  The  real  puzzle  is  to  ascertain  how  this 
feeling  that  kings  were  above  the  moral  law  came 
into  existence.     The  facts  of  history  afford  the 


necessary  explanation.  When  the  modem  Euro- 
pean world  was  falling  into  shape  the  one  thing 
required  for  national  prosperity  was  the  growth 
of  a  power  which  might  check  the  disorders  of 
the  feudal  nobility,  and  secure  for  the  mass  of 
the  people  the  blessings  of  an  orderly  govern- 
ment. The  only  power  which,  in  most  cases, 
could  achieve  this  end,  was  the  crown.  In  Eng- 
land the  monarchs  put  an  end  to  the  wars  of 
the  nobility.  In  France  the  growth  of  the  mon- 
archy secured  not  only  internal  quiet,  but  pro- 
tection from  external  invasion.  In  these  and  in 
other  cases  the  interest  of  the  crown  and  the  in- 
terest of  the  people  became  for  a  time  identical. 
.  .  .  Acts  which  would  have  seemed  villainous 
when  done  to  promote  a  purely  private  interest, 
became  mere  devices  of  statesmanship  when  per- 
formed in  the  interest  of  the  public.  "The  maxims 
that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong,  and  that  the 
safety  of  the  people  is  the  highest  law,  blended 
together  in  the  minds  of  ambitious  rulers.  The 
result  was  the  production  of  men  like  Louis 
XI."— A.  V.  Dicey,  Willert's  Louis  XL  {TM 
Nation,  Dec.  7,  1876). — "A  careful  examina- 
tion of  the  reign  of  Louis  the  Eleventh  has 
particularly  Impressed  upon  me  one  fact,  that 
the  ends  for  which  he  toiled  and  sinned  through- 
out his  whole  life  were  attained  at  last  rather  by 
circumstances  than  by  his  labours.  The  supreme 
object  of  all  his  schemes  was  to  crush  that  most 
formidable  of  all  his  foes.  Burgundy.  And  yet 
had  Charles  confined  his  ambition  within  reason- 
able limits,  had  he  possessed  an  ordinary  share 
of  statecraft,  and,  above  all,  could  he  have  con- 
trolled those  fiery  passions,  which  drove  him  to 
the  verge  of  madness,  he  would  have  won  the 
game  quite  easily.  Louis  lacked  one  of  the  es- 
sential qualities  of  statecraft  —  patience ;  and  was 
wholly  destitute  of  that  necessity  of  ambition  — 
boldness.  An  irritable  restlessness  was  one  of 
the  salient  points  of  his  character.  His  courtiers 
and  attendants  were  ever  intriguing  to  embroil 
him  in  war,  'because,'  says  Comines,  'the  nature 
of  the  King  was  such,  that  unless  he  was  at  war 
with  some  foreign  prince,  he  would  certainly 
find  some  quarrel  or  other  at  home  with  his  ser- 
vants, domestics,  or  officers,  for  his  mind  must 
be  always  working.'  His  mood  was  ever  chang- 
ing, and  he  was  by  turns  confiding,  suspicious, 
avaricious,  prodigal,  audacious,  and  timid.  He 
frequently  nullified  his  most  crafty  schemes  by 
impatience  for  the  result.  He  would  sow  the 
seed  with  the  utmost  care,  but  he  could  not  wait 
for  the  fructification.  In  this  he  was  false  to  the 
practice  of  those  Italian  statesmen  who  were 
avowedly  his  models.  It  was  this  irritable  rest- 
lessness which  brought  down  upon  him  the 
hatred  of  all  classes,  from  the  noble  to  the  serf; 
for  we  find  him  at  one  time  cunningly  bidding  for 
popularity,  and  immediately  afterwards  destroy- 
ing all  he  had  gained  by  some  rash  and  incon- 
siderate act.  His  extreme  timidity  hampered 
the  execution  of  all  his  plans.  He  had  not  even 
the  boldness  of  the  coward  who  will  fight  when 
all  the  strength  is  on  his  own  side.  Constantly 
at  war,  during  a  reign  of  twenty-two  years  there 
were  fought  but  two  battles,  Montlhery  and 
Guingette,  both  of  which,  strange  to  say,  were 
undecided,  and  both  of  which  were  fought  against 
his  will  and  counsel.  ...  He  left  France  larger 
by  one-fourth  than  he  had  inherited  it;  but 
out  of  the  five  provinces  which  he  acquired, 
Proven9e  was  bequeathed  him,  Roussillon  was 


1214 


TRANCE,  1461-1468. 


LouU  XI. 


FRANCE,  1492-1515. 


pawned  to  him  by  the  usurping  King  of  Navarre, 
and  Burgundy  was  won  for  him  by  the  Swiss. 
His  triumphs  were  much  more  the  result  of  for- 
tune than  the  efforts  of  his  own  genius." — Lotiis 
the  Eleventh  (Temple  Bar,  v.  46,  py>.  523-524). 

Aiso  IN :  J.  Michelet,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  13. 
—P.  F.  Willert,  The  Reign  of  Louis  XL— 3.  F. 
Kirk,  Hist,  of  Charles  the  Bold,  bk.  1,  ch.  4-6. — 
P.  de  Coramines,  Memoirs,  bk.  1. — E.  de  Monstre- 
let.  Chronicles  {Johnes'  trans.),  bk.  3,  ch.  99-153. 

A.  D.  1467-1477.— The  troubles  of  Louis  XI. 
with  Charles  the  Bold,  of  Burgundy. — Death 
of  the  Duke  and  Louis'  acquisition  of  Bur- 
gundy. See  Burgundy:  A.  D.  1467-1468,  to 
1477. 

A.  D.  1483. — The  kingdom  as  left  by  Louis 
XL— Louis  XI.,  who  died  Aug.  30,  A.  D.  1483, 
"had  joined  to  the  crown  Berry,  the  apanage  of 
his  brother,  Provence,  the  duchy  of  Burgundy, 
Anjou,  Maine,  Ponthieu,  the  counties  of  Auxerre, 
of  Macon,  Charolais,  the  Free  County,  Artois, 
Marche,  Armagnac,  Cerdagne,  and  Roussilon. 
.  .  .  The  seven  latter  provinces  did  not  yet  re- 
main irrevocably  united  with  France :  one  part 
was  given  anew  in  apanage,  and  the  other  part 
restored  to  foreign  sovereigns,  and  only  returned 
one  by  one  to  the  crown  of  France.  .  .  .  The 
principal  work  of  Louis  XI.  was  the  abasement 
of  the  second  feudality,  which  had  raised  itself 
on  the  ruins  of  the  first,  and  which,  without  him, 
would  have  replunged  France  into  anarchy.  The 
chiefs  of  that  feudality  were,  however,  more  for- 
midable, since,  for  the  most  part,  they  belonged 
to  the  blood  royal  of  France.  Their  powerful 
houses,  which  possessed  at  the  accession  of  that 
prince  a  considerable  part  of  the  kingdom,  were 
those  of  Orleans,  Anjou,  Burgundy,  and  Bour- 
bon. They  found  themselves  much  weakened  at 
his  death,  and  dispossessed  in  great  part,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  history  of  the  reign,  by  confis- 
cations, treaties,  gifts  or  heritages.  By  the  side 
of  these  houses,  which  issued  from  that  of  France, 
there  were  others  whose  power  extended  still,  at 
this  period,  in  the  limits  of  France  proper,  over 
vast  domains.  Those  of  Luxembourg  and  La 
Mark  possessed  great  wealth  upon  the  frontier  of 
the  north ;  that  of  Vaudemont  had  inherited  Lor- 
raine and  the  duchy  of  Bar ;  the  house  of  La 
Tour  was  powerful  in  Auvergne ;  in  the  south 
the  houses  of  Foix  and  Albert  ruled,  the  first  in 
the  valley  of  Ariege,  the  second  between  the 
Adour  and  the  Pyrenees.  In  the  west  the  house 
of  Brittany  had  guarded  its  independence ;  but 
the  moment  approached  when  this  beautiful 
province  was  to  be  forever  united  with  the 
crown.  Lastly,  two  foreign  sovereigns  held 
possessions  in  France;  the  Pope  had  Avignon 
and  the  county  Venaissin ;  and  the  Duke  of  Savoy 
possessed,  between  the  Rhone  and  the  Saone, 
Bugey  and  Valromey.  The  time  was  still  dis- 
tant when  the  royal  authority  would  be  seen 
freely  exercised  through  every  territory  com- 
prised in  the  natural  limits  of  the  kingdom.  But 
Louis  XI.  did  much  to  attain  this  aim,  and  after 
him  no  princely  or  vassal  house  was  powerful 
enough  to  resist  the  crown  by  its  own  forces,  and 
to  put  the  throne  in  peril." — E.  de  Bonnechose, 
Hist,  of  IPrance,  ■».  1,  pp.  315-318,  and  foot-note. 

A.  D.  1483. — Accession  of  King  Charles 
VIII. 

A.  D.  1485-1487.— The  League  of  the 
Princes. — Charles  VIII. ,  son  and  successor  of 
Louis  XI.,  came  to  the  throne  at  the  age  of  thir- 


teen, on  the  death  of  his  father  in  1483,  His 
eldest  sister,  Anne,  married  to  the  Lord  of  Beau- 
jeu,  made  herself  practically  regent  of  the 
kingdom,  by  sheer  ability  and  force  of  character, 
and  ruled  during  the  minority,  pursuing  the 
lines  of  her  father's  policy.  The  princes  of  the 
blood-royal,  with  the  Dukes  of  Orleans  and  Bour- 
bon at  their  head,  formed  a  league  against  her. 
They  were  supported  by  many  nobles,  including 
Philip  de  Commines,  the  Count  of  Dunois  and 
the  Prince  of  Orange.  They  also  received  aid 
from  the  Duke  of  Brittany,  and  from  Maximilian 
of  Austria,  who  now  controlled  the  Netherlands. 
Anne's  general.  La  Tremouille,  defeated  the 
league  in  a  decisive  battle  (A.  D.  1487)  near  St. 
Aubin  du  Cormier,  where  the  Duke  of  Orleans, 
the  Prince  of  Orange,  and  many  nobles  and 
knights  were  made  prisoners.  The  Duke  and 
the  Prince  were  sent  to  Anne,  who  shut  them  up 
in  strong  places,  while  most  of  their  companions 
were  summarily  executed. — E.  de  Bonnechose, 
Hist,  of  Prance,  v.  1,  bk.  3,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of 
France,  ch.  26. 

A.  D.  1491.— Brittany,  the  last  of  the  great 
fiefs,  united  to  the  crown. — The  end  of  the 
Feudal  System.     See  Brittany:  A.  D.  1491. 

A.  D.  1492-1515.— The  reigns  of  Charles 
VIII.  and  Louis  XII.— Their  Italian  Expedi- 
tions and  Wars. — The  effects  on  France. — 
Beginning  of  the  Renaissance. — Louis  XI.  was 
succeeded  by  his  son,  Charles  VIII.,  a  boy  of 
thirteen  years,  whose  elder  sister  Anne  governed 
the  kingdom  ably  until  he  came  of  age.  She 
dealt  firmly  with  a  rebellion  of  the  nobles  and 
suppressed  it.  She  frustrated  an  intended  mar- 
riage of  Anne  of  Brittany  with  Maximilian  of 
Austria,  which  would  have  drawn  the  last  of  the 
great  semi-independent  fiefs  into  a  dangerous  re- 
lationship, and  she  made  Charles  instead  of  his 
rival  the  husband  of  the  Breton  heiress.  When 
Charles,  who  had  little  intelligence,  assumed  the 
government,  he  was  excited  with  dreams  of  mak- 
ing good  the  pretensions  of  the  Second  House  of 
Anjou  to  the  Kingdom  of  Naples.  Those  pre- 
tensions, which  had  been  bequeathed  to  Louis 
XL,  and  which  Charles  VIII.  had  now  inherited, 
had  the  following  origin:  "In  the  eleventh 
century,  Robert  Guiscard,  of  the  Norman  family  of 
Hauteville,  at  the  head  of  a  band  of  adventurers, 
took  possession  of  Sicily  and  South  Italy,  then 
in  a  state  of  complete  anarchy.  Roger,  the  son 
of  Robert,  founded  the  Kingdom  of  the  Two 
Sicilies  under  the  Pope's  suzerainty.  In  1189  the 
Guiscard  family  became  extinct,  whereupon  the 
German  Emperor  laid  claim  to  tlie  kingdom  in 
right  of  his  wife  Constance,  daugliter  of  one  of 
the  Norman  kings.  The  Roman  Pontiffs,  dread- 
ing such  powerful  neigbours,  were  adverse  to 
the  arrangement,  and  in  1254  King  Conrad,  be- 
ing succeeded  by  his  son  Conradin,  still  a  minor, 
furnished  a  pretext  for  bestowing  the  crown  of 
the  Two  Sicilies  on  Charles  d'Aujou,  brother  of 
St.  Louis.  Manfred,  guardian  of  the  boy  Con- 
radin, and  a  natural  son  of  the  Emperor  Frede- 
rick II.,  raised  an  army  against  Charles  d'Anjou, 
but  was  defeated,  and  fell  in  the  encounter  of 
1266.  Two  years  later.  Prince  Conradin  was 
cruelly  beheaded  in  Naples.  Before  his  death, 
however,  he  made  a  will,  by  which  he  invested 
Peter  III.  of  Aragon,  son-in-law  of  Manfred,  with 
full  power  over  the  Two  Sicilies,  exhorting  him 
to  avenge  his  death  [see  Italy:  A.  D.  1250-1268]. 


1215 


FRANCE,  1493-1515. 


Italian  Wars  of 
Charles  VIII.  and  Louis  XII. 


FRANCE,  1492-1515. 


This  bequest  -svas  the  origin  of  the  rivalry  be- 
tween the  houses  of  Aragon  and  Anjou,  a  rivalry 
which  developed  into  open  antagonism  when  the 
island  of  Sicily  was  given  up  to  Peter  of  Aragon 
and  his  descendants,  while  Charles  d' Anjou  still 
held  Naples  for  himself  and  his  heirs  [see  Italy  : 
A.  D.  1283-1300].  In  1435  Joan  II.,  Queen  of 
Naples,  bequeathed  her  estates  to  Alfonso  V.  of 
Aragon,  surnamed  the  3Iaguanimous,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  Louis  III.  of  Anjou.  After  a  long  and 
bloody  struggle,  Alfonso  succeeded  in  driving 
the  Anjou  dynasty  out  of  Naples  [see  Italy: 
A.  D.  1343-1389,  and  1386-1414].  Louis  III.  was 
the  last  representative  of  this  once-powerful 
family.  He  returned  to  France,  survived  his 
defeat  two-and-twenty  years,  and  by  his  will  left 
all  his  rights  to  the  Count  of  Maine,  his  nephew, 
who,  on  his  death,  transferred  them  to  Louis  XI. 
The  wily  Louis  was  not  tempted  to  claim  tliis 
worthless  legacy.  His  successor,  Charles  VIII., 
less  matter-of-fact,  and  more  romantic,  was  be- 
guiled into  a  series  of  brilliant,  though  sterile, 
expeditions,  disastrous  to  national  interests,  neg- 
lecting the  Flemish  provinces,  the  liege  vassals 
of  France,  and  thoroughly  French  at  heart. 
Charles  VIII.  put  himself  at  the  head  of  his 
nobles,  made  a  triumphal  entry  into  Najiles  and 
returned  without  having  gained  an  inch  of 
territory  [see  Italy  :  A.  D.  1493-1494,  and  1494- 
1496].  De  Commines  judges  the  whole  affair  a 
mystery ;  it  was,  in  fact,  one  of  those  dazzling 
and  chivalrous  adventures  with  which  the  French 
delighted  to  astonish  Europe.  Louis  XII.,  like 
Charles  VIII.  [whom  he  succeeded  in  1498],  pro- 
claimed his  right  to  Naples,  and  also  to  the 
Duchy  of  Milan,  inherited  from  his  grandmother, 
Valentine  de  Visconti.  These  pretended  rights 
were  more  than  doubtful.  The  Emperor  Wen- 
ceslas,  on  conferring  the  duchy  on  the  Viscontis, 
excluded  women  from  the  inheritance,  and  both 
Louis  XI.  and  Charles  VIII.  recognised  the  va- 
lidity of  the  Salic  law  in  Milan  by  concluding  an 
alliance  with  the  Sforzas.  The  seventeen  years 
of  Louis  XII. 's  reign  was  absorbed  in  these 
Italian  wars,  in  which  the  French  invariably  be- 
gan by  victory,  and  as  invariably  ended  in  de- 
feat. The  League  of  Cambrai,  the  Battles  of 
Agnadel,  Ravenna,  Novara,  tlie  Treaties  of  Gre- 
nada and  Blois,  are  the  principal  episodes  of  this 
unlucky  campaign."  —  C.  Coignet,  Francis  the 
First  and  His  I'imes,  ch.  3. — See,  also,  Italy: 
A.D.  1499-1500.— "  The  warriors  of  France  came 
back  from  Italy  with  the  wonders  of  the  South 
on  their  lips  and  her  treasures  in  their  hands. 
They  brought  with  them  books  and  paintings, 
they  brought  with  them  armour  inlaid  with  gold 
and  silver,  tapestries  enriched  with  precious 
metals,  embroidered  clothing,  and  even  liousehold 
furniture.  Distributed  by  many  hands  in  many 
different  places,  each  precious  thing  became  a 
separate  centre  of  initiative  power.  The  chateaux 
of  the  country  nobles  boasted  the  ti'easures  which 
had  fallen  to  the  share  of  their  lords  at  Genoa  or 
at  Naples;  and  the  great  women  of  the  court 
were  eager  to  divide  the  spoil.  The  contagion 
spread  rapidly.  Even  in  the  most  fatastic  mo- 
ment of  Gothic  inspiration,  the  French  artist 
gave  evidence  that  his  right  hand  obeyed  a  na- 
tional instinct  for  order,  for  balance,  for  com- 
pleteness, and  that  his  eye  preferred,  in  obedience 
to  a  national  predilection,  the  most  refined  har- 
monies of  colour.  Step  by  step  he  had  been  feel- 
ing his  way ;  now,  the  broken  link  of  tradition  was 


again  made  fast ;  the  workmen  of  Paris  and  the 
workmen  of  Athens  joined  hands,  united  by  the 
genius  of  Italy.  It  must  not,  however,  be  sup- 
posed that  no  intercourse  had  previously  existed 
between  France  and  Italy.  The  roads  by  Nar- 
bonne  and  Lyons  were  worn  by  many  feet.  The 
artists  of  Tours  and  Poitiers,  the  artists  of  Paris 
and  Dijon,  were  alike  familiar  witli  the  path  to 
Rome.  But  an  intercourse,  liitherto  restricted, 
was  rendered  by  the  wars  of  Charles  VIII.  all 
but  universal.  .  .  .  Cruelly  as  the  Italians  had 
suffered  at  the  hands  of  Charles  VIII.  they  still 
looked  to  France  for  help ;  they  knew  that  though 
they  had  been  injured  they  had  not  been  betrayed. 
But  the  weak  and  generous  impulses  of  Charles 
VIII.  found  no  place  in  the  councils  of  his  suc- 
cessors. .  .  .  The  doom  of  Italy  was  pronounced. 
Substantially  the  compact  was  this.  Aided  by 
Borgia,  the  French  were  to  destroy  the  free 
cities  of  the  north,  and  in  return  France  was  to 
aid  Borgia  in  breaking  the  power  of  tlie  inde- 
pendent nobles  who  yet  resisted  Papal  aggres- 
sion in  the  south.  In  July  1499  the  work  began. 
At  first  the  Italians  failed  to  realise  what  had 
taken  place.  When  the  French  army  entered  the 
Milanese  territory  the  inhabitants  fraternised  with 
the  troops,  Milan,  Genoa,  Pavia  opened  their 
gates  with  joy.  But  in  a  few  months  the  course 
of  events,  in  the  south,  aroused  a  dread  anxiety. 
There,  Borgia,  under  the  protection  of  the  French 
king,  and  with  the  assistance  of  tlie  French  arms, 
was  triumphantly  glutting  his  brutal  rage  and 
lust,  whilst  Frenchmen  were  forced  to  look  on 
helpless  and  indignant.  Milan,  justly  terrified, 
made  an  attempt  to  throw  herself  on  the  mercy 
of  her  old  ruler.  To  no  purpose.  Louis  went 
back  over  the  Alps,  leaving  a  strong  hand  and  a 
strong  garrison  in  Milan,  and  dragging  with  him 
the  unfortunate  Louis  Sforza,  a  miserable  proof 
of  the  final  destruction  of  the  most  brilliant  court 
of  Upper  Italy.  .  .  .  By  the  campaign  of  1507, 
the  work,  thus  begun,  was  consummated.  The 
ancient  spirit  of  independence  still  lingered  in 
Genoa,  and  Venice  was  not  yet  crushed.  There 
were  still  fresh  laurels  to  be'  won.  In  this  Holy 
War  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  willingly  joined 
forces  with  France.  .  .  .  The  deathblow  was 
first  given  to  Genoa.  She  was  forced,  Marot 
tells  us,  '  la  corde  au  coul,  la  glaive  sous  la 
gorge,  implorer  la  clemence  de  ce  prince. '  Ven- 
ice was  next  traitorously  surprised  and  irrepa- 
rably injured.  Having  thus  brilliantly  achieved 
the  task  of  first  destroying  the  lettered  courts, 
and  next  the  free  cities  of  Italy,  Louis  died,  be- 
queathing to  Fran9ois  I.  the  shame  of  fighting 
out  a  hopeless  struggle  for  supremacy  against 
allies  who,  no  longer  needing  help,  had  combined 
to  drive  the  French  from  the  field.  There  was, 
indeed,  one  other  duty  to  be  performed.  The 
shattered  remains  of  Italian  civilisation  might  be 
collected,  and  Paris  might  receive  the  men  whom 
Italy  could  no  longer  employ.  The  French  re- 
turned to  France  empty  of  honour,  gorged  with 
plunder,  satiated  with  rape  and  rapine,  boasting 
of  cities  sacked,  and  garrisons  put  to  the  sword. 
They  had  sucked  the  lifeblood  of  Italy,  but  her 
death  brought  new  life  to  France.  The  impetus 
thus  acquired  by  art  and  letters  coincided  with 
a  change  in  political  and  social  constitutions. 
The  gradual  process  of  centralisation  which  had 
begun  with  Louis  XI.  transformed  the  life  of  the 
whole  nation.  .  .  .  The  royal  court  began  to 
take  proportions  hitherto  unknown.    It  gradually 


]216 


FRANCE,  1493-1515. 


Renaissance 
and  Refonnation. 


FRANCE,  1513-1515. 


became  a  centre  which  gathered  together  the 
rich,  the  learned,  and  the  skilled.  Artists,  who 
had  previously  been  limited  in  training,  isolated 
in  life,  and  narrowed  in  activity  by  the  rigid  con- 
servative action  of  the  great  guilds  and  corpora- 
tions, were  thus  brought  into  immediate  contact 
with  the  best  culture  of  their  day.  For  the 
Humanists  did  not  form  a  class  apart,  and  their 
example  incited  those  with  whom  they  lived  to 
effort  after  attainments  as  varied  as  their  own, 
whilst  the  Court  made  a  rallying  point  for  all, 
which  gave  a  sense  of  countenance  and  protection 
even  to  those  who  might  never  hope  to  enter 
it.  .  .  .  Emancipation  of  the  individual  is  the 
watchword  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  to  the  artist 
it  brought  relief  from  the  trammels  of  a  caste 
thraldom,  and  the  ceaseless  efforts  of  the  Human- 
ists find  an  answer  even  in  the  new  forms  seen 
slowly  breaking  through  the  sheath  of  Gothic 
art." — Mrs.  Mark  Pattison,  The  Renaissance  of 
Art  in  France,  v.  1,  eh.  1. 

i6th  Century. —  Renaissance  and  Reforma- 
tion.— "The  first  point  of  difference  to  be  noted 
between  the  Renaissance  in  France  and  the  Re- 
naissance in  Italy  is  one  of  time.  Roughly  speak- 
ing it  may  be  said  that  France  was  a  hundred 
years  behind  Italy.  .  .  .  But  if  the  French  Re- 
naissance was  a  later  and  less  rapid  growth,  it 
was  infinitely  hardier.  The  Renaissance  litera- 
ture in  Italy  was  succeeded  by  a  long  period  of 
darkness,  which  remained  unbroken,  save  by  fit- 
ful gleams  of  light,  till  the  days  of  Alfieri.  The 
Renaissance  litei-ature  in  France  was  the  prelude 
to  a  literature,  which,  for  vigour,  variety,  and 
average  excellence,  has  in  modern  times  rarely, 
if  ever,  been  surpassed.  The  reason  for  this  su- 
periority on  the  part  of  France,  for  the  fact  that 
the  Renaissance  produced  there  more  abiding 
and  more  far-reaching  results,  may  be  ascribed 
partly  to  the  natural  law  that  precocious  and 
rapid  growths  are  always  less  hardy  than  later 
and  more  gradual  ones,  partly  to  the  character 
of  the  French  nation,  to  its  being  at  once  more 
intellectual  and  less  imaginative  than  the  Italian, 
and  therefore  more  influenced  by  the  spirit  of 
free  inquiry  than  by  the  worship  of  beauty; 
partly  to  the  greater  unity  and  vitality  of  its  po- 
litical life,  but  in  a  large  measure  to  the  fact  that 
in  France  the  Renaissance  came  hand   in  hand 


with  the  Reformation.  .  .  .  We  must  look  upon 
the  Reformation  as  but  a  fresh  development  of 
the  Renaissance  movement,  as  the  result  of  the 
spirit  of  free  inquiry  carried  into  theology,  as  a 
revolt  against  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Church. 
Now  the  Renaissance  in  Italy  preceded  the  Ref- 
ormation by  more  than  a  century.  There  is  no 
trace  in  it  of  any  desire  to  criticise  the  received 
theology.  ...  In  France  on  the  other  hand  the 
new  learning  and  the  new  religion,  Greek  and 
heresy,  became  almost  controvertible  terms.  Le- 
ffevre  d'  Staples,  the  doyen  of  French  humanists, 
translated  the  New  Testament  into  French  in 
1534:  the  Estiennes,  the  Hebrew  scholar  Fran- 
9ois  Vatable,  Turnfebe,  Ramus,  the  great  surgeon 
Ambroise  Pare,  the  artists  Bernard  Palissy  and 
Jean  Goujon  were  all  avowed  protestants;  while 
Clement  Marot,  Bude,  and  above  all  Rabelais, 
for  a  time  at  least,  looked  on  the  reformation 
with  more  or  less  favour.  In  fact  so  long  as  the 
movement  appeared  to  them  merely  as  a  revolt 
against  the  narrowness  and  illiberality  of  monas- 
tic theology,  as  an  assertion  of  the  freedom  of 
the  human  intellect,  the  men  of  letters  and  cul- 

"  1217 


ture  with  hardly  an  exception  joined  hands  with 
the  reformers.  It  was  only  when  they  found 
that  it  implied  a  moral  as  well  as  an  intellectual 
regeneration,  that  it  began  to  wear  for  some  of 
them  a  less  congenial  aspect.  This  close  connexion 
between  the  Reformation  and  the  revival  of  learn- 
ing was,  on  the  whole,  a  great  gain  to  France. 
It  was  not  as  in  Germany,  where  the  stronger 
growth  of  the  Reformation  completely  choked 
the  other.  In  France  they  met  on  almost  equal 
terms,  and  the  result  was  that  the  whole  move- 
ment was  thereby  strengthened  and  elevated 
both  intellectually  and  morally.  .  .  .  French  hu- 
manism can  boast  of  a  long  roll  of  names  honour- 
able not  only  for  their  high  attainments,  but  also 
for  their  integrity  and  purity  of  life.  Robert  Es- 
tienne,  Turnfibe,  Ramus,  Cujas,  the  Chancellor 
de  I'Hopital,  Estienne  Pasquier,  Thou,  are  men 
whom  any  country  would  be  proud  to  claim  for 
her  sons.  And  as  with  the  humanists,  so  it  was 
with  the  Renaissance  generally  in  France.  On 
the  whole  it  was  a  manly  and  intelligent  move- 
ment. .  .  .  The  literature  of  the  French  Renais- 
sance, though  in  point  of  form  it  is  far  below 
that  of  the  Italian  Renaissance,  in  manliness  and 
vigour  and  hopefulness  is  far  superior  to  it.  It 
is  in  short  a  literature,  not  of  maturity,  but  of 
promise.  One  has  only  to  compare  its  greatest 
name,  Rabelais,  with  the  greatest  name  of  the 
Italian  Renaissance,  Ariosto,  to  see  the  difference. 
How  formless  1  how  crude  I  how  gross !  how  full 
of  cumbersome  details  and  wearisome  repetitions 
is  Rabelais  1  How  limpid!  how  harmonious  is 
Ariosto  I  what  perfection  of  style,  what  delicacy 
of  touch  1  He  never  wearies  us,  he  never  offends 
our  taste.  And  yet  one  rises  from  the  reading 
of  Rabelais  with  a  feeling  of  buoyant  cheerful- 
ness, while  Ariosto  in  spite  of  his  wit  and  gaiety 
is  inexpressibly  depressing.  The  reason  is  that 
the  one  bids  us  hope,  the  other  bids  us  despair; 
the  one  believes  in  truth  and  goodness  and  in  the 
future  of  the  human  race,  the  other  believes  in 
nothing  but  the  pleasures  of  the  senses,  which 
come  and  go  like  many-coloured  bubbles  and 
leave  behind  them  a  boundless  ennui.  Rabelais 
and  Ariosto  are  true  types  of  the  Renaissance  as 
it  appeared  in  their  respective  countries." — A. 
Tilley,  Tfie  Literature  of  the  French  Renaissance, 
ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1501-1504. — Treaty  of  Louis  XII.  with 
Ferdinand  of  Aragon  for  the  partition  of 
Naples.— French  and  Spanish  conquest.— 
Quarrel  of  the  confederates,  and  war. — The 
Spaniards  in  possession  of  the  Neapolitan 
domain.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1501-1504. 

A.  D.  1504. — Norman  and  Breton  fishermen 
on  the  Newfoundland  banks.  See  Newfound- 
land: A.  D.  1501-1578. 

A.  D.  1504-1506. — Thetreatiesof  Blois,  with 
Ferdinand  and  Maximilian,  and  the  abroga- 
tion of  them. — Relinquishment  of  claims  on 
Naples.     See  Italy;  A.  D.  1504-1506. 

A.  D.  1507. —  Revolt  and  subjugation  of 
Genoa.     See  Genoa:  A.  D.  1500-1507. 

A.  D.  1508-1509. — The  League  of  Cambrai 
against  Venice.  See  Venice:  A.  D.  1508-1509. 
A.  D.  1510-1513. — The  breaking  up  of  the 
League  of  Cambrai. — The  Holy  League  formed 
by  Pope  Julius  II.  against  Louis  XII.— The 
French  expelled  from  Milan  and  all  Italy.  See 
Italy:  A.  D.  1510-1513. 

A.  D.  1513-1515. — English  invasion  under 
Henry  VIII.— The  Battle  of  the  Spurs.— Mar- 


FRANCE,  1513-1515. 


Francis  I. 


FRANCE,  1515. 


riage  of  Louis  XII.  with  Mary  of  England. — 
The  King's  death.— Accession  of  Francis  I.— 
"The  long  preparations  of  Henry  VIII.  of  Eng- 
land for  the  invasion  of  France  [in  pursuance  of 
the  '  Holy  League '  against  Louis  XII.,  formed  by 
Pope  Julius  II.  and  renewed  by  Leo  X.,— see 
Italy:  A.  D.  1510-1513]  being  completed,  that 
king,  in  the  summer  of  1513,  landed  at  Calais, 
whither  a  great  part  of  his  army  had  already 
been  transported.  The  oflfer  of  100,000  golden 
crowns  easily  persuaded  the  Emperor  to  promise 
his  assistance,  at  the  head  of  a  body  of  Swiss 
and  Germans.  But  at  the  moment  Henry  was 
about  to  penetrate  into  France,  he  received  the 
excuses  of  Maximilian,  who,  notwithstanding  a 
large  advance  received  from  England,  found  him- 
self unable  to  levy  the  promised  succours.  Noth- 
ing disheartened  by  this  breach  of  faith,  the  King 
of  England  had  already  advanced  into  Artois; 
when  the  Emperor,  attended  by  a  few  German 
nobles,  appeared  in  the  English  camp,  and  was 
cordially  welcomed  by  Henry,  who  duly  appre- 
ciated his  military  skill  and  local  knowledge.  A 
valuable  accession  of  strength  was  also  obtained 
by  the  junction  of  a  large  body  of  Swiss,  who, 
encouraged  by  the  victory  of  Novara,  had  already 
crossed  the  Jura,  and  now  marched  to  the  seat  of 
war.  The  poverty  of  the  Emperor  degraded  him 
to  the  rank  of  a  mercenary  of  England;  and 
Henry  consented  to  grant  him  the  daily  allow- 
ance of  100  crowns  for  his  table.  But  humiliat- 
ing as  this  compact  was  to  Maximilian,  the  King 
of  England  reaped  great  benefit  from  his  pres- 
ence. A  promiscuous  multitude  of  Germans  had 
flocked  to  the  English  camp,  in  hopes  of  partak- 
ing in  the  spoil ;  and  the  arrival  of  their  valiant 
Emperor  excited  a  burst  of  enthusiasm.  The 
siege  of  Terouenne  was  formed :  but  the  bravery 
of  the  besieged  baffled  the  efforts  of  the  allies ; 
and  a  month  elapsed,  during  which  the  English 
sustained  severe  loss  from  frequent  and  success- 
ful sorties.  By  the  advice  of  the  Emperor,  Henry 
resolved  to  risk  a  battle  with  the  French,  and  the 
plain  of  Guinegate  was  once  more  the  field  of 
conflict  [August  18,  1513].  This  spot,  where 
Maximilian  had  formerly  struck  terror  into  the 
legions  of  Louis  XI. ,  now  became  the  scene  of  a 
rapid  and  undisputed  victory.  The  French  were 
surprised  by  the  allies,  and  gave  way  to  a  sud- 
den panic ;  and  the  shameful  flight  of  the  cavalry 
abandoned  the  bravest  of  their  leaders  to  the 
hands  of  their  enemies.  The  Duke  of  Longue- 
ville,  La  Palisse,  Imbercourt,  and  the  renowned 
Chevalier  Bayard,  were  made  prisoners ;  and  the 
ridicule  of  the  conquerors  commemorated  the  in- 
glorious flight  by  designating  the  rout  as  the 
Battle  of  the  Spurs.  The  capture  of  Terouenne 
immediately  followed ;  and  the  fall  of  Tournay 
soon  afterwards  opened  a  splendid  prospect  to 
the  King  of  England.  Meanwhile  the  safety  of 
France  was  threatened  in  another  quarter.  A 
large  body  of  Swiss,  levied  in  the  name  of  Maxi- 
milian but  paid  with  the  gold  of  the  Pope,  burst 
into  Burgundy;  and  Dijon  was  with  difficulty 
saved  from  capture.  From  this  danger,  how- 
ever, France  was  extricated  by  the  dexterous  ne- 
gotiation of  Tremouille ;  and  the  Swiss  were  in- 
duced to  withdraw.  .  .  .  Louis  now  became 
seriously  desirous  of  peace.  He  made  overtures 
to  the  Pope,  and  was  received  into  favour  upon 
consenting  to  renounce  the  Council  of  Pisa.  He 
conciliated  the  Kings  of  Aragon  and  England  by 
proposals  of   marriage;    he   offered   his  second 


daughter  Reuee  to  the  young  Charles  of  Spain; 
and  his  second  Queen,  Anne  of  Bretainy,  being 
now  dead,  he  proposed  to  unite  himself  with 
Mary  of  England,  the  favourite  sister  of  Henry. 
.  .  .  But  though  peace  was  made  upon  this  foot- 
ing, the  former  of  the  projected  marriages  never 
took  place:  the  latter,  however,  was  magnifi- 
cently solemnized,  and  proved  fatal  to  Louis. 
The  amorous  King  forgot  his  advanced  age  in 
the  arms  of  his  young  and  beautiful  bride ;  his 
constitution  gave  way  under  the  protracted  fes- 
tivities consequent  on  his  nuptials;  and  on  the 
1st  of  January,  1515,  Louis  XII.  was  snatched 
from  his  adonng  people,  in  his  53d  year.  He 
was  succeeded  by  his  kinsman  and  son-in-law, 
Francis,  Count  of  AngoulSme,  who  stood  next 
in  hereditary  succession,  and  was  reputed  one  of 
the  most  accomplished  princes  that  ever  mounted 
the  throne  of  Prance." — Sir  R.  Comyn,  Hist,  of 
the  Western  Empire,  ch.  38  («.  2). 

Also  in:  J.  S.  Brewer,  The  Reign  of  Henry 
VIII.,  ch.  1. — L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  tlie  Latin 
and  Teutonic  Nations  from  1494  to  1514,  bk.  3,  ch. 
4,  sect.  7-8. 

A.  D.  1515. — Accession  of  Francis  I. — His 
invasion  of  Italy. — The  Battle  of  Marignano. 
— "Francois  I.  was  in  his  31st  year  when  he 
ascended  the  throne  of  France.  His  education 
in  all  manly  accomplishments  was  perfect,  and 
...  lie  manifested  ...  an  intelligence  which 
had  been  carefully  cultivated.  .  .  .  Unfortu- 
nately his  moral  qualities  had  been  profoundly 
corrupted  by  the  example  of  his  mother,  Louise 
of  Savoy,  a  clever  and  ambitious  woman,  but 
selfish,  unscrupulous,  and  above  all  shamelessly 
licentious.  Louise  had  been  an  object  of  jealousy 
to  Anne  of  Britauy,  who  had  always  kept  her  in 
the  shade,  and  she  now  snatched  eagerly  at  the 
prospect  of  enjoying  power  and  perhaps  of  reign- 
ing in  the  name  of  her  son,  whose  love  for  his 
mother  led  him  to  allow  her  to  exercise  an  in- 
fluence which  was  often  fatal  to  the  interests  of 
his  kingdom.  .  .  .  Charles  duke  of  Bourbon, 
who  was  notoriously  the  favoured  lover  of  Louise, 
was  appointed  to  the  oflice  of  constable,  which 
had  remained  vacant  since  1488 ;  and  one  of  her 
favourite  ministers,  Antoine  Duprat,  first  presi- 
dent of  the  parliament  of  Paris,  was  entrusted 
with  the  seals.  Both  were  men  of  great  capacity ; 
but  the  first  was  remarkable  for  his  pride,  and  the 
latter  for  his  moral  depravity.  The  first  cares 
of  the  new  king  of  France  were  to  prepare  for 
war.  .  .  .  Unfortunately  for  his  country,  Fran- 
(;ois  I.  shared  in  the  infatuation  which  had  drag- 
ged his  predecessors  into  the  wars  in  Italy ;  and 
all  these  warlike  preparations  were  designed  for  , 
the  reconquest  of  Milan.  He  had  already  inti- 
mated his  design  by  assuming  at  his  corona- 
tion the  titles  of  king  of  Prance  and  duke  of 
Milan.  ...  He  entered  into  an  alliance  with 
Charles  of  Austria,  prince  of  Castile,  who  had 
now  reached  his  majority  and  assumed  the 
government  of  the  Netherlands.  ...  A  treaty 
between  these  two  princes,  concluded  on  the  24th 
of  March,  1515,  guaranteed  to  each  party  not 
only  the  estates  they  held  or  which  might  sub- 
sequently descend  to  them,  but  even  their  con- 
quests. .  .  .  The  republic  of  Venice  and  the 
king  of  England  renewed  the  alliances  into  which 
they  had  entered  with  the  late  king,  but  Ferdi- 
nand of  Aragon  refused  even  to  prolong  the  truce 
unless  the  whole  of  Italy  were  included  in  it, 
and  he  entered  into  a  separate  alliance  with  the 


1218 


FRANCE,  1515. 


Francis  I.  in  Italy. 


FRANCE,  1515-1518. 


emperor,  the  duke  of  Milan,  and  the  Swiss,  to  op- 
pose the  designs  of  the  French  liing.  The  efforts 
of  Francois  I.  to  gain  over  the  Swiss  had  been 
defeated  by  the  influence  of  tlie  cardinal  of  Sion. 
Yet  the  pope,  Leo  X.,  hesitated,  and  avoided 
compromising  himself  witli  either  part}-.  In 
the  course  of  the  month  of  July  [1515],  the  most 
formidable  army  which  had  j'ct  been  led  from 
France  into  Ital)'  was  assembled  in  the  district 
between  Grenoble  and  Embrun,  and  the  king, 
after  entrusting  the  regency  to  his  mother,  Louise, 
with  unlimited  powers,  proceeded  to  place  him- 
self at  its  head. "— T  Wright,  Hist,  of  France,  bk. 
3,  ch.  1  (».  1). — "The  passes  in  Italy  had  already 
been  occupied  by  the  Swiss  under  their  captain 
general  Galeazzo  Visconti.  Galeazzo  makes 
their  number  not  more  than  6,000.  .  .  .  They 
were  posted  at  Susa,  commauding  the  two  roads 
from  Mont  Cenis  and  Geneva,  by  one  of  which 
the  French  must  pass  or  abandon  their  artillery. 
In  this  perplexity  it  was  proposed  by  Triulcio  to 
force  a  lower  passage  across  the  Cottian  Alps  lead- 
ing to  Saluzzo.  The  attempt  was  attended  with 
almost  insurmountable  difficulties.  .  .  .  But  the 
French  troops  with  wonderful  spirits  and  alacrity 
.  .  .  were  not  to  be  baffled.  They  dropped  their 
artillery  by  cables  from  steep  to  steep ;  down 
one  range  of  mountains  and  up  another,  until 
five  days  had  been  spent  in  this  perilous  enter- 
prise, and  they  found  themselves  safe  in  the 
plains  of  Saluzzo.  Happily  the  Swiss,  secure  in 
their  position  at  Susa,  had  never  dreamed  of  the 
possibility  of  such  a  passage.  .  .  .  Prosper 
Colonna,  who  commanded  in  Italy  for  the  Pope, 
was  sitting  down  to  his  comfortable  dinner  at 
Villa  Franca,  when  a  scout  covered  with  dust 
dashed  into  his  apartment  announcing  that  the 
French  had  crossed  the  Alps  The  next  minute 
the  town  was  filled  with  the  advanced  guard, 
under  the  Sieur  d'Ymbercourt  and  the  celebrated 
Bayard.  The  Swiss  at  Susa  had  still  the  advan- 
tage of  position,  and  might  have  hindered  the 
passage  of  the  main  body  of  the  French;  but 
they  had  no  horse  to  transport  their  artillery, 
were  badly  led,  and  evidently  divided  in  their 
councils.  They  retired  upon  No  vara,"  and  to 
Milan,  intending  to  effect  a  junction  with  the 
viceroy  of  Naples,  who  advanced  to  Cremona. 
On  the  morning  of  the  13th  of  September,  Car- 
dinal Scheimer  harangued  tlie  Swiss  and  urged 
them  to  attack  the  French  in  their  camp,  which 
was  at  Marignauo,  or  Melignano,  twelve  miles 
away.  His  fatal  advice  was  acted  on  with  ex- 
citement and  haste.  "The  day  was  hot  and 
dusty.  The  advanced  guard  of  the  French  was 
under  the  command  of  the  Constable  of  Bourbon, 
whose  vigilance  defeated  any  advantage  the 
Swiss  might  otherwise  have  gained  by  the  sud- 
denness and  rapidity  of  their  movements.  At 
nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,  as  Bourbon  was  sit- 
ting down  at  table,  a  scout,  dripping  with  water, 
made  his  appearance.  He  had  left  Milan  only  a 
few  hours  before,  had  waded  the  canals,  and 
came  to  announce  the  approach  of  the  enemy. 
.  .  .  The  Swiss  came  on  apace;  they  had  disen- 
cumbered themselves  of  their  hats  and  caps,  and 
thrown  off  their  shoes,  the  better  to  fight  with- 
out slipping.  They  made  a  dash  at  the  French 
artillery,  and  were  foiled  after  hard  fighting. 
...  It  was  an  autumnal  afternoon ;  the  sun  had 
gone  down;  dust  and  niglit-fall  separated  and 
confused  the  combatants.  The  French  trumpets 
sounded  a  retreat ;  both  armies  crouched  down 


in  the  darkness  within  cast  of  a  tennis-ball  of 
each  other.  .  .  .  Where  they  fought,  there  each 
man  laid  down  to  rest  when  darkness  came  on, 
within  hand-grip  of  his  foe. "  The  next  morning, 
"the  autumnal  mist  crawled  slowly  away,  and 
once  more  exposed  the  combatants  to  each  other's 
view.  The  advantage  of  the  ground  was  on  the 
side  of  the  French,  Thej'  were  drawn  up  in  a 
valley  protected  by  a  ditch  full  of  water.  Though 
the  Swiss  had  taken  no  refreshment  that  night, 
they  renewed  the  fight  with  unimpaired  animosity 
and  vigour.  .  .  .  Francis,  surroimded  by  a  body 
of  mounted  gentlemen,  performed  prodigies  of 
valour.  The  night  had  given  him  opportunity 
for  the  better  arrangement  of  his  troops ;  and  as 
the  day  wore  on,  and  the  sun  grew  hot,  the 
Swiss,  though  'marvellously  deliberate,  brave, 
and  obstinate,'  began  to  give  way.  The  arrival 
of  the  Venetian  general,  D'Alviano,  with  fresh 
troops,  made  the  French  victorj'  complete.  But 
the  Swiss  retreated  inch  b}'  inch  with  the  greatest 
deliberation,  carrying  off  their  great  guns  on  their 
shoulders.  .  .  .  The  French  were  too  exhausted 
to  follow.  And  their  victory  had  cost  them  dear ; 
for  the  Swiss,  with  peculiar  hatred  to  the  French 
gentry  and  the  lance-knights,  had  shown  no 
mere)'.  They  spared  none,  and  made  no  prison- 
ers. The  glory  of  the  battle  was  great.  .  .  . 
The  Swiss,  the  best  troops  in  Europe,  and  hitherto 
reckoned  invincible  .  .  .  had  been  the  terror  and 
scourge  of  Italy,  equally  formidable  to  friend 
and  foe,  and  now  their  prestige  was  extinguished. 
But  it  was  not  in  these  merely  military  aspects 
that  the  battle  of  Marignano  was  important.  No 
one  who  reads  the  French  chronicles  of  the  times, 
can  fail  to  perceive  that  it  was  a  battle  of  opin- 
ions and  of  classes  even  more  than  of  nations ;  of 
a  fierce  and  rising  deraocratical  element,  now 
rolled  back  for  a  short  season,  only  to  display  it- 
self in  another  form  against  royalty  and  nobility; 
—  of  the  burgher  classes  against  feudality.  .  .  . 
The  old  romantic  element,  overlaid  for  a  time  by 
the  political  convulsions  of  the  last  century,  had 
once  more  gained  the  ascendant.  It  was  to 
blaze  forth  and  revive,  before  it  died  out  entirely, 
in  the  Sydneys  and  Raleighs  of  Queen  Elizabeth's 
reign ;  it  was  to  lighten  up  the  glorious  imagina- 
tion of  Spenser  before  it  faded  into  the  dull 
prose  of  Puritan  divinity,  and  the  cold  grey 
dawn  of  inductive  philosophy.  But  its  last  great 
battle  was  the  battle  of  Marignano." — J.  S. 
Brewer,  TJie  Reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  v.  1,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  Miss  Pardee,  Court  and  Reign  of 
IVancis  I.,  v.  1,  c7t.  6-7. —  L.  Larchey,  Hist,  of 
Bayard,  bk.  3,  ch.  1-3. 

A.  D.  1515-1518. — Francis  I.  in  possession 
of  Milan. — His  treaties  with  the  Swiss  and 
the  Pope. —  Nullification  of  the  Pragmatic 
Sanction  of  Charles  VII. — The  Concordat  of 
Bologna. — "  On  the  15th  of  September,  the  day 
after  the  battle  [of  Marignano],  the  Swiss  took 
the  road  back  to  their  mountains.  Francis  I. 
entered  Milan  in  triumph.  Maximilian  Sforza 
took  refuge  in  the  castle,  and  twenty  days  after- 
wards on  the  4th  of  October,  surrendered,  con- 
senting to  retire  to  France,  with  a  pension  of 
30,000  crowns,  and  the  promise  of  being  rec- 
ommended for  a  cardinal's  hat,  and  almost  con- 
soled for  his  downfall  '  by  the  pleasure  of  being 
delivered  from  the  insolence  of  the  Swiss,  the 
exactions  of  the  Emperor  Maximilian,  and  the 
rascalities  of  the  Spaniards. '  Fifteen  years  after- 
wards,   in  June,  1530,  he  died  in  oblivion  at 


1219 


FRANCE,  1515-1518. 


FRANCE,  1515-1547. 


Paris.  Francis  I.  regained  possession  of  all 
-Milaness,  adding  thereto,  with  the  pope's  con- 
•sent,  the  duchies  of  Parma  and  Piacenza,  which 
had  been  detached  from  it.  .  .  .  Two  treaties, 
one  of  November  7,  1515,  and  the  other  of  No- 
vember 39,  1516,  re-established  not  only  peace, 
but  perpetual  alliance,  between  the  King  of 
France  and  the  thirteen  Swiss  Cantons,  with 
stipulated  conditions  in  detail.  Whilst  these  ne- 
gotiations were  in  progress,  Francis  I.  and  Leo 
X. ,  by  a  treaty  published  at  Viterbo,  on  the  13th 
of  October,  proclaimed  their  hearty  reconcilia- 
tion. The  pope  guaranteed  to  Francis  I.  the 
duchy  of  Milan,  restored  to  him  those  of  Parma 
and  Piacenza,  and  recalled  his  troops  which  were 
still  serving  against  the  Venetians."  At  the  same 
time,  arrangements  were  made  for  a  personal 
meeting  of  the  pope  and  the  French  king,  which 
took  place  at  Bologna  in  December,  1515.  "Fran- 
cis did  not  attempt  to  hide  his  design  of  recon- 
quering the  kingdom  of  Naples,  which  Ferdinand 
the  Catholic  had  wrongfully  usurped,  and  he 
demanded  the  pope's  countenance.  The  pope  did 
not  care  to  refuse,  but  he  pointed  out  to  the  king 
that  everything  foretold  the  very  near  death  of 
King  Ferdinand;  and  'Your  Majesty,'  said  he, 
'  will  then  have  a  natural  opportunity  for  claim- 
ing your  rights ;  and  as  for  me,  free,  as  I  shall 
then  be,  from  my  engagements  with  the  King 
of  Arragon  in  respect  of  the  crown  of  Naples,  I 
shall  find  it  easier  to  respond  to  your  majesty's 
wish.'  The  pope  merelj'  wanted  to  gain  time. 
Francis,  putting  aside  for  the  moment  the  king- 
dom of  Naples,  spoke  of  Charles  VII.  's  Pragmatic 
Sanction  [see  above:  A.  D.  1438],  and  the  neces- 
sity of  putting  an  end  to  the  difficulties  wliich 
had  arisen  on  this  subject  between  the  court  of 
Rome  and  the  Kings  of  France,  his  predecessors. 
'As  to  that,'  said  the  pope,  'I  could  not  grant 
what  your  predecessors  demanded;  but  be  not 
uneasy;  I  have  a  compensation  to  propose  to 
you  which  will  prove  to  you  how  dear  your  in- 
terests are  to  me.'  The  two  sovereigns  had, 
without  doubt,  already  come  to  an  understanding 
on  this  point,  when,  after  a  three  days'  interview 
with  Leo  X. ,  Francis  I.  returned  to  Milan,  leav- 
ing at  Bologna,  for  the  purpose  of  treating  in 
detail  the  affair  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  his 
chancellor,  Duprat,  who  had  accompanied  him 
during  all  this  campaign  as  his  adviser  and  ne- 
gotiator. .  .  .  The  popes  .  .  .  had  all  of  them 
protested  since  the  days  of  Charles  VII.  against 
the  Pragmatic  Sanction  as  an  attack  upon  their 
rights,  and  had  demanded  its  abolition.  In  1461, 
Louis  XI.  .  .  .  had  yielded  for  a  moment  to  tlie 
demand  of  Pope  Pius  II.,  whose  countenance  he 
desired  to  gain,  and  had  abrogated  the  Pragmatic ; 
but,  not  having  obtained  wliat  he  wanted  thereby, 
and  having  met  with  strong  opposition  in  the 
Parliament  of  Paris  to  his  concession,  he  had  let 
it  drop  without  formally  retracting  it.  .  .  . 
This  important  edict,  then,  was  still  vigorous  in 
1515,  when  Francis  I.,  after  his  victory  at  Me- 
legnano  and  his  reconciliation  with  the  pope, 
left  Chancellor  Duprat  at  Bologna  to  pursue  the 
negotiation  reopened  on  tliat  subject.  The  '  com- 
pensation,' of  which  Leo  X.,  on  redemanding  the 
abolition  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanction,  had  given  a 
peep  to  Francis  I.,  could  not  fail  to  liave  charms 
for  a  prince  so  little  scrupulous,  and  for  his  still 
less  scrupulous  chancellor.  The  pope  proposed 
that  the  Pragmatic,  once  for  all  abolislied,  should 
be  replaced  by  a  Concordat  between  llie  two  sov- 


ereigns, and  that  this  Concordat,  whilst  putting 
a  stop  to  the  election  of  the  clergy  by  the  faith- 
ful, should  transfer  to  the  king  the  riglit  of  nom- 
ination to  bishoprics  and  other  great  ecclesiastical 
offices  and  benefices,  reserving  to  the  pope  the 
right  of  presentation  of  prelates  nominated  by 
the  king.  This,  considering  the  condition  of 
society  and  government  in  the  16th  century,  in 
the  absence  of  political  and  religious  liberty,  was 
to  take  away  from  the  church  her  own  existence, 
and  divide  her  between  two  masters,  without 
giving  her,  as  regarded  either  of  them,  any 
other  guarantee  of  independence  than  the  mere 
chance  of  their  dissensions  and  quarrels.  .  .  . 
Francis  I.  and  his  chancellor  saw  in  the  proposed 
Concordat  nothing  but  the  great  increment  of 
influence  it  secured  to  them,  by  making  all  the 
dignitaries  of  the  church  suppliants  at  first  and 
then  clients  of  the  kingship.  After  some  diffi- 
culties as  to  points  of  detail,  the  Concordat  was 
concluded  and  signed  on  the  18th  of  August, 
1516.  Five  months  afterwards,  on  the  5th  of 
February,  1517,  the  king  repaired  in  person  to 
Parliament,  to  which  he  had  summoned  many 
prelates  and  doctors  of  the  University.  The 
Chancellor  explained  the  points  of  the  Concordat. 
.  .  .  The  king  ordered  its  registration,  '  for  the 
good  of  his  kingdom  and  for  quittance  of  the 
promise  he  had  given  the  pope. ' "  For  more  than 
a  year  the  Parliament  of  Paris  resisted  the  royal 
order,  and  it  was  not  until  the  22d  of  March, 
1518,  that  it  yielded  to  the  king's  threats  and 
proceeded  to  registration  of  the  Concordat,  with 
forms  and  reservations  "which  were  evidence 
of  compulsion.  The  other  Parliaments  of  France 
followed  with  more  or  less  zeal  .  .  .  the  exam- 
ple shown  by  that  of  Paris.  The  University 
was  heartily  disposed  to  push  resistance  farther 
than  had  been  done  bj'  Parliament."  —  F.  P. 
Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  France,  ch.  28  (».  4). — 
"  The  execution  of  the  Concordat  was  vigorously 
contested  for  years  afterwards.  Cathedrals  and 
monastic  chapters  proceeded  to  elect  bishops  and 
abbots  under  the  provisions  of  the  Pragmatic 
Sanction ;  and  every  such  case  became  a  fresh 
source  of  exasperation  between  the  contending 
powers.  .  .  .  But  the  Parliament,  though  clam- 
ouring loudly  for  the  '  Gallican  liberties,'  and 
making  a  gallant  stand  for  national  independence 
as  against  the  usurpations  of  Rome,  was  unable 
to  maintain  its  ground  against  the  overpowering 
despotism  of  the  Crown.  The  monarchical  au- 
thority ultimately  achieved  a  complete  triumph. 
In  1527  a  peremptory  royal  ordinance  prohibited 
the  courts  of  Parliament  from  taking  further 
cognisance  of  causes  affecting  elections  to  con- 
sistorial  benefices  and  conventual  priories;  and 
all  such  matters  were  transferred  to  the  sole  juris- 
diction of  the  Council  of  State.  After  this  the 
agitation  against  the  Concordat  gradually  sub- 
sided. But  although,  in  virtue  of  its  compulsory 
registration  by  the  Parliament,  the  Concordat 
became  part  of  the  law  of  the  land,  it  is  certain 
that  the  Gallican  Church  never  accepted  this 
flagrant  invasion  of  its  liberties. " —  W.  H.  Jervis, 
Hint,  of  the  Church  of  France,  v.  1,  pp.  109-110. 
A.  D.  1515-1547. — The  institution  of  the 
Court. — Its  baneful  influence. — "  Francis  I.  in- 
stituted the  Court,  and  this  had  a  decisive  influ- 
ence upon  the  manners  of  the  nobility.  Those 
lords,  whose  respect  royalty  had  difficulty  in 
keeping  when  they  were  at  their  castles,  having 
come  to  court,  prostrated  themselves  before  the 


1220 


FRANCE,  1515-1547. 


The  Court 
of  Francis  I. 


FRANCE,  1516-1517. 


throne,  and  yielded  obedience  with  their  whole 
hearts.  A  few  words  will  describe  this  Court. 
The  king  lodged  and  fed  in  his  own  large  palace, 
which  was  fitted  for  the  purpose,  the  fiower  of 
the  French  nobility.  Some  of  these  lords  were 
in  his  service,  under  the  title  of  officers  of  his 
household  —  as  chamberlains,  purveyors,  equer- 
ries, &c.  Large  numbers  of  domestic  offices 
were  created  solely  as  an  excuse  for  their  pres- 
ence. Others  lived  there,  without  duties,  sim- 
ply as  guests.  All  these,  besides  lodging  and 
food,  had  often  a  pension  as  well.  A  third  class 
were  given  only  a  lodging,  and  provided  their 
own  table ;  but  all  were  amused  and  entertained 
with  various  pleasures,  at  the  expense  of  the 
king.  Balls,  carousals,  stately  ceremonials, 
grand  dinners,  theatricals,  conversations  inspired 
by  the  presence  of  fair  women,  constant  inter- 
course of  all  kinds,  wliere  each  could  choose  for 
himself,  and  where  the  refined  and  literary  found 
a  place  as  well  as  tlie  vain  and  profligate, —  such 
was  court  life,  a  truly  different  thing  from  the 
monotonous  and  brutal  existence  of  the  feudal  lord 
at  his  castle  in  the  depths  of  his  province.  So, 
from  all  sides,  nobles  flocked  to  court,  to  gratify 
both  the  most  refined  tastes  and  the  most  degraded 
passions.  Some  came  hoping  to  make  their  for- 
tune, a  word  from  the  king  sufficing  to  enrich  a 
man ;  others  came  to  gain  a  rank  in  the  army,  a 
lucrative  post  in  the  finance  department,  an 
abbey,  or  a  bishopric.  From  the  time  kings 
held  court,  it  became  almost  a  law,  that  nothing 
should  be  granted  to  a  nobleman  who  lived  be- 
yond its  pale.  Those  lords  who  persisted  in 
staying  on  their  own  estates  were  supposed  to 
rail  against  the  administration,  or,  as  we  of  the 
present  would  express  it,  to  be  in  opposition. 
'  They  must  indeed  be  men  of  gross  minds  who 
are  not  tempted  by  tlie  polish  of  the  court ;  at 
all  events  it  is  very  insolent  in  them  to  show  so 
little  wish  to  see  their  sovereign,  and  enjoy  the 
honor  of  living  under  his  roof.'  Such  was 
almost  precisely  the  opinion  of  the  king  in  re- 
gard to  the  provincial  nobility.  .  .  .  Ambition 
drew  the  nobles  to  court;  ambition,  society,  and 
dissipation  kept  them  there.  To  incur  the  dis- 
pleasure of  their  master,  and  be  exiled  from 
court  was,  first,  to  lose  all  hope  of  advancement, 
and  then  to  fall  from  paradise  into  purgatory. 
It  killed  some  people.  But  life  was  much  more 
expensive  at  court  than  in  the  castles.  As  in  all 
society  where  each  is  constantly  in  the  presence 
of  his  neighbor,  there  was  unbounded  rivalry  as 
to  who  should  be  most  brilliant,  most  superb. 
The  old  revenues  did  not  suffice,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  the  inevitable  result  of  the  absence 
of  the  lords  was  to  decrease  them.  Whilst  the 
expenses  of  the  noblemen  at  Chambord  or  Ver- 
sailles were  steadily  on  the  increase,  his  iaten- 
dant,  alone  and  imrestrained  upon  the  estate, 
filled  his  own  pockets,  and  sent  less  money  every 
quarter,  so  that,  to  keep  up  the  proper  rank,  the 
lord  was  forced  to  beg  a  pension  from  the  king. 
Low  indeed  was  the  downfall  of  the  old  pride 
and  feudal  independence  I  The  cjuestion  was 
how  to  obtain  these  pensions,  ranks,  offices,  and 
favors  of  all  kinds.  The  virtues  most  prized  and 
rewarded  by  the  kings  were  not  civic  virtues, — 
capacity,  and  services  of  value  for  the  public 
good;  what  pleased  them  was,  naturally,  devo- 
tion to  their  person,  blind  obedience,  flattery, 
and  subservience." — P.  Lacombe,  A  Sfwrt  His- 
tory of  tlie  French  People,  ch.  23. 


A.  D.  1516-1517.  —  Maximilian's  attempt 
against  Milan. — Diplomatic  intrigues. — The 
Treaty  of  Noyon.^After  Francis  I.  had  taken 
possession  of  Milan,  and  while  Pope  Leo  X.  was 
making  professions  of  friendship  to  him  at  Bo- 
logna, a  scheme  took  shape  among  the  French 
king's  enemies  for  depriving  him  of  his  conquest, 
and  the  pope  was  privy  to  it.  "  Henry  VIIL 
would  not  openly  break  the  peace  between  Eng- 
land and  France,  but  he  offered  to  supply  Maxi- 
milian with  Swiss  troops  for  an  attack  upon 
Milan.  It  was  useless  to  send  money  to  Maxi- 
milian, who  would  have  spent  it  on  himself"; 
but  troops  were  hired  for  the  emperor  by  the 
English  agent.  Pace,  and  "at  the  beginning  of 
!March  [1516]  the  joint  army  of  Maximilian  and 
the  Swiss  assembled  at  Trent.  On  March  24  they 
were  within  a  few  miles  of  Milan,  and  their  suc- 
cess seemed  sure,  when  suddenly  Maximilian 
found  that  his  resources  were  exhausted  and  re- 
fused to  proceed ;  next  day  he  withdrew  his 
troops  and  abandoned  his  allies.  .  .  .  The  expe- 
dition was  a  total  failure ;  yet  English  gold  had 
not  been  spent  in  vain,  as  the  Swiss  were  pre- 
vented from  entirely  joining  the  French,  and 
Francis  \.  was  reminded  that  his  position  in  Italy 
was  by  no  means  secure.  Leo  X.,  meanwhile,  in 
the  words  of  Pace,  '  had  played  marvellously 
with  both  hands  in  this  enterprise. ' .  .  .  England 
was  now  the  chief  opponent  of  the  ambitious 
schemes  of  France,  and  aimed  at  bringing  about 
a  league  with  Maximilian,  Charles  [who  had  just 
succeeded  Ferdinand  of  Spain,  deceased  January 
23, 1516],  tlie  Pope,  and  the  Swiss,  But  Charles's 
ministers,  chief  of  whom  was  Croy,  lord  of  Chi- 
evres,  had  a  care  above  all  for  the  interests  of 
Flanders,  and  so  were  greatly  under  the  influence 
of  France.  .  .  .  France  and  England  entered 
into  a  diplomatic  warfare  over  the  alliance  with 
Charles.  First,  England  on  April  19  recognised 
Charles  as  King  of  Spain,  Navarre,  and  the  Two 
Sicilies ;  then  Wolsey  strove  to  make  peace  be- 
tween Venice  and  Maximilian  as  a  first  step 
towards  detaching  Venice  from  its  French  alli- 
ance." On  the  other  hand,  negotiations  were 
secretly  carried  on  and  (August  13)  "  the  treaty 
of  Noyon  was  concluded  between  Francis  I.  and 
Charles.  Charles  was  to  marry  Louise,  the 
daughter  of  Francis  I.,  an  infant  of  one  year  old, 
and  receive  as  her  dower  the  French  claims  on 
Naples;  Venice  was  to  pay  Maximilian  200,000 
ducats  for  Brescia  and  Verona ;  in  case  he  refused 
this  offer  and  continued  the  war,  Charles  was  at 
liberty  to  help  his  grandfather,  and  Francis  I.  to 
help  the  Venetians,  without  any  breach  of  the 
peace  now  made  between  them.  ...  In  spite  of 
the  efforts  of  England,  Francis  I.  was  every- 
where successful  in  settling  his  difficulties.  On 
November  29  a  perpetual  peace  was  made  at  Fri- 
burg  between  France  and  the  Swiss  Cantons ;  on 
December  3  the  treaty  of  Noyon  was  renewed, 
and  Maximilian  was  included  in  its  provisions. 
Peace  was  made  between  him  and  Venice  by  the 
provision  that  Maximilian  was  to  hand  over  Ve- 
rona to  Charles,  who  in  turn  should  give  it  up  to 
the  King  of  France,  who  delivered  it  to  the 
Venetians;  Maximilian  in  return  received  100,000 
ducats  from  Venice  and  as  much  from  France. 
The  compact  was  duly  carried  out :  '  On  Febru- 
ary 8,  1517,'  wrote  the  Cardinal  of  Sion,  '  Verona 
belonged  to  the  Emperor;  on  the  9th  to  the  King 
Catholic;  on  the  15th  to  the  French;  on  the  17th 
to  the  Venetians. '    Such  was  the  end  of  the  wars 


1221 


FRANCE,  1516-1517. 


Francis  I.  and 
Charles  V. 


FRANCE.  1523-1525. 


that  had  arisen  from  the  League  of  Cambrai. 
After  a  struggle  of  eight  years  the  powers  that 
had  confederated  to  destroy  Venice  came  together 
to  restore  lier  to  her  former  place.  Venice  might 
well  exult  in  this  reward  of  her  long  constancy, 
her  sacrifices  and  her  disasters." — M.  Creighton, 
Mst.  of  the  Papacy,  during  tlie  Period  of  the  Ref- 
ormation, bk.  5,  ch.  19  {v.  4). 

Also  en  :  J.  S.  Brewer,  The  Reign  of  Henry 
VIIL,  ch.  4-6  (p.  1). 

A.  D.  1519. — Candidacy  of  Francis  I.  for  the 
Imperial  crown.     See  Ger>i.\nv:  A.  D.  lolO, 

A.  D.  1520-1523. — Rivalry  of  Francis  I.  and 
Charles  V. — The  Emperor's  successes  in  Italy 
and  Navarre. — Milan  again  taken  from  France. 
— The  vyrongs  and  the  treason  of  the  Con- 
stable of  Bourbon. — "With  their  candidature 
for  the  Imperial  crown,  burst  forth  the  inextin- 
guishable rivalry  between  Francis  I.  and  Charles 
V.  The  former  claimed  Naples  for  himself  and 
Navarre  for  Henry  d'Albret:  the  Emperor  de- 
manded the  Milanese  as  a  fief  of  the  Empire,  and 
the  Duchy  of  Burgundy.  Their  resources  were 
about  equal.  If  the  empire  of  Charles  were  more 
extensive  the  kingdom  of  France  was  more  com- 
pact. The  Emperor's  subjects  were  richer,  but 
his  authority  more  circumscribed.  Tiie  reputa- 
tion of  the  French  cavalry  was  not  inferior  to 
that  of  the  Spanish  infantry.  Victory  would  be- 
long to  the  one  who  should  win  ov'er  the  King  of 
England  to  his  side.  .  .  .  Both  gave  pensions  to 
his  Prime  Jlinister,  Cardinal  Wolsey ;  they  each 
asked  the  hand  of  his  daughter  >Iary,  one  for 
the  dauphin,  the  other  for  himself.  Ifrancis  I. 
obtained  from  him  an  interview  at  Calais,  and 
forgetting  tliat  he  wished  to  gain  his  favour, 
eclipsed  him  by  his  elegance  and  magnificence 
[see  Field  of  the  Cloth  of  Gold].  Charles 
v.,  more  adroit,  had  anticipated  this  interview 
by  visiting  Henry  VIII.  in  England.  He  had 
secured  Wolsey  by  giving  him  hopes  of  the  tiara. 
.  .  .  Everything  succeeded  with  the  Emperor. 
He  gained  Leo  X.  to  his  side  and  thus  obtained 
sufficient  influence  to  raise  his  tutor,  Adrian  of 
Utrecht,  to  the  papacy  [on  the  death  of  Leo, 
Dec.  1, 1521].  The  French  penetrated  into  Spain, 
but  arrived  too  late  to  aid  the  rising  there  [in 
Navarre,  1531].  The  governor  of  the  Milanese, 
Lautrec,  who  is  said  to  have  exiled  from  Milan 
nearly  half  its  inhabitants,  was  driven  out  of 
Lombardy  [and  the  Pope  retook  Parma  and  Pla- 
centia].  He  met  with  the  same  fate  again  in  the 
following  year:  the  Swiss,  who  were  ill-paid, 
asked  either  for  dismissal  or  battle,  and  allowed 
themselves  to  be  beaten  at  La  Bicoque  [April  29, 
1522].  The  money  intended  for  the  troops  had 
been  used  for  other  purposes  by  the  Queen- 
mother,  who  hated  Lautrec.  At  the  moment 
when  Francis  I.  was  thinking  of  re-entering  Italy, 
an  internal  enemy  threw  France  into  the  utmost 
danger.  Francis  had  given  mortal  offence  to  the 
Constable  of  Bourbon,  one  of  those  who  had 
most  contributed  to  the  victory  of  Marignan. 
Charles,  Count  of  Montpensier  and  Dauphin  of 
Auvergne,  held  hy  virtue  of  his  wife,  a  grand- 
daughter of  Louis  XL,  the  Duchy  of  Bourbon, 
and  the  counties  of  Clermont,  La  Marche  and 
other  domains,  which  made  hini  the  first  noble  in 
the  kingdom.  On  the  death  of  his  wife,  the 
Queen-mother,  Louise  of  Savoy,  who  had  wanted 
to  marry  the  Constable  and  had  been  refused  by 
him,  resolved  to  ruin  him.  She  disputed  with 
him  this  rich  inheritance  and  obtained  from  her 


son  that  tlie  property  should  be  provisionally 
sequestered.  Bourbon,  exasperated,  resolved  to 
pass  over  to  tlie  Emperor  (1523).  Half  a  century 
earlier,  revolt  did  not  mean  disloyalty.  The 
most  accomplished  knights  in  France,  Dunoisand 
John  of  Calabria,  had  joined  the  'League  for  the 
public  weal.' .  .  .  But  now  it  was  no  question  of 
a  revolt  against  the  king ;  such  a  thing  was  im- 
possible in  France  at  this  time.  It  was  a  con- 
spiracy against  the  very  existence  of  France  that 
Bourbon  was  plotting  with  foreigners.  He 
promised  Charles  V.  to  attack  Burgundy  as  soon 
as  Francis  I.  had  crossed  the  Alps,  and  to  rouse 
into  revolt  five  provinces  of  which  he  believed 
himself  master;  the  kingdom  of  Provence  was  to 
be  re-established  in  his  favour,  and  France,  par- 
titioned between  Spain  and  England,  would  have 
ceased  to  exist  as  a  nation.  He  was  soon  able  to 
enjoy  the  reverses  of  his  country." — J.  Miclielet, 
Summary  of  Modern  Hist,,  ch.  6." — "  Henry  VIII. 
and  Charles  V.  were  both  ready  to  secure  the 
services  of  the  ex -Constable.  He  decided  in 
favour  of  Charles  as  the  more  powerful  of  the 
two.  .  .  .  These  secret  negotiations  were  carried 
on  in  the  spring  of  15'23,  while  Francis  I.  (having 
sent  a  sufficient  force  to  protect  his  northern 
frontier)  was  preparing  to  make  Italy  the  seat  of 
war.  AVith  this  object  the  king  ordered  a  ren- 
dezvous of  the  army  at  Lyons,  in  the  beginning 
of  September,  and  having  arranged  to  pass 
through  Moulins  on  his  way  to  join  the  forces, 
called  upon  the  Constable  to  meet  him  there  and 
to  proceed  with  him  to  Lyons.  Already  vague 
rumours  of  an  understanding  between  the  Em- 
peror and  Bourbon  had  reached  Francis,  who 
gave  no  credence  to  them ;  but  on  his  way  M.  de 
Breze,  Senesclial  of  Normandy,  attached  to  the 
Court  of  Louise  of  Savoy,  sent  such  precise  de- 
tails of  the  affair  by  two  Norman  gentlemen  in 
the  Constable's  service  that  doubt  was  no  longer 
possible."  Francis  accordingly  entered  Moulins 
with  a  considerable  force,  and  went  straight  to 
Bourbon,  who  feigned  illness.  The  Constable 
stoutly  denied  to  the  king  all  the  charges  which 
the  latter  revealed  to  him,  and  Francis,  who  was 
strongly  urged  to  order  his  arrest,  refused  to  do 
so.  But  a  few  days  later,  when  the  king  had 
gone  forward  to  Lyons,  Bourbon,  pretending  to 
follow  him,  rode  away  to  his  strong  castle  of  Chan- 
telles,  from  whence  he  wrote  letters  demanding 
the  restitution  of  his  estates.  As  soon  as  his 
flight  was  known,  Francis  sent  forces  to  seize 
him;  but  the  Constable,  taking  one  companion 
with  him,  made  his  way  out  of  the  kingdom  in 
disguise.  Escaping  to  Italy,  he  was  there  placed 
in  command  of  tlie  imperial  army. — C.  Coignet, 
Francis  I.  and  his  Times,  ch.  4. 

Also  in:  Miss  Pardoe,  The  Court  and  Reign 
of  Francis  I.,  v.  1,  ch.  14-19. — See,  also,  Aus- 
tria: A.  D.  1519-1555. 

A.  D.  1521. — Invasion  of  Nav,arre.  See  Na- 
vakre;  A.  D.  1442-1521. 

A.  D.  1521-1525. — Beginning  of  the  Protes- 
tant Reform  movement.  See  Papacy:  A.  D. 
1521-153.5. 

A.  D.  1523-1524. — First  undertakings  in  the 
New  World. —  Voyages  of  Verrazano.  See 
America:  A.  D.  1523-1524. 

A.  D.  1523-1525. — The  death  of  Bayard. — 
Second  invasion  of  Italy  by  Francis  I. — His 
defeat  and  capture  at  Pavia. — "  Bonnivet.  the 
personal  enemy  of  Bourbon,  was  now  entrusted 
with  the  command  of   the  French  army.      He 


1222 


FRANCE.  1523-1535. 


Defeat  and  Capture 
of  Francia  I. 


FRANCE,  1523-1525. 


marched  without  opposition  into  the  Milanese, 
and  might  have  taken  the  capital  liad  he  pushed 
on  to  its  gates.  Having  by  irresolution  lost  it, 
he  retreated  to  winter  quarters  behind  the  Tesino. 
The  operations  of  the  English  in  Picardy,  of  the 
imperialists  in  Champagne,  and  of  the  Spaniards 
near  the  Pyrenees,  were  equally  insignificant. 
The  spring  of  1524  brought  on  an  action,  if  the 
attack  of  one  point  can  be  called  such,  which 
proved  decisive  for  the  time.  Bonnivet  advanced 
rashly  beyond  the  Tesino.  The  imperialists, 
commanded  by  four  able  generals,  Launoi,  Pes- 
cara,  Bourbon,  and  Sforza,  succeeded  in  almost 
cutting  off  his  retreat.  They  at  the  same  time 
refused  Bonnivet's  offer  to  engage.  They  hoped 
to  weaken  him  by  famine.  Tlie  Swiss  first  mur- 
mured against  the  distress  occasioned  by  want 
of  precaution.  They  deserted  across  the  river; 
and  Bonnivet,  thus  abandoned,  was  obliged  to 
make  a  precipitate  and  perilous  retreat.  A 
bridge  was  hastily  flung  across  the  Sessia,  near 
Romagnano ;  and  Bonnivet,  with  his  best  knights 
and  gensdarmerie,  undertook  to  defend  the  pas- 
sage of  the  rest  of  the  army.  The  imperial- 
ists, led  on  by  Bourbon,  made  a  furious  attack. 
Bonnivet  was  wounded,  and  he  gave  his  place 
to  Bayard,  who,  never  entrusted  with  a  high 
command,  was  always  chosen  for  that  of  a 
forlorn  hope.  The  brave  Vandenesse  was  soon 
killed ;  and  Bayard  himself  received  a  gun-shot 
through  the  reins.  The  gallant  chevalier,  feeling 
his  wound  mortal,  caused  himself  to  be  placed 
in  a  sitting  posture  beneath  a  tree,  his  face  to 
the  enemy,  and  his  sword  fixed  in  guise  of  a  cross 
before  him.  The  constable  Bourljon,  who  led 
the  imperialists,  soon  came  up  to  the  dying  Bay- 
ard, and  expressed  his  compassion.  '  Weep  not  for 
me,' said  the  chevalier,  'but  for  thyself.  Idle 
in  performing  my  duty;  thou  art  betraying 
thine. '  Nothing  marks  more  strongly  the  great 
rise,  the  sudden  sacro-sanctity  of  the  royal  author- 
ity in  those  days,  than  the  general  horror  which 
the  treason  of  Bourbon  excited.  .  .  .  The  fact  is, 
that  this  sudden  horror  of  treason  was  owing,  in 
a  great  measure,  to  the  revived  study  of  the  clas- 
sics, in  which  treason  to  one's  country  is  uni- 
versally mentioned  as  an  impiety  and  a  crime 
of  the  deepest  dye.  Feudality,  with  all  its 
oaths,  had  no  such  horror  of  treason.  .  .  .  Bon- 
nivet had  evacuated  Italy  after  this  defeat  at  Ro- 
magnano. Bourbon's  animosity  stimulated  him 
to  pusli  his  advantage.  He  urged  the  emperor 
to  invade  France,  and  recommended  the  Bourbon- 
nais  and  his  own  patrimonial  provinces  as  those 
most  advisable  to  invade.  Bourbon  wanted  to 
raise  his  friends  in  insurrection  against  Francis ; 
but  Charles  descried  selfishness  in  this  scheme  of 
Bourbon,  and  directed  Pescara  to  march  with  the 
constable  into  the  south  of  France  and  lay  siege 
to  Marseilles.  .  .  .  Marseilles  made  an  obstinate 
resistance,"  and  the  siege  was  ineffectual.  "  Fran- 
cis, in  the  meantime,  alarmed  by  the  invasion,  had 
assembled  an  army.  He  burned  to  employ  it, 
and  avenge  the  late  affront.  The  king  of  Eng- 
land, occupied  with  the  Scotch,  gave  him  respite 
in  the  north ;  and  he  resolved  to  employ  this  by 
marching,  late  as  the  season  was,  into  Italy. 
His  generals,  who  by  this  time  were  sick  of  war- 
ring beyond  the  Alps,  opposed  the  design ;  but  not 
even  the  death  of  his  queen,  Claude,  could  stop 
Francis.  He  passed  Mount  Cenis ;  marched  upon 
Milan,  whose  population  was  spiritless  and 
broken  by  the  plague,  and  took  it  without  resis- 


tance. It  was  then  mooted  whether  Lodi  or  Pavia 
should  be  besieged.  The  latter,  imprudently, 
as  it  is  said,  was  preferred.  It  was  at  this  time 
that  Pope  Clement  VII.,  of  the  house  of  Medici, 
who  had  lately  succeeded  Adrian,  made  the  most 
zealous  efforts  to  restore  peace  between  the 
monarchies.  He  found  Charles  and  his  generals 
arrogant  and  imwilling  to  treat.  The  French, 
said  they,  must  on  no  account  be  allowed  a  foot- 
ing in  Italy.  Clement,  impelled  by  pique  towards 
the  emperor,  or  generosity  to  Francis,  at  once 
abandoned  the  prudent  policy  of  his  predecessors, 
and  formed  a  league  with  the  French  king,  to 
whom,  after  all,  he  brought  no  accession  of  force. 
This  step  proved  afterwards  fatal  to  the  city  of 
Rome.  The  siege  of  Pavia  was  formed  about 
the  middle  of  October  [1524].  Antonio  de  Ley  va, 
an  experienced  officer,  supported  by  veteran 
troops,  commanded  in  the  town.  The  fortifica- 
tions were  strong,  and  were  likely  to  hold  for  a 
considerable  time.  By  the  month  of  January  the 
French  had  made  no  progress ;  and  the  impatient 
Francis  despatched  a  considerable  portion  of  his 
army  for  the  invasion  of  Naples,  hearing  that  the 
country  was  drained  of  troops.  This  was  a  gross 
blunder,  which  Pescara  observing,  forbore  to 
send  any  force  to  oppose  the  expedition.  He 
knew  that  the  fate  of  Italy  would  be  decided 
before  Pavia.  Bourbon,  in  the  mean  time,  dis- 
gusted with  the  jealousies  and  tardiness  of  the 
imperial  generals,  employed  the  winter  in  raising 
an  army  of  lansquenets  on  his  own  account. 
From  the  duke  of  Savoy  he  procured  funds;  and 
early  in  the  year  1525  the  constable  joined  Pescara 
at  Lodi  with  a  fresh  army  of  12,000  mercenaries. 
They  had,  besides,  some  7,000  foot,  and  not  more 
than  1,500  horse.  With  these  they  marched  to 
the  relief  of  Pavia.  Francis  had  a  force  to  op- 
pose to  them,  not  only  inferior  in  numbers,  but 
so  harassed  with  a  winter's  siege,  that  all  the 
French  generals  of  experience  counselled  a  re- 
treat. Bonnivet  and  his  young  troop  of  courtiers 
were  for  fighting;  and  the  monarch  hearkened 
to  them.  Pavia,  to  the  north  of  the  river, 
was  covered  in  great  part  by  the  chateau  and 
walled  park  of  Mirabel.  Adjoining  this,  and 
on  a  rising  ground,  was  the  French  camp,  extend- 
ing to  the  Tesino.  Through  the  camp,  or  through 
the  park,  lay  the  only  ways  by  which  the  im- 
perialists could  reacli  Pavia.  The  camp  was 
strongly  entrenched  and  defended  by  artillery, 
except  on  the  side  of  the  park  of  Mirabel,  with 
which  it  communicated."  On  the  night  of  Feb- 
ruary 23,  the  imperialists  made  a  breach  in  the 
park  wall,  through  which  they  pressed  next 
morning,  but  were  driven  back  with  heavy  loss. 
"This  was  victory  enough,  could  the  French 
king  have  been  contented  with  it.  But  the  im- 
patient Francis  no  sooner  beheld  his  enemies  in 
rout,  than  he  was  eager  to  chase  them  in  person, 
and  complete  the  victory  with  his  good  sword. 
He  rushed  forth  from  his  entrenchments  at  the 
head  of  his  gensdarmerie,  flinging  himself  be- 
tween the  enemy  and  his  own  artillery,  whicli 
was  thus  masked  and  rendered  useless.  The 
imperialists  rallied  as  soon  as  they  found  them- 
selves safe  from  the  fire  of  the  cannon, "  and  the 
French  were  overwhelmed.  "The  king  .  .  . 
behind  aheap  of  slain,  defended  himself  valiantly ; 
so  beaten  and  shattered,  so  begrimed  with  blood 
and  dust,  as  to  be  scarcely  distinguishable,  not- 
withstanding his  conspicuous  armour.  He  had 
received   several  wounds,   one  in  the  forehead ; 


1223 


FRANCE,  1523-1525. 


Captivity  of 
Francis  I. 


FRANCE,  1525-1526. 


ami  his  horse,  struck  with  a  ball  in  the  head, 
reared,  fell  back,  and  crushed  him  with  his 
weight:  still  Francis  rose,  and  laid  prostrate 
several  of  the  enemies  that  rushed  upon  him. "  But 
presently  he  was  recognized  and  was  persuaded 
to  surrender  his  sword  to  Lannoi,  the  viceroy  of 
Naples.  "Such  was  the  signal  defeat  that  put 
an  end  to  all  French  conquests  and  claims  in 
Italy." — E.  E.  Crowe,  Hist,  of  France ,  v.  1,  ch.  6. 

Also  in  :  W.  Robertson,  Hist,  of  the  Iteifjn  of 
Charles  V.,  bk.  i  {v.  2).— J.  S.  Brewer,  Eeign  of 
Henri/  VIIL.  ch.  21  (b.  2).— H.  G.  Smith,  Romance 
of  History,  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1525-1526. — The  captivity  of  Francis 
I.  and  his  deliberate  perfidy  in  the  Treaty  of 
Madrid. — The  captive  king  of  France  was  lodged 
in  the  castle  at  Pizzighitone.  "  Instead  of  bear- 
ing his  captivity  with  calmness  and  fortitude,  he 
chafed  and  fretted  under  the  loss  of  his  wonted 
pleasures ;  at  one  moment  he  called  for  death  to 
end  his  woes,  while  at  another  he  was  ready  to 
sign  disastrous  terms  of  peace,  meaning  to  break 
faith  so  soon  as  ever  he  might  be  free  again.  .  .  . 
France,  at  first  stupefied  by  the  mishap,  soon  be- 
gan to  recover  hope.  The  Regent,  for  all  her 
vices  and  faults,  was  proud  and  strong;  she 
gathered  what  force  she  could  at  Lyons,  and 
looked  round  for  help.  .  .  .  Not  only  were  there 
anxieties  at  home,  but  the  frontiers  were  also 
threatened.  On  the  side  of  Germany  a  popular 
movement  ['  the  Peasant  War'],  closely  connected 
with  the  religious  excitement  of  the  time,  pushed 
a  fierce  and  cruel  rabble  into  Lorraine,  whence 
they  proposed  to  enter  France.  But  they  were 
met  by  the  Duke  of  Guise  and  the  Count  of  Vau- 
demont,  his  brother,  at  the  head  of  the  garrisons 
of  Burgundy  and  Champagne,  and  were  easily 
dispersed.  It  was  thought  that  during  these 
troubles  Lannoy  would  march  his  army,  flushed 
with  victory,  from  the  Po  to  the  Rhone.  .  .  . 
But  Lannoy  had  no  money  to  pay  his  men,  and 
could  not  undertake  so  large  a  venture.  Mean- 
while negociations  began  between  Charles  V.  and 
the  King ;  the  Emperor  demanding,  as  ransom, 
that  Bourbon  should  be  invested  with  Provence 
and  Dauphiny,  joined  to  his  own  lands  in  Au- 
vergne,  and  should  receive  the  title  of  king ;  and 
secondly  that  the  Duchy  of  Burgundy  should  be 
given  over  to  the  Emperor  as  the  inheritor  of  the 
lands  and  rights  of  Charles  the  Bold.  But  the 
King  of  France  would  not  listen  for  a  moment. 
And  now  the  King  of  England  and  most  of  the 
Italian  states,  alarmed  at  the  great  power  of  the 
Emperor,  began  to  change  sides.  Henry  VIIL 
came  fii-st.  He  signed  a  treaty  of  neutrality  with 
the  Regent,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that  not  even 
for  the  sake  of  the  King's  deliverance  should  any 
part  of  France  be  torn  from  her.  The  Italians 
joined  in  a  league  to  restore  the  King  to  liberty, 
and  to  secure  the  independence  of  Italy:  and 
Turkey  was  called  on  for  help.  .  .  .  The  Em- 
peror now  felt  that  Francis  was  not  in  secure 
keeping  at  Pizzighitone.  .  .  .  He  therefore  gave 
orders  that  Francis  should  at  once  be  removed  to 
Spain."  The  captive  king  "was  set  ashore  at 
Valencia,  and  received  with  wonderful  welcome: 
dances,  festivals,  entertainments  of  every  kind, 
served  to  relieve  his  caj^tivity ;  it  was  like  a  res- 
toration to  life  !  But  this  did  not  suit  the  views 
of  the  Emperor,  who  wished  to  weary  the  King 
into  giving  up  all  thought  of  resistance:  he 
trusted  to  his  impatient  and  frivolous  character; 
his  mistake,  as  he  found  to  his  cost,  lay  in  think- 


ing that  a  man  of  such  character  would  keep  his 
word.  He  therefore  had  him  removed  from  Va- 
lencia to  JIadrid,  where  he  was  kept  in  close  and 
galling  confinement,  in  a  high,  dreary  chamber, 
where  he  could  not  even  see  out  of  the  windows. 
This  had  the  desired  effect.  The  King  talked  of 
abdicating ;  he  fell  ill  of  ennui,  and  was  like  to 
die :  but  at  last  he  could  hold  out  no  longer,  and 
abandoning  all  thought  of  honourable  action, 
agreed  to  shameful  terms,  consoling  himself  with 
a  private  protest  against  the  validity  of  the  deed, 
as  having  been  done  under  compulsion." — -G.  W. 
Kitchin,  Hist,  of  Prance,  v.  2,  bk.  2,  ch.  5.— "By 
the  Treaty  of  Madrid,  signed  January  14th,  1526, 
Francis  '  restored  '  to  the  Emperor  the  Duchy  of 
Burgundy,  the  county  of  Charolais,  and  some 
other  smaller  fiefs,  without  reservation  of  any 
feudal  suzerainty,  which  was  also  abandoned 
with  regard  to  the  counties  of  Flanders  and  Ar- 
tois.  the  Emperor,  however,  resigning  the  towns 
on  the  Somme,  which  had  been  held  by  Charles 
the  Bold.  The  French  King  also  renounced  his 
claims  to  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  the  Duchy  of 
Milan,  the  county  of  Asti,  and  the  city  of  Genoa. 
He  contracted  an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance 
with  Charles,  undertaking  to  attend  him  with  an 
army  when  he  should  repair  to  Rome  to  receive 
the  Imperial  crown,  and  to  accompany  him  in 
person  whenever  he  should  march  against  the 
Turks  or  heretics.  He  withdrew  his  protection 
from  the  King  of  Navarre,  the  Dukeof  Gelder- 
land,  and  the  La  Jlarcks;  took  upon  himself  the 
Emperor's  debt  to  England,  and  agreed  to  give  his 
two  eldest  sons  as  hostages  for  the  execution  of 
the  treaty.  Instead,  however,  of  the  independent 
kingdom  which  Bourbon  had  expected,  all  that 
was  stipulated  in  his  favour  was  a  free  pardon 
for  him  and  his  adherents,  and  their  restoration 
in  their  forfeited  domains.  .  .  .  The  provisions 
of  the  above  treaty  Francis  promised  to  execute 
on  the  word  and  honour  of  a  king,  and  by  an 
oath  sworn  with  his  hand  upon  the  holy  Gospels: 
yet  only  a  few  hours  before  he  was  to  sign  this 
solemn  act,  he  had  called  his  plenipotentiaries,  to- 
gether witli  some  French  nobles,  secretaries,  and 
notaries,  into  his  chamber,  where,  after  exacting 
from  them  an  oath  of  secrecy,  he  entered  into  a 
long  discourse  touching  the  Emperor's  harshness 
towards  him,  and  signed  a  protest,  declaring  that, 
as  the  treaty  he  was  about  to  enter  into  had  been 
extorted  from  him  by  force,  it  was  null  and  void 
from  the  beginning,  and  that  he  never  intended 
to  execute  it:  thus,  as  a  French  writer  has  ob- 
served, establishing  by  an  authentic  notarial  act 
that  he  was  going  to  commit  a  perjury. "  Treaties 
have  often  been  shamefully  violated,  yet  it  would 
perhaps  be  impossible  to  parallel  this  gross  and 
deliberate  perjury.  In  March,  Francis  was  con- 
ducted to  the  Spanish  frontier,  where,  on  a  boat 
in  mid-stream  of  the  Bidassoa,  "he  was  ex- 
changed for  his  two  sons,  Francis  and  Henry, 
who  were  to  remain  in  Spain,  as  hostages  for  the 
execution  of  the  treaty.  The  tears  started  to  his 
eyes  as  he  embraced  his  children,  but  he  con- 
signed them  without  remorse  to  a  long  and  dreary 
e.xile."  As  speedily  as  possible  after  regaining 
his  liberty,  Francis  assembled  the  states  of  his 
kingdom  and  procured  from  them  a  decision 
"  tliat  the  King  could  not  alienate  the  patrimony 
of  France,  and  that  the  oath  which  he  had  taken 
in  his  captivity  did  not  abrogate  the  still  more 
solemn  one  which  had  been  administered  to  him  at 
his  coronation. "    After  which  he  deemed  liimself 


1224 


FRANCE,  1525--1536. 


Reneived  War. 


FRANCE,  1532-1547. 


discharged  from  the  obligations  of  his  treaty, 
and  had  no  tliought  of  surrendering  liimself  again 
a  prisoner,  as  lie  was  honourably  bound  to  do. — 
T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  2,  ch.  5 
(V.  1). 

Also  in:  A.  B.  Cochrane,  Francis  I.  in  Cap- 
tivity.—  W.  Robertson,  Eist.  of  the  Reign  of 
Charles  V.,bk.  4  (c.  2).— C.  Coignet,  Francis  I. 
and  his  Times,  ch.  5-8. 

A.  D.  1526-1527. — Holy  League  with  Pope 
Clement  VII.  against  Charles  V. — Bourbon's 
attack  on  Rome.  See  Italy:  A.  D.  1533-1537, 
and  1537. 

A.  D.  1527-1529.  —  New  alliance  against 
Charles  V. — Early  successes  in  Lombardy. — 
Disaster  at  Naples. — Genoa  and  all  posses- 
sions in  Italy  lost. — The  humiliating  Peace  of 
Cambrai.     SeelT.^LY:  A.  D.  1537-1539. 

A.  D.  1529-1535.— Persecution  of  the  Prot- 
estant Reformers  and  spread  of  their  doctrines. 
See  Papacy;  A.  D.  1.531-1535. 

A.  D.  1531. ^Alliance  with  the  Protestant 
princes  of  the  German  League  of  Sraalkalde. 
See  Germany:  A.  D.  1530-1533. 

A.  D.  1532. — Final  reunion  of  Brittany  with 
the  crown.     See  Bkitt.\ny:  A.  D.  1533. 

A.  D.  1532-1547. — Treaty  with  the  Pope. — 
Marriage  of  Prince  Henry  with  Catherine 
de'  Medici. — Renewed  war  with  Charles  V. — 
Alliance  with  the  Turks. — Victory  at  Ceri- 
soles. — Treaty  of  Crespy. — Increased  persecu- 
tion of  Protestants. — Massacre  of  Waldenses. 
— War  with  England, — Death  of  Francis  I. — 
"  The  '  ladies'  peace  '  .  .  .  lasted  up  to  1536;  in- 
cessantly troubled,  however,  by  far  from  pacific 
symptoms,  proceedings  and  preparations.  In 
October,  1533,  Francis  I.  had,  at  Calais,  an  inter- 
view with  Henry  VIII.,  at  which  they  contracted 
a  private  alliance,  and  undertook  '  to  raise  be- 
tween them  an  army  of  80,000  men  to  resist  the 
Turk.'"  But  when,  in  1535,  Charles  V.  attacked 
the  seat  of  the  Barbary  pirates,  and  took  Tunis, 
Francis  "entered  into  negotiations  with  Soliman 
II.,  and  concluded  a  friendly  treaty  with  him 
against  what  was  called  'the  common  enemjf.' 
Francis  had  been  for  some  time  prejjaring  to  re- 
sume his  projects  of  conquest  in  Italy;  he  had 
effected  an  interview  at  Marseilles,  in  October, 
1533,  with  Pope  Clement  VII.,  who  was  almost 
at  the  point  of  death,  and  it  was  there  that  the 
marriage  of  Prince  Henry  of  France  with  Cathe- 
rine de'  Jledici  [daughter  of  Lorenzo,  Duke  of 
Urbino,  and  granddaughter  of  Piero  do'  Medici] 
was  settled.  Astonishment  was  expressed  that 
the  pope's  niece  had  but  a  very  moderate  dowrj', 
'You  don't  see,  then,'  said  Clement  VII. 's  am- 
bassador, 'that  she  brings  France  three  jewels  of 
great  price,  Genoa,  Milan  and  Naples  1 '  When 
this  language  was  reported  at  the  court  of  Charles 
v.,  it  caused  great  irritation  there.  In  1536  all 
these  combustibles  of  war  exploded  ;  in  the  month 
of  February,  a  French  array  entered  Piedmont, 
and  occupied  Turin ;  and,  in  the  month  of  July, 
Charles  V.  in  person  entered  Provence  at  the 
head  of  50,000  men.  Anne  de  Montmorency,  havr 
ing  received  orders  to  defend  southern  France, 
began  by  laying  it  waste  in  order  that  the  enemy 
might  not  be  able  to  live  in  it.  .  .  .  Montmorency 
made  up  his  mind  to  defend,  on  the  whole  coast 
of  Provence,  only  Marsedles  and  Aries ;  he  pulled 
down  the  ramparts  of  the  other  towns,  which 
were  left  exposed  to  the  enemy.  For  two  months 
Charles  V.  prosecuted  this  campaign  without  a 


fight,  marching  through  the  whole  of  Provence 
an  army  which  fatigue,  shortness  of  provisions, 
sickness,  and  ambuscades  were  decimating  in- 
gloriously.  At  last  he  decided  upon  retreating. 
...  On  returning  from  his  sorry  expedition, 
Charles  V.  learned  that  those  of  his  lieutenants 
whom  he  had  charged  with  the  conduct  of  a  simi- 
lar invasion  in  the  north  of  France,  in  Picardy, 
had  met  with  no  greater  success  than  he  himself 
in  Provence."  A  truce  for  three  months  was 
soon  afterwards  arranged,  and  in  June,  1538, 
through  the  mediation  of  Pope  Paul  III. ,  a  treaty 
was  signed  at  Nice  which  extended  the  truce  to 
ten  years.  Next  month  the  two  sovereigns  met 
at  Aigues-Mortes  and  exchanged  many  assurances 
of  friendship." — F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of 
FYance,  ch.  28  (v.  4). — In  August,  1539,  a  revolt 
at  Ghent  "called  Charles  V.  into  Flanders;  he 
was  then  in  Spain,  and  his  shortest  route  was 
through  France.  He  requested  permission  to 
cross  the  kingdom,  and  obtained  it,  after  having 
promised  the  Constable  Jlontmorency  that  he 
would  give  the  investiture  of  Milan  to  the  second 
son  of  the  King.  His  sojourn  in  France  was  a 
time  of  expensive  ffites,  and  cost  the  treasury 
four  millions ;  yet,  in  the  midst  of  his  pleasures, 
the  Emperor  was  not  without  uneasiness.  .  .  . 
Francis,  however,  respected  the  rights  of  hospi- 
tality ;  but  Charles  did  not  give  to  his  son  the 
investiture  of  Milan.  The  King,  indignant,  ex- 
iled the  constable  for  having  trusted  the  word  of 
the  Emperor  without  exacting  his  signature,  and 
avenged  himself  by  strengthening  his  alliance 
with  the  Turks,  the  most  formidable  enemies  of 
the  empire.  .  .  .  Thehatredof  the  twomonarchs 
was  carried  to  its  height  by  these  last  events; 
they  mutually  outraged  each  other  by  injurious 
libels,  and  submitted  their  differences  to  the 
Pope.  Paul  III.  refused  to  decide  between  them, 
and  they  again  took  up  arms  [1543].  The  King 
invaded  Luxembourg,  and  the  Dauphin  Rou- 
sillou ;  and  while  a  third  army  in  concert  with 
the  Mussulmans  besieged  Nice  [1543],  the  last 
asylum  of  the  dukes  of  Savoy,  by  land,  the 
terrible  Barbarossa,  admiral  of  Soliman,  attacked 
it  by  sea.  The  town  was  taken,  the  castle  alone 
resisted,  and  the  siege  of  it  was  raised.  Bar- 
barossa consoled  himself  for  this  check  by  ravag- 
ing the  coasts  of  Italy,  where  he  made  10,000 
captives.  The  horror  which  he  inspired  recoiled 
on  Francis  I.,  his  all}',  whose  name  became  odi- 
ous in  Italy  and  Germany.  He  was  declared  the 
enemy  of  the  empire,  and  the  Diet  raised  against 
him  an  army  of  '34,000  men,  at  the  head  of  which 
Charles  V.  penetrated  into  Champagne,  while 
Henry  VIII.,  coalescing  with  the  Emperor,  at- 
tacked Picardy  with  10,000  English.  The  battle 
of  Cerisoles,  a  complete  victory,  gained  during 
the  same  year  [April  14,1544],  in  Piedmont,  by 
Francis  of  Bourbon,  Duke  d'Enghien,  against 
Gast,  general  of  the  Imperial  troops,  did  not  stop 
this  double  and  formidable  invasion.  Charles  V. 
advanced  almost  to  Chateau-Thierry.  But  dis- 
cord reigned  in  his  army ;  he  ran  short  of  jjro- 
visions,  and  could  easily  have  been  surrounded ; 
he  then  again  promised  Milan  to  the  Duke  of 
Orleans,  the  second  son  of  the  King.  This 
promise  irritated  the  Dauphin  Henry,  who  was 
afraid  to  see  his  brother  become  the  head  of  a 
house  as  dangerous  for  France  as  had  been  that 
of  Burgundy ;  he  wished  to  reject  the  offer  of  the 
Emperor  and  to  cut  off  his  retreat.  A  rivalry 
among  women,  it  is  said,  saved  Charles  V.  .  .  . 


1225 


FRANCE,  1532-1547. 


Persecution 
of  Protestants. 


FRANCE,  1534-1560. 


The  war  was  terminated  almost  immediately 
afterwards  [1544]  by  the  treaty  of  Crespy  in 
Valois.  The  Emperor  promised  his  daughter  to 
the  Duke  of  Orleans,  witli  the  Low  Countries 
and  Franche-Comte,  or  one  of  his  nieces,  with 
Milan.  Francis  restored  to  the  Duke  of  Savoy 
the  greater  part  of  the  places  that  he  held  in 
Piedmont ;  he  renounced  all  ulterior  pretensions 
to  the  kingdom  of  Naples,  the  duchy  of  Milan, 
and  likewise  to  the  sovereignty  of  Flanders  and 
Artois;  Charles,  on  his  part,  gave  up  the  duchy 
of  Burgundy.  This  treaty  put  an  end  to  the 
rivalry  of  the  two  sovereigns,  which  had  ensan- 
guined Europe  for  25  years.  The  death  of  the 
Duke  of  Orleans  freed  the  Emperor  from  dis- 
possessing himself  of  Milan  or  the  Low  Coun- 
tries ;  he  refused  all  compensation  to  the  King, 
but  the  peace  was  not  broken.  Francis  I.  profited 
by  it  to  redouble  his  severity  with  regard  to  the 
Protestants.  A  population  of  many  thousands 
of  Waldenses,  an  unfortunate  remnant  from  the 
religious  persecutions  of  the  13th  century,  dwelt 
upon  the  confines  of  Provence,  and  the  County 
Venaissin,  and  a  short  time  back  had  entered 
into  communion  with  the  Calvinists.  The  King 
permitted  John  Mesuier,  Baron  d'Oppfede,  first 
president  of  the  Parliament  of  Ai.\,  to  execute 
[1546]  a  sentence  delivered  against  them  five 
years  previously  by  the  Parliament.  John  d'Op- 
pfide  himself  directed  this  frightful  execution. 
Twenty-two  towns  or  villages  were  burned  and 
sacked;  the  inhabitants,  surprised  during  the 
night,  were  pursued  among  the  rocks  by  the 
glare  of  the  flames  which  devoured  their  houses. 
The  men  perished  by  executions,  but  the  women 
were  delivered  over  to  terrible  violences.  At 
Cabri^res,  the  principal  town  of  the  canton,  700 
men  were  murdered  in  cold  blood,  and  all  the 
women  were  burnt ;  lastly,  according  to  the  tenor 
of  the  sentence,  the  houses  were  rased,  the  woods 
cut  down,  the  trees  in  the  gardens  torn  up,  and 
in  a  short  time  this  country,  so  fertile  and  so 
thickly  peopled,  became  a  desert  and  a  waste. 
This  dreadful  massacre  was  one  of  the  principal 
causes  of  the  religious  wars  which  desolated 
France  for  so  long  a  time.  .  .  .  The  war  con- 
tinued between  [Henry  VIIL]  and  Francis  I. 
The  English  had  taken  Boulogne,  and  a  French 
fleet  ravaged  the  coasts  of  England,  after  taking 
possession  of  the  Isle  of  Wight  [1545].  Hostili- 
ties were  terminated  by  the  treaty  of  Guines 
[1547],  which  the  two  kings  signed  on  the  edge 
of  their  graves,  and  it  was  arranged  that  Boulogne 
should  be  restored  for  the  sum  of  3,000,000  of 
gold  crowns.  .  .  .  Henry  VIII.  and  Francis  I. 
died  in  the  same  year  [1547]." — E.  de  Bonne- 
chose,  Hist,  of  France,  v.  1,  pp.  363-367. 

Also  in:  W.  Robertson,  Hist,  of  the  Reign  of 
Charles  V.,  bk.  6-9  (».  3).— J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of 
England,  ch.  30-23  iv.  4). 

A.  D.  1534-1535. — The  voyages  of  Jacques 
Cartier  and  the  taking  possession  of  Canada. 
See  Americ.\:  A,  D.  1534-1.535. 

A.  D.  1534-1560.— Persecution  of  the  Prot- 
estants.— Their  organization. — Their  num- 
bers.— "  Francis  L  had  long  shrunk  from  perse- 
cution, but  having  once  begun  he  showed  no 
further  hesitation.  During  the  remainder  of  his 
reign  and  the  whole  of  that  of  his  son  Henry  11. 
(1534-1.5.59)  the  cruelty  of  the  sufferings  inflicted 
on  the  Reformers  increased  with  the  number  of 
the  victims.  At  first  they  were  strangled  and 
burnt,  then  burnt  alive,  then  hung  in  chains  to 


roast  over  a  slow  fire.  .  .  .  The  Edict  of  Chateau- 
briand (1551),  taking  away  all  right  of  appeal 
from  those  convicted  of  heresy,  was  followed  by 
an  attempt  to  introduce  an  Inquisition  on  the 
model  of  that  of  Spain,  and  when  this  failed 
owing  to  the  opposition  of  the  lawyers,  the 
Edict  of  CompiSgne  (1.557)  denounced  capital 
punishment  against  all  who  in  public  or  private 
professed  any  heterodox  doctrine.  It  is  a  com- 
monplace that  persecution  avails  nothing  against 
the  truth  —  that  the  true  Church  springs  from 
the  blood  of  martyrs.  Yet  the  same  cause 
which  triumphed  over  persecution  in  France 
was  crushed  by  it  in  Spain  and  in  the  Walloon 
Netherlands.  Was  it  therefore  not  the  truth? 
The  fact  would  rather  seem  to  be,  that  there  is 
no  creed,  no  sect  which  cannot  be  extirpated  by 
force.  But  that  it  may  prevail,  persecution 
must  be  without  respect  of  persons,  universal, 
continuous,  protracted.  Not  one  of  these  condi- 
tions was  fulfilled  in  France.  The  opinions  of 
the  greater  nobles  and  princes,  and  of  those  who 
were  their  immediate  followers,  were  not  too 
narrowly  scanned,  nor  was  the  persecution 
equally  severe  at  all  times  and  in  all  places. 
Some  governors  and  judges  and  not  a  few  of  the 
higher  clergy  inclined  to  toleration.  .  .  .  The 
cheerful  constancy  of  the  French  martyrs  was 
admirable.  Men,  women  and  children  walked  to 
execution  singing  the  psalms  of  Marot  and  the 
Song  of  Simeon.  This  boldness  confounded 
their  enemies.  Hawkers  distributed  in  every 
part  of  the  country  the  books  issued  from  the 
press  of  Geneva  and  which  it  was  a  capital 
offence  even  to  possess.  Preachers  taught  openly 
in  the  streets  and  market-places.  .  .  .  The  in- 
creasing numbers  of  their  converts  and  the  high 
position  of  some  among  them  gave  confidence  to 
the  Protestants.  Delegates  from  the  reformed 
congregations  of  France  were  on  their  way  to 
Paris  to  take  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the  first 
national  Synod  on  the  very  day  (April  3,  1559) 
when  the  peace  of  Cateau  Cambresis  was  signed, 
a  peace  which  was  to  be  the  prelude  to  a  vigor- 
ous and  concerted  effort  to  root  out  heresy  on 
the  part  of  the  kings  of  France  and  Spain.  The 
object  of  the  meeting  was  twofold:  first  to  draw 
up  a  detailed  profession  of  faith,  which  was  sub- 
mitted to  Calvin  —  there  was,  he  said,  little  to 
add,  less  to  correct  —  secondly  to  determine  the 
'  ecclesiastical  discipline  '  of  the  new  Church. 
The  ministers  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  elders 
and  deacons,  but  approved  by  the  whole  congre- 
gation. The  affairs  of  each  congregation  were 
placed  under  the  control  of  the  Consistory,  a 
court  composed  of  the  pastors,  elders  and  dea- 
cons ;  more  important  matters  were  reserved  for 
the  decision  of  the  provincial  '  colloques '  or 
synods,  which  were  to  meet  twice  a  year,  and  in 
which  each  church  was  represented  by  its  pastor 
and  at  least  one  elder.  Above  all  was  the  na- 
tional Synod  also  composed  of  the  clergy  and  of 
representative  laymen.  This  organisation  was 
thoroughly  representative  and  popular,  the 
elected  delegates  of  the  congregatious,  the  elders 
and  deacons,  preponderated  in  all  the  governing 
bodies,  and  all  ministers  and  churches  were  de- 
clared equal.  The  Reformed  cliurches,  which, 
although  most  numerous  in  the  South,  spread 
over  almost  the  whole  country,  are  said  at  this 
time  to  liave  counted  some  400,000  members 
(1559).  These  were  of  almost  all  classes,  except 
perhaps  the  lowest,   although  even  among  the 


1226 


PRANCE,  1534-1560. 


Henry  11.  and 
the  Guises. 


FRANCE,  1547-1559. 


peasantry  there  were  some  martyrs  for  the  faith. " 
On  the  accession  of  Charles  IX.,  in  1560,  "a 
quarter  of  the  inhabitants  of  France  were,  it  was 
said,  included  in  the  3,500  reformed  congrega- 
tions. This  is  certainly  an  exaggeration,  but  it 
is  probable  that  the  number  of  the  Protestants 
was  never  greater  than  during  the  first  years  of 
the  reign  of  Charles  IX.  .  .  .  The  most  probable 
estimate  is  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  wars  of 
religion  the  Huguenots  with  women  and  chil- 
dren amounted  to  some  1,500,000  souls  out  of  a 
population  of  between  fifteen  and  twenty  mil- 
lions. But  in  this  minority  were  included  about 
one-fourth  of  the  lesser  nobility,  the  country 
gentlemen,  and  a  smaller  proportion  of  the  great 
nobles,  the  majority  of  the  better  sort  of  towns- 
people in  many  of  the  most  important  towns, 
such  as  Caen,  Dieppe,  Havre,  Nantes,  La 
Rochelle,  Nimes,  Montpellier,  Montauban,  Cha- 
lons, Macon,  Lyons,  Valence,  Limoges  and  Gre- 
noble, and  an  important  minority  in  otlier  places, 
such  as  Rouen,  Orleans,  Bordeaux  and  Toulouse. 
The  Protestants  were  most  numerous  in  the 
South-west,  in  Poitou,  in  the  Marche,  Limousin, 
Angoumois  and  Perigord,  because  in  those  dis- 
tricts, which  were  the  seats  of  long-established 
and  flourishing  manufactures,  the  middle  classes 
were  most  prosperous,  intelligent  and  educated. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Catholics  were  not  in 
a  large  majority,  even  where  the  superior  posi- 
tion, intelligence  and  vigour  of  the  Huguenots 
gave  them  the  upper  hand.  Only  in  some  parts 
of  the  South-west  and  of  Dauphiny  do  the  bulk 
of  the  population  appear  to  have  been  decidedly 
hostile  to  the  old  religion.  During  the  course 
of  the  Civil  War  the  Protestants  came  to  be  more 
and  more  concentrated  in  certain  parts  of  the 
country,  as  for  instance  between  the  Garonne  and 
the  Loire." — P.  F.  Willert,  Henry  of  Navarre 
and  the  Huguenots  in  Prance,  cli.  1. 

A.  D.  1541-1543. — Jacques  Cartier's  last  ex- 
plorations in  Canada.  See  America:  A.  D. 
1541-1603. 

A.  D.  1541-1564. — The  rise  and  influence  of 
Calvinism.     See  Geneva:  A.  D.  15.36-1564. 

A.  D.  i547.^Accession  of  King  Henry  II. 

A.  D.  1547-1559. — The  rise  of  the  Guises. 
— Alliance  with  the  German  Protestants. — 
Wars  with  the  emperor,  and  with  Sp,ain  and 
England. — Acquisition  of  Les  Trois  Evech^s, 
and  of  Calais. — Unsuccessful  campaign  in 
Italy. — Battle  and  siege  of  St.  Quentin. — 
Treaty  of  Cateau-Cambresis. — "The  son  of 
Francis  I.,  who  in  1.547  ascended  the  throne 
under  the  title  of  Henry  II.,  was  told  by  his 
dying  father  to  beware  of  the  Guises.  .  .  .  The 
Guises  were  a  branch  of  the  ducal  House  of  Lor- 
raine, which,  although  the  dukedom  was  a  fief 
of  the  German  empire,  had  long  stood  in  intimate 
relations  with  the  court  and  nobility  of  France. 
The  founder  of  the  family  was  Claude,  a  younger 
son  of  Rene  II.,  Duke  of  Lorraine,  who,  being 
naturalised  in  France  in  1505,  rendered  himself 
conspicuous  in  the  wars  of  Francis  I.,  and  was 
created  first  Duke  of  Guise.  He  died  in  1550, 
leaving  five  daughters  and  si.\  sons.  His  eldest 
daughter,  Mary,  became  the  wife  of  James  V.  of 
Scotland,  and  mother  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots. 
The  sons  were  all  men  of  extraordinary  energy 
and  ambition,  and  their  united  influence  was,  for 
a  number  of  years,  more  than  a  match  for  that 
of  the  crown.  Francis,  second  Duke  of  Guise, 
acquired,  while  still  a  young  man,  extraordinary 


renown  as  a  military  commander,  by  carrying 
out  certain  ambitious  designs  of  France  on  a 
neighbouring  territory.  ...  As  is  well  known, 
French  statesmen  have  for  many  centuries 
cherished  the  idea  that  the  natural  boundary  of 
France  on  the  east  is  the  Rhine,  from  its  mouth 
to  its  source,  and  thence  along  the  crest  of  the 
Alps  to  the  Mediterranean.  ...  To  begin  the 
realisation  of  the  idea,  advantage  was  taken  of 
the  war  which  broke  out  between  the  Emperor 
Charles  V.  and  his  Protestant  subjects  in  North 
Germany  [see  Germany:  A.  D.  1546-1553].  Al- 
though the  Protestants  of  France  were  persecuted 
to  the  death,  Henry  II.,  with  furtively  ambitious 
designs,  offered  to  defend  the  Protestants  of  Ger- 
many against  their  own  emperor;  and  entered 
into  an  alliance  in  1551  with  Maurice  of  Saxony 
and  other  princes,  undertaking  to  send  an  army 
to  their  aid.  As  bases  of  his  operations,  it  was 
agreed  that  he  might  take  temporary  military 
possession  of  Toul,  Verdun,  and  Metz,  three 
bishoprics  [forming  a  district  called  the  Trois 
Evgches],  each  with  a  portion  of  territory  lying 
within  the  area  of  the  duchy  of  Lorraine,  but 
held  as  distinct  fiefs  of  the  German  empire  — 
such,  in  fact,  being  fragments  of  Lothair's  king- 
dom, which  fell  to  Germany,  and  had  in  no  shape 
been  incorporated  with  France.  It  was  stipu- 
lated that,  in  occupying  these  places,  the  French 
were  not  to  interfere  with  their  old  connection 
with  the  empire.  The  confidence  reposed  in  the 
French  was  grievously  abused.  All  the  stipula- 
tions went  for  nothing.  In  1553,  French  troops 
took  possession  of  Toul  and  Verdun,  also  of 
Nancy,  the  capital  of  Lorraine,  treating  the 
duchy,  generally,  as  a  conquered  country.  See- 
ing this,  Metz  shut  her  gates  and  trusted  to  her 
fortifications.  To  procure  an  entrance  and  secure 
possession,  there  was  a  resort  to  stratagems  which 
afford  a  startling  illustration  of  the  tricks  that 
French  nobles  at  that  time  could  be  guilty  of  in 
order  to  gain  their  ends.  The  French  com- 
mander, the  Constable  Montmorency,  begged  to 
be  allowed  to  pass  through  the  town  with  a  few 
attendants,  while  his  army  made  a  wide  circuit 
on  its  route.  The  too  credulous  custodiers  of 
the  city  opened  the  gates,  and,  to  their  dismay, 
the  whole  Frencli  forces  rushed  in,  and  began 
to  rule  in  true  despotic  fashion.  .  .  .  Thus  was 
Jletz  secured  for  France  in  a  way  which  modern 
Frenchmen,  we  should  imagine,  can  hardly  think 
of  without  shame.  Germany,  however,  did  not 
relinquish  this  important  fortress  without  a  strug- 
gle. Furious  at  its  loss,  the  Emperor  Charles  V. 
proceeded  to  besiege  it  with  a  large  army.  The 
defence  was  undertaken  by  the  l5uke  of  Guise, 
assisted  by  a  body  of  French  nobility.  After  an 
investment  of  four  months,  and  a  loss  of  30,000 
men,  Charles  was  forced  to  raise  the  siege,  Jan- 
uary 1,  1553,  all  his  attempts  at  the  capture  of 
the  place  being  effectually  baffled." — W.  Cham- 
bers, France:  its  History  and  Revolutions,  ch.  6. — 
"The  war  continued  during  the  two  following 
years ;  but  both  parties  were  now  growing  weary 
of  a  contest  in  which  neither  achieved  any  de- 
cisive superiority  " ;  and  the  emperor,  having  ne- 
gotiated an  armistice,  resigned  all  his  crowns  to 
his  son,  Philip  II.,  and  his  brother  Ferdinand 
(October,  1555).  "Meantime  Pope  Paul  IV.,  who 
detested  the  Spaniards  and  longed  for  tlie  com- 
plete subversion  of  their  power  in  the  Peninsula, 
entered  into  a  league  with  the  French  king 
against  Philip ;  Francis  of  Guise  was  encouraged 


1227 


FRANCE,  1547-1559. 


&ui^e*s  Campaign 
in  Italy. 


FRANCE,  1559. 


in  his  favorite  project  of  effecting  a  restoration 
of  tlie  crown  of  Naples  to  liis  own  family,  as  the 
descendants  of  Rene  of  Anjou ;  and  in  Decem- 
ber, 1556,  an  army  of  16,000  men,  commanded 
by  the  Duke  of  Guise,  crossed  the  Alps,  and, 
marching  direct  to  Rome,  prepared  to  attack  the 
Spanish  viceroy  of  Naples,  the  celebrated  Duke 
of  Alva.  In  April,  1557,  Guise  advanced  into 
the  Abruzzi,  and  besieged  Civitella ;  but  here  he 
encountered  a  determined  resistance,  and,  after 
sacrificing  a  great  part  of  his  troops,  found  it  ne- 
cessary to  abandon  the  attempt.  He  retreated 
toward  Rome,  closely  pursued  by  the  Duke  of 
Alva;  and  the  result  was  that  "the  expedition 
totally  failed.  Before  his  army  could  recover 
from  the  fatigues  and  losses  of  their  fruitless 
campaign,  the  French  general  was  suddenly  re- 
called by  a  dispatch  containing  tidings  of  urgent 
importance  from  the  north  of  France.  The 
Spanish  army  in  the  Netherlands,  commanded  b}' 
the  Duke  of  Savoy,  having  been  joined  by  a  body 
of  English  auxiliaries  under  the  Earl  of  Pem- 
broke, had  invaded  France  and  laid  siege  to  St. 
Quentin.  This  place  was  badly  fortified,  and 
defended  by  a  feeble  garrison  under  the  Admiral 
de  Coligny.  Montmorency  advanced  with  the 
main  army  to  re-enforce  it,  and  on  the  10th  of 
August  rashly  attacked  the  Spaniards,  who  out- 
numbered his  own  troops  in  the  proportion  of 
more  than  two  to  one,  and  inflicted  on  him  a  fatal 
and  irretrievable  defeat.  The  loss  of  the  French 
amounted,  according  to  most  accounts,  to  4,000 
slain  in  the  field,  while  at  least  an  equal  number 
remained  prisoners,  including  the  Constable  him- 
self. Tlie  road  to  Paris  lay  open  to  the  victors. 
.  .  .  The  Duke  of  Savoy  was  eager  to  advance; 
but  the  cautious  Philip,  happily  for  France,  re- 
jected his  advice,  and  ordered  him  to  press  the 
siege  of  St.  Quentin.  That  town  made  a  desper- 
ate resistance  for  more  than  a  fortnight  longer, 
and  was  captured  by  storm  on  the  37th  of  August 
[1557].  .  .  .  Philip  took  possession  of  a  few  other 
neighbouring  fortresses,  but  attempted  no  serious 
movement  in  prosecution  of  his  victorj^.  .  .  . 
The  Duke  of  Guise  arrived  from  Italy  early  in 
October,  to  the  great  joy  of  the  king  and  the  na- 
tion, and  was  immediately  created  lieutenant- 
general  of  the  kingdom,  with  powers  of  almost 
unlimited  extent.  He  applied  himself,  with  his 
utmost  ability  and  perseverance,  to  repair  the  late 
disasters;  and  with  such  success,  that  in  less  than 
two  months  he  was  enabled  to  assemble  a  fresh 
and  well-appointed  arm}'  at  Compi^gne.  Resolv- 
ing to  strike  a  vigorous  blow  before  the  enemy 
could  reappear  in  the  field,  he  detached  a  division 
of  his  army  to  make  a  feint  in  the  direction  of 
Luxemburg ;  and,  rapidly  marching  westward 
with  the  remainder,  presented  himself  on  the  1st 
of  January,  15.58,  before  the  walls  of  Calais.  .  .  . 
The  French  attack  was  a  complete  surprise;  the 
two  advanced  forts  commanding  the  approaches 
to  the  town  were  bombarded,  and  surrendered  on 
the  3d  of  January;  three  days  later  the  castle 
was  carried  by  assault ;  and  on  the  8th,  the  gov- 
ernor. Lord  Wentworth,  was  forced  to  capitulate. 
.  .  .  Guines,  no  longer  tenable  after  the  fall  of 
Calais,  shared  the  same  fate  on  the  21st  of  Jan- 
uary ;  and  thus,  within  the  short  space  of  three 
weeks,  were  the  last  remnants  of  her  ancient  do- 
minion on  the  Continent  snatched  from  the  grasp 
of  England  —  possessions  which  she  had  held  for 
upward  of  300  years.  .  .  .  This  remarkable  ex- 
ploit, so  flattering  to  the  national  pride,  created 


universal  enthusiasm  in  France,  and  carried  to 
the  highest  pitch  the  reputation  and  popularity 
of  Guise.  From  this  moment  his  influence  be- 
came paramount ;  and  the  marriage  of  the  dau- 
phin to  the  Queen  of  Scots,  which  was  solemnised 
on  the  2-lth  of  April,  1558,  seemed  to  exalt  the 
house  of  Lorraine  to  a  still  more  towering  pinna- 
cle of  greatness.  It  was  stipulated  by  a  secret 
article  of  the  marriage-contract  that  the  sover- 
eignty of  Scotland  should  be  transferred  to 
France,  and  that  the  two  crowns  should  remain 
united  forever,  in  case  of  the  decease  of  Mary 
without  issue.  Toward  the  end  of  the  year  ne- 
gotiations were  opened  with  a  view  to  peace." 
They  were  interrupted,  however,  in  Novem- 
ber, 1558,  by  the  death  of  Queen  Mary  of  Eng- 
land, wife  of  Philip  of  Spain.  "When  the  con- 
gress reassembled  at  Le  Cateau-Cambresis,  in 
February,  1559,  the  Spanish  ministers  no  longer 
maintained  the  interests  of  England;  and  Eliza- 
beth, thus  abandoned,  agreed  to  an  arrangement 
which  virtually  ceded  Calais  to  France,  though 
with  such  nominal  qualifications  as  satisfied  the 
sensitiveness  of  the  national  honour.  Calais  was 
to  be  restored  to  the  English  at  the  end  of  eight 
years,  with  a  penalty,  in  case  of  failure,  of  500,- 
000  crowns.  At  the  same  time,  if  any  hostile 
proceedings  should  take  place  on  the  part  of 
England  against  France  within  the  period  speci- 
fied, the  queen  was  to  forego  all  claim  to  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  article."  The  treaty  between 
France  and  England  was  signed  April  3,  1559, 
and  that  between  France  and  Spain  the  follow- 
ing day.  By  the  latter,  "the  two  monarchs 
mutually  restored  their  conquests  in  Luxemburg, 
the  Netherlands,  Picardy,  and  Artois;  France 
abandoned  Savoy  and  Piedmont,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Turin  and  four  other  fortresses  [restoring 
Philibert  Emanuel,  Duke  of  Savoy,  to  his  domin- 
ions—  see  S-Woy  and  Piedmont:  A.  D.  1559- 
1580] ;  she  evacuated  Tuscany,  Corsica,  and  Mont- 
ferrat,  and  yielded  up  no  less  than  189  towns  or 
fortresses  in  various  parts  of  Europe.  By  way 
of  compensation,  Henry  preserved  the  district  of 
the  '  Trois  Eveches  ' — Toul,  Metz,  and  Verdun  — 
and  made  the  all-important  acquisition  of  Calais. 
This  pacification  was  sealed,  according  to  cus- 
tom, by  marriages" — Henry's  daughter  Eliza- 
beth to  Philip  of  Spain,  and  his  sister  Marguerite 
to  the  Duke  of  Savoy.  In  a  tournament,  at 
Paris,  which  celebrated  these  marriages,  Henry 
received  an  injury  from  the  lance  of  Montgom- 
ery, captain  of  his  Scottish  guards,  which  caused 
his  death  eleven  days  afterwards  — July  10, 
1559. — W.  H.  Jervis,  Student's  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  15. 

Also  in  :  J.  L.  Motley,  The  Rise  of  the  Dutch 
Republic,  pt.  1,  ch.  3-3  (v.  1). — Lady  Jackson, 
Th^  Court  of  Prance  in  tlie  \Qth  Century,  v.  2,  ch. 
9-30. — L.  von  Ranke,  Civil  Wars  and  Monarchy 
in  France,  Idth  and  nth  Centuries,  eh.  6  (o.  1). 

A.  D.  1548. — Marriage  of  Antoine  de  Bour- 
bon to  Jeanne  d'Albret,  heiress  of  Navarre. 
SeeN-VVARRE;  A.  D.  1528-1.503. 

A.  D.  1552. — Alliance  with  the  Turks.  See 
Italy  (Southern-):  A.  D.  1528-1570. 

A.  D.  1554-1565.  —  Huguenot  attempts  at 
colonization  in  Brazil  and  in  Florida,  and  their 
fate.  See  Florida:  A.  D.  1562-1563;  1564- 
1565;  1565,  and  1567-1.568. 

A.  D.  1558-1559. —Aid  given  to  revolt  in 
Corsica.     See  Genoa:  A.  D.  1528-15.59. 

A.  D.  1559. — Accession  of  King  Francis  II. 


122s 


FRANCE,  1559-1561. 


Catharine  de'  Medici 
and  the  Guises. 


FRANCE,  1559-1561. 


A.  D.  1559-1561.— Francis  II.,  Charles  IX., 
the  Guises  and  Catharine  de'  Medici. — The 
Conspiracy  of  Araboise.— Rapid  spread  and 
organization  of  Protestantism. — Rise  of  the 
Huguenot  party. — Disputed  origin  of  its  name. 
— Henry  II.  "had  been  married  from  political 
motives  to  the  niece  of  Clement  VII.,  Catharine 
de  Medici.  This  ambitious  woman  came  to 
France  conscious  that  the  marriage  was  a  politi- 
cal one,  mentally  a  stranger  to  her  husband ;  and 
such  she  always  remained.  This  placed  her  from 
the  first  in  a  false  position.  The  King  was  in- 
fluenced by  any  one  rather  than  by  his  wife;  and 
a  by  no  means  charming  mistress,  Diana  of 
Poitiers,  played  her  part  by  the  side  of  and  above 
the  Queen.  .  .  .  Immediately  after  the  death  of 
her  husband,  in  1559,  she  [Catharine]  greedily 
grasped  at  power.  The  young  King,  Francis 
II.,  was  of  age  when  he  entered  his  fourteenth 
year.  There  could  therefore  be  no  legal  regency, 
though  there  might  be  an  actual  one,  for  a  weakly 
monarch  of  sixteen  was  still  incompetent  to  gov- 
ern. But  she  was  thwarted  iu  her  first  grasp  at 
power.  Under  Francis  I. ,  a  family  [the  Guises  — 
see  above]  previously  unknown  in  French  history 
had  begun  to  play  a  prominent  part.  .  .  .  The 
brothers  succeeded  in  bringing  about  a  political 
marriage  which  promised  to  throw  the  King,  who 
was  mentally  a  child,  entirely  into  their  hands. 
Their  sister  Mary  had  been  married  to  James  V. 
of  Scotland,  whose  crown  was  then  rather  an  in- 
significant one,  but  was  now  beginning  to  gain 
importance.  The  issue  of  this  marriage  was  a 
charming  girl,  who  was  destined  for  the  King's 
wife.  She  was  betrothed  to  him  without  his 
consent  when  still  a  child.  The  young  Queen 
was  Mary  Stuart.  Her  misfortunes,  her  beauty, 
and  her  connection  with  European  history,  have 
made  her  a  historical  personage,  more  conspicu- 
ous indeed  for  what  she  suffered  tlian  for  what 
she  did ;  her  real  Importance  is  not  commensu- 
rate with  the  position  she  occupies.  This,  then, 
was  the  position  of  the  brothers  Guise  at  court. 
The  King  was  the  husband  of  their  niece ;  both 
were  children  in  age  and  mind,  and  therefore 
doubly  required  guidance.  The  brothers,  Francis 
and  Charles,  had  the  government  entirely  in  their 
hands;  the  Duke  managed  the  army,  the  Cardinal 
the  finances  and  foreign  affairs.  Two  such  lead- 
ers were  the  mayors  of  the  palace.  The  whole 
constitution  of  the  court  reminds  us  of  the  '  rois 
faineants'  and  the  office  of  major-domo  under  the 
Carlovingians.  Thus,  just  when  Catharine  was 
about  to  take  advantage  of  a  favourable  moment, 
she  saw  herself  once  more  eclipsed  and  thrust 
aside,  and  that  by  insolent  upstarts  of  whom  one 
thing  only  was  certain,  that  they  possessed  un- 
usual talents,  and  that  their  consciences  were 
elastic  in  the  choice  of  means.  It  was  not  only 
from  Catharine  that  the  supremacy  of  the  Guises 
met  with  violent  opposition,  but  also  from  Prot- 
estantism, the  importance  of  which  was  greatly 
increasing  in  France.  ...  In  the  time  of  Henry 
II.,  in  spite  of  all  the  edicts  and  executions.  Prot- 
estantism had  made  great  progress.  ...  In  the 
spring  of  1559,  interdicted  Protestantism  had 
secretly  reviewed  its  congregations,  and  at  the 
first  national  synod  drawn  up  a  confession  of 
faith  and  a  constitution  for  the  new  Church. 
Preachers  and  elders  had  appeared  from  every 
part  of  France,  and  their  eighty  articles  of  28th 
May,  1559,  have  become  the  code  of  laws  of 
French  Protestantism.    The  Calviuistic  principle 


of  the  Congregational  Church,  with  choice  of  its 
own  minister,  deacons,  and  elders;  a  consistory 
which  maintained  strict  discipline  in  matters  of 
faith  and  morals  .  .  .  was  established  upon  French 
soil,  and  was  afterwards  publicly  accepted  by  the 
whole  party.  The  more  adherents  this  party 
gained  in  the  upper  circles,  the  bolder  was  its  at- 
titude; there  was,  indeed,  no  end  to  the  execu- 
tions, or  to  the  edicts  against  heresy,  but  a  spirit 
of  opposition,  previously  unknown,  had  gradually 
gained  ground.  Prisoners  were  set  free,  the  con- 
demned were  rescued  from  the  hands  of  the  exe- 
cutioners on  the  way  to  the  scaffold,  and  a  plan 
was  devised  among  the  numerous  fugitives  in 
foreign  lands  for  producing  a  turn  in  the  course 
of  events  by  violent  means.  La  Renaudie,  a  re- 
formed nobleman  from  Perigord,  who  had  sworn 
vengeance  on  the  Guises  for  the  execution  of  his 
brother,  had,  with  a  number  of  other  persons  of 
his  own  way  of  thinking,  formed  a  plan  for  at- 
tacking the  Guises,  carrying  off  the  King,  and 
placing  him  under  the  guardianship  of  the  Bour- 
bon agnates.  .  .  .  The  project  was  betrayed;  the 
Guises  succeeded  in  placing  the  King  in  security 
in  the  Castle  of  Amboise ;  a  number  of  the  con- 
spirators were  seized,  another  troop  overpowered 
and  dispersed  on  their  attack  upon  the  castle,  on 
the  17th  of  March,  1560;  some  were  killed,  some 
taken  prisoners  and  at  once  executed.  It  was 
then  discovered,  or  pretended,  that  the  youngest 
of  the  Bourbon  princes  [see  BonRBON,  House 
op],  Louis  of  Conde,  was  implicated  in  the  con- 
spiracy [known  as  the  Conspiracy  or  Tumult  of 
Amboise].  .  .  .  The  Guises  now  ventured,  in 
contempt  of  French  historical  traditions,  to  im- 
prison this  prince  of  the  blood,  this  agnate  of  the 
reigning  house ;  to  summon  him  before  an  arbi- 
trary tribunal  of  partisans,  and  to  condemn  him 
to  death.  .  .  .  This  affair  kept  all  France  in  sus- 
pense. All  the  nobles,  although  strongly  in- 
fected with  Huguenot  ideas,  were  on  Conde's 
side ;  even  those  who  condemned  his  religious 
opinions  made  his  cause  their  own.  Tliey  justly 
thought  that  if  he  fell  none  of  them  would  be 
safe.  In  the  midst  of  this  ferment,  destiny  in- 
terposed. On  the  5th  of  December,  1560,  Francis 
II.  died  suddenly,  and  a  complete  change  took 
place.  His  death  put  an  end  to  a  net-work  of 
intrigues,  which  aimed  at  knocking  the  rebellion, 
political  and  religious,  on  the  head.  .  .  .  During 
this  confusion  one  individual  had  been  watching 
the  course  of  events  with  the  eagerness  of  a  beast 
ready  to  seize  on  its  prey.  Catharine  of  Medici 
was  convinced  that  the  time  of  her  dominion  had 
at  length  arrived.  .  .  .  Francis  II.  was  scarcely 
dead  when  she  seized  upon  the  person  and  the 
power  of  Charles  IX.  He  was  a  boy  of  ten  years 
old,  not  more  promising  than  his  eldest  brother, 
sickly  and  weakly  like  all  the  sons  of  Henry  11., 
more  attached  to  his  mother  than  the  others,  and 
he  had  been  neglected  by  the  Guises.  .  .  .  One 
of  her  first  acts  was  to  liberate  Conde ;  this  was  a 
decided  step  towards  reconciliation  with  the 
Bourbons  and  the  Protestants.  The  whole  situa- 
tion was  all  at  once  changed.  The  court  was 
ruled  by  Catharine ;  her  feverish  tliirst  for  power 
was  satisfied.  The  Guises  and  their  adherents 
were,  indeed,  permitted  to  remain  in  their  oflSces 
and  posts  of  honour,  in  order  not  fatally  to  offend 
them;  but  their  supremacy  was  destroyed,  and 
the  new  power  was  based  upon  the  Queen's 
understanding  with  the  heads  of  the  Huguenot 
party." — L.  Hausser,  The  Period  of  the  R^orma- 


1229 


FRANCE,  1559-1561. 


The  Huguenots. 


FRANCE,  1560-1563. 


Hon,  1517  to  1648,  ch.  25. — "The  recent  commo- 
tion had  disclosed  the  existence  of  a  body  of 
malcontents,  in  part  religious,  in  part  also  politi- 
cal, scattered  over  the  whole  kingdom  and  of 
unascertained  numbers.  To  its  adherents  the 
name  of  Huguenots  was  now  for  the  first  time 
given.  What  tlie  origin  of  this  celebrated  ap- 
pellation was,  it  is  now  perhaps  impossible  to 
discover.  ...  It  has  been  traced  back  to  the 
name  of  the  Eidgenossen  or  '  confederates,'  under 
which  the  party  of  freedom  figured  in  Geneva 
when  the  authority  of  the  bishop  and  duke  was 
overthrown;  or  to  the  'Roy  Huguet,'  or  '  Hu- 
guon,'  a  hobgoblin  supposed  to  haunt  the  vicinity 
of  Tours,  to  whom  the  superstitious  attributed 
the  nocturnal  assemblies  of  the  Protestants ;  or  to 
the  gate  '  du  roy  Huguon  '  of  the  same  city,  near 
which  those  gatherings  were  wont  to  be  made. 
Some  of  their  enemies  maintained  the  former  ex- 
istence of  a  diminutive  coin  known  as  a  '  hugue- 
not,' and  asserted  that  the  appellation,  as  applied 
to  the  reformed,  arose  from  their  '  not  being 
worth  a  huguenot,'  or  farthing.  And  some  of 
their  friends,  with  equal  confidence  and  no  less 
improbability,  declared  that  it  was  invented  be- 
cause the  adherents  of  the  house  of  Guise  secretly 
put  forward  claims  upon  the  crown  of  France  in 
behalf  of  that  house  as  descended  from  Charle- 
magne, whereas  the  Protestants  loyally  upheld 
the  riglits  of  the  Valois  sprung  from  Hugh  Capet. 
In  the  diversity  of  contradictory  statements,  we 
may  perhaps  be  excused  if  we  suspend  our  judg- 
ment. .  .  .  Not  a  week  had  passed  after  the  con- 
spiracy of  Amboise  before  the  word  was  in  every- 
body's mouth.  Few  knew  or  cared  whence  it 
arose.  A  powerful  party,  whatever  name  it 
might  bear,  had  sprung  up,  as  it  were,  in  a  night. 
.  .  .  No  feature  of  the  rise  of  the  Reformation 
in  France  is  more  remarkable  than  the  sudden 
impulse  which  it  received  during  the  last  year 
or  two  of  Henry  II.  's  life,  and  especially  within 
the  brief  limits  of  the  reign  of  his  eldest  son.  .  .  . 
There  was  not  a  corner  of  the  kingdom  where  the 
number  of  incipient  Protestant  churches  was  not 
considerable.  Provence  alone  contained  60, 
whose  delegates  this  year  met  in  a  synod  at  the 
blood-stained  village  of  Meriudol.  In  large  tracts 
of  countrj'  the  Huguenots  had  become  so  numer- 
ous that  they  were  no  longer  able  or  disposed  to 
conceal  their  religious  sentiments,  nor  content  to 
celebrate  their  rites  in  private  or  nocturnal  as- 
semblies. This  was  particularly  the  case  in 
Normandy,  in  Languedoc,  and  on  the  banks  of 
the  Rhone." — H.  M.  Baird,  Si/tt.  of  the  Rise  of 
the  Huguenots,  bk.  1,  ch.  10  (e.  1). 

Also  IN:  C.  M.Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist., 
Atli  series,  c.  29. 

A.  D.  1560. — Accession  of  King  Charles  IX. 

A.  D.  1560-1563. — Changed  policy  of  Catha- 
rine de'  Medici. — Delusive  favors  to  the  Hu- 
guenots.— The  Guises  and  the  Catholics  again 
ascendant. — The  massacre  of  Vassy. —  Out- 
break of  civil  war. — Battle  of  Dreux. — Assas- 
sination of  Guise. — Peace  and  the  Edict  of 
Amboise. — "Catherine  de  Medici,  now  regent, 
thought  it  wisest  to  abandon  the  policy  which 
had  till  then  prevailed  under  the  influence  of  the 
Guises,  and  while  she  confirmed  the  Lorraine 
princes  in  the  important  offices  they  held,  she 
named,  on  the  other  hand,  Antoine  de  Bourbon 
[king  of  Navarre]  lieutenant-general  of  the  king- 
dom, and  took  Michel  de  I'Hopital  as  her  chief 
adviser.  .  .  .  Chancellor   de  I'Hopital,  like  the 


Regent,  aimed  at  the  destruction  of  the  parties 
which  were  rending  the  kingdom  asunder ;  but 
his  political  programme  was  that  of  an  honest 
man  and  a  true  liberal.  A  wise  system  of  re- 
ligious toleration  and  of  administrative  reform 
would,  he  thought,  restore  peace  and  satisfy  all 
true  Frenchmen.  'Let  us,'  he  said,  'do  away 
with  the  diabolical  party-names  which  cause 
so  many  seditions  —  Lutherans,  Huguenots,  and 
Papists;  let  us  not  alter  the  name  of  Christians.' 
.  .  .  The  edicts  of  Saint  Germain  and  of  January 
(1562)  were  favourable  to  the  Huguenots.  Re- 
ligious meetings  were  allowed  in  rural  districts; 
all  penalties  previously  decreed  against  Dissent- 
ers were  suspended  on  condition  that  the  old 
faith  should  not  be  interfered  with :  finally,  the 
Huguenot  divines,  with  Theodore  de  Bfize  at 
their  head,  were  invited  to  meet  the  Roman 
Catholic  prelates  and  theologians  in  a  conference 
(colloque)  at  Poissy,  near  Paris.  Theodore  de 
Bfeze,  the  faithfid  associate  and  coadjutor  of 
Calvin  in  the  great  work  of  the  Reformation, 
both  at  Geneva  and  in  France,  is  justly  and  uni- 
versally regarded  as  the  historian  of  the  early 
Huguenots,  .  .  .  The  speech  he  delivered  at  the 
opening  of  the  colloque  is  an  eloquent  plea  for 
liberty  and  mutual  forbearance.  Unfortunately, 
the  conciliatory  measures  he  proposed  satisfied 
no  one." — G.  Alasson,  The  Huguenots,  ch.  2. — 
"  The  edict  of  .January  .  .  .  gave  permission  to 
Protestants  to  hold  meetings  for  public  worship 
outside  the  towns,  and  placed  their  meetings 
under  the  protection  of  the  law.  .  .  .  The  Par- 
liament of  Paris  refused  to  register  tlie  edict 
until  after  repeated  orders  from  the  Queen- 
mother.  The  Parliament  of  Dijon  refused  to 
register  it.  .  .  .  The  Parliament  of  Aix  refused. 
Next,  Antoine  de  Navarre,  bribed  by  a  promise 
of  the  restoration  of  the  Spanish  part  of  his  little 
kingdom,  announced  that  the  colloquy  of  Poissy 
had  converted  him,  dismissed  Beza  and  the  re- 
formed preachers,  sent  Jeanne  back  to  Beam, 
demanded  the  dismissal  of  the  Chatillons  from 
the  court,  and  invited  the  Duke  of  Guise  and  his 
brother,  the  Cardinal,  who  were  at  their  chateau 
of  Joiuville,  to  return  to  Paris.  Then  occurred 
—  it  was  only  six  weeks  after  the  Edict  of  Janu- 
ary—  the  massacre  of  Vassy.  Nine  hundred 
out  of  3,000  — •  the  population  of  that  little  town 
— -were  Protestants.  Rejoicing  in  the  permission 
granted  them  by  the  new  law,  they  were  assem- 
bled on  the  Sunday  morning,  in  a  barn  outside 
the  town,  for  the  purpo.se  of  public  service.  The 
Duke  of  Guise  and  the  Cardinal,  with  their  armed 
escort  of  gentlemen  and  soldiers,  riding  on  their 
way  to  Paris,  heard  the  bells  which  summoned  the 
people,  and  asked  what  they  meant.  Being  told 
that  it  was  a  Huguenot  '  preclie,'  the  Duke  swore 
that  he  would  Huguenot  them  to  some  purpose. 
He  rode  straight  to  the  barn  and  entered  the 
place,  threatening  to  murder  them  all.  The 
people  relying  on  the  law,  barred  the  doors. 
Then  the  massacre  began.  The  soldiers  burst  open 
the  feeble  barrier,  and  began  to  fire  among  the 
perfectly  unarmed  and  inotf ensive  people.  Sixty- 
four  were  killed  —  men,  women,  and  children ; 
200  were  wounded.  This  was  the  signal  for  war. 
Conde,  on  the  intelligence,  immediately  retired 
from  the  court  to  Meaux,  whence  he  issued  a 
proclamation  calling  on  all  the  Protestants  of  the 
country  to  take  up  arms.  Coligny  was  at  Cha- 
tillon,  whither  Catharine  addressed  him  letter 
after  letter,  urging  upon  him,  in  ambiguous  terms. 


12.30 


FRANCE,  iseo-ises. 


The  Wars  of 
Religion. 


FRANCE,  1560-1563. 


the  defence  of  the  King.  It  seems,  though  this 
is  obscure,  that  at  one  time  Conde  might  have 
seized  the  ro3al  family  and  held  them.  But  if 
he  had  the  opportunity,  he  neglected  it,  and  the 
chance  never  came  again.  Henceforward,  liow- 
ever,  vi^e  hear  no  more  talk  about  Catharine  be- 
coming a  Protestant.  That  pretence  will  serve 
her  no  more.  Before  the  clash  of  arras,  there 
was  silence  for  a  space.  Jlen  waited  till  the  last 
man  in  France  who  had  not  spoken  should  de- 
clare himself.  The  Huguenots  looked  to  the 
Admiral,  and  not  to  Conde.  It  was  on  him  that 
the  real  responsibility  lay  of  declaring  civil  war. 
It  was  a  responsibility  from  which  the  strongest 
man  might  shrink.  .  .  .  The  Admiral  having 
once  made  up  his  mind,  hesitated  no  longer, 
and,  with  a  heavy  heart,  set  off  the  next  day  to 
join  Conde.  He  wrote  to  Catharine  that  he  took 
up  arms,  not  against  the  King,  but  against  those 
who  held  him  captive.  He  wrote  also  to  his  old 
uncle,  the  Constable  [Montmorency].  .  .  .  The 
Constable  replied.  There  was  no  bitterness  be- 
tween uncle  and  nephew.  The  former  was  fight- 
ing to  prevent  the  'universal  ruin'  of  hiscountr3% 
and  for  his  '  petits  maitres,'  the  boys,  the  sons  of 
his  old  friend,  Henry  II.  Montmorency  joined 
the  Guises  in  perfect  loyalty,  and  with  the  firm 
conviction  tliat  it  was  the  right  thing  for  him  to 
do.  The  Chatillon  fought  in  the  name  of  law 
and  justice,  and  to  prevent  the  universal  mas- 
sacre of  his  people.  .  .  .  Then  the  first  civil  war 
began  with  a  gallant  exploit  —  the  taking  of 
Orleans  [April  1563].  Conde  rode  Into  it  at  the 
head  of  2,U00  cavalry,  all  shouting  like  school- 
boys, and  racing  for  six  miles  who  should  get 
into  the  city  first.  They  pillaged  the  churches, 
and  turned  out  the  Catholics.  '  Those  who  were 
that  day  turned  outside  the  city  wept  catholicly 
that  they  were  dispossessed  of  the  magazines  of 
the  finest  wines  in  France.'  Truly  a  dire  mis- 
fortune, for  the  Catholics  to  lose  all  the  best 
claret  districts  !  Orleans  taken,  the  Huguenots 
proceeded  to  issue  protestations  and  manifestoes, 
in  all  of  which  the  hand  of  the  Admiral  is  visi- 
ble. They  are  not  fighting  against  the  King, 
who  is  a  prisoner;  the  war  was  begun  by  the 
Guises.  .  .  .  They  might  have  added,  truly 
enough,  that  Conde  and  the  Admiral  held  in 
their  hands  letters  from  Catharine,  urging  them 
to  carry  on  the  contest  for  the  sake  of  the  young 
King.  The  fall  of  Orleans  was  quickly  followed 
by  that  of  Rouen,  Tours,  Blois,  Bourges,  Vienne, 
Valence,  and  ^Montauban.  The  civil  war  was 
fairly  begun.  The  party  was  now  well  organ- 
ized. Conde  was  commander-in-chief  by  right 
of  his  birth ;  Coligny  was  real  leader  by  right  of 
his  reputation  and  wisdom.  It  was  by  him  that 
a  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  drawn  up, 
to  be  signed  by  every  one  of  the  Calvinist  chiefs. 
These  were,  besides  Conde  and  the  Chatillons, 
La  Rochefoucauld,  .  .  .  Coligny 's  nephew  and 
Conde's  brother-in-law  —  he  was  the  greatest 
seigneur  in  Poitou ;  Rohan,  from  Dauphine,  who 
was  Conde's  cousin ;  the  Prince  of  Porcian,  who 
was  the  husband  of  Conde's  niece.  Each  of  these 
lords  came  with  a  following  worthy  of  his  name. 
Montgomery,  who  had  slain  Henry  II.,  brought 
his  Normans;  Genlis,  the  Picards.  .  .  .  With 
Andelot  came  a  troop  of  Bretons;  with  the  Count 
de  Grammont  came  6,000  Gascons.  Good  news 
poured  in  every  day.  Not  only  Rouen,  but 
Havre,  Caen,  and  Dieppe  submitted  in  the  North. 
Angers  and   Nantes  followed.     The  road   was 


open  in  the  end  for  bringing  troops  from  Gter- 
many.  The  country  in  the  southwest  was  alto- 
gether in  their  hands.  Meantime,  the  enemy 
were  not  idle.  They  began  with  massacres.  In 
Paris  they  murdered  800  Huguenots  in  that  first 
summer  of  the  war.  From  every  side  fugitives 
poured  into  Orleans,  which  became  the  city  of 
refuge.  There  were  massacres  at  Amiens,  Sen- 
lis,  Cahors,  Toulouse,  Angouleme  —  everywhere. 
Coligny  advised  a  march  upon  Paris,  where,  he 
urged,  the  Guises  had  but  a  rabble  at  their  com- 
mand. His  counsels  when  war  was  once  com- 
menced, were  always  for  vigorous  measures. 
Conde  preferred  to  wait.  Andelot  was  sent  to 
Germany,  where  he  raised  3,000  horse.  Calvin 
despatched  letters  in  every  direction,  urging  on 
the  churches  and  the  Protestant  princes  to  send 
help  to  France.  JIany  of  Coligny 's  old  soldiers 
of  St.  Quentin  came  to  fight  under  his  banner. 
Elizabeth  of  England  offered  to  send  an  army  if 
Calais  were  restored ;  when  she  saw  that  no 
Frenchman  would  give  up  that  place  again,  she 
still  sent  men  and  money,  though  with  grudging 
spirit.  At  length  both  armies  took  the  field. 
The  Duke  of  Guise  had  under  him  8,000  men; 
Conde  7,000.  They  advanced,  and  met  at  the 
little  town  of  Vassodun,  where  a  conference  was 
held  between  the  Queen-mother  and  Navarre  on 
the  one  hand,  and  Conde  and  Coligny  on  the 
other.  Catharine  proposed  that  all  the  chiefs  of 
both  sides —  Guise,  the  Cardinal  de  Lorraine,  St. 
Andre,  Montmorency,  Navarre,  Conde,  and  the 
Chatillon  brothers — -should  all  alike  go  into  vol- 
untary exile.  Conde  was  nearly  persuaded  to 
accept  this  absurd  proposal.  Another  conference 
was  held  at  Taley.  These  conferences  were  only 
delays.  An  attempt  was  made  by  Catharine  to 
entrap  Conde,  which  was  defeated  by  the  Ad- 
miral's prompt  rescue.  The  Parliament  of  Paris 
issued  a  decree  commanding  all  Romanists  in 
every  parish  to  rise  in  arms  at  the  sound  of  the 
bell  and  to  slay  every  Huguenot.  It  was  said 
that  50,000  were  thus  murdered.  No  doubt  the 
numbers  were  grossly  exaggerated.  .  .  .  These 
cruelties  naturally  provoked  retaliation.  .  .  .  An 
English  army  occupied  Havre.  English  troops 
set  out  for  Rouen.  Some  few  managed  to  get 
within  the  walls.  The  town  was  taken  by  the 
Catholics  [October  25,  1563],  and,  for  eight  days, 
plundered.  Needless  to  say  that  Guise  hanged 
every  Huguenot  he  could  find.  Here  the  King 
of  Navarre  was  killed.  The  loss  of  Rouen,  to- 
gether with  other  disasters,  greatly  discouraged 
the  Huguenots.  Their  spirits  rose,  however, 
when  news  came  that  Andelot,  with  4,000  reiters, 
was  on  his  way  to  join  them.  He  brought  them 
in  safety  across  France,  being  himself  carried  in 
a  litter,  sick  with  ague  and  fever.  The  Hugue- 
nots advanced  upon  Paris,  but  did  not  attack  the 
city.  At  Dreux  [December  19,  1563],  they  met 
the  army  of  Guise.  Protestant  historians  en- 
deavor to  show  that  the  battle  was  drawn.  In 
fact  both  sides  sustained  immense  losses.  St. 
Andre  was  killed,  Montmorency  and  Conde  were 
taken  prisoners.  Yet  Coligny  had  to  retire  from 
the  field  —  his  rival  had  outgeneralled  him.  It 
was  characteristic  of  Coligny  that  he  never  lost 
heart.  .  .  .  With  his  German  cavalry,  a  handful 
of  his  own  infantry,  and  a  small  troop  of  English 
soldiers,  Coligny  swept  over  nearly  the  whole  of 
Normandy.  It  is  true  that  Guise  was  not  there 
to  oppose  him.  Every  thing  looked  well.  He 
was  arranging  for  a   '  splendid  alliance '  with 


1231 


FRANCE,  1560-1563. 


The  Wars  of 
Religion. 


FRANCE,  1563-1570. 


England,  when  news  came  which  stayed  his 
hand.  Guise  marched  southwards  to  Orleans. 
.  .  .  There  was  in  Orleans  a  young  Huguenot 
soldier  named  Jean  Poltrot  de  Mere.  He  was  a 
fanatic.  ...  He  waited  for  an  opportunity, 
worked  himself  into  the  good  graces  of  the  Duke, 
and  then  shot  him  with  three  balls,  in  the  shoulder. 
Guise  died  three  days  later.  .  .  .  Then  a  peace 
was  signed  [and  ratified  by  the  Edict  of  Amboise, 
March  19,  1563].  Conde,  won  over  and  seduced 
by  the  sirens  of  the  Court,  signed  it.  It  was  a 
humiliating  and  disastrous  peace.  Huguenots 
were  to  be  considered  loyal  subjects;  foreign 
soldiers  should  be  sent  out  of  the  country; 
churches  and  temples  should  be  restored  to  their 
original  uses ;  the  suburbs  of  one  town  in  every 
bailiwick  were  to  be  used  for  Protestant  worship 
(this  was  a  great  reduction  on  the  Edict  of  Janu- 
ary, which  allowed  the  suburbs  of  every  town) ; 
and  the  nobility  and  gentry  were  to  hold  worship 
in  their  own  houses  after  their  own  opinions. 
The  Admiral  was  furious  at  this  weakness.  '  You 
have  ruined,'  he  said  to  Conde,  '  more  churches 
by  one  stroke  of  the  pen  than  the  enemy  could 
have  done  in  ten  years  of  war. '  " —  W.  Besant, 
Oaspard  de  Coligny,  ch.  8. 

Also  in:  Due  d'Aumale,  Hist,  of  the  Princes 
de  Conde,  bh.  1,  ch.  3  (v.  1).  —  E.  Bersier,  Earlier 
Life  of  Coligny,  ch.  21-26. 

A.  D.  1563-1564. — Recovery  of  Havre  from 
the  English. — The  Treaty  of  Troyes. — Under 
the  terms  on  which  the  Huguenot  leaders  pro- 
cured help  from  Elizabeth,  the  English  queen  held 
Havre,  and  refused  to  restore  it  until  after  the 
restoration  of  Calais  to  England,  and  the  re- 
payment of  a  loan  of  140,000  crowns.  The 
Huguenots,  having  now  made  peace  with  their 
Catholic  fellow  countrymen,  were  not  prepared 
to  fulfill  the  English  contract,  according  to  Eliza- 
beth's claims,  but  demanded  that  Havre  should 
be  given  up.  The  Queen  refusing,  both  the  parties, 
lately  in  arms  against  each  other,  joined  forces, 
and  laid  siege  to  Havre  so  vigorously  that  it  was 
surrendered  to  them  on  the  28th  of  July,  1563. 
Peace  with  England  was  concluded  in  the  April 
following,  by  a  treaty  negotiated  at  Troyes,  and 
the  Queen  lost  all  her  rights  over  Calais. — Due 
d'Aumale,  Hist,  of  the  Princes  of  Conde,  v.  1,  ch.  4. 

Also  m:  J.  A.  Froude,  Hist,  of  England: 
Beign  of  Elisabeth,  ch.  6  and  8  {v.  1-2). 

A.  D.  1563-1570. — The  conference  at  Bay- 
onne. — Outbreak  of  the  Second  Civil  War. — 
Battle  of  St.  Denis. — Peace  of  Longjumeau. 
— The  Third  Civil  War. — Huguenot  rally  at 
La  Rochelle. — Appearance  of  the  Queen  of 
Navarre. — Battle  of  Jarnac. — Death  of  Cond6. 
— Henry  of  Navarre  chosen  to  command. — 
Battle  of  Moncontour. — Peace  of  St.  Germain. 
— The  religious  peace  established  under  the 
Edict  of  Amboise  lasted  four  years.  "Not  that 
the  Huguenots  enjoyed  during  these  years  any- 
thing like  security  or  repose.  The  repeated 
abridgment  even  of  those  narrow  liberties  con- 
ferred by  the  Edict  of  Amboise,  and  the  frequent 
outbreaks  of  popular  hatred  in  which  numbers 
of  them  perished,  kept  them  in  perpetual  alarm. 
Still  more  alarming  was  the  meeting  at  Bayonne 
[of  Catherine  de'  Medici,  the  young  king,  her  son, 
and  the  Duke  of  Alva,  representing  Philip  II.  of 
Spain]  in  the  summer  of  1565.  .  .  .  Amid  the 
Court  festivities  which  took  place,  it  was  known 
that  there  had  been  many  secret  meetings  between 
Alva,  Catherine,  and  Charles.     The  darkest  sus- 


picions as  to  their  objects  and  results  spread  over 
France.  It  was  generally  believed  —  falsely,  as 
from  Alva's  letters  it  now  appears  — that  a 
simultaneous  extermination  of  all  heretics  in  the 
French  and  Spanish  dominions  had  been  agreed 
upon.  To  anticipate  this  stroke,  Coligni  pro- 
posed that  the  person  of  the  King  should  be 
seized  upon.  The  Court,  but  slenderly  guarded, 
was  then  at  Monceaux.  The  project  had  almost 
succeeded.  Some  time,  however,  was  lost.  The 
Court  got  warning  and  fled  to  Meaux.  Six  thou- 
sand Swiss  arrived,  and  by  a  rapid  march  carried 
the  King  to  Paris.  After  such  a  failure,  nothing 
was  left  to  the  Huguenots  but  the  chances  of  a 
second  civil  war.  Conde  entered  boldly  on  the 
campaign.  Though  he  had  with  him  but  1,500 
horse  and  1,200  infantry,  he  marched  to  Paris, 
and  offered  battle  to  the  royal  troops  beneath  its 
walls.  The  Constable  [Montmorency],  who  had 
18,000  men  at  his  command,  accepted  the  chal- 
lenge, and  on  the  10th  of  November  1567,  the 
battle  of  St.  Denis  was  fought.  .  .  .  Neither 
party  could  well  claim  the  victory,  as  both  re- 
tired from  the  field.  The  royal  army  had  to 
mourn  the  loss  that  day  of  its  aged  and  gal- 
lant commander,  the  Constable.  Conde  renewed 
next  day  the  challenge,  which  was  not  accepted. 
The  winter  months  were  spent  by  the  Huguenots 
in  effecting  a  junction  with  some  German  auxili- 
aries, and  in  the  spring  they  appeared  in  such 
force  upon  the  field  that,  on  the  23d  March  1568, 
the  Peace  of  Longjumeau  was  ratified,  which 
re-established,  free  from  all  modifications  and  re- 
strictions, the  Edict  of  Amboise.  It  was  evident 
from  the  first  that  this  treat)'  was  not  intended  to  be 
kept ;  that  it  had  been  entered  into  by  the  govern- 
ment solely  to  gain  time,  and  to  scatter  the  ranks 
of  the  Huguenots.  Coligni  sought  Conde  at  his 
chateau  of  Noyers  in  Burgundy.  He  had  scarcely 
arrived  when  secret  intelligence  was  given  them 
of  a  plot  upon  their  lives.  They  had  barely  time 
to  fly,  making  many  a  singular  escape  by  the 
way,  and  reaching  Rochelle,  which  from  this  time 
became  the  head -quarters  of  the  Huguenots,  on 
the  15th  September  1568.  During  the  first  two 
religious  wars  .  .  .  the  seat  of  war  was  so  re- 
mote from  her  dominions  that  the  Queen  of 
Navarre  [Jeanne  d'Albret, — see  Navarre:  A.D. 
1538-1563]  had  satisfied  herself  with  opening  her 
country  as  an  asylum  for  those  Huguenots  driven 
thither  out  of  the  southern  counties  of  France. 
But  when  she  heard  that  Conde  and  Coligni  .  .  . 
were  on  their  way  to  Rochelle,  to  raise  there  once 
more  the  Protestant  banner,  convinced  that  the 
French  Court  meditated  nothing  sliort  of  the  ex- 
termination of  the  Huguenots,  she  determined 
openly  to  cast  in  her  lot  with  her  co-religionists, 
and  to  give  them  all  the  help  she  could.  Dexter- 
ously deceiving  ilontluc,  who  had  received  in- 
structions to  watch  her  movements,  and  to  seize 
upon  her  person  if  she  showed  any  intention  of 
leaving  her  own  dominions,  after  a  flight  as  pre- 
cipitous and  almost  as  perilous  as  that  of  Conde 
and  Coligni,  she  reached  Rochelle  on  the  29th 
September,  ten  days  after  their  arrival.  This 
town,  for  nearly  a  century  the  citadel  of  Protes- 
tantism in  France,  having  by  its  own  unaided 
power  freed  itself  from  the  English  dominion 
[in  the  period  Ijetween  1368  and  1380]  hud  had 
extraordinary  municipal  privileges  bestowed  on 
it  in  return  —  among  others,  that  of  an  entirely 
independent  jurisdiction,  both  civil  and  military. 
Like  so  many  of  the  great  commercial  marts  of 


1232 


FRANCE,  1563-1570. 


Henry  of  Navarre 
and  Coligny. 


FRANCE,  1570-1573. 


Europe,  in  which  the  spirit  of  freedom  was 
cherished,  it  had  early  welcomed  the  teaching 
of  the  Reformers,  and  at  the  time  now  before  us 
nearly  the  whole  of  its  inhabitants  were  Hugue- 
nots. .  .  .  About  the  verj'  time  that  the  Queen 
of  Navarre  entered  Rochelle  a  royal  edict  ap- 
peared, prohibiting,  under  pain  of  death,  the 
exercise  of  any  other  than  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion  in  France,  imposing  upon  all  the  observ- 
ance of  its  rites  and  ceremonies ;  and  banishing 
from  the  realm  all  preachers  of  the  doctrine  of 
Calvin,  fifteen  days  only  being  allowed  them  to 
quit  the  kingdom.  It  was  by  the  sword  that  this 
stern  edict  was  to  be  enforced  or  rescinded. 
Two  powerful  armies  of  nearly  equal  strength 
mustered  speedily.  One  was  nominally  under 
the  command  of  the  Duke  of  Anjou,  but  really 
led  by  Tavannes,  Biron,  Brissac,  and  the  young 
Duke  of  Guise,  the  last  burning  to  emulate  the 
military  glory  of  his  father ;  the  other  under  the 
command  of  Conde  and  Coligni.  The  two  armies 
were  close  upon  one  another;  their  generals  de- 
sired to  bring  them  into  action ;  they  were  more 
than  once  actually  in  each  other's  presence ;  but 
the  unprecedented  inclemency  of  the  weather  pre- 
vented an  engagement,  and  at  last,  without  com- 
ing into  collision,  both  had  to  retire  to  winter 
quarters.  The  delay  was  fatal  to  the  Hugue- 
nots." In  the  following  spring  (March  13,  1569), 
while  their  forces  were  still  scattered  and  unpre- 
pared, they  were  forced  into  battle  with  the 
better-generaled  Royalists,  at  Jarnuc,  and  were 
grievously  defeated.  Conde,  wounded  and  taken 
prisoner,  was  treated  at  first  with  respect  by  the 
ofiicers  who  received  his  sword.  But  "Montes- 
quieu, captain  of  the  Swiss  Guard  of  the  Duke  of 
Anjou,  galloped  up  to  the  spot,  and,  hearing 
who  the  prisoner  was,  deliberately  levelled  his 
pistol  at  him  and  shot  him  through  the  head. 
The  Duke  passed  no  censure  on  his  officer,  and 
expressed  no  regret  at  his  deed.  The  grossest 
Indignities  were  afterwards,  by  his  orders,  heaped 
upon  the  dead  body  of  the  slain.  The  defeat  of 
Jarnac,  and  still  more  the  death  of  Conde,  threw 
the  Huguenot  army  into  despair.  .  .  .  The  utter 
dissolution  of  the  army  seemed  at  hand.  The 
Admiral  sent  a  messenger  to  the  Queen  of  Navarre 
at  Rochelle,  entreating  her  to  come  to  the  camp. 
She  was  already  on  her  way.  On  arrival,  and 
after  a  short  consultation  with  the  Admiral,  the 
army  was  drawn  up  to  receive  her.  She  rode 
along  the  ranks  —  her  son  Henry  on  one  side,  the 
son  of  the  deceased  Conde  on  the  other."  Then 
she  addressed  to  the  troops  an  inspiring  speech, 
concluding  with  these  heroic  words:  "Soldiers, 
I  offer  you  everything  I  have  to  give, — my  do- 
minions, my  treasures,  my  life,  and,  what  is 
dearer  to  me  than  all,  my  children.  I  make  here 
solemn  oath  before  you  all  —  I  swear  to  defend  to 
ray  last  sigh  the  holy  cause  which  now  unites  us. " 
"  The  soldiers  crowded  around  the  Queen,  and 
unanimously,  as  if  by  sudden  impulse,  hailed 
young  Henry  of  Navarre  as  their  future  general. 
The  Admiral  and  La  Rochefoucauld  were  the 
first  to  swear  fidelity  to  the  Prince  ;  then  came 
the  inferior  officers  and  the  whole  assembled 
soldiery;  and  it  was  thus  that,  in  his  fifteenth 
year,  the  Prince  of  Beam  was  inaugurated  as 
general -in-chief  of  the  army  of  the  Huguenots." 
In  June  the  Huguenot  army  effected  a  junction 
at  St.  Yriex  with  a  division  of  German  auxili- 
aries, led  by  the  Due  de  Deux-Ponts,  and  includ- 
ing among  its  chiefs  the  Prince  of  Orange  and 

^^  1233 


his  brother  Louis  of  Nassau.  They  attacked  the 
Duke  of  Anjou  at  La  Roche-Abeille  and  gained 
a  slight  advantage;  but  wasted  their  strength 
during  the  summer,  contrary  to  the  advice  of  the 
Admiral  Coligny,  in  besieging  Poitiers.  The 
Duke  of  Anjou  approached  with  a  superior  army, 
and,  again  in  opposition  to  the  judgment  of 
Coligny,  the  Huguenots  encountered  him  at 
Moncontour  (October  3,  1569),  where  they  suf- 
fered the  worst  of  their  defeats,  leaving  5,000 
dead  and  wounded  on  the  field.  Meanwhile  a 
French  army  had  entered  Navai-re,  had  taken 
the  capital  and  spread  destruction  everywhere 
through  the  small  kingdom ;  but  the  Queen  sent 
Count  de  Montgomery  to  rally  her  people,  and 
the  invaders  were  driven  out.  Coligny  and 
Prince  Henry  wintered  their  troops  in  the  far 
south,  then  moved  rapidly  northwards  in  the 
spring,  up  the  valley  of  the  Rhone,  across  the 
Cevennes,  through  Burgundy,  approaching  the 
Loire,  and  were  met  by  the  Marshal  de  Cosse  at 
Arnay-le-Duc,  where  Henry  of  Navarre  won  his 
first  success  in  arms  —  Coligny  being  ill.  Though 
it  was  but  a  partial  victory  it  brought  about  a 
breathing  time  of  peace.  "This  happened  in  the 
end  of  June,  and  on  the  8th  of  August  [1570]  the 
Peace  of  St.  Germain-en-Laye  was  signed,  and 
France  had  two  full  j'ears  of  quiet.  "• — W.  Hanna, 
The  ^Vars  of  the  Uiiguciwts,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  Due  d'Aumale,  Hist,  of  ths  Princei 
de  Conde,  bk.  1,  ch.  4-5  (».  1-2).— M.  W.  Freer, 
Life  of  Jeanne  d'Alhret,  ch.  8-10.  —  C.  M.  Yonge, 
Cameos  of  Eng.  Hist.,  5th  series,  c.  8. 

A.  D.  1570-1572. — Coligny  at  court  and  his 
influence  with  the  King. — Projected  war  with 
Spain. — The  desperate  step  of  Catharine  de* 
Medici,  and  its  consequence  in  the  plot  of  Mas- 
sacre.— "After  the  Peace  of  1570,  it  appeared  as 
if  a  complete  change  of  policy  was  about  to  take 
place.  The  Queen  pretended  to  be  friendly  with 
the  Protestants;  her  relations  with  the  ambitious 
Guises  were  distant  and  cold,  and  the  project  of 
uniting  the  Houses  of  Bourbon  and  Valois  by 
marriage  [the  marriage  of  Henry  of  Navarre 
with  the  king's  sister.  Marguerite]  really  looked 
as  if  she  was  in  earnest.  'The  most  distinguished 
leader  of  the  Huguenot  party  was  the  Admiral 
Caspar  de  Coligny.  It  is  quite  refreshing  at  this 
doleful  period  to  meet  with  such  a  character. 
He  was  a  nobleman  of  the  old  French  school  and 
of  the  best  stamp;  lived  upon  his  estates  with 
his  family,  his  little  court,  his  retainers  and  sub- 
jects, in  ancient  patriarchal  style,  and  on  the 
best  terms,  and  regularly  went  with  them  to  the 
Protestant  worship  and  the  communion ;  a  man 
of  unblemished  morality  and  strict  Calvinistic 
views  of  life.  AVhatever  this  man  said  or  did 
was  the  result  of  his  inmost  convictions ;  his  life 
was  the  impersonation  of  his  views  and  thoughts. 
In  the  late  turbulent  times  he  had  become  an  im- 
portant person  as  leader  and  organizer  of  the 
Protestant  armies.  At  his  call,  thousands  of 
noblemen  and  soldiers  took  up  arms,  and  they 
submitted  under  his  command  to  very  strict  dis- 
cipline. He  could  not  boast  of  having  won  many 
battles,  but  he  was  famous  for  having  kept  his 
resources  together  after  repeated  defeats,  and  for 
rising  up  stronger  than  before  after  every  lost 
engagement.  .  .  .  Now  that  peace  was  made, 
'why,'  he  asked,-  'excite  further  dissensions  for 
the  benefit  of  our  common  enemies  ?  Let  us  direct 
our  undivided  forces  against  the  real  enemy  of 
France  —  against  Spain,  who  stirs  up  intrigues 


FRANCE,   1570-1572. 


Plotting  the 
Massacre. 


FRANCE.  1573. 


in  our  civil  wars.  Let  us  crush  tliis  power, 
which  coademus  us  to  ignominious  dependence.' 
The  war  against  Spain  was  Coligny's  project. 
It  was  the  idea  of  a  good  Huguenot,  for  it  was 
directed  against  the  most  blindly  fanatical  and 
dangerous  foe  of  the  new  doctrines ;  but  it  was 
also  that  of  a  good  Frenchman,  for  a  victory  over 
Spain  would  increase  the  power  of  France  in  the 
direction  of  Burgundy.  .  .  .  From  September, 
1571,  Coligny  was  at  court.  On  his  first  arrival 
he  was  heartily  welcomed  by  the  King,  embraced 
by  Catharine,  and  loaded  with  honours  and 
favours  by  both.  I  am  not  of  opinion  that  this 
was  a  deeply  laid  scheme  to  entrap  the  guileless 
hero,  the  more  easily  to  ruin  him.  Catharine's 
ideas  did  not  extend  so  far.  Still  less  do  I  believe 
that  the  young  King  was  trained  to  play  the  part 
of  a  hypocrite,  and  regarded  Coligny  as  a  victim 
to  be  cherished  until  the  fSte  day.  I  think, 
rather,  that  Catharine,  in  her  changeableness  and 
hatred  of  the  Guises,  was  now  really  disposed  to 
make  peace  with  the  Protestants,  and  that  the 
young  King  was  for  the  time  impressed  by  this 
superior  personage.  No  youthful  mind  is  so 
degraded  as  to  be  entirely  inaccessible  to  such 
influence.  ...  I  believe  that  the  first  and  only 
happy  day  in  the  life  of  this  unfortunate  mon- 
arch was  when  he  met  Coligny,  who  raised  him 
above  the  degradation  of  vulgar  life ;  and  I  be- 
lieve further,  that  this  relation  was  the  main 
cause  of  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew.  A 
new  influence  was  threatening  to  surround  the 
King  and  to  take  deep  root,  which  Catharine, 
her  sou  Henry  of  Anjou,  and  the  strict  Catholic 
party,  must  do  their  utmost  to  avert;  and  it  was 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  King's  weak  charac- 
ter to  allow  the  man  to  be  murdered  whom  he 
had  just  called  'Father.'.  .  .  It  appears  that 
about  the  middle  of  the  year  [1572]  the  matter 
[of  war  with  Spain  and  help  to  the  revolting 
Netherlands]  was  as  good  as  decided.  The  King 
willingly  acceded  to  Coligny's  plan  .  .  .  [and] 
privately  gave  considerable  sums  for  the  support 
of  the  Flemish  patriots,  for  the  equipment  of  an 
army  of  4,000  men,  composed  of  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  who  marched  towards  Mons,  to 
succour  Louis  of  Nassau.  When  in  July  this 
army  was  beaten,  and  the  majority  of  the  Hugue- 
nots were  in  despair.  Coligny  succeeded  in  per- 
suading the  King  to  equip  a  fresh  and  still  larger 
army;  but  the  opposition  then  bestirred  itself. 
.  .  .  'The  Queen  .  .  .  had  been  absent  with  her 
married  daughter  in  Lorraine,  and  on  her  return 
she  found  everything  changed;  the  Guises  with- 
out influence,  herself  thrust  on  one  side.  Under 
the  impression  of  the  latest  events  in  Flanders, 
which  made  it  lilvcly  that  the  war  with  Spain 
would  be  ruinous,  she  hastened  to  the  King,  told 
him  with  floods  of  tears  that  it  would  be  his  ruin; 
that  the  Huguenots,  through  Coligny,  had  stolen 
the  King's  confidence,  unfortunately  for  himself 
and  the  country.  She  made  some  impression 
upon  him,  but  it  did  not  last  long,  and  thoughts 
of  war  gained  the  upper  hand  again.  The  idea 
now  (August,  1572),  must  have  been  matured  in 
Catharine's  mind  of  venturing  on  a  desperate 
step,  in  order  to  save  her  supremacy  and  influ- 
ence. .  .  .  The  idea  ripened  in  her  mind  of  get- 
ting rid  of  Coligny  by  assassination.  .  .  .  En- 
tirely of  one  mind  with  her  .son  Henry,  she  turned 
to  the  Guises,  with  whom  she  was  at  enmity 
when  they  were  in  power,  but  friendly  when 
they  were  of  no  more  consequence  than  herself. 


They  breathed  vengeance  against  the  Calvinists, 
and  were  ready  at  once  to  avenge  the  murder 
of  Francis  of  Guise  by  a  murderous  attack  upon 
Coligny.  An  assassin  was  hired,  and  established 
in  a  house  belonging  to  the  Guises,  near  Coligny's 
dwelling,  and  as  he  came  out  of  the  palace,  on 
the  22nd  of  August,  a  shot  was  fired  at  him, 
which  wounded  but  did  not  kill  him.  Had  Co- 
ligny died  of  his  wound,  Catharine  would  have 
been  content.  .  .  .  But  Coligny  did  not  die ;  the 
Huguenots  defiantly  demanded  vengeance  on  the 
well-known  instigator  of  the  deed ;  their  threats 
reached  the  Queen  and  Prince  Henry  of  Anjou, 
and  the  personal  fascination  which  Coligny  had 
exercised  over  King  Charles  appeared  rather  to 
increase  than  to  diminish.  Thus  doubtless  arose, 
during  the  anxious  hours  after  the  failure  of  the 
assassination,  the  idea  of  an  act  of  violence  on  a 
large  scale,  which  should  strike  a  blow  at  Co- 
ligny and  his  friends  before  they  had  time  for 
revenge.  It  certainly  had  not  been  in  prepara- 
tion for  months,  not  even  since  the  time  that 
Coligny  had  been  at  Court ;  it  was  conceived  in 
the  agony  of  these  hours." — L.  Hausser,  The 
Period  of  tJie  Reformation,  ch.  27. 

Also  in  :  J.  L.  Motley,  The  Rise  of  the  Dutch 
Republic,  pt.  3,  ch.  6-7  (v.  2).  —  L.  von  Ranke, 
Civil  Wars  and  Monarchy  in  France,  ch.  15. 

A.  D.  1572  (August). — The  Massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew's  Day. — "With  some  proofs, 
forged  or  real,  in  her  hand  that  he  was  in  per- 
sonal danger,  the  Queen  Mother  [August  34] 
presented  herself  to  her  son.  She  told  him  that 
at  the  moment  she  was  speaking  the  Huguenots 
were  arming.  Sixteen  thousand  of  them  in- 
tended to  assemble  in  the  morning,  seize  the 
palace,  destroy  herself,  the  Duke  of  Anjou,  and 
tlie  Catholic  noblemen,  and  carry  off  Charles. 
The  conspiracy,  she  said,  extended  through 
France.  'The  chiefs  of  the  congregations  were 
waiting  for  a  signal  from  Coligny  to  rise  in  every 
province  and  town.  The  Catholics  had  discov- 
ered the  plot,  and  did  not  mean  to  sit  still  to  be 
murdered.  If  the  King  refused  to  act  with  them, 
they  would  choose  another  leader;  and  whatever 
happened  he  would  be  himself  destroyed.  Un- 
able to  say  that  the  story  could  not  be  true, 
Charles  looked  enquiringly  at  Tavannas  and  De 
Nevers,  and  they  both  confirmed  the  Queen 
Mother's  words.  Shaking  his  incredulity  with 
reminders  of  Amboise  and  Meaux,  Catherine 
went  on  to  say  that  one  man  was  the  cause  of  all  ' 
the  troubles  in  the  realm.  The  Admiral  aspired 
to  rule  all  France,  and  she  —  she  admitted,  with 
Anjou  and  the  Guises,  had  conspired  to  kill  him 
to  save  the  King  and  the  country.  She  dropped 
all  disguise.  The  King,  she  said,  must  now 
assist  them  or  all  would  be  lost.  .  .  .  Charles 
was  a  weak,  passionate  boy,  alone  in  the  dark 
conclave  of  iniquity.  He  stormed,  raved,  wept, 
implored,  spoke  of  his  honour,  his  plighted 
word ;  swore  at  one  moment  that  the  Admiral 
should  not  be  touched,  then  prayed  them  to  try 
other  means.  But  clear,  cold  and  venomous, 
Catherine  told  him  it  was  too  late.  If  there  was 
a  judicial  enquiry,  the  Guises  would  shield 
themselves  by  telling  all  that  they  knew.  They 
would  betray  her;  they  would  betray  his  brother; 
and,  fairly  or  unfairly,  they  would  not  spare 
himself.  .  .  .  For  an  hour  and  a  half  the  King 
continued  to  struggle.  'You  refuse,  then,' 
Catherine  said  at  last.  ...  '  Is  it  that  you  are 
afraid,  Sire? '  she  hissed  in  his  ear.     '  By  God's 


1234 


PRANCE,  1572. 


The  Massacre  of 
St.  Bartholomew's  Day. 


FRANCE,  1572. 


death,'  he  cried,  springing  to  his  feet,  '  since  you 
will  kill  the  Admiral,  kill  them  all.  Kill  all  the 
Huguenots  in  France,  that  none  may  be  left  to 
reproach  me.  Mort  Dieu !  Kill  them  all.'  He 
da.shed  out  of  the  cabinet.  A  list  of  those  who 
were  to  die  was  instantly  drawn  up.  Navarre 
and  Conde  were  first  included ;  but  Catherine 
prudently  reflected  that  to  kill  the  Bourbons 
would  make  the  Guises  too  strong.  Five  or  six 
Dames  were  added  to  the  Admiral's,  and  these 
Catherine  afterwards  asserted  were  all  that  it 
was  intended  should  suffer.  .  .  .  Night  had  now 
fallen.  Guise  and  Aumale  were  still  lurking  in 
the  city,  and  came  with  the  Duke  of  Montpensier 
at  Catherine's  summons.  The  persons  who  were 
to  be  killed  were  in  different  parts  of  the  town. 
Each  took  charge  of  a  district.  Montpensier 
promised  to  see  to  the  Palace;  Guise  and  his 
uncle  undertook  the  Admiral;  and  below  these, 
the  word  went  out  to  the  leaders  of  the  already 
organised  sections,  who  had  been  disappointed 
once,  but  whose  hour  was  now  come.  The 
Catholics  were  to  recognise  one  another  in  the 
confusion  by  a  white  handkerchief  on  the  left 
arm  and  a  white  cross  in  tlieir  caps.  The 
Royal  Guard,  Catholics  to  a  man,  were  instru- 
ments ready  made  for  the  work.  Guise  assem- 
bled the  officers :  he  told  them  that  the  Hugue- 
nots were  preparing  to  rise,  and  that  the  King 
had  ordered  their  instant  punishment.  The 
officers  asked  no  questions,  and  desired  no 
better  service.  The  business  was  to  begin  at 
dawn.  The  signal  would  be  the  tolling  of  the 
great  bell  at  the  Palace  of  Justice,  and  the  first 
death  was  to  be  Coligny's.  The  soldiers  stole  to 
their  posts.  Twelve  hundred  lay  along  the 
Seine,  between  the  river  and  the  Hotel  de  Ville ; 
other  companies  watched  at  the  Louvre.  As  the 
darkness  waned,  the  Queen  Mother  went  down 
to  the  gate.  The  stillness  of  the  dawn  was 
broken  by  an  accidental  pistol-shot.  Her  heart 
sank,  and  she  sent  off  a  messenger  to  tell  Guise 
to  pause.  But  it  was  too  late.  A  minute  later 
the  bell  boomed  out,  and  the  Massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew  had  commenced."  The  assassins 
broke  into  the  Admiral's  dwelling  and  killed 
him  as  he  lay  wounded  in  bed.  "The  window 
was  open.  'Is  it  done?'  cried  Guise  from  the 
court  below,  '  is  it  done?  Fling  him  out  that  we 
may  see  him.'  Still  breathing,  the  Admiral  was 
hurled  upon  the  pavement.  The  Bastard  of 
Angouleme  wiped  the  Ijlood  from  his  face  to  be 
sure  of  his  identity,  and  then,  kicking  him  as  he 
lay,  shouted,  '  So  far  well.  Courage,  my  brave 
boys!  now  for  the  rest.'  One  of  the  Due  de 
Nevers's  people  hacked  off  the  head.  A  rope 
was  luiotted  about  the  ankles,  and  the  corpse 
was  dragged  out  into  the  street  amidst  the  howl- 
ing crowd.  Teligny,  .  .  .  Rochefoucault,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Admiral's  frieuds  who  lodged  in 
the  neighbourhood  were  disposed  of  in  the  same 
way,  and  so  complete  was  the  surprise  that  there 
was  not  the  most  faint  attempt  at  resistance. 
Montpensier  had  been  no  less  successful  in  the 
Louvre.  The  staircases  were  all  beset.  The 
retinues  of  the  King  of  Navarre  and  the  Prince 
had  been  lodged  in  the  palace  at  Charles's  par- 
ticular desire.  Their  names  were  called  over, 
and  as  they  descended  unarmed  into  the  quad- 
rangle they  were  hewn  in  pieces.  There,  in 
heaps,  they  fell  below  the  Royal  window,  under 
tie  eyes  of  the  miserable  King,  who  was  forced 
forward  between  his  mother  and  his  brother  that 


he  might  be  seen  as  the  accomplice  of  the  mas- 
sacre. Most  of  the  victims  were  killed  upon  the 
spot.  Some  fled  wounded  up  the  stairs,  and 
were  slaughtered  in  the  presence  of  the  Prin- 
cesses. .  .  .  By  seven  o'clock  the  work  which 
Guise  and  his  immediate  friends  iiad  undertaken 
was  finished  with  but  one  failure.  The  Count 
Montgomery  and  the  Vidame  of  Chartres  .  .  . 
escaped  to  England.  The  mob  meanwhile  was 
in  full  enjoyment.  .  .  .  While  dukes  and  lords 
were  killing  at  the  Louvre,  the  bands  of  the  sec- 
tions imitated  them  with  more  than  success; 
men,  women,  and  even  children,  striving  which 
should  be  the  first  in  the  pious  work  of  murder. 
All  Catholic  Paris  was  at  the  business,  and  every 
Huguenot  houseiiold  had  neighbours  to  know 
and  denounce  them.  Through  street  and  lane 
and  quay  and  causeway,  the  air  rang  with  yells 
and  curses,  pistol-shots  and  crashing  windows; 
the  roadways  were  strewed  with  mangled  bodies, 
the  doors  were  blocked  b}'  the  dead  and  dying. 
From  garret,  closet,  roof,  or  stable,  crouching 
creatures  were  torn  shrieking  out,  and  stabbed 
and  hacked  at;  boys  practised  their  hands  by 
strangling  babies  in  their  cradles,  and  headless 
bodies  were  trailed  along  the  trottoirs.  .  .  . 
Towards  midday  some  of  the  quieter  people  at- 
tempted to  restore  order.  A  party  of  the  town 
police  made  their  way  to  the  palace.  Charles 
caught  eagerly  at  their  offers  of  service,  and 
bade  them  do  their  utmost  to  put  the  people 
down ;  but  it  was  all  in  vain.  The  soldiers,  mad- 
dened with  plunder  and  blood,  could  not  be 
brought  to  assist,  and  without  them  nothing 
could  be  done.  All  that  afternoon  and  night, 
and  the  next  day  and  the  day  after,  the  horrible 
scenes  continued,  till  the  flames  burnt  down  at 
last  for  want  of  fuel.  The  number  who  perished 
in  Paris  was  computed  variously  from  2,000  to 
10,000.  In  this,  as  in  all  such  instances,  the 
lowest  estimate  is  probably  the  nearest  to  the 
truth.  The  massacre  was  completed  —  com- 
pleted in  Paris  —  only,  as  it  proved,  to  be  con- 
tinued elsewhere.  .  .  .  On  the  24th,  while  the 
havoc  was  at  its  height,  circulars  went  round  to 
the  provinces  that  a  quarrel  had  broken  out  be- 
tween the  Houses  of  Guise  and  Coligny ;  that  the 
Admiral  and  many  more  had  been  unfortunately 
killed,  and  that  the  King  himself  had  been  in 
danger  through  his  efforts  to  control  the  people. 
The  governors  of  the  different  towns  were  com- 
manded to  repress  at  once  any  symptoms  of  dis- 
order which  might  show  themselves,  and  par- 
ticularly to  allow  no  injury  to  be  done  to  the 
Huguenots."  But  Guise,  when  he  learned  of 
these  circulars,  which  threw  upon  him  the  odium 
of  the  massacre,  forced  the  King  to  recall  them. 
"The  story  of  the  Huguenot  conspiracy  was 
revived.  .  .  .  The  Protestants  of  the  provinces, 
finding  themselves  denounced  from  the  throne, 
were  likely  instantly  to  take  arms  to  defend 
themselves.  Couriers  were  therefore  despatched 
with  second  orders  that  they  should  be  dealt 
with  as  they  had  been  dealt  with  at  Paris;  and 
at  Lyons,  Orleans,  Rouen,  Bordeaux,  Toulon, 
Meaux,  in  half  the  towns  and  villages  of  France, 
the  bloody  drama  was  played  once  again.  The 
King,  thrown  out  into  the  hideous  torrent  ol 
blood,  became  drunk  with  frenzy,  and  let 
slaughter  have  its  way,  till  even  Guise  himself 
affected  to  be  shocked,  and  interposed  to  put  an 
end  to  it;  not,  however,  till,  according  to  the 
belief  of  the  times,  100,000  men,  women   and 


1235 


FRANCE,  1572. 


News  of  the 
Massacre  in  Europe. 


FRANCE,  1572-1573. 


children  had  been  miserably  murdered.  .  .  .  The 
number  again  may  be  hoped  to  have  been  pro- 
digiously exaggerated;  with  all_  large  figures, 
when  unsupported  by  exact  statistics,  it  is  safe 
to  divide  at  least  by  ten. " — J.  A.  Froude,  Hist, 
of  England:  Reign  of  Elizabeth,  ch.  23  (v.  4). 

Also  IN:  H.  White,  The  Massacre  of  St.  Bar- 
tlwlomew,  ch.  12-14. — Duke  of  Sully,  Memoirs, 
bk.  1.— G.  P.  Fisher,  The  Massacre  of  St.  Bar- 
tlwlomew  (Netc  Eriglander,  Jan.,  1880). 

A.  D.  1572  (August — October). — The  king's 
avowal  of  responsibility  for  the  Massacre,  and 
celebration  of  his  "victory." — Rejoicings  at 
Rome  and  Madrid. — General  horror  of  Europe. 
— The  effects  in  France. — Changed  character  of 
the  Protestant  party. — "  On  the  morning  of  the 
26th  of  August,  Charles  IX.  went  to  hold  a  '  bed 
of  justice  '  in  the  parliament,  carrying  with  him 
the  king  of  Navarre,  and  he  then  openly  avowed 
that  the  massacre  had  been  perpetrated  by  his 
orders,  made  .  .  .  excuse  for  it,  grounded  on  a 
pretended  conspiracy  of  the  Huguenots  against 
his  person,  and  then  directed  the  parliament  to 
commence  judicial  proceedings  against  Coligni 
and  his  accomplices,  dead  or  alive,  on  the  charge 
of  high  treason.  The  parliament  obeyed,  and, 
after  a  process  of  two  months,  which  was  a  mere 
tissue  of  falsehoods,  they  not  only  found  all  the 
dead  guilty,  but  they  included  in  the  sentence 
two  of  the  principal  men  who  had  escaped  — 
the  old  captain  Briquemaut,  and  Arnaud  de 
Cavaignes.  .  .  .  Both  were  hanged  at  the  Place 
de  Greve,  in  the  presence  of  the  king,  who  com- 
pelled the  king  of  Navarre  also  to  be  a  witness 
of  their  execution.  Having  once  assumed  the 
responsibility  of  the  massacre  of  the  protestants, 
Charles  IX.  began  to  glory  in  the  deed.  On  the 
27th  of  August,  he  went  with  the  whole  court  to 
Montfaucon,  to  contemplate  the  mutilated  re- 
mains of  the  admiral.  .  .  .  Next  day,  a  grand 
jubilee  procession  was  headed  by  the  king  in 
celebration  of  his  so-called  victory.  .  .  .  The 
'  victory '  was  also  celebrated  by  two  medals. 
.  .  .  Nevertheless,  the  minds  of  Charles  and  his 
mother  were  evidently  ill  at  ease,  and  their  mis- 
givings as  to  the  effect  which  would  be  produced 
at  foreign  courts  by  the  news  of  these  proceed- 
ings are  very  evident  in  the  varying  and  often 
contradictory  orders  which  they  dispatched  into 
the  provinces,  .  .  .  The  news  of  these  terrible 
events  caused  an  extreme  agitation  in  all  the 
courts  throughout  christian  Europe.  Philip  of 
Spain,  informed  of  the  massacres  by  a  letter  from 
the  king  and  the  queen-mother,  written  on  the 
29th  of  August,  replied  by  warm  congratulations 
and  expressions  of  joy.  The  cardinal  of  Lor- 
raine, who  was  ...  at  Rome,  gave  a  reward  of 
1,000  ecus  of  gold  to  the  courier  who  brought 
the  despatches,  and  the  news  was  celebrated  at 
Rome  by  the  firing  of  the  cannons  of  the  castle 
of  St.  Angelo,  and  by  the  lighting  of  bon-fires 
in  the  streets.  The  pope  (Gregory  XIII.)  and 
the  sacred  college  went  in  grand  procession  to 
the  churches  to  offer  their  thanks  to  God.  .  .  . 
Not  content  with  these  demonstrations,  the  pope 
caused  a  medal  to  be  struck.  .  .  .  Gregory  dis- 
patched immediately  to  the  court  of  France  the 
legate  Fabio  d'Orsini,  with  a  commission  to  con- 
gratulate the  king  and  his  mother  for  the  vigour 
they  had  shown  in  the  repression  of  heresy,  to 
demand  the  reception  in  France  of  the  council  of 
Trent,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Inquisition. 
.  But  the   papal  legate  found   the  court  of 


France  in  a  different  temper  from  that  which  he 
anticipated.  Catherine,  alarmed  at  the  effect 
which  these  great  outrages  had  produced  on  the 
protestant  sovereigns,  found  it  necessary  to  give 
him  private  intimations  that  the  congratulations 
of  the  pontiff  were  untimely,  and  could  not  be 
publicly  accepted.  .  .  .  The  policy  of  the  French 
court  at  home  was  no  less  distasteful  to  the  papal 
legate  than  its  relations  abroad.  The  old  edicts 
against  the  public  exercise  of  the  protestant 
worship  were  gradually  revived,  and  the  Hugue- 
nots were  deprived  of  the  offices  which  they  had 
obtained  during  the  short  period  of  toleration, 
but  strict  orders  were  sent  round  to  forbid  any 
further  massacres,  with  threats  of  punishment 
against  those  who  had  already  offended.  On  the 
8th  of  October,  the  king  published  a  declaration, 
inviting  such  of  the  protestants  as  had  quitted 
the  kingdom  in  consequence  of  the  massacres  to 
return,  and  promising  them  safety ;  but  this  was 
soon  followed  by  letters  to  the  governors  of  the 
provinces,  directing  them  to  exhort  the  Huguenot 
gentry  and  others  to  conform  to  the  catholic 
faith,  and  declaring  that  he  would  tolerate  only 
one  religion  in  his  kingdom.  Many,  believing 
that  the  protestant  cause  was  entirely  ruined  in 
France,  complied,  and  this  defection  was  encour- 
aged by  the  example  of  the  two  princes  of  Bour- 
bon [Henry,  now  king  of  Navarre,  his  mother, 
Jeanne  d'Albret,  having  died  June  9,  1572,  and 
Henry,  the  young  prince  of  Conde],  who,  after 
some  weeks  of  violent  resistance,  submitted  at 
the  end  of  September,  and,  at  least  in  outward 
form,  became  catholics.  It  has  been  remarked 
that  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's-day  pro- 
duced an  entire  change  in  the  character  of  the 
protestant  party  in  France.  The  Huguenots  had 
hitherto  been  entirely  ruled  by  their  aristocracy, 
who  took  the  lead  and  direction  in  every  move- 
ment ;  but  now  the  great  mass  of  the  protestant 
nobility  had  perished  or  deserted  the  cause,  and 
from  this  moment  the  latter  depended  for  sup- 
port upon  the  inhabitants  of  some  of  the  great 
towns  and  upon  the  un-noble  class  of  the  people ; 
and  with  this  change  it  took  a  more  popular 
character,  in  some  cases  showing  even  a  tendency 
to  republicanism.  In  the  towns  where  the  prot- 
estants were  strong  enough  to  offer  serious  re- 
sistance, such  as  La  Rochellc,  Nimes,  Saucerre, 
and  Montauban,  the  richer  burghers,  and  a  part 
at  least  of  the  municipal  officers,  were  in  favour 
of  submission,  and  they  were  restrained  only  by 
the  resolution  and  devotion  of  the  less  wealthy 
portion  of  the  population." — T.  Wright,  Hist,  of 
France,  bk.  3,  ch.  7  (».  1). 

Also  in  :  H.  M.  Baird,  Hist,  of  the  Rise  of  the 
Huguenots,  eh.  19  {v.  2). — A.  de  Montor,  Lives  and 
Times  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  ».  \,  pp.  810-812. 

A.  D.  1572-1573. —  The  Fourth  Religious 
War. — Siege  and  successful  defence  of  La 
Rochelle. — A  favorable  peace. ^"  The  two  Re- 
former-princes, Henry  of  Navarre  and  Henry  de 
Conde,  attended  mass  on  the  29th  of  September, 
and,  on  the  3d  of  October,  wrote  to  the  pope,  de- 
ploring their  errors  and  giving  hopes  of  their 
conversion.  Far  away  from  Paris,  in  the  moun- 
tains of  the  P3'renees  and  of  Languedoc,  in  the 
towns  where  the  Reformers  were  numerous  and 
confident  .  ,  .  the  spirit  of  resistance  carried  the 
day.  An  assembly,  meeting  at  Milhau,  drew  up 
a  provisional  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the 
Reformed  church,  '  until  it  please  God,  who  has 
the  hearts  of  kings  in  His  keeping,  to  change 


1236 


FRANCE,  1572-1573. 


Benewed  Civil 
War. 


FRANCE,  1573-1576. 


that  of  King  Charles  IX.  and  restore  the  state  of 
France  to  good  order,  or  to  raise  up  sucli  neigh- 
boring prince  as  is  manifestly  marked  out,  by  his 
■virtue  and  by  distinguishing  signs,  for  to  be  the 
liberator  of  this  poor  afflicted  people. '  In  Novem- 
ber, 1572,  the  fourth  religious  war  broke  out. 
The  siege  of  La  Rochelle  was  its  only  important 
event.  Charles  IX.  and  his  councillors  exerted 
themselves  in  vain  to  avoid  it.  There  was  every- 
thing to  disquiet  them  in  this  enterprise  :  so  sud- 
den a  revival  of  the  religious  war  after  the  grand 
blow  they  had  just  struck,  tlie  passionate  energy 
manifested  by  the  Protestants  in  asylum  at  La 
Rochelle,  and  the  help  they  had  been  led  to  hope 
for  from  Queen  Elizabeth,  whom  England  would 
never  have  forgiven  for  indifference  in  this  cause. 
.  .  .  The  king  heard  that  one  of  the  bravest 
Protestant  chiefs.  La  Noue,  'Ironarm,' had  re- 
tired to  Mons  with  Prince  Louis  of  Nassau.  The 
Duke  of  Longueville  .  .  .  induced  him  to  go  to 
Paris.  The  king  received  him  with  great  favor 
,  .  .  and  pressed  him  to  go  to  La  Rochelle  and 
prevail  upon  the  inhabitants  to  keep  the  peace. 
...  La  iSToue  at  last  consented,  and  repaired, 
about  the  end  of  November,  1572,  to  a  village 
close  by  La  Rochelle,  whither  it  was  arranged 
that  deputies  from  the  town  would  come  and 
confer  with  him.  .  .  .  After  hearing  him,  the 
senate  rejected  the  pacific  overtures  made  to 
them  by  La  Noue.  '  We  have  no  mind  [they 
said]  to  treat  specially  and  for  ourselves  alone ; 
our  cause  is  that  of  God  and  of  all  the  churches 
of  France;  we  will  accept  nothing  but  what 
shall  seem  proper  to  all  our  brethren.'"  They 
then  offered  to  trust  themselves  under  La  Noue's 
command,  notwithstanding  the  commission  by 
which  he  was  acting  for  the  king.  "La  Noue 
did  not  hesitate ;  he  became,  under  the  authority 
of  the  mayor,  Jacques  Henri,  the  military  head 
of  La  Rochelle,  whither  Cliarles  IX.  had  sent 
him  to  make  peace.  The  king  authorized  him  to 
accept  this  singular  position.  La  Noue  con- 
ducted himself  so  honorably  in  it,  and  everybody 
was  so  convinced  of  his  good  faith  as  well  as 
bravery,  that  for  three  months  he  commanded 
inside  La  Rochelle,  and  superintended  the  prep- 
arations for  defence,  all  the  while  trying  to 
make  the  chances  of  peace  prevail.  At  the  end 
of  February,  1573,  he  recognized  the  impossibil- 
ity of  his  double  commission,  and  he  went  away 
from  La  Rochelle,  leaving  the  place  in  better 
condition  than  that  in  which  he  had  found  it, 
without  either  king  or  Rochellese  considering 
that  they  had  any  right  to  complain  of  him. 
Biron  first  and  then  the  Duke  of  Anjou  in  per- 
son took  the  command  of  the  siege.  They 
brought  up,  it  is  said,  40,000  men  and  60  pieces 
of  artillery.  The  Rochellese,  for  defensive 
strength,  had  but  22  companies  of  refugees  or 
inhabitants,  making  in  all  3,100  men.  The  siege 
lasted  from  the  26th  of  February  to  the  13th  of 
June,  1573 ;  six  assaults  were  made  on  the  place. 
...  La  Rochelle  was  saved.  Charles  IX.  was 
more  and  more  desirous  of  peace ;  his  brother,  the 
Duke  of  Anjou,  had  just  been  elected  King  of 
Poland;  Charles  IX.  was  anxious  for  him  to 
leave  France  and  go  to  take  possession  of  his 
new  kingdom.  Thanks  to  these  complications, 
the  peace  of  La  Rochelle  was  signed  on  the  6th 
of  July,  1573.  Liberty  of  creed  and  worship  was 
recognized  in  the  three  towns  of  La  Rochelle, 
Montauban,  and  Nimes.  They  were  not  obliged 
to  receive  any  royal  garrison,  on  condition  of 


giving  hostages  to  be  kept  by  the  king  for  two 
years.  Liberty  of  worship  throughout  the  ex- 
tent of  their  jurisdiction  continued  to  be  recog- 
nized in  the  case  of  lords  high- justiciary.  Every- 
where else  the  Reformers  had  promises  of  not 
being  persecuted  for  their  creed,  under  the  obli- 
gation of  never  holding  an  assembly  of  more  than 
ten  persons  at  a  time.  These  were  the  most 
favorable  conditions  they  had  yet  obtained. 
Certainly  this  was  not  what  Charles  IX.  had  cal- 
culated upon  when  he  consented  to  the  massacre 
of  the  Protestants. "— F.  P.  Guizot,  Poptilar  Hist, 
of  France,  ch.  33. 

A.  D.  1573-1576. — Escape  of  Cond6  and  Na- 
varre.— Death  of  Charles  IX. — Accession  of 
Henry  IH. — The  Fifth  Civil  War. — Navarre's 
repudiation  of  Catholicism. — The  Peace  of 
Monseur. — The  King's  mignons  and  the  na- 
tion's disgust. —  "Catherine  .  .  .  had  the  ad- 
dress to  procure  the  crown  of  Poland  for  the  son 
of  her  predilection,  Henry  duke  of  Anjou.  She 
had  lavished  her  wealth  upon  the  electors  for 
this  purpose.  No  sooner  was  the  point  gained 
than  she  regretted  it.  The  health  of  Charles 
was  now  manifestly  on  the  decline,  and  Cather- 
ine would  fain  have  retained  Henry ;  but  the 
jealousy  of  the  king  forbade.  After  conducting 
the  duke  on  his  way  to  Poland  the  court  returned 
to  St.  Germain,  and  Charles  sunk,  without  hope 
or  consolation,  on  his  couch  of  sickness.  Even 
here  he  was  not  allowed  to  repose.  The  young 
king  of  Navarre  formed  a  project  of  escape  with 
the  prince  of  Conde.  The  due  d'AlenQon, 
youngest  brother  of  the  king,  joined  in  it.  .  .  . 
The  vigilance  of  the  queen-mother  discovered 
the  enterprise,  which,  for  her  own  purposes,  she 
magnified  into  a  serious  plot.  Charles  was  in- 
formed that  a  huguenot  army  was  coming  ta 
surprise  him,  and  he  was  obliged  to  be  removed 
into  a  litter,  in  order  to  escape.  .  .  .  Conde  was 
the  only  prince  that  succeeded  in  making  his 
escape.  The  king  of  Navarre  and  the  due  d'Alen- 
<;on  were  imprisoned."  The  young  king  of  Na- 
varre "had  already  succeeded  by  his  address, 
his  frankness,  and  high  character,  in  rallying  to- 
his  interests  the  most  honourable  of  the  noblesse, 
who  dreaded  at  once  the  perfidious  Catherine 
and  her  children ;  who  had  renounced  their  good 
opinion  of  young  Guise  after  the  day  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew ;  and  who,  at  the  same  time  professing 
Catholicism,  were  averse  to  huguenot  principles 
and  zeal.  This  party,  called  the  Politiques, 
professed  to  follow  the  middle  or  neutral  course, 
which  at  one  time  had  been  that  of  Catherine  of 
Medicis ;  but  she  had  long  since  deserted  it,  and 
had  joined  in  all  the  sanguinary  and  extreme 
measures  of  her  son  and  of  the  Guises.  Hence 
she  was  especially  odious  to  the  new  and  moder- 
ate party  of  the  Politiques,  among  whom  the 
family  of  Montmorency  held  the  lead,  Cath- 
erine feared  their  interference  at  the  moment  of 
the  king's  death,  whilst  his  successor  was  absent 
in  a  remote  kingdom ;  and  she  swelled  the  pro- 
ject of  the  princes'  escape  into  a  serious  con- 
spiracy, in  order  to  be  mistress  of  those  whom 
slie  feared.  ...  In  this  state  of  the  court  Charles 
IX.  expired  on  the  30th  of  May,  1574,  after  hav- 
ing nominated  the  queen-mother  to  be  regent 
during  his  successor's  absence.  .  .  .  The  career 
of  the  new  king  [Henry  III.],  while  duke  of 
Anjou,  had  been  glorious.  Raised  to  the  com- 
mand of  armies  at  the  age  of  15,  he  displayed 
extreme  courage  as  well  as  generalship.    He  had 


1237 


FRANCE,  1573-1576. 


Henry  III.  and 
his  Minions. 


FRANCE,  1576-1585. 


defeated  tlie  veteran  leader  of  the  protestants  at 
■Tarnac  and  at  Moncontour ;  and  the  fame  of  his 
exploits  had  contributed  to  place  him  on  the 
elective  tlirone  of  Poland,  which  he  now  occu- 
pied. Auguring  from  his  past  life,  a  brilliant 
epoch  might  be  anticipated;  and  yet  we  enter 
upon  the  most  contemptible  reign,  perhaps,  in 
the  annals  of  France.  .  .  .  Henry  was  obliged  to 
run  away  by  stealth  from  his  Polish  subjects  [see 
Poland:  A.  D.  1574-1590].  When  overtaken  by 
one  of  the  nobles  of  that  kingdom,  the  monarch, 
instead  of  pleading  his  natural  an.xiety  to  visit 
France  and  secure  his  inheritance,  excused  him- 
self by  drawing  forth  the  portrait  of  his  mistress, 
.  .  .  and  declared  that  it  was  love  which  has- 
tened his  return.  At  Vienna,  however,  Henry 
forgot  both  crown  and  mistress  amidst  the  feasts 
that  were  given  him;  and  he  turned  aside  to 
Venice,  to  enjoy  a  similar  reception  from  that 
ricli  republic.  .  .  .  The  hostile  parties  were  in 
the  meantime  arming.  The  Politiques,  or  neu- 
tral catholics,  for  the  first  time  showed  them- 
selves in  the  field.  They  demanded  the  freedom 
of  Cosse  and  of  Montmorency,  and  at  length 
formed  a  treaty  of  alliance  with  the  huguenots. 
Henry,  after  indulging  in  the  ceremony  of  being 
•crowned,  was  obliged  to  lead  an  army  into  the 
field  Sieges  were  undertaken  on  both  sides, 
and  what  is  called  the  fifth  civil  war  raged 
openly.  It  became  more  serious  when  the  king's 
brother  joined  it.  This  was  the  duke  of  Alen- 
•^on,  a  vain  and  fickle  personage,  of  whom  it 
pleased  the  king  to  become  jealous.  Alen^on 
fled  and  joined  the  malcontents.  The  reformers, 
however,  warred  but  languidly.  Both  parties 
were  without  active  and  zealous  leaders ;  and  the 
only  notable  event  of  this  war  was  a  skirmish 
in  Champagne  [the  battle  of  Dormans,  in  which 
both  sides  lost  heavily],  where  the  duke  of  Guise 
received  a  slight  wound  in  the  cheek.  From 
hence  came  his  surname  of  '  Le  Balafre.'"  In 
February,  1576,  the  king  of  Navarre  made  his 
escape  from  court.  ' '  He  bent  his  course  towards 
Guienne,  and  at  Niort  publicly  avowed  his  ad- 
herence to  the  reformed  religion,  declaring  that 
force  alone  had  made  him  conform  to  the  mass. 
It  was  about  this  time  that  the  king,  in  lieu  of 
leading  an  army  against  the  malcontents,  des- 
patched the  queen-mother,  with  her  gay  and 
licentious  court,  to  win  back  his  brother.  She 
succeeded,  though  not  without  making  large 
concessions  [in a  treaty  called  the  'Peace  of  Mon- 
sieur']. The  duke  of  Alen(;on  obtained  Anjou, 
and  other  provinces  in  appanage,  and  henceforth 
was  styled  duke  of  Anjou.  More  favourable 
terms  were  granted  to  the  huguenots:  they  were 
allowed  ten  towns  of  surety  in  lieu  of  six,  and 
the  appointment  of  a  certain  number  of  judges 
in  the  parliament.  Such  weakness  in  Henry 
disgusted  tlie  body  of  the  catholics ;  and  the  pri- 
vate habits  of  his  life  contributed  still  more,  if 
possible,  than  his  public  measures,  to  render  him 
contemptible.  He  was  continually  surrounded 
by  a  set  of  J'oung  and  idle  favourites,  whose 
affectation  it  was  to  imite  ferocity  with  frivolity. 
The  king  showed  them  such  tender  affection  as 
he  might  evince  towards  woman ;  they  even  had 
tilt  unblushing  impudence  to  adopt  feminine 
habits  of  dress ;  and  the  monarch  passed  his  time 
in  adorning  them  and  himself  with  robes  and 
ear-rings.  .  .  .  The  indescribable  tastes  and 
jimusements  of  Henry  and  his  mignons,  as  his 
favourites  were  called,  .  .   .  raised  up  through- 


out the  nation  one  universal  cry  of  abhorrence 
and  contempt.  "—E.  E.  Crowe,  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  8-9  (».  1). 

Also  IK:  Lady  Jackson,  Tlte  Last  of  the  Valois, 
V.  2,  ch.  2-6. — S.  Menzies,  Royal  Favourites,  v.  1, 
ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1576-1585.— The  rise  of  the  League.— 
Its  secret  objects  and  aims. — Its  alliance  with 
Philip  II.  of  Spain. — The  Pope's  Bull  against 
Navarre  and  Cond6. — "The  famous  association 
known  as  the  'Catholic  League  '  or  '  Holy  Union,' 
took  its  rise  from  the  strangely  indulgent  terms 
granted  to  the  Huguenots  by  the  '  Peace  of  Mon- 
sieur,' in  April,  1576.  Pour  years  had  scarcely 
elapsed  since  the  bloodstained  Eve  of  St.  Bar- 
tholomew. It  had  been  hoped  that  by  means  of 
that  execrable  crime  the  Reformation  would  have 
been  finally  crushed  and  extinguished  in  France ; 
but  instead  of  this,  a  treaty  was  concluded  with 
the  heretics,  which  placed  them  in  a  more  favour- 
able situation  than  they  had  ever  occupied  be- 
fore. ...  It  was  regarded  by  the  majority  of 
Catholics  as  a  wicked  and  cowardly  betrayal  of 
their  most  sacred  interests.  They  ascribed  it  to 
its  true  source,  namely,  the  hopeless  incapacity 
of  the  reigning  monarch,  Henry  III.  ;  a  prince 
whose  monstrous  vices  and  gross  misgovernment 
were  destined  to  reduce  France  to  a  state  of  dis- 
organization bordering  on  national  ruin.  The 
idea  of  a  general  confederation  of  Catholics  for 
the  defence  of  the  Faith  against  the  inroads  of 
heresy  had  been  suggested  by  the  Cardinal  of 
Lorraine  daring  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  had 
been  favourably  entertained  at  the  Court  of 
Rome.  The  Duke  of  Guise  was  to  have  been 
placed  at  the  head  of  this  alliance ;  but  his  sudden 
death  changed  the  face  of  affairs,  and  the  project 
fell  into  abeyance.  The  Cardinal  of  Lorraine 
was  now  no  more ;  he  died  at  Avignon,  at  the 
age  of  50,  in  December,  1574.  .  .  .  Henry,  the 
third  Duke  of  Guise,  inherited  in  their  fullest 
extent  the  ambition,  the  religious  ardour,  the 
lofty  political  aspirations,  the  enterprising  spirit, 
the  personal  jtopularity,  of  his  predecessors. 
The  League  of  1576  was  conceived  entirely  in  his 
interest.  He  was  the  leader  naturally  pointed 
out  for  such  a  movement;  —  a  movement  which, 
although  its  ulterior  objects  were  at  first  studi- 
ously concealed,  aimed  in  reality  at  substituting 
the  family  of  Lorraine  for  that  of  Valois  on  the 
throne  of  France.  The  designs  of  tlie  confeder- 
ates, as  set  forth  in  the  oinginal  manifesto  which 
was  circulated  for  signature,  seemed  at  first  sight 
highly  commendable,  both  with  regard  to  reli- 
gion and  politics.  According  to  tills  document, 
the  Union  was  formed  for  three  great  purposes: 
to  uphold  the  Catholic  Church;  to  suppress 
heresy ;  and  to  maintain  the  honour,  the  author- 
ity and  prerogatives  of  the  Most  Christian  king 
and  his  successors.  On  closer  examination,  how- 
ever, expressions  were  detected  which  hinted  at 
less  constitutional  projects.  .  .  .  Their  secret 
aims  became  incontestably  manifest  soon  after- 
wards, when  one  of  their  confidential  agents,  an 
advocate  named  David,  haijpened  to  die  suddenly 
on  his  return  from  Rome,  and  his  papers  fell  into 
the  hands  of  tlie  Huguenots,  who  immediately 
made  them  public.  ...  A  change  of  dynasty  in 
France  was  the  avowed  object  of  the  scheme 
thus  disclosed.  It  set  forth,  in  substance,  that 
the  Capetian  monarchs  were  usurpers, — the 
throne  belonging  rightfully  to  the  house  of  Lor- 
raine as  the  lineal  descendants  of  Charlemagne. 


1238 


FRANCE,   1576-1585. 


The  Catholic 
League. 


FRANCE.  1578-1580. 


.  .  .  The  Duke  of  Guise,  with  the  advice  and 
permission  of  the  Pope,  was  to  imprison  Henry 
for  the  rest  of  liis  days  in  a  monastery,  after  tlie 
example  of  his  ancestor  Pepin  wlien  lie  dethroned 
the  Jlerovingian  Childeric.  Lastly,  the  heir  of 
the  Carlovingians  was  to  be  proclaimed  King  of 
France;  and,  on  assuming  the  crown,  was  to 
make  such  arrangements  with  his  Holiness  as 
would  secure  the  complete  recognition  of  the 
sovereignty  of  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  by  abrogating 
for  ever  tlie  so-called  '  liberties  of  the  Gallican 
Church.'  .  .  .  This  revolutionary  plot  .  .  .  un- 
happily, was  viewed  with  cordial  sympathy,  and 
supported  with  enthusiastic  zeal,  by  many  of  the 
prelates,  and  a  large  majority  of  the  parochial 
clergy,  of  France.  .  .  .  The  death  of  the  Duke 
of  Anjou,  presumptive  heir  to  the  throue,  in 
1584,  determined  the  League  to  immediate  action. 
In  the  event  of  the  king's  dying  without  issue, 
which  was  most  probable,  —  the  crown  would 
now  devolve  uijon  Henry  of  Bourbon  [the  King 
of  Navarre],  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the 
Huguenots.  ...  In  January,  1585,  the  chiefs 
of  the  League  signed  a  secret  treaty  at  Joinville 
with  the  King  of  Spain,  by  which  the  contracting 
parties  made  common  cause  for  the  extirpation 
of  all  sects  and  heresies  in  France  and  the  Nether- 
lands, and  for  excluding  from  the  French  throne 
princes  who  were  heretics,  or  who  '  treated  here- 
tics with  public  impunity.' .  .  .  Liberal  supplies 
of  men  and  money  were  to  be  furnished  to  the 
insurgents  by  Philip  from  the  moment  that  war 
should  break  out.  .  .  .  The  Leaguers  lost  no 
time  in  seeking  for  their  enterprise  the  all-impor- 
tant sanction  of  the  Holy  See.  For  this  purpose 
they  despatched  as  their  envoy  to  Rome  a  Jesuit 
named  Claude  Matthieu.  .  .  .  The  Jesuit  frater- 
nity in  France  had  embraced  with  passionate 
ardour  the  anti-royalist  cause.  .  .  .  His  Holiness 
[Gregory  XIII.],  however,  was  cautious  and  re- 
served. He  expressed  in  general  terms  his  con- 
sent to  the  project  of  taking  up  arms  against  the 
heretics,  and  granted  a  plenary  indulgence  to 
those  who  should  aid  in  the  holy  work.  But 
he  declined  to  countenance  the  deposition  of  the 
king  by  violence.  ...  At  length,  however  [Sep- 
tember 9,  1585],  Sixtus  was  persuaded  to  fulmi- 
nate a  bull  against  the  King  of  Navarre  and  the 
Prince  of  Conde,  in  which  .  .  .  both  culprits, 
together  with  their  heirs  and  posterity  were  pro- 
nounced for  ever  incapable  of  succeeding  to  the 
throne  of  France  or  any  other  dignity  ;  their  sub- 
jects and  vassals  were  released  from  their  oath 
of  homage,  and  forbidden  to  obey  them." — W. 
H.  Jervis,  Hist,  of  the  CInirch  of  France,  v.  1, 
ch.  3. 

Also  in  :  L.  von  Ranke,  Civil  Wars  and  Mon- 
archy in  France,  ch.  21. 

A.  D.  1577-1578. — Rapid  spread  of  the 
League. — The  Sixth  Civil  War  and  the  Peace 
of  Bergerac. — Anjou  in  the  Netherlands. — The 
League  "spread  like  lightuiug  over  the  whole 
face  of  France ;  Conde  could  find  no  footing  in 
Picardy  or  even  in  Poitou ;  Henry  of  Navarre 
was  refused  entrance  into  Bordeaux  itself;  the 
heads  of  the  League,  the  family-party  of  the 
Dukes  of  Guise,  Mayenne  and  Nemours,  seemed 
to  carry  all  before  them ;  the  weak  King  leant 
towards  them ;  the  Queen  Mother,  intriguing 
ever,  succeeded  in  separating  Anjou  from  the 
Politiques,  and  began  to  seduce  Damville.  She 
hoped  once  more  to  isolate  the  Huguenots  and  to 
use  the  League  to  weaken  and  depress  them.  .  .  . 


The  Court  and  the  League  seemed  to  be  in  per- 
fect harmony,  the  King  ...  in  a  way,  sub- 
scribed to  the  League,  though  the  twelve  articles 
were  considerably  modified  before  they  were 
shown  to  him.  .  .  .  The  Leaguers  had  succeeded 
in  making  war  [called  the  Sixth  Civil  War  — 
1577],  and  winning  some  successes;  but  on  their 
heels  came  the  Court  with  fresh  negociations  for 
peace.  The  heart's  desire  of  the  King  was  to 
crush  the  stubborn  Huguenots  and  to  destroy  the 
moderates,  but  he  was  afraid  to  act;  and  so  it 
came  about  that,  though  Anjou  was  won  away 
from  them,  and  compromised  on  the  other  side, 
and  though  Damville  also  deserted  them,  and 
though  the  whole  party  was  in  the  utmost  dis- 
order and  seemed  likcl}'  to  disperse,  still  the 
Court  offered  them  such  terms  that  in  the  end 
they  seemed  to  have  even  recovered  ground. 
Under  the  walls  of  Montpellier,  Damville,  the 
King's  general,  and  Chatillon,  the  Admiral's  son, 
at  the  head  of  the  Huguenots,  were  actually 
manoeuvring  to  begin  a  battle,  when  La  Noue 
came  up  bearing  tidings  of  peace,  and  at  the 
imminent  risk  of  being  shot  placed  himself  be- 
tween the  two  armies,  and  stayed  their  uplifted 
hands.  It  was  the  Peace  of  Bergerac  [confirmed 
by  the  Edict  of  Poitiers  —  Sept.  17,  1577],  an- 
other ineffectual  truce,  which  once  more  granted 
in  the  main  what  that  of  Chastenoy  [or  the 
'  Peace  of  Monseur']  had  already  promised ;  it  is> 
needless  to  say  that  the  League  would  have  none 
of  it;  and  partisan-warfare,  almost  objectless, 
however  oppressive  to  the  country,  went  on 
without  a  break :  the  land  was  overrun  by  ad- 
venturers and  bandits,  sure  sign  of  political  death. 
Nothing  could  be  more  brutalising  or  more 
brutal :  but  the  savage  traits  of  civil  war  are  less 
revolting  than  the  ghastly  revelries  of  the  Court. 
All  the  chiefs  were  alike  —  neither  the  King,  nor 
Henry  of  Navarre,  nor  Anjou,  nor  even  the  strict 
Catholic  Guise,  disdained  to  wallow  in  debauch. " 
Having  quarreled  with  his  brother,  the  King, 
"Anjou  fled,  in  the  beginning  of  1578,  to  Angers, 
where,  finding  that  there  was  a  prospect  of 
amusement  in  the  Netherlands,  he  turned  his 
back  on  the  high  Catholics,  and  renewed  friend 
ship  with  the  Huguenot  chiefs.  He  was  invited 
to  come  to  the  rescue  of  the  distressed  Calvinists 
in  their  struggle  against  PhiUp,  and  appeared 
in  the  Netherlands  in  July  1578  [see  Nether- 
L.\NDs:  A.D.  1577-1581,  and  1581-1584]."— G.W. 
Kitchin,  Hist,  of  France,  p.  3,  pp.  370-373. 

A.  D.  1578-1580.— Treaty  of  N6rac.— The 
Seventh  Civil  'War,  known  as  the  War  of  the 
Lovers. — The  Peace  of  Fleix. —  'The  King, 
instead  of  availing  himself  of  this  interval  of  re- 
pose [after  the  Peace  of  Bergerac]  to  fortify 
himself  against  his  enemies,  only  sank  deeper 
and  deeper  into  vice  and  infamy.  .  .  .  The 
court  resembled  at  once  a  slaughter-house  and  a 
brothel,  although,  amid  all  this  corruption,  the 
King  was  the  slave  of  monks  and  Jesuits  whom 
he  implicit!}'  obeyed.  It  was  about  this  time 
(December  1578)  that  he  instituted  the  military 
order  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  of  St.  Michael 
having  fallen  into  contempt  through  being  pros- 
tituted to  unworthy  objects.  Meanwhile  the 
Guises  were  using  every  effort  to  rekindle  the 
war,  which  Catherine,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
endeavouring  to  prevent.  With  this  view  she 
travelled,  in  August,  into  the  southern  provinces, 
and  had  an  interview  with  Henry  of  Navarre  at 
Nerac,  bringing   with    her    Henry's    wife,   her 


1239 


FRANCE,  1578-1580. 


The  War  of  the 

Lovers. 


FRANCE,  1584-1589. 


daughter  Margaret;  a  circumstance,  liowever, 
which  did  not  add  to  the  pleasure  of  their  meet- 
ing. Henry  received  the  ladies  coldly,  and  they 
retired  into  Languedoc,  where  they  passed  the 
remainder  of  the  year.  Nevertheless  the  negocia- 
tions  were  sedulouslj^  pursued ;  for  a  peace  with 
the  Hugonots  was,  at  this  time,  indispensable  to 
the  Court.  ...  In  February  1579,  a  secret 
treaty  was  signed  at  Nerac,  by  which  the  con- 
cessions granted  to  the  Protestants  by  the  peace 
of  Berge^ac  were  much  extended.  .  .  .  Cather- 
ine spent  nearly  the  whole  of  the  3'ear  1579  in 
the  south,  endeavouring  to  avert  a  renewal  of 
the  war  by  her  intrigues,  rather  than  by  a  faith- 
ful observance  of  the  peace.  But  the  King 
of  Navarre  saw  through  her  Italian  artifices, 
and  was  prepared  to  summon  his  friends  and 
captains  at  the  shortest  notice.  The  hostilities 
wilich  he  foresaw  were  not  long  in  breaking  out, 
and  in  a  way  that  would  seem  impossible  in  any 
other  country  than  France.  When  the  King  of 
Navarre  fled  from  Court  in  1576,  he  expressed 
his  indifference  for  two  things  he  had  left  behind, 
the  mass  and  his  wife ;  Margaret,  the  heroine  of 
a  thousand  amours,  was  equally  indifferent,  and 
though  they  now  contrived  to  cohabit  together, 
it  was  because  each  connived  at  the  infidelities 
of  the  other.  Henry  was  in  love  with  Mademoi- 
selle Fosseuse,  a  girl  of  fourteen,  while  Margaret 
had  taken  for  her  gallant  the  young  Viscount  of 
Turenne,  who  had  lately  turned  Hugonot.  .  .  . 
The  Duke  of  Anjou  being  at  this  time  disposed 
to  renew  his  connection  with  the  Hugonots,  Mar- 
garet served  as  the  medium  of  communication 
between  her  brother  and  her  husband ;  while 
Henry  III. ,  with  a  view  to  interrujH  this  good 
understanding,  wrote  to  the  King  of  Navarre  to 
acquaint  him  of  the  intrigues  of  his  wife  with 
Turenne.  Henry  was  neither  surprised  nor  af- 
flicted at  this  intelligence ;  but  he  laid  the  letter 
before  the  guilty  parties,  who  both  denied  the 
charge,  and  Henry  affected  to  believe  their  pro- 
testations. The  ladies  of  the  Court  of  Nerac  were 
indignant  at  this  act  of  Henry  III.,  'the  enemy 
of  women ' ;  they  pressed  their  lovers  to  renew 
hostilities  against  that  discourteous  monarch; 
Anjou  added  his  instances  to  those  of  the  ladies ; 
and  in  1580  ensued  the  war  called  from  its  origin 
'la  guerre  des  amoureu.x,'  or  war  of  the  lovers: 
the  seventh  of  what  are  sometimes  styled  the 
wars  of  '  religion '  I  The  Prince  of  Conde,  who 
lived  on  bad  terms  with  his  cousin,  had  already 
taken  the  field  on  his  own  account,  and  in  No- 
vember 1579  had  seized  on  the  little  town  of  La 
F6re  in  Picardy.  In  the  spring  of  1580  the  Prot- 
estant chiefs  in  the  south  unfurled  their  banners. 
The  King  of  Navarre  laid  the  foundation  of  his 
military  fame  by  the  bravery  he  displayed  at 
the  capture  of  Cahoi-s;  but  on  the  whole  the 
movement  proved  a  failure.  Henry  III.  had  no 
fewer  than  three  armies  in  the  field,  which  were 
generally  victorious,  and  the  King  of  Navarre 
"found  himself  menaced  in  his  capital  of  Nerac  by 
Marshal  Biron.  But  Henry  III.,  for  fear  of  the 
Guises,  did  not  wish  to  press  the  Hugonots  too 
hard,  and  at  length  accepted  the  proffered  medi- 
ation of  the  Duke  of  Anjou,  who  was  at  this 
time  anxious  to  enter  on  the  protectorate  offered 
to  him  by  the  Flemings.  Anjou  set  off  for  the 
south,  accompanied  by  his  mother  and  her  '  flying 
squadron  '  [of  seductive  nymphs] ;  conferences 
were  opened  at  the  castle  of  Fleix  in  Perigord, 
and  on  November  36th  1580  a  treaty  was  con- 


cluded which  was  almost  a  literal  renewal  of 
that  of  Bergerac.  Thus  an  equivocal  peace,  or 
rather  truce,  was  re-established,  which  proved 
of  some  duration." — T.  H.  Dyer,  Uist.  of  Modern 
Europe,  bk.  3,  ch.  8  (».  2). 

Also  in  :  Due  d'Aumale,  Hist,  of  the  Princes 
de  Conde,  bk.  2,  ch.  1  (v.  2). 

A.  D.  1584-1589.— Henry  of  Navarre  heir  ap- 
parent to  the  throne.— Fresh  hostility  of  the 
League. — The  Edict  of  Nemours. — The  Pope's 
Brutum  Fulmen. — War  of  the  Three  Henrys. 
— Battle  of  Coutras.— The  Day  of  Barricades 
at  Paris. — Assassination  of  Guise. — Assas- 
sination of  Henry  IIL— "The  Due  d'Anjou 
.  .  .  died  in  1584;  Henri  IIL  was  a  worn-out  and 
feeble  invalid ;  the  reports  of  the  doctors  and  the 
known  virtue  of  the  Queen  forbad  the  hope  of 
direct  heirs.  The  King  of  Navarre  was  the 
eldest  of  the  legitimate  male  descendants  of 
Hugues  Capet  and  of  Saint-Louis  [see  Bourbon, 
House  of].  But  on  the  one  hand  he  was  a  re- 
lapsed heretic ;  on  the  other,  his  relationship  to 
the  King  was  so  distant  that  he  could  never  have 
been  served  heir  to  him  in  any  civil  suit.  This 
last  objection  was  of  small  account ;  the  stringent 
rules  which  govern  decisions  in  private  affairs 
cannot  be  made  applicable  to  matters  affecting 
the  tranquillity  and  well-being  of  nations.  .  .  . 
His  religion  was  the  only  pretext  on  which  Na- 
varre could  be  excluded.  France  was,  and  wished 
to  remain,  Catholic ;  she  could  not  submit  to  a 
Protestant  King.  The  managers  of  the  League 
understood  that  this  very  wide-spread  and  even 
strongly  cherished  feeling  might  some  day  be- 
come a  powerful  lever,  but  that,  in  order  to  use 
it,  it  was  very  needful  for  them  to  avoid  offend- 
ing the  national  amour-propre ;  and  they  thought 
that  they  had  succeeded  in  finding  the  means  of 
effecting  their  object.  Next  to  Navarre,  the 
eldest  of  the  Royal  House  was  his  uncle  the 
Cardinal  de  Bourbon;  the  Guises  acknowledged 
him  as  heir  to  the  throne  and  first  Prince  of  the 
Blood,  under  the  protection  of  the  Pope  and  of 
the  King  of  Spain.  .  .  .  The  feeble-minded  old 
man,  whom  no  one  respected,  was  a  mere  phan- 
tom, and  could  offer  no  serious  resistance,  when 
it  should  be  convenient  to  set  him  aside.  ...  In 
every  class  throughout  the  nation  the  majority 
were  anxious  to  maintain  at  once  French  unity 
and  Catholic  unity,  disliking  the  Reformation, 
but  equally  opposed  to  ultramontane  pretensions 
and  to  Spanish  ambition.  .  .  .  But  .  .  .  this 
great  party,  already  named  the  '  parti  politique,' 
hung  loosely  together  without  a  leader,  and  with- 
out a  policy.  For  the  present  it  was  paralyzed 
by  the  contempt  in  which  the  King  was  held; 
while  the  dislike  which  was  entertained  for  the 
religious  opinions  of  the  rightful  heir  to  the 
throne  seemed  to  deprive  it  of  all  hope  for  the 
future.  Henry  III.  stood  in  need  of  the  assis- 
tance of  the  King  of  Navarre;  he  would  will- 
ingly have  cleared  away  the  obstacle  which  kept 
them  apart,  and  he  made  an  overture  with  a 
view  to  bring  back  that  Prince  to  the  Catholic 
religion.  But  these  efforts  could  not  be  success- 
ful. The  change  of  creed  on  the  part  of  the 
Bearnais  was  to  be  a  satisfaction  offered  to 
France,  the  pledge  of  a  fresh  agreement  between 
the  nation  and  his  race,  and  not  a  concession  to- 
the  threats  of  enemies.  He  was  not  an  un- 
believer; still  less  was  he  a  hypocrite;  but  he 
was  placed  between  two  fanatical  parties,  and 
repelled  by  the  excesses  of  both ;  so  he  doubted. 


1240 


FRANCE,  1584-1589. 


The  War  of  the 
Three  Henrys. 


FRANCE,  1584-1589. 


honestly  doubted,  and  as  his  religious  indecision 
was  no  secret,  his  conversion  at  the  time  of  which 
we  are  now  speaking  would  have  been  ascribed 
to  the  worst  motives. "  As  it  was,  he  found  it 
necessary  to  quiet  disturbing  rumors  with  regard 
to  the  proposals  of  the  King  by  permitting  a 
plain  account  of  what  had  occurred  to  be  made 
public.  "Henry  III.,  having  no  other  answer 
to  make  to  this  publication,  which  justified  all 
the  complaints  of  the  Catholics,  replied  to  it  by 
the  treaty  of  Nemours  and  by  the  edict  of  July 
i[1585].  These  two  acts  annulled  all  the  edicts  in 
favour  of  toleration ;  and  placed  at  the  disposal 
■of  the  League  all  the  resources  and  all  the  forces 
of  the  monarchy."  Soon  afterwards  the  Pope 
issued  against  Navarre  and  Conde  his  bull  of 
excommunication.  By  this  "  the  Pontiff  did  not 
deprive  the  Bourbons  of  a  single  friend,  and  did 
not  give  the  slightest  fresh  ardour  to  their  op- 
ponents; but  he  produced  a  powerful  reaction 
among  a  portion  of  the  clergy,  among  the  magis- 
tracy, among  all  the  Royalists ;  wounded  the  na- 
tional sensibility,  consolidated  that  union  between 
the  two  Princes  which  he  wished  to  break  off, 
and  rallied  the  whole  of  the  Reformed  party 
round  their  leaders.  The  Protestant  pamphle- 
teers replied  with  no  less  vehemence,  and  gave 
to  the  Pontiff's  bull  that  name  of  '  Brutum  ful- 
men '  by  which  it  is  still  known.  .  .  .  Still  the 
sentence  launched  from  the  Vaticau  had  had  one 
very  decided  result  —  it  had  fired  the  train  of  pow- 
der; war  broke  out  at  once." — Due  d'Aumale, 
Hist,  of  the  Princes  of  Conde,  bk.  3,  ch.  1.—"  The 
war,  called  from  the  three  leading  actors  in  it 
(Henry  of  Valois,  Henry  of  Navarre,  and  Henry 
of  Guise]  the  War  of  the  Three  Henrys,  now 
opened  in  earnest.  Seven  powerful  armies  were 
marshalled  on  the  part  of  the  King  of  France 
and  the  League.  The  Huguenots  were  weak  in 
numbers,  but  strong  in  the  quality  of  their 
troops.  An  immense  bodj'  of  German  '  Reiter ' 
had  been  enrolled  to  act  as  an  auxiliary  force, 
and  for  some  time  had  been  hovering  on  the  fron- 
tiers. Hearing  that  at  last  they  had  entered 
France,  Henry  of  Navarre  set  out  from  Rochelle 
to  effect  a  junction  with  them.  The  Duke  of 
Joyeuse,  one  of  the  French  King's  chief  favour- 
ites, who  had  the  charge  of  the  army  that  occu- 
pied the  midland  counties,  resolved  to  prevent 
their  junction.  By  a  rapid  movement  he  suc- 
ceeded in  crossing  the  line  of  Henry's  march  and 
forcing  him  into  action.  The  two  armies  came 
in  front  of  each  other  on  a  plain  near  the  village 
of  Coutras,  on  the  19th  of  October,  1587.  The 
Royalist  army  numbered  from  10,000  to  13,000, 
the  Huguenot  from  6,000  to  7, 000  —  the  usual  dis- 
parity in  numbers ;  but  Henry's  skilful  disposi- 
tion did  more  than  compensate  for  his  numerical 
inferiority.  .  .  .  The  struggle  lasted  but  an  hour, 
yet  within  that  hour  the  Catholic  army  lost  3,000 
men,  more  than  400  of  whom  were  members  of 
the  first  families  in  the  kingdom;  3,000  men  were 
made  prisoners.  Not  more  than  a  third  part  of 
their  entire  army  escaped.  The  Huguenots  lost 
only  about  300  men.  .  .  .  Before  night  fell  he 
[Navarre]  wrote  a  few  lines  to  the  French  King, 
which  run  thus:  'Sire,  my  Lord  and  Brother,— 
Thank  God,  I  have  beaten  yourenemiesand  your 
army. '  It  was  but  too  true  that  the  poor  King's 
worst  enemies  were  to  be  found  in  the  very 
armies  that  were  marshalled  in  his  name." — W. 
Hanna,  The  Wars  of  the  Huguenots,  ch.  6. — "  The 
victory  [at  Coutras]  had  only  a  moral   effect. 


Henry  lost  time  by  going  to  lay  at  the  feet  of  the 
Countess  of  Grammont  the  flags  taken  from  the 
enemy.  Meantime  the  Duke  of  Guise,  north  of 
the  Loire,  triumphed  over  the  Germans  under 
the  Baron  of  Dohna  at  Vimory,  near  Jlontargis, 
and  again  near  Auneavi  (1587).  Henrj'  III.  was 
unskilful  enough  to  leave  to  his  rival  the  glory 
of  driving  them  out  of  the  countrv.  Henry  III. 
re-entered  Paris.  As  he  passed  along,  the  popu- 
lace cried  out,  '  Saul  has  killed  his  thousands, 
and  David  his  ten  thousands ' ;  and  a  few  days 
after,  the  Sorbonne  decided  that  '  the  govern- 
ment could  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  princes 
who  were  found  incapable.'  Henry  III.,  alarmed, 
forbade  the  Duke  of  Guise  to  come  to  Paris,  and 
quartered  in  the  faubourgs  4,000  SwLss  and 
several  companies  of  the  guards.  The  Sixteen 
[chiefs  of  sixteen  sections  of  Paris,  who  con- 
trolled the  League  in  that  city]  feared  that  all 
was  over ;  they  summoned  the  '  Balaf re '  and  he 
came  [May  9,  1588].  Cries  of  '  Hosannah  to  the 
Son  of  David ! '  resounded  throughout  Paris,  and 
followed  him  to  tlie  Louvre.  .  .  .  The  king  and 
the  chief  of  the  League  fortified  themselves,  one 
in  the  Louvre,  the  other  in  the  Hotel  Guise. 
Negotiations  were  carried  on  for  two  days.  On 
the  morning  of  the  11th  the  duke,  well  attended, 
returned  to  the  Louvre,  and  in  loud  tones  de- 
manded of  the  king  tliat  he  should  send  away  his 
counsellors,  establish  the  Inquisition,  and  push 
to  the  utmost  the  war  against  the  heretics.  That 
evening  the  king  ordered  the  companies  of  the 
city  guards  to  hold  several  positions,  and  the 
next  morning  he  introduced  into  the  city  the 
Swiss  and  3,000  men  of  the  French  guards.  But 
the  city  guards  failed  him.  In  two  hours  all 
Paris  was  under  arms,  all  the  streets  were  ren- 
dered impassable,  and  the  advancing  barricades 
soon  reached  the  positions  occupied  by  the  troops 
[whence  the  insurrection  became  known  as  '  the 
Day  of  Barricades '].  At  this  juncture  Guise 
came  out  of  his  hotel,  dressed  in  a  white  doublet, 
with  a  small  cane  in  his  hand ;  saved  the  Swiss, 
who  were  on  the  point  of  being  massacred,  sent 
them  back  to  the  king  with  insulting  scorn,  and 
quieted  everj'thing  as  if  by  magic.  He  demanded 
the  office  of  lieutenant-general  of  the  kingdom 
for  himself,  the  convocation  of  the  States  at 
Paris,  the  forfeiture  of  the  Bourbons,  and,  for 
his  friends,  provincial  governments  and  all  the 
other  offices.  The  queen-mother  debated  these 
conditions  for  three  hours.  During  this  time  the 
attack  was  suspended,  and  Henry  III.  was  thus 
enabled  to  leave  the  Louvre  and  make  his  escape. 
The  Duke  of  Guise  had  made  a  mistake ;  but  if 
he  did  not  have  the  king,  he  had  Paris.  There 
was  now  a  king  of  Paris  and  a  king  of  France ; 
negotiations  were  carried  on,  and  to  the  astonish- 
ment of  all,  Henry  III.  at  length  granted  what 
two  months  before  he  had  refused  in  front  of  the 
barricades.  He  swore  that  he  would  not  lay 
down  his  arms  until  the  heretics  were  entirely 
exterminated;  declared  that  any  non-Catholic 
prince  forfeited  his  rights  to  the  throne,  appointed 
the  Duke  of  Guise  lieutenant-general,  and  con- 
voked the  States  at  Blois  [October,  1588].  The 
States  of  Blois  were  composed  entirely  of  Lea- 
guers," and  were  wholly  controlled  by  the  Duke 
of  Guise.  The  latter  despised  the  king  too  much 
to  give  heed  to  repeated  warnings  which  he  re- 
ceived of  a  plot  against  his  life.  Summoned  to 
a  private  interview  in  the  royal  cabinet,  at  an 
early  hour  on  the  morning  of  the  23d  of  December. 


1241 


FRANCE,  1584-1589. 


Henry  of  Navarre 
becomes  king. 


FRANCE,  1589-1590. 


he  did  not  hesitate  to  present  himself,  boldly, 
alone,  and  was  murdered  as  he  entered, by  eight 
of  the  king's  body-guard,  whom  Henry  III.  had 
personally  ordered  to  commit  the  crime.  ' '  Killing 
the  Duke  of  Guise  was  not  killing  the  League. 
At  the  news  of  his  death  Paris  was  stunned  for 
a  moment ;  then  its  fury  broke  forth.  .  .  .  The 
Sorbonne  decreed  '  that  the  French  people  were 
set  free  from  the  oath  of  allegiance  taken  to 
Henry  III.'.  .  .  Henry  III.  had  gained  nothing 
by  the  murder;  .  .  .  but  he  had  helped  the  for- 
tunes of  the  king  of  Navarre,  into  whose  arms 
he  was  forced  to  cast  himself.  .  .  .  The  junction 
of  the  Protestant  and  the  royal  armies  under  the 
same  standard  completely  changed  the  nature  of 
the  war.  It  was  no  longer  feudal  Protestantism, 
but  the  democratic  League,  which  threatened 
royalty ;  monarchy  entered  into  a  struggle  with 
the  Catholic  masses  in  revolt  against  it.  Henry 
III.  called  together,  at  Tours,  his  useless  Parlia- 
ment, and  issued  a  manifesto  against  Mayenne 
and  the  chiefs  of  the  League.  Henry  of  Navarre 
carried  on  the  war  energetically.  In  two  months 
he  was  master  of  the  territory  between  the  Loire 
and  the  Seine,  and  15,000  Swiss  and  lanzknechts 
joined  him.  On  the  evening  of  July  30th,  1.589, 
the  two  kings,  with  40,000  men,  appeared  before 
Paris.  The  Parisians  could  see  the  long  line 
of  the  enemies'  fires  gleaming  in  a  vast  semi- 
circle on  the  left  bank  of  the  Seine.  The  king 
of  Navarre  established  his  headquarters  at  !Meu- 
don ;  Henry  III.  at  Saint-Cloud.  The  great  city 
was  astounded ;  the  people  had  lost  energy ;  but 
the  fury  was  concentrated  in  the  hearts  of  the 
chiefs  and  in  the  depths  of  the  cloisters.  .  .  . 
The  arm  of  a  fanatic  became  the  instrument  of 
the  general  fury,  and  put  into  practice  the  doc- 
trine of  tyrannicide  more  than  once  asserted  in 
the  schools  and  the  pulpit.  The  assault  was  to 
be  made  on  August  2d.  On  the  morning  of  the 
previous  day  a  young  friar  from  the  convent  of 
the  Dominicans,  Jacques  Clement,  came  out  from 
Paris,"  obtained  access  to  the  king  by  means  of 
a  forged  letter,  and  stabbed  him  in  the  abdomen, 
being,  himself,  slain  on  the  spot  by  the  royal 
guards.  Henry  III.  "died  the  same  night,  and 
with  him  the  race  of  Valois  became  extinct.  The 
aged  Catherine  de'  Medici  had  died  six  months 
before." — V.  Duruy,  Hist,  of  France  (ahndged), 
ch.  45. 

Also  in:  L.  von  Ranke,  Cinl  Wars  and  ifon- 
archy  in  France,  IQth  and  \lth  Centuries,  ch.  33- 
25. — W.  8.  Browning,  Hist,  of  the  Huguenots,  ch. 
35-43. 

A.  D.  1585. —  Proffered  sovereignty  of  the 
United  Netherlands  declined  by  Henry  III. 
See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1585-1586. 

A.  D.  1589-1590. —  Henry  of  Navarre  as 
Henry  IV.  of  France. —  His  retreat  to  Nor- 
mandy.— The  battles  at  Arques. —  Battle  of 
Ivry. — "  On  being  made  aware  that  all  hope  was 
over,  this  King  [Henry  III.],  whose  life  had  been 
passed  in  folly,  vanity  and  sensuality  .  .  .  pre- 
pared for  death  like  a  patriot  king  and  a  martyr. 
He  summoned  his  nobles  to  his  bedside,  and  told 
them  that  his  only  regret  in  dying  was  that  he 
left  the  kingdom  in  disorder,  and  as  the  best  mode 
of  remedying  the  evil  he  recommended  them  to 
recognize  the  King  of  Navarre,  to  whom  the 
kingdom  belonged  of  right ;  making  no  account 
of  the  religious  difference,  because  that  king, 
with  his  sincere  and  earnest  nature,  must  finally 
return  to  the  bosom  of  the  Church.     Then  turn- 


ing to  Henry,  he  solemnly  warned  him :  '  Cousin,' 
he  said,  '  I  assure  you  that  you  will  never  be 
King  of  France  if  you  do  not  become  Catholic, 
and  if  you  do  not  make  your  peace  with  the 
Church.'  Directly  afterwards  he  breathed  his 
last,  reciting  the  'Miserere.'  This  account  is 
substantially  confirmed  by  Peretixe.  According 
to  Sully,  Henry,  hearing  that  the  King  had  been 
stabbed,  started  for  St.  Cloud,  attended  by  Sully, 
but  did  not  arrive  till  he  was  dead ;  and  D'Au- 
bigny  says :  '  When  the  King  of  Navarre  en- 
tered the  chamber  where  the  body  was  lying,  he 
saw  amidst  the  bowlings  some  pulling  their  hats 
down  upon  their  brows,  or  throwing  them  on  the 
ground,  clenching  their  fists,  plotting,  clasping 
each  other's  hands,  making  vows  and  promises.' 
.  .  .  Henry's  situation  was  embarrassing  in  the 
extreme,  for  only  a  small  number  of  the  Catholic 
nobles  gave  in  an  unqualified  adhesion :  a  power- 
ful body  met  and  dictated  the  conditions  upon 
which  alone  they  would  consent  to  his  being  pro- 
claimed King  of  France:  the  two  first  being  that 
within  six  months  he  would  cause  himself  to  be 
instructed  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic  Faith; 
and  that  during  this  interval  he  would  nominate 
no  Huguenot  to  offices  of  State.  He  replied  that 
he  was  no  bigot,  and  would  readily  seek  instruc- 
tion in  the  tenets  of  the  Romish  faith,  but  de- 
clined pledging  himself  to  any  description  of 
exclusion  or  intolerance.  M.  Guadet  computes 
that  nine-tenths  of  his  French  subjects  were 
Catholic,  and  the  temper  of  the  majority  may  be 
inferred  from  what  was  taking  place  in  Paris, 
where  the  news  of  the  late  King's  death  was  the 
signal  for  the  most  unseemly  rejoicing.  .  .  . 
Far  from  being  in  a  condition  to  reduce  the  re- 
fractory Parisians,  Henry  was  obliged  to  abandon 
the  siege,  and  retire  towards  Normandy,  where 
the  expected  succours  from  England  might  most 
easily  reach  him.  Sully  says  that  this  retreat 
was  equally  necessary  for  the  safety  of  his  per- 
son and  the  success  of  his  affairs.  He  was  tem- 
porarily abandoned  by  several  of  the  Huguenot 
leaders,  who,  serving  at  their  own  expense,  were 
obliged  from  time  to  time  to  go  home  to  recruit 
their  finances  and  their  followers.  Others  were 
made  lukewarm  by  the  prospect  of  his  becoming 
Catholic ;  so  that  he  was  no  longer  served  with 
enthusiasm  by  either  party;  and  when,  after 
making  the  best  arrangements  in  his  power,  he 
entered  Nonnandy,  he  had  with  him  only  3,000 
French  foot,  two  regiments  of  Swiss  and  1,300 
horse;  with  which,  after  being  joined  by  the 
Due  de  Montpensier  with  200  gentlemen  and 
1,500  foot,  he  drew  near  to  Rouen,  relying  on  a 
secret  understanding  within  the  walls  which 
might  give  him  possession  of  the  place.  Whilst 
preparations  were  making  for  the  siege,  sure  in- 
telligence was  brought  that  the  Due  de  Mayenne 
was  seeking  him  with  an  army  exceeding  30,000; 
but,  resolved  to  make  head  against  them  till  the 
last  extremity,  Henry  entrenched  himself  before 
Arques,  which  was  only  accessible  by  a  cause- 
way." A  series  of  engagements  ensued,  begin- 
ning September  15,  1589;  but  finding  that  he 
could  not  dislodge  his  antagonist,  Mayenne  with- 
drew after  some  ten  days  of  fighting,  moving  his 
army  towards  Picardy  and  leaving  the  road  to 
Paris  open.  "Being  too  weak  to  recommence 
the  siege  or  to  occupy  the  city  if  taken  by  as- 
sault, Henry  resolved  to  give  the  Parisians  a 
sample  of  what  they  might  expect  if  they  per- 
severed in  their  contumacy,  and  gave  orders  for 


1242 


FRANCE,  1589-1590. 


Battle  of  Ivry. 


FRANCE,  1590. 


attacking  all  the  suburbs  at  once.  They  were 
taken  and  sacked.  Davila  states  that  the  plun- 
der was  so  abundant  that  the  whole  camp  was 
wonderfully  relieved  iind  sustained."  From  this 
attack  on  the  Parisian  suburbs,  Henry  proceeded 
to  Tours,  where  he  hekl  his  court  for  a  time. 
Early  in  March,  1590,  he  laid  siege  to  Dreux. 
"The  Due  de  Mayenne,  reinforced  by  Spani.sh 
troops  from  the  Low  Countries  under  Count 
Egmont,  left  Paris  to  effect  a  diversion,  and 
somewhat  unexpectedly  found  himself  compelled 
to  accept  the  battle  which  was  eagerly  pressed 
upon  him.  This  was  the  renowned  battle  of 
Ivry.  The  armies  presented  much  the  same  con- 
trast as  at  Coutras.  The  numerical  superiority 
on  one  side,  the  Catholic,  was  more  than  compen- 
sated by  the  quality  of  the  troops  on  the  other. 
Henry's  soldiers,  as  described  by  De  Thou,  were 
armed  to  the  teeth.  '  They  displayed  neither 
scarf  nor  decoration,  but  their  accoutrements  in- 
spired grim  terror.  The  army  of  the  Due,  on 
the  contrary,  was  magnificent  in  equipment. 
The  officers  wore  bright-coloured  scarves,  while 
gold  glittered  upon  their  helmets  and  lances.' 
The  two  armies  were  confronted  on  the  13th 
of  March,  1590.  but  it  was  getting  dark  before 
the  dispositions  were  completed,  and  the  battle 
was  deferred  till  the  following  morning.  The 
King  passed  the  night  like  Henry  V.  at  Agin- 
court,  and  took  only  a  short  rest  in  the  open  air  on 
the  field.  ...  At  daybreak  he  mounted  his  horse, 
and  rode  from  rank  to  rank,  pausing  from  time 
to  time  to  utter  a  brief  exhortation  or  encourage- 
ment. Prayers  were  offered  up  by  the  Huguenot 
ministers  at  the  head  of  each  division,  and  the 
bishop  [Perefixe]  gives  the  concluding  words 
of  that  in  which  Divine  aid  was  invoked  by  the 
King :  '  But,  Lord,  if  it  has  pleased  Thee  to  dis- 
pose otherwise,  or  Thou  seest  that  I  ought  to  be 
one  of  those  kings  whom  Thou  punishest  in  Thy 
wrath,  grant,  that  I  may  be  this  day  the  victim 
of  Thy  Holy  will :  so  order  it  that  my  death  may 
deliver  France  from  the  calamities  of  war,  and 
that  my  blood  be  the  last  shed  in  this  quarrel. ' 
Then,  putting  on  his  helmet  with  the  white 
plume,  before  closing  tlie  vizor,  he  addressed  the 
collected  leaders ; —  '  My  friends,  if  you  share  my 
fortune  this  day,  I  also  share  yours.  I  am  re 
solved  to  conquer  or  to  die  with  you.  Keep  your 
ranks  firmly,  I  beg;  if  the  heat  of  the  combat 
compels  you  to  quit  them,  think  always  of  the 
rally;  it  is  the  gaining  of  the  battle.  You  will 
make  it  between  the  three  trees  which  you  see 
there  [pointing  to  three  pear-trees  on  an  emi- 
nence], and  if  you  lose  your  ensigns,  pennons  and 
banners,  do  not  lose  sight  of  my  white  plume : 
you  will  find  it  always  on  the  road  of  honour  and 
victory.'  It  so  chanced  that  his  white  plume 
was  the  actual  rallying-point  at  the  most  critical 
moment.  .  .  .  His  standard-bearer  fell:  a  page 
bearing  a  white  pennon  was  struck  down  at  his 
side ;  and  the  rumour  was  beginning  to  spread 
that  he  himself  was  killed,  when  the  sight  of  his 
bay  horse  and  white  plume,  with  the  animating 
sound  of  his  voice,  gave  fresh  courage  to  all 
around  and  brought  the  bravest  of  his  follow- 
ers to  the  front.  The  result  is  told  in  one  of  his 
own  missives.  After  stating  that  the  battle  be- 
gan between  11  and  12,  he  continues;  'In  less 
than  an  hour,  after  having  discharged  all  their 
anger  in  two  or  three  charges  which  they  made 
and  sustained,  all  their  cavalry  began  to  shift 
for  themselves,  abandoning  their  infantry,  which 


was  very  numerous.  Seeing  which,  their  Swiss 
appealed  to  my  pity  and  surrendered  —  colonels, 
captains,  soldiers,  and  colours.  The  lansquenets 
and  French  had  no  time  to  form  this  resolution, 
for  more  than  1,200  were  cut  to  pieces,  and  the 
rest  dispersed  into  the  woods  at  the  mercy  of  the 
peasants.'  He  urged  on  the  pursuers,  crying 
'  Spare  the  French,  and  down  with  the  foreigners.' 
.  .  .  Instead  of  pushing  on  towards  Paris,  which 
it  was  thought  would  have  opened  its  gates  to  a 
conqueror  iu  the  flush  of  victory,  Henry  lingered 
at  Mantes,  where  he  improvised  a  Court,  which 
his  female  favourites  were  summoned  to  attend. " 
—  Heni-y  IV.  of  France  {Quarterly  Rev.,  Oct., 
1879). 

Also  in:  H.  M.  Baird,  The  Hnyaenots  and 
Henry  of  Navarre,  ch.  11  (».  2). — Duke  of  Sully, 
Memoirs,  bk.  3  (v.  1).— G.  P.  R.  James,  Life  of 
Henry  IV..  hk.  11-13  (;■.  3).    . 

A.  D.  1590. — The  siege  of  Paris  and  its  hor- 
rors.— Relief  at  the  hands  of  the  Spaniards 
under  Parma. — Readiness  of  the  League  to 
give  the  crown  to  Philip  IL — "The  king,  yield- 
ing to  the  councils  of  Biron  and  other  catholics, 
declined  attacking  the  capital,  and  preferred 
waiting  the  slow,  and  in  his  circumstances  emi- 
nently hazardous,  operations  of  a  regular  siege. 
.  .  .  Whatever  may  have  been  the  cause  of  the 
delay,  it  is  certain  that  the  golden  fruit  of  vic- 
tory was  not  plucked,  and  that  although  the  con- 
federate army  had  rapidly  dissolved,  in  conse- 
quence of  their  defeat,  the  king's  own  forces 
manifested  as  little  cohesion.  And  now  began 
that  slow  and  painful  siege,  the  details  of  which 
are  as  terrible,  but  as  universally  known,  as  those 
of  any  chapters  in  the  Ijlood-stained  history  of 
the  century.  Henry  seized  upon  the  towns 
guarding  the  rivers  Seine  and  Marne,  twin  nurses 
of  Paris.  By  controlling  the  course  of  those 
streams  as  well  as  that  of  the  Yonne  and  Oise  — 
especially  by  taking  firm  possession  of  Lagny  on 
the  Marne,  whence  a  bridge  led  from  the  Isle  of 
France  to  the  Brie  country  —  great  thorough- 
fare of  wine  and  corn — and  of  Corbeil  at  the 
junction  of  the  little  river  Essonne  with  the 
Seine  —  it  was  easy  in  that  age  to  stop  the  vital 
circulation  of  the  imperial  city.  By  midsum- 
mer, Paris,  unquestionably  the  first  city  of  Eu- 
rope at  that  day,  was  in  extremities.  .  .  .  Rarely 
have  men  at  any  epoch  defended  their  fatherland 
against  foreign  oppression  with  more  heroism 
than  that  which  was  manifested  by  the  Parisians 
of  1590  in  resisting  religious  toleration,  and  in 
obeying  a  foreign  and  priestly  despotism.  Men, 
women,  and  children  cheerfully  laid  down  their 
lives  by  thousands  in  order  that  the  papal  legate 
and  the  king  of  Spain  might  trample  upon  that 
legitimate  sovereign  of  France  who  was  one  day 
to  become  the  idol  of  Paris  and  of  the  whole 
kingdom.  A  census  taken  at  the  beginning  of 
the  siege  had  showed  a  population  of  200,000 
souls,  with  a  sufficiency  of  provisions,  it  was 
thought,  to  last  one  month.  But  before  the  ter- 
rible summer  was  over —  so  completely  had  the 
city  been  invested — -the  bushel  of  wheat  was 
worth  360  crowns.  .  .  .  The  flesh  of  horses, 
asses,  dogs,  cats,  rats,  had  become  rare  luxuries. 
There  was  nothing  cheap,  said  a  citizen  bitterly, 
but  sermons.  And  the  priests  and  monks  of 
every  order  went  daily  about  the  streets,  preach- 
ing fortitude  in  that  great  resistance  to  heresy. 
.  .  .  Trustworthy  eye-witnesses  of  those  dread- 
ful days  have  placed  the  number  of  the  dead  during 


1243 


FRANCE,  1590. 


Siege  of  Paris. 


FRANCE,  1591-1593. 


the  summer  at  30,000.  .  .  .  The  hideous  details 
of  the  most  dreadful  sieges  recorded  in  ancient 
or  modern  times  were  now  reproduced  in  Paris. 
.  .  .  The  priests  .  .  .  persuaded  the  populace 
that  it  was  far  more  righteous  to  kill  their  own 
children,  if  they  had  no  food  to  give  them,  than 
to  obtain  food  by  recognizing  a  heretic  king.  It 
was  related,  too,  and  believed,  that  in  some  in- 
stances mothers  had  salted  the  bodies  of  their 
dead  children  and  fed  upon  them,  day  by  day, 
until  the  hideous  repast  would  no  longer  sup- 
port their  own  life.  .  .  .  The  bones  of  the  dead 
were  taken  in  considerable  quantities  from  the 
cemeteries,  ground  into  flour,  baked  into  bread, 
and  consumed.  It  was  called  Madame  Montpen- 
sier's  cake,  because  the  duchess  earnestly  pro- 
claimed its  merits  to  the  poor  Parisians.  '  She 
■was  never  known  to  taste  it  herself,  however,' 
bitterly  observed  one  who  lived  in  Paris  through 
that  horrible  summer.  She  was  right  to  abstain, 
for  all  who  ate  of  it  died.  .  .  .  Lansquenets  and 
other  soldiers,  mad  with  hunger  and  rage,  when 
they  could  no  longer  find  dogs  to  feed  on,  chased 
children  through  the  streets,  and  were  known  in 
several  instances  to  kill  and  devour  them  on  the 
spot.  .  .  .  Such  then  was  the  condition  of  Paris 
during  that  memorable  summer  of  tortures. 
What  now  were  its  hopes  of  deliverance  out  of 
this  Gehenna  ?  The  trust  of  Frenchmen  was 
in  Philip  of  Spain,  whose  legions,  under  com- 
mand of  the  great  Italian  chieftain  [Ale.xander 
Farnese,  Duke  of  Parma,  commander  of  the 
■  Spanish  forces  in  the  Netherlands],  were  daily 
longed  for  to  save  them  from  rendering  obedi- 
ence to  their  lawful  priuce.  For  even  the  king 
of  straw  —  the  imprisoned  cardinal  [Cardinal  de 
Bourbon,  whom  the  League  had  proclaimed 
king,  under  the  title  of  Charles  X.,  on  the  death 
of  Henry  III.]  —  was  now  dead,  and  there  was 
not  even  the  effigy  of  any  other  sovereign  than 
Henry  of  Bourbon  to  claim  authority  in  France. 
Mayenne,  in  the  course  of  long  interviews  with 
the  Duke  of  Parma  at  Conde  and  Brussels,  had 
expressed  his  desire  to  see  Philip  king  of  France, 
and  had  promised  his  best  efforts  to  bring  about 
such  a  result."  Parma,  who  was  struggling 
hard  with  the  obstinate  revolt  in  the  Netherlands, 
having  few  troops  and  little  money  to  pay  them 
with,  received  orders  from  his  Spanish  master  to 
relieve  Paris  and  conquer  France.  He  obeyed 
the  command  to  the  best  of  his  abilities.  He 
left  the  Netherlands  at  the  beginning  of  August, 
with  13,000  foot  and  3,000  horse;  effected  a 
junction  with  Mayenne  at  !Meau.\:,  ten  leagues 
from  Paris,  on  the  32d,  and  the  united  armies  — 
5,000  cavalry  and  18,000  foot  —  arrived  at  Chelles 
on  the  last  day  of  summer.  "The  two  great 
captains  of  the  age  had  at  last  met  face  to  face. 
.  .  .  The  scientific  duel  which  was  now  to  take 
place  was  likely  to  task  the  genius  and  to  bring 
into  full  display  the  peculiar  powers  and  defects 
of  the  two. "  The  winner  in  the  duel  was  the 
Duke  of  Parma,  who  foiled  Henry's  attempts  to 
bring  him  to  battle,  while  he  captured  Lagny 
under  the  king's  eyes.  "The  bridges  of  C'haren- 
ton  and  St.  Maur  now  fell  into  Farnese's  hands 
without  a  contest.  In  an  incredibly  short  space 
of  time  provisions  and  munitions  were  poured 
into  the  starving  city,  2,000  boat-loads  arriving 
in  a  single  day.  Paris  was  relieved.  Ale.xander 
had  made  his  demonstration  and  solved  the  prob- 
lem. .  .  .  The  king  was  now  in  worse  plight 
than  ever.     His  army  fell  to  pieces.     His  cava- 


liers, cheated  of  their  battle,  and  having  neither 
food  nor  forage,  rode  off  by  hundreds  every 
day. "  He  made  one  last  attempt,  by  a  midnight 
assault  on  the  city,  but  it  failed.  Then  he  fol- 
lowed the  Spaniards — whom  Parma  led  back  to 
the  Netherlands  early  in  November  —  but  could 
not  bring  about  a  battle  or  gain  any  important 
advantage.  But  Paris,  without  the  genius  of 
Alexander  Farnese  in  its  defence,  was  soon  re- 
duced to  as  complete  a  blockade  as  before. 
Lagny  was  recovered  by  the  besieging  royalists, 
the  Seine  and  the  Marne  were  again  fast-locked, 
and  the  rebellious  capital  deprived  of  supplies. 
— J.  L.  Motley,  Hist,  of  tfie  United  Netherlands, 
ch.  23  {v.  3). 

Also  m:  M.  W.  Freer,  Hist,  of  the  Reign  of 
Henry  IV..  bk.  1.— C.  D.  Yonge,  Hist,  of  France 
under  the  Bourbons,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1591-1593.— The  siege  of  Rouen  and 
Parma's  second  interference. —  General  ad- 
vancement of  Henry's  cause. — Restiveness  of 
the  Catholics.  —  The  King's  abjuration  of 
Protestantism. — "It  seemed  as  if  Henri  IV. 
had  undertaken  the  work  of  Penelope.  After 
each  success,  fresh  difficulties  arose  to  render  it 
fruitless.  .  .  .  Now  it  was  the  Swiss  who  re- 
fused to  go  on  without  their  pay ;  or  Elizabeth 
who  exacted  seaports  in  return  for  fresh  supplies; 
or  the  Catholics  who  demanded  the  conversion  of 
the  King ;  or  the  Protestants  who  complained  of 
not  being  protected.  Depressed  spirits  had  to  be 
cheered,  some  to  be  satisfied,  others  to  be  reas- 
sured or  restrained,  allies  to  be  managed,  and  all 
to  be  done  with  very  little  money  and  without 
any  sacrifice  of  the  national  interests.  Henri  was 
equal  to  all,  both  to  war  and  to  diplomacy,  to 
great  concerns  and  to  small.  .  .  .  His  pen  was  as 
active  as  his  sword.  The  collection  of  his  letters 
is  full  of  the  most  charming  notes.  .  .  .  Public 
opinion,  which  was  already  influential  and  thirst- 
ing for  news,  was  not  neglected.  Every  two  or 
three  months  a  little  publication  entitled  '  A 
Discourse,'  or  'An  Authentic  Narrative,'  or 
'  Account  of  all  that  has  occurred  in  the  King's 
Army,' was  circulated  widely.  .  .  .  Thus  it  was 
that  by  means  of  activity,  patience,  and  tact, 
Henri  IV.  was  enabled  to  retrieve  his  fortunes 
and  to  rally  his  party ;  so  that  by  the  end  of  the 
year  1591,  he  found  himself  in  a  position  to 
undertake  an  important  operation.  .  .  .  The 
King  laid  siege  to  Rouen  in  December,  1591. 
He  was  at  the  head  of  the  most  splendid  army 
he  had  ever  commanded ;  it  numbered  upwards 
of  35,000  men.  This  was  not  too  great  a  number ; 
for  the  fortifications  were  strong,  the  garrison 
numerous,  well  commanded  by  Villars,  and 
warmly  supported  by  the  townspeople.  The 
siege  had  lasted  for  some  months  when  the  King 
learned  that  Mayenne  had  at  last  made  the  Duke 
of  Parma  to  understand  the  necessity  of  saving 
Rouen  at  all  hazards.  Thirty  thousand  Spanish 
and  French  Leaguers  had  just  arrived  on  the 
Sorame.  Rouen,  however,  was  at  the  last  gasp ; 
Henri  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  throw 
away  the  fruits  of  so  much  toil  and  trouble ;  he 
left  all  his  infantry  under  the  walls,  under  the 
command  of  Biron,  and  marched  oflE  with  his 
splendid  cavalry. "  He  attacked  the  enemy  im- 
prudently, near  Aumale,  February  5,  met  with 
a  repulse,  was  wounded  and  just  missed  being 
taken  prisoner  in  a  precipitate  retreat.  But 
both  armies  were  half  paralyzed  at  this  time  by 
dissensions    among  their  chiefs.     That  of    the 


1244 


FRANCE,  1591-1593. 


Henry's  Abjuration 
of  Protestantism, 


FRANCE,  1593-1598. 


Leaguers  fell  back  to  the  Somme ;  but  in  April  it 
approached  Rouen  again,  and  Parma  was  able, 
despite  all  Henri's  efforts,  to  enter  tlie  town.  This 
last  clieck  to  the  King  "was  tlie  signal  for  a  gen- 
eral desertion,  Henri,  left  with  only  a  small 
corps  of  regular  troops  and  a  few  gentlemen,  was 
obliged  to  retire  rapidly  upon  Pont  de  I'Arche. 
The  Duke  of  Parma  did  not  follow  him.  Always 
vigilant,  he  wislied  before  everything  to  establish 
himself  on  the  Lower  Seine,  and  laid  siege  to 
■Caudebec,  which  was  not  likely  to  detain  him 
long.  But  he  received  during  that  operation  a 
severe  wound,  which  compelled  him  to  hand  over 
the  command  to  Mayenne. "  The  incompetence 
of  the  latter  soon  lost  all  the  advantages  which 
Parma  had  gained.  Henri's  supporters  rallied 
around  him  again  almost  as  quickly  as  they  had 
dispersed.  "The  Leaguers  were  pushed  back 
upon  the  Seine  and  confined  in  tlie  heart  of  the 
Pays  de  Caux.  They  were  without  provisions ; 
Mayenne  was  at  his  wits'  end ;  he  had  to  resort  for 
suggestions  and  for  orders  to  the  bed  of  suffering 
on  which  the  Duke  of  Parma  was  held  down  by 
his  wound."  The  great  Italian  soldier,  dying 
though  he  was,  as  the  event  soon  proved,  directed 
operations  which  baffled  the  keen  watchfulness 
and  penetration  of  his  antagonist,  and  extricated 
his  army  without  giving  to  Henri  the  chance  for 
battle  which  he  sought.  The  Spanish  army  re- 
tired to  Flemish  territory.  In  tlie  meantime, 
Henri's  cause  was  being  advanced  in  the  north- 
east of  his  kingdom  by  the  skill  and  valor  of 
Turenne,  then  beginning  his  great  career,  and 
experiencing  vicissitudes  in  the  southeast,  where 
Lesdiguiferes  was  contending  with  the  mercenaries 
of  the  Pope  and  the  Duke  of  Savoy,  as  well  as 
with  his  countrymen  of  the  League.  He  had  de- 
feated them  with  awful  slaughter  at  Pontcharra, 
September  19,  1591,  and  he  carried  the  war  next 
j'ear  into  the  territories  of  the  Duke  of  Savoy, 
seeking  help  from  the  Italian  Waldenses  which 
he  does  not  seem  to  have  obtained.  "  Neverthe- 
less tlie  king  had  still  some  formidable  obstacles 
to  overcome.  Three  years  had  run  their  course 
since  he  had  promised  to  become  instructed  in 
the  Catholic  religion,  and  there  were  no  signs  as 
yet  that  he  was  preparing  to  fulfil  this  undertak- 
ing. The  position  in  which  lie  found  himself, 
and  tlie  importance  and  activity  of  his  military 
operations,  had  hitlierto  been  a  sufficient  explana- 
tion of  his  delay.  But  the  war  had  now  changed 
its  character.  The  King  had  gained  brilliant  suc- 
cesses. There  was  no  longer  any  large  army  in 
the  field  against  liim.  Nothing  seemed  to  be 
now  in  the  way  to  hinder  him  from  fulfilling  his 
promise.  And  yet  he  always  evaded  it.  He  had 
to  keep  on  good  terms  with  Elizabeth  and  the 
Protestants;  he  wished  to  make  his  abjuration 
the  occasion  for  an  agreement  with  the  Court  of 
Rome,  which  took  no  steps  to  smooth  over  his 
difficulties ;  and  lastly,  he  shrank  from  taking  a 
step  which  is  always  painful  when  it  is  not  the 
fruit  of  honest  conviction.  This  indecision 
doubled  the  ardour  of  his  enemies,  prevented 
fresh  adhesions,  discouraged  and  divided  his  old 
followers.  ...  A  third  party,  composed  of 
bishops  and  Royalist  noblemen,  drew  around  the 
cousins  of  Henri  FV. .  the  Cardinal  de  Vendome 
and  the  Comte  de  Soissons.  .  .  .  The  avowed 
object  of  this  third  party  was  to  raise  one  of 
these  two  Princes  to  the  throne,  if  the  Head  of 
their  House  did  not  forthwith  enter  the  bosom  of 
the  Catholic  Church.     And  finally,  the  deputies 


of  the  cities  and  provinces  who  had  been  called 
to  Paris  by  Mayenne  were  assembling  there  for 
the  election  of  a  king.  '  The  Satire  of  Menippee ' 
has  handed  down  the  States  of  the  League  to 
immortal  ridicule;  but  however -decried  that  as- 
sembly has  been,  and  deserved  to  be,  it  decided 
the  conversion  of  Henri  IV. :  he  does  not  attempt 
in  his  despatches  to  deny  this.  ...  In  order  to 
take  away  every  excuse  for  such  an  election,  he 
entered  at  once  into  conference  with  the  Catholic 
theologians.  After  some  very  serious  discussion, 
much  deeper  than  a  certain  saying  which  has 
become  a  proverb  [that  '  Paris  is  certainly  worth  a. 
Mass']  would  seem  to  imply,  he  abjured  the 
Protestant  religion  on  the  35th  of  July,  1593,  be- 
fore the  Archbishop  of  Bourges.  The  League 
liad  received  its  death-blow." — Due  d'Aumale, 
Hist,  of  the  Princes  de  Condi,  bk.  2,  ch.  3  (».  3). — 
' '  The  news  of  the  abj  uration  produced  in  the  minds 
of  honest  men,  far  and  near,  the  most  painful  im- 
pression. Politicians  might  applaud  an  act  in- 
tended to  conciliate  the  favor  of  the  great  majority 
of  the  nation,  and  extol  the  astuteness  of  the 
king  in  choosing  the  most  opportune  moment  for 
his  change  of  religion  —  the  moment  when  he 
would  secure  the  support  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics, fatigued  by  the  length  of  the  war  and  too 
eager  for  peace  to  question  very  closely  the  sin- 
cerity of  the  king's  motives,  without  forfeiting 
the  support  of  the  Huguenots.  But  men  of  con- 
science, judging  Henry's  conduct  by  a  standard 
of  morality  immutable  and  eternal,  passed  a 
severe  sentence  of  condemnation  upon  the  most 
flagrant  instance  of  a  betrayal  of  moral  convic- 
tions which  the  age  had  known. " — H.  M.  Baird, 
The  Huguenots  and  Henry  of  Navarre,  eh.  13  {v. 
2). — "  What  the  future  history  of  France  would 
have  been  if  Henry  had  clung  to  his  integrity,  is 
known  only  to  the  Omniscient;  but,  with  the 
annals  of  France  in  our  hands,  we  have  no  diffi- 
culty in  perceiving  that  the  day  of  his  impious, 
because  pretended  conversion,  was  among  the 
'  dies  nefasti '  of  his  country.  It  restored  peace 
indeed  to  that  bleeding  land,  and  it  gave  to  him- 
self an  undisputed  reign  of  seventeen  years;  but 
he  found  them  years  replete  with  cares  and  terrors, 
and  disgraced  by  many  shameful  vices,  and  at  last 
abruptly  terminated  by  the  dagger  of  an  assassin. 
It  rescued  France,  indeed,  from  the  evils  of  a  dis- 
puted succession,  but  it  consigned  her  to  two 
centuries  of  despotism  and  misgoverument.  It 
transmitted  the  crown,  indeed,  to  seven  in  suc- 
cession of  the  posterity  of  Henry ;  but  of  tliem 
one  died  on  the  scaffold,  three  were  deposed  by 
insurrections  of  their  subjects,  one  has  left  a 
name  pursued  by  unmitigated  and  undying  in- 
famy, and  another  lived  and  died  in  a  monastic 
melancholy,  the  feeble  slave  of  his  own  minister." 
— Sir  J.  Stephen,  Lect's  on  the  Hist,  of  Fi-ance, 
lect.   16. 

Also  in:  P.  F.  Willert,  Henry  of  Navarre  and 
the  Huguenots  of  France,  ch.  5-6. 

A.  D.  1593-1598. — Henry's  winning  of  Paris. 
—  The  first  attempt  upon  his  life. — Expulsion 
of  Jesuits  from  Paris. — War  with  Spain. — The 
Peace  of  Vervins. — "A  truce  of  three  months 
had  been  agreed  upon  [August  1,  1593],  during 
which  many  nobles  and  several  important  towns 
made  their  submissions  to  the  King.  Many, 
however,  still  held  out  for  the  League,  and 
among  them  Paris,  as  well  as  Rheims,  by  ancient 
usage  the  city  appropriated  to  the  coronation  of 
the  kings  of  France.     Henry  IV.  deemed  tha-i; 


1245 


FRANCE,  1593-1598. 


Henry^s  Successes. 


FRANCE,  1593-1598. 


ceremony  indispensable  to  sanctify  his  cause  in 
the  eyes  of  the  people,  and  he  therefore  caused 
it  to  be  performed  at  Chartres  by  the  bishop  of 
that  place,  February  37th  1594.  But  he  could 
hardly  look  upon  himself  as  King  of  France  so 
long  as  Paris  remained  in  the  hands  of  a  faction 
which  disputed  his  right,  and  he  therefore 
strained  every  nerve  to  get  possession  of  that 
capital.  ...  As  he  wished  to  get  possession  of 
the  city  without  bloodshed,  he  determined  to  at- 
tempt it  by  corrupting  the  commandant.  This 
was  Charles  de  Cosse,  Count  of  Brissac.  .  .  . 
Henry  promised  Brissac,  as  the  price  of  his  ad- 
mission into  Paris,  the  sum  of  200,000  crowns 
and  an  annual  pension  of  20,000,  together  with 
the  governments  of  Corbeil  and  Mantes,  and  the 
continuance  to  him  of  his  marshal's  baton.  To 
the  Parisians  was  offered  an  amnesty  from  which 
only  criminals  were  to  be  e.xcepted ;  the  con- 
firmation of  all  their  privileges ;  and  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  Protestant  worship  within  a  radius 
of  ten  leagues.  .  .  .  Before  daybreak  on  the 
morning  of  the  22nd  March  1594  Brissac  opened 
the  gates  of  Paris  to  Henry's  troops,  who  took 
possession  of  the  city  without  resistance,  except 
at  one  of  the  Spanish  guard-houses,  where  a  few 
soldiers  were  killed.  When  all  appeared  quiet, 
Henry  himself  entered,  and  was  astonished  at 
being  greeted  with  joyous  cheers.  ...  He  gave 
manifold  proofs  of  forbearance  and  good  temper, 
fulfilled  all  the  conditions  of  his  agreement,  and 
allowed  the  Spaniards  [4,000]  to  withdraw  un- 
molested." In  May,  1594,  Henry  laid  siege  to 
Laon,  which  surrendered  in  August.  "Its  e.x- 
ample  was  soon  followed  by  Chateau  Thierry, 
Amiens,  Cambrai  and  Noyon.  The  success  of 
the  King  induced  the  Duke  of  Lorraine  and  the 
Duke  of  Guise  to  make  their  peace  with  him. "  In 
November,  an  attempt  to  kill  the  King  was  made 
by  a  young  man  named  Jean  Chatel,  who  con- 
fessed that  he  attended  the  schools  of  the  Jesuits. 
"All  the  members  of  that  order  were  arrested, 
and  their  papers  examined.  One  of  them,  named 
Jean  Guignard,  on  whom  was  found  a  treatise 
approving  the  murder  of  Henry  III. ,  and  main- 
taining tliat  his  successor  deserved  a  like  fate, 
was  condemned  to  the  gallows:  and  the  re- 
mainder of  the  order  were  banished  from  Paris, 
January  8th  1595,  as  corrupters  of  youth  and 
enemies  of  the  state.  This  example,  however, 
was  followed  only  by  a  few  of  the  provincial 
cities.  The  irritation  caused  by  this  event  seems 
to  have  precipitated  Henry  I'V.  into  a  step  which 
he  had  been  some  time  meditating :  a  declaration 
of  war  against  his  ancient  and  most  bitter  enemy 
Philip  II.  (January  17th  1595).  The  King  of 
Spain,  whom  the  want  of  money  had  prevented 
from  giving  the  League  much  assistance  during 
the  two  preceding  years,  was  stung  into  fury  by 
this  challenge ;  and  he  immediately  ordered  Don 
Fernando  de  Velasco,  constable  of  Castile,  to 
join  Mayenne  in  Franche  Comte  with  10,000 
men.  Velasco,  however,  was  no  great  captain, 
and  little  of  importance  was  done.  The  only 
action  worth  mentioning  is  an  affair  of  cavalry 
at  Fontaine  Fran9aise  (June  6th  1595),  in  which 
Henry  displayed  his  usual  bravery,  or  rather 
rashness,  but  came  off  victorious.  He  then  over- 
ran nearly  all  Franche  Comte  without  meeting 
with  any  impediment  from  'Velasco,  but  retired 
at  the  instance  of  the  Swiss,  who  entreated  him 
to  respect  the  neutrality  of  that  province.  Mean- 
while Henry  had  made  advances  to  Mayenne, 


who  was  disgusted  with  Velasco  and  the  Span- 
iards, and  on  the  25th  September  Mayenne,  in 
the  name  of  the  League,  signed  with  the  King  a 
truce  of  three  months,  with  a  view  to  regulate 
the  conditions  of  future  submission.  An  event 
had  already  occurred  which  placed  Henry  in  a 
much  more  favourable  position  with  his  Roman 
Catholic  subjects;  he  had  succeeded  [September, 
1595]  in  effecting  his  reconciliation  with  the 
Pope.  .  .  .  The  war  on  the  northern  frontiers  had 
not  been  going  on  so  favourably  for  the  King. " 
In  January,  1595,  "Philip  II.  ordered  the  Span- 
iard Fuentes,  who,  till  the  arrival  of  Albert  [the 
Archduke],  conducted  the  government  of  the 
Netherlands,  to  invade  the  north  of  France ;  and 
Fuentes  .  .  .  having  left  Mondragone  with  suf- 
ficient forces  to  keep  Prince  Maurice  in  check, 
setoff  with  15,000  men,  with  the  design  of  re- 
covering Cambrai.  Catelet  and  Doullens  yielded 
to  his  arms ;  Ham  was  betrayed  to  him  by  the 
treachery  of  the  governor,  and  in  August  Fuentes 
sat  down  before  Cambrai.  .  .  .  The  Duke  of 
Anjou  had  made  over  that  place  to  his  mother, 
Catherine  de'  Medici,  who  had  appointed  Balagni 
to  be  governor  of  it.  During  the  civil  wars  of 
France,  Balagni  had  established  himself  there  as 
a  little  independent  sovereign,  and  called  himself 
Prince  of  Cambrai ;  but  after  the  discomfiture  of 
the  League  he  had  been  compelled  to  declare 
himself,  and  had  acknowledged  his  allegiance  to 
the  King  of  France.  His  extortion  and  tyranny 
having  rendered  him  detested  by  the  inhabitants, 
they  .  .  .  delivered  Cambrai  to  the  Spaniards, 
October  2nd.  Fuentes  then  returned  into  the 
Netherlands.  .  .  .  The  Cardinal  Archduke  Albert 
arrived  at  Brussels  in  February  1596,  when 
Fuentes  resigned  his  command.  .  .  .  Henry  IV. 
had  been  engaged  since  the  winter  in  the  siege 
of  La  FSre,  a  little  town  in  a  strong  situation  at 
the  junction  of  the  Serre  and  Oise.  He  had 
received  reinforcements  from  England  as  well 
as  from  Germany  and  Holland.  .  .  .  Albert 
marched  to  Valenciennes  with  about  20,000  men, 
with  the  avowed  intention  of  relieving  La  FSre ;. 
but  instead  of  attempting  that  enterprise,  he 
despatched  De  Rosne,  a  French  renegade  .  .  . 
with  the  greater  part  of  the  forces,  to  surprise 
Calais;  and  that  important  place  was  taken  by 
assault,  April  17th,  before  Henry  could  arrive 
for  its  defence.  La  FSre  surrendered  May  22nd ; 
and  Henry  then  marched  with  his  army  towards 
the  coast  of  Picardy,  where  he  endeavoured,  but 
in  vain,  to  provoke  the  Spaniards  to  give  him 
battle.  After  fortifying  Calais  and  Ardres,  Al- 
bert withdrew  again  into  the  Netherlands.  .  .  . 
Elizabeth,  alarmed  at  the  occupation  by  the 
Spaniards  of  a  port  which  afforded  such  facilities, 
for  the  invasion  of  England,  soon  afterwards  con- 
cluded another  offensive  and  defensive  alliance 
with  Henry  IV.  (May  24th),  in  which  the  con- 
tracting parties  pledged  themselves  to  make  no- 
separate  peace  or  truce  with  Philip  II."  The 
Dutch  joined  in  this  treaty;  but  the  Protestant 
princes  of  Germany  refused  to  become  parties  to 
it.  "The  treaty,  however,  had  little  effect." 
Early  in  1597,  the  Spaniards  dealt  Henry  an 
alarming  blow,  by  surprising  and  capturing  the 
city  of  Amiens,  gaining  access  to  it  by  an  in- 
genious stratagem.  But  Henry  recovered  the 
place  in  September,  after  a  vigorous  siege.  He 
also  put  down  a  rising,  under  the  Duke  de 
Mercoeur,  in  Brittany,  defeating  the  rebels  at 
Dinan,  while  his  lieutenant,  Lesdigui^res,  In  the 


1246 


FRANCE,  1593-1598. 


The  Edict  of 
Nantes. 


FRANCE,  1598-1599. 


southeast,  invaded  Savoy  once  more,  taking  Mau- 
rienne,  and  paralyzing  the  hostile  designs  of  its 
Duke.  The  malignant  Spanish  king,  suffering 
and  near  his  end,  discouraged  and  tired  of  the 
war,  now  sought  to  make  peace.  Both  the  Dutch 
and  the  English  refused  to  treat  with  hira ;  but 
Henry  IV.,  notwithstanding  the  pledges  given  in 
1596  to  his  allies,  entered  into  negotiations  which 
resulted  in  the  Treaty  of  Vervins,  signed  May  3, 
1598.  "  By  the  Peace  of  Vervins  the  Spaniards 
restored  to  France  Calais,  Ardres,  Doullens,  La 
Capelle,  and  Le  Catelet  in  Picardy,  and  Blavet 
(Port  Louis)  in  Brittany,  of  all  their  conquests 
retaining  only  the  citadel  of  Cambrai.  The  rest 
of  the  conditions  were  referred  to  the  treaty  of 
Cateau-Cambresis,  which  Henry  had  stipulated 
should  form  the  basis  of  the  negociations.  The 
Duke  of  Savoy  was  included  in  the  peace." 
While  this  important  treaty  was  pending,  in  April, 
1598,  Henry  quieted  the  anxieties  of  his  Hugue- 
not subjects  by  the  famous  Edict  of  Nantes. — 
T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  3,  ch. 
10-11  (V.  2). 

Also  in  :  Lady  Jackson,  The  First  of  t?ie  Bour- 
bons, V.  1,  ch.  14-18,  and  v.  2,  ch.  1-7. — J.  L. 
Motley,  Hist,  of  the  United  NetJierlands,  ch.  29- 
35  (v.  3).— R.  Watson,  Hist,  of  the  Reign  of  Philip 
11. ,  bk.  23-24. 

A.  D.  1598-1599.— The  Edict  of  Nantes.— For 
the  purpose  of  receiving  the  submission  of  the 
Duke  of  Mercoeur  and  the  Breton  insurgents,  the 
king  proceeded  down  the  Loire,  and  "reached 
the  capital  of  Brittany,  the  commercial  city  of 
Nantes,  on  the  11th  of  April,  1598.  Two  days 
later  he  signed  the  edict  which  has  come  to  be 
known  as  the  Edict  of  Nantes  [and  which  had 
been  under  discussion  for  some  months  with  rep- 
resentatives of  a  Protestant  assembly  in  session 
at  ChS,tellerault].  .  .  .  The  Edict  of  Nantes  is  a 
long  and  somewhat  complicated  document.  Be- 
sides the  edict  proper,  contained  in  95  public 
articles,  there  is  a  further  series  of  56  '  secret '  ar- 
ticles, and  a  '  brevet '  or  patent  of  the  king,  all 
of  which  were  signed  on  the  13th  of  April ;  and 
these  documents  are  supplemented  by  a  second 
set  of  23  '  secret '  articles,  dated  on  the  last  day 
of  the  same  month.  The  first  of  these  four 
papers  is  expressly  declared  to  be  a  '  perpetual 
and  irrevocable  edict. "...  Our  chief  concern 
being  with  the  fortunes  of  the  Huguenots,  the 
provisions  for  the  re-establishment  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  worship,  wherever  in  the  course  of  the 
events  of  the  last  30  years  that  worship  had  been 
interfered  with  or  banished,  need  not  claim  our 
attention.  For  the  benefit  of  the  Protestants  the 
cardinal  concession  was  liberty  to  dwell  anywhere 
in  the  royal  dominions,  without  being  subjected  to 
inquiry,  vexed,  molested,  or  constrained  to  do  any- 
thing contrary  to  their  conscience.  As  respects 
public  worship,  while  perfect  equality  was  not 
established,  the  dispositions  were  such  as  to 
bring  it  within  the  power  of  a  Protestant  in  any 
part  of  the  kingdom  to  meet  his  fellow-believers 
for  the  holiest  of  acts,  at  least  from  time  to  time. 
To  every  Protestant  nobleman  enjoying  that  ex- 
tensive authority  known  as  'haute  justice,'  and 
to  noblemen  in  Normandy  distinguished  as  pos- 
sessors of  'fiefs  de  haubert,'  the  permission  was 
granted  to  have  religious  services  on  all  occa- 
sions and  for  all  comers  at  their  principal  resi- 
dence, as  well  as  on  other  lands  whenever  they 
themselves  were  present.  Noblemen  of  inferior 
jurisdiction  were  allowed  to  have  worship  on 


their  estates,  but  only  for  themselves  and  their 
families.  In  addition  to  these  seigniorial  rights, 
the  Protestant  '  people '  received  considerable 
accessions  to  the  cities  where  they  might  meet  for 
public  religious  purposes.  The  exercise  of  their 
worship  was  authorized  in  all  cities  and  places 
where  such  worship  had  been  held  on  several  oc- 
casions in  the  years  1596  and  1597,  up  to  the  month 
of  August;  and  in  all  places  in  which  worship 
had  been,  or  ought  to  have  been,  established  In 
accordance  with  the  Edict  of  1577  [the  edict  of 
Poitiers — see  above:  A.  D.  1577-1578],  as  inter- 
preted by  the  Conference  of  Nerac  and  the  Peace 
of  Fleix  [see  above:  A.  D.  1578-1580].  But  in 
addition  to  these,  a  fresh  gift  of  a  second  city  in 
every  bailiwick  and  senechaussee  of  the  kingdom 
greatly  Increased  the  facilities  enjoyed  by  the 
scattered  Huguenots  for  reaching  the  assemblies 
of  their  fellow-believers.  .  .  .  Scholars  of  both 
religions  were  to  be  admitted  without  distinction 
of  religion  to  all  universities,  colleges,  and  schools 
throughout  France.  The  same  impartiality  was 
to  extend  to  the  reception  of  the  sick  in  the  hos- 
pitals, and  to  the  poor  in  the  provision  made  for 
their  relief.  More  than  this,  the  Protestants 
were  permitted  to  establish  schools  of  their  own 
In  all  places  where  their  worship  was  authorized. 
.  .  .  The  scandal  and  inhumanity  exhibited  In  the 
refusal  of  burial  to  the  Protestant  dead,  as  well 
in  the  disinterment  of  such  bodies  as  had  been 
placed  in  consecrated  ground,  was  henceforth 
precluded  by  the  assignment  of  portions  of  the 
public  cemeteries  or  of  new  cemeteries  of  their 
own  to  the  Protestants.  The  civil  equality  of  the 
Protestants  was  assured  by  an  article  which  de- 
clared them  to  be  admissible  to  all  public  posi- 
tions, dignities,  offices,  and  charges,  and  forbade 
any  other  examination  Into  their  qualifications, 
conduct,  and  morals  than  those  to  which  their 
Roman  Catholic  brethren  were  subjected.  .  .  . 
Provision  was  made  for  the  establishment  of  a 
'  chamber  of  the  edict, '  as  it  was  styled,  in  the 
Parliament  of  Paris,  with  six  Protestants  among 
its  sixteen  counsellors,  to  take  cognizance  of 
cases  In  which  Protestants  were  concerned.  A 
similar  chamber  was  promised  in  each  of  the 
parliaments  of  Rouen  and  Rennes.  In  Southern 
France  three  '  chambres  ml-partles '  were  either 
continued  or  created,  with  an  equal  number  of 
Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  judges."  In  the 
' '  brevet "  or  patent  which  accompanied  the  edict, 
the  king  made  a  secret  provision  of  45,000  crowns 
annually  from  the  royal  treasury,  which  was  un- 
derstood to  be  for  the  support  of  Protestant 
ministers,  although  that  purpose  was  concealed. 
In  the  second  series  of  secret  articles,  the  Prot- 
estants were  authorized  to  retain  possession  for 
eight  years  of  the  "cautionary  cities"  which 
they  held  under  former  treaties,  and  provision 
was  made  for  paying  the  garrisons.  "Such  are 
the  main  features  of  a  law  whose  enactment 
marks  an  important  epoch  in  the  history  of  juris- 
prudence. .  .  .  The  Edict  of  Nantes  was  not  at 
once  presented  to  the  parliaments ;  nor  was  it, 
indeed,  until  early  In  the  following  year  that  the 
Parliament  of  Paris  formally  entered  the  docu- 
ment upon  Its  registers.  .  .  .  There  were  obsta- 
cles from  many  different  quarters  to  be  overcome. 
The  clergy,  the  parliaments,  the  university,  raised 
up  dlflaculty  after  difficulty."  But  the  masterful 
will  of  the  king  bore  down  all  opposition,  and 
the  Edict  was  finally  accepted  as  the  law  of  the 
land.    "On  the  17th  of  March  [1599]  Henry  took 


1247 


PRANCE,  1598-1599. 


Asaassinaiion  of 
Henry  TV. 


FRANCE,  1610-1619. 


steps  for  its  complete  execution  througliout 
France,  by  the  appointment  of  commissioners  — 
a  nobleman  and  a  magistrate  from  each  province 
—  to  attend  to  the  worli." — H.  M.  Baird,  The 
Huguenots  and  Henry  of  Navarre,  ch.  14  (o.  2). 

Also  IN :  C.  M.Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng.  Hist., 
5th  series,  c.  36. 

The  full  text  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  will  be 
found  in  the  following  named  works :  C.  Weiss, 
Hist,  of  French  Protestant  Uefugees,  v.  2,  app. — 
A.  Maury,  Memoirs  of  a  Huguenot  Family  (J. 
Fontaine),  app. 

A.  D.  1599-1610. — Invasion  of  Savoy. — Ac- 
quisition of  the  Department  of  Aisne. — Ten 
years  of  peace  and  prosperity. —  The  great 
works  of  Henry  IV. — His  foreign  policy. — His 
assassination. — "One  tiling  only  the  peace  of 
Vervins  left  unsettled.  In  the  preceding  troubles 
a  small  Italian  appanage,  the  Marquisate  of 
Saluces,  had  been  seized  by  Charles  Emmanuel, 
Duke  of  Savoy,  and  remained  still  in  his  posses- 
sion. The  right  of  France  to  it  was  not  disputed, 
did  not  admit  indeed  of  dispute ;  but  the  Duke 
was  unwilling  to  part  witli  wliat  constituted  one 
of  the  keys  of  Italy.  He  came  to  Paris  in  De- 
cember 1599  to  negotiate  the  affair  in  person," 
but  employed  his  opportunity  to  intrigue  with 
certain  disaffected  nobles,  including  the  Duke  of 
Biron,  marshal  of  France  and  governor  of  Bur- 
gundy. "Wearied  with  delays,  whose  object 
was  transparent,  Henry  at  last  had  recourse  to 
arms.  Savoy  was  sjieedily  overrun  with  French 
troops,  and  its  chief  strongholds  taken.  Spain 
was  not  prepared  to  back  her  ally,  and  the  affair 
terminated  by  Henry's  accepting  in  lieu  of  the 
Marquisate  that  part  of  Savoy  which  now  con- 
stitutes the  Department  of  Aisne  in  France." 
Biron,  whom  the  King  tried  hard  to  save  by  re- 
peated warnings  which  were  not  heeded,  paid 
the  penaltj'  of  his  treasonable  schemes  at  last  by 
losing  his  head.  "The  ten  years  from  1600  to 
1610  were  years  of  tranquillity,  and  gave  to 
Henry  the  opportunity  lie  had  so  ardently  longed 
for  of  restoring  and  regenerating  France."  He 
applied  his  energies  and  his  active  mind  to  the 
reorganization  of  the  disordered  finances  of  the 
kingdom,  to  the  improvement  of  agriculture,  to 
the  multiplication  of  industries,  to  the  extending 
of  commerce.  He  gave  the  first  impulse  to  silk 
culture  and  silk  manufacture  in  France;  he 
founded  the  great  Gobelin  manufactory  of  tapes- 
try at  Paris ;  he  built  roads  and  bridges,  and  en- 
couraged canal  projects;  he  began  the  creation 
of  a  navy;  he  promoted  the  colonization  of 
Canada.  ' '  It  was,  however,  in  the  domain  of 
foreign  politics  that  Henry  exhibited  the  acute- 
ness  and  comprehensiveness  of  his  genius,  and 
his  marvellous  powers  of  contrivance,  combina- 
tion, execution.  .  .  .  The  great  political  project, 
to  the  maturing  of  which  Henry  IV.  devoted  his 
untiring  energies  for  the  last  j'ears  of  his  life, 
was  the  bringing  of  the  .  .  .  half  of  Europe 
into  close  political  alliance,  and  arming  it  against 
the  house  of  Austria,  and  striking  when  the  fit 
time  came,  such  a  blow  at  tlie  ambition  and  in- 
tolerance of  that  house  that  it  might  never  be 
able  to  recover.  After  innumerable  negotiations 
...  he  had  succeeded  in  forming  a  coalition  of 
twenty  separate  States,  embracing  England,  the 
United  Provinces,  Denmark,  Sweden,  Northern 
Germany,  Switzerland.  At  last  the  time  for 
action  came.  The  Duke  of  Cleves  died,  25th 
March  1609.     The  succession  was  disputed.     One 


of  the  claimants  of  the  Dukedom  was  supported 
by  the  Emperor,  another  by  the  Protestant 
Princes  of  Germany  [see  Germany:  A.  D.  1608- 
1618].  The  contest  about  a  small  German  Duchy 
presented  the  opjjortunity  for  bringing  into 
action  that  alliance  which  Henry  had  planned 
and  perfected.  In  the  great  military  movements 
that  were  projected  he  was  himself  to  take  the 
lead.  Four  French  armies,  numbering  100,000, 
were  to  be  launched  against  the  great  enemy  of 
European  liberty.  One  of  these  Henry  was  to 
command ;  even  our  young  Prince  of  Wales  was 
to  bring  6,000  English  with  him,  and  make  his 
first  essay  in  arms  under  the  French  King.  By 
the  end  of  April,  1610,  35,000  men  and  50  pieces 
of  cannon  had  assembled  at  Chalons.  The  20th 
May  was  fixed  as  the  day  on  which  Henry  was 
to  place  himself  at  its  head."  But  on  the  16th  of 
May  (1610)  he  was  struck  down  by  the  hand  of 
an  assassin  (Francois  Ravaillac),  and  the  whole 
combination  fell  to  pieces. — W.  Hanna,  T/ie 
Wars  of  the  Huguenots,  ch.  8. — "The  Emperor, 
the  King  of  Spain,  the  Queen  of  France,  the 
Duke  d'Epernon,  the  Jesuits,  were  all  in  turn 
suspected  of  having  instigated  the  crime,  because 
they  all  profited  by  it ;  but  the  assassin  declared 
that  he  had  no  accomplices.  .  .  .  He  believed 
that  the  King  was  at  heart  a  Huguenot,  and 
thought  that  in  ridding  France  of  this  monarch 
he  was  rendering  a  great  service  to  his  country." 
— A.  de  Bonncchose,  Hi.it.  of  France,  v.  1,  p.  450. 

Also  in  :  M.  W.  Freer,  The  Last  Decade  of  a 
Glorious  Reign. — Duke  of  Sully,  Memoirs,  v.  2-5. 
—Sir  N.  W.  Wraxall,  Hist,  of  France,  1574- 
1610,  V.  5,  ch.  7-8,  and  v.  6. 

A.  D.  1603-1608. — First  settlements  in  Aca- 
dia. See  Can.\d.\:  A.  D.  1603-1605;  and  1606- 
1608. 

A.  D.  1608-1616. — Champlain's  explorations 
and  settlements  in  the  Valley  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence. See  Canada:  A.  D.  1608-1611;  1611- 
1616;  1616-1628. 

A.  D.  1610. — Accession  of  King  Louis  XIII. 

A.  D.  1610-1619. — The  regency  of  Marie  de 
Medicis. — The  reign  of  favorites  and  the  riot 
of  factions. — Distractions  of  the  kingdom. — 
The  rise  of  Richelieu. — "After  the  death  of 
Henry  IV.  it  was  seen  how  much  the  power, 
credit,  manners,  and  spirit  of  a  nation  frequently 
depend  upon  a  single  man.  This  prince  had  by 
a  vigorous,  yet  gentle  administration,  kept  all 
orders  of  the  state  in  union,  lulled  all  factions  to 
sleep,  maintained  peace  between  the  two  religions, 
and  kept  his  people  in  plenty.  He  held  the  bal- 
ance of  Europe  in  his  hands  bj'  his  alliance,  his 
riches,  and  his  arms.  All  these  advantages  were 
lost  in  the  very  first  year  of  the  regency  of  his 
widow,  Mary  of  Medicis  [whom  Henry  had 
married  in  1600,  the  pope  granting  a  divorce 
from  his  first  wife,  Margaret  of  Valois].  .  .  . 
Mary  of  Jledicis  .  .  .  appointed  regent  [during 
the  minority  of  her  son,  Louis  XIII.],  though 
not  mistress  of  the  kingdom,  lavished  in  making 
of  creatures  all  that  Henry  the  Great  had  amassed 
to  render  his  nation  powerful.  The  army  he  had 
raised  to  carry  the  war  into  Germany  was  dis- 
banded, the  princes  he  had  taken  under  his  pro- 
tection were  abandoned.  Charles  Emanuel,  duke 
of  Savoy,  the  new  ally  of  Henry  IV.,  was  obliged 
to  ask  pardon  of  Philip  III.  of  Spain  for  having 
entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  French  king,  and 
sent  his  son  to  Madrid  to  implore  the  mercy  of 
the  Spanish  court,  and  to  humble  himself  as  a 


1248 


FRANCE,  1610-1619. 


Marie  de  Medicis 
and  her  favorites. 


FRANCE,  1610-1619. 


subject  in  his  father's  name.  The  princes  of 
Germany,  wliom  Henry  had  protected  with  an 
army  of  40,000  men,  now  found  themselves  al- 
most without  assistance.  The  state  lost  all  its 
credit  abroad,  and  was  distracted  at  home.  The 
princes  of  the  blood  and  the  great  nobles  filled 
France  with  factions,  as  in  the  times  of  Francis 
II.,  Charles  IX.  and  Henry  III.,  and  as  after- 
wards, during  the  minority  of  Lewis  XIV.  At 
length  [1614]  an  assembly  of  the  general  estates 
was  called  at  Paris,  the  last  that  was  held  in 
France  [prior  to  the  States  General  which  assem- 
bled on  the  eve  of  the  Revolution  of  1789].  .  .  . 
The  result  of  this  assembly  was  the  laying  open 
all  the  grievances  of  tlie  kingdom,  without  being 
able  to  redress  one.  France  remained  in  confu- 
sion, and  governed  by  one  Concini,  a  Florentine, 
who  rose  to  be  marechal  of  France  without  ever 
having  drawn  a  sword,  and  prime  minister  with- 
out knowing  anything  of  the  laws.  It  was  suf- 
ficient that  he  was  a  foreigner  for  the  princes  to 
be  displeased  with  him.  Mary  of  Medicis  was 
in  a  very  unhappy  situation,  for  she  could  not 
share  her  authority  with  the  prince  of  Conde, 
chief  of  the  nialecontents,  without  being  deprived 
of  it  altogether ;  nor  trust  it  in  the  hands  of  Con- 
cini, without  displeasing  the  whole  kingdom. 
Henry  prince  of  Condfe.  father  of  the  great 
Conde,  and  son  to  him  who  had  gained  the  battle 
of  Coutras  in  conjunction  with  Henry  IV.,  put 
himself  at  the  head  of  a  party,  and  took  up  arms. 
The  court  made  a  dissembled  peace  with  him, 
and  afterwards  clapt  him  up  in  the  Bastile.  This 
had  been  the  fate  of  his  father  and  grandfather, 
and  was  afterwards  that  of  his  son.  His  confine- 
ment encreased  the  number  of  the  malecontents. 
The  Guises,  who  had  formerly  been  implacable 
enemies  to  the  Conde  family,  now  joined  with 
them.  The  duke  of  Vendome,  son  to  Henry  IV. , 
the  duke  of  Nevers,  of  the  house  of  Gonzaga, 
the  marechal  de  Bouillon,  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
malecontents,  fortified  themselves  in  the  prov- 
inces, protesting  that  they  continued  true  to  their 
king,  and  made  war  only  against  the  prime  min- 
ister. Concini,  marechal  d'Ancre,  secure  of  the 
queen  regent's  protection,  braved  them  all.  He 
raised  7,000  men  at  his  own  expence,  to  support 
the  royal  authority.  .  .  .  A  young  man  of  whom 
he  had  not  the  least  apprehension,  and  who  was 
a  stranger  like  himself,  caused  his  ruin,  and  all 
the  misfortunes  of  JIary  of  Jledicis.  Charles 
Albert  of  Luines,  born  in  the  county  of  Avign- 
on, had,  with  his  two  brothers,  been  taken  into 
the  number  of  gentlemen  in  ordinary  to  the  king, 
and  the  companions  of  his  education.  He  had 
insinuated  himself  into  the  good  graces  and  con- 
fidence of  the  young  monarch,  by  his  dexterity 
in  bird-catching.  It  was  never  supposed  that 
these  childish  amusements  would  end  in  a  bloody 
revolution.  The  marechal  d'Ancre  had  given 
him  the  government  of  Amboise,  thinking  by 
that  to  make  him  his  creature ;  but  this  yoimg 
man  conceived  the  design  of  murdering  his  bene- 
factor, banishing  the  queen,  and  governing  him- 
self; all  which  he  accomplished  without  meeting 
with  any  obstacle.  He  soon  found  means  of 
persuading  the  king  that  he  was  capable  of 
reigning  alone,  though  he  was  not  then  quite  17 
years  old,  and  told  him  that  the  queen-mother 
and  Concini  kept  him  in  confinement.  The  young 
king,  to  whom  in  his  childhood  they  had  given 
the  name  of  Just,  consented  to  the  murder  of  his 
prime  minister ;  the  marquis  of  Vitri,  captain  of 

^^  1249 


the  king's  guards,  du  Hallier  his  brother,  Persan, 
and  others,  were  sent  to  dispatch  him,  who, 
finding  him  in  the  court  of  the  Louvre,  shot  him 
dead  with  their  pistols  [April  24,  1617]:  upon  this 
they  cried  out,  '  Vive  le  roi, '  as  if  they  had  gained 
a  battle,  and  Lewis  XIII.,  appearing  at  a  win- 
dow, cried  out,  'Now  I  am  king.'  The  queen- 
mother  had  her  guards  taken  from  her,  and  was 
confined  to  her  own  apartment,  and  afterwards 
banished  to  Blois.  The  place  of  marechal  of 
France,  held  by  Concini,  was  given  to  the  mar- 
quis of  Vitri,  his  murderer."  Concini's  wife, 
Eleanor  Galigai,  was  tried  on  a  charge  of  sorcery 
and  burned,  "and  the  king's  favourite,  Luines, 
had  the  confiscated  estates.  This  unfortunate 
Galigai  was  the  first  promoter  of  cardinal  Riche- 
lieu's fortune ;  while  he  was  yet  very  young,  and 
called  the  abbot  of  Chillou,  she  procured  him  the 
bishopric  of  Lugon,  and  at  length  got  him  made 
secretary  of  state  in  1616.  He  was  involved  in 
the  disgrace  of  his  protectors,  and  .  .  .  was 
now  banished  ...  to  a  little  priory  at  the  far- 
ther end  of  Anjou.  .  .  .  The  duke  of  Bperuon, 
who  had  caused  the  queen  to  be  declared  regent, 
went  to  the  castle  of  Blois  [February  22,  1619], 
whither  she  had  been  banished,  and  carried  her 
to  his  estate  in  Angoul6me,  like  a  sovereign  who 
rescues  his  ally.  This  was  manifestly  an  act  of 
high  treason ;  but  a  crime  that  was  approved 
by  the  whole  kingdom."  The  king  presently 
"sought  an  opportunity  of  reconciliation  with 
his  mother,  and  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the 
duke  of  Epernon,  as  between  prince  and  prince. 
.  .  .  But  the  treaty  of  reconciliation  was  hardly 
signed  when  it  was  broken  again ;  this  was  the 
true  spirit  of  the  times.  New  parties  took  up 
arms  in  favour  of  the  queen,  and  always  to 
oppose  the  duke  of  Luines,  as  before  it  had  been 
to  oppose  the  marechal  d'Ancre,  but  never  against 
the  king.  Every  favourite  at  that  time  drew 
after  him  a  civil  war.  Lewis  and  his  mother  in 
fact  made  war  upon  each  other.  Mary  was  in 
Anjou  at  the  head  of  a  small  army  against  her 
son ;  they  engaged  each  other  on  the  bridge  of 
Ce,  and  the  kingdom  was  on  the  point  of  ruin. 
This  confusion  made  the  fortune  of  the  famous 
Richelieu.  He  was  comptroller  of  the  queen- 
mother's  household,  and  had  supplanted  all  that 
princess's  confidants,  as  he  afterwards  did  all  the 
king's  ministers.  His  pliable  temper  and  bold 
disposition  must  necessarily  have  acquired  for 
him  the  first  rank  everywhere,  or  have  proved 
his  ruin.  He  brought  about  the  accommodation 
between  the  mother  and  son ;  and  a  nomination 
to  the  purple,  which  the  queen  asked  of  the  king 
for  him,  was  the  reward  of  his  services.  The 
duke  of  Epernon  was  the  first  to  lay  down  arms 
without  making  any  demands,  whilst  the  rest 
made  the  king  pay  them  for  having  taken  up 
arms  against  him.  The  queen-mother  and  the 
king  her  son  had  an  interview  at  Brisac,  where 
they  embraced  with  a  flood  of  tears,  only  to 
quarrel  again  more  violently  than  ever.  The 
weakness,  intrigues,  and  divisions  of  the  court 
spread  anarchy  through  the  kingdom.  All  the 
internal  defects  with  which  the  state  had  for  a 
long  time  been  attacked  were  now  encreased,  and 
those  which  Henry  IV.  had  removed  were  re- 
vived anew. " —  Voltaire,  Ancient  and  Modern 
History,  ch.  145  {works  tr.  by  Smollett,  v.  5). 

Also  in  :  CD.  Yonge,  Hist,  of  France  under 
the  Bourbons,  v.  1,  ch.  5-6. — A._Thierry,  Porma- 
tion  and  Progress  of  tlie  Tiers  Mat  in  France,  v. 


FRANCE,  1610-1619. 


Revolt  of  the 
Hitguenots. 


FRANCE,  1630-1633. 


1,   ch.   7.  —  S.    Menzies,   Royal   Favourites,   v.   1, 
ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1620-1622. — Renewed  jealousy  of  the 
Huguenots.— Their  formidable  organization 
and  its  political  pretensions. — Restoration  of 
Catholicism  in  Navarre  and  B^arn.— Their  in- 
corporation with  France. — The  Huguenot  re- 
volt.—Treaty  of  Montpellier. —  "The  Hugue- 
not question  had  become  a  very  serious  one,  and 
the  bigotry  of  some  of  the  Catholics  found  its 
opportuuit}'  in  the  insubordination  of  many  of 
the  Protestants.  The  Huguenots  had  undoubtedly 
many  minor  causes  for  discontent.  .  .  .  But  on 
the  whole  the  government  and  the  majority  of 
the  people  were  willing  to  carry  out  in  good  faith 
the  provisions  of  the  edict  of  Nantes.  The  Prot- 
estants, within  the  limits  there  laid  down,  could 
have  worshipped  after  their  own  conscience,  free 
from  persecution  and  subject  to  little  molesta- 
tion. It  was,  perhaps,  all  that  could  be  expected 
in  a  country  where  the  mass  of  the  population 
were  Catholic,  and  where  religious  fanaticism 
had  recently  supported  the  League  and  fostered 
the  wars  of  religion.  But  the  Protestant  party 
seem  to  have  desired  a  separate  political  power, 
which  almost  justifies  the  charge  made  against 
them,  that  they  sought  to  establish  a  state  within 
a  state,  or  even  to  form  a  separate  republic. 
Their  territorial  position  afforded  a  certain  fa- 
cility for  such  endeavors.  In  the  northern  prov- 
inces their  numbers  were  insignificant.  They 
were  found  chiefly  in  the  southwestern  provinces 
—  Poitou,  Saintonge,  Guienne,  Provence,  and 
Languedoc,  —  while  in  Beam  and  Navarre  they 
constituted  the  great  majority  of  the  population, 
and  they  held  for  their  protection  a  large  number 
of  strongly  fortified  cities.  .  .  .  Though  there  is 
nothing  to  show  that  a  plan  for  a  separate  repub- 
lic was  seriously  considered,  the  Huguenots  had 
adopted  an  organization  which  naturally  e.xcited 
the  jealousy  and  ill-will  of  the  general  govern- 
ment. They  had  long  maintained  a  system  of 
provincial  and  general  synods  for  the  regulation 
of  their  faith  and  discipline.  .  .  .  The  assembly 
which  met  at  Saumur  immediately  after  Henry's 
death,  had  carried  still  further  the  organization 
of  the  members  of  their  faith.  From  consistories 
composed  of  the  pastors  and  certain  of  the  laity, 
delegates  were  chosen  who  formed  local  consis- 
tories. These  again  chose  delegates  who  met  in 
provincial  synods,  and  from  them  delegates  were 
sent  to  the  national  synod,  or  general  assembly 
of  the  church.  Here  not  only  matters  of  faith, 
but  of  state,  were  regulated,  and  the  general  as- 
sembly finally  assumed  to  declare  war,  levy  taxes, 
choose  generals,  and  act  both  as  a  convocation 
and  a  parliament.  The  assembly  of  Saumur 
added  a  system  of  division  into  eight  great 
circles,  covering  the  territory  where  the  Protes- 
tants were  sufficiently  numerous  to  be  important. 
All  but  two  of  these  were  south  of  the  Loire. 
They  were  subsequently  organized  as  military 
departments,  each  under  the  command  of  some 
great  nobleman.  .  .  .  The  Huguenots  had  also 
shown  a  williugness  to  assist  those  who  were  in 
arms  against  the  state,  had  joined  Conde,  and 
contemplated  a  union  with  ]Mary  de  Medici  in 
the  brief  insurrection  of  1630.  A  question  had 
now  arisen  which  was  regarded  by  the  majority 
of  the  party  as  one  of  vital  importance.  The 
edict  of  Nantes,  which  granted  privileges  to  the 
Huguenots,  had  granted  also  to  the  Catholics  the 
right  to  the  public  profession  of  their  religion  in 


all  parts  of  France.  This  had  formerly  been  pro- 
hibited in  Navarre  and  Beam,  and  the  population 
of  those  provinces  had  become  very  largely  Prot- 
estant. The  Catholic  clergy  had  long  petitioned 
the  king  to  enforce  the  rights  which  they  claimed 
the  edict  gave  them  in  Beam,  and  to  compel  also 
a  restitution  of  some  portion  of  the  property,  for- 
merly held  by  their  church,  which  had  been 
taken  by  Jeanne  d'Albret,  and  the  revenues  of 
which  the  Huguenot  clergy  still  assumed  to  ap- 
propriate entirely  to  themselves.  On  July  35, 
1617,  Louis  flnally  issued  an  edict  directing  the 
free  exercise  of  the  Catholic  worship  in  Beam 
and  the  restitution  to  the  clergy  of  the  pi-operty 
that  had  been  taken  from  them.  The  edict  met 
with  bitter  opposition  in  Beam  and  from  all  the 
Huguenot  party.  The  Protestants  were  as  un- 
willing to  allow  the  rites  of  the  Catholic  Church 
in  a  province  which  they  controlled,  as  the  Catho- 
lics to  suffer  a  Huguenot  conventicle  within  the 
walls  of  Paris.  The  persecutions  which  the 
Huguenots  suffered  distressed  them  less  than  the 
toleration  which  they  were  obliged  to  grant.  .  .  . 
In  the  wars  of  religion  the  Huguenots  had  been 
controlled,  not  always  wisely  or  unselfishly,  by 
the  nobles  who  had  espoused  their  faith,  but 
these  were  slowly  drifting  back  to  Catholicism. 
.  .  .  The  Condes  were  already  Catholics.  Lesdi- 
guiferes  was  only  waiting  till  the  bribe  for  his 
conversion  should  be  sufficiently  glittering.  [He 
was  received  into  the  Church  and  was  made  Con- 
stable of  France  in  July,  1623.]  Bouillon's  re- 
ligion was  but  a  catch- weight  in  his  political  in- 
trigues. The  grandson  of  Coligni  was  soon  to 
receive  a  marshal's  baton  for  consenting  to  a 
jieace  which  was  disastrous  to  his  party.  Sully, 
Rohan,  Soubise,  and  La  Force  still  remained; 
but  La  Force's  zeal  moderated  when  he  also  was 
made  a  marshal,  and  one  hundred  years  later 
Rohans  and  the  descendants  of  Sully  wore  cardi- 
nal's hats.  The  party,  slowly  deserted  by  the 
great  nobles,  came  more  under  the  leadership  of 
the  clergy  .  .  .  and  under  their  guidance  the 
party  now  assumed  a  political  activity  which 
brought  on  the  siege  of  La  Rochelle  and  which 
made  possible  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of 
Nantes.  Beam  was  not  only  strongly  Protestant, 
but  it  claimed,  with  Navarre,  to  form  no  part  of 
France,  and  to  be  governed  only  by  its  own  laws. 
Its  States  met  and  declared  their  local  rights 
were  violated  by  the  king's  edict ;  the  Parliament 
of  Pau  refused  to  register  it,  and  it  was  not  en- 
forced in  the  province.  .  .  .  The  disturbances 
caused  by  Mary  de  Medici  had  delayed  any  steps 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  edict,  but  these 
troubles  were  ended  by  the  peace  of  Ponts-de-Ce 
in  1630.  ...  In  October,  1630,  Louis  led  his 
army  in  Beam,  removed  various  Huguenot  offi- 
cials, and  reestablished  the  Catholic  clergy.  .  .  . 
On  October  30th,  an  edict  was  issued  by  which 
Navarre  and  Beam  were  declared  to  be  united 
to  France,  and  a  parliament  was  established  for 
the  two  provinces  on  the  same  model  as  the 
other  parliaments  of  the  kingdom.  ...  A  gen- 
eral assembly  of  Protestants,  sympathizing  with 
their  brethren  of  these  provinces,  was  called  for 
November  36,  1630,  at  La  Rochelle.  The  king 
declared  those  guilty  of  high  treason  who  should 
join  in  that  meeting.  .  .  .  The  meeting  was  held 
in  defiance  of  the  prohibition,  and  it  was  there 
resolved  to  take  up  arms.  .  .  .  The  assembly  pro- 
ceeded in  all  respects  like  the  legislative  body  of 
a  separate  state.     The  king  prepared  for  the  war 


1250 


FRANCE,  1620-1623. 


Ascendancy 
of  Richelieu. 


FRANCE,  1624-1626. 


with  vigor.  .  .  .  He  now  led  his  forces  into 
southern  France,  and  after  some  minor  engage- 
ments he  laid  siege  to  Moutauban.  A  three 
months'  siege  resulted  disastrously;  the  cam- 
paign closed,  and  the  king  returned  to  Paris. 
The  encouragement  that  tlie  Huguenots  drew 
from  this  success  proved  very  brief.  The  king's 
armies  proceeded  again  into  the  south  of  France 
in  1622,  and  met  only  an  irregular  and  inefficient 
opposition.  .  .  .  Chatillon  and  La  Force  each 
made  a  separate  peace,  and  each  was  rewarded 
by  the  baton  of  marshal  from  the  king  and  by 
charges  of  treachery  from  his  associates.  .  .  . 
The  siege  of  Montpellier  led  to  the  peace  called 
by  that  name,  but  on  terms  that  were  unfavora- 
ble to  the  Huguenots.  They  abandoned  all  the 
fortified  cities  which  they  had  held  for  their  se- 
curity except  La  Rochelle  and  Montauban ;  no 
assemblies  could  meet  without  permission  of  the 
king,  except  the  local  synods  for  ecclesiastical 
matters  alone,  and  the  interests  of  Beam  and  Na- 
varre were  abandoned.  In  return  the  edict  of 
Nantes  was  again  confirmed,  and  their  religious 
privileges  left  undisturbed.  Rohan  accepted 
800,000  livres  for  his  expenses  and  governments, 
and  the  king  agreed  that  the  Fort  of  St.  Louis, 
which  had  been  built  to  overawe  the  turbulence 
of  La  Rochelle,  should  be  dismantled.  La  Ro- 
chelle, the  great  Huguenot  stronghold,  continued 
hostilities  for  .some  time  longer,  but  at  last  it 
made  terms.  The  party  was  fast  losing  its  power 
and  its  overthrow  could  be  easily  foretold.  La 
Rochelle  was  now  the  only  i)lace  capable  of  mak- 
ing a  formidable  resistance.  ...  In  the  mean- 
time the  career  of  Luines  reached  its  end. "  He 
had  taken  the  great  office  of  Constable  to  him- 
self, incurring  much  ridicule  thereby.  "The 
exposures  of  the  campaign  and  its  disasters  had 
worn  upon  liim ;  a  fever  attacked  him  at  the  little 
town  of  Monheur,  and  on  December  14,  1621,  he 
died." — J.  B.  Perkins,  Prance  vnder  Mazann, 
with  a  Beeiew  of  the  Administration  of  Richelieu, 
ch.  3  (».  1). 

Also  in  :  W.  S.  Bi'owning,  Hist,  of  the  Hugue- 
nots, di.  54-56. 

A.  D.  1621. — Claims  in  North  America  con- 
flicting with  England.  See  New  England: 
A.  D.  1631-1631. 

A.  D.  1624-1626.— Richelieu  in  power.— His 
combinations  against  the  Austro-Spanish  as- 
cendancy.— The  'Valtelline  War. — Huguenots 
again  in  revolt. — The  second  Treaty  of  Mont- 
i-^.-ier. — Treaty  of  Monzon  with  Spain. — "The 
Kiug  was  once  more  without  a  guide,  without  a 
favourite,  but  his  fate  was  upon  him.  A  few 
months  more  of  uncertain  drifting  and  he  will 
fall  into  the  liands  of  the  greatest  politician 
France  has  ever  seen.  Cardinal  Richelieu;  under 
his  hand  the  King  will  be  effaced,  his  cold  dispo- 
sition and  narrow  intelligence  will  accept  and  be 
convinced  by  the  grandeur  of  his  master's  views ; 
convinced,  he  will  obey,  and  we  shall  enter  on 
the  period  in  which  the  disruptive  forces  in 
France  will  be  coerced,  and  the  elements  of  free- 
dom and  constitutional  life  stamped  down ;  while 
patriotism,  and  a  firm  belief  in  the  destinies  of  the 
nation  will  be  fostered  and  grow  strong ;  France 
will  assert  her  high  place  in  Europe.  Richelieu, 
who  had  already  in  1632  received  the  Cardinal's 
hat,  entered  the  King's  Council  on  the  ^fth  of 
April,  1624.  ...  La  Vieuville,  under  whose 
patronage  he  had  been  brought  forward,  wel- 
comed him  into  the  Cabinet.  .  .  .  But  La  Vieu- 


ville was  not  fitted  by  nature  for  the  chief  place; 
he  was  rash,  violent,  unpopular  and  corrupt. 
He  soon  had  to  give  place  to  Richelieu,  hence- 
forth the  vii'tual  head  of  the  Council.  La 
Vieuville,  thus  supplanted,  had  been  the  first  to 
reverse  the  ruinous  Spanish  policy  of  the  Court; 
...  he  had  promised  help  to  the  Dutch,  to 
Mansfield,  to  the  Elector  Frederick;  in  a  word, 
his  policy  had  been  the  forecast  of  that  of  the 
Cardinal,  who  owed  his  rise  to  him,  and  now 
stepped  nimbi)'  over  his  head  into  his  place. 
England  had  declared  war  on  Spain:  France 
joined  England  in  renewing  the  old  offensive 
and  defensive  alliance  with  the  Dutch,  England 
promising  men  and  France  money.  .  .  .  The 
Austro-Spanish  power  had  greatly  increased  dur- 
ing these  years :  its  successes  had  enabled  it  to 
knit  together  all  the  provinces  which  owed 
it  allegiance.  The  Palatinate  and  the  Lower 
Rhine  secured  tlieir  connexion  with  the  Spanish 
Netherlands,  as  we  may  now  begin  to  call  them, 
and  threatened  the  very  existence  of  the  Dutch: 
the  Valtelline  forts  [commanding  the  valley  east 
of  Lake  Como,  from  which  one  pass  communicates 
with  the  Engadine  and  the  Grisons,  and  another 
with  the  Tyrol]  .  .  .  were  the  roadway  between 
the  Spanish  power  at  Jlilan  and  the  Austrians 
on  the  Danube  and  in  the  Tyrol.  Richelieu  now 
resolved  to  attack  this  threatening  combination 
at  both  critical  points.  In  the  North  he  did  not 
propose  to  interfere  in  arms :  there  others  should 
fight,  and  France  support  them  with  quiet  sub- 
sidies and  good  will.  He  pressed  matters  on 
with  the  English,  the  Dutch,  the  Nortli  German 
Princes;  he  negociated  with  Maximilian  of 
Bavaria  and  the  League,  hoping  to  keep  the 
South  German  Princes  clear  of  the  Imperial 
policy.  .  .  .  The  French  ambassador  at  Copen- 
hagen, well  supported  by  the  English  envoy, 
Sir  Robert  Anstruthcr,  at  this  time  organised  a 
Northern  Leasjue,  headed  by  C'hristian  IV.  of 
Denmark  [see  Gei»[.\ny:  A.  D.  1634-1636].  .  .  . 
The  Lutheran  Princes,  alarmed  at  the  threatening 
aspect  of  affairs,  were  beginning  to  think  that 
they  had  made  a  mistake  in  leaving  the  Palatin- 
ate to  be  conquered ;  and  turned  a  more  willing 
ear  to  tlie  French  and  English  proposals  for  this 
Northern  League.  ...  By  1625  the  Cardinal's 
plans  in  the  North  seemed  to  be  going  well :  the 
North-Saxon  Princes,  though  with  little  heart 
and  much  difference  of  opinion,  specially  in  the 
cities,  had  accepted  Christian  IV.  as  their  leader; 
and  the  progress  of  the  Spaniaj-ds  in  the  United 
Provinces  was  checked.  In  the  other  point  to 
which  Richelieu's  attention  was  directed,  matters 
had  gone  still  better.  [The  inhabitants  of  the 
Valtelline  were  mostly  Catholics  and  Italians. 
They  had  long  been  subject  to  the  Protestant 
Grisons  or  Graubuuden.  In  1630  they  had  risen 
in  revolt,  massacred  the  Protestants  of  the  valley, 
and  formed  an  independent  republic,  supported 
by  the  Spaniards  and  Austrians.  Spanish  and 
German  troops  occupied  the  four  strong  Valtel- 
line forts,  and  controlled  the  important  passes 
above  referred  to.  The  Grisons  resisted  and  se- 
cured the  support  of  Savoy,  Venice  and  finally 
France.  In  1623  an  agreement  had  been  reached, 
to  hand  over  the  Valtelline  forts  to  the  pope,  in 
deposit,  until  some  terms  could  be  settled.  But 
in  1625  this  agreement  had  not  been  carried  out, 
and  Richelieu  took  the  affair  in  hand.]  .  .  . 
Richelieu,  never  attacking  in  full  face  if  he  could 
carry  his  point  by  a  side-attack,  allied  himself 


1251 


> 


FRANCE,  1624-1636. 


Second  Huguenot 
Revolt. 


FRANCE,  1627-1638. 


with  Charles  Emmanuel,  Duke  of  Savoy,  and 
with  Venice ;  he  easily  persuaded  the  Savoyard 
to  threaten  Genoa,  the  port  by  which  Spain  could 
penetrate  into  Italy,  and  her  financial  mainstay. 
Meanwhile,  the  Marquis  of  Coeuvres  had  been 
sent  to  Switzerland,  and,  late  in  1634,  had  per- 
suaded the  Cantons  to  arm  for  the  recovery  of 
the  Valtelline ;  then,  heading  a  small  army  of 
Swiss  and  French,  he  had  marched  into  the 
Grisons,  The  upper  districts  held  by  the  Aus- 
trians  revolted :  the  three  Leagues  declared  their 
freedom,  the  Austrian  troops  hastily  withdrew. 
CcEuvres  at  once  secured  the  Tyrolese  passes,  and 
descending  from  the  Engadine  by  Poschiavo, 
entered  the  Valtelline:  in  a  few  weeks  the  Papal 
and  Spanish  troops  were  swept  out  of  the  whole 
valley,  abandoning  all  their  forts,  though  the 
French  general  had  no  siege-artillery  with  which 
to  reduce  them.  .  .  .  Early  in  1625,  the  Valtel- 
line being  secured  to  the  Grisons  and  French,  the 
aged  Lesdiguitsres  was  sent  forward  to  imdertake 
the  rest  of  the  plan,  the  reduction  of  Genoa.  But 
just  as  things  were  going  well  for  the  party  in 
Europe  opposed  to  Spain  and  Austria,  an 
unlucky  outbxirst  of  Huguenot  dissatisfaction 
marred  all :  Soubise  in  the  heart  of  winter  had 
seized  the  Isle  of  Re,  and  had  captured  in  Blavet 
harbour  on  the  Breton  coast  si.x  royal  ships;  he 
failed  however  to  take  the  castle  which  com- 
manded the  place,  and  was  himself  blockaded, 
escaping  only  with  heavy  loss.  Thence  he  seized 
the  Isle  of  Oleron :  in  May  the  Huguenots  were 
in  revolt  in  Upper  Languedoc,  Querci,  and  the 
Cevennes,  led  by  Rohan  on  land,  and  Soubise  by 
sea.  Their  rash  outbreak  [provoked  by  alleged 
breaches  of  the  treaty  of  Montpellier,  especially 
in  the  failure  of  the  king  to  demolish  Fort  Louis 
at  La  Rochelle]  came  opportunely  to  the  aid  of 
the  distressed  Austrian  power,  their  true  enemy. 
Although  very  many  of  the  Huguenots  stood 
aloof  and  refused  to  embarass  the  government, 
still  enough  revolted  to  cause  great  uneasiness. 
The  war  in  the  Ligurian  mountains  was  not 
pushed  on  with  vigour;  for  Richelieu  could  not 
now  think  of  carrying  out  the  large  plans  which, 
by  his  own  account,  he  had  already  formed,  for 
the  erection  of  an  independent  Italy.  ...  He 
was  for  the  present  content  to  menace  Genoa, 
without  a  serious  siege.  At  this  time  James  I. 
of  England  died,  and  the  marriage  of  the  young 
king  [Charles  I,]  with  Henriette  jMarie  was 
pushed  on.  In  llay  Buckingham  went  to  Paris 
to  carry  her  over  to  England ;  he  tried  in  vain  to 
persuade  Richelieu  to  couple  the  Palatinate  with 
the  Valtelline  question.  .  .  .  After  this  the  tide 
of  affairs  turned  sharply  against  the  Cardinal; 
while  Tilly  with  the  troops  of  the  Catholic 
League,  and  AVallenstein,  the  new  general  of  the 
Emperor,  who  begins  at  this  moment  his  brief 
and  marvellous  career,  easily  kept  in  check  the 
Danes  and  their  halfhearted  German  allies, 
Lesdiguieres  and  the  Duke  of  Savoy  were  forced 
by  the  Austrians  and  Spaniards  to  give  up  all 
thoughts  of  success  in  the  Genoese  country,  and 
the  French  were  even  threatened  in  Piedmont  and 
the  Valtelline.  But  the  old  Constable  of  France 
was  worthy  of  his  ancient  fame ;  he  drove  the 
Duke  of  Feria  out  of  Piedmont,  and  in  the  Val- 
telline the  Spaniards  only  succeeded  in  seciu'ing 
the  fortress  of  Riva.  Richelieu  felt  that  the  war 
was  more  than  France  could  bear,  harassed  as 
she  was  within  and  without.  ...  He  was  de- 
termined to  free  his  hands  in  Italy,  to  leave  the 


war  to  work  itself  out  in  Germany,  and  to  bring 
the  Huguenots  to  reason.  .  .  .  The  joint  fleets  of 
Soubise  and  of  La  Rochelle  had  driven  back  the 
king's  ships,  and  had  taken  Re  and  Oleron ;  but 
in  their  attempt  to  force  an  entrance  into  tiie 
harbour  of  La  Rochelle  they  were  defeated  by 
Montmorency,  who  now  commanded  the  royal 
fleet:  the  islands  were  retaken,  and  the  Hugue- 
nots sued  for  peace.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  bulk  of  them  did  not  agree  with  the 
Rochellois,  and  were  quiet  through  this  time. 
Early  in  1626  the  treaty  of  Montpellier  granted  a 
hollow  peace  on  tolerable  terms  to  the  reformed 
churches ;  and  soon  after  .  .  .  peace  was  signed 
with  Spain  at  Mohzon  in  May,  1626.  All  was 
done  so  silently  that  the  interested  parties.  Savoy, 
the  Venetians,  the  Grisons.  knew  nothing  of  it 
till  all  was  settled:  on  Buckingham  .  .  .  the 
news  fell  like  a  thunderclap.  .  .  .  The  Valtelline 
remained  under  the  Grisons,  with  guarantees 
for  Catholic  worship ;  France  and  Spain  would 
jointly  see  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  valleys 
were  fairly  treated :  the  Pope  was  entrusted  with 
the  duty  of  razing  the  fortresses:  Genoa  and 
Savoy  were  ordered  to  make  peace.  It  was  a 
treacherous  affair ;  and  Richelieu  comes  out  of  it 
but  ill.  We  are  bound,  however,  to  remember 
.  .  .  the  desperate  straits  into  which  the  Car- 
dinal had  come.  ...  He  did  but  fall  back  in 
order  to  make  that  wonderful  leap  forward  which 
changed  the  whole  face  of  European  politics." — 
G.  W.  Kitchin,  Hist,  of  Prance,  bk.  4,  ch.  3  and 
4  (v.  3-3). 

Also  ra:  F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  40-41. — J.  B.  Perkins,  France  under  Masarin 
[and  Richelieu'],  v.  1,  ch.  4-5. — G.  ]\Iasson,  Riche- 
lieu, ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1627-1628.— War  with  England,  and 
Huguenot  revolt. — Richelieu's  siege  and  cap- 
ture of  La  Rochelle. — His  great  example  of 
magnanimity  and  toleration. — The  end  of  po- 
litical Huguenotism.—"  Richelieu  now  found 
himself  dragged  into  a  war  against  his  will,  and 
that  with  the  very  power  with  which,  for  the 
furtherance  of  his  other  designs,  he  most  desired 
to  continue  at  peace.  James  I.  of  England  had 
been  as  unable  to  live  except  under  the  dominion 
of  a  favourite  as  Louis.  Charles  .  .  .  had  the 
same  unfortunate  weakness;  and  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham,  who  had  long  been  paramount  at 
the  court  of  the  father,  retained  the  same  mis- 
chievous influence  at  that  of  the  son.  ...  In 
passing  through  France  in  1623  he  [Buckingham] 
had  been  presented  to  the  queen  [Anne  of  Aus- 
tria], and  had  presumed  to  address  her  in  the 
language  of  love.  When  sent  to  Paris  to  con- 
duct the  young  Princess  Henrietta  Maria  to  Eng- 
land, he  had  repeated  this  con<luct.  .  .  .  There 
had  been  some  little  unpleasantness  between  the 
two  Courts  shortly  after  the  marriage  .  .  .  owing 
to  the  imprudence  of  Henrietta,"  who  paraded 
her  Popery  too  much  in  the  eyes  of  Protestant 
England ;  and  there  was  talk  of  a  renewed  treaty, 
which  Buckingham  sought  to  make  the  prcte-xt 
for  another  visit  to  Paris.  But  his  motives  were 
understood;  Louis  "refused  to  receive  him  as 
an  ambassador,  and  Buckingham,  full  of  dis- 
appointed rage,  instigated  the  Duke  de  Soubise, 
who  was  stillin  London,  to  rouse  the  Huguenots 
to  a  fresh  outbreak,  promising  to  send  an  Eng- 
lish fleet  to  Rochelle  to  assist  them.  Rochelle 
was  at  this  time  the  general  head-quarters  not 
only  of  the  Huguenots,  but  of  all  those  who,  on 


1252 


FRANCE,  1627-1628. 


Siege  of  Rochelle. 


FRANCE,  1630-1632. 


any  account,  were  discontented  with  the  Govern- 
ment. .  .  .  Soubise  .  .  .  embraced  the  duke's 
offer  with  eagerness ;  and  in  July,  1627,  without 
any  previous  declaration  of  war,  an  English  fleet, 
with  16,000  men  on  board,  suddenly  appeared  off 
Rochelle,  and  prepared  to  attack  the  Isle  of  Rhe. 
The  Rochellois  were  very  unwilling  to  co-operate 
with  it " ;  but  they  were  persuaded,  ' '  against  their 
judgment,  to  connect  themselves  with  what  each, 
individually,  felt  to  be  a  desperate  enterprise; 
and  Richelieu,  to  whom  the  prospect  thus  af- 
forded him  of  having  a  fair  pretence  for  crush- 
ing the  Huguenot  party  made  amends  for  the 
disappointment  of  being  wantonly  dragged  into 
a  war  with  England,  gladly  received  the  intel- 
ligence that  Rochelle  was  in  rebellion.  At  first 
the  Duke  d'Anjou  was  sent  down  to  command 
the  arm}',  Louis  being  detained  in  Paris  by  ill- 
ness; but  by  October  he  had  recovered,  his  fond- 
ness for  military  operations  revived,  and  he  has- 
tened to  the  scene  of  action,  accompanied  by 
Richelieu,  whose  early  education  had  been  of  a 
military  kind.  .  .  .  He  at  once  threw  across  re- 
inforcements into  the  Isle  of  Rhe,  where  M. 
Thoiras  was  holding  out  a  fort  known  as  St. 
Martin  with  great  resolution,  though  it  was  im- 
finished  and  incompletely  armed.  In  the  begin- 
ning of  November,  Buckingham  raised  the  siege, 
and  returned  home,  leaving  guns,  standards  and 
prisoners  behind  him ;  and  Richelieu,  anticipat- 
ing a  renewal  of  the  attack  the  next  year  .  .  . 
undertook  a  work  designed  at  once  to  baffle  for- 
eign enemies  and  to  place  the  city  at  his  mercy. 
Along  the  whole  front  of  the  port  he  began  to 
construct  a  vast  wall  .  .  .  having  only  one  small 
opening  in  the  centre  which  was  commanded  by 
small  batteries.  The  work  was  commenced  in 
November,  1627 ;  and,  in  spite  of  a  rather  severe 
winter,  was  carried  on  with  such  ceaseless  dili- 
gence, under  the  superintending  eye  of  the  car- 
dinal himself,  that  before  the  return  of  spring  a 
great  portion  of  it  was  completed.  .  .  .  When, 
in  May,  1628,  the  British  fleet,  under  Lord  Den- 
bigh, the  brother-in-law  of  Buckingham,  returned 
to  the  attack,  they  found  it  unassailable,  and  re- 
turned without  striking  a  blow." — C.  D.  Yonge, 
Hist,  of  France  under  the  Bourbons,  v.  1,  ch.  7. — 
"Richelieu  .  .  .  was  his  own  engineer,  general, 
admiral,  prime-minister.  AVhile  he  urged  on  the 
army  to  work  upon  the  dike,  he  organized  a 
French  navy,  and  in  due  time  brought  it  around 
to  that  coast  and  anchored  it  so  as  to  guard  the 
dike  and  be  guarded  by  it.  Yet,  daring  as  all 
this  work  was,  it  was  but  the  smallest  part  of  his 
work.  Richelieu  found  that  his  officers  were 
cheating  his  soldiers  in  their  pay  and  dishearten- 
ing them ;  in  face  of  the  enemy  he  had  to  reor- 
ganize the  army  and  to  create  a  new  military 
system.  .  .  .  He  found,  also,  as  he  afterward 
said,  that  he  had  to  conquer  not  only  the  Kings 
of  England  and  Spain,  b\it  also  the  King  of 
France.  At  the  most  critical  moment  of  the 
siege  Louis  deserted  him, —  went  back  to  Paris, 
—  allowed  courtiers  to  till  him  with  suspicions. 
Not  only  Richelieu's  place,  but  his  life,  was  in 
danger,  and  he  well  knew  it;  yet  he  never  left 
his  dike  and  siege-works,  but  wrought  on  steadily 
until  they  were  done;  and  then  the  King,  of  his 
own  will,  in  very  shame,  broke  away  from  his 
courtiers,  and  went  back  to  his  master.  And 
now  a  Royal  Herald  summoned  the  people  of  La 
Rochelle  to  surrender.  But  they  were  not  yet 
half  conquered.     Even  when  they  had  seen  two 


English  fleets,  sent  to  aid  them,  driven  back 
from  Richelieu's  dike,  they  still  held  out  man- 
fully. .  .  .  They  were  reduced  to  feed  on  their 
horses, —  then  on  bits  of  filthy  shell-fish, —  then 
on  stewed  leather.  They  died  in  multitudes. 
Guiton,  the  Mayor,  kept  a  dagger  on  the  city 
council-table  to  stab  any  man  who  should  speak 
of  surrender.  .  .  .  But  at  last  even  Guiton  had 
to  yield.  After  the  siege  had  lasted  more  than 
a  year,  after  5,000  were  found  remaining  out  of 
15,000,  after  a  motlier  had  been  seen  to  feed  her 
child  with  her  own  blood,  the  Cardinal's  policy 
became  too  strong  for  him.  The  people  yielded 
[October  27,  1628],  and  Richelieu  entered  the' 
city  as  master.  And  now  the  victorious  states- 
man showed  a  greatness  of  soul  to  which  all  the 
rest  of  his  life  was  as  nothing.  .  .  .  All  Europe 
.  .  .  looked  for  a  retribution  more  terrible  than 
any  in  history.  Riclielieu  allowed  nothing  of  the' 
sort.  He  destroyed  the  old  franchises  of  the  city, 
for  they  were  incompatible  with  that  royal  au- 
thority which  he  so  earnestly  strove  to  build. 
But  this  was  all.  He  took  no  vengeance, —  he 
allowed  the  Protestants  to  worship  as  before, — 
he  took  many  of  them  into  the  public  service, — 
and  to  Guiton  he  showed  marks  of  respect.  He 
stretched  forth  that  strong  arm  of  his  over  the 
city,  and  warded  off  all  harm.  .  .  .  For  his  len- 
iency Richelieu  received  the  titles  of  Pope  of  the 
Protestants  and  Patriarch  of  the  Atheists.  But 
he  had  gained  the  first  great  object  of  his  policy, 
and  he  would  not  abuse  it :  he  had  crushed  the 
political  power  of  the  Huguenots  forever." — 
A.  D.  White,  The  Statesmanship  of  Richelieu  (At- 
lantic Monthly,  May,  1862). — "Whatever  the 
benefit  to  France  of  this  great  feat,  the  locality 
was  permanently  ruined.  Two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  event  the  Poitevin  peasant  is- 
fanatic  and  superstitious  as  the  Bretons  them- 
selves. Catholic  Rochelle  is  still  to  be  seen,  with 
almost  one-third  less  inhabitants  to-day  than  it 
had  in  1627.  The  cardinal's  dyke  is  still  there, 
but  the  insects  have  seized  on  the  city.  A  plague 
of  white  ants,  imported  from  India,  have  fas- 
tened on  its  timbers." — R.  Heath,  TJw  Reforma- 
tion in  France,  ii.  1,  bk.  3,  ch.  12. 

Also  in  :  S.  R.  Gai-diner,  Hist,  of  England,  160S 
to  1642,  ch.  56,  59-60,  and  G5. 

A.  D.  1627-1631. — War  with  Spain,  Savoy 
and  the  Empire  over  the  succession  to  the 
duchy  of  Mantua.— Successes  of  Richelieu. 
SeelT.\LY:  A.  D.  1627-1631. 

A.  D.  1628. — New  France  placed  under  the 
Company  of  the  Hundred  Associates.  See 
Canada:  A.  D.  1616-1628. 

A.  D.  1628-1632. — Loss  and  recovery  of  New 
France.     See  Canada:  A.  D.  1C28-1635. 

A.  D.  1630-1632.— The  Day  of  Dupes,  and 
after. —  On  the  return  of  Richelieu  and  the  king 
from  their  Italian  expedition,  in  the  beginning 
of  August,  1630,  "both  the  monarch  and  his. 
minister  had  passed  in  safety  through  a  whole 
tract  infected  with  the  plague ;  but,  shortly  after 
their  arrival  at  Lyons,  Louis  XIII.  fell  ill,  and 
in  a  few  days  his  physicians  pronounced  his  case 
hopeless.  It  was  now  that  all  the  hatred  which 
his  power  had  caused  to  hide  its  head,  rose  up 
openly  against  Richelieu;  and  the  two  queens 
[Marie  de  Medicis,  the  queen-mother,  and  Anne 
of  Austria,  the  king's  wife],  united  only  in  their 
enmity  towards  the  minister,  never  quitted  the 
bedside  of  the  king  but  to  form  and  cement  the 
party  which  was  intended  to  work  the  cardinal'.'' 


1253 


FRANCE,  1630-1632. 


Tlie  Day  of  the 
Dupes. 


FRANCE,  1641-1642. 


destruction  as  soon  as  the  monarch  should  he  no 
more.  .  .  .  The  bold  and  the  rash  joined  the 
faction  of  the  queens;  and  the  prudent  waited 
with  wise  doubt  till  they  saw  the  result  they 
hoped  for.  Happy  was  it  for  those  who  did 
conceal  their  feelings ;  for  suddenly  the  internal 
abscess,  which  had  nearly  reduced  the  king  to 
the  tomb,  broke,  passed  away,  and  in  a  very  few 
days  he  appeared  perfectly  convalescent.  Riche- 
lieu might  now  have  triumphed  securely;  .  .  . 
but  he  acted  more  prudently.  He  remembered 
that  the  queen-mother,  the  great  mover  of  the 
cabal  against  him,  had  formerlj'  been  his  benefac- 
tress ;  and  though  probably  his  gratitude  was  of 
no  very  sensitive  nature,  yet  he  was  wise  enough 
to  affect  a  virtue  that  he  did  not  possess,  and  to 
suffer  the  offence  to  be  given  by  her.  ...  At 
Paris  [after  the  return  of  the  court]  .  .  .  the 
queen-mother  herself,  unable  to  restrain  any 
longer  the  violent  passions  that  struggled  in  her 
bosom,  seemed  resolved  to  keep  no  terms  with 
the  cardinal."  At  an  interview  with  him,  in  the 
king's  presence,  "the  queen  forgot  the  dignity 
of  her  station  and  the  softness  of  her  sex,  and, 
in  language  more  fit  for  the  markets  than  the 
court,  called  him  rogue,  and  traitor,  and  per- 
turber  of  the  public  peace ;  and,  turning  to  the 
king,  she  endeavoured  to  persuade  him  that 
Richelieu  wished  to  take  the  crown  from  his 
head,  in  order  to  place  it  on  that  of  the  count  de 
Soissons.  Had  Richelieu  been  as  sure  of  the 
king's  firmness  as  he  was  of  his  regard,  this 
would  have  been  exactly  the  conduct  which  he 
could  have  desired  the  queen  to  hold;  but  he 
knew  Louis  to  be  weak  and  timid,  and  easily 
ruled  by  those  who  took  a  tone  of  authority 
towards  him ;  and  when  at  length  he  retired  at 
the  command  of  the  monarch  ...  he  seems  to 
have  been  so  uncertain  how  the  whole  would 
end,  that  he  ordered  his  papers  and  most  valuable 
effects  to  be  secured,  and  preparations  to  be 
made  for  immediate  departure.  All  these  pro- 
ceedings had  been  watched  by  the  courtiers: 
Richelieu  had  been  seen  to  quit  the  queen's  cabi- 
net troubled  and  gloomy,  his  niece  in  tears ;  and, 
some  time  after,  the  king  himself  followed  in  a 
state  of  excessive  agitation,  and  .  .  .  left  Paris 
for  Versailles  without  seeing  his  minister.  The 
whole  court  thought  the  rule  of  Richelieu  at  an 
end,  and  the  saloons  of  the  Luxembourg  were 
crowded  with  eager  nobles  ready  to  worship  the 
rising  authority  of  the  queen-mother."  But  the 
king,  when  he  reached  Versailles,  sent  this  mes- 
sage to  his  minister:  "'Tell  the  cardinal  de 
Richelieu  that  he  has  a  good  master,  and  bid  him 
come  hither  to  me  without  delay.'  Richelieu 
felt  that  the  real  power  of  France  was  still  ia  his 
hands ;  and  setting  off  for  Versailles,  he  found 
Louis  full  of  expressions  of  regard  and  confi- 
dence. Rumours  every  moment  reached  Ver- 
sailles of  the  immense  concourse  that  was  flocking 
to  pay  court  to  the  queen-mother:  the  king 
found  himself  nearly  deserted,  and  all  that 
Richelieu  had  said  of  her  ambition  was  confirmed 
in  the  monarch's  mind ;  while  his  natural  good 
sense  told  him  that  a  minister  who  depended 
solely  upon  him,  and  who  under  him  exercised 
the  greatest  power  in  the  realm,  was  not  likely 
to  wish  his  fall.  ...  In  the  mean  time,  the 
news  of  these  .  .  .  events  spread  to  Paris:  the 
halls  of  the  Luxembourg,  which  the  daj'  before 
had  been  crowded  to  suffocation,  were  instantly 
deserted;   and  the   queen-mother  found  herself 


abandoned  by  all  those  fawning  sycophants 
whose  confidence  and  disappointment  procured 
for  the  day  of  St.  Martin,  1630,  the  title  in 
French  history  of  The  Day  of  Dupes." — G.  P. 
R.  James,  Eminent  Foreign  Statesmen,  v.  2,  pp. 
88-92.  — The  ultimate  outcome  of  The  Day  of 
Dupes  was  the  flight  of  Marie  de  Medicis,  who 
spent  the  remainder  of  her  life  in  the  Netherlands 
and  in  England;  the  trial  and  execution  of 
Marshal  de  ilarillac ;  the  imprisonment  or  exile 
and  disgrace  of  Bassompierre  and  other  nobles ; 
a  senseless  revolt,  headed  by  Gaston,  Duke  of 
Orleans,  the  king's  brother,  which  was  crushed 
in  one  battle  at  Castlenaudari,  September  1, 
1632,  and  which  brought  the  Duke  de  Montmo- 
rency to  the  block. — C.  D.  Yonge,  Hist,  of  France 
under  the  Bourbons,  v.  1,  ch.  7-8. 

Also  in  :  M.  W.  Freer,  Married  Life  of  Anne 
of  Austria,  V.  1,  ch.  4. — C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  qf 
Eiif/U.^h  Ilistnrij.  Cit/t  seric.i.  c.  20. 

A.  D.  1631. — First  Printed  Newspaper.  Ijie 
Pkin-tino  .\nd  Pkkss  :   A.  D.  1631. 

A.  D.  1631.— Treaty  and  negotiations  with 
Gustavus  Adolphus.  See  Geum.^nt  :  A.  D. 
1031  (January);   1631-1632;  and  1632-1634. 

A.  D.  1632-1641. — War  in  Lorraine. — Occu- 
pation and  possession  of  the  duchy.  See 
Lorraine:  A.  D.  1634-1663. 

A.  D.  1635-1638. — Campaigns  on  the  Flem- 
ish frontier. — Invasion  by  the  Spaniards. — 
Paris  in  Peril.  See  Netiierl.\nds:  A.  D.  1035- 
1638. 

A.  D.  1635-1639. — Active  participation  in  the 
Thirty  Years  War. — Treaties  with  the  Ger- 
mans, Swedes,  and  Dutch. — Campaigns  of 
Duke  Bernhard  in  Lorraine,  Alsace  and 
Franche-Comt^. — The  fruit  gathered  by  Riche- 
lieu.— Alsace  secured.  See  Germany:  A.  D. 
1634-1639. 

A.  D.  1635-1642. —  The  war  in  northern 
Italy.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1635-1659. 

A.  D.  1637-1642. — The  war  in  Spain. — Re- 
volt of  Catalonia. — Siege  and  capture  of  Per- 
pignan. — Conquest  of  Roussillon.  See  Spain: 
A.  D.  1637-1640,  and  1040-1642. 

A.  D.  1640-1645. — Campaigns  in  Germany. 
See  Germany:  A.  D.  1640-1645,  and  1643-1644. 

A.  D.  1641-1642. — The  conspiracies  of  Count 
de  Soissons  and  Cinq  Mars. — Extinction  of 
the  Principality  of  Sedan. — "There  were  re- 
volts in  various  quarters  to  resist  [the  yoke  of 
Richelieu],  but  they  were  quelled  with  uniform 
success.  Once,  and  once  only,  the  fate  of  the 
Cardinal  seemed  finally  sealed.  The  Count  de 
Soissons,  a  prince  of  the  blood,  headed  the  dis- 
contented gentry  in  open  war  in  1641,  and  estab- 
lished the  headquarters  of  revolt  in  the  town  of 
Sedan.  The  Empire  and  Spain  came  to  his  sup- 
port with  promises  and  money.  Twelve  thou- 
sand men  were  under  his  orders,  all  influenced 
with  rage  against  Richelieu,  and  determined  to 
deliver  the  king  from  his  degrading  tutelage. 
Richelieu  was  taken  unprepared ;  but  delay  would 
have  been  ruin.  He  sent  the  Marshal  Chatillon 
to  the  borders  of  Sedan,  to  watch  the  proceedings 
of  the  confederates,  and  requested  the  king  to 
summon  fresh  troops  and  go  down  to  the  scene 
of  war.  While  his  obedient  Majesty  was  busied 
in  the  commission,  Chatillon  advanced  too  far. 
Soissons  assaulted  him  near  the  banks  of  the 
Meuse,  at  a  place  called  Marfee,  and  gave  him  a 
total  and  irremediable  overthrow.  The  cavalry  on 
the  royalist  side  retreated  at  an  early  part  of  the 


1254 


FRANCE.  1641-1642. 


Conspiracy  of 
Cinq  Mars. 


FRANCE,  1643-1643, 


fight,  and  forced  their  way  through  the  infantrj'. 
not  without  strong  suspicions  of  collusion  with 
their  opponents.  Paris  itself  was  in  dismay. 
The  King  and  Cardinal  expected  to  hear  every 
hour  of  the  advance  of  the  rebels ;  but  no  step 
was  taken.  It  was  found,  when  the  hurry  of 
battle  was  over,  that  Soissons  was  among  the 
slain.  The  force  of  the  expedition  was  in  that 
one  man;  and  the  defeat  was  as  useful  to  the 
Cardinal  as  a  victory  would  have  been.  The 
malcontents  had  no  leaders  of  sufficient  rank  and 
authority  to  keep  the  inferiors  in  check ;  for  the 
scaffold  "had  thinned  the  ranks  of  the  great  hered- 
itary chiefs,  and  no  man  could  take  his  first 
open  move  against  the  Court  without  imminent 
risk  to  his  head.  Great  men,  indeed,  were  rising 
into  fame,  but  of  a  totally  different  character 
from  their  predecessors.  Their  minds  were  cast 
in  a  monarchical  mould  from  their  earliest  years. 
.  .  .  From  this  time  subserviency  to  the  king  be- 
■came  a  sign  of  noble  birth.  .  .  .  Richelieu  has 
the  boast,  if  boast  it  can  be  called,  of  having 
crushed  out  the  last  spark  of  popular  indepen- 
dence and  patrician  pride.  .  .  .  One  more  effort 
■was  made  [1642]  to  shake  off  the  trammels  of  the 
hated  Cardinal.  A  conspiracy  was  entered  into  to 
deliver  the  land  by  the  old  Roman  method  of 
putting  the  tyrant  to  death;  and  the  curious  part 
of  the  design  is,  that  it  was  formed  almost  in 
presence  of  the  king.  His  favourite  friend, 
young  Cinq  Mars,  son  of  the  Marshal  d'Effiat, 
his  brother  Gaston  of  Orleans,  and  his  kinsman 
the  Duke  de  Bouillon,  who  were  round  his  per- 
son at  all  hours  of  the  day,  were  the  chief  agents 
of  the  perilous  undertaking.  Others,  and  with 
them  de  Thou,  the  son  of  the  great  French  his- 
torian, entered  into  the  plan,  but  wished  the  as- 
sassination to  be  left  out.  They  would  arrest 
and  imprison  him;  but  this  was  evidently  not 
enough.  While  Richelieu  lived,  no  man  could 
be  safe,  though  the  Cardinal  were  in  the  deepest 
dungeon  of  the  Bastile.  Death,  however,  was 
busy  with  their  victim,  without  their  aid.  He 
■was  sinking  under  some  deep  but  partially-con- 
cealed illness  when  the  threads  of  the  plot  came 
into  his  skilful  hands.  He  made  the  last  use  of 
his  strength  and  intelligence  in  unravelling  [it] 
and  punishing  the  rebels,  as  he  called  them, 
against  the  king's  authority.  The  paltry  and 
perfidious  Gaston  was  as  usual  penitent  and  par- 
doned, but  on  Cinq  Mars  and  de  Thou  the  ven- 
geance of  the  law  and  the  Cardinal  had  its  full 
force.  The  triumphant  but  failing  minister  re- 
clined in  a  state  barge  upon  the  Rhone,  towing 
his  prisoners  behind  him  to  certain  death.  On 
their  arrival  at  Lyons  the  process  was  short  and 
fatal.  The  young  men  were  executed  together, 
and  the  account  of  their  behaviour  at  the  block 
is  one  of  the  most  affecting  narratives  in  the 
annals  of  France." — J.  White,  Hist,  of  France, 
eh.  13. —  The  Duke  de  Bouillon,  implicated  in 
both  these  conspiracies  —  that  of  the  Count  de 
Soissons  and  that  of  Cinq  Mars  —  saved  his  life 
on  the  latter  occasion  by  surrendering  to  the 
crown  the  sovereignty  of  Sedan,  which  belonged 
to  him,  and  which  had  been  the  headquarters  of 
the  Soissons  revolt.  This  small  independent 
principality  —  the  town  and  a  little  territory 
around  it  —  had  formerly  been  in  the  possession 
of  the  powerful  and  troublesome  family  of  La 
Marck,  the  last  heiress  of  whom  brought  it,  to- 
gether with  the  Duchy  of  Bouillon,  into  the 
family  of  La  Tour  d'Auvergne.     The  Prince  and 


Duke  who  lost  it  was  the  second  of  that  family 
who  bore  the  titles.  He  was  the  elder  brother 
of  the  great  soldier,  Turenne.  The  Principality 
of  Sedan  was  extinguished  from  that  time. — T. 
O.  Cockayne,  Life  of  I'urenne. 

Also  in:  W.  Robson,  Life  of  Richelieu,  ch. 
11-12.— M.  W.  Freer,  Married  Life  of  Anne  of 
Austria,  v.  2,  ch.  S. — Miss  Pardoe,  Life  of  Marie 
de  Medicis,  hk.  3,  ch.  13  {v.  3). 

A.  D.  1642-1643. — The  death  of  Richelieu 
and  of  Louis  XIIL— Regency  of  Anne  of  Aus- 
tria.— Cardinal  Mazarin  and  the  party  of  the 
Importants. — The  victory  at  Rocroi. — Cardinal 
Richelieu  died  on  the  4th  of  December,  1643. 
"  He  was  dead,  but  his  work  survived  him.  On 
the  very  evening  of  the  3d  of  December,  Louis 
XIIL  called  to  his  council  Cardinal  Mazarin 
[whom  Richelieu  had  commended  to  him].  .  .  . 
Scarcely  had  the  most  powerful  kings  yielded 
up  their  last  breath  -when  their  wishes  had  been 
at  once  forgotten :  Cardinal  Richelieu  still  gov- 
erned in  his  grave."  But  now,  after  two  and  a 
half  centuries,  "the  castle  of  Richelieu  is  well- 
nigh  destroyed;  his  family,  after  falling  into 
poverty,  is  extinct;  the  Palais-Cardinal  [his 
splendid  residence,  -which  he  built,  and  which  he 
gave  to  the  cro-wu]  has  assumed  the  name  of  the 
Palais-Royal ;  and  pure  monarchy,  the  aim  of  all 
his  efforts  and  the  -work  of  his  whole  life,  has 
been  swept  away  by  the  blast  of  revolution.  Of 
the  cardinal  there  remains  nothing  but  the  great 
memory  of  his  power  and  of  the  services  he  ren- 
dered his  country.  .  .  .  Richelieu  had  no  con- 
ception of  that  noblest  ambition  on  which  a 
human  soul  can  feed,  that  of  governing  a  free 
country,  but  he  -^'as  one  of  the  greatest,  the  most 
effective,  and  the  boldest,  as  well  as  the  most 
prudent  servants  that  Prance  ever  had."  Louis 
XIIL  survived  his  great  minister  less  than  half 
a  year,  dying  May  14,  1643.  He  had  never  had 
confidence  in  Anne  of  Austria,  his  wife,  and  had 
provided,  by  a  declaration  which  she  had  signed 
and  sworn  to,  for  a  council  (which  included  Maz- 
arin) to  control  the  queen's  regency  during  the 
minority  of  their  son,  Louis  XIV.  But  the  queen 
contrived  very  soon  to  break  from  this  obligation, 
and  she  made  Cardinal  Mazarin  her  one  counsel- 
lor and  supreme  minister.  ' '  Continuing  to  humor 
all  parties,  and  displaying  foresight  and  prudence, 
the  new  minister  was  even  now  master.  Louis 
XIIL,  -without  any  personal  liking,  had  been 
faithful  to  Richelieu  to  the  death.  With  differ- 
ent feelings,  Anne  of  Austria  was  to  testify  the 
same  constancy  towards  Mazarin.  A  stroke  of 
fortune  came  at  the  very  first  to  strengthen  the 
regent's  position.  Since  the  death  of  Cardinal 
Richelieu,  the  Spaniards,  but  recently  over- 
whelmed at  the  close  of  1643,  had  recovered 
courage  and  boldness ;  new  counsels  prevailed  at 
the  court  of  Philip  IV.,  who  had  dismissed  Oli- 
varez ;  the  House  of  Austria  vigorously  resumed 
the  offensive;  at  the  moment  of  Louis  XIIL '3 
death,  Don  Francisco  de  Mello,  governor  of  the 
Low  Countries,  had  just  invaded  French  tem- 
tory  by  way  of  the  Ardennes,  and  laid  siege  to 
Rocroi.  on  the  13th  of  May  [1643].  The  French 
army  was  commanded  by  the  young  Duke  of 
Enghien  [afterwards  known  as  the  Great  Conde], 
the  prince  of  Conde's  son,  scarcely  33  years  old ; 
Louis  XIIL  had  given  him  as  his  lieutenant  and 
director  the  veteran  Marshal  de  I'Hopital ;  and 
the  latter  feared  to  give  battle.  The  Duke  of 
Enghien,   w^ho   'was  dying  with  impatience  to 


1255 


FRANCE,  1643-1643. 


Ministry  of 
Mazarin. 


FRANCE,  1642-1643. 


enter  the  enemy's  country,  resolved  to  accom- 
plish by  address  what  he  could  not  carry  by 
authority.  He  opened  his  heart  to  Gassion  alone. 
As  he  [Gassion,  one  of  the  boldest  of  Conde's  offi- 
cers] was  a  man  who  saw  nothing  but  what  was 
easy  even  in  the  most  dangerous  deeds,  he  had 
very  soon  brought  matters  to  the  point  that  the 
prince  desired.  Marshal  de  I'Hopital  found  him- 
self imperceptibly  so  near  the  Spaniards  that  it 
was  impossible  for  liim  any  longer  to  hinder  an 
engagement. "...  The  army  was  in  front  of  Ro- 
croi,  and  out  of  the  dangerous  defile  which  led 
to  the  place,  without  any  idea  on  the  part  of  the 
marshal  and  the  army  that  Louis  XIII.  was  dead. 
The  Duke  of  Enghien,  who  had  received  the 
news,  had  kept  it  secret.  He  had  merely  said  in 
the  tone  of  a  master  '  that  he  meant  to  fight,  and 
would  answer  for  the  issue. ' "  The  battle,  which 
was  fought  May  19,  1643,  resulted  in  the  destruc- 
tion, almost  total,  of  the  Spanish  army.  Of  18,- 
000  men  who  formed  its  infantry,  nearly  9,000 
were  killed  and  7,000  were  made  prisoners.  The 
whole  of  the  Spanish  artillery  and  300  of  their 
standards  fell  Into  the  hands  of  the  victors,  who 
lost,  according  to  their  own  reports,  only  2,000 
men,  killed  and  wounded.  "  "The  prince  was  a 
born  captain,'  said  Cardinal  de  Retz.  And  all 
France  said  so  with  him  on  hearing  of  the  vic- 
tory of  Rocroi.  The  delight  was  all  the  keener 
in  the  queen's  circle,  because  the  house  of  Conde 
openly  supported  Cardinal  Mazarin,  bitterly  at- 
tacked as  he  was  by  the  Importants  [a  court  fac- 
tion or  party  so  called,  which  was  made  up 
of  '  those  meddlers  of  the  court  at  whose  head 
marched  the  Duke  of  Beaufort,  all  puffed  up 
with  the  confidence  lately  shown  to  him  by  her 
Majesty,'  and  all  expecting  to  count  importantly 
among  the  queen's  favorites],  who  accused  him 
of  reviving  the  tyranny  of  Richelieu.  .  .  .  And, 
indeed,  on  pretext  offered  by  a  feminine  quarrel 
[August,  1643]  between  the  young  Duchess  of 
Longueville,  daughter  of  the  prince  of  Conde, 
and  the  Duchess  of  Montbazon,  the  Duke  of 
Beaufort  and  some  of  his  friends  resolved  to 
assassinate  the  cardinal.  The  attempt  was  a 
failure,  but  the  Duke  of  Beaufort,  who  was 
arrested  on  the  2d  of  September,  was  taken  to 
the  castle  of  Vincennes.  Madame  de  Chevreuse, 
recently  returned  [after  being  exiled  by  Riche- 
lieu] to  court,  where  she  would  fain  have  ex- 
acted from  the  queen  the  reward  for  her  services 
and  her  past  sufferings,  was  sent  into  exile,  as 
well  as  the  Duke  of  Vendome.  Madame  d' 
Hautefort,  but  lately  summoned  by  Anne  of 
Austria  to  be  near  her,  was  soon  involved  in  the 
same  disgrace.  .  .  .  The  party  of  the  Impor- 
tants was  dead,  and  the  power  of  Cardinal  Ma- 
zarin seemed  to  be  firmly  established.  '  It  was 
not  the  thing  just  then  for  any  decent  man  to  be 
on  bad  terms  witli  the  court,'  says  Cardinal  de 
Retz." — F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  41-43. — "Cardinal  Richelieu  was  .  not  so 
much  a  minister,  in  the  precise  sense  of  the  word, 
as  a  person  invested  with  the  whole  power  of  the 
crown.  His  preponderating  influence  in  the 
council  suspended  the  exercise  of  the  hereditary 
power,  without  which  the  monarchy  must  cease 
to  exist ;  and  it  seems  as  if  that  may  have  taken 
place  in  order  that  the  social  progress,  violently 
arrested  since  the  last  reign,  might  resume  its 
course  at  the  instigation  of  a  kind  of  dictator, 
whose  spirit  was  free  from  the  influences  which 
the  interest  of  family  and  dynasty  exercises  over 


the  characters  of  kings.  By  a  strange  concurrence 
of  circumstances,  it  happened  that  the  weak 
prince,  whose  destiny  it  was  to  lend  his  name 
to  the  reign  of  the  great  minister,  had  in  his 
character,  his  instincts,  his  good  or  bad  qualities, 
all  that  could  supply  the  requirements  of  such  a 
post.  Louis  XIII.,  who  had  a  mind  without 
energy  but  not  without  intelligence,  could  not 
live  without  a  master ;  after  having  possessed  and 
lost  many,  he  took  and  kept  the  one,  who  he  found 
was  capable  of  conducting  France  to  the  point, 
which  he  himself  had  a  faint  glimpse  of,  and  to 
which  he  vaguely  aspired  in  his  melancholy  rev- 
eries. ...  In  his  attempts  at  innovation,  Riche- 
lieu, as  simple  minister,  much  surpassed  the 
great  king  who  had  preceded  him,  in  boldness. 
He  undertook  to  accelerate  the  movement  to- 
wards civil  unity  and  equality  so  much,  and  to 
carry  it  so  far,  that  hereafter  it  should  be  impos- 
sible to  recede.  .  .  .  The  work  of  Louis  XI. 
had  been  nearly  lost  in  the  depth  of  the  troubles 
of  the  sixteenth  century;  and  that  of  Heury 
IV.  was  compromised  by  fifteen  years  of  dis- 
order and  weakness.  To  save  it  from  perish- 
ing, three  things  were  necessary :  that  the  high 
nobility  should  be  constrained  to  obedience  to 
the  king  and  to  the  law ;  that  Protestantism 
should  cease  to  be  an  armed  party  in  the  State ; 
that  F'rance  should  be  able  to  choose  her  allies 
freely  in  behalf  of  her  own  interest  and  in  that  of 
European  independence.  On  this  triple  object 
the  king-minister  employed  his  powerful  intel- 
lect, his  indefatigable  activity,  ardent  passions, 
and  an  heroic  strength  of  mind.  His  daily  life 
was  a  desperate  struggle  against  the  nobles,  the 
royal  family,  the  supreme  courts,  against  all 
that  existed  of  high  institutions,  and  corporations 
established  in  the  country.  For  the  purpose  of 
reducing  all  to  the  same  level  of  submission  and 
order,  he  raised  the  royal  power  above  the  ties 
of  family  and  the  tie  of  precedent ;  he  isolated  it 
in  its  sphere  as  a  pure  idea,  the  living  idea  of 
the  public  safety  and  the  national  interest.  .  .  . 
He  was  as  destitute  of  mercy  as  he  was  of  fear, 
and  trampled  under  foot  the  respect  due  to  judi- 
cial forms  and  usages.  He  had  sentences  of 
death  pronounced  by  commissioners  of  his  own 
selection :  at  the  very  foot  of  the  throne  he  struck 
the  enemies  of  the  public  interest,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  his  own  fortune,  and  confounded  his  per- 
sonal hatreds  with  the  vengeance  of  the  State. 
No  one  can  say  whether  or  not  there  was  deceit 
in  that  assurance  of  conscience  which  he  mani- 
fested in  his  last  moments ;  God  alone  could  look 
into  the  depth  of  his  mind.  We  who  have  gath- 
ered the  fruit  of  his  labours  and  of  his  patriotic 
devotion  at  a  distance  of  time  —  we  can  only  bow 
before  that  man  of  revohition,  by  whom  the  ways 
which  led  to  our  present  state  of  society  were 
prepared.  But  something  sad  is  still  attached 
to  his  glory:  he  sacrificed  everything  to  the  suc- 
cess of  his  undertaking ;  he  stifled  within  him- 
self and  crushed  down  in  some  noble  spirits  the 
eternal  principles  of  morality  and  humanity. 
When  we  look  at  the  great  things  which  he 
achieved,  we  admire  him  with  gratitude;  we 
would,  but  we  cannot,  love  his  character. "— r A. 
Thierry,  Formation  and  Progress  of  the  Tiers  Mat 
or  Third  Estate  in  France,  ch.  8. 

Axso  m :  V.  Cousin,  Secret  Hist,  of  the  French 
Court  under  Richelieu  and  Mazarin,  ch.  3-4. — 
The  same,  T?ie  Youth  of  Madame  de  Longueville. 
— Lord  Mahon,  Life  of  Louis,  Prince  of  Conde, 


1256 


FRANCE,  1643-1643. 


Court 
and  Parliament. 


FRANCE,  1647-1648. 


eh.  1. — Cardinal  de  Retz,  Memoirs,  bk.  1-2. — M'lle 
de  Montpensier,  Memoin,  ch.  3-3. 

A.  D.  1643. — Accession  of  Louis  XIV. 

A.  D.  1643. — Enghien's  (Condi's)  campaign 
on  the  Moselle. — Siege  and  capture  of  Thion- 
ville. —  "On  tlieSOtliof  May  .  .  .  Eughienmade 
his  triumphal  entry  into  Rocroy.  He  allowed 
his  troops  to  repose  for  two  days,  and  then  it  was 
towards  Guise  that  he  directed  his  steps.  He 
soon  heard  that  Don  Francisco  de  Melo  had  taken 
shelter  at  Phillipcville,  that  he  was  trying  to 
rally  his  cavalry,  but  that  of  all  his  infantry  not 
above  3,000  men  remained  to  him,  and  they  dis- 
armed and  nearly  naked.  No  army  any  longer 
protected  Flanders,  and  the  youthful  courage  of 
Enghien  already  meditated  its  conquest.  But 
the  Court,  which  had  expected  to  sustain  war  in 
its  own  provinces,  was  not  prepared  to  carry  it 
into  foreign  countries.  It  became  necessary  to 
give  up  all  idea  of  an  invasion  of  Maritime  Flan- 
ders and  the  siege  of  Dunkirk,  with  which  En- 
ghien had  at  first  flattered  himself.  Then  finding 
that  the  Spaniards  had  drawn  off  their  troops 
from  the  fortifications  on  the  Moselle,  Enghien 
proposed  to  march  thither,  and  take  possession 
of  them.  .  .  .  Although  this  project  was  very 
Inferior  to  his  first,  its  greatness  surprised  the 
Council  of  Ministers:  they  at  first  refused  their 
consent,  but  the  Duke  insisted  —  and  what  could 
tney  refuse  to  the  victor  of  Rocroy  ?  Thionville 
was  at  that  time  considered  to  be  one  of  the  best 
fortresses  in  Europe.  On  arriving  before  its 
walls,  after  a  seven  days'  march,  Enghien  .  .  . 
established  his  lines,  erected  bridges,  raised  re- 
doubts, and  opened  a  double  line  of  trenches  on 
the  3.5th  of  June.  The  French  were  several 
times  repulsed,  but  always  rallied;  and  every- 
where the  presence  of  Enghien  either  prevented 
or  repaired  the  disorder.  .  .  .  The  obstinate  re- 
sistance of  the  garrison  obliged  the  French  to 
have  recourse  to  mines,  which,  by  assiduous 
labor,  they  pushed  forward  under  the  interior  of 
the  town.  Then  Enghien,  wishing  to  spare 
bloodshed,  sent  a  flag  of  truce  to  the  governor, 
and  allowed  him  a  safe  conduct  to  visit  the  state 
of  the  works.  This  visit  convinced  the  Spaniards 
of  the  impossibility  of  defending  themselves  any 
longer.  .  .  .  They  evacuated  the  town  on  the 
33d  of  August.  Thionville  was  then  little  more 
than  a  heap  of  ruins  and  ashes.  .  .  .  By  this 
conquest  Enghien  soon  became  master  of  the 
whole  course  of  the  Moselle  down  to  the  gates  of 
Treves.  Sierch  alone  ventured  to  resist  him,  but 
was  reduced  in  34  hours.  Then,  disposing  his 
army  in  autumn  quarters,  he  set  off  for  Paris." 
— Lord  Mahon,  Life  of  Louis,  Prince  of  Conde, 
ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1644-1646. — Campaigns  in  Catalonia. 
— The  failures  at  Lerida.  See  Spain:  A.  D. 
1644-1646. 

A.  D.  1645-1648. — Campaigns  in  Flanders. — 
Capture  of  Dunkirk. — Loss  of  the  Dutch  alli- 
ance.— Condi's  victory  at  Lens.  See  Neth- 
erlands: A.  D.  1634-1646;  1646-1648;  1647- 
1648. 

A.  D.  1646-1648. — The  last  campaigns  of 
the  Thirty  Years  War. — Turenne  and  the 
Swedes  in  Germany.  See  Germany:  A.  D. 
1646-1648. 

A.  D.  1646-1654. — Hostility  to  the  Pope. — 
Siege  of  Orbitello. — Attempts  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  insurrection  in  Naples.  See  Italy: 
A.  D.  1646-1654. 


A.  D.  1647-1648. — Conflict  between  Court 
and  Parliament. — The  question  of  the  Pau- 
lette. — Events  leading  to  the  First  Fronde. — 

"  The  war  was  couducted  with  alternate  success 
and  failure,  but  with  an  unintermitted  waste  of 
the  public  revenue;  and  while  Guebriant,  Tu- 
renne, and  Conde  were  maintaining  the  military 
renown  of  France,  D'Einer}-,  the  superintendent 
of  finance,  was  struggling  with  the  far  severer 
difficulty  of  raising  her  ways  and  means  to  the 
level  of  her  expenditure.  The  internal  history 
of  the  first  five  years  of  the  regency  is  thencefor- 
ward a  record  of  the  contest  between  the  court 
and  the  Parliament  of  Paris ;  between  the  court, 
promulgating  edicts  to  replenish  the  exhausted 
treasury,  and  the  Parliament,  remonstrating  in 
angry  addresses  against  the  acceptance  of  them. " 
Of  the  four  sovereign  courts  which  had  their  seat 
at  that  time  in  the  Palais  de  Justice  of  Paris,  and 
of  which  the  Parliament  was  the  most  consider- 
able —  the  other  tliree  being  the  Chamber  '  des 
Comptes,'  the  Cour  des  Aides,  and  the  Grand 
Conseil  —  the  counselors  or  stipendiary  judges 
held  their  ofiices  for  life.  "  But,  in  virtue  of  the 
law  called  Paulette  [named  from  Paulet,  its 
originator,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  IV.]  .  .  .  they 
also  held  them  as  an  inheritance  transmissible  to 
their  descendants.  The  Paulette  .  .  .  was  a  royal 
ordinance  which  imposed  an  annual  tax  on  the 
stipend  of  every  judge.  It  was  usually  passed 
for  a  term  of  nine  years  only.  If  the  judge  died 
during  that  term,  his  heir  was  entitled  to  suc- 
ceed to  the  vacant  office.  But  if  the  death  of  the 
judge  happened  when  the  Paulette  was  not  in 
force,  his  heir  had  no  such  right.  Consequently, 
the  renewal  of  the  tax  was  always  welcome  to 
the  stipendiary  counselors  of  the  sovereign  courts ; 
and,  by  refusing  or  delaying  to  renew  it,  the  king 
could  always  exercise  a  powerful  influence  over 
them.  In  April,  1647,  the  Paulette  had  expired, 
and  the  queen-mother  proposed  the  revival  of  it. 
But,  to  relieve  the  necessities  of  the  treasury,  she 
also  proposed  to  increase  the  annual  per  centage 
which  it  imposed  on  the  stipends  of  the  coun- 
selors of  the  Chamber  '  des  Comptes, '  of  the 
Cour  des  Aides,  and  of  the  Grand  Conseil.  To 
concert  measures  of  resistance  to  the  contem- 
plated innovation,  those  counselors  held  a  meet- 
ing in  the  Great  Hall  of  St.  Louis ;  and  at  their 
request  the  Parliament,  though  not  personally 
and  directly  interested  in  the  change,  joined  their 
assembly."  The  queen  sarcastically  replied  to 
their  remonstrances  that  the  "king  would  not 
only  witlidraw  his  proposal  for  an  increase  in  the 
rate  of  the  annual  tax  on  their  stipends,  but 
would  even  graciously  relieve  them  from  that 
burden  altogether.  .  .  .  Exasperated  by  the 
threatened  loss  of  the  heritable  tenure  of  their 
offices,  and  still  more  offended  by  the  sarcastic 
terms  in  which  that  menace  was  conveyed,  the 
judges  assembled  in  the  hall  of  St.  Louis  with 
increased  zeal,  and  harangued  there  with  yet 
more  indignant  eloquence.  Four  diiierent  times 
the  queen  interdicted  their  meetings,  and  four 
different  times  they  answered  her  by  renewed 
resolutions  for  the  continuance  of  them.  She 
threatened  severe  punishments,  and  they  replied 
by  remonstrances.  A  direct  collision  of  authority 
had  thus  occurred,  and  it  behooved  either  party 
to  look  well  to  their  steps. "  The  queen  began 
to  adopt  a  conciliatory  manner.  "But  the  as- 
sociated magistrates  derived  new  boldness  from 
the  lowered  tone  and  apparent  fears  of  the  gov- 


1257 


FRANCE,  1647-1648. 


TJte  First  Fronde. 


FRANCE,  1649. 


eminent.  Soaring  at  once  above  the  humble 
topic  on  which  they  had  hitherto  been  engaged 
into  the  region  of  general  politics,  they  passed 
at  a  step  from  the  question  of  the  Paulette  to  a 
review  of  all  the  public  grievances  under  which 
their  fellow  subjects  were  labouring.  After 
having  wrought  during  four  successive  days  in 
this  inexhaustible  mine  of  eloquence,  they  at 
length,  on  the  30th  of  June,  1648,  commenced 
theadoptlon  of  a  series  of  resolutions,  which,  by 
the  24th  of  July,  had  amounted  in  number  to  27, 
and  whicli  may  be  said  to  have  laid  the  basis  of 
a  constitutional  revolution.  .  .  .  Important  as 
these  resolutions  were  in  themselves,  they  were 
still  more  important  as  the  assertion,  by  the  as- 
sociated magistrates,  of  the  right  to  originate 
laws  affecting  all  the  general  interests  of  the 
commonwealth.  In  fact,  a  new  power  in  the 
state  had  suddenly  sprung  into  existence.  .  .  . 
That  was  an  age  in  which  the  minds  of  men,  in 
every  part  of  Europe,  had  been  rudely  awakened 
to  the  extent  to  which  the  unconstitutional  en- 
croachments of  popular  bodies  might  be  carried. 
Charles  I.  was  at  that  time  a  prisoner  in  the 
hands  of  the  English  Parliament.  Louis  XIV. 
was  a  boy,  unripe  for  an  encounter  with  any 
similar  antagonists.  .  .  .  Tlie  queen-mother, 
therefore,  resolved  to  spare  no  concessions  by 
■which  the  disaffected  magistracy  might  be  con- 
ciliated. D'Etnery  was  sacrificed  to  their  dis- 
pleasure; the  renewal  of  the  Paulette  on  its 
ancient  terms  was  offered  to  them ;  some  of  the 
grievances  of  which  they  complained  were  im- 
mediately redressed;  and  the  young  king  ap- 
peared before  them  in  person,  to  promise  his 
assent  to  their  other  demands.  In  return,  he 
stipulated  only  for  the  cessation  of  their  com- 
bined meetings,  and  for  their  desisting  from  the 
further  promulgation  of  arrets,  to  which  they 
ascribed  the  force  and  authority  of  law.  But 
the  authors  of  this  hasty  revolution  were  no 
longer  masters  of  the  spirits  whom  they  had 
summoned  to  their  aid.  .  .  .  With  increasing 
audacity,  therefore,  they  persevered  in  defy- 
ing the  royal  power,  and  In  requiring  from  all 
Frenchmen  Implicit  submission  to  their  own. 
Advancing  from  one  step  to  another,  they  adopt- 
ed, on  the  28th  of  August,  1648,  an  arret  in 
direct  conflict  with  a  recent  proclamation  of  the 
king,  and  ordered  the  prosecution  of  three  per- 
sons for  the  offense  of  presuming  to  lend  him 
money.  At  that  moment  their  debates  were  in- 
terrupted by  shouts  and  discharges  of  cannon, 
aimouncing  the  great  victory  of  Conde  at  Lens. 
During  the  four  following  days  religious  festivals 
and  public  rejoicings  suspended  their  sittings. 
But  in  those  four  days,  the  court  had  arranged 
their  measures  for  a  coup  d'etat.  As  the  Parlia- 
ment retired  from  Notre  Dame,  where  they  had 
attended  at  a  solemn  thanksgiving  for  the  triumph 
of  the  arms  of  France,  they  observed  that  the 
soldiery  still  stood  to  the  posts  which,  in  honour 
of  that  ceremonial,  had  been  assigned  to  them  in 
different  quarters  of  the  city.  Under  the  protec- 
tion of  tliat  force,  one  of  the  presidents  of  the 
Chamber  'des  Bnqufites,'  and  De  Broussel,  the 
chief  of  the  parliamentary  agitators,  were  arrested 
and  consigned  to  different  prisons,  while  three  of 
their  colleagues  were  exiled  to  remote  distances 
from  the  capital.  At  the  tidings  of  this  violence, 
the  Parisian  populace  were  seized  with  a  charac- 
teristic paroxysm  of  fury.  ...  In  less  than  three 
hours,  Paris  had  become  an  entrenched  camp. 


.  .  .  They  dictated  their  own  terms.  The  exiles 
were  recalled  and  the  prisoners  released.  .  .  . 
Then,  at  the  bidding  of  the  Parliament,  the  peo- 
ple laid  aside  their  weapons,  threw  down  the 
barricades,  re-opened  their  shops,  and  resumed 
the  common  business  of  life  as  quietly  as  if  noth- 
ing had  occurred.  ...  It  was,  however,  a  short- 
lived triumph.  The  queen,  her  son,  and  Mazarin 
effected  their  escape  to  St.  Germains ;  and  there, 
by  the  mediation  of  Conde  and  of  Gaston,  duke 
of  Orleans,  the  uncle  of  the  king,  a  peace  was 
negotiated.  The  treaty  of  St.  Germains  was  re- 
garded by  the  court  with  shame,  and  by  the 
Parliament  with  exultation."  Fresh  quarrels 
over  it  soon  arose.  "Conde  was  a  great  soldier, 
but  aa  unskillful  and  impatient  peacemaker.  By 
his  advice  and  aid,  the  queen-motlier  and  the 
king  once  more  retired  to  St.  Germains,  and  com- 
manded the  immediate  adjournment  of  tlie  Par- 
liament from  Paris  to  Montargis.  To  their  re- 
monstrances against  that  order  they  could  obtain 
no  answer,  except  that  if  their  obedience  to  it 
should  be  any  longer  deferred,  an  army  of  25,000 
men  would  immediately  lay  siege  to  the  city. 
War  was  thus  declared." — Sir  J.  Stephen,  Lect's 
on  tlie  Hist,  of  France,  lect.  21. 

Also  in:  Cardinal  De  Retz,  Memoirs,  bk.  2 
(».  1). 

A.  D.  1648.— The  Peace  of  Westphalia.— 
Acquisition  of  Alsace,  etc.  See  Germany  : 
A.  I).  1648  ;  and  1648-1715. 

A.  D.  1649. — The  First  Fronde. — Doubtful 
origin  of  the  name. — Siege  of  Paris  by  Cond6. 
— Dishonorable  conduct  of  Turenne. — Deserted 
by  his  array. — The  Peace  of  Reuil. — "The 
very  name  of  this  movement  is  obscure,  and  it  is 
onl3'  certain  that  it  was  adopted  in  jest,  from  a 
child's  game.  It  was  fitting  that  the  struggle 
which  became  only  a  mischievous  burlesque  on 
a  revolution  should  be  named  from  the  sport  of 
gamins  and  school-boys.  Fronde  is  the  name  of 
a  sling,  and  the  boys  of  the  street  used  this 
weapon  in  their  mimic  contests.  How  it  came 
to  be  applied  to  the  opponents  of  the  government 
is  uncertain.  Some  claimed  it  was  because  the 
members  of  the  Parliament,  like  the  young  fron- 
deurs,  hurled  their  weapons  at  Mazarin,  but 
were  ready  to  fly  when  the  officers  of  the  police 
appeared.  Others  said  the  tenn  had  been  used 
by  chance  by  some  counsellor,  and  had  been 
adopted  by  the  writers  of  epigrams  and  mazari- 
nades.  However  derived,  it  was  not  ill  applied." 
— J.  B.  Perkins,  Frane^  Under  Mazarin,  ch.  9  (p.I). 
— "Paul  de  Gondi,  Coadjutor  of  Paris  [Coadju- 
tor, that  is,  of  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  who 
was  his  uncle],  famous  afterwards  under  the 
name  of  Cardinal  de  Retz,  placed  himself  at  the 
head  of  the  revolution.  .  .  .  The  Prince  of  Conti, 
brother  of  Conde,  the  Duke  of  Longueville,  the 
Duke  of  Beaufort,  and  the  Duke  of  Bouillon 
adopted  the  party  of  the  coadjutor  and  the  par- 
liament. Generals  were  chosen  for  an  army  with 
wliich  to  resist  the  court.  Although  taxes  levied 
by  Mazarin  had  been  resisted,  taxes  were  freely 
paid  to  raise  troops  — 12,000  men  were  raised; 
Conde  [commanding  for  the  queen]  had  8,000 
soldiers.  These  he  threw  around  Paris,  and  in- 
vested 100,000  burgesses,  and  threatened  to  starve 
tlie  town.  The  citizens,  adorned  with  feathers 
and  ribbons,  made  sorties  occasionally,  but  their 
manoeuvres  were  the  subject  of  scorn  by  the  sol- 
diers. ...  As  Voltaire  says,  the  tone  of  the  civil 
discords  which  afflicted  England  at  the  same  time 


1258 


FRANCE,  1649. 


The  Frondeurs. 


FRANCE,  1650-1651. 


mark  well  the  difference  between  the  national 
characters.  The  English  had  thrown  into  their 
civil  war  a  balanced  fury  and  a  mournful  deter- 
mination. .  .  .  The  French  on  the  other  hand 
threw  themselves  into  their  civil  strife  with  ca- 
price, laughter,  dissolution  and  debauchery. 
Women  were  the  leaders  of  factions  —  love  made 
and  broke  cabals.  The  Duchess  of  Longueville 
urged  Turenne,  only  a  short  time  back  appointed 
Marshal  of  France,  to  encourage  his  army  to  re- 
volt, which  he  was  commanding  for  his  king. 
Nothing  can  justify  Turenne's  action  in  this  mat- 
ter. Had  he  laid  down  his  command  and  taken 
the  side  of  his  brother  [the  Duke  de  Bouillon], 
on  account  of  his  family  grievance  [the  loss  of 
the  principality  of  Sedan  —  see  above,  A.  D. 
1641-1642],  the  feudal  spirit  which  in  those  days 
held  affection  for  family  higher  than  affection  for 
country,  might  have  excused  him ;  but,  while  in 
the  service  of  a  sovereign  and  intrusted  with  the 
command  of  an  army,  to  endeavour  to  lead  his 
troops  over  to  the  enemy  can  be  regarded  as 
nothing  short  of  the  work  of  a  traitor.  He  him- 
self pleads  as  his  apology  that  Conde  was  starv- 
ing the  population  of  Paris  by  the  investment. 
.  .  As  it  was  he  sacrificed  his  honour,  and  al- 
lowed his  fair  fame  to  be  tarnished  for  the  sake 
of  a  worthless  woman  who  secretly  jeered  at  his 
passion,  and  cared  nothing  for  his  heart,  but 
merely  for  his  sword  for  her  own  worldly  advan- 
tage. As  it  was  he  endeavoured  to  persuade  his 
army  to  declare  for  the  parliament,  and  purposed 
taking  it  into  Champagne,  and  marching  for  the 
relief  of  the  capital ;  but  the  treachery  of  the 
marshal  was  no  match  for  the  subtlety  of  the 
cardinal.  Before  Turenne  issued  his  declaration 
to  his  troops  the  colonels  of  his  regiment  had 
already  been  tampered  with.  The  cardinal's 
emissaries  had  promised  them  pensions,  and  dis- 
tributed £800,000  among  the  officers  and  soldiers. 
This  was  a  decisive  argument  for  mercenaries, 
who  taught  Turenne  by  forsaking  him  that  mer- 
cenary services  can  only  be  commanded  by 
money.  D'Erlach  had  also  stood  firm.  The 
regiments  of  Turenne,  six  German  regiments, 
called  by  d'Erlach,  marched  one  night  to  join 
him  at  Brisach.  Three  regiments  of  infantry 
threw  themselves  under  the  guns  of  Philipsburg. 
Only  a  small  force  was  left  to  Turenne,  who, 
finding  the  blow  he  intended  hopeless,  sent  the 
troops  still  with  him  to  join  d'Erlach  at  Brisach, 
and  retired  himself  with  fifteen  or  twenty  of  his 
friends  to  Heilbron,  thence  to  Holland,  where  he 
awaited  the  termination  of  the  civil  war.  The 
news  of  the  abandonment  of  Turenne  was  re- 
ceived with  despair  at  Paris,  with  wild  joy  at  St. 
Qermain.  His  banishment,  however,  was  not 
long.  The  leaders  of  the  parliament  became 
aware  that  the  princes  of  the  Fronde  were  trying 
to  obtain  foreign  assistance  to  overturn  the  mon- 
archy; that  their  generals  were  negotiating  a 
treaty  with  Spain.  They  felt  that  order,  peace, 
and  the  independence  of  parliament,  which  would 
in  this  case  become  dependent  upon  the  nobility, 
was  in  danger.  They  took  the  patriotic  resolu- 
tion quickly  to  act  of  their  own  accord.  A  con- 
ference had  been  opened  between  the  parliament 
and  the  Court.  Peace  was  concluded  at  Reuil, 
which,  notwithstanding  the  remonstrances  of 
Conti  [brother  of  Conde,  the  family  being  di- 
vided in  the  First  Fronde],  Bouillon,  and  the  other 
nobles  of  the  Fronde,  was  accepted  by  the  whole 
parliament.     Peace  was  proclaimed  in  Paris  to 


the  discontent  of  the  populace.  .  .  .  Turenne,  on 
the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  Reuil,  embarked 
in  Zeeland,  landed  at  Dieppe,  and  posted  to 
Paris." — H.  M.  Hozier,  Turenne,  eh.  6. — "After 
the  signing  of  the  peace,  the  Chateau  of  St.  Ger- 
main became  the  resort  of  many  Frondeurs :  the 
Duchess  de  Longueville,  the  Prince  of  Conti,  and 
nearly  all  the  other  chiefs  of  the  party,  hastened 
to  pay  their  respects  to  the  Queen.  She  received 
everybody  without  bitterness,  some  even  with 
friendship ;  and  the  Minister  on  his  part  affected 
much  general  good-will.  .  .  .  One  of  the  first 
effects  of  the  peace  between  the  parties  was  a 
reconciliation  in  the  House  of  Conde.  The  Prin- 
cess Dowager  employed  herself  with  zeal  and 
success  in  reestablishing  harmony  between  her 
children.  Conde,  who  despised  his  brother  too 
much  to  hate  him,  readily  agreed  to  a  reconcilia- 
tion with  him.  As  to  his  sister,  he  had  always 
felt  for  her  great  affection  and  confidence,  and 
she  no  less  for  him :  these  sentiments  were  re- 
vived at  their  very  first  interview  at  Ruel,  and 
he  not  only  gave  her  back  his  friendship,  but  be- 
gan to  enter  into  her  views,  and  even  to  be  guided 
by  her  counsels.  The  Prince's  policy  was  to 
make  Royalty  powerful  and  respected,  but  not 
absolute.  He  said  publicly  that  he  had  done 
what  he  ought  in  upholding  Mazarin,  because  he 
had  promised  to  do  so;  but  for  the  future,  if 
things  took  a  different  line,  he  should  not  be 
bound  by  the  past.  ...  A  prey  to  a  thousand 
conflicting  feelings,  and  discontented  with  every- 
body, and  perhaps  with  himself,  he  took  the 
resolution  of  retiring  for  several  months  to  his 
government  in  Burgundy.  On  returning  from 
Dijon  in  the  month  of  August,  the  Prince  found 
the  Queen  and  the  Cardinal  at  Compi^gne,  and 
very  much  dejected.  .  .  .  He  .  .  .  pressed  her 
to  return  to  Paris  with  her  Minister,  answering 
for  Mazarin's  safety,  at  the  risk  of  his  own  head. 
.  .  .  Their  entry  into  Paris  took  place  a  few  days 
after." — Lord  Mahon,  Life  of  Louis,  PHnee  of 
Conde,  ch.  3-4. 

Also  in;  Guy  Joli,  Memoirs,  v.  1. — Cardinal 
De  Retz,  Memoirs,  bk.  2. — Miss  Pardoe,  Louis 
XIV..  eh.  9-11. 

A.  D.  1650-1651. — The  Nev7  Fronde,  or  the 
Petits  Maitres. — Its  alliance  with  Spain  and 
defeat  at  Rethel. — Revolt,  siege  and  reduction 
of  Bordeaux. — "Faction,  laid  asleep  for  one 
night,  woke  again  fresh  and  vigorous  next  morn- 
ing. There  was  a  Parliamentary  party,  a  De  Retz 
party,  and  a  Conde  party,  and  each  party  plotted 
and  schemed  unceasingly  to  discredit  the  others 
and  to  evoke  popular  feeling  against  all  except 
itself.  .  .  .  Neither  of  the  leaders,  each  pretend- 
ing fear  of  assassination,  ever  stirred  abroad  un- 
less in  the  company  of  400  or  500  gentlemen,  thus 
holding  the  city  in  hourly  peril  of  an  'emeute.' 
Conde's  arrogance  and  insolence  becoming  at  last 
totally  unbearable,  the  Court  proceeded  to  the 
bold  measure  of  arresting  him.  New  combina- 
tions; De  Retz  and  Orleans  coalesce  once  more; 
De  Retz  coquets  with  Mazarin  and  is  promised  a 
cardinal's  hat.  AVily  Mazarin  strongly  supports 
De  Retz's  nomination  in  public,  and  privately 
urges  every  member  of  the  council  to  vote  against 
it  and  to  beseech  the  Queen  to  refuse  the  dignity. 
It  was  refused ;  upon  which  De  Retz  turned  his 
energies  upon  a  general  union  of  parties  for  the 
purpose  of  effecting  the  release  of  Conde  and 
the  overthrow  of  the  minister. ' — De  Retz  and  the 
Fronde  (Temple  Bar,  v.  38,  pp.  535-536).— Conde, 


1259 


FRANCE,  1650-1651. 


The  Petits  Maitres. 


FRANCE,  1651-1653. 


bis  brother  Conti.  and  his  brother-in-law  Longue- 
ville,  were  arrested  and  conducted  to  Vincennes 
on  the  18th  of  January,  16.50.  "This  was  tlie 
second  crisis  of  the  sedition.  Tlie  old  Fronde 
had  expired;  its  leaders  had  sold  themselves 
to  the  Court;  but  in  its  place  sprang  up  the 
New  Fronde,  called  also,  from  the  affected  airs 
of  its  leaders,  the  Petits  Maitres.  The  beauti- 
ful Duchess  of  Longueville  was  the  soul  of  it, 
aided  by  her  admirer,  Marsillac,  afterwards  Duke 
de  la  Rochefoucauld,  and  by  the  Duke  of  Bouil- 
lon. On  the  arrest  of  her  husband  and  her 
brother,  the  duchess  had  fled  to  Holland,  and 
afterwards  to  Stenai ;  where  she  and  Bouillon's 
brotlier,  Turenue,who  styled  himself  the  'King's 
Lieutenant -General  for  the  liberation  of  the 
Princes, '  entered  into  negociations  with  the  Arch- 
duke Leopold.  Bouillon  himself  had  retired  into 
Guienne,  which  province  was  alienated  from  the 
Court  because  Mazarine  maintained  as  its  gover- 
nor the  detested  Epernon.  In  July  Bouillon  and 
his  allies  publicly  received  a  Spanish  envoy  at 
Bordeaux.  Conde's  wife  and  infant  sou  had  been 
received  in  that  city  with  enthusiasm.  But  on 
the  approach  of  Mazarine  with  the  royal  army, 
the  inhabitants  of  Guienne,  alarmed  for  their 
vintage,  now  approaching  maturity,  showed 
signs  of  submission ;  after  a  short  siege  Bordeaux 
surrendered,  on  condition  of  an  amnesty,  in 
which  Bouillon  and  La  Rochefoucauld  were  in- 
cluded ;  and  the  Princess  of  Conde  was  permitted 
to  retire  (October  1st  1650).  In  the  north,  the 
Frondeurs,  with  their  Spanish  allies,  seemed  at 
first  more  successful.  In  the  summer  Leopold 
had  entered  Champagne,  penetrated  to  Ferte 
Milon,  and  some  of  his  marauding  parties  had 
even  reached  Dammartin.  Turenne  tried  to 
persuade  the  Archduke  to  march  to  Vincennes 
and  liberate  the  princes ;  but  while  he  was  hesi- 
tating, Gaston  transferred  the  captives  to  Mar- 
coussis,  whence  they  were  soon  after  conveyed  to 
Havre.  Leopold  and  Turenne,  after  a  vain  at- 
tempt to  rouse  the  Parisians,  retreated  to  the 
Meuse  and  laid  siege  to  Mouzon.  The  Cardinal 
himself,  like  his  master  Riclielieu,  now  assumed 
the  character  of  a  general.  Uniting  with  his 
troops  in  the  north  the  army  of  Guienne,  he  took 
up  his  quarters  at  Rethel,  which  had  been  cap- 
tured by  Du  Plessis  Praslin.  Hence  he  ordered 
an  attack  to  be  made  on  the  Spaniards.  In  the 
battle  which  ensued,  these  were  entirely  defeated, 
many  of  their  principal  oflicers  were  captured, 
and  even  Turenne  himself  narrowly  escaped  the 
same  fate  (December  15th  1650).  'The  Cardinal's 
elation  was  unbounded.  It  was  a  great  thing  to 
have  defeated  Turenne,  and  though  the  victory 
was  Du  Plessis',  Mazarine  assumed  all  the  credit 
of  it.  His  head  began  to  turn.  He  forgot  that 
he  owed  his  success  to  the  leaders  of  the  old 
Fronde,  and  especially  to  the  Coadjutor;  he 
neglected  his  promises  to  that  intriguing  prelate, 
though  Gondi  plainly  declared  that  he  must 
either  be  a  prince  of  the  Church  or  the  head  of  a 
faction.  Mazarine  was  also  imprudent  enough  to 
offend  the  Parliament;  and  he  compared  them 
with  that  sitting  at  London  —  which  indeed  was 
doing  them  too  much  honour.  The  Coadjutor 
went  over  to  the  party  of  the  princes,  dragging 
with  him  the  feeble-minded  Orleans,  who  had 
himself  been  insulted  by  the  Queen.  Thus  was 
produced  a  third  phase  of  this  singular  sedition 
—  the  union  of  the  old  Fronde  with  the  new. 
The  Parliament  now  clamoured  for  the  liberation 


of  the  princes.  As  the  Queen  hesitated,  Gaston 
bluntly  declared  that  the  dismissal  of  Mazarine 
was  necessary  to  the  restoration  of  peace ;  while 
the  Parliament  added  to  their  former  demand 
another  for  the  Cardinal's  banishment.  Mazarine 
saw  his  mistake  and  endeavoured  to  rectify  it. 
He  hastened  to  Havre  in  order  to  liberate  the 
princes  in  person,  and  claim  the  merit  of  a  spon- 
taneous act.  But  it  was  too  late;  it  was  plain 
that  he  was  acting  only  by  constraint.  The 
princes  were  conducted  back  in  triumph  to  Paris 
by  a  large  retinue  sent  to  escort  them.  On  Febru- 
ary 25th  1651,  their  innocence  was  established  by 
a  royal  declaration,  and  they  were  restored  to  all 
their  dignities  and  charges.  Mazarine,  mean- 
while, who  saw  that  for  the  present  the  game  was 
lost,  retired  into  exile;  first  into  Bouillon,  and 
afterwards  to  Brilhl  on  the  Rhine,  where  the 
Elector  of  Cologne  offered  him  an  asylum.  From 
this  place  he  corresponded  with  the  Queen,  and 
continued  to  direct  her  counsels.  The  anarchy 
and  confusion  that  had  ensued  in  France  were 
such  as  promised  him  a  speedy  return. " — T.  H. 
Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  5,  ch.  1  (o.  3). 

Also  in  :  T.  Wright,  Hist,  of  France,  bk.  4,  ch. 
4  (c.  2). — Miss  Pardee,  Louis  XIV.  aiid  the  Court 
of  France,  v.  1,  ch.  13-15. 

A.  D.  1651-1652.— The  loss  of  Catalonia. 
See  Sp.\in  :  A.  D,  1648-1652. 

A.  D.  1651-1653. —  The  arrogance  of  Cond6 
and  his  renewal  of  civil  war. — The  King's 
majority  proclaimed. —  General  changing  of 
sides. — Battle  of  Porte  St.  Antoine  and  mas- 
sacre of  the  Hotel  de  ViUe. — End  of  the 
Fronde. —  Cond6  in  the  service  of  Spain. — 
"The  liberated  captives  were  received  with  every 
demonstration  of  joy  by  all  Paris  and  the  Fron- 
deurs, including  the  Duke  of  Orleans.  The 
Queen,  melancholy,  and  perhaps  really  ill,  lay  in 
bed  to  receive  their  visit  of  cold  ceremony ;  but 
the  Duke  of  Orleans  gave  them  a  grand  supper, 
and  there  was  universal  joy  at  being  rid  of 
Mazarin.  .  .  .  There  was  a  promise  to  assemble 
the  States  General,  while  Conde  thought  himself 
governing  the  kingdom,  and  as  usual  his  arro- 
gance gave  offence  in  various  quarters.  One 
article  in  the  compact  which  had  gained  his  lib- 
erty was  that  the  Prince  of  Conti  should  marry 
Mademoiselle  de  Chevreuse,  but  this  alliance  of- 
fended the  pride  of  the  elder  brother,  and  he 
broke  the  marriage  off  hastily  and  haughtily. 
Madame  de  Chevreuse,  much  offended,  repented 
of  the  aid  she  had  given,  went  over  to  the 
Queen's  party,  and  took  with  her  the  coadjutor, 
who  was  devoted  to  the  rejected  daughter,  and 
could  always  sway  the  mob  of  Paris.  So  many 
persons  had  thus  come  to  desert  the  cause  of  the 
Prince  that  Anne  of  Austria  thought  of  again 
arresting  him."  Conde,  supposing  himself  in 
danger,  fled  from  the  city  on  the  6th  of  July, 
and  "went  to  his  chateau  of  St.  Maur,  where  his 
family  and  friends  joined  him,  and  he  held  a  kind 
of  court.  Queen  and  Parliament  both  sent  en- 
treaties to  him  to  return,  but  he  disdained  them 
all,  and  made  the  condition  of  his  return  the  dis- 
missal of  the  secretaries  whom  Mazarin  had  left. 
The  Queen,  most  unwillingly,  made  them  retire, 
and  Conde  did  return  for  a  short  time ;  but  he 
was  haughtier  than  ever,  and  openly  complained 
of  Mazarin's  influence,  making  every  preparation 
for  a  civil  war.  Strangely  violent  scenes  took 
place,"  between  the  Prince  and  the  Coadjutor 
and  their  respective  adherents ;  and  presently  the 


1260 


FRANCE,  1651-1653. 


End  of  the 
Fronde. 


FRANCE,  1651-1653. 


Prince  "quitted  Paris,  went  to  Chantilly,  and 
decided  on  war.  Mazarin  wrote  to  tlie  Queen 
that  the  most  prudent  course  would  be  to  ally 
herself  with  the  Parliament  to  crush  the  Princes. 
After  they  should  have  been  put  down  the  Par- 
liament would  be  easily  dealt  with.  She  acted 
on  this  advice.  The  elections  for  the  States  Gen- 
eral were  beginning,  but  in  order  to  quash  them, 
and  cancel  all  her  promises,  the  Queen  decided 
on  proclaiming  the  majority  of  the  King,  and 
thus  the  close  of  her  own  regencj'.  It  was  of 
course  a  farce,  since  he  had  only  just  entered  his 
fourteenth  year,  and  his  mother  still  conducted 
the  Government ;  but  it  made  a  new  beginning, 
and  was  an  occasion  for  stirring  up  the  loyalty 
of  the  people.  .  .  .  Conde  was  unwilling  to  be- 
gin a  civil  war,  and  was  only  driven  into  it  by 
his  sister's  persuasions  and  those  of  his  friends. 
'  Remember,'  he  said,  '  if  I  once  draw  the  sword, 
I  shall  be  the  last  to  return  it  to  the  scabbard. ' 
On  the  other  side,  Anne  of  Austria  said,  '  Mon- 
sieur le  Prince  shall  perish,  or  I  will.'  From 
Montrond,  Conde  directed  his  forces  to  take  pos- 
session of  the  cities  in  Guyenne,  and  he  after- 
wards proceeded  to  Bordeaux.  On  the  other 
hand,  Mazarin  repaired  to  Sedan,  and  contrived 
to  raise  an  army  in  the  frontier  cities,  with  which 
he  marched  to  join  the  King  and  Queen  at 
Poitiers.  War  was  raging  again,  still  as  the 
Fronde,  though  there  had  been  a  general  change 
of  sides,  the  Parliament  being  now  for  the  Court, 
and  the  Princes  against  it,  the  Duke  of  Orleans 
in  a  state  of  selfish  agitation  between  the  two. 
Learning  that  the  royal  army  was  advancing  to 
his  own  appanage  of  Orleans,  and  fearing  that 
the  city  might  open  its  gates  to  them,  he  sent  off 
his  daughter.  Mademoiselle  [de  Montpensier],  to 
keep  the  citizens  to  what  he  called  their  duty  to 
himself.  She  went  with  only  two  ladies  and  her 
servants  .  .  .  and  found  the  gates  closed  against 
her."  The  persevering  Mademoiselle  succeeded, 
however,  in  gaining  admission  to  the  town,  de- 
spite the  orders  of  tlie  magistrates,  and  she  kept 
out  of  it  the  soldiers  of  both  factions  in  the  war. 
But  her  own  inclinations  were  strongly  towards 
Conde  and  his  side.  ' '  She  went  out  to  a  little  inn 
to  hold  a  council  with  the  Dukes  of  Beaufort  and 
Nemours,  and  had  to  mediate  between  them  in  a 
violent  quarrel.  .  .  .  Indeed,  Conde's  party  were 
ill-agreed ;  he  had  even  quarreled  with  his  sister, 
and  she  had  broken  with  De  la  Rochefoucauld  ! 
The  Duke  de  Bouillon  and  his  brother  Turenne 
were  now  on  the  Queen's  side,  and  the  command 
of  the  royal  army  was  conferred  on  the  Viscount. 
Conde,  with  only  eight  persons,  dashed  across 
France,  to  take  the  command  of  the  army  over 
which  Beaufort  and  Nemours  were  disputing. 
The  very  morning  after  he  arrived,  Turenne  saw- 
by  the  disposition  of  the  troops  who  must  be  op- 
posed to  him.  'M.  le  Prince  is  come,'  he  said. 
They  were  the  two  greatest  captains  of  the  age, 
and  they  fought  almost  in  sight  of  the  King  and 
Queen  at  Bleneau.  But  though  there  were  skir- 
mishes [including,  at  the  outset,  the  serious  defeat 
of  a  division  of  the  royal  forces  under  Hocquin- 
court],  no  decisive  engagement  took  place.  It 
was  a  struggle  of  manoeuvres,  and  in  this  Conde 
had  the  disadvantage.  .  .  .  Week  after  week 
the  two  armies  .  .  .  watched  one  another,  till  at 
last  Conde  was  driven  up  to  the  walls  of  Paris, 
and  there  the  gates  were  closed  against  both 
armies.  Conde  was  at  St.  Cloud,  whence,  on  the 
2nd  of  July  [1652],  he  endeavoured  to  lead  his 


army  round  to  Charenton  at  the  confluence  of  the 
Seine  and  the  Loire ;  but  when  he  came  in  front 
of  the  Porte  St.  Antoine,  he  found  that  a  battle 
was  inevitable  and  that  he  was  caught  in  a  trap, 
where,  unless  he  could  escape  through  the  city, 
his  destruction  was  inevitable.  He  barricaded 
the  three  streets  that  met  there,  heaping  up  his 
baggage  as  a  protection,  and  his  friends  within, 
many  of  them  wives  of  gentlemen  in  his  array, 
saw  the  situation  with  despair."  The  only  one 
who  had  energy  to  act  was  Mademoiselle.  She 
extorted  from  her  hesitating  father  an  order,  by 
virtue  of  which  she  persuaded  the  magistrates  of 
the  city,  not  only  to  open  the  gates  to  Conde,  but 
to  send  2,000  men  to  the  Faubourg  St.  Antoine. 
"Mademoiselle  now  repaired  to  the  top  of  the 
great  square  tower  of  the  Bastille,  whence  she 
could  see  the  terrible  conflict  carried  on  in  the 
three  suburban  streets  which  converged  at  the 
Porte  St.  Antoine."  Seeing  an  opportunity  to 
turn  the  cannon  of  the  Bastille  on  the  pursuing 
troops,  she  did  so  with  efl'ect.  "Turenne  was 
obliged  to  draw  back,  and  at  last  Conde  brought 
his  army  into  the  city,  where  they  encamped  in 
the  open  space  of  the  Pre  des  Clercs.  .  .  .  Conde 
unworthily  requited  the  hospitality  wrung  from 
the  city.  He  was  resolved  to  overcome  the 
neutrality  of  the  Parliament,  and,  in  concert  with 
Beaufort,  instigated  the  mob  to  violence.  Many 
soldiers  were  disguised  as  artizans,  and  mingled 
with  the  rabble,  when,  on  the  4th  of  July,  he 
went  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  ostensibly  to  thank 
the  magistrates,  but  really  to  demand  their  sup- 
port against  the  Crown,  "These  loyal  men,  how- 
ever, by  a  majority  of  votes,  decided  on  a  peti- 
tion to  the  King  to  return  without  Mazarin.  On 
this  Conde  exclaimed  publicly,  'These  gentle- 
men will  do  nothing  for  us.  They  are  Mazarin- 
ists.  Treat  them  as  you  please. '  Then  he  retired 
to  the  Luxembourg  with  Gaston,  while  Beaufort 
let  loose  the  mob.  The  Hotel  de  Ville  was 
stormed,  the  rabble  poured  in  at  doors  and  win- 
dows, while  the  disguised  soldiers  fired  from  the 
opposite  houses,  and  the  magistrates  were  threat- 
ened and  pursued  on  all  sides.  'They  had  one 
advantage,  tliat  they  knew  their  way  through  the 
intricate  passages  and  the  mob  did  not.  The 
first  who  got  out  rushed  to  the  Luxembourg  to 
entreat  the  Duke  and  Prince  to  stop  the  mas- 
sacre ;  but  Monsieur  only  whistled  and  beat  his 
tattoo,  and  Conde  said  he  knew  nothing  about 
sedition.  Nor  would  Beaufort  interfere  till  the 
disturbance  had  lasted  many  liours ;  but  after  all 
many  more  of  the  rabble  were  killed  than  of  the 
magistrates.  It  was  the  last  remarkable  scene  in 
the  strange  drama  of  the  Fronde.  The  Parlia- 
ment suspended  its  sittings,  and  the  King  trans- 
ferred it  to  Pontoise,  whither  Mole  and  all  the 
other  Presidents  proceeded,  leaving  Paris  in  dis- 
guise. This  last  ferocious  proceeding  of  Conde's, 
though  he  tried  to  disavow  it,  had  shocked  and 
alienated  every  one,  and  he  soon  after  fell  sick  of 
a  violent  fever.  Meanwhile,  his  castle  of  Mon- 
trond was  taken  after  a  year's  siege,  Nemours 
was  killed  in  a  duel  by  the  Duke  of  Beaufort, 
and  the  party  was  falling  to  pieces.  .  .  .  Mazarin 
saw  the  opportunity,  and  again  left  the  Court  for 
the  German  frontier.  This  was  all  that  was 
wanting  to  bring  back  the  malcontents.  Conde 
offered  to  make  terms,  but  was  haughtily  an- 
swered that  it  was  no  time  for  negotiation,  but 
for  submission.  Upon  this,  he  proceeded  to  the 
Low  Countries,  and  offered  his  sword   to  the 


1261 


FRANCE,  1651-1653. 


Conde^s  Treason. 


FRANCE,  1653-1656. 


Spaniards.  The  King  entered  Pari.s  in  state 
and  held  a  bed  of  justice,  in  which  he  pro- 
claimed an  amnesty,  excepting  from  it  Conde 
and  Conti,  and  some  others  of  their  party,  and 
forbidding  the  Parliament  to  interfere  in  State 
affairs.  The  Coadjutor,  who  had  become  a  Car- 
dinal, was  arrested,  and  imprisoned  until  he 
made  his  escape,  dislocating  his  shoulder  in  his 
fall  from  the  window,  but  finally  reaching  Rome, 
where  he  lived  till  the  Fronde  was  forgotten, 
but  never  becoming  Archbishop  of  Paris.  .  .  . 
When  all  was  quiet,  Mazarin  returned,  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1653,  without  the  slightest  opposition,  and 
thus  ended  the  Fronde,  in  the  entire  triumph  of 
the  Crown.  .  .  .  The  misery,  distress  and  disease 
caused  by  these  wars  of  the  Fronde  were  un- 
speakable. There  was  nothing  to  eat  in  the 
provinces  where  the}'  had  raged  but  roots,  rotten 
fruit,  and  bread  made  of  bran.  .  .  .  '  Le  misfire 
de  la  Fronde '  was  long  a  proverbial  expression 
in  France." — C.  M.  Yonge,  Oameosfrom  Enyliah 
History,  c.  15. 

Also  in  :  Lord  Mahon,  Life  of  Conde,  ch.  8-9. 
— G.  P.  R.  James,  Life  and  TimeJi  of  Lonii  XLV., 
ch.  11-12. — Cardinal  de  Retz,  Memoirs,  bk.  3-4 
(».  2-3). — M'lle  de  Montpensier,  Memoirs,  v.  1, 
ch.  11-17. 

A.  D.  1652. — Loss  of  Gravelines  and  Dun- 
kirk.— Spanish  invasion  of  Picardy. — "  In  the 
spring  of  1653,  the  Spanish  forces,  under  the 
command  of  the  archduke,  had  undertaken  the 
siege  of  Gravelines,  which  was  obliged  to  capitu- 
late on  the  18th  of  May.  The  archduke  next 
undertook  the  siege  of  Dunkirk,  but,  at  the 
earnest  desire  of  the  princes,  he  merely  blockaded 
the  place,  and  sent  Fuensaldana  with  about 
14,000  men  into  Picardy  to  their  assistance. 
.  .  .  The  court,  in  great  alarm,  sought  first 
a  retreat  in  Normandy,  but  the  Duke  of  Longue- 
ville.  who  still  held  the  government  of  that 
province,  refused  to  receive  Mazarin.  The  fears 
of  the  court  Avere  not  lessened  by  this  pro- 
ceeding, and  it  was  even  proposed  to  carry 
the  king  to  Lyons;  but  the  wiser  counsels  of 
Turenne  finally  prevailed,  and  it  was  resolved  to 
establish  the  army  at  Compifigne,  and  lodge  the 
court  at  Pontoise.  Fuensaldaiia  forced  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Oise  at  Chauni,  and  then  joined  the 
duke  of  Lorraine  at  Fismes,  on  the  29th  of  Jul)', 
when  their  joint  forces  amounted  to  full  30,000 
men,  while  Turenne  h.ad  not  more  than  9,000  to 
oppose  to  them.  But  the  Spaniards  were,  as 
usual,  only  pursuing  a  selfish  policy,  and  Fuen- 
saldana, in  pursuance  of  the  archduke's  orders, 
left  a  body  of  3,000  cavalry  to  reinforce  the  duke 
of  Lorraine,  and  returned  with  the  rest  of  his 
troops  to  assist  in  the  siege  of  Dunkirk,"  which 
soon  surrendered  to  his  arms.— T.  AVright,  Hist, 
of  Frii  n  ce,  v.  3,  ;;).  89. 

A.  D.  1652-1653.— Last  phase  of  the  Fronde 
at  Bordeaux. — Attempted  revolution  by  the 
Society  of  the  Orm6e.  See  Bordeaux  :  A.  D. 
1653-1C.53. 

A.  D.  1653-1656. — Condi's  campaigns  against 
his  owrn  country,  in  the  service  of  Spain. — 
"Conde,  unfortunately  for  his  fame,  made  no 
attempts  at  reconciliation,  and  retired  to  the 
Spaniards  —  an  enemy  of  his  country!  Recap- 
tured several  small  places  on  the  [Flemish]  fron- 
tier, and  hoped  to  return  in  spring  victorious.  A 
few  days  after  the  entry  into  Paris,  Turenne  set 
out  to  oppose  him;  and,  retaking  some  towns, 
bad  the  satisfaction  of  compelling  him  to  seek 


winter  quarters  beyond  the  limits  of  France. 
.  .  .  Conde  persuaded  the  Spanish  to  bring  30,- 
000  men  into  the  field  for  the  next  campaign: 
Turenne  and  La  Ferte  had  but  13,000.  To  para- 
lyze the  plans  of  the  enemy,  the  Viscount  pro- 
posed, and  his  proposal  was  allowed,  to  be  always 
threatening  their  rear  and  communications;  to 
occupy  posts  they  would  not  dare  to  attack,  and  so 
to  avoid  fighting,  at  the  same  time  hindering  them 
from  all  important  undertakings.  He  began  by 
throwing  himself  between  two  corps  of  their 
army,  at  the  point  where  they  expected  to  effect 
a  junction;  and  in  the  eight  or  nine  days  thus 
gained,  he  recovered  Rhetel,  without  which  it 
would  have  been,  as  he  declares  himself,  impos- 
sible to  defend  Picardy  and  Champagne.  Rhetel, 
so  much  an  object  of  anxiety,  was  taken  in  three 
days.  Baffled  in  their  original  purposes,  and  at  a 
loss,  the  Spanish  expected  a  large  convoy  from 
Cambray,  escorted  by  3,000  horse.  Turenne  got 
news  of  this,  and,  posting  himself  near  Peronne  to 
intercept  it,  drove  it  back  to  Cambray  [August  11, 
1653].  There  Condeand  Fuensaldaiia  turned  upon 
him ;  but  he  took  up  a  position,  which  they  watched 
for  three  or  fom"  days,  and  there  defied  their 
attack.  They  refused  the  challenge.  Thence 
the  enemy  drew  off,"  with  designs  on  Guise, 
which  Turenne  frustrated.  "Conde  then  laid 
siege  to  Rocroi,  where  his  own  first  glory  had 
been  gained;  and  this  place  is  so  hemmed  in 
by  woods  and  defiles,  that  the  relief  of  it  was 
impossible.  But  Turenne  compensated  for  the 
loss  of  it  by  the  equally  valuable  recapture  of 
Mouson.  Thus  the  whole  year  was  spent  in 
marches  and  countermarches,  in  gains  and  losses, 
which  had  no  influence  on  events.  By  this 
time  the  malcontents  were  so  prostrate  that 
Conde's  brother,  the  Prince  de  Conti,  and  his 
sister,  the  Duchesse  de  Longueville,  made  their 
peace  with  the  court.  .  .  .  The  year  1654  opened 
with  the  siege  of  Stenay  by  the  j'oung  king  in 
person,  who  was  carried  thither  by  ^Mazarin,  to 
overawe  Conde's  governor  with  the  royal  name 
and  majesty.  That  officer  was  more  true  to  his 
trust  than  to  his  allegiance,  and  Stenay  cost  a 
siege.  .  .  .  Conde  could  do  no  better  than  imitate 
Turenne 's  policy  of  the  previous  year,  and  be- 
siege Arras  as  an  equivalent  for  Stenay ;  to  which 
end  he  mustered  33,000  men.  Arras  was  a  town 
of  some  value.  Conde  had  caught  it  at  disad- 
vantage; the  governor.  Mondejeu  .  .  .  was  put 
on  his  defence  with  3,500  foot  and  100  horse.  To 
reinforce  this  slender  garrison  was  the  first  care  of 
Turenne.  .  .  .  Mazarin  was  anxious  for  Arras, 
and  offered  Turenne  to  break  up  the  siege  of 
Stenay,  for  the  sake  of  reinforcing  the  army  of 
relief.  This  proposal  the  Viscount  declined.  He 
must  have  been  very  confident  of  his  own  ca- 
pacity; for  he  could  collect  only  14,000  men  to 
hover  around  the  enemy's  camp.  ...  He  pro- 
posed no  attempt  upon  the  intrenchments  till  he 
had  the  aid  of  the  troops  from  Stenay  .  .  .  ;  but 
he  disposed  his  parties  around  so  as  to  prevent  the 
enemy's  convoys  from  reaching  them. "  Stenay 
surrendered  on  the  6th  of  August,  and  Turenne, 
with  reinforcements  from  its  besiegers,  attacked 
the  Spanish  lines  at  Arras  on  the  night  of  the 
34th,  with  complete  success.  The  Spaniards 
raised  the  siege  and  retreated  to  Cambray,  leav- 
ing 3,000  prisoners  and  63  pieces  of  cannon  in  the 
hands  of  the  French.  "The  capture  of  Quesnoy 
and  Binches  filled  up  the  rest  of  the  year ;  the 
places  were  weak  and  the  garrisons  feeble.     Nor 


1262 


FRANCE,  1653-1656. 


Alliance  with 
England, 


FRANCE,  1659-1661. 


did  the  next  season,  1655,  offer  anything  of 
interest.  Turenne  reduced  Landrecies,  Conde, 
and  Guislain,  while  his  active  opponent  was 
sometimes  foiled  by  his  precautions,  and  sometimes 
baffled  by  the  absurd  behaviour  of  the  Spanish 
authorities.  .  .  .  The  great  event  of  1656  was  the 
siege  of  Valenciennes.  This  place  .  .  .  was  in- 
vested by  Turenne  about  the  middle  of  June: 
but  hardly  had  his  camp  been  intrenched  before 
he  repented  of  his  undertaking.  The  Scheldt  flows 
through  the  town,  and  b}'  reservoirs  and  sluices 
was  flooded  at  the  will  of  the  enemy.  Turenne's 
camp  was  largely  inundated.  .  .  .  He  had  over- 
estimated his  means:  so  great  was  the  circle  of 
his  circumvallation  that  he  had  not  men  enough 
to  guard  it  adequately,  when  Conde  and  the 
Spanish  appeared  with  30,000  men  to  the  relief 
of  the  place."  They  broke  through  his  lines  and 
forced  liira  to  retreat,  with  a  heavy  loss  of  pris- 
oners taken.  "The  Viscount  retrieved  his  credit 
by  the  bold  stand  he  made  after  the  defeat." — 
T.  O.  Cockayne,  Life  of  Marshal  Turenne,  pp. 
58-69. 

Also  ik:  Lord  Mahon,  Life  of  Conde,  ch.  10. — 
J.  B.  Perkins,  Prance  under  Mazarin,  ch.  16-17 
(V.  2). 

A.  D.  1653-1660. — First  persecution  of  the 
Jansenists.     See  Port  Rot.\l  .\:nd  the  Jansen- 

ISTS. 

A.  D.  1655-1658. — Alliance  with  the  English 
Commonwrealth  against  Spain. — The  taking 
of  Dunkirk  for  England  and  Gravelines  for 
France. — End  of  the  V7ar. — "  JIazarin  was  now 
bent  upon  an  enterprise  which,  if  successful, 
must  finish  the  war.  A  deadly  blow  would  be 
struck  at  the  strength  of  Spain  if  Dunkirk,  Mar- 
dyck,  and  Gravelines  —  the  possession  of  which 
was  of  vital  importance  to  her  communication 
with  Flanders,  as  well  as  enabling  her  to  ruin 
French  commerce  on  that  coast — could  be  wrested 
from  her.  For  this  the  cooperation  of  some 
maritime  power  was  necessary,  and  Mazarin  de- 
termined at  all  costs  to  secure  England.  With 
Cromwell,  the  only  diplomatist  by  whose  astute- 
ness he  confessed  himself  baffled,  he  had  been 
negotiating  since  1651.  .  .  .  Atlength  on  Novem- 
ber 3,  1655,  a  treaty  was  signed  at  Westminster, 
based  upon  freedom  of  commerce  and  an  engage- 
ment that  neither  country  should  assist  the  ene- 
mies or  rebels  of  the  other ;  Mazarin  consented  to 
expel  Charles  II.,  James,  and  twenty  named  roy- 
alists from  France.  Cromwell  similarly  agreed 
to  dismiss  from  England  the  emissaries  of  Conde. 
But  Mazarin  was  soon  anxious  for  a  more  effec- 
tual bond.  .  .  .  Cromwell  had  equally  good  rea- 
sons for  drawing  closer  to  France,  for  Spain  was 
preparing  actively  to  assist  Charles  II.  French 
and  English  interests  thus  coinciding,  an  alli- 
ance was  signed  at  Paris  on  March  33,  1657  [see 
Englajid:  a.  D.  165.5-1658].  Gravelines  and 
Dunkirk  were  to  be  at  once  besieged  both  by 
land  and  sea.  England  was  to  send  6,000  men 
to  assist  the  French  army.  Gravelines  was  to 
become  French  and  Dunkirk  English ;  should  the 
former  fall  first  it  was  to  be  held  by  England 
until  Dunkirk  too  was  taken.  .  .  .  The  alliance 
was  not  a  moment  too  soon.  The  campaign  of 
1657  had  opened  disastrously.  The  tide  was 
however  turned  bj'  the  arrival  of  the  English  con- 
tingent. Montmedy  was  immediately  besieged, 
and  capitulated  on  August  4.  The  effect  was 
again  to  make  Mazarin  hang  back  from  further 
effort,  since  it  seemed  possible  now  to  make  peace 


with  Spain,  and  thereby  avoid  an  English  occu- 
pation of  Dunkirk.  But  Cromwell  would  stand 
no  trifling,  and  his  threats  were  so  clear  that 
Mazarin  determined  to  act  loyally  and  without 
delay.  On  September  30,  Turenne  laid  siege  to 
Mardyck,  which  protected  Dunkirk,  and  took  it 
in  four  days.  It  was  at  once  handed  over  to 
the  English. "  In  the  spring  of  1658  the  siege  of 
Dunkirk  was  begun.  The  Spaniards,  under  Don 
John  of  Austria  and  Conde,  attempting  to  relieve 
the  place,  were  defeated  (June  13)  in  the  battle 
of  the  Dunes,  by  Turenne  and  Cromwell's  Iron- 
sides (see England:  A.  D.  1655-1658).  "Dunkirk 
immediately  surrendered,  and  on  the  35th  was  in 
Cromwell's  possession.  Two  months  later  Grave- 
lines also  fell.  A  sliort  and  brilliant  campaign 
followed,  in  which  Don  John  and  Conde,  shut 
up  in  Brussels  and  Tournai  respectively,  were 
compelled  to  remain  inactive  while  fortress  after 
fortress  fell  into  Fi-ench  hands.  A  few  days 
after  the  fall  of  Gravelines  Cromwell  died ;  but 
Mazarin  was  now  near  his  goal.  Utterly  defeated 
on  her  own  soil,  beaten,  too,  by  the  Portuguese 
at  Elvas,  and  threatened  in  Milan,  her  army 
ruined,  her  treasury  bankrupt,  without  a  single 
ally  in  Europe,  Spain  stood  at  last  powerless  be- 
fore him. " — O.  Airy,  The  English  Restoration  and 
Louis  XIV.,  ch.  6. 

A.  D.  1657.— Candidacy  of  Louis  XIV.  for 
the  imperial  crov7n.  See  Germany:  A.  D. 
1648-1705.     . 

A.  D.  1659-1661. — The  treaty  of  the  Pyre- 
nees.— Marriage  of  Louis  XIV.  to  the  Spanish 
Infanta.  —  "The  Spaniards  could  struggle  no 
longer:  they  sued  for  peace.  Things  were  pre- 
pared for  it  on  every  hand :  Spain  was  desperate ; 
matters  far  from  settled  or  safe  in  France ;  in 
England  the  Protector's  death  had  come  very 
opportunely  for  Mazarin ;  the  strong  man  was 
no  longer  there  to  hold  the  balance  between  the 
European  powers.  Questions  as  to  a  Spanish 
marriage  and  the  Spanish  succession  had  been 
before  men  since  1648;  the  Spaniards  had  dis- 
liked the  match,  thinking  that  in  the  end  it  must 
subject  them  to  France.  But  things  were  changed ; 
Philip  IV.  now  had  an  heir,  so  that  the  nations 
might  hope  to  remain  under  two  distinct  crowns; 
moreover,  the  needs  of  Spain  were  far  greater 
than  in  1648,  while  the  demands  of  France  were 
less.  So  negociation  between  Mazarin  and  Louis 
de  Haro  on  the  little  Isle  of  Pheasants  in  the 
Bidassoa,  under  the  very  shadow  of  the  Pyrenees, 
went  on  prosperously;  even  the  proposal  that 
Louis  XIV.  should  espouse  the  Infanta  of  Spain, 
Maria  Theresa,  was  at  last  agreed  to  at  Madrid. 
The  only  remaining  difficulty  arose  from"  the 
fact  that  the  young  King,  Louis  XIV.,  had 
fallen  in  love  with  Maria  Mancini,  Cardinal  Maz- 
arin's  niece,  and  wished  to  marry  her.  "The 
King  at  last  abandoned  his  youthful  and  pure 
passion,  and  signed  the  Treaty  of  the  Pyrenees 
[concluded  November  7, 1659],  condemning  him- 
self to  a  marriage  of  state,  which  exalted  high 
the  dignity  of  the  French  Crown,  only  to  plunge 
it  in  the  end  into  the  troubles  and  disasters  of 
the  Succession  War.  The  treaty  of  peace  begins 
with  articles  on  trade  and  navigation :  then  fol- 
low cessions,  restitutions,  and  exchanges  of  ter- 
ritories. 1.  On  the  Northern  frontier  Spain 
ceded  all  she  had  In  Artois,  with  exception  of 
Aire  and  S.  Omer ;  in  Flanders  itself  France  got 
Gravelines  and  its  outer  defences.  In  Hainault 
she  became  mistress  of  the  important  towns, 


1263 


FRANCE.  1659-1661. 


Treaty  of  the 
Pyrenees. 


FRANCE,  1661. 


Landrecies,  Quesnoy,  and  Avesnes,  and  also 
strengthened  her  position  by  some  exchanges:  in 
Luxemburg  she  retained  Thionville,  Montmedy, 
and  several  lesser  places ;  so  tliat  over  her  whole 
northern  border  France  advanced  her  frontier 
along  a  line  answering  to  her  old  limits.  ...  In 
return  she  restored  to  Spain  several  of  her  latest 
conquests  in  Flanders:  Ypres,  Oudenarde,  Dix- 
milden,  Fumes,  and  other  cities.  In  Conde's 
country  France  recovered  Rocroy,  Le  CStelet 
and  Linchamp,  occupied  by  the  Prince's  soldiers ; 
and  so  secured  the  safety  and  defences  of  Cham- 
pagne and  Paris.  3.  More  to  the  East,  the 
Duke  of  Lorraine,  having  submitted  with  such 
good  grace  as  might  be,  was  reinstated  in  his 
Duchy.  .  .  .  But  France  received  her  price  here 
also,  the  Duchy  of  Bar,  the  Countj'  of  Clermont 
on  the  edge  of  Champagne,  Stenay,  Dun,  Jametz, 
Moyenvic,  became  hers.  The  fortifications  of 
Nancy  were  to  be  rased  for  ever;  the  Duke  of 
Lon-aine  bound  himself  to  peace,  and  agreed  to 
give  France  free  passage  to  the  Bishopricks  and 
Alsace.  This  was  the  more  necessary,  because 
Franche-Comte,  the  other  higliway  into  Alsace, 
was  left  to  the  Spaniards,  and  such  places  in  it 
as  were  in  the  King's  hands  were  restored  to 
them.  Far  out  in  Germany  Louis  XIV.  replaced 
Jillich  in  the  hands  of  the  Duke  of  Neuberg ;  and 
that  element  of  controversy,  the  germ  or  pretext 
of  these  long  wars,  was  extinct  for  ever.  On  the 
Savoyard  border  France  retained  Pinerolo,  with 
all  the  means  and  temptations  of  offence  which 
it  involved :  she  restored  to  the  Duke  her  other 
conquests  within  his  territories,  and  to  the  Span- 
iards whatever  she  held  in  Lombardy ;  she  also 
honourably  obtained  an  amnesty  for  those  sub- 
jects of  Spain,  Neapolitans  or  Catalans,  wlio  had 
sided  with  France.  Lastly,  the  Pyrenees  became 
the  iinal,  as  it  was  the  natural,  boundary  be- 
tween the  two  Latin  kingdoms.  .  .  .  Roussillou 
and  Contlans  became  French:  all  French  con- 
quests to  the  south  of  the  Pyrenees  were  restored 
to  Spain.  The  Spanish  King  renounced  all  claims 
on  Alsace  or  Breisach:  on  the  other  hand  the 
submission  of  the  great  Conde  was  accepted ;  he 
was  restored  to  all  his  domains;  his  son,  the 
young  Duke  of  Enghien,  being  made  Grand 
Master  of  France,  and  he  himself  appointed 
Governor  of  Burgundy  and  Bresse:  his  friends 
and  followers  were  included  in  the  amnesty. 
Some  lesser  stipulations,  with  a  view  to  the  peace 
of  Europe,  for  the  settlement  of  the  differences 
between  Spain  and  Portugal,  between  the  Dukes 
of  Savoy  and  Mantua,  between  the  Catholic  and 
the  Protestant  Cantons  of  Switzerland,  and  an 
agreement  to  help  forward  peace  between  tlie 
Northern  Courts,  worthily  close  this  great  docu- 
ment, this  weighty  appendix  to  the  Treaties  of 
'Westphalia.  A  separate  act,  as  was  fitting,  regu- 
lated all  questions  bearing  on  the  great  marriage. 
It  contains  a  solemn  renunciation,  intended  to 
bar  for  ever  the  union  of  the  two  Crowns  under 
one  sceptre,  or  the  absorption  into  France  of 
Flanders,  Burgundy,  or  Charolais.  It  was  a  re- 
nunciation which,  as  Mazarin  foresaw  long  be- 
fore, would  never  hold  firm  against  tlie  tempta- 
tions and  exigencies  of  time.  The  King's  marriage 
with  the  Infanta  Maria  Theresa  of  Spain  did  not 
take  place  till  the  next  year,  by  which  time  Maz- 
arin's  work  in  life  seemed  well  nigh  over;  racked 
vrith  gout,  he  had  little  enjoyment  of  his  tri- 
umphs. ...  He  betook  himself  to  the  arrange- 
ment of  his  own  affairs :  his  physicians  giving 


him,  early  in  1661,  no  hopes  of  recovery.  .  .  . 
These  things  arranged,  the  Cardinal  resigned 
himself  to  die  '  with  a  serenity  more  philosophic 
than  Christian  ' ;  and  passed  away  on  the  8th  of 
March,1661."— G.W.  Kitchin,  Hist,  of  France,  bk. 
A,ch.  8  (B.  3).— "The  Treaty  of  the  Pyrenees, 
which  completed  the  great  work  of  pacification 
that  liad  commenced  at  Munster,  is  justly  cele- 
brated as  having  put  an  end  to  such  bitter  and 
useless  animosities.  But,  it  is  more  famous,  as 
having  introduced  a  new  tera  in  European  poli- 
tics. In  its  provisions  all  the  leading  events  of  a 
century  to  come  had  their  origin  —  the  wai's  which 
terminated  with  the  Treaties  of  Aix-la-Chapelle, 
Nimeguen,  and  Ryswick,  and  that  concerning 
the  Spanish  succession.  So  great  an  epoch  in 
history  has  the  Pyrenean  Treaty  been  accounted 
by  politicians,  that  Lord  Bolingbroke  was  of  opin- 
ion, '  That  the  only  part  of  history  necessary  to  be 
thoroughly  studied,  goes  no  farther  back  than  this 
treaty,  since,  from  that  period,  a  new  set  of  mo- 
tives and  principles  have  prevailed  all  over 
Europe.'" — J.  Dunlop,  Memoirs  of  Spain  during 
the  Reigns  of  PJdlip  IV.  and  Charles  II.,  v.  1, 
ch.  11. 

A.  D.  1660-1688. — A  footing  gained  in  New- 
foundland. See  Ne^vfoundland  :  A.  D.  1660- 
1688. 

A.  D.  1661. — Personal  assumption  of  the 
government  by  Louis  XIV. — The  extraordi- 
nary characteristics  of  the  reign  of  the  Grand 
Monarch,  nowr  begun. —  On  the  death  of  Maza- 
rin Louis  XIV.,  then  twenty-three  j^ears  old,  an- 
nounced to  his  council  his  intention  of  taking  the 
government  solely  upon  himself.  His  ministers 
were  henceforward  to  receive  instructions  from 
him  in  person;  there  was  to  be  no  premier  at 
their  head.  The  reign  which  then  began  "was 
the  culminating  epoch  in  the  history  of  the 
French  Monarchy.  What  the  age  of  Pericles 
was  in  the  history  of  the  Athenian  Democracy, 
what  the  age  of  the  Scipios  was  in  the  history  of 
the  Roman  Republic,  that  was  the  reign  of  Louis 
XIV.  in  the  history  of  the  old  Monarchy  of 
France.  ...  It  is  not  only  the  most  conspicuous 
reign  in  the  history  of  France  —  it  is  the  most 
conspicuous  reign  in  the  history  of  Monarchy  in 
general.  Of  the  very  many  kings  whom  history 
mentions,  who  have  striven  to  exalt  the  mo- 
narchical principle,  none  of  them  achieved  a  suc- 
cess remotely  comparable  to  his.  .  .  .  They  may 
liave  ruled  over  wider  dominions,  but  they  never 
attained  the  exceptional  position  of  power  and 
prestige  which  he  enjoyed  for  more  than  half  a 
century.  Tliey  never  were  obeyed  so  submis- 
sively at  home,  nor  so  dreaded,  and  even  re- 
spected, abroad.  For  Louis  XIV.  carried  off  that 
last  reward  of  complete  success,  that  he  for  a 
time  silenced  even  envy,  and  turned  it  into  ad- 
miration. We  who  can  examine  with  cold  scru- 
tin3'  tlie  make  and  composition  of  this  Colossus 
of  a  French  Monarchy;  who  can  perceive  how 
much  the  brass  and  clay  in  it  exceeded  the  gold; 
who  know  how  it  afterwards  fell  with  a  resound- 
ing ruin,  the  last  echoes  of  which  have  scarcely 
died  away,  have  difficulty  in  realising  the  fas- 
cination it  exercised  upon  contemporaries  who 
witnessed  its  first  setting  up.  Louis  XIV.  's  reign 
was  the  very  triumph  of  commonplace  great- 
ness, of  external  magnificence  and  success,  such 
as  the  vulgar  among  mankind  can  best  and  most 
sincerely  appreciate.  .  .  .  His  qualities  were  on 
the  surface,  visible  and  comprehensible  to  all. 


1264 


FBANCE,  1661. 


Louis  XIV,  and 
the  Huguenots. 


FRANCE,  1661-1680. 


...  He  was  indefatigably  industrious :  worked 
on  an  average  eight  hours  a  day  for  fifty-four 
years ;  had  great  tenacity  of  will ;  that  kind  of 
solid  judgment  wliich  comes  of  slowness  of  brain, 
and  withal  a  most  majestic  port  and  great  dignity 
of  manners.  He  had  also  as  much  kindliness  of 
nature  as  the  very  great  can  be  expected  to  have. 
.  .  .  He  must  have  had  great  original  fineness  of 
tact,  though  it  was  in  the  end  nearly  extinguished 
by  adulation  and  incense.  His  court  was  an  ex- 
traordinary creation,  and  the  greatest  thing  he 
achieved.  He  made  it  the  microcosm  of  all  that 
was  most  brilliant  and  prominent  iu  France. 
Every  order  of  merit  was  invited  there,  and  re- 
ceived courteous  welcome.  To  no  circumstance 
did  he  so  much  owe  his  enduring  popularity. 
By  its  means  he  impressed  into  his  service  that 
galaxy  of  great  writers,  the  first  and  the  last 
classic  authors  of  France,  whose  calm  and  serene 
lustre  will  for  ever  illumine  the  epoch  of  his  ex- 
istence. It  may  even  be  admitted  that  his  share 
in  that  lustre  was  not  so  accidental  and  unde- 
served as  certain  king-haters  have  supposed. 
That  subtle  critic,  M.  Ste.  Beuve,  thinks  he  can 
trace  a  marked  rise  even  in  Bossuet's  style  from 
the  moment  he  became  a  courtier  of  Louis  XIV. 
The  king  brought  men  together,  placed  them  in 
a  position  where  they  were  induced  and  urged  to 
bring  their  talents  to  a  focus.  His  Court  was 
alternately  a  high-bred  gala  and  a  stately  uni- 
versity. .  .  .  But  Louis  XIV.  's  reign  has  better 
titles  than  the  adulations  of  courtiers  and  the 
eulogies  of  wits  and  poets  to  the  attention  of 
posterity.  It  marks  one  of  the  most  memorable 
epochs  in  the  annals  of  mankind.  It  stretches 
across  history  like  a  great  mountain-range,  sepa- 
rating ancient  France  from  the  France  of  modern 
times.  On  the  farther  slope  are  Catholicism  and 
feudalism  in  their  various  stages  of  splendour 
and  decay  —  the  France  of  crusade  and  chivalry, 
of  St.  Louis  and  Bayard.  On  the  hither  side  are 
free-thought,  industry,  and  centralization  —  the 
France  of  Voltaire,  Turgot  and  Condorcet.  When 
Louis  came  to  the  throne,  the  Thirty  Years'  War 
still  wanted  six  years  of  its  end,  and  the  heat  of 
theological  strife  was  at  its  iutensest  glow.  When 
he  died,  the  religious  temperature  had  cooled 
nearly  to  freezing-point,  and  a  new  vegetation  of 
science  and  positive  inquiry  was  overspreading 
the  world.  This  amounts  to  saying  that  his 
reign  covers  the  greatest  epoch  of  mental  transi- 
tion through  which  the  human  mind  has  hitherto 
passed,  excepting  the  transition  we  are  witness- 
ing in  the  day  which  now  is.  We  need  but  re- 
call the  names  of  the  writers  and  thinkers  who 
arose  during  Louis  XFV. 's  reign,  and  shed  their 
seminal  ideas  broadcast  upon  the  air,  to  realise 
how  full  a  period  it  was,  both  of  birth  and  decay ; 
of  the  passing  away  of  the  old  and  the  uprising 
of  the  new  forms  of  thought.  To  mention  only 
the  greatest ; — the  following  are  among  the  chiefs 
who  helped  to  transform  the  mental  fabric  of 
Europe  in  the  age  of  Louis  XIV. : — Descartes, 
Newton,  Leibnitz,  Locke,  Boyle.  .  .  .  But  the 
chief  interest  which  the  reign  of  Louis  XIV. 
offers  to  the  student  of  history  has  yet  to  be 
mentioned.  It  was  the  great  turning-point  in 
the  history  of  the  French  people.  The  triumph 
of  the  Monarchical  principle  was  so  complete 
under  him.  independence  and  self-reliance  were 
so  effectually  crushed,  both  in  localities  and  in- 
dividuals, that  a  permanent  bent  was  given  to 
the  national  mind — a  habit  of  looking  to  the 

^'^  •  1265 


Government  for  all  action  and  initiative  perma- 
nently established.  Before  the  reign  of  Louis 
XIV.  it  was  a  question  which  might  fairly  be 
considered  undecided,  whether  the  country  would 
be  able  or  not,  willing  or  not,  to  co-operate  with 
its  rulers  in  the  work  of  the  Government  and  the 
reform  of  abuses.  On  more  than  one  occasion 
such  co-operation  did  not  seem  entirely  impossi- 
ble or  improbable.  .  .  .  After  the  reign  of  Louis 
XIV.  such  co-operation  of  the  ruler  and  the  ruled 
became  impossible.  The  Government  of  France 
had  become  a  machine  depending  upon  the  action 
of  a  single  spring.  Spontaneity  in  the  popula- 
tion at  large  was  extinct,  and  whatever  there  was 
to  do  must  be  done  by  the  central  authority.  As 
long  as  the  Government  could  correct  abuses  it 
was  well;  if  it  ceased  to  be  equal  to  this  task 
they  must  go  uncorrected.  When  at  last  the  re- 
form of  secular  and  gigantic  abuses  presented 
itself  with  imperious  urgency,  the  alternative 
before  the  Monarchy  was  either  to  carry  the  re- 
form with  a  high  hand,  or  perish  in  the  failure 
to  do  so.  We  know  how  signal  the  failure  was, 
and  could  not  help  being,  under  the  circum- 
stances; and  through  having  placed  the  Mon- 
archy between  these  alternatives,  it  is  no  paradox 
to  say  that  Louis  XFV.  was  one  of  the  most  direct 
ancestors  of  the  Great  Revolution." — J.  C.  Mori- 
son,  Tlie  Reign  of  Louis  XIV.  {Fortnightly  Bev., 
March,  1874). 

Also  in:  J.  I.  von  Dallinger,  Tlie  Policy  of 
Louis  XIV.  (Studies  in  European  History,  ch.  11). 

A.  D.  1661-1680. — Revived  and  growing  per- 
secution of  the  Huguenots. — ' '  One  of  the  King's 
first  acts,  on  assuming  the  supreme  control  of 
affairs  at  the  death  of  Mazarin,  was  significant 
of  his  future  policy  with  regard  to  the  Huguenots. 
Among  the  representatives  of  the  various  public 
bodies  who  came  to  tender  him  their  congratula- 
tions, there  appeared  a  deputation  of  Protestant 
ministers,  headed  by  their  president  Vignole ;  but 
the  King  refused  to  receive  them,  and  directed 
that  they  should  be  ordered  to  leave  Paris  forth- 
with. Louis  was  not  slow  to  follow  up  this  in- 
timation by  measures  of  a  more  positive  kind, 
for  he  had  been  carefully  taught  to  hate  Protes- 
tantism ;  and,  now  that  he  possessed  unrestrained 
power,  he  flattered  himself  with  the  idea  of  com- 
pelling the  Huguenots  to  abandon  their  convic- 
tions and  adopt  his  own.  His  minister  Louvois 
wrote  to  the  governors  throughout  the  provinces 
that  'his  majesty  will  not  suffer  any  person  in 
his  kingdom  but  those  who  are  of  his  religion.' 
.  .  .  A  series  of  edicts  was  accordingly  published 
with  the  object  of  carrying  the  King's  purposes 
into  effect.  The  conferences  of  the  Protestants 
were  declared  to  be  suppressed.  Though  wor- 
ship was  still  permitted  in  their  churches,  the 
singing  of  psalms  in  private  dwellings  was  de- 
clared to  be  forbidden.  .  .  .  Protestant  children 
were  invited  to  declare  themselves  against  the 
religion  of  their  parents.  Boys  of  fourteen  and 
girls  of  twelve  years  old  might,  on  embracing 
Roman  Catholicism,  become  enfranchised  and 
entirely  free  from  parental  control.  .  .  .  The 
Huguenots  were  again  debarred  from  holding 
public  offices,  though  a  few,  such  as  Marshal 
Turenne  and  Admiral  Duquesne,  who  were 
Protestants,  broke  through  this  barrier  by  the 
splendor  of  their  services  to  the  state.  In  some 
provinces,  the  exclusion  was  so  severe  that  a  pro- 
fession of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  was  required 
from  simple   artisans.    .    .    .    Colbert,  while  he 


FRANCE,  1661-1680. 


Colbert's 
Administration. 


PRANCE,  1661-1683. 


lived,  endeavored  to  restrain  the  King,  and  to 
abate  these  intolerable  persecutions.  .  .  .  He 
took  the  opportunity  of  cautioning  the  King  lest 
the  measures  he  was  enforcing  might  tend,  if 
carried  out,  to  the  impoverishment  of  Prance  and 
the  aggrandizement  of  her  rivals.  .  .  .  But  all 
Colbert's  expostulations  were  in  vain ;  the  Jesuits 
were  stronger  than  he  was,  and  the  King  was  in 
their  hands;  besides,  Colbert's  power  was  on  the 
decline.  ...  In  1666  the  queen-mother  died, 
leaving  to  her  son,  as  her  last  bequest,  that  he 
should  suppress  and  exterminate  heresy  within 
his  dominions.  .  .  .  The  Bishop  of  Meaux  ex- 
horted him  to  press  on  in  the  path  his  sainted 
mother  had  pointed  out  to  him.  .  .  .  The  Hugue- 
nots had  already  taken  alarm  at  the  renewal  of 
the  persecution,  and  such  of  them  as  could 
readily  dispose  of  their  property  and  goods  were 
beginning  to  leave  the  kingdom  in  considerable 
numbers  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  them- 
selves in  foreign  countries.  To  prevent  this,  the 
King  issued  an  edict  forbidding  Prench  subjects 
from  proceeding  abroad  without  express  per- 
mission, under  penalty  of  confiscation  of  their 
goods  and  property.  This  was  followed  by  a 
succession  of  severe  measures  for  the  conversion 
or  extirpation  of  such  of  the  Protestants  —  in 
numbers  about  a  million  and  a  half  —  as  had  not 
by  this  time  contrived  to  make  their  escape  from 
the  kingdom.  The  kidnapping  of  Protestant 
children  was  actively  set  on  foot  by  the  agents 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  priests,  and  their  parents 
were  subjected  to  heavy  penalties  if  they  ven- 
tured to  complain.  Orders  were  Issued  to  pull 
down  the  Protestant  places  of  worship,  and  as 
man)'  as  eighty  were  shortly  destroyed  in  one 
diocese.  .  .  .  Protestants  were  forbidden  to  print 
books  without  the  authority  of  magistrates  of  the 
Romish  communion.  Protestant  teachers  were 
interdicted  from  teaching  children  any  thing  more 
than  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic.  .  .  . 
Protestants  were  only  allowed  to  bury  their  dead 
at  daybreak  or  at  nightfall.  They  were  pro- 
hibited from  singing  psalms  on  land  or  on  water, 
in  workshops  or  in  dwellings.  If  a  priestly 
procession  passed  one  of  their  churches  while  the 
psalms  were  being  sung,  they  must  stop  instantly 
on  pain  of  the  fine  or  imprisonment  of  the  offici- 
ating minister.  In  short,  from  the  pettiest 
annoyance  to  the  most  exasperating  cruelty, 
nothing  was  wanting  on  the  part  of  the  '  Most 
Christian  King'  and  his  abettors." — S.  Smiles, 
The  Huguenots,  ch.  7. 

Also  in;  A.  Maury,  Memoirs  of  a  Huguenot 
Family  (Fontaine),  ch.  4-7. — W.  S.  Browning, 
Hist,  of  the  Huguenots,  ch.  59-60. 

A.  D.  1661-1683. — The  administration  of 
Colbert. — His  economic  system  and  its  results. 
— "  With  Colbert  the  spirit  of  the  great  Cardinal 
came  back  to  power.  Born  at  Reims  on  the  29th 
of  August,  1619,  Colbert  was  educated  by  the 
Jesuits,  and  at  the  early  age  of  nineteen  entered 
the  War  Office,  in  which  department  Le  Tellier, 
a  connection  of  his  f  amUy  by  marriage,  filled  the 
post  of  Under-Secretary  of  State.  From  the 
first  Colbert  distinguished  himself  by  his  abnor- 
mal powers  of  work,  by  his  extraordinary  zeal  in 
the  public  service,  and  by  an  equal  devotion  to 
his  own  interests.  His  Jesuit  training  showed 
fruit  in  his  dealings  with  all  those  who,  like  Le 
Tellier  or  Mazarin,  could  be  of  use  to  him  on  his 
road  to  power,  whilst  the  old  tradition  of  his 
Scotch  blood  is  favoured  by  a  certain  '  dourness ' 


of  character  which  rendered  him  in  general  diffi- 
cult of  access.  His  marvellous  strength  of  brain, 
seconded  by  rare  powers  of  endurance,  enabled 
him  to  work  habitually  fourteen  hours  a  day,  to 
enter  into  every  detail  of  every  branch  of  the 
administration,  whilst  at  the  same  time  he  never 
lost  sight  of  that  noble  project  of  universal  re- 
form which  he  had  conceived,  and  which  em- 
braced both  Church  and  State.  .  .  .  Qualified  in 
every  way  for  the  work  of  administration,  abso- 
lutely indifferent  to  popularity,  Colbert  seemed 
destined  by  nature  to  lead  the  final  charge 
against  the  surviving  forces  of  the  feudal  system. 
After  the  troubles  of  the  Fronde  had  died  away 
and  the  death  of  Mazarin  had  left  Louis  XIV.  a 
king  in  deed  as  well  as  in  name,  these  forces  of 
the  past  were  personified  by  Fouquet,  and  the 
duel  between  Fouquet  and  Colbert  was  the  dra- 
matic close  of  a  struggle  predestined  to  end  in 
the  complete  triumph  of  absolutism.  The  mag- 
nificent and  brilliant  Fouquet,  who  for  years  past 
had  taken  advantage  of  his  position  as  '  Surin- 
tendant  des  Finances '  to  lavish  the  resources  of 
the  State  on  his  private  pleasures,  was  plainly 
marked  out  as  the  object  of  Colbert's  hostility. 
.  .  .  On  the  losing  side  were  ranged  all  the 
spendthrift  princes  and  facile  beauties  of  the 
Court,  all  the  greedy  recipients  of  Fouquet's 
ostentatious  bounties.  He  had  reckoned  that 
the  greatest  names  in  Prance  would  be  compro- 
mised by  his  fall,  and  that  by  their  danger  his  own 
safety  was  assured.  He  had  reckoned  without 
Colbert;  he  had  reckoned  without  that  power 
which  had  been  steadily  growing  throughout  all 
vicissitudes  of  fate  during  the  last  two  genera- 
tions, and  which  was  now  centred  in  the  King. 
No  stranger  turn  of  fortune  can  be  pictured  than 
that  which,  on  the  threshold  of  the  modern  era, 
linked  the  nobles  of  France  in  their  last  struggle 
for  independence  with  the  fortunes  of  a  rapa- 
cious and  fraudulent  financier,  nor  can  anything 
be  more  suggestive  of  the  character  of  the  com- 
ing epoch  than  the  sight  of  this  last  battle 
fought,  not  in  the  field  of  arms,  but  before  a 
court  of  law.  To  Colbert,  the  fall  of  Fouquet 
was  but  the  necessary  preliminary  to  that  reform 
of  every  branch  of  the  administration  which  had 
been  ripening  in  his  mind  ever  since  he  had 
entered  the  puWic  service.  To  bring  the  finan- 
cial situation  into  order,  it  was  necessary  first  to 
call  Fouquet  to  account.  .  .  .  The  fall  of  the 
chief  offender,  Fouquet,  having  been  brought 
about,  it  was  easy  to  force  all  those  who  had 
been  guilty  of  similar  malversations  on  a  minor 
scale  to  run  the  gauntlet  of  the  High  Commission. 
Restitution  and  confiscation  became  the  order  of 
the  day.  and  when  the  Chamber  of  Justice  was 
finally  dissolved  in  1669,  far  beyond  any  advan- 
tage which  might  be  reckoned  to  the  'Treasury 
from  these  sources  was  the  gain  to  the  nation  in 
the  .general  sense  of  security  and  confidence.  It 
was  felt  that  the  days  of  wholesale  dishonesty 
and  embezzlement  were  at  an  end.  .  .  .  Colbert 
went  forward  from  this  moment  without  hesita- 
tion, devoting  his  whole  energies  to  the  gigantic 
task  of  re-shaping  the  whole  internal  economy  of 
France.  .  .  .  Backed  by  despotic  power,  his 
achievements  in  these  directions  have  to  an  in- 
credible extent  determined  the  destinies  of  mod- 
ern industry,  and  have  given  origin  to  the  whole 
system  of  modern  administration,  not  only  in 
Prance,  but  throughout  Europe.  In  the  teeth  of 
a  lavish  expenditure  which  he  was  utterly  unable 


1266 


FRANCE,  1661-1683. 


Gi'eat  Days  of 
Auvergne. 


FRANCE,  1665. 


to  check,  once  and  again  did  Colbert  succeed  in 
establishing  a  financial  equilibrium  when  the 
fortunes  of  France  seemed  desperate.  .  .  .  He 
aimed  ...  at  the  fostering  of  home  production 
by  an  elaborate  system  of  protection,  wliilst  at 
the  same  time  the  markets  of  other  countries 
were  to  be  forced  open  and  flooded  witli  Freucli 
goods.  Any  attempt  on  tlie  part  of  a  weaker 
power  to  imitate  his  own  policy,  such  for  instance 
as  that  made  in  the  papal  states  by  Alexander 
VII.  and  Clement  IX.,  was  instantly  repressed 
with  a  high  hand.  .  .  .  His  leading  idea  was  to 
lower  all  e.vport  dues  on  national  produce  and 
manufactures,  and,  whilst  diminishing  import 
duties  on  such  raw  materials  as  were  required 
for  French  manufactures,  to  raise  them  until 
they  became  prohibitive  on  all  foreign  goods 
[see  Tariff  Legislation:  A.  D.  1664-1667 
(France)].  The  success  of  the  tariff  of  1664  mis- 
led Colbert.  Tliat  tariff  was  a  splendidly  states- 
manlike attempt  to  put  an  end  to  the  conflict  and 
confusion  of  the  duties,  dues,  and  customs  then 
existing  in  the  different  provinces  and  ports  of 
France,  and  it  was  in  effect  a  tariff  calculated  for 
purel}'  fiscal  purposes.  Far  other  were  the  con- 
siderations embodied  in  tlie  tariff  of  1667,  which 
led  to  the  Dutch  and  English  wars,  and  which, 
having  been  enacted  in  the  supposed  interests  of 
home  industry,  eventually  stimulated  production 
in  other  countries.  ...  If,  however,  the  indus- 
trial policy  of  Colbert  cannot  be  said  to  have 
realised  his  expectations,  since  it  neither  brought 
about  a  great  increase  in  the  number  of  home 
manufactures  nor  succeeded  in  securing  a  larger 
share  of  foreign  trade,  there  is  not  a  doubt 
that,  in  spite  even  of  the  disastrous  wars  which 
it  provoked,  it  powerfully  contributed,  on  the 
whole,  to  place  France  in  the  front  rank  as  a 
commercial  nation,  .  .  .  The  pitiless  and  des- 
potic Louvois,  who  had  succeeded  his  father. 
Colbert's  old  patron  Le  Tellier,  as  Secretary  of 
State  for  War,  played  on  the  imperious  vanity  of 
King  Louis,  and  engaged  him  in  wars  big  and 
little,  wliich  in  most  cases  wanted  even  the  shade 
of  a  pretext.  .  .  .  All  the  zeal  of  the  great  Min- 
ister's strict  economy  could  only  stay  for  a  while 
the  sure  approach  of  national  distress.  .  .  . 
When  Colbert  died,  on  6th  September,  1683,  the 
misery  of  France,  exhausted  by  oppressive  taxa- 
tion, and  depopulated  by  armies  kept  constantly 
on  foot,  cried  out  against  the  Minister  who,  rather 
than  fall  from  power,  had  lent  himself  to  meas- 
ures which  he  heartily  condemned.  For  the 
moment  men  forgot  how  numerous  were  tlie  bene- 
fits which  he  had  conferred  .  .  .  and  remembered 
only  the  harshness  with  which  he  had  dealt  jus- 
tice and  stinted  mercy.  Yet  order  reigned  where, 
before  his  advent,  all  had  been  corruption  and 
confusion;  the  navy  of  France  had  been  created, 
her  colonies  fostered,  her  forests  saved  from  de- 
struction; justice  and  the  authority  of  the  law 
had  been  carried  into  the  darkest  corners  of  the 
land;  religious  toleration,  socially  if  not  politi- 
call}',  had  been  advocated ;  whilst  the  encroach- 
ments of  the  Church  had  been  more  or  less  stead- 
fastly opposed.  To  the  material  prosperity  of 
the  nation  —  even  after  we  have  made  all  possible 
deductions  for  the  evils  arising  from  an  exagger- 
ated system  of  protection — an  immense  and  en- 
during impulse  had  been  given;  and  although  it 
is  true  that,  with  the  death  of  Colbert,  many 
parts  of  his  splendid  scheme  fell  to  the  ground, 
yet  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  spirit  in  which 


it  was  originated  and  improved  still  animates 
France." — Lady  Dilke,  France  under  Colbert 
(Fortnightly  Bee.,  Feb.,  1886). 

Also  in  :  H.  Martin,  Hist,  of  France :  Age  of 
Louis  XIV.,  V.  1,  ch.  1-7. — See,  also,  Taille  and 
Gabelle. 

A.  D.  1662. — The  purchase  of  Dunkirk  from 
Charles  II.     See  England:  A.  D.  1662. 

A.  D.  1663-1674. — New  France  made  a  Royal 
Province. — The  French  West  India  Company. 
See  Canada:  A.  D.  1603-1674. 

A.  D.  1664. — Aid  given  to  Austria  against 
the  Turks. — The  victory  of  St.  Gothard.  See 
Hungary:  A.  D.  1660-1664. 

A.  D.  1664-1666. —  War  with  the  piratical 
Barbary  States.  —  The  Jijeli  expedition. — 
Treaties  with  Tunis  and  Algiers.  See  Bar- 
bary States:  A.  D.  1664-1684. 

A.  D.  1664-1690. — The  building  ofVersailles. 
See  Versailles. 

A.  D.  1665. — The  Great  Days  of  Auvergne. 
— "We  must  read  the  curious  account  of  the 
Great  Days  of  Auvergne,  written  by  Flechier  in 
his  youth,  if  we  would  form  an  idea  of  the  bar- 
barism in  which  certain  provinces  of  France  were 
still  plunged,  in  the  midst  of  the  brilliant  civili- 
zation of  the  17th  century,  and  would  know  how 
a  large  number  of  those  seigniors,  who  showed 
themselves  so  gallant  and  tender  in  the  boudoirs 
of  Paris,  lived  on  their  estates,  in  the  midst  of 
tlieir  subjects:  we  might  imagine  ourselves  in 
the  midst  of  feudalism.  A  moment  bewildered 
by  the  hammer  of  the  great  demolisher  [Riche- 
lieu], which  had  battered  down  so  many  Cha- 
teaux, the  mountain  squires  of  Auvergne,  Limou- 
sin, Marche  and  Forez  had  resumed  their  habits 
under  the  feeble  government  of  Slazarin.  Pro- 
tected by  tlieir  remoteness  from  Paris  and  the 
parliament,  and  by  the  nature  of  the  country 
they  inhabited,  they  intimidated  or  gained  over 
the  subaltern  judges,  and  committed  with  im- 
punity every  species  of  violence  and  exaction. 
A  single  feature  will  enable  us  to  comprehend 
the  state  of  these  provinces.  There  were  still, 
in  the  remoter  parts  of  Auvergne,  seigniors  who 
claimed  to  use  the  wedding  right  (droit  de  jam- 
bage),  or,  at  the  least,  to  sell  exemption  from 
this  right  at  a  high  price  to  bridegrooms.  Serf- 
hood of  the  glebe  still  existed  in  some  districts. 
August  31,  1665,  a  royal  declaration,  for  which 
ample  and  noble  reasons  were  given,  ordered  the 
holding  of  a  jurisdiction  or  court  'commonly 
called  the  Great  Days,'  in  the  city  of  Clermont, 
for  Auvergne,  Bourbonnais,  Nivernais,  Forez, 
Beaujolais,  Lyonnais,  Combrailles,  Marche,  and 
Berry.  A  president  of  parliament,  a  master  of 
requests,  sixteen  councillors,  an  attorney-general, 
and  a  deputy  procurator- general,  were  designated 
to  hold  these  extraordinary  assizes.  Their  powers 
were  almost  absolute.  They  were  to  judge  with- 
out appeal  all  civil  and  criminal  cases,  to  punish 
the  '  abuses  and  delinquencies  of  officers  of  the 
said  districts,'  to  reform  bad  usages,  as  well  in 
the  style  of  procedure  as  in  the  preparation  and 
expedition  of  trials,  and  to  try  all  criminal  cases 
first.  It  was  enjoined  on  bailiffs,  seneschals, 
their  lieutenants  and  all  other  judges,  to  give 
constant  information  of  all  kinds  of  crimes,  in 
order  to  prepare  matter  for  the  Great  Days.  A 
second  declaration  ordered  that  a  posse  should 
be  put  into  the  houses  of  the  contumacious,  that 
the  chateaux  where  the  least  resistance  was  made 
to  the  law  should  be  razed ;  and  forbade,  under 


1267 


FRANCE,  1665. 


Absorption  of 
Alsace, 


TRANCE,  1679-1681. 


penalty  of  death,  the  contumacious  to  be  received 
or  assisted.  The  publication  of  the  royal  edicts, 
and  the  prompt  arrival  of  Messieurs  of  the  Great 
Days  at  Clermont,  produced  an  extraordinary 
commotion  in  all  those  regions.  The  people 
welcomed  the  Parisian  magistrates  as  liberators, 
and  a  remarkable  monument  of  their  joy  has 
been  preserved,  the  popular  song  or  Christmas 
hymn  of  the  Great  Days.  Terror,  on  the  con- 
trary, hovered  over  the  chSteaux ;  a  multitude 
of  noblemen  left  the  province  and  Prance,  or 
concealed  themselves  in  the  mountains;  others 
endeavored  to  conciliate  their  peasants.  .  .  . 
The  Great  Days  at  least  did  with  vigor  what  it 
was  their  mission  to  do:  neither  dignities,  nor 
titles,  nor  high  connections  preserved  the  guilty. 
.  .  .  The  Court  of  Great  Days  was  not  content 
with  punishing  evil;  it  undertook  to  prevent  its 
return  by  wise  regulations:  first,  against  the 
abuses  of  seigniorial  courts ;  second,  against  the 
vexations  of  seigniors  on  account  of  feudal  ser- 
vice due  them ;  third,  concerning  the  mode  and 
abbreviation  of  trials;  and  lastly,  concerning  the 
reformation  of  the  clergy,  who  had  no  less  need 
of  being  reformed  than  the  nobility.  The  Great 
Days  were  brought  to  a  close  after  three  months 
of  assizes  (end  of  October,  1665  —  end  of  January, 
1666),  and  their  recollection  was  consecrated  by 
a  medal. " — -H.  Martin,  Jlist.  of  France :  T/w  Age 
of  Louis  XIV.,  V.  1,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1665-1670. — The  East  India  Company. 
See  India:  A.  D.  1665-1743. 

A.  D.  1666. — Alliance  with  Holland  against 
England.  See  Netherlands  (Holland)  :  A.  D. 
1665-1666. 

A.  D.  1667.— The  War  of  the  Queen's  Rights. 
— Conquests  in  the  Spanish  Netherlands.  See 
Netherlands  (Spanish  Provinces):  A.  D.  1667. 

A.  D.  1668. — The  king's  conquests  in  Flan- 
ders checked  by  the  Triple  Alliance.  See 
Netherlands  (Holland):  A.  D.  1668. 

A.  D.  1670. — The  secret  treaty  of  Dover. — 
The  buying  of  the  English  king.  See  Eng- 
land: A.  D.  1668-1670. 

A.  D.  1672-1678.— War  with  Holland  and 
the  Austro-Spanish  Coalition.  See  Austria: 
A.  D.  1672-1714;  and  Netherlands  (Holland)  : 
A.  D.  1672-1674,  and  1674-1678, 

A.  D.  1673-1682. —  Discovery  and  explora- 
tion of  the  Mississippi  by  Marquette  and  La 
Salle. — Possession  taken  of  Louisiana.  See 
C.\nada:  a.  D.  1634-1673,  and  1669-1687. 

A.  D.  1678-1679.— The  Peace  of  Nimeguen. 
See  NiiiEGUEN,  Peace  of. 

A.  D.  1679-1681. — Complete  absorption  of 
Les  Trois-Evech^s  and  Alsace. — Assumption 
of  entire  sovereignty  by  Louis  XIV. — En- 
croachments of  the  Chambers  of  Reannexa- 
tion. — The  seizure  of  Strasburg. — "  The  Lor- 
raine Trois-Eveches,  recovered  by  France  from 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  had  remained  in  an 
equivocal  position,  as  to  public  law,  during 
nearly  a  century,  between  their  old  and  new  ties: 
the  treaty  of  Westphalia  had  cut  the  knot  by  the 
formal  renunciation  of  the  Empire  to  all  rights 
over  these  countries;  difficulties  nevertheless  still 
subsisted  relative  to  the  fiefs  and  the  penden- 
cies of  Trois-Eveches  possessed  by  members  of 
the  Empire.  Alsace,  in  its  turn,  from  the  treaty 
of  Westphalia  to  the  peace  of  Nimeguen,  had 
offered  analogous  and  still  greater  difficulties, 
this  province  of  Teutonic  tongue  not  having 
accepted  the  annexation  to  France  as  easily  as  the 


Walloon  province  of  Trois-Evgohes,  and  the  treaty 
of  Westphalia  presenting  two  contradictory 
clauses,  one  of  which  ceded  to  France  all  the 
rights  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Empire,  and  the 
other  of  which  reserved  the  '  immediateness '  of 
the  lords  and  the  ten  cities  of  the  prefecture  of 
Alsace  towards  the  Empire  [see  Germany:  A.  D. 
1648].  ...  At  last,  on  the  complaints  carried 
to  the  Germanic  Diet  by  the  ten  Alsacian  cities, 
joined  by  the  German  feudatories  of  Trois- 
Evgches,  Louis,  who  was  then  very  conciliatory 
towards  the  Diet,  consented  to  take  for  arbiters 
the  King  of  Sweden  and  some  princes  and  towns 
of  Germany  (1665).  The  arbitration  was  pro- 
tracted for  more  than  six  years.  In  the  begin- 
ning of  1673,  the  arbiters  rendered  an  ambiguous 
decision  which  decided  nothing  and  satisfied  no 
one.  War  with  Holland  broke  out  meanwhile 
and  changed  all  the  relations  of  France  with 
Germany.  .  .  .  Louis  XIV.  disarmed  or  took 
military  occupation  of  the  ten  cities  and  silenced 
all  opposition.  ...  In  the  conferences  of  Nime- 
guen, the  representatives  of  the  Emperor  and  the 
Empire  endeavoretl  to  return  to  the  '  immediate- 
ness,' but  the  King  would  not  listen  to  a  renewal 
of  the  arbitration,  and  declared  all  debate  super- 
fluous. '  Not  only,' said  the  French  plenipoten- 
tiaries, '  ought  the  King  to  exercise,  as  in  fact 
he  does  exercise,  sovereign  domain  over  the 
ten  cities,  but  he  might  also  extend  it  over 
Strasburg,  for  the  treaty  of  Milnster  furnishes 
to  this  city  no  special  title  guaranteeing  its 
independence  better  than  that  of  the  other 
cities.'  It  was  the  first  time  that  Louis  had  dis- 
closed this  bold  claim,  resting  on  an  inaccurate 
assertion.  The  Imperialists,  terrified,  yielded  as 
regarded  the  ten  cities,  and  Alsace  was  not  called 
in  question  in  the  treaty  of  Nimeguen.  Only  the 
Imperialists  protested,  by  a  separate  act,  against 
the  conclusions  which  might  be  drawn  from  this 
omission.  The  ten  cities  submitted  and  took  to 
the  King  an  oath  of  fidelit}',  without  reserva- 
tion towards  the  Empire;  their  submission  was 
celebrated  byamedal  bearing  the  device:  'Alsatia 
in  provinciam  reducta'  (1680).  The  treaty  of 
Nimeguen  was  followed  by  divers  measures  des- 
tined to  win  the  Alsacian  population.  .  .  .  This 
wise  policy  bore  its  fruits,  and  Alsace,  tranquil- 
lized, gave  no  more  cause  of  anxiety  to  the 
French  government.  France  was  thenceforth 
complete  mistress  of  the  possessions  which  had 
been  ceded  to  her  by  the  Empire ;  this  was  only 
the  first  part  of  the  work ;  the  point  in  question 
now  was,  to  complete  these  possessions  by  join- 
ing to  them  their  natural  appendages  which  the 
Empire  had  not  alienated.  The  boundaries  of 
Lower  Alsace  and  the  Messin  district  were  ill  de- 
fined, encroached  upon,  entangled,  on  the  Rhine, 
on  the  Sarre,  and  in  the  Vosges,  by  the  fiefs  of 
a  host  of  petty  princes  and  German  nobles.  This 
could  not  be  called  a  frontier.  Besides,  in  the 
very  heart  of  Alsace,  the  great  city  of  Strasbiu-g 
preserved  its  independence  towards  France  and 
its  connection  with  the  Empire.  A  pacific  method 
was  invented  to  proceed  to  aggrandizements 
which  it  would  seem  could  only  be  demanded  by 
arms ;  a  pacific  method,  provided  that  France  could 
count  on  the  weakness  and  irresolution  of  her 
neighbors ;  this  was  to  investigate  and  revendicate 
everything  which,  by  any  title  and  at  any  epoch 
whatsoever,  had  been  dependent  on  Alsace  and 
Trois-Eveches.  We  may  comprehend  whither  this 
would  lead,  thanks  to  the  complications  of  the 


1268 


FRANCE,  1679-1681. 


The  Dragonnades. 


FRANCE,  1681-1698. 


feudal  epoch ;  and  it  was  not  even  designed  to  stop 
at  tlie  feudal  system,  but  to  go  back  to  the  times  of 
the  Frankish  kings !  Chambers  of  '  reannexation ' 
were  therefore  instituted,  in  1679,  in  the  Parlia- 
ment of  Metz,  and  in  the  sovereign  council  of 
Alsace,  with  a  mission  which  their  title  suffici- 
ently indicated.  .  .  .  Among  the  nobles  sum- 
moned, figured  the  Elector  of  Treves,  for  Ober- 
stein,  Falkenburg,  etc. ;  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse, 
for  divers  flefs;  the  Elector  Palatine,  for  Seltz 
and  the  canton  situated  between  the  Lauter  and 
the  Keich  (Hogenbach,  Germersheim,  etc.);  an- 
other prince  palatine  for  the  county  of  Veldentz ; 
the  Bishop  of  Speyer,  for  a  part  of  his  bishopric ; 
the  city  of  Strasburg,  for  the  domains  which  it 
possessed  beyond  the  Rhine  (Wasselonne  and 
Marlenheim);  lastly,  the  King  of  Sweden,  for  the 
duchy  of  Deux-Ponts  or  Zweibrlicken,  a  territory 
of  considerable  extent  and  of  irregular  form, 
which  intersected  the  cis-Rhenish  Palatinate. 
.  .  .  By  divers  decrees  rendered  in  March, 
August,  and  October,  1680,  the  sovereign  coun- 
cil of  Alsace  adjudged  to  the  King  the  sovereignty 
of  all  the  Alsacian  seigniories.  The  nobles  and 
inhabitants  were  summoned  to  swear  fidelity  to 
the  King,  and  the  nobles  were  required  to  recog- 
nize the  sovereign  council  as  judge  in  last  resort. 
The  chamber  of  Metz  acted  on  a  still  larger  scale 
than  the  chamber  of  Breisach.  April  13,  1680,  it 
united  to  Trois-Evgches  more  than  80  fiefs,  the 
Lorraine  marquisate  of  Pont-a-Mousson,  the  prin- 
cipality of  Salm,  the  counties  of  Saarbruck  and 
Veldentz,  the  seigniories  of  Sarrebourg,  Bitche, 
Homburg,  etc.  The  foundation  of  the  new  town 
of  Sarre-Louis  and  the  fortification  of  Bitche  con- 
solidated this  new  frontier;  and  not  only  was  the 
course  of  the  Sarre  secured  to  Prance,  but  France, 
crossing  the  Sarre,  encroached  deeply  on  the 
Palatinate  and  the  Electorate  of  Treves,  posted 
herself  on  the  Nahe  and  the  Blies,  and  threw,  as 
an  advance-guard,  on  a  peninsula  of  the  Moselle, 
the  fortress  of  Mont-Royal,  half-way  from  Treves 
to  Coblentz,  on  the  territories  of  the  county  of 
Veldentz.  The  parliament  of  Franche-Comte, 
newly  French  as  it  was,  zealously  followed  the 
example  of  the  two  neighboring  courts.  There 
was  also  a  frontier  to  round  towards  the  Jura. 
.  .  .  The  Duke  of  Wiirtcmberg  was  required  to 
swear  allegiance  to  the  King  for  his  county  of 
Montbeliard.  .  .  .  The  acquisitions  made  were 
trifling  compared  with  those  which  remained  to 
be  made.  He  [Louis  XIV.]  was  not  sure  of  the 
Rhine,  not  sure  of  Alsace,  so  long  as  he  had  not 
Strasburg,  the  great  city  always  ready  to  throw 
upon  the  French  bank  of  the  river  the  armies  of 
the  Empire.  France  had  long  aimed  at  this  con- 
quest. As  soon  as  she  possessed  Metz  she  had 
dreamed  of  Strasburg.  .  .  .  Though  the  King 
and  Louvois  had  prevented  Crequi  from  besieging 
the  place  during  the  war,  it  was  because  they 
counted  on  surprising  it  after  peace.  This  great 
enterprise  was  most  ably  manoeuvred."  The 
members  of  the  regency  of  the  city  were  gained 
over,  one  by  one.  ' '  The  Imperial  troops  had 
evacuated  the  city  pursuant  to  the  treaty  of 
Nimeguen ;  the  magistrates  dismissed  1,200  Swiss 
which  the  city  had  in  its  pay;  then,  on  the 
threatening  demands  of  the  French,  they  de- 
molished anew  Fort  Kehl.  which  they  liad  rebuilt 
since  its  destruction  by  Crequi.  Wheu  the  fruit 
seemed  ripe,  Louis  stretched  out  his  hand  to 
gather  it.  In  the  latter  part  of  September,  1681, 
the  garrisons  of  Lorraine,  Franche-Comte,  and 


Alsace  put  themselves  in  motion.  .  .  .  The  28th, 
35,000  men  were  found  assembled  before  the  city; 
Baron  de  Moutclar,  who  commanded  this  army, 
informed  the  magistrates  that  '  the  sovereign 
chamber  of  Breisach  having  adjudged  to  the 
king  the  sovereignty  of  all  Alsace,  of  which 
Strasburg  was  a  member,  his  Majesty  desired 
that  they  should  recognize  him  as  their  sovereign 
lord,  and  receive  a  garrison."  On  the  30th  the 
capitulation  of  the  city  was  signed;  oh  the  23d  of 
October  the  King  was  received  as  its  sovereign. 
— H.  Martin,  Hist,  of  France :  Age  of  Louis  XIV., 
V.  1,  ch.  7.     See  Germ.int:  A.  D.  1648-171.5. 

A.  D.  i68o. — Imprisonment  of  the  "  Man  in 
the  Iron  Mask."     .See  Iron  JL\sk. 

A.  D.  1681-1684. —  Threatening  relations 
with  the  Turks.  —  War  with  the  Barbary 
States. — Destructive  bombardment  of  Algiers. 
See  B.A.RB.\RY  States  :  A.  D.  1664-1684. 

A.  D.  1681-1698. — Climax  of  the  persecution 
of  the  Huguenots. — The  Dragonnades. — The 
revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes. — The  great 
exodus  of  French  Protestants  and  the  conse- 
quent national  loss. — "Love  and  war  suspended 
for  a  considerable  time  "  the  ambition  of  the  king 
to  extinguish  heresy  in  his  dominions  and  estab- 
lish uniformity  of  religious  worship;  "but  when 
Louis  became  satiated  at  once  with  glory  and 
pleasure,  and  when  Madame  de  Maintenon,  the 
Duke  de  Beauvilliers,  the  Duke  de  Montausier, 
Bossuet,  the  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  the  Chan- 
cellor Letellier,  and  all  the  religious  portion  of 
the  court,  began  to  direct  his  now  unoccupied 
and  scrupulous  mind  to  the  interests  of  religion, 
Louis  XIV.  returned  to  his  plans  with  renewed 
ardor.  From  bribery  they  proceeded  to  compul- 
sion. Missionaries,  escorted  by  dragoons,  spread 
themselves  at  the  instigation  of  Bossuet,  and 
even  of  Fenelon,  over  the  western,  southern  and 
eastern  provinces,  and  particularly  in  those  dis- 
tricts throughout  which  Protestantism,  more 
firmly  rooted  among  a  more  tenacious  people, 
had  as  yet  resisted  all  attempts  at  conversion  by 
preaching.  .  .  .  Children  from  above  seven  years 
of  age  were  authorized  to  abjure  legally  the 
religion  of  their  fathers.  The  houses  of  those 
parents  who  refused  to  deliver  up  their  sons  and 
daughters  were  invaded  and  laid  under  contri 
butions  by  the  royal  troops.  The  expropriation 
of  their  homes,  and  the  tearing  asunder  of  fami- 
lies, compelled  the  people  to  fly  from  persecu- 
tion. The  king,  uneasy  at  this  growing  depopu- 
lation, pronounced  the  punishment  of  the  galleys 
against  those  who  sought  liberty  in  flight;  he 
also  ordered  the  confiscation  of  all  the  lands  and 
houses  which  were  sold  by  those  proi>rietors  who 
were  preparing  to  quit  the  kingdom.  .  .  .  Very 
soon  the  proscription  was  organized  en  masse: 
all  the  cavalry  in  the  kingdom,  who,  on  account 
of  the  peace,  were  unemployed,  were  placed  at 
the  disposal  of  the  preachers  and  bishops,  to  up- 
hold their  missions  [known  as  the  dragonnades] 
with  the  sabre.  .  .  .  Bossuet  approved  of  these 
persecutions.  Religious  and  political  faith,  in 
his  eyes,  justified  their  necessity.  His  corre- 
spondence is  full  of  evidence,  while  his  actions 
prove  that  he  was  an  accomplice :  even  his  elo- 
quence .  .  .  overflowed  with  approbation  of,  and 
enthusiasm  for,  these  oppressions  of  the  soul  and 
terrors  of  hei-esy." — A.  de  Lamartine,  Memoirs 
of  Celebrated  Characters,  t.  3:  Bossuet.  —  "The 
heroism  of  conviction,  it  has  been  truly  said,  was 
now  displayed,  not  in  resistance,  but,  if  the  para 


1269 


FRANCE,  1681-1698. 


Revocation  of 
the  Edict  of  Nantes. 


FRANCE,  1686. 


<iox  may  be  admitted,  in  flight.  Tlie  outflow 
was  for  the  moment  arrested  at  the  remonstrance 
of  Colbert,  now  for  the  last  time  listened  to  in 
the  royal  councils,  and  by  reason  of  the  sympathy 
aroused  by  the  fugitives  in  England:  but  not 
before  3,000  families  had  left  the  country.  The 
retirement  and  death  of  the  great  minister  were 
the  signal  for  revived  action,  wherever  an  as- 
semblj'  of  huguenots  larger  than  usual  might 
warrant  or  colour  a  suspicion  of  rebellion.  In 
such  excuses,  not  as  yet  an  avowed  crusade,  the 
troopers  of  the  duke  de  Noailles  were  called  in 
at  Grenoble,  Bourdeaux,  and  Nlmes.  Full  forty 
churches  were  demolished  in  1683,  more  than  a 
liundred  in  1684.  But  the  system  of  military 
missions  was  not  organized  until  in  1685  the 
defence  of  the  Spanish  frontier  offered  the  op- 
portunity for  a  final  subjugation  of  the  hugue- 
nots of  Beam.  The  dragonnade  passed  through 
the  land  like  a  pestilence.  From  Guienne  to 
Dauphine,  from  Poitou  to  Upper  Languedoc,  no 
place  was  spared.  Then  it  pervaded  the  south- 
east country,  about  the  Cevennes  and  Provence, 
and  ravaged  Lyons  and  the  Pays  de  Gex.  In 
the  end,  the  whole  of  the  north  was  assailed,  and 
the  failing  edict  of  Nantes  was  annulled  on  the 
1st  of  October.  The  sombre  mind  of  Madame  de 
JIaintenon  had  postulated  the  Recall  as  a  pre- 
liminary to  the  marriage  which  the  king  had 
already  conceded.  On  the  21st  of  the  month  the 
great  church  at  Charenton  was  doomed ;  and  on 
the  23nd  the  'unadvised  and  precipitate'  Edict 
of  Revocation  was  registered  in  the  Chambre 
■des  Vacations.  .  .  .  The  year  1685  is  fitly  identi- 
fied with  the  depopulation  of  France.  And  yet, 
with  a  blindness  that  appears  to  us  incredible, 
the  government  refused  to  believe  in  the  desire 
or  the  possibility  of  escape.  The  penalties  at- 
tached to  capture  on  the  road, — the  galleys  or 
the  nunnery, —  the  vigilant  watch  at  the  fron- 
tier, the  frigates  cruising  by  every  coast,  all 
these  difficulties  seem  to  have  persuaded  Lou- 
vois  that  few  would  persist  in  risking  flight. 
What  these  measures  actually  effected  was  doubt- 
less to  diminish  the  exodus,  but  in  no  marked 
degree.  At  length,  it  came  to  be  thought  that 
the  emigration  was  due  to  its  prohibition,  as 
though  the  huguenots  must  do  a  thing  from 
mere  perverseness.  The  watch  was  relaxed,  and 
a  result  unlocked  for  issued.  It  was  the  signal 
of  the  greatest  of  the  emigrations,  that  of  1688. 
...  In  the  statistical  question  [as  to  the  total 
number  of  the  Huguenot  exiles  from  France  after 
the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes]  it  is  im- 
possible to  arrive  at  a  certain  result;  and  the 
range  which  calculation  or  conjecture  has  al- 
lowed to  successive  historians  may  make  one 
pause  before  attempting  a  dogmatic  solution. 
Basnage,  a  year  after  the  Recall,  reckoned  the 
emigrants  above  150,000;  next  year  Jurieu  raised 
the  total  above  300,000.  "Writing  later  Basnage 
found  between  300,000  and  400,000;  and  the  esti- 
mate has  been  accepted  by  Sismondi.  Lastly 
Voltaire,  followed  in  our  own  day  by  Hase, 
counted  500,000.  These  are  a  few  of  the  sober 
calculations,  and  their  mean  will  perhaps  supply 
the  ultimate  figure.  I  need  only  mention,  among 
impossible  guesses,  that  of  Limiers,  which  raises 
the  account  to  800,000,  because  it  has  been  taken 
up  by  the  Prussian  statesman  Von  Dohm.  .  .  . 
The  only  historian  who  professes  to  have  pur- 
sued the  enquiry  in  exact  detail  is  Capeflgue; 
and  from  his  minute  scrutiny  of  the  cartons  des 


generalites,  as  prepared  in  the  closing  years  of 
the  17th  century,  he  obtains  a  computation  of 
235,000  or  330,000.  Such  a  result  must  be  ac- 
cepted as  the  absolute  minimum ;  for  it  was  the 
plain  interest  of  the  intendants  who  drew  up  the 
returns,  to  put  all  the  facts  which  revealed  the 
folly  of  the  king's  action  at  the  lowest  cipher. 
And  allowing  the  accuracy  of  Capefigue's  work, 
there  are  other  reasons  for  increasing  his  total. 
.  .  .  We  cannot  set  the  emigration  at  a  lower 
fraction  than  one-fifth  of  the  total  huguenot 
society.  If  the  body  numbered  two  millions,  the 
outflow  will  be  400,000.  If  this  appear  an  ex- 
treme estimate,  It  must  be  remembered  that  one- 
fifth  Is  also  extreme  on  the  other  side.  Reducing 
the  former  aggregate  to  1,500,000,  it  will  be 
clearly  within  the  bounds  of  moderation  to  leave 
the  total  exodus  a  range  between  300,000  and 
350,000.  How  are  we  to  distribute  this  immense 
aggregation  ?  Holland  certainly  claims  near  100,  - 
000 ;  England,  with  Ireland  and  America,  prob- 
ably 80,000.  Switzerland  must  have  received 
25,000;  and  Germany,  including  Brandenburg, 
thrice  that  number.  The  remainder  will  be 
made  up  from  the  north  of  Europe,  and  from 
the  exiles  whom  commerce  or  other  causes  carried 
in  isolated  households  elsewhere,  and  of  whom 
no  record  is  preserved  to  us.  .  .  .  The  tale  then 
of  the  emigrants  was  above  300,000.  It  follows 
to  ask  what  was  the  material  loss  involved  In 
their  exodus.  Caveirac  is  again  the  lowest  in  his 
estimate :  he  will  not  grant  the  export  of  more 
than  350,000  livres.  He  might  have  learnt  from 
Count  d'Avaux  himself,  that  those  least  likely 
to  magnify  the  sum  confessed  that  by  the  very 
year  of  the  Recall  twenty  million  livres  had  gone 
out  of  the  country;  and  it  is  certain  that  the 
wealthier  merchants  deferred  their  departure  in 
order  to  carry  as  much  as  they  could  with  them. 
Two  hundred  and  fifty  traders  are  said  to  have 
quitted  Rouen  In  1687  and  1688.  Probably  the 
actual  amount  was  very  far  in  excess  of  these 
twenty  millions;  and  a  calculation  is  cited  by 
Macpherson  which  even  affirms  that  every  ludi' 
vidual  refugee  in  England  brought  with  him  on 
an  average  money  or  effects  to  the  value  of  £60. 
...  It  will  be  needless  to  add  many  statistics 
of  the  injury  caused  by  their  withdrawal  from 
France.  Two  great  instances  are  typical  of  the 
rest.  Lyons  which  had  employed  18,000  silk- 
looms  had  but  4,000  remaining  by  the  end  of  the 
century.  Tours  with  the  same  interest  had  had 
800  mills,  80,000  looms,  and  perhaps  4,000  work- 
people. Of  its  3,000  ribbon-factories  only  sixty 
remained.  Equality  significant  was  the  ruin  of 
the  woollen  trade  of  Poitou.  Little  was  left  of 
the  drugget-manufacture  of  Coulonges  and  Cha- 
taigneraie,  or  of  the  industry  in  serges  and  bom- 
bazines at  Thouars;  and  the  export  traffic  be- 
tween Chataigneraie  and  Canada,  by  way  of  La 
Rochelle,  was  in  the  last  year  of  the  century 
absolutely  extinct." — R.  L.  Poole,  Sist.  of  the 
Huguennts  of  tlw  Dispersion,  ch.  3  and  15. 

Also  in  :  C.  Weiss,  Hist,  of  the  French  Protes- 
tant Refugees. — N.  Peyrat,  The  Pastors  in  t/i€  Wil- 
der?ieM,  v.  1,  ch.  5-7.  — J.  I.  von  DoUingei-,  Studies 
in  European  History,  ch.  11-12. — C.  W.  Baird, 
Hist,  of  the  Huguenot  Emigration  to  Am.,  ch.  4-8 
(r.  1-2). 

A.  D.  1682-1693.— Contest  with  the  Papacy. 
Se  Papacy:  A   D.  1082-1693. 

A.  D.  1686. — Claims  upon  the  Palatinate. 
See  Germany  :  A.  D.  1686. 


1270 


FRANCE,  1689-1690. 


Devastation  of  the 
Palatinate. 


FRANCE,  1689-1691. 


A.  D.  1689-1690. — War  of  the  League  of 
Augsburg. — The  second  devastation  of  the 
Palatinate. — "The  interference  of  Lewis  in  Ire- 
laud  on  behalf  of  James  [the  Second,  the  de- 
throned Stuart  king]  caused  William  [Prince  of 
Orange,  now  King  of  England]  to  mature  his 
plans  for  a  great  Continental  confederacy  against 
France.  On  May  12,  1689,  William,  as  Stadt- 
holder  of  the  United  Provinces,  had  entered  into 
an  oflfensive  and  defensive  alliance  with  the  Em- 
peror against  Lewis.  On  3Iay  17,  as  King  of 
England,  he  declared  war  against  France;  and 
on  December  30  joined  the  alliance  between  the 
Emperor  and  the  Dutch.  His  example  was  fol- 
lowed on  June  6,  1690,  by  the  King  of  Spain, 
and  on  October  20  of  the  same  year  by  Victor 
Amadeus,  Duke  of  Savoy.  This  confederation 
was  called  the  'Grand  Alliance.'  Its  main  ob- 
ject was  declared  to  be  to  curb  the  power  and 
ambition  of  Lewis  XIV. ;  to  force  him  to  sur- 
render his  conquests,  and  to  confine  Lis  territories 
to  the  limits  agreed  upon  between  him  and  the 
Emperor  at  the  treaty  of  Westphalia  (16-18),  and 
between  France  and  Spain  at  the  treaty  of  the 
Pyrenees  (1659).  The  League  of  Augsburg, 
which  William  had  with  so  much  trouble  brought 
about,  had  now  successfully  developed  into  the 
Grand  Alliance. " — E.  Hale,  T/ie  Fall  of  the  Stuarts 
and  Western  Europe,  ch.  14,  sect.  5. — "  The  work 
at  which  AVilliam  had  toiled  indefatigably  during 
many  gloomy  and  anxious  years  was  at  length 
accomplished.  The  great  coalition  was  formed. 
It  was  plain  that  a  desperate  conflict  was  at  hand. 
The  oppressor  of  Europe  would  have  to  defend 
himself  against  England  allied  with  Charles  the 
Second  King  of  Spain,  with  the  Emperor  Leo- 
pold, and  with  the  Germanic  and  Batavian  fed- 
erations, and  was  likely  to  have  no  ally  except 
the  Sultan,  who  was  waging  war  against  the 
House  of  Austria  on  the  Danube.  Lewis  had, 
towards  the  close  of  the  preceding  year,  taken 
his  enemies  at  a  disadvantage,  and  had  struck 
the  first  blow  before  they  were  prepared  to  parry 
it.  But  that  blow,  though  heavy,  was  not  aimed 
at  the  part  where  it  might  have  been  mortal. 
Had  hostilities  been  commenced  on  the  Batavian 
frontier,  AVilliam  and  his  army  would  probably 
have  been  detained  on  the  continent,  and  James 
might  have  continued  to  govern  England.  Hap- 
pily, Lewis,  under  an  infatuation  which  many 
pious  Protestants  confidently  ascribed  to  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God,  had  neglected  the 
point  on  which  the  fate  of  the  whole  civilised 
world  depended,  and  had  made  a  great  display 
of  power,  promptitude,  and  energy,  in  a  quarter 
where  the  most  splendid  achievements  could  pro- 
duce nothing  more  than  an  illumination  and  a 
Te  Deum.  A  French  army  under  the  command 
of  Marshal  Duras  had  invaded  tlie  Palatinate  and 
some  of  the  neighbouring  principalities.  But 
this  expedition,  though  it  had  been  completely 
successful,  and  though  the  skill  and  vigour  with 
which  it  had  been  conducted  had  excited  general 
admiration,  could  not  perceptibly  affect  the  event 
of  the  tremendous  struggle  which  was  approach- 
ing. France  would  soon  be  attacked  on  every 
side.  It  would  be  impossible  for  Duras  long  to 
retain  possession  of  the  jirovinces  which  he  had 
surprised  and  overrun.  An  atrocious  thought 
rose  in  the  mind  of  Louvois,  who,  in  military 
affairs,  had  the  chief  sway  at  Versailles.  .  .  . 
The  ironhearted  statesman  submitted  his  plan, 
probably  with  much  management  and  with  some 


disguise,  to  Lewis ;  and  Lewis,  in  an  evil  hour 
for  his  fame,  assented.  Duras  received  orders  to 
turn  one  of  the  fairest  regions  of  Europe  into  a 
wilderness.  Fifteen  years  had  elapsed  since  Tu- 
renne  had  ravaged  part  of  that  fine  country. 
But  the  ravages  committed  by  Turenne,  though 
they  have  left  a  deep  stain  on  his  glory,  were 
mere  sport  in  comparison  with  the  horrors  of 
this  second  devastation.  The  French  commander 
announced  to  near  half  a  million  of  human  be- 
ings that  he  granted  them  three  days  of  grace, 
and  that,  within  that  time,  they  must  shift  for 
themselves.  Soon  the  roads  and  field,«.  which 
then  lay  deep  in  snow,  were  blackened  by  in- 
numerable multitudes  of  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren flying  from  their  homes.  Many  died  of  cold 
and  hunger:  but  enough  survived  to  till  the 
streets  of  all  the  cities  of  Europe  with  lean  and 
squalid  beggars,  who  had  once  been  thriving 
farmers  and  shopkeepers.  Meanwhile  the  work 
of  destruction  began.  The  flames  went  up  from 
every  marketplace,  every  hamlet,  every  parish 
church,  every  country  seat,  within  the  devoted 
provinces.  The  fields  where  the  corn  had  been 
sown  were  ploughed  up.  The  orchards  were 
hewn  down.  No  promise  of  a  harvest  was  left 
on  the  fertile  plains  near  what  had  once  been 
Frankenthal.  Not  a  vine,  not  an  almond  tree, 
was  to  be  seen  on  the  slopes  of  the  sunny  hills 
round  what  had  once  been  Heidelberg.  No  re- 
spect was  shown  to  palaces,  to  temples,  to  mon- 
asteries, to  infirmaries,  to  beautiful  works  of  art, 
to  monuments  of  the  illustrious  dead.  The  far- 
famed  castle  of  the  Elector  Palatine  was  turned 
into  "a,  heap  of  ruins.  The  adjoining  hospital 
was  sacked.  The  provisions,  the  medicines,  the 
pallets  on  whicli  the  sick  lay,  were  destroyed. 
The  very  stones  on  which  Manheim  had  been 
built  were  flung  into  the  Rhine.  The  magnifi- 
cent Cathedral  of  Spires  perished,  and  with  it 
the  marble  sepulchres  of  eight  Caesars.  The 
coffins  were  broken  open.  Tlie  ashes  were  scat- 
tered to  the  winds.  Treves,  with  its  fair  bridge, 
its  Roman  baths  and  amphitheatre,  its  venerable 
churches,  convents,  and  colleges,  was  doomed  to 
the  same  fate.  But,  before  this  last  crime  had 
been  perpetrated,  Lewis  was  recalled  to  a  better 
mind  by  the  execrations  of  all  the  neighbouring 
nations,  by  the  silence  and  confusion  of  his  flat- 
terers, and  by  the  expostulations  of  his  wife. 
...  He  relented ;  and  Treves  was  spared.  In 
truth  he  could  hardly  fail  to  perceive  that  he  had 
committed  a  great  error.  The  devastation  of  the 
Palatinate,  while  it  had  not  in  any  sensible  de- 
gree lessened  the  power  of  his  enemies,  liad  in- 
flamed their  animosity,  and  had  furnished  them 
with  inexhaustible  matter  for  invective.  The 
cry  of  vengeance  rose  on  every  side.  Whatever 
scruple  either  branch  of  the  House  of  Austria 
might  have  felt  about  coalescing  with  Protestants 
was  completely  removed. " — Lord  Macaulay,  Hist. 
of  Eiig.,  ch.  11. 

Also  in  :  H.  Martin,  Hist,  of  France :  Age  of 
Louis  XIV.  {trims,  by  M.  L.  Booth),  v.  2,  ch.  2.— 
S.  A.  Dunham,  Hist,  of  the  Oer.  Empire,  blc.  3, 
ch.  3  (v.  3).— See,  also,  Canad.a.;  A.  D.  1689-1690. 

A.  D.  1689-1691. — Aid  to  James  11.  in  Ire- 
land.    SeelREL.WD:  A.  D.  1689-1691. 

A.  D.  1689-1691. — Campaigns  in  the  Nether- 
lands and  in  Savoy. — "Our  limits  will  not  per- 
mit us  to  describe  at  any  length  the  war  between 
Louis  XIV.  and  the  Grand  Alliance,  which  lasted 
till  the  Peace  of  Ryswick,  in  1697,  but  only  to 


1271 


FRANCE,  1689-1691. 


Campaigns  in  the 
Low  Countries. 


FRANCE,  1692. 


note  some  of  the  chief  incidents  of  the  different 
campaigns.  The  Imperialists  had,  ia  1689,  not- 
withstanding the  efforts  it  was  still  necessary  to 
make  against  the  Turks,  brought  an  army  of 
80,000  men  into  the  field,  which  was  divided  into 
three  bodies  under  the  command  of  the  Duke  of 
Lorraine,  the  Elector  of  Bavaria,  and  the  Elector 
of  Brandenburg ;  while  the  Prince  of  Waldeck, 
in  the  Netherlands,  was  at  the  head  of  a  large 
Dutch  and  Spanish  force,  composed,  however,  in 
great  part  of  German  mercenaries.  In  this  quar- 
ter. Marshal  d'Humi6res  was  opposed  to  Wal- 
deck, while  Duras  commanded  the  French  army 
on  the  Rhine.  In  the  south,  tlie  Duke  of  Noailles 
maintained  a  French  force  in  Catalonia.  Nothing 
of  much  importance  was  done  this  year;  but  on 
the  whole  the  war  went  in  favour  of  the  Im- 
perialists, who  succeeded  in  recovering  Mentz 
and  Bonn.  1690:  This  year.  Marshal  d'Hu- 
miSres  was  superseded  by  the  Duke  of  Luxem- 
bourg, who  infused  more  vigour  into  the  French 
operations.  .  .  .  Catinat  was  sent  this  year  into 
Dauphine  to  watch  the  movements  of  the  Duke 
of  Savoy,  who  was  suspected  by  the  French 
Court,  and  not  without  reason,  of  favouring  the 
Grand  Alliance.  The  extravagant  demands  of 
Louis,  who  required  Victor  Amadeus  to  unite 
his  troops  with  the  army  of  Catinat,  and  to  ad- 
mit a  French  garrison  into  Vercelli,  Verrua,  and 
even  the  citadel  of  Turin  itself,  till  a  general 
peace  should  be  effected,  caused  the  Duke  to 
enter  into  treaties  with  Spain  and  the  Emperor, 
June  3d  and  4th;  and  on  October  30th,  he  joined 
the  Grand  Alliance  by  a  treaty  concluded  at  the 
Hague  with  England  and  the  States-Genferal. 
This  last  step  was  taken  by  Victor  Amadeus  in 
consequence  of  his  reverses.  He  had  sustained 
from  Catinat  in  the  battle  of  Staffarda  (August 
17th)  a  defeat  which  only  the  skill  of  a  youthful 
general,  his  cousin  the  Prince  Eugene,  had  saved 
from  becoming  a  total  rout.  As  the  fruits  of  this 
victory,  Catinat  occupied  Saluzzo,  Susa,  and  all 
the  country  from  the  Alps  to  the  Tanaro.  Dur- 
ing these  operations  another  French  division  had 
reduced,  without  much  resistance,  the  whole  of 
Savoy,  except  the  fortress  of  Montmelian.  The 
only  other  event  of  importance  during  this  cam- 
paign was  the  decisive  victory  gained  by  Lux- 
embourg over  Prince  Waldeck  at  Fleurus,  July 
1st.  The  captured  standards,  more  than  a  hun- 
dred in  number,  which  Luxembourg  sent  to 
Paris  on  this  occasion,  obtained  for  him  the 
name  of  the  '  Tapassier  de  Notre  Dame. '  Lux- 
embourg was,  however,  prevented  from  follow- 
ing up  his  victory  by  the  orders  of  Louvois,  who 
forbade  him  to  lay  siege  to  Namur  or  Charleroi. 
Thus,  in  this  campaign,  France  maintained  her 
preponderance  on  land  as  well  as  at  sea  by  the 
victory  off  Beach}'  Head  [see  England  :  A.  D. 
1690].  .  .  .  The  Imperialists  had  this  year  lost 
one  of  their  best  leaders  by  the  death  of  the  Duke 
of  Lorraine  (April).  He  was  succeeded  as  com- 
mander-in-chief by  Maximilian  Emanuel,  Elector 
of  Bavaria;  but  nothing  of  importance  took 
place  upon  the  Rhine.  1691 :  The  campaign 
of  this  year  was  singularly  barren  of  events, 
though  both  the  French  and  English  kings  took 
a  personal  part  in  it.  In  March,  Louis  and  Lux- 
embourg, laid  siege  to  Mons,  the  capital  of 
Hainault,  which  surrendered  in  less  than  three 
weeks.  King  William,  who  was  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood, could  not  muster  sufficient  troops  to 
venture  on  its  relief.     Nothing  further  of  impor- 


tance was  done  in  this  quarter,  and  the  campaign 
in  Germany  was  equally  a  blank.  On  the  side 
of  Piedmont,  Catinat  took  Nice,  but,  being  con- 
fronted by  superior  numbers,  was  forced  to 
evacuate  Piedmont ;  though,  bj'  way  of  compen- 
sation, he  completed  the  conquest  of  Savoy  by 
the  capture  of  Jlontmelian.  Noailles  gained  some 
trifling  successes  in  Spain;  and  the  celebrated 
French  corsair,  Jean  Bart,  distinguished  himself 
by  his  enterprises  at  sea.  One  of  the  most  re- 
markable events  of  the  year  was  a  domestic 
occurrence,  the  death  of  Louvois." — T.  H.  Dyer, 
Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  b/c.  5,  ch.  5  {v.  3). 

Also  in:  F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  44  (p.  5). 

A.  D.  1692. — The  taking  of  Namur  and  the 
victory  of  Steinkirk,  or  Steenkerke. —  "Never 
perhaps  in  the  whole  course  of  his  unresting  life 
were  the  energies  of  William  [of  Orange]  more 
severely  taxed,  and  never  did  his  great  moral  and 
intellectual  qualities  shine  forth  with  a  brighter 
lustre,  than  in  the  years  1693-93.  The  great 
victory  of  La  Hogue  [see  England  :  A.  D.  1693] 
and  the  destruction  of  the  flower  of  the  French 
fleet  did,  it  is  true,  relieve  England  of  any  im- 
mediate dread  either  of  insurrection  or  invasion, 
and  so  far  the  prospect  before  him  acquired  a 
slight  improvement  towards  the  summer  of  1692. 
But  this  was  the  only  gleam  of  light  in  the  hori- 
zon. .  .  .  The  great  coalition  of  Powers  which 
he  had  succeeded  in  forming  to  resist  the  ambi- 
tion of  Louis  was  never  nearer  dissolution  than  in 
the  spring  of  1693.  The  Scandinavian  states, 
who  had  held  aloof  from  it  from  the  first,  were 
now  rapidly  changing  the  benevolence  of  their 
neutrality  into  something  not  easily  distinguish- 
able from  its  reverse.  The  new  Pope  Innocent 
XII.  showed  himself  far  less  amicably  disposed 
towards  William  than  his  two  predecessors.  The 
decrepitude  of  Spain  and  the  arrogant  self-will 
of  Austria  were  displaying  themselves  more  con- 
spicuously than  ever.  Savoy  was  ruled  by  a 
duke  who  was  more  than  half  suspected  of  being 
a  traitor.  .  .  .  William  did  succeed  in  saving 
the  league  from  dissolution,  and  in  getting  their 
armies  once  more  into  the  field.  But  not,  un- 
fortunately, to  any  purpose.  The  campaign  of 
the  present  year  was  destined  to  repeat  the  errors 
of  the  last,  and  these  errors  were  to  be  paid  for  at 
a  heavier  cost.  .  .  .  The  French  king  was  bent 
upon  the  capture  of  the  great  stronghold  of 
Namur,  and  the  enemy,  as  in  the  case  of  Mons, 
were  too  slow  in  their  movements  and  too  inef- 
fective in  their  dispositions  to  prevent  it.  March- 
ing to  the  assault  of  the  doomed  city,  with  a 
magnificence  of  courtly  pageantry  which  had 
never  before  been  witnessed  in  warfare,  Louis 
sat  down  before  Namur,  and  in  eight  days  its 
faint-hearted  governor,  the  nominee  of  the  Span- 
ish viceroy  of  the  Netherlands,  surrendered  at 
discretion.  Having  accomplished,  or  rather  hav- 
ing graciously  condescended  to  witness  the  ac- 
complishment of  this  feat  of  arms,  Louis  re- 
turned to  Versailles,  leaving  his  army  under  the 
command  of  Luxembourg.  The  fall  of  Namur 
was  a  severe  blow  to  the  hopes  of  William,  but 
yet  worse  disasters  were  in  store  for  him.  He 
was  now  pitted  against  one  who  enjoyed  the 
reputation  of  the  greatest  general  of  the  age,  and 
William,  a  fair  but  by  no  means  brilliant  strate- 
gist, was  unequal  to  the  contest  with  his  accom- 
plished adversary.  Luxembourg  lay  at  Stein- 
kirk, and  William  approaching  him  from  a  place 


1272 


FRANCE,  1692. 


Campaigns  in  the 
Low  Countries. 


FRANCE,  169a 


named  Lambeque,  opened  his  attack  upon  him 
by  a  well-conceived  surprise  which  promised  at 
first  to  throw  the  French  array  into  complete 
disorder.  Luxembourg's  resource  and  energy, 
however,  were  equal  to  the  emergency.  He 
rallied  and  steadied  liis  troops  witli  astonishing 
speed,  and  the  nature  of  the  ground  preventing 
the  allies  from  advancing  as  rapidly  as  they  had 
expected,  they  found  the  enemy  in  a  posture  to 
receive  them.  The  British  forces  were  in  the 
front,  commanded  by  Count  Solmes,  the  division 
of  Slackay,  a  name  now  lionourable  for  many 
generations  in  the  annals  of  continental,  no  less 
than  of  Scottish,  warfare,  leading  the  way. 
These  heroes,  for  so,  though  as  yet  untried  sol- 
diers, they  approved  themselves,  were  to  have 
been  supported  by  Count  Solmes  with  a  strong 
body  of  cavalry  and  infantry,  but  at  the  criti- 
cal moment  he  failed  them  miserably,  and  his 
failure  decided  tlie  fortunes  of  tlic  day.  .  .  .  The 
division  was  practically  annihilated.  Its  five 
regiments,  'Cutt's,  Mackay's,  Angus's,  Graham's, 
and  Leven's,  all,' as  Corporal  "Trim  relates  pa- 
thetically, 'cut  to  pieces,  and  so  had  the  Eng- 
lish Life-guards  been  too,  had  it  not  been  for 
some  regiments  on  the  right,  wlio  marched  up 
boldly  to  their  relief,  and  received  tlie  enemy's 
fire  in  their  faces,  before  any  one  of  their  own 
platoons  discharged  a  musket.'  Bitter  was  the 
resentment  in  the  English  army  at  the  desertion 
of  tliese  gallant  troops  by  Count  de  Solmes,  and 
William  gave  vent  to  one  of  his  rare  outbursts  of 
anger  at  the  sight.  We  have  it  indeed  on  the 
authority  above  quoted  —  unimpeachable  as  first- 
hand tradition,  for  Sterne  had  heard  the  story 
of  these  wars  at  the  knees  of  an  eye-witness  of 
and  actor  in  them — tliat  tlie  King  'would  not 
sufier  the  Count  to  come  into  his  presence  for 
many  months  after. '  Tlie  destruction  of  Mackay's 
division  had  indeed  decided  the  issue  of  the 
struggle.  Luxembourg's  army  was  being  rapidly 
strengthened  by  reinforcements  from  that  of 
Boufflers,  and  tliere  was  notliing  for  it  but  re- 
treat. The  loss  on  both  sides  had  been  great,  but 
the  moral  effect  of  the  victory  was  still  greater. 
William's  reputation  for  generalship,  perhaps 
unduly  raised  by  his  recent  exploits  in  Ireland, 
underwent  a  serious  decline." — H.  D.  Traill, 
William  the  Third,  ch.  10. — On  the  Rhine  and  on 
the  Spanish  frontier  nothing  of  importance  oc- 
curred during  1692.  The  Duke  of  Savoy  gained 
some  advantages  on  his  side  and  invaded  Dau- 
phiny,  without  any  material  result.  The  inva- 
sion called  into  action  a  young  heroine.  Mademoi- 
selle de  La  Tour-du-Pin,  whose  portrait  has  a 
place  at  Saint-Denis  by  the  side  of  that  of 
Jeanne  D'Arc. — H.  Martin,  Hist,  of  Fraiux  :  Age 
of  Louis  XIV..  V.  2,  ch.  3. 

Also  en:  W.  H.  Torriano,  William  the  Third, 
ch.  30. 

A.  D.  1693  (July). — The  Battle  of  Neerwin- 
den,  or  Landen. — "'  Lewis  had  determined  not  to 
malve  any  advance  towards  a  reconciliation  with 
the  new  government  of  England  till  the  wliole 
strength  of  his  realm  had  been  put  forth  in  one 
more  effort.  A  mighty  effort  in  truth  it  was,  but 
too  exhausting  to  be  repeated.  He  made  an  im- 
mense display  of  force  at  once  on  the  Pyrenees 
and  on  the  Alps,  on  the  Rhine  and  on  the  Meuse, 
in  the  Atlantic  and  in  the  IMediterranean.  That 
nothing  might  be  wanting  wliicli  could  excite  the 
martial  ardour  of  a  nation  eminently  high-spir- 
ited, he  instituted,  a  few  days  before  he  left  his 


palace  for  the  camp,  a  new  military  order  of 
knighthood,  and  placed  it  under  the  protection 
of   his  own  sainted  ancestor  and  patron.      The 
cross  of  Saint  Lewis  shone  on  the  breasts  of  the 
gentlemen  who   had   been  conspicuous  in   the 
trenches  before  Mons  and  Namur,  and  on  the 
fields  of  Fleurus  and  Steinkirk.  ...  On  the  18th 
of  May  Lewis  left  Versailles.     Early  in  June  he 
was  under  the  walls  of  Namur.     The  Princesses, 
who   had    accompanied   him,    held   their  court 
within  the  fortress.     He  took  under  his  immedi- 
ate command  the  army  of  Boufflers,  which  was 
encamped  at  Gembloux.     Little  more  than  a  mile 
off  lay  the  army  of  Luxemburg.     Tlie  force  col- 
lected in  that  neighbourhood  under  the  French 
lilies  did  not  amount  to  less  than  130,000  men. 
Lewis  had  flattered  himself  that  he  should  be  able 
to  repeat  in  1693  the  stratagem  by  which  Mons 
had  been  taken  in  1691  and  Namur  in  1693;  and  he 
had  determined   that   either   Liege   or   Brussels 
should  be  his  prey.     But  William  had  this  year 
been  able  to  assemble  in  good  time  a  force,  inferior 
indeed  to  that  which  was  opposed  to  him,  but 
still  formidable.     With  this  force  he  took  his 
post  near  Louvain,  on  the  road  between  the  two 
threatened  cities,  and  watched  every  movement 
of    the  enemy.  .  .  .  Just  at   this   conjuncture 
Lewis  announced  his  intention  to  return  instantly 
to  Versailles,  and  to  send  the  Dauphin  and  Bouf- 
flers, with  part  of  the  army  which  was  assem- 
bled near  Namur,  to  join  Marshal  Lorges  who 
commanded  in  the  Palatinate.     Luxemburg  was 
thunderstruck.       He    expostulated   boldly   and 
earnestly.     Never,  he  said,  was  such  an  oppor- 
tunity thrown  away.  .  .  .  'The  Marshal  reasoned: 
he  implored:  he  went  on  his  knees:  but  all  was 
vain;  and  he  quitted  the  royal  presence  in  the 
deepest  dejection.     Lewis  left  the  camp  a  week 
after  he  had  joined  it,  and  never  afterwards  made 
war  in  person.   .  .  .  Though  the  French  army  in 
the  Netherlands  had  been  weakened  by  the  de- 
parture of  the  forces  commanded  by  the  Dau- 
phin and  BoulHers,  and  though  the  aUied  army 
was  daily  strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  fresh 
troops,    Luxemburg  still  had  a  superiority  of 
force;  and  that  superiority  he  increased  by  an 
adroit  stratagem."     He  succeeded  by  a  feint  in 
inducing  William  to  detach  30,000  men  from  his 
army  and  to  send  them  to  Liege.     He  then  moved 
suddenly  upon  the  camp  of  the  allies,  with  80,- 
000  men,  and  found  but  50,000  to  oppose  him. 
"  It  was  still  in  the  [English]  King's  power,  by  a 
hasty  retreat,  to  put  between  his  army  and  the 
enemy  the  narrow,  but  deep,  waters  of  the  Gette, 
which  had  lately  been  swollen  by  rains.     But  the 
site  which  he  occupied  was  strong ;  and  it  could 
easily  be  made  still  stronger.      He  set  all   his 
troops  to   work.      Ditches  were  dug,    mounds 
thrown  up,  palisades  fixed  in  the  earth.      In  a 
few  hours  the  ground  wore  a  new  aspect ;  and 
the  King  trusted  that  he  should  be  able  to  repel 
the  attack  even  of  a  force  greatly  outnumbering 
his  own.  ...   On  the  left  flank,  the  village  of 
Romsdorfi  rose  close  to  the  little  stream  of  Lan- 
den,  from  which  the  English  have  named  the 
disastrous  day.      On  the  right  was  the  village 
of  Neerwinden.     Both  villages  were,  after  the 
fashion  of  the  Low  Countries,  surrounded  by 
moats  and  fences. "  Notwithstanding  the  strength 
of  tlie  position  held  by  the  allies,  and  the  valor 
with  which  they  defended  it,  they  were  driven 
out  of  Neerwinden   [July  39] — but  only  after 
the  shattered  village  had  been  five  times  taken 


127; 


FRANCE,  1693. 


Battles  on 
Land  and  Sea. 


FRANCE,  1694. 


and  retaken  —  and  across  the  Gette,  in  confusion 
and  with  heavy  loss.  ' '  The  French  were  vic- 
torious :  but  they  had  bought  their  victory  dear. 
More  then  10,000  of  the  best  troops  of  Lewis  had 
fallen.  Neerwinden  was  a  spectacle  at  which 
the  oldest  soldiers  stood  aghast.  The  streets 
were  piled  breast  high  with  corpses.  Among 
the  slain  were  some  great  lords  and  some  re- 
nowned warriors.  .  .  .  The  region,  renowned  as 
the  battle  field,  through  many  ages,  of  the  great- 
est powers  of  Europe,  has  seen  only  two  more 
terrible  days,  the  day  of  Malplaquet  and  the  day 
of  "Waterloo.  .  .  .  There  was  no  pursuit,  though 
the  sun  was  still  high  in  the  heaven  when  Wil- 
liam crossed  the  Gette.  The  conquerors  were  so 
much  exhausted  by  marching  and  fighting  that 
they  could  scarcely  move.  ...  A  very  short 
delay  was  enough  for  William.  .  .  .  Three 
weeks  after  his  defeat  he  held  a  review  a  few 
miles  from  Brussels.  The  number  of  men  under 
arms  was  greater  than  on  the  morning  of  the 
bloody  day  of  Landen:  their  appearance  was 
soldierlike;  and  their  spirit  seemed  unbroken. 
William  now  wrote  to  Heinsius  that  the  worst 
was  over.  '  The  crisis,'  he  said,  '  has  been  a  ter- 
rible one.  Thank  God  that  it  has  ended  thus.' 
He  did  not,  however,  think  it  prudent  to  try  at 
that  time  the  event  of  another  pitched  field.  He 
therefore  suffered  the  French  to  besiege  and  take 
Charleroi;  and  this  was  the  only  advantage 
whicli  they  derived  from  the  most  sanguinary 
battle  fought  in  Europe  during  the  seventeenth 
century." — Lord  Macaulay,  Ilist.  of  Eng.,  ch.  30 
(V.  4). 

Also  in:  G.  Burnet,  Hist,  of  My  Own  Time, 
bk.  5  (1693),  V.  4. — Due  de  Saint-Simon,  Memoirs 
(tr.  by  St.  John),  r.  1,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1693  (October). — Defeat  of  the  Duke 
of  Savoy  at  Marsaglia. — -"The  great  efforts 
made  by  Louis  in  the  north  prevented  him  from 
strengthening  the  army  of  Catinat  sufficiently  to 
act  with  energy  against  the  Savoyard  prince,  and 
it  was  determined  to  restrict  the  campaign  of 
1693  to  the  defensive  on  the  part  of  France.  The 
forces  of  the  duke  had  in  the  meantime  been  re- 
inforced from  Germany,  and  he  opened  the  cam- 
paign with  a  brilliant  and  successful  movement 
against  Pignerol.  ...  He  is  said  to  have  enter- 
tained hopes  of  carrying  the  war  in  that  one  cam- 
paign to  the  very  gates  of  Lyons ;  but  the  suc- 
cesses which  inspired  him  with  such  expectations 
alarmed  the  court  of  France,  and  Louis  detached 
in  haste  a  large  body  of  cavalry  to  reinforce 
Catinat.  That  general  marched  at  once  to  fight 
the  Duke  of  Savoy,  who,  presuming  on  his 
strength,  suffered  the  French  to  pour  out  from 
the  valley  of  Suza  into  the  plain  of  Piedmont, 
abandoned  the  heights,  and  was  consequently 
defeated  at  Marsaglia  on  the  4th  of  October. 
Catinat,  however,  could  not  profit  by  his  victory ; 
he  was  too  ill  supplied  in  every  respect  to  under- 
take the  siege  of  Coni,  and  the  state  of  the  French 
armies  at  this  time  marks  as  plainly  that  Louvois 
was  dead,  as  the  state  of  the  finances  speaks  the 
loss  of  Colbert." — G.  P.  R.  James,  Life  and 
Times  of  Louis  XIV.,  r.  2,  ch.  11. 

A.  D.  1694. — Campaigns  without  battles. — 
Operations  at  sea. —  In  1694,  King  William  was 
"in  a  position  to  keep  an  army  afoot  in  the 
Netherlands  stronger  than  any  had  hitherto  been. 
It  was  reckoned  at  31,800  horse,  including  a 
corps  of  dragoons,  and  58,000  foot;  so  great  a 
force  had  never  been  seen  within  the  memory  of 


man.  All  the  best-known  generals,  who  had 
hitherto  taken  part  in  the  wars  of  western 
Europe,  were  gathered  round  him  with  their 
troops.  The  French  army,  with  which  the  Dau- 
phin, but  not  the  King,  was  present,  was  not 
much  smaller ;  it  was  once  more  led  by  Marshal 
Luxembourg.  These  two  hosts  lay  over  against 
one  another  in  their  camps  for  a  couple  of  months ; 
neither  offered  battle  to  the  other.  .  .  .  This  cam- 
paign is  notable  in  the  annals  of  the  art  of  war 
for  the  skill  with  which  each  force  pursued  or 
evaded  the  other ;  but  the  results  were  limited  to 
the  recovery  by  the  allies  of  that  unimportant 
place,  Huy.  William  had  thought  himself  for- 
tunate in  having  come  out  of  the  previous  cam- 
paign without  disaster:  in  this  campaign  the 
French  were  proud  to  have  held  their  lines  in 
presence  of  a  superior  force.  On  the  coast  also 
the  French  were  successful  in  repelling  a  most 
vehement  and  perilous  attack.  They  had  been 
warned  that  the  English  were  going  to  fall  on 
Brest,  and  Vauban  was  sent  down  there  in  haste 
to  organise  the  defence ;  and  in  this  he  was  thor- 
oughly successful.  When  the  English  landed 
on  the  coast  in  Camaret  Bay  (for  the  fort  of  that 
name  had  first  to  be  taken)  they  were  saluted  by 
two  batteries,  which  they  had  never  detected, 
and  which  were  so  well  jilaced  that  every  shot 
told,  and  the  grape-shot  wounded  almost  every 
man  who  had  ventured  ashore.  The  gallant 
General,  Talmash,  was  also  hit,  and  ere  long  died 
of  his  wounds.  The  English  fleet,  which  had 
come  to  bombard  Brest,  was  itself  bombarded 
from  the  walls.  But  though  this  great  effort 
failed,  the  English  fleet  still  held  the  mastery  of 
the  Channel :  it  also  blockaded  the  northern  coast 
of  France.  After  Brest  it  attacked  Dieppe,  lay- 
ing it  almost  entirely  in  ashes ;  thence  it  sailed  to 
Havre,  and  St.  Malo,  to  Calais,  and  Dunkirk. 
This  was  of  great  use  in  the  conduct  of  the  war. 
King  William  observes  that  had  not  the  coasts 
been  kept  in  a  state  of  alarm,  all  the  forces  de- 
tained there  for  defensive  purposes  would  have 
been  thrown  on  the  Netherlands.  .  .  .  But  the 
most  important  result  of  the  maritime  war  lay 
on  another  side.  In  May,  1694,  Noailles  pushed 
into  Catalonia,  supported  by  Tourville,  who  lay 
at  anchor  with  the  fleet  in  the  Bay  of  Rosas. 
...  It  was  of  incalculable  importance  to  Spain 
to  be  in  alliance  with  the  maritime  powers. 
Strengthened  by  a  Dutch  fleet  and  some  Spanish 
ships.  Admiral  Russell  now  appeared  in  the 
Mediterranean.  He  secured  Barcelona  from  the 
French,  who  would  never  have  been  kept  out  of 
the  city  by  the  Spaniards  alone.  The  approach 
of  tlie  English  fleet  had  at  this  time  the  greatest 
influence  in  keeping  the  Duke  of  Savoy  staunch 
to  the  confederation.  In  Germany  the  rise  of  the 
house  of  Hanover  to  the  Electoral  dignity  had 
now  caused  most  unpleasant  complications.  A 
shoal  of  German  princes,  headed  by  the  King  of 
Denmark,  as  a  Prince  of  the  Empire,  and  offended 
by  the  preference  shown  to  Hanover,  inclined,  if 
not  to  alliance  with  France,  at  least  to  neutrality. 
.  .  .  We  can  have  no  conception,  and  in  this 
place  we  cannot  possibly  investigate,  with  what 
unbroken  watchfulness  King  William,  supported 
by  Heinsius,  looked  after  the  German  and  the 
Northern  courts,  so  as  to  keep  their  irritation 
from  reacting  on  the  course  of  the  great  war.  .  .  . 
When  the  French,  in  June,  1694,  crossed  the 
Rhine,  meaning,  as  they  boasted  with  true  Gallic 
arrogance,  soon  to  dip  their  swords  in  the  Danube, 


1274 


FRANCE,  1694. 


Peace  of  Rysivick. 


FRANCE,  1697. 


they  found  the  Prince  of  Baden  so  well  prepared, 
and  posted  so  strongly  near  Wisloch,  that  they 
did  not  venture  to  attack  him.  .  .  .  The  general 
result  is  this :  neither  side  was  as  yet  really  su- 
perior to  the  other ;  but  the  French  power  was 
everywhere  checked  and  held  within  bounds  by 
the  arms  and  influence  of  William  III." — L.  von 
Ranke,  Jlist.  of  Eng.,  llth  Century,  bk.  20,  ch.  6 
(i'.  5). 

A.  D.  1695-1696. — The  end  of  the  War  of 
the  League  of  Augsburg. — Loss  of  Namur. — 
Terms  with  Savoy. — The  Peace  of  Ryswick. 
— "Military  and  naval  efforts  were  relaxed  on 
all  side.s ;  on  the  Rhine  the  Prince  of  Baden  and 
the  Marechal  de  Lorges,  both  ill  in  health,  did 
little  but  observe  each  other;  and  though  the 
Duke  of  Savoy  made  himself  master  of  Casal  on 
the  11th  July,  169.5,  no  other  military  event  of 
any  consequence  took  place  on  the  side  of  Italy, 
where  Louis  entered  into  negotiations  with  the 
duke,  and  succeeded,  in  the  following  year,  in 
detaching  him  from  tlie  league  of  Augsburg.  As 
the  price  of  his  defection  the  whole  of  his  terri- 
tories were  to  be  restored  to  him,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Suza,  Nice,  and  ^Montmeillan,  which 
were  promised  to  be  delivered  also  on  the  signa- 
ture of  a  general  peace.  Money  was  added  to 
render  the  consent  of  a  needy  prince  more  read)'. 
.  .  .  The  duke  promised  to  obtain  from  the  em- 
peror a  pledge  that  Italy  should  be  considered  as 
neutral  ground,  and  if  the  allies  refused  such  a 
pledge,  then  to  join  the  forces  of  Savoy  to  those 
of  France,  and  give  a  free  passage  to  the  French 
through  his  dominions.  In  consequence  of  this 
treaty  ...  he  applied  to  the  emperor  for  a  rec- 
ognition of  the  neutrality  of  Italy,  and  was  re- 
fused. He  then  hastened,  with  a  facility  which 
distinguished  him  through  life,  to  abandon  bis 
friends  and  join  his  enemies,  and  within  one 
month  was  generalissimo  for  the  emperor  in 
Italy  fighting  against  France,  and  generalissimo 
for  the  King  of  France  in  Italy  fighting  against 
the  emperor.  Previous  to  this  change,  however, 
the  King  of  England  opened  the  campaign  of 
1695  in  the  Netherlands  by  the  siege  of  Namur. 
The  death  of  Luxemburg  had  placed  the  French 
army  of  Flanders  under  the  command  of  the  in- 
capable Marshal  Villeroi;  and  William,  feeling 
that  his  enemy  was  no  longer  to  be  mucli  re- 
spected, assumed  at  once  the  offensive.  He 
concealed  his  design  upon  Namur  under  a  variety 
of  manoeuvres  which  kept  the  French  generals 
in  suspense ;  and,  then  leaving  the  Prince  of 
Vaudemont  to  protect  the  principal  Spanish 
towns  in  Flanders,  he  collected  his  troops  sud- 
denly ;  and  while  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  invested 
Namur,  he  covered  the  operations  of  the  siege 
with  a  considerable  force.  Villeroi  now  deter- 
mined to  attack  the  Prince  of  Vaudemont,  but 
twice  suffered  him  to  escape;  and  then,  after 
having  apparently  hesitated  for  some  time  how 
to  drive  or  draw  the  King  of  England  from  the 
attack  upon  Namur,  he  resolved  to  bombard  the 
city  of  Brussels,  never  pretending  to  besiege  it, 
but  alleging  as  his  motive  for  a  proceeding 
which  was  merely  destructive,  the  bombardment 
of  the  maritime  towns  of  France  by  the  English. 
During  three  daj's  he  continued  to  fire  upon  the 
city,  ruining  a  great  part  thereof,  and  then  with- 
drew to  witness  the  surrender  of  the  citadel  of 
Namur  on  the  2nd  September,  the  town  itself 
having  capitulated  on  the  4th  of  the  preceding 
month.     As  some  compensation,  though  but  a 


poor  one,  for  the  loss  of  Namur,  and  the  disgrace 
of  the  French  arms  in  suffering  such  a  city  to  be 
captured  in  the  presence  of  80,000  men,  Alontal 
took  Dixmude  and  Deynse  in  the  course  of  June. 
.  .  .  The  only  after-event  of  any  importance 
which  occurred  in  Flanders  during  this  war,  was 
the  capture  of  Ath  by  the  French,  in  the  year 
1697,  while  negotiations  for  peace  were  going  on 
with  activity  at  Ryswick.  .  .  .  Regular  com- 
munications regarding  peace  having  been  once 
established,  Ryswick,  near  the  Hague,  was  ap- 
pointed for  the  meeting  of  plenipotentiaries ;  and 
Harlay,  Torci,  and  Callifires  appeared  at  that 
place  as  representatives  of  Louis.  The  articles 
which  had  been  formerly  sketched  out  at  Utrecht 
formed  the  base  of  the  treaties  now  agreed  upon ; 
and  Louis  yielded  far  more  than  could  have  been 
expected  from  one  so  proud  and  so  successful."' 
— G.  P.  R.  James,  Life  and  Times  of  Louis  XIV. , 
V.  2,  ch.  11. 

Also  in  :  T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
V.  3,  ch.  5. — Sir  J.  Dairy mple.  Memoirs  of  Oreat 
Britain  and  Ireland,  pt.  3,  bk.  4  (c.  3). 

A.  D.  1697  (April). — The  sacking  of  Cartha- 
gena.     See  C'.\RTn.\GENA :  A.  D.  1697. 

A.  D.  1697.— The  Peace  of  Ryswick.— "The 
Congress  for  the  treaty  or  series  of  treaties  that 
was  to  terminate  the  great  European  war.  which 
had  now  lasted  for  upwards  of  nine  j'ears,  was 
held  at  Ryswick,  a  chateau  near  tlie  Hague. 
The  conferences  were  opened  in  May,  1697. 
Among  the  countries  represented  were  Sweden, 
Austria,  France,  Spain,  England,  Holland,  Den- 
mark and  the  various  States  of  the  German  Em- 
pire. The  treaties  were  signed,  in  severalty, 
between  the  different  States,  except  Austria,  in 
September  and  October,  1697,  and  with  the  Em- 
peror, in  November.  The  principal  features  of 
the  treaty  were,  as  between  France  and  Spain, 
that,  the  former  country  was  to  deliver  to  Spain 
Barcelona,  and  other  places  in  Catalonia;  also 
various  places  which  France  had  taken  in  the 
Spanish  Netherlands,  during  the  war,  including 
Luxembourg  and  its  Duchy,  Charleroi,  Mons  and 
Courtrai.  Various  others  were  excepted,  to  be 
retained  by  France,  as  dependencies  of  French 
possessions.  The  principal  stipulations  of  the 
treaty,  as  between  France  and  Great  Britain, 
were  that  France  formally  recognized  William 
III.  as  lawful  king  of  Great  Britain,  and  agreed 
not  to  trouble  him  in  the  possession  of  his  do- 
minions, and  not  to  assist  his  enemies,  directly 
or  indirectly.  This  article  had  particular  rela- 
tion to  the  partisans  of  the  exiled  Stuart  king, 
then  living  in  France.  By  another  article,  all 
places  taken  by  either  country  in  America,  dur- 
ing the  war,  were  to  be  relinquished,  and  the 
Principality  of  Orange  and  its  estates  situated  in 
the  south  of  France  were  to  be  restored  to  Wil- 
liam. In  the  treaty  with  Holland,  certain  pos- 
sessions in  the  East  Indies  were  to  be  restored  to 
the  Dutch  East  India  Company:  and  important 
articles  of  commerce  were  appended,  among 
which  the  principle  was  laid  down  that  free 
ships  should  make  free  goods,  not  contraband 
of  war.  By  the  treaty  with  the  Emperor  and 
the  German  States,  the  Treaties  of  Westphalia 
and  Nymeguen  were  recognized  as  the  basis  of 
the  Treaty  of  Ryswick,  with  such  exceptions 
only  as  were  to  be  provided  in  the  latter  treaty. 
France  also  was  to  give  up  all  territory  she  had 
occupied  or  controlled  before  or  during  the  war 
under  the  name  of  'reunions,'  outside  of  Alsace, 


1275 


FRANCE,   1697 


Rising  of 
the  Camisards. 


FRANCE,  1702-1710. 


but  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  was  to  be  pre- 
served in  Alsace  as  it  then  existed.  This  con- 
cession by  France  included  among  other  places 
Freiburg,  Brisach,  and  Treves;  and  certain  res- 
titutions were  to  be  made  by  France,  in  favor  of 
Spire,  the  Electors  of  Treves,  and  Brandenburg 
and  the  Palatinate ;  also,  otliers  in  favor  of  cer- 
tain of  the  smaller  German  Princes.  The  city  of 
Strasburg,  in  return,  was  formally  ceded  to 
France,  .  .  .  and  the  important  fort  of  Kehl  was 
yielded  to  the  Empire.  Tlie  navigation  of  the 
Rhine  was  to  be  free  to  all  persons.  The  Duke 
of  Lorraine  was  to  be  restored  to  his  possessions 
with  such  exceptions  as  were  provided  in  the 
treaty.  By  the  terms  of  this  treat}',  a  more  ad- 
vantageous peace  was  given  to  Spain  than  she 
had  any  expectation  of.  .  .  .  Not  only  were  the 
places  taken  in  Spain,  including  the  numerous 
fortified  places  In  Catalonia,  yielded  up,  but  also, 
with  some  exceptions,  those  in  the  Spanish  Neth- 
erlands, and  also  the  important  territory  of  Lux- 
embourg; some  places  were  even  yielded  to 
Spain  that  France  had  gained  under  former 
treaties. "—J.  W.  Gerard,  T/ie  Peace  of  Utrecht, 
ch.  4. — "The  restitutions  and  cessions  [from 
France  to  Germany]  comprised  Treves,  Germers- 
heim,  Deux-Ponts,  Veldentz,  Montbeliard,  Kehl, 
Freiburg,  Breisach,  Philippsburg,  the  Emperor 
and  the  Empire  ceding  in  exchange  Strasbourg 
to  the  King  of  France  in  complete  sovereignty. 
.  .  .  Louis  XIV.  had  consented  somewhat  to  re- 
lax the  rigor  of  the  treaty  of  Nimegueu  towards 
the  heir  of  the  Duchy  of  Lorraine,  nephew  of  the 
Emperor  by  his  mother ;  he  restored  to  the  young 
Duke  Leopold  his  inheritance  in  the  condition 
in  which  Charles  IV.  had  possessed  it  before  the 
French  conquest  of  1670 ;  that  is  to  say,  he  re- 
stored Nancy,  allowing  only  the  ramparts  of  the 
Old  Town  to  remain,  and  razing  all  the  rest  of 
the  fortifications  without  the  power  of  restoring 
them ;  he  kept  Marsal,  an  interior  place  calcu- 
lated to  hold  Lorraine  in  check,  and  also  Sarre- 
Louis,  a  frontier-place  which  separated  Lorraine 
from  the  Germanic  provinces ;  he  restored  Bitche 
and  Homburg  dismantled,  without  power  to  re- 
establish them,  and  kept  Longwy  In  exchange 
for  a  domain  of  similar  value  in  one  of  the  Trois- 
Evgches;  finally,  he  no  longer  demanded,  as  at 
Nimeguen,  four  great  strategic  routes  through 
Lorraine,  and  consented  that  the  passage  should 
always  be  open  to  his  troops.  The  House  of 
Lorraine  was  thus  reestablished  in  its  estates 
after  twenty-seven  years  of  exile." — H.  Martin, 
Hist,  of  France:  Age  of  Louis  XIV.,  v.  2,  ch.  8. 

Also  in:  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  llth 
Century,  hk.  20,  ch.  11  (v.  5). — See,  also,  Canada: 
A.  D.  1692-1697;  and  Newfoundlakd  :  A.  D. 
1694-1697. 

A.  D.  1698-1712. — The  colonization  of  Louis- 
iana.— Broad  claims  to  the  wrhole  valley  of  the 
Mississippi.     See  Louisiana;  A.  D.  1098-1712. 

A.  D.  1700. — Bequest  of  the  Spanish  crovo-n 
to  a  French  royal  prince.  See  Spain:  A.  D. 
1698-1700. 

A.  D.  1701-1702. — Provocation  of  the  Second 
Grand  Alliance  and  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession. See  Spain:  A.  D.  1701-1702,  and  Eng- 
land: A. D.  1701-1702. 

A.  D.  1702-1710. —  The  Camisard  rising  of 
the  French  Protestants  in  the  C^vennes. — 
"  The  movement  known  as  the  War  of  the  Cami- 
sardsis  an  episodeof  the  historj'  of  Protestantism 
in  France  which,  though  rarely  studied  in  detail 


and  perhaps  but  partially  understood,  was  not 
devoid  of  significance.  When  it  occurred,  in  the 
summer  of  1702,  a  period  of  little  less  than  17 
years  had  elapsed  since  Louis  XIV.,  by  his  edict 
of  Pontaiuebleau,  October,  1685,  solemnly  re- 
voked the  great  and  fundamental  law  enacted  by 
his  grandfather,  Henry  IV.,  for  the  protection 
of  tlie  adherents  of  the  Reformed  faith,  known 
in  history  as  the  Edict  of  Nantes.  During  the 
whole  of  that  period  the  Protestants  had  sub- 
mitted, with  scarcely  an  attempt  at  armed  resis- 
tance, to  tlie  proscription  of  tlieir  tenets.  .  .  . 
The  majority,  unable  to  escape  from  the  land  of 
oppression,  remained  at  home  .  .  .  nearly  all  of 
them  cherishing  the  confident  hope  that  the 
king's  delusion  would  be  short-lived,  and  that 
the  edict  under  which  they  and  their  ancestors 
had  lived  for  three  generations  would,  before 
long,  be  restored  to  them  with  the  greater  part, 
if  not  the  whole,  of  its  beneficent  provisions. 
Meanwhile,  all  the  Protestant  ministers  having 
been  expelled  from  France  by  the  same  law  that 
prohibited  the  expatriation  of  any  of  the  laity, 
the  people  of  the  Reformed  faith  found  them- 
selves destitute  of  the  spiritual  food  they  craved. 
True,  the  new  legislation  affected  to  regard  tliat 
faith  as  dead,  and  designated  all  the  former  ad- 
herents of  Protestantism,  without  distinction,  as 
the  'New  Converts,'  '  Nouveaux  Convertis.' 
And,  in  point  of  fact,  the  great  majority  had  so 
far  yielded  to  the  terrible  pressure  of  the  violent 
measures  brought  to  bear  upon  them  .  .  .  that 
they  had  consented  to  sign  a  promise  to  be  '  re- 
united '  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  or  had 
gone  at  least  once  to  mass.  But  they  were  still 
Protestants  at  heart.  .  .  .  Under  these  circum- 
stances, feeling  more  than  ever  the  need  of  re- 
ligious comfort,  now  that  remorse  arose  for  a 
weak  betrayal  of  conscientious  conviction,  the 
proscribed  Protestants,  especially  in  the  south  of 
France,  began  to  meet  clandestinely  for  divine 
worship  in  such  retired  places  as  seemed  most 
likely  to  escape  the  notice  of  their  vigilant  ene- 
mies. ...  It  was  not  strange  that  in  so  excep- 
tional a  situation,  a  phase  of  religious  life  and  feel- 
ing equally  exceptional  should  manifest  itself.  1 
refer  to  that  appearance  of  prophetic  inspiration 
which  attracted  to  the  province  of  Vivarais  and 
to  the  Cevennes  Mountains  the  attention  of  all 
Europe.  .  .  .  Historically  .  .  .  the  influence  of 
the  prophets  of  the  Cevennes  was  an  important 
factor  in  the  Protestant  problem  of  the  end  of  the 
17th  and  the  commencement  of  the  18th  centu- 
ries. .  .  .  Various  methods  were  adopted  to  put  an 
end  to  the  prophets  with  their  prophecies,  which 
were  for  the  most  part  denunciatory  of  Rome  as 
Antichrist  and  foreshadowed  the  approaching 
fall  of  the  papacy.  But  this  form  of  enthusiasm 
had  struck  a  deep  root  and  it  was  hard  to  eradi- 
cate it.  Imprisonment,  in  convent  or  jail,  was 
the  most  common  punishment,  especially  in  the 
case  of  women.  Not  infrequently  to  imprison- 
ment was  added  corporal  chastisement,  and  the 
prophets,  male  and  female,  were  flogged  until 
they  might  be  regarded  as  fully  cured  of  their 
delusion.  .  .  .  But  no  utterances  of  prophets, 
however  fervid  and  impassioned,  would  have 
sufficed  to  occasion  an  uprising  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Cevennes  Mountains,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  virulent  persecution  to  which  the  latter  found 
themselves  exposed  at  the  hands  of  the  provincial 
aiithorities  directly  instigated  thereto  by  the 
clergy  of  the  established  church.     For  it  must 


1276 


FRANCE,   1703-1710. 


War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession. 


FRANCE,  1710. 


be  noticed  that  a  large  part  of  the  population  of 
the  Cevennes  was  still  Protestant,  and  made  no 
concealment  of  the  fact,  even  though  the  king's 
ministers  affected  to  call  them  '  New  Catholics,' 
or  '  New  Converts. '  The  region  over  which  the 
Camisard  war  extended  with  more  or  less  vio- 
lence comprised  six  episcopal  dioceses,  which,  in 
1698,  had  an  aggregate  population  of  about  two- 
thirds  of  a  million  of  souls.  Of  these  souls, 
though  Protestantism  had  been  dead  in  the  eye 
of  the  law  for  13  years,  fully  one-fourth  were 
still  Protestant.  .  .  .  The  war  may  be  said  to 
have  begun  on  the  24th  of  July,  1702,  when 
the  Abbe  du  Chayla,  a  noted  persecutor,  was 
killed  in  his  house,  at  Pont  de  Montvert,  by  a 
band  of  40  or  50  of  the  'Nouveaux  Convertis,' 
whom  he  had  driven  to  desperation  by  his  cruelty 
to  their  fellow  believers.  If  we  regard  its  termi- 
nation to  be  the  submission  of  Jean  Cavalier,  the 
most  picturesque  and,  in  some  regards,  the  most 
able  of  the  leaders,  in  the  month  of  May,  1704, 
the  war  lasted  a  little  less  than  two  years.  But, 
although  the  French  government  had  succeeded, 
rather  by  craft  than  by  force,  in  getting  rid  of 
the  most  formidable  of  its  opponents  ...  it  was 
not  until  five  or  six  years  later  —  that  is,  until 
1709  or  1710  —  that  .  .  .  comparative  peace  was 
finally  restored.  .  .  .  During  the  first  months  of 
the  insurrection  the  exploits  of  the  malcontents 
were  confined  to  deeds  of  destruction  accom- 
plished by  companies  of  venturesome  men,  who 
almost  everywhere  eluded  the  pursuit  of  the 
enemy  by  their  superior  knowledge  of  the  intri- 
cacies of  the  mountain  woods  and  paths.  The 
track  of  these  companies  could  easily  be  made 
out;  for  it  was  marked  by  the  destruction  of 
vicarages  and  rectories,  by  the  smoke  of  burned 
churches,  too  often  by  the  corpses  of  slain  priests. 
The  perpetrators  of  these  acts  of  violence  soon 
won  for  themselves  some  special  designations,  to 
distinguish  them  from  the  more  passive  Protes- 
tants who  remained  in  their  homes,  taking  no 
open  part  in  the  struggle.  .  .  .  About  the  close  of 
1702,  however,  or  the  first  months  of  1703,  a  new 
word  was  coined  for  the  fresh  emergency,  and 
the  armed  Protestants  received  the  appellation 
under  which  they  have  passed  into  history  —  the 
Camisards.  Passing  by  all  the  strange  and  fanci- 
ful derivations  of  the  word  which  seem  to  have 
no  claim  upon  our  notice,  unless  it  be  their  evi- 
dent absurdity,  we  have  no  difficulty  in  connect- 
ing it  with  those  nocturnal  expeditions  which 
were  styled  '  Camisades ' ;  because  the  warriors 
who  took  advantage  of  the  darkness  of  the  night 
to  ride  out  and  explore  or  force  the  enemy's  en- 
trenchments, sometimes  threw  over  their  armor 
a  shirt  that  might  enable  them  to  recognize  each 
other.  Others  will  have  it  that,  though  the 
name  was  derived  from  the  same  article  of  ap- 
parel — ■  the  '  camisa  '  or  shirt  —  it  was  applied  to 
the  Cevenol  bands  for  another  reason,  namely," 
that  when  they  found  opportunities,  they  carried 
oflf  clean  linen  from  the  villages  and  left  their 
soiled  garments  in  exchange.  The  final  over- 
throw of  the  Camisards  ' '  was  not  accomplished 
without  the  employment  of  100,000  troops,  cer- 
tainly far  more  than  ten  times  the  total  number 
ever  brought  into  the  field  by  the  Camisards. 
.  .  .  Not  less  than  three  ofilcers  of  the  highest 
grade  in  the  service,  marshals  of  France,  were 
successively  appointed  to  put  down  a  revolt 
which  it  might  have  been  expected  a  simple 
colonel  could  suffice  to   quell  —  M.  de  Broglie 


being  succeeded  by  the  Marshal  de  Montrevel, 
the  Marshal  de  Montrevel  by  the  Marshal  de 
Villars,  and  the  Marshal  de  Villars  by  the  Marshal 
de  Berwick." — H.  M.  Baird,  The  Camisard  Upris- 
ing (Papers  of  the  Am.  Soc.  of  Church  Hist.,  v.  2, 
pp.  13-34). 

Also  in  :  !Mrs.  Bray,  The  Revolt  of  tlie  Protes- 
tants oftJie  Cevennes. — N.  Peyrat,  Tlie  Pastors  in 
the  Wilderness.  —  S.  Smiles,  The  Huguenots  in- 
France  after  the  Revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes, 
ch.  5-8. 

A.  D.  1702-1711. — The  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession  in  America  (called  Queen  Anne's 
War).  See  New  England:  A.  D.  1703-1710; 
and  C.VNAD.\:  A.  D.  1711-1713. 

A.  D.  1702-1713. — The  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession  in  Europe.  See  Italy;  A.  D.  1701- 
1713;  Spain:  A.D.  1702,  to  1707-1710;  Germany: 
A.  D.  1702,  to  1706-1711;  Netherlands:  A.D. 
1703-1704,  to  1710-1712. 

A.  D.  1702-1715. — Renewed  Jesuitical  per- 
secution of  the  Jansenists. — The  odious  Bull 
Unigenitus  and  its  tyrannical  enforcement. 
See  Port  Royal  and  the  Jansenists:  A.  D. 
1702-1715. 

A.  D.  1710.— The  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession :  Misery  of  the  nation. — Overtures  for 
Peace. —  Conferences  at  Gertruydenberg. — 
"  France  was  still  reduced  to  extreme  and  abject 
wretchedness.  Her  finances  were  ruined.  Her 
people  were  half  starving.  Marlborough  de- 
clared that  in  the  villages  through  which  he 
passed  in  the  summer  of  1710,  at  least  half  the 
inhabitants  had  perished  since  the  beginning  of 
the  preceding  winter,  and  the  rest  looked  as  if 
they  had  come  out  of  their  graves.  All  the  old 
dreams  of  French  conquests  in  the  Spanish 
Netherlands,  in  Italy,  and  in  Germany  were  dis- 
pelled, and  the  French  generals  were  now  strug- 
gling desperately  and  skilfully  to  defend  their 
own  frontier.  .  .  .  In  1710,  while  the  Whig  min- 
istry [in  England]  was  still  in  power,  but  at  a 
time  when  it  was  manifestly  tottering  to  its  fall, 
Lewis  had  made  one  more  attempt  to  obtain 
peace  by  the  most  ample  concessions.  The  con- 
ferences were  held  at  the  Dutch  fortress  of  Ger- 
truydenberg. Lewis  declared  himself  ready  to 
accept  the  conditions  exacted  as  preliminaries  of 
peace  in  the  preceding  year,  with  the  exception 
of  the  article  compelling  Philip  within  two 
months  to  cede  the  Spanish  throne.  He  con- 
sented, in  the  course  of  the  negotiations,  to  grant 
to  the  Dutch  nearly  all  the  fortresses  of  the  French 
and  Spanish  Netherlands,  including  among  others 
Ypres,  Tournay,  Lille,  Fumes,  and  even  Valen- 
ciennes, to  cede  Alsace  to  the  Duke  of  Lorraine, 
to  destroy  the  fortifications  of  Dunkirk,  and  those 
on  the  Rhine  from  Bale  to  Philipsburg.  The 
main  difficulty  was  on  the  question  of  the  Span- 
ish succession.  .  .  .  The  French  troops  had  al- 
ready been  recalled  from  Spain,  and  Lewis  con- 
sented to  recognise  the  Archduke  as  the  sovereign, 
to  engage  to  give  no  more  assistance  to  his  grand- 
child, to  place  four  cautionary  towns  in  the  hands 
of  the  Dutch  as  a  pledge  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
treaty,  and  even  to  pay  a  subsidy  to  the  allies 
for  the  continuance  of  the  war  against  Philip. 
The  allies,  however,  insisted  that  he  should  join 
with  them  in  driving  his  grandson  by  force  of 
arms  from  Spain,  and  on  this  article  the  negotia- 
tions were  broken  off." — W.  B.  H.  Lecky,  Hist. 
of  Eng.  in  the  18th  Century,  ch.  1. — See  England: 
A.  D.  1710-1713. 


1277 


FBANCE,  1713-1714. 


The  Kingdom  as 
left  by  Louis  XIV. 


FRANCE,   1715-1723. 


A.  D.  1713-1714. — Ending  of  the  War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession. — The  Peace  of  Utrecht 
and  the  Treaty  of  Rastadt.  See  Utrecht: 
A.  D.  1712-1714. 

A.  D.  1714. — The  desertion  of  the  Cata- 
lans.    See  Sp.un:  A.  D.  1713-1714. 

A.  D.  1715.— Death  of  Louis  XIV.— The 
character  of  his  reign. — Louis  XIV.  died  Septem- 
ber 1, 1715,  at  the  age  of  77  years,  having  reigned 
72  years.  "Richelieu,  and  after  him  Mazarin, 
governing  as  if  they  had  been  dictators  of  a  re- 
public, had  extinguished,  if  I  may  use  the  ex- 
pression, their  personality  in  the  idea  and  service 
of  the  state.  Possessing  only  the  exercise  of  au- 
thority, they  both  conducted  themselves  as  re- 
sponsible agents  towards  the  sovereign  and  be- 
fore the  judgment  of  the  country;  while  Louis 
XIV.,  combining  the  exercise  with  the  right, 
considered  himself  exempted  from  all  rule  but 
that  of  his  own  will,  and  acluiowledged  no  re- 
sponsibility for  his  actions  except  to  his  own  con- 
science, it  was  this  conviction  of  his  universal 
power,  a  conviction  genuine  and  sincere,  exclud- 
ing both  scruples  and  remorse,  which  made  him 
upset  one  after  the  other  the  twofold  system 
founded  by  Henry  FV.,  of  religious  liberty  at 
home,  and  abroad  of  a  national  preponderance 
resting  upon  a  generous  protection  of  the  inde- 
pendence of  states  and  European  civilisation. 
At  the  personal  accession  of  Louis  XIV. ,  more 
than  fifty  years  had  passed  since  France  had 
pursued  the  work  of  her  policy  in  Europe,  im- 
partial towards  the  various  communions  of  Chris- 
tians, the  different  forms  of  governments,  and 
the  Internal  revolutions  of  the  states.  Although 
France  was  catholic  and  monarchical,  her  alli- 
ances were,  in  the  first  place,  with  the  Protestant 
states  of  Germany  and  with  republican  Holland ; 
she  had  even  made  friendly  terms  with  regicide 
England.  No  other  interest  but  that  of  the  well- 
understood  development  of  the  national  resources 
had  weight  in  her  councils,  and  directed  the  in- 
ternal action  of  her  government.  But  all  was 
changed  by  Louis  XIV.,  and  special  interests, 
the  spawn  of  royal  personality,  of  the  principle 
of  the  hereditary  monarchy,  or  that  of  the  state 
religion,  were  admitted,  soon  to  fly  upward  in 
the  scale.  Thence  resulted  the  overthrow  of  the 
system  of  the  balance  of  power  in  Europe,  which 
might  be  justly  called  the  French  system,  and 
the  abandonment  of  it  for  dreams  of  an  universal 
monarchy,  revived  after  the  example  of  Charles 
V.  and  Philip  II.  Thence  a  succession  of  enter- 
prises, formed  in  opposition  to  the  policy  of  the 
country,  such  as  the  war  with  Holland,  the  fac- 
tions made  with  a  view  to  the  Imperial  crown, 
the  support  given  to  James  II.  and  the  counter- 
revolution in  England,  the  acceptance  of  the 
throne  of  Spain  for  a  son  of  France,  preserving 
his  rights  to  the  Crown.  These  causes  of  mis- 
fortune, under  which  the  kingdom  was  obliged 
to  succumb,  all  issued  from  the  circumstance  ap- 
plauded by  the  nation  and  conformable  to  the 
spirit  of  its  tendencies,  which,  after  royalty  had 
attained  its  highest  degree  of  power  under  two 
ministers,  delivered  it  unlimited  into  the  hands 
of  a  prince  endowed  with  qualities  at  once  bril- 
liant and  solid,  an  object  of  enthusiastic  affection 
and  legitimate  admiration.  When  the  reign, 
which  was  to  crown  under  sucli  auspices  the 
ascendant  march  of  the  French  monarchy,  had 
falsified  the  imbounded  hopes  which  its  com- 
mencement had  excited ;  when  in  the  midst  of 


fruitless  victories  and  continually  increasing  re- 
verses, the  people  beheld  progress  in  all  the 
branches  of  public  economy  changed  into  dis- 
tress,—  the  ruin  of  the  finances,  industry,  and 
agriculture  —  the  exhaustion  of  all  the  resources 
of  the  country, —  the  impoverishment  of  all  classes 
of  the  nation,  the  dreadful  misery  of  the  popula- 
tion, they  were  seized  with  a  bitter  disappoint- 
ment of  spirit,  which  took  the  place  of  the  en- 
thusiasm of  their  confidence  and  love." — A. 
Thierry,  Formation  and  Progress  of  the  Tiers 
Etat  or  Third  Estate  in  France,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1715. — Accession  of  King  Louis  XV. 

A.  D.  1715-1723. — State  of  the  kingdom  at 
the  death  of  Louis  XIV. —  The  minority  of 
Louis  XV.  and  Regency  of  the  Duke  of 
Orleans. — "Louis  XIV.  .  .  .  left  France  exces- 
sively exhausted.  The  State  was  ruined,  and 
seemed  to  have  no  resource  but  bankruptcy. 
This  trouble  seemed  especially  imminent  in  1715, 
after  the  war,  during  which  the  government  had 
been  obliged  to  borrow  at  400  per  cent.,  to  create 
new  taxes,  to  spend  in  advance  the  revenue  of 
two  years,  and  to  increase  the  public  debt  to 
2,400  millions.  The  acquisition  of  two  prov- 
inces (Flanders,  Franche-Comte)  and  a  few  cities 
(Strassburg,  Landau,  and  Dunkirk)  was  no  com- 
pensation for  such  terrible  poverty.  Succeeding 
generations  have  remembered  only  the  numerous 
victories,  Europe  defied,  France  for  twenty  years 
preponderant,  and  the  incomparable  splendor  of 
the  court  of  Versailles,  with  its  marvels  of  letters 
and  arts,  which  have  given  to  the  17th  century 
the  name  of  the  age  of  Louis  XIV.  It  is  for  his- 
tory to  show  the  price  which  France  has  paid  for 
her  king's  vain  attempts  abroad  to  rule  over 
Europe,  and  at  home  to  enslave  the  wills  and 
consciences  of  men.  .  .  .  The  weight  of  the 
authority  of  Louis  XIV.  had  been  crushing  dur- 
ing his  last  years.  When  the  nation  felt  it  lifted, 
it  breathed  more  freely ;  the  court  and  the  city 
burst  into  disrespectful  demonstrations  of  joy; 
the  very  coffin  of  the  great  king  was  insulted. 
The  new  king  [Louis  XV.,  great-grandson  of 
Louis  XIV.]  was  five  years  old.  Who  was  to 
govern?  Louis  XIV.  had  indeed  left  a  will,  but 
he  had  not  deceived  himself  with  regard  to  the 
value  of  it.  '  As  soon  as  I  am  dead,  it  will  be 
disregarded;  I  know  too  well  what  became  of 
the  will  of  the  king,  my  father ! '  As  after  the 
death  of  Henry  IV.  and  Louis  XIII.  there  was  a 
moment  of  feudal  reaction ;  but  the  decline  of  the 
nobility  may  be  measured  by  the  successive  weak- 
ening of  its  efforts  in  each  case.  Under  Mary 
de'  Medici  it  was  still  able  to  make  a  civil  war; 
under  Anne  of  Austria  it  produced  the  Fronde ; 
after  Louis  XIV.  it  only  produced  memorials. 
The  Duke  of  Saint-Simon  desired  that  the  first 
prince  of  the  blood,  Philip  of  Orleans,  to  whom 
the  will  left  only  a  shadow  of  power,  should 
demand  the  regency  from  the  dukes  and  peers, 
as  heirs  and  representatives  of  the  ancient  grand 
vassals.  But  the  Duke  of  Orleans  convoked 
Parliament  in  order  to  break  down  the  posthu- 
mous despotism  of  the  old  king,  feigning  that 
the  king  had  committed  the  government  to  his 
hands.  The  regency,  with  the  right  to  appoint 
the  council  of  regency  as  he  would,  was  con- 
ferred upon  him,  and  the  command  of  the  royal 
household  was  taken  from  the  Duke  of  Maine 
[one  of  the  bastard  sons  of  Louis  XIV.],  who 
yielded  this  important  prerogative  only  after  a 
violent  altercation.     As  a  reward  for  the  services 


1278 


FRANCE,  1715-1723. 


John  Law  and 
the  Mississippi  Scheme. 


FRANCE,  1717-1730. 


of  his  two  allies,  the  Duke  of  Orleans  called  the 
high  nobility  into  affairs,  by  substituting  for 
the  ministries  six  councils,  in  which  they  oc- 
cupied almost  all  the  places,  and  accorded  to 
Parliament  the  right  of  remonstrance.  But  two 
years  had  hardly  passed  when  the  ministries  were 
re-established,  and  the  Parliament  again  con- 
demned to  silence.  It  was  plain  that  neither 
nobility  nor  Parliament  were  to  be  the  heirs  of 
the  absolute  monarchy.  .  .  .  Debauchery  had, 
until  then,  kept  within  certain  limits;  cynicism 
of  manners  as  well  as  of  thought  was  now 
adopted  openly.  The  regent  set  the  example. 
There  had  never  been  seen  such  frivolity  of  con- 
duct nor  such  licentious  wit  as  that  exhibited  in 
the  wild  meetings  of  the  roues  of  the  Duke  of 
Orleans.  There  had  been  formerly  but  one  salon 
in  France,  that  of  the  king ;  a  thousand  were  now 
open  to  a  society  which,  no  longer  occupied  with 
religious  questions,  or  with  war,  or  the  grave 
futilities  of  etiquette,  felt  that  pleasure  and 
change  were  necessities.  .  .  .  Louis  XV.  attained 
his  majority  February  13,  1733,  being  then  13 
years  old.  This  terminated  the  regency  of  the 
Duke  of  Orleans.  But  the  king  was  still  to  remain 
a  long  time  under  tutelage ;  the  duke,  in  order  to 
retain  the  power  after  resigning  the  regency,  had 
in  advance  given  [Cardinal]  Dubois  the  title  of 
prime  minister.  At  the  death  of  the  wretched 
Dubois  he  took  the  office  himself,  but  held  It 
only  four  months,  dving  of  apoplexy  in  Decem- 
ber, 1733."— V.  Duruy,  Hist,  of  Framx,  6h.  53 
and  55. 

Also  in  :  W.  C.  Taylor,  Memoirs  of  tlie  House 
of  Orleans,  v.  1,  cJi.  11-17,  and  i).  3,  ch.  1-3. — 
F.  Rocquain,  The  Revolutionary  Spirit  preceding 
the  French  Rev.,  ch.  1. — J.  B.  Perkins,  France 
under  the  Regency. 

A.  D.  1717-1719. —  The  Triple  Alliance. — 
The  Quadruple  Alliance.— War  with  Spain. 
See  Spain:  A.  D.  1713-1735;  also,  Italy:  A.  D. 
1715-1735. 

A.  D.  1717-1720. — John  Law  and  his  Mis- 
sissippi Scheme. — "When  the  Regent  Orleans 
assumed  the  government  of  France,  he  found  its 
affairs  in  frightful  confusion.  The  public  debt 
was  three  hundred  millions ;  putting  the  debt  on 
one  side,  the  expenditure  was  only  just  covered 
by  the  revenue.  St.  Simon  advised  him  to  de- 
clare a  national  bankruptcy.  De  Noailles,  less 
scrupulous,  proposed  to  debase  the  coinage.  .  .  . 
In  such  desperate  circumstances,  it  was  no  won- 
der that  the  regent  was  ready  to  catch  eagerly  at 
any  prospect  of  success.  A  remedy  was  pro- 
posed to  him  by  the  famous  John  Law  of  Lauris- 
ton.  This  new  light  of  finance  had  gambled  in, 
and  been  banished  from,  half  the  courts  of  Eu- 
rope; he  had  figured  in  the  English  'Hue  and 
Cry,' as  'a  very  tall,  black,  lean  man,  well-shaped, 
above  six  feet  high,  large  pock-holes  in  his  face, 
big-nosed,  speaks  broad  and  loud.'  He  was  a 
big,  masterful,  bullying  man,  one  of  keen  intel- 
lect as  well;  the  hero  of  a  hundred  romantic 
stories.  .  .  .  He  studied  finance  at  Amsterdam, 
then  the  great  school  of  commerce,  and  offered 
his  services  and  the  '  system '  which  he  had  in- 
vented, first  to  Godolphin,  when  that  nobleman 
was  at  the  head  of  affairs  in  England,  then  to 
Victor  Amadeus,  duke  of  Savoy,  then  to  Louis 
XIV. ,  who,  as  the  story  goes,  refused  any  credit 
to  a  heretic.  He  Invented  a  new  combination  at 
cards,  which  became  the  despair  of  all  the  crou- 
piers in  Europe :  so  successful  was  this  last  in- 


vention, that  he  arrived  for  the  second  time  at 
Versailles,  in  the  early  days  of  the  regency,  with 
upwards  of  £120,000  at  his  disposal,  and  a  copy 
of  his  '  system  '  in  his  pocket.  .  .  .  There  was  a 
dash  of  daring  in  the  scheme  which  suited  well 
with  the  regent's  peculiar  turn  of  mind ;  It  was 
gambling  on  a  gigantic  scale.  .  .  .  Besides,  the 
scheme  was  plausible  and  to  a  certain  point  cor- 
rect. The  regent,  with  all  his  faults,  was  too 
clever  a  man  not  to  recognize  the  genius  which 
gleamed  In  Law's  dark  eyes.  Law  showed  that 
the  trade  and  commerce  of  every  country  was 
crippled  by  the  want  of  a  circulating  medium; 
specie  was  not  to  be  had  In  sufficient  quantities ; 
paper,  backed  by  the  credit  of  the  state,  was  the 
grand  secret.  He  adduced  the  examples  of  Great 
Britain,  of  Genoa,  and  of  Amsterdam  to  prove 
the  advantage  of  a  paper  currency ;  he  proposed 
to  institute  a  bank,  to  be  called  the  '  Bank  of 
France,'  and  to  issue  notes  guaranteed  by  the 
government  and  secured  on  the  crown  lands,  ex- 
changeable at  sight  for  specie,  and  receivable  in 
payment  of  taxes;  the  bank  was  10  be  conducted 
in  the  king's  name,  and  to  be  managed  by  com- 
missioners appointed  by  the  States-General.  The 
scheme  of  Law  was  based  on  principles  which 
are  now  admitted  as  economical  axioms ;  the  dan- 
ger lay  in  the  enormous  extent  to  which  it  was 
intended  to  push  the  scheme.  .  .  .  While  the 
bank  was  in  the  hands  of  Law  himself.  It  appears 
to  have  been  managed  with  consummate  skill ;  the 
notes  bore  some  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
available  specie ;  they  contained  a  promise  to  pay 
in  silver  of  the  same  standard  and  weight  as 
that  which  existed  at  the  time.  A  large  divi- 
dend was  declared ;  then  the  regent  stepped  in. 
The  name  of  the  bank  was  changed  to  that  of 
the  Royal  Bank  of  France,  the  promise  to  pay 
in  silver  of  a  certain  weight  and  standard  was 
dropped,  and  a  promise  substituted  to  pay  '  in 
silver  coin.'  This  omission,  on  the  part  of  a 
prince  who  had  already  resorted  to  the  expedi- 
ent of  debasing  the  currency,  was  ominous,  and 
did  much  to  shake  public  confidence ;  the  Intelli- 
gence that  in  the  first  year  of  the  new  bank 
1,000,000,000  of  livres  were  fabricated,  was  not 
calculated  to  restore  It.  But  these  trifles  were 
forgotten  in  the  mad  excitement  which  followed. 
Law  had  long  been  elaborating  a  scheme  which 
is  for  ever  associated  with  his  name,  and  beside 
which  the  Bank  of  France  sank  Into  insignifi- 
cance. In  1717,  the  year  before  the  bank  had 
been  adopted  by  the  regent,  the  billets  d'etat  of 
500  livres  each  were  worth  about  160  livres  in  the 
market.  Law,  with  the  assent  of  the  regent, 
proposed  to  establish  a  company  which  should 
engross  all  the  trade  of  the  kingdom,  and  all  the 
revenues  of  the  crown,  should  carry  on  the  busi- 
ness of  merchants  in  every  part  of  the  world, 
and  monopolize  the  farming  of  the  taxes  and  the 
coining  of  money ;  the  stock  was  to  be  divided 
into  300,000  shares  of  500  livres  each.  The  re- 
gent nearly  marred  the  scheme  at  starting  by 
inserting  a  proviso  that  the  depreciated  billets 
d'etat  were  to  be  received  at  par  in  payment  for 
the  new  stock,  on  which  four  per  cent,  was 
guaranteed  by  the  State."  Law's  company  was 
formed,  under  the  name  of  the  Company  of  the 
West,  and  obtained  for  the  "basis  of  its  operations 
a  monopoly  of  the  trade  of  that  vast  territory  of 
France  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  which 
bore  the  name  of  Louisiana.  The  same  monopoly 
had  been  held  for  five  years  by  one  Crozat,  who 


1279 


FRANCE,  1717-1720. 


Reiffn  of  Louis  XV. 


FRANCE,  1723-1774. 


now  resigned  it  because  he  found  it  unprofitable ; 
but  the  fact  received  little  attention  (see  Louisi- 
ana: A.  D.  1717-1718).  "Louisiana  was  de- 
scribed as  a  paradise.  .  .  .  Shareholders  in  the 
company  were  told  that  they  would  enjoy  the 
monopoly  of  trade  throughout  French  North 
America,  and  the  produce  of  a  country  rich  in 
every  kind  of  mineral  wealth.  Billets  d'etat 
were  restored  to  their  nominal  value ;  stock  in  the 
Mississippi  scheme  was  sold  at  fabulous  prices ; 
ingots  of  gold,  which  were  declared  to  have  come 
from  the  mines  of  St.  Barbe,  were  taken  with 
great  pomp  to  the  mint;  6,000  of  the  poor  of 
Paris  were  sent  out  as  miners,  and  provided  with 
tools  to  work  in  the  new  diggings.  New  issues 
of  shares  were  made;  first  50,000,  then  50,000 
more;  both  at  an  enormous  premium.  The  job- 
bers of  the  rue  Quincampoix  found  ordinary 
language  inadequate  to  express  their  delight: 
they  invented  a  new  slang  for  the  occasion,  and 
called  the  new  shares  '  les  filles,'  and  '  les  petites 
filles,'  respectively.  Paris  was  divided  between 
the  '  Anti-system '  party  who  opposed  Law,  and 
the  Mississippians  who  supported  him.  The 
State  borrowed  from  the  company  fifteen  hun- 
dred millions ;  government  paid  its  creditors  in 
warrants  on  the  company.  To  meet  them,  Law 
issued  100,000  new  shares;  which  came  out  at  a 
premium  of  1,000  per  cent.  The  Mississippians 
went  mad  with  joy  —  they  invented  another  new 
slang  phrase ;  the  '  cinq  cents '  eclipsed  the  filles 
and  the  petites  filles  in  favour.  The  gates  of 
Law's  hotel  had  to  be  guarded  by  a  detachment 
of  archers ;  the  cashiers  were  mobbed  in  their 
bureaux;  applicants  for  shares  sat  in  the  ante- 
rooms ;  a  select  body  slept  for  several  nights  on 
the  stairs;  gentlemen  disguised  themselves  in 
Law's  livery  to  obtain  access  to  the  great  man. 
,  .  .  By  this  time  the  charter  of  the  company  of 
Senegal  had  been  merged  in  the  bank,  which  also 
became  sole  farmer  of  the  tobacco  duties;  the 
East  India  Company  had  been  abolished,  and  the 
exclusive  privilege  of  trading  to  the  East  Indies, 
China,  and  the  South  Seas,  together  with  all  the 
possessions  of  Colbert's  company  were  transferred 
to  Law.  The  bank  now  assumed  the  style  of 
the  Company  of  the  Indies.  Before  the  year 
[1719]  was  out  the  regent  had  transferred  to  it 
the  exclusive  privilege  of  the  mint,  and  the  con- 
tract of  all  the  great  farms.  Almost  every  branch 
of  industry  in  France,  its  trade,  its  revenue,  its 
police,  were  now  in  the  hands  of  Law.  Every 
fresh  privilege  was  followed  by  a  new  issue  of 
shares.  .  .  .  The  shares  of  500  franks  were  now 
worth  10,000.  The  rue  Quincampoix  became 
impassable,  and  an  army  of  stockjobbers  camped 
in  tents  in  the  Place  VendSme.  .  .  .  The  excite- 
ment spread  to  England  [where  the  South  Sea 
Bubble  was  inflated  by  the  madness  of  the  hour 
—  see  South  Sea  Bubble].  .  .  .  Law's  system 
and  the  South  Sea  scheme  both  went  down  to- 
gether. Both  were  calculated  to  last  so  long, 
and  so  long  only,  as  universal  confidence  existed ; 
when  it  began  to  be  whispered  that  those  in  the 
secret  were  realizing  their  profits  and  getting  out 
of  the  impending  ruin,  the  whole  edifice  came 
down  with  a  crash.  ...  No  sooner  was  it  evi- 
dent that  the  system  was  about  to  break  down, 
than  Law,  the  only  man  who  could  at  least  have 
mitigated  the  blow,  was  banished. "—  Viscount 
Bury,  Exodus  of  the  Western  Nations,  v.  3,  ch.  5. 
ALSOm:  C.  Mackay,  Memoirs  of  Extraordinary 
Popular  Delusions,  v.  1,   ch.  1. — A.  Thiers.  The 


Mississippi  Bubble. — "W.  C.  Taylor,  Memoirs  of 
tlie  House  of  Orleans,  v.  2,  ch.  2. — C.  Gayarre, 
Hist,  of  Louisiana,  second  series,  lect.  1. — Duke 
de  Saint-Simon,  Memoirs:  abridged  trans,  by  St. 
John,  V.  3,  eh.  35,  and  v.  4,  ch.  4,  and  13-15. 

A.  D.  1720. — The  fortifying  of  Louisbourg. 
See  Cape  Breton  Island;  A.  D.  1720-1745. 

A.  D.  1723-1774. — Character  and  reign  of 
Louis  XV. — The  King's  mistresses  and  their 
courtiers  who  conducted  the  government. — 
State  and  feeling  of  the  nation. — After  the 
death  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  "a  short  period  of 
about  two  years  and  a-half  comprehends  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Duke  of  Bourbon,  or  rather 
of  his  mistress,  la  Marquise  de  Prie.  Fleury 
[Cardinal]  then  appears  on  the  stage,  and  dies  in 
1743.  He  was,  therefore,  minister  of  France  for 
seventeen  years.  On  his  death,  the  king  (Louis 
XV.)  undertook  to  be  his  own  prime  minister ; 
an  unpromising  experiment  for  a  country  at  any 
time.  In  this  instance  the  result  was  only  that 
the  king's  mistress,  Madame  de  Chateauroux, 
became  the  ruler  of  France,  and  soon  after 
Bladame  de  Pompadour,  another  mistress,  whose 
reign  was  prolonged  from  1745  to  1763.  Differ- 
ent courtiers  and  prelates  were  seen  to  hold  the 
first  ofiices  of  the  state  during  this  apparent  pre- 
miership of  the  monarch.  The  ladies  seem  to 
have  chosen  or  tolerated  Cardinal  Tengin,  Ar- 
gen(;on,  Orsy,  Mauripaux,  and  Amelot,  who.  with 
the  Dukes  Noailles  and  Richelieu,  succeeded  to 
Fleury.  Afterwards,  we  have  Argenpon  and 
Machault,  and  then  come  the  most  celebrated  of 
the  ministers  or  favourites  of  Madame  de  Pom- 
padour, the  Abbe  de  Bernis  and  the  Due  de 
Choiseul.  The  last  is  the  most  distinguished 
minister  after  Fleury.  He  continued  in  favour 
from  1758,  not  only  to  1763,  when  Madame  de 
Pompadour  died,  but  for  a  few  years  after.  He 
was  at  length  disgraced  by  la  Comtesse  Dubarri, 
who  had  become  the  king's  mistress  soon  after 
the  death  of  Madame  de  Pompadour,  and  re- 
mained so,  nearly  to  the  death  of  the  monarch 
himself,  in  1774." — W.  Smyth,  Lect'son  the  Hist, 
of  the  French  Revolution,  lect.  3. — "The  regency 
of  the  Duke  of  Orleans  lasted  only  eight  years, 
but  it  was  not  without  a  considerable  effect  upon 
the  destinies  of  the  country.  It  was  a  break  in 
the  political  and  the  religious  traditions  of  the 
reign  of  Louis  XIV.  The  new  activity  imparted 
to  business  during  this  period  was  an  event  of 
equal  importance.  Nothing  is  more  erroneous 
than  to  suppose  that  constantly  increasing  misery 
at  last  excited  revolt  against  the  government  and 
the  institutions  of  the  old  regime.  The  Revolution 
in  France  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century 
was  possible,  not  because  the  condition  of  the 
people  had  grown  worse,  but  because  it  had  be- 
come better.  The  material  development  of  that 
country,  during  the  fifty  years  that  preceded  the 
convocation  of  the  States  General,  had  no  parallel 
in  its  past  history.  Neither  the  weight  of  taxa- 
tion, nor  the  extravagance  of  the  court,  nor  the 
bankruptcy  of  the  government,  checked  an  in- 
crease in  wealth  that  made  France  in  1789  seem 
like  a  different  land  from  France  in  1715.  The 
lot  of  large  classes  was  still  miserable,  the  burden 
of  taxation  upon  a  large  part  of  the  population 
was  still  grievous,  there  were  sections  where 
Arthur  Young  could  truly  say  that  he  found 
only  poverty  and  privileges,  but  the  country  as 
a  whole  was  more  prosperous  than  Germany  or 
Spain;  it  was  far  more  prosperous  than  it  had 


1280 


FEANCE,  1723-1774. 


Bourbon 
Famity  Compact. 


FRANCE,  1733. 


been  under  Louis  XIV.  .  .  .  Such  an  improve- 
ment in  material  conditions  necessitated  both 
social  and  political  changes.  .  .  .  But  ■while  so- 
cial conditions  had  altered,  political  institutions 
remained  unchanged.  New  wine  had  been  poured 
in,  but  the  old  bottles  were  still  used.  Tallies 
and  corvees  were  no  more  severe  in  the  eigh- 
teenth than  in  the  fifteenth  century,  but  they 
were  more  odious.  A  feudal  privilege,  which 
had  then  been  accepted  as  a  part  of  the  law  of 
nature,  was  now  regarded  as  contrary  to  nature. 
...  A  demand  for  social  equality,  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  privileges  and  immimities  by  which  any 
class  profited  at  the  expense  of  others,  was  fos- 
tered by  economical  changes.  It  received  an  ad- 
ditional impetus  from  the  writings  of  theorists, 
philosophers,  and  political  reformers.  The  influ- 
ence of  literature  in  France  during  the  eighteenth 
century  was  important,  yet  it  is  possible  to  over- 
estimate it.  The  seed  of  political  and  social  change 
was  shown  by  the  writers  of  the  period,  but  the 
soil  was  already  prepared  to  receive  it.  .  .  .  The 
course  of  events,  the  conduct  of  their  rulers,  pre- 
pared the  minds  of  the  French  people  for  politi- 
cal change,  and  accounted  for  the  influence  which 
literature  acquired.  The  doctrines  of  philoso- 
phers found  easy  access  to  the  hearts  of  a  people 
with  whom  reverence  for  royalty  and  a  tranquil 
acceptance  of  an  established  government  had 
been  succeeded  by  contempt  for  the  king  and 
hatred  for  the  regime  under  which  they  lived. 
We  can  trace  this  change  of  sentiment  during 
the  reign  of  Louis  XV.  The  popular  affection 
which  encircled  his  cradle  accompanied  him 
when  he  had  grown  to  be  a  man.  .  .  .  Few 
events  are  more  noticeable  in  the  history  of  the 
age  than  the  extraordinary  expressions  of  grief 
and  affection  that  were  excited  by  the  illness  of 
Louis  XV.  in  1744.  ...  A  preacher  hailed  him 
as  Louis  the  well  beloved,  and  all  the  nation 
adopted  the  title.  '  What  have  I  done  to  be  so 
loved?'  the  king  himself  asked.  Certainly  he 
had  done  nothing,  but  the  explanation  was  cor- 
rectly given.  '  Louis  XV.  is  dear  to  his  people, 
without  having  done  anything  for  them,  because 
the  French  are,  of  all  nations,  most  inclined  to 
love  their  king.'  This  affection,  the  result  of 
centuries  of  fidelity  and  zeal  for  monarchical 
institutions,  and  for  the  sovereigns  by  whom 
they  were  personified,  was  wholly  destroyed  by 
Louis's  subsequent  career.  The  vices  to  which 
he  became  addicted  were  those  which  arouse 
feelings  not  only  of  reprehension,  but  of  loath- 
ing. They  excited  both  aversion  and  contempt. 
The  administration  of  the  country  was  as  des- 
picable as  the  character  of  the  sovereign.  Under 
Louis  XIV.  there  had  been  suffering  and  there 
had  been  disaster,  but  France  had  always  pre- 
served a  commanding  position  in  Europe.  .  .  . 
But  now  defeat  and  dishonor  were  the  fate  of  a 
people  alike  powerful  and  proud.  .  .  .  The  low 
profligacy  into  which  the  king  had  sunk,  the 
nullity  of  his  character,  the  turpitude  of  his  mis- 
tress, the  weakness  of  his  administration,  the 
failure  of  all  his  plans,  went  far  toward  destroy- 
ing the  feelings  of  loyalty  that  had  so  long  ex- 
isted in  the  hearts  of  the  French  people.  Some 
curious  figures  mark  the  decline  in  the  estima- 
tion in  which  the  king  was  held.  In  1744,  six 
thousand  masses  were  said  at  Notre  Dame  for 
the  restoration  of  Louis  XV.  to  health ;  in  1757, 
after  the  attempted  assassination  by  Damieus, 
there  were  six  hundred;  when  the  king  actually 

12 


lay  dying,  in  1774,  there  were  only  three.  The 
fall  from  six  thousand  to  three  measures  the  de- 
cline in  the  affection  and  respect  of  the  French 
people  for  their  sovereign.  It  was  with  a  public 
whose  sentiments  had  thus  altered  that  the  new 
philosophy  found  acceptance." — J.  B.  Perkins, 
France  under  the  Regency,  eh.  1. 

Also  is  :  F.  Rocquain,  The  Bewlutionary  Spirit 
preceding  tlie  Fr. Rev.,  ch.  3-8.— J.  Murray,  F-ench 
Finance  and  Financiers  under  Louin  XV. 

A.  D.  1725. — The  alliance  of  Hanover.  See 
Spaix;  a.  D.  1713-1735. 

A.  D.  1727-1731. —  Ineffectual  congress  at 
Soissons. — The  Treaty  of  Seville,  vyith  Spain 
and  England. — The  Second  Treaty  of  Vienna. 
See  Spain:  A.  D.  1736-1731. 

A.  D.  1733. — The  First  Family  Compact  of 
the  Bourbons  (France  and  Spain). —  "The  two 
lines  of  the  house  of  Bourbon  [in  France  and  in 
Spain]  once  more  became  in  the  highest  degree 
prominent.  ...  As  early  as  November  1733  a 
Family  Compact  (the  first  of  the  series)  was  con- 
cluded between  them,  in  which  they  contemplated 
the  possibility  of  a  war  against  England,  but 
without  waiting  for  it  entered  into  an  agreement 
against  the  maritime  supremacy  of  that  power. 
.  .  .  The  commercial  privileges  granted  to  the 
English  in  the  Peace  of  Utrecht  seemed  to  both 
courts  to  be  intolerable." — L.  von  Ranke,  Hist. 
of  Eng.,  bk.  23,  ch.  4  (».  5). — "It  is  hardly  too 
much  to  say  that  the  Family  Compact  of  1733, 
though  even  yet  not  generally  known  to  exist,  is 
the  most  important  document  of  the  middle 
period  of  the  18th  century  and  the  most  indis- 
pensable to  history.  If  that  period  seems  to  us 
confused,  if  we  lose  ourselves  in  the  medley  of 
its  wars — war  of  the  Polish  election,  war  of 
Jenkins's  ears,  war  of  the  Austrian  succession, 
colonial  war  of  1756  —  the  simple  reason  is  that 
we  do  not  know  this  treaty,  which  furnishes  the 
clue.  From  it  we  may  learn  that  in  this  period, 
as  in  that  of  Louis  XIV.  and  in  that  of  Napo- 
leon, Europe  struggled  against  the  ambitious 
and  deliberately  laid  design  of  an  ascendant 
power,  with  this  difference,  that  those  aggres- 
sors were  manifest  to  all  the  world  and  their 
aims  not  difficult  to  understand,  whereas  this 
aggression  proceeded  by  ambuscade,  and,  being 
the  aggression  not  of  a  single  state  but  of  an  alli- 
ance, and  a  secret  alliance,  did  not  become  clearly 
manifest  to  Europe  even  when  it  had  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  attained  its  objects.  .  .  .  The 
first  two  articles  define  the  nature  of  the  alliance, 
that  it  involves  a  mutual  guarantee  of  all  posses- 
sions, and  has  for  its  object,  first,  the  honour, 
glory,  and  interestsof  both  powers,  and,  secondly, 
their  defence  against  all  damage,  vexation,  and 
prejudice  that  may  threaten  them."  The  first 
declared  object  of  the  Compact  is  to  secure  the 
position  of  Don  Carlos,  the  Infant  of  Spain, 
afterwards  Charles  III.,  in  Italy,  and  "to  obtain 
for  him  the  succession  in  Tuscany,  protecting 
him  against  any  attack  that  may  be  attempted 
by  the  Emperor  or  by  England.  Next,  France 
undertakes  to  '  aid  Spain  with  all  her  forces  by 
land  or  sea,  if  Spain  should  suspend  England's 
enjoyment  of  commerce  and  her  other  advan- 
tages, and  England  out  of  revenge  should  resort 
to  hostilities  and  insults  in  the  dominions  and 
states  of  the  crown  of  Spain,  whether  within  or 
outside  of  Europe.'"  Further  articles  provide 
for  the  making  of  efforts  to  induce  Great  Britain 
to  restore  Gibraltar  to  Spain;  set  forth  "that  the 

81 


FRANCE,  1733. 


War  with  Austria. 


FRANCE,  1733-1735. 


foreign  policy  of  both  states  is  to  be  guided  ex- 
clusively by  the  interests  of  the  house" ;  denounce 
the  Austrian  Pragmatic  as  "opposed  to  the 
security  of  the  house  of  Bourbon."  "The  King 
of  France  engages  to  send  33,000  infantry  and 
8,000  cavalry  into  Italy,  and  to  maintain  other 
armies  on  his  other  frontiers;  also  to  have  a 
squadron  ready  at  Toulon,  either  to  join  the 
Spanish  fleet  or  to  act  separately,  and  another 
squadron  at  Brest,  '  to  keep  the  English  in  fear 
and  jealousy ' ;  also,  in  case  of  war  with  Eng- 
land breaking  out,  to  commission  the  largest 
possible  number  of  privateers.  Spain  also  prom- 
ises a  fixed  number  of  troops.  The  lltli  and 
12th  articles  lay  the  foundation  of  a  close  com- 
mercial alliance  to  be  formed  between  France 
and  Spain.  Article  13  runs  as  follows:  —  'His 
Catholic  majesty,  recognising  all  the  abuses  which 
have  been  introduced  into  commerce,  chiefly  by 
the  British  nation,  in  the  eradication  of  which  the 
French  and  Spanish  nations  are  equally  inter- 
ested, has  determined  to  bring  everything  back 
within  rule  and  into  agreement  with  the  letter  of 
treaties'" — to  which  end  the  two  kings  make 
common  cause.  "Finally  the  14th  article  pro- 
vides that  the  present  treaty  shall  remain  pro- 
foundly secret  as  long  as  the  contracting  parties 
shall  judge  it  agreeable  to  their  interests,  and 
shall  be  regarded  from  this  day  as  an  eternal 
and  irrevocable  FamUy  Compact.  .  .  .  Here  is 
the  explanation  of  the  war  which  furnished  the 
immediate  occasion  of  the  first  Compact,  a  war 
most  misleadingly  named  from  the  Polish  elec- 
tion which  afforded  an  ostensible  pretext  for  it, 
and  deserving  better  to  be  called  the  Bourbon 
invasion  of  Italy.  Here  too  is  sketched  out  the 
course  which  was  afterwards  taken  by  the  Bour- 
bon courts  in  the  matter  of  the  Pragmatic  Sanc- 
tion. Thirdly,  here  most  manifestly  is  the  ex- 
planation of  that  war  of  Jenkins's  ears,  which 
we  have  a  habit  of  representing  as  forced  upon 
Spain  by  English  commercial  cupidity,  but 
which  appears  here  as  deliberately  planned  in 
concert  by  the  Bourbon  courts  in  order  to  eradi- 
cate the  'abuses  which  have  been  allowed  to 
creep  into  trade.'" — J.  R.  Seeley,  The  House  of 
Bourbon  (Eng.  Hist.  Bev.,  Jan.,  1886). 

Also  in:  J.  McCarthy,  Hist,  of  the  Four 
Georges,  ch.  23  (o.  2). 

A.  D.  1733-1735. — War  with  Austria,  in 
Germany  and  Italy. — Final  acquisition  of  Lor- 
raine.— Naples  and  Sicily  transferred  to  Spain. 
—  In  the  war  with  Austria  which  was  brought 
about  by  the  question  of  the  Polish  succession 
(see  Polakd:  A.  D.  1733-1733),  the  French 
"  struck  at  the  Rhine  and  at  Italy,  while  the 
other  powers  looked  on  unmoved ;  Spain  watch- 
ing her  moment,  at  which  she  might  safely  in- 
terfere for  her  own  interests  in  Italy.  The  army 
of  the  Rhine,  which  reached  Strasburg  in  autumn 
1733,  was  commanded  by  Marshal  Berwick,  who 
had  been  called  away  from  eight  years  of  happy 
and  charming  leisure  at  Fitz-James.  With  him 
served  for  the  first  time  in  the  French  army  their 
one  great  general  of  the  coming  age,  and  he  too 
a  foreigner,  Maurice,  son  of  Augustus  II.  of 
Poland  and  the  lovely  Countess  of  Konigsmark. 
...  He  is  best  known  to  us  as  JIarshal  Saxe. 
It  was  too  late  to  accomplish  much  in  1733,  and 
the  French  had  to  content  themselves  witli  the 
capture  of  Kehl :  in  the  winter  the  Imperialists 
constructed  strong  lines  at  Ettliugcu,  a  little 
place   not   far  from   Carlsruhc,   between   Kehl, 


which  the  French  held,  and  Philipsburg,  at 
which  they  were  aiming.  In  the  spring  of  1734 
French  preparations  were  slow  and  feeble:  a 
new  power  had  sprung  up  at  Paris  in  the  person 
of  Belle-Isle,  Fouquet's  grandson,  who  had  much 
of  the  persuasive  ambition  of  his  grandfather. 
He  was  full  of  schemes,  and  induced  the  aged 
Fleury  to  believe  him  to  be  the  coming  genius  of 
French  generalship ;  the  careful  views  of  Marshal 
Berwick  suited  ill  his  soaring  spirit;  he  wanted 
to  march  headlong  into  Saxony  and  Bohemia. 
Berwick  would  not  allow  so  reckless  a  scheme  to 
be  adopted ;  still  Belle-Isle,  as  lieutenant-general 
with  an  almost  independent  command,  was  sent 
to  besiege  Trarbach  on  the  Moselle,  an  operation 
which  delayed  the  French  advance  on  the  Rhine. 
At  last,  however,  Berwick  moved  forwards.  By 
skilful  arrangements  he  neutralised  the  Ettlingen 
lines,  and  without  a  battle  forced  the  Germans  to 
abandon  them.  Their  army  withdrew  to  Heil- 
bronn,  where  it  was  joined  by  Prince  Eugene. 
Berwick,  freed  from  their  immediate  presence, 
and  having  a  great  preponderance  in  force,  at 
once  sat  down  before  Philipsburg.  There,  on 
the  12th  of  June,  as  he  visited  the  trenches,  he 
was  struck  by  a  ball  and  fell  dead.  So  passed 
away  the  last  but  one  of  the  great  generals  of 
Louis  XIV. :  Prance  never  again  saw  his  like  till 
the  genius  of  the  Revolution  evoked  a  new  race 
of  heroes.  It  was  thought  at  first  that  Berwick's 
death,  like  Turenne's,  would  end  the  campaign, 
and  that  the  French  army  must  get  back  across 
the  Rhine.  The  position  seemed  critical,  Philips- 
burg in  front,  and  Prince  Eugene  watching  with- 
out. The  Princes  of  the  Empire,  however,  had 
not  put  out  any  strength  in  this  war,  regarding 
it  chiefly  as  an  Austrian  affair;  and  the  Marquis 
d'Asfeld,  who  took  the  command  of  the  French 
forces,  was  able  to  hold  on,  and  in  July  to  reduce 
the  great  fortress  of  Philipsburg.  Therewith 
the  campaign  of  the  Rhine  closed.  In  Italy 
things  had  been  carried  on  with  more  vigour  and 
variety.  The  veteran  Villars,  now  81  years  old, 
was  in  command,  under  Charles-Emmanuel, 
King  of  Sardinia.  .  .  .  Villars  found  it  quite 
easy  to  occupy  all  the  Milanese :  farther  he  could 
not  go ;  for  Charles-Emmanuel,  after  the  maimer 
of  his  family,  at  once  began  to  deal  behind  his 
baclv  with  the  Imperialists  and  the  campaign 
dragged.  The  old  Marshal,  little  brooking  in- 
terference and  delay,  for  he  still  was  full  of  fire, 
threw  up  his  command,  and  started  for  France : 
on  the  way  he  was  seized  with  illness  at  Turin, 
and  died  there  five  days  after  Berwick  had  been 
killed  at  Philipsburg.  With  them  the  long  series 
of  the  generals  of  Louis  XIV.  comes  to  an  end. 
Coigny  and  the  Duke  de  Broglie  succeeded  to 
the  command.  Not  far  from  Parma  they  fought 
a  murderous  battle  with  the  Austrians,  hotly 
contested,  and  a  Cadmean  victory  for  the  French: 
it  arrested  their  forward  movement,  and  two 
months  were  spent  in  enforced  idleness.  In  Sep- 
tember 1734  the  Imperialists  inflicted  a  heavy 
check  on  the  French  at  the  Secchia ;  afterwards 
however  emboldened  by  this  success,  they  fought 
a  pitched  battle  at  Guastalla,  in  which,  after  a 
fierce  struggle,  the  French  remained  masters  of 
the  field.  Their  losses,  the  advanced  time  of  the 
year,  and  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  King  of  Sar- 
dinia's movements  and  intentions,  reniiered  the 
rest  of  the  campaign  unimportant.  As  however 
the  Imperialists,  in  order  to  make  head  against 
the  French  in  the  valley  of  the  Po,  had  drawn 


1282 


FRANCE,  1733-1735. 


Lost  Opportunitief:. 


FRANCE,  1738-1770. 


all  their  available  force  out  of  the  Neapolitan 
territory,  the  Spaniards  were  able  to  slip  in  be- 
hind them,  and  to  secure  that  great  prize.  Don 
Carlos  landed  at  Naples  and  was  received  with 
transports  of  joy  :  the  Austrians  were  defeated 
at  Bitonto ;  the  Spaniards  then  crossed  into  Sicily, 
which  also  welcomed  them  gladly ;  the  two 
kingdoms  passed  willingly  under  the  rule  of  the 
Spaniards.  In  1735  Austria  made  advances  in 
the  direction  of  peace  ;  for  the  French  had  stirred 
up  their  old  friend  the  Turk,  who,  in  order  to 
save  Poland,  proposed  to  invade  Hungary. 
Fleury,  no  lover  of  war,  and  aware  that  Eng- 
land's neutrality  could  not  last  forever,  was  not 
unwilling  to  treat :  a  Congress  at  Vienna  fol- 
lowed, and  before  the  end  of  1735  peace  again 
reigned  in  Europe.  The  terms  of  the  Treaty  of 
Vienna  (3  Oct.  1735)  were  very  favourable  to 
France.  Austria  ceded  Naples  and  Sicily,  Elba, 
and  ■  the  States  degli  Presidii  to  Spain,  to  be 
erected  into  a  separate  kingdom  for  Don  Carlos  : 
France  obtained  Lorraine  and  Bar,  which  were 
given  to  Stanislaus  Lecziuski  on  condition  that 
he  should  renouijce  all  claim  to  the  Polish  Crown  ; 
they  were  to  be  governed  by  him  under  French 
administration :  Francis  Stephen,  the  former 
Duke,  obtained,  as  an  indemnity,  the  reversion  of 
Tuscany,  which  fell  to  him  in  the  following  year. 
Parma  and  Piacenza  returned  to  tlie  Emperor, 
who  also  obtained  from  France  a  guarantee  of 
the  Pragmatic  Sanction.  Thus  France  at  last 
got  firm  hold  of  the  much-desired  Lorraine  coun- 
try, though  it  was  not  absolutely  united  to  her 
till  the  death  of  Stanislaus  in  1766."— G.  W. 
Kitchin,  Hist,  of  Prance,  bk.  6,  ch.  2. 

Also  in  :  F.  P.Guizot,  Popular  Hist,  of  Prance, 
ch.  52  (».  6). 

A.  D.  1738-1740. — The  Question  of  the  Aus- 
trian Succession. — Guarantee  of  the  Prag- 
matic Sanction.  See  Austri.\:  A.  D.  1718- 
1738,  and  1740. 

A.  D.  1738-1770. — The  fatal  policy  in  Europe 
which  lost  to  the  French  their  opportunity  for 
colonial  aggrandizement. — "Louis  XIV.  had 
made  France  odious  to  her  neighbors  and  sus- 
pected by  all  Europe.  Those  who  succeeded  him 
required  much  prudence  and  wisdom  to  diminish 
the  feelings  of  fear  and  jealousy  which  this  long 
reign  of  wars  and  conquests  had  inspired.  They 
were  fortunate  in  that  the  moderation  demanded 
of  them  was  for  France  the  most  skilful  and  ad- 
vantageous policy.  France  kept  Alsace,  Franche- 
Comte,  Flanders,  Roussillon,  and  beyond  this 
enlarged  frontier  she  was  no  longer  menaced  by 
the  same  enemies.  The  treaty  of  Utrecht  had 
modified  the  entire  balance  of  power.  There  is 
henceforward  no  house  of  Austria  excepting  in 
Germany.  .  .  .  Spain  is  no  longer  to  be  feared  : 
she  is  weakened,  she  is  becoming  dependent. 
A  cadet  of  France,  a  Bourbon,  reigns  at  Madrid. 
...  It  seems  that  henceforward  Prance  has  only 
to  conserve  on  the  continent.  She  presents  to  it 
the  most  compact  power.  Her  principal  enemy 
in  it  is  greatly  reduced.  She  is  surrounded  by 
states,  weaker  than  she,  who  defer  to  her  and 
fear  her  ;  she  can  resume  that  fine  role  of  modera- 
tor and  guardian  of  the  peace  of  Europe  which 
Richelieu  liad  prepared  for  her,  and  bear  else- 
where, into  the  other  hemisphere,  the  super- 
abundance of  her  forces  and  that  excess  of  vigor 
which  in  great  nations  is  precisely  the  condition 
of  health.  The  future  of  her  grandeur  is  hence- 
forward   in  the    colonies.     There  she  will  en- 


counter England.  Upon  this  new  stage  their 
rivalry  will  be  revived,  more  ardent  than  in  the 
days  of  the  hundred  years  war.  To  maintain 
this  struggle  which  extends  over  the  entire  world, 
France  will  not  be  too  strong  with  all  her  re- 
sources When  she  is  engaged  in  Canada  and 
the  Indies  at  the  same  time,  she  will  not  need  to 
carry  her  armies  across  the  Rhine.  Peace  on  the 
continent  is  the  condition  necessary  to  the  mag- 
nilicent  fortune  which  awaits  her  in  America  and 
Asia.  If  she  wishes  to  obtain  it  she  must  re- 
nounce continental  ambitions.  She  can  do  it ; 
her  defense  is  formidable.  No  one  about  her 
would  dare  to  fire  a  gun  without  her  permission. 
But,  alas  !  she  is  far  removed  from  this  wisdom, 
and,  in  attempting  to  establisli  colonies,  and 
make  changes  in  the  kingdoms  of  Europe  at  the 
same  time,  she  will  compromise  her  power  in 
both  worlds  at  once.  The  French  desire  colonial 
conquests,  but  they  cannot  abstain  from  Euro- 
pean conquests,  and  England  profits  by  it. 
Austria  becomes  her  natural  ally  against  France. 
These  powerful  diversions  keep  the  French  on 
the  ground.  However,  they  can  yet  curb  Aus- 
tria ;  they  have  Prussia,  Savoy,  Poland  and 
Tiu'key  if  necessary.  Diplomacy  is  sufficient 
for  this  game ;  but  this  game  is  not  sufficient  for 
the  French  politicians.  The  hatred  of  the  house 
of  Austria  survives  the  causes  of  rivalry.  This 
house  seems  always  '  the  monster '  of  which  Bal- 
zac speaks.  One  is  not  satisfied  to  have  chained 
it ;  one  can  cease  only  after  having  annihilated  it. 
'There  is  always,' writes  Argenson,  'for  politi- 
cians a  fundamental  rule  of  reducing  this  power 
to  the  point  where  the  Emperor  will  not  be  a 
greater  landholder  than  the  richest  elector.' 
Charles  VI.  dies  in  1740  ;  he  leaves  only  a  daugh- 
ter ;  the  opportunity  seems  favorable,  and  noisily 
sounding  the  death-cry  (I'hallali)  they  take  the 
field  at  the  head  of  all  the  hunters  by  inheri- 
tance [see  Austria  :  A.  D.  1740-1741,  and  after ; 
Italy:  A.  D.  1741-1743  to  1746-1747;  Nether- 
lands: A.  D.  1745,  and  1746-1747].  They  go 
'  to  make  an  emperor,  to  conquer  kingdoms ! ' 
The  Bavarian  whom  they  crown  is  a  stage  em- 
peror, and,  as  for  conquests,  they  are  considered 
only  too  fortunate  that  Maurice  of  Saxe  pre- 
serves to  France  those  of  Louis  XIV.  "The 
coalition  has  no  other  result  than  to  enlarge 
Prussia  [see  Aix-la-Chapelle  :  A.  D.  1748 ; 
and  New  England:  A.  D.  1745-1748].  Mean- 
while France  is  beaten  on  the  sea  and  abandons 
solely  to  the  i-esourcesof  his  genius Dupleix,  who 
with  a  handful  of  men  was  founding  an  empire 
[see  India  :  A.  D.  1743-1752].  There  was  be- 
sides another  small  matter ;  after  having  exposed 
Canada  [see  New  England  :  A.  D.  1744  and 
1745]  in  order  to  conquer  Silesia  for  the  king  of 
Prussia,  it  was  lost  in  order  to  have  the  pleasure 
of  giving  back  that  province  to  the  queen  of 
Hungary.  France  had  played  the  game  of  Eng- 
landjin  the  war  of  the  succession  of  Austria,  she 
played  that  of  Austria  in  the  seven  years  war 
[see  Germany  :  A.  D.  1755-1756,  and  after ;  and 
England  :  A.  D.  17.54-1755].  Frederick  was  the 
most  equivocal  of  allies.  In  1755,  he  deserted 
cynically  and  passed  over  to  the  English,  who 
had  just  recommenced  war  against  France. 
England  having  Prussia,  it  was  important,  in 
order  to  maintain  the  equilibrium,  that  France 
have  Austria.  Maria  Theresa  offered  her  alliance 
and  France  accepted  it.  Thus  was  concluded  the 
famous  treaty  of  Mav  1,   1756.     The  object  of 

1283 


FRANCE,  1738-1770. 


More  Family  Compacts. 


FRANCE,  1761. 


this  alliance  was  entirely  defensive.  This  is 
what  France  did  not  understand,  and  she  did  not 
cease  to  be  a  dupe  for  having  changed  partners. 
Louis  XV.  made  himself  the  defender  of  Austria 
with  the  same  blindness  as  he  had  made  himself 
her  adversary.  The  continental  war  which  was 
only  the  accessory  became  the  principal.  From 
a  ruling  power,  France  fell  to  the  rank  of  a  sub- 
ordinate. She  did  not  even  attain  the  indirect 
result  to  which  she  sacrificed  her  most  precious 
interests.  Frederick  kept  Silesia.  France  lost 
Canada  and  abandoned  Louisiana  ;  the  empire  of 
the  Indies  passed  to  the  English  [see  Canada  : 
A.  D.  1750-1753  to  1760 ;  Nova  Scotia  :  A.  D. 
1749-1755,  and  1755 ;  Ohio  (Valley)  :  A.  D. 
1748-1754,  and  after ;  Cape  Breton  Island  : 
A.  D.  1758-1760;  India:  A.  D.  1758-1761]. 
Louis  XV.  had  thus  directed  a  policy  the  sole 
reason  for  which  was  the  defeat  of  England,  in 
such  a  way  as  to  assure  the  triumph  of  that 
country.  ■  Above  all,'  wrote  Bernis  to  Choiseul, 
then  ambassador  at  Vienna,  '  arrange  matters  in 
such  a  way  that  the  king  will  not  remain  in 
servile  dependence  on  his  allies.  That  state 
would  be  the  worst  of  all."  It  was  the  state  of 
France  during  the  last  years  of  the  reign  of 
Louis  XV.  The  alliance  of  1756,  which  had  been 
at  its  beginning  and  under  its  first  form,  a  skil- 
ful expedient,  became  a  political  system,  and  the 
most  disastrous  of  all.  Without  gaining  any- 
thing in  territory.  Franco  lost  her  consideration 
in  Europe.  She  had  formerly  grouped  around 
her  all  those  who  were  disturbed  by  the  power 
of  Austria ;  forced  to  chose  between  them  and 
Austria,  she  allowed  the  Austrians  to  do  as  they 
chose.  To  crown  the  humiliation,  immediately 
after  a  war  in  which  she  had  lost  everything  to 
serve  the  hatred  of  Maria  Theresa  for  Frederick, 
she  saw  those  unreconcilable  Germans  draw  to- 
gether without  her  knowledge,  come  to  an  under- 
standing at  her  expense,  and,  in  concert  with 
Russia,  divide  the  spoil  of  one  of  the  oldest  cli- 
ents of  the  French  monarchy,  Poland.  There 
remained  to  France  but  one  ally,  Spain.  They 
were  united  in  1761  by  the  Family  Pact,  the 
only  beneficial  work  which  had  been  accom- 
plished in  these  years  of  disaster.  .  .  .  To  the 
anger  of  having  felt  herself  made  use  of  during 
the  war,  to  the  rancor  of  having  seen  herself 
duped  during  the  peace,  was  joined  the  fear  of 
being  despoiled  one  day  by  an  ally  so  greedy  and 
so  little  scrupulous.  'I  foresee,'  wrote  Slably 
some  years  later,  '  that  the  Emperor  will  demand 
of  us  again  Lorraine,  Alsace  and  everything 
which  may  please  him.'  —  'Who  can  guaranty 
France,  if  she  should  experience  a  complicated 
and  unfortunate  war,'  said  one  of  the  ministers 
of  Louis  XVI.,  '  that  the  Emperor  would  not  re- 
claim Alsace  and  even  other  provinces  ?  '  It  was 
in  this  way  that  the  abuse  made  by  Austria  of 
the  alliance  revived  all  the  traditions  of  rivalry. 
Add  that  Maria  Theresa  was  devout,  that  she 
was  known  to  be  a  friend  of  the  Jesuits,  an  en- 
emy of  the  philosophers,  and  that  at  the  King's 
court,  the  favorites  were  accounted  as  acquired 
from  Austria:  everything  thus  contributed  to 
render  odious  to  public  opinion  the  alliance 
which,  in  itself,  already  seemed  detestable.  At 
the  time  when  they  were  beginning  to  style 
the  partisans  of  new  ideas  'patriots,'  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  confounding  all  the  adver- 
saries of  these  ideas  with  the  'Austrian  party.' 
.  .  The  marriage  of  Marie  Antoinette  with  tlie 


]2 


Dauphin  was  destined  to  seal  forever  the  alliance 
of  1756.  The  unfortunate  princess  accumulated 
on  her  head  the  hatreds  and  prejudices  heaped 
up  by  three  centuries  of  rivalry  and  excessively 
stimulated  by  the  still  smarting  impression  of 
recent  wrongs.  Even  the  cause  of  her  coming  to 
France  rendered  her  suspected  by  the  French ; 
they  imputed  to  her  as  a  crime  her  attachment 
to  the  alliance  which  was,  notwithstanding,  the 
very  reason  of  her  marriage.  To  understand 
the  prodigious  unpopularity  which  pursued  her 
in  France,  it  is  necessary  to  measure  the  violence 
of  the  passions  raised  up  against  her  mother  and 
her  country  ;  it  was  summed  up,  long  before  the 
Revolution,  in  thatword  which  became  for  Marie 
Antoinette  a  decree  of  forfeiture  and  of  death  ; 
the  Austrian." — A.  Sorel,  L'Europe  et  la,  Betolu- 
tionfran^aue  (trans,  from  the  French),  pt.  1,  pp. 
288-297. 

A.  D.  1743  (October).— The  Second  Family 
Compact  of  the  Bourbon  kings. — ' '  France  and 
Spain  signed  a  secret  treaty  of  perpetual  alliance 
at  Fontaiucbleau,  October  25th,  1748.  The  treaty 
is  remarkable  as  the  precursor  of  the  celebrated 
Family  Compact  between  the  French  and  Span- 
ish Bourbons.  The  Spaniards,  indeed,  call  it  the 
Second  Family  Compact,  the  first  being  the 
Treaty  of  November  7th,  1733,  of  which,  with 
regard  to  colonial  aifairs,  it  was  a  renewal.  But 
this  treaty  had  a  more  special  reference  to  Italy. 
Louis  XV.  engaged  to  declare  war  against  Sar- 
dinia, and  to  aid  Spain  in  conquering  the  Mi- 
lanese. Philip  V.  transferred  his  claims  to  that 
duchy  to  his  son,  the  Infant  Don  Philip,  who 
was  also  to  be  put  in  possession  of  Parma  and 
Piacenza.  All  the  possessions  ceded  by  France 
to  the  King  of  Sardinia,  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht, 
were  to  be  again  wrested  from  him.  A  public 
alliance  was  to  be  formed,  to  which  the  Emperor 
Charles  VII.  was  to  accede ;  whose  states,  and 
even  something  more,  were  to  be  recovered  for 
him.  Lender  certain  circumstances  war  was  to 
be  declared  against  England  ;  in  which  case 
France  was  to  assist  in  the  recovery  of  Gibraltar, 
and  also,  if  possible,  of  Minorca.  The  new  colony 
of  Georgia  was  to  be  destroyed,  the  Asiento  with- 
drawn from  England,  &c.'' — T.  H.  Dyer,  Eist. 
of  Modern  Europe,  b/c.  6.  ch.  4  (■».  3). 

A.  D.  1754-1756. — The  Seven  Years  War. 
— Its  Causes  and  Provocations.  See  Geumant: 
A.  D.  175.5-1756  :  and  England  :  A.  D.1754-1755. 
A.  D.  1756  (May). —The  Seven  Years  War  : 
Minorca  ■wrested  from  England.  See  Minor- 
ca :  A.  D.  1756. 

A.  D.  1761  (August). — The  Third  Family 
Compact  of  the  Bourbon  kings. — "  On  the  15th 
of  August  [1761]  .  .  .  Grimaldi  [Spanish  am- 
bassador at  the  French  court]  and  Choiseul  [the 
ruling  minister,  at  the  time,  in  France]  signed 
the  celebrated  Family  Compact.  By  this  treaty 
the  Kings  of  France  and  Spain  agreed  for  the 
future  to  consider  every  Power  as  their  enemy 
which  might  become  the  enemy  of  either,  and  to 
guarantee  the  respective  dominions  in  all  parts 
of  the  world  which  they  might  possess  at  the 
next  conclusion  of  peace.  ]\Iutual  succours  by 
sea  and  land  were  stipulated,  and  no  proposal  of 
peace  to  their  common  enemies  was  to  be  made, 
nor  negotiation  entered  upon,  unless  by  common 
consent.  The  subjects  of  each  re.siding  in  the 
European  dominions  of  the  other  were  to  enjoy 
the  same  commercial  privileges  as  the  natives. 
Moreover,    the    King  of    Spain  stipulated    the 

84 


FRANCK,  1761. 


Loin's  XVL  and 
his  Ministers. 


FRANCE,  1774-1788. 


accession  of  his  son,  the  King  of  Naples,  to  this 
iilliance ;  but  it  was  agreed  that  no  prince  or  po- 
tentate, except  of  the  House  of  Bourbon,  should 
ever  be  admitted  to  its  participation.  Besides 
this  treaty,  which  in  its  words  at  least  applied 
only  to  future  and  contingent  wars,  and  which 
was  intended  to  be  ultimately  published,  there 
was  also  signed  on  the  same  day  a  special  and 
secret  convention.  This  imported,  that  in  case 
England  and  France  should  still  be  engaged  in 
hostilities  on  the  1st  of  May  1762  Spain  should 
on  that  day  declare  war  against  England,  and  that 
France  should  at  the  same  period  restore  Minorca 
to  Spain.  .  .  .  Not  only  the  terms  but  the  exis- 
tence of  a  Family  Compact  were  for  some  time 
kept  scrupulously  secret.  Mr.  Stanley,  however, 
gleaned  some  information  from  the  scattered 
hints  of  the  Duke  de  Clioiseul,  and  these  were 
confirmed  to  Pitt  from  several  other  quarters. " 
As  the  result  of  the  Family  Compact,  England 
declared  war  against  Spain  on  tlie  4th  of  Janu- 
ary, 1762.  Pitt  had  gone  out  of  office  in  October 
because  his  colleagues  and  the  King  would  not 
then  consent  to  a  declaration  of  war  against  the 
Spanish  Bourbons  (see  England:  A.  D.  1760- 
1763).  The  force  of  circumstances  soon  brought 
them  to  the  measure. — Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stan- 
hope), Hist,  of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  37  {v.  4). 

A.  D.  1761-1764. — Proceedings  against  the 
Jesuits. — ^Their  expulsion  from  the  kingdom. 
SeeJEStnTS:  A.  D.  1761-1769. 

A.  D.  1763. — The  end  and  results  of  the 
Seven  Years  War. — The  Peace  of  Paris. — 
America  lost,  nothing  gained.  See  Seven 
Years  War;  A.  D.  1763. 

A.  D.  1763. — Rights  in  the  North  American 
fisheries  secured  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris.  See 
Fisheries,  North  Ajierican  :  A.  D.  1763. 

A.  D.  1768. — Acquisition  of  Corsica.  See 
Corsica:  A.  D.  1729-1769. 

A.  D.  1774-1788. — The  Court  and  Govern- 
ment of  Louis  XVI.,  his  inheritance  of  troubles, 
his  vacillations,  his  helpless  ministers. — Tur- 
got,  Necker,  Calonne,  Brienne. — Blind  selfish- 
ness of  the  privileged  orders. — The  Assembly 
of  Notables. — The  Parliament  of  Paris. — 
"Louis  XVI.,  an  equitable  prince,  moderate  in 
his  propensities,  carelessly  educated,  but  natur- 
ally of  a  good  disposition,  ascended  the  throne 
[May  11,  1774]  at  a  very  early  age.  He  called 
to  his  side  an  old  courtier,  and  consigned  to  him 
the  care  of  his  kingdom ;  and  divided  his  con- 
fidence between  JIaurepas  and  the  Queen,  an 
Austrian  princess  [Marie  Antoinette],  young, 
lively,  and  amiable,  who  possessed  a  complete 
ascendency  over  him.  Maurepas  and  the  Queen 
were  not  good  friends.  The  King,  sometimes 
giving  way  to  his  minister,  at  others  to  his  con- 
sort, began  at  an  early  period  the  long  career  of 
his  vacillations.  .  .  .  The  public  voice,  which 
was  loudly  expressed,  called  for  Turgot,  one  of 
the  class  of  economists,  an  honest,  virtuous  man, 
endowed  with  firmness  of  character,  a  slow  genius, 
but  obstinate  and  profound.  Convinced  of  his 
probity,  delighted  with  his  plans  of  reform,  Louis 
XVI.  frequently  repeated :  '  There  are  none  be- 
sides myself  and  Turgot  who  are  friends  of  the 
people.'  Turgot's  reforms  were  thwarted  by  the 
opposition  of  the  highest  orders  in  the  state, 
A-ho  were  interested  in  maintaining  all  kinds  of 
abuses,  which  the  austere  minister  proposed  to 
suppress.  Louis  XVI.  dismissed  him  [1776]  with 
regret.     During  his  whole  life,  which  was  only 


a  long  martyrdom,  he  had  the  mortification  to 
discern  what  was  right,  to  wish  it  sincerely,  but 
to  lack  the  energy  requisite  for  carrying  it  into 
execution.  The  King,  placed  between  the  court, 
the  parliaments,  and  the  people,  exposed  to  in- 
trigues and  to  suggestions  of  all  sorts,  repeatedly 
changed  his  ministers.  Yielding  once  more  to 
the  public  voice,  and  to  the  necessity  for  reform, 
he  summoned  to  the  finance  department  Necker, 
a  native  of  Geneva,  who  had  amassed  wealth  as  a 
banker,  a  partisan  and  disciple  of  Colbert,  as 
Turgot  was  of  Sully ;  an  economical  and  upright 
financier,  but  a  vain  man,  fond  of  setting  him- 
self up  for  arbitrator  in  everything.  .  .  .  Necker 
re-established  order  in  the  finances,  and  found 
means  to  defray  the  heavy  expenses  of  the  Ameri- 
can war.  .  .  .  But  it  required  something  more 
than  financial  artifices  to  put  an  end  to  the  em- 
barrassments of  the  exchequer,  and  he  had  re- 
course to  reform.  He  found  the  higher  orders 
not  less  adverse  to  him  than  they  had  been  to 
Turgot;  the  parliaments,  apprised  of  his  plans, 
combined  against  him,  and  obliged  him  to  retire 
[1781].  The  conviction  of  the  existence  of  abuses 
was  universal ;  everybody  admitted  it.  .  .  .  The 
courtiers,  who  derived  advantage  from  these 
abuses,  would  have  been  glad  to  see  an  end  put 
to  the  embarrassments  of  the  exchequer,  but 
without  its  costing  them  a  single  sacrifice.  .  .  . 
The  parliaments  also  talked  of  the  interests  of 
the  people,  loudly  insisted  on  the  sufferings  of 
the  poor,  and  yet  opposed  the  equalization  of  the 
taxes,  as  well  as  the  abolition  of  the  remains  of 
feudal  barbarism.  All  talked  of  the  public  weal, 
few  desired  it ;  and  the  people,  not  yet  knowing 
who  were  its  true  friends,  applauded  all  those 
who  resisted  power,  its  most  obvious  enemy. 
By  the  removal  of  Turgot  and  Necker,  the  state 
of  affairs  was  not  changed :  the  distress  of  the 
treasury  remained  the  same.  .  .  .  An  intrigue 
brought  forward  M.  de  Calonne  [in  1783,  after 
brief  careers  in  office  of  M.  de  Fleury  and  M. 
d'Ormesson].  .  .  .  Calonne,  clever,  brilliant,  fer- 
tile in  resources,  relied  upon  his  genius,  upon 
fortune,  and  upon  men,  and  awaited  the  future 
with  the  most  extraordinary  apathy.  .  .  .  That 
future  which  had  been  counted  upon  now  ap- 
proached :  it  became  necessary  at  length  to  adopt 
decisive  measures.  It  was  impossible  to  burden 
the  people  with  fresh  imposts,  and  yet  the  coffers 
were  empty.  There  was  but  one  remedy  which 
could  be  applied ;  that  was  to  reduce  the  ex- 
penses by  the  suppression  of  grants ;  and  if  this 
expedient  should  not  suffice,  to  extend  the  taxes 
to  a  greater  number  of  contributors,  that  is,  to 
the  nobility  and  clergy.  These  plans,  attempted 
successively  by  Turgot  and  Necker,  and  resumed 
by  Calonne,  appeared  to  the  latter  not  at  all 
likely  to  succeed,  unless  the  consent  of  the  privi- 
leged classes  themselves  could  be  obtained. 
Calonne,  therefore,  proposed  to  collect  them  to- 
gether in  an  assembly,  to  be  called  the  Assembly 
of  the  Notables,  in  order  to  lay  his  plans  before 
them,  and  to  gain  their  consent  either  by  address 
or  by  conviction.  The  assembly  [which  met 
February  22,  1787]  was  composed  of  distin- 
guished members  of  the  nobility,  clergy,  and 
magistracy,  of  a  great  number  of  masters  of  re- 
quests and  some  magistrates  of  the  provinces. 
.  .  .  Very  warm  discussions  ensued."  The  No- 
tables at  length  "promised  to  sanction  the  plans 
of  Calonne,  but  on  condition  that  a  minister  more 
moral  and  more  deserving  of  confidence  should 


1285 


FRANCE,  1774-175 


Louis  X  VI.  and 
his  Court. 


FRANCE,  1774-1788. 


be  appointed  to  carry  them  into  execution." 
Calonne,  consequently,  was  dismissed,  and  re- 
placed by  M.  de  Brienne,  Arclibishop  of  Tou- 
louse. "Tlie  Notables,  bound  by  the  promises 
■which  they  had  made,  readily  consented  to  all 
that  they  had  at  first  refused:  land-tax,  stamp- 
duty,  suppression  of  the  gratuitous  services  of 
vassals  ('  corvees  '),  provincial  assemblies,  ■were 
all  cheerfully  granted.  .  .  .  Had  M.  de  Brienne 
known  how  to  profit  by  the  advantages  of  his 
position;  had  he  actively  proceeded  with  the 
execution  of  the  measures  assented  to  by  the  No- 
tables; had  he  submitted  them  all  at  once  and 
without  delay  to  the  parliament,  at  the  instant 
when  the  adhesion  of  the  higher  orders  seemed 
to  be  wrung  from  them  —  all  would  probably 
have  been  over;  the  parliament,  pressed  on  all 
sides,  would  have  consented  to  everything.  .  .  . 
Nothing  of  the  kind,  however,  was  done.  By 
imprudent  delays  occasion  was  furnished  for  re- 
lapses ;  the  edicts  were  submitted  only  one  after 
another;  the  parliament  had  time  to  discuss,  to 
gain  courage,  and  to  recover  from  the  sort  of 
surprise  by  which  the  Notables  had  been  taken. 
It  registered,  after  long  discussions,  the  edict 
enacting  the  second  abolition  of  the  '  corvees, ' 
and  another  permitting  the  free  exportation  of 
corn.  Its  animosity  was  particularly  directed 
against  the  land-tax ;  but  it  feared  lest  by  a  re- 
fusal it  should  enlighten  the  public,  and  show 
that  its  opposition  was  entirely  selfish.  It  hesi- 
tated, when  it  was  spared  this  embarrassment  by 
the  simultaneous  presentation  of  the  edict  on  the 
stamp-duty  and  the  land-tax,  and  especially  by 
opening  the  deliberations  with  the  former.  The 
parliament  had  thus  an  opportunity  of  refusing 
the  first  without  entering  into  explanations  re- 
specting the  second ;  and,  in  attacking  the  stamp- 
duty,  which  affected  the  majority  of  the  payers 
of  taxes,  it  seemed  to  defend  the  interest  of  the 
public.  At  a  sitting  which  was  attended  by  the 
peers,  it  denounced  the  abuses,  the  profligacy, 
and  the  prodigality  of  the  court,  and  demanded 
statements  of  expenditure.  A  councillor,  pun- 
ning upon  the 'etats' (statements)  exclaimed  .  .  . 
^'It  is  not  statements,  but  States-General  that 
we  want.' .  .  .  The  utterance  of  a  single  word 
presented  an  unexpected  direction  to  the  public 
mind :  it  was  repeated  by  every  mouth,  and  States- 
Cteneral  were  loudly  demanded. " — A.  Thiers,  Hist, 
of  the  French  BemluUon  {Am.  ed.),  v.  1,  pp.  17-21. 
— "  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  French  adminis- 
trative body,  at  the  time  when  Louis  XVI.  began 
to  reign,  was  corrupt  and  self-seeking.  In  the 
management  of  the  finances  and  of  the  army, 
Illegitimate  profits  were  made.  But  this  was  not 
the  worst  evil  from  which  the  public  service  was 
suffering.  France  was  in  fact  governed  by  what 
in  modern  times  is  called  'a  ring.'  The  mem- 
bers of  such  an  organization  pretend  to  serve  the 
sovereign,  or  the  public,  and  in  some  measure 
actually  do  so ;  but  their  rewards  are  determined 
by  intrigue  and  favor,  and  are  entirely  dispro- 
portionate to  their  services.  They  generally  pre- 
fer jobbery  to  direct  stealing,  and  will  spend  a 
million  of  the  state's  money  in  a  needless  under- 
taking, in  order  to  divert  a  few  thousands  into 
their  own  pockets.  They  hold  together  against 
all  the  world,  while  trying  to  circumvent  each 
other.  Such  a  ring  in  old  France  was  the  court. 
By  such  a  ring  will  every  country  be  governed, 
where  the  sovereign  who  possesses  the  political 
power  is  weak  in  moral  character  or  careless  of 


the  public  interest ;  whether  that  sovereign  be  a 
monarch,  a  chamber,  or  the  mass  of  the  people. 
Louis  XVI.,  king  of  France  and  of  Navarre,  was 
more  dull  than  stupid,  and  weaker  in  will  than 
in  intellect.  .  .  .  He  was  .  .  .  thoroughly  con- 
scientious, and  had  a  high  sense  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  his  great  calling.  He  was  not  indolent, 
although  heavy,  and  his  courage,  which  was 
sorely  tested,  was  never  broken.  With  these 
virtues  he  might  have  made  a  good  king,  had  he 
possessed  firmness  of  will  enough  to  support  a 
good  minister,  or  to  adhere  to  a  good  policy.  But 
such  strength  had  not  been  given  him.  Totally 
incapable  of  standing  by  himself,  he  leant  suc- 
cessively, or  simultaneously,  on  his  aunt,  his 
wife,  his  ministers,  his  courtiers,  as  ready  to 
change  his  policy  as  his  adviser.  Yet  it  was  part 
of  his  weakness  to  be  unwilling  to  believe  him- 
self under  the  guidance  of  any  particular  person ; 
he  set  a  high  value  on  his  own  authority,  and 
was  inordinately  jealous  of  it.  No  one,  there- 
fore, could  acquire  a  permanent  influence.  Thus 
a  well-meaning  man  became  the  worst  of  sover- 
eigns. .  .  .  Louis  XV.  had  been  led  by  his  mis- 
tresses; Louis  XVI.  was  turned  about  by  the 
last  person  who  happened  to  speak  to  him.  The 
courtiers,  in  their  turn,  were  .swayed  by  their 
feelings,  or  their  interests.  They  formed  parties 
and  combinations,  and  intrigued  for  or  against 
each  other.  They  made  bargains,  they  gave  and 
took  bribes.  In  all  these  intrigues,  bribes,  and 
bargains,  the  court  ladies  had  a  great  share. 
They  were  as  corrupt  as  the  men,  and  as  frivol- 
ous. It  is  probable  that  in  no  government  did 
women  ever  exercise  so  great  an  influence.  The 
factions  into  which  the  court  was  divided  tended 
to  group  themselves  round  certain  rich  and  in- 
fluential families.  Such  were  the  Noailles,  an 
ambitious  and  powerful  house,  with  which  Lafay- 
ette was  connected  by  marriage;  the  Broglies, 
one  of  whom  had  held  the  thread  of  the  secret 
diplomacy  which  Louis  XV.  had  carried  on 
behind  the  backs  of  his  acknowledged  minis- 
ters; the  Polignacs,  new  people,  creatures  of 
Queen  Marie  Antoinette;  the  Rohans,  through 
the  influence  of  whose  great  name  an  unworthy 
member  of  the  family  was  to  rise  to  high  dignity 
in  the  church  and  the  state,  and  then  to  cast  a 
deep  shadow  on  the  darkening  popularity  of  that 
ill-starred  princess.  Such  families  as  these  formed 
an  upper  class  among  nobles.  ...  It  is  not  easy, 
in  looking  at  the  French  government  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  to  decide  where  the  working  ad- 
ministration ended,  and  where  the  useless  court 
that  answered  no  real  purpose  began.  .  .  .  There 
was  the  department  of  hunting  and  that  of  build- 
ings, a  separate  one  for  royal  journeys,  one  for 
the  guard,  another  for  police,  yet  another  for 
ceremonies.  There  were  five  hundred  oflicers 
'  of  the  mouth,'  table-bearers  distinct  from  chair- 
bearers.  There  were  tradesmen,  from  apothe- 
caries and  armorers  at  one  end  of  the  list  to 
saddle-makers,  tailors  and  violinists  at  the  other. 
.  .  .  The  military  and  civil  households  of  the 
king  and  of  the  ro3'al  family  are  said  to  have  con- 
sisted of  about  fifteen  thousand  souls,  and  to  have 
cost  forty-five  million  francs  per  annum.  The 
holders  of  many  of  the  places  served  but  three 
months  apiece  out  of  every  year,  so  that  four 
officers  and  four  salaries  were  required,  instead 
of  one.  With  such  a  system  as  this  we  cannot 
wonder  that  the  men  who  administered  the  French 
government  were  generally  Incapable  and  self- 


128G 


FRANCE.  1774-1': 


Affair  of  the 
Diamond  Necklace. 


FRANCE,  1784-1785. 


seeking.  Most  of  them  were  politicians  rather 
them  administrators,  and  cared  more  for  their 
places  than  for  their  country.  Of  the  few  con- 
scientious and  patriotic  men  who  obtained  power, 
the  greater  number  lost  it  very  speedily." — 
E.  J.  Lowell,  The  Eve  of  the  French  Eecolution, 
eh.  3. 

Also  in:  F.  Rocquain,  The  Bewlutionary 
Spirit  preceding  the  Fr.  Bev.,  ch.  9-11. — Mme.  de 
Stael,  Considerations  on  the  Principal  Events  of 
tlie  Fr.  Rev.,  ch.  3-10  (v.  1).— J.  Necker,  On  the 
Fr.  Bei\,  pt.  1,  sect.  1  (e.  1).— Condorcet,  Life  of 
Turgot,  ch.  5-6.— L.  Say,  Twrgot,  ch.  5-7.— CD. 
Yonge,  Life  of  Marie  Antoinette,  ch.  8-31. 

A.  D.  1778  (February).  —  Treaty  with  the 
United  States  of  America.  See  United  States 
OF  Am.  :  A.  D.  1776-1778,  and  1778  (Febru- 
ary). 

A.  D.  1780  (July).— Fresh  aid  to  the  United 
States  of  America.  See  United  St.\tbs  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1780  (July). 

A.  D.  1782. — Disastrous  naval  defeat  by 
Rodney. —  Unsuccessful  siege  of  Gibraltar. 
See  Engl.\nd:  A.  D.  1780-1783. 

A.  D.  1782.— The  negotiation  of  Peace  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
of  America. —  Dissatisfaction  of  the  French 
minister.  See  United  States  of  Am.  ;  A.  D. 
1783  (September),  and  (September  —  Novem- 
ber). 

A.  D.  1784-1785. — The  affair  of  the  Diamond 
Necklace. — The  chief  actor  in  the  affair  of  the 
diamond  necklace,  which  caused  a  great  scandal 
and  smirched  the  queen's  name,  was  an  adven- 
turess who  called  herself  the  Comtesse  de  La- 
motte,  and  claimed  descent  from  Henry  II. ,  but 
who  had  been  half  servant,  half  companion,  to  a 
lady  of  quality,  and  had  picked  up  a  useful  ac- 
quaintance with  the  maimers  and  the  gossip  of 
court  society.  "  Madame  de  Lamotte's  original 
patroness  had  a  visiting  acquaintance  with  the 
Cardinal  Prince  Louis  de  Rohan,  and  in  her 
company  her  'protegee  learned  to  know  him 
also.  Prince  Louis,  who  had  helped  to  receive 
Marie  Antoinette  at  Strasburg,  had  been  the 
French  ambassador  at  Vienna,  where  he  had  dis- 
gusted and  incensed  JIaria  Theresa  by  his  world- 
liness,  profligacy,  and  arrogance.  She  had  at 
last  procured  his  withdrawal,  and  her  letters  ex- 
pressing a  positive  terror  lest  ho  should  come 
near  Marie  Antoinette  and  acquire  an  influence 
over  her,  were  not  without  their  effect.  He  was 
not  allowed  to  appear  at  Court,  and  for  ten  long 
years  fretted  and  fumed  under  a  sense  of  the 
roj'al  displeasure.  ...  He  was  now  a  man  bor- 
dering on  fifty,  grey-headed,  rosy,  'pursy,'  with 
nothing  save  his  blue  blood  aud  the  great  offices 
which  he  disgraced  to  recommend  him.  Madame 
de  Lamotte,  hovering  about  Paris  and  Versailles, 
where  she  had  lodgings  in  La  Belle  Inage,  tried 
to  make  her  own  of  backstairs  gossip,  and  picked 
up  a  hint  or  two.  Suddenly  a  great  idea  struck 
her,  founded  on  the  history  of  a  magnificent 
necklace  dangled  before  bright  eyes,  over  which 
many  an  excitable  imagination  gloated.  The 
Queen  had  a  court  jeweller,  Bcehmer,  who  had 
formerly  been  jeweller  to  the  King  of  Saxony 
at  Dresden.  .  .  .  For  a  period  of  years  he  had 
been  collecting  and  assorting  the  stones  which 
should  form  an  incomparable  necklace,  in  row 
upon  row,  pendants  and  tassels  of  lustrous  dia- 
monds, till  the  price  reached  the  royal  pitch  of 
from  eighty  to  ninety  thousand  pounds  English 


money.  This  costly  '  collar, '  according  to  ni- 
mour,  was  .  .  .  meant,  in  the  beginning,  for  the 
Comtesse  du  Barry.  In  the  end,  it  .  .  .  was 
offered  with  confidence  to  the  Queen.  .  .  .  She 
declined  to  buy  —  she  had  enough  diamonds. 
.  .  .  There  was  nothing  for  it  but  that  Boehmer 
should  '  hawk '  his  necklace  in  every  Court  of 
Europe,  without  success,  till  the  German  declared 
himself  ruined,  and  passionately  protested  that, 
if  the  Queen  would  not  buy  the  diamonds,  there 
was  no  resource  for  him  save  to  throw  himself 
into  the  Seine.  But  there  was  a  resource,  un- 
happily for  Bffihmer,  unhappily  for  all  con- 
cerned, most  so  for  the  poor  Queen.  Madame  de 
Lamotte,  in  keeping  up  her  acquaintance  with 
Prince  Louis  de  Rohan,  began  to  hint  darkly 
that  there  might  be  ways  of  winning  the  royal 
favour.  She  threw  out  cunning  words  about 
the  degree  of  importance  and  trust  to  which  she 
had  attained  in  the  highest  quarters  at  Versailles; 
about  the  emptiness  of  the  Queen's  exchequer, 
with  consequent  difficulties  in  the  discharge  of 
her  charities;  about  the  secret  royal  desire  for 
the  famous  necklace,  which  the  King  would  not 
enable  Marie  Antoinette  to  obtain.  The  blinded 
aud  besotted  Cardinal  drank  in  these  insinuations. 
The  black  art  was  called  in  to  deepen  his  convic- 
tions. In  an  age  when  many  men,  especially 
many  churchmen,  believed  in  nothing,  in  spite 
of  their  professions,  naturally  they  were  given 
over  to  believe  a  lie.  Cagliostro,  astrologer  and 
modern  magician,  was  flourishing  in  Paris,  and 
bv  circles  and  signs  he  promised  the  priest,  De 
R"ohan,  progress  in  the  only  suit  he  had  at  heart. 
Still  the  dupe  was  not  so  infatuated  as  to  require 
no  proof  of  the  validity  of  these  momentous 
implications,  and  proof  was  not  wanting;  notes 
were  handed  to  him,  to  be  afterwards  shown  to 
Boehmer,  graciously  acknowledging  his  devo- 
tion, and  authorising  him  to  buy  for  the  Queen 
the  diamond  necklace.  These  notes  were  appar- 
ently written  in  the  Queen's  hand  (that  school- 
girl's scrawl  of  which  Maria  Theresa  was  wont 
to  complain) ;  but  they  were  signed  '  Marie  An- 
toinette de  France,'  a  signature  which  so  great  a 
man  as  the  Cardinal  ought  to  have  known  was 
never  employed  by  the  Queen,  for  the  very  good 
reason  that  the  termination  '  do  France  '  belonged 
to  the  children  and  not  to  the  wife  of  the  sover- 
eign. Even  a  further  assurance  that  all  was 
right  was  granted.  The  Cardinal,  trembling  in 
a  fever  of  hope  and  expectation,  was  told  that 
a  private  interview  with  the  Queen  would  be 
vouchsafed  to  him  at  midnight  in  the  Park  of 
Versailles.  At  the  appointed  hour,  on  the  night 
of  the  38th  of  July,  1784,  De  Rohan,  in  a  blue 
greatcoat  and  slouched  hat,  was  stationed,  amidst 
shrouding,  sultry  darkness,  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  the  palace.  Madame  de  Lamotte,  in  a  black 
domino,  hovered  near  to  give  the  signal  of  the 
Queen's  approach.  The  whisper  was  given,  '  In 
the  Hornbeam  Arbour,'  and  the  Cardinal  hurried 
to  the  spot,  where  he  could  dimly  descry  a  tall 
lady  in  white,  with  chestnut  hair,  blue  eyes,  and 
a  commanding  air,  if  he  could  really  have  seen 
all  these  well-known  attributes.  He  knelt,  but 
before  he  could  do  more  than  mutter  a  word  of 
homage  and  gratitude,  the  black  domino  was  at 
his  side  again  with  another  vehement  whisper, 
'  On  vient '  (They  come).  The  lady  in  white 
dropped  a  rose,  with  the  significant  words, 
'  Vous  savez  ce  que  cela  veut  dire '  (You  know 
what  that  means),  and  vanished  before  the  'Vlte, 


[287 


FRANCE,  1784-1785. 


struggle  with  the 
Parliament  of  Paris, 


FRANCE,  1787-1789. 


vlte'  ('Quick,  quick')  of  the  black  domino,  for 
the  sound  of  approaching  footsteps  was  supposed 
to  indicate  the  approach  of  Madame  and  the 
Comtesse  d'Artols,  and  the  Cardinal,  In  his 
turn,  had  to  flee  from  detection.  What  more 
could  be  required  to  convince  a  man  of  the  good 
faith  of  the  lady.  .  .  .  Bcehraer  received  a  hint 
that  he  might  sell  his  necklace,  through  the 
Prince  Cardinal  Louis  de  Rohan,  to  one  of  the 
great  ones  of  the  earth,  who  was  to  remain  in 
obscurity.  The  jeweller  drew  out  his  terms  — 
sixteen  hundred  thousand  livres,  to  be  paid  in 
five  equal  instalments  over  a  year  and  a-half  — 
to  which  he  and  Prince  Louis  affixed  their  signa- 
tures. This  paper  Madame  de  Lamotte  carried 
to  Versailles,  and  brought  it  back  with  the  words 
written  on  the  margin,  'Bon  Marie  Antoinette 
de  France.'  In  the  meantime,  Bcehmer,  the 
better  to  keep  the  secret,  gave  out  that  he  had 
sold  the  necklace  to  the  Grand  Turk  for  his  fa- 
vourite Sultana.  The  necklace  was,  in  fact, 
delivered  to  Prince  Louis  and  by  him  entrusted 
to  Madame  Lamotte,  from  whose  hands  it  passed 
—  not  into  the  Queen's.  Having  been  taken  to 
pieces,  it  was  sent  in  all  haste  out  of  the  king- 
dom, while  the  Cardinal,  according  to  his  own 
account,  was  still  played  with.  ...  It  goes 
without  saying  that  no  payment,  except  a  small 
offer  of  interest  on  the  thirty  thousand,  was 
forthcoming.  The  Cardinal  and  Bcehmer  were 
betrayed  into  wrath,  dismay,  and  despair. 
Bcehmer  took  it  upon  him  to  apply,  in  respectful 
terms,  to  her  Majesty  for  payment;  and  when 
she  said  the  whole  thing  was  a  mistake,  the  man 
must  be  mad,  and  caused  her  words  to  be  written 
to  him,  he  sought  an  interview  with  Madame 
Campan,  the  tirst  woman  of  the  bedchamber,  at 
her  bouse  at  Crespy,  where  he  had  been  dining, 
and  in  the  gardens  there,  in  the  middle  of  a 
thunder-shower,  astounded  her  with  his  version 
of  the  story.  .  .  .  The  Cardinal  was  taken  to 
the  Bastille.  More  arrests  followed,  including 
those  of  Madame  de  Lamotte,  staying  quietly  in 
her  house  at  Bar-sur-Aube,  and  the  girl  Gay 
d'Oliva,  an  unhappy  girl,  tall  and  fair  haired, 
taken  from  the  streets  of  Paris,  and  brought  to 
the  park  of  Versailles  to  personate  the  Queen. 
It  was  said  the  Queen  wept  passionately  over 
the  scandal  — ■  well  she  might.  The  court  in 
which  the  case  was  tried  might  prove  the  for- 
gery, as  in  fact  it  did,  though  not  in  the  way  she 
expected;  but  every  Court  in  Europe  would 
ring  with  the  story,  and  she  had  made  deadly 
enemies,  if  not  of  the  Church  itself,  of  the  great 
houses  of  De  Rohan,  De  Soubise,  De  Guemenee, 
De  Marsan,  and  their  multitude  of  allies.  The 
proces  lasted  nine  months,  and  every  exertion 
was  made  for  the  deliverance  of  the  princely 
culprit.  .  .  .  The  result  of  the  trial  was  that, 
though  the  Queen's  signature  was  declared  false, 
Madame  de  Lamotte  was  sentenced  to  be  whipped, 
branded,  and  imprisoned  for  life,  her  husband 
was  condemned  to  the  galleys,  and  a  man  called 
Villette  de  Retaux,  who  was  the  actual  fabricator 
of  the  Queen's  handwriting,  was  sentenced  to 
be  banished  for  life.  The  Cardinal  Prince  Louis 
de  Rohan  was  fully  acquitted,  with  permission 
to  publish  what  defence  he  chose  to  write  of  his 
conduct.  When  he  left  the  court,  he  was  escorted 
by  great  crowds,  hurrahing  over  his  acquittal, 
because  it  was  supposed  to  cover  the  Court  with 
mortification. " —  Sarah  Tytler,  Marie  Antoinette, 
»/(..  12. 


Also  in:  T.  Cariyle,  The  Diamond  Necklace 
{Critical  and  Miscellaneous  Essays,  v.  5). —  H. 
Vizetelly,  The  Story  of  the  Diamond  NecMitrc. 

A.  D.  1787-1789.— Struggle  of  the  Crown 
with  the  Parliament  of  Paris. — The  demand 
for  a  meeting  of  the  States-General  yielded  to. 
— Double  representation  of  the  Third  Estate 
conceded. — The  make-up  of  the  States-Gen- 
eral as  elected  by  the  three  Estates. —  Ban- 
ished to  Troyes  (August,  1787),  in  consequence 
of  its  refusal  to  register  two  edicts  relating  to 
the  stamp-duty  and  the  land-tax,  the  Parliament 
of  Paris  "grew  weary  of  exile,  and  the  minister 
recalled  it  on  condition  that  the  two  edicts  should 
be  passed.  But  this  was  only  a  suspension  of 
hostilities ;  the  necessities  of  the  crown  soon  ren- 
dered the  struggle  more  obstinate  and  violent. 
The  minister  had  to  make  fresh  applications  for 
money ;  his  existence  depended  on  the  issue  of 
several  successive  loans  to  the  amount  of  440,- 
000,000.  It  was  necessary  to  obtain  the  enrol- 
ment of  them.  Brienne,  expecting  opposition 
from  the  parliament,  procured  the  enrolment  of 
this  edict,  by  a  '  bed  of  justice,'  and  to  conciliate 
the  magistracy  and  public  opinion,  the  protes- 
tants  were  restored  to  their  rights  in  the  same 
sitting,  and  Louis  XVI.  promised  an  annual  pub- 
lication of  the  state  of  finances,  and  the  convo- 
cation of  the  states-general  before  the  end  of  five 
years.  But  these  concessions  were  no  longer 
sufficient:  parliament  refused  the  enrolment,  and 
rose  against  the  ministerial  tyranny.  Some  of 
its  members,  among  othars  the  duke  of  Orleans, 
were  banished.  Parliament  protested  by  a  de- 
cree against  '  lettres  de  cachet, '  and  required  the 
recall  of  its  members.  This  decree  was  annulled 
by  the  king,  and  confirmed  by  parliament.  The 
warfare  increased.  The  magistracy  of  Paris  was 
supported  by  all  the  magistracy  of  France,  and 
encouraged  by  public  opinion.  It  proclaimed 
the  rights  of  the  nation,  and  its  own  incompe- 
tence in  matters  of  taxation ;  and,  become  liberal 
from  interest,  and  rendered  generous  by  oppres- 
sion, it  exclaimed  against  arbitrary  imprisonment, 
and  demanded  regularly  convoked  states-general. 
After  this  act  of  courage,  it  decreed  the  irre- 
movability of  its  members,  and  the  incompetence 
of  any  who  might  usurp  their  functions.  This 
bold  manifesto  was  followed  by  the  arrest  of  two 
members,  d'Epremenil  and  Goislard,  by  the  re- 
form of  the  body,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
plenary  court.  Brienne  understood  that  the  op- 
position of  the  parliament  was  systematic,  that 
it  would  be  renewed  on  every  fresh  demand  for 
subsidies,  or  on  the  authorization  of  every  loan. 
Exile  was  but  a  momentary  remedy,  which  sus- 
pended opposition,  without  destroying  it.  He 
then  projected  the  reduction  of  this  body  to 
judicial  functions.  .  .  .  All  the  magistracy  of 
France  was  exiled  on  the  same  day,  in  order  that 
the  new  judicial  organization  might  take  place. 
The  keeper  of  the  seals  deprived  the  Parliament 
of  Paris  of  its  political  attributes,  to  invest  with 
them  a  plenary  court,  ministerially  composed, 
and  reduced  its  judicial  competence  in  favour  of 
bailiwicks,  the  jurisdiction  of  which  he  extended. 
Public  opinion  was  indignant ;  the  Chatelet  pro- 
tested, the  provinces  rose,  and  the  plenary  court 
could  neither  be  formed  nor  act.  Disturbances 
broke  out  in  Dauphine,  Brittany,  Provence,  Flan- 
ders, Languedoc,  and  Beam;  the  ministry,  in- 
stead of  the  regular  opposition  of  parliament, 
had  to  encounter  one  much  more  animated  and 


1288 


FRANCE,  1787-1789. 


Question  of 
the  tytates-General. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


factious.  The  nobility,  the  third  estate,  the  pro- 
vincial states,  and  even  the  clergy,  took  part  in 
it.  Brienne,  pressed  for  money,  had  called  to- 
gether an  extraordinary  assembly  of  the  clergy, 
who  immediately  made  an  address  to  the  king, 
demanding  the  abolition  of  his  plenary  court, 
and  the  recall  of  the  states-general :  they  alone 
could  thenceforth  repair  the  disordered  state  of 
the  finances,  secure  the  national  debt,  and  ter- 
minate these  disputes  for  power.  .  .  .  Obtaining 
neither  taxes  nor  loans,  unable  to  make  use  of 
the  plenary  court,  and  not  wishing  to  recall  the 
parliaments,  Brienne,  as  a  last  resource,  promised 
the  convocation  of  the  states-general.  By  this 
means  he  hastened  his  ruin.  ...  He  succumbed 
on  the  25th  August,  1788.  The  cause  of  his 
fall  was  a  suspension  of  the  payment  of  the 
interest  on  the  debt,  which  was  the  commence- 
ment of  bankruptcy.  This  minister  has  been 
the  most  blamed  because  he  came  last.  Inherit- 
ing the  faults,  the  embarrassments  of  past  times, 
he  had  to  struggle  with  the  difficulties  of  his 
position  with  inefficient  means.  He  tried  intrigue 
and  oppression ;  he  banished,  suspended,  disor- 
ganized parliament;  everj'thing  was  an  obstacle 
to  him,  nothing  aided  him.  After  a  long  struggle, 
he  sank  under  lassitude  and  weakness;  I  dare 
not  say  from  incapacity,  for  had  he  been  far 
stronger  and  more  skilful,  had  he  been  a  Riche- 
lieu or  a  Sully,  he  would  still  have  fallen.  It 
no  longer  appertained  to  any  one  arbitrarily  to 
raise  money  or  to  oppress  the  people.  .  .  .  The 
states-general  had  become  the  only  means  of 
government,  and  the  last  resource  of  the  throne. 
They  had  been  eagerly  demanded  by  parliament 
and  the  peers  of  the  kingdom,  on  the  13th  of 
July,  1787;  by  the  states  of  Dauphine,  in  the 
assembly  of  Vizille ;  by  the  clergy  in  its  assembly 
at  Paris.  The  provincial  states  had  prepared 
the  public  mind  for  them ;  and  the  notables  were 
their  precursors.  The  king  after  having,  on  the 
18th  of  December,  1787,  promised  their  convo- 
cation in  five  years,  on  the  8th  of  August,  1783, 
fixed  the  opening  for  the  1st  of  May,  1789. 
Necker  was  recalled,  parliament  re-established, 
the  plenary  court  abolished,  the  bailiwicks  de- 
stroyed, and  the  provinces  satisfied ;  and  the  new 
minister  prepared  everything  for  the  election  of 
deputies  and  the  holding  of  the  states.  At  this 
epoch  a  great  change  took  place  in  the  opposition, 
which  till  then  had  been  unanimous.  Under 
Brienne,  the  ministry  had  encountered  opposi- 
tion from  all  the  various  bodies  of  the  state,  be- 
cause it  had  sought  to  oppress  them.  Under 
Necker,  it  met  with  resistance  from  the  same 
bodies,  which  desired  power  for  themselves  and 
oppression  for  the  people.  From  being  despotic, 
it  had  become  national,  and  it  still  had  them  all 
equally  against  it.  Parliament  had  maintained  a 
struggle  for  authority,  and  not  for  the  public 
welfare;  and  the  nobility  had  united  with  the 
third  estate,  rather  against  the  government  than 
in  favour  of  the  people.  Each  of  these  bodies 
had  demanded  the  states-general :  the  parliament, 
in  the  hope  of  ruling  them  as  it  had  done  in  1614 ; 
and  the  nobUity,  in  the  hope  of  regaining  its  lost 
influence.  Accordingly,  the  magistracy  pro- 
posed as  a  model  for  the  states-general  of  1789, 
the  form  of  that  of  1614,  and  public  opinion 
abandoned  it ;  the  nobility  refused  its  consent  to 
the  double  representation  of  the  third  estate,  and 
a  division  broke  out  between  these  two  orders. 
This  double  representation  was  required  by  the 


intellect  of  the  age,  the  necessity  of  reform,  and 
by  the  importance  which  the  third  estate  had 
acquired.  It  had  already  been  admitted  into  the 
the  provincial  assemblies.  .  .  .  Opinion  became 
daily  more  decided,  and  Necker  wishing,  yet 
fearing,  to  satisfy  it,  and  desirous  of  conciliating 
all  orders,  of  obtaining  general  approbation,  con- 
voked a  second  assembly  of  notables  on  the  6th 
of  November,  1788,  to  deliberate  on  the  compo- 
sition of  the  states-general,  and  the  election  of 
its  members.  .  .  .  Necker,  having  been  unable 
to  make  the  notables  adopt  the  [double]  repre- 
sentation of  the  third  estate,  caused  it  to  be 
adopted  by  the  council.  The  royal  declaration 
of  the  37th  of  November  decreed,  that  the  depu- 
ties in  the  states-general  should  amount  to  at 
least  a  thousand,  and  that  the  deputies  of  the 
third  estate  should  be  equal  in  number  to  the 
deputies  of  the  nobility  and  clergy  together. 
Necker  moreover  obtained  the  admission  of  the 
cures  into  the  order  of  the  clergy,  and  of  .protes- 
tants  into  that  of  the  third  estate.  The  district 
assemblies  were  convoked  for  the  elections ;  every 
one  exerted  himself  to  secure  the  nomination  of 
members  of  his  own  party,  and  to  draw  up  mani- 
festoes setting  forth  his  views.  Parliament  had 
but  little  influence  in  the  elections,  and  the  cou2t 
none  at  all.  The  nobility  selected  a  few  popular 
deputies,  but  for  the  most  part  devoted  to  the 
interests  of  their  order,  and  as  much  opposed  to 
the  third  estate  as  to  the  oligarchy  of  the  great 
families  of  the  court.  The  clergy  nominated 
bishops  and  abbes  attached  to  privilege,  and 
cures  favourable  to  the  popular  cause,  which 
was  their  own ;  lastly,  the  third  estate  selected 
men  enlightened,  firm  and  unanimous  in  their 
wishes.  The  deputation  of  the  nobility  was 
comprised  of  343  gentlemen,  and  38  members  of 
the  parliament ;  that  of  the  clergy,  of  48  arch- 
bishops or  bishops,  35  abbes  or  deans,  and  208 
cures ;  and  that  of  the  communes,  of  two  eccle- 
siastics, 12  noblemen,  18  magistrates  of  towns, 
300  county  members,  212  barristers,  16  physi- 
cians, and  316  merchants  and  agriculturists.  The 
opening  of  the  states-general  was  fixed  for  the 
5th  of  May,  1789."— F.  A.  Mignet,  Hist,  of  the 
French  Rev.,  introd. 

Also  in:  W.  Smyth,  Lect's  on  the  Hist,  of  the 
Fr.  Rev.,  lect.  6  (».  1).— J.  Necker,  On  tU  Fr. 
Res.,  pt.  1,  sect.  1. 

A.  b.  1789. — The  condition  of  the  people  on 
the  eve  of  the  great  Revolution. — The  sources 
and  causes  of  its  destructive  fury. —  "In  1789 
three  classes  of  persons,  the  Clergy,  the  Nobles, 
and  the  King  occupied  the  most  prominent  posi- 
tion in  the  State,  with  all  the  advantages  which 
it  comports;  namely,  authority,  property,  honors, 
or,  at  the  very  least,  privileges,  immunities,  favors, 
pensions,  preferences,  and  the  like.  .  .  .  The 
privileged  classes  number  about  270,000  persons, 
comprising  of  the  nobility  140,000  and  of  the 
clergy  130,000.  This  makes  from  25,000  to  30,000 
noble  families ;  23, 000  monks  in  2, 500  monasteries, 
and  37,000  nuns  in  1,500  convents,  and  60,000 
curates  and  vicars  in  as  many  churches  and 
chapels.  Should  the  reader  desire  a  more  dis- 
tinct impression  of  them,  he  may  imagine  on 
each  square  league  of  territory,  and  to  each 
thousand  of  inhabitants,  one  noble  family  in  its 
weathercock  mansion,  in  each  village  a  curate 
and  his  church,  and,  every  six  or  seven  leagues, 
a  conventual  body  of  men  or  of  women.  ...  A 
fifth  of  the  soil  belongs  to  the  crown  and  the 


1289 


FRANCE,  1789. 


Conaition  of  the 
People, 


FRANCE,  1789. 


communes,  a  fifth  to  the  third  estate,  a  fifth  to 
the  rural  population,  a  fifth  to  the  nobles  and  a 
fifth  to  the  clergy.  Accordingly,  if  we  deduct  the 
public  lands,  the  privileged  classes  own  one  half 
of  the  kingdom.  This  large  portion,  moreover, 
is  at  the  same  time  the  richest,  for  it  comprises 
almost  all  the  large  and  handsome  buildings, 
the  palaces,  castles,  convents,  and  cathedrals,  and 
almost  all  the  valuable  movable  property.  .  .  . 
Such  is  the  total  or  partial  exemption  from  taxa- 
tion. The  tax-collectors  halt  in  their  presence, 
because  the  king  well  knows  that  feudal  property 
has  the  same  origin  as  his  own ;  if  royalty  is  one 
privilege  seigniory  is  another ;  the  king  himself  is 
simply  the  most  privileged  among  the  privileged. 
.  .  .  After  the  assaults  of  450  years,  taxation,  the 
first  of  fiscal  instrumentalities,  the  most  burden- 
some of  all,  leaves  feudal  property  almost  intact. 
.  .  .  The  privileged  person  avoids  or  repels  taxa- 
tion, not  merely  because  it  despoils  him,  but  be- 
cause it  belittles  him ;  it  is  a  mark  of  plebeian  con- 
dition, that  is  to  say,  of  former  servitude,  and  he 
resists  the  fisc  as  much  through  pride  as  through 
interest.  ...  La  Bruyfire  wrote,  just  a  century 
before  1789,  '  Certain  savage-looking  beings,  male 
and  female,  are  seen  in  the  country,  black,  livid 
af id  sunburnt,  and  belonging  to  the  soil  which  they 
dig  and  grub  with  invincible  stubbornness.  They 
seem  capable  of  articulation,  and,  when  they 
stand  erect  they  display  human  lineaments.  They 
are,  in  fact,  men.  They  retire  at  night  into  their 
dens,  where  they  live  on  black  bread,  water  and 
roots.  They  spare  other  human  beings  the  trouble 
of  sowing,  ploughing  and  harvesting,  and  thus 
should  not  be  In  want  of  the  bread  they  have 
planted.'  They  continue  In  want  of  it  during  2o 
years  after  this,  and  die  in  herds.  I  estimate  that 
in  1715 more  than  one-third  of  the  population,  six 
millions,  perish  with  hunger  and  of  destitution. 
The  picture,  accordingly,  for  the  first  quarter  of  tlie 
century  preceding  the  Revolution,  far  from  being 
overdrawn,  is  the  reverse;  we  shall  see  that,  dur- 
ing more  than  half  a  century,  up  to  the  death  of 
Louis  XV. ,  it  is  exact ;  perhaps,  instead  of  weak- 
ening any  of  its  points,  they  should  be  strength- 
ened. .  .  .  Undoubtedly  the  government  under 
Louis  XVI.  is  milder;  the  intendants  are  more 
humane,  the  administration  is  less  rigid,  the 
'  taille '  becomes  less  unequal,  and  the  '  corvee ' 
is  less  onerous  through  its  transformation,  in 
short,  misery  has  diminished,  and  yet  this  is 
greater  than  human  nature  can  bear.  Examine 
administrative  correspondence  for  the  last  thirty 
years  preceding  the  Revolution.  Countless  state- 
ments reveal  excessive  suffering,  even  when  not 
terminating  in  fury.  Life  to  a  man  of  the  lower 
class,  to  an  artisan,  or  workman,  subsisting  on 
the  labor  of  his  own  hands,  is  evidently  precari- 
ous ;  he  obtains  simply  enough  to  keep  him  from 
starvation  and  he  does  not  always  get  that. 
Here,  in  four  districts,  '  the  inhabitants  live  only 
on  buckwheat,'  and  for  five  years,  the  apple  crop 
having  failed,  they  drink  only  water.  There, 
in  a  country  of  vineyards,  '  the  vine-dressers 
each  year  are  reduced,  for  the  most  part,  to  beg- 
ging their  bread  during  the  dull  season.' .  .  .  In 
a  remote  canton  the  peasants  cut  the  grain  still 
green  and  dry  it  in  the  oven,  because  they  are 
loo  hungry  to  wait.  .  .  .  Between  1750  and  1760, 
the  idlers  who  eat  suppers  begin  to  regard  with 
compassion  and  alarm  the  laborers  who  go  with- 
out dinners.  Why  are  the  latter  so  impoverished, 
and  by  what  chance,  on  a  soil  as  rich  as  that  of 


France,  do  those  lack  bread  who  grow  the  grain  t 
In  the  first  place,  many  farms  remain  unculti- 
vated, and,  what  is  worse,  many  are  deserted. 
According  to  the  best  observers  'one-quarter 
of  the  soil  is  absolutely  lying  waste.  .  .  .  Hun- 
dreds and  hundreds  of  arpentsof  heath  and  moor 
form  extensive  deserts.' .  .  .  This  is  not  sterility 
but  decadence.  The  regime  invented  by  Louis 
XIV.  has  produced  its  effect ;  the  soil  for  a  century 
past  is  reverting  back  to  a  wild  state.  ...  In  the 
second  place,  cultivation,  when  it  does  take  place, 
is  carried  on  according  to  mediieval  modes. 
Arthur  Young,  in  1789,  considers  that  French 
agriculture  has  not  progressed  beyond  that  of 
the  10th  century.  Except  in  Flanders  and  on  the 
plains  of  Alsace,  the  fields  lie  fallow  one  year  out 
of  three  and  oftentimes  one  year  out  of  two.  The 
implements  are  poor ;  there  are  no  ploughs  made 
of  iron;  in  many  places  the  plough  of  Virgil's 
time  is  still  in  use.  .  .  .  Arthur  Young  shows 
that  in  France  those  who  lived  on  field  labor,  and 
they  constituted  the  great  majority,  are  76  per 
cent,  less  comfortable  than  the  same  laborers  in 
England,  while  they  are  76  per  cent,  less  well 
fed  and  well  clothed,  besides  being  worse  treated 
in  sickness  and  in  health.  The  result  is  that,  in 
seven-eighths  of  the  kingdom,  there  are  no  farmers 
but  simply  metayers.  ['The  poor  people,'  says 
Arthur  Young,  '  who  cultivate  the  soil  here  are 
metayers,  that  is,  men  who  hire  the  land  without 
ability  to  stock  it ;  the  proprietor  is  forced  to 
provide  cattle  and  seed,  and  he  and  his  tenants 
divide  the  product.']  .  .  .  Misery  begets  bitter- 
ness in  a  man;  but  ownership  coupled  with 
misery  renders  him  still  more  bitter";  and, 
strange  as  it  appears,  the  acquisition  of  land  by 
the  French  peasants,  in  small  holdings,  went  on 
steadily  during  the  18th  century,  despite  the 
want  and  suffering  which  were  so  universal. 
"The  fact  is  almost  Incredible,  but  it  is  never- 
theless true.  We  can  only  explain  it  by  the 
character  of  the  French  peasant,  by  his  sobriety, 
his  tenacity,  his  rigor  with  himself,  his  dissimu- 
lation, his  hereditary  passion  for  property  and 
especially  for  that  of  the  soil.  He  had  lived  on 
privations  and  economized  sou  after  sou.  .  .  . 
Towards  1760,  one-quarter  of  the  soil  is  said  to 
have  already  passed  into  the  hands  of  agricultur- 
ists. .  .  .  The  small  cultivator,  however,  in  be- 
coming a  possessor  of  the  soil  assumed  its  charges. 
Simply  as  day -laborer,  and  with  his  arms  alone, 
he  was  only  partially  affected  by  the  taxes; 
'  where  there  is  nothing  the  king  loses  his  dues.' 
But  now,  vainly  is  he  poor  and  declaring  himself 
still  poorer ;  the  fisc  has  a  hold  on  him  and  on 
every  portion  of  his  new  possessions.  .  .  .  lu 
1715,  the  '  taille '  [see  Taille  and  Gabelle]  and 
the  poll-tax,  which  he  alone  pays,  or  nearly 
alone,  amounts  to  66,000,000  livres,  the  amount  is 
93,000,000inl759andll0,000,000inl789.  ...  I 
am  miserable  because  too  much  is  taken  from  me. 
Too  much  is  taken  from  me  because  not  enough  is 
taken  from  the  privileged.  Not  only  do  the  privi- 
leged force  me  to  pay  in  their  place,  but,  again, 
they  previously  deduct  from  my  earnings  their 
ecclesiastical  and  feudal  dues.  When,  out  of  my 
income  of  100  francs,  I  have  parted  with  53  francs, 
and  more,  to  the  collector,  I  am  obliged  again  to 
give  14  francs  to  the  seignior,  also  more  than  14 
for  tithes,  and,  out  of  the  remaining  18  or  19 
francs,  I  have  additionally  to  satisfy  the  excise- 
men. I  alone,  a  poor  man,  pay  two  governments, 
one,  the  old  government  [the  seigniorial  govern- 


1290 


FRANCE,  1789. 


Condition  of  the 
People. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


ment  of  the  feudal  regime],  local  and  now  absent, 
useless,  inconvenient  and  humiliating,  and  active 
only  through  annoyances,  exemptions  and  taxes; 
and  the  other  [the  royal  government],  recent, 
centralized,  everywhere  present,  which,  taking 
upon  itself  all  functions,  has  vast  needs  and 
makes  my  meagre  shoulders  support  its  enormous 
weight.'  These,  in  precise  terms,  are  the  vague 
ideas  beginning  to  ferment  in  the  popular  brain 
and  encountered  on  every  page  of  the  records  of 
the  States-General.  .  .  .  The  privileged  wrought 
their  own  destruction.  ...  At  their  head,  the 
king,  creating  France  by  devoting  himself  to  her 
as  if  his  own  property,  ended  by  sacrificing  her 
as  if  his  own  property ;  the  public  purse  is  his 
private  purse,  while  passions,  vanities,  personal 
weaknesses,  luxurious  habits,  family  solicitudes, 
the  intrigues  of  a  mistress  and  the  caprices  of  a 
wife,  govern  a  state  of  26,000,000  men  with  an 
arbitrariness,  a  heedlessness,  a  prodigality,  an 
unskilfulness,  an  absence  of  consistency,  that 
would  scarcely  be  overlooked  in  the  management 
of  a  private  domain.  The  king  and  the  privi- 
leged excel  in  one  direction,  in  good-breeding,  in 
good  taste,  in  fashion,  in  the  talent  for  self-display 
and  in  entertaining,  in  the  gift  of  graceful  con- 
versation, in  finesse  and  in  gayety,  in  the  art  of 
converting  life  into  a  brilliant  and  ingenious  fes- 
tivity. .  .  .  Through  the  habit,  perfection  and 
sway  of  polished  intercourse  they  stamped  on 
the  French  intellect  a  classic  form,  which,  com- 
bined with  recent  scientific  acquisitions,  produced 
the  philosophy  of  the  18th  century,  the  ill-repute 
of  tradition,  the  ambition  of  recasting  all  human 
institutions  according  to  the  sole  dictates  of 
reason,  the  appliance  of  mathematical  methods 
to  politics  and  morals,  the  catechism  of  the  rights 
of  man,  and  other  dogmas  of  anarchical  and 
despotic  character  in  the  '  Contrat  Social.' — Once 
this  chimera  is  born  they  welcome  it  as  a  draw- 
ing-room fancy ;  they  use  the  little  monster  as  a 
plaything,  as  yet  innocent  and  decked  with  rib- 
bons like  a  pastoral  lambkin;  they  never  dream 
of  it  becoming  a  raging,  formidable  brute ;  they 
nourish  it,  and  caress  it,  and  then,  opening  their 
doors,  they  let  it  descend  into  the  streets. —  Here, 
amongst  a  middle  class  which  the  government 
has  rendered  ill-disposed  by  compromising  its 
fortunes,  which  the  privileged  have  offended  by 
restricting  its  ambition,  which  is  wounded  by 
inequality  through  injured  self-esteem,  the  revo- 
lutionary theory  gains  rapid  accessions,  a  sudden 
asperity,  and,  in  a  few  years,  it  finds  itself  undis- 
puted master  of  public  opinion.  —  At  this  moment, 
and  at  its  summons,  another  colossal  monster 
rises  up,  a  monster  with  millions  of  heads,  a 
blind,  startled  animal,  an  entire  people  pressed 
down,  exasperated  and  suddenly  loosed  against 
the  government  whose  exactions  have  despoiled 
it,  against  the  privileged  whose  rights  have  re- 
duced it  to  starvation." — H.  A.  Taine,  T/ie 
Ancient  Regime,  bk.  1,  ch.  1,  2,  andbk.  5,  ch.  1,  2,  5. 
— "When  the  facts  of  history  are  fully  and  im- 
partially set  forth,  the  wonder  is  rather  that  sane 
men  put  up  with  the  chaotic  imbecility,  the 
hideous  injustices,  the  shameless  scandals,  of  the 
'  Ancien  Regime,'  in  the  earlier  half  of  the  cen- 
tury, many  years  before  the  political  '  Philoso- 
phes'  wrote  a  line, — why  the  Revolution  did 
not  break  out  in  1754  or  1757,  as  it  was  on  the 
brink  of  doing,  instead  of  being  delayed,  by  the 
patient  endurance  of  the  people,  for  another  gen- 
eration.    It  can  hardly    be    doubted  that    the 


Revolution  of  '89  owed  many  of  its  worst  features 
to  the  violence  of  a  populace  degraded  to  the 
level  of  the  beasts  by  the  effect  of  the  institu- 
tions under  which  they  herded  together  and 
starved;  and  that  the  work  of  reconstruction 
which  it  attempted  was  to  carry  into  practice 
the  speculations  of  Mably  and  of  Rousseau.  But, 
just  as  little,  does  it  seem  open  to  question  that, 
neither  the  writhings  of  the  dregs  of  the  popu- 
lace in  their  misery,  nor  the  speculative  demon- 
strations of  the  Philosophers,  would  have  come 
to  much,  except  for  the  revolutionary  movement 
which  had  been  going  on  ever  since  the  beginning 
of  the  century.  The  deeper  source  of  this  lay  in 
the  just  and  profound  griefs  of  at  least  95  per 
cent,  of  the  population,  comprising  all  its  most 
valuable  elements,  from  the  agricultural  peas- 
ants to  the  merchants  and  the  men  of  letters 
and  science,  against  the  system  by  which  they 
were  crushed,  or  annoyed,  whichever  way  they 
turned.  But  the  surface  current  was  impelled 
by  the  ofiicial  defenders  of  the  '  Ancien  Regime ' 
themselves.  It  was  the  Court,  the  Church,  the 
Parliaments,  and,  above  all,  the  Jesuits,  acting  in 
the  interests  of  the  despotism  of  the  Papacy, 
who,  in  the  first  half  of  the  18th  century,  effectu- 
ally undermined  all  respect  for  authority  [see 
Port  Royal  AND  the  Jansenists:  A.  D.  1702- 
1715;  and  Jesuits:  A.D.  1761-1767],  whether  civil 
or  religious,  and  justified  the  worst  that  was  or 
could  be  said  by  the  'Philosophes'  later  on." — 
Prof.  T.  H.  Huxley,  Introd.  to  F.  Bocquain's  "The 
Revolutionary  Spirit  preceding  the  French  Rev." — - 
"I  took  part  in  the  opening  of  the  States-Gen- 
eral, and,  in  spite  of  the  pomp  with  which  the 
royal  power  was  still  surrounded,  I  there  saw 
the  passing  away  of  the  old  regime.  The  regime 
which  preceded  '89,  should,  it  seems  to  me,  be 
considered  from  a  two-fold  aspect:  the  one,  the 
general  condition  of  the  country,  and  the  other, 
the  relations  existing  between  the  government 
and  the  country.  With  regard  to  the  former,  I 
firmly  believe  that,  from  the  earliest  days  of  the 
monarchy,  France  had  at  no  period  been  happier 
than  she  was  then.  She  had  not  felt  the  effects 
of  any  great  misfortune  since  the  crash  which 
followed  Law's  system.  The  long  lasting  minis- 
try of  Cardinal  de  Fleury,  doubtless  Inglorious, 
but  wise  and  circumspect,  had  made  good  the 
losses  and  lightened  the  burdens  imposed  at  the 
end  of  the  reign  of  Louis  XV.  If,  since  that 
time,  several  wars  undertaken  with  little  skill, 
and  waged  with  still  less,  had  compromised  the 
honor  of  her  arms  and  the  reputation  of  her  gov- 
ernment ;  if  they  had  even  thrown  her  finances 
into  a  somewhat  alarming  state  of  disorder,  it 
is  but  fair  to  say  that  the  confusion  resulting 
therefrom  had  merely  affected  the  fortune  of  a 
few  creditors,  and  had  not  tapped  the  sources  of 
public  prosperity;  on  the  contrary,what  is  styled 
the  public  administration  had  made  constant 
progress.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  the  state  had  not 
been  able  to  boast  of  any  great  ministers,  on  the 
other,  the  provinces  could  show  many  highly 
enlightened  and  clever  intendants.  Roads  had 
been  opened  connecting  numerous  points,  and 
had  been  greatly  improved  in  all  directions.  It 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  these  benefits  are 
principally  due  to  the  reign  of  Louis  XV.  Their 
most  important  result  had  been  a  progressive 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  agriculture. 
The  reign  of  Louis  XVI.  had  continued  favoring 
this  wise  policy,  which  had  not  been  interrupted 


1291 


FRANCE,  1789. 


Popular  opinion  of 
Marie  Antoinette, 


FRANCE,  1789. 


by  the  maritime  war  undertaken  on  behalf  of 
American  independence.  Many  cotton-mills  had 
sprung  up.  while  considerable  progress  had  been 
made  in  the  manufacture  of  printed  cotton  fab- 
rics, and  of  steel,  and  iu  the  preparing  of  skins. 
...  I  saw  the  splendors  of  the  Empire.  Since 
the  Restoration  I  see  daily  new  fortunes  spring 
up  and  consolidate  themselves ;  still  nothing  so 
far  has.  in  my  eyes,  equalled  the  splendor  of 
Paris  during  the  years  which  elapsed  between 
1783  and  1789.  .  .  .  Far  be  it  from  me  to  shut 
my  eyes  to  the  reality  of  the  public  prosperity 
wiiicii  we  are  now  [1833]  enjoying.  .  .  .  But, 
nevertheless,  when  I  question  my  reason  and 
my  conscience  as  to  the  possible  future  of  the 
Prance  of  1789,  if  the  Revolution  had  not  burst, 
if  the  ten  years  of  destruction  to  which  it  gave 
birth  had  not  weighed  heavily  upon  that  beau- 
tiful country,  ...  I  am  convinced  that  France, 
at  the  time  I  am  writing,  would  be  richer  and 
stronger  than  she  is  to-day." — Chancellor  Pas- 
(lUKT, Memoirs,  pp.  44-47. — "The  history  of  the 
revolution  can  no  more  be  understood  without 
understanding  the  part  played  in  it  by  Paris, 
than  one  can  conceive  of  the  tragedy  of  Hamlet 
with  the  part  of  Hamlet  left  out ;  and  to  under- 
stand the  part  played  by  Paris  in  the  revolution 
is  equally  impossible.  .  .  .  Let  us  commence  at 
the  bottom  with  the  nobodies.  .  .  .  Since  the 
days  of  Henry  III.  (1574-89)  the  forcing  of  all 
industrial  piu-suits  into  the  strait-jacket  of  guild- 
ships  had  been  carried  to  the  extreme  of  utter 
absurdity.  Here,  too,  the  chronic  financial  dis- 
tress had  been  the  principal  cause.  At  first  the 
handicrafts,  which  everybody  had  been  at  liberty 
to  practice,  were  withdrawn  from  free  competi- 
tion and  sold  as  a  privilege,  and  then,  when 
nothing  was  left  to  be  sold,  the  old  guilds  were 
split  up  into  a  number  of  guikllets.  merely  to 
have  again  something  to  put  on  the  counter. 
And  it  was  not  only  left  pretty  raucli  to  the  mas- 
ters whom  they  would  admit  to  the  freedom  of 
the  guild,  but  besides  the  charges  for  it  were  so 
high  that  it  was  often  absolutely  out  of  the  reach 
even  of  the  most  skillful  Journeyman.  Even  a 
blood-aristocracy  was  not  lacking.  In  a  number 
of  guilds  only  the  sons  of  masters  aud  the  second 
husbands  of  masters'  widows  could  become  mas- 
ters. Thus  an  immense  proletariat  was  gradu- 
ally formed,  which  to  a  great  extent  was  a  pro- 
letariat only  because  the  law  irresistibly  forced 
it  into  this  position.  And  the  city  proletariat 
proper  received  constant  and  ever-increasing  ad- 
ditions from  the  country.  There  such  distress 
prevailed,  that  the  paupers  flocked  in  crowds  to 
the  cities.  ...  In  1791,  long  before  the  inaugu- 
ration of  Uie  Reign  of  Terror,  there  were  iu  a 
population  of  6.50,000,  118,000  paupers  (indi- 
gents). Under  the  '  ancien  regime'  the  immi- 
grant proletariat  from  the  country  was  by  the 
law  barred  out  from  all  ways  of  earning  a  liveli- 
hood except  as  common  day-laborers,  and  the 
wages  of  these  were  in  1788,  on  an  average,  26 
cents  for  men  and  15  for  women,  while  the  price 
of  bread  was  higher  than  in  our  times.  What  a 
gigantic  heap  of  ferment !  " — H.  von  Hoist,  The 
FrencJi  Uexolution,  led.  2. — "In  the  spring  of 
1789  who  could  have  foreseen  the  bloody  catas- 
trophe ?  Everything  was  tinged  with  hopeful- 
ness ;  the  world  was  dreaming  of  the  Golden 
Age.  .  .  .  Despite  the  previous  disorders,  and 
seeds  of  discord  contained  In  certain  cahiers, 
the   prevailing   sentiment  was  confidence.  .  .  . 


The  people  everywhere  hailed  with  enthusiasm 
the  new  era  which  was  dawning.  With  a  firm 
king,  with  a  statesman  who  knew  what  he  wished, 
and  was  determined  to  accomplish  it,  this  confi- 
dence would  have  been  an  incomparable  force. 
With  a  feeble  prince  like  Louis  XVI.,  with  an 
irresolute  minister  like  Necker,  it  was  an  appall- 
ing danger.  The  public,  inflamed  by  the  anarchy 
that  had  preceded  the  convocation  of  the  States, 
disposed,  through  its  inexperience,  to  accept  all 
Utopias,  and  impelled  by  its  peculiar  character 
to  desire  their  immediate  realization,  naturally 
grew  more  exacting  in  proportion  as  they  were 
promised  more,  and  more  impatient  and  irritable 
as  their  hopes  became  livelier  and  appeared  better 
founded.  In  the  midst  of  this  general  satisfac- 
tion there  was  but  one  dark  spot,  —  the  queen. 
The  cheers  which  greeted  the  king  were  silent 
before  his  wife.  Calumny  had  done  its  work ; 
and  all  the  nobles  from  the  provinces,  the  coun- 
try curates,  the  citizens  of  the  small  towns,  came 
from  the  confines  of  France  imbued  with  the 
most  contemptible  prejudices  against  ^his  unfor- 
tunate princess.  Pamphlets,  poured  out  against 
her  by  malicious  enemies  ;  vague  and  mysterious 
rumours,  circulated  everywhere,  repeated  in 
whispers,  without  giving  any  clew  to  their 
source,  —  the  more  dangerous  because  indefinite, 
and  the  more  readily  believed  because  infamous 
and  absurd,  —  had  so  often  reiterated  that  the 
queen  was  author  of  all  the  evil,  that  the  world 
had  come  to  regard  her  as  the  cause  of  the  deficit, 
and  the  only  serious  obstacle  to  certain  efficacious 
reforms.  '  The  queen  pillages  on  all  sides  ,  she 
even  sends  money,  it  is  said,  to  her  brother,  the 
emperor,'  wrote  a  priest  of  Maine,  in  his  parochial 
register,  in  1781 ;  and  he  attributed  the  motive 
of  the  reunion  of  the  Notables  to  these  supposed 
depredations.  This  was  eight  years  before  the 
crisis  came,  and  such  stories  grew  aud  spread." 
— M.  de  la  Rocheterie,  Life  of  Marie  Antoinette, 
T.  2,  ch.  1. 

Also  in:  A.  deTocqueville,  On  the  State  of  So- 
ciety in  France  before  tlieRer. — A.  Young,  Travels 
in  France,  1787-89. — R.  H.  Dabney,  Causes  of  the 
F-ench  ifec— E.  J.  Lowell,  The  Eve  of  the  F-ench 
Rev. 

A.  D.  1789  (May). — Meeting  of  the  States- 
General.— Conflict  between  the  three  Estates. 
— The  question  of  three  Houses  crone. — "The 
opening  of  the  States-general  was  fixed  for  the 
5th  of  May,  1789,  and  Versailles  was  chosen  as 
the  place  of  their  meetings.  On  the  4th,  half 
Paris  poured  into  that  town  to  see  the  court  and 
the  deputies  marching  in  procession  to  the  solemn 
religious  ceremony,  which  was  to  inaugurate  the 
important  epoch.  .  .  .  On  the  following  day,  the 
States-general,  to  the  number  of  1,300  persons, 
assembled  in  the  spacious  and  richly  decorated 
■  salle  des  menus  plaisirs.'  The  King  appeared 
surrounded  by  his  family,  with  all  the  magnifi- 
cence of  the  ancient  court,  and  was  greeted  by 
the  enthusiastic  applause  of  the  deputies  and 
.spectators."  The  king  made  a  speech,  followed 
by  Barentin,  the  keeper  of  the  great  seal,  and  by 
Necker.  The  latter  "could  not  prevail  upon 
himself  to  avow  to  the  Assembly  the  real  state 
of  affairs.  He  announced  an  annual  deficit  of 
56,000,000  francs,  and  thereby  confused  the  mind 
of  the  public,  which  since  the  meeting  of  the 
Notables,  had  always  been  discussing  a  deficit 
of  from  120,000,000  to  140.000.000.  He  was 
quite  right  in  assuming   that  those  56,000,000 


1292 


FRANCE,  1789. 


Meeting  of 
the  States-General. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


might  be  covered  by  economy  in  the  expendi- 
ture ;  but  it  was  both  irritating  and  untrue,  when 
he,  on  this  ground,  denied  the  necessity,  of  sum- 
moning the  States-general,  and  called  their  con- 
vocation a  free  act  of  royal  favour.  .  .  .  The 
balance  of  income  and  expenditure  might,  in- 
deed, easily  be  restored  in  the  future,  but  the  def- 
icit of  former  years  had  been  heedlessly  allowed 
to  accumulate,  and  by  no  one  more  than  by 
Necker  himself.  A  floating  debt  of  550,000,000 
had  to  be  faced  —  in  other  words,  therefore,  more 
than  a  whole  year's  income  had  been  expended 
in  advance.  .  .  .  The  real  deficit  of  the  year, 
therefore,  at  the  lowest  calculation,  amounted  to 
more  than  200,000,0D0,  or  nearly  half  the  annual 
income.  .  .  .  These  facts,  then,  were  concealed, 
and  thus  the  ministry  was  necessarily  placed  in  a 
false  position  towards  the  States-general;  the 
continuance  of  the  former  abuses  was  perpetu- 
ated, or  a  violent  catastrophe  made  inevitable. 
.  .  .  For  the  moment  the  matter  was  not  dis- 
cussed. Everything  yielded  to  the  importance 
of  the  constitutional  question  —  whether  the  three 
orders  should  deliberate  in  common  or  apart  — 
whether  there  should  be  one  single  representa- 
tive body,  or  independent  corporations.  This 
point  was  mooted  at  once  in  its  full  extent  on 
the  question,  whether  the  validity  of  the  elections 
should  be  scrutinised  by  each  order  separately, 
or  by  the  whole  Assembly.  We  need  not  here 
enter  into  the  question  of  right ;  but  of  this  there 
can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  government,  which 
virtually  created  tlie  States-general  afresh  [since 
there  had  been  no  national  meeting  of  the  Estates 
since  the  States-general  of  1614  —  see  above: 
A.  D.  1610-1619],  had  the  formal  right  to  con- 
voke them  either  in  one  way  or  the  other,  as  it 
thought  fit.  .  .  .  They  [the  government]  infi- 
nitely lowered  their  own  influence  and  dignity  by 
leaving  a  most  important  constitutional  question 
to  the  decision  and  the  wrangling  of  the  three 
orders;  and  they  frustrated  their  own  practical 
objects,  by  not  decidedly  declaring  for  the  union 
of  the  orders  in  one  assembly.  Every  important 
measure  of  reform,  which  had  in  view  the  im- 
provement of  the  material  and  financial  condition 
of  the  country,  would  have  been  mutilated  by 
the  clergy  and  rejected  by  the  nobles.  This  was 
sufficiently  proved  by  the  '  cahiers '  of  the  elec- 
tors ['  written  instructions  given  by  the  electors 
to  the  deputies '].  The  States  themselves  had  to 
undertake  what  the  government  had  neglected. 
That  which  the  government  might  have  freely 
and  legally  commanded,  now  led  to  violent  revo- 
lution. But  there  was  no  choice  left ;  the  com- 
mons would  not  tolerate  the  continuance  of  the 
privileged  orders ;  and  the  state  could  not  toler- 
ate them  if  it  did  not  wish  to  perish.  The  com- 
mons, who  on  this  point  were  unanimous,  con- 
sidered the  system  of  a  single  Assembly  as  a 
matter  of  course.  They  took  care  not  to  consti- 
tute themselves  as  'tiers  etat,'but  remained  pas- 
sive, and  declared  that  they  would  wait  until  the 
Assembly  should  be  constituted  as  a  whole. 
Thus  slowly  and  cautiously  did  they  enter  on 
their  career.  .  .  .  Indisputably  the  most  impor- 
tant and  influential  among  them  was  Count 
Mirabeau,  the  representative  of  the  town  of  Aix 
in  Provence,  a  violent  opponent  of  feudalism, 
and  a  restless  participator  in  all  the  recent  popu- 
lar commotions.  He  would  have  been  better 
able  than  any  man  to  stimulate  the  Assembly  to 
vigorous  action ;  but  even  he  hesitated,  and  kept 


back  his  associates  from  taking  any  violent  steps, 
because  he  feared  that  the  inconsistency  and  in- 
experience of  the  majority  would  bring  ruin  on 
the  state.  ...  It  was  only  very  gradually  that 
the  '  tiers  etat '  began  to  negotiate  with  the  other 
orders.  The  nobles  shewed  themselves  haughty, 
dogmatical,  and  aggressive ;  and  the  clergy  cau- 
tious, unctuous,  and  tenacious.  They  tried  the 
efficacy  of  general  conferences ;  but  as  no  prog- 
ress was  found  to  have  been  made  after  three 
weeks,  they  gave  up  their  consultations  on  the 
3oth  of  May.  The  impatience  of  the  public,  and 
tlie  necessities  of  the  treasury,  continually  in- 
creased ;  the  government,  therefore,  once  more 
intervened,  and  Necker  was  called  upon  to  pro- 
pose a  compromise,"  which  was  coldly  rejected 
by  the  nobles,  who  "declared  that  they  had  long 
ago  finished  their  scrutiny,  and  constituted  them- 
selves as  a  separate  order.  They  thus  spared  the 
commons  the  dreaded  honour  of  being  the  first 
to  break  with  the  crown.  The  conferences  were 
again  closed  on  the  9th  of  June.  The  leaders  of 
the  commons  now  saw  that  they  must  either  suc- 
cumb to  the  nobility,  or  force  the  other  orders  to 
submission." — H.  von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  the  French 
Rev.,  bk.  1,  ch.  3  (».  1). 

Also  m:  W.  Smyth,  Lect'son  the  Hist,  of  the 
French  Rev.,  led.  8  (v.  1). — Prince  de  Talleyrand, 
Memoirs,  pt.  1  (v.  1). 

A.  D.  1789  (June). — The  Third  Estate  seizes 
the  reins,  proclaims  itself  the  National  As- 
sembly, and  assumes  sovereign  povyers. — The 
passionate  excitement  of  Paris. — Dismissal  of 
Necker. —  Rising  of  the  mob. — "At  last  .  .  . 
on  the  proposal  of  Siey&s  [the  Abbe,  deputy  for 
Paris]  and  amid  a  storm  of  frantic  excitement, 
the  Third  Estate  alone  voted  themselves  'the 
National  Assembly,'  invited  the  other  two  orders 
to  join  them,  and  pushing  their  pretensions  to 
sovereignty  to  the  highest  point,  declared  that 
the  existing  taxes,  not  having  been  consented  to 
by  the  nation,  were  all  illegal.  The  National  As- 
sembly, however,  allowed  them  to  be  levied  till 
its  separation,  after  which  they  were  to  cease  if 
not  formally  regranted.  This  great  revolution 
was  effected  on  June  17,  and  it  at  once  placed  the 
Third  Order  in  a  totally  new  relation  both  to  the 
other  orders  and  to  the  Crown.  There  were 
speedy  signs  of  yielding  among  some  members 
of  the  privileged  orders,  and  a  fierce  wave 
of  excitement  supported  tlie  change.  Malouet 
strongly  urged  that  the  proper  course  was  to  dis- 
solve the  Assembly  and  to  appeal  to  the  constitu- 
encies, but  Necker  declined,  and  a  feeble  and 
ineffectual  effort  of  the  King  to  accomplish  a 
reunion,  and  at  the  same  time  to  overawe  the 
Third  Order,  precipitated  the  Revolution.  The 
King  announced  his  intention  of  holding  a  royal 
session  on  June  23,  and  he  summoned  the  three 
orders  to  meet  him.  It  was  his  design  to  direct 
them  to  unite  in  order  to  deliberate  in  common 
on  matters  of  common  interest,  and  to  regain  the 
royal  initiative  by  laying  down  the  lines  of  a  new 
constitution.  ...  On  Saturday,  the  30th,  how- 
ever, the  course  of  events  was  interrupted  by  the 
famous  scene  in  the  tennis  court.  Troops  had 
lately  been  pouring  to  an  alarming  extent  into 
Paris,  and  exciting  much  suspicion  in  the  popu- 
lar party,  and  the  Government  very  injudiciously 
selected  for  the  royal  session  on  the  following 
Monday  the  hall  in  which  the  Third  Order  as- 
sembled. The  hall  was  being  prepared  for  the 
occasion,  and  therefore  no  meeting  could  be  held. 


1293 


FRANCE,  1789. 


The  National 
Assembly  proclaivied. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


The  members.  Ignorant  of  the  fact,  went  to  their 
chamber  and  were  repelled  by  soldiers.  Furious 
at  the  insult,  they  adjourned  to  the  neighbour- 
ing tennis  court  [Jeu-de-Paume].  A  suspicion 
that  the  King  meant  to  dissolve  them  was 
abroad,  and  they  resolved  to  resist  such  an  at- 
tempt. With  lifted  hands  and  in  a  transport  of 
genuine,  if  somewhat  theatrical  enthusiasm,  they 
swore  that  they  would  never  separate  '  till  the 
constitution  of  the  kingdom  and  the  regeneration 
of  public  order  were  established  on  a  solid  basis.' 
.  .  .  One  single  member,  Martin  d'Auche,  re- 
fused his  assent.  The  Third  Estate  liad  thus 
virtually  assumed  the  sole  legislative  authority  in 
France,  and  like  the  Long  Parliament  in  England 
had  denied  the  King's  power  to  dissolve  them. 
.  .  .  Owing  to  the  dissension  that  had  arisen, 
the  royal  session  was  postponed  till  the  23rd,  but 
on  the  preceding  day  the  National  Assembly  met 
in  a  church,  and  its  session  was  a  very  important 
one,  for  on  this  occasion  a  great  body  of  the 
clergy  formally  joined  it.  One  hundred  and 
forty-eight  members  of  the  clergy,  of  whom  134 
were  cures,  had  now  given  their  adhesion.  Two 
of  the  nobles,  separating  from  their  colleagues, 
took  the  same  course.  Next  day  the  royal  ses- 
sion was  held.  The  project  adopted  in  the 
council  differed  so  much  from  that  of  Necker 
that  this  minister  refused  to  give  it  the  sanction 
of  his  presence.  Instead  of  commanding  the 
three  orders  to  deliberate  together  in  the  common 
interest,  it  was  determined  in  the  revised  project 
that  the  King  should  merely  invite  them  to  do 
so.  .  .  .  It  was  .  .  .  determined  to  withdraw 
altogether  from  the  common  deliberation  '  the 
form  of  the  constitution  to  be  given  to  the  com- 
ing States-General,'  and  to  recognise  fully  the 
essential  distinction  of  the  three  orders  as  politi- 
cal bodies,  though  they  might,  with  the  approval 
of  the  Sovereign,  deliberate  in  common.  Necker 
had  proposed  .  .  .  that  the  King  should  deci- 
sively, and  of  his  own  authority,  abolish  all 
privileges  of  taxation,  but  in  the  amended  article 
the  King  only  undertook  to  give  his  sanction  to 
this  measure  on  condition  of  the  two  orders  re- 
nouncing their  privileges.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  King  announced  to  the  Assembly  a  long 
series  of  articles  of  reform  which  would  have 
made  France  a  thoroughly  constitutional  coun- 
try, and  have  swept  away  nearly  all  the  great 
abuses  in  its  government.  ...  He  annulled  the 
proceedings  of  June  17,  by  which  the  Third 
Estate  alone  declared  itself  the  Legislature  of 
France.  He  reminded  the  Assembly  that  none  of 
its  proceedings  could  acquire  the  force  of  law 
without  his  assent,  and  he  asserted  his  sole  right 
as  French  Sovereign  to  the  command  of  the  army 
and  police.  He  concluded  by  directing  the  three 
orders  to  withdraw  and  to  meet  next  day  to  con- 
sider his  proposals.  The  King,  with  the  nobles 
and  the  majority  of  the  clergy,  at  once  with- 
drew, but  the  Third  Order  defiantly  remained. 
It  was  evident  that  the  attempt  to  conciliate,  and 
the  attempt  to  assert  the  royal  authority,  had  both 
failed.  The  Assembly  proclaimed  itself  inviola- 
ble. It  confirmed  the  decrees  which  the  King 
had  annulled.  Sieyes  declared,  in  words  which 
excited  a  transport  of  enthusiasm,  that  what  the 
Assembly  was  yesterday  it  still  was  to-day ;  and 
two  days  later,  the  triumph  of  the  Assembly  be- 
came still  more  evident  by  the  adhesion  of  47  of 
the  nobility.  After  this  defection  the  King  saw 
the  hopelessness  of  resistance,  and  on  the  27th 


he  ordered  the  remainder  of  the  nobles  to  take  the 
same  course.  ...  In  the  mean  time  the  rea\ 
rulers  of  the  country  were  coming  rapidly  to  the 
surface.  .  .  .  Groups  of  local  agitators  and  of 
the  scum  of  the  Paris  mob  began  to  overawe  the 
representatives  of  the  nation,  and  to  direct  the 
course  of  its  policy.  Troops  were  poured  into 
Paris,  but  their  presence  was  an  excitement 
without  being  a  protection,  for  day  after  day  it 
became  more  evident  that  their  discipline  was 
gone,  and  that  they  shared  the  sympathies  and 
the  passions  of  the  mob.  ...  At  the  same  time 
famine  grew  daily  more  intense,  and  the  mobs 
more  passionate  and  more  formidable.  The  dis- 
missal of  Necker  on  the  •vening  of  July  11 
was  the  spark  which  produced  the  conflagration 
that  had  long  been  preparing.  Next  day  Paris 
flew  to  arms.  The  troops  with  few  exceptions 
abandoned  the  King." — W.  B.  H.  Lecky,  Hist, 
of  England  in  the  \Wi  Century,  ch.  20  (j).  5). 

Also  in  :  E.  Dumont,  SecollectioTis  ofMirabeau, 
ch.  4-5. 

A.  D.  1789  (July).— The  mob  in  arms.— An- 
archy in  Paris. — The  taking  of  the  Bastille. — 
"On  the  12th  of  July,  near  noon,  on  the  news  of 
the  dismissal  of  Necker,  a  cry  of  rage  arises  In 
the  Palais-Royal ;  Camille  Desmoulins,  mounted 
on  a  table,  announces  that  the  Court  meditates 
'a  St.  Bartholomew  of  patriots.'  The  crowd 
embrace  him,  adopt  the  green  cockade  which  he 
has  proposed,  and  oblige  the  dancing-saloons  and 
theatres  to  close  in  sign  of  mourning:  they  hurry 
off  to  the  residence  of  Curtius  [a  plaster-cast 
master],  and  take  the  busts  of  the  Duke  of 
Orleans  and  of  Necker  and  carry  them  about  in 
triumph.  Meanwhile,  the  dragoons  of  the  Prince 
de  Lambesc,  drawn  up  on  the  Place  Louis- 
Quinze,  find  a  barricade  of  chairs  at  the  entrance 
of  the  Tuilleries,  and  are  greeted  with  a  shower 
of  stones  and  bottles.  Elsewhere,  on  the  Boule- 
vard, before  the  Hotel  Montmorency,  some  of 
the  French  Guards,  escaped  from  their  barracks, 
fired  on  a  loyal  detachment  of  the  '  Royal  AUe- 
mand.'  The  tocsin  is  sounding  on  all  sides,  the 
shops  where  arms  are  sold  are  pillaged,  and  the 
Hotel-de- Ville  is  invaded ;  15  or  16  well-disposed 
electors,  who  meet  there,  order  the  districts  to  be 
assembled  and  armed. —  The  new  sovereign,  the 
people  in  arms  and  in  the  street,  has  declared 
himself.  The  dregs  of  society  at  once  come  to 
the  surface.  During  the  night  between  the  12th 
and  13th  of  July,  '  all  the  barriers,  from  the  Fau- 
bourg Saint- Antoine  to  the  Faubourg  Saint-Hon- 
ore,  besides  those  of  the  Faubourgs  Saint-Marcel 
and  Saint- Jacques,  are  forced  and  set  on  fire.' 
There  is  no  longer  an  '  octroi ' ;  the  city  is  with- 
out a  revenue  just  at  the  moment  when  it  is 
obliged  to  make  the  heaviest  expenditures.  .  .  . 
'  During  this  fearful  night,  the  bourgeoisie  kept 
themselves  shut  up,  each  trembling  at  home  for 
himself  and  those  belonging  to  him.'  On  the 
following  day,  the  13th,  the  capital  appears  to 
be  given  up  to  bandits  and  the  lowest  of  the  low. 
.  .  .  During  these  two  days  and  nights,  says 
BaiUy,  '  Paris  ran  the  risk  of  being  pillaged,  and 
was  only  saved  from  the  marauders  by  the 
national  guard.'  .  .  .  Fortunately  the  militia 
organized  itself,  and  the  principal  inhabitants 
and  gentlemen  enrol  themselves ;  48, 000  men  are 
formed  into  battalions  and  companies ;  the  bour- 
geoisie buy  guns  of  the  vagabonds  for  three 
livres  apiece,  and  sabres  or  pistols  for  twelve 
sous.     At  last,  some  of  the  offenders  are  hung  on 


1294 


FRANCE,  1789. 


The  taking  of  the 
Bastille, 


FRANCE,  1789. 


the  spot,  and  others  disarmed,  and  the  insurrec- 
tion again  becomes  political.  But,  whatever  Its 
object,  it  remains  always  wild,  because  it  is  in 
the  hands  of  the  populace.  .  .  .  There  is  no 
leader,  no  management.  The  electors  who  have 
converted  themselves  into  the  representatives  of 
Paris  seem  to  command  the  crowd,  but  it  is  the 
crowd  which  commands  tliera.  One  of  them, 
Legrand,  to  save  the  H6tel-de-ViIle,  has  no  other 
resource  but  to  send  for  six  barrels  of  gun-pow- 
der, and  to  declare  to  the  assailants  that  he  is 
about  to  blow  everything  into  the  air.  The  com- 
mandant whom  they  themselves  have  chosen,  M. 
de  Salles,  has  twenty  bayonets  at  his  breast  dur- 
ing a  quarter  of  an  hour,  and,  more  than  once, 
the  whole  committee  is  near  being  massacred. 
Let  the  reader  imagine,  on  the  premises  where 
the  discussions  are  going  on,  and  petitions  are 
being  made,  '  a  concourse  of  1,500  men  pressed  by 
100,000  others  who  are  forcing  an  entrance,'  the 
wainscoting  cracking,  the  benches  upset  one  over 
another  ...  a  tumult  such  as  to  bring  to  mind 
'the  day  of  judgment,"  the  death-shrieks,  songs, 
yells,  and  '  people  beside  themselves,  for  the  most 
part  not  knowing  where  they  are  nor  what  they 
want.'  Each  district  is  also  a  petty  centre,  while 
the  Palais-Royal  is  the  main  centre.  .  .  .  One  wave 
gathers  here  and  another  there,  their  strategy 
consists  in  pushing  and  in  being  pushed.  Yet, 
their  entrance  is  effected  only  because  they  are 
let  in.  If  they%et  into  the  Invalides  it  is  owing 
to  the  connivance  of  the  soldiers.  —  At  the  Bas- 
tille, firearms  are  discharged  from  ten  in  the 
morning  to  five  in  the  evening  against  walls  40 
feet  high  and  30  feet  thick,  and  it  is  by  chance 
that  one  of  their  shots  reaches  an  '  invalide '  on 
the  towers.  They  are  treated  the  same  as  chil- 
dren whom  one  wishes  to  hurt  as  little  as  possi- 
ble. The  governor,  on  the  first  summons  to  sur- 
render, orders  the  cannon  to  be  withdrawn  from 
the  embrasures;  he  makes  the  garrison  swear 
not  to  fire  if  it  is  not  attacked ;  he  invites  the  first 
of  the  deputations  to  lunch ;  he  allows  the  mes- 
senger dispatched  from  the  H6tel-de-Ville  to 
inspect  the  fortress;  he  receives  several  dis- 
charges without  returning  them,  and  lets  the 
first  bridge  be  carried  without  firing  a  shot. 
When,  at  length,  he  does  fire,  it  is  at  the  last 
extremity,  to  defend  the  second  bridge,  and  after 
having  notified  the  assailants  that  he  is  going  to 
do  so.  .  .  .  The  people,  in  turn,  are  infatuated 
with  the  novel  sensations  of  attack  and  resis- 
tance, with  the  smell  of  gunpowder,  with  the 
excitement  of  the  contest ;  all  they  can  think  of 
doing  is  to  rush  against  the  mass  of  stone,  their 
expedients  being  on  a  level  with  their  tactics. 
A  brewer  fancies  that  he  can  set  fire  to  this  block 
of  masonry  by  pumping  over  it  spikenard  and 
poppy-seed  oil  mixed  with  phosphorus.  A 
young  carpenter,  who  has  some  archicological 
notions,  proposes  to  construct  a  catapult.  Some 
of  them  think  that  they  have  seized  the  gover- 
nor's daughter,  and  want  to  burn  her  in  order  to 
make  the  father  surrender.  Others  set  fire  to  a 
projecting  mass  of  buildings  filled  with  straw, 
and  thus  close  up  the  passage.  'The  Bastille 
was  not  taken  by  main  force,'  says  the  brave 
Elie,  one  of  the  combatants ;  '  it  was  surrendered 
before  even  it  was  attacked,'  by  capitulation,  on 
the  promise  that  no  harm  should  be  done  to  any- 
body. The  garrison,  being  perfectly  secure,  had 
no  longer  the  heart  to  fire  on  human  beings  while 
themselves  risking  nothing,   and,  on  the  other 


hand,  they  were  unnerved  by  the  sight  of  the 
immense  crowd.  Eight  or  nine  hundred  men 
only  were  concerned  in  the  attack,  most  of  them 
workmen  or  shopkeepers  belonging  to  the  fau- 
bourg, tailors,  wheelwrights,  mercers,  and  wine- 
dealers,  mixed  with  the  French  Guards.  The 
Place  de  la  Bastille,  however,  and  all  the  streets 
in  the  vicinity,  were  crowded  with  the  curious 
who  came  to  witness  the  sight ;  '  among  them, ' 
says  a  witness,  '  were  a  number  of  fashionable 
women  of  very  good  appearance,  who  had  left 
their  carriages  at  some  distance.'  To  the  120 
men  of  the  garrison,  looking  down  from  their 
parapets,  it  seemed  as  though  all  Paris  had  come 
out  against  them.  It  is  they,  also,  who  lower 
the  drawbridge  and  introduce  the  enemy :  every- 
body has  lost  his  head,  the  besieged  as  well  as 
the  besiegers,  the  latter  more  completely  because 
they  are  intoxicated  with  the  sense  of  victory. 
Scarcely  have  they  entered  when  they  begin  the 
work  of  destruction,  and  the  latest  arrivals  shoot 
at  random  those  that  come  earlier ;  '  each  one 
fires  without  heeding  where  or  on  whom  his  shot 
tells.'  Sudden  omnipotence  and  the  liberty  to 
kill  are  a  wine  too  strong  for  human  nature.  .  .  . 
Elie,  who  is  the  first  to  enter  the  fortress,  Cholat, 
Hulin,  the  brave  fellows  who  are  in  advance,  the 
French  Guards  who  are  cognizant  of  the  laws  of 
war,  try  to  keep  their  word  of  honour ;  but  the 
crowd  pressing  on  behind  them  know  not  whom 
to  strike,  and  they  sti'ike  at  random.  They  spare 
the  Swiss  soldiers  who  have  fired  on  thein,  and 
who,  in  their  blue  smocks,  seem  to  them  to  be 
prisoners ;  on  the  other  hand,  by  way  of  compen- 
sation, they  fall  furiously  on  the  '  invalides '  who 
opened  the  gates  to  them;  the  man  who  pre- 
vented the  governor  from  blowing  up  the  fortress 
has  his  wrist  severed  by  the  blow  of  a  sabre,  is 
twice  pierced  with  a  sword  and  is  hung,  and  the 
hand  which  had  saved  one  of  the  districts  of 
Paris  is  promenaded  through  the  streets  in  tri- 
umph. 'The  officers  are  dragged  along  and  five 
of  them  are  killed,  with  three  soldiers,  on  the 
spot,  or  on  the  way."  M.  de  Launay,  the  gov- 
ernor, after  receiving  many  wounds,  while  being 
dragged  to  the  Hotel-de-Ville,  was  finally  killed 
by  bayonet  thrusts,  and  his  head,  cut  from  his 
body,  was  placarded  and  borne  through  the  streets 
upon  a  pitchfork. — H.  A.  Taine,  T/te  French 
Revolution,  bk.  1,  ch.  2  {v.  1). — "I  was  present  at 
the  taking  of  the  Bastille.  What  has  been  styled 
the  fight  was  not  serious,  for  there  was  absolutely 
no  resistance  shown.  Within  the  hold's  walls 
were  neither  provisions  nor  ammunition.  It  was 
not  even  necessary  to  invest  it.  The  regiment  of 
gardes  fran^aises  which  had  led  the  attack,  pre- 
sented itself  under  the  walls  on  the  rue  Saint 
Antoine  side,  opposite  the  main  entrance,  which 
was  barred  by  a  drawbridge.  There  was  a  dis- 
charge of  a  few  musket  shots,  to  which  no  reply 
was  made,  and  then  four  or  five  discharges  from 
the  carmon.  It  has  been  claimed  that  the  latter 
broke  the  chains  of  the  drawbridge.  I  did  not 
notice  this,  and  yet  I  was  standing  close  to  the 
point  of  attack.  What  I  did  see  plainly  was  the 
action  of  the  soldiers,  invalides,  or  others, 
grouped  on  the  platform  of  the  high  tower,  hold- 
ing their  muskets  stock  in  the  air,  and  expressing 
by  all  means  employed  under  similar  circum- 
stances their  desire  of  surrendering.  The  result 
of  this  so-called  victory,  which  brought  down  so 
many  favors  on  the  heads  of  the  so-called  victors, 
is  well-known.     The  truth  is,  that  this  great  fight 


1295 


FRANCE,  1789. 


Tlie 
King^s  Surrender. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


did  not  for  a  moment  frighten  the  numerous 
spectators  who  had  flocked  to  witness  its  result. 
Among  them  were  many  women  of  fashion,  who, 
in  order  to  be  closer  to  the  scene,  had  left  their 
carriages  some  distance  away." — Chancellor Pas- 
quier,  Memoirs,  pp.  55-56. 

Also  rs;  D.  Bingham,  The.  Bastille,  v.  3,  ch. 
9-13. — R.  A.  Davenport,  Hist,  of  the  Bastile,  ch. 
13. — J.  Claretie,  Camille  Desmoulins  and  his 
Wife,  ch.  1,  .^ect.  4. 

A.  D.  1789  (July). —  Practical  surrender  of 
authority  by  the  king. — Organization  of  the 
National  Guard  with  Lafayette  in  command. 
— Disorder  and  riot  in  the  provinces. — Hunger 
in  the  capital. — The  murder  of  Foulon  and 
Berthier. — "The  next  morning  the  taking  of 
the  Bastille  bore  its  intended  fruit.  Marshal  de 
Broglie,  who  had  found,  instead  of  a  loyal  army, 
only  disaffected  regiments  wliich  had  joined  or 
were  preparing  to  join  the  mob,  sent  in  his  resig- 
nation. .  .  .  The  king,  deserted  by  his  army, 
his  authority  now  quite  gone,  had  no  means  of 
restoring  order  except  through  the  Assembly. 
He  begged  that  body  to  undertake  the  work, 
promising  to  recall  the  dismissed  ministers.  .  .  . 
The  power  of  the  king  had  now  passed  from  him 
to  the  National  Assembly.  But  that  numerous 
body  of  men,  absorbed  in  interminable  discussions 
on  abstract  ideas,  was  totally  incapable  of  apply- 
ing its  power  to  the  government  of  the  country. 
The  electors  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  on  the  15th  of 
July,  resolved  that  there  must  be  a  mayor  to 
direct  the  affairs  of  Paris,  and  a  National  Guard 
to  preserve  order.  Dangers  threatened  from 
every  quarter.  When  the  question  arose  as  to 
who  should  fill  these  offices,  Moreau  de  Saint 
Mery,  the  president  of  the  electors,  pointed  to 
the  bust  of  Lafayette,  which  had  been  sent  as  a 
gift  to  the  city  of  Paris  by  the  State  of  Virginia, 
in  1784.  The  gesture  was  immediately  under- 
stood, and  Lafayette  was  chosen  by  acclamation. 
Not  less  unanimous  was  the  choice  of  Bailly  for 
mayor.  Lafayette  was  now  taken  from  the  As- 
sembly to  assume  the  more  active  employment 
of  commanding  the  National  Guard.  While  the 
Assembly  pursued  the  destruction  of  the  old 
order  and  the  erection  of  a  new,  Lafayette,  at 
the  age  of  33,  became  the  chief  depositary  of 
executive  power.  .  .  .  Throughout  France,  the 
deepest  interest  was  exhibited  in  passing  events. 
.  .  .  The  victory  of  the  Assembly  over  the  king 
and  aristocracy  led  the  people  of  the  prov- 
inces to  believe  that  their  cause  was  already 
won.  A  general  demoralization  ensued. "  After 
the  taking  of  the  Bastille,  "  the  example  of  re- 
bellion thus  set  was  speedily  followed.  Rioting 
and  lawlessness  soon  prevailed  everywhere,  in- 
creased and  imbittered  by  the  scarcity  of  food. 
In  the  towns,  bread  riots  became  continual,  and 
the  custom-houses,  the  means  of  collecting  the 
exorbitant  taxes,  were  destroyed.  In  the  rural 
districts,  chateaux  were  to  be  seen  burning  on 
all  sides.  The  towers  in  which  were  preserved 
the  titles  and  documents  which  gave  to  the  noble- 
man his  oppressive  rights  were  carried  by  storm 
and  their  contents  scattered.  Law  and  authority 
were  fast  becoming  synonymous  with  tyranny ; 
the  word  'liberty,'  now  in  every  mouth,  had  no 
other  signification  than  license.  Into  Paris  slunk 
hordes  of  gaunt  foot-pads  from  all  over  France, 
attracted  by  the  prospect  of  disorder  and  pillage. 
.  .  .  From  such  circumstances  naturally  arose 
the  National  Guard. "    The  king  had  been  asked. 


on  the  13th,  by  a  deputation  from  the  Assembly, 
"to  confide  the  care  of  the  city  to  a  militia,"  and 
had  declined.  The  military  organization  of  citi- 
zens was  then  undertaken  by  the  electors  at  the 
Hotel  de  Ville,  without  his  consent,  and  its  com- 
mander designated  without  his  appointment. 
"The  king  was  obliged  to  confirm  this  choice, 
and  he  was  thus  deprived  even  of  the  merit  of 
naming  the  chief  officer  of  the  guard  whose  ex- 
istence had  been  forced  upon  him. "  On  the  17th 
the  king  was  persuaded  to  visit  the  city,  for  the 
effect  which  his  personal  presence  would  have, 
it  was  thought,  upon  the  anxious  and  excited  pub- 
lic mind.  Lafayette  had  worked  with  energy  to 
prepare  his  National  Guard  for  the  difficult  duty 
of  preserving  order  and  protecting  the  royal 
visitor  on  the  occasion.  ' '  So  intense  was  the 
excitement  and  the  insurrectionary  spirit  of  the 
time,  so  uncertain  were  the  boundaries  between 
rascality  and  revolutionary  zeal,  that  it  was  dif- 
ficult to  establish  the  fact  that  the  new  guard 
was  created  to  preserve  order  and  not  to  fight 
the  king  and  pillage  the  aristocracy.  The  great 
armed  mob,  now  in  process  of  organization,  had 
to  be  treated  with  great  tact,  lest  it  shoidd  refuse 
to  submit  to  authority  in  any  shape."  But  short 
as  the  time  was,  Lafayette  succeeded  in  giving 
to  the  powerless  monarch  a  safe  and  orderly  re- 
ception. "The  king  made  his  will  and  took  the 
sacraments  before  leaving  Versailles,  for  .  .  . 
doubts  were  entertained  that  9e  would  live  to 
return."  He  was  met  at  the  gates  of  Paris  by 
the  new  mayor,  Bailly,  and  escorted  through  a 
double  line  of  National  Guards  to  the  Hotel  de 
Ville.  There  he  was  obliged  to  fix  on  his  hat 
the  national  cockade,  just  brought  into  use,  and 
to  confirm  the  appointments  of  Lafayette  and 
Bailly.  ' '  Louis  XVI.  then  returned  to  Versailles, 
on  the  whole  pleased,  as  the  day  had  been  less 
unpleasant  than  had  been  expected.  But  the 
compulsory  acceptation  of  the  cockade  and  the 
nominations  meant  nothing  less  than  the  extinc- 
tion of  his  authority.  .  .  .  Lafayette  recruited 
his  army  from  the  bourgeois  class,  for  the  good 
reason  that,  in  the  fever  then  raging  for  uncon- 
trolled freedom,  that  class  was  the  only  one  from 
which  the  proper  material  could  be  taken.  The 
importance  of  order  was  impressed  on  the  bour- 
geois by  the  fact  that  they  had  shops  and  houses 
which  they  did  not  wish  to  see  pillaged.  .  .  . 
The  necessity  for  strict  police  measures  was  soon 
to  be  terribly  illustrated.  For  a  week  past  a 
large  crowd  composed  of  starving  workmen, 
country  beggars,  and  army  deserters,  had 
thronged  the  streets,  angrily  demanding  food. 
The  city  was  extremely  short  of  provisions,  and 
it  was  impossible  to  satisfy  the  demands  made 
upon  it.  .  .  .  On  July  33,  an  old  man  named 
Foulon,  a  member  of  the  late  ministry,  who  had 
long  been  the  object  of  public  dislike,  and  was 
now  detested  because  it  was  rumored  that  he 
said  that  'the  people  might  eat  grass,'  was  ar- 
rested in  the  country,  and  brought  to  the  Hotel 
de  Ville,  followed  by  a  mob  who  demanded  his 
immediate  judgment. "  Lafayette  exerted  vainl}' 
his  whole  influence  and  his  whole  authority  to 
protect  the  wretched  old  man  until  he  could  be 
lodged  In  prison.  The  mob  tore  its  victim  from 
his  very  hands  and  destroyed  him  on  the  spot. 
The  next  day,  Foulon's  son-in-law,  Berthier,  the 
Intendant  of  Paris,  was  arrested  in  the  country, 
and  the  tragedy  was  re-enacted.  "Shocked  by 
these  murders  and  disgusted  by  his  own  inability 


1296 


FRANCE,  1789. 


The  Emigration. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


to  prevent  them,  Lafayette  sent  his  resignation 
to  the  electors,  and  for  some  time  persisted  in  his 
refusal  to  resume  his  office.  But  no  other  man 
sould  be  found  in  Paris  equally  fitted  for  the 
place ;  so  that  on  the  personal  solicitation  of  the 
electors  and  a  deputation  from  the  60  districts  of 
the  city,  he  again  took  command." — B.  Tucker- 
man,  X«/«  o/ Geraera^  Xa/ayeMc,  ■!>.  1,  ch.  9-10. 

Axso  in:  J.  Michelet,  Historical  View  of  the 
French  Rev. ,  bk.  3,  ch.  1-3. 

A.  D.  i789(July— August).— Cause  and  char- 
acter of  the  "Emigration." — "Everything,  or 
nearly  everything,  was  done  by  the  party  op- 
posed to  the  Revolution  in  the  excitement  of  the 
moment;  nothing  vifas  the  result  of  reasoning. 
Who,  for  instance,  reasoned  out  the  emigration  '? 
It  has  oftentimes  been  asked  how  so  extraordi- 
nary a  resolution  came  to  be  taken ;  how  it  had 
entered  the  minds  of  men  gifted  with  a  certain 
amount  of  sense  that  there  was  any  advantage 
to  be  derived  from  abandoning  all  the  posts  where 
they  could  still  exercise  power;  of  giving  over  to 
the  enemy  the  regiments  they  commanded,  the 
localities  over  which  they  had  control ;  of  deliver- 
ing up  completely  to  the  teachings  of  the  oppo- 
site party  the  peasantry,  over  whom,  in  a  goodly 
number  of  provinces,  a  valuable  influence  might 
be  exerted,  and  among  whom  they  still  had  many 
friends;  and  all  this,  to  return  for  the  purpose  of 
conquering,  at  the  sword's  point,  positions,  a 
number  of  which  at  least  could  be  held  without 
a  fight.  No  doubt  it  has  been  offered  as  an  ob- 
jection, that  the  peasantry  set  fire  to  chateaux, 
that  soldiers  mutinied  against  their  officers. 
This  was  not  the  case  at  the  time  of  what  has 
been  called  the  first  emigration,  and,  at  any 
rate,  such  doings  were  not  general;  but  does 
danger  constitute  sufficient  cause  for  abandoning 
an  important  post  ?  .  .  .  What  is  the  answer  to 
all  this  ?  Merely  what  follows.  The  voluntary 
going  into  exile  of  nearly  the  whole  nobility  of 
France,  of  many  magistrates  who  were  never  to 
unsheath  a  sword,  and  lastly,  of  a  large  number 
of  women  and  children,  —  this  resolve,  without 
a  precedent  in  history,  was  not  conceived  and 
determined  upon  as  a  State  measure;  chance 
brought  it  about.  A  few,  in  the  first  instance, 
followed  the  princes  who  had  been  obliged,  on 
the  14th  of  July,  to  seek  safety  out  of  Prance, 
and  others  followed  them.  At  first,  it  was 
merely  in  the  nature  of  a  pleasant  excursion. 
Outside  of  France,  they  might  freely  enjoy  say- 
ing and  believing  anything  and  everything.  .  .  . 
The  wealthiest  were  the  first  to  incur  tlie  expense 
of  this  trip,  and  a  few  brilliant  and  amiable 
women  of  the  Court  circle  did  their  share  to 
render  most  attractive  the  sojourn  in  a  number 
of  foreign  towns  close  to  the  frontier.  Gradually 
the  number  of  these  small  gatherings  increased, 
and  it  was  then  that  the  idea  arose  of  deriving 
advantage  from  them.  It  occurred  to  the  minds 
of  a  few  men  in  the  entourage  of  the  Comte 
d'Artois,  and  whose  moving  spirit  was  M.  de 
Calonne,  that  it  would  be  an  easy  matter  for 
them  to  create  a  kingdom  for  their  sovereign 
outside  of  France,  and  that  if  they  could  not  in 
this  fashion  succeed  in  giving  him  provinces  to 
reign  over,  he  would  at  least  reign  over  subjects, 
and  that  this  would  serve  to  give  him  a  standing 
in  the  eyes  of  foreign  powers,  and  determine  them 
to  espouse  his  cause.  .  .  .  Thus  in  '89,  '90,  and 
'91,  there  were  a  few  who  were  compelled  to  fly 
from  actual  danger;  a  small  number  were  led 

53  1297 


away  by  a  genuine  feeling  of  enthusiasm ;  many 
felt  themselves  bound  to  leave,  owing  to  a  point 
of  honor  which  they  obeyed  without  reasoning 
it  out;  the  mass  thought  it  was  the  fashion,  and 
that  it  looked  well ;  all,  or  almost  all,  were  car- 
ried away  by  expectations  encouraged  by  the 
wildest  of  letters,  and  by  the  plotting  of  a  few 
ambitious  folk,  who  were  under  the  impression 
that  they  were  building  up  their  fortunes." — 
Chancellor  Pasquier,  Memoirs,  pp.  64-66. 

A.  D.  1789  (August).— The  Night  of  Sacri- 
fices.—  The  svffeeping  out  of  Feudalism. — 
"What  was  the  Assembly  doing  at  this  period, 
when  Paris  was  waiting  in  expectation,  and  the 
capture  of  the  Bastille  was  being  imitated  aU 
over  France ;  when  chateaux  were  burning,  and 
nobles  flying  into  exile ;  when  there  was  positive 
civil  war  in  many  a  district,  and  anarchy  in 
every  province  ?  Why,  the  Assembly  was  dis- 
cussing whether  or  not  the  new  constitution  of 
France  should  be  prefaced  by  a  Declaration  of 
the  Rights  of  Man.  In  the  discussion  of  this 
extremely  important  question  were  wasted  the 
precious  days  which  followed  July  17.  .  .  . 
The  complacency  of  these  theorists  was  rudely 
shaken  on  August  4,  when  Salomon  read  to  the 
Assembly  the  report  of  the  Comite  des  Recher- 
ches,  or  Committee  of  Researches,  on  the  state 
of  France.  A  terrible  report  it  was.  Chateaux 
burning  here  and  there;  millers  hung;  tax- 
gatherers  drowned ;  the  warehouses  and  depots  of 
the  gabelle  burnt;  everywhere  rioting,  and  no- 
where peace.  .  .  .  Among  those  who  listened  to 
the  clear  and  forcible  report  of  Salomon  were 
certain  of  the  young  liberal  noblesse  who  had 
just  been  dining  with  the  Due  de  la  Rochefou- 
cauld-Liancourt,  a  wise  and  enlightened  noble- 
man. At  their  head  was  the  Vicomte  de  Noailles, 
a  young  man  of  thirty-three,  who  had  distin- 
guished himself  at  the  head  of  his  regiment 
under  his  cousin,  Lafayette,  in  America.  .  .  . 
The  Vicomte  de  Noailles  was  the  first  to  rush 
to  the  tribune.  '  What  is  the  cause  of  the  evil 
which  is  agitating  the  provinces  ?'  he  cried ;  and 
then  he  showed  that  it  arose  from  the  uncertainty 
under  which  the  people  dwelt,  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  old  feudal  bonds  under  which  they  had 
so  long  lived  and  laboured  were  to  be  perpetu- 
ated or  abolished,  and  concluded  an  impassioned 
speech  by  proposing  to  abolish  them  at  once. 
One  after  another  the  young  liberal  noblemen, 
and  then  certain  deputies  of  the  tiers  etat,  fol- 
lowed him  with  fresh  sacrifices.  First  the  old 
feudal  rights  were  abolished ;  then  the  rights  of 
the  dovecote  and  the  game  laws;  then  the  old 
copyhold  services;  then  the  tithes  paid  to  the 
Church,  in  spite  of  a  protest  from  Sieyfis ;  then 
the  rights  of  certain  cities  over  their  immediate 
suburbs  and  rural  districts  were  sacrificed ;  and 
the  contention  during  that  feverish  night  was 
rather  to  remember  something  or  other  to  sacri- 
fice than  to  suggest  the  expediency  of  maintain- 
ing anything  which  was  established.  In  its  gen- 
erosity the  Assembly  even  gave  away  what  did 
not  belong  to  it.  The  old  dues  paid  to  the  pope 
were  abolished,  and  it  was  even  declared  that 
the  territory  of  Avignon,  which  had  belonged  to 
the  pope  since  the  Middle  Ages,  should  be  united 
to  France  if  it  liked ;  and  the  sitting  closed  with 
a  unanimous  decree  that  a  statue  should  be 
erected  to  Louis  XVI. ,  '  the  restorer  of  French 
liberty. '  Well  might  Mirabeau  define  the  night 
of  August  4  as  a  mere  '  orgie. "...  Noble  indeed 


FRANCE,  1789. 


Constitution 
making. 


FRANCE,  17 


■were  the  intentions  of  the  deputies.  .  .  .  Yet  the 
results  of  this  night  of  sacrifices  were  bad  rather 
than  good.  As  Mirabeau  pointed  out,  the  people 
of  France  were  told  that  all  the  feudal  rights, 
dues,  and  tithes  had  been  abolished  that  evening, 
but  they  were  not  told  at  the  same  time  that 
there  must  be  taxes  and  other  burdens  to  take 
their  place.  It  was  of  no  use  to  issue  a  pro- 
visional order  that  all  rights,  dues,  and  taxes  re- 
mained in  force  for  the  present,  because  the  poor 
peasant  would  refuse  to  pay  what  was  illegal, 
and  would  not  understand  the  political  necessity 
of  supporting  the  revenue.  .  .  .  This  ill-con- 
sidered mass  of  resolutions  was  what  was  thrown 
in  the  face  of  France  in  a  state  of  anarchy  to  re- 
store it  to  a  state  of  order." — H.  M.  Stephens, 
Sist.  of  the  French  Bev. ,  v.  1,  ch.  5. 

Ai.so  IN :  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev. 
{Am.  ed.),  v.  1,  ;;;).  81-84. 

A.  D.  1789  (August— October). —  Constitu- 
tion-making and  the  Rights  of  Man. — The  first 
emigration  of  nobles. —  Famine  in  Paris. — 
Rumors  of  an  intended  flight  of  the  King. — 
"  One  may  look  upon  the  peculiarity  of  the  As- 
sembly as  being  a  singular  faith  in  the  power  of 
ideas.  That  was  its  greatness.  It  firmly  believed 
that  truth  shaped  into  laws  would  be  invincible. 
Two  months  —  such  was  the  calculation  —  would 
suffice  to  construct  the  constitution.  That  con- 
stitution by  its  omnipotent  virtue  would  convince 
all  men  and  bend  them  to  its  authority,  and  the 
revolution  would  be  completed.  Such  was  the 
faith  of  the  National  Assembly.  The  attitude  of 
the  people  was  so  menacing  that  many  of  the 
courtiers  fled.  Thus  commenced  the  first  emigra- 
tion. ...  As  if  the  minds  of  men  were  not  suf- 
ficiently agitated,  there  now  were  heard  cries  of 
a  great  conspiracy  of  the  aristocrats.  The  papers 
announced  that  a  plot  had  been  discovered  which 
was  to  have  delivered  Brest  to  the  English. 
Brest,  the  naval  arsenal,  wherein  Prance  for 
whole  centuries  had  expended  her  millions  and 
her  labours :  this  given  up  to  England  !  Eng- 
land would  once  more  overrun  France  !  ...  It 
was  amidst  these  cries  of  alarm  —  with  on  one 
hand  the  emigration  of  the  nobility,  on  the  other 
the  hunger  of  a  maddened  people ;  with  here  an 
irresolute  aristocracy,  startled  at  the  audacity  of 
the  '  canaille,'  and  there  a  resolute  Assembly,  pre- 
pared, at  the  hazard  of  their  lives,  to  work  out 
the  liberty  of  France ;  amidst  reports  of  famine, 
of  insurrections,  and  wild  disorders  of  all  sorts, 
that  we  find  the  National  Assembly  debating 
upon  the  rights  of  man,  discussing  every  article 
with  metaphysical  quibbling  and  wearisome  flu- 
ency, and,  having  finally  settled  each  article, 
making  their  famous  Declaration.  This  Declara- 
tion, which  was  solemnly  adopted  by  the  As- 
sembly, on  the  18th  of  August,  was  the  product 
of  a  whole  century  of  philosophical  speculation, 
fixed  and  reduced  to  formulas,  and  bearing  un- 
mistakeable  traces  of  Rousseau.  It  declared  the 
original  equality  of  mankind,  and  that  the  ends 
of  social  union  are  liberty,  property,  security,  and 
resistance  to  oppression.  It  declared  that  sov- 
ereignty resides  in  the  nation,  from  whence  all 
power  emanates ;  that  freedom  consists  in  doing 
everything  which  does  not  injure  another;  that 
law  is  the  expression  of  the  general  will ;  that 
public  burdens  should  be  borne  by  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  state  in  proportion  to  their  fortunes; 
that  the  elective  franchise  should  be  extended  to 
all ;  that  the  exercise  of  natural  rights  has  no  other 


limit  than  their  interference  with  the  rights  of 
others ;  that  no  man  should  be  persecuted  for  his 
religious  opinions,  provided  he  conform  to  the 
laws  and  do  not  disturb  the  religion  of  the  state ; 
that  all  men  have  the  right  of  quitting  the  state 
in  which  they  were  born,  and  of  choosing  another 
country,  by  renouncing  their  rights  of  citizen- 
ship ;  that  the  liberty  of  the  press  is  the  foremost 
support  of  public  liberty,  and  the  law  should 
maintain  it,  at  the  same  time  punishing  those 
who  abuse  it  by  distributing  seditious  discourses, 
or  calumnies  against  individuals."  Having 
adopted  its  Declaration  of  the  rights  of  man,  the 
Assembly  proceeded  to  the  drawing  up  of  a  con- 
stitution which  should  embody  the  principles  of 
the  Declaration,  and  soon  found  itself  in  passion- 
ate debate  upon  the  relations  to  be  established 
between  the  national  legislature  and  the  king. 
Should  the  king  retain  a  veto  upon  legisla- 
tion 1  Should  he  have  any  voice  in  the  making 
of  laws  ?  "The  lovers  of  England  and  the  Eng- 
lish constitution  all  voted  in  favour  of  the  veto. 
Even  Mirabeau  was  for  it."  Robespierre,  just 
coming  into  notice,  bore  a  prominent  part  in  the 
opposition.  "The  majority  of  the  Assembly 
shared  Robespierre's  views;  and  the  King's 
counselors  were  at  length  forced  to  propose  a 
compromise  in  the  shape  of  a  suspensive  veto ; 
namely,  that  the  King  should  not  have  the  abso- 
lute right  of  preventing  any  law,  but  only  the 
right  of  suspending  it  for  two,  four,  or  six  years. 
.  .  .  It  was  carried  by  a  large  majority."  Mean- 
time, in  Paris,  "vast  and  incalculable  was  the 
misery:  crowds  of  peruke-makers,  tailors,  and 
shoemakers,  were  wont  to  assemble  at  the  Louvre 
and  in  the  Champs  Elysees,  demanding  things 
impossible  to  be  granted;  demanding  that  the 
old  regulations  should  be  maintained,  and  that 
new  ones  should  be  made;  demanding  that  the 
rate  of  daily  wages  should  be  fixed ;  demanding 
.  .  .  that  all  the  Savoyards  in  the  country  should 
be  sent  away,  and  only  Frenchmen  employed. 
The  bakers'  shops  were  besieged,  as  early  as  five 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  by  hungry  crowds  who 
had  to  stand  '  en  queue  ' ;  happy  when  they  had 
money  to  purchase  miserable  bread,  even  in  this 
uncomfortable  manner.  .  .  .  Paris  was  living  at 
the  mercy  of  chance :  its  subsistence  dependent 
on  some  arrival  or  other :  dependent  on  a  convoy 
from  Beauce,  or  a  boat  from  Corbeuil.  The  city, 
at  immense  sacrifices,  was  obliged  to  lower  the 
price  of  bread:  the  consequence  was  that  the 
population  for  more  than  ten  leagues  round  came 
to  procure  provisions  at  Paris.  The  imcertainty 
of  the  morrow  augmented  the  difficulties.  Every- 
body stored  up,  and  concealed  provisions.  The 
administration  sent  in  every  direction,  and  bought 
up  flour,  by  fair  means,  or  by  foul.  It  often  hap- 
pened that  at  midnight  there  was  but  half  the 
flour  necessary  for  the  morning  market.  Pro- 
visioning Paris  was  a  kind  of  war.  The  National 
Guard  was  sent  to  protect  each  arrival;  or  to  se- 
cure certain  purchases  by  force  of  arms.  Specu- 
lators were  afraid ;  farmers  would  not  thrash  any 
longer ;  neither  would  the  miller  grind.  '  I  used 
to  see,'  says  Bailly,  '  good  tradesmen,  mercers  and 
goldsmiths,  praying  to  be  admitted  among  the 
beggars  employed  at  Montmartre,  in  digging  the 
ground.'  Then  came  fearful  whispers  of  the 
King's  intention  to  fly  to  Metz.  What  will  be- 
come of  us  if  the  King  should  fly  ?  He  must  not 
fly ;  we  will  have  him  here ;  here  amongst  us  in 
Paris  1    This  produced  the  famous  insurrection 


129S 


FRANCE,  1789. 


The  Mob  of  Women 
at  Versailles. 


FRANCE,   1780. 


of  woraea  ...  on  the  5th  October." — G.  H. 
Lewes,  Life  of  Robespierre,  ch.  9. — H.  von  Sybel, 
Hist,  of  the  French  Rev.,  bk.  1,  cli.  3-4  (v.  1). 

A.  D.  1789  (October). — The  Insurrection  of 
Women. — Their  march  to  Versailles. — "A 
thought,  or  dim  raw-material  of  a  tliought,  was 
fermenting  all  night  [October  4-5],  universally 
in  the  female  head,  and  might  explode.  In 
squalid  garret,  on  Monday  morning  Maternity 
awakes,  to  hear  children  weeping  for  bread. 
Maternity  must  forth  to  the  streets,  to  the  herb- 
markets  and  Bakers'-queues;  meets  there  with 
hunger-stricken  Maternity,  sympathetic,  exas- 
perative.  O  we  unhappy  women !  But,  instead 
of  Bakers'-queues,  why  not  to  Aristocrats'  palaces, 
the  root  of  the  matter  ?  Allons !  Let  us  as- 
semble. To  the  Hotel-de-Ville ;  to  "Versailles; 
to  the  Lanterne !  In  one  of  the  Guard  houses  of 
the  Quartier  Saint-Eustache,  '  a  young  woman ' 
seizes  a  drum, —  for  how  shall  National  Guards 
give  lire  on  women,  on  a  young  woman  1  The 
young  woman  seizes  the  drum ;  sets  forth,  beat- 
ing it,  '  uttering  cries  relative  to  the  dearth  of 
grains.'  Descend,  O  mothers;  descend,  ye  Ju- 
diths, to  food  and  revenge! — All  women  gather 
and  go;  crowds  storm  all  stairs,  force  out  all 
women;  the  female  Insurrectionary  Force,  ac- 
cording to  Camille,  resembles  tlie  English  Naval 
one;  there  is  a  universal  '  Press  of  women.'  Ro- 
bust Dames  of  the  Halle,  slim  Mantua-makers,  as- 
siduous, risen  with  the  dawn ;  ancient  Virginity 
tripping  to  matins;  the  Housemaid,  with  early 
broom ;  all  must  go.  Rouse  ye,  O,  women ;  the 
laggard  men  will  not  act ;  they  say,  we  ourselves 
may  act!  And  so,  like  snowbreak  from  the 
mountains,  for  every  staircase  is  a  melted  brook, 
it  storms;  tumultuous,  wild-shrilling,  towards 
the  Hotel-de-Ville.  Tumultuous;  with  or  with- 
out drum-music:  for  the  Faubourg  Saint- Antoine 
also  has  tucked-up  its  gown ;  and  with  besom- 
staves,  fire-irons,  and  even  rusty  pistols  (void  of 
ammunition),  is  flowing  on.  Sound  of  it  flies, 
with  a  velocity  of  sound,  to  the  utmost  Barriers. 
By  seven  o'clock,  on  this  raw  October  morning, 
fifth  of  the  month,  the  Townhall  will  see  won- 
ders. .  .  .  Grand  it  was,  says  Camille,  to  see  so 
many  Judiths,  from  eight  to  ten  thousand  of 
them  in  all,  rushing  out  to  search  into  the  root 
of  the  matter!  Not  unfrightful  it  must  have 
been;  ludicro-terrific,  and  most  unmanageable. 
At  such  hour  the  overwatched  Three  Hundred 
are  not  yet  stirring:  none  but  some  Clerks,  a 
company  of  National  Guards;  and  M.  de  Gou- 
vion,  the  Major-general.  Gouvion  has  fought  in 
America  for  the  cause  of  civil  Liberty;  a  man  of 
no  inconsiderable  heart,  but  deficient  in  head. 
He  is,  for  the  moment,  in  his  back  apartment; 
assuaging  Usher  Maillard,  the  Bastille-sergeant, 
who  has  come,  as  too  many  do,  with  '  repre- 
sentations. '  Tlie  assuagement  is  still  incomplete 
when  our  Judiths  arrive.  The  National  Guards 
form  on  the  outer  stairs,  with  levelled  bayonets ; 
the  ten  thousand  Judiths  press  up,  resistless ;  with 
obtestations,  with  outspread  hands,  —  merely  to 
speak  to  the  Mayor.  The  rear  forces  them ;  nay 
from  male  hands  in  the  rear,  stones  already  fly : 
the  National  Guard  must  do  one  of  two  things ; 
sweep  the  Place  de  Grfive  with  cannon,  or  else 
open  to  right  and  left.  They  open :  the  living 
deluge  rushes  in.  Through  all  rooms  and  cabi- 
nets, upwards  to  the  topmost  belfry :  ravenous; 
seeking  arms,  seeking  Mayors,  seeking  justice; — 
while,  again,  the  better-dressed  speak  kindly  to 


the  Clerks ;  point  out  the  misery  of  these  poor 
women ;  also  their  ailments,  some  even  of  an  in- 
teresting sort.  Poor  'M.  de  Gouvion  is  shiftless  in 
this  extremity ; —  a  man  shiftless,  perturbed :  who 
will  one  day  commit  suicide.  How  happy  for  him 
that  Usher  Maillard  the  shifty  was  there,  at  the 
moment,  though  making  representations!  Fly 
back,  thou  shifty  Maillard:  seek  the  Bastille 
Company ;  and  O  return  fast  with  it ;  above  all, 
with  thy  own  shifty  head!  For,  behold,  the 
Judiths  can  find  no  Mayor  or  Municipal ;  scarcely, 
in  the  topmost  belfry,  can  they  find  poor  Abbe 
LefSvre  the  Powder-distributor.  Him,  for  want 
of  a  better,  they  suspend  there:  in  the  pale 
morning  light ;  over  the  top  of  all  Paris,  which 
swims  in  one's  failing  eyes: — a  horrible  end? 
Nay  the  rope  broke,  as  French  ropes  often  did ; 
or  else  an  Amazon  cut  it.  Abbe  LefSvre  falls, 
some  twenty  feet,  rattling  among  the  leads ;  and 
lives  long  years  after,  though  always  with  '  a 
tremblement  in  the  limbs.'  And  now  doors  fly 
under  hatchets;  the  Judiths  have  broken  the 
Armory;  have  seized  guns  and  cannons,  three 
money-bags,  paper-heaps ;  torches  flare :  in  few 
minutes,  our  brave  Hotel-de-Ville,  wliich  dates 
from  the  Fourth  Henry,  will,  with  all  that  it 
holds,  be  in  flames!  In  flames,  truly, —  were  it 
not  that  Usher  Maillard,  swift  of  foot,  shifty  of 
head,  has  returned !  Maillard,  of  his  own  motion, 
—  for  Gouvion  or  the  rest  would  not  even  sanc- 
tion him, —  snatches  a  drum :  descends  the  Porch- 
stairs,  ran-tan,  beating  sharp,  with  loud  rolls,  his 
Rogues'-march:  To  Versailles !  Allons;  ^Ver- 
sailles! As  men  beat  on  kettle  or  warming-pan, 
when  angry  she-bees,  or  say,  flying  desperate 
wasps,  are  to  be  hived ;  and  the  desperate  in- 
sects hear  it,  and  cluster  round  it, —  simply  as 
round  a  guidance,  where  there  was  none :  so  now 
these  Menads  round  shifty  Maillard,  Riding- 
Usher  of  the  ChStelet.  The  axe  pauses  uplifted; 
Abbe  Lef6 vre  is  left  half-hanged :  from  the  belfry 
downwards  all  vomits  itself.  What  rub-a-dub 
is  that?  Stanislas  Maillard,  Bastille  hero,  will 
lead  us  to  Versailles  ?  Joy  to  thee,  Maillard ; 
blessed  art  thou  above  Riding-Ushers!  Away, 
then,  away!  The  seized  cannon  are  yoked  with 
seized  cart-horses :  brown-locked  Demoiselle  The- 
roigne,  with  pike  and  helmet,  sits  there  as  gun- 
neress.  .  .  .  Maillard  (for  his  drum  still  rolls)  is, 
by  heaven-rending  acclamation,  admitted  Gen- 
eral. Maillard  hastens  the  languid  march.  .  .  . 
And  now  Maillard  has  his  Menads  in  the  Champs 
Elysees  (Fields  Tartarean  rather) ;  and  the  Hotel- 
de-Ville  has  suffered  comparatively  nothing.  .  .  . 
Great  Maillard!  A  small  nucleus  of  Order  Is 
round  his  drum ;  but  his  outskirts  fluctuate  like 
the  mad  Ocean :  for  Rascality  male  and  female  is 
flowing  in  on  him,  from  the  four  winds:  guid- 
ance there  is  none  but  in  his  single  head  and  two 
drum-sticks.  ...  On  the  Elysian  Fields  there 
is  pause  and  fluctuation;  but,  for  Maillard,  no 
return.  He  persuades  his  Menads,  clamorous 
for  arms  and  the  Arsenal,  tliat  no  arms  are  in 
the  Arsenal ;  that  an  unarmed  attitude,  and  peti- 
tion to  a  National  Assemblj',  will  be  the  best: 
he  hastily  nominates  or  sanctions  generalesses, 
captains  of  tens  and  fifties ; —  and  so,  in  loosest- 
flowing  order,  to  the  rhythm  of  some  '  eight 
drums  '  (having  laid  aside  his  own),  with  the  Bas- 
tille Volunteers  bringing  up  his  rear,  once  more 
takes  the  road.  Chaillot,  which  will  promptly 
yield  baked  loaves,  is  not  plundered ;  nor  are  the 
SSvres  Potteries  broken.  .  .  .  The  press  of  women 


1299 


FRAIfCE,  1789. 


The  Mob  of  Men 
at  Versailles. 


FRANCE,  1789. 


still  continues,  for  it  is  the  cause  of  all  Eve's 
Daughters,  mothers  that  are,  or  that  ought  to  be. 
No  carriage-lady,  were  it  with  never  such  hys- 
terics, but  must  dismount,  in  the  mud  roads,  in 
her  silk  shoes,  and  walk.  In  this  manner,  amid 
wild  October  weather,  they,  a  wild  unwinged 
stork-flight,  through  the  astonished  country  wend 
their  way." — T.  Carlyle,  The  French  Remlution, 
r.  1,  hk.  7,  cU.  4-5. 

A.  D.  1789  (October). — The  mob  of  men  at 
Versailles,  with  Lafayette  and  the  National 
Guard. — The  king  and  royal  family  brought 
to  Paris. — Before  the  memorable  5th  day  of 
October  closed,  the  movement  of  the  women  upon 
Versailles  was  followed  by  an  outpouring,  in  the 
same  direction,  of  the  masculine  mob  of  Paris, 
headed  by  the  National  Guard.  "The  com- 
mander, Lafayette,  opposed  their  departure  a 
long  time,  but  in  vain ;  neither  his  eiforts  nor  his 
popularity  could  overcome  the  obstinacy  of  the 
people.  For  seven  hours  he  harangued  and  re- 
tained them.  At  length,  impatient  at  this  delay, 
rejecting  his  advice,  they  prepared  to  set  for- 
ward without  him;  when,  feeling  that  it  was 
now  his  duty  to  conduct  as  it  had  previously  been 
to  restrain  them,  he  obtained  his  authorisation 
from  the  corporation,  and  gave  the  word  for  depar- 
ture about  seven  in  the  evening."  Meantime  the 
army  of  the  amazons  had  arrived  at  Versailles, 
and  excited  the  terrors  of  the  court.  ' '  The  troops 
of  VersaUles  flew  to  arms  and  surrounded  the 
chateau,  but  the  intentions  of  the  women  were 
not  hostile.  Maillard,  their  leader,  had  recom- 
mended them  to  appear  as  suppliants,  and  in  that 
attitude  they  presented  their  complaints  succes- 
sively to  the  assembly  and  to  the  king.  Accord- 
ingly, the  first  hours  of  this  turbulent  evening 
were  sufliciently  calm.  Yet  it  was  impossible 
but  that  causes  of  hostility  should  arise  between 
an  excited  mob  and  the  household  troops,  the  ob- 
jects of  so  much  irritation.  The  latter  were  sta- 
tioned in  the  court  of  the  chateau  opposite  the 
national  guard  and  the  Flanders  regiment.  The 
space  between  was  filled  by  women  and  volun- 
teers of  the  Bastille.  In  the  midst  of  the  con- 
fusion, necessarily  arising  from  such  a  juxta- 
position, a  scuffle  arose ;  this  was  the  signal  for 
disorder  and  conflict.  An  oflicer  of  the  guards 
struck  a  Parisian  soldier  with  his  sabre,  and  was 
in  turn  shot  in  the  arm.  The  national  guards 
sided  against  the  household  troops ;  the  conflict 
became  warm,  and  would  have  been  sanguinary, 
but  for  the  darkness,  the  bad  weather,  and  the 
orders  given  to  the  household  troops,  first  to  cease 
firing  and  then  to  retire.  .  .  .  During  this  tu- 
mult, the  court  was  in  consternation ;  the  flight  of 
the  king  was  suggested,  and  carriages  prepared ; 
a  piquet  of  the  national  guard  saw  them  at  the 
gate  of  the  orangery,  and  having  made  them  go 
back,  closed  the  gate :  moreover,  the  king,  either 
ignorant  of  the  designs  of  the  court,  or  conceiv- 
ing them  impracticable,  refused  to  escape.  Fears 
were  mingled  with  his  pacific  intentions,  when  he 
hesitated  to  repel  the  aggression  or  to  take  flight. 
Conquered,  he  apprehended  the  fate  of  Charles  I. 
of  England ;  absent,  he  feared  that  the  duke  of 
Orleans  would  obtain  the  lieutenancy  of  the  king- 
dom. But,  in  the  meantime,  the  rain,  fatigue, 
and  the  inaction  of  the  household  troops,  lessened 
the  fury  of  the  multitude,  and  Lafayette  arrived 
at  the  head  of  the  Parisian  army.  His  presence 
restored  security  to  the  court,  and  the  replies  of 
the  king  to  the  deputation  from  Paris  satisfied 


the  multitude  and  the  army.  In  a  short  time, 
Lafayette's  activity,  the  good  sense  and  discipline 
of  the  Parisian  guard,  restored  order  everywhere. 
Tranquillity  returned.  The  crowd  of  women  and 
volunteers,  overcome  by  fatigue,  gradually  dis- 
persed, and  some  of  the  national  guard  were  en- 
trusted with  the  defence  of  the  chateau,  while 
others  were  lodged  with  their  companions  in  arms 
at  Versailles.  The  royal  family,  re-assured  after 
the  anxiety  and  fear  of  this  painful  night,  retired 
to  rest  about  two  o'clock  in  the  morning.  To- 
wards five,  Lafayette,  having  visited  the  out- 
posts which  had  been  confided  to  his  care,  and 
finding  the  watch  well  kept,  the  town  calm,  and 
the  crowds  dispersed  or  sleeping,  also  took  a  few 
moments  repose.  About  six,  however,  some  men 
of  the  lower  class,  more  enthusiastic  than  the 
rest,  and  awake  sooner  than  they,  prowled  round 
the  chateau.  Finding  a  gate  open,  they  informed 
their  companions,  and  entered.  Unfortunately, 
the  interior  posts  had  been  entrusted  to  the  house- 
hold guards,  and  refused  to  the  Parisian  army. 
This  fatal  refusal  caused  all  the  misfortunes  of 
the  night.  The  interior  guard  had  not  even  been 
increased;  the  gates  scarcely  visited,  and  the 
watch  kept  as  negligently  as  on  ordinary  occa- 
sions. These  men,  excited  by  all  the  passions 
that  had  brought  them  to  Versailles,  perceiving 
one  of  the  household  troops  at  a  window,  began 
to  insult  him.  He  fired,  and  wounded  one  of 
them.  They  then  rushed  on  the  household 
troops,  who  defended  the  chateau  breast  to- 
breast,  and  sacrificed  themselves  heroically.  One 
of  them  had  time  to  warn  the  queen,  whom  the 
assailants  particularly  threatened ;  and,  half 
dressed,  she  ran  for  refuge  to  the  king.  The  tu- 
mult and  danger  were  extreme  in  the  chateau. 
Lafayette,  apprised  of  the  invasion  of  the  royal 
residence,  mounted  his  horse,  and  rode  hastily  to 
the  scene  of  danger.  On  the  square  he  met  some 
of  the  household  troops  surrounded  by  an  infuri- 
ated mob,  who  were  on  the  point  of  killing  them. 
He  threw  himself  among  them,  called  some 
French  guards  who  were  near,  and,  having  res- 
cued the  household  troops  and  dispersed  tlieir  as- 
sailants, he  hurried  to  the  chateau.  He  found  it 
already  secured  by  the  grenadiers  of  the  French 
guard,  who,  at  the  first  noise  of  the  tumult,  had 
hastened  and  protected  the  household  troops  from 
the  fury  of  the  Parisians.  But  the  scene  was  not 
over;  the  crowd  assembled  again  in  the  marble 
court  under  the  king's  balcony,  loudly  called  for 
him,  and  he  appeared.  They  required  his  de- 
parture for  Paris ;  he  promised  to  repair  thither 
with  his  family,  and  this  promise  was  received 
with  general  applause.  The  queen  was  resolved 
to  accompany  him ;  but  the  prejudice  against  her 
was  so  strong  that  the  journey  was  not  without 
danger;  it  was  necessary  to  reconcile  her  with 
the  multitude.  Lafayette  proposed  to  her  to 
accompany  him  to  the  balcony ;  after  some  hesi- 
tation, she  consented.  They  appeared  on  it  to- 
gether, and  to  communicate  by  a  sign  with  the 
tumultuous  crowd,  to  conquer  its  animosity,  and 
awaken  its  enthusiasm,  Lafayette  respectfully 
kissed  the  queen's  hand;  the  crowd  responded 
with  acclamations.  It  now  remained  to  make 
peace  between  them  and  the  household  troops. 
Lafayette  advanced  with  one  of  these,  placed  his 
own  tricoloured  cockade  on  his  hat,  and  embraced 
him  before  the  people,  who  shouted  '  Vivent  les 
gardes-du-corps  ! '  Thus  terminated  this  scene ; 
the  royal  family  set  out  for  Paris,  escorted  by  the- 


1300 


FRANCE,   1789. 


The  new 
Constitution, 


FRANCE,  1789-1791. 


army  and  its  guards  mixed  witli  it." — F.  A.  Mig- 
net.  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev.,  ch.  2. 

Also  ln  :  B.  Tuckerman,  Life  of  Lafayette,  v. 
1,  ch.  11. 

A.  D.  1789-1791. — The  new  constitution. — 
Appropriation  and  sale  of  Churcli  property. — 
Issue  of  Assignats. —  Abolition  of  titles  of 
honor. — Civil  constitution  of  the  clprgy. — The 
Feast  of  the  Federation. — The  Emigres  on 
the  border  and  their  conduct. — "The  king  was 
henceforth  at  the  mercy  of  the  mob.  Deprived 
of  his  guards,  and  at  a  distance  from  his  army, 
he  was  in  the  centre  of  the  revolution ;  and  sur- 
rounded by  an  excited  and  hungry  populace. 
He  was  followed  to  Paris  by  the  Assembly ;  and, 
for  the  present,  was  protected  from  further  out- 
rages by  Lafayette  and  the  national  guards. 
Mirabeau,  who  was  now  in  secret  communica- 
tion with  the  court,  warned  the  king  of  his 
danger,  in  the  midst  of  the  revolutionary  capi- 
tal. 'The  mob  of  Paris,' he  said,  'will  scourge 
the  corpses  of  the  king  and  queen.'  He  saw  no 
hope  of  safety  for  them,  or  for  the  State,  but  in 
their  withdrawal  from  this  pressing  danger,  to 
Fontainebleau  or  Rouen,  and  in  a  strong  govern- 
ment, supported  by  the  Assembly,  pursuing  lib- 
eral measures,  and  quelling  anarchy.  His  coua  - 
sels  were  frustrated  by  events ;  and  the  revolution 
had'  advanced  too  far  to  be  controlled  by  this 
secret  and  suspected  adviser  of  the  king.  Mean- 
while, the  Assembly  was  busy  with  further 
schemes  of  revolution  and  desperate  finance. 
France  was  divided  into  departments:  the  prop- 
erty of  the  Church  was  appropriated  to  meet  the 
urgent  necessities  of  the  State:  the  disastrous 
assignats  were  issued:  the  subjection  of  the 
clergy  to  the  civil  power  was  decreed :  the  Par- 
liaments were  superseded,  and  the  judicature  of 
the  country  was  reconstituted,  upon  a  popular 
basis:  titles  of  honour,  orders  of  knightliood, 
armorial  bearings  —  even  liveries  — were  abol- 
ished :  the  army  was  reorganised,  and  the  privi- 
leges of  birth  were  made  to  yield  to  service 
and  seniority.  All  Frenchmen  were  henceforth 
equal,  as  'citoyens':  and  their  new  privileges 
were  wildly  celebrated  by  the  planting  of  trees 
of  liberty.  The  monarchy  was  still  recognised, 
but  it  stood  alone,  in  the  midst  of  revolution." — 
Sir  T.  E.  May,  Democracy  in  Europe,  ch.  13  (v. 
8). — "The  monarchy  was  continued  and  liberally 
endowed ;  but  it  was  shorn  of  most  of  its  ancient 
prerogatives,  and  reduced  to  a  very  feeble  Ex- 
ecutive ;  and  while  it  obtained  a  perilous  veto  on 
the  resolutions  and  acts  of  the  Legislature,  it 
was  separated  from  that  power,  and  placed  in 
opposition  to  it,  by  the  exclusion  of  tlie  Ministers 
of  the  Crown  from  seats  and  votes  in  the  National 
Assembly.  The  Legislature  was  composed  of  a 
Legislative  Assembly,  formed  of  a  single  Cham- 
ber alone,  in  theory  supreme,  and  almost  abso- 
lute ;  but,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  liable  to  come 
in  conflict  with  tlie  Crown,  and  it  had  less  au- 
thority tlian  might  be  supposed,  for  it  was 
elected  by  a  vote  not  truly  popular,  and  subor- 
dinate powers  were  allowed  to  possess  a  very 
large  part  of  the  rights  of  Sovereignty  which  it 
ought  to  have  divided  with  the  King.  Tliis  last 
portion  of  the  scheme  was  very  striking,  and 
was  the  one,  too,  tliat  most  caused  alarm  among 
distant  political  observers.  Too  great  centrali- 
zation having  been  one  of  the  chief  complaints 
against  the  ancient  Monarchy,  this  evil  was  met 
with  a  radical  reform.  .  .  .  The  towns  received 


extraordinary  powers;  their  municipalities  had 
complete  control  over  the  National  Guards  to  be 
elected  in  them,  and  possessed  many  other  func- 
tions of  Government ;  and  Paris,  by  these  means, 
became  almost  a  separate  Commonwealth,  inde- 
pendent of  the  State,  and  directing  a  vast  mili- 
tary force.  The  same  system  was  applied  to 
the  country ;  every  Department  was  formed  into 
petty  divisions,  each  with  its  National  Guards, 
and  a  considerable  share  of  what  is  usually  tlie 
power  of  the  government.  .  .  .  Burke's  saying 
was  strictly  correct,  '  that  France  was  split  into 
thousands  of  Republics,  with  Paris  predominat- 
ing and  queen  of  all.'  With  respect  to  other 
institutions  of  the  State,  the  appointment  of 
nearly  all  civil  functionaries,  judicial  and  other- 
wise, was  taken  from  tlie  Crown,  and  abandoned 
to  a  like  popular  election ;  and  the  same  princi- 
ple was  also  applied  to  the  great  and  venerable 
institution  of  the  Church,  already  deprived  of  its 
vast  estates,  though  the  election  of  bishops  and 
priests  by  their  flocks  interfered  directly  with 
Roman  Catholic  discipline,  and  probably,  too, 
with  religious  dogma.  .  .  .  Notwithstanding  the 
opposition  of  Necker,  who,  though  hardly  a 
statesman,  understood  finance,  it  was  resolved  to 
sell  the  lands  of  the  Church  to  procure  funds  for 
the  necessities  of  the  State ;  and  the  deficit,  which 
was  increasing  rapidly,  was  met  by  an  inconver- 
tible currency  of  paper,  secured  on  the  lands  to 
be  sold.  This  expedient  .  .  .  was  carried  out 
with  injudicious  recklessness.  The  Assignats, 
as  the  new  notes  were  called,  seemed  a  mine  of 
inexhaustible  wealth,  and  they  were  issued  in 
quantities  which,  from  the  first  moment,  dis- 
turbed yie  relations  of  life  and  commerce,  though 
they  created  a  show  of  brisk  trade  for  a  time. 
In  matters  of  taxation  the  Assembly,  too,  ex- 
ceeded the  bounds  of  reason  and  justice;  exemp- 
tions previously  enjoyed  by  the  ricli  were  now 
indirectly  extended  to  the  poor ;  wealthy  owners 
of  land  were  too  heavily  burdened,  while  the 
populace  of  the  towns  went  scot  free.  .  .  .  Very 
large  sums,  also,  belonging  to  the  State,  were 
advanced  to  the  Commune  of  Paris,  now  rising 
into  formidable  power.  .  .  .  The  funds  so  ob- 
tained were  lavishly  squandered  in  giving  relief 
to  the  poor  of  the  capital  in  the  most  improvi- 
dent ways —  in  buying  bread  dear  and  reselling 
it  cheap,  and  in  finding  fanciful  employment  for 
artizans  out  of  work.  The  result,  of  course,  was 
to  attract  to  Paris  many  thousands  of  the  lowest 
class  of  rabble,  and  to  add  them  to  the  scum  of 
the  city.  .  .  .  On  the  first  anniversary  [July 
14,  1790]  of  the  fall  of  the  Bastille,  and  before 
the  Constitution  had  been  finished  ...  a  great 
national  holiday  [called  the  Feast  of  the  Fed- 
eration] was  kept;  and,  amidst  multitudes  of 
applauding  spectators,  deputations  from  every 
Department  in  France,  headed  by  the  authorities 
of  the  thronging  capital,  defiled  in  procession  to 
the  broad  space  known  as  the  Field  of  Mars, 
along  the  banks  of  the  Seine.  An  immense  am- 
phitheatre had  been  constructed  [converting  the 
plain  into  a  valley,  by  the  labor  of  many  thou- 
sands, in  a  single  week],  and  decorated  with  ex- 
traordinary pomp ;  and  here,  in  the  presence  of  a 
splendid  Court,  of  the  National  Assembly,  and 
of  the  municipalities  of  the  realm,  and  in  the 
sight  of  c  great  assemblage  surging  to  and  fro 
with  throbbing  excitement,  the  King  took  an  oath 
that  he  would  faithfully  respect  the  order  of 
things  that  was  being  established,  while  incense 


]301 


FRANCE,  1789-1791. 


The  Clubs. 


FRANCE,  1790. 


streamed  from  high-raised  altars,  and  the  ranks 
of  70,000  National  Guards  burst  into  loud  cheers 
and  triumphant  music  ;  and  even  the  Queen, 
sharing  in  the  passion  of  the  hour,  and  radiant 
with  beauty,  lifted  up  iu  her  arms  the  young 
child  who  was  to  be  the  future  chief  of  a  dis- 
enthralled and  regenerate  people.  .  .  .  The  fol- 
lowing week  was  gay  with  those  brilliant  dis- 
plays which  Paris  knows  how  to  arrange  so  well. 
.  .  .  The  work,  however,  of  the  National  Assem- 
bly developed  some  of  its  effects  ere  long.  .  .  . 
The  emigration  of  the  Nobles,  which  had  become 
very  general  from  the  5th  and  6th  of  October, 
went  on  in  daily  augmenting  numbers  :  and,  in  a 
short  time,  the  frontiers  were  edged  with  bands 
of  exiles  breathing  vengeance  and  hatred."  To 
all  the  many  destructive  and  revolutionary  influ- 
ences at  work  was  now  added  "the  pitiful  con- 
duct of  those  bj-'st  known  bj  the  still  dishonora- 
ble name  of  '  Emigres.'  In  a  few  months  the 
great  majority  of  the  aristocracy  of  France  had 
fled  the  kingdom,  abandoned  the  throne  around 
which  they  had  stood,  breathing  maledictions 
against  a  contemptuous  Nation,  as  arrogant  as 
ever  in  the  impotence  of  want,  and  thinking 
only  of  a  counter-revolution  that  would  cover 
the  natal  soil  with  blood.  .  .  .  Their  utter  want 
of  patriotism  and  of  sound  feeling  made  thou- 
sands believe  that  the  state  of  society  which  had 
bred  such  creatures  ought  to  be  swept  away." 
— W.  O'C.  Morris,  The  French  Bev.  and  First 
Empire,  ch.  3. 

Also  in  :  H.  Von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  tlie  French 
Bev.,  bk.  1,  rh.  5,  and  bk.  2,  ch.  3-5. — M'rae  de 
Stael,  Considerations  on  the  Fr.  Bev.,  pt.  3,  ch. 
13-19  (v.  1). — E.  Burke,  Beflections  on  the  Bev.  in 
France. — A.  F.  Bertrand  de  Moleville,  Annals  of 
the  Fr.  Bev.,  pt.  1,  eh.  33-35  (c.  2-3).— Duchess 
de  Tourzell,  Memoirs,  v.  1,  ch.  3-11. — W.  H.  Jer- 
vis.  The  Oalliean  Church  and  the  Bev.,  eh.  1-4. i 

A.  D.  1789-1794.— Myths  of  the  Revolu- 
tion.—  "The  rapid  growth  and  the  considerable 
number  of  these  myths  are  one  of  tlie  most  curi- 
ous features  of  the  Revolution,  while  their  per- 
sistent vitality  is  a  standing  warning  tor  historical 
students.  I  claim  to  show  that  Cazotte's  vision 
was  invented  by  Laharpe,  that  Sombreiiil's 
daughter  did  not  purchase  his  liberty  by  quaff- 
ing blood,  that  the  locksmith  Gamain  was  not 
poisoned,  that  Labussiere  did  not  save  hundreds 
of  prisoners  by  destroying  the  documents  in- 
criminating them,  that  the  Girondins  had  no 
last  supper,  that  some  famous  ejaculations  have 
been  fabricated  or  distorted,  that  no  attempt  was 
made  to  save  the  last  batch  of  victims,  that  the 
hoys  Barra  and  Viala  were  not  heroes,  that  no 
leather  was  made  of  human  skins,  that  no 
Englishmen  plied  the  September  assassins  with 
drink,  that  the  'Veugeur'  crew  did  not  perish 
rather  than  surrender,  that  the  ice-bound  Dutch 
fleet  was  not  captured,  that  Robespierre's  wound 
was  not  the  work  of  Merda,  but  was  self-inflicted, 
and  that  Thomas  Paine  had  no  miraculous  es- 
cape."— J.  G.  Alger,  Glimjnes  of  the  French  Bev. 

A.  D.  1790. — The  Rise  of  the  Clubs.— Jaco- 
bins,Cordeliers, Feuillants.ClubMonarchique, 
and  Club  of  '89. — "Every  party  sought  to  gain 
the  people  ;  it  was  courted  as  sovereign.  After 
attempting  to  influence  it  by  religion,  another 
means  was  employed,  that  of  the  clubs.  At  that 
period,  clubs  were  private  assemblies,  in  which 
the  measures  of  government,  the  business  of  the 
state,  and  the  decrees  of  the  assembly,  were  dis- 


cussed; their  deliberations  had  no  authority,  but 
they  exercised  a  certain  influence.  The  first 
club  owed  its  origin  to  the  Breton  deputies,  who 
already  met  together  at  Versailles  to  consider  the 
course  of  proceeding  they  should  take.  When 
the  national  representatives  were  transferred  from 
Versailles  to  Paris,  the  Breton  deputies  and  those 
of  the  assembly  who  were  of  their  views  held 
their  sittings  in  the  old  convent  of  the  Jacobins, 
which  subsequently  gave  its  name  to  their  meet- 
ings. It  did  not  at  first  cease  to  be  a  preparatory 
assembly,  but  as  all  things  increase  in  time,  the 
Jacobin  Club  did  not  confine  itself  to  influencing 
the  assembly ;  it  sought  also  to  influence  the 
municipality  and  the  people,  and  received  as  as- 
sociates members  of  the  municipality  and  com- 
mon citizens.  Its  organization  became  more 
regular,  its  action  more  powerful ;  its  sittings 
were  regularly  reported  in  the  papers  ;  it  created 
branch  clubs  In  the  provinces,  and  raised  by  the 
side  of  legal  power  another  power  which"  first 
counselled  and  then  conducted  it.  The  Jacobin 
Club,  as  it  lost  its  primitive  character  and  be- 
came a  popular  assembly,  had  been  forsaken  b}' 
part  of  its  founders.  The  latter  established  an- 
other society  on  the  plan  of  the  old  one,  under 
the  name  of  the  Club  of  '89.  Sieyes,  Chapelier, 
Lafayette,  La  Rochefoucauld,  directed  it,  as 
Lameth  and  Barnave  directed  that  of  the  Jacobins. 
Mirabeau  l)elonged  to  both,  and  by  both  was 
equally  courted.  These  clubs,  of  which  the  one 
prevailed  in  the  assembly,  and  the  other  amongst 
the  people,  were  attached  to  the  new  order  of 
things,  though  in  different  degrees.  The  aris- 
tocracy sought  to  attack  the  revolution  with  its 
own  arms:  it  opened  royalist  clubs  to  oppose  the 
popular  clubs.  That  first  established,  under  the 
name  of  the  Club  des  Impartiaux,  could  not 
last  because  it  addressed  itself  to  no  class  opinion. 
Reappearing  under  the  name  of  the  Club  Monar- 
chique,  it  included  among  its  members  all  those 
whose  views  it  represented.  It  sought  to  render 
itself  popular  with  the  lower  classes,  and  dis- 
tributed bread  ;  but,  far  from  accepting  its  over- 
tures, the  people  considered  such  establishments 
as  a  counter-revolutionary  movement.  It  dis- 
turbed their  sittings,  and  obliged  them  several 
times  to  change  their  place  of  meeting.  At 
length,  the  municipal  authority  found  itself 
obliged,  in  January,  1791,  to  close  this  club,  which 
had  been  the  cause  of  several  riots." — F.  A. 
Mignet,  Hi.it.  of  the  French  Bev.,  ch.  3.— "At  the 
end  of  1790  the  number  of  Jacobin  Clubs  was 
200,  many  of  which  —  like  the  one  in  Marseilles 
—  contained  more  than  a  thousand  members. 
Their  organization  extended  through  the  whole 
kingdom,  and  every  impulse  given  at  the  centre 
in  Paris  was  felt  at  the  extremities.  ...  It  was 
far  indeed  from  embracing  the  majority  of  adult 
Frenchmen,  but  even  at  that  time  it  had  undoubt- 
edly become  —  by  means  of  its  strict  unity  —  the 
greatest  power  in  the  kingdom." — H.  von  Sybel, 
Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Bev.,  bk.  1,  ch.  5  (v.  1).—"  This 
Jacobin  Club  soon  divided  itself  into  three  other 
clubs :  first,  that  party  which  looked  upon  the 
Jacobins  as  lukewarm  patriots  left  it,  and  con- 
stituted themselves  into  the  Club  of  the  Corde- 
lier.?, where  Danton's  voice  of  thunder  made  the 
halls  ring  ;  and  Camille  Desmoulins'  light,  glanc- 
ing wit  played  with  momentous  subjects.  The 
other  party,  which  looked  upon  the  Jacobins  as 
too  fierce,  constituted  itself  into  the  'Club  of  1789  ; 
friends  of  the  monarchic  constitution  ; '  and  after- 


1302 


FRANCE,  1790. 


European  Coalition 
taking  form. 


FRANCE,   1790-1791. 


wards  named  Feuillant's  Club,  because  it  met 
in  the  Feuillant  Convent.  Lafayette  was  their 
chief;  supported  by  the  'respectable'  patriots. 
These  clubs  generated  many  others,  and  the 
provinces  imitated  them." — G.  H.  Lewes,  Life  of 
Robespierre,  ch.  10. — "The  Cordeliers  were  a 
Parisian  club ;  the  Jacobins  an  immense  associa- 
tion extending  throughout  France.  But  Paris 
would  stir  and  rise  at  the  fury  of  the  Cordeliers ; 
and  Paris  being  once  in  motion,  the  political 
revolutionists  were  absolutely  obliged  to  follow. 
Individuality  was  very  powerful  among  the  Cor- 
deliers. Their  journalists,  Marat,  Desmoulins, 
Freron,  Robert,  Hebert  and  Fabre  d'figlantine, 
wrote  each  for  himself.  Danton,  the  omnipotent 
orator,  would  never  write ;  but,  by  way  of  com- 
pensation, Marat  and  Desmoulins,  who  stam- 
mered or  lisped,  used  principally  to  write,  and 
seldom  spoke.  .  .  .  The  Cordeliers  formed  a  sort 
of  tribe,  all  living  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
club."— J.  Michelet,  Hist.  View  of  the  Fr.  Bev., 
hk.  4,  ch.  7  and  5. 

Also  in:  T.  Carlyle,  The  Fr.  Bev.,  v.  2,  bk.  1, 
eh.  5.— H.  A.  Taine,  The  Fr.  Bev.,  bk.  4  (o.  2). 

A.  D.  1790-1791. — Revolution  at  Avignon. 
— Reunion  of  the  old  Papal  province  with 
France  decreed. — "The  old  residence  of  the 
Popes  [Avignon]  remained  until  the  year  1789 
under  the  papal  government,  which,  from  its  dis- 
tance, exercised  its  authority  with  great  mild- 
ness, and  left  the  towns  and  villages  of  the 
country  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  great  degree  of 
independence.  The  general  condition  of  the 
population  was,  however,  much  the  same  as  in 
the  neighbouring  districts  of  France  —  agitation 
in  the  towns  and  miseiy  in  the  country.  It  is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  that  the  commotion  of 
August  4th  should  extend  itself  among  the  sub- 
jects of  the  Holy  see.  Here,  too,  castles  were 
burned,  black  mail  levied  on  the  monasteries, 
tithes  and  feudal  rights  abolished.  The  city  of 
Avignon  soon  became  the  centre  of  a  political 
agitation,  whose  first  object  was  to  throw  off  the 
papal  yoke,  and  then  to  unite  the  country  with 
France.  ...  In  June,  1790,  the  people  of 
Avignon  tore  down  the  papal  arms,  and  the 
Town  Council  sent  a  message  to  Paris  that 
Avignon  wished  to  be  united  to  France."  Some 
French  regiments  were  sent  to  the  city  to  main- 
tain order;  but  "the  greater  part  of  them  de- 
serted, and  marched  out  with  the  Democrats  of 
the  town  to  take  and  sack  the  little  town  of 
Cavaillon,  which  remained  faithful  to  the  Pope. 
From  this  time  forward  civil  war  raged  without 
intermission.  .  .  .  The  Constituent  Assembly,  on 
the  14th  of  September,  1791,  decreed  the  reunion 
of  the  country  with  France.  Before  the  new 
government  could  assert  its  authority,  fresh  and 
more  dreadful  atrocities  had  taken  place, "  ending 
with  the  fiendish  massacre  of  110  prisoners,  held 
by  a  band  of  rufiians  who  had  taken  possession 
of  the  papal  castle. — H.  von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  tlie 
French  Bev.,  bk.  3,  ch.  3  {v.  1). 

A.  D.  1790-1791. — The  oath  of  the  clergy. — 
First  movements  toward  the  European  coali- 
tion against  French  democracy. — Death  of 
Mirabeau. — The  King's  flight  and  arrest  at 
Varennes. — Rise  of  a  Republican  Party. — "By 
a  decree  of  November  27th,  1790,  the  Assembly 
required  the  clergy  to  take  an  oath  of  fidelity  to 
the  nation,  the  law  and  the  king,  and  to  main- 
tain the  constitution.  This  oath  they  were  to 
take  within  a  week,  on  pain  of  deprivation.  The 


King,  befoie  assenting  to  this  measure,  wished  to 
procure  the  consent  of  the  Pope,  but  was  per- 
suaded not  to  wait  for  it,  and  gave  his  sanction, 
December  3rd.  ...  Of  300  prelates  and  priests, 
who  had  seats  in  the  Assembly,  those  who  sat  on 
the  right  unanimously  refused  to  take  the  oath, 
while  those  who  sat  on  the  left  anticipated  the 
day  appointed  for  that  purpose.  Out  of  138 
archbishops  and  bishops,  only  four  consented  to 
swear,  Talleyrand,  Lomenie  de  Brienne  (now 
Archbishop  of  Sens),  the  Bishop  of  Orleans,  and 
the  Bishop  of  Viviers.  The  oath  was  also  re- 
fused by  the  great  majority  of  the  cures  and 
vicars,  amounting,  it  is  said,  to  50,000.  Hence 
arose  the  distinction  of  '  prgtres  sermentes  '  and 
'  insermentes, '  or  sworn  and  non-juring  priests. 
The  brief  of  Pius  VI.,  forbidding  the  oath,  was 
burnt  at  the  Palais  Royal,  as  well  as  a  mannikin 
representing  the  Pope  himself  in  his  pontificals. 
Many  of  the  deprived  ecclesiastics  refused  to  va- 
cate their  functions,  declared  their  successors 
intruders  and  the  sacraments  they  administered 
null,  and  excommunicated  all  who  recognised  and 
obeyed  them.  Louis  XVI.,  whose  religious  feel- 
ings were  very  strong,  was  perhaps  more  hurt 
by  these  attacks  upon  the  Church  than  even  by 
tliose  directed  against  his  own  prerogative.  The 
death  of  Mirabeau,  April  2nd  1791,  was  a  great 
loss  to  the  King,  though  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  his  exertions  could  have  saved  the  mon- 
archy. He  fell  a  victim  to  his  profligate  habits, 
assisted  probably  by  the  violent  exertions  he  had 
recently  made  in  the  Assembly.  .  .  .  He  was 
honoured  with  a  sumptuous  funeral  at  the  public 
expense,  to  which,  says  a  contemporary  histo- 
rian, nothing  but  grief  was  wanting.  In  fact,  to 
most  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly,  eclipsed 
by  his  splendid  talents  and  overawed  by  his  reck- 
less audacity,  his  death  was  a  relief.  .  .  .  After 
Mirabeau's  death,  Duport,  Barnave,  and  Lameth 
reigned  supreme  in  the  Assembly,  and  Robes- 
pierre became  more  prominent.  "The  King  had 
now  begun  to  fix  his  hopes  on  foreign  interven- 
tion. The  injuries  inflicted  by  the  decrees  of 
the  Assembly  on  August  4th  1789,  on  several 
princes  of  the  Empire,  through  their  possessions 
in  Alsace,  Franche  Comte,  and  Lorraine,  might 
afford  a  pretext  for  a  rupture  between  the  Ger- 
man Confederation  and  France.  .  .  .  The  Ger- 
man prelates,  injured  by  the  Civil  Constitution 
of  the  clergy,  were  among  the  first  to  complain. 
By  this  act  the  Elector  of  Mentz  was  deprived 
of  his  metropolitan  rights  over  the  bishoprics  of 
Strasburg  and  Spires;  the  Elector  of  Treves  of 
those  over  Metz,  Toul,  Verdun,  Nanci  and  St. 
Diez.  The  Bishops  of  Strasburg  and  Bale  lost 
their  diocesan  rights  in  Alsace.  Some  of  these 
princes  and  nobles  had  called  upon  the  Emperor 
and  the  German  body  in  January  1790,  for  pro- 
tection against  the  arbitrary  acts  of  the  National 
Assembly.  This  appeal  had  been  favourably 
entertained,  both  by  the  Emperor  Joseph  II.  and 
by  the  King  of  Prussia ;  and  though  the  Assem- 
bly offered  suitable  indemnities,  they  were  haugh- 
tily refused.  .  .  .  The  Spanish  and  Italian  Bour- 
bons were  naturally  inclined  to  support  their 
relative,  Louis  XVI.  .  .  .  The  King  of  Sardinia, 
connected  by  intermarriages  with  the  French 
Bourbons,  had  also  family  interests  to  maintain. 
Catherine  II.  of  Russia  had  witnessed,  with  hu- 
miliation and  alarm,  the  fruits  of  the  philosophy 
which  she  had  patronised,  and  was  opposed  to 
the  new  order  of  things  in  Prance.  .  .  .  All  the 


1303 


FRANCE,  1790-1791. 


The  King's  flight 
to  Varennes. 


FRANCE,  1791. 


materials  existed  for  an  extensive  coalition  against 
Frencli  democracy.  In  this  posture  of  affairs  the 
Count  d'Artois,  accompanied  by  Calonne,  who 
served  him  as  a  sort  of  minister,  and  by  the 
Count  deDurfort.who  had  been  despatched  from 
the  French  Court,  had  a  conference  with  the 
Emperor,  now  Leopold  II.,  at  Mantua,  in  May 
1791,  in  which  it  was  agreed  that,  towards  the 
following  July,  Austria  should  march  35,000  men 
towards  the  frontiers  of  Flanders ;  the  German 
Circles  15,000  towards  Alsace;  the  Swiss  15,000 
towards  the  Lyonnais;  the  King  of  Sardinia 
15,000  towards  Dauphine;  while  Spain  was  to 
hold  20,000  in  readiness  in  Catalonia.  This  agree- 
ment, for  there  was  not,  as  some  writers  have 
supposed,  any  formal  treaty,  was  drawn  up  by 
Calonne,  and  amended  with  the  Emperor's  own 
hand.  But  the  large  force  to  be  thus  assembled 
was  intended  only  as  a  threatening  demonstra- 
tion, and  hostilities  were  not  to  be  actually  com- 
menced without  the  sanction  of  a  congress.  .  .  . 
The  King's  situation  had  now  become  intolerably 
irksome.  He  was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a 
prisoner  at  Paris.  A  trip,  which  he  wished  to 
make  to  St.  Cloud  during  the  Easter  of  1791,  was 
denounced  at  the  Jacobin  Club  as  a  pretext  for 
flight;  and  when  he  attempted  to  leave  the  Tuil- 
eries,  April  18th,  the  tocsin  was  rung,  his  car- 
riage was  surrounded  by  the  mob,  and  he  was 
compelled  to  return  to  the  palace.  ...  A  few 
days  after  .  .  .  the  leaders  of  the  Revolution, 
who  appear  to  have  suspected  his  negociations 
abroad,  exacted  that  he  should  address  a  circular 
to  his  ambassadors  at  foreign  courts,  in  which  he 
entirely  approved  the  Revolution,  assumed  the 
title  of  'Restorer  of  French  liberty,'  and  utterly 
repudiated  the  notion  that  he  was  not  free  and 
master  of  liis  actions."  But  the  King  immedi- 
ately nullified  the  circular  by  despatching  secret 
agents  with  letters  "in  which  he  notified  that 
any  sanction  he  might  give  to  the  decrees  of  the 
Assembly  was  to  be  reputed  null :  that  his  pre- 
tended approval  of  the  constitution  was  to  be 
Interpreted  in  an  opposite  sense,  and  that  the 
more  strongly  he  should  seem  to  adhere  to  it,  the 
more  he  should  desire  to  be  liberated  from  the 
captivity  in  which  he  was  held.  Louis  soon  after 
resolved  on  his  unfortunate  flight  to  the  army  of 
the  Marquis  de  Bouille  at  Montmedy.  .  .  .  Hav- 
ing, after  some  hair-breadth  escapes,  succeeded  in 
quitting  Paris  in  a  travelling  berlin,  June  20th, 
they  [the  King,  Queen,  and  family]  reached  St. 
Menehould  in  safety.  But  here  the  King  was 
recognised  by  Drouet,  the  son  of  the  postmaster, 
who,  mounting  his  horse,  pursued  the  royal  fu- 
gitives to  Varennes,  raised  an  alarm,  and  caused 
them  to  be  captured  when  they  already  thought 
themselves  out  of  danger.  In  consequence  of 
their  being  rather  later  than  was  expected,  the 
military  preparations  that  had  been  made  for 
their  protection  entirely  failed.  The  news  of  the 
King's  flight  filled  Paris  with  consternation.  The 
Assembly  assumed  all  the  executive  power  of 
the  Government,  and  when  the  news  of  the  King's 
arrest  arrived,  they  despatched  Barnave,  Latour, 
Maubourg  and  Petion  to  conduct  him  and  his 
family  back  to  Paris.  .  .  .  Notices  had  been 
posted  up  in  Paris,  that  those  who  applauded 
the  King  should  be  horsewhipped,  and  that  those 
who  insulted  him  should  be  hanged;  hence  he 
was  received  on  entering  the  capital  with  a  dead 
silence.  The  streets,  however,  were  traversed 
without  accident  to  the  Tuileries,    but  is  the 


royal  party  were  alighting,  a  rush  was  made 
upon  them  by  some  ruffians,  and  they  were  witli 
difficulty  saved  from  inj  ury.  The  King's  brother, 
the  Count  of  Provence,  who  had  fled  at  the  same 
time  by  a  different  route,  escaped  safely  to  Brus- 
sels. This  time  the  King's  intention  to  fly  could 
not  be  denied;  he  had,  indeed,  himself  pro- 
claimed it,  by  sending  to  the  Assembly  a  mani- 
fest, in  which  he  exjilained  his  reasons  for  it, 
declared  that  he  did  not  intend  to  quit  the  king- 
dom, expressed  his  desire  to  restore  liberty  and 
establish  a  constitution,  but  annulled  all  that  he 
had  done  during  the  last  two  years.  .  .  .  The 
King,  after  his  return,  was  provisionally  sus- 
pended from  his  functions  by  a  decree  of  the 
Assembly,  June  25th.  Guards  were  placed  over 
him  and  tlie  Queen ;  the  gardens  of  tlie  Tuileries 
assumed  the  appearance  of  a  camp;  sentinels 
were  stationed  on  the  roof  of  the  Palace,  and 
even  in  the  Queen's  bedchamber.  .  .  .  From 
the  period  of  the  King's  flight  to  Varennes  must 
be  dated  the  first  decided  appearance  of  a  repub- 
lican party  in  France.  During  his  absence  the 
Assembly  had  been  virtually  sovereign,  and  hence 
men  took  occasion  to  say,  '  You  see  the  public 
peace  has  been  maintained,  affairs  have  gone  on 
in  the  usual  way  in  the  King's  absence. '  The  chief 
advocates  of  a  republic  were  Brissot,  Condorcet, 
and  the  recently-established  club  of  the  Corde- 
liers. .  .  .  The  arch-democrat,Thomas  Payne,  who 
was  now  at  Paris,  also  endeavoured  to  excite  the 
populace  against  the  King.  The  Jacobin  Club 
had  not  yet  gone  this  length;  they  were  for 
bringing  Louis  XVI.  to  trial  and  deposing  him, 
but  for  maintaining  the  monarchy." — T.  H.  Dyer, 
Mist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  1,  ch.  2-3  (».  4). 

Also  m:  J.  Michelet,  Hist.  View  of  the  French 
Rev.,  bk.  4,  ch.  8-14. — M'me  Campan,  Memoirs  of 
Marie  Antoinette,  ».  3,  ch.  5-7.  —  Marquis  de 
Bouille,  Memoirs,  eli.  8-11. — Duchess  deTourzel, 
Memoirs,  D.  1,  ch.  12. — A.  B.  Cochrane,  Fnnicis 
I.,  and  other  Historical  Studies,  v.  3  {The  Flight 
of  Varennes). 

A.  D.  1791  (July— September).— Attitude  of 
Foreign  Powers. — Coolness  of  Austria  to- 
wards the  Emigres. —  The  Declaration  of 
Pilnitz. — Completion  of  the  Constitution. — 
Restoration  of  the  King. — Tumult  in  the 
Champs  de  Mars. — Dissolution  of  the  Con- 
stituent National  Assembly. — "  On  the  27th  of 
Julj',  Prince  Reuss  presented  a  memorial  [from 
the  Court  of  Austria]  to  the  Court  of  Berlin,  in 
which  the  Emperor  explained  at  length  his  views 
of  a  European  Concert.  It  was  drawn  up, 
throughout,  in  Leopold's  usual  cautious  and 
circumspect  manner.  ...  In  case  an  armed  in- 
tervention should  appear  necessary  —  they  would 
take  into  consideration  the  future  constitution  of 
France ;  but  in  doing  so  they  were  to  renounce, 
in  honour  of  the  great  cause  in  which  they  were 
engaged,  all  views  of  selfish  aggrandizement. 
We  see  what  a  small  part  the  desire  for  war 
played  in  the  drawing  up  of  this  far-seeing  plan. 
The  document  repeatedly  urged  that  no  step 
ought  to  be  taken  without  the  concurrence  of  all 
the  Powers,  and  especially  of  England ;  and  as 
England's  decided  aversion  to  every  kind  of  in- 
terference was  well  known,  this  stipulation  alone 
was  suflicient  to  stamp  upon  the  whole  scheme, 
the  character  of  a  harmless  demonstration."  At 
the  same  time  Catharine  II.  of  Russia,  released 
from  war  with  the  Turks,  and  bent  upon  the 
destruction  of  Poland,  desired  "to  implicate  the 


1304 


FRANCE,  1791. 


The  Constitution 
Completed. 


FRANCE,  1791. 


Emperor  as  inextricably  as  possible  in  the  French 
quarrel,  in  order  1o  deprive  Poland  of  its  most 
powerful  iirotector;  she  therefore  entered  witli 
the  greatest  zeal  into  tlie  ncgociations  for  tiie 
support  of  Louis  XVI.  Her  old  opponent,  the 
brilliant  King  Gustavus  of  Sweden,  declared  his 
readiness — on  receipt  of  a  large  subsidy  from  ■ 
Russia  —  to  conduct  a  Swedish  army  by  sea  to  the  I 
coast  of  Flanders,  and  thence,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  Bouille,  against  Paris.  .  .  .  But,  of  course, 
every  word  he  uttered  was  only  an  additional 
warning  to  Leopold  to  keep  tlie  peace.  .  .  . 
Under  these  circumstances  he  [tlie  Emperor]  was 
most  disagreeably  surprised  on  the  20th  of 
August,  a  few  days  before  his  departure  for 
Pillnitz,  by  the  sudden  and  entirely  unannounced 
and  unexpected  arrival  in  Vienna  of  the  Count 
d'Artois.  It  was  not  possible  to  refuse  to  see 
him,  but  Leopold  made  no  secret  to  him  of  the 
real  position  of  affairs.  ...  He  asked  permis- 
sion to  accompany  the  Emperor  to  Pillnitz,  which 
the  latter,  with  cool  politeness,  said  that  he  had 
no  scruple  in  granting,  but  that  even  there  no 
change  of  policy  would  take  place.  .  .  .  Filled 
with  such  sentiments,  the  Emperor  Leopold  set 
out  for  the  conference  with  his  new  ally;  and 
the  King  of  Prussia  came  to  meet  him  with 
entirely  accordant  views.  .  .  .  The  representa- 
tions of  d'Artois,  therefore,  made  just  as  little 
impression  at  Pillnitz,  as  they  had  done,  a  week 
before,  at  Vienna.  ...  On  the  37th,  d'Artois  re- 
ceived the  joint  answer  of  the  two  Sovereigns, 
the  tone  and  purport  of  wliich  clearly  testitied  to 
the  sentiments  of  its  authoi-s.  .  .  .  The  Emperor 
and  King  gave  their  sanction  to  the  peaceable 
residence  of  individual  Emigres  in  their  States, 
but  declared  that  no  armed  preparations  would 
be  allowed  before  the  conclusion  of  an  agreement 
between  the  European  Powers.  To  this  rejec- 
tion the  two  Monarchs  added  a  proposal  of  their 
own  —  contained  in  a  joint  declaration  —  in  which 
they  spoke  of  the  restoration  of  order  and  mon- 
archy in  France  as  a  question  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance to  the  whole  of  Europe.  Tliey  signified 
their  intention  of  inviting  the  cooperation  of  all 
the  European  Powers.  .  .  .  But  as  it  was  well 
ascertained  that  England  would  take  no  part,  the 
expressions  they  cliose  were  really  equivalent  to 
a  declaration  of  non-intervention,  and  were  evi- 
dently made  use  of  by  Leopold  solely  to  intimi- 
date the  Parisian  democrats.  .  .  .  Thus  ended 
the  conference  of  Pillnitz,  after  the  two  Monarchs 
had  agreed  to  protect  the  constitmion  of  the 
Empire,  to  encourage  the  Elector  of  Saxonj'  lo 
accept  the  crown  of  Poland,  and  to  afford  each 
other  friendly  aid  in  every  quarter.  The  state- 
ment, therefore,  which  has  been  a  thousand  times 
repeated,  that  the  first  coalition  for  an  attack  on 
the  French  Revolution  was  formed  on  this  occa- 
sion, has  been  shown  to  be  utterly  without  foun- 
dation. As  soon  as  the  faintest  gleam  of  a  recon- 
ciliation between  Louis  and  the  National  Assembly 
appeared,  the  cause  of  the  Emigres  was  aban- 
doned by  the  German  Courts." — H.  Von  Sybel, 
History  of  the  FrencJt  Revolution,  bk.  3,  cli.  6 
(».  1),  —  At  Paris,  meantime,  "the  commissioners 
charged  to  make  tlieir  report  on  the  affair  of  Va- 
rennes  presented  it  on  tlie  16th  of  July.  In  the 
journey,  they  said,  there  was  nothing  culpable; 
and  even  if  there  were,  the  King  was  inviolable. 
Dethronement  could  not  result  from  it,  since  the 
King  had  not  staid  away  long  enough,  and  had 
not  resisted  the  summons  of  tlie  legislative  body. 


Robespierre,  Buzot,  and  Petion  repeated  all  the 
well  known  arguments  against  the  inviolability. 
Duport,  Barnave,  and  Salles  answered  them,  and 
it  was  at  length  resolved  that  the  King  could  not 
be  brought  to  trial  on  account  of  his  flight.  .  .  . 
No  sooner  was  this  resolution  passed  than  Robes- 
pierre rose,  and  protested  strongly  against  it,  in 
the  name  of  humanity.  On  the  evening  preced- 
ing this  decision,  a  great  tumult  had  taken  place 
at  the  Jacobins.  A  petition  to  the  Assembly 
was  there  drawn  up,  praying  it  to  declare  that 
the  King  was  deposed  as  a  perfidious  traitor  to 
his  oaths,  and  that  it  would  seek  to  supply  his 
place  by  all  the  constitutional  means.  It  was 
i-esolved  that  this  petition  should  be  carried  on 
the  following  day  to  the  Champ  de  Mars,  where 
every  one  might  sign  it  on  the  altar  of  the  coun- 
try. Next  day,  it  was  accordingly  carried  to  the 
place  agreed  upon,  and  the  crowd  of  tlie  sedi- 
tious was  reinforced  by  that  of  the  curious,  who 
wished  to  be  spectators  of  the  event.  At  this 
moment  the  decree  was  passed,  so  that  it  was 
now  too  late  to  petition.  Lafayette  arrived, 
broke  down  the  barricades  already  erected,  was 
threatened  and  even  fired  at,  but  ...  at  length 
prevailed  on  the  populace  to  retire.  .  .  .  But 
the  tumult  was  soon  renewed.  Two  invalids, 
who  happened  to  be,  nobody  knows  for  what 
purpose,  under  the  altar  of  the  country,  were 
murdered,  and  then  the  uproar  became  un- 
bounded. The  Assembly  sent  for  the  munici- 
pality, and  charged  it  to  preserve  public  order. 
Bailly  repaired  to  the  Champ  de  Mars,  ordered 
the  red  flag  to  be  unfurled,  and,  by  virtue  of 
martial  law,  summoned  the  seditious  to  retire. 
.  .  .  Lafayette  at  first  ordered  a  few  shots  to  be 
lired  in  the  air;  the  crowd  quitted  the  altar  of 
the  country,  but  soon  rallied.  Thus  driven  to 
extremity,  he  gave  the  word,  '  Fire  I '  The  first 
discharge  killed  some  of  the  rioters.  Their  num- 
ber has  been  exaggerated.  Some  have  reduced 
it  to  30,  others  have  raised  it  to  400,  and  others 
to  several  thousand.  The  last  statement  was  be- 
lieved at  the  moment,  and  the  consternation 
became  general.  .  .  .  Lafayette  and  Bailly  were 
vehemently  reproached  for  the  proceedings  in 
the  Champ  de  Mars;  but  both  of  them,  consider- 
ing it  their  duty  to  observe  the  law,  and  to  risk 
popularity  and  life  in  its  execution,  felt  neither 
regret  nor  fear  for  what  they  had  done.  The 
factions  were  overawed  by  the  energy  which 
they  displayed.  .  .  .  About  this  time  the  As- 
sembly came  to  a  determination  which  has  since 
been  censured,  but  the  result  of  which  did  not 
prove  so  mischievous  as  it  has  been  supposed.  It 
decreed  that  none  of  its  members  should  be  re- 
elected. Robespierre  was  the  proposer  of  this 
resolution,  and  it  was  attributed  to  the  envy 
which  he  felt  against  his  colleagues,  among  whom 
he  had  not  shone.  .  .  .  The  new  Assembly  was 
thus  deprived  of  men  whose  enthusiasm  was 
somewhat  abated,  and  whose  legislative  science 
was  matured  by  an  experience  of  three  years. 
.  .  .  The  constitution  was  .  .  .  completed  with 
some  haste,  and  submitted  to  the  King  for  his 
acceptance.  From  that  moment  his  freedom  was 
restored  to  him ;  or,  if  that  expression  be  objected 
to,  the  strict  watch  kept  over  the  palace  ceased. 
.  .  .  After  a  certain  number  of  days  he  declared 
that  he  accepted  the  constitution.  ...  He  re- 
paired to  the  Assembly,  where  he  was  received 
as  in  tlie  most  brilliant  times.  Lafayette,  who 
never  forgot  to  repair  the  inevitable  evils  of 


1305 


FRANCE,  1791. 


The  Girondists 
and  the  Mountain. 


FRANCE,  1791. 


political  troubles,  proposed  a  general  amnesty  for 
all  acts  connected  'n-ltli  the  Revolution,  which 
was  proclaimed  amidst  shouts  of  joy,  and  the 
prisons  were  instantly  thrown  open.  At  length, 
on  the  30th  of  September  [1791],  Thouret,  the 
last  president,  declared  that  the  Constituent  As- 
sembly had  terminated  its  sittings. " —  A.  Thiers, 
Hist,  of  the  French  Bev.  (Am.  ed.),  v.  1,  pp.  186- 
193. 

Also  IN:  M'me  de  Stael,  Considerations  on  the 
French  Rev.,  i)t.  2,  ch.  32-23,  andpt.  3,  ch.  1-2.— 
H.  C.  Lockwood,  Constitutional  Hist,  of  France, 
ch.  1.,  and  app.  1. 

A.  D.  1791  (August).— Insurrection  of  slaves 
in  San  Domingo.    See  Hayti:  A.  D.  1633-1803. 

A.  D.  1791  (September). — Removal  of  all 
disabilities  from  the  Jews.  See  Jews:  A.  D. 
1791. 

A.  D.  1791  (October). — The  meeting  of  the 
Legislative  Assembly. — Its  party  divisions. — 
The  Girondists  and  their  leaders. — The  Moun- 
tain.— "  The  most  glorious  destiny  was  predicted 
for  the  Constitution,  yet  it  did  not  live  a  twelve 
month;  the  Assembly  that  was  to  apply  it  was 
but  a  transition  between  the  Constitutional  Mon- 
archy and  the  Republic.  It  was  because  the 
Revolution  partook  much  more  of  a  social  than 
of  a  political  overthrow.  The  Constitution  had 
done  all  it  could  for  the  political  part,  but  the 
social  fabric  remained  to  be  reformed ;  the  ancient 
privileged  classes  had  been  scotched,  but  not 
killed.  .  .  .  The  new  Legislative  Assembly 
[which  met  October  1,  its  members  having  been 
elected  before  the  dissolution  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly]  was  composed  of  745  deputies,  mostly 
chosen  from  the  middle  classes  and  devoted  to 
the  Revolution ;  those  of  the  Right  and  Extreme 
Right  going  by  the  name  of  Peuillants,  those  of 
the  Left  and  Extreme  Left  by  the  name  of  Jaco- 
bins. The  Right  was  composed  of  Constitution- 
alists, who  counted  on  the  support  of  the 
National  Guard  and  departmental  authorities. 
Their  ideas  of  the  Revolution  were  embodied  in 
the  Constitution.  .  .  .  They  kept  up  some  rela- 
tions with  the  Court  by  means  of  Barnave  and 
the  Lameths,  but  their  pillar  outside  the  Assem- 
bly, their  trusty  counsellor,  seems  to  have  been 
Lafayette.  .  .  .  The  Left  was  composed  of  men 
resolved  at  all  risks  to  further  the  Revolution, 
even  at  the  expense  of  the  Constitution.  They 
intended  to  go  as  far  as  a  Republic,  only  they 
lacked  common  unity  of  views,  and  did  not  form 
a  compact  body.  .  .  .  They  reckoned  among 
their  numbers  Vergniaud,  Guadet,  and  Gensonne, 
deputies  of  the  Gironde  [the  Bordeaux  region,  on 
the  Garonne],  powerful  and  vehement  orators, 
and  from  whom  their  party  afterwards  took  the 
name  of  '  Girondins  ' ;  also  Brissot  [de  Warville] 
(born  1754),  a  talented  journalist,  who  had  drawn 
up  the  petition  for  the  King's  deposition ;  and  Con- 
dorcet  (born  1743),  an  ultra-liberal,  but  a  brilliant 
philosopher.  Their  leader  outside  the  Assembly 
was  Petion  (born  1753),  a  cold,  calculating,  and 
dissembling  Republican,  enjoying  great  popu- 
larity with  the  masses.  The  Extreme  Left,  occu- 
pying in  small  numbers  the  raised  seats  in  the 
Assembly,  from  which  circumstance  they  after- 
wards took  the  name  of  'the  Mountain,' were 
auxiliaries  of  the  '  Girondins '  in  their  attempts 
to  further  a  Revolution  which  should  be  entirely 
in  the  interest  of  the  people.  Their  inspirers 
outside  the  Assembly  were  Robespierre  (born 
1759),  who  controlled  the  club  of  the  Jacobins  by 


his  dogmatic  rigorism  and  fame  for  integrity; 
and  Danton  (born  1759),  surnamed  the  Mirabeau 
of  the  '  Breechless '  (Sansculottes),  a  bold  and 
daring  spirit,  who  swayed  the  new  club  of  the 
Cordeliers.  The  Centre  was  composed  of  nonen- 
tities, their  moderation  was  inspired  by  fear,  hence 
they  nearly  always  voted  with  the  Left." — H. 
Van  Laun,  The  French  Revolutionary  Epoch,  bk. 
1,  ch.  3,  sect.  3  (v.  1).— "The  department  of  the 
Gironde  had  given  birth  to  a  new  political  party 
in  the  twelve  citizens  who  formed  its  depu- 
ties. .  .  .  The  names  (obscure  and  unknown  up 
to  this  period),  of  Ducos,  Guadet,  Lafond-Lade- 
bat,  Grangeueuve,  Gensonne,  Vergniaud,  were 
about  to  rise  into  notice  and  renown  with  the 
storms  and  disasters  of  their  country ;  they  were 
the  men  who  were  destined  to  give  that  impulse 
to  the  Revolution  that  had  hitherto  remained  in 
doubt  and  indecision,  before  which  it  still  trem- 
bled with  apprehension,  and  which  was  to  precipi- 
tate it  into  a  republic.  Why  was  this  impulse 
fated  to  have  birth  in  the  department  of  the 
Gironde  and  not  in  Paris  ?  Nought  but  conjec- 
tures can  be  offered  on  this  subject.  .  .  .  Bor- 
deaux was  a  commercial  city,  and  commerce, 
which  requires  liberty  through  interest,  at  last 
desires  it  through  a  love  of  freedom.  Bordeaux 
was  the  great  commercial  link  between  America 
and  France,  and  their  constant  intercourse  with 
America  had  communicated  to  the  Gironde  their 
love  for  free  institutions.  Moreover  Bordeaux 
.  .  .  was  the  birthplace  of  Montaigne  and  Mon- 
tesquieu, those  two  great  republicans  of  the 
French  school." — A.  de  Lamartiue,  Hist,  of  the 
Oirondists,  bk.  i,  sect.  1  (v.  1). — "In  the  new 
National  Assembly  there  was  only  one  powerful 
and  active  party  —  that  of  the  Gironde.  .  .  . 
When  we  use  the  term  '  parties '  in  reference  to 
this  Assembly,  nothing  more  is  meant  by  it  than 
small  groups  of  from  12  to  30  persons,  who  bore 
the  sway  in  the  rostra  and  in  the  Committees, 
and  who  alternately  carried  with  them  the  aim- 
less crowd  of  Deputies.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
at  the  commencement  of  their  session,  130  Depu- 
ties entered  their  names  among  the  Jacobins,  and 
about  200  among  the  Feuillants,  but  this  had  no 
lasting  influence  on  the  divisions,  and  the  major- 
ity wavered  under  the  influence  of  temporary 
motives.  The  party  which  was  regarded  as  the 
'  Right '  had  no  opportunity  for  action,  but  saw 
themselves,  from  the  very  first,  obliged  to  assume 
an  attitude  of  defence.  .  .  .  Outside  the  Cham- 
ber the  beau  ideal  of  this  party,  —  General  La- 
fayette,—  declared  himself  in  favour  of  an  Ameri- 
can Senate,  but  without  any  of  the  energy  of 
real  conviction.  As  he  had  defended  the  Mon- 
archy solely  from  a  sense  of  duty,  while  all  the 
feelings  of  his  heart  were  inclined  towards  a 
Republic,  so  now,  though  he  acknowledged  the 
necessity  of  an  upper  Chamber,  the  existing 
Constitution  appeared  to  him  to  possess  a  more 
ideal  beauty.  He  never  attained,  on  this  point, 
either  to  clear  ideas  or  decided  actions ;  and  it 
was  at  this  period  that  he  resigned  his  command 
of  the  National  guard  in  Paris,  and  retired  for  a 
while  to  his  estate  in  Auvergne.  .  .  .  The  Giron- 
dist Deputies  .  .  .  were  distinguished  among  the 
new  members  of  the  Assembly  by  personal  dig- 
nity, regular  education,  and  natural  ability ;  and 
were,  moreover,  as  ardent  in  their  radicalism  as 
any  Parisian  demagogue.  They  consequently 
soon  became  the  darlings  of  all  those  zealous 
patriots  for  whom  the  Cordeliers  were  too  dirty 


I30n 


FRANCE,  1791. 


Emigres  and 
ejected  Priests. 


FRANCE,  1791-1793. 


and  the  Feuillants  too  luke  warm.  External  a<l- 
vantages  are  not  without  their  weight,  even  iu 
the  most  terrible  political  crises,  and  the  Giron- 
dists owe  to  the  magic  of  their  eloquence,  and 
especially  to  that  of  Vergniaud,  an  enduring 
fame,  which  neither  their  principles  nor  their 
deeds  would  have  earned  for  them.  .  .  .  The 
representatives  of  Bordeaux  had  never  occupied 
a  leading  position  in  the  Girondist  party,  to 
which  they  had  given  its  name.  The  real  leader- 
ship of  the  Gironde  fell  singularly  enough  into 
the  hands  of  an  obscure  writer,  a  political  lady, 
and  a  priest  who  carried  on  Ms  operations  behind 
the  scenes.  It  was  their  hands  that  overthrew 
Ihe  throne  of  the  Capets,  and  spread  revolution 
over  Europe.  .  .  .  The  writer  in  this  trio  was 
Brissot,  who  on  the  16th  of  July  had  wished  to 
proclaim  the  Republic,  and  who  now  represented 
the  capital  in  the  National  Assembly,  as  a  con- 
stitutional member.  .  .  .  While  Brissot  shaped 
the  foreign  policy  of  the  Girondist  party,  its 
home  affairs  were  directed  by  Marie  Jeanne  Ro- 
land, wife  of  the  quondam  Inspector  of  Factories 
at  Lyons,  with  whom  she  had  come  the  year  be- 
fore to  Paris,  and  immediately  thrown  herself  into 
the  whirlpool  of  political  life.  As  early  as  the 
year  1789,  she  had  written  to  a  friend,  that  the 
National  Assembly  must  demand  two  illustrious 
heads,  or  all  would  be  lost.  .  .  .  She  was  ...  36 
years  old,  not  beautiful,  but  interesting,  enthusi- 
astic and  indefatigable;  with  noble  aims,  but 
incapable  of  discerning  the  narrow  line  which 
separates  right  from  wrong.  .  .  .  When  warned 
by  a  friend  of  the  unruly  nature  of  the  Parisian 
mob,  she  replied,  that  bloodhounds  were  after  all 
indispensable  for  starting  the  game.  ...  A  less 
conspicuous,  but  not  less  important,  part  in  this 
association,  was  played  by  the  Abbe  SieySs.  He 
did  what  neither  Brissot  nor  Mad.  Roland  could 
have  done  by  furnishing  his  party  with  a  compre- 
hensive and  prospective  plan  of  operations.  .  .  . 
Their  only  clearly  defined  objects  were  to  possess 
themselves  of  the  reins  of  government,  to  carry 
on  the  Revolution,  and  to  destroy  the  Monarchy 
by  every  weapon  within  their  reach." — H.  von 
Sybel,  Mst.  of  the  Fi-ench  Rev.,  bk.  3,  ch.  1  {v.  1). 

Also  in  :  H.  A.  Taine,  The  French  Rev. ,  bk.  4 
(».  2). — See,  also,  below. 

A.  D.  1791-1792. —  Growth  and  spread  of 
anarchy  and  civil  war. — Activity  of  the  Emi- 
gres and  the  ejected  priests. — Decrees  against 
them  vetoed  by  the  King. — The  Girondists  in 
control  of  the  government. — War  with  the 
German  powers  forced  on  by  them. — "  It  was 
an  ominous  proof  of  the  little  confidence  felt  by 
serious  men  in  the  permanence  of  the  new 
Constitution,  that  the  funds  fell  when  the  King 
signed  it.  All  the  chief  municipal  posts  in  Paris 
were  passing  into  the  hands  of  Republicans,  and 
when  Bailly,  in  November,  ceased  to  be  Mayor 
of  Paris,  he  was  succeeded  in  that  great  office 
by  Petion,  a  vehement  and  intolerant  Jacobin. 
Lafayette  had  resigned  the  command  of  the 
National  Guard,  which  was  then  divided  under 
six  commanders,  and  it  could  no  longer  be  counted 
on  to  support  the  cause  of  order.  Over  a  great 
part  of  France  there  was  a  total  insecurity  of  life 
and  property,  such  as  had  perhaps  never  before 
existed  in  a  civilised  country,  except  iu  times 
of  foreign  invasion  or  successful  rebellion.  Al- 
most all  the  towns  in  the  south  —  Marseilles, 
Toulon,  Nimes,  Aries,  Avignon,  Montpellier, 
Carpentras,  Aix,  Montauban  —  were  centres  of 


Republicanism,  brigandage,  or  anarchy.  The  mas- 
sacres of  Jourdain  at  Avignon,  in  October,  are 
conspicuous  even  among  the  horrors  of  the  Revo- 
lution. Caen  in  the  following  month  was  con- 
vulsed bj'  a  savage  and  bloody  civil  war.  The 
civil  constitution  of  the  clergy  having  been  con- 
demned by  the  Pope,  produced  an  open  schism, 
and  crowds  of  ejected  priests  were  exciting  the 
religious  fanaticism  of  the  peasantry.  In  some 
districts  in  the  south,  the  war  between  Catholic 
and  Protestant  was  raging  as  fiercely  as  in  the 
17th  century,  while  in  Brittany,  and  especially 
in  La  Vendee,  there  were  all  the  signs  of  a  great 
popular  insurrection  against  the  new  Govern- 
ment. Society  seemed  almost  in  dissolution,  and 
there  was  scarcely  a  department  in -which  law 
was  observed  and  property  secure.  The  price 
of  corn,  at  the  same  time,  was  rising  fast 
under  the  influence  of  a  bad  harvest  in  the  south, 
aggravated  by  the  want  of  specie,  the  deprecia- 
tion of  paper  money,  and  the  enormously  in- 
creased difficulties  of  transport.  The  peasantry 
were  combining  to  refuse  the  paper  money.  It 
was  falling  rapidly  in  value.  ...  In  the  mean 
time  the  stream  of  emigrants  continued  unabated, 
and  it  included  the  great  body  of  the  officers  of 
the  army  who  had  been  driven  from  the  regi- 
ments by  their  own  soldiers.  ...  At  Brussels, 
Worms,  and  Cobleutz,  emigrants  were  forming 
armed  organisations." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Jlist.  q/" 
Enr/.  in  the  18th  century,  ch.  21  {v.  5). — "The 
revolution  was  threatened  by  two  dangerous 
enemies,  the  emigrants,  who  were  urging  on  a 
foreign  invasion,  and  the  non-juring  bishoijs  and 
priests  who  were  doing  all  in  their  power  to  ex- 
cite domestic  rebellion.  The  latter  were  really 
the  more  dangerous.  .  .  .  The  Girondists  clam- 
oured for  repressive  measures.  On  the  30th  of 
October  it  was  decreed  that  the  count  of  Provence, 
unless  he  returned  within  two  months,  should 
forfeit  all  rights  to  the  regency.  On  the  9th  of 
November  an  edict  threatened  the  emigrants  with 
confiscation  and  death  unless  they  returned  to 
their  allegiance  before  the  end  of  the  year.  On 
the  29th  of  November  came  the  attack  upon  the 
non- j  urors.  They  were  called  ujjon  to  take  the  oath 
within  eight  days,  when  lists  were  to  be  drawn 
up  of  those  who  refused;  these  were  then  to 
forfeit  their  pensions,  and  if  any  disturbance 
took  place  in  their  district  they  were  to  be  re- 
moved from  it,  or  if  their  complicity  were  proved 
they  were  to  be  imprisoned  for  two  years.  The 
king  accepted  the  decree  against  his  brother,  but 
he  opposed  his  veto  to  the  other  two.  The  Gi- 
rondists and  Jacobins  eagerly  seized  the  oppor- 
tunity for  a  new  attack  upon  the  monarchy.  .  .  . 
Throughout  the  winter  attention  was  devoted 
almost  exclusively  to  foreign  affairs.  It  has  been 
seen  that  the  emperor  was  really  eager  for  peace, 
and  that  as  long  as  he  remained  in  that  mood 
there  was  little  risk  of  any  other  prince  taking 
the  initiative.  At  the  same  time  it  must  be  ac- 
knowledged that  Leopold's  tone  towards  the 
French  government  was  often  too  haughty  and 
menacing  to  be  conciliatory,  and  also  that  the 
open  preparations  of  the  emigrants  in  neighbour- 
ing states  constituted  an  insult  if  not  a  danger  to 
France.  The  Girondists,  the  most  susceptible  of 
men,  only  expressed  the  national  sentiment  in 
dwelling  upon  this  with  bitterness,  and  in  call- 
ing for  vengeance.  At  the  same  time  they  had 
conceived  the  definite  idea  that  their  own  sujirem- 
acy  could  best  be  obtained  and  secured  by  fore- 


1307 


FRANCE,  1791-1792. 


War  with  the 
German  Powers. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


ing  on  a  foreign  war.  This  was  expressly  avowed 
by  Brissot,  who  took  the  lead  of  the  party  iu  this 
matter.  Robespierre,  on  the  other  hand,  partly 
through  temperament  and  partly  through  jeal- 
ousy of  his  brilliant  rivals,  was  inclined  to  the  main- 
tenance of  peace.  But  on  this  point  the  Feuil- 
lants  were  agreed  with  the  Gironde,  and  so  a  vast 
majority  was  formed  to  force  the  unwilling  king 
and  ministers  into  war.  The  first  great  step  was 
tqkeu  when  Duportail,  who  had  charge  of  mili- 
tary affairs,  was  replaced  by  Narbonne,  a  Feuil- 
lant.  Louis  XVI.  was  compelled  to  issue  a  note 
(14  December,  1791)  to  the  emperor  and  to  the 
archbishop  of  Trier  to  the  effect  that  if  the  mili- 
tary force  of  the  emigrants  were  not  disbanded 
by  the  15th"  of  January  hostilities  would  be  com- 
menced against  the  elector.  The  latter  at  once 
ordered  the  cessation  of  the  military  preparations, 
but  the  emigrants  not  only  refused  to  obey  but 
actually  insulted  the  French  envoy.  Leopold 
expressed  his  desire  for  peace,  but  at  the  same 
time  declared  that  any  attack  on  the  electorate 
of  Trier  would  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  hostility 
to  the  empire.  These  answers  were  unsatis- 
factory, and  Narbonne  collected  three  armies  on 
the  frontiers,  under  the  command  of  Rocham- 
beau,  Lafayette,  and  Luckner,  and  amounting 
together  to  about  150,000  men.  On  the  35th  of 
January  an  explicit  declaration  was  demanded 
from  the  emperor,  with  a  threat  that  war  would 
be  declared  unless  a  satisfactory  answer  was  re- 
ceived by  the  4th  of  March.  Leopold  IL  saw  all 
his  hopes  of  maintaining  peace  in  western  Europe 
gradually  disappearing,  and  was  compelled  to 
bestir  himself.  .  .  .  On  the  7th  of  February  he 
finally  concluded  a  treaty  with  the  king  of 
Prussia.  ...  On  the  1st  of  March,  while  still 
hoping  to  avoid  a  quarrel,  Leopold  II.  died 
of  a  sudden  illness,  and  with  him  perished  the 
last  possibility  of  peace.  His  son  and  successor, 
Francis  II. ,  who  was  now  24,  had  neither  his 
father's  ability  nor  his  experience,  and  he  was 
naturally  more  easily  swayed  by  the  anti-revo- 
lutionary spirit.  .  .  .  The  Girondists  combined 
all  their  efforts  for  an  attack  upon  the  minister  of 
foreign  ailairs,  Delessart,  whom  they  accused  of 
truckling  to  the  enemies  of  the  nation.  Delessart 
was  committed  to  pi-ison,  and  his  colleagues  at 
once  resigned.  The  Gironde  now  came  into  of- 
fice. The  ministry  of  home  affairs  was  given  to 
Roland;  of  war  to  Servan;  of  finance  to  Cla- 
vifere.  Dumouriez  obtained  the  foreign  depart- 
ment, Duranthon  that  of  justice,  and  Lacoste  the 
marine.  Its  enemies  called  it  '  the  ministry  of  the 
sansculottes.'  ...  On  the  20th  of  April  [1793] 
Louis  XVI.  appeared  in  the  assembly  and  read 
with  trembling  voice  a  declaration  of  war  against 
the  king  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia. " — R.  Lodge, 
Hist,  of  Modern  Mirope,  ch.  23,  sect.  30-31.— The 
sincere  desire  of  the  Emperor  Leopold  II.  to  avoid 
war  with  France,  and  the  restraining  influence 
over  the  King  of  Prussia  which  he  exercised  up 
to  the  time  when  Catherine  II.  of  Russia  over- 
came it  by  the  Polish  temptation,  are  set  fortli 
by  H.  von  Sybel  in  passages  quoted  elsewhere. 
See  Germany:  A.  D.  1791-1793. 

Also  in  :  A.  de  Lamartine,  Sist.  of  the  Giron- 
dists, hk.  6-14  («.  1).— A.  F.  Bertrand  de  Mole- 
ville,  Annals  of  the  French  Rev.,  pt.  2,  ch.  1-14 
(i\  5-6). — F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hist,  of  the  Eighteenth 
Centuri/,  5th  period,  2ddiv.,  ch.  1  {e.  6). 

A.  D.  1792  (April). — Fete  to  the  Soldiers  of 
Chateauvieux.     See  Liberty  C.U". 


A.  D.  1792  (April— July).— Opening  of  the 
vrar  with  Austria  and  Prussia. — French  re- 
verses.— "Hostilities  followed  close  upon  th'j 
declaration  of  war.  At  this  time  the  forces  des- 
tined to  come  into  collision  were  posted  as  fol- 
lows: Austria  had  40,000  men  in  Belgium,  and 
25,000  on  the  Rhine.  These  numbers  might 
easily  have  been  increased  to  80,000,  but  the  Em- 
peror of  Austria  did  no  more  than  collect  7.000 
or  8,000  around  Brisgau,  and  some  30,000  more 
around  Rastadt..  The  Prussians,  now  bound  into 
a  close  alliance  with  Austria,  had  still  a  great 
distance  to  traverse  from  their  base  to  the  theatre 
of  war,  and  could  not  hope  to  undertake  active 
operations  for  a  long  time  to  come.  France,  on 
the  other  hand,  had  already  three  strong  armies 
in  the  field.  The  Army  of  the  North,  under  Gen- 
eral Rochambeau,  nearly  50,000  strong,  held  the 
frontier  from  Philippeville  to  Dunkirk ;  General 
Lafayette  commanded  a  second  army  of  about 
the  same  strength  in  observation  from  Philippe- 
ville to  the  Lauter;  and  a  third  army  of  40,000 
men,  under  Marshal  Luckner,  watched  the  course 
of  the  Rhine  from  Lauterbourg  to  the  confines 
of  Switzerland.  The  French  forces  were  strong, 
however,  on  paper  only.  The  French  army  had 
been  mined,  as  it  seemed,  by  the  Revolution, 
and  had  fallen  almost  to  pieces.  The  wholesale 
emigration  of  the  aristocrats  had  robbed  it  of  Its 
commissioned  officers,  the  old  experienced  leaders 
whom  the  men  were  accustomed  to  follow  and 
obey.  Again,  the  passion  for  political  discus- 
sion, and  the  new  notions  of  universal  equality 
had  fostered  a  dangerous  spirit  of  license  in  the 
ranks.  .  .  .  While  the  regular  regiments  of  the 
old  establishment  were  thus  demoralised,  the 
new  levies  were  still  but  imperfectly  organised,  , 
and  the  whole  army  was  unfit  to  take  the  field. 
It  was  badly  equipped,  without  transport,  and 
without  those  useful  administrative  services 
which  are  indispensable  for  mobility  and  effici- 
ency. Moreover,  the  prestige  of  the  French  arms 
was  at  its  lowest  ebb.  A  long  and  enervating 
peace  had  followed  since  the  last  great  war,  in 
which  the  French  armies  had  endured  only  failure 
and  ignominious  defeat.  It  is  not  strange,  then, 
that  the  foes  whom  France  had  so  confidently 
challenged,  counted  upon  an  easy  triumph  over 
the  revolutionary  troops.  The  earliest  operations 
fully  confirmed  these  anticipations.  .  .  .  France 
after  the  declaration  of  war  had  at  once  assumed 
the  initiative,  and  proceeded  to  invade  Belgium. 
Here  the  Duke  Albert  of  Saxe-Teschen,  who 
commanded  the  Imperialist  forces,  held  his  forces 
concentrated  in  three  principal  corps :  one  covered 
the  line  from  the  sea  to  Tournay ;  the  second  was 
at  Leuze ;  the  third  and  weakest  at  Mons.  The 
total  of  these  troops  rose  to  barely  40,000,  and 
Jlons,  the  most  important  point  iu  the  general 
line  of  defence,  was  the  least  strongly  held.  An 
able  strategist  gathering  together  30,000  men 
from  each  of  the  French  armies  of  the  Centre 
and  North,  would  have  struck  at  Mons  with  all 
his  strength,  cut  Duke  Albert's  communications 
with  the  Rhine,  turned  his  inner  flank,  and  rolled 
him  up  into  the  sea.  But  no  great  genius  as  yet 
directed  the  military  energies  of  Prance.  .  .  . 
By  Dumouriez's  advice,  the  French  armies  were 
ordered  to  advance  against  the  Austrians  by 
several  lines.  Four  columns  of  invasion  were  to 
enter  Belgium ;  one  was  to  follow  the  sea  coast, 
the  second  to  march  on  Tourna.y,  the  third  to 
move  from  Valenciennes  on  Mons,  and  the  fourth, 


1308 


FRANCE,  1792. 


The  Mob  in  the 
TuUeries. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


under  Lafayette,  on  Givet  or  Namur.  Each,  ac- 
cording to  the  success  it  might  achieve,  was  to 
reinforce  the  next  nearest  to  it,  and  all,  finally, 
were  to  converge  on  Brussels.  At  the  very  out- 
set, however,  the  French  encountered  the  most 
ludicrous  reverses.  Their  columns  fled  in  dis- 
order directly  they  came  within  sight  of  the 
enemy.  Lafayette  alone  continued  his  march 
boldly  towards  Namur;  but  he  was  soon  com- 
pelled to  retire  by  the  news  of  the  hasty  flight  of 
the  columns  north  of  him.  The  French  troops 
had  proved  as  worthless  as  their  leaders  were  In- 
capable ;  whole  brigades  turned  tail,  crying  that 
they  were  betrayed,  casting  away  their  weapons 
as  they  ran,  and  displaying  the  most  abject 
cowardice  and  terror.  Not  strangely,  after  this 
pitiful  exhibition,  the  Austrians  — all  Europe,  in- 
deed —  held  the  military  power  of  France  in  the 
utmost  contempt.  .  .  .  But  now  the  national  dan- 
ger stirred  France  to  its  Inmost  depths.  French 
spirit  was  thoroughly  roused.  The  country  rose 
as  one  man,  determined  to  offer  a  steadfast,  stub- 
born front  to  its  foes.  Stout-hearted  leaders,  full 
of  boundless  energy  and  enthusiasm,  summoned 
all  the  resources  of  the  nation  to  stem  and  roll 
back  the  tide  of  invasion.  Immediate  steps  were 
taken  to  put  the  defeated  and  disgraced  armies 
of  the  frontier  upon  a  new  footing.  Lafayette 
replaced  Rochambeau,  with  charge  from  Longwy 
to  the  sea,  his  main  body  about  Sedan ;  Luckner 
took  the  line  from  the  Moselle  to  the  Swiss  moun- 
tains, with  head-quarters  at  Metz.  A  third  gen- 
eral, destined  to  come  speedily  to  the  front,  also 
joined  the  army  as  Lafayette's  lieutenant.  This 
was  Dumouriez,  who,  wearied  and  baffled  by 
Parisian  politics,  sought  the  freedom  of  the  field. " 
— A.  Griffiths,  French  Revolutionary  Generals, 
eh.  1. 

A.  D.  1792  (June  —  August). — The  King's 
dismissal  of  Girondist  ministers. — Mob  demon- 
stration of  June  20. — Lafayette  in  Paris. — His 
failure. — The  Country  declared  to  be  in  Dan- 
ger.—  Gathering  of  volunteers  in  Paris. — 
Brunswick's  manifesto. — Mob  attack  on  the 
Tuileries,  August  10. — Massacre  of  the  Swiss. 
— "Servan,  the  minister  of  war,  proposed  the 
formation  of  an  armed  camp  for  the  protection 
of  Paris.  Jluch  opposition  was,  however,  raised 
to  the  project,  and  the  Assembly  decreed  (June 
6)  that  20,000  volunteers,  recruited  in  the  de- 
partments, should  meet  at  Paris  to  take  part  in 
the  celebration  of  a  federal  festival  on  July  14, 
the  third  anniversary  of  the  fall  of  the  Bastille. 
The  real  object  of  those  who  supported  the  decree 
was  to  have  a  force  at  Paris  with  which  to  main- 
tain mastery  over  the  city  should  the  Allies  pene- 
trate into  the  interior.  Louis  left  the  decree  un- 
sanctioned, as  he  had  the  one  directed  against 
nonjurors.  The  agitators  of  the  sections  sought 
to  get  up  an  armed  demonstration  against  this 
exercise  of  the  King's  constitutional  prerogative. 
Though  armed  demonstrations  were  illegal,  the 
municipality  offered  but  a  perfunctory  and  half- 
hearted resistance.  .  .  .  Louis,  irritated  at  the 
pressure  put  on  him  by  Roland,  Clavi^re,  and 
Servan,  to  sanction  the  two  decrees,  dismissed  the 
three  ministers  from  office  (June  13).  Dumouriez, 
who  had  quarreled  with  his  colleagues,  supported 
the  King  in  taking  this  step,  but  in  face  of  the 
hostility  of  the  Assembly  himself  resigned  office 
(June  15).  Three  days  later  a  letter  from  Lafay- 
ette was  read  in  the  Assembly.  The  general  de- 
nounced the  Jacobins  as  the"  authors  of  all  dis- 


orders, called  on  the  Assembly  to  maintain  the 
prerogatives  of  the  crown,  and  Intimated  that  his 
army  would  not  submit  to  see  the  constitution 
violated  (June  18).  Possibly  the  dismissal  of  the 
ministers  and  the  writing  of  this  letter  were  meas- 
ures concerted  between  the  King  and  Lafayette. 
In  any  case  the  King's  motive  was  to  excite 
division  between  the  constitutionalists  and  the 
Girondists,  so  as  to  weaken  the  national  defence. 
The  dismissal  of  the  ministers  was,  however,  re- 
garded by  the  Girondists  as  a  proof  of  the  truth 
of  their  worst  suspicions,  and  no  measures  were 
taken  to  prevent  an  execution  of  the  project  of 
making  an  armed,  and  therefore  illegal,  demon- 
stration against  the  royal  policy.  On  June  30, 
thousands  of  persons,  carrying  pikes  or  whatever 
weapon  came  to  hand,  and  accompanied  by  sev- 
eral battalions  of  the  national  guard,  marched 
from  St.  Antoine  to  the  hall  of  the  Assembly.  A 
deputation  read  an  address  demanding  the  recall 
of  the  ministers.  Afterwards  the  whole  of  the 
procession,  men,  women  and  children,  dancing, 
singing,  and  carrying  emblems,  defiled  through 
the  chamber.  Instigated  by  their  leaders  they 
broke  into  the  Tuileries.  "The  King,  who  took 
his  stand  on  a  window  seat,  was  mobbed  for  four 
hours.  To  please  his  unwelcome  visitors,  he  put 
on  his  head  a  red  cap,  such  as  was  now  commonly 
worn  at  the  Jacobins  as  an  emblem  of  liberty,  in 
imitation  of  that  which  was  once  worn  by  the 
emancipated  Roman  slave.  He  declared  his  in- 
tention to  observe  the  constitution,  but  neither  in- 
sult nor  menace  could  prevail  on  him  to  promise 
his  sanction  to  the  two  decrees.  The  Queen,  sep- 
arated from  the  King,  sat  behind  a  table  on  which 
she  placed  the  Dauphin,  exposed  to  the  gaze  and 
taunts  of  the  crowds  which  slowly  traversed  the 
palace  apartments.  At  last,  but  not  before  night, 
the  mob  left  the  Tuileries  without  doing  further 
harm,  and  order  was  again  restored.  This  insur- 
rection and  the  slackness,  if  not  connivance,  of 
the  municipal  authorities,  excited  a  widespread 
feeling  of  indignation  amongst  constitutionalists. 
Lafayette  came  to  Paris,  and  at  the  bar  of  the 
Assembly  demanded  in  person  what  he  had  be- 
fore demanded  by  letter  (June  28).  With  him,  as 
with  other  former  members  of  the  constituent 
Assembly,  it  was  a  point  of  honour  to  shield  the 
persons  of  the  King  and  Queen  from  harm.  Vari- 
ous projects  for  their  removal  from  Paris  were 
formed,  but  policy  and  sentiment  alike  forbade 
Marie  Antoinette  to  take  advantage  of  them.  .  .  . 
The  one  gleam  of  light  on  the  horizon  of  this 
unhappy  Queen  was  the  advance  of  the  Allies. 
'  Better  die, '  she  one  day  bitterly  exclaimed,  '  than 
be  saved  by  Lafayette  and  the  constitutionalists. ' 
There  was,  no  doubt,  a  possibility  of  the  Allies 
reaching  Paris  that  summer,  but  this  enormously 
increased  the  danger  of  the  internal  situation. 
...  To  rouse  the  nation  to  a  sense  of  peril  the 
Assembly  [July  11]  caused  public  proclamation  to 
be  made  in  every  municipality  that  the  country 
was  in  danger.  The  appeal  was  responded  to 
with  enth\isiasm,  and  within  six  weeks  more  than 
60,000  volunteers  enlisted.  The  Duke  of  Bruns- 
wick, the  commander-in-chief  of  the  allied  forces, 
published  a  manifesto,  drawn  up  by  the  emi- 
grants. If  the  authors  of  this  astounding  procla- 
mation had  deliberately  intended  to  serve  the 
purpose  of  those  Frenchmen  who  were  bent  on 
kindling  zeal  for  the  war,  they  could  not  have 
done  anything  more  likely  to  serve  their  purpose. 
The   powers    required  the   country  to    submit 


1309 


FRAJSrCE,  1792. 


^fassacre  of  the 
Swiss, 


FRANCE,  1792, 


unconditionally  to  Louis's  mercy.  All  who  offered 
resistance  were  to  be  treated  as  rebels  to  their 
King,  and  Paris  was  to  suffer  military  execution 
if  any  harm  befell  the  royal  family.  .  .  .  5Iean- 
whOe,  a  second  insurrection,  which  had  for  its 
object  the  King's  deposition,  was  in  preparation. 
The  Assembly,  after  declaring  the  country  in 
danger,  had  authorised  the  sections  of  Paris,  as 
well  as  the  administrative  authorities  throughout 
France,  to  meet  at  any  moment.  The  sections 
had,  in  consequence,  been  able  to  render  them- 
selves entirely  independent  of  the  municipality. 
In  each  of  the  sectional  or  primary  assemblies 
from  700  to  3,000  active  citizens  had  the  right  to 
vote,  but  few  cared  to  attend,  and  thus  it  con- 
stantly happened  that  a  small  active  minority 
spoke  and  acted  in  the  name  of  an  apathetic  con- 
stitutional majority.  Thousands  of  volunteers 
passed  through  Paris  on  their  way  to  the  fron- 
tier, some  of  whom  were  purposely  retained  to 
take  part  in  the  insurrection.  The  municipality 
of  Marseilles,  at  the  request  of  Barbaroux,  a 
young  friend  of  the  Rolands,  sent  up  a  band  of 
500  men,  who  first  sung  in  Paris  the  verses  cele- 
brated as  the  'Marseillaise'  [see  MAKSBrLLAisE]. 
The  danger  was  the  greater  since  every  section 
had  its  own  cannon  and  a  special  body  of  can- 
noneers, who  nearly  to  a  man  were  on  the  side  of 
the  revolutionists.  The  terrified  and  oscillating 
Assembly  made  no  attempt  to  suppress  agitation, 
but  acquitted  (August  8)  Lafayette,  by  406 
against  280  votes,  of  a  charge  of  treason  made 
against  him  by  the  left,  on  the  ground  that  he 
had  sought  to  intimidate  the  Legislature.  This 
vote  was  regarded  as  tantamount  to  a  refusal  to 
pass  sentence  of  deposition  on  Louis.  On  the 
following  night  the  insurrection  began.  Its  centre 
was  in  the  Faubourg  of  St.  Antoine,  and  it  was 
organised  by  but  a  small  number  of  men.  Man- 
dat,  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  national  guard, 
was  an  energetic  constitutionalist,  who  had  taken 
well-concerted  measures  for  the  defence  of  the 
Tuileries.  But  the  unscrupulousness  of  the  con- 
spirators was  more  than  a  match  for  his  zeal. 
Soon  after  midnight  commissioners  from  28  sec- 
tions met  together  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  and 
forced  the  Council-General  of  the  Municipality  to 
summon  Mandat  before  it,  and  to  send  out  orders 
to  the  oflicers  of  the  guard  in  contradiction  to 
those  previously  given.  Mandat,  unaware  of 
what  was  passing,  obeyed  the  summons,  and  on 
his  arrival  was  arrested  and  murdered.  After  this 
the  commissioners  dispersed  the  lawful  council 
and  usurped  its  place.  At  the  Tuileries  were 
about  950  Swiss  and  more  than  4,000  national 
guards.  Early  in  the  morning  the  first  bands  of 
insurgents  appeared.  On  the  fidelity  of  the  na- 
tional guards  it  was  impossible  to  rely ;  and  the 
royal  family,  attended  by  a  small  escort,  left  the 
palace,  and  sought  refuge  with  the  Assembly 
[which  held  its  sessions  in  the  old  Riding-School 
of  the  Tuileries,  not  far  from  the  palace,  at  one 
side  of  the  gardens].  Before  their  departure 
orders  had  been  given  to  the  Swiss  to  repel  force 
by  force,  and  soon  the  sound  of  firing  spread 
alarm  through  Paris.  The  King  sent  the  Swiss 
instructions  to  retire,  which  they  punctually 
obeyed.  One  column,  passing  through  the  Tuil- 
eries gardens,  was  shot  down  almost  to  a  man. 
The  rest  reached  the  Assembly  in  safety,  but  sev- 
eral were  afterwards  massacred  on  their  way  to 
prison.  For  24  hours  the  most  frightful  anarchy 
prevailed.     Numerous  murders  were  committed 


in  the  streets.  The  assailants,  some  hundreds  of 
whom  had  perished,  sacked  the  palace,  and  killed 
all  the  men  whom  they  found  there." — B.  M. 
Gardiner.  T/ie  French  Revolution,  ch.  5. — "Ter- 
ror and  fury  ruled  the  hour.  The  Swiss,  pressed 
on  from  without,  paralysed  from  within,  have 
ceased  to  shoot ;  but  not  to  be  shot.  What  shall 
they  do  ?  Desperate  is  the  moment.  Shelter  or 
instant  death:  yet  How,  Where?  One  party 
flies  out  by  the  Rue  de  1'  Echelle ;  is  destroyed  ut- 
terly, 'enentier.'  A  second,  by  the  other  side, 
throws  itself  into  the  Garden ;  '  luirrying  across  a 
keen  fusillade';  rushes  suppliant  into  the  Na- 
tional Assembly;  finds  pity  and  refuge  in  the 
back  benches  there.  'The  third,  and  largest, 
darts  out  in  column.  300  strong,  towards  the 
Champs  Elysees :  '  Ah,  could  we  but  reach  Cour- 
bevoye,  where  other  Swiss  are  ! '  Wo  !  see,  in 
such  fusillade  the  column  '  soon  breaks  itself  by 
diversity  of  opinion,'  into  distracted  segments, 
this  way  and  that; — to  escape  in  holes,  to  die 
fighting  from  street  to  street.  The  firing  and 
murdering  will  not  cease ;  not  yet  for  long.  "The 
red  Porters  of  Hotels  are  shot  at,  be  they  '  Suisse' 
by  nature,  or  Suisse  only  in  name.  The  very 
Firemen,  who  pump  and  labour  on  that  smoking 
Carrousel  [which  the  mob  had  fired],  are  shot  at; 
whj'  should  the  Carrousel  not  burn  ?  Some  Swiss 
take  refuge  in  private  houses;  find  that  mercy 
too  does  still  dwell  in  the  heart  of  man.  The 
brave  Marseillese  are  merciful,  late  so  wroth ;  and 
labour  to  save.  .  .  .  But  the  most  are  butchered, 
and  even  mangled.  Fifty  (some  say  Fourscore) 
were  marched  as  prisoners,  by  National  Guards, 
to  the  H6tel-de- Ville:  the  ferocious  people  bursts 
through  on  them,  in  the  Place-de-Gr6ve ;  mas- 
sacres them  to  the  last  man.  '  O  Peuple,  envy  of 
the  universe  ! '  Peuple,  in  mad  Gaelic  efferves- 
cence I  Surely  few  things  in  the  history  of  car- 
nage are  painf  uler.  What  ineffaceable  red  streak, 
flickering  so  sad  in  the  memory,  is  that,  of  this 
poor  column  of  red  Swiss,  '  breaking  itself  in  the 
confusion  of  opinions  ' ;  dispersing,  into  blackness 
and  death  !  Honour  to  you,  brave  men ;  honour- 
able pity,  through  long  times !  Not  martyrs  were 
ye ;  and  yet  almost  more.  He  was  no  King  of 
yours,  this  Louis ;  and  he  forsook  you  like  a  King 
of  shreds  and  patches :  ye  were  but  sold  to  him 
for  some  poor  sixpence  a-day ;  yet  would  ye  work 
for  your  wages,  keep  your  plighted  word.  The 
work  now  was  to  die ;  and  ye  did  it.  Honour  to 
you,  O  Kinsmen ;  and  may  the  old  Deutsch  '  Bie- 
derkeit'and  '  Tapferkeit,'  and  Valour  which  is 
Worth  and  Truth,  be  they  Swiss,  be  they  Saxon, 
fail  in  no  age  I" — T.  Carlyle,  Tlie  French  Bev., 
V.  3,  bk.  6,  ch.  7. 

Also  ts:  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev. 
(Am.  ed.),  v.  1,  pp.  266-330. — Madame  Campan. 
Memoirs  of  Marie  Antoinette,  v.  2,  ch.  9-10. — J. 
Claretie,  Camille  DesmouliTis  and  his  Wife,  ch.  3, 
sect.  4-5. — A.  F.  Bertrand  de  Moleville,  Arnials 
of  tU  F-ench  Rev.,  pt.  2,  ch.  18-28  (».  6-7).— 
Duchess  de  Tourzel,  Memoirs,  v.  2,  ch.  8-10. — 
Count  M.  Dumas,  Ifemoirs.  ch.  4  (i:  1). 

A.  D.  1792  (August). — Power  seized  by  the 
insurrectionary  Commune  of  Paris. —  De- 
thronement and  imprisonment  of  the  King. — 
Conflict  between  the  Girondins  of  the  Assem- 
bly and  the  Jacobins  of  the  Commune. — Alarm 
at  the  advance  of  the  Prussians. — The  search- 
ing of  the  city  for  suspects. — Arrest  of  3,000. 
— "While  the  Swiss  were  being  murdered,  the 
Legislative  Assembly  were  informed  that  a  depu- 


]310 


FRANCE,  1793. 


The  Commune 
of  Paris. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


tation  wished  to  enter.  At  the  head  of  this 
deputation  appeared  Huguenin,  who  announced 
that  a  new  municipality  for  Paris  had  been 
formed,  and  that  the  old  one  had  resigned.  This 
was,  indeed,  the  fact.  On  the  departure  of 
Santerre  the  commissioners  of  the  sections  had 
given  orders  to  the  legitimate  council-general  of 
the  municipality  to  resign,  and  the  council-gen- 
eral, startled  by  the  events  which  were  passing, 
consented.  The  commissioners  then  called  them- 
selves the  new  municipality,  and  proceeded,  as 
municipal  officers,  to  send  a  deputation  to  the  As- 
sembly. The  deputation  almost  ordered  that  the 
Assembly  should  immediately  declare  the  king's 
dethronement,  and,  in  the  presence  of  the  unfor- 
tunate monarch  himself,  Verguiaud  mounted  the 
tribune,  and  proposed,  on  behalf  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Twenty-one,  that  the  French  people 
should  be  invited  to  elect  a  National  Convention 
to  draw  up  a  new  Constitution,  and  that  the 
chief  of  the  executive  power,  as  he  called  the 
king,  should  be  provisionally  suspended  from  bis 
functions  until  the  new  Convention  had  pro- 
nounced what  measures  should  be  adopted  to  es- 
tablish a  new  government  and  the  reign  of  liberty 
and  equality.  The  motion  was  carried,  and  was 
countersigned  by  one  of  the  king's  ministers,  De 
Joly ;  and  thus  the  old  monarchy  of  the  Bourbons 
in  France  came  to  an  end.  But  the  Assembly 
had  not  yet  completed  its  work.  The  ministry 
was  dismissed,  as  not  having  the  confidence  of 
the  people,  and  the  Minister  of  War,  d'Aban- 
court,  was  ordered  to  be  tried  by  the  court  at 
Orleans  for  treason,  In  having  brought  the  Swiss 
Guards  to  Paris.  The  Assembly  then  prepared 
to  elect  new  ministers.  Roland,  Clavi^re,  and 
Servan  were  recalled  by  acclamation  to  their 
former  posts.  .  .  .  Danton  was  elected  Minister 
of  Justice  by  333  votes  against  60;  Gaspard 
Monge,  the  great  mathematician,  was  elected 
Minister  of  Marine,  on  the  nomination  of  Con- 
dorcet;  and  Lebrun-Tondu,  a  friend  of  Brissot 
and  Dumouriez,  and  a  former  abbe,  to  the  de- 
partment of  Foreign  Affairs.  At  the  bidding  of 
the  self-elected  municipality  of  Paris  the  king 
had  been  suspended,  and  a  new  miaistry  in- 
augurated, and  this  new  municipality,  which,  it 
must  be  remembered,  only  represented  28  sec- 
tions of  Paris,  next  proceeded  to  send  its  decrees 
all  over  France.  It  was  joined  on  this  very  day 
by  some  of  the  extreme  men  who  hoped  through 
its  means  to  force  a  republic  on  France  —  notably 
by  Caraille  Desmoulins  and  Dubois-Dubais ;  and 
on  the  11th  it  was  still  further  reinforced  by  the 
presence  of  Robespierre,  Billaud-Varenne,  and 
Marat.  The  Legislative  Assembly  had  become 
a  mere  instrument  in  the  hands  of  tke  Committee 
of  Twenty-one  [a  committee  specially  charged 
with  watchfulness  over  the  safety  of  the  public, 
and  which  foreshadowed  the  later  famous  Com- 
mittee of  Public  Safety].  The  majority  of  the 
deputies  either  left  Paris,  or,  if  they  belonged  to 
the  right,  hid  themselves,  while  those  of  the  left 
had  to  obey  every  order  of  their  leaders,  and  left 
the  transaction  of  temporary  business  to  the 
Committee  of  Twenty-one.  This  committee  prac- 
tically ruled  France  for  forty  days,  until  the 
meeting  of  ihe  Convention ;  the  Assembly  always 
accepted  its  propositions  and  sent  the  deputies  it 
nominated  on  important  missions ;  its  only  rival 
was  the  insurrectionary  commune,  and  the  inter- 
necine warfare  between  the  Jacobins  and  the  Gi- 
rondins  was  foreshadowed  in  the  struggle  between 


this  Commune  and  the  Committee  of  Twenty- 
one.  For,  while  the  extreme  Jacobins  filled  the 
new  Commune  of  Paris,  the  Committee  of 
Twenty-one  consisted  of  Girondins  and  Feuil- 
lants,  Brissot  was  its  president,  Vergniaud  its 
reporter,  and  Gensonne,  Condorcet,  Lasource, 
Guadet,  Lacepfide,  Lacufie,  Pastoret,  Muraire, 
Dehnas,  and  Guyton-Morveau  were  amongst  its 
members.  On  the  evening  of  August  10  the  As- 
sembly decreed  that  the  difference  between  active 
and  passive  citizens  should  be  abolished,  and 
that  every  Frenchman  of  the  age  of  25  should 
have  a  vote  for  the  Convention.  .  .  .  The  last 
sight  the  king  might  have  seen  on  the  night  of 
August  10  was  his  palace  of  the  Tuileries  in 
flames,  where,  for  mischief,  fire  had  been  set 
to  the  stables.  It  spread  from  building  to  build- 
ing, and  the  Assembly  only  took  steps  to  check 
it  when  it  threatened  to  spread  to  the  houses  of 
the  Rue  Saint  Honore.  ...  On  the  day  after 
this  terrible  night  the  king  was  informed  that 
rooms  had  been  found  for  him  in  the  Convent  of 
the  Feuillants ;  and  to  four  monastic  cells,  which 
had  not  been  inhabited  since  the  dissolution  of 
the  monastery  two  years  before,  the  royal  family 
was  led,  and  round  them  was  placed  a  strong 
guard.  Yet  they  were  no  more  prisoners  in  the 
Convent  of  the  Feuillants  than  they  had  been  in 
the  splendid  palace  of  the  Tuileries.  .  .  .  The 
king's  nominal  authority  was  annihilated ;  but 
though  the  course  of  events  left  him  a  prisoner, 
it  cannot  be  said  that  his  influence  was  dimin- 
ished, for  he  had  none  left  to  diminish.  It  was 
to  the  Girondins,  rather  than  to  the  king,  that 
the  results  of  August  10  brought  unpleasant  sur- 
prises. .  .  .  The  real  power  had  gone  to  the 
Commune  of  Paris,  and  this  was  very  clearly 
perceived  by  Robespierre  and  by  Marat.  .  .  . 
Though  Marat  was  received  with  the  loudest 
cheers  by  the  insurrectionary  commune,  Robes- 
pierre was  the  man  who  really  became  its  leader. 
He  had  long  expected  the  shock  which  had  just 
taken  place,  and  had  prepared  himself  for  the 
crisis.  The  first  requisition  was,  of  course,  for  a 
Convention.  This  had  been  granted  on  the  very 
first  day.  The  second  demand  of  the  Commune 
was  the  safe  custody  of  the  king,  so  that  he 
should  not  be  able  to  escape  to  the  army.  This 
was  conceded  by  the  Assembly  on  August  13, 
when  they  ordered  that  the  king  and  royal 
family  should  be  taken  to  the  old  tower  of  the 
Temple,  and  there  strictly  guarded  under  the 
superintendence  of  the  insurrectionary  comnmne. 
Lafayette's  sudden  flight  greatly  strengthened  the 
position  of  the  Commune  of  Paris.  .  .  .  Relieved 
from  the  fear  of  Lafayette's  turning  against 
them,  both  the  Girondins  in  the  Legislative  As- 
sembly and  the  Jacobins  in  the  insurrectionary 
commune  turned  to  the  pursuit  of  their  own 
special  plans,  and  naturally  soon  came  into  vio- 
lent collision.  .  .  .  The  Girondins  were,  above 
all  things,  men  of  ideas ;  the  Jacobins,  above  all 
things,  practical  men :  and  of  the  issue  of  a  strug- 
gle between  them  there  could  be  little  doubt, 
though,  at  this  period  the  Girondins  had  the  ad- 
vantage of  the  best  position.  On  August  15  the 
final  blow  was  struck  at  the  unfortunate  Feuil- 
lants, or  Constitutionalists.  The  last  ministers  of 
the  king,  as  well  Duport  du  Tertre,  Bertrand  de 
Moleville,  and  Duportail,  were  all  ordered  to  be 
arrested,  with  Barnave  and  Charles  de  Lameth. 
The  Assembly  followed  up  this  action  by  estab- 
lishing the  special  tribunal  of  August  17,  which 


1311 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Arn-est  of  the 
Suspects, 


FRANCE,  1793. 


held  its  first  sitting  on  the  same  evening  at  the 
Hotel  de  Ville.  Robespierre  was  elected  presi- 
dent, and  refused  the  office.  .  .  .  The  new  tri- 
bunal was  too  slow  to  satisfy  the  leaders  of  the 
Commune  of  Paris,  for  its  first  prisoner,  Laporte, 
the  old  intendant  of  the  civil  list,  was  not  judged 
until  August  31,  and  then  acquitted.  This  news 
made  the  Commune  lose  all  patience,  and  they 
determined  to  urge  the  Assembly  to  more  ener- 
getic measures.  Under  the  pressure  of  the  Com- 
mune the  Assembly  took  vigorous  measures  in- 
deed. All  the  leaders  of  the  emigres  were  se- 
questrated ;  all  ecclesiastics  who  would  not  take 
the  oath  were  to  be  transported  to  French 
Guiana,  and  it  was  decreed  that  the  National 
Guard  should  enlist  every  man,  whether  an 
active  or  a  passive  citizen.  Much  of  this  vigour 
on  the  part  of  the  Assembly  was  due,  not  only  to 
the  pressure  of  the  Commune,  but  to  the  rapid 
advance  of  the  Prussians.  .  .  .  The  Assembly 
.  .  .  decreed  that  an  army  of  30,000  men  should 
be  raised  in  Paris,  and  that  every  man  who  had 
a  musket  Issued  to  him  should  be  punished  with 
death  if  he  did  not  march  at  once.  .  .  .  On 
August  38,  on  the  motion  of  Danton,  now  Min- 
ister of  Justice,  a  general  search  for  arras  and 
suspects  was  ordered.  The  gates  of  the  city 
were  closed  on  August  30;  every  street  was  or- 
dered to  be  illuminated;  bodies  of  national 
guards  entered  each  house  and  searched  it  from 
top  to  bottom.  Barely  1,000  muskets  were 
seized,  but  more  than  3,000  prisoners  were  taken 
and  shut  up,  not  only  in  the  prisons,  but  iu  all 
the  largest  convents  of  Paris,  which  were  turned 
into  houses  of  detention.  Who  should  be  arrested 
as  a  suspect  depended  entirely  on  the  municipal 
officer  who  happened  to  examine  the  house,  and 
these  men  acted  under  the  orders  of  a  special 
committee  established  by  the  Commune,  at  the 
head  of  which  sat  Marat.  .  .  .  The  residents  in 
Paris  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution  seem  to  have 
been  more  struck  by  this  house-to-house  visita- 
tion than  by  many  other  events  which  were  far 
more  horrible." — H.  M.  Stephens,  Hist,  of  t/ie 
FivHch  Rei).,  V.  2,  ch.  4. 

Also  in:  Grace  D.  Elliot,  Journal  of  My 
Life  during  the  French  Rev.,  ch.  4. — Gouverneur 
Morris,  Xi/is  and  Corr.,  ed.  by  Sparks,  v.  3,  pp. 
303-217. — G.  Long,  Prance  and  its  Revolutions, 
ch.  29. 

A.  D.  1792  (August). — Lafayette's  unsuc- 
cessful resistance  to  the  Jacobins. — His  with- 
drawal from  France. — "The  news  of  the  10th 
of  August  was  carried  to  Lafayette  by  one  of  his 
own  officers  who  happened  to  be  in  Paris  on 
business.  He  learned  that  the  throne  was  over- 
turned and  the  Assembly  in  subjection,  but  he 
could  not  believe  that  the  cause  of  the  constitu- 
tional monarchy  was  abandoned  without  a  strug- 
gle. He  announced  to  the  army  the  events  that 
had  taken  place,  and  conj  ured  the  men  to  remain 
true  to  the  king  and  constitution.  The  commis- 
sioners despatched  by  the  Commune  of  Paris  to 
announce  to  the  different  armies  the  change  of 
government  and  to  exact  oaths  of  fidelity  to  it 
soon  arrived  at  Sedan  within  Lafayette's  com- 
mand. The  general  had  them  brought  before 
the  municipality  of  Sedan  and  interrogated  re- 
garding their  mission.  Convinced,  from  their 
own  account,  that  they  were  the  agents  of  a  fac- 
tion which  had  unlawfully  seized  upon  power, 
he  ordered  their  arrest  and  had  them  imprisoned. 
Lafayette's  moral  influence  in  the  army  and  the 


country  was  still  so  great  that  the  Jacobins  knew 
that  they  must  either  destroy  him  or  win  him 
over  to  their  side.  The  latter  course  was  pre- 
ferred. .  .  .  The  imprisoned  commissioners,  there- 
fore, requested  a  private  conference  with  Lafay- 
ette, and  offered  him,  on  the  part  of  their  superiors 
in  Paris,  whatever  executive  power  he  desired  in 
the  new  government.  It  is  needless  to  say  that 
Lafayette,  whose  sole  aim  was  to  establish  liberty 
in  his  country,  refused  to  entertain  the  idea  of 
associating  himself  with  the  despotism  of  the 
mob.  He  caused  his  own  soldiers  to  renew  their 
oath  of  fidelity  to  the  king,  and  communicated 
with  Luckner  on  the  situation.  .  .  .  Meanwhile, 
emissaries  from  the  Commune  were  sent  to  Sedan 
to  influence  the  soldiers  by  bribes  and  threats  to 
renounce  their  loyalty  to  their  commander.  All 
the  other  armies  and  provinces  to  which  com- 
missioners had  been  sent  had  received  them  and 
taken  the  new  oaths.  Lafayette  found  himself 
alone  in  his  resistance.  His  attitude  acquired, 
every  day,  more  the  appearance  of  rebellion 
against  authorities  recognized  by  the  rest  of 
France.  New  commissioners  arrived,  bringing 
with  them  his  dismissal  from  command.  The 
army  was  wavering  between  attachment  to  their 
general  and  obedience  to  government.  On  the 
19th  of  August,  the  Jacobins,  seeing  that  they 
could  not  win  him  over,  caused  the  Assembly  to 
declare  him  a  traitor.  Lafayette  had  now  to 
take  an  immediate  resolution.  France  had  de- 
clared for  the  Paris  Commune.  The  constitu- 
tional monarchy  was  irretrievably  destroyed. 
For  the  general  to  dispute  with  his  appointed 
successor  the  command  of  the  army  was  to  pro- 
voke further  disorders  in  a  cause  that  had  ceased 
to  be  that  of  the  nation  and  become  only  his  own. 
Three  possible  courses  remained  open  to  him, — 
to  accept  the  Jacobin  overtures  and  become  a 
part  of  their  bloody  despotism ;  to  continue  his 
resistance  and  give  his  head  to  the  guillotine ;  to 
leave  the  country.  He  resolved  to  seek  an  asylum 
in  a  neutral  territory  with  the  hope,  as  he  himself 
somewhat  naively  expressed  it,  '  some  day  to  be 
again  of  service  to  liberty  and  to  France. '  La- 
fayette made  every  preparation  for  the  safety  of 
his  troops,  placing  them  under  the  orders  of 
Luckner  until  the  arrival  of  Dumouriez,  the  new 
general  in  command.  He  publicly  acknowledged 
responsibility  for  the  arrest  of  the  commissioners 
and  the  defiance  of  Sedan  to  the  Commune,  in 
order  that  the  municipal  officers  who  had  sup- 
ported him  might  escape  punishment.  He  in- 
cluded in  his  party  his  staflE-officers,  whose  as- 
sociation with  him  would  have  subjected  them 
to  the  fury  of  the  Commune,  and  some  others 
who  had  also  been  declared  traitors  on  account 
of  obedience  to  his  orders.  He  then  made  his 
way  to  Bouillon,  on  the  extreme  frontier.  There, 
dismissing  the  escort,  and  sending  back  final 
orders  for  the  security  of  the  army,  he  rode  with 
his  companions  into  a  foreign  land, " — B.  Tucker- 
man,  Life  of  Lafayette,  v.  3,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1792  (August — September). — The  Sep- 
tember Massacres  in  the  Paris  prisons. — The 
house-to-house  search  for  suspects  was  carried  on 
during  the  night  of  August  39  and  the  following 
day.  "The  next  morning,  at  daybreak,  the 
Mairie,  the  sections,  the  ancient  prisons  of  Paris, 
and  the  convents  that  had  been  converted  into 
prisons,  were  crowded  with  prisoners.  They 
were  summarily  interrogated,  and  half  of  them, 
the  victims  of  error  or  precipitation,  were  set  at 


1312 


FRANCE,  1792. 


The  September  Massacre 
in  the  Prisons. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


liberty,  or  claimed  by  their  sections.  The  re- 
mainder were  distributed  in  the  prisons  of  the 
Abbaye  Saint  Germain,  the  Conciergerie,  the 
CUatelet,  La  Force,  the  Luxembourg,  and  the 
ancient  monasteries  of  the  Bernardins,  Saint 
Firmin,  and  the  Carmes ;  BicStre  and  the  Salpe- 
trifire  also  opened  their  gates  to  receive  fresh 
inmates.  The  three  days  that  followed  this 
night  were  employed  by  the  commissaries  in 
making  a  selection  of  the  prisoners.  Already 
their  death  was  projected.  .  .  .  '  We  must  purge 
the  prisons,  and  leave  no  traitors  behind  us  when 
we  hasten  to  the  frontiers.'  Such  was  the  cry 
put  into  the  mouth  of  the  people  by  Marat  and 
Danton.  Such  was  the  attitude  of  Danton  on 
the  brink  of  these  crimes.  As  for  the  part  of 
Robespierre,  it  was  the  same  as  in  all  these 
crises  —  on  the  debate  concerning  war,  on  the 
20th  of  June,  and  on  the  10th  of  August.  He 
did  not  act,  he  blamed ;  but  he  left  the  event  to 
itself,  and  when  once  accomplished  he  accepted 
it  as  a  progressive  step  of  the  Revolution.  .  .  . 
On  Sunday,  the  2d  of  September,  at  three  o'clock 
in  the  afternoon,  the  signal  for  the  massacre  was 
given  by  one  of  those  accidents  that  seem  so  per- 
fectly the  effect  of  chance.  Five  coaches,  each 
containing  six  priests,  started  from  the  Hotel-de- 
Ville  to  the  prison  of  the  Abbaye  .  .  .  escorted 
by  weak  detachments  of  Avignonnais  and  Mar- 
seillais,  armed  with  pikes  and  sabers.  .  .  . 
Groups  of  men,  women  and  children  insulted 
them  as  they  passed,  and  their  escort  joined  in 
the  invective  threats  and  outrages  of  the  popu- 
lace. .  .  .  The  emeute,  increasing  in  number  at 
every  step  across  the  Rue  Dauphine,  was  met  by 
another  mob,  that  blocked  up  the  Carrefour 
Bussy,  where  municipal  officers  received  enrol- 
ments in  the  open  air.  The  carriages  stopped ; 
and  a  man,  forcing  his  way  through  the  escort, 
sprung  on  the  step  of  the  first  carriage,  plunged 
his  saber  twice  into  the  body  of  one  of  the 
priests,  and  displayed  it  reeking  with  blood :  the 
people  uttered  a  cry  of  horror.  '  This  frightens 
you,  cowarcjs ! '  said  the  assassin,  with  a  smile  of 
disdain ;  '  You  must  accustom  yourselves  to  look 
on  death.'  "With  these  [words]  he  again  plunged 
his  saber  into  the  carriage  and  continued  to  strike. 
.  .  .  The  coaches  slowly  moved  on,  and  the 
assassin,  passing  from  one  to  the  other,  and  cling- 
ing with  one  hand  to  the  door,  stabbed  at  random 
at  all  he  could  reach ;  while  the  assassins  of 
Avignon,  who  formed  part  of  their  escort, 
plunged  their  bayonets  into  the  interior ;  and  the 
pikes,  pointed  against  the  windows,  prevented  any 
of  the  priests  from  leaping  into  the  street.  The 
long  line  of  carriages  moving  slowly  on,  and 
leaving  a  bloody  trace  behind  them,  the  despair- 
ing cries  and  gestures  of  the  priests,  the  ferocious 
shouts  of  their  butchers,  the  yells  of  applause  of 
the  populace,  announced  from  a  distance  their 
arrival  to  the  prisoners  of  the  Abbaye.  The 
cortSge  stopped  at  the  door  of  the  prison,  and 
the  soldiers  of  the  escort  dragged  out  by  the 
feet  eight  dead  bodies.  The  priests  who  had  es- 
caped, or  who  were  only  wounded,  preoipitated 
themselves  into  the  prison ;  foHr  of  them  were 
seized  and  massacred  on  the  threshold.  .  .  .  The 
prisoners  .  .  .  cooped  up  in  the  Abbaye  heard 
this  prelude  to  murder  at  their  gates.  .  .  .  The 
internal  wickets  were  closed  on  them,  and  they 
received  orders  to  return  to  their  chambers,  as  if 
to  answer  the  muster-roll.  A  fearful  spectacle 
was  visible  in  the  outer  court:  the  last  wicket 


opening  into  it  had  been  transformed  into  a  tri- 
bunal ;  and  around  a  large  table  —  covered  with 
papers,  writing  materials,  the  registers  of  the 
prisons,  glasses,  bottles,  pistols,  sabers,  and  pipes 
—  were  seated  twelve  judges,  whose  gloomy 
features  and  athletic  proportions  stamped  them 
men  of  toil,  debauch  or  blood.  Their  attire  was 
that  of  the  laboring  classes.  .  .  .  Two  or  three 
of  them  attracted  attention  by  the  whiteness  of 
their  hands  and  the  elegance  of  their  shape ;  and 
that  betrayed  the  presence  of  men  of  intellect, 
purposely  mingled  with  these  men  of  action  to 
guide  them.  A  man  in  a  gray  coat,  a  saber  at 
his  side,  pen  in  his  hand,  and  whose  inflexible 
features  seemed  as  though  they  were  petrified, 
was  seated  at  the  center  of  the  table,  and  pre- 
sided over  the  tribunal.  This  was  the  Huissier 
Maillard,  the  idol  of  the  mobs  of  the  Faubourg 
Saint  Marceau  ...  an  actor  in  the  days  of  Oc- 
tober, the  30th  of  June,  and  the  10th  of  August. 
...  He  had  just  returned  from  the  Carmes, 
where  he  had  organized  the  massacre.  It  was 
not  chance  that  had  brought  him  to  the  Abbaye 
at  the  precise  moment  of  the  arrival  of  the 
prisoners,  and  with  the  prison  registers  in  his 
hand.  He  had  received,  the  previous  evening, 
the  secret  orders  of  Marat,  through  the  members 
of  the  Comite  de  Surveillance.  Danton  had  sent 
for  the  registers  to  the  prison,  and  gone  through 
them ;  and  Maillard  was  shown  those  he  was  to 
acquit  and  condemn.  If  the  prisoner  was  ac- 
quitted, Maillard  said,  '  Let  this  gentleman  be  set 
at  liberty ' ;  if  condemned,  a  voice  said,  '  A  la 
Force.'  At  these  words  the  outer  door  opened, 
and  the  prisoner  fell  dead  as  he  crossed  the 
threshold.  The  massacre  commenced  with  the 
Swiss,  of  whom  there  were  150  at  the  Abbaye, 
officers  and  soldiers.  .  .  .  They  fell,  one  after 
another,  like  sheep  in  a  slaughter-house.  The 
tumbrils  were  not  sufficient  to  carry  away  the 
corpses,  and  they  were  piled  up  on  each  side  of 
the  court  to  make  room  for  the  rest  to  die :  their 
commander,  Major  Reding,  was  the  last  to  fall. 
.  .  .  After  the  Swiss,  the  king's  guards,  impris- 
oned in  the  Abbaye,  were  judged  en  masse.  .  .  . 
Their  massacre  lasted  a  long  time,  for  the  people, 
excited  by  what  they  had  drank  —  brandy  min- 
gled with  gun-powder —  and  intoxicated  by  the 
sight  of  blood,  prolonged  their  tortures.  .  .  . 
The  whole  night  was  scarcely  enough  to  slay 
and  strip  them." — A.  de  Lamartine,  Hist,  of  the 
Girondists,  bk.  25(».  2). — "  To  moral  intoxication 
is  added  physical  intoxication,  wine  in  profusion, 
bumpers  at  every  pause,  revelry  over  corpses. 
.  .  .  They  dance  .  .  .  and  sing  the  'carmag- 
nole ' ;  they  arouse  the  people  of  the  quarter  '  to 
amuse  them,'  and  that  they  may  have  their  share 
of 'the  fine  fSte.'  -Benches  are  arranged  for 'gen- 
tlemen '  and  others  for  '  ladies ' :  the  latter,  with 
greater  curiosity,  are  additionally  anxious  to  con- 
template at  their  ease  '  the  aristocrats '  already 
slain ;  consequently,  lights  are  required,  and  one 
is  placed  on  the  breast  of  each  corpse.  Mean- 
while, slaughter  continues,  and  is  carried  to  per- 
fection. A  butcher  at  the  Abbaye  complains 
that '  the  aristocrats  die  too  quick,  and  that  those 
only  who  strike  first  have  the  pleasure  of  it  ' : 
henceforth  they  are  to  be  struck  with  the  backs 
of  the  swords  only,  and  made  to  run  between 
two  rows  of  their  butchers,  like  soldiers  formerly 
running  a  gauntlet.  .  .  .  AH  the  unfettered  in- 
stincts that  live  in  the  lowest  depths  of  the  heart 
start  from  the  human  abyss  at  once,  not  alone  the 


1313 


FRANCE,  1792 


77(6  National 
Convention. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


heinous  instincts  with  their  fangs,  but  likewise 
the  foulest  with  their  slaver,  whUe  both  packs 
fall  furiously  on  women  whose  noble  or  infamous 
repute  brings  them  before  the  world ;  on  Madame 
de  Lamballe,  the  Queen's  friend;  on  Madame 
Desrues,  widow  of  the  famous  prisoner ;  on  the 
flower-girl  of  the  Palais-Royal,  who,  two  years 
before,  had  mutilated  her  lover,  a  French  guards- 
man, in  a  lit  of  jealousy.  Ferocity  here  is  asso- 
ciated with  lubricity  to  add  profanation  to  tor- 
ture, while  life  is  attacked  through  attacks  on 
modesty.  In  Madame  de  Lamballe,  killed  too 
quickly,  the  libidinous  butchers  could  only  out- 
rage a  corpse,  but  for  the  widow,  and  especially 
the  flower-girl,  they  imagine  the  same  as  a  Nero 
the  fire-circle  of  the  Iroquois.  ...  At  La  Force, 
Madame  de  Lamballe  is  cut  to  pieces.  I  cannot 
transcribe  what  Chariot,  the  hair-dresser,  did 
with  her  head.  I  merely  state  that  another 
wretch,  in  the  Rue  Saint-Antoine,  bore  off  her 
heart  and  '  ate  it. '  They  kill  and  they  drink,  and 
drink  and  kill  again.  ...  As  the  prisons  are  to 
be  cleaned  out,  it  is  as  well  to  clean  them  all  out, 
and  do  it  at  once.  After  the  Swiss,  priests,  the 
aristocrats,  and  the  '  white-skin  gentlemen, '  there 
remain  convicts  and  those  confined  through  the 
ordinary  charmels  of  justice,  robbers,  assassins, 
and  those  sentenced  to  the  galleys  in  the  Con- 
ciergerie,  in  the  Ch^telet,  and  in  the  Tour  St. 
Bernard,  with  branded  women,  vagabonds,  old 
beggars  and  boys  confined  in  Bic§tre  and  the 
Salpetri^re.  They  are  good  for  nothing,  cost 
something  to  feed,  and,  probably,  cherish  evil 
designs.  .  .  .  This  time,  as  the  job  is  more  foul, 
the  broom  is  wielded  by  fouler  hands.  ...  At 
the  SalpetriSre,  '  all  the  bullies  of  Paris,  former 
spies,  .  .  .  libertines,  the  rascals  of  France  and 
all  Europe,  prepare  beforehand  for  the  operation,' 
and  rape  alternates  with  massacre.  ...  At 
Bicbtre,  however,  it  is  crude  butchery,  the  car- 
nivorous instinct  alone  satisfying  itself.  Among 
other  prisoners  are  43  youths  of  the  lowest  class, 
from  17  to  19  years  of  age,  placed  there  for  cor- 
rection by  their  parents,  or  by  those  to  whom 
they  are  bound.  .  .  .  These  the  band  falls  on, 
beating  them  to  death  with  clubs,  .  .  .  There 
are  six  days  and  five  nights  of  uninterrupted 
butchery,  171  murders  at  the  Abbaye,  169  at  La 
Force,  223  at  the  Chatelet,  328  at  the  Concierg- 
erie,  73  at  the  Tour-Saint-Bernard,  120  at  the 
Carmelites,  79  at  Saint-Firmin,  170  at  BicStre,  35 
at  the  Salpetrifere ;  among  the  dead,  250  priests, 
8  bishops  or  archbishops,  general  officers,  magis- 
trates, one  former  minister,  one  royal  princess, 
belonging  to  the  best  names  in  France,  and,  on 
the  other  side,  one  negro,  several  low  class 
women,  young  scape-graces,  convicts,  and  poor 
old  men.  .  .  .  Fournier,  Lazowski,  and  Becard, 
the  chiefs  of  robbers  and  assassins,  return  from 
Orleans  with  1,500  cut-throats.  On  the  way  they 
kill  M,  de  Brissac,  M.  de  Lessart,  and  42  others 
accused  of  'lise-nation,'  whom  they  arrested 
from  their  judges'  hands,  and  then,  by  way  of 
surplus,  'following  the  example  of  Paris,'  21 
prisoners  taken  from  the  Versailles  prisons.  At 
Paris  the  Minister  of  Justice  thanks  them,  the 
Commune  congratulates  them,  and  the  sections 
feast  them  and  embrace  them.  .  .  .  All  the  jour- 
nals approve,  palliate,  or  keep  silent;  nobody 
dares  ofTer  resistance.  Property  as  well  as  lives 
belong  to  whoever  wants  to  take  them.  .  .  . 
Like  a  man  struck  on  the  head  with  a  mallet, 
Paris,  felled  to  the  ground,  lets  things  go;  the 


authors  of  the  massacre  have  fully  attained  their 
ends.  The  faction  has  fast  hold  of  power,  and 
wUl  maintain  its  hold.  Neither  in  the  Legisla- 
tive Assembly  nor  in  the  Convention  will  the 
aims  of  the  Girondists  be  successful  against  its 
tenacious  usurpation.  .  .  .  The  Jacobins,  through 
sudden  terror,  have  maintained  their  illegal 
authority ;  through  a  prolongation  of  terror  they 
are  going  to  establish  their  legal  authority.  A 
forced  suffrage  is  going  to  put  them  iu  oflice  at 
the  Hotel-de-Ville,  in  the  tribunals,  in  the  Na- 
tional Guard,  in  the  sections,  and  in  the  various 
administrations." — H.  A.  Taine,  Tlie French  Rev., 
bk.  4,  ch.  9  (!).  2). 

Also  m :  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev. 
(Am.'ed.),  v.  1,  spp.  350-368. — Sergent  Marceau, 
Reminiscences  of  a  Regicide,  ch.  9. — A.  Dobson, 
The  Princess  de  Lamballe  {"Four  Frenchwomen," 
ch.  3). — Th^  Reign  of  Ten-or :  A  collection  of  Au- 
thentic Narratives,  v.  2. — J.  B.  Clery,  Journal  of 
Occurrences  at  the  Temple. — Despatches  of  Earl 
Ooicer,  pp.  225-229. 

A.  D.  1792  (September — November). — Meet- 
ing of  the  National  Convention. — Abolition 
of  royalty. — Proclamation  of  the  Republic. — 
Adoption  of  the  Era  of  the  Republic. — Estab- 
lishment of  absolute  equality. — The  losing 
struggle  of  the  Girondists  with  the  Jacobins 
of  the  Mountain. — "  It  was  in  the  midst  of  these 
horrors  [of  the  September  massacres]  that  the 
Legislative  Assembly  approached  its  termination. 
.  .  .  The  National  Convention  began  [Septem- 
ber 22]  under  darker  auspices.  .  .  .  The  great 
and  inert  mass  of  the  people  were  disposed,  as  in 
all  commotions,  to  range  themselves  on  the  vic- 
torious side.  The  sections  of  Paris,  under  the 
influence  of  Robespierre  and  Marat,  returned  the 
most  revolutionary  deputies ;  those  of  most  other 
towns  followed  their  example.  The  Jacobins, 
with  their  affiliated  clubs,  on  this  occasion  ex- 
ercised an  overwhelming  influence  over  all 
France.  ...  At  Paris,  where  the  elections  took 
place  on  the  2d  September,  amidst  all  the  excite- 
ment and  horrors  of  the  massacres  in  the  prisons, 
the  violent  leaders  of  the  municipality,  who  had 
organized  the  revolt  of  August  10th,  exercised 
an  irresistible  sway  over  the  citizens.  Robes- 
pierre and  Danton  were  the  first  named,  amidst 
unanimous  shouts  of  applause;  after  them  Ca- 
mille  Desmoulins,  Tallien,  Osselin,  Freron,  An- 
acharsis  Clootz,  Fabre  d'Eglantine,  David,  the 
celebrated  painter,  CoUot  d'Herbois,  Billaud 
Vareunes,  Legendre,  Panis,  Sergent,  almost  all 
implicated  in  the  massacres  in  ,the  prisons,  were 
also  chosen.  To  these  was  added  the  Duke  of 
Orleans,  who  had  abdicated  his  titles,  and  was 
called  Philippe  figalite.  .  .  .  The  most  con- 
servative part  of  the  new  Assembly  were  the 
Girondists  who  had  overturned  the  throne.  From 
the  first  opening  of  the  Convention,  the  Giron- 
dists occupied  the  right,  and  the  Jacobins  the 
seats  on  the  summit  of  the  left ;  whence  their 
designation  of  '  The  Mountain '  was  derived. 
The  former  had  the  majority  of  votes,  the  greater 
part  of  the  departments  having  returned  men 
of  comparatively  moderate  principles.  But  the 
latter  possessed  a  great  advantage,  in  having 
on  their  side  all  the  members  of  the  city  of 
Paris,  who  ruled  the  mob,  .  .  .  and  in  being 
supported  by  the  municipality,  which  had  al- 
ready grown  into  a  ruling  power  in  the  state, 
and  had  become  the  great  centre  of  the  demo- 
cratic party.     A  neutral  body,  composed  of  those 


1314 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Girondists 
and  Jacobins. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


members  whose  principles  were  not  yet  declared, 
was  called  the  Plain,  or,  Marais;  it  ranged  it- 
self with  the  Girondists,  until  terror  compelled 
its  members  to  coalesce  with  the  victorious  side. 
.  .  .  The  two  rival  parties  mutually  indulged  in 
recriminations,  in  order  to  influence  the  public 
mind.  The  Jacobins  incessantly  reproached  the 
Girondists  with  desiring  to  dissolve  the  Republic ; 
to  establish  three-and-twenty  separate  democratic 
states,  held  together,  like  the  American  pi'ov- 
inces,  by  a  mere  federal  union.  .  .  .  Nothing 
more  was  requisite  to  render  them  in  the  highest 
degree  unpopular  iu  Paris,  the  very  existence  of 
which  depended  on  its  remaining,  through  all 
the  phases  of  government,  the  seat  of  the  ruling 
power.  The  Girondists  retorted  upon  their  ad- 
versaries charges  better  founded,  but  not  so 
likely  to  inflame  the  populace.  They  reproached 
them  with  endeavouring  to  establish  in  the 
municipality  of  Paris  a  power  superior  to  the 
legislature  of  all  France,  with  overawing  the 
deliberations  of  the  Convention  by  menacing 
petitions,  or  the  open  display  of  brute  force ;  and 
secretly  preparing  for  their  favourite  leaders.  Ban- 
ton,  Robespierre,  and  Marat,  a  triumvirate  of 
po^ver,  which  would  speedily  e.xtinguish  all  the 
freedom  which  had  been  acquired.  The  first 
part  of  the  accusation  was  well-founded  even 
then;  of  the  last,  time  soon  afforded  an  ample 
conrtrmation.  The  Convention  met  at  first  in  one 
of  the  halls  of  the  Tuileries,  but  immediately 
adjourned  to  the  Salle  du  Menage,  where  its  sub- 
sequent sittings  were  held.  Its  first  step  was, 
on  the  motion  of  the  Abbe  Gregoire,  and  amidst 
unanimous  transports,  to  declare  Royalty  abol- 
ished in  France,  and  to  proclaim  a  republic; 
and  by  another  decree  it  was  ordered,  that  the 
old  calendar  taken  from  the  year  of  Christ's  birth 
should  be  abandoned,  and  that  all  public  acts 
should  be  dated  from  the  first  year  of  the  French 
republic.  This  era  began  on  "the  22d  September 
1792.  [See,  also,  below:  A.  D.  1793  (October).] 
...  A  still  more  democratic  constitution  thau 
that  framed  by  the  Constituent  and  Legislative 
Assemblies  was  at  the  same  time  established. 
All  the  requisites  for  election  to  any  oSice  what- 
ever were,  on  the  motion  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans, 
abolished.  It  was  no  longer  necessary  to  select 
judges  from  legal  meu,  nor  magistrates  from  the 
class  of  proprietors.  All  persons,  in  whatever 
rank,  were  declared  eligible  to  every  situation ; 
and  the  right  of  voting  in  the  primary  assemblies 
was  conferred  on  every  man  above  the  age  of  21 
years.  Absolute  equality,  iu  its  literal  sense, 
was  universally  established.  Universal  suffrage 
was  the  basis  on  which  government  rested." 
The  leaders  of  the  Girondists  soon  opened  attacks 
upon  Robespierre  and  Marat,  accusing  the  for- 
mer of  aspiring  to  a  dictatorship,  and  also  hold- 
ing him  responsible,  with  Marat  and  Danton,  for 
the  September  massacres ;  but  Lou  vet  and  others 
who  made  the  attack  were  feebly  supported  by 
their  party.  Lou  vet  "repeatedly  appealed  to 
Petion,  Vergniaud,  and  the  other  leaders,  to  sup- 
port his  statements;  but  they  had  not  the  firm- 
ness boldly  to  state  the  truth.  Had  they  testified 
a  fourth  part  of  what  they  knew,  the  accusation 
must  have  been  instantly  voted,  and  the  tyrant 
crushed  at  once.  As  it  was,  Robespierre,  fear- 
ful of  its  effects,  demanded  eight  days  to  pre- 
pare for  his  defence.  In  the  interval,  the  whole 
machinery  of  terror  was  put  in  force.  The 
Jacobins  thundered  out  accusations  against  the 


intrepid  accuser,  and  all  the  leaders  of  the  Moun- 
tain were  indefatigable  iu  their  efforts  to  strike 
fear  into  their  opponents.  .  .  .  By  degrees  the 
impression  cooled,  fear  resumed  its  sway,  and 
the  accused  mounted  the  tribune  at  the  end  of 
the  week  with  the  air  of  a  victor.  ...  It  was 
now  evident  that  the  Girondists  were  no  match 
for  their  terrible  adversaries.  The  men  of  action 
ou  their  side,  Lou  vet,  Barbaroux,  and  Lanjuinais, 
in  vain  strove  to  rouse  them  to  the  necessity  of 
vigorous  measures  in  contending  with  such  ene- 
mies. Their  constant  reply  was,  that  they  would 
not  be  the  first  to  commence  the  shedding  of 
blood.  Their  whole  vigour  manifested  itself  iu 
declamation,  their  whole  wisdom  in  abstract  dis- 
cussion. They  had  now  become  humane  in  in- 
tention, and  moderate  in  counsel,  though  they 
were  far  from  having  been  so  iu  the  earlier  stages 
of  the  Revolution.  .  .  .  They  were  too  honour- 
able to  believe  in  the  wickedness  of  their  op- 
ponents, too  scrupulous  to  adopt  the  measures 
requisite  to  disarm,  too  destitute  of  moral  cour- 
age to  be  able  to  crush  them.  .  .  .  The  Jacobins 
.  .  .  while  they  were  daily  strengthening  and 
increasing  the  armed  force  of  the  sections  at  the 
command  of  the  municipality,  .  .  .  strenuously 
resisted  the  slightest  approach  towards  the  es- 
tablishment of  any  guard  or  civic  force  for  the 
defence  of  the  Convention.  .  .  .  Aware  of  their 
weakness  from  this  cause,  the  Girondists  brought 
forward  a  proposal  for  an  armed  guard  for  the 
Convention.  The  populace  was  immediately  put 
iu  motion,"  and  the  overawed  Convention  aban- 
doned the  measure.  "In  the  midst  of  these 
vehement  passions,  laws  still  more  stringent  and 
sanguinary  were  passed  against  the  priests  and 
emigrants.  .  .  .  First,  it  was  decreed  that  every 
Frenchman  taken  with  arms  in  his  hands  against 
France  should  be  punished  with  death ;  and  soon 
after,  that  '  the  French  emigrants  are  forever 
banished  from  the  territory  of  France,  and  those 
who  return  shall  be  punished  with  death.'  A 
third  decree  directed  that  all  their  property, 
movable  and  immovable,  should  be  confiscated 
to  the  service  of  the  state.  These  decrees  were 
rigidly  executed :  and  though  almost  unnoticed 
amidst  the  bloody  deeds  which  at  the  same  period 
stained  the  Revolution,  ultimately  produced  the 
most  lasting  and  irremediable  effects.  At  length 
the  prostration  of  the  Assembly  before  the 
armed  sections  of  Paris  had  become  so  excessive, 
that  Buzot  and  Barbaroux,  the  most  intrepid  of 
the  Girondists,  brought  forward  two  measures 
which,  if  they  could  have  been  carried,  would 
have  emancipated  the  legislatiu'e  from  this  odious 
thraldom.  Buzot  proposed  to  establish  a  guard, 
specially  for  the  protection  of  the  Convention, 
drawn  from  young  men  chosen  from  the  different 
departments.  Barbaroux  at  the  same  time 
brought  forward  four  decrees.  .  .  .  By  the  first, 
the  capital  was  to  cease  to  be  the  seat  of  the 
legislature,  when  it  lost  its  claim  to  their  presence 
by  failing  to  protect  them  from  insult.  By  the 
second,  the  troops  of  the  Federes  and  the  national 
cavalry  were  to  be  charged,  along  with  the  armed 
sections,  with  the  protection  of  the  legislature. 
By  the  third,  the  Convention  was  to  constitute 
itself  into  a  court  of  justice,  for  the  trial  of  all 
conspirators  against  its  authority.  By  the  fourth, 
the  Convention  suspended  the  municipality  of 
Paris.  .  .  .  The  Jacobins  skilfully  availed  them- 
selves of  these  impotent  manifestations  of  dis- 
trust, to  give  additional  currency  to  the  report 


1315 


FRANCE,  1792. 


The  Revolution 
becoming  Aggressive. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


that  the  Girondists  intended  to  transport  the  seat 
of  government  to  the  southern  provinces.  This 
rumour  rapidly  gained  ground  with  the  popu- 
lace, and  augmented  their  dislike  at  the  ministry. 
.  .  .  All  these  preliminary  struggles  were  essays 
of  strength  by  the  two  parties,  prior  to  the  grand 
question  which  was  now  destined  to  attract  the 
eyes  of  Europe  and  the  world.  This  was  the 
trial  of  Louis  XVI." — Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of 
JSurope,  ch.  8  (».  3). 

Also  en  :  G.  H.  Lewes,  Life  of  Robespierre,  ch. 
16. — A.  de  Lamartine,  Hist,  of  the  Girondists,  hk. 
29-31. — C.  D.  Yonge,  Hist,  of  France  under  the 
Bourbons,  ch.  43  (».  4). — J.  Moore,  Journal  in 
France,  1792,  r.  2. 

A.  D.  1792  (September — December). —  The 
wrar  on  the  northern  frontier. —  Battle  of 
Valmy. — Retreat  of  the  invading  army. — Cus- 
tine  in  Germany  and  Dumouriez  in  the  Nether- 
lands.— Annexation  of  Savoy  and  Nice. — The 
Decree  of  December  15. — Proclamation  of  a 
republican  crusade. — "The  defence  of  France 
rested  on  General  Dumouriez.  .  .  .  Happily  for 
France  the  slow  advance  of  the  Prussian  general 
permitted  Dumouriez  to  occupy  the  difficult 
country  of  the  Argonnes,  where,  while  waiting  for 
his  reinforcements,  he  was  able  for  some  time  to 
hold  the  invaders  in  check.  At  length  Bruns- 
wick made  his  way  past  the  defile  which  Du- 
mouriez had  chosen  for  his  first  line  of  defence ; 
but  it  was  only  to  find  the  French  posted  in  such 
strength  on  his  flank  that  any  further  advance 
would  imperil  his  own  army.  If  the  advance 
was  to  be  continued,  Dumouriez  must  be  dis- 
lodged. Accordingly,  on  the  20th  of  September, 
Brunswick,  facing  half-round  from  his  line  of 
march,  directed  his  artillery  against  the  hills  of 
Valmy,  where  Kellermann  and  the  French  left 
were  encamped.  The  cannonade  continued  for 
some  hours,  but  it  was  followed  by  no  general 
attack.  Already,  before  a  blow  had  been  struck, 
the  German  forces  were  wasting  away  with  dis- 
ease. .  .  .  The  King  of  Prussia  began  to  listen 
to  the  proposals  of  peace  which  were  sent  to  him 
by  Dumouriez.  A  week  spent  in  negotiations 
served  only  to  strengthen  the  French  and  to 
aggravate  the  scarcity  and  sickness  within  the 
German  camp.  Dissensions  broke  out  between 
the  Prussian  and  Austrian  commanders ;  a  retreat 
was  ordered ;  and,  to  the  astonishment  of  Europe, 
the  veteran  forces  of  Brunswick  fell  back  before 
the  mutinous  soldiery  and  unknown  generals  of 
the  Revolution.  ...  In  the  meantime  the  Legis- 
lative Assembly  had  decreed  its  own  dissolution 
.  .  .  and  had  ordered  the  election  of  representa- 
tives to  frame  a  constitution  for  France.  .  .  .  The 
Girondius,  who  had  been  the  party  of  extremes 
in  the  Legislative  Assembly,  were  the  party  of 
moderation  and  order  in  the  Convention.  .  .  . 
Monarchy  was  abolished,  and  France  declared 
a  Republic  (Sept.  21).  Office  continued  in  the 
hands  of  the  Gironde ;  but  the  vehement,  uncom- 
promising spirit  of  their  rivals,  the  so-called 
party  of  the  Mountain,  quickly  made  itself  felt 
in  all  the  relations  of  France  to  foreign  powers. 
The  intention  of  conquest  might  stiU  be  as  sin- 
cerely disavowed  as  it  had  been  five  months  be- 
fore; but  were  the  converts  to  liberty  to  be 
denied  the  right  of  uniting  themselves  to  the 
French  people  by  their  own  free  will  ? .  .  .  The 
scruples  which  had  lately  condemned  all  annex- 
ation of  territory  vanished  in  that  orgy  of  pa- 
triotism which  followed  the  expulsion  of  the  in 


vader  and  the  discovery  that  the  Revolution  was 
alreadj'  a  power  in  other  lands  than  France.  .  .  . 
Along  the  entire  frontier,  from  Dunkirk  to  the 
Maritime  Alps,  France  nowhere  touched  a  strong, 
united,  and  independent  people;  and  along  this 
entire  frontier,  except  in  the  country  opposite 
Alsace,  the  armed  proselytism  of  the  French 
Revolution  proved  a  greater  force  than  the  influ- 
ences on  which  the  existing  order  of  things  de- 
pended. In  the  Low  Countries,  in  the  Principali- 
ties of  the  Rhine,  in  Switzerland,  in  Savoy,  in 
Piedmont  itself,  the  doctrines  of  the  Revolution 
were  welcomed  by  a  more  or  less  numerous  class, 
and  the  armies  of  France  appeared  for  a  moment 
as  the  missionaries  of  liberty  and  right  rather  than 
as  an  invading  enemy.  No  sooner  had  Bruns- 
wick been  brought  to  a  stand  by  Dumouriez  at 
Valmy  than  a  French  division  under  Custine 
crossed  the  Alsatian  frontier  and  advanced  upon 
Spires,  where  Brunswick  had  left  large  stores  of 
war.  The  garrison  was  defeated  in  an  encoun- 
ter outside  the  town ;  Spires  and  Worms  surren- 
dered to  Custine.  In  the  neighbouring  fortress  of 
Mainz,  the  key  to  western  Germany,  Custine's 
advance  was  watched  with  anxious  satisfaction  by 
a  republican  party  among  the  inhabitants,  from 
whom  the  French  general  learnt  that  he  had  only 
to  appear  before  the  city  to  become  its  master. 
...  At  the  news  of  the  capture  of  Spires,  the 
Archbishop  retired  into  the  interior  of  Germany, 
leaving  the  administration  to  a  board  of  ecclesias- 
tics and  officials,  who  published  a  manifesto  call- 
ing upon  their  '  beloved  brethren  '  the  citizens  to 
defend  themselves  to  the  last  extremity,  and  then 
followed  their  master's  example.  A  council  of 
war  declared  the  city  to  be  untenable ;  and,  be- 
fore Custine  had  brought  up  a  single  siege-gun, 
the  garrison  capitulated,  and  the  French  were 
welcomed  into  Mainz  by  the  partisans  of  the 
Republic  (Oct.  20).  .  .  .  Although  the  mass  of 
the  inhabitants  held  aloof,  a  Republic  was  finally 
proclaimed,  and  incorporated  with  the  Republic 
of  France.  The  success  of  Custine's  raid  into 
Germany  did  not  divert  the  Convention  from  the 
design  of  attacking  Austria  in  the  Netherlands, 
which  Dumouriez  had  from  the  first  pressed 
upon  the  Government.  It  was  not  three  years 
since  the  Netherlands  had  been  in  full  revolt 
against  the  Emperor  Joseph.  .  .  .  Thus  the 
ground  was  everywhere  prepared  for  a  French 
occupation.  Dumouriez  crossed  the  frontier. 
The  border  fortresses  no  longer  existed :  and 
after  a  single  battle  won  by  the  French  at  Je- 
mappes  on  the  6th  November,  the  Austrians,  find- 
ing the  population  universally  hostile,  aban- 
doned the  Netherlands  without  a  struggle.  The 
victory  of  Jemappes,  the  first  pitched  battle  won 
by  the  Republic,  excited  an  outburst  of  revolu- 
tionary fervour  in  the  Convention  which  deeply 
affected  the  relations  of  France  to  Great  Britain, 
hitherto  a  neutral  spectator  of  the  war.  A  de- 
cree was  passed  for  the  publication  of  a  mani- 
festo in  all  languages,  declaring  that  the  French 
nation  offered  its  alUance  to  all  peoples  who 
wished  to  recover  their  freedom,  and  charging 
the  generals  of  the  Republic  to  give  their  pro- 
tection to  all  persons  who  had  suffered  or  might 
suffer  in  the  cause  of  liberty.  (Nov.  19.)  A  week 
later  Savoy  and  Nice  were  annexed  to  France, 
the  population  of  Savoy  having  almost  unani- 
mously declared  in  favour  of  France  on  the  out- 
break of  war  between  France  and  Sardinia,  On 
the  15th  December  the  Convention  proclaimed 


1316 


FRANCE,  1792. 


Charges  against 
the  King. 


FRANCE,  1792. 


that  a  system  of  social  and  political  revolution 
was  henceforth  to  accompany  every  movement 
of  its  armies  on  foreign  soil.  '  In  every  country 
that  shall  he  occupied  by  the  armies  of  the  French 
Republic' — such  was  the  substance  of  the  De- 
cree of  December  15th  —  '  the  generals  shall  an- 
nounce the  abolition  of  all  existing  authorities ; 
of  nobility,  of  serfage,  of  every  feudal  right  and 
every  monopoly;  they  shall  proclaim  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  people.  .  .  .  The  French  nation 
wiU  treat  as  enemies  any  people  which,  refusing 
liberty  and  equality,  desires  to  preserve  its  prince 
and  privileged  castes,  or  to  make  any  accommo- 
dation with  them. '  This  singular  announcement 
of  a  new  crusade  caused  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  to  arm." — C.  A.  Fyfle,  Hist,  of 
Modern  Europe,  v.  1,  ch.  2. 

Also  in;  F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hist,  of  the  18th 
Century,  v.  6,  div.  2,  ch.  2,  sect.  1. — E.  Baines, 
Hist,  of  the  Wars  of  the  French  Rev.,  hk.  1,  ch.  3-5 

(«.  1). 

A.D.  1792  (November— December).— Charges 
against  the  King. — Jacobin  clamor  for  his  con- 
demnation.— The  contest  in  Convention. — 
"There  were,  without  a  doubt,  in  this  conjunc- 
ture, a  great  number  of  Mountaineers  who.  on 
this  occasion,  acted  with  the  greatest  sincerity, 
and  only  as  republicans,  in  whose  eyes  Louis 
XVI.  appeared  guilty  with  respect  to  the  revo- 
lution ;  and  a  dethroned  king  was  dangerous  to 
a  young  democracy.  But  this  party  would  have 
been  more  clement,  had  it  not  had  to  ruiu  the 
Gironde  at  the  same  time  with  Louis  XVI.  .  .  . 
Party  motives  and  popular  animosities  combined 
against  this  unfortunate  prince.  Those  who, 
two  months  before,  would  have  repelled  the  idea 
of  exposing  him  to  any  other  punishment  than 
that  of  dethronement,  were  stupefied;  so  quickly 
does  man  lose  in  moments  of  crisis  the  right  to  de- 
fend his  opinions  I  .  .  .  Afterthe  10th  of  August, 
there  were  found  in  the  offices  of  the  civil  list 
documents  which  proved  the  secret  correspon- 
dence of  Louis  XVI.  with  the  discontented 
princes,  with  the  emigration,  and  with  Europe. 
In  a  report,  drawn  up  at  the  command  of  the 
legislative  assembly,  he  was  accused  of  intending 
to  betray  the  state  and  overthrow  the  revolu- 
tion. He  was  accused  of  having  written,  on  the 
16th  April,  1791,  to  the  bishop  of  Clermont,  that 
if  he  regained  his  power  he  would  restore  the 
former  government,  and  the  clergy  to  the  state 
in  which  they  previously  were ;  of  having  after- 
wards proposed  war,  merely  to  hasten  the  ap- 
proach of  his  deliverers ;  ...  of  having  been  on 
terms  with  his  brothers,  whom  his  public  meas- 
ures had  discountenanced ;  and,  lastly,  of  having 
constantly  opposed  the  revolution.  Fresh  docu- 
ments were  soon  brought  forward  in  support  of 
this  accusation.  In  the  Tuileries,  behind  a  panel 
in  the  wainscot,  there  was  a  hole  wrought  in  the 
wall,  and  closed  by  an  iron  door.  This  secret 
closet  was  pointed  out  by  the  minister,  Roland, 
and  there  were  discovered  proofs  of  all  the  con- 
spiracies and  intrigues  of  the  court  against  the 
revolution;  projects  with  the  popular  leaders  to 
strengthen  the  constitutional  power  of  the  king, 
to  restore  the  ancient  regime  and  the  aristocrats ; 
the  manoeuvres  of  Talon,  the  arrangements  with 
Jllrabeau,  the  propositions  accepted  by  Bouille, 
under  the  constituent  assembly,  and  some  new 
plots  under  the  legislative  assembly.  This  dis- 
covery increased  the  exasperation  against  Louis 
XVI.     Mirabeau's  bust  was  broken  by  the  Jaco- 


bins, and  the  convention  covered  the  one  which 
stood  in  the  hall  where  it  held  its  sittings.  For 
some  time  there  had  been  a  question  in  the  as- 
sembly as  to  the  trial  of  this  prince,  who,  having 
been  dethroned,  could  no  longer  be  proceeded 
against.  There  was  no  tribunal  empowered  to 
pronounce  his  sentence,  no  punishment  which 
could  be  inflicted  on  him:  accordingly,  they 
plunged  into  false  interpretations  of  the  inviola- 
bility granted  to  Louis  XVI.,  in  order  to  con- 
demn him  legally.  .  .  .  The  committee  of  legis- 
lation, commissioned  to  draw  up  a  report  on  the 
question  as  to  whether  Louis  XVI.  could  be 
tried,  and  whether  he  could  be  tried  by  the  con- 
vention, decided  in  the  affirmative.  .  .  .  The  dis- 
cussion commenced  on  the  13tli  of  November,  six 
days  after  the  report  of  the  committee.  .  .  .  This 
violent  party  [the  Mountain],  who  wished  to  sub- 
stitute a  coup  d'etat  for  a  sentence,  to  follow  no 
law,  no  form,  but  to  strike  Louis  XVI.  like  a 
conquered  prisoner,  by  making  hostilities  even 
survive  victory,  had  but  a  very  feeble  majority 
in  the  convention ;  but  without,  it  was  strongly 
supported  by  the  Jacobins  and  the  commune. 
Notwithstanding  the  terror  which  it  already  in- 
spired, its  murderous  suggestions  were  repelled 
by  the  convention ;  and  the  partisans  of  inviola- 
bility, in  their  turn,  courageously  asserted  reasons 
of  public  interest  at  the  same  time  as  rules  of 
justice  and  humanitj'.  They  maintained  that  the 
same  men  could  not  be  judges  and  legislators, 
tlie  jury  and  the  accusers.  ...  In  a  political 
view,  they  showed  the  consequences  of  the  king's 
condemnation,  as  it  would  afliect  the  anarchical 
party  of  the  kingdom,  rendering  it  still  more  in- 
solent; and  with  regard  to  Europe,  whose  still 
neutral  powers  it  would  induce  to  join  the  coali- 
tion against  the  republic.  But  Robespierre,  who 
during  this  long  debate  displayed  a  daring  and 
perseverance  that  presaged  his  power,  appeared 
at  the  tribune  to  support  Saint  Just,  to  reproach 
the  convention  with  involving  in  doubt  what  the 
insurrection  had  decided,  and  with  restoring,  by 
sympathy  and  the  publicity  of  a  defence,  the 
fallen  royalist  party.  'The  assembly,' said  Ro- 
bespierre, '  has  involuntarily  been  led  far  away 
from  the  real  question.  Here  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  trial :  Louis  Is  not  an  accused  man ; 
you  are  not  judges,  you  are,  and  can  only  be 
statesmen.  You  have  no  sentence  to  pronounce 
for  or  against  a  man,  but  you  are  called  on  to 
adopt  a  measure  of  public  safety ;  to  perform  an 
act  of  national  precaution.  A  dethroned  king  is 
only  fit  for  two  purposes,  to  disturb  the  tran- 
quillity of  the  state,  and  shake  its  freedom,  or  to 
strengthen  one  or  the  other  of  them.  Louis  was 
king ;  the  republic  is  founded ;  the  famous  ques- 
tion you  are  discussing  is  decided  in  these  few 
words.  Louis  cannot  be  tried ;  he  is  already 
tried,  he  is  condemned,  or  the  republic  is  not  ab- 
solved.' He  required  that  the  convention  should 
declare  Louis  XVI.  a  traitor  towards  the  French, 
criminal  towards  humanity,  and  sentence  him  at 
once  to  death,  by  virtue  of  the  insurrection.  The 
Mountaineers,  by  these  extreme  propositions,  by 
the  popularity  they  attained  without,  rendered 
condemnation  in  a  measure  inevitable.  By  gain- 
ing an  extraordinary  advance  on  the  other  parties, 
it  obliged  them  to  follow  it,  though  at  a  distance. 
The  majority  of  the  convention,  composed  in  a 
large  part  of  Girondists,  who  dared  not  pronounce 
Louis  XVI.  inviolable,  and  of  the  Plain,  decided, 
on  Petion's  proposition,  against  the  opinion  of 


1317 


FRANCE,  1792. 


The  King's  Trial. 


FRANCE,  1792-1793. 


the  fanatical  Mountaineers  and  against  that  of 
the  partisans  of  inviolabilitT,  that  Louis  XVI. 
should  be  tried  by  the  convention.  Robert  Lindet 
then  made,  in  the  name  of  the  commission  of  the 
twenty-one,  his  report  respecting  Louis  XVI. 
The  arraignment,  setting  forth  the  offences  im- 
puted to  him,  was  drawn  up,  and  the  conven- 
tion summoned  the  prisoner  to  its  bar." — F.  A. 
Mignet,  Bist.  of  the  FreneJi  Bev.,  ch.  6. 

Also  in  :  G.  H.  Lewes,  Life  of  Robespierre,  ch. 
17. — A.  de  Lamartlne,  Hist,  of  the  Qiroiidists,  bk. 
33-33  (r.  2).— A.  de  Beauchesne,  Lovis  XVU.: 
His  Life,  his  Suffering,  his  Death,  bk.  9. 

A.  D.  1792-1793  (December — January). — The 
King's  Trial  and  death  sentence. —  "On  De- 
cember 11,  the  ill-fated  monarch,  taken  from  his 
prison  to  his  former  palace,  appeared  at  the  bar 
of  his  republican  judges,  was  received  in  silence 
and  with  covered  heads,  and  answered  interroga- 
tories addressed  to  him  as  '  Louis  Capet,'  though 
with  an  air  of  deference.  His  passive  constancy 
touched  many  hearts.  ...  On  the  26th  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  King  made  an  eloquent  defence 
for  their  discrowned  client,  and  Louis  added,  in 
a  few  simple  words,  that  the  'blood  of  the  10th 
of  August  should  not  be  laid  to  his  charge.'  The 
debates  in  the  Assembly  now  began,  and  it  soon 
became  evident  that  the  Jacobin  faction  were 
making  the  question  the  means  to  further  their 
objects,  and  to  hold  up  their  opponents  to  popu- 
lar hatred.  They  clamored  for  immediate  ven- 
geance on  the  tyrant,  declared  that  the  Republic 
could  not  be  safe  untU  the  Court  was  smitten  on 
its  head,  and  a  great  example  had  been  given  to 
Europe,  and  denounced  as  reactionary  and  as 
concealed  royalists  all  who  resisted  the  demands 
of  patriotism.  These  ferocious  invectives  were 
aided  by  the  expedients  so  often  employed  with 
success,  and  the  capital  and  its  mobs  were  ar- 
rayed to  intimidate  any  deputies  who  hesitated 
in  the  '  cause  of  the  Nation. '  The  Moderates,  on 
the  other  hand,  were  divided  in  mind ;  a  majority, 
perhaps,  condemning  the  King,  but  also  wishing 
to  spare  his  life :  and  the  Gironde  leaders,  halt- 
ing between  their  convictions,  their  feelings,  their 
desires,  and  their  fears,  shrank  from  a  courageous 
and  resolute  course.  The  result  was  such  as 
usually  follows  when  energy  and  will  encounter 
indecision.  On  January  14  [the  15th,  according 
to  Thiers  and  others],  1793,  the  Convention  de- 
clared Louis  XVI.  guilty,  and  on  the  following 
day  [the  speaking  and  voting  lasted  through 
the  night  of  the  16th  and  the  day  after  it]  sen- 
tence of  immediate  death  was  pronounced  by  a 
majority  of  one  [but  the  miuorit)',  in  this  view, 
included  26  votes  that  were  cast  for  death  but 
in  favor  of  a  postponement  of  the  penalty,  on 
grounds  of  political  expediency],  proposals  for  a 
respite  and  an  appeal  to  the  people  having  been 
rejected  at  the  critical  moment.  The  votes  had 
been  taken  after  a  solemn  call  of  the  deputies  at 
a  sitting  protracted  for  days;  and  the  spectacle 
of  the  vast  dim  hall,  of  the  shadowy  figures  of 
the  awestruck  judges  meting  out  the  fate  of 
their  former  Sovereign,  and  tier  upon  tier  of  half- 
seen  faces,  looking,  as  in  a  theatre,  on  the  drama 
below,  and  breaking  out  into  discordant  clamor, 
made  a  fearful  impression  on  many  eye-witnesses. 
One  vote  excited  a  sensation  of  disgust  even 
among  the  most  ruthless  chiefs  of  the  Mountain, 
though  it  was  remarked  that  many  of  the  aban- 
doned women  who  crowded  the  galleries  shrieked 
approbation.    The  Duke  of  Orleans,  whose  Jaco- 


bin professions  had  caused  him  to  be  returned 
for  Paris,  with  a  voice  in  which  effrontery  min- 
gled with  terror,  pronounced  for  the  immediate 
execution  of  his  kinsman.  The  minister  of  jus- 
tice—  Danton  had  resigned  —  announced  on  the 
20th  the  sentence  to  the  King.  The  captive  re- 
ceived the  message  calmly,  asked  for  three  days 
to  get  ready  to  die  (a  request,  however,  at  once 
refused),  and  prayed  that  he  might  see  his  family 
and  have  a  confessor." — W.  O'C.  Morris,  The 
li^ench  Sev. ,  and  First  Empire,  ch.  5. 

Also  in:  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Fi-ench  Rev. 
{Am.  ed.),  v.2,pp.  44-72. — A.  F.'Bertrand  deMole- 
ville,  Private  Memoirs,  relative  to  the  last  year  of 
Lotiia  XVI.,  ch.  39-40.— J.  B.  Clery,  Journal  of 
Occurrences  at  the  Temple. 

A.  D.  1792-1793  (December— February).— 
Determinatioa  to  incorporate  the  Austrian 
Netherlands  and  to  attack  Holland. — Pitt's 
unavailing  struggle  for  peace.  —  England 
driven  to  arras. —  War  with  the  Maritime 
Powers  declared  by  the  French. — "Since  the 
beginning  of  December,  the  French  government 
had  contracted  their  far-reaching  schemes  within 
definite  limits.  They  were  compelled  to  give  up 
the  hope  of  revolutionizing  the  German  Empire 
and  establishing  a  Republic  in  the  British  Is- 
lands ;  but  they  were  all  the  more  determined  in 
the  resolve  to  subject  the  countries  which  had 
hitherto  been  occupied  in  the  name  of  freedom, 
to  the  rule  of  France.  This  object  was  more  es- 
pecially pursued  in  Belgium  by  Danton  and 
three  other  deputies,  who  were  sent  as  Commis- 
sioners of  the  Convention  to  that  country  on  the 
30th  of  November.  They  were  directed  to  en- 
quire into  the  condition  of  the  Provinces,  and  to 
consider  Dumouriez's  complaints  against  Pache 
[the  Minister  at  War]  and  the  Committee  formed 
to  purchase  supplies  for  the  army."  Danton  be- 
came resolute  in  the  determination  to  incorporate 
Belgium  and  pressed  the  project  inexorably. 
' '  It  was  a  matter  of  course  that  England 
would  interpose  both  by  word  and  deed  directly 
France  prepared  to  take  possession  of  Belgium. 
.  .  .  England  had  guaranteed  the  possession  of 
Belgium  to  the  Emperor  in  1790  —  and  the  closing 
of  the  Scheldt  to  the  Dutch,  and  its  political 
position  in  Holland  to  the  House  of  Orange  in 
1788.  Under  an  imperative  sense  of  her  own 
interests,  she  had  struggled  to  prevent  the  French 
from  gaining  a  footing  in  Antwerp  and  Ostend. 
Prudence,  fidelity  to  treaties,  the  retrospect  of 
the  past  and  the  hopes  of  the  future  —  all  called 
loudly  upon  her  not  to  allow  the  balance  of 
Europe  to  be  disturbed,  and  least  of  all  in  Bel- 
gium."—  H.  von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev., 
bk.  5,  c7i.  5  (v.  2). — "'The  French  Government 
resolved  to  attack  Holland,  and  ordered  its  gen- 
erals to  enforce  by  arms  the  opening  of  the 
Scheldt.  To  do  this  was  to  force  England  into 
war.  Public  opinion  was  already  pressing  every 
day  harder  upon  Pitt  [see  England  :  A.  D.  1793- 
1796].  .  .  .  Across  the  Channel  his  moderation 
was  only  taken  for  fear.  .  .  .  The  rejection  of 
his  last  offers  indeed  made  a  contest  inevitable. 
Both  sides  ceased  from  diplomatic  communica- 
tions, and  in  February  1793  France  issued  her 
Declaration  of  War." — J.  R.  Green,  Hist,  of 
tJie  English  People,  bk.  9,  ch.  4  {v.  4). 

Also  in  :  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of  Eng.  in 
tU  18th  Century,  ch.  23  (v.  6).— Earl  Stanhope, 
Life  of  Pitt,  ch.  16  {v.  2).— Despatches  of  Earl 
Gower,  pp.  256-309. 


1318 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Execution 
of  the  King. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


A.  D.  1793  (January). — The  execution  of 
the  king. — "To  this  conclusion,  then,  liast  thou 
come,  O  Ikapless  Louis !  The  Son  of  Sixty  Kings 
is  to  die  on  the  Scaffold  by  form  of  Law.  Under 
Sixty  Kings  this  same  form  of  law,  form  of 
Society,  has  been  fashioning  itself  together  these 
thousand  years;  and  has  become,  one  way  and 
other,  a  most  strange  Machine.  Surely,  if  need- 
ful, it  is  also  frightful,  this  Machine;  dead, 
blind ;  not  what  it  should  be ;  which  with  swift 
stroke,  or  by  cold  slow  torture,  has  wasted  the 
lives  and  souls  of  innumerable  men.  And  behold 
now  a  King  himself  or  say  rather  Kinghood  in 
his  person,  is  to  expire  here  in  cruel  tortures;  — 
like  a  Phalaris  shut  in  the  belly  of  his  own  red- 
heated  Brazen  Bull!  It  is  ever  so;  and  thou 
shouldst  luiow  it,  O  haughty  tyrannous  man: 
injustice  breeds  injustice;  curses  and  false- 
hoods do  verily  return  'always  home,'  wide  as 
they  may  wander.  Innocent  Louis  bears  the 
sins  of  many  generations:  he  too  experiences 
that  man's  tribunal  is  not  in  this  Earth ;  that  if  he 
had  no  higher  one,  it  were  not  well  with  him. 
A  King  dying  by  such  violence  appeals  impres- 
sively to  the  imagination ;  as  the  like  must  do, 
and  ought  to  do.  And  yet  at  bottom  it  is  not 
the  King  dying,  but  the  man!  Kingship  is  a 
coat:  the  grand  loss  is  of  the  skin.  The  man 
from  whom  you  take  his  Life,  to  him  can  the 
whole  combined  world  do  more?  ...  A  Con- 
fessor has  come;  Abbe  Edgeworth,  of  Irish 
extraction,  whom  the  King  knew  by  good  report, 
has  come  promptly  on  this  solemn  mission. 
Leave  the  Earth  alone,  then,  thou  hapless  King ; 
it  with  its  malice  will  go  its  way,  thou  also  canst 
go  thine.  A  hard  scene  yet  remains :  the  part- 
ing with  our  loved  ones.  Kind  hearts,  environed 
in  the  same  grim  peril  with  us ;  to  be  left  here ! 
Let  the  reader  look  with  the  eyes  of  Valet  Clery 
through  these  glass-doors,  where  also  the  Munici- 
pality watches ;  and  see  the  crudest  of  scenes : 
'At  half-past  eight,  the  door  of  the  ante-room 
opened:  the  Queen  appeared  first,  leading  her 
Son  by  the  hand;  then  Madame  Royale  and 
Madame  Elizabeth:  they  all  flung  themselves 
into  the  arms  of  the  King.  Silence  reigned  for 
some  minutes;  interrupted  only  by  sobs.'  .  .  . 
For  nearly  two  hours  this  agony  lasts;  then 
they  tear  themselves  asunder.  'Promise  that 
you  will  see  us  on  the  morrow.'  He  promises: 
—  Ah  yes,  yes;  yet  once;  and  go  now,  ye  loved 
ones;  cry  to  God  for  yourselves  and  me! — It 
was  a  hard  scene,  but  it  is  over.  He  will  not 
see  them  on  the  morrow.  The  Queen  in  passing 
through  the  ante-room,  glanced  at  the  Cerberus 
Municipals ;  and,  with  woman's  vehemence,  said 
through  her  tears,  '  Vous  etes  tons  des  scelerats. ' 
King  Louis  slept  sound,  till  five  in  the  morning, 
when  Clery,  as  he  had  been  ordered,  awoke  him. 
Clery  dressed  his  hair:  while  this  went  forward, 
Louis  took  a  ring  from  his  watch,  and  kept  try- 
ing it  on  his  finger;  it  was  his  wedding-ring, 
which  he  is  now  to  return  to  the  Queen  as  a 
mute  farewell.  At  half-past  six,  he  took  the 
Sacrament,  and  continued  in  devotion,  and  con- 
ference with  Abbe  Edgeworth.  He  will  not  see 
his  family :  it  were  too  hard  to  bear.  At  eight 
the  Municipals  enter:  the  King  gives  them  his 
Will,  and  messages  and  effects ;  which  they,  at 
first,  brutally  refuse  to  take  charge  of:  he  gives 
them  a  roll  of  gold  pieces,  a  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  louis ;  these  are  to  be  returned  to  Malesherbes, 
who  had  lent  them.     At  nine,  Santerre  says  the 


hour  is  come.  The  King  begs  yet  to  retire  for 
three  minutes.  At  the  end  of  three  minutes, 
Santerre  again  says  the  hour  is  come.  '  Stamp- 
ing on  the  ground  with  his  right-foot,  Louis 
answers;  Partons,  Let  us  go.' — How  the  rolling 
of  those  drums  comes  in,  through  the  Temple 
bastions  and  bulwarks,  on  the  heart  of  a  queenly 
wife;  soon  to  be  a  widow!  He  is  gone,  then, 
and  has  not  seen  us?  ...  At  the  Temple  Gate 
were  some  faint  cries,  perhaps  from  voices  of 
pitiful  women :  Grace!  Grace!  Through  the  rest 
of  the  streets  there  is  silence  as  of  the  grave. 
No  man  not  armed  is  allowed  to  be  there:  the 
armed,  did  any  even  pity,  dare  not  express  it, 
each  man  overawed  by  all  his  neighbours.  All 
windows  are  down,  none  seen  looking  through 
them.  All  shops  are  shut.  No  wheel-carriage 
rolls,  this  morning,  in  these  streets  but  one  only. 
80,000  armed  men  stand  ranked,  like  armed 
statues  of  men ;  cannons  bristle,  cannoneers  with 
match  burning,  but  no  word  or  movement:  it  is 
as  a  city  enchanted  into  silence  and  stone :  one 
carriage  with  its  escort,  slowly  rumbling,  is  the 
only  sound.  Louis  reads,  in  his  Book  of  Devo- 
tion, the  Prayers  of  the  Dying :  clatter  of  this 
death-march  falls  sharp  on  the  ear,  in  the  great 
silence ;  but  the  thought  would  fain  struggle 
heavenward,  and  forget  the  Earth.  As  the 
clock  strikes  ten,  behold  the  Place  de  la  Revolu- 
tion, once  Place  de  Louis  Quinze :  the  Guillotine, 
mounted  near  the  old  Pedestal  where  once  stood 
the  Statue  of  that  Louis !  Far  round,  all  bristles 
with  cannons  and  armed  men ;  spectators  crowd- 
ing in  the  rear ;  D'Orleans  Egalite  there  in  cabrio- 
let. .  .  .Heedless  of  all  Louis  reads  his  Prayers 
of  the  Dying;  not  till  five  minutes  yet  has  he 
finished;  then  the  Carriage  opens.  What  temper 
he  is  in?  Ten  different  witnesses  will  give  ten 
different  accounts  of  it.  He  is  in  the  collision  of 
all  tempers;  arrived  now  at  the  black  Mahl- 
strom  and  descent  of  Death :  in  sorrow,  in  indig- 
nation, in  resignation  struggling  to  be  resigned. 
'Take  care  of  M.  Edgeworth,'  he  straitly 
charges  the  Lieutenant  who  is  sitting  with  them : 
then  they  two  descend.  The  drums  are  beating: 
'  Taisez-vous,  Silence ! '  he  cries  '  in  a  terrible 
voice,  d'une  voix  terrible. '  He  mounts  the  scaf- 
fold, not  without  delay ;  he  is  in  puce  coat, 
breeches  of  gray,  white  stockings.  He  strips 
off  the  coat ;  stands  disclosed  in  a  sleeve-wai.stcoat 
of  white  flannel.  The  executioners  approach  to 
bind  him;  he  spurns,  resists;  Abbe  Edgeworth 
has  to  remind  him  how  the  Saviour,  in  whom  men 
trust,  submitted  to  be  bound.  His  hands  are  tied, 
his  head  bare ;  the  fatal  moment  is  come.  He 
advances  to  the  edge  of  the  Scaffold,  'his  face 
very  red,'  and  says:  'Frenchmen,  I  die  innocent: 
it  is  from  the  Scaffold  and  near  appearing  before 
God  that  I  tell  you  so.     I  pardon  my  enemies ;  I 

desire  that  France '    A  General  on  horseback, 

Santerre  or  another,  prances  out  with  ujjlifted 
hand :  '  Tambours ! '  The  drums  drown  the  voice. 
'  Executioners,  do  your  duty ! '  The  Execu- 
tioners, desperate  lest  themselves  be  murdered 
(for  Santerre  and  his  Armed  Ranks  will  strike, 
if  they  do  not),  seize  the  hapless  Louis:  six  of 
them  desperate,  him  singly  desperate,  struggling 
there;  and  bind  him  to  their  plank.  Abbelidge- 
worth,  stooping,  bespeaks  him;  'Son  of  Saint 
Louis,  ascend  to  Heaven.'  The  Axe  clanks 
down ;  a  King's  Life  is  shorn  away.  It  is  Mon- 
day the  21st  of  .January  1793.  He  was  aged  38 
years  four  months  and  28  days.     Executioner 


1319 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Tfie  Revolutionary 
Tribunal. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Samson  shows  the  Head :  fierce  shouts  of  Vive  la 
Repuliliquc  rises,  and  swells ;  caps  raised  on  bayo- 
nets, hats  waving:  students  of  the  College  of 
Four  Nations  take  it  up,  on  the  far  Quais;  fling 
it  over  Paris.  D'Orleans  drives  off  in  his  cabrio- 
let: the  Townhall  Councillors  rub  their  hands, 
.saying,  'It  is  done.  It  is  done.'  ...  In  the 
coffee-houses  that  evening,  says  Prudhomme, 
Patriot  shook  hands  with  Patriot  in  a  more  cor- 
dial manner  than  usual.  Not  till  some  days 
after,  according  to  Mercier,  did  public  men  see 
what  a  grave  thing  it  was.  A  grave  thing  it 
indisputably  is;  and  will  have  consequences.  .  .  . 
At  home  this  Killing  of  a  King  has  divided  all 
friends;  and  abroad  it  has  united  all  enemies. 
Fraternity  of  Peoples,  Revolutionary  Propagan- 
dism;  Atheism,  Regicide;  total  destruction  of 
social  order  in  this  world !  All  Kings,  and  lovers 
of  Kings,  and  haters  of  Anarchy,  rank  in  coali- 
tion; as  in  a  war  for  life." — T.  Carlyle,  The  Fr. 
Rev.,  V.  3,  bk.  2,  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1793  (February — April). —  Increasing 
anarchy. —  Degradation  of  manners. —  Forma- 
tion of  the  terrible  Revolutionary  Tribunal. — 
Treacherous  designs  of  Dumouriez. —  His  in- 
vasion of  Holland. —  His  defeat  at  Neer- 
winden  and  retreat. —  His  flight  to  the  enemy. 
— "  While  the  French  were  .  .  .  throwing  down 
the  gauntlet  to  all  Europe,  their  own  country 
seemed  sinking  into  anarchical  dissolution. 
Paris  was  tilled  with  tumult,  insurrection  and 
robbery.  At  the  denunciations  of  Jlarat  against 
'  f orestallers, '  the  shops  were  entered  by  the 
mob,  who  carried  off  articles  at  their  own  prices, 
and  sometimes  without  paying  at  all.  The 
populace  was  agitated  by  the  harangues  of  low 
itinerant  demagogues.  Rough  and  brutal  man- 
ners were  affected,  and  all  the  courtesies  of  life 
abolished.  The  revolutionary  leaders  adopted  a 
dress  called  the  'carmagnole,'  consisting  of 
enormous  black  pantaloons,  a  short  jacket,  a 
three-coloured  waistcoat,  and  a  Jacobite  wig  of 
short  black  hair,  a  terrible  moustache,  the 
'bonnet  rouge,' and  an  enormous  sabre.  [The 
name  Carmagnole  was  also  given  to  a  tune  and 
a  dance ;  it  is  supposed  to  have  borne  originally 
some  reference  not  now  understood  to  Carraag- 
nola  in  Piedmont.]  Moderate  persons  of  no 
strong  political  opinions  were  denounced  as 
'suspected,'  and  their  crime  stigmatised  by  the 
newly  coined  word  of  '  moderantisme. '  The  varia- 
tions of  popular  feeling  were  recorded  like  the 
heat  of  the  weather,  or  the  rising  of  a  flood. 
The  principal  articles  in  the  journals  were 
entitled  '  Thermometer  of  the  Public  Mind ;'  the 
Jacobins  talked  of  .  .  .  being 'up  to  the  level.' 
Many  of  the  provinces  were  in  a  disturbed  state. 
A  movement  had  been  organising  in  Brittany  ever 
since  1791,  but  the  death  of  the  Marquis  de  la 
Rouarie,  its  principal  leader,  had  for  the  present 
suspended  it.  A  more  formidable  iusurrection 
was  preparing  in  La  Vendee.  ...  It  was  in  the 
midst  of  these  disturbances,  aggravated  by  a 
suspicion  of  General  Dumouriez's  treachery, 
which  we  shall  presently  have  to  relate,  that  the 
terrible  court  known  as  the  Revolutionary 
Tribunal  was  established.  It  was  first  formally 
proposed  in  the  Convention  March  9th,  by 
Carrier,  the  miscreant  afterwards  notorious  by 
his  massacres  at  Nantes,  urged  by  Cambacerfis 
on  the  10th,  and  completed  that  very  night  at 
the  instance  of  Danton,  who  rushed  to  the 
tribune,  insisted  that  the  Assembly  should  not 


separate,  till  the  new  Court  had  been  organised. 
.  .  .    The    extraordinary    tribunal    of    August 
1792  had  not  been  found  to  work  fast  enough, 
and  it  was  now  superseded   by  this   new  one, 
which  became  in  fact  only  a  method  of  massa- 
cring under  the  form  of  law.    The  Revolutionary 
Tribunal  was  designed  to  take  cognisance  of  all 
counter-revolutionary   attempts,  of    all   attacks 
upon  liberty,  equality,   the  unity  and  indivisi- 
bility of  the  Republic,  the  internal  and  external 
safety  of  the  State.     A  commission  of  six  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  was  to  examine  and  re- 
port upon  the  cases  to  be  brought  before  it,  to 
draw   up   and   present  the   acts  of  accusation. 
The  tribunal  was  to  be  composed  of  a  jury  to 
decide  upon  the  facts,  five  judges  to  apply  the 
law,  a  public  accuser,  and  two  substitutes ;  from 
its  sentence   there  was  no  appeal.     Meanwhile 
Dumouriez  had  returned  to  the  army,  very  dis- 
satisfied that  he  had  failed  in  his  attempts  to 
save  the  King  and  baffle  the  Jacobins.     He  had 
formed  the  design  of  invading  Holland,  dissolv- 
ing the  Revolutionary  Committee  in  that  coun- 
try, annulling  the  decree  of  Dec.  15th,  offering 
neutrality  to  the  English,  a  suspension  of  arms 
to  the  Austrians,   reuniting    the    Belgian   and 
Batavian  republics,  and  proposing  to  France  a 
re-union    with    them.     In  case  of    refusal,   he 
designed  to  march  upon  Paris,  dissolve  the  Con- 
vention,   extinguish    Jacobinism;    in   short,    to 
play  the  part  of  Monk  in  England.     This  plan 
was  confided  to  four  persons  only,  among  whom 
Danton    is    said    to    have  been  one.  .  .  .  Du- 
mouriez,   having   directed   General   Miranda  to 
lay  siege  to  Maestricht,  left  Antwerp  for  Hol- 
land, Feb.  22nd,  and  by  March  4th  had  seized 
Breda,  Klundert  and  Gertruydenberg.     Austria, 
at  the  instance  of  England,  "had  pushed  forward 
112,000  men  under  Prince  Josias  of  Saxe-Coburg. 
C'lairfait,  with  his  army,  at  this  time  occupied 
Berghem,    where  he   was  separated    from    the 
French   only  by  the  little   river   Roer  and  the 
fortress    of    Juliers.       Coburg,    having    joined 
Clairfait,  March  1st,  crossed  the  Roer,  defeated 
the  French  under  Dampierre  at  Altenhoven,  and 
thus  compelled   Miranda  to  raise   the   siege  of 
Maestricht,  and  retire  towards  Tongres.     Aix-la- 
Chapelle  was  entered  by  the  Austrians  after  a 
smart  contest,  and  the  French  compelled  to  re- 
treat   upon    Liege,    while   the   divisions   under 
Stengel  and  Neuilly,  being  cut  off  by  this  move- 
ment,  were  thrown   back  into  Limburg.     The 
Austrians    then    crossed  the   Meuse,   and   took 
Liege,  March  6th.     Dumouriez  was  now  com. 
pelled  to  concentrate    his    forces    at  Louvain. 
From  this  place  he  wrote  a  threatening  letter  to 
the  Convention,  March  11th,  denouncing  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  ministry,  the  acts  of  o]ipression 
committed  in  Belgium,  and  the  decree  of  Decem- 
ber 15th.     This  letter  threw  the  Committee  of 
General    Defence    into    consternation.     It    was 
resolved  to  keep  it    secret,    and    Danton    and 
Lacroix  set  off  for  Dumouriez's  camp,  to  try 
what  they  could  do  with  him,  but  found  him  in- 
flexible.    His  proceedings  had  already  unmasked 
his  designs.     At   Antwerp  he  had  ordered  the 
Jacobin  Club  to  be  closed,  and  the  members  to 
be  imprisoned,  at  Brussels  he  had  dissolved  the 
legion  of  '  sans-culottes. '     Dumouriez  was  de- 
feated by  Prince  Coburg  at  Neerwinden,  Jlarch 
18th,  and  again  on  the  22nd  at  Louvain.     In  a 
secret  interview  with  the  Austrian  Colonel  Mack, 
a  day  or  two  after,  at  Ath,  he  announced  to  that 


1320 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Insurrection 
in  La  I'endee. 


FRANCE,   1793. 


officer  his  intention  to  march  on  Paris  and  estab- 
lish a  constitutional  monarchy,  but  nothing  was 
said  as  to  who  was  to  wear  the  crown.  The 
Austrians  were  to  support  Dumouriez's  advance 
upon  Paris,  but  not  to  show  themselves  e.xcept 
in  case  of  need,  and  he  was  to  have  the  com- 
mand of  what  Austrian  troops  he  might  select. 
The  French  now  continued  their  retreat,  which, 
in  consequence  of  these  negociations,  was  un- 
molested. The  Archduke  Charles  and  Prince 
Coburg  entered  Brussels  March  25th,  and  the 
Dutch  towns  were  shortly  after  retaken.  When 
Dumouriez  arrived  with  his  van  at  Courtrai,  he 
was  met  by  three  emissaries  of  the  Jacobins, 
sent  apparently  to  sound  him.  He  bluntly  told 
them  that  his  design  was  to  save  France,  whether 
they  called  him  Ca;sar,  Cromwell  or  Monk,  de- 
nounced the  Convention  as  an  assembly  of 
tyrants,  said  that  he  despised  their  decrees.  .  .  . 
At  St.  Amand  he  was  met  by  Beurnonville,  then 
minister  of  war,  who  was  to  supersede  him  in 
the  command,  and  by  four  commissaries  de- 
spatched by  the  Convention."  Dumouriez 
arrested  these,  delivered  tliem  to  Clairfait,  and 
they  were  sent  to  Maestricht.  "  The  allies  were 
so  sanguine  that  Dumouriez's  defection  would 
put  an  end  to  the  Revolution,  that  Lord  Auck- 
land and  Count  Stahremberg,  the  Austrian 
minister,  looking  upon  the  dissolution  and  flight 
of  the  Convention  as  certain,  addressed  a  joint 
note  to  the  States-General,  requesting  them  not 
to  shelter  such  members  of  it  as  had  taken  any 
part  in  the  condemnation  of  Louis  XVI.  But 
Dumouriez's  army  was  not  with  him.  On  tlie 
road  to  Conde  he  was  fired  on  by  a  body  of 
volunteers  and  compelled  to  fly  for  his  life  (April 
4th)."  The  day  following  he  abandoned  his 
army  and  went  over  to  the  Austrian  quarters  at 
Tournay,  with  a  few  companions,  thus  ending 
liis  political  and  military  career.  ' '  The  situation 
of  France  at  this  time  seemed  almost  desperate. 
The  army  of  the  North  was  completely  dis- 
organised through  the  treachery  of  Dumoiiriez ; 
the  armies  of  the  Rhine  and  Moselle  were  re- 
treating ;  those  of  the  Alps  and  Italy  were  ex- 
pecting an  attack;  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Pyrenees  the  troops  were  without  artillery,  with- 
out generals,  almost  without  bread,  while  on  the 
western  side  the  Spaniards  were  advancing 
towards  Bayonne.  Brest,  Cherbourg,  the  coasts 
of  Brittany,  were  threatened  by  the  English. 
The  ocean  ports  contained  only  si.x  ships  of  the 
line  ready  for  sea,  and  the  Mediterranean  fleet 
was  being  repaired  at  Toulon.  But  the  energy 
of  the  revolutionary  leaders  was  equal  to  the 
occasion." — T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
bk.  7,  ch.  5  (j).  4). 

Also  in  A.  Grifllths,  French  Revolutionary 
Generals,  ch.  5. — F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hiit.  of  the 
18th  Century,  v.  6,  div.  2,  ch.  2,  sect.  1-3.— C. 
MacFarlane,  Th^!  FV.  Rev.,  v.  8,  ch.  11. 

A.  D.  1793  (March— April). — The  insurrec- 
tion in  La  Vendee. — "Ever  since  the  abolition 
of  royalty  and  the  constitution  of  1790,  that  is, 
since  the  10th  of  August,  a  condemnatory  and 
threatening  silence  had  prevailed  in  Normandy. 
Bretagne  exhibited  still  more  hostile  sentiments, 
and  the  people  there  were  engrossed  by  fondness 
for  the  priests  and  the  gentry.  Nearer  to  the  hanks 
of  the  Loire,  this  attachment  amounted  to  insur- 
rection; and  lastly,  on  the  left  bank  of  that  river, 
in  the  Bocage,  Le  Loroux,  and  La  Vendee,  the 
insurrection  was  complete,  and  large  armies  of 


ten  and  twenty  thousand  men  were  already  i;i 
the  field.  ...  It  was  particularly  on  this  left 
bank,  in  Anjou,  and  Upper  and  Lower  Poitou, 
that  the  famous  war  of  La  Vendee  had  broken 
out.  It  was  in  this  part  of  France  that  the 
influence  of  time  was  least  felt,  and  that  it  had 
produced  least  change  in  the  ancient  manners. 
The  feudal  system  had  there  acquired  a  truly 
patriarchal  character;  and  the  Revolution,  in- 
stead of  operating  a  beneficial  reform  in  the 
country,  had  shocked  the  most  kindly  habits  and 
been  received  as  a  persecution.  The  Bocage  and 
the  Marais  constitute  a  singular  country,  which 
it  is  necessary  to  describe,  in  order  to  convey  an 
idea  of  the  manners  of  the  population,  and  the 
kind  of  society  that  was  formed  there.  Setting 
out  from  Nantes  and  Saumur  and  proceeding 
from  the  Loire  to  the  sands  of  Olonne,  Lupon, 
Pontenay,  and  Niort,  you  meet  with  an  unequal 
undulating  soil,  intersected  by  ravines  and 
crcssed  by  a  multitude  of  hedges,  which  serve 
to  fence  in  each  field,  and  which  have  on  this 
account  obtained  for  the  country  the  name  of 
the  Bocage.  As  you  approach  the  sea  the  ground 
declines,  till  it  terminates  in  salt  marshes,  and  is 
everywhere  cut  up  by  a  multitude  of  small 
canals,  which  render  access  almost  impossible. 
This  is  what  is  called  the  Marais.  The  only 
abundant  produce  in  this  country  is  pasturage, 
consequently  cattle  are  plentiful.  The  peasants 
there  grew  only  just  sufficient  corn  for  their  own 
consumption,  and  employed  the  produce  of  their 
herds  and  flocks  as  a  medium  of  exchange.  It  is 
well  known  that  no  people  are  more  simple  than 
those  subsisting  by  this  kind  of  industry.  Few 
great  towns  had  been  built  in  these  parts.  They 
contained  only  large  villages  of  two  or  three 
thousand  souls.  Between  the  two  high-roads 
leading,  the  one  from  Tours  to  Poitiers,  and  the 
other  from  Nantes  to  La  Rochelle,  extended  a 
tract  thirty  leagues  in  breadth,  where  there  were 
none  but  cross-roads  leading  to  villages  and 
hamlets.  The  country  was  divided  into  a  great 
number  of  small  farms  paying  a  rent  of  from 
five  to  six  hundred  francs,  each  let  to  a  single 
family,  which  divided  the  produce  of  the  cattle 
with  the  proprietor  of  the  land.  From  this  divi- 
sion of  farms,  the  seigneurs  had  to  treat  with 
each  family,  and  kept  up  a  continual  and  easy 
intercourse  with  them.  The  simplest  mode  of 
life  prevailed  in  the  mansions  of  the  gentry: 
they  were  fond  of  the  chase,  on  account  of  the 
abundance  of  game ;  the  gentry  and  the  peasants 
liunted  together,  and  they  were  all  celebrated 
for  their  skill  and  vigour.  The  priests,  men  of 
extraordinary  purity  of  character,  exercised 
there  a  truly  paternal  ministry.  .  .  .  When  the 
Revolution,  so  beneficent  in  other  quarters, 
reached  this  country,  with  its  Iron  level,  it  pro- 
duced profound  agitation.  It  had  been  well  if  it 
could  have  made  an  exception  there,  but  that 
was  impossible.  .  .  .  When  the  removal  of  the 
non-juring  priests  deprived  the  peasants  of  the 
ministers  in  whom  they  had  confidence,  they 
were  vehemently  exasperated,  and,  as  in  Bre- 
tagne, they  ran  into  the  woods  and  travelled  to  a 
considerable  distance  to  attend  the  ceremonies  of 
a  worship,  the  only  true  one  in  their  estimation. 
From  that  moment  a  violent  hatred  was  kindled 
in  their  souls,  and  the  priests  neglected  no 
means  of  fanning  the  flames.  The  10th  of 
August  drove  several  Poitevin  nobles  back  to 
their  estates;    the  21st  of    January    estranged 


1321 


FRANCE,  1793. 


La  Vcjtdee. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


them,  and  they  communicated  their  indignation 
to  those  about  them.  They  did  not  conspire, 
however,  as  some  have  conceived.  The  known 
dispositions  of  the  country  had  incited  men  who 
were  strangers  to  it  to  frame  plans  of  conspiracy. 
One  had  been  hatched  in  Bretagne,  but  none  was 
formed  in  the  Socage ;  tliere  was  no  concerted 
plan  there ;  the  people  suffered  themselves  to  be 
driven  to  extremity.  At  length,  the  levy  of 
300,000  men  excited  in  the  month  of  March  a 
general  insurrection.  .  .  .  Obliged  to  take  arms, 
tliey  chose  rather  to  fight  against  the  republic 
than  for  it.  Nearly  about  the  same  time,  that 
is,  at  the  beginning  of  March,  the  drawing  was 
the  occasion  of  an  insurrection  in  the  Upper 
Socage  and  in  the  Marais.  On  the  10th  of 
March,  the  drawing  was  to  take  place  at  St. 
Florent,  near  Ancenis.  in  Anjou.  The  young 
men  refused  to  draw.  The  guard  endeavoured  to 
force  them  to  comply.  The  military  command- 
ant ordered  a  piece  of  cannon  to  be  pointed  and 
fired  at  tlie  mutineers.  They  dashed  forward 
with  their  bludgeons,  made  themselves  masters 
of  the  piece,  disarmed  the  guard,  and  were,  at 
the  same  time,  not  a  little  astonished  at  their  own 
temerity.  A  carrier,  named  Cathelineau,  a  man 
highly  esteemed  in  that  part  of  the  country, 
possessing  great  bravery  and  powers  of  persua- 
sion, quitting  his  farm  on  hearing  the  tidings, 
hastened  to  join  them,  rallied  them,  roused  their 
courage,  and  gave  some  consistency  to  the  insur- 
rection by  his  skill  in  keeping  it  up.  The  very 
same  day  he  resolved  to  attack  a  republican 
post  consisting  of  eighty  men.  The  peasants 
followed  him  with  their  bludgeons  and  their 
muskets.  After  a  first  volley,  every  shot  of 
which  told,  because  they  were  excellent  marks- 
men, they  rushed  upon  the  pest,  disarmed  it, 
and  made  themselves  master  of  the  position. 
Next  day,  Cathelineau  proceeded  to  Chemille, 
which  he  likewise  took,  in  spite  of  200  republi- 
cans and  three  pieces  of  cannon.  A  gamekeeper 
at  the  chateau  of  Maulevrier,  named  Stofilet,  and 
a  young  peasant  of  the  village  of  Chanzeau,  had 
on  their  part  collected  a  band  of  peasants. 
These  came  and  joined  Cathelineau,  who  con- 
ceived the  daring  design  of  attacking  Chollet, 
the  most  considerable  town  in  the  country,  the 
chief  place  of  a  district,  and  guarded  by  500 
republicans.  .  .  .  The  victorious  band  of  Cathe- 
lineau entered  Chollet,  seized  all  the  arms  that  it 
could  find,  and  made  cartridges  out  of  the 
charges  of  the  cannon.  It  was  always  in  tliis 
manner  that  the  Vendeans  procured  ammunition. 
.  .  .  Another  much  more  general  revolt  had 
broken  out  in  the  Marais  and  the  department  of 
La  Vendee.  At  Machecoul  and  Challans,  the 
recruiting  was  the  occasion  of  a  universal  insur- 
rection. .  .  .  Three  hundred  republicans  were 
Bhot  by  parties  of  20  or  30.  .  .  .  In  the  depart- 
ment of  La  Vendee,  that  is,  to  the  south  of  tlie 
theatre  of  this  war,  the  insurrection  assumed 
still  more  consistence.  The  national  guards  of 
Fontenay,  having  set  out  on  their  march  for 
Chantonnay,  were  repulsed  and  beaten.  Chan- 
tonnay  was  plundered.  General  Verteuil,  who 
commanded  the  11th  military  division,  on 
receiving  intelligence  of  this  defeat,  dispatched 
General  Marce  with  1,200  men,  partly  troops  of 
the  line,  and  partly  national  guards.  The  rebels 
who  were  met  at  St.  Vincent,  were  repulsed. 
General  Marce  had  time  to  add  1,200  more  men 
and  nine  pieces  of  cannon  to  his  little  army.     In 


marching  upon  St.  Fulgent,  he  again  fell  in 
with  the  Vendeans  in  a  valley  and  stopped  to 
restore  a  bridge  which  they  liad  destroyed. 
About  four  in  the  afternoon  of  the  18th  of  March, 
the  Vendeans,  taking  the  initiative,  advanced 
and  attacked  him  .  .  .  and  made  themselves 
masters  of  the  artillery,  the  ammunition,  and  the 
arms,  which  the  soldiers  threw  away  that  they 
might  be  the  lighter  in  their  flight.  These  more 
important  successes  in  the  department  of  La 
Vendee  properly  so  called,  procured  for  the 
insurgents  the  name  of  Vendeans,  which  they 
afterwards  retained,  though  the  war  was  far 
more  active  out  of  La  Vendee.  The  pillage 
committed  by  them  in  the  Marais  caused  them 
to  be  called  brigands,  though  the  greater  number 
did  not  deserve  that  appellation.  The  insurrec- 
tion extended  into  the  Slarais  from  the  environs 
of  Nantes  to  Les  Sables,  and  into  Anjou  and 
Poitou,  as  far  as  the  environs  of  Vihiers  and 
Parthenay.  .  .  .  Easter  recalled  all  the  insur- 
gents to  their  liomes,  from  which  they  never 
would  stay  away  long.  To  them  a  war  was  a 
sort  of  sporting  excursion  of  several  days ;  they 
carried  with  them  a  sufficient  quantity  of  bread 
for  the  time,  and  then  returned  to  inflame  their 
neighbours  by  the  accounts  which  they  gave. 
Places  of  meeting  were  appointed  for  the  month 
of  April.  The  Insurrection  was  then  general 
and  extended  over  the  whole  surface  of  the 
country.  It  might  be  comprised  in  a  line 
which,  commencing  at  Nantes,  would  pass 
through  Pornic,  the  Isle  of  Noirmoutiers,  Les 
Sables,  Lugon,  Fontenay,  Niort,  and  Parthenay, 
and  return  by  Airvault,  Thouar,  Done,  and  St. 
Florent,  to  the  Loire.  The  insurrection,  begun 
by  men  who  were  not  superior  to  the  peasants 
whom  they  commanded,  excepting  by  their 
natural  qualities,  was  soon  continued  by  men  of 
a  higher  rank.  The  peasants  went  to  the  man- 
sions and  forced  the  nobles  to  put  themselves  at 
their  head.  The  whole  Marais  insisted  on  being 
commanded  by  Charette.  ...  In  the  Socage, 
the  peasants  applied  to  ]\Iessrs.  de  Bonchamps, 
d'Elbee,  and  de  Laroche-Jacquelein,  and  forced 
them  from  their  mansions  to  place  them  at  their 
head."  These  gentlemen  were  afterwards 
joined  by  M.  de  Lescure,  a  cousin  of  Henri  de 
Laroche-Jacquelin. — A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Pr. 
Rev.  (Am.  ed.),  i\  2,  pp.  146-152. 

Also  in  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  ch.  12, 
{i\  3). — Marquise  de  Larochejaquelein,  Memoirs. 
— Henri  Larochejaquelein  and  the  War  in  La 
Vendee,  (Chambers  Miscellany,  i\  2). — L.  I. 
Guiney,  Monsieur  Henri  (de  La  Rochejaquelein.) 

A.  D.  1793  (March — June).  —  Vigorous 
measures  of  the  Revolutionary  government. — 
The  Committee  of  Public  Safety. — The  final 
struggle  of  Jacobins  and  Girondins. — The 
fall  of  the  Girondins. — The  news  of  the  defeat 
of  Dumouriez  at  Neerwinden,  which  reached 
Paris  on  the  21st,  "  brought  about  two  important 
measures.  Jean  Debry,  on  behalf  of  the 
Diplomatic  Committee,  proposed  that  all  strangers 
should  be  expelled  from  France  within  eight 
days  who  could  not  give  a  good  reason  for  their 
residence,  and  on  the  same  evening  the  Commit- 
tee of  General  Defence  was  reorganized  and 
placed  on  another  footing.  This  committee  had 
come  into  existence  in  .January,  1793.  It  origi- 
nally consisted  of  81  members,  who  were  not 
directly  elected  by  the  Convention,  but  were 
chosen  from  the  seven  most  important  commit- 


1322 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Full  of  the 
Girundins. 


FRANCE,   1793. 


tees.  But  now,  after  the  news  of  Neerwinden, 
a  powerful  committee  was  directly  elected.  It 
consisted  of  24  members,  and  the  first  committee 
contained  nine  Girondins,  nine  deputies  of  the 
Plain,  and  six  Jacobins,  including  every  repre- 
sentative man  in  the  Convention.  .  .  .  The  new 
Committee  was  given  the  greatest  powers,  and 
after  lirst  proposing  to  the  Convention  that  the 
penalty  of  death  should  be  decreed  against  every 
emigre  over  fourteen,  and  to  every  one  who  pro- 
tected an  emigre,  it  proposed  that  Dumouriez 
should  be  summoned  to  the  bar  of  the  Conven- 
tion." Early  in  April,  news  of  the  desertion  of 
Dumouriez  and  the  retreat  of  Custine,  "made 
the  Convention  decide  on  yet  further  measures 
to  strengthen  the  executive.  Marat,  who,  lilie 
Danton  and  Robespierre,  was  statesman  enough  to 
perceive  the  need  of  strengthening  the  executive, 
proposed  that  enlarged  powers  should  be  given 
to  the  committees ;  and  Isnard,  as  the  reporter 
of  the  Committee  of  General  Defence,  proposed 
the  establisliment  of  a  smaller  committee  of  nine, 
with  supreme  and  unlimited  executive  powers — 
a  proposal  which  was  warmly  supported  by 
every  statesman  in  the  Convention.  ...  It  is 
noticeable  that  every  measure  which  strength- 
ened the  terror  when  it  was  finally  established 
was  decreed  while  the  Girondins  could  com- 
mand a  majority  in  the  Convention,  and  that  it 
was  a  Girondin,  Isnard,  who  proposed  the 
immense  powers  of  the  Committee  of  Public 
Safety  [Comite  de  Salut  Public].  Upon  April  6 
Isnard  brought  up  a  decree  defining  the  powers 
of  the  new  committee.  It  was  to  consist  of 
nine  deputies;  to  confer  in  secret;  to  have 
supreme  executive  power,  and  autliority  to 
spend  certain  sums  of  money  without  account- 
ing for  them,  and  it  was  to  present  a  weelily 
report  to  the  Convention.  These  immense 
powers  were  granted  under  the  pressure  of  news 
from  the  frontier,  and  it  was  obvious  that  it 
would  not  be  long  before  such  a  powerful 
executive  could  conquer  the  independence  of  the 
Convention.  Isnard's  proposals  were  opposed 
by  Buzot,  but  decreed;  and  on  April  7  the  first 
Committee  of  Public  Safety  was  elected.  It 
consisted  of  the  following  members; — Barere, 
Delmas,  Breard,  Cambon,  Danton,  Guyton- 
Morveau,  Treilhard,  Lacroi.x,  and  Robert  Lindet. 
The  very  first  proposal  of  the  new  committee 
vras  that  it  should  appoint  three  representatives 
with  every  army  from  among  the  deputies  of 
the  Convention,  with  unlimited  powers,  who 
were  to  report  to  the  committee  itself.  This 
motion  was  followed  by  a  very  statesmanlike  one 
from  Danton.  He  perceived  the  folly  of  the 
decree  of  November  18,  which  declared  univer- 
sal war  against  all  kings.  ...  On  his  propo- 
sition the  fatal  decree  .  .  .  was  withdrawn,  and 
it  was  made  possible  for  France  again  to  enter 
into  the  comity  of  European  nations.  It  is  very 
obvious  tliat  it  was  the  foreign  war  which  liad 
developed  the  progress  of  the  Revolution  with 
such  astonishing  rapidity  in  France.  It  was 
Brunswick's  manifesto  which  mainly  caused  the 
attack  on  the  Tuileries  on  August  10;  it  was  the 
surrender  of  Verdun  which  directly  caused  the 
massacres  of  September.  It  was  the  battle  of 
Neerwinden  which  established  the  Revolutionary 
Tribunal,  and  that  defeat  and  the  desertion  of 
Dumouriez  which  brought  about  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety.  The 
Girondins  were  chiefly  responsible  for  the  great 


war,  and  its  first  result  was  to  destroy  them  as 
a  party.  .  .  .  Their  early  influence  over  the 
deputies  of  the  Plain  rested  on  a  belief  in  their 
statesmanlike  powers,  but  as  time  went  on  that 
influence  steadily  diminished.  It  was  in  vain 
for  Danton  to  attempt  to  make  peace  in  the  Con- 
vention ;  bitter  words  on  both  sides  had  left  too 
strong  an  impression  ever  to  be  effaced.  The 
Jacobin  leaders  despised  the  Girondins;  the 
Girondins  hated  the  Jacobins  for  having  won 
away  power  from  them.  The  Jacobins  formed 
a  small  but  very  united  body,  of  which  every 
member  knew  its  own  mind :  they  were  deter- 
mined to  carry  on  the  Republic  at  all  costs,  and 
to  destroy  the  Girondins  as  quickly  as  they 
could.  .  .  .  The  desertion  of  Dumouriez  had 
caused  strong  measures  to  be  taken  by  the  Con- 
vention, .  .  .  and  all  parties  had  concurred. 
.  .  .  But  as  soon  as  these  important  measures 
liad  been  taken,  which  the  majority  of  the  Con- 
vention believed  would  enable  France  once  more 
to  free  her  frontiers  from  the  invaders,  the 
Girondins  and  Jacobins  turned  upon  each  other 
with  redoubled  ardour,  and  the  death-struggle 
between  them  recommenced.  The  Girondins 
reopened  the  struggle  with  an  attack  upon 
Marat.  Few  steps  could  have  been  more  fool- 
ish, for  Marat,  though  in  many  ways  a  real 
statesman,  had  from  the  exaggeration  of  his 
language  never  obtained  the  influence  in  the 
Convention  to  which  his  abilities  entitled  him. 
.  .  .  But  he  remained  the  idol  of  the  people  of 
Paris,  and  in  attacking  him  the  Girondins 
exasperated  the  people  of  Paris  in  the  person  of 
their  beloved  journalist.  On  April  11  Guadet 
read  a  placard  in  the  Convention,  which  Marat 
had  posted  on  the  walls  of  Paris,  full  of  his 
usual  libellous  abuse  of  the  Girondins.  It  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  Legislation  with 
other  writings  of  Marat,"  and  two  days 
later,  on  the  report  of  the  Committee,  it  was 
voted  by  the  Convention  (half  of  its  members 
being  absent),  that  Marat  should  be  sent  before 
t  lie  Tribunal  for  trial.  This  called  out  immediate 
demonstrations  from  Marat's  Parisian  admirers. 
"On  April  15,  in  the  name  of  35  sections  of 
Paris,  Pache  and  Hebert  demanded  the  expulsion 
from  the  Convention  of  22  of  the  leading 
Girondists  as  'disturbers  of  the  public  peace,' 
inclucling  Brissot,  Guadet,  Vergniaud,  Gen- 
sonne,  Buzot,  Barbaroux,  Louvet,  Petion,  and 
Lanjuinais.  ...  On  April  22  the  trial  of  Marat 
took  place.  He  was  unanimously  acquitted, 
although  most  of  the  judges  of  the  Revolutionary 
Tribunal  sympathized  with  the  Girondins.  .  .  . 
The  acquittal  of  Marat  was  a  fearful  blow  to  the 
Girondin  party ;  they  had  in  no  way  discredited 
the  Jacobins,  and  had  only  made  themselves 
unpopular  in  Paris.  .  .  .  The  Commune  of  Paris 
.steadily  organized  the  more  advanced  republicans 
of  the  city  for  an  open  attack  upon  the  Girondins. 
.  .  .  Throughout  the  month  of  May,  preparations 
for  the  final  struggle  went  on ;  it  was  recognized 
by  both  parties  that  they  must  appeal  to  force, 
and  arrangements  for  appealing  to  force  were 
made  as  openly  for  the  coup  d'etat  of  May  31 
as  they  had  been  for  that  of  August  10.  On  the 
one  side,  the  Commune  of  Paris  steadily  concen- 
trated its  armed  strength  and  formed  its  plan  of 
action ;  on  the  other,  the  leading  Girondins  met 
daily  at  the  house  of  Valaze,  and  prepared 
to  move  decrees  in  the  Convention."  But  the 
Girondins  were  still  divided  among  themselves. 


1323 


FRANCE,   1793. 


European 
Coalition. 


FRANCE,   1793. 


Some  wished  to  appeal  to  the  provinces,  against 
Paris,  which  meant  civil  war;  otliers  opposed 
this  as  unpatriotic.  On  the  31st  of  May,  and  on 
the  two  days  following,  tlie  Commune  of  Paris 
called  out  its  mob  to  execute  tlie  determined 
coup  d'etat.  On  the  last  of  these  three  days 
(June  2),  tlie  Convention  surrounded,  imprisoned 
and  terrorized  by  armed  rntfians,  led  by  Henriot, 
lately  appointed  Commander  of  the  National 
Guard,  submissively  decreed  that  the  proscribed 
Girondin  deputies,  with  others,  to  the  number 
altogether  of  31,  should  be  placed  under  arrest 
in  their  own  houses.  This  "left  the  members  of 
the  Mountain  predominant  in  the  Convention.  Tlie 
deputies  of  the  Marsh  or  Plain  were  now  docile 
to  the  voice  of  the  Jacobin  leaders,"  whose 
supremacy  was  now  without  dispute.  On  the 
preceding  day,  an  attempt  had  been  made,  on 
the  order  of  the  Commune,  to  arrest  M.  Roland 
and  two  others  of  the  ministers.  Roland 
escaped,  but  Madame  Roland,  the  more  impor- 
tant Girondist  leader,  was  taken  and  consigned 
to  the  Abbaye. — H.  M.  Stephens,  Hist,  of  the 
Fr.  Rev.,  v.  3,  ch.  7-8. 

Also  ln  H.  A.  Taine,  The  Fr.  Bev. ,  ik.  4,  ch.  13. 
W.  Smyth,  Lects.  on  tlie  Ilist.  of  the  Fr.  Rev., 
lect.  37  (o.  2).— H.  Von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  the  Fr. 
Bev.,  bk.  7,  ch.  1-3  (v.  3). 

A.  D.  1793  (March  — September).— Forma- 
tion of  the  great  European  Coalition  against 
Revolutionary  France. —  The  seeds  of  dis- 
sension and  weakness  in  it. —  "The  impression 
made  at  St.  Petersburg  by  the  execution  of 
Louis  was  fully  as  vivid  as  at  London:  already 
it  was  evident  that  these  two  capitals  were  the 
centres  of  the  great  contest  which  was  approach- 
ing. .  .  .  An  intimate  and  confidential  corre- 
spondence immediately  commenced  between 
Count  Worouzofi,  the  Russian  ambassador  at 
London,  and  Lord  Grenville,  the  British  sec- 
retary of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  which  termi- 
nated in  a  treaty  between  the  powers,  signed  in 
London  on  the  25th  of  March.  By  this  conven- 
tion, which  laid  the  basis  of  the  grand  alli- 
ance which  afterwards  brought  the  war  to  a 
glorious  termination,  it  was  provided  that  the 
two  powers  should  '  employ  tlieir  respective 
forces,  as  far  as  circumstances  shall  permit,  in 
carrying  on  the  just  and  necessary  war  in  which 
they  find  themselves  engaged  against  France ;  and 
they  reciprocally  engage  not  to  lay  down  their 
arms  without  restitution  of  all  the  conquests 
which  may  have  been  made  upon  either  of  the  re- 
spective powers,  or  upon  such  otlier  states  or  allies 
to  whom,  by  common  consent,  they  shall  extend 
the  benefit  of  this  treaty.'  .  .  .  Shortly  after 
[April  25],  a  similar  convention  was  entered  into 
between  Great  Britain  and  Sardinia,  by  which 
the  latter  power  was  to  receive  an  annual  sub- 
sidy of  £200,  OUO  during  the  whole  continuance 
of  the  war,  and  the  former  to  keep  on  foot  an 
army  of  50,000  men;  and  the  English  govern- 
ment engaged  to  procure  for  it  entire  restitution 
of  its  dominions  as  they  stood  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  war.  By  another  convention,  with 
the  cabinet  of  Madrid,  signed  at  Aranjuez  on 
the  25th  of  May,  they  engaged  not  to  make 
peace  till  they  had  obtained  full  restitution  for 
the  Spaniards  'of  all  places,  towns,  and  terri- 
tories which  belonged  to  them  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  war,  and  which  the  enemy  may  have 
taken  during  its  continuance.'  A  similar  treaty 
was  entered  into  with  the  court  of  the  Two 


Sicilies,  and  with  Prussia  [July  12  and  14],  iq 
wliich  the  clauses,  proliibitiug  all  exportation  to 
France,  and  preventing  the  trade  of  neutrals 
witli  it,  were  the  same  as  in  the  Russian  treaty. 
Treaties  of  the  same  tenor  were  concluded  in  the 
course  of  the  summer  with  the  Emperor  of 
Germany  [August  30],  and  the  King  of  Portu- 
gal [September  26].  Thus  was  all  Europe  ar- 
rayed in  a  great  league  against  Republican 
France,  and  thus  did  the  regicides  of  that  coun- 
try, as  the  first  fruits  of  their  cruel  triumph, 
find  themselves  excluded  from  the  pale  of  civil- 
ized nations.  .  .  .  But  while  all  Europe  thus 
resounded  with  the  note  of  military  preparation 
against  France,  Russia  had  other  and  more  inter- 
ested designs  in  view.  Amidst  the  general  conster- 
nation at  the  triumphs  of  the  French  republicans, 
Catharine  conceived  that  she  would  be  permitted 
to  pursue,  without  molestation,  her  ambitious 
designs  against  Poland  [See  Poland:  A.  D. 
1793-1796].  She  constantly  represented  the  dis- 
turbances in  that  kingdom  as  the  fruit  of  revolu- 
tionary propagandism,  which  it  was  indispensable 
to  crush  in  tlie  first  instance.  .  .  .  The  ambitious 
views  of  Prussia  were  also  .  .  .  strongly  turned 
in  the  same  direction.  .  .  .  Nor  was  it  only  the 
ambitious  projects  of  Russia  and  Prussia  against 
tlie  independence  of  Poland  which  already  gave 
ground  for  gloomy  augury  as  to  the  issue  of  the 
war.  Its  issue  was  more  immediately  affected 
by  the  jealousy  of  Austria  and  Prussia,  which 
now  broke  out  in  the  most  undisguised  manner, 
and  occasioned  such  a  division  of  the  allied  forces 
as  effectually  prevented  any  cordial  or  effective 
co-operation  continuing  to  exist  between  them. 
The  Prussian  cabinet,  mortified  at  the  lead  which 
the  Imperial  generals  took  in  the  common  opera- 
tions, insisted  upon  the  formation  of  two  inde- 
pendent German  armies ;  one  composed  of  Prus- 
sians, the  other  of  Austrians,  to  one  or  other  of 
which  the  forces  of  all  tlie  minor  states  should  be 
joined:  those  of  Saxony,  Hanover,  and  Ilesse 
being  grouped  around  the  standards  of  Prussia; 
tliose  of  Bavaria,  Wirtemburg,  Swabia,  the  Pala- 
tinate, and  Franconia,  following  the  double- 
headed  eagles  of  Austria.  By  this  means,  all 
unity  of  action  between  the  two  grand  allied 
armies  was  broken  up.  .  .  .  Prince  Cobourg  was 
appointed  generalissimo  of  the  allied  Armies  from 
the  Rliine  to  the  German  ocean. "  In  April,  a 
corps  of  20,000  English  had  been  lauded  in 
Holland,  "under  the  command  of  the  Duke  of 
Vork,  and  being  united  to  10,000  Hanoverians 
and  Hessians,  formed  a  total  of  30,000  men  in 
British  pay."  Holland,  as  an  ally  of  England, 
was  already  in  the  Coalition,  the  French  having 
declared  war,  in  February,  against  the  two  mar- 
itime powers,  simultaneously. — Sir  A.  Alison, 
Jlist.  of  Europe,  ch.  13  («.  4). 

Also  lm  F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hist,  of  the  ISiA  Cen- 
tury, V.  6,  div.  2,  ch.  2,  sect.  3. 

A.  D.  1793  (April — August):  Minister  Genet 
in  America. —  Washington's  proclamation  of 
neutrality.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1793. 

A.  D.  1793  (June). —  Flight  of  most  of  the 
Girondists. —  Their  appeal  to  the  country. — 
Insurrection  in  the  provinces. —  The  rising  at 
Lyons,  Marseilles,  Bordeaux,  Toulon. —  Pro- 
gress of  the  Vendean  revolt.^"  After  this  day 
[of  the  events  whicli  culminated  on  the  2d  of 
June,  but  which  are  commonly  referred  to  as 


1324 


FRANCE,   179a. 


Committee  of 
Public  Safety. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


being  of  'the  31st  of  May,'  when  they  began], 
■when  the  people  made  no  other  use  of  their 
power  than  to  display  and  to  exercise  the  pres- 
sure of  Paris  over  the  representation,  they  sepa- 
rated without  committing  any  excess.  ...  La 
Montaigne  caused  the  committees  to  be  reinstated 
on  the  morrow,  with  the  exception  of  that  of 
public  safety.  They  threw  into  the  majority 
their  most  decided  members.  .  .  .  They  deposed 
those  ministers  suspected  of  attachment  to  the 
conquered;  sent  commissioners  into  the  doubt- 
ful departments;  annulled  the  project  of  the 
constitution  proposed  by  the  Girondists;  and 
charged  the  committee  of  safety  to  draw  up  in 
eight  days  a  project  for  the  constitution  entirely 
democratical.  They  pressed  forward  the  re- 
cruiting and  armament  of  the  revolutionary 
army  —  that  levy  of  patriotism  en  masse.  They 
decreed  a  forced  loan  of  a  million  upon  the  rich. 
They  sent  one  after  the  other,  accused  upon 
accused,  to  the  revolutionary  tribunal.  Their 
sittings  were  no  longer  deliberation,  but  cursory 
motions,  decreed  on  the  instant  by  acclamation, 
and  sent  immediately  to  the  different  committees 
for  execution.  They  stripped  the  executive 
power  of  the  little  independence  and  responsibil- 
ity it  heretofore  retained.  Continually  called  into 
the  bosom  of  their  committees,  ministers  became 
no  more  than  the  passive  executors  of  the  meas- 
ures they  decreed.  From  this  day,  also,  dis- 
cussion was  at  an  end ;  action  was  all.  The  dis- 
appearance of  the  Girondists  deprived  the  Revo- 
lution of  its  voice.  Eloquence  was  proscribed 
with  Vergniaud,  with  the  exception  of  those  few 
days  when  the  great  party  chiefs,  Danton  and 
Robespierre,  spoke,  not  to  refute  opinions,  but 
to  intimate  their  will,  and  promulgate  their 
orders.  The  Assemblies  became  almost  mute. 
A  dead  silence  reigned  henceforth  in  the  Conven- 
tion. In  the  meanwhile  the  33  Girondists  [ex- 
cepting Vergniaud,  Gensonne,  Ducos,  Tonfrede, 
and  a  few  others,  who  remained  under  the  de- 
cree of  arrest,  facing  all  consequences],  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Commission  of  Twelve,  and  a  certain 
number  of  their  friends,  warned  of  their  danger 
by  this  first  blow  of  ostracism,  fled  into  their 
departments,  and  hurried  to  protest  against  the 
mutilation  of  the  country.  .  .  .  Robespierre,  Dan- 
ton,  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety,  and  even 
the  people  themselves,  seemed  to  shut  their  eyes 
to  these  evasions,  as  if  desirous  to  be  rid  of 
victims  whom  it  would  pain  them  to  strike. 
Buzot,  Barbaroux,  Guadet,  Louvet,  Salles. 
Petion,  Bergoing,  Lesage,  Cressy,  Kervelegan 
andLanjuinais,  threw  themselves  into  Normandy  ; 
and.  after  having  traversed  it,  inciting  all  the 
departments  between  Paris  and  the  Ocean,  es- 
tablished at  Caen  the  focus  and  centre  of  insurrec- 
tion against  the  tyranny  of  Paris.  They  gave 
themselves  the  name  of  the  Central  Assembly  of 
Resistance  to  Oppression.  Biroteau  and  Chas- 
set  had  arrived  at  Lyons.  The  armed  sections 
of  this  town  were  agitated  with  contrary  and 
already  bloody  commotion  [the  Jacobin  munici- 
pality having  been  overthrown,  after  hard  fight- 
ing, and  its  chief ,  Chalier,  put  to  death].  Brissot 
fled  to  Moulins,  Robaut  St.  Etienne  to  Nismes. 
Grangeneuve.  sent  by  Vergniaud,  TonfrMe,  and 
Ducos,  to  Bordeaux,  raised  troops  ready  to  march 
upon  the  capital.  Toulouse  followed  the  same 
impulse  of  resistance  to  Paris.  The  departments 
of  the  west  were  on  fire,  and  rejoiced  to  see  the 
republic,   torn    into  contending    factions,  offer 


them  the  aid  of  one  of  the  two  parties  for  the 
restoration  of  royalty.  The  mountainous  centre 
of  France  .  .  .  was  agitated.  .  .  .  Marseilles 
enrolled  10,000  men  at  the  voice  of  Rebecquiand 
the  young  friends  of  Barbaroux.  They  impris- 
oned the  commissioners  of  the  Convention,  Roux 
and  Antiboul.  Royalty,  always  brooding  in  the 
south,  insensibly  transformed  this  movement  of 
patriotism  into  a  monarchical  insurrection.  Re- 
becqui,  in  despair  ...  at  seeing  loyalty  avail 
itself  of  the  rising  in  the  south,  escaped  remorse 
by  suicide,  throwing  himself  into  the  sea.  Lyons 
and  Bordeaux  likewise  imprisoned  the  envoys  of 
the  Convention  as  Maratists.  The  first  columns 
of  the  combined  army  of  the  departments  began 
to  move  in  all  directions;  6,000  Marseillais  were 
already  at  Avignon,  ready  to  reascend  the  Rhone, 
and  form  a  junction  with  the  insurgents  of  Nis- 
mes and  of  Lyons.  Brittany  and  Normandy 
uniting,  concentrated  their  first  forces  at 
Evreux." — A  de  Lamartine,  Ilist.  of  tlie  Oiron- 
dists,  bk.  43  {v.  3). —  The  royalists  of  the  west, 
"  during  this  almost  general  rising  of  the  depart- 
ments, continued  to  extend  their  enterprises. 
After  their  first  victories,  the  Vendeans  seized  on 
Bressure,  Argenton,  and  Thouars.  Entirely 
masters  of  their  own  country,  they  proposed  get- 
ting possession  of  the  frontiers,  and  opening  the 
way  to  revolutionary  France,  as  well  as  commu- 
nications with  England.  On  the  6th  of  June, 
the  Vendean  army,  composed  of  40,000  men, 
under  Cathelineau,  Lescure,  Stofflet,  and  La 
Rochejacquelin,  marched  on  Saumur,  which  it 
took  by  storm.  It  then  prepared  to  attack  and 
capture  Nantes,  to  secure  the  possession  of  its 
own  country,  and  become  masters  of  the  course 
of  the  Loire.  Cathelineau,  at  the  head  of  the 
Vendean  troops,  left  a  garrison  in  Saumur,  took 
Angers,  crossed  the  Loire,  pretended  to  advance 
upon  Tours  and  Lemans,  and  then  rapidly  threw 
himself  upon  Nantes,  which  he  attacked  on  the 
right  bank,  while  Charette  was  to  attack  it  on 
the  left. "—P.  A.  Mignet,  Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Rev., 
ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1793  (June— October).— The  new 
Jacobin  Constitution  postponed. — -Concentra- 
tion of  povrer  in  the  Committee  of  Public 
Safety. — The  irresistible  machine  of  revolu- 
tionary government. — "It  was  while  affairs 
were  in  this  critical  condition  that  the  Mountain 
undertook  the  sole  conduct  of  the  government 
in  France.  They  had  hitherto  resisted  all  at- 
tempts of  the  Girondists  to  establish  a  new  con- 
stitution in  place  of  that  of  1791.  They  now 
undertook  the  work  themselves,  and  in  four  days 
drew  up  a  constitution,  as  simple  as  it  was 
democratic,  which  was  issued  on  the  24th  of 
June.  Every  citizen  of  the  age  of  21  could  vote 
directly  in  the  election  of  deputies,  who  were 
chosen  for  a  year  at  a  time  and  were  to  sit  in  a 
single  assembly.  The  assembly  had  the  sole 
power  of  making  laws,  but  a  period  was  fixed 
during  which  the  constituents  could  protest 
against  its  enactments.  The  executive  power 
was  entrusted  to  24  men,  who  were  chosen  by 
the  assembly  from  candidates  nominated  by 
electors  chosen  by  the  original  voters.  Twelve 
out  of  the  34  were  to  be  renewed  every  six 
months.  But  this  constitution  was  intended 
merely  to  satisfy  the  departments,  and  was  never 
put  into  practice.  The  condition  of  France  re- 
quired a  greater  concentration  of  power,  and 
this  was  supplied  by  the  Committee  of  Public 


1325 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Assassination 
of  Marat. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Safety.  Ever  since  the  6th  of  April  the  original 
members  of  the  Committee  had  been  re-elected, 
but  on  the  10th  of  July  its  composition  was 
changed.  Dauton  ceased  to  be  a  member,  and 
Barfire  was  joined  by  Robespierre,  St.  Just, 
Couthon.Billaud-Varennes, Collot  d'Herbois,  and, 
in  a  short  time,  Carnot.  These  men  became 
the  absolute  rulers  of  France.  The  Committee 
had  no  difficulty  in  carrying  their  measures  in 
the  Convention,  from  which  the  opposition  party 
had  disappeared.  All  the  state  obligations  were 
rendered  uniform  and  inscribed  in  '  tlie  great  boolv 
of  the  national  debt.'  The  treasury  was  tilled 
by  a  compulsory  loan  from  the  rich.  Every  in- 
come between  1,000  and  10,000  francs  had  to  pay 
ten  per  cent.,  and  every  excess  over  10,000  francs 
had  to  be  contributed  in  its  entirety  for  one  year. 
To  recruit  the  army  a  levee  en  masse  was  de- 
creed. '  The  young  men  shall  go  to  war ;  the 
married  men  shall  forge  arms  and  transport  sup- 
plies; the  wives  shall  make  tents  and  clothes 
and  serve  in  the  hospitals;  the  children  shall 
tear  old  linen  into  lint ;  the  aged  shall  resort  to 
the  public  places  to  excite  the  courage  of  the 
warriors  and  hatred  against  kings.'  Nor  were 
measures  neglected  against  domestic  enemies. 
On  the  6th  of  September  a  revolutionary  arniy, 
consisting  of  6,000  men  and  1,200  artillery  men, 
was  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  Committee  to 
carry  out  its  orders  throughout  France.  On  the 
17th  the  famous  'law  of  the  suspects'  was 
carried.  Under  the  term  'suspect'  were  in- 
cluded all  those  who  by  words,  acts  or  writings 
had  shown  themselves  in  favour  of  monarchy  or 
of  federalism,  the  relatives  of  the  emigrants,  etc. , 
and  they  were  to  be  imprisoned  until  the  peace. 
As  the  people  were  in  danger  of  famine,  a  maxi- 
mum price,  already  established  for  corn,  was 
decreed  for  all  necessaries ;  if  a  merchant  gave 
up  his  trade  he  became  a  suspect,  and  the  hoard- 
ing of  provisions  was  punished  by  death.  On 
the  10th  of  October  the  Convention  definitely 
transferred  its  powers  to  the  Committee,  by  sub- 
jecting all  officials  to  its  authority  and  by  post- 
poning the  trial  of  the  new  constitution  until 
the  peace." — R.  Lodge,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
ck.  23,  sect.  11. — The  Committee  of  Public 
Safety  —  the  "Revolutionary  Government,"  as 
Danton  had  named  it,  on  the  2d  of  August, 
when  he  demanded  the  fearful  powers  that  were 
given  to  it  — "  disposed  of  all  the  national  forces ; 
it  appointed  and  dismissed  the  ministers, 
generals.  Representatives  on  Mission,  the  judges 
and  juries  of  the  Revolutionary  Tribunal.  The 
latter  instrument  became  its  strong  arm ;  it  was. 
In  fact,  a  court  martial  worked  by  civil  magis- 
trates. By  its  agents  it  directed  the  departments 
and  armies,  the  political  situation  without  and 
within,  striking  down  at  the  same  time  the 
rebels  within  and  the  enemies  without:  for, 
together  with  the  constitution  were,  of  course, 
suspended  the  municipal  laws  and  the  political 
machinery  of  the  communes;  and  thus  cities 
and  villages  hitherto  indifferent  or  opposed  to 
the  Revolution  were  republicanized,  By  the 
Tribunal  it  disposed  of  the  persons  of  in- 
dividuals ;  by  requisition  and  the  law  of  maxi- 
mum (with  which  we  are  going  to  be  better 
acquainted)  it  disposed  of  their  fortunes.  It 
can,  indeed,  be  said  that  the  whole  of  France 
was  placed  in  a  state  of  siege ;  but  that  was  the 
price  of  its  salvation.  .  .  .  But  Danton  has  com- 
mitted   a    great    mistake, —  one    that    he    and 


especially  France,  will  come  to  rue.  He  has  de- 
clined to  become  a  member  of  the  Revolutionary 
Government,  which  has  been  established  on  his 
motion.  '  It  is  my  firm  resolve  not  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  such  a  government, '  he  had  said.  In  other 
words,  he  has  declined  re-election  as  a  member 
of  the  Committee  de  Salut  Public,  now  it  has 
been  erected  into  a  dictatorship.  He  unfortu- 
nately lacked  all  ambition.  .  .  .  When  after- 
wards, on  Sept.  8,  one  Gaston  tells  the  Conven- 
tion, '  Danton  has  a  mighty  revolutionary  head. 
No  one  understands  so  well  as  he  to  execute 
what  he  himself  proposes.  I  therefore  move 
that  he  be  added  to  the  Revolutionary  Govern- 
ment, in  spite  of  his  protest,'  and  it  is  so 
unanimously  ordered,  he  again  peremptorily  de- 
clines. '  No,  I  will  not  be  a  member ;  but  as  a 
spy  on  it  I  intend  to  work.'  A  most  fateful 
resignation !  for  while  he  still  for  a  short  time 
continues  to  exercise  his  old  influence  on  the 
government,  both  from  the  outside,  in  his  own 
person,  and  inside  the  Co.mmittee,  in  the  person 
of  Herault  de  Sechelles,  selected  in  his  place,  he 
very  soon  loses  ground  more  and  more, — so  much 
so  even  that  Herault,  his  friend,  is  '  put  in 
quarantine,'  as  was  said  in  the  Committee.  And 
very  natural.  A  statesman  cannot  have  power 
when  he  shirks  responsibility,  and  without  power 
he  soon  loses  all  influence  with  the  multitude. 
Those  who  now  succeed  him  in  power  are  Robes- 
pierre, BarJre,  Billaud-Varennes,  and  Carnot, — 
the  two  last  very  good  working  members,  good 
men  of  the  second  rank,  but  after  Danton  not  a 
single  man  is  left  fit  to  be  leader." — L.  Gron- 
lund.  Ca  Ira  !  or  Danton  in  the  French  Revolution, 
ch.  4. 

Also  m  C.  A.  Fyffe,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
V.  1,  ch.  2.— H.  M.  Stephens,  Hist,  of  the  Fr. 
Rev.,  V.  2,  ch.  9. — H.  C.  Lockwood,  Constitutional 
Hist,  of  Fr.,  ch.  1,  and  app.  2. 

A.  D.  1793  (July).— The  assassination  of 
Marat. — "Amongst  those  who  had  placed  faith 
in  the  Girondists  and  their  ideals  was  a  young 
woman  of  Normandy,  Charlotte  Corday.  .  .  . 
When  the  mob  of  Paris  rose  and  drove  with 
insult  from  the  Convention  those  who  in  her  eyes 
were  the  heroic  defenders  of  the  universal  prin- 
ciples of  truth  and  justice,  she  bitterly  resented 
the  wrong  that  had  been  done,  not  only  to  the 
men  themselves,  but  to  that  France  of  which  she 
regarded  them  as  the  true  representatives. 
Owing  to  Marat's  persistent  cry  for  a  dictator- 
ship and  for  shedding  of  blood,  it  was  he  who, 
in  the  departments,  was  accounted  especially 
responsible  both  for  the  expulsion  of  the  Giron- 
dists and  for  the  tyranny  which  now  began  to 
weigh  as  heavily  upon  the  whole  country  as  it 
had  long  weighed  upon  the  capital.  Incapable 
as  all  then  were  of  comprehending  the  causes 
which  had  brought  about  the  fall  of  the  Giron- 
dists, Charlotte  Corday  imagined  that  by  putting 
an  end  to  this  man's  life,  she  could  also  put  an 
end  to  the  system  of  government  which  he  advo- 
cated. Informing  her  friends  that  she  wished 
to  visit  England,  she  left  Caen  and  travelled  in 
the  diligence  to  Paris.  On  her  arrival  she  pur- 
chased a  knife,  and  afterwards  obtained  entrance 
into  Marat's  house  on  the  pretext  that  she 
brought  news  which  she  desired  to  communicate 
to  him.  She  knew  that  he  would  be  eager  to 
obtain  intelligence  of  the  movements  of  the 
Girondist  deputies  still  in  Normandy.  Marat 
was  ill  at  the  time,  and  in  a  bath  when  Charlotte 


1326 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Civil  Wuv  in 
the  Provuices, 


FRANCE,   1793. 


Corday  was  admitted.  She  gave  him  the  names 
of  the  deputies  who  were  at  Caen.  '  In  a  few 
days,'  ho  said,  as  he  wrote  them  hastily  down, 
'  I  will  have  them  all  guillotined  in  Paris. '  As 
she  heard  these  words  she  jilunged  the  knife 
into  his  body  and  killed  him  on  the  spot.  The  cry 
uttered  by  the  murdered  man  was  heard,  and 
Charlotte,  who  did  not  attempt  to  escape,  was 
captured  and  conveyed  to  prison  amid  the  mur- 
murs of  an  angry  crowd.  It  had  been  from  the 
first  her  intention  to  sacrifice  her  life  for  the 
cause  of  her  country,  and,  glorying  in  her  deed, 
she  mot  deatli  with  stoical  indifference.  '  I 
killed  one  man,' she  .said,  when  brought  before 
the  revolutionary  court,  'in  order  to  save  the 
lives  of  100,000  others.'  .  .  .  His  [Marat's]  mur- 
der brought  about  contrary  results  to  those 
which  the  woman  who  ignorantly  and  rashly  had 
flung  away  her  life  hoped  by  the  sacrifice  to 
effect.  .  .  .  He  was  regarded  as  a  martyr  by  no 
small  portion  of  the  working  population  of  Paris. 
.  .  .  His  murder  excited  indignation  beyond  the 
comparatively  narrow  circle  of  those  who  took 
an  active  part  in  political  life,  while  at  the  same 
time  it  added  a  new  impulse  to  the  growing  cry 
for  blood."— B.  M.  Gardiner,  Ths  Pr.  Rev.,  ch.  1. 

Also  inC.  Mac  Farlane,  Tlw  Fr.  Rev.,  v.  3,  ch. 
13.— J.  Michelet,  Women  of  tlie  Fr.  Rev.,  ch. 
18-19.— Mrs.  R.  K.  Van  Alstine,  Charlotte  Cor- 
day.— A.  Dobson,  Four  French  Women,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1793  (July — December).  The  civil 
war. — Sieges  of  Lyons  and  Toulon. —  Submis- 
sion of  Caen,  Marseilles  and  Bordeaux. — 
Crushingof  the  Vendeans. — "The  insurgents  in 
Calvados  [Normand}-]  were  easily  suppressed ; 
at  the  very  first  skirmish  at  Vernon  [July  13], 
the  insurgent  troops  fled.  "Wimpfon  endeavoured 
to  rally  them  in  vain.  The  moderate  class, 
those  who  had  taken  up  the  defence  of  the  Gi- 
rondists, displayed  little  ardour  or  activity. 
When  the  constitution  was  accepted  by  the 
other  departments,  it  saw  the  opportunity  for 
admitting  that  it  had  been  in  error,  when  it 
thought  it  was  taking  arms  against  a  mere  fac- 
tious minority.  This  retractation  was  made  at 
Caen,  which  had  been  the  headquarters  of  the 
revolt.  The  Mountain  commissioners  did  not 
sully  this  first  victory  with  executions.  General 
Carteaux  on  the  other  hand,  marched  at  the  head 
of  some  troops  against  the  sectionary  army  of 
the  south ;  he  defeated  its  force,  pursued  it  to 
Marseilles,  entered  the  town  [August  23]  after 
it,  and  Provence  would  have  been  brought  into 
subjection  like  Calvados,  if  the  royalists,  who 
had  taken  refuge  at  Toulon,  after  their  defeat, 
had  not  called  in  the  English  to  their  aid,  and 
placed  in  their  hands  this  key  to  France.  Ad- 
miral Hood  entered  the  town  in  the  name  of 
Louis  XVII. ,  whom  he  proclaimed  king,  disarmed 
the  fleet,  sent  for  8, 000  Spaniards  by  sea,  occupied 
the  surrounding  forts,  and  forced  Carteaux,  who 
was  advancing  against  Toulon,  to  fall  back  on 
Marseilles.  Notwithstanding  this  check,  the 
conventionalists  succeeded  in  isolating  the  insur- 
rection, and  this  was  a  great  point.  The  Moun- 
tain commissioners  had  made  their  entry  into  the 
rebel  capitals ;  Robert  Lindot  into  Caen ;  Tallien 
Into  Bordeaux;  Barras  and  Freron  into  Mar- 
seilles. Only  two  towns  remained  to  be  taken 
— Toulon  and  Lyons.  A  simultaneous  attack 
from  the  south,  west,  and  centre  was  no  longer 
apprehended,  and  in  the  interior  the  enemy  was 
only  on  the  defensive.     Lyons  was  besieged  by 


Kellermann,  general  of  the  army  of  the  Alps ; 
three  corps  pressed  the  town  on  all  sides.  The 
veteran  soldiers  of  the  Alps,  the  revolutionary 
battalions  and  the  newly  levied  troops,  reinforced 
the  besiegers  every  day.  The  people  of  Lyons 
defended  themselves  with  all  the  courage  of 
despair.  At  first,  they  relied  on  the  assistance  of 
the  insurgents  of  the  south ;  but  these  having 
been  repulsed  by  Carteaux,  the  Lyonnese  placed 
their  last  hope  in  the  army  of  Piedmont,  which 
attempted  a  diversion  in  their  favoui',  but  was 
beaten  by  Kellermann.  Pressed  still  more  ener- 
getically, they  saw  their  first  position  carried. 
Famine  began  to  be  felt,  and  courage  forsook 
them.  The  royalist  leaders,  convinced  of  the 
inutility  of  longer  resistance,  left  the  town,  and 
the  republican  army  entered  the  walls  [October 
9],  where  they  awaited  the  orders  of  the  conven- 
tion. A  few  months  after,  Toulon  itself  [in  the 
siege  of  which  Napoleon  Bonaparte  commanded 
the  artillery],  defended  by  veteran  troops  and 
formidable  fortifications,  fell  into  the  power  of 
the  republicans.  The  battalions  of  the  army  of 
Italy,  reinforced  by  those  which  the  taking  of 
Lyons  left  disposable,  pressed  the  place  closely. 
After  repeated  attacks  and  prodigies  of  skill  and 
valour,  they  made  themselves  masters  of  it,  and 
the  capture  of  Toulon  finished  what  that  of 
Lyons  had  begun  [December  19].  Everywhere 
the  convention  was  victorious.  The  Vendeans 
had  failed  in  their  attempt  upon  Nantes,  after 
having  lost  many  men,and  their  general-in-chief, 
Cathelineau.  This  attack  put  an  end  to  the 
aggressive  and  previously  promising  movement 
of  the  Vendeau  insurrection.  The  royalists  re- 
passed the  Loire,  abandoned  Saumur,  and 
resumed  their  former  cantonments.  They  were, 
however,  still  formidable ;  and  the  republicans, 
who  pursued  them,  were  again  beaten  in  La 
Vendee.  General  Biron,  who  had  succeeded 
General  Berruyer,  imsuccessfully  continued  the 
war  with  small  bodies  of  troops ;  his  moderation 
and  defective  system  of  attack  caused  him  to  be 
replaced  by  Canclaux  and  Rossignol,  who  were 
not  more  fortunate  than  he.  There  were  two 
leaders,  two  armies,  and  two  centres  of  operation. 
.  .  .  The  committee  of  public  safety  soon  reme- 
died this,  by  appointing  one  sole  general-in-chief, 
Lechelle,  and  by  introducing  war  on  a  large  scale 
into  La  Vendee.  This  new  method,  aided  by  the 
garrison  of  Mayence,  consisting  of  17,000  veter- 
ans, who,  relieved  from  operations  against  the 
coalesced  powers  after  the  capitulation,  were 
employed  in  the  interior,  entirely  changed  the 
face  of  the  war.  The  royalists  underwent  four 
consecutive  defeats,  two  at  Cluttillon,  two  at 
Cholet  [the  last  being  October  17].  Lescure, 
Bonchamps,  and  d'Elbee  were  mortally  wounded : 
and  the  insurgents,  completely  beaten  in  Upper 
Vendee,  and  fearing  that  they  should  be  exter- 
minated if  they  took  refuge  in  Lower  Vendee, 
determined  to  leave  their  country  to  the  number 
of  80,000  persons.  This  emigration  through 
Brittany,  which  they  hoped  to  arouse  to  insur- 
rection, became  fatal  to  tliem.  Repulsed  before 
Granville,  utterly  routed  at  Mons  [Le  Mans, 
December  12],  they  were  destroyed  at  Savenay 
[December  23],  and  barely  a  few  thousand  men, 
the  wreck  of  this  vast  emigration,  returned  to 
Vendee.  These  disasters,  irreparable  for  the 
royalist  cause,  the  taking  of  their  land  of  Noir- 
moutiers  from  Charette,  the  dispersion  of  the 
troops  of  that  leader,  the  death  of  Laroche  jac- 


1327 


FRANCE,  1793. 


War  of  the 
Coalition. 


FRANCE,   1793. 


quelin,  rendered  the  republicans  masters  of  the 
country.  The  committee  of  public  safety, 
thinking,  not  without  reason,  that  its  enemies 
■were  beaten  but  not  subjugated,  adopted  a  ter- 
rible system  of  extermination  to  prevent  them 
from  rising  again.  General  Thurreau  surrounded 
Vendee  with  sixteen  entrenched  camps;  twelve 
movable  columns,  called  the  infernal  columns, 
overran  the  country  in  every  direction,  sword 
and  fire  in  hand,  scoured  the  woods,  dispersed 
the  assemblies,  and  diffused  terror  throughout 
this  unhappy  country." — P.  A.  Mignet,  Hist,  of 
the  Pi:  Rev.,  cli.  8. 

Also  en"  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Rev.  (Am. 
ed.),  -v.  Z,pp.  328-335,  anfZ  398^10.— Marchioness 
de  Larochejaquelain  Memoirs. — A.  des  Echer- 
olles,  Early  Life,  v.  1,  ch.  5-7. 

A.  D.  1793  (July — December). — Progress  of 
the  war  of  the  Coalition. — Dissensions  among 
the  Allies. — Unsuccessful  siege  of  Dunkirk. — 
French  Victories  of  Hondschotten  and 
Wattignies. — Operations  on  the  Rhine  and 
elsewhere. — "The  civil  war  in  which  France 
for  a  moment  appeared  engulfed  was  soon  con- 
fined to  a  few  narrowing  centres.  What,  in  the 
meantime,  had  been  the  achievements  of  the 
mighty  Coalition  of  banded  Europe  ?  Success, 
that  might  have  been  great,  was  attained  on  the 
Alpine  and  Pyrenean  frontiers;  and  had  the 
Piedmontese  and  Spaniards  been  well  led  they 
could  have  overrun  Provence  and  Rousillon, 
and  made  the  insurrection  of  the  South  fatal. 
But  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Allies  did  little ;  and, 
though  defeated  in  almost  every  encounter,  the 
republican  levies  held  their  ground  against 
enemies  who  nowhere  advanced.  It  was,  how- 
ever, in  the  North  and  the  North-east  that  the 
real  prize  of  victory  was  placed ;  and  no  doubt 
can  exist  that  had  unanimity  in  the  councils  of 
the  Coalition  prevailed,  or  had  a  great  com- 
mander been  in  its  camp,  Paris  might  have  been 
captured  without  difficulty,  and  the  Revolution 
been  summarily  put  down.  But  the  Austrians, 
the  Prussians,  and  the  English,  were  divided  in 
mind;  they  had  no  General  capable  of  rising 
above  the  most  ordinary  routine  of  war ;  and  the 
result  was  that  tlie  allied  armies  advanced  tardily 
on  an  immense  front,  each  leader  thinking  of  his 
own  plans  only,  and  no  one  venturing  to  press 
forward  boldly,  or  to  pass  the  fortresses  on  the 
hostile  frontiers,  though  obstacles  like  these 
could  be  of  little  use  without  the  aid  of  power- 
ful forces  in  the  field.  In  this  manner  half  the 
summer  was  lost  in  besieging  Mayence,  Valen- 
ciennes, and  Conde ;  and  when,  after  the  fall  of 
these  places  [July — August],  an  attempt  was 
made  to  invade  Picardy,  dissensions  between  the 
Allies  broke  out,  and  the  British  contingent  was 
detached  to  besiege  Dunkirk,  while  the  Austrians 
lingered  in  French  Flanders,  intent  on  enlarging 
by  conquest  Belgium,  at  that  period  an 
Austrian  Province.  Time  was  thus  gained  for 
the  French  armies,  which,  though  "they  had 
made  an  honorable  resistance,  had  been  obliged 
to  fall  back  at  all  points,  and  were  in  no  condi- 
tion to  oppose  their  enemy;  and  the  French 
army  in  the  North,  though  driven  nearly  to  the 
Somme,  within  a  few  marches  of  the  capital, 
was  allowed  an  opportunity  to  recruit  its 
strength,  and  was  not,  as  it  might  have  been 
easily,  destroyed.  A  part  of  the  hastily  raised 
levies  was  now  incorporated  in  its  ranks";  and  as 
these  were  largely  composed  of  seasoned  men 


from  the  old  army  of  the  Bourbon  Monarchy, 
and  from  the  volunteers  of  Valmy  and  Jem- 
niapes,  a  respectable  force  was  "before  long 
mustered.  At  the  peremptory  command  of  the 
Jacobin  Government,  this  was  at  once  directed 
against  the  invaders,  who  did  not  know  what  an 
invasion  meant.  The  Duke  of  York,  assailed 
with  vigor  and  skill,  was  compelled  to  raise  the 
siege  of  Dunkirk  [by  the  French  victory  at 
Hondschotten,  September  8] ;  and,  to  the 
astonishment  of  Europe,  the  divided  forces  of 
the  halting  and  irresolute  Coalition  began  to  re- 
cede before  the  enemies,  who  saw  victory  yielded 
to  them,  and  who,  feeble  soldiers  as  they  often 
were,  were  nevertheless  fired  by  ardent  patriot- 
ism. As  the  autumn  closed  the  trembling 
balance  of  fortune  inclined  decidedly  on  the  side 
of  the  Republic.  The  French  recruits,  hurried 
to  the  frontier  in  masses,  became  gradually 
better  soldiers,  under  the  influence  of  increasing 
success.  Carnot,  a  man  of  great  but  overrated 
powers,  took  the  general  direction  of  military 
affairs;  and  though  his  strategy  was  not  sound, 
it  was  much  better  than  the  imbecility  of  his 
foes.  At  the  same  time,  the  Generals  of  the 
fallen  Monarchy  having  disappeared,  or,  for  the 
most  part,  failed,  brilliant  names  began  to 
emerge  from  the  ranks,  and  to  lead  the  suddenly 
raised  armies ;  and  though  worthless  selections 
were  not  seldom  made,  more  than  one  private 
and  sergeant  gave  proof  of  capacity  of  no  com- 
mon order.  Terror  certainly  added  strength  to 
patriotism,  for  thousands  were  driven  to  the 
camp  by  force,  and  death  was  the  usual  penalty 
of  a  defeated  chief;  but  it  was  not  the  less  "a 
great  national  movement,  and  high  honor  is 
justly  due  to  a  people  which,  in  a  situation  that 
might  have  seemed  hopeless,  made  such  heroic 
and  noble  efforts,  even  though  it  triumphed 
through  the  weakness  of  its  foe.  Owing  to  a 
happy  inspiration  of  Carnot,  a  detachment  was 
rajjidly  marched  from  the  Rhine,  where  the 
Prussians  remained  in  complete  inaction;  and 
with  this  reinforcement  Jourdan  gained  a  victory 
at  AVattignies  [October  16]  over  the  Austrians, 
and  opened  the  way  into  the  Low  Countries. 
At  the  close  of  the  year  the  youthful  Hoche, 
once  a  corporal,  but  a  man  of  genius,  who  had 
given  studious  hours  to  the  theory  of  war, 
divided  Brunswick  from  the  Austrian  Wilrmser 
by  a  daring  and  able  march  through  the  V<jsges ; 
and  the  baffled  Allies  were  driven  out  of  Alsace, 
tlie  borders  of  which  they  had  just  invaded 
By  these  operations  the  great  Northern  frontier, 
the  really  vulnerable  part  of  France,  was  almost 
freed  from  the  invaders'  presence;  and,  though 
less  was  achieved  on  the  Southern  frontier,  the 
enemies  of  the  Republic  began  to  lose  courage." 
— W.  O'C.  Morris,  The  Fr.  Rev.,  ch.  6.  — "The 
Prussians  had  remained  wholly  inactive  for  two 
months  after  the  fall  of  Mayence,  contenting 
themselves  with  watching  the  French  in  their 
lines  at  "Weissenburg.  Wearied  at  length  by  the 
torpor  of  his  opponents,  Moreau  assumed  the 
initiative,  and  attacked  the  Prussian  corps  at 
Pirmasens.  This  bold  attempt  was  repulsed 
(Sept.  14)  with  the  loss  of  4,000  men;  but  it  was 
not  till  a  month  later  (Oct.  13)  that  the  Allies 
resumed  the  offensive,  when  the  Weissenburg 
lines  were  stormed  by  a  mixed  force  of  Austrians 
and  Prussians,  and  the  French  fled  in  confusion 
almost  to  Strasburg.  But  this  important  advan- 
tage led  to  no  results,  though  the  defeat  of  the 


1328 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Reign 
of  Terror. 


FRANCE,   1793. 


Republican  movement  was  hailed  by  a  royalist 
movement  in  Alsace.  The  Austrians,  immovable 
in  their  plans  of  conquest,  refused  to  occupy 
Strasburg  in  the  name  of  Louis  XVII. ;  and  the 
unfortunate  royalists,  abandoned  to  Republican 
vengeance,  were  indiscriminately  consigned  to  the 
guillotine  by  a  decree  of  the  Convention,  while 
the  confederate  array  was  occupied  in  the  siege 
of  Landau.  But  the  lukewarmness  of  the 
Prussians  had  now  become  so  evident,  that  it 
was  only  by  the  most  vehement  remonstrances 
of  the  Austrian  cabinet  that  they  were  prevented 
from  seceding  altogether  from  the  league ;  and 
the  Republicans,  taking  advantage  of  the  dis- 
union of  their  enemies,  again  attacked  the  Allies 
(Dec.  36),  who  were  routed  and  driven  over  the 
Rhine  [abandoning  the  siege  of  Landau] ;  while 
the  victors,  following  up  their  success,  retook 
Spires,  and  advanced  to  the  gates  of  Mannheim. 
The  operations  in  the  Pyrenees  and  on  the  side 
of  Savoy,  during  this  campaign,  led  to  no  im- 
portant results.  On  the  western  extremity  of 
the  Pyrenees,  the  Spaniards  [had]  entered  France 
in  the  middle  of  April,  routed  their  opponents 
in  several  encounters,  and  drove  them  into  St. 
Jean  Pied-de-Poet.  An  invasion  of  Roussillon, 
at  the  same  time,  was  equally  successful ;  and 
the  Spaniards  maintained  themselves  in  the 
province  till  the  end  of  the  year,  taking  the 
fortresses  of  Bellegarde  and  Collioure,  and  rout- 
ing two  armies  which  attempted  to  dislodge 
them,  at  Truellas  (Sept.  32)  and  Boulon  (Dec.  7). 
An  attempt  of  the  Sardinians  to  expel  the 
French  from  their  conquests  in  Savoy  was  less 
fortunate;  and,  at  the  close  of  the  campaign, 
both  parties  remained  in  their  former  position." 
— A.  Alison,  Epitome  of  Hist,  of  Europe,  pp.  58-59 
(ch.  13,  i\  4  of  complete  icork). 

Also  in:H.  Von  Sybel,  Bist.  of  tU  Fr.  Rev., 
bk.  8,  ch.  2  {v.  3).— E.  Baines,  Hist,  of  the  Wars 
of  the  Pi:  Rev.,  v.  1,  ch.  9-11. 

A.  D.  1793  (August). — Emancipation  in  San 
Domingo  proclaimed.  See  Hayti:  A.  D. 
1632-1803. 


A.  D.  1793  (September — December).  The 
"Reign  of  Terror  "  becomes  the  "Order  of 
the  Day." — Trial  and  execution  of  Marie 
Antoinette,  Madame  Roland,  and  the  Giron- 
dists.— "  On  the  16th  of  September,  the 
Faubourg  Saint-Antoine  surrounded  the  H6tel 
de  Ville,  clamoring  for  'Bread.'  Hebert  and 
Chaumette  appeased  the  mob  by  vociferous 
harangues  against  rich  men  and  monopolists, 
and  by  promising  to  raise  a  revolutionary  army 
with  orders  to  scour  the  country,  empty  the 
granaries,  and  put  the  grain  within  reach  of  the 
people.  '  The  next  thing  will  be  a  guillotine 
for  the  monopolists,'  added  Hebert.  'This  had 
been  demanded  by  memorials  from  the  most 
ultra  provincial  Jacobins.  The  next  day  the 
Convention  witnessed  the  terrible  reaction  of 
this  scene.  At  the  opening  of  the  session  Merlin 
de  Douai  proposed  and  carried  a  vote  for  the 
division  of  the  revolutionary  tribunal  into  four 
sections,  in  order  to  remedy  the  dilatoriness 
complained  of  by  Robespierre  and  the  Jacobins. 
The  municipality  soon  arrived,  followed  by  a 
great  crowd ;  Chaumette,  in  a  furious  harangue, 
demanded  a  revolutionary  army  with  a  travelling 
guillotine.  The  ferocious  Billaud-Varennes  de- 
clared that  this  was  not  enough,  and  that  all 
suspected  persons  must  be  arrested  immediately. 

^*  1329 


Danton  Interposed  with  the  powerful  eloquence 
of  his  palmy  days ;  he  approved  of  an  immedi- 
ate decree  for  the  formation  of  a  revolutionary 
army,  but  made  no  mention  of  the  guillotine. 
.  .  .  Danton's  words  were  Impetuous,  but  his 
ideas  were  pohticand  deliberate.  His  motions 
were  carried,  amid  general  acclamation.  But 
the  violent  propositions  of  Billaud-Varennes  and 
others  were  also  carried.  The  decree  forbidding 
domiciliary  visits  and  night  arrests,  which  had 
been  due  to  the  Girondists,  was  revoked.  A  depu- 
tation from  the  Jacobins  and  the  sections  de- 
manded the  indictment  of  the  '  monster '  Brissot 
with  his  accomplices,  Vergniaud,  Gensonne, 
and  other  'miscreants.'  'Lawgivers,'  said  the 
spokesman  of  the  deputation,  'let  the  Reign  of 
Terror  be  the  order  of  the  day ! '  BarJre,  in  the 
name  of  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety,  ob- 
tained the  passage  of  a  decree  organizing  an 
armed  force  to  restrain  counter-revolutionists 
and  protect  supplies.  Fear  led  him  to  unite 
with  the  most  violent,  and  to  adopt  the  great 
motto  of  the  Paris  Commune,  '  Let  the  Reign 
of  Terror  be  the  order  of  the  day ! '  '  The  royal- 
ists are  conspiring,' he  said;  'they  want  blood. 
"Well  they  shall  have  that  of  the  conspirators,  of 
the  Brissots  and  Marie  Antoinettes ! '  The  asso- 
ciation of  these  two  names  shows  what  frenzy 
prevailed  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  The  next 
day  September  6,  two  of  the  most  formidable 
Jacobins,  the  cold,  implacable  Billaud-Varennes 
and  the  fiery  Collot  d'Herbois,  were  added  to 
the  Committee  of  Public  Safety.  Danton  per- 
sisted in  his  refusal  to  return  to  it.  This  proves 
how  mistaken  the  Girondists  had  been  in  accus- 
ing him  of  aspiring  to  the  dictatorship.  He 
kept  aloof  from  the  Committee  chiefly  because 
he  knew  that  they  were  lost,  and  did  not  wish  to 
contribute  to  their  fall.  Before  leaving  the 
ministry  Garat  had  tried  to  prevent  the  Giron- 
dists from  being  brought  to  trial ;  upon  making 
known  his  wish  to  Robespierre  and  Danton,  he 
found  Robespierre  implacable,  while  Danton, 
with  tears  coursing  down  his  rugged  cheeks 
replied,  '  I  cannot  save  them ! '  .  .  .  .  On 
the  10th  of  October  Saint-Just,  in  the  name 
of  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety,  read  to  the 
Assembly  an  important  report  upon  the  situa- 
tion of  the  Republic.  It  was  violent  and  menac- 
ing to  others  beside  the  enemies  of  the  Mountain ; 
Hebert  and  his  gang  might  well  tremble.  He 
inveighed  not  only  against  those  who  were  plun- 
dering the  government,  but  against  the  whole 
administration.  .  .  .  Saint-Just's  report  had 
been  preceded  on  the  3d  of  October  by  a  report 
from  the  new  Committee  of  Public  Safety,  con- 
cluding with  the  indictment  of  40  deputies ;  39 
were  Girondists  or  friends  of  the  Gironde;  the 
fortieth  was  the  ex-Duke  of  Orleans.  Twenty- 
one  of  these  39  were  now  in  the  hands  of  their 
enemies,  and  of  these  31  only  9  belonged  to  the 
first  deputies  indicted  on  the  2d  of  June;  the 
remainder  had  left  Paris  hoping  to  organize  out- 
side resistance,  and  had  been  declared  outlawed. 
The  deputies  subsequently  added  to  this  number 
were  members  of  the  Right  who  had  signed 
protests  against  the  violation  of  the  national 
representation  on  that  fatal  day.  ...  It  was  de- 
cided at  the  same  session  to  bring  the  40  deputies, 
together  with  Marie  Antoinette,  to  trial.  The 
Jacobins  and  the  commune  had  long  been  de- 
manding the  trial  of  the  unhappy  queen,  and 
were  raising  loud  clamors  over  the  plots  for  her 


FRANCE.   1793. 


Execution  of 
the  Queen. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


deliverance.  She  might  perhaps  have  escaped 
from  the  Temple  if  she  vi-ould  have  consented  tci 
leave  her  children.  During  July  a  sorrow  equal 
to  that  of  the  21st  of  January  had  been  inflicted 
on  her :  she  had  been  separated  from  her  young 
son  under  the  pretence  that  she  treated  him  like 
a  king,  and  was  bringing  him  up  to  make  '  a 
tyrant  of  him.'  The  child  was  placed  in  another 
part  of  the  Temple,  and  his  education  was  in- 
trusted to  a  vulgar  and  brutal  shoemaker, 
named  Simon.  Nevertheless  the  fate  of  Marie 
Antoinette  at  this  epoch  was  still  doubtful; 
neither  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  nor  the 
ministry  desired  her  death.  While  Lebrun,  the 
friend  of  the  Girondists,  was  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  a  project  had  been  formed  which  would 
have  saved  her  life.  Danton  knew  of  it  and 
aided  it.  .  .  .  This  plan  was  a  negotiation  with 
Venice,  Tuscany,  and  Naples,  the  three  Italian 
States  yet  neutral,  who  were  to  pledge  them- 
selves to  maintain  their  wavering  neutrality,  in 
consideration  of  a  guaranty  of  the  safety  of 
Marie  Antoinette  and  her  family.  Two  diplo- 
matic agents  who  afterwards  held  high  posts  in 
France,  ilarat  and  Semonville,  were  intrusted 
■with  this  affair.  As  they  were  crossing  from 
Switzerland  into  Italy,  they  were  arrested,  in 
violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  upon  the  neutral 
territory  of  the  Grisons  by  an  Austrian  detach- 
ment (July  25).  ...  At  tidings  of  the  arrest 
of  the  French  envoys,  Marie  Antoinette  was 
separated  from  her  daughter  and  sister-in-law 
Elizabeth,  and  transferred  to  the  Conciergerie. 
On  the  14th  of  October  she  appeared  before  the 
revolutionary  tribunal.  To  the  accusation  of 
the  public  prosecutor,  Fouquier-Tinville,  made 
up  of  calumnies  against  her  private  life,  and  for 
the  most  part  well-founded  imputations  against 
her  political  conduct,  she  opposed  a  plausible 
defence,  which  effaced  as  far  as  possible  her  part 
in  the  late  government.  .  .  .  The  following 
questions  were  put  to  the  jurors :  '  Has  Marie  An- 
toinette aided  in  movements  designed  to  assist  the 
foreign  enemies  of  the  Republic  to  open  French 
territory  to  them  and  to  facilitate  the  progress 
of  their  arms?  Has  she  taken  part  in  a  con- 
spiracy tending  to  incite  civil  war?'  The  an- 
swer was  in  the  atfirmative,  and  the  sentence  of 
death  was  passed  on  her.  The  decisive  por- 
tions which  we  now  possess  of  the  queen's  cor- 
respondence with  Austria  had  not  then  been 
made  public ;  but  enough  was  known  to  leave  no 
doubt  of  her  guilt,  which  had  the  same  moral 
excuses  as  that  of  her  husband.  .  .  .  She  met 
death  [October  16]  with  courage  and  resigna- 
tion. The  populace  who  had  hated  her  so 
much  did  not  insult  her  last  moments.  ...  A 
week  after  the  queen's  death  the  Girondists  were 
summoned  before  the  revolutionary  tribunal. 
Brissot  and  Lasource  alone  had  tried  to  escape 
this  bloody  ordeal,  and  to  stir  up  resistance 
against  it  in  the  South.  Vergniaud,  Gensonne, 
and  Valaze  remained  unshaken  in  their  resolve 
to  await  trial.  Gensonne,  who  had  been  placed 
in  the  keeping  of  a  Swiss  whose  life  he  had 
saved  on  the  10th  of  August,  and  who  had  be- 
come a  gendarme,  might  have  escaped,  but  he 
refused  to  profit  by  this  man's  gratitude.  .  .  . 
Tlie  act  of  indictment  drawn  up  by  the  ex- 
Feuillant  Amar  was  only  a  repetition  of  the 
monstrous  calumnies  which  had  circulated 
through  the  clubs  and  the  journals.  Brissot 
was  accused  of  having  ruined  the  colonies  by 


advocating  the  liberation  of  shives.  and  of  having 
drawn  foreign  arms  upon  France  by  declaring 
war  on  kings.  The  whole  trial  corresponded  to 
this  beginning.  ...  On  the  29th  the  Jacobins 
appeared  at  the  bar  of  the  Convention,  and 
called  for  a  decree  giving  the  jurors  of  the  revo- 
lutionary tribunal  the  right  to  bring  tlie  pro- 
ceedings to  a  close  as  soon  as  they  believed 
tlieraselves  sufficiently  enlightened.  Robes- 
pierre and  Bar^re  supported  tlie  Jacobin  demand. 
Upon  Robespierre's  motion  it  was  decreed  that 
after  three  days'  proceedings,  the  jurors  might 
declare  themselves  ready  to  render  their  verdict. 
The  next  day  the  jurors  availed  themselves  of 
their  privilege,  and  declared  themselves  suf- 
ficiently informed,  although  they  had  not  heard 
the  evidence  for  acquittal,  neither  the  accused 
nor  their  counsel  having  been  allowed  to  plead 
their  cause.  Brissot,  Vergniaud,  Gensonne, 
Valaze,  Bishop  Fauchet,  Ducos,  Boyer-Fon- 
frede,  Lasource,  and  their  friends  were  "declared 
guilty  of  having  conspired  against  the  unity 
and  indivisibility  of  the  Republic,  and  against 
the  liberty  and  safety  of  the  French  people.  .  .  . 
Danton,  who  had  not  been  an  accomplice  in 
their  death,  had  retired  to  his  mother's  home  at 
Arcis-sur-Aube,  that  he  might  not  be  a  witness 
thereof.  The  condemned  were  brouglit  back  to 
hear  their  sentence.  The  greater  part  of  them 
rose  up  with  a  common  impulse,  and  cried,  '  We 
are  innocent!  People,  they  are  deceiving  you!' 
The  crowd  remained  motionless  and  silent.  .  .  , 
At  midnight  they  partook  of  a  last  repast, 
passing  the  rest  of  the  night  in  converse  about 
their  native  land,  their  remnant  of  life  being 
cheered  by  news  of  victory  and  pleasant  sallies 
from  young  Ducos,  who  might  have  escaped, 
but  preferred  to  share  his  friend  Fonfrede's  fate. 
Vergniaud  had  been  given  a  subtle  poison  by 
Condorcet,  but  threw  it  away,  choosing  to  die 
with  his  companions.  One  of  his  noble  utter- 
ances gives  us  the  key  to  his  life.  '  Others 
sought  to  consummate  the  Revolution  by  terror; 
I  would  accomplish  it  by  love.'  Next  day, 
October  31,  at  noon,  the  prisoners  were  led 
forth,  and  as  the  five  carts  containing  them  left 
the  Conciergerie,  they  struck  up  the  national 
hymn  .  .  .  and  shouts  of  '  Long  live  the  Repub- 
lic' The  sounds  died  away  as  their  number  de- 
creased, but  did  not  cease  until  the  last  of  the 
21  mounted  the  fatal  platform.  .  .  .  The  mur- 
derers of  the  Girondists  were  not  likely  to  spare 
the  illustrious  woman  who  was  at  once  the 
inspiration  and  the  honor  of  that  party,  and  the 
very  same  day  Madame  Roland  who  had  been 
for  five  months  a  prisoner  at  St.  Pelagic  and  the 
Abbaye,  was  transferred  to  the  Conciergerie. 
Hebert  and  his  followers  had  long  clamored  for 
her  head.  During  her  captivity  she  wrote  her 
ilemoirs,  which  unfortunately  have  not  been 
preserved  complete ;  no  other  souvenir  of  the 
Revolution  equals  this,  although  it  is  not  always 
reliable,  for  Madame  Roland  had  feminine 
weaknesses  of  intellect,  despite  her  masculine 
strength  of  soul;  she  was  prejudiced  against  all 
who  disagreed  with  her,  and  regarded  caution 
and  compromise  with  a  noble  but  impolitic  scorn. 
.  .  .  The  18th  Brumaire  (November  10),  she  was 
summoned  before  the  revolutionary  tribunal; 
when  she  left  her  cell,  clad  in  white,  her  dark 
hair  floating  loosely  over  her  shoulders,  a  smile 
on  her  lips  and  her  face  sparkling  with  life  and 
animation.  .  .  .  She  was  condemned  in  advance, 


1330 


FRANCE,   1793. 


Life  in  Pari 


FRANCE,  1793. 


not  being  allowed  a  word  in  her  own  defence, 
and  was  declared  guilty  of  being  an  author  or 
aceompUce  '  of  a  monstrous  consjjiracy  against 
the  unity  and  indivisibility  of  the  Republic.' 
She  heard  her  sentence  calmly,  saj'ing  to  the 
judges:  '  You  deem  me  worthy  the  fate  of  tlie 
great  men  you  have  murdered.  I  will  try  to 
display  the  same  courage  on  the  scaffold. '  Slie 
was  taken  directly  to  the  Place  de  la  Revolution, 
a  man  condemned  for  treason  being  placed  in 
tlie  same  cart,  who  was  overwhelmed  with 
terror.  She  passed  tlie  mournful  journey  iu 
soothing  him,  and  on  reacliing  the  scaffold  bid 
him  mount  tirst,  that  his  sufferings  miglit  not 
be  prolonged.  As  she  tooli  lier  place  in  turn, 
lier  eye  fell  on  a  colossal  statue  of  Liberty, 
erected  August  10,  1793.  'O  Liberty,'  she 
cried,  '  what  crimes  are  committed  in  thy  name ! ' 
Some  say  that  slie  said,  '  O  Liberty,  how  they 
have  deceived  tliee!'  Thus  died  the  noblest 
woman  in  history  since  the  incomparable  Joan, 
who  saved  France!  .  .  .  The  bloody  tribunal 
never  paused ;  famous  men  of  every  party  suc- 
ceeded each  other  at  the  fatal  t)ar,  the  ex-Duke 
of  Orleans  among  them,  but  four  days  earlier 
than  Madame  Roland.  .  .  .  The  day  after 
Madame  Roland's  trial  began  that  of  tlie  vener- 
able Bailli,  ex-mayor  of  Paris  and  ex-president 
of  the  Constituent  Assembly,  a  man  who  played 
a  great  part  early  in  the  Revolution,  but  faded 
out  of  sight  with  the  constituent  power." — 
Henry  Martin,  Popular  Hist,  of  France,  1789- 
1877,  V.  1,  ch.  16. 

Also  in  A.  de  Lamartine,  Sist.  of  tlie  G-iron- 
disis,  ch.  46-52  (».  3).— C.  D.  Yonge,  Life  of 
Marie  Antoinette,  ch.  39. — M'me  Campan, 
Memoirs  of  the  Private  Life  of  Marie  Antoinette, 
V.  2,  conchision. — S.  Marceau,  Reminiscences  of 
a  Regicide,  ch.  11. — Count  Beugnot,  Life,  i\  1, 
ch.  6. — Lord  R.  Gower,  Last  Days  of  Marie 
Antoinette. 

A.  D.  1793  (October). — Life  in  Paris  during 
the  Reign  of  Terror. — Gaiety  in  the  Prisons. 
— The  Tricoteuses,  or  knitting  women. — 
Revolutionary  costumes  and  modes  of  speech. 
— The  guillotine  as  plaything  and  ornament. 
—  "By  the  end  of  October,  1793,  the  Committee 
of  General  Security  had  mastered  Paris,  and 
established  the  Reign  of  Terror  there  by  means 
of  tlie  Revolutionary  Tribunal,  and  could  answer 
to  the  Great  Committee  of  Public  Safety  for  tlie 
tranquillity  of  the  capital.  There  were  no  more 
riots;  men  were  afraid  even  to  express  their 
opinions,  much  less  to  quarrel  about  them ;  the 
system  of  denunciation  made  Paris  into  a  hive 
of  unpaid  spies,  and  ordinary  crimes,  pocket- 
picking  and  the  like,  vanished  as  if  by  magic. 
Yet  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  Paris  was 
gloomy  or  dull ;  on  the  contrary,  the  vast  ma j  ority 
of  citizens  seemed  glad  to  have  an  excuse  to 
avoid  politics,  of  which  they  had  had  a  surfeit 
during  the  last  four  years,  and  to  turn  their 
thoughts  to  the  literary  side  of  their  favourite 
journals,  to  the  theatres,  and  to  art.  .  .  .  The 
dull  places  of  Paris  were  the  Revolutionary 
Committees,  the  Jacobin  Clu.b.  the  Convention, 
the  Hotel  de  Brienne,  where  the  Committee  of 
General  Security  sat,  and  the  Pavilion  de 
I'Egalite,  formerly  the  Pavilion  de  Flore,  in  the 
Tuileries,  where  the  Great  Committee  of  Public 
Safety  laboured.  .  .  .  Elsewhere  men  were 
lighthearted  and  gay,  following  their  usual  avo- 
cations, and  busy  in  their  pursuit  of  pleasure  or 


of  gain.  It  is  most  essential  to  grasp  the  fact 
tliat  there  was  no  particular  difference,  for  the 
vast  majority  of  the  population,  iu  living  in  Paris 
during  the  Reign  of  Terror  and  at  other  times. 
The  imagination  of  posterity,  steeped  in  tales  of 
tlie  tumbrils  bearing  their  burden  to  the  guillo- 
tine, and  of  similar  stories  of  horror,  has  con- 
ceived a  ghastly  picture  of  life  at  that  extra- 
ordinary period,  and  it  is  only  after  living  for 
months  amongst  the  journals,  memoirs,  and  let- 
ters of  the  time  that  one  can  realize  the  fact  that 
to  the  average  Parisian  the  necessity  of  getting 
his  dinner  or  his  evening's  amusement  remained 
the  paramount  tliought  of  his  daily  life.  .  .  . 
Strange  to  say,  nowhere  was  life  more  happy 
and  gay  than  in  the  prisons  of  Paris,  where  the 
inmates  lived  in  the  constant  expectation  that 
the  haphazard  chance  of  being  brought  before 
tlie  Revolutionary  Tribunal  and  condemned  to 
death  might  befall  them  at  any  moment.  .  .  . 
A  little  more  must  be  said  about  the  market- 
women,  the  tricoteuses,  or  knitting-women  of 
infamous  memory.  These  market-women  had 
been  treated  as  heroines  ever  since  their  march  to 
Versailles  in  October,  1789.  .  .  .  They  formed 
their  societies  after  the  fashion  of  the  Jacobin 
Club,  presided  over  by  Reuee  Audu,  Agnfes 
Lefevre,  Marie  Louise  Bouju,  and  Rose  Lacombe, 
and  went  about  the  streets  of  Paris  insulting 
respectably  dressed  people,  and  hounding  on  the 
sans-culottes  to  deeds  of  atrocity.  These  Maenads 
were  encouraged  by  Marat,  and  played  an 
important  part  in  the  street  history  of  Paris,  up 
to  the  Reign  of  Terror,  when  their  power  was 
suddenly  taken  from  them.  On  May  21,  1793, 
they  were  excluded  by  a  decree  from  the  gal- 
leries of  the  Convention ;  on  May  26  they  were 
forbidden  to  form  part  of  any  political  assembly; 
and  when  they  appealed  from  the  Convention  to 
the  Commune  of  Paris,  Chaumette  abruptly  told 
them  '  that  the  Republic  had  no  need  of  Joans  of 
Arc. '  Thus  deprived  of  active  participation  in 
politics,  the  market-women  became  the  tricoteu- 
ses, or  knitting-women,  who  used  to  take  their 
seats  in  the  Place  de  la  Revolution,  and  watch  the 
guillotine  as  they  Itnitted.  Their  active  power  for 
good  or  harm  was  gone.  .  .  .  Life  during  the  Ter- 
ror in  Paris  .  .  .  differed  in  little  things,  in  little 
affectations  of  liberty  and  equality,  which  are 
amusing  to  study.  "The  fashions  of  dress  every- 
where betrayed  the  new  order  of  things.  A  few 
men,  such  as  Robespierre,  might  still  go  about 
witli  powdered  hair  and  in  knee-breeches,  but 
the  ordinary  male  costume  of  the  time  was 
designed  to  contrast  in  every  way  with  the  cos- 
tume of  a  dandy  of  the  'ancien  regime.'  Instead 
of  breeches,  the  fashion  was  to  wear  trousers; 
instead  of  shoes,  top-boots ;  and  instead  of  shav- 
ing, the  young  Parisian  prided  liimself  on  lotting 
his  moustache  grow.  In  female  costume  a  dif- 
ferent motive  was  at  work.  Only  David's  art 
disciples  ventured  to  imitate  the  male  apparel 
of  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  but  such  imitation 
became  the  fashion  among  women.  Waists 
disappeared ;  and  instead  of  stiffened  skirts  and 
narrow  bodices,  women  wore  short  loose  robes, 
which  they  fancied  resembled  Greek  chitons; 
sandals  took  the  place  of  high-heeled  shoes ;  and 
the  hair,  instead  of  being  worked  up  into  elaborate 
edifices,  was  allowed  to  flow  down  freely.  For 
ornaments,  gun-metal  and  steel  took  the  place  of 
gold,  silverand  precious  stones.  .  .  .  The  favour- 
ite design  was  the  guillotine.     Little  guillotines 


FRANCE,  1793. 


Woiship  of 
Reason. 


FRANCE,  1793. 


were  worn  as  brooches,  as  earrings  and  as  clasps, 
and  the  women  of  the  time  simply  followed  the 
fashion  without  realizing  what  it  meant.  Indeed, 
the  worship  of  the  guillotine  was  one  of  the 
most  curious  features  of  the  epoch.  Children 
had  toy  guillotines  given  them ;  models  were 
made  to  cut  off  imitation  heads,  when  wine  or 
sweet  syrup  flowed  in  place  of  blood  ;  and  hymns 
were  written  to  La  Sainte  Guillotine,  and  jokes 
made  upon  it,  as  the 'national  razor.'  .  .  .  It  is  well 
known  that  the  desire  to  emphasize  the  abolition 
of  titles  was  followed  by  the  abolition  of  the 
terms  '  Monsieur '  and  '  Madame, '  and  that  their 
places  were  taken  by  '  Citizen '  and  '  Citizeness ; ' 
and  also  how  the  use  of  the  second  person  plural 
was  dropped,  and  it  was  considered  a  sign  of  a 
good  republican  to  tutoyer  every  one,  that  is,  to 
call  them  'thou 'and  'thee.'  .  .  .  The  Reign  of 
Terror  in  Paris  seems  to  us  an  age  of  unique 
experiences,  a  time  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  the  world;  yet  to  the  great  majority  of  con- 
temporaries it  did  not  appear  so:  they  lived 
their  ordinary  lives,  and  it  was  only  in  excep- 
tional cases  that  the  serenity  of  their  days  was 
interrupted,  or  that  their  minds  were  exercised 
by  anything  more  than  the  necessity  of  earning 
their  daily  bread.  "—H.  M.  Stephens,  ITist.  of 
the  Fr.  Rev.,  v.  2,  ch.  10. 

Also  in  J.  Michelet,  Women  of  the  Fr.  Rev. , 
eh.  30-80. 

A.  D.  1793  (October). —  The  new  republican 
calendar. — ' '  Before  the  year  ended  the  legislat  ors 
of  Paris  voted  that  there  was  no  God,  and  de- 
stroyed or  altered  nearly  everything  that  had 
any  reference  to  Christianity.  Robespierre,  who 
would  have  stopped  short  at  deism,  and  who 
would  have  preserved  the  external  decencies, 
was  overruled  and  intimidated  by  Hebert  and 
his  frowsy  crew,  who  had  either  crept  into  the 
governing  committees  or  had  otherwise  made 
themselves  a  power  in  the  state.  .  .  .  All  popu- 
lar journalists,  patriots,  and  public  bodies,  had 
begun  dating  'First  Year  of  Liberty,'  or  'First 
Year  of  the  Republic ; '  and  the  old  calendar  had 
come  to  be  considered  as  superstitious  and  slav- 
ish, as  an  abomination  in  the  highest  degree  dis- 
graceful to  free  and  enlightened  Frenchmen. 
Various  petitions  for  a  change  had  been  pre- 
sented ;  and  at  length  the  Convention  had  em- 
ployed the  mathematicians  Romme  and  Monge, 
and  the  astronomer  Laplace,  to  make  a  new  re- 
publican calendar  for  the  new  era.  These  three 
philosophers,  aided  by  Fabre  d'Eglantine,  who, 
as  a  poet,  furnished  the  names,  soon  finished 
their  work,  which  was  sanctioned  by  the  Con- 
vention and  decreed  into  universal  use  as  early 
as  the  5th  of  October.  It  divided  the  year  into 
four  equal  seasons,  and  twelve  equal  months  of 
30  days  each.  The  five  odd  days  which  remained 
were  to  be  festivals,  and  to  bear  the  name  of 
'  Sansculottides. '  .  .  .  One  of  these  five  days  was 
to  be  consecrated  to  Genius,  one  to  Industry,  the 
third  to  Fine  Actions,  the  fourth  to  Rewards, 
the  fifth  to  Opinion.  ...  In  leap-years,  when 
there  would  be  six  days  to  dispose  of,  the  last 
of  those  days  or  Sansculottides  was  to  be  conse- 
crated to  the  Revolution,  and  to  be  observed  in 
all  times  with  all  possible  solemnity.  The 
months  were  divided  into  three  decades,  or  por- 
tions of  ten  days  each,  and,  instead  of  the  Chris- 
tian sabbath,  once  in  seven  days,  the  decadi,  or 
tenth  day,  was  to  be  the  day  of  rest.  .  .  .  "The 
decimal  method  of  calculation  .  .  .  was  to  pre- 


side over  all  divisions:  thus,  instead  of  our 
twenty-four  hours  to  the  day,  and  sixty  minutes 
to  the  hour,  the  day  was  divided  into  ten  parts, 
and  the  tenth  was  to  be  subdivided  by  tens  and 
again  by  tens  to  the  minutest  division  of  time. 
New  dials  were  ordered  to  mark  the  time  in  this 
new  way,  but,  before  they  were  finished,  it  was 
found  that  the  people  were  puzzled  and  per- 
plexed by  this  last  alteration,  and  therefore  this 
part  of  the  calendar  was  adjourned  for  a  year, 
and  the  hours,  minutes  and  seconds  were  left  as 
they  were.  As  the  republic  commenced  on  the 
21st  of  September  close  on  the  [autumnal]  equi- 
nox, the  republican  year  was  made  to  commence 
at  that  season.  The  first  month  in  the  year 
(Fabre  d'Eglantine  being  god-father  to  them  all) 
was  called  Vendemiaire,  or  the  vintage  month, 
the  second  Brumaire,  or  the  foggy  month,  the 
third  Frimaire,  or  the  frosty  month.  These  were 
the  three  autumn  months.  Nivose,  Pluviose, 
and  Ventose,  or  the  snowy,  rainy  and  windy, 
were  the  three  winter  months.  Germinal,  Flo- 
real,  and  Prairial,  or  the  bud  month,  the  flower 
month,  and  the  meadow  month,  formed  the 
spring  season.  Messidor,  Thermidor  and  Fruc- 
tidor,  or  reaping  month,  heat  month,  and  fruit 
month,  made  the  summer,  and  completed  the  re- 
publican year.  In  more  ways  than  one  all  this 
was  calculated  for  the  meridian  of  Paris,  and 
could  suit  no  other  physical  or  moral  climate. 
.  .  .  But  the  strangest  thing  about  this  repub- 
lican calendar  was  its  duration.  It  lasted  till  the 
1st  of  January,  1806. "—  C.  JIac  Farlane,  The  Fr. 
Rev.,  V.  4,  ch.  3.  —  The  Republican  Calendar  for 
the  Year  Two  of  the  Republic  (Sept.  22,  1793  — 
Sept.  21,  1794)  is  synchronized  with  the  Grego- 
rian Calendar  as  follows:  1  Vendemiaire=Sept. 
22;  1  Brumaire = Oct.  23;  1  Frimaire = Nov.  21; 
1  Niv6se=Dec.  21;  1  Pluvi6se=Jan.  20;  1  Ven- 
t6se=Feb.  19;  1  Germinal = March  31;  1  Flo- 
real=April  20;  1  Prairial=Jlay  30;  1  Messidor= 
June  19;  1  Thermidor=July  19;  1  Fructidor= 
Aug.  18;  1st  to  5th  Sanscul6ttides=Sept.  17-31. 
—  H.  M.  Stephens,  Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Rev.,  v.  2, 
app.  13. 

Also  in  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Rev.  {Am. 
ed.),  t\  2.  pp.  364-365. 

A.  D.  1793  (November). — Abandonment  of 
Christianity. —  The  Worship  of  Reason  insti- 
tuted.— "The  earliest  steps  towards  a  public 
abandonment  of  Christianity  appear  to  have 
been  taken  by  Fouche,  the  future  minister  of 
Police,  and  Duke  of  Otranto.  ...  lie  published 
at  Nevers  (October  10,  1793)  a  decree"  ordaining 
that  "no  forms  of  religious  worship  be  practised 
except  within  their  respective  temples;"  that 
"ministers  of  religion  are  forbidden,  under  pain 
of  imprisonment,  to  wear  their  otficial  costumes 
in  any  other  places  besides  their  temples;"  and 
that  the  inscription,  "Death  is  an  eternal  sleep," 
should  be  placed  over  the  entrance  to  the  ceme- 
tery. "  This  decree  was  reported  to  the  munici- 
pality of  Paris  by  Chaumette,  the  fanatical  pro- 
cureur  of  the  Commune,  and  was  warmly 
applauded.  .  .  .  The  atheistical  cabal  of  which 
he  was  the  leader  (his  chief  associates  being  the 
infamous  Hebert,  the  Prussian  baron  Auncharsis 
Clootz,  and  Chabot,  a  renegade  priest),  now 
judged  that  public  feeling  was  ripe  for  an 
avowed  and  combined  onslaught  on  the  pro- 
fession of  Christianity.  .  .  .  They  decreed  that 
on  the  10th  of  November  the  '  Worship  of 
Reason  '  should  be  inaugurated  at  Notre  Dame. 


1332 


FRANCE,  1793. 


FiisUUules 
and  Noyades. 


FRANCE,  1793-1794. 


On  that  day  the  venerable  cathedral  was  pro- 
faned by  a  series  of  sacrilegious  outrages  unpar- 
alleled in  the  history  of  Christendom.  A  temple 
dedicated  to  '  Philosophy '  was  erected  on  a 
platform  in  the  middle  of  the  choir.  A  motley 
procession  of  citizens  of  both  sexes,  headed  by 
the  constituted  authorities,  advanced  towards  it; 
on  their  approach,  the  Goddess  of  Reason,  imper- 
sonated by  Mademoiselle  Maillard,  a  well  known 
figurante  of  the  opera,  took  her  seat  upon  a 
grassy  throne  in  front  of  the  temple ;  a  hymn, 
composed  in  her  honour  by  the  poet  Chenier,  was 
sung  by  a  body  of  young  girls  dressed  in  white 
and  bedecked  with  flowers;  and  the  multitude 
bowed  the  knee  before  her  in  profound  adoration. 
It  was  the  '  abomination  of  desolation  sitting  in 
the  holy  place.'  At  the  close  of  this  grotesque 
ceremony  the  whole  cortege  proceeded  to  the 
hall  of  the  Convention,  carrying  with  them  their 
'goddess,'  who  was  borne  aloft  in  a  chair  of 
state  on  the  shoulders  of  four  men.  Having 
deposited  her  in  front  of  the  president,  Chau- 
mette  harangued  the  Assembly.  .  .  .  He  pro- 
ceeded to  demand  that  the  ci-devant  metropoliti- 
cal  church  should  henceforth  be  tlic  temple  of 
Reason  and  Liberty ;  which  proposition  was 
immediately  adopted.  The  '  goddess '  was  then 
conducted  to  the  president,  and  he  and  other 
officers  of  the  House  saluted  her  with  the  'frater- 
nal kiss,'  amid  thunders  of  applause.  After  this, 
upon  the  motion  of  Thuriot,  the  Convention  in  a 
body  joined  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  marched 
in  their  comjiany  to  the  temple  of  Reason,  to 
witness  a  repetition  of  the  impieties  above 
described.  These  demonstrations  were  zealously 
imitated  in  the  other  churches  of  the  capital.  .  .  . 
The  Interior  of  St.  Eustache  was  transformed 
into  a  '  guinguette,'  or  place  of  low  public  enter- 
tainment. ...  At  St.  Qervaia  a  ball  was  given 
in  the  chapel  of  the  Virgin.  In  other  churches 
theatrical  spectacles  took  place.  .  .  .  Represen- 
tatives of  the  people  thought  it  no  shame  to  quit 
their  curule  chairs  in  order  to  dance  the  '  carmag- 
nole '  with  abandoned  women  in  the  streets  attired 
in  sacerdotal  garments.  On  Sunday,  the  17th  of 
November,  all  the  parish  churches  of  Paris  were 
closed  by  authority,  with  three  exceptions.  .  .  . 
Chaumette,  at  a  sitting  of  the  Commune  on  the 
26th  of  November,  called  for  further  measures 
for  the  extermination  of  every  vestifc  of  Chris- 
tian worship ; "  and  the  Council  of  the  Commune, 
on  his  demand,  ordered  the  closing  of  all  churches 
and  temples,  of  every  religious  denomination ; 
made  priests  and  ministers  of  religion  responsible 
for  any  troubles  that  might  arise  from  religious 
opinions,  and  commanded  the  arrest  as  a 
' '  suspect "  of  any  person  who  should  ask  for  the 
reopening  of  a  church.  "The  example  set  by 
Paris,  at  this  melancholy  period,  was  faithfully 
repeated,  if  not  surpassed  in  atrocity,  tliroughout 
the  provinces.  Religion  was  proscribed, 
churches  closed.  Christian  ordinances  interdicted  ; 
the  dreary  gloom  of  atheistical  despotism  over- 
spread the  land.  .  .  .  These  infamies  were  too 
monstrous  to  be  tolerated  for  any  length  of  time. 
.  .  .  Robespierre,  who  had  marked  the  symptoms 
of  a  coming  reaction,  boldly  seized  tlie  oppor- 
tunity, and  denounced  without  mercy  the  hypo- 
critical faction  which  disputed  his  own  march 
towards  absolute  dictatorship." — W.  H,  Jervis, 
TTie  Oallican  Church  and  the  Revolution,  ch.  7. 

Also  in  A.  de  Lamartine,  Hist,  of  the  Giron- 
dists,  bk.   52  («.   3).— T.   Carlyle,  The  FY.  Rev., 

Vi 


bk.  5,  ch.  4  (».  3).— E.  de  Presaense,  Religion  and 
the  Reign  of  Terror,  bk.  2,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1793-1794  (October  —  April).  —  The 
Terror  in  the  Provinces.—  Republican  ven- 
geance at  Lyons,  Marseilles,  Toulon,  Bor- 
deaux, Nantes.—  Fusillades  and  Noyades.— 
'  ■  Tlie  insurgents  of  Lyons,  Marseilles, Toulon,  and 
Bordeaux,  were  punished  with  pitiless  severity. 
Lyons  had  revolted,  and  the  convention  decreed 
[October  12]  the  destruction  of  the  city,  the 
confiscation  of  the  property  of  the  rich,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  patriots,  and  the  punishment  of 
the  insurgents  by  martial  law.  Couthon,  a  com- 
missioner well  tried  in  cruelty,  hesitated  to 
carry  into  execution  this  monstrous  decree,  and 
was  superseded  by  Collot  d'  Herbois  and  Fouche. 
Tliousands  of  workmen  were  employed  in  the 
work  of  destruction:  whole  streets  fell  under 
their  pickaxes:  the  prisons  were  gorged:  the 
j;uillotine  was  too  slow  for  revolutionary  ven- 
geance, and  crowds  of  prisoners  were  shot,  in 
murderous  '  mitraillades. '  ...  At  Marseilles, 
12,000  of  the  richest  citizens  fled  from  the 
vengeance  of  the  revolutionists,  and  their 
Ijroperty  was  confiscated,  and  plundered.  When 
Toulon  fell  before  the  strategy  of  Bonaparte, 
the  savage  vengeance  and  cruelty  of  the  con- 
querors were  Indulged  without  restraint.  .  .  . 
The  dockyard  labourers  were  put  to  the  sword : 
gangs  of  prisoners  were  brought  out  and  exe- 
cuted by  fusillades:  the  guillotine  also  claimed 
its  victims:  the  sans-culottes  rioted  in  confisca- 
tion and  plunder.  At  Bordeaux,  Tallien  threw 
15,000  citizens  into  prison.  Hundreds  fell  under 
the  guillotine;  and  the  possessions  and  property 
of  the  rich  were  offered  up  to  outrage  and 
robbery.  But  all  these  atrocities  were  far  sur- 
passed in  La  Vendee.  .  .  .  The  barbarities  of 
warfare  were  yet  surpassed  by  the  vengeance  of 
the  conquerors,  when  the  insurrection  was,  at 
last,  overcome.  At  Nantes,  the  monster  Carrier 
outstripped  his  rivals  in  cruelty  and  Insatiable 
thirst  for  blood.  Not  contented  with  wholesale 
mitraillades,  he  designed  that  masterpiece  of 
cruelty,  the  noyades;  and  thousands  of  men, 
women  and  children  who  escaped  the  muskets 
of  the  rabble  soldiery  were  deliberately  drowned 
in  the  waters  of  the  Loire.  In  four  months,  his 
victims  reached  15,000.  At  Angers,  and  other 
towns  in  La  Vendee,  these  hideous  noyades  were 
added  to  the  terrors  of  the  guillotine  and  the 
fusillades."— Sir  T.  E.  May,  Democracy  in, 
Europe,  ch.  14.— "One  begins  to  be  sick  of 
'  death  vomited  in  great  floods. '  Nevertheless, 
hearest  thou  not,  O  Reader  (for  the  sound  reaches 
through  centuries),  in  the  dead  December  and 
January  nights,  over  Nantes  Town, —  confused 
noises,  as  of  musketry  and  tumult,  as  of  rage 
and  lamentation  ;  mingling  with  the  everlasting 
moan  of  the  Loire  waters  there  ?  Nantes  Town 
is  sunk  in  sleep ;  but  Representant  Carrier  is  not 
sleeping,  the  wool-capped  Company  of  Marat  is 
not  sleeping.  Why  unmoors  that  flatbottomed 
craft,  that  'gabarre' ;  about  eleven  at  night; 
with  Ninety  Priests  under  hatches  ?  They  are 
going  to  Belle  Isle  ?  In  the  middle  of  the  Loire 
stream,  on  signal  given,  the  gabarre  is  scuttled; 
she  sinks  with  all  her  cargo.  '  Sentence  of 
Deportation,'  writes  Carrier,  'was  executed 
vertically."  The  Ninety  Priests,  with  their 
gabarre-coffin,  lie  deep!  It  is  the  first  of  the 
Noyades  [November  16],  what  we  may  call 
'Drownages'  of   Carrier;   which  have  become 


FRANCE,  1793-1794. 


T)-iiti)iph  of 
Robespierre. 


FRANCE,  1793-1794. 


famous  forever.  Guillotining  there  was  at 
Nantes,  till  the  Headsman  sank  worn  out :  then 
fusillading  'in  the  Plain  of  Saint-Mauve;'  little 
children  fusilladed,  and  women  with  children  at 
the  breast;  children  and  women,  by  the  hundred 
and  twenty ;  and  by  the  five  hundred,  so  hot  is 
La  Vendee :  till  the  very  Jacobins  grew  sick, 
and  all  but  the  Company  of  Marat  cried.  Hold ! 
Wherefore  now  we  have  got  Noyading ;  and  on 
the  24th  night  of  Frostarious  year  2,  which  is 
14th  of  December  1793,  we  have  a  second 
Noyade;  consisting  of  '138  persons.'  Or  why 
waste  a  gabarre,  sinking  it  with  them  1  Fling 
them  out ;  fling  them  out,  with  their  hands  tied : 
pour  a  continual  hail  of  lead  over  all  the  space, 
till  the  last  struggler  of  thera  be  sunk !  Unsound 
sleepers  of  Nantes,  and  the  Sea-Villages  there- 
abouts, hear  the  musketry  amid  the  night- winds ; 
wonder  what  the  meaning  of  it  is.  And  women 
were  in  that  gabarre ;  whom  the  Red  Nightcaps 
were  stripping  naked ;  who  begged,  in  their 
agony,  that  their  smocks  might  not  be  stript 
from  them.  And  young  children  were  thrown 
in,  their  mothers  vainly  pleading:  'Wolflings,' 
answered  the  Company  of  Marat,  '  who  would 
grow  to  be  wolves. '  By  degrees,  daylight  itself 
witnesses  Noyades:  women  and  men  are  tied 
together,  feet  and  feet,  hands  and  hands;  and 
flung  in:  this  they  call  Mariage  Republicain, 
Republican  Marriage.  Cruel  is  the  panther  of 
the  woods,  the  she-bear  bereaved  of  her  whelps: 
but  there  is  in  man  a  hatred  crueler  than  that. 
Dumb,  out  of  suffering  now,  as  pale  swoln 
corpses,  the  victims  tumble  confusedly  seaward 
along  the  Loire  stream;  the  tide  rolling  them 
back:  clouds  of  ravens  darken  the  River; 
wolves  prowl  on  the  shoal-places :  Carrier  writes, 
'Quel  torrent  revolutionnaire.  What  a  torrent  of 
Revolution!'  For  the  man  is  rabid;  and  the 
Time  is  rabid.  These  are  the  Noyades  of  Carrier ; 
twenty-five  by  the  tale,  for  what  is  done  in  dark- 
ness comes  to  be  investigated  in  sunlight:  not  to 
be  forgotten  for  centuries.  .  .  .  Men  are  all 
rabid;  as  the  Time  is.  Representative  Lebon, 
at  Arras,  dashes  his  sword  into  the  blood  flowing 
from  the  Guillotine;  exclaims,  'How  I  like  it!' 
Mothers,  they  say,  by  his  orders,  have  to  stand 
by  while  the  Guillotine  devours  their  children :  a 
band  of  music  is  stationed  near;  and,  at  the  fall 
of  every  head,  strikes  up  its  '  Ca-ira. '  " — T. 
Carlyle,  The  Fr.  Rev.,  i).  3,  bk.  5,  ch.  3. 

Also  in  H.  M.  Stephens,  Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Rev., 
V.  3,  ch.  11,— H.  A.  Taine,  The  Fi:  Rev.,  bk.  5, 
eh.  1,  sect.  9  {v.  3). — Horrors  of  the  Pnson  of 
Arras  ("The  Reign  of  Terror:  A  Collection  of 
Authentic  Narratives,"  V.  2). — Duchesse  deDuras, 
Prison  Journals  during  the  Fr.  Rev. — A.  des 
Echerolles,  Early  Life,  v.  1,  ch.  7-13,  andv.  2,  ch. 
1. — See,  also,  below:  1794  June — July). 

A.  D.  1793-1794  (November— June).— The 
factions  of  the  Mountain  devour  one  another. 
—  Destruction  of  the  Hebertists.— Danton  and 
his  followers  brought  to  the  knife.—  Robes- 
pierre and  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety. — 
The  Feast  of  the  Supreme  Being. —  ■Itobes- 
pierre  was  vuiutterably  outraged  by  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  atheists.  They  perplexed  him 
as  a  politician  intent  upon  order,  and  they 
afflicted  him  sorely  as  an  ardent  disciple  of  the 
Savoyard  Vicar.  Hebert,  however,  was  so 
strong  that  it  needed  some  courage  to  attack 
him,  nor  did  Robespierre  dare  to  wi'thstand  him 
to  the  face.     But  he  did  not  flinch  from  making 


an  energetic  assault  upon  atheism  and  the 
excesses  of  its  partisans.  His  admirers  usually 
count  his  speech  of  the  21st  of  November  one  of  the 
most  admirable  of  his  oratorical  successes.  .  .  . 
'  Atheism  [he  said]  is  aristocratic.  'The  idea  of 
a  great  being  who  watches  over  oppressed  inno- 
cence and  punishes  triumphant  crime  is  essen- 
tially the  idea  of  the  people.  This  is  the 
sentiment  of  Europe  and  the  Universe;  it  is  the 
sentiment  of  the  French  nation.  That  people  is 
attached  neither  to  priests,  nor  to  superstitions, 
nor  to  ceremonies ;  it  is  attached  only  to  worship 
in  itself,  or  in  other  words  to  the  idea  of  an 
incomprehensible  Power,  the  terror  of  wrong- 
doers, the  stay  and  comfort  of  virtue,  to  which 
it  delights  to  render  words  of  homage  that  are  all 
so  many  anathemas  against  injustice  and  trium- 
phant crime.'  This  is  Robespierre's  favourite 
attitude,  the  priest  posing  as  statesman.  .  .  . 
Danton  followed  practically  the  same  line, 
though  saying  much  less  about  it.  '  If  Greece,' 
he  said  in  the  Convention,  '  had  its  Olympian 
games,  France  too  shall  solemnize  her  sans- 
culottid  days.  ...  If  we  have  not  honoured 
the  priest  of  error  and  fanaticism,  neither  do  we 
wish  to  honour  the  priest  of  incredulity:  we 
wish  to  serve  the  people.  I  demand  that  there 
shall  be  an  end  of  these  anti-religious  mas- 
querades in  the  Convention.'  There  was  an  end 
of  the  masquerading,  but  the  Hebertists  still 
kept  their  ground.  Danton,  Robespierre,  and 
the  Committee  were  all  equally  impotent  against 
them  for  some  months  longer.  The  revolutionary 
force  had  been  too  strong  to  be  resisted  by  any 
government  since  the  Paris  insurgents  had  car- 
ried both  king  and  assembly  in  triumph  from 
Versailles  in  the  October  of  1789.  It  was  now  too 
strong  for  those  who  had  begun  to  strive  with 
all  their  might  to  build  a  new  government  out 
of  the  agencies  that  had  shattered  the  old  to 
pieces.  For  some  months  the  battle  which  had 
been  opened  by  Robespierre's  remonstrance 
against  atheistic  intolerance,  degenerated  into  a 
series  of  masked  skirmishes.  .  .  .  Collot  D'Her- 
bois  had  come  back  in  hot  haste  from  Lyons. 
.  .  .  Carrier  was  recalled  from  Nantes.  .  .  . 
The  presence  of  these  men  of  blood  gave  new 
courage  and  resolution  to  the  Hebertists. 
Though  the  alliance  was  informal,  yet  as  against 
Danton,  Camille  Desmoulius,  and  the  rest  of 
the  Indulgents,  as  well  as  against  Robespierre, 
they  made  common  cause.  Camille  Desmoulins 
attacked  Hebert  in  successive  numbers  of  a 
journal  ['Le  Vieux  Cordelier']  that  is  perhaps 
the  one  truly  literary  monument  of  this  stage  of 
the  revolution.  Hebert  retaliated  by  impugning 
the  patriotism  of  Desmoulins  in  the  Club,  and 
the  unfortunate  wit,  notwithstanding  the  efforts 
of  Robespierre  on  his  behalf,  was  for  a  while 
turned  out  of  the  sacred  precincts.  .  .  .  Even 
Danton  himself  was  attacked  (December,  1793) 
and  the  integrity  of  his  patriotism  brought  into 
question.  Robespierre  made  an  energetic  defence 
of  his  great  rival  in  the  hierarchy  of  revolution. 
.  .  .  Robespierre,  in  whom  spasmodical  courage 
and  timidity  ruled  by  rapid  turns,  began 
to  suspect  that  he  had  been  premature;  and  a 
convenient  illness,  which  some  supposed  to  have 
been  feigned,  excused  his  withdrawal  for  some 
weeks  from  a  scene  where  he  felt  that  he  could 
no  longer  see  clear.  We  catmot  doubt  that  both 
he  and  Danton  were  perfectly  assured  that  the 
anarchic  party  must  unavoidably  roll  headlong 


13o4 


FRANCE,  1793-1794. 


Dnnton  to 
the  Guillotine. 


FRANCE,  1793-1794. 


into  the  abyss.  But  the  hour  of  doom  w.as 
uncertain.  To  make  a  mistake  in  the  rijrht 
moment,  to  hurry  the  crisis,  was  instant  deatli. 
Robespierre  was  a  more  adroit  calculator  than 
Danton.  .  .  .  His  absence  during  the  final  crisis 
of  the  anarchic  party  allowed  events  to  ripen, 
without  committing  him  to  that  initiative  in 
dangerous  action  which  he  had  dreaded  on  the 
10th  of  August,  as  he  dreaded  it  on  every  other 
decisive  day  of  this  burning  time.  The  party 
of  the  Commune  became  more  and  more  daring 
in  their  invectives  against  the  Convention  and 
the  Committees.  At  length  they  proclaimed 
open  insurrection.  But  Paris  was  cold,  and 
opinion  was  divided.  In  the  night  of  the  13th  of 
March,  Hebert,  Chaumette,  Clootz,  were  arrested. 
The  next  day  Robespierre  recovered  sufficiently 
to  appear  at  the  Jacobin  Club.  He  joined  his 
colleagues  of  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety 
in  striking  the  blow.  On  the  24th  of  March 
the  Ultra-Revolutionist  leaders  were  beheaded. 
The  first  bloody  breach  in  the  Jacobin  ranks 
was  speedily  followed  by  the  second.  The  Right 
wing  of  the  opposition  to  the  Committee  soon 
followed  the  Left  down  the  ways  to  dusty  death, 
and  the  execution  of  the  Anarchists  only  pre- 
ceded by  a  week  the  arrest  of  the  Moderates. 
When  the  seizure  of  Danton  had  once  before 
been  discussed  in  the  Committee,  Robespierre 
resisted  the  proposal  violently.  We  have  already 
seen  how  he  defended  Danton  at  the  Jacobin  Club. 
.  .  .  What  produced  this  sudden  tack?  .  .  .  His 
acquiescence  in  the  ruin  of  Danton  is  intelligible 
enough  on  the  grounds  of  selfish  policy.  The 
Committee  [of  Public  Safety]  hated  Danton  for 
the  good  reason  that  he  had  openly  attacked  them, 
and  his  cry  for  clemency  was  an  inflammatory  and 
dangerous  protest  against  their  system.  Now 
Robespierre,  rightly  or  wrongly,  had  made  up  his 
mind  that  the  Committee  was  the  instrument  by 
which,  and  which  only,  he  could  work  out  his 
own  vague  schemes  of  power  and  reconstruc- 
tion. And,  in  any  case,  how  could  he  resist  the 
Committee?  .  .  .  All  goes  to  show  that  Robes- 
pierre was  really  moved  by  nothing  more  than 
his  invariable  dread  of  being  left  behind,  of 
finding  himself  on  the  weaker  side,  of  not  seeming 
practical  and  political  enough.  And  having 
made  up  his  mind  that  the  stronger  party  was 
bent  on  the  destruction  of  the  Dantonists,  he 
became  fiercer  than  Billaud  himself.  .  .  .  Dan- 
ton had  gone,  as  he  often  did,  to  his  native 
village  of  Arcis-sur-Aube,  to  seek  repose  and  a 
little  clearness  of  sight  in  the  night  that  wrapped 
him  about.  He  was  devoid  of  personal  ambi- 
tion ;  he  never  had  any  humour  for  mere  factious 
struggles.  .  .  .  It  is  not  clear  that  he  could  have 
done  anything.  The  balance  of  force,  after  the 
suppression  of  the  Hebertists,  was  irretrievably 
against  him,  as  calculation  had  already  revealed 
to  Robespierre.  .  .  .  After  the  arrest,  and  on 
the  proceedings  to  obtain  the  assent  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  trial  of  Danton  and  others  of  its 
members,  one  only  of  their  friends  had  the 
courage  to  rise  and  demand  that  they  should  be 
heard  at  the  bar.  Robespierre  burst  out  in  cold 
rage;  he  asked  whether  they  had  undergone  so 
many  heroic  sacrifices,  counting  among  them 
these  acts  of  'painful  severity,'  only  to  fall 
under  the  yoke  of  a  band  of  domineer- 
ing intriguers;  and  he  cried  out  impatiently 
that  they  would  brook  no  claim  of  privilege, 
and  suffer  no  rotten  idol.     The  word  was  felici- 


tously chosen,  for  the  Convention  dreaded  to 
have  its  independence  suspected,  and  it  dreaded 
this  all  the  more  because  at  this  time  its  inde- 
pendence did  not  really  exist.  The  vote  against 
Danton  was  unanimous,  and  the  fact  that  it  was 
so  is  the  deepest  stain  on  the  fame  of  this  assem- 
bly. On  the  afternoon  of  the  16th  Germinal 
(April  5,  1794),  Paris  in  amazement  and  some 
stupefaction  saw  the  once  dreaded  Titan  of  the 
Slountain  fast  bound  in  the  tumbril,  and  faring 
towards  the  sharp-clanging  knife  [with  Camille 
Desmoulins  and  others].  'I  leave  it  all  in  a 
frightful  welter,'  Danton  is  reported  to  have  said. 
'  Not  a  man  of  them  has  an  idea  of  government. 
Robespierre  will  follow  me ;  he  is  dragged  down  by 
me.  Ah,  better  be  a  poor  fisherman  than  meddle 
with  the  governing  of  men!'  .  .  .  After  the  fall  of 
the  anarchists  and  the  death  of  Danton,  the  rela- 
tions between  Robespierre  and  the  Committees 
underwent  a  change.  He,  who  had  hitherto 
been  on  the  side  of  government,  became  in  turn 
an  agency  of  opposition.  He  did  this  in  the 
interest  of  ultimate  stability,  but  the  difference 
between  the  new  position  and  the  old  is  that  he 
now  distinctly  associated  the  idea  of  a  stable 
republic  with  the  ascendency  of  his  own  religious 
conceptions.  .  .  .  The  base  of  Robespierre's 
scheme  of  social  reconstruction  now  came  clearly 
into  view ;  and  what  a  base  I  An  ofiicial  Supreme 
Being  and  a  regulated  Terror.  .  .  .  How  can  we 
speak  with  decent  patience  of  a  man  who 
seriously  thought  that  he  should  conciliate  the 
conservative  and  theological  elements  of  the 
society  at  his  feet,  by  such  an  odious  opera-piece 
as  the  Feast  of  the  Supreme  Being.  This  was 
designed  as  a  triumphant  ripost  to  the  Feast  of 
Reason,  which  Chaumette  and  his  friends  had 
celebrated  in  the  winter.  .  .  .  Robespierre  per- 
suaded the  Convention  to  decree  an  official  recog- 
nition of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  to  attend  a 
commemorative  festival  in  honour  of  their  mystic 
patron.  He  contrived  to  be  chosen  president  for 
the  decade  in  which  the  festival  would  fall. 
AVhen  the  day  came  (20th  Prairial,  June  8,  1794), 
he  clothed  himself  with  more  than  even  his 
usual  care.  As  he  looked  out  from  the  windows 
of  the  Tuileries  upon  the  jubilant  crowd  in  the 
gardens,  he  was  intoxicated  with  enthusiasm. 
'O  Nature,'  he  cried,  'how  sublime  thy  power, 
how  full  of  delight!  How  tyrants  must  grow 
pale  at  the  idea  of  such  a  festival  as  this ! '  In 
pontifical  pride  he  walked  at  the  head  of  the 
procession,  with  flowers  and  wheat-ears  in  his 
hand,  to  the  sound  of  chants  and  symphonies 
and  choruses  of  maidens.  On  the  first  of  the 
great  basins  in  the  gardens,  David,  the  artist, 
had  devised  an  allegorical  structure  for  which 
an  inauspicious  doom  was  prepared.  Atheism, 
a  statue  of  life  size,  was  throned  in  the  midst  of 
an  amiable  group  of  human  Vices,  with  Madness 
by  her  side,  and  Wisdom  menacing  them  with 
lofty  wrath.  Great  are  the  perils  of  symbolism. 
Robespierre  applied  a  torch  to  Atheism,  but 
alas,  the  wind  was  hostile,  or  else  Atheism  and 
Madness  were  damp.  They  obstinately  resisted 
the  torch,  and  it  was  hapless  Wisdom  who  took 
fire.  .  .  .  The  whole  mummery  was  pagan. 
.  .  .  It  stands  as  the  most  disgusting  and  con- 
temptible anachronism  in  history," — J.  Morley, 
Rohespierre  {Critical  Miscellanies,  Second  Series). 

Also  in  T.  Carlyle,  The  Fr.  Rev.,  v.  3,  bk.  6. 
— 6.  H.  Lewes,  Life  of  Robespierre,  ch.  19-20. — 
L.  Gronlund,  fa  ira;  or  Danton  in  t?ie  Pr.  Rev., 


1335 


FRANCE,  1794. 


PRANCE,  1794. 


ch.   6. — J.   Claretie,   Camille  Deamoulins  and  his 
Wife,  ch  5-6. 

A.  D.  1794  (March— July).— Withdrawal  of 
Prussia   from   the  European  Coalition  as  a.T 
ally,  to  become  a  mercenary. —  Successes  of 
the     Republic. —  Conquest    of    the    Austrian 
Netherlands. —  Advance  to  the  Rhine. —  Loss 
of    Corsica. — Naval     defeat     off     Ushant.— 
"While  the  alliance  of  the  Great  Powers  was  on 
the   point   of   dissolution  from  selfishness   and 
jealousy,   the   French,  with  an  energy  and  de- 
termination, which,  considering  their  unparalleled 
difficulties,    were    truly   heroic,    had   assembled 
armies  numbering  nearly  a  million  of  men.    The 
aggregate  of  the  allied  forces  did  not  much  ex- 
ceed 300,000.     The  campaign  on  the  Dutch  and 
Flemish  frontiers  of    France    was  planned    at 
Vienna,  but  had  nearly  been  disconcerted  at  the 
outset  by  the  refusal  of  the  Duke  of  York  to 
serve  under  General  Clairfait.  .  .  .  The  Emperor 
settled  the  difficulty  by  signifying  his  intention 
to  take  the  command  in  person.     Thus  one  in- 
competent  prince  who   knew  little,  was   to  be 
commanded  by  another  incompetent  prince  who 
knew  nothing,  about  war ;  and  the  success  of  a 
great  enterprise  was  made  subservient  to  con- 
siderations of    punctilio    and    etiquette.      The 
main  object  of  the  Austrian  plan  was  to  com- 
plete the  reduction  of  the  frontier  fortresses  by 
the   capture  of   Landrecy  on   the   Sambre,  and 
then  to  advance  through  the  plains  of  Picardy 
on    Paris;  —  a    plan    which   might  have    been 
feasible    the    year    before.  .  .  .  The    King    of 
Prussia   formally   withdrew  from   the    alliance 
[March   13] ;   but  condescended  to  assume  the 
character  of  a  mercenary.     In  the  spring  of  the 
year,  by  a  treaty  with  the  English  Government, 
his    Prussian    Majesty    undertook     to     furnish 
62,000  men  for  a  year,  in  consideration  of  the 
sum   of    £1,800,000,    of    which   Holland,    by  a 
separate  convention,  engaged  to  supply  some- 
what less  than  a  fourth  part.     The  organisation 
of   the   French   army   was  effected   under    the 
direction  of   Carnot.   .  .  .  The  policy  of  terror 
was  nevertheless  applied  to  the  administration 
of  the  army.     Custine  and  Houchard,  who  had 
commanded  the  last  campaign,  .  .  .  were  sent 
to  the  scaffold,  because  the  arms  of  the  republic 
had  failed  to  achieve  a  complete  triumph  under 
their  direction.  .  .  .  Pichegru,  the  officer  now 
selected  to  lead  the  hosts  of  Prance,  went  forth 
to  assume  his  command   with  the  knife  of  the 
executioner  suspended  over  his  head.  His  orders 
were  to  expel  the  invaders   from   the  soil  and 
strongholds  of   the  republic,  and  to  reconquer 
Belgium.     The  first  step  towards  the  fulfilment 
of  this  commission  was  the  recovery  of  the  three 
great  frontier  towns,  Conde,  Valenciennes,  and 
Quesnoy.      The    siege    of    Quesnoy    was   im- 
mediately formed;   and  Pichegru,  informed  of 
or  anticipating  the  plans  of  the  Allies,  disposed 
a  large  force  in  front  of  Cambray,  to  intercept 
the    operations  of  .   .  .  the    allied  army  upon 
Landrecy.  ...   On  the  17th  [of  April]  a  great 
action  was  fought  in  which  the  allies  obtained  a 
success,  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  press  the 
siege  of  Landrecy.  .  .  .  Pichegru,  a  few  days 
after  [April  26,  at  the  redoubts  of  Troisville] 
sustained  a  signal  repulse  from  the  British,  in 
an  attempt  to  raise  the  siege  of  Landrecy ;    but 
by  a  rapid  and  daring  movement,  he  improved 
his    defeat,    and   seized   the   important   post  of 
Moucron.     The  results  were,  that  Clairfait  was 


forced  to  fall  back  on  Tournay:  Courtray  and 
Menin  surrendered  to  the  French ;   and  thus  the 
right  flanks  of  the  Allies  were  exposed.     Lan- 
drecy, which,  about  the  same  time,  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Allies,  was  but  a  poor  compensa- 
tion for  the   reverses  in  West   Flanders.     The 
Duke  of  York,  at  the  urgent  instance  of   the 
Emperor,   marched    to   the  relief   of   Clairfait; 
but,  in  the  meantime,  the  Austrian  general,  be- 
ing hard  pressed,  was  compelled  to  fall  back 
upon  a  position  which  would  enable  him  for  a 
time  to  cover  Bruges,  Ghent,  and  Ostend.     The 
English  had   also  to  sustain  a  vigorous  attack 
near  Tournay;    but  the   enemy   were   defeated 
with  the  loss  of    4,000  men.     It  now  became 
necessary    to    risk    a    general    action    to    save 
Flanders,    by  cutting  off  that  division  of  the 
French  army  which  had  outflanked  the  Allies. 
By  bad  management  and  want  of  concert  this 
movement,  which  had  been  contrived  by  Colonel 
Mack,  the  chief  military  adviser  of  the  Emperor, 
was  wholly  defeated   [at  Tourcoign,   May  18]. 
.  _.  .  The  French  took  1,500  prisoners  and  60 
pieces  of  cannon.     A  thousand  English  soldiers 
lay  dead  on  the  field,  and  the  Duke  [of  York] 
himself    escaped    with    ditficulty.      Four    days 
after,  Pichegru  having  collected  a  great  force, 
amounting,  it  has  been  stated,  to  100,000  men, 
made  a  grand  attack  upon  the  allied  army  [at 
Pont  Achin].  .  .  .  The  battle  raged  from  live  in 
the  morning  until  nine  at  night,  and  was  at 
length  determined  by  the  bayonet.  ...  In  con- 
sequence of  this  check,  Pichegru  fell  back  upon 
Lisle."     It    was    after  this  repulse  that   "the 
French  executive,  on  the  flimsy  pretence  of  a 
supposed  attempt  to  assassinate  Robespierre,  in- 
stigated by  the  British  Government,  procured  a 
decree  from  the  Convention,  that  no  English  or 
Hanoverian  prisoners  should  be  made.     In  reply 
to  this  atrocious  edict,  the  Duke  of  York  issued 
a   general  order,    enjoining   forbearance   to  the 
troops  under  his  command.     Most  of  the  French 
generals  .  .  .  refused  to  become  assassins.  .  .  . 
The  decree  was  carried  into  execution  in  a  few 
instances    only.    .    .    .    The    Allies    gained    no 
military  advantage  by  the  action  of  Pont  Achin 
on  the   22nd  of    May.  .  .  .  The   Emperor  .  .  . 
abandoned  the  army  and  retired  to  Vienna.     He 
left  some  orders  and  proclamations  behind  him, 
to  which  nobody  thought  it  worth  while  to  pay 
any  attention.     On  the  5th  of  June,   Pichegru 
invested  Ypres,  which  Clairfait  made  two  at- 
tempts  to    retain,    but   without    success.     The 
place    surrendered    on  the   17th  ;    Clairfait    re- 
treated to  Ghent;  Walmoden  abandoned  Bruges; 
and  the  Duke  of  York,  forced  to  quit  his  posi- 
tion at  Tournay,  encamped  near  Oudenarde.     It 
was  now  determined  by  the  Prince  of  Coburg, 
who  resumed  the  chief  command  after  the  de- 
parture  of    the   Emperor,   to   risk  the    fate  of 
Belgium  on  a  general  action,  which  was  fought 
at  Fleurus  on  the  26th  of  June.     The  Austrians, 
aft^r  a  desperate  struggle,  were  defeated  at  all 
points  by  the  French  army  of  tlie  Sambre  under 
Jourdan.     Charleroi  having  surrendered  to  tflie 
French  .  .  .  and  the  Duke  of  York  being  forced 
to    retreat,    any   further    attempt    to   save   the 
Netherlands  was  hopeless.     Ostend  and  Mons, 
Ghent,  Tournay,   and  Oudenarde,  were  succes- 
sively evacuated ;    and  the   French  were  estab- 
lished at  Brussels.     When  it  was  too  late,  the 
English  army  was  reinforced.  ...  It  now  only 
remained  for  the  French  to  recapture  the  fort- 


1336 


FRANCE,  1794. 


Climax  of 
the  Terror. 


FRANCE,  1794. 


res.^ies  on  their  own  frontier  which  had  been 
taken  from  them  in  the  last  campaign.  .  .  . 
Laudrecy  .  .  .  fell  without  a  struggle.  Quesnoy 
.  .  .  made  a  gallant  [but  vain]  resistance.  .  .  . 
Valenciennes  and  Conde  .  .  .  opened  their 
gates.  .  .  .  The  victorious  armies  of  the  Re- 
public were  thus  prepared  for  the  conquest  of 
Holland.  .  .  .  The  Prince  of  Orange  made  an 
appeal  to  the  patriotism  of  his  countrymen ;  but 
the  republicans  preferred  the  ascendancy  of  their 
faction  to  the  liberties  of  their  country.  .  .  . 
The  other  military  operations  of  the  year,  in 
wliich  England  was  engaged,  do  not  require  pro- 
longed notice.  The  Corsicans,  under  tlie  guid- 
ance of  their  veteran  chief,  Paoli,  .  .  .  sought 
the  aid  of  England  to  tlirow  off  the  French 
yoke,  and  offered  in  return  allegiance  of  his 
countrymen  to  the  British  Crown.  ...  A  small 
force  was  despatched,  and,  after  a  series  of  petty 
operations,  Corsica  was  occupied  by  British 
troops,  and  proclaimed  a  part  of  the  British 
dominions.  An  expedition  on  a  greater  scale 
was  sent  to  the  West  Indies.  Martinique,  St. 
Lucie  and  Guadaloupe  were  easily  taken;  but 
the  large  island  of  St.  Domingo,  relieved  by  a 
timely  arrival  of  succours  from  France,  offered 
a  formidable  [and  successful]  resistance.  .  .  . 
The  campaign  on  the  Rliine  was  undertaken  by 
the  Allies  under  auspices  ill  calculated  to  inspire 
confidence,  or  even  hope.  The  King  of  Prussia, 
not  content  with  abandoning  the  cause,  had  done 
everything  in  his  power  to  thwart  and  defeat  the 
operations  of  the  Allies.  ...  On  the  22d  of 
May,  the  Austrians  crossed  the  Rhine  and  at- 
tacked the  French  in  their  intrenchments  with- 
out success.  On  the  same  day,  the  Prussians 
defeated  a  division  of  the  Republican  army  [at 
Kaiserslautern],  and  advanced  their  head-quarters 
to  Deux-Ponts.  Content  with  this  achievement, 
the  German  armies  remained  inactive  for  several 
weeks,  when  the  French,  having  obtained  rein- 
forcements, attacked  the  whole  line  of  the 
German  posts.  .  .  .  Before  the  end  of  the  year 
the  Allies  were  in  full  retreat,  and  the  Republi- 
cans in  their  turn  had  become  the  invaders 
of  Germany.  They  occupied  the  Electorate  of 
Treves,  and  they  captured  the  important  fort  of 
Mannheim.  Mentz  also  was  placed  under  a 
close  blockade.  ...  At  sea,  England  maintained 
her  ancient  reputation.  The  French  had  made 
great  exertions  to  fit  out  a  fleet,  and  36  ships  of 
the  line  were  assembled  in  tlie  port  of  Brest," 
for  the  protecting  of  a  merchant  fleet,  laden 
with  much  needed  food-supplies,  expected  from 
America.  Lord  Howe,  with  an  English  fleet  of 
25  ships  of  the  line,  was  on  the  watcli  for  the 
Brest  fleet  when  it  put  to  sea.  On  the  1st  of 
June  he  sighted  and  attacked  it  off  Ushant,  per- 
forming the  celebrated  manoeuvre  of  brealsing 
the  enemy's  line.  Seven  of  the  French  ships 
were  taken,  one  was  sunk  during  the  battle,  and 
18,  much  crippled,  escaped.  The  victory  caused 
great  exultation  in  England,  but  it  was  fruitless, 
for  the  American  convoy  was  brought  safely 
into  Brest. — W.  Massey,  Bist.  of  Etiglajid  during 
the  reign  of  Oeorge  III. ,  ch.  35  («.  3). 

Also  in  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist  of  Europe,  1789- 
1815,  ch.  16  {v.  4).— F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hist,  of  the 
\^th  Century,  v.  6,  div.  2,  ch.  2,  sex:.  3. — Capt.  A. 
T.  Mahan,  Influence  of  Sea  Power  -upon  the 
Prench  Rev.  and  Empire,  ch.  8  (».  1). 

A.  D.  1794  (June  —  July). —  The  monstrous 
Law  of  the  22d  Prairial. —  The  climax  of  the 


Reign  of  Terror. —  A  summary  of  its  horrors. 

—  "On  the  day  of  the  Feast  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  the  guillotine  was  concealed  in  the  folds  of 
rich  liangings.  It  was  the  20th  of  Prairial. 
Two  days  later  Couthon  proposed  to  the  Con- 
vention the  memorable  Law  of  the  22d  Prai- 
rial [June  10].  Robespierre  was  tlie  draftsman, 
and  the  text  of  it  still  remains  in  his  own  writing. 
Tliis  monstrous  law  is  simply  the  complete  abro- 
gation of  all  law.     Of  all  laws  ever  passed  in 

tlie  world  it  is  the  most  nakedly  iniquitous 

After  the  probity  and  good  judgment  of  the 
tribunal,  the  two  cardinal  guarantees  in  state 
trials  are  accurate  definition,  and  proof.  The 
offence  must  be  capable  of  precise  description, 
and  the  proof  against  an  offender  must  conform 
to  strict  rule.  The  Law  of  Prairial  violently  in- 
fringed all  three  of  these  essential  conditions  of 
judicial  equity.  First,  the  number  of  the  jury 
who  had  power  to  convict  was  reduced.  Second, 
treason  was  made  to  consist  in  such  vague  and 
infinitely  elastic  kinds  of  action  as  inspiring  dis- 
couragement, misleading  opinion,  depraving 
manners,  corrupting  patriots,  abusing  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Revolution  by  perfidious  applica- 
tions. Third,  proof  was  to  lie  in  the  conscience 
of  the  jury;  there  was  an  end  of  preliminary 
inquiry,  of  witnesses  in  defence,  and  of  counsel 
for  the  accused.  Any  kind  of  testimony  was 
evidence,  whether  material  or  moral,  verbal  or 
written,  if  it  was  of  a  kind  '  likely  to  gain  the 
assent  of  a  man  of  reasonable  mind,'  Now,  what 
was  Robespierre's  motive  in  devising  this  infernal 
instrument  ?  .  .  .  To  us  the  answer  seems 
clear.  We  know  what  was  the  general  aim  in 
Robespierre's  mind  at  this  point  in  the  history 
of  the  Revolution.  His  brother  Augustin  was 
then  the  representative  of  the  Convention  with  the 
army  of  Italy,  and  General  Bonaparte  was  on 
terms  of  close  intimacy  with  him.  Bonaparte 
said  long  afterwards  .  .  ,  that  he  saw  long  let- 
ters from  Maximilian  to  Augustin  Robespierre, 
all  blaming  the  Conventional  Commissioners 
[sent  to  the  provinces] —  Tallien,  Fouche.  Barras, 
Collot,  and  the  rest — for  the  horrors  they  per- 
petrated, and  accusing  them  of  ruining  the  Revo- 
lution by  their  atrocities.  Again,  there  is  abund- 
ant testimony  that  Robespierre  did  his  best  to 
induce  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  to  bring 
those  odious  malefactors  to  justice.  The  text  of 
the  Law.  .  .  discloses  the  same  object.  The  vague 
phrases  of  depraving  manners  and  applying  rev- 
olutionary principles  perfidiously,  were  exactly 
calculated  to  smite  the  band  of  violent  men 
whose  conduct  was  to  Robespierre  the  scandal  of 
the  Revolution.  And  there  was  a  curious  clause 
in  the  law  as  originally  presented,  which  de- 
prived the  Convention  of  the  right  of  preventing 
measures  against  its  own  members.  Robespierre's 
general  design  in  short  was  to  effect  a  further 
purgation  of  the  Convention.  ...  If  Robes- 
pierre's design  was  what  we  believe  it  to  have 
been,  the  result  was  a  ghastly  failure.  The  Com- 
mittee of  Public  Safety  would  not  consent  to 
apply  his  law  against  the  men  for  whom  he  had 
specially  designed  it.  The  frightful  weapon 
wliich  he  had  forged  was  seized  by  the  Commit- 
tee of  General  Security,  and  Paris  was  plunged 
into  the  fearful  days  of  the  Great  Terror.  The 
number  of  persons  put  to  death  by  the  Revolu- 
tionary Tribunal  before  the  Law  of  Prairial  had 
been  comparatively  moderate.  From  the  crea- 
tion of  the  Tribunal  in  April  1793,  down  to  the 


1337 


FRANCE,  1794. 


Summari/  of 
the  Tenor. 


FRAXCE,  1794. 


execution  of  tlic  Hebprtists  in  March  1794,  the 
number  of  persons  condemned  to  death  was  505. 
From  the  death  <jf  the  Hebertists  down  to  the 
death  of  Robespierre,  the  number  of  the  con- 
demned was  2,158.  One-half  of  the  entire  num- 
ber of  victims,  namely,  1,3.56,  were  guillotined 
after  the  Law  of  Prairial.  ...  A  man  was  in- 
formed against;  he  was  seized  in  his  bed  at  five 
in  the  morning ;  at  seven  he  was  taken  to  the 
Conciergerie ;  at  nine  he  received  information  of 
the  charge  against  him;  at  ten  he  went  into  the 
dock;  by  two  in  the  afternoon  he  was  con- 
demned; by  four  his  head  lay  in  the  executioner's 
basket." — J.  Morley,  Robespierre  (Critical  Mis- 
uiliiniex:  Setond  Series). — "  Single  indictments 
comprehended  80  or  30  people  taken  promis- 
cuously—  great  noblemen  from  Paris,  day  la- 
bourers from  '  Marseilles,  sailors  from  Brest, 
peasants  from  Alsace  —  who  were  accused  of 
conspiring  together  to  destroy  the  Republic.  All 
examination,  discussion,  and  evidence  were  dis- 
pensed with;  the  names  of  the  victims  were 
hardly  read  out  to  the  jury,  and  it  happened, 
more  than  once,  that  the  son  was  mistaken  for 
the  father — an  entirely  innocent  person  for  the 
one  really  charged — -and  sent  to  the  guillotine. 
The  judges  urged  the  jury  to  pass  sentences  of 
death,  with  loud  threats ;  members  of  the  Gov- 
ernment committees  attended  daily,  and  ap- 
plauded the  bloody  verdicts  with  ribald  jests. 
On  this  spot  at  least  the  strife  of  parties  was 
hushed. " —  H.  von  Sybel,  Uist.  of  the  Fr.  Rev. , 
bk.  10,  ch.  1  (».  4). — "The  first  murders  commit- 
'ed  in  1793  proceeded  from  a  real  irritation 
caused  by  danger.  Such  perils  had  now  ceased ; 
the  republic  was  victorious;  people  now 
slaughtered  not  from  indignation,  but  from  the 
atrocious  habit  which  they  had  contracted.  .  .  . 
According  to  the  law,  the  testimony  of  witnesses 
was  to  be  dispensed  with  only  when  there  existed 
material  or  moral  proofs;  nevertheless  no  wit- 
nesses were  called,  as  it  was  alleged  that  proofs 
of  this  kind  existed  in  every  case.  The  jurors 
did  not  take  the  trouble  to  retire  to  the  consulta- 
tion room.  They  gave  their  opinions  before  the 
audience,  and  sentence  was  immediately  pro- 
nounced. The  accused  had  scarcely  time  to  rise 
and  to  mention  their  names.  One  day,  there  was  a 
prisoner  whose  name  was  not  upon  the  list  of  the 
accused,  and  who  said  to  the  Court,  '  I  am  not 
accused ;  my  name  is  not  on  your  list, '  '  What 
signifies  that  ?'  said  Fouquier,  '  give  it  quick! ' 
He  gave  it,  and  was  sent  to  the  scaffold  like  the 
others.  .  .  .  The  most  extraordinary  blunders 
were  committed.  .  .  .  More  than  once  victims 
were  called  long  after  they  had  perished.  There 
were  hundreds  of  acts  of  accusation  quite  ready, 
to  which  there  was  nothing  to  add  but  the 
designation  of  the  individuals.  .  .  .  The  printing- 
office  was  contiguous  to  the  hall  of  the  tribunal : 
the  forms  were  kept  standing,  the  title,  the  mo- 
tives, were  ready  composed ;  there  was  nothing 
but  the  names  to  be  added.  These  were  handed 
through  a  small  loop-hole  to  the  overseer. 
Thousands  of  copies  were  immediately  worked 
off  and  plunged  families  into  mourning  and 
struck  terror  into  the  prisons.  The  hawkers 
came  to  sell  the  bulletin  of  the  tribunal  under 
the  prisoners'  windows,  crying  ,  '  Here  are  the 
names  of  those  who  have  gained  prizes  in  the 
lottery  of  St.  Guillotine.'  The  accused  were  exe- 
cuted on  the  breaking  up  of  the  court,  or  at 
latest  on  the  morrow,  if  the  day  was  too  far  ad- 


vanced. Ever  since  the  passing  of  the  Law  of 
the  32d  of  Prairial,  victims  perished  at  the  rate 
of  50  or  60  a  day.  'That  goes  well,'  said  Fou- 
quier-Tinville;  'heads  fall  like  tiles:'  and  he 
added,  'It  must  go  better  still  next  decade;  I 
must  have  450  at  least. '  " — A.  Thiers,  Eist.  of  the 
Fr.  Rev.  (Am.  ed.),  v.  3,  pp.63-66. — "Onehundred 
and  seventy-eight  tribunals,  of  which  40  are  am- 
bulatory, pronounce  in  every  part  of  the  territory 
sentences  of  death  which  are  immediately  exe- 
cuted on  the  spot.  Between  April  6,  1793,  and 
Thermidor  9,  year  IL  [July  27,  1794],  that  of 
Paris  has  3,635  persons  guillotined,  while  the 
pi'ovincial  judges  do  as  much  work  as  the  Paris 
judges.  In  the  small  town  of  Orange  alone,  they 
guillotine  331  persons.  In  the  single  town  of 
Arras  they  have  399  men  and  93  women  guillo- 
tined. At  Nantes,  the  revolutionary  tribunals 
and  military  committees  have,  on  the  average, 
100  persons  a  day  guillotined,  or  shot,  in  all 
1971.  In  the  city  of  Lyons  the  revolutionary 
committee  admit  1684  executions,  while  Cadillot, 
one  of  Robespierre's  correspondents,  advises  him 
of  6,000. — -The  statement  of  these  murders  is 
not  complete,  but  17,000  have  been  enumerated. 
.  .  .  Even  excepting  those  who  had  died  fight- 
ing or  who,  taken  with  arms  in  their  hands,  were 
shot  down  or  sabred  on  the  spot,  there  were 
10,000  persons  slaughtered  without  trial  in  the 
province  of  Anjou  alone.  ...  It  is  estimated 
that,  in  the  eleven  western  departments,  the 
dead  of  both  sexes  and  of  all  ages  exceeded 
400,000. —  Considering  the  programme  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  Jacobin  sect,  this  is  no  great  num- 
ber; they  might  have  killed  a  good  many  more. 
But  time  was  wanting ;  during  their  short  reign 
they  did  what  they  could  with  the  instrument  in 
their  hands.  Look  at  their  machine.  .  .  .  Or- 
ganised March  30  and  April  6,  1793,  the  Revolu- 
tionary Committees  and  the  Revolutionary  Tri- 
bunal had  but  seventeen  months  in  which  to  do 
their  work.  They  did  not  drive  ahead  with  all 
their  might  until  after  the  fall  of  the  Girondists, 
and  especially  after  September,  1793,  that  is  to 
say  for  a  period  of  eleven  months.  Its  loose 
wheels  were  not  screwed  up  and  the  whole  was 
not  in  running  order  under  the  impulse  of  the 
central  motor  until  after  December,  1793,  that 
is  to  say  during  eight  months.  Perfected  by  the 
Law  of  Prairial  33,  it  works  for  the  past  two 
months  faster  and  better  than  before.  .  .  .  Bau- 
dot and  Jean  Bon  St.  Andre,  Carrier,  Antonelle 
and  Guffroy  had  already  estimated  the  lives  to 
be  taken  at  several  millions,  and,  according  to 
Collot  d'Herbois,  who  had  a  lively  imagination, 
'  the  political  perspiration  should  go  on  freely, 
and  not  stop  until  from  twelve  to  fifteen  million 
Frenchmen  had  been  destroyed.'  " — H.  A. 
Tnine,  TheFr.  Rev.,  bk.  8,  ch.  1  (».  3). 

Also  in  W.  Smyth,  Le^:ts.  on  the  Hist,  of  the 
Fr.  Rev.,  lects.  39-43  (v.  3).— Abbe  Dumes- 
nil,  RecMections  of  the  Reign  of  Terror. —  Count 
Beugnot,  Life,  v.  1,  ch.  '7-8.— J.  'Wilson,  The 
Reign  of  Terror  and  its  Secret  Police  (Studies  in 
Modern  Mind.  etc.).  ch.  7. —  The  Reign  of  Terror  : 
A  cMeetion  of  mitlientic  nnrriilires,  3?'. 

A.  D.  1794  (July).— The  Fall  of  Robespierre. 
— End  of  the  Reign  of  Terror. — Robespierre 
"  was  already  feeling  himself  unequal  to  the  task 
laid  upon  him.  He  said  himself  on  one  occasion: 
'  I  was  not  made  to  rule,  I  was  made  to  combat 
the  enemies  of  the  Revolution ; '  and  so  the  pos- 
session of    supreme    power    produced  in    him 


1338 


FRANCE,  1794. 


End  of 
Robespierre. 


FRANCE,  nw. 


no  feeling  of  exultation.  On  tlic  contrary,  it 
preyed  upon  his  spirits,  anil  made  him  fancy  him- 
self the  object  of  universal  hatred.  A  guard 
now  slept  niglitly  at  his  hoiise,  and  followed  him 
in  all  his  walks.  Two  pistols  lay  ever  at  his 
side.  He  would  not  eat  food  till  some  one  else 
had  tasted  from  the  dish.  His  jealous  fears 
were  awakened  by  every  sign  of  popularity  in 
another.  Even  the  successes  of  his  generals 
filled  him  with  anxiety,  lest  they  should  raise  up 
dangerous  rivals.  He  had,  indeed  .  .  .  grounds 
enough  for  anxiety.  In  the  Committee  of  Pub- 
lic Safety  every  member,  except  St.  Just  and 
Couthon,  viewed  him  with  hatred  and  suspi- 
cion. Carnot  resented  his  Interferences.  The 
Terrorists  were  contemptuous  of  his  religious 
festivals,  and  disliked  his  decided  supremacy. 
The  friends  of  Mercy  saw  with  indignation  that 
the  number  of  victims  was  increasing.  The 
friends  of  Disorder  found  themselves  restrained, 
and  were  bored  by  his  long  speeches  about  virtue 
and  simplicity  of  life.  He  was  hated  for  what 
was  good  and  for  what  was  evil  in  liis  govern- 
ment; and  meanwhile  the  national  distress  was 
growing,  and  the  cry  of  starvation  was  heard 
louder  than  ever.  Fortunately  there  was  a 
splendid  harvest  in  1794;  but  before  it  was 
gathered  in  Robespierre  had  fallen.  A  some- 
what frivolous  incident  did  much  to  discredit 
him.  A  certain  old  woman  named  Catherine 
Theot,  living  in  an  obscure  part  of  Piiris,  had 
taken  to  seeing  visions.  Some  of  the  Terrorists 
produced  a  paper,  purporting  to  be  written  by 
her,  and  declaring  that  Robespierre  was  the 
Messiah.  The  paper  was  a  forgery,  but  it 
served  to  cover  Robespierre  with  ridicule,  and  to 
rouse  In  him  a  fierce  determination  to  sujjpress 
those  whom  he  considered  his  enemies  in  the 
Committee  and  the  Convention.  For  some  time 
he  had  taken  little  part  in  the  proceedings  of 
either  of  these  bodies.  His  reliance  was  chiefly 
on  the  .Jacobin  Club,  the  reorganized  Commune, 
and  the  National  Guards,  still  under  the  com- 
mand of  Henriot.  But  on  July  26th  [8th  Ther- 
midor]  Robespierre  came  to  the  Convention  and 
delivered  one  of  his  most  elaborate  speeches, 
maintaining  that  the  affairs  of  France  had  been 
mismanaged ;  that  the  army  had  been  allowed  to 
become  dangerously  independent ;  that  the  Gov- 
ernment must  be  strengthened  and  simplified; 
and  that  traitors  must  be  punished.  He  made 
no  definite  proposals,  and  did  not  name  his 
intended  victims.  The  real  meaning  of  the 
speech  was  evidently  that  he  ought  to  be  made 
Dictator,  but  that  in  order  to  obtain  his  end,  it 
was  necessary  to  conceal  the  use  he  meant  to 
make  of  his  power.  The  members  of  the  Con- 
vention naturally  felt  that  some  of  themselves 
were  aimed  at.  Few  felt  themselves  safe ;  but 
Robespierre's  dominance  had  become  so  estab- 
lished that  no  one  ventured  at  first  to  criticize. 
It  was  proposed,  and  carried  unanimously,  that 
the  speech  should  be  printed  and  circulated 
throughout  France.  Then  at  length  a  deputy 
named  Cambon  rose  to  answer  Robespierre's 
attacks  on  the  recent  management  of  the  finances. 
Finding  himself  favourably  listened  to,  he  went 
on  to  attack  Robespierre  himself.  Other  mem- 
bers of  the  hitherto  docile  Convention  now  took 
courage;  and  it  was  decided  that  the  speech 
should  be  referred  to  the  Committees  before  it 
was  printed.  The  crisis  was  now  at  hand.  Robes- 
pierre went  down  as  usual  to  the  Jacobin  Club, 


where  he  was  received  with  the  usual  enthu- 
siasm. The  members  swore  to  die  with  their 
leader,  or  to  suppress  his  enemies.  On  the  fol- 
lowing day  [9th  Thermidor]  St.  Just  attacked 
Billaud  and  CoUot.  Billaud  [followed  and  sup- 
ported by  Tallien]  replied  by  asserting  that  on 
the  previous  night  the  Jacobins  had  ]iledged 
themselves  to  massacre  the  deputies.  Then  the 
storm  burst.  A  cry  of  horror  and  indignation 
arose;  andasBilhaud  proceeded  to  give  details  of 
the  alleged  conspiracy,  .shouts  of  '  Down  with 
the  tyrant!'  began  to  rise  from  the  benches. 
Robespierre  vainly  strove  to  obtain  a  hearing. 
He  rushed  about  the  chamber,  appealing  to  the 
several  groups.  As  he  went  up  to  the  higher 
benches  on  the  Left,  he  was  met  with  the  cry, 
'Back,  tyrant,  the  shade  of  Danton  repels  you! ' 
and  when  he  sought  shelter  among  the  deputies  on 
the  Right,  and  actually  sat  down  in  their  midst, 
they  indignantly  exclaimed,  '  Wretch,  that  was 
Vergniaud's  seat!'  Baited  on  all  sides,  his 
attempts  to  speak  became  shrieks,  which  were 
scarcely  audible,  however,  amid  the  shouts  and 
interruptions  that  rose  from  all  the  groups.  His 
voice  grew  hoarser  .  .  .  till  at  length  it  failed  him 
altogether.  Then  one  of  the  Mountain  cried, 
'  The  blood  of  Danton  chokes  him !  '  Amid  a 
scene  of  indescribable  excitement  and  uproar,  a 
decree  was  passed  that  Robespierre  and  some  of 
his  leading  followers  should  be  arrested.  They 
were  seized  by  the  ofBcers  of  the  Convention, 
and  hurried  off  to  different  prisons ;  so  that,  in 
case  of  a  rescue,  only  one  of  them  might  be 
released.  There  was  room  enough  for  fear. 
The  Commune  organized  an  insurrection,  as  soon 
as  they  heard  what  the  Convention  had  done;  and 
by  a  sudden  attack  the  prisoners  were  all  deliv- 
ered from  the  hands  of  their  guards.  Both  par- 
ties now  hastily  gathered  armed  forces.  Those 
of  the  municipalfty  were  by  far  the  most  numer- 
ous, and  Henriot  confidently  ordered  them  to 
advance.  But  the  men  refused  to  obey.  The 
Sections  mostly  declared  for  the  Convention,  and 
thus  by  an  unexpected  reaction  the  Robespierian 
leaders  found  themselves  almost  deserted.  A 
detachment  of  soldiers  forced  their  way  into  the 
room  where  the  small  band  of  fanatics  were 
drawing  up  a  Proclamation.  A  pistol  was  fired ; 
and  no  one  knows  with  certainty  whether 
Robespierre  attempted  suicide,  or  was  shot  by 
one  of  his  opponents.  At  any  rate  his  jaw  was 
fractured,  and  he  was  laid  out,  a  ghastly  spec- 
tacle, on  an  adjacent  table.  The  room  was  soon 
crowded.  Sorie  spat  at  the  prostrate  form. 
Others  stabbed  him  with  their  knives.  Soon  he 
was  dragged  [along  with  Couthon,  St.  Just,  Hen- 
riot, and  others]  before  the  Tribunal  which  he 
himself  had  instituted.  The  necessary  formali- 
ties were  hurried  through,  and  the  mangled 
body  was  borne  to  the  guillotine,  where  what 
remained  to  him  of  life  was  quickly  extinguished. 
Then,  from  the  crowd,  a  man  stepped  quickly  up 
to  the  blood-stained  corpse,  and  uttered  over  him 
the  words,  '  Yes,  Robespierre,  there  is  a  God ! '  " 
—J.  E.  Symes.  The  Fr.  Rev.,  ch.  13,— "  Sam- 
son's work  done,  there  bursts  forth  shout  on 
shout  of  applause.  Shout,  which  prolongs  itself 
not  only  over  Paris,  but  over  France,  but  over 
Europe,  and  down  to  this  generation.  Deser- 
vedly, and  also  undeservedly.  O  unhappiest 
Advocate  of  Arras,  wert  thou  worse  than  other 
Advocates?  Stricter  man,  according  to  his 
Formula,  to  his  Credo  and  his  Cant,  of  probities, 


1339 


FRANCE,  1794. 


End  of  the 
Jacobin  Club. 


FRAjSTCE,  1794-1795. 


benevolences,  pleasures-of-virtue,  and  suchlike, 
lived  not  in  that  age.  A  man  fitted,  in  some 
luckier  settled  age,  to  have  become  one  of  those 
incorruptible  barren  Pattern-Figures,  and  have 
had  marble-tablets  and  funeral-sermons.  His 
poor  landlord,  the  Cabinet-maker  in  the  Rue 
Saint-Honorfe,  loved  him;  his  Brother  died  for 
him.  May  God  be  merciful  to  him  and  to  us ! 
This  is  the  end  of  the  Reign  of  Terror;  new 
glorious  Revolution  named  '  of  Thermidor  ' ;  of 
Thermidor  9th,  year  3;  which  being  inter- 
preted into  old  slave-style  means  27th  of  July, 
1794."— T.  Carlyle,  T/ie  Fr.  Ree.,  bk.  6,  ch.  7 
(v.  3).  "  He  [Robespierre]  had  qualities,  it  is 
true,  which  we  must  respect;  he  was  honest, 
sincere,  self-denying  and  consistent.  But  he 
was  cowardly,  relentless,  pedantic,  unloving, 
intensely  vain  and  morbidly  envious.  ...  He 
has  not  left  the  legacy  to  mankind  of  one  grand 
thought,  nor  the  example  of  one  generous  and 
exalted  action. " —  G.  H.  Lewes,  Life  of  Robes- 
pierre. Conclusion. — "The  ninth  of  Thermidor 
is  one  of  the  great  epQchs  in  the  history  of 
Europe.  It  is  true  that  the  three  members  of 
the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  [Billaud,  Col- 
lot,  and  BarSre],  who  triumphed  were  by  no 
means  better  men  than  the  three  [Robespierre, 
Couthon,  and  St.  Just],  who  fell.  Indeed,  we 
are  inclined  to  think  that  of  these  six  statesmen 
the  least  bad  were  Robespierre  and  St.  Just, 
■whose  cruelty  was  the  effect  of  sincere  fanati- 
cism operating  on  narrow  understandings  and 
acrimonious  tempers.  The  worst  of  the  six  was, 
beyond  all  doubt,  Barfire,  vpho  had  no  faith  in 
any  part  of  the  system  which  he  upheld  by  per- 
secution."—  Lord  Macaulay,  Barere's  Meinoirs 
{Essays,  v.  5). 

Also  in  G.  Everitt,  Ouillotine  t?ie  Qreat,  ch. 
2. —  J.  W.  Croker,  Robespierre  (Quarterly  Bee., 
Sept.,  1835,  V.  34).— W.  Chambers,  Robespierre 
{Chambers'  Edin.  Journal,  1852). 

A.  D.  1794-179S  (July  — April).  Reaction 
against  the  Reign  of  Terror. —  The  Therrai- 
dorians  and  the  Jeunesse  Doree. —  End  of  the 
Jacobin  Club. —  Insurrection  of  Germinal  12. — 
Fall  of  the  Montagnards. —  The  White  Terror 
in  the  Provinces. — "  On  the  morning  of  the  10th 
of  Thermidor  all  the  people  who  lived  near  the 
prisons  of  Paris  crowded  on  the  roofs  of  their 
houses  and  cried,  '  All  is  over !  Robespierre  is 
dead ! '  The  thousands  of  prisoners,  who  had 
believed  themselves  doomed  to  death,  imagined 
themselves  rescued  from  the  tomb.  Many  were 
set  free  the  same  day,  and  all  the  rest  regained 
hope  and  confidence.  Their  feeling  of  deliverance 
was  shared  throughout  France.  The  Reign  of 
Terror  had  become  a  sort  of  nightmare  that 
stifled  the  nation,  and  the  Reign  of  Terror  and 
Robespierre  were  identical  in  the  sight  of  the 
great  majority.  .  .  .  The  Convention  presented  a 
strange  aspect.  Party  remnants  vrere  united  in 
the  coalition  party  called  the  '  Thermidorians. ' 
Many  of  the  JJountaineers  and  of  those  who  had 
been  fiercest  in  their  missions  presently  took 
seats  with  the  Right  or  Centre ;  and  the  periodic 
change  of  Committees,  so  long  contested,  was 
determined  upon.  Lots  were  drawn,  and  Bar6re, 
Lindet,  and  Prieur  went  out ;  Carnot,  indispen- 
sable in  the  war,  was  re-elected  until  the  coming 
spring ;  Billaud  and  Collot,  feeling  out  of  place 
in  tlie  new  order  of  things,  resigned.  Danton's 
friends  now  prevailed ;  but,  alas !  the  Dantonists 
were  not  D.auton. " — H.  Martin,  Popular  Hist,  of 


Ei-ancsfrom  the  First  Rev.,  eh.  22  (v.  1).— "The 
Reign  of  Terror  was  practically  over,  but  the 
ground-swell  which  follows  a  storm  continued 
for  some  time  longer.  Twenty-one  victims  suf- 
fered on  the  same  day  with  Robespierre,  70  on 
the  next;  altogether  114  were  condemned  and 
executed  in  the  three  days  which  followed 
his  death.  ...  A  strong  reaction  against  the 
'Terreur'  now  set  in.  Upwards  of  10,000  'sus- 
pects '  were  set  free,  and  Robespierre's  law  of 
the  22  Prairial  was  abolished.  Freron,  a  leading 
Thermidorien,  organized  a  band  of  young  men 
who  called  themselves  the  Jeunesse  Doree 
[gilded  youth],  or  Muscadins,  and  chiefly  fre- 
quented the  Palais  Royal.  They  wore  a  ridicu- 
lous dress,  '  &,  la  Victime '  [large  cravat ,  black 
or  green  collar,  and  crape  around  the  arm,  sig- 
nifying relationship  to  some  of  the  victims  of 
the  revolutionary  tribunal.— Thiers],  and  de- 
voted themselves  to  punishing  the  Jacobins. 
They  had  their  hymn,  'Lereveil  du  Peuple,' 
which  they  sang  aijout  the  street,  often  coming 
into  collision  with  the  sans-culottes  shouting  the 
Marseillaise.  On  the  11th  of  November  the 
Muscadins  broke  open  the  hall  of  the  celebrated 
club,  turned  out  the  members,  and  shut  it  up  for 
ever.  .  .  .  The  committees  of  Salut  Public  and 
Surete  Generale  were  entirely  remodelled  and 
their  powers  much  restrained ;  also  the  Revolu- 
tionary Tribunal  was  reorganized  on  the  lines 
advocated  by  Camille  Desmoulins  in  his  pro- 
posal foraComitede  Clemence — -which  cost  him 
his  life.  Carrier  and  Lebon  suffered  death  for 
their  atrocious  conduct  in  La  Vendee  and 
[Arras] ;  73  members  who  had  protested  against 
the  arrest  of  the  Girondins  were  recalled,  and  the 
survivors  of  the  leading  Girondists,  Louvet,  Lan- 
juinais,  Isnard,  Larevilliere-Lepeaux  and  others, 
22  in  number,  were  restored  to  their  seats  in  the 
Convention." — Sergent  Marceau,  Reminiscences  of 
a  Regicide,  pt.  2,  ch.  12. — "Billaud,  Collot,  and 
other  marked  Terrorists,  already  denounced  in 
the  Convention  by  Danton's  friends,  felt  that  dan- 
ger was  every  day  drawing  nearer  to  themselves. 
Their  fate  was  to  all  appearance  sealed  by  the 
readmission  to  the  Convention  (December  8)  of 
the  73  deputies  of  the  right,  imprisoned  in  1793 
for  signing  protests  against  the  expulsion  of  the 
Girondists.  By  the  return  of  these  deputies  the 
complexion  of  the  Assembly  was  entirely 
altered.  .  .  .  They  now  sought  to  undo  the 
work  of  the  Convention  since  the  insurrection  by 
which  their  party  had  been  overwhelmed.  They 
demanded  that  confiscated  property  should  be 
restored  to  the  relatives  of  persons  condemned 
by  the  revolutionary  courts;  that  eniigrants  who 
had  fled  in  consequence  of  Terrorist  persecutions 
should  be  allowed  to  return ;  that  those  deputies 
proscribed  on  June  2,  1793,  who  yet  survived, 
should  be  recalled  to  their  seats.  The  Mountain, 
as  a  body,  violently  opposed  even  the  discussion 
of  such  questions.  The  Thermidorians  split 
into  two  divisions.  Some  in  alarm  rejoined  the 
Mountain;  while  others,  headed  by  Tallien  and 
Freron,  sought  their  safety  by  coalescing  with 
the  returned  members  of  the  right.  A  commit- 
tee was  appointed  to  report  on  accusations 
brought  against  Collot,  Billaud,  Barere,  and 
Vadier  (December  27,  1794).  In  a  few  weeks  the 
survivors  of  the  proscribed  deputies  entered  the 
Convention  amidst  applause  (March  8,  179.'5). 
.  .  .  There  was  at  this  time  great  misery  preva- 
lent in  Paris,  and  imminent  peril  of  insurrection. 


1340 


FRANCE,  1794-1795. 


The  fVar. 


FRANCE,  1794-1795. 


After  Robespierre's  fall,  maximum  prices  were 
no  longer  observed,  and  assignats  were  only- 
accepted  in  payment  of  goods  at  their  real  value 
compared  with  coin.  The  result  was  a  rapid 
rise  in  prices,  so  that  in  December  prices  were 
double  what  they  had  been  in  July,  and  were 
continuing  to  rise  in  proportion  as  assignats 
decreased  in  value.  .  .  .  The  maximum  laws, 
already  a  dead  letter,  were  repealed  (December 
24).  The  abolition  of  maximum  prices  and 
requisitions  increased  the  already  lavish  ex- 
penditure of  the  Government,  which,  to  meet 
the  deficit  in  its  revenues,  had  no  resource  but 
to  create  more  assignats,  and  the  faster  these 
were  issued  the  faster  they  fell  in  value  and 
the  higher  prices  rose.  In  July  1794,  they  had 
been  worth  34  per  cent,  of  their  nominal  value. 
In  December  tliey  were  worth  33  per  cent.,  and 
in  May  1795  they  were  worth  only  7  per  cent.  .  .  . 
At  this  time  a  pound  of  bread  cost  eight  shil- 
lings, of  rice  thirteen,  of  sugar  seventeen,  and 
other  articles  were  all  proportionately  dear.  It 
is  literally  true  that  more  than  half  the  popula- 
tion of  Paris  was  only  kept  alive  by  occasional 
distributions  of  meat  and  other  articles  at  low 
prices,  and  the  daily  distribution  of  bread  at 
three  half-pence  a  pound.  In  February,  how- 
ever, this  source  of  relief  threatened  to  fail.  .  .  . 
On  April  1,  or  Germinal  13,  bread  riots,  begun 
by  women,  broke  out  in  every  section.  Bands 
collected  and  forced  their  way  into  the  Conven- 
tion, shouting  for  bread,  but  offering  no  violence 
to  the  deputies.  .  .  .  The  crowd  was  already 
dispersing  when  forces  arrived  from  the  sections 
and  cleared  the  House.  The  insurrection  was 
a  spontaneous  rising  for  bread,  without  method 
or  combination.  The  Terrorists  had  sought,  but 
vainly,  to  ol)tain  direction  of  it.  Had  they  suc- 
ceeded, the  Jlountaiu  would  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  proscribing  the  right.  Their  failure 
gave  the  right  the  opportunity  of  proscribing 
the  left.  The  transportation  to  Cayenne  of 
Billaud,  Collot,  Barere,  and  Vadier  was  decreed, 
and  the  arrest  of  fifteen  other  Montagnards, 
accused  without  proof,  in  several  cases  without 
probability,  of  having  been  accomplices  of  the 
insurgents.  .  .  .  The  insurrection  of  Germinal 
13  gave  increased  strength  to  the  party  of  re- 
action. The  Convention,  in  dread  of  the  Ter- 
rorists, was  compelled  to  look  to  it  for  support. 
...  In  the  departments  famine,  disorder,  and 
crime  prevailed,  as  well  as  in  Paris.  .  .  .  From 
the  first  the  reaction  proceeded  in  the  depart- 
ments with  a  more  rapid  step  and  in  bolder 
form  than  in  Paris.  ...  In  the  departments  of 
the  south-east,  where  the  Royalists  had  always 
possessed  a  strong  following,  emigrants  of  all 
descriptions  readily  made  their  way  back ;  and 
here  the  opponents  of  the  Republic,  instigated 
by  a  desire  for  vengeance,  or  merely  by  party 
spirit,  commenced  a  reaction  stained  by  crimes  as 
atrocious  as  any  committed  during  the  course  of 
the  revolution.  Young  men  belonging  to  the 
upper  and  middle  classes  were  organised  in 
bands  bearing  the  names  of  companies  of  Jesus 
and  companies  of  the  Sun,  and  first  at  Lyons, 
then  at  Aix,  Toulon,  Marseilles,  and  other  towns, 
they  broke  into  the  prisons  and  murdered  their 
inmates  without  distinction  of  age  or  sex.  Be- 
sides the  Terrorist  and  the  Jacobin,  neither  the 
Republican  nor  the  purchaser  of  State  lands  was 
safe  from  their  knives;  and  in  the  country 
numerous    isolated  murders    were  committed. 


This  lawless  and  brutal  movement,  called  the 
White  Terror  in  distinction  to  the  Red  Terror 
preceding  Thermidor  9,  was  suffered  for  weeks 
to  run  its  course  unchecked,  and  counted  its 
victims  by  many  hundreds,  spreading  over  the 
whole  of  Provence,  besides  the  departments  of 
Rhone,  Gard,  Loire,  Ain,  and  Jura."— B.  M. 
Gardiner,  The  Pr.  Bev.,  ch.  10. 

Also  m  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Fr.  Rev.  (Am. 
ed.).  V.  3,  pp.  109-136;  149-175;  193-335.  — H. 
von  Sybel,  Hint,  of  the  Pi:  Bee.,  bk.   13,  ch.  1-8. 

—  J.  Mallet  du  Pan,  Memoirs  and  Cor.,  v.  2, 
ch.  5. — A.  des  Echerolles,  Early  Life,  v.  3,  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1794-1795  (October— May).— Sub- 
jugation of  Holland. —  Overthrow  of  the 
Stadtholdership.—  Establishment  of  the  Bata- 
vian  Republic. —  Peace  of  Basle  with  Prussia. 

—  Successes  on  the  Spanish  and  Italian 
frontiers. —  Crumbling  of  the  Coalition. — 
"  Pichegru  having  taken  Bois  le  Due,  October 
9th,  the  Duke  of  York  retreated  to  the  Ar,  and 
thence  beyond  the  Waal.  Venloo  fell  October 
37th,  Maestricht  November  4th,  and  the  capture 
of  Nimeguen  on  the  9th,  which  the  English  aban- 
doned after  the  fall  of  Maestricht,  opened  to  the 
French  the  road  into  Holland.  The  Duke  of 
York  resigned  the  command  to  General  Walmo- 
den,  December  3nd,  and  returned  into  England. 
His  departure  showed  that  the  English  govern- 
ment had  abandoned  all  hope  of  saving  Holland. 
It  had,  indeed,  consented  that  the  States -General 
should  propose  terms  of  accommodation  to  the 
French;  and  two  Dutch  envoys  had  been  des- 
patched to  Paris  to  offer  to  the  Committee  of 
Public  Welfare  the  recognition  by  their  govern- 
ment of  the  French  Republic,  and  the  payment 
of  300,000,000  florins  within  a  year.  But  the 
Committee,  suspecting  that  these  offers  were 
made  only  with  the  view  of  gaining  time,  paid 
no  attention  to  them.  The  French  were  repulsed 
in  their  first  attempt  to  cross  the  Waal  by 
General  Duncan  with  8,000  English;  but  a 
severe  frost  enabled  them  to  pass  over  on  the 
ice,  January  11th,  1795.  Nothing  but  a  victory 
could  now  save  Holland.  But  Walmoden,  in- 
stead of  concentrating  his  troops  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  battle,  retreated  over  the  Yssel,  and 
finally  over  the  Ems  into  Westphalia,  whence 
the  troops  were  carried  to  England  by  sea  from 
Bremen.  .  .  .  General  Alvinzi,  who  held  the 
Rhine  between  Emmerich  and  Arnheim,  having 
retired  upon  Wesel,  Pichegru  had  only  to  ad- 
vance. On  entering  Holland,  he  called  upon 
the  patriots  to  rise,  and  his  occupation  of  the 
Dutch  towns  was  immediately  followed  by  a 
revolution.  The  Prince  of  Orange,  the  heredi- 
tary Stadtholder,  embarked  for  England, 
January  19th,  on  which  day  Pichegru 's  advanced 
columns  entered  Amsterdam.  Next  day  the 
Dutch  fleet,  frozen  up  in  the  Texel,  was  captured 
by  the  French  hussars.  Before  the  end  of 
January  the  reduction  of  Holland  had  been  com- 
pleted, and  a  provincial  [provisional  ?]  govern- 
ment established  at  the  Hague.  The  States- 
General,  assembled  February  34th,  1795,  having 
received,  through  French  influence,  a  new  in- 
fusion of  the  patriot  party,  pronounced  the 
abolition  of  the  Stadtholderate,  proclaimed  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  and  the  establishment 
of  tlie  Batavian  Republic.  A  treaty  of  Peace 
with  France  followed,  May  16th,  and  an  offen- 
sive alliance  against  all  enemies  whatsoever  till 
the  end  of  the  war,  and  against  England  for 


1341 


FRANCE,  1794-1795. 


Chouannerte. 


FRANCE,  1794-1796. 


ever.  The  sea  and  land  forces  to  he  provided 
by  the  Dutch  were  to  serve  under  French  com- 
manders. Thus  the  new  republic  became  a  mere 
dependency  of  France.  Dutch  Flanders,  the 
district  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Hondt,  Maes- 
tricht,  Venloo,  were  retained  by  the  French  as  a 
just  indemnity  for  the  expenses  of  the  war,  on 
which  account  the  Dutch  were  also  to  pay  100,- 
000,000  florins;  but  they  were  to  receive,  at  the 
general  peace,  an  equivalent  for  the  ceded  terri- 
tories. By  secret  articles,  the  Dutch  were  to 
lend  the  French  seven  sliips  of  war,  to  support 
a  French  army  of  25,000  men,  &c.  Over  and 
above  the  requisitions  of  the  treaty,  they  were 
also  called  upon  to  reclothe  the  French  troops, 
and  to  furnish  them  with  provisions.  In  short, 
though  the  Dutch  patriots  had  '  fraternised ' 
with  the  French,  and  received  them  with  open 
arms,  they  were  treated  little  better  than  a  con- 
quered people.  Secret  negotiations  had  been 
for  some  time  going  on  between  France  and 
Prussia  for  a  peace.  .  .  .  Frederick  William  II. , 
.  .  .  satisfied  with  his  acquisitions  in  Poland, 
to  which  the  English  and  Dutch  subsidies  had 
helped  him,  .  .  .  abandoned  himself  to  his 
voluptuous  habits,"  and  made  overtures  to  the 
French.  "Perhaps  not  the  least  influential 
among  Frederick  William's  motives,  was  the  re- 
fusal of  the  maritime  Powers  any  longer  to  sub- 
sidise him  for  doing  nothing.  .  .  .  The  Peace  of 
Basle,  between  the  French  Republic  and  the 
King  of  Prussia,  was  signed  April  5th  1795. 
The  French  troops  were  allowed  to  continue  the 
occupation  of  the  Rhenish  provinces  on  the  left 
bank.  An  article,  that  neither  party  should  per- 
mit troops  of  the  enemies  of  either  to  pass  over 
its  territories,  was  calculated  to  embarrass  the 
Austrians.  France  agreed  to  accept  the  media- 
tion of  Prussia  for  princes  of  the  Empire.  .  .  . 
Prussia  should  engage  in  no  hostile  enterprise 
against  Holland,  or  any  other  country  occupied 
by  French  troops ;  while  the  French  agreed  not 
to  push  their  enterprises  in  Germany  beyond  a 
certain  line  of  demarcation,  including  the  Circles 
of  Westphalia,  Higher  and  Lower  Saxony, 
Franconia,  and  that  part  of  the  two  Circles  of 
the  Rhine  situate  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Main. 
.  .  .  Thus  the  King  of  Prussia,  originally  the 
most  ardent  promoter  of  the  Coalition,  was  one 
of  the  first  to  desert  it.  By  signing  the  Peace 
of  Basle,  he  sacrificed  Holland,  facilitated  the 
invasion  of  the  Empire  by  the  French,  and  thus 
prepared  the  ruin  of  the  ancient  German  con- 
stitution." In  the  meantime  the  French  had 
been  pushing  war  with  success  on  their  Spanish 
frontier,  recovering  the  ground  which  they  had 
lost  in  the  early  part  of  1794.  In  the  eastern 
Pyrenees,  Dugommier  "retook  Bellegarde  in 
September,  the  last  position  held  by  the 
Spaniards  in  France,  and  by  the  battle  of  the 
Montagne  Noire,  which  lasted  from  November 
17th  to  the  20th,  opened  the  way  into  Catalonia. 
But  at  the  beginning  of  this  battle  Dugommier 
was  killed.  Figui^res  surrendered  November 
24th,  through  the  influence  of  the  French  demo- 
cratic propaganda.  On  the  west,  Moncey 
captured  St.  Sebastian  and  Fuentarabia  in 
August,  and  was  preparing  to  attack  Pampe- 
luna,  when  terrible  storms  .  .  .  compelled  him 
to  retreat  on  the  Bidassoa,  and  closed  the  cam- 
paign in  that  quarter.  On  the  side  of  Pied- 
mont, the  French,  after  some  reverses,  succeeded 
in  making   themselves   masters  of  Mont  Cenis 


and  the  passes  of  the  Maritime  Alps,  thus  hold- 
ing the  keys  of  Italy ;  but  the  Government,  con- 
tent with  this  success,  ventured  not  at  present 
to  undertake  the  invasion  of  that  country." 
The  King  of  Sardinia,  Victor  Amadeus,  re- 
mained faithful  to  his  engagements  with  Austria, 
although  the  French  tempted  him  with  an  ofEer 
of  the  Milanese,  "and  the  exchange  of  the 
island  of  Sardinia  for  territory  more  conveniently 
situated.  With  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany 
they  were  more  successful.  .  .  .  On  February 
9th  1795,  a  treaty  was  signed  by  which  the 
Grand  Duke  revoked  his  adhesion  to  the  Coali- 
tion. .  .  .  Thus  Ferdinand  was  the  first  to 
desert  the  Emperor,  his  brother.  The  example 
of  Tuscany  was  followed  by  the  Regent  of 
Sweden." — T.  H.  Dyer,  Sist.  of  Modern  Europe, 
bk.  7,  ch.  7  {V.  4). 

Also  in  C.  M.  Davies,  Hist,  of  Holland,  pt.  4, 
ch.  3  (».  3).— L.  P.  Segur,  Hist,  of  tlie  Reign  of 
Frederick  William  II.  of  Prussia,  v.  3. 

A.  D.  1794-1796. —  Brigandage  in  La 
Vendee. — Chouannerie  in  Brittany. —  The  Dis- 
astrous Quiberon  expedition.  —  End  of  the 
Vendean  War. — "  Since  the  defeat  at  Savenay, 
the  Vendee  was  no  longer  the  scene  of  grand 
operations,  but  of  brigandage  and  atrocities 
without  result.  The  peasants,  though  detesting 
the  Revolution,  were  anxious  for  peace ;  but,  as 
there  were  still  two  chiefs,  Charette  and  Stofflet, 
in  the  field,  who  hated  each  other,  this  wish 
could  scarcely  be  gratified.  General  Thurieu, 
sent  by  the  former  Revolutionary  Committee, 
had  but  increased  this  detestation  by  allowing 
pillage  and  incendiarism.  After  the  death  of 
Robespierre  he  was  replaced  by  General  Clan- 
caux,  who  had  orders  to  employ  more  concilia- 
tory measures.  The  defeat  of  the  rebel  troops 
at  Savenay,  and  their  subsequent  dispersion,  had 
led  to  a  kind  of  guerilla  warfare  throughout  the 
whole  of  Brittany,  known  by  the  name  of 
Chouannerie.  ['A  poor  peasant,  named  Jean 
Cottereau,  had  distinguished  himself  in  this 
movement  above  all  his  companions,  and  his 
family  bore  the  name  of  Chouans  (Chat-huans) 
or  night-owls.  .  .  .  The  name  of  Chouan  passed 
from  him  to  all  the  insurgents  of  Bretagne, 
aUhough  he  himself  never  led  more  than  a  few 
hundred  peasants,  who  obeyed  him,  as  they  said, 
out  of  friendship.' — H.  Von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  the 
Fr.Rev.,v.A,p.2^%'\.  .  .  .  The  Chouans  attacked 
the  public  conveyances,  infested  the  high  roads, 
murdered  isolated  bands  of  soldiers  and  func- 
tionaries. Their  chiefs  were  Scepeaux,  Bour- 
mont,  Cadoudal,  but  especially  Puisaye  .  .  . 
formerly  general  of  the  Girondins,  and  who 
wanted  to  raise  a  more  formidable  insurrection 
than  had  hitherto  been  organised.  Against 
them  was  sent  Hoche  [September,  1794],  who 
accustomed  his  soldiers  to  pacify  rather  than 
destroy,  and  taught  them  to  respect  the  habits, 
but  above  all  the  religion,  of  the  inhabitants. 
After  some  difficult  negotiations  with  Charette 
peace  was  concluded  (15th  February),  but  the 
suppression  of  the  Chouans  was  more  difficult 
still,  and  Hoche  .  .  .  displayed  in  this  ungrate- 
ful mission  all  the  talents  and  humanity  for 
which  he  was  ever  celebrated.  Puisaye  himself 
was  in  England,  having  obtained  Pitt's  promise 
of  a  fleet  and  an  army,  but  his  aide-de-camp  con- 
cluded in  his  absence  a  treaty  similar  to  that  of 
Charette.  .  .  .  Stofflet  surrendered  the  last.  Not 
much  dependence  could  be  placed  on  either  of 


1342 


FRANCE,  1794-1796. 


End  of  the 
Vendean  War. 


FRANCE.  1795. 


these  pacifications,  Charette  himself  having  con- 
fessed in  a  letter  to  the  Count  de  Provence  that 
they  were  but  a  trap  for  the  Republicans;  but 
tliey  proved  useful,  nevertheless,  by  accustoming 
the  country  to  peace. "  This  deceptive  state  of 
peace  came  to  an  end  early  in  the  summer  of  1795. 
"The  conspiracy  organised  in  London  by  Puisaye, 
assisted  and  subsidised  by  Pitt,  .  .  .  fitted  out  a 
fleet,  which  harassed  the  French  naval  squadron, 
and  then  set  sail  for  Brittany,  where  the  expedi- 
tion made  itself  master  of  the  peninsula  of  Qui- 
beron  and  the  fort  Penthifevre  (37th  June).  The 
Brittany  peasants,  suspicious  of  the  Vendeans  and 
hating  the  English,  did  not  respond  to  the  call 
for  revolt,  and  occasioned  a  loss  of  time  to  the  in- 
vaders, of  which  Hoche  took  advantage  to  bring 
together .  his  troops  and  to  march  on  Quiberon, 
where  he  defeated  tlie  vanguard  of  the  emigres, 
and  surrounded  them  in  the  peninsula.  Puisaye 
[who  had,  it  is  said,  about  10,000  men,  emigres 
and  Cliouans]  attempted  to  crush  Hoche  by  an 
attaclc  in  the  rear,  but  was  eventually  out-ma- 
nceuvred.  Fort  PenthiSvre  was  scaled  during  the 
night,  and  the  emigres  were  routed ;  whilst  the 
English  squadron  was  caught  iu  a  hurricane  and 
could  not  come  to  their  assistance,  save  with  one 
ship,  which  fired  indiscriminately  on  friend  and 
foe  alilie.  Most  of  the  Royalists  rushed  into  the 
sea,  where  nearly  all  of  them  perished.  Scarcely 
a  thousand  men  remained,  and  tliese  fouglit  he- 
roically. It  is  said  that  a  promise  was  given  to 
them  that  if  they  surrendered  their  lives  should 
be  spared,  and,  accordingly,  711  laid  down  their 
arms  (21st  July).  By  order  of  the  Convention 
.  .  .  these  711  emigres  were  shot.  .  .  .  From  his 
camp  at  Belleville,  Charette,  one  of  the  insurgent 
generals,  responded  to  this  execution  by  the  mas- 
sacre of  2,000  Republican  prisoners."  In  the  fol- 
lowing October  another  expedition  of  Royalists, 
fitted  out  in  England  under  the  auspices  of  Pitt, 
"landed  at  the  He  Dieu  .  .  .  ,  a  small  island 
about  eight  miles  from  the  mainland  of  Poitou, 
and  was  composed  of  2,500  men,  who  were  des- 
tined to  be  the  nucleus  of  several  regiments ;  it 
also  had  on  board  a  large  store  of  arms,  ammu- 
nition, and  the  Count  d'Artois.  Charette,  named 
general  commander  of  the  Catholic  forces,  was 
awaiting  him  with  10,000  men.  The  whole  of 
the  Vendee  was  ready  to  rise  the  moment  the 
prince  touched  French  soil,  but  frivolous  and  un- 
decided, he  waited  six  weeks  in  idleness,  en- 
deavouring to  obtain  from  England  his  recall. 
Hoche,  to  whom  the  command  of  the  Republican 
forces  had  been  entrusted,  took  advantage  of  this 
delay  to  cut  off  Charette  from  his  communica- 
tions, while  he  held  Stofflet  and  the  rest  of  the 
Brittany  chiefs  in  check,  and  occupied  the  coast 
with  30,000  men.  The  Count  d'Artois,  whom 
Pitt  would  not  recall,  entreated  the  English  com- 
mander to  set  sail  for  England  (Dec.  17th,  1795), 
and  the  latter,  unable  to  manage  his  fleet  on  a 
coast  without  shelter,  complied  with  his  request, 
leaving  the  prince  on  his  arrival  to  the  deserved 
contempt  of  even  his  own  partisans.  Charette 
in  despair  attempted  another  rising,  hoping  to  be 
seconded  by  Stofflet,  but  he  was  beaten  on  all 
sides  by  Hoche.  This  general,  who  combined  the 
astuteness  of  the  statesman  with  the  valour  of 
the  soldier,  succeeded  in  a  short  time  in  pacify- 
ing the  country  by  his  generous  but  firm  behaviour 
towards  the  inhabitants.  Charette,  tracked  from 
shelter  to  shelter,  was  finally  compelled  to  sur- 
render, brought  to  Nantes,  and  shot  (March  24th). 


The  same  lot  had  befallen  StoflSet  a  month  before 
at  Angers.  After  these  events  Hoche  led  his 
troops  into  Brittany,  where  he  succeeded  in  put- 
ting an  end  to  the  ■  chouannerie.'  The  west  re- 
turned to  its  normal  condition. " — H.  Van  Laun, 
The  French  Revolutionary  Epoch,  bk.  2,  ch.  2,  and 
hk.  3,  ch.  1  (o.  1). 

Also  est  :  A.  Thiers,  JSist.  of  the  French  Rev. 
(Am.  ed.),  v.  3,  pp.  144^145;  188-193;  230-240; 
281-305;  343-1345;  358-363;  384-389. 

A.  D.  1795  (April). — The  question  of  the  Con- 
stitution.— Insurrection  of  the  ist  Prairial  and 
its  failure. — Disarming  of  the  Faubourgs. — 
End  of  Sansculottism. — Bourgeoisie  dominant 
again. — "The  events  of  the  13th  of  Germinal 
decided  nothing.  The  faubourgs  had  been  re- 
pulsed, but  not  conquered.  .  .  .  After  so  many 
questions  decided  against  the  democratists,  there 
still  remained  one  of  the  utmost  importance  — 
the  constitution.  On  this  depended  the  ascen- 
dancy of  the  multitude  or  of  the  bourgeoisie.  The 
supporters  of  the  revolutionary  government  then 
fell  back  on  the  democratic  constitution  of  '93, 
which  presented  to  them  the  means  of  resuming 
the  authority  they  had  lost.  Their  opponents, 
on  the  other  hand,  endeavoured  to  replace  it  by  a 
constitution  which  would  secure  all  the  advan- 
tage to  them,  by  concentrating  the  government  a 
little  more,  and  giving  it  to  the  middle  class. 
For  a  month,  both  parties  were  preparing  for 
this  last  contest.  The  constitution  of  1793,  hav- 
ing been  sanctioned  by  the  people,  enjoyed  a 
great  prestige.  It  was  accordingly  attacked 
with  infinite  precaution.  At  first  its  assailants 
engaged  to  carry  it  into  execution  without  re- 
striction ;  next  they  appointed  a  commission  of 
eleven  members  to  prepare  the  '  lois  organiques ' 
which  were  to  render  it  practicable ;  by  and  by, 
they  ventured  to  suggest  objections  to  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  distributed  power  too  loosely,  and 
only  recognised  one  assembly  dependent  on  the 
people,  even  in  its  measures  of  legislation.  At 
last,  a  sectionary  deputation  went  so  far  as  to 
term  the  constitution  of  '93  a  decemviral  consti- 
tution, dictated  by  terror.  All  its  partisans,  at 
once  indignant  and  filled  with  fears,  organized  an 
insurrection  to  maintain  it.  .  .  ,  The  conspir- 
ators, warned  by  the  failure  of  the  risings  of  the 
1st  and  13th  Germinal,  omitted  nothing  to  make 
up  for  their  want  of  direct  object  and  of  organi- 
zation. On  the  1st  Prairial  (20th  of  May)  in  the 
name  of  the  people,  insurgent  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  bread  and  their  rights,  they  decreed 
the  abolition  of  the  revolutionary  government, 
the  establishment  of  the  democratic  constitution 
of  '93,  the  dismissal  and  arrest  of  the  members 
of  the  existing  government,  the  liberation  of  the 
patriots,  the  convocation  of  the  primary  assem- 
blies on  the  25th  Prairial,  the  convocation  of  the 
legislative  assembly,  destined  to  replace  the  con- 
vention, on  the  25th  Messidor,  and  the  suspen- 
sion of  all  authority  not  emanating  from  the 
people.  They  determined  on  forming  a  new 
municipality,  to  serve  as  a  common  centre;  to 
seize  on  the  barriers,  telegraph,  cannon,  tocsins, 
drums,  and  not  to  rest  till  they  had  secured  re- 
pose, happiness,  liberty,  and  means  of  subsis- 
tence for  all  the  French  nation.  They  invited  the 
artillery,  gendarmes,  horse  and  foot  soldiers,  to 
join  the  banners  of  the  people,  and  marched  on 
the  convention.  Meantime,  the  latter  was  delib- 
erating on  the  means  of  preventing  the  insurrec- 
tion. .  .  .  The  committees  came  in  all  haste  to 


1343 


FRANCE,  1795. 


Suppression  of  the 
Sansculottes. 


FRANCE,  1795. 


apprise  it  of  its  danger;  it  immediately  de- 
clared its  sitting  permanent,  voted  Paris  respon- 
sible for  the  safety  of  the  representatives  of 
the  republic,  closed  its  doors,  outlawed  all  the 
leaders  of  the  mob,  summoned  the  citizens  of 
the  sections  to  arms,  and  appointed  as  their 
leaders  eight  commissioners,  among  whom  were 
Legendre,  Henri  la  Riviere,  Kervelegan,  &c. 
These  deputies  had  scarcely  gone,  when  a  loud 
noise  was  heard  without.  An  outer  door  had 
been  forced,  and  numbers  of  women  rushed  into 
the  gaUeries,  crying  '  Bread  and  the  constitution 
of  '93!'.  .  .  The  galleries  were  .  .  .  cleared; 
but  the  insurgents  of  the  faubourgs  soon  reached 
the  inner  doors,  and,  finding  them  closed,  forced 
them  with  hatchets  and  hammers,  and  then 
rushed  in  amidst  the  convention.  The  Hall  now 
became  a  field  of  battle.  The  veterans  and  gen- 
darmes, to  whom  the  guard  of  the  assembly  was 
confided,  cried  '  To  arms ! '  The  deputy  Auguis, 
sword  in  hand,  headed  them,  and  succeeded  in 
repelling  the  assailants,  and  even  made  a  few  of 
them  prisoners.  But  the  insurgents,  more  nu- 
merous, returned  to  the  charge,  and  again  rushed 
into  the  house.  The  deputy  Feraud  entered 
precipitately,  pursued  by  the  insurgents,  who 
fired  some  shots  in  the  house.  They  took  aim 
at  Boissy  d'Anglas,  who  was  occupying  the 
president's  chair.  .  .  .  Feraud  ran  to  the  tri- 
bune, to  shield  him  with  his  body;  he  was 
struck  at  with  pikes  and  sabres,  and  fell  dan- 
gerously wounded.  The  insurgents  dragged 
him  into  the  lobby,  and,  mistaking  him  for 
Freron,  cut  off  his  head  and  placed  it  on  a 
pike.  After  this  skirmish  they  became  masters 
of  the  Hall.  Most  of  the  deputies  had  taken 
flight.  There  only  remained  the  members  of  the 
Crete  [the  'Crest'  —  a  name  now  given  to  the 
remnant  of  the  party  of  '  The  Mountain']  and 
Boissy  d'Anglas,  who,  calm,  his  hat  on,  heedless 
of  threat  and  insult,  protested  in  the  name  of  the 
convention  against  this  popular  violence.  They 
held  out  to  him  the  bleeding  head  of  Feraud ;  he 
bowed  respectfully  before  it.  They  tried  to 
force  him,  by  placing  pikes  at  his  breast,  to  put 
the  propositions  of  the  insurgents  to  the  vote ; 
he  steadily  and  courageously  refused.  But  the 
CrStois,  who  approved  of  the  insurrection,  took 
possession  of  the  bureaus  and  of  the  tribune, 
and  decreed,  amidst  the  applause  of  the  multi- 
tude, all  the  articles  contained  in  the  manifesto 
of  the  insurrection."  Meantime  "the  commis- 
sioners despatched  to  the  sections  had  quickly 
gathered  them  together.  .  .  .  The  aspect  of  af- 
fairs then  underwent  a  change ;  Legendre,  Ker- 
velagan,  and  Auguis  besieged  the  insurgents,  in 
their  turn,  at  the  head  of  the  sectionaries,"  and 
drove  them  at  last  from  the  hall  of  the  conven- 
tion. "The  assembly  again  became  complete; 
the  sections  received  a  vote  of  thanks,  and  the 
deliberations  were  resumed.  All  the  measures 
adopted  in  the  interim  were  annulled,  and  four- 
teen representatives,  to  whom  were  afterwards 
joined  fourteen  others,  were  arrested,  for  organ- 
izing the  insurrection  or  approving  it  in  their 
speeches.  It  was  then  midnight ;  at  five  in  the 
morning  the  prisoners  were  already  si.x  leagues 
from  Paris.  Despite  this  defeat,  the  Faubourgs 
did  not  consider  themselves  beaten ;  and  the  nest 
day  they  advanced  en  masse  with  their  cannon 
against  the  convention.  The  sections,  on  their 
side,  marched  for  its  defence."  But  a  collision 
was  averted  by  negotiations,  and  the  insurgents 


withdrew,  "after  having  received  an  assurance 
that  the  Convention  would  assiduously  attend 
to  the  question  of  provisions,  and  would  soon 
publish  the  organic  laws  of  the  constitution  of 
'93.  .  .  .  Six  democratic  Mountaineers,  Goujon, 
Bourbotte,  Rorame,  Duroy,  Duquesnoy,  and  Sou- 
brany,  were  brought  before  a  military  commis- 
sion .  .  .  and  .  .  .  condemned  to  death.  They 
all  stabbed  tliemselves  with  the  same  knife,  which 
was  transferred  from  one  to  the  other,  exclaim- 
ing, 'Vive  la  Repubhque!'  Romme,  Goujon, 
and  Duquesnoy  were  fortunate  enough  to  wound 
themselves  fatally;  the  other  three  were  con- 
ducted to  the  scaiiold  in  a  dying  state,  but  faced 
death  with  serene  countenances.  Meantime,  the 
Faubourgs,  though  repelled  on  the  1st,  and 
diverted  from  their  object  on  the  2nd  of  Prairial, 
still  had  the  means  of  rising,"  and  the  convention 
ordered  them  to  be  disarmed.  ' '  They  were  en- 
compassed by  all  the  interior  sections.  After  at- 
tempting to  resist,  they  yielded,  giving  up  some  of 
their  leaders,  their  arms,  and  artillery.  .  .  .  'The 
inferior  class  was  entirely  excluded  from  the  gov- 
ernment of  tlie  state ;  the  revolutiouary  commit- 
tees which  formed  its  assemblies  were  destroyed ; 
the  cannoneers  forming  its  armed  force  were  dis- 
armed; the  constitution  of  '93,  which  was  it3 
code,  was  abolished;  and  here  the  rule  of  the 
multitude  terminated.  .  .  .  From  that  period, 
the  middle  class  resumed  the  management  of  the 
revolution  without,  and  the  assembly  was  as 
united  under  the  Girondists  as  it  had  been,  after 
the  2nd  of  June,  under  the  Mountaineers." — F. 
A.  Mignet,  Sist.  of  tlie  French  Rev.,  di.  10. 

Also  in:  Duchesse  d'Abrantes,  Menwirs,  ch. 
12-14  {v.  1).— T.  Carlyle,  The  French  Rev.,  v.  3, 
bk.  7,  ch.  4-6. — G.  Long,  France  and  its  Revolu- 
tions, ch.  53. 

A.  D.  1795  (June  —  September). —  Framing 
and  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Year 
in. — Self-renewing  decrees  of  the  Convention. 
— Hostility  in  Paris  to  them. — Intrigues  of  the 
Royalists. — "The  royalist  party,  beaten  on  the 
frontiers,  and  deserted  by  the  court  of  Spain,  on 
which  it  placed  most  reliance,  was  now  obliged 
to  confine  itself  to  intrigues  in  the  interior;  and 
it  must  be  confessed  tliat,  at  this  moment,  Paris 
offered  a  wide  field  for  such  intrigues.  The  work 
of  the  constitution  was  advancing ;  the  time  when 
the  Convention  was  to  resign  its  powers,  when 
Prance  should  meet  to  elect  fresh  representatives, 
when  a  new  Assembly  should  succeed  that  which, 
had  so  long  reigned,  was  more  favourable  than 
any  other  for  counter-revolutionary  manoeuvres. 
The  most  vehement  passions  were  in  agitation 
in  the  sections  of  Paris.  The  members  of  them 
were  not  royalists,  but  they  served  the  cause  of 
royalty  without  being  aware  of  it.  They  had 
made  a  point  of  opposing  the  Terrorists;  they 
had  animated  themselves  by  the  conflict;  they 
wished  to  persecute  also;  and  they  were  exas- 
perated against  the  Convention,  which  would 
not  permit  this  persecution  to  be  carried  too  far. 
They  were  always  ready  to  remember  that  Terror 
had  sprung  from  its  bosom ;  they  demanded  of 
it  a  Constitution  and  laws,  and  the  end  of  the 
long  dictatoi-ship  which  it  had  exercised.  .  .  . 
Behind  this  mass  the  royalists  concealed  them- 
selves. .  .  .  The  constitution  had  been  presented 
by  the  commission  of  eleven.  It  was  discussed 
during  the  three  months  of  Messidor,  Thermidor, 
and  Fructidor  [June  —  August],  and  was  suc- 
cessively  decreed  with  very   little  alteration.'' 


1344 


FRANCE,  1795. 


Constitution 
of  the  Year  III. 


FRANCE,  1795. 


The  principal  features  of  the  constitution  so 
framed,  linown  as  the  Constitution  of  the  Year 
III.,  were  the  following:  "A  Council,  called 
'The  Council  of  the  Five  Hundred,'  composed  of 
500  members,  of,  at  least,  thirty  years  of  age, 
having  exclusively  the  right  of  proposing  laws, 
one-third  to  be  renewed  every  year.  A  Council 
called  '  The  Council  of  the  Ancients,' composed 
of  350  members,  of,  at  least,  forty  years  of  age, 
all  either  widowers  or  married,  having  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  laws,  to  be  renewed  also  by  one-third. 
An  executive  Directory,  composed  of  five  mem- 
bers, deciding  by  a  majority,  to  be  renewed  an- 
nually by  one-fifth,  having  responsible  ministers. 
.  .  .  The  mode  of  nominating  these  powers  was 
the  following:  All  the  citizens  of  the  age  of 
twenty-one  met  of  right  in  primary  assembly  on 
every  first  day  of  the  month  of  Prairial,  and 
nominated  electoral  assemblies.  These  electoral 
assemblies  met  every  20th  of  Prairial,  and  nom- 
inated the  two  Councils;  and  the  two  Councils 
nominated  the  Directory.  .  .  .  The  judicial  au- 
thority was  committed  to  elective  judges.  .  .  . 
There  were  to  be  no  communal  assemblies,  but 
municipal  and  departmental  administrations,  com- 
posed of  three,  five,  or  more  members,  accord- 
ing to  tlie  population:  they  were  to  be  formed 
by  way  of  election.  .  .  .  The  press  was  entirely 
free.  The  emigrants  were  banished  for  ever 
from  the  territory  of  the  republic ;  the  national 
domains  were  irrevocably  secured  to  the  pur- 
chasers; all  religions  were  declared  free,  but 
were  neither  acknowledged  nor  paid  by  the  state. 
.  .  .  One  important  question  was  started.  The 
Constituent  Assembly,  from  a  parade  of  disin- 
terestedness, had  excluded  itself  from  the  new 
legislative  body  [the  Legislative  Assembly  of 
1791] ;  would  the  Convention  do  the  same  ? " 
The  members  of  the  Convention  decided  this 
question  in  the  negative,  and  "decreed,  on  the 
5th  of  Fructidor  (August  33d),  that  the  new  leg- 
islative body  should  be  composed  of  two-thirds 
of  the  Convention,  and  that  one  new  third  only 
should  be  elected.  The  question  to  be  decided 
was,  whether  the  Convention  should  itself  desig- 
nate the  two-thirds  to  be  retained,  or  wliether  it 
should  leave  that  duty  to  the  electoral  assem- 
blies. After  a  tremendous  dispute,  it  was  agreed 
on  the  13th  of  Fructidor  (August  30),  that  this 
choice  should  be  left  to  the  electoral  assemblies. 
It  was  decided  that  the  primary  assemblies  should 
meet  on  the  30th  of  Fructidor  (September  6th), 
to  accept  the  constitution  and  the  two  decrees  of 
the  5th  and  the  13th  of  Fructidor.  It  was  like- 
wise decided  that,  after  giving  their  votes  upon 
the  constitution  and  the  decrees,  the  primary 
assemblies  should  again  meet  and  proceed  forth- 
with, that  is  to  say,  in  the  year  III.  (1795),  to 
the  elections  for  the  1st  of  Prairial  in  the  follow- 
ing year."  The  right  of  voting  upon  the  consti- 
tution was  extended,  by  another  decree,  to  the 
armies  in  the  field.  "No  sooner  were  these  reso- 
lutions adopted,  than  the  enemies  of  the  Con- 
vention, so  numerous  and  so  diverse,  were  deeply 
mortified  by  them.  .  .  .  The  Convention,  they 
said,  was  determined  to  cling  to  power;  ...  it 
wished  to  retain  by  force  a  majority  composed 
of  men  who  had  covered  France  with  scaffolds. 
.  .  .  All  the  sections  of  Paris,  excepting  that  of 
the  Quinze-Vingts,  accepted  the  Constitution 
and  rejected  the  decrees.  The  result  was  not  the 
same  in  the  rest  of  France.  .  .  .  On  the  1st  of 
Vendemiaire,  year  IV.  (September  33,  1795),  the 
85 


general  result  of  the  votes  was  proclaimed.  The 
constitution  was  accepted  almost  unanimously, 
and  the  decrees  by  an  immense  majority  of  the 
voters. "  The  Convention  now  decreed  that  the 
new  legislative  body  should  be  elected  in  Octo- 
ber and  meet  November  6. — A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of 
the  French  Bev.  (Am.  ed.),  v.  3,  pp.  305-315. 

Also  in:  H.  Von  Sybel,  Hist,  of  the  French 
Bcv.,  bk.  12,  ch.  4  [v.  4).— H.  C.  Lockwood,  Con- 
stitutional Hist,  of  France,  ch.  1,  and  app.  3. — J. 
Mallet  du  Pan,  Memoirs  and  Corr.,  i\  3,  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1795  (June — December). — Death  of  the 
late  King's  son  (Louis  XVII.)  —  Treaty  of 
Basle  with  Spain. —  Acquisition  of  Spanish 
San  Domingo. — Ineffectual  campaign  on  the 
Rhine. — Victory  at  Loano. — "The  Committees 
had  formed  great  plans  for  the  campaign  of  1795; 
meaning  to  invade  the  territories  of  the  allies, 
take  Mayence,  and  enter  Southern  Germany,  go 
down  into  Italy,  and  reach  the  very  heart  of 
Spain.  But  Carnot,  Lindet,  and  Prieur  were  no 
longer  on  the  Committee,  and  their  successors 
were  not  their  equals;  army  discipline  was  re- 
laxed ;  a  vulgar  reactionist  had  replaced  Carnot 
in  the  war  department  and  was  working  ruin. 
.  .  .  The  attack  in  Spain  was  to  begin  with  the 
Lower  Pyrenees,  by  the  capture  of  Pampeluna 
and  a  march  upon  Castile,  but  famine  and  fever 
decimated  the  array  of  the  Western  Pyrenees, 
and  General  Moucey  was  forced  to  postpone  all 
serious  action  till  the  summer.  At  the  other  end 
of  the  Pyrenees,  the  French  and  Spaniards  were 
fighting  aimlessly  at  the  entry  to  Catalonia.  The 
war  was  at  a  standstill ;  but  the  negotiations  went 
on  between  the  two  countries.  The  king  of 
Spain,  as  in  honor  bound,  made  the  liberation  of 
his  young  kinsman,  the  son  of  Louis  XVI.,  a 
condition  of  peace.  This  the  Republic  would 
not  grant,  but  the  prisoner's  death  (.lune  8,  1795) 
removed  the  obstacle.  The  counter-revolution- 
ists accused  the  Committees  of  poisoning  the 
child  styled  by  the  royalist  party  Louis  XVII. 
This  charge  was  false ;  the  poor  little  prisoner 
died  of  scrofula,  developed  by  inaction,  ennui, 
and  the  sufferings  of  a  pitiless  imprisonment,  in- 
creased by  the  cruel  treatment  of  his  jailers,  a 
cobbler  named  Simon  and  his  wife.  A  rumor 
was  also  spread  that  the  child  was  not  dead,  but 
had  been  taken  away  and  an  impostor  substi- 
tuted, who  had  died.  Only  one  of  the  royal 
family  now  remained  in  the  Temple,  Louis  XVI. 's 
daughter,  afterwards  the  Duchesse  d'AngouIgme. 
Spain  interceded  for  her,  and  she  was  exchanged. 
.  .  .  Peace  with  Spain  was  also  hastened  by 
French  successes  beyond  the  Pyrenees ;  General 
Marceau,  being  reinforced,  took  Vittoria  and 
Bilboa,  and  pushed  on  to  the  Ebro.  On  the  32d 
of  July,  Barthelemi,  the  able  French  diplomatist, 
signed  a  treaty  of  peace  with  Spain  at  Basle,  re- 
storing her  Biscayan  and  Catalonian  provinces, 
and  accepting  Spanish  mediation  in  favor  of  the 
king  of  Naples,  Duke  of  Parma,  king  of  Portu- 
gal, and  'the  other  Italian  powers,'  including, 
though  not  mentioning,  the  Pope;  and  Spain 
yielded  her  share  of  San  Domingo,  which  put  a 
brighter  face  on  French  affairs  in  America.  .  .  . 
Guadeloupe,  Santa  Lucia,  and  St.  Eustache  were 
restored  to  the  French.  .  .  .  Spain  soon  made 
overtures  for  an  alliance  with  France,  wishing  to 
put  down  the  English  desire  to  rule  the  seas ;  and, 
before  the  new  treaty  was  signed,  the  army  of 
the  Eastern  Pyrenees  was  sent  to  reinforce  the 
armies  of  the  Alps  and  Italy,  who  had  only  held 


1345 


FRANCE,  1795. 


Treason 
of  Pichegru. 


FRANCE,  1795. 


their  positions  in  the  Apennines  and  on  the  Ligu- 
rian  coast  against  the  Austrians  and  Piedmontese 
by  sheer  force  of  will ;  but  in  the  autumn  of  1795 
the  face  of  affairs  was  changed.  Now  that  Prus- 
sia had  left  the  coalition,  war  on  the  Rhine  went 
on  between  France  and  Austria,  sustained  by  the 
South  German  States;  France  had  to  complete 
her  mastery  of  the  left  bank  by  taking  Mayence 
and  Luxembourg;  and  Austria's  aim  was  to. dis- 
pute them  with  her.  The  French  government 
charged  Marceau  to  besiege  Mayence  during  the 
winter  of  1794-95,  but  did  not  furnish  him  the 
necessary  resources,  and,  France  not  holding  the 
right  bank,  Kleber  could  only  partially  invest 
the  town,  and  both  his  soldiers  and  those  block- 
ading Luxembourg  suffered  greatly  from  cold 
and  privation.  Early  in  March,  1795,  Pichegru 
was  put  in  command  of  the  armies  of  the  Rhine 
and  Moselle,  and  Jourdan  was 'ordered  to  support 
him  on  the  left  (the  Lower  Rhine)  with  the  army 
of  Sambre-et-Meuse.  Austria  took  no  advantage 
of  the  feeble  state  of  the  French  troops,  and  Lux- 
embourg, one  of  the  strongest  posts  in  Europe, 
receiving  no  help,  surrendered  (June  24)  with  800 
cannon  and  huge  store  of  provisions.  Tlae  French 
now  had  the  upper  hand,  Pichegru  and  Jourdan 
commanding  160,000  men  on  the  Rhine.  One  of 
these  men  was  upright  and  brave,  but  the  other 
had  treason  in  his  soul;  though  ever_ybody  ad- 
mired Pichegru,  '  the  conqueror  of  Holland. '.  .  . 
In  August,  1795,  an  agent  of  the  Prince  of  Conde, 
who  was  then  at  Brisgau,  in  the  Black  Forest, 
with  his  corps  of  emigrants,  offered  Pichegru, 
who  was  in  Alsace,  the  title  of  Marshal  of  France 
and  Governor  of  Alsace,  the  royal  castle  of  Cham- 
bord,  a  million  down,  an  annuity  of  200, 000  livres, 
and  a  house  in  Paris,  in  the  '  king's '  name,  thus 
flattering  at  once  his  vanity  and  his  greed.  .  .  . 
He  was  checked  by  no  scruples;  utterly  devoid 
of  moral  sense,  he  hoped  to  gain  his  army  by 
money  and  wine,  and  had  no  discussion  with  the 
Prince  of  Conde  save  as  to  the  manner  of  his 
treason. "  In  the  end,  Pichegru  was  not  able  to 
make  his  treason  as  effective  as  he  had  bargained 
to  do ;  but  he  succeeded  in  spoiling  the  campaign 
of  1795  on  the  Rhine.  Jourdan  crossed  the  river 
and  took  Dusseldorf,  with  168  cannon,  on  the  6th 
of  September,  expecting  a  simultaneous  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  Pichegru,  to  occupy  the 
enemy  in  the  latter's  front.  But  Pichegru,  though 
he  took  Mannheim,  on  the  18th  of  September, 
threw  a  corps  of  10,000  men  into  the  hands  of  the 
Austrians,  by  placing  it  where  it  could  be  easi- 
ly overwhelmed,  and  permitted  his  opponent, 
Wurmser,  to  send  reinforcements  to  Clairfait,  who 
forced  Jourdan,  in  October,  to  retreat  across  the 
Rhine.  ' '  Pichegru's  perfidy  had  thwarted  a  cam- 
paign which  must  have  been  decisive,  and  Jour- 
dan's  retreat  was  followed  by  the  enemy's  offen- 
sive return  to  the  left  bank  [retaking  Mannheim 
and  raising  the  siege  of  Mayence],  and  by  re- 
verses which  would  have  been  fatal  had  they 
coincided  with  the  outburst  of  royalist  and  reac- 
tionary plots  and  insurrections  in  the  West,  and  in 
Paris  itself;  but  they  had  luckily  been  stifled 
some  time  since,  and  as  the  Convention  concluded 
its  career,  the  direction  of  the  war  returned  to 
the  hands  which  guided  it  so  well  in  1793  and 
1794." — H.  Martin,  Popular  Hist,  of  France  from 
the  First  Rev.,  eh.  24  (i\  1). — " The  peace  with 
Spain  .  .  .  enabled  the  government  to  detach  the 
whole  Pyrenean  army  to  the  support  of  General 
Scherer,  who  had  succeeded  Kellermann  in  the 


command  of  the  army  of  Italy.  On  the  33d  oi 
November,  the  French  attacked  the  Austrians  in 
their  position  at  Loano,  and,  after  a  conflict  of 
two  days,  the  enemy's  centre  was  forced  by  Mas- 
sena  and  Augereau,  and  the  Imperialists  fled  with 
the  loss  of  7,000  men,  80  guns,  and  all  their  stores. 
But  the  season  was  too  far  advanced  to  prosecute 
this  success,  and  the  victors  took  up  winter  quar- 
ters on  the  ground  they  had  occupied.  .  .  .  The 
capture  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  (Sept.  16)  by 
the  British  under  Sir  James  Craig,  was  the  only 
other  important  event  of  this  year." — Epitome  of 
Alison's  Hist,  of  Europe,  sect.  154  arad!  157  (ch.  18 
of  the  complete  work). 

Also  in:  A.  Griffiths,  French  Bevolutionary 
Generals,  ch.  13. — E.  Baines,  Hist,  of  the  Wars  of 
the  French  Rev.,  bk.  1,  ch.  19-20  («.  1).— A.  de 
Beauchesne,  Louis  XVII.  :  His  Life,  his  Suffer- 
ings, his  Death. 

A.  D.  1795  (October— December).— The  In- 
surrection of  the  13th  Vend^miare,  put  down 
by  Napoleon  Bonaparte. — Dissolution  of  the 
National  Convention. — Organization  of  the 
government  of  the  Directory. — Licentiousness 
of  the  time. — "The  Parisians  .  .  .  proclaimed 
their  hostility  to  the  Convention  and  its  designs. 
The  National  Guard,  consisting  of  armed  citizens, 
almost  unanimously  sided  with  the  enemies  of 
the  Convention ;  and  it  was  openly  proposed  to 
march  to  the  Tuilleries,  and  compel  a  change  of 
measures  by  force  of  arms.  The  Convention 
perceiving  their  vmpopularity  and  danger,  began 
to  look  about  them  anxiously  for  the  means  of 
defence.  There  were  in  and  near  Paris  5,000 
regular  troops,  on  whom  they  thought  they  might 
rely,  and  who  of  course  contemned  the  National 
Guard  as  only  half  soldiers.  They  had  besides 
some  hundreds  of  artillery  men ;  and  they  now 
organised  what  they  called  '  the  Sacred  Band,'  a 
body  of  1,500  ruffians,  the  most  part  of  them  old 
and  tried  instruments  of  Robespierre.  Wi  th  these 
means  they  prepared  to  arrange  a  plan  of  de- 
fence; and  it  was  obvious  that  they  did  not  want 
materials,  provided  they  could  find  a  skilful  and 
determined  head.  The  insurgent  sections  placed 
themselves  under  the  command  of  Danican,  an 
old  general  of  no  great  skill  or  reputation.  The 
Convention  opposed  to  him  Menou;  and  he 
marched  at  the  head  of  a  column  into  the  section 
Le  Pelletier  to  disarm  the  National  Guard  of  that 
di.strict — -one  of  the  wealthiest  of  the  capital. 
The  National  Guard  were  found  drawn  up  in 
readiness  to  receive  him  at  the  end  of  the  Rue 
Vivienne;  and  Menou,  becoming  alarmed,  and 
hampered  by  the  presence  of  some  of  the  '  Repre- 
sentatives of  the  People,'  entered  into  a  parley, 
and  retired  without  having  struck  a  blow.  The 
Convention  judged  that  Menou  was  not  master 
of  nerves  for  such  a  crisis ;  and  consulted  eagerly 
about  a  successor  to  his  command.  Barras,  one 
of  their  number,  had  happened  to  be  present  at 
Toulon  and  to  have  appreciated  the  character  of 
Buonaparte.  He  had,  probably,  been  applied  to 
by  Napoleon  in  his  recent  pursuit  of  employ- 
ment. Deliberating  with  Tallien  and  Carnot, 
his  colleagues,  he  suddenly  said,  'I  have  the 
man  whom  you  want;  it  is  a  little  Corsican  offi- 
cer, who  will  not  stand  upon  ceremony.'  These 
words  decided  the  fate  of  Napoleon  and  of 
France.  Buonaparte  had  been  in  the  Odeon 
Theatre  when  the  affair  of  Le  Pelletier  occurred, 
had  run  out,  and  witnessed  the  result.  He  now 
happened  to  be  in  the  gallery,  and  heard  the  dis- 


1346 


FRANCE,  1795. 


Bonaparte  and 
the  l^th  Vend^miaire. 


FRANCE,  1796. 


cussion  concerning  the  conduct  of  Menou.  He 
was  presently  sent  for,  and  asked  his  opinion  as 
to  that  officer's  retreat.  He  explained  what  had 
happened,  and  how  the  evil  might  have  been 
avoided,  in  a  manner  which  gave  satisfaction. 
He  was  desired  to  assume  the  command,  and  ar- 
ranged his  plan  of  defence  as  well  as  the  circum- 
stances might  permit;  for  it  was  already  late  at 
night,  and  the  decisive  assault  on  the  Tuilleries 
was  expected  to  take  place  next  morning.  Buona- 
parte stated  that  the  failure  of  the  march  of 
Slenou  had  been  chiefly  owing  to  the  presence  of 
the  '  Representatives  of  the  People, '  and  refused 
to  accept  the  command  unless  he  received  it  free 
from  all  such  interference.  They  yielded :  Barras 
was  named  commander-in-chief ;  and  Buonaparte 
second,  with  the  virtual  control.  His  first  care 
was  to  despatch  Murat,  then  a  major  of  chasseurs, 
to  Sablons,  five  miles  off,  where  fifty  great  guns 
were  po.sted.  The  Sectionaries  sent  a  stronger 
detachment  for  these  cannon  immediately  after- 
wards ;  and  Murat,  who  passed  them  in  the  dark, 
would  have  gone  in  vain  had  he  received  his  orders 
but  a  few  minutes  later.  On  the  4th  of  October 
(called  in  the  revolutionary  almanac  the  13th 
Vendemiaire)  the  affray  accordingly  occurred. 
Thirty  thousand  National  Guards  advanced  about 
two  P.  M.,  by  different  streets,  to  the  siege  of  the 
palace:  but  its  defence  was  now  in  far  other 
hands  than  those  of  Louis  XVI.  Buonaparte, 
having  planted  artillery  on  all  the  bridges,  had 
effectually  secured  the  command  of  the  river,  and 
the  safety  of  the  Tuilleries  on  one  side.  He  had 
placed  cannon  also  at  all  the  crossings  of  the 
streets  by  which  the  National  Guard  could  ad- 
vance towards  the  other  front ;  and  having  posted 
his  battalions  in  the  garden  of  the  Tuilleries  and 
Place  du  Carousel,  he  awaited  the  attack.  The 
insurgents  had  no  cannon ;  and  they  came  along 
the  narrow  streets  of  Paris  in  close  and  heavy 
columns.  When  one  party  reached  the  church 
of  St.  Roche,  in  the  Rue  St.  Honore,  they  found 
a  body  of  Buonaparte's  troops  drawn  up  there, 
with  two  cannons.  It  is  disputed  on  which  side 
the  firing  began ;  but  in  an  instant  the  artillery 
swept  the  streets  and  lanes,  scattering  grape-shot 
among  the  National  Guards,  and  producing  such 
confusion  that  they  were  compelled  to  give  way. 
The  first  shot  was  a  signal  for  all  the  batteries 
which  Buonaparte  had  established ;  the  quays  of 
the  Seine,  opposite  to  the  Tuilleries,  were  com- 
manded by  his  guns  below  the  palace  and  on  the 
bridges.  In  less  than  an  hour  the  action  was 
over.  The  Insurgents  fled  in  all  directions,  leav- 
ing the  streets  covered  with  dead  and  wounded ; 
the  troops  of  the  Convention  marched  into  the 
various  sections,  disarmed  the  terrified  inhabi- 
tants, and  before  nightfall  everything  was  quiet. 
This  eminent  service  secured  the  triumph  of  the 
Conventionalists.  .  .  .  Within  five  days  from  the 
Day  of  the  Sections  Buonaparte  was  named 
second  in  command  of  the  army  of  the  interior; 
and  shortly  afterwards,  Barras  finding  his  duties 
as  Director  sufficient  to  occupy  his  time,  gave  up 
the  command-in-chief  of  the  same  army  to  his 
'little  Corsican  officer.'" — J.  G.  Lockhart,  Ltfe 
of  Napoleon  Buonaparte,  ch.  3. — The  victory  of 
the  13th  Vendemiaire  "enabled  the  Convention 
immediately  to  devote  its  attention  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Councils  proposed  by  it,  two-thirds 
of  which  were  to  consist  of  its  own  members. 
The  first  third,  which  was  freely  elected,  had  al- 
ready been  nominated  by  the  Reactionary  party. 


The  members  of  the  Directory  were  chosen,  and 
the  deputies  of  the  Convention,  believing  that 
for  their  own  interests  the  regicides  should  be  at 
the  head  of  the  Government,  nominated  La  Re- 
veillgre-Lepeaux,  Sifeyes,  Rewbel,  Le  Tourneur, 
and  Barras.  Sifeyes  refused  to  act,  and  Carnot 
was  elected  in  his  place.  Immediately  after  this, 
the  Convention  declared  its  session  at  an  end, 
after  it  had  had  three  years  of  existence,  from 
the  21st  September,  1792,  to  the  28th  October, 
1795  (4th  Brumaire,  Year  IV.).  .  .  .  The  Direc- 
tors were  all,  with  the  exception  of  Carnot,  of 
moderate  capacity,  and  concurred  in  rendering 
their  own  position  the  more  difficult.  At  this 
period  there  was  no  element  of  order  or  good 
government  in  the  Republic;  anarchy  and  un- 
easiness everywhere  prevailed,  famine  had  be- 
come chronic,  the  troops  were  without  clothes, 
provisions  or  horSes ;  the  Convention  had  spent 
an  immense  capital  represented  by  assignats,  and 
had  sold  almost  half  of  the  Republican  territory, 
belonging  to  the  proscribed  classes  .  .  .  ;  the 
excessive  degree  of  discredit  to  which  paper 
money  had  fallen,  after  the  issue  of  thirty-eight 
thousand  millions,  had  destroyed  all  confidence 
and  all  legitimate  commerce.  .  .  .  Such  was  the 
general  poverty,  that  when  the  Directors  entered 
the  palace  which  had  been  assigned  to  them  as  a 
dwelling,  they  found  no  furniture  there,  and 
were  compelled  to  borrow  of  the  porter  a  few 
straw  chairs  and  a  wooden  table,  on  the  latter  of 
which  they  drew  up  the  decree  by  which  they 
were  appointed  to  office.  Their  first  care  was  to 
establish  their  power,  and  they  succeeded  in  do- 
ing this  by  frankly  following  at  first  the  rules 
laid  down  by  the  Constitution.  In  a  short  time 
industry  and  commerce  began  to  raise  their  heads, 
the  supply  of  provisions  became  tolerably  abun- 
dant, and  the  clubs  were  abandoned  for  the  work- 
shops and  the  fields.  The  Directory  exerted  it- 
self to  revive  agriculture,  industry,  and  the  arts, 
re-established  the  public  exhibitions,  and  founded 
primary,  central,  and  normal  schools.  .  .  .  This 
period  was  distinguished  by  a  great  licentious- 
ness in  manners.  The  wealthy  classes,  who  had 
been  so  long  forced  into  retirement  by  the  Reign 
of  Terror,  now  gave  themselves  up  to  the  pursuit 
of  pleasure  without  stint,  and  indulged  in  a 
course  of  unbridled  luxury,  which  was  outwardly 
displayed  in  balls,  festivities,  rich  costumes  and 
sumptuous  equipages.  Barras,  who  was  a  man 
of  jjleasure,  favoured  this  dangerous  sign  of  the 
reaction,  and  his  palace  soon  became  the  ren- 
dezvous of  the  most  frivolous  and  corrupt  so- 
ciety. In  spite  of  this,  however,  the  wealthy 
classes  were  still  the  victims,  under  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Directory,  of  violent  and  spoliative 
measures." — E.  de  Bonnechose,  Hist,  of  France, 
V.  2.  pp.  370-273. 

A.  D.  1796  (April — October). — Triple  attack 
on  Austria. —  Bonaparte's  first  campaign  in 
Italy. —  Submission  of  Sardinia. —  Armistice 
with  Naples  and  the  Pope. — Pillage  of  art 
treasures. — Hostile  designs  upon  Venice. — 
Expulsion  of  the  Austrians  from  Lorabardy. — 
Failure  of  the  campaign  beyond  the  Rhine. — 
"  With  the  opening  of  the  year  1796  the  leading 
interest  of  European  history  passes  to  a  new 
scene.  .  .  .  The  Directory  was  now  able  .  . 
to  throw  its  whole  force  into  the  struggle  with 
Austria.  By  the  advice  of  Bonaparte  a  threefold 
movement  was  undertaken  against  Vienna,  by 
way  of  Lombardy,  by  the  valley  of  the  Danube, 


134 


FRANCE,  1796. 


Bonciparte  in 
Italy. 


FRANCE,  1796. 


and  Ly  the  valley  of  the  Main.  General  Jourdan, 
in  command  of  the  army  that  had  conquered  the 
Netherlands,  was  ordered  to  enter  Germany  by 
Frankfort;  Moreau,  a  Breton  law-student  in 
1793,  now  one  of  the  most  skilful  soldiers  in 
Europe,  crossed  the  Rhine  at  Sti-asburg;  Bona- 
parte himself,  drawing  his  scanty  supplies  along 
the  coast-road  from  Nice,  faced  "the  allied  forces 
of  Austria  and  Sardinia  upon  the  slopes  of  the 
Maritime  Apennines,  forty  miles  to  the  west  of 
Genoa.  .  .  .  Bonaparte  entered  Italy  proclaim- 
ing himself  the  restorer  of  Italian  freedom,  but 
with  the  deliberate  purpose  of  using  Italy  as  a 
means  of  recruiting  the  exhausted  treasury  of 
France.  His  correspondence  with  the  Directory 
exposes  with  brazen  frankness  this  well-con- 
sidered system  of  plunder  and  deceit,  in  which 
the  general  and  the  Government  were  cordially 
at  one.  .  .  .  The  campaign  of  1796  commenced 
in  April,  in  the  mountains  above  the  coast-road 
connecting  Nice  and  Genoa.  .  .  .  Bonaparte  .  .  . 
for  four  days  .  .  .  reiterated  his  attacks  at  Monte- 
notte  and  at  Millesimo,  until  he  had  forced  his 
own  army  into  a  position  in  the  centre  of  the. 
Allies  [Austrians  and  Piedmontese] ;  then,  leav- 
ing a  small  force  to  watch  the  Austrians,  he 
threw  the  mass  of  his  troops  upon  the  Pied- 
montese, and  drove  them  back  to  within  thirty 
miles  of  Turin.  The  teiTor-strlcken  Government, 
anticipating  an  outbreak  in  the  capital  itself,  ac- 
cepted an  armistice  from  Bonaparte  at  Cherasco 
(April  38).  .  .  .  The  armistice,  which  was  soon 
followed  by  a  treaty  of  peace  between  France 
and  Sardinia,  ceding  Savoy  to  the  Republic,  left 
him  free  to  follow  the  Austrians,  untroubled  by 
the  existence  of  some  of  the  strongest  fortresses 
of  Europe  behind  him.  In  the  negotiations  with 
Sardinia,  Bonaparte  demanded  the  surrender  of 
the  town  of  Valenza,  as  necessary  to  secure  his 
passage  over  the  river  Po.  Having  thus  artfully 
led  the  Austrian  Beaulieu  to  concentrate  his  forces 
at  this  point,  he  suddenly  moved  eastward  along 
the  southern  bank  of  the  river,  and  crossed  at 
Piacenza.  50  miles  below  the  spot  where  Beaulieu 
was  awaiting  him.  .  .  .  The  Austrian  general, 
taken  in  the  rear,  had  no  alternative  but  to 
abandon  Milan  and  all  the  country  west  of  it, 
and  to  fall  back  upon  the  line  of  the  Adda. 
Bonaparte  followed,  and  on  the  10th  of  May  at- 
tacked the  Austrians  at  Lodi.  He  himself  stormed 
the  bridge  of  Lodi  at  the  head  of  his  Grenadiers. 
The  battle  was  so  disastrous  to  the  Austi-ians 
that  they  could  risk  no  second  engagement,  and 
retired  upon  Mantua  and  the  line  of  the  Mincio, 
Bonaparte  now  made  his  triumphal  entry  into 
Milan  (May  15).  ...  In  return  for  the  gift  of 
liberty,  the  Milanese  were  invited  to  offer  to  their 
deliverers  30,000,000  francs,  and  a  selection  from 
the  paintings  in  their  churches  and  galleries. 
The  Dukes  of  Parma  and  Modena,  in  return  for 
an  armistice,  were  required  to  hand  over  forty 
of  their  best  pictures,  and  a  sum  of  money  pro- 
portioned to  their  revenues.  The  Dukes  and  the 
townspeople  paid  their  contributions  with  a  good 
grace :  the  peasantry  of  Lombardy,  whose  cattle 
were  seized  in  order  to  supply  an  army  that 
marched  without  any  stores  of  its  own,  rose  in 
arms,  and  threw  themselves  into  Pavia,  after 
killing  all  the  French  soldiers  who  fell  in  their 
way.  The  revolt  was  instantly  suppressed,  and 
the  town  of  Pavia  given  up  to  pillage.  ...  In- 
stead of  crossing  tlie  Apennines,  Bonaparte  ad- 
vanced against  the  Austrian  positions  upon  the 


Mincio.  ...  A  battle  was  fought  and  lost  by 
the  Austrians  at  Borghetto.  .  .  .  Beaulieu's 
strength  was  exhausted ;  he  could  meet  the  enemy 
no  more  in  the  field,  and  led  his  army  out  of  Italy 
into  the  Tyrol,  leaving  Mantua  to  be  invested  by 
the  French.  The  first  care  of  the  conqueror  was 
to  make  Venice  pay  for  the  crime  of  po&sessing 
territory  intervening  between  the  eastern  and 
western  extremes  of  the  Austrian  district.  Bona- 
parte affected  to  believe  that  the  Venetians  had 
permitted  Beaulieu  to  occupy  Peschiera  before 
he  seized  upon  Brescia  himself.  .  .  .  '  I  have 
purposely  devised  this  rupture,'  he  wrote  to  the 
Directory  (June  7th),  '  in  case  you  should  wish 
to  obtain  Ave  or  six  millions  of  francs  from  Ven- 
ice. If  you  have  more  decided  intentions,  I 
think  it  would  be  well  to  keep  up  the  quarrel.' 
The  intention  referred  to  was  the  disgraceful 
project  of  sacrificing  Venice  to  Austria  in  return 
for  the  cession  of  the  Netherlands.  .  .  .  The 
Austrians  were  fairly  driven  out  of  Lombardy, 
and  Bonaparte  was  now  free  to  deal  with  South- 
ern Italy.  He  advanced  into  the  States  of  the 
Church,  and  expelled  the  Papal  Legate  from 
Bologna.  Ferdinand  of  Naples  .  .  .  asked  for 
a  suspension  of  hostilities  against  his  own  king- 
dom .  .  .  and  Bonaparte  granted  the  king  an 
armistice  on  easy  terms.  The  Pope,  in  order  to 
gain  a  few  months'  truce,  had  to  permit  the  oc- 
cupation of  Ferrara,  Ravenna,  and  Ancona,  and 
to  recognise  the  necessities,  the  learning,  the 
taste,  and  the  virtue  of  his  conquerors  by  a  gift 
of  30,000,000  francs,  500  manuscripts,  100  pic- 
tures, and  the  busts  of  Marcus  and  Lucius  Bru- 
tus. .  .  .  Tuscany  had  indeed  made  peace  with 
the  French  Republic  a  year  before,  but  .  .  . 
while  Bonaparte  paid  a  respectful  visit  to  the 
Grand  Duke  at  Florence,  Murat  descended  upon 
Leghorn,  and  seized  upon  everything  that  was 
not  removed  before  his  approach.  Once  estab- 
lished in  Leghorn,  the  French  declined  to  quit  it. 
.  .  .  Mantua  was  meanwhile  invested,  and  thither 
Bonaparte  returned.  Towards  the  end  of  July 
an  Austrian  relieving  army,  nearly  double  the 
strength  of  Bonaparte's,  descended  from  the 
Tyrol.  It  was  divided  into  three  corps:  one, 
under  Quasdanovich,  advanced  by  the  road  on 
the  west  of  Lake  Garda;  the  otliers,  under 
Wurraser,  the  commauder-in-cliief,  by  the  roads 
between  the  lake  and  the  river  Adige.  .  .  . 
Bonaparte  .  .  .  instantly  broke  up  the  siege  of 
Mantua,  and  withdrew  from  every  position  east 
of  the  river.  On  the  30th  July,  Quasdanovich 
was  attacked  and  checked  at  Lonato.  .  .  .  Wurm- 
ser,  unaware  of  his  colleague's  repulse,  entered 
Mantua  in  triumph,  and  then  set  out,  expecting 
to  envelop  Bonaparte  between  two  fires.  But 
the  French  were  ready  for  his  approach.  Wurra- 
ser was  stopped  and  defeated  at  Castiglione 
(Aug.  3),  while  the  western  Austrian  divisions 
were  still  held  in  check  at  Lonato.  ...  In  five 
days  the  skill  of  Bonaparte  and  the  unspar- 
ing exertions  of  his  soldiery  had  more  than  re- 
trieved all  that  appeared  to  have  been  lost.  The 
Austrians  retired  into  the  Tyrol,  leaving  15,000 
prisoners  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  Bonaparte 
now  prepared  to  force  Ms  way  into  Germany  by 
tlie  Adige,  in  fulfilment  of  the  original  plan  of 
the  campaign.  In  the  firet  days  of  September 
he  again  routed  the  Austrians,  and  gained  pos- 
session of  Roveredo  and  Trent.  Wurmser  here- 
upon attempted  to  shut  the  French  up  in  the 
mountains  by   a    movement  southwards;   but. 


1348 


FRANCE,  1796. 


English 
peace  negotiations. 


FRAJifCE,  1796-1797. 


while  he  operated  with  insufficient  forces  between 
the  Brenta  and  the  Adige,  with  a  view  of  cut- 
ting Bonaparte  off  from  Italy,  he  was  himself 
[defeated  at  Bassano,  September  8,  and]  cut  off 
from  Germany,  and  only  escaped  capture  by 
throwing  himself  into  Mantua  with  the  shattered 
remnant  of  his  army.  The  road  into  Germany 
through  the  Tyrol  now  lay  open;  but  in  the 
midst  of  his  victories  Bonaparte  learnt  that  the 
northern  annies  of  Moreau  and  Jourdan,  with 
which  he  had  intended  to  co-operate  in  an  attack 
upon  Vienna,  were  in  full  retreat.  Moreau's 
advance  into  the  valley  of  the  Danube  had,  dur- 
ing the  months  of  July  and  August,  been  at- 
tended with  unbroken  military  and  political  suc- 
cess. The  Archduke  Charles,  who  was  entrusted 
with  the  defence  of  the  Empire, "  fell  back  before 
Moreau,  in  order  to  unite  his  forces  with  those 
of  Wartensleben,  who  commanded  an  army 
which  confronted  Jourdan.  "  The  design  of  the 
Archduke  succeeded  in  the  end,  but  it  opened 
Germany  to  the  French  for  six  weeks,  and  re- 
vealed how  worthless  was  the  military  constitu- 
tion of  the  Empire,  and  how  little  the  Germans 
had  to  expect  from  one  another.  ...  At  length 
the  retreating  movement  of  the  Austrians  stopped 
[and  the  Archduke  fought  an  indecisive  battle 
with  Moreau  at  Neresheim,  August  11].  Leaving 
30,000  men  on  the  Lech  to  disguise  his  motions 
from  iloreau,  Charles  turned  suddenly  north- 
wards from  Neuberg  on  the  17th  August,  met 
Wartensleben  at  Amberg,  and  attacked  Jourdan 
.  .  .  with  greatly  superior  numbers.  Jourdan 
was  defeated  [September  3,  at  Wilrtzburg]  and 
driven  back  in  confusion  towards  the  Rhine. 
The  issue  of  the  campaign  was  decided  before 
Moreau  heard  of  his  colleague's  danger.  It  only 
remained  for  him  to  save  his  own  army  by  a 
skilful  retreat,"  in  the  course  of  which  he  de- 
feated the  Austrian  general  Latour  at  Biberach, 
October  3,  and  fought  two  indecisive  battles  with 
the  Archduke,  at  Emmendingen,  October  19, 
and  at  Huningenonthe24th. —  C.  A.  Fyffe,  Sist. 
of  Modern  Europe,  r,  1,  ch.  3. 

Also  in:  A.  Griffiths,  JB^-ench  Bevolutionari/ 
Generals,  ch.  14-15. —  General  Jomini,  Life  of 
Napoleon,  v.  1,  ch.  2. — E.  Baines,  Hist,  of  tile 
Wars  of  the  French  Rev.,  hk.  1,  ch.  23  (».  1).— 
C.  Adams,  0-reat  Campaigns,  1796-1870,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1796  (September). — Evacuation  of  Cor- 
sica by  the  English. — Its  reoccupation  by  the 
French. — "  Corsica,  which  had  been  delivered  to 
the  English  by  Paoli,  and  occupied  by  them  as  a 
fourth  kingdom  annexed  to  the  crown  of  the  King 
of  Great  Britain,  had  just  been  evacuated  by  its 
new  masters.  They  had  never  succeeded  in  sub- 
duing the  interior  of  the  island,  frequent  insur- 
rections had  kept  them  in  continual  alarm,  and 
free  communication  between  the  various  towns 
could  only  be  effected  by  sea.  The  victories  of 
the  French  army  in  Italy,  under  the  command  of 
one  of  their  countrymen,  had  redoubled  this  in- 
ternal ferment  in  Corsica,  and  the  English  had 
decided  on  entirely  abandoning  their  conquest. 
In  September  1796  they  withdrew  their  troops, 
and  also  removed  from  Corsica  their  chief  par- 
tisans, such  as  Genera]  Paoli,  Pozzo  di  Borgo, 
Beraldi  and  others,  who  sought  an  asylum  in  Eng- 
land. On  the  first  intelligence  of  the  English  prep- 
arations for  evacuating  the  island,  Buonaparte 
despatched  General  Gentili  thither  at  the  head  of 
two  or  three  hundred  banished  Corsicans,  and 
with  this  little  band  Gentili  took  possession  of  the 


principal  strongholds.  .  .  .  On  the  5th  Frimaire, 
year  V.  (November  25,  1796),  I  received  a  decree 
of  the  Executive  Directory  .  .  .  appointing  me 
Commi.ssioner-Extraordinary  of  the  Government 
in  Corsica,  and  ordering  me  to  proceed  thither  at 
once." — Count  Miot  de  Melito,  Memoirs,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1796  (October). — Failure  of  peace  ne- 
gotiations V7ith  England. — Treaties  with  Na- 
ples and  Genoa. — "It  was  France  itself,  more 
even  than  Ital}',  which  was  succumbing  under 
the  victories  in  Italy,  and  was  falling  rapidly 
under  the  military  despotism  of  Bonaparte ;  while 
what  had  begun  as  a  mere  war  of  defence  was 
already  becoming  a  war  of  aggression  against 
everybody.  .  .  .  The  more  patriotic  members  of 
the  legislative  bodies  were  opposed  to  what  they 
considered  only  a  war  of  personal  ambitions,  and 
were  desirous  of  peace,  and  a  considerable  peace 
Ijarty  was  forming  throughout  the  country.  The 
opportunity  was  taken  by  the  English  govern- 
ment for  making  proposals  for  peace,  and  a  pass- 
port was  obtained  from  the  directory  for  lord 
Malmesbury,  who  was  sent  to  Paris  as  the  Eng- 
lish plenipotentiary.  Lord  Malmesbury  arrived 
in  Paris  on  the  2nd  of  Brumaire  (the  23rd  of  Octo- 
ber, 1796),  and  next  day  had  his  first  interview 
with  the  French  minister  Delacroix,  who  was 
chosen  by  the  directory  to  act  as  their  representa- 
tive. There  was  from  the  first  an  evident  want 
of  cordiality  and  sincerity  on  the  part  of  the 
French  government  in  this  negotiation ;  and  the 
demands  they  made,  and  the  political  views  en- 
tertained by  them,  were  so  unreasonable,  that, 
after  it  had  dragged  on  slowly  for  about  a  month, 
it  ended  without  a  result.  The  directory  were  se- 
cretly making  great  preparations  for  the  invasion 
of  Ireland,  and  they  had  hopes  of  making  a  sep- 
arate and  very  advantageous  peace  with  Austria. 
Bonaparte  had,  during  this  time,  become  uneasy 
on  account  of  his  position  in  Italy,"  and  "  urged 
the  directory  to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the 
different  Italian  states  in  his  rear,  such  as  Naples, 
Rome,  and  Genoa,  and  to  form  an  offensive  and 
defensive  alliance  with  the  king  of  Sardinia,  so 
that  he  might  be  able  to  raise  reinforcements  in 
Italy.  For  this  purpose  he  asked  for  authority 
to  proclaim  the  independence  of  Lombardy  and 
of  the  states  of  Modena ;  so  that,  by  forming  both 
into  republics,  he  might  create  a  powerful  French 
party,  through  which  he  might  obtain  both  men 
and  provisions.  The  directory  was  not  unwilling 
to  second  the  wishes  of  Bonaparte,  and  on  the 
19th  of  Vendemiaire  (the  10th  of  October)  a  peace 
was  signed  with  Naples,  which  was  followed  by 
a  treaty  with  Genoa.  This  latter  state  paid  two 
millions  of  francs  as  an  indemnity  for  the  acts 
of  hostility  formerly  committed  against  France, 
and  added  two  millions  more  as  a  loan. "  The  ne- 
gotiation for  an  offensive  alliance  with  Sardinia 
failed,  because  the  king  demanded  Lombardy. — 
T.  Wright,  Hist,  of  France,  v.  3,  p.  758. 

Also  in  :  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Hist,  of  Eng.  in  tlie 
18th  Century,  ch.  27  (».  7). — E.  Burke,  Letters  on 
a  Regicide  Peace. 

A.  D.  1796-1797  (October— April).— Bona- 
parte's continued  victories  in  Italy. — His  ad- 
vance into  Carinthia  and  the  Tyrol. — Peace 
preliminaries  of  Leoben. — "The  failure  of  the 
French  invasion  of  Germany  .  .  .  enabled  the 
Austrians  to  make  a  fresh  effort  for  the  relief  of 
[Wtlrmser]  in  Mantua.  40, 000  men  under  Alvinzi 
and  18,000  under  Davidowich  entered  Italy  from 
the  Tyrol  and  marched  by  different  routes  to- 


1349 


FRANCE,  1796-1797. 


Work  of 
Bonaparte  in  Italy. 


FRANCE,  1797. 


wards  Verona.  Bonaparte  had  employed  the  re- 
cent interlude  in  consolidating  French  Influence 
in  Italy.  Against  the  wishes  of  the  Directors  he 
dethroned  the  duke  of  Modena,  and  formed  his 
territories  into  the  Cispadane  Republic.  Then  he 
tried  to  induce  Piedmont  and  Venice  to  join 
France,  but  both  states  preferred  to  retain  their 
neutral  position.  This  was  another  of  the  charges 
which  the  general  was  preparing  against  Venice. 
On  the  news  of  the  Austrian  advance,  Bonaparte 
marched  against  Alviuzi,  and  checked  him  at 
Carmignano  (6  November).  But  meanwhile 
Davidowich  had  taken  Trent  and  was  approach- 
ing Rivoli.  Bonaparte,  in  danger  of  being  sur- 
rounded, was  compelled  to  give  way,  and  re- 
treated to  Verona,  while  Alvinzi  followed  him. 
Never  was  the  French  position  more  critical,  and 
nothing  but  a  very  bold  move  could  save  them. 
With  reckless  courage  Bonaparte  attacked  Al- 
vinzi at  Areola,  and  after  three  days'  hard  fight- 
ing [November  15-17,  on  the  dykes  and  cause- 
ways of  a  marshy  region]  won  a  complete  vic- 
tory. He  then  forced  Davidowich  to  retreat  to 
the  Tyrol.  The  danger  was  averted,  and  the 
blockade  of  Mantua  was  continued.  But  Austria, 
as  if  its  resources  were  inexhaustible,  determined 
on  a  fourth  effort  in  January,  1797.  Alvinzi  was 
again  entrusted  with  the  command,  while  another 
detachment  under  Provera  advanced  from  Friuli. 
Bonaparte  collected  all  his  forces,  marched 
against  Alvinzi,  and  crushed  him  at  Rivoli  (15 
Jan.).  But  meanwhile  Provera  had  reached 
Mantua,  where  Bonaparte,  by  a  forced  march, 
overtook  him,  and  won  another  complete  victory 
in  the  battle  of  La  Favorita.  The  fate  of  Mantua 
was  at  last  decided,  and  the  city  surrendered  on 
the  2nd  of  February.  With  a  generosity  worthy 
of  the  glory  which  he  had  obtained,  Bonaparte 
allowed  WUrmser  and  the  garrison  to  march  out 
with  the  honours  of  war.  He  now  turned  to 
Romagna,  occupied  Bologna  and  terrified  the 
Pope  into  signing  the  treaty  of  Tolentino.  The 
temporal  power  was  allowed  to  exist,  but  within 
very  curtailed  limits.  Not  only  Avignon,  but 
the  whole  of  Romagna,  with  Ancona,  was  sur- 
rendered to  France.  Even  these  terms,  harsh  as 
they  were,  were  not  so  severe  as  the  Directors 
had  wished.  But  Bonaparte  was  beginning  to 
play  his  own  game ;  he  saw  that  Catholicism  was 
regaining  ground  in  France,  and  he  wished  to 
make  friends  on  what  might  prove  after  all  the 
winning  side.  Affairs  in  Italy  were  now  fairly 
settled:  two  republics,  the  Cisalpine  in  Lom- 
bardy,  and  the  Cispadane,  which  included  Modena, 
Ferrara,  and  Bologna,  had  been  created  to  secure 
P^ench  influence  in  Italy.  .  .  .  The  French  had 
occupied  the  Venetian  territory  from  Bergamo  to 
Verona,  and  had  established  close  relations  with 
those  classes  who  were  dissatisfied  with  their  ex- 
clusion from  political  power.  When  the  republic 
armed  against  the  danger  of  a  revolt,  Bonaparte 
treated  it  as  another  ground  for  that  quarrel 
which  he  artfully  fomented  for  his  own  pur- 
poses. But  at  present  he  had  other  objects  more 
immediately  pressing  than  the  oppression  of 
Venice.  Jourdan's  army  on  the  Rhine  had  been 
entrusted  to  Hoche,  whose  ambition  had  long 
chafed  at  the  want  of  an  opportunity,  and  wlio 
was  burning  to  acquire  glory  by  retrieving  the 
disasters  of  the  last  campaign.  Bonaparte,  on 
the  other  hand,  was  eager  to  anticipate  a  possible 
rival,  and  determined  to  hurry  on  his  own  inva- 
sion of  Austria,  in  order  to  keep  the  war  and  the 


negotiations  in  his  own  hands.  The  task  of 
meeting  him  was  entrusted  to  the  archduke 
Charles,  who  had  won  such  a  brilliant  reputation 
in  1796,  but  who  was  placed  at  a  great  disadvan- 
tage to  his  opponent  by  having  to  obey  instruc- 
tions from  Vienna.  The  French  carried  ail  be- 
fore them,  Joubert  occupied  Tyrol,  Jlassena 
forced  the  route  to  Carinthia,  and  Bonaparte  him- 
self, after  defeating  the  archduke  on  the  TagU- 
amento,  occupied  Trieste  and  Carniola.  The 
French  now  marched  over  the  Alps,  driving 
the  Austrians  before  them.  At  Leoben,  which 
they  reached  on  7th  April,  they  were  less  than 
eighty  miles  from  Vienna.  Here  Austrian  en- 
voys arrived  to  open  negotiations.  They  con- 
sented to  surrender  Belgium,  Lombardy,  and  the 
Rhine  frontier,  but  they  demanded  compensation 
in  Bavaria.  This  demand  Bonaparte  refused,  but 
offered  to  compensate  Austria  at  the  expense  of 
a  neutral  state,  Venice.  The  preliminaries  of 
Leoben,  signed  on  the  18th  April,  gave  to  Austria, 
Istria,  Dalmatia,  and  the  Venetian  provinces  be- 
tween the  Oglio,  the  Po,  and  the  Adriatic.  At 
this  moment,  Hoche  and  Moreau,  after  overcom- 
ing the  obstacles  interposed  by  a  sluggish  gov- 
ernment, were  crossing  the  Rhine  to  bring  their 
armies  to  bear  against  Austria.  They  had  already 
gained  several  successes  when  the  unwelcome 
news  reached  them  from  Leoben,  and  they  had 
to  retreat.  Bonaparte  may  have  failed  to  extort 
the  most  extreme  terms  from  Austria,  but  he  had 
at  any  rate  kept  both  power  and  fame  to  him- 
self."— R.  Lodge,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  ch.  33. 

Also  in:  F.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon  I.,  v. 
1,  ch.  5-7. — -Memoirs  of  Napoleon  dictated  at  St. 
Helena.  i\  4,  ch.  1-i. 

A.  D.  1796-1797  (December  —  January). — 
Heche's  expedition  to  Ireland.  See  Ireland: 
A.  D.  1791-1798. 

A.  D.  1797  (February  —  October). —  British 
naval  victories  of  Cape  St.  Vincent  and  Cam- 
perdown.     See  Engl.vnd:  A.  D.  1797. 

A.  D.  1797  (April— May). — The  overthrow 
of  Venice  by  Bonaparte. — When  Napoleon,  in 
March,  entered  upon  his  campaign  against  the 
Archduke  Charles,  "the  animosity  existing  be- 
tween France  and  Venice  had  .  .  .  attained  a 
height  that  threatened  an  open  rupture  between 
the  two  republics,  and  was,  therefore,  of  some 
advantage  to  Austria.  The  Signoria  saw  plainly 
what  its  fate  would  be  should  the  French  prove 
victorious;  but  though  they  had  12,000  or  15,000 
Slavonian  troops  ready  at  hand,  and  mostly  as- 
sembled in  the  capital,  they  never  ventured  to 
use  them  till  the  moment  for  acting  was  past. 
On  the  Terra  Firma,  the  citizens  of  Brescia  and 
Bergamo  had  openly  renounced  the  authority 
of  St.  Mark,  and  espoused  the  cause  of  France; 
the  country  people,  on  the  otlier  hand,  were  bit- 
terly hostile  to  the  new  Republicans.  Oppressed 
by  requisitions,  plundered  and  insulted  by  the 
troops,  the  peasants  had  slain  straggling  and 
marauding  French  soldiers ;  the  comrades  of  the 
sufferers  had  retaliated,  and  an  open  revolt  was 
more  than  once  expected.  General  Battaglia,  the 
Venetian  providatore,  remonstrated  against  the 
open  violence  practised  on  the  subjects  of  Venice; 
Buonaparte  replied  by  accusing  the  government 
of  partiality  for  Austria,  and  went  so  far  as  to 
employ  General  Andrieux  to  instigate  the  people 
to  rise  against  the  senate.  The  Directory,  how- 
ever, desired  him  to  pause,  and  not  to  'drive 
the  Venetians  to  extremity,  till  the  opportunity 


1350 


FRANCE.  1797. 


Fall  of  Venice. 


FRANCE,  1797. 


ahould  have  arrived  for  carrying  into  eflfect  the 
future  projects  entertained  against  that  state.' 
Both  parties  were  watching  their  time,  but  the 
craven  watches  in  vain,  for  he  is  struck  down 
long  before  his  time  to  strike  arrives. "  A  month 
later,  when  Napoleon  was  believed  to  be  involved 
in  difficulties  in  Carinthia  and  the  Tyrol,  Venice 
"had  thrown  ofE  the  mask  of  neutrality;  the 
tocsin  had  sounded  through  the  communes  of  the 
Terra  Firma,  and  a  body  of  troops  had  joined 
the  insurgents  in  the  attack  on  the  citadel  of 
Verona.  Not  only  were  the  French  assailed 
wherever  they  were  found  in  arms,  but  the  very 
sick  were  inhumanly  slain  in  the  hospitals  by 
the  infuriated  peasantry ;  the  principal  massacre 
took  place  at  Verona  on  Easter  Monday  [April 
17],  and  cast  a  deep  stain  on  tlie  Venetian  cause 
and  character."  But  even  while  these  sinister 
events  were  in  progress,  Bonaparte  had  made 
peace  with  the  humiliated  Austrians,  and  had 
signed  the  preliminary  treaty  of  Leoben,  which 
promised  to  give  Venice  to  them  in  exchange  for 
the  Netherlands.  And  now,  with  all  his  forces 
set  free,  he  was  prepared  to  crush  the  venerable 
Republic,  and  make  it  subservient  to  his  ambi- 
tious schemes.  He  "refused  to  hear  of  any  ac- 
commodation :  and,  unfortunately,  the  base  mas- 
sacre of  Verona  blackened  the  Venetian  cause 
so  much  as  almost  to  gloss  over  the  unprincipled 
violence  of  their  adversaries.  '  If  you  could 
offer  me  the  treasures  of  Peru,'  said  Napoleon  to 
the  terrified  deputies  who  came  to  sue  for  pardon 
and  offer  reparation,  '  if  you  could  cover  your 
whole  dominions  with  gold,  the  atonement  would 
be  insufficient.  French  blood  has  been  treacher- 
ously shed,  and  the  Lion  of  St.  Mark  must  bite 
the  dust. '  On  the  3d  of  May  he  declared  war 
against  the  republic,  and  French  troops  immedi- 
ately advanced  to  the  shores  of  the  lagunes. 
Here,  however,  the  waves  of  the  Adriatic  ar- 
rested their  progress,  for  they  had  not  a  single 
boat  at  command,  whereas  the  Venetians  had  a 
good  fleet  in  the  harbour,  and  an  army  of  10,000 
or  15,000  soldiers  in  the  capital;  they  only  wanted 
the  courage  to  use  them.  Instead  of  fighting, 
however,  they  deliberated ;  and  tried  to  purchase 
safety  by  gold,  instead  of  maintaining  it  by  arms. 
Finding  the  enemy  relentless,  the  Great  Council 
proposed  to  modify  their  government,  —  to  render 
it  more  democratic,  in  order  to  please  the  French 
commander, — -to  lay  tlieir  very  institutions  at 
the  feet  of  the  conqueror;  and,  strange  to  say, 
only  21  patricians  out  of  690  dissented  from  this 
act  of  national  degradation.  The  democratic 
party,  supported  by  the  intrigues  of  Vittelan, 
the  French  secretary  of  legation,  exerted  them- 
selves to  the  utmost.  The  Slavonian  troops  were 
disbanded,  or  embarked  for  Dalmatia;  the  fleet 
was  dismantled,  and  the  Senate  were  rapidly 
divesting  themselves  of  every  privilege,  when,  on 
the  31st  of  May,  a  popular  tumult  broke  out  in 
the  capital.  The  Great  Council  were  in  deliber- 
ation when  shots  were  fired  beneath  the  windows 
of  the  ducal  palace.  The  trembling  senators 
thought  that  the  rising  was  directed  against 
them,  and  that  their  Hves  were  in  danger,  and 
hastened  to  divest  themselves  of  every  remnant 
of  power  and  authority  at  the  very  moment  when 
the  populace  were  taking  arms  in  their  favour. 
'Long  live  St.  Mark,  and  down  with  foreign 
dominion ! '  was  the  cry  of  the  insurgents,  but 
nothing  could  communicate  one  spark  of  gallant 
fire  to  the  Venetian  aristocracy.     In  the  midst  of 


the  general  confusion,  while  the  adverse  parties 
were  firing  on  each  other,  and  the  disbanded  Sla- 
vonians threatening  to  plunder  the  city,  these 
unhappy  legislators  could  only  delegate  their 
power  to  a  hastily  assembled  provisional  govern- 
ment, and  then  separate  in  shame  and  for  ever. 
The  democratic  government  commenced  their 
career  in  a  manner  as  dishonourable  as  that  of 
the  aristocracy  had  been  closed."  They  "imme- 
diately despatched  the  flotilla  to  bring  over  the 
French  troops.  A  brigade  under  Baraguai  d'Hil- 
liers  soon  landed  [May  15]  at  the  place  of  St. 
Mark ;  and  Venice,  which  had  braved  the  thun- 
ders of  the  Vatican,  the  power  of  the  emper- 
ors, and  the  arms  of  the  Othmans,  .  .  .  now 
simk  for  ever,  and  without  striking  one  manly 
blow  or  tiring  one  single  shot  for  honour  and 
fame!  Venice  counted  1300  years  of  indepen- 
dence, centuries  of  power  and  renown,  and  many 
also  of  greatness  and  glory,  but  ended  in  a  man- 
ner more  dishonourable  than  any  state  of  which 
history  makes  mention.  The  French  went 
through  the  form  of  acknowledging  the  new 
democratic  government,  but  retained  the  power 
in  their  own  hands.  Heavy  contributions  were 
levied,  all  the  naval  and  military  stores  were 
taken  possession  of,  and  the  fleet,  having  con- 
veyed French  troops  to  the  Ionian  islands,  was 
sent  to  Toulon." — T.  Mitchell,  Principal  Cam- 
paigns in  the  Rise  of  Napoleon,  ch.  6  {Fraser's 
Magaziiu,  April,  1846). 

Also  kt  ;  E.  Flagg,  Veiiics :  The  City  of  the 
Sea,  pt.  1,  ch.  1-4  («.  1). — Memoirs  of  Napoleon 
dictated  at  St.  Helena,  ®.  4,  ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1797  (May  —  October). —  Napoleon's 
political  work  in  Italy. — Creation  of  the  Ligu- 
rian  and  Cisalpine  Republics.— Dismemberment 
of  the  Graubunden.— The  Peace  of  Campo- 
Formio. — Venice  given  over  to  Austria,  and 
Lombardyand  the  Netherlands  taken  away. — 
"The  revolution  in  Venice  was  soon  followed 
by  another  in  Genoa,  also  organised  by  the 
plots  of  the  French  minister  there,  Faypoult. 
The  Genoese  had  in  general  shown  themselves 
favourable  to  France ;  but  there  existed  among 
the  nobles  an  anti-French  party ;  the  Senate,  like 
that  of  Venice,  was  too  aristocratic  to  suit  Bona- 
parte's or  the  Directory's  notions;  and  it  was 
considered  that  Genoa,  under  a  democratic  con- 
stitution, would  be  more  subservient  to  French 
interests.  An  insurrection,  prepared  by  Fay- 
poult, of  some  700  or  800  of  the  lowest  class  of 
Genoese,  aided  by  Frenchmen  and  Lombards, 
broke  out  on  May  23nd,  but  was  put  down  by 
the  great  mass  of  the  real  Genoese  people. 
Bonaparte,  however,  was  determined  to  effect 
his  object.  He  directed  a  force  of  13,000  men 
on  Genoa,  and  despatched  Lavalette  with  a  letter 
to  the  Doge.  .  .  .  Bonaparte's  threats  were  at- 
tended by  the  same  magical  effects  at  Genoa  as 
had  followed  them  at  Venice.  The  Senate  im- 
mediately despatched  three  nobles  to  treat  with 
him,  and  on  June  6th  was  concluded  the  Treaty 
of  Montebello.  The  Government  of  Genoa  recog- 
nised by  this  treaty  the  sovereignty  of  the  peo- 
ple, confided  the  legislative  power  to  two  Coun- 
cils, one  of  300,  the  other  of  500  members,  the 
executive  power  to  a  Senate  of  twelve,  presided 
over  by  the  Doge.  Meanwhile  a  provisional 
government  was  to  be  established.  By  a  secret 
article  a  contribution  of  four  millions,  disguised 
under  the  name  of  a  loan,  was  imposed  upon 
j   Genoa.     Her  obedience  was  recompensed  with  a 


1351 


FRAlSrCE,  1797. 


Teace  of 
Campo  Formio, 


FRANCE,  1797. 


considerable  augmentation  of  territory,  and  the 
incorporation  of  the  districts  known  as  the  '  im- 
perial fiefs. '  Such  Tvas  the  origin  of  the  Ligurian 
Republic.  Austrian  Lombardy,  after  its  con- 
quest, had  also  been  formed  into  the  '  Lombard 
Republic ' ;  but  the  Directory  had  not  recognised 
it,  awaiting  a  final  settlement  of  Italy  through  a 
peace  with  Austria.  Bonaparte,  after  taking 
possession  of  the  Duchy  of  Modena  and  the 
Legations,  had,  at  first,  thought  of  erecting 
them  into  an  independent  state  under  the  name 
of  the  '  Cispadane  Republic ' ;  but  he  afterwards 
changed  his  mind  and  united  these  states  with 
Lombardy  under  the  title  of  the  Cisalpine  Repub- 
lic. He  declared,  in  the  name  of  the  Directory, 
the  independence  of  this  new  republic,  June 
29th  1797;  reserving,  however,  the  right  of 
nominating,  for  the  first  time,  the  members  of 
the  Government  and  of  the  legislative  body. 
The  districts  of  the  Valteline,  Chiavenna,  and 
Bormio,  subject  to  the  G-rison  League,  in  which 
discontent  and  disturbance  had  been  excited  by 
French  agents,  were  united  in  October  to  the 
new  state ;  whose  constitution  was  modelled  on 
that  of  the  French  Republic.  Bonaparte  was 
commissioned  by  the  Directory  to  negociate  a 
definitive  peace  with  Austria,  and  conferences 
were  opened  for  that  purpose  at  Montebello, 
Bonaparte's  residence  near  Milan.  The  negocia- 
tions  were  chiefly  managed  by  himself,  and  on 
the  part  of  Austria  by  the  Marquis  di  Gallo,  the 
Neapolitan  ambassador  at  Vienna,  and  Count 
Meerfeld.  .  .  .  The  negociations  were  protracted 
six  months,  partly  through  Bonaparte's  engage- 
ments in  arranging  the  affairs  of  the  new  Italian 
republics,  but  more  especially  by  divisions  and 
feuds  in  the  French  Directory."  The  Peace  of 
Campo  Formio  was  concluded  October  17.  "It 
derived  this  name  from  its  having  been  signed 
in  a  ruined  castle  situated  in  a  small  village  of 
that  name  near  Udine;  a  place  selected  on 
grounds  of  etiquette  in  preference  to  the  resi- 
dence of  either  of  the  negociators.  By  this 
treaty  the'  Emperor  ceded  the  Austrian  Nether- 
lands to  France;  abandoned  to  the  Cisalpine 
Republic,  which  he  recognised,  Bergamo,  Bres- 
cia, Crema,  Peschiera,  the  town  and  fortress  of 
Mantua  with  their  territories,  and  all  that  part 
of  the  former  Venetian  possessions  to  the  south 
and  west  of  a  line  which,  commencing  in  the 
Tyrol,  traversed  the  Lago  di  Garda,  the  left  bank 
of  the  Adige,  but  including  Porto  Legnago  on 
the  right  bank,  and  thence  along  the  left  bank  of 
the  Po  to  its  mouth.  France  was  to  possess  the 
Ionian  Islands,  and  all  the  Venetian  settlements 
in  Albania  below  the  Gulf  of  Lodrino;  the 
French  Republic  agreeing  on  its  side  that  the 
Emperor  should  have  Istria,  Dalmatia,  the  Vene- 
tian isles  in  the  Adriatic,  the  mouths  of  the 
Cattaro,  the  city  of  Venice,  the  Lagoons,  and  all 
the  former  Venetian  terra  firma  to  the  line  before 
described.  The  Emperor  ceded  the  Breisgau  to 
the  Duke  of  Modena,  to  be  held  on  the  same  con- 
ditions as  he  had  held  the  Modenese.  A  congress 
composed  of  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  German 
Federation  was  to  assemble  immediately,  to  treat 
of  a  peace  between  France  and  the  Empire.  To 
this  patent  treaty  was  added  another  secret  one, 
by  the  principal  article  of  which  the  Emperor 
consented  that  France  should  have  the  frontier 
of  the  Rhine,  except  the  Prussian  possessions, 
and  stipulated  that  the  Imperial  troops  should 
enter  Venice  on  the  same  day  that  the  French 


entered  Mentz.  He  also  promised  to  use  his  in- 
fluence to  obtain  the  accession  of  the  Empire  to 
this  arrangement ;  and  if  that  body  withheld  its 
consent,  to  give  it  no  more  assistance  than  his  con- 
tingent. The  navigation  of  the  Rhine  to  be  de- 
clared free.  If,  at  the  peace  with  the  Empire, 
the  French  Republic  should  make  any  acquisi- 
tions in  Germany,  the  Emperor  was  to  "obtain  an 
equivalent  there,  and  vice  versa.  The  Dutch 
Stadtholder  to  have  a  territorial  indemnity.  To 
the  King  of  Prussia  were  to  be  restored  his  pos- 
sessions on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine,  and  he 
was  consequently  to  have  no  new  acquisitions  in 
Germany.  Princes  and  States  of  the  Empire, 
damnified  by  this  treaty,  to  obtain  a  suitable  in- 
demnity. .  .  .  By  the  Treaty  of  Campo  Formio 
was  terminated  not  only  the  Italian  campaign, 
but  also  the  first  continental  war  of  the  Revolu- 
tion. The  establishment  of  Bonaparte's  prestige 
and  power  by  the  former  was  a  result  still  more 
momentous  in  its  consequences  for  Europe  than 
the  fall  of  Venice  and  the  revolutionising  of 
Northern  Italy." — T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern 
Europe,  bk.  7,  ch.  8  {v.  4). 

Also  ts:  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev. 
(Am.  ed.),  v.  4,  pp.  214-23.5.— Sir  AV.  Scott,  Life 
of  Napoleon  Buonaparte,  ch.  28, — Memoirs  of  Na- 
poleon dictated  at  St.  Helena,  ch.  6-8. 

A.  D.  1797  (September).  — Conflict  of  the 
Directory  and  the  two  Councils. — The  Revo- 
lutionary Coup  d'Etat  of  the  i8th  of  Fructidor. 
— Suppression  of  the  Royalists  and  Moderates. 
— Practical  overthrow  of  the  Constitution. — 
"The  inevitable  dissension  between  the  execu- 
tive power  and  the  electoral  power  had  already 
displayed  itself  at  the  conclusion  of  the  elections  of 
the  Year  V.  The  elections  were  made  for  the  most 
part  under  the  influence  of  the  reactionary  party, 
which,  whilst  it  refrained  from  conspiring  for  the 
overthrow  of  the  new  Constitution,  saw  with 
terror  that  the  executive  power  was  in  the  hands 
of  men  who  had  taken  part  in  the  excesses  and 
crimes  of  the  Convention.  Pichegru,  whose  in- 
trigues with  the  princes  of  the  House  of  Bour- 
bon were  not  yet  known,  was  enthusiastically 
made  President  of  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred, 
and  Barbe-Marbois  was  made  President  of  the 
Ancients.  Le  Tourneur  having  become,  by  lot, 
the  retiring  member  of  the  Directory,  Barthelemy, 
an  upright  and  moderate  man,  was  chosen  in  his 
place.  He,  as  well  as  his  colleague,  Carnot, 
were  opposed  to  violent  measures ;  but  they  only 
formed  in  the  Directorate  a  minority  which  was 
powerless  against  the  Triumvirs  Barras,  Rewbel, 
and  La  ReveillSre,  who  soon  entered  upon  a 
struggle  with  the  two  Councils.  .  .  .  There  were, 
doubtless,  amongst  [their  opponents]  in  the  two 
Councils,  some  Royalists,  and  ardent  reactionists, 
who  desired  with  all  their  hearts  the  restoration 
of  the  Bourbons ;  but,  according  to  the  very  best 
testimony,  the  majority  of  the  names  which  were 
drawn  from  the  electoral  urn  since  the  promul- 
gation of  the  Constitution  of  the  Year  III.  were 
strangers  to  the  Royalist  party.  '  They  did  not 
desire,'  to  use  the  words  of  an  eminent  and  im- 
partial historian  of  our  own  day  [De  Barante, 
'Life  of  Royer-Collard'],  '  a  counter-revolution, 
but  the  abolition  of  the  revolutionary  laws  which 
were  still  in  force.  They  wished  for  peace  and 
true  liberty,  and  the  successive  purification  of  a 
Directorate  which  was  the  direct  heir  of  the  Con- 
vention. .  .  .  But  the  Directorate  was  as  much 
opposed  to  the  Moderates  as  to  the  Royalists. '    It 


1352 


FRANCE,  1T97. 


The  18th  Fructidor. 


FRANCE,  1797-1798. 


pretended  to  regard  these  two  parties  as  one,  and 
falsely  represented  them  as  conspiring  in  com- 
mon for  the  overthrow  of  the  Repul)lio  and  the 
re-establislimeut  of  monarchy.  .  .  .  If  there  were 
few  Royalists  in  the  two  Councils,  there  were 
also  few  men  determined  to  provoke  on  the  part 
of  the  Directors  a  recourse  to  violence  against 
their  colleagues.  But  as  a  great  number  of  their 
members  had  sat  in  the  Convention,  they  natu- 
rally feared  a  too  complete  reaction,  and,  affect- 
ing a  great  zeal  for  the  Constitution,  they  founded 
at  the  Hotel  Salm,  under  the  name  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Club,  an  a.ssociation  which  was  widely 
opposed  in  its  spirit  and  tendency  to  that  of  the 
Hotel  Clichy,  in  which  were  assembled  the  most 
ardent  members  of  the  reactionary  party  [and 
hence  called  Clichyans],  .  .  .  The  Council  of 
Five  Hundred,  on  the  motion  of  a  member  of  the 
Clichy  Club,  energetically  demanded  that  the 
Legislative  power  should  have  a  share  in  de- 
termining questions  of  peace  or  war.  No  gen- 
eral had  exercised,  in  this  respect,  a  more  arbitrary 
power  than  had  Bonaparte,  who  had  negotiated 
of  his  own  mere  authority  several  treaties,  and 
the  preliminaries  of  the  peace  of  Campo  Formio. 
He  was  offended  at  these  pretensions  on  the  part 
of  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred,  and  entreated 
the  Government  to  look  to  the  army  for  support 
against  the  Councils  and  the  reactionary  press. 
He  even  sent  to  Paris,  as  a  support  to  the  policy 
of  the  Directors,  General  Augereau,  one  of  the 
bravest  men  of  his  army,  but  by  no  means  scru- 
pulous as  to  the  employment  of  violent  means, 
and  disposed  to  regard  the  sword  as  the  supreme 
argument  in  politics,  whether  at  home  or  abroad. 
The  Directory  gave  him  the  command  of  the 
military  division  of  Paris.  .  .  .  Henceforth  a  coup 
d'etat  appeared  inevitable.  The  Directors  now 
marched  some  regiments  upon  the  capital,  in  de- 
fiance of  a  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  pro- 
hibited the  presence  of  troops  within  a  distance  of 
twelve  leagues  of  Paris,  unless  in  accordance  with 
a  special  law  passed  in  or  near  Paris  itself.  The 
Councils  burst  forth  into  reproaches  and  threats 
against  the  Directors,  to  which  the  latter  replied 
by  fiery  addresses  to  the  armies,  and  to  the  Cgun- 
cils  themselves.  It  was  in  vain  that  the  Direc- 
tors Camot  and  Barthelemy  endeavoured  to  quell 
the  rising  storm ;  their  three  colleagues  refused 
to  listen  to  them,  and  fixed  the  18th  Fructidor 
[September  4]  for  the  execution  of  their  criminal 
projects.  During  the  night  preceding  that  day, 
Augereau  marched  12,000  men  into  Paris,  and  in 
the  morning  these  troops,  under  his  own  com- 
mand, supported  by  40  pieces  of  cannon,  sur- 
rounded the  Tuileries,  in  which  the  Councils  held 
their  sittings.  The  grenadiers  of  the  Councils' 
guard  joined  Augereau,  who  arrested  with  his 
own  hand  the  brave  Ramel,  who  commanded  that 
guard,  and  General  Piehegru,  the  President  of 
the  Council  of  Five  Hundred.  .  .  .  The  Direc- 
tors .  .  .  published  a  letter  written  by  Moreau, 
which  revealed  Pichegru's  treason;  and  at  the 
same  time  nominated  a  Committee  for  the  ijur- 
pose  of  watching  over  the  public  safety.  .  .  . 
Forty-two  members  of  the  Council  of  Five 
Hundred,  eleven  members  of  that  of  the  An- 
cients, and  two  of  the  Directors,  Carnot  [who 
escaped,  however,  into  Switzerland]  and  Bar- 
thelemy, were  condemned  to  be  transported  to 
the  fatal  district  of  Sinnamari.  .  .  .  The  Directors 
also  made  the  editors  of  35  journals  the  victims 
of  their  resentment.     They  had  the  laws  passed 


in  favour  of  the  priests  and  emigrants  reversed, 
and  annulled  the  elections  of  48  departments. 
Merlin  de  Douai  and  Francois  de  Neufchateau 
were  chosen  as  successors  to  Carnot  and  Bar- 
thelemy, who  had  been  banished  and  proscribed 
by  their  colleagues.  That  which  took  place  on 
the  18th  Fructidor  ruined  the  Constitutional  and 
Moderate  party,  whilst  it  resuscitated  that  of  the 
Revolution."— E.  do  Bonnechose,  Hist,  of  France, 
Ath  period,  hk.  2,  cli.  4  (v.  2). — "During  these  two. 
days,  Paris  continued  perfectly  quiet.  The 
patriots  of  the  fauxbourgs  deemed  the  punish- 
ment of  transportation  too  mild.  .  .  .  These 
groups,  however,  which  were  far  from  numerous, 
disturbed  not  in  the  least  the  peace  of  Paris. 
The  sectionaries  of  Vendemiaire  .  .  .  had  no 
longer  suflicient  energy  to  take  up  arms  spon- 
taneously. They  suffered  the  stroke  of  policy 
to  be  carried  into  effect  without  opposition.  For 
the  rest,  public  opinion  continued  uncertain.  The 
sincere  republicans  clearly  perceived  that  the 
royalist  faction  had  rendered  an  energetic  meas- 
ure inevitable,  but  they  deplored  the  violation 
of  the  laws  and  the  intervention  of  the  military 
power.  They  almost  doubted  the  culpability  of 
the  conspirators  on  seeing  such  a  man  as  Carnot 
mingled  in  their  ranks.  They  apprehended  that 
hatred  had  too  strongly  influenced  the  determina- 
tions of  the  Directory.  Lastly,  even,  though 
considering  its  determinations  as  necessary,  they 
were  sad,  and  not  without  reason ;  for  it  became 
evident  that  that  constitution,  on  which  they  had 
placed  all  their  hope,  was  not  the  termination  of 
our  troubles  and  our  discord.  The  mass  of  the 
population  submitted  and  detached  itself  much 
on  that  day  from  political  events.  .  .  .  From 
that  day,  political  zeal  began  to  cool.  Such 
were  the  consequences  of  the  stroke  of  policy  ac- 
complished on  the  18th  of  Fructidor.  It  has 
been  asserted  that  it  had  become  useless  at  the 
moment  when  it  was  executed ;  that  the  Direc- 
tory, in  frightening  the  royalist  faction,  had 
already  succeeded  in  overawing  it ;  that,  by  per- 
sisting in  this  stretch  of  power,  it  paved  the  way 
to  military  usurpation.  .  .  .  But  .  .  .  the  royal- 
ist faction.  .  .  .  on  the  junction  of  the  new  tliird 
.  .  .  would  infallibly  have  overturned  every- 
thing, and  mastered  the  Directory.  Civil  war 
would  then  have  ensued  between  it  and  the 
armies.  The  Directory,  in  foreseeing  this  move- 
ment and  timely  repressing  it,  prevented  a  civil 
war ;  and,  if  it  placed  itself  under  the  protection 
of  the  military,  it  submitted  to  a  melancholy  but 
inevitable  necessity." — A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the 
French  Rev.  (Am.  ed.),  i\  4,  pp.  20.5-206. 

A.  D.  1797-1798  (December — May). — Revo- 
lutionary intrigues  in  Rome. — French  troops 
in  possession  of  the  city. — Formation  of  the 
Roman  Republic. — Removal  of  the  Pope. — "At 
Rome  a  permanent  conspiracy  was  established  at 
the  French  Embassy,  where  Joseph  Bonaparte,  as 
the  ambassador  of  the  Republic,  was  the  centre  of 
a  knot  of  conspirators.  On  the  28th  of  December, 
1797,  came  the  first  open  attempt  at  insurrection. 
General  Duphot,  a  hot-headed  young  man,  one 
of  the  military  attaches  of  the  French  Embassy, 
put  himself  at  the  head  of  a  handful  of  the  dis- 
affected, and  led  them  to  the  attack  of  one  of  the 
posts  of  the  pontifical  troops.  In  the  ensuing 
skirmish  a  chance  shot  struck  down  the  French 
general,  and  the  rabble  which  followed  him  dis- 
persed in  all  directions.  It  was  just  the  oppor- 
tunity for  which  the  Directory  had  been  waiting 


1353 


FRANCE,  1797-1798. 


Bonaparte^s 
Expedition  to  Egypt. 


FRANCE,  1798. 


in  order  to  break  the  treaty  of  Tolentino  ami 
seize  upon  Rome.  Joseph  Bonaparte  left  the 
city  the  morning-  after  the  fimeute,  and  a  column 
of  troops  was  immediately  detached  from  his 
brother's  army  in  the  north  of  Italy  and  ordered 
to  march  on  Rome.  It  consisted  of  General  Ber- 
thier's  division  and  6,000  Poles  under  Dombrow- 
ski,  and  it  received  the  ominous  title  of  I'armee 
vengeresse  —  the  avenging  army.  As  they  ad- 
vanced through  the  Papal  territory  they  met 
■nrith  no  sympathy,  no  assistance,  from  the  in- 
habitants, who  looked  upon  them  as  invaders 
rather  than  deliverers.  '  The  army, '  Berthier 
wrote  to  Bonaparte,  '  has  met  with  nothing  but 
the  most  profound  consternation  in  this  country, 
without  seeing  one  glimpse  of  the  spirit  of  inde- 
pendence; only  one  single  patriot  came  to  me, 
and  offered  to  set  at  liberty  3,000  convicts.'  This 
liberal  offer  of  a  re-inforcement  of  3,000  scoun- 
drels the  French  general  thought  it  better  to  de- 
cline. ...  At  length,  on  the  10th  of  February, 
Berthier  appeared  before  Rome.  .  .  .  Wishing 
to  avoid  a  useless  effusion  of  blood,  Pius  VI. 
ordered  the  gates  to  be  thrown  open,  contenting 
himself  with  addressing,  through  the  comman- 
dant of  St.  Angelo,  a  protest  to  the  French  gen- 
eral, in  which  he  declared  that  he  yielded  only  to 
overwhelming  force.  A  few  days  after,  a  self- 
elected  deputation  of  Romans  waited  upon  Ber- 
thier, to  request  him  to  proclaim  Rome  a  repub- 
lic, under  tlie  protection  of  France.  As  Berthier 
had  been  one  of  the  most  active  agents  in  getting 
up  this  deputation,  he,  of  course,  immediately 
yielded  to  their  request.  The  French  general 
then  demanded  of  the  Pope  that  he  should  for- 
mall}'  resign  his  temporal  power,  and  accept  the 
new  order  of  things.  His  reply  was  the  same  as 
that  of  every  Pope  of  whom  such  a  demand  has 
been  made:  'AVe  cannot  —  we  will  not!'  In  the 
midst  of  a  violent  thunder-storm  he  was  torn 
from  his  palace,  forced  into  a  carriage,  and  carried 
away  to  Viterbo,  and  thence  to  Siena,  where  he 
was  kept  a  prisoner  for  three  months.  Rome 
was  ruled  by  the  iron  hand  of  a  military  governor. 
.  .  .  Sleanwhile,  alarmed  at  the  rising  in  Italy, 
the  Directory  were  conveying  the  Pope  to  a 
French  prison.  .  .  .  After  a  short  stay  at  Gre- 
noble he  was  transferred  to  the  fortress  of  Valence, 
where,  broken  down  by  the  fatigues  of  his  jour- 
ney, he  died  on  August  19th,  1799,  praying  for 
his  enemies  with  his  last  breath." — Chevalier 
O'Clery,  Hist,  of  the  Italian  Sevolution,  ch.  3, 
met.  1. 

Also  in  :  C.  A.  Fyffe,  Biit.  of  Modern  Eu- 
rope, V.  1,  ch.  4. — J.  Miley,  Hist,  of  the  Papal 
States,  bk.  8,  ch.  3  (».  3).— j.  E.  Darras,  Hist,  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  8th  period,  ch.  6  {ii  4). — T. 
Roscoe,  Memoirs  of  Scipio  cU  Ricci,  v.  3,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1797-1798  (December — September). — 
Invasion  and  subjugation  of  Switzerland. — 
Creation  of  the  Helvetic  Republic.  See  Switz- 
erland: A.  D.  1793-1798. 

A.  D.  1797-1799. — Hostile  attitude  toward 
the  United  States. — The  X,  Y,  Z  correspon- 
dence.— Nearness  of  war.  See  ITnited  States 
OP  Am.  :  A.  D.  1797-1799. 

A.  D.  1798  (May— August).  — Bonaparte's 
expedition  to  Egypt. — His  seizure  of  Malta. 
— Pursuit  by  the  English  fleet  under  Nelson. 
—The  Battle  of  the  Nile.— "The  treaty  of 
Campo  Formio,  bj'  which  Austria  obtained  terms 
highly  advantageous  to  her  interests,  dissolved 
the  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  of  the  con- 


tinental powers,  and  left  England  alone  in  arms. 
The  humiliation  of  this  country  was  to  be  the 
last  and  the  greatest  achievement  of  French  am- 
bition. .  .  .  During  the  autumn  and  winter  of 
this  j'ear  [1797-8],  preparations  for  a  great  arma- 
ment were  proceeding  at  Toulon,  and  other  har- 
bours in  possession  of  the  French.  The  army  of 
Italy,  [clamorous  for  a  promised  donation  of 
1,000,000,000  francs,  which  the  Directory  were 
unable  to  pay,  had  been  flattered  by  the  title  of 
the  army  of  England,  and  appeased  by  the  pros- 
pect of  the  plunder  of  this  country.  But  what- 
ever might  be  the  view  of  the  Directory,  or  the 
expectation  of  the  army,  Bonaparte  had  no  in- 
tention of  undertaking  an  enterprise  so  rash  as  a 
descent  upon  the  coast  of  England,  while  the 
fleets  of  England  kept  possession  of  the  seas. 
There  was  another  quarter  from  which  the  Brit- 
ish Empire  might  be  menaced  with  a  better 
chance  of  success.  India  could  never  be  secure 
while  Egypt  and  the  great  eastern  port  of  the 
Mediterranean  were  in  the  possession  of  one  of 
the  great  maritime  powers.  Egypt  had  been  an 
object  of  French  ambition  since  the  time  of  Louis 
XIV.  ...  It  was  for  Egypt,  therefore,  that  the 
great  armament  of  Toulon  was  destined.  The 
project  was  not  indeed  considered  a  very  hope- 
ful one  at  Paris;  but  such  was  the  dread  and 
hatred  of  the  ruling  faction  for  the  great  military 
genius  which  had  sprung  out  of  the  anarchy  of 
France,  and  of  the  30,000  creditors  whom  they 
were  unable  to  satisfy,  that  the  issue  of  the  ex- 
pedition which  they  most  desired  was,  that  it 
might  never  return  from  the  banks  of  the  Nile. 
.  .  .  The  fleet,  consisting  of  thirteen  ships  of  the 
line,  with  several  frigates,  smaller  vessels,  and 
transports  conveying  28,000  picked  troops,  with 
the  fuU  equipment  for  every  kind  of  military 
service,  set  sail  on  the  14th  of  May.  Attached 
to  this  singular  expedition,  destined  for  the  in- 
vasion of  a  friendly  country,  and  the  destruction 
of  an  unolfending  people,  was  a  staff  of  pro- 
fessors, furnished  with  books,  maps,  and  philo- 
sophical instruments  for  prosecuting  scientific 
researches  in  a  land  which,  to  a  Christian  and  a 
philosopher,  was  the  most  interesting  portion  of 
the  globe.  The  great  armament  commenced  its 
career  of  rapine  by  seizing  on  the  important 
island  of  Malta.  Under  the  shallow  pretence  of 
taking  in  water  for  a  squadron  which  had  left 
its  anchorage  only  two  days,  a  portion  of  the 
troops  were  landed,  and,  after  a  show  of  resis- 
tance, the  degenerate  knights,  who  had  already 
been  corrupted,  surrendered  Malta,  Gozo,  and  Cu- 
mino,  to  the  French  Republic.  A  great  amount 
of  treasure  and  of  munitions  of  war,  besides  the 
possession  of  the  strongest  place  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean, were  thus  acquired  without  loss  or  delay. 
A  conquest  of  such  importance  would  have 
amply  repaid  and  justified  the  expedition,  if  no 
ulterior  object  had  been  pursued.  But  Bona- 
parte suffered  himself  to  be  detained  no  more 
than  twenty-four  hours  by  this  achievement ;  and 
having  left  a  garrison  of  4,000  men  in  the  island, 
and  established  a  form  of  civil  government,  after 
the  French  pattern,  he  shaped  his  course  direct 
for  Alexandria.  On  the  1st  of  July,  the  first 
division  of  the  French  troops  were  landed  at 
Marabou,  a  few  miles  from  tlie  city.  Aboukir 
and  Rosetta,  which  commanded  the  mouths  of  the 
Nile,  were  occupied  without  difficulty.  Alex- 
andria itself  was  incapable  of  any  effectual  de- 
fence, and,  after  a  few  skirmishes  with  the  hand- 


1354 


FRANCE,  17 


The  Battle  of 
the  Nile. 


FRANCE,  1798-1799. 


fulof  Janissaries  -which  constituted  the  garrison, 
the  French  entered  the  place;  and  for  several 
hours  the  inhabitants  were  given  up  to  an  indis- 
criminate massacre.  Bonaparte  pushed  forward 
with  his  usual  rapidity,  undeterred  by  the  horrors 
of  the  sandy  desert,  and  the  sufferings  of  his 
troops.  After  two  victories  over  the  Mamelukes, 
one  of  which  was  obtained  within  sight  of  the 
Pyramids  [and  called  the  Battle  of  the  Pyra- 
mids], the  French  advanced  to  Cairo;  and  such 
was  tlie  terror  which  they  had  inspired,  that  the 
capital  of  Egypt  was  surrendered  without  a  blow. 
Thus  in  three  weeks  the  country  had  been  over- 
run. The  invaders  had  nothing  to  fear  from  the 
hostility  of  the  people;  a  rich  and  fertile  country, 
the  frontier  of  Asia,  was  in  their  possession ;  but, 
in  order  to  held  the  possession  secure,  it  was  nec- 
essary to  retain  the  command  of  the  sea.  The 
English  Government,  on  their  side,  considered 
the  capture  of  the  Toulon  armament  an  object  of 
paramount  importance;  and  Earl  St.  Vincent, 
who  was  still  blockading  the  Spanish  ports,  was 
ordered  to  leave  Cadiz,  if  necessary,  with  his 
whole  fleet,  in  search  of  the  French ;  but  at  all 
events,  to  detach  a  squadron,  under  Sir  Horatio 
Nelson,  on  that  service.  .  .  .  Nelson  left  Gib- 
raltar on  the  8th  of  May,  with  three  ships  of  the 
line,  four  frigates,  and  a  sloop.  .  .  .  He  was  re- 
inforced, on  the  5th  of  June,  with  ten  sail  of  the 
line.  His  frigates  had  parted  company  with  him 
on  the  20th  of  May,  and  never  returned."  Sus- 
pecting that  Egypt  was  Bonaparte's  destination, 
he  made  sail  for  Alexandria,  but  passed  the 
French  expedition,  at  night,  on  the  way,  arrived 
in  advance  of  it,  and,  thinking  his  surmise  mis- 
taken, steered  away  for  the  Morea  and  thence  to 
Naples.  It  was  not  until  the  1st  of  August  that 
he  reached  the  Egyptian  coast  a  second  time, 
and  found  the  French  fleet,  of  sixteen  sail,  "at 
anchor  in  line  of  battle,  in  the  Bay  of  Aboukir. 
Nelson,  having  determined  to  fight  whenever  he 
came  up  with  the  enemy,  whether  by  day  or  by 
night,  immediately  made  the  signal  for  action. 
Although  the  French  fleet  lay  in  an  open  road- 
stead, they  had  taken  up  a  position  so  strong  as 
to  justify  their  belief  that  they  could  not  be  suc- 
cessfully attacked  by  a  force  less  than  double 
their  own.  They  lay  close  in  shore,  with  a  large 
shoal  in  their  rear ;  in  the  advance  of  their  line 
was  an  island,  on  which  a  formidable  battery 
had  been  erected ;  and  their  flanks  were  covered 
by  numerous  gun-boats.  .  .  .  The  general  action 
commenced  at  sunset,  and  continued  throughout 
the  night  until  sis  o'clock  the  following  morning, 
a  period  of  nearly  twelve  hours.  But  in  less 
than  two  hours,  five  of  the  enemy's  ships  had 
struck ;  and,  soon  after  nine  o'clock,  the  sea  and 
shore,  for  miles  around,  were  illuminated  by  a 
fire  which  burst  from  the  decks  of  the  '  Orient, ' 
the  French  flag-ship,  of  130  guns.  In  about 
half  an  hour  she  blew  up,  with  an  explosion  so 
appalling  that  for  seme  minutes  the  action  was 
suspended,  as  if  by  tacit  consent.  At  this  time 
the  French  Admiral  Brueys  was  dead,  .  .  .  killed 
by  a  chain-shot  before  the  ship  took  fire.  Nelson 
also  had  been  carried  below,  with  a  wound  which 
was,  at  first,  supposed  to  be  mortal.  He  had 
been  struck  in  the  head  with  a  fragment  of  lan- 
gridge  shot,  which  tore  away  a  part  of  the  scalp. 
...  At  three  o'clock  in  the  morning  four  more 
of  the  French  ships  were  destroyed  or  taken. 
There  was  then  an  interval  of  two  hours,  during 
which  hardly  a  shot  was  flred  on  either  side.    At 


ten  minutes  to  seven  another  ship  of  the  linfc. 
after  a  feeble  attempt  at  resistance,  hauled  down 
her  colours.  The  action  was  now  over.  Of  the 
thirteen  French  ships  of  the  line,  nine  had  been 
taken,  and  two  had  been  burnt."  Two  ships  of 
the  line  and  two  frigates  escaped.  "The  British 
killed  and  wounded  were  895.  The  loss  of  the 
French,  including  prisoners,  was  5,225.  Such 
was  the  great  battle  of  the  Nile." — W.  Massey, 
Hist,  of  Eng.  during  the  Beign  of  Oeorge  III.,  ch. 
39  (p.  4). 

Also  in:  E.  J.  De  La  Gravifire,  Sketches  of  the 
Last  Naval  War,  v.  1,  pt.  3. — R.  Southey,  Life 
of  Nelson,  ch.  5. — Despatches  and  Letters  of  Lord 
Nelson,  v.  3. — Bonaparte,  Memoirs  Dictated  at  St. 
Helena,  v.  2. — A.  T.  Mahan,  Influence  of  Sea 
Power  upon  tlie  French  Eevolution  and  Empire, 
ch.  9  (b.  1). 

A.  D.  1798-1799  (August — April). —  Arming 
against  the  Second  European  Coalition. — The 
conscription. —  Overthrow  of  the  Neapolitan 
kingdom. — Seizure  of  Piedmont. — Campaigns 
in  Switzerland,  Italy,  and  on  the  upper  Dan- 
ube.—  Early  successes  and  final  reverses. — 
"The  Porte  declared  war  against  the  French,  and 
entered  into  an  alliance  with  Russia  and  England 
(12th  August).  A  Russian  fleet  sailed  from  Se- 
bastopol,  and  blockaded  the  Ionian  Islands;  the 
English  vessels  found  every  Turkish  port  open  to 
them,  and  gained  possession  of  the  Levant  trade, 
to  the  detriment  of  France.  Thus  the  failure  of 
the  Egyptian  expedition  delivered  the  Ottoman 
Empire  into  the  hands  of  two  Powers,  the  one  in- 
tent upon  its  dismemberment,  the  other  eager  to 
make  itself  master  of  its  commerce ;  it  gave  Eng- 
land the  supremacy  in  the  Mediterranean ;  it  in- 
augurated the  appearance  of  Russia  in  southern 
Europe ;  it  was  the  signal  for  a  second  coalition. " 
Russia,  ' '  under  Catherine,  had  but  taken  a  nom- 
inal part  in  the  first  coalition,  being  too  much 
occupied  with  the  annihilation  of  Poland.  .  .  . 
But  now  Catherine  was  dead,  Paul  I.,  her  son 
and  successor,  took  the  emigres  in  his  pay,  of- 
fered the  Pretender  an  asylum  at  Mittau,  prom- 
ised his  protection  to  the  Congress  at  Rastadt, 
and  fitted  out  100, 000  troops.  Naples  had  been  in  a 
great  ferment  since  the  creation  of  the  Roman  Re- 
public. The  nobles  and  middle  classes,  imbued 
with  French  ideas,  detested  a  Court  sold  to  the 
English,  and  presided  over  by  the  imbecile  Fer- 
dinand, who  left  the  cares  of  his  government  to 
his  dissolute  Queen.  She  hated  the  Fi-ench,  and 
now  solicited  Tuscany  and  Piedmont  to  unite  with 
her  to  deliver  Italy  from  the  sway  of  these  Re- 
publicans. The  Austrian  Court,  of  which  Bona- 
parte had  been  the  conscious  or  unconscious  dupe, 
instead  of  disarming  after  the  Treaty  of  Campo- 
Formio,  continued  its  armaments  with  redoubled 
vigour,  and  now  demanded  indemnities,  on  the 
pretext  that  it  had  suffered  from  the  Republican 
system  which  the  French  introduced  into  Switzer- 
land and  Italy.  The  Directory  very  naturally  re- 
fused to  accede  to  this;  and  thereupon  Austria 
prepared  for  war,  and  endeavoured  to  drag  Prus- 
sia and  the  German  Empire  into  it.  .  .  .  But 
Frederick  William's  successor  and  the  princess  of 
the  empire  declined  to  recommence  hostilities 
with  France,  of  which  they  had  reason  to  fear  the 
enmity,  though  at  present  she  was  scarcely  able 
to  resist  a  second  coalition.  The  French  nation, 
in  fact,  was  sincerely  eager  for  peace.  .  .  . 
Nevertheless,  and  though  there  was  little  unity 
amongst  them,  the  Councils  and  the  Directory 


1355 


FRANCE.  1798-1799. 


Fighting  the 
Coalition. 


FRANCE,  1798-1799. 


prepared  their  measures  of  defence;  they  in- 
creased tlie  revenue,  by  creating  a  tax  on  doors 
and  windows ;  they  authorised  the  sale  of  national 
property  to  the  amount  of  125,000,000  francs ;  and 
finally,  on  the  report  of  Jourdan,  they  passed  the 
famous  law  of  conscription  (5th  September), 
which  compelled  every  Frenchman  to  serve  in  the 
army  from  the  age  of  20  to  that  of  25,  the  first 
Immediate  levy  to  consist  of  300, 000  troops.  When 
the  victory  of  the  Nile  became  known  at  Naples 
the  court  was  a  prey  to  frenzied  excitement. 
Taxes  had  already  been  doubled,  a  fifth  of  the 
population  called  to  arms,  the  nobles  and  middle 
classes  were  tortured  into  submission.  And  when 
the  report  spread  that  the  Russians  were  march- 
ing through  Poland,  it  was  resolved  to  commence 
hostilities  by  attacking  the  Roman  Republic,  and 
to  rouse  Piedmont  and  Tuscany  to  rebellion. 
Forty  thousand  Neapolitans,  scarcely  provided 
with  arms,  headed  by  the  Austrian  general  Mack, 
made  their  way  into  the  Roman  states,  guarded 
only  by  18,000  French  troops,  dispersed  between 
the  two  seas  (12th  November).  Championnet, 
their  commander,  abandoned  Rome,  took  up  a 
position  on  the  Tiber,  near  Civita-Castellana,  and 
concentrated  all  his  forces  on  that  point.  The 
King  of  Naples  entered  Rome,  while  Mack  went 
to  encounter  Championnet.  The  latter  beat  him, 
routed  or  captured  the  best  of  his  troops,  and 
compelled  him  to  retire  in  disorder  to  the  Neapoli- 
tan territory.  Championnet,  now  at  the  head  of 
25,000  men,  returned  to  Rome,  previous  to  march- 
ing on  Naples,  where  the  greatest  disorder  pre- 
vailed. At  the  news  of  his  approach  the  Court 
armed  the  lazzaroni,  and  fled  with  its  treasures  to 
the  English  fleet,  abandoning  the  town  to  pillage 
and  anarchy  (20th  Dec,  1798).  Mack,  seeing  his 
army  deserting  him,  and  his  officers  making  com- 
mon cause  with  the  Republicans,  concluded  an 
armistice  with  Championnet,  but  his  soldiers  re- 
volted and  compelled  him  to  seek  safety  in  the 
French  camp.  On  Championnet's  appearance  be- 
fore Naples,  which  the  lazzaroni  defended  with 
fur}',  a  violent  battle  ensued,  lasting  for  three 
days ;  however,  some  of  the  citizens  delivered  the 
fort  of  St.  Elmo  to  the  French,  and  then  the  mob 
laid  down  its  arms  (23rd  January,  1799).  The 
Parthenopeian  Republic  [so  called  from  one  of 
the  ancient  names  of  the  city  of  Naples]  was  im- 
mediately proclaimed,  a  provisional  government 
organised,  the  citizens  formed  themselves  into  a 
National  Guard,  and  the  kingdom  accepted  the 
Revolution.  The  demand  of  Championnet  for  a 
war  contribution  of  27,000,000  francs  roused  the 
Calabrians  to  revolt;  anarchy  prevailed  every- 
where ;  commissioners  were  sent  by  the  Directory 
to  re-establish  order.  The  French  general  had 
them  arrested,  but  he  was  deposed  and  succeeded 
by  Macdonald.  In  commencing  its  aggression 
the  court  of  Naples  had  counted  on  the  aid  of  the 
King  of  Sardinia  and  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tus- 
cany. But  Piedmont,  placed  between  three  re- 
publics, was  herself  sharing  the  Revolutionary 
ferment;  the  King,  who  had  concluded  an  alli- 
ance with  Austria,  proscribed  the  democrats,  who, 
in  their  turn,  declared  war  against  him  by  means 
of  the  Ligurian  Republic,  whither  they  had  fled. 
"When  Championnet  was  compelled  to  evacuate 
Rome,  the  Directory,  afraid  that  Sardinia  would 
harass  the  French  rear,  had  ordered  Joubert,  com- 
manding the  army  of  Italy,  to  occupy  Piedmont. 
The  Piedmontese  troops  opened  every  place  to 
the  French,  entered  into  their  ranks,  and  the  King 


[December  8,  1798]  was  forced  to  give  up  all 
claims  to  Piedmont,  and  to  take  refuge  in  Sar- 
dinia .  .  .  [retaining  the  latter,  but  abdicating 
the  sovereignty  of  Piedmont].  Tuscany  being 
also  occupied  by  the  Republican  troops,  the  mo- 
ment war  was  declared  against  Austria,  Italy  was 
virtually  under  French  dominion.  These  events 
but  increased  the  enmity  of  the  Coalition,  which 
hurried  its  preparations,  while  the  Directory, 
cheered  by  its  successes,  resolved  to  take  the 
offensive  on  all  points.  ...  In  the  present  strug- 
gle, however,  the  conditions  of  warfare  were 
changed.  The  lines  of  invasion  were  no  longer, 
as  formerly,  short  and  isolated,  but  stretched  from 
the  Zuyder  Zee  to  the  Gulf  of  Tarentum,  open 
to  be  attacked  in  Holland  from  the  rear,  and  at 
Naples  by  the  English  fleet.  .  .  .  Seventy  thou- 
sand troops,  under  the  Archduke  Charles,  occu- 
pied Bavaria ;  General  Hotze  occupied  the  Vor- 
arlberg  with  25,000  men;  Bellegarde  was  with 
45,000  in  the  Tyrol;  and  70,000  guarded  the  line 
of  the  Adige,  headed  by  Marshal  Kray.  Eighty 
thousand  Russians,  in  two  equal  divisions,  were 
on  their  way  to  join  the  Austrians.  The  division 
under  Suwarroff  was  to  operate  with  Kray,  that 
one  under  Korsakoff  with  the  Archduke.  Finally, 
40,000  English  and  Russians  were  to  land  in  Hol- 
land, and  20,000  English  and  Sicilians  in  Naples. 
The  Directory,  instead  of  concentrating  its  forces 
on  the  Adige  and  near  the  sources  of  the  Danube, 
divided  them.  Fifteen  thousand  troops  were 
posted  in  Holland,  under  Brune ;  8,000  at  Mayenee, 
under  Bernadotte;  40,000  from  Strasburg  to 
Bale,  under  Jourdan ;  30,000  in  Switzerland,  under 
Massena;  50,000  on  the  Adige,  under  Scherer; 
30,000  at  Naples,  under  Macdonald.  These  va- 
rious divisions  were  in  reality  meant  to  form  but 
one  army,  of  which  Massena  was  the  centre,  Jour- 
dan and  Scherer  the  wings,  Brune  and  Macdonald 
the  extremities.  To  Massena  was  confided  the 
principal  operation,  namely,  to  possess  himself  of 
the  central  Alps,  in  order  to  isolate  the  two  im- 
perial armies  of  the  Adige  and  Danube  and  to 
neutralise  their  efforts.  The  Coalition  having 
hit  upon  the  same  plan  as  the  Directory,  ordered 
the  Austrians  under  Bellegarde  to  invade  the 
Orisons,  while  on  the  other  side  a  division  was  to 
descend  into  the  Valteline. "  Massena's  right  wing, 
under  Lecourbe,  defeated  Bellegarde,  crossed 
the  upper  Rhine  and  made  its  way  to  the  Inn. 
Scherer  also  advanced  by  the  Valteline  to  the  up- 
per Adige  and  joined  operations  with  Lecourbe. 
' '  While  these  two  generals  were  spreading  terror 
in  the  Tyrol,  Massena  made  himself  master  of  the 
Rhine  from  its  sources  to  the  lake  of  Constance, 
receiving  but  one  check  in  the  fruitless  siege  of 
Feldkirch,  a  position  he  coveted  in  order  to  be  able 
to  support  with  his  right  wing  the  army  of  the 
Danube,  or  with  his  left  that  of  Italy.  This  check 
compelled  Lecourbe  and  Dessoles  to  slacken  their 
progress,  and  the  various  events  on  the  Danube 
and  the  Po  necessitated  their  recall  in  a  short 
time.  Jourdan  had  crossed'  the  Rhine  at  Kehl, 
Bale,  and  SchaShausen  (1st  March),  penetrated 
into  the  defile  of  the  upper  Danube,  and  reached 
the  village  of  Ostrach,  where  he  was  confronted 
by  the  Archduke  Charles,  who  had  passed  the 
Iller,  and  who,  after  a  sanguinary  battle  [JIarch 
21],  compelled  him  to  retreat  upon  Tutlingen. 
The  tidings  of  Massena's  success  having  reached 
Jourdan,  he  wished  to  support  it  by  marching  to 
Stockach,  the  key  to  the  roads  of  Switzerland  and 
Germany ;  but  he  was  once  more  defeated  (35th 


1356 


FRANCE,  1798-1799. 


Bonaparte  in 
Egypt  and  Syria. 


FRANCE,  1798-1799. 


March),  and  retreated,  not  into  Switzerland, 
whence  he  could  have  joined  Massfena,  but  to  the 
Rhine,  which  he  imagined  to  be  threatened.  .  .  . 
In  Italy  the  Directory  had  given  orders  to  Scherer 
to  force  the  Adige,  and  to  drive  the  Austrians 
over  the  Piave  and  the  Brenta. "  He  attacked  and 
carried  the  Austrian  camp  of  Pastrengo,  near 
Rivoli,  on  the  35th  of  March,  1799,  inflicting,  a 
loss  of  8,000  on  the  enemy;  but  on  the  5th  of 
April,  when  moving  to  force  the  lower  Adige, 
he  was  defeated  by  Kray  at  Magnano.  "  Scherer 
lost  his  head,  fled  precipitately,  and  did  not  stop 
until  he  had  put  a  safe  distance  between  himself 
and  the  enemy.  .  .  .  The  army  of  Switzerland, 
under  Massena,  dispersed  in  the  mountains,  with 
both  its  flanks  threatened,  had  no  other  means  of 
salvation  than  to  fall  back  behind  the  Rhine. " — 
H.  Van  Laun,  The  French  Revolutionary  Epoch, 
bk.  3,  ch.  1,  sect.  3  (».  1). 

Also  in;  R.  Southey,  Life  of  Nelson,  ch.  6  («.  3). 
— A.  Griffiths,  French  Revolutionary  Oenerals,  ch. 
18. — A.  Gallenga,  Hist,  of  Piedmont,  ».  3,  ch.  5. 
— P.  Colletta,  Hist,  of  the  Kingdom  of  Naples,  bk. 
3,  ch.  2;bk.  4,  ch.  1  {v.  1). 

A.  D.  1798-1799  (August — August). — Bona- 
parte's organization  of  government  in  Egypt. 
— His  advance  into  Syria  and  repulse  at  Acre. 
— His  victory  at  Aboukir  and  return  to  France. 
— "  On  hearing  of  the  battle  of  Aboukir  [better 
known  as  'the  battle  of  the  Nile'],  a  solitary  sigh 
escaped  from  Napoleon.  'To  France,'  said  he, 
'  the  fates  have  decreed  the  empire  of  the  land  — 
to  England  that  of  the  sea.'  He  endured  this 
great  calamity  with  the  equanimity  of  a  mascu- 
line spirit.  He  gave  orders  that  the  seamen 
landed  at  Alexandria  should  be  formed  into  a 
marine  brigade,  and  thus  gained  a  valuable  ad- 
dition to  his  army  ;  and  proceeded  himself  to  or- 
ganise a  system  of  government,  under  which  the 
great  natural  resources  of  the  country  might  be 
turned  to  the  best  advantage.  ...  He  was  care- 
ful to  advance  no  claim  to  the  sovereignty  of 
Egypt,  but  asserted,  that  having  rescued  it  from 
the  Mameluke  usurpation,  it  remained  for  him 
to  administer  law  and  justice,  until  the  time 
should  come  for  restoring  the  province  to  the 
dominion  of  the  Grand  Seignior.  He  then  estab- 
lished two  councils,  consisting  of  natives,  princi- 
pally of  Arab  chiefs  and  Moslem  of  the  church 
and  the  law,  by  whose  advice  all  measures  were, 
nominally, to  be  regulated.  They  formed  of  course 
a  very  subservient  senate.  .  .  .  The  virtuosi  and 
artists  in  his  train,  meanwhile,  pursued  with  in- 
defatigable energy  their  scientific  researches; 
they  ransacked  the  monuments  of  Egypt,  and 
laid  the  foundation,  at  least,  of  all  the  wonderful 
discoveries  which  have  since  been  made  concern- 
ing the  knowledge,  arts,  polity  (and  even  lan- 
guage), of  the  ancient  nation.  Nor  were  their  ob- 
jects merely  those  of  curiosity.  They,  under  the 
General's  direction,  examined  into  the  long-smoth- 
ered traces  of  many  an  ancient  device  for  im- 
proving the  agriculture  of  the  country.  Canals 
that  had  been  shut  up  for  centuries  were  re- 
opened ;  the  waters  of  the  Nile  flowed  once  more 
where  they  had  been  guided  by  the  skill  of  the 
Pharaohs  or  the  Ptolemies.  Cultivation  was 
extended;  property  secured;  and  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  the  signal  improvements  since  intro- 
duced in  Egypt,  are  attributable  mainly  to  the 
wise  example  of  the  French  administration.  .  .  . 
In  such  labours  Napoleon  passed  the  autumn  of 
1798.  .  .  .  General  Dessaix,  meanwhile,  had  pur- 


sued Mourad  Bey  into  Upper  Egypt,  where  the 
Mamelukes  hardly  made  a  single  stand  against 
him,  but  contrived  bj^  the  excellence  of  their 
horses,  and  their  familiarity  with  the  deserts,  to 
avoid  any  total  disruption  of  their  forces.  .  .  . 
The  General,  during  this  interval  of  repose,  re- 
ceived no  communication  from  the  French  Gov- 
ernment ;  but  rumours  now  began  to  reach  his 
quarters  which  might  well  give  him  new  anx- 
ieties. The  report  of  another  rupture  with  Aus- 
tria gradually  met  with  more  credence;  and  it 
was  before  long  placed  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the 
Ottoman  Porte,  instead  of  being  tempted  into 
any  recognition  of  the  French  establishment  in 
Egypt,  had  declared  war  against  the  Republic, 
and  summoned  all  the  strength  of  her  empire  to 
pour  in  overwhelming  numbers  on  the  isolated 
army  of  Buonaparte.  .  .  .  The  General  des- 
patched a  trusty  messenger  into  India,  inviting 
Tippoo  Saib  to  inform  him  exactly  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  English  army  in  that  region,  and  sig- 
nifying that  Egypt  was  only  the  first  post  in  a 
march  destined  to  surpass  that  of  Alexander! 
' He  spent  whole  days,'  writes  his  secretary,  'in 
lying  flat  on  the  ground  stretched  upon  maps  of 
Asia.'  At  length  the  time  for  action  came. 
Leaving  15,000  in  and  about  Cairo,  the  division 
of  Dessaix  in  Upper  Egypt,  and  garrisons  in  the 
chief  towns, — -Buonaparte  on  the  11th  of  Feb- 
ruary 1799  marched  for  Syria  at  the  head  of 
10,000  picked  men,  with  the  intention  of  crush- 
ing the  Turkish  armament  in  that  quarter,  be- 
fore their  chief  force  (which  he  now  knew  was 
assembling  at  Rhodes)  should  have  time  to  reach 
Egypt  by  sea.  Traversing  the  desert  which 
divides  Africa  from  Asia,  he  took  possession  of 
the  fortress  El-Arish  (Feb.  15),  whose  garrison, 
after  a  vigorous  assault,  capitulated  on  condition 
that  they  should  bo  permitted  to  retreat  into 
Syria,  pledging  their  parole  not  to  serve  again 
during  the  war.  Pursuing  his  march,  he  took 
Gazali  (that  ancient  city  of  the  Philistines)  with- 
out opposition;  but  at  Jaffa  (the  Joppa  of  holy 
writ),  the  Moslem  made  a  resolute  defence.  The 
walls  were  earned  by  storm,  3,000  Turks  died 
with  arms  in  their  hands,  and  the  town  was 
given  up  during  three  hours  to  the  fury  of  the 
French  soldiery  —  who  never,  as  Napoleon  con- 
fessed, availed  themselves  of  the  license  of  war 
more  savagely  than  on  this  occasion.  A  party 
of  the  garrison  —  amounting,  according  to  Buona- 
parte", to  1,300  men,  but  stated  by  others  as 
nearly  3, 000  in  number  —  held  out  for  some  hours 
longer  in  the  mosques  and  citadel ;  but  at  length, 
seeing  no  chance  of  rescue,  grounded  their  arms 
on  the  7th  of  March.  ...  On  the  10th  — three 
days  after  their  surrender  —  the  prisoners  were 
marched  out  of  Jaflia,  in  the  centre  of  a  battalion 
under  General  Bon.  When  the.y  had  reached 
the  sand-hills,  at  some  distance  from  the  town, 
they  were  divided  into  small  parties,  and  shot  or 
bayoneted  to  a  man.  They,  like  true  fatalists,  sub- 
mitted in  silence ;  and  their  bodies  were  gathered 
together  into  a  pyramid,  where,  after  the  lapse 
of  thirty  years,  their  bones  are  still  visible  whiten- 
ing the  sand.  Such  was  the  massacre  of  Jaffa, 
which  will  ever  form  one  of  the  darkest  stains 
on  the  name  of  Napoleon.  He  admitted  the  fact 
himself;  —  and  justified  it  on  the  double  plea, 
that  he  could  not  afford  soldiers  to  guard  so 
many  prisoners,  and  that  he  could  not  grant  them 
the  benefit  of  their  parole,  because  they  were  the 
very  men  who  had  already  been  set  free  on  such 


1357 


FRANCE,  1798-1799. 


Bonaparte  in 
Syria  arid  Egypt. 


FRAN(?E,  1798-1799. 


terms  at  El-Arish.  .  .  .  Buonaparte  liad  now 
ascertained  that  the  Pacha  of  Syria,  Achmet- 
Djezzar,  -was  at  St.  Jean  D'Acre  (so  renowned  in 
the  history  of  the  crusades),  and  determined  to 
defend  that  place  to  extremity,  witli  the  forces 
■which  had  already  been  assembled  for  the  in- 
vasion of  Egypt.  He  in  vain  endeavoured  to 
seduce  this  ferocious  chief  from  his  allegiance  to 
the  Porte,  by  holding  out  the  hope  of  a  separate 
independent  government,  under  the  protection  of 
France.  The  first  of  Napoleon's  messengers  re- 
turned without  an  answer ;  the  second  was  put 
to  death ;  and  the  army  moved  on  Acre  in  all  the 
zeal  of  revenge,  while  the  necessary  apparatus 
of  a  siege  was  ordered  to  be  sent  round  by  sea 
from  Alexandria.  Sir  Sidney  Smith  was  then 
cruising  in  the  Levant  with  two  British  ships  of 
the  line,  the  Tigre  and  the  Theseus;  and,  being 
informed  by  the  Pacha  of  the  approaching  storm, 
hastened  to"  support  him  in  the  defence  of  Acre. 
Napoleon's  vessels,  conveying  guns  and  stores 
from  Egypt,  fell  into  his  hands,  and  lie  appeared 
off  the  town  two  days  before  the  French  army 
came  in  view  of  it.  He  had  on  board  his  ship 
Colonel  Philippeaux,  a  French  royalist  of  great 
talents  (formerly  Buonaparte's  school-fellow  at 
Brienne) ;  and  the  Pacha  willingly  permitted  the 
English  commodore  and  this  skilful  ally  to  regu- 
late for  him,  as  far  as  was  possible,  the  plan  of 
his  defence.  The  loss  of  his  own  heavy  artillery, 
and  the  presence  of  two  English  ships,  were  in- 
auspicious omens;  yet  Buonaparte  doubted  not 
that  the  Turkish  garrison  would  shrink  before 
his  onset,  and  he  instantly  commenced  the  siege. 
He  opened  his  trenches  on  the  18th  of  March. 
'  On  that  little  town '  said  he  to  one  of  his  gen- 
erals, as  they  were  standing  together  on  an  emi- 
nence, which  still  bears  the  name  of  Richard  Coeur 
de-Lion  — '  on  yonder  little  town  depends  the  fate 
of  the  East.  Behold  the  Key  of  Constantinople, 
or  of  India.'.  .  .  Meanwhile  avast  Mussulman 
army  had  been  gathered  among  the  mountains  of 
Samaria,  and  was  preparing  to  descend  upon 
Acre,  and  attack  the  besiegers  in  concert  with 
the  garrison  of  Djezzar.  Junot,  with  his  divis- 
ion, marched  to  encounter  them,  and  would 
have  been  overwhelmed  by  their  numbers,  had 
not  Napoleon  himself  followed  and  rescued  him 
(April  8)  at  Nazareth,  where  the  splendid  cavalry 
of  the  Orientals  were,  as  usual,  unable  to  resist 
the  solid  squares  and  well-directed  musketry  of 
the  French.  Kleber  with  another  division,  was 
in  like  manner  endangered,  and  in  like  manner 
rescued  by  the  general-in-chief  at  Mount  Tabor 
(April  15).  The  Mussulmans  dispersed  on  all 
hands;  and  Napoleon,  returning  to  his  siege, 
pressed  it  on  with  desperate  assaults,  day  after 
day,  in  which  his  best  soldiers  were  thinned,  be- 
fore the  united  efforts  of  Djezzar 's  gallantry,  and 
the  skill  of  his  allies."  On  the  2ist  of  May, when 
the  siege  had  been  prosecuted  for  more  than  two 
months.  Napoleon  commanded  a  final  assault. 
"The  plague  had  some  time  before  this  appeared 
in  the  camp ;  every  day  the  ranks  of  his  legions 
were  thinned  by  this  pestilence,  as  well  as  by  the 
weapons  of  the  defenders  of  Acre.  The  hearts 
of  all  men  were  quickly  sinking.  The  Turkish 
fleet  was  at  hand  to  reinforce  Djezzar;  and  upon 
the  utter  failure  of  the  attack  of  the  21st  of  May, 
Napoleon  yielded  to  stern  necessity,  and  began 
his  retreat  upon  Jaffa.  .  .  .  The  name  of  Jaffa 
was  already  sufficiently  stained ;  but  fame  speed- 
ily represented  Napoleon  as  having  now  made  it 


the  scene  of  another  atrocity,  not  less  shocking 
than  that  of  the  massacre  of  the  Turkish  prisoners. 
The  accusation,  which  for  many  years  made  so 
much  noise  throughout  Europe,  amounts  to  this: 
that  on  the  2Tth  of  May,  when  it  was  necessary 
for  Napoleon  to  pursue  his  march  from  Jaffa  for 
Egypt,  a  certain  number  of  the  plague-patients 
in  the  hospital  were  found  to  be  in  a  state  that 
held  out  no  hope  whatever  of  their  recovery ;  that 
the  general,  being  unwilling  to  leave  them  to  the 
tender  mercies  of  the  Turks,  conceived  the  notion 
of  administering  opium,  and  so  procuring  for  them 
at  least  a  speedy  and  an  easy  death ;  and  that  a 
number  of  men  were  accordingly  taken  off  in 
this  method  by  his  command.  .  .  .  Whether  the 
opium  was  really  administered  or  not  —  that  the 
audacious  proposal  to  that  effect  was  made  by 
Napoleon, we  have  his  own  admission;  and  every 
reader  must  form  his  opinion  —  as  to  the  degree 
of  guilt  which  attaches  to  the  fact  of  having 
meditated  and  designed  the  deed.  .  .  .  The  march 
onwards  was  a  continued  scene  of  misery ;  for 
the  wounded  and  the  sick  were  many,  the  heat 
oppressive,  the  thirst  intolerable ;  and  the  fero- 
cious Djezzar  was  hard  behind,  and  the  wild 
Arabs  of  the  desert  hovered  round  them  on  every 
side,  so  that  he  who  fell  behind  his  company  waa 
sure  to  be  slain,  .  .  .  Having  at  length  accom- 
plished this  perilous  journey  [June  14],  Buona- 
parte repaired  to  his  old  head-quarters  at  Cairo, 
and  re-entered  on  his  great  functions  as  the  es- 
tablisher  of  a  new  government  in  the  state  of 
Egypt.  But  he  had  not  long  occupied  himself 
thus,  ere  new  rumours  concerning  the  beys  on 
the  Upper  Nile,  who  seemed  to  have  some  strong 
and  urgent  motive  for  endeavouring  to  force  a 
passage  downwards,  began  to  be  mingled  with, 
and  by  degrees  explained  by,  tidings  daily  re- 
peated of  some  grand  disembarkation  of  the 
Ottomans,  designed  to  have  place  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Alexandria.  Leaving  Dessaix,  there- 
fore, once  more  in  command  at  Cairo,  he  himself 
descended  the  Nile,  and  travelled  with  all  speed 
to  Alexandria,  where  he  found  his  presence  most 
necessary.  For,  in  eft'ect,  the  great  Turkish  fleet 
had  already  run  into  the  bay  of  Aboukir;  and 
an  army  of  18,000,  having  gained  the  fortress, 
were  there  strengthening  themselves,  with  tlie 
view  of  awaiting  the  promised  descent  and  junc- 
tion of  the  Mamelukes,  and  then,  with  over- 
whelming superiority  of  numbers,  advancing  to 
Alexandria,  and  completing  the  ruin  of  the 
French  invaders.  Buonaparte,  reaching  Alex- 
andria on  the  evening  of  the  24th  of  July,  found 
his  army  already  posted  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Aboukir,  and  prepared  to  anticipate  the  attack 
of  the  Turks  on  the  morrow.  .  .  .  The  Turkish 
outposts  were  assaulted  early  next  morning,  and 
driven  in  with  great  slaughter;  bat  the  French, 
when  they  advanced,  came  within  the  range  of 
the  batteries  and  also  of  the  shipping  that  lay 
close  by  the  shore,  and  were  checked.  Their  re- 
treat might  have  ended  in  a  route,  but  for  the 
undisciplined  eagerness  with  which  the  Turks  en- 
gaged in  the  task  of  spoiling  and  maiming  those 
that  fell  before  them  —  thus  giving  to  Murat  the 
opportunity  of  charging  their  main  body  in  flank 
with  his  cavalry,  at  the  moment  when  the  French 
infantry,  profiting  by  their  disordered  and  scat- 
tered condition,  and  rallying  under  the  eye  of 
Napoleon,  forced  a  passage  to  the  entrenchments. 
From  that  moment  the  battle  was  a  massacre. 
.  .  .  Six  thousand   surrendered    at    discretion; 


1358 


FRANCE,  1798-1799. 


Suxcarroff  and  the 
Russians  m  the  field. 


FRANCE,  1799. 


12,000  perished  on  the  field  or  in  the  sea.  .  .  . 
Napoleon  once  more  returned  to  Cairo  on  the 
9th  of  August ;  but  it  was  only  to  make  some 
parting  arrangements  as  to  the  administration, 
civil  and  military ;  for,  from  the  moment  of  his 
victory  at  Aboukir,  he  had  resolved  to  entrust 
Egypt  to  other  hands,  and  Admiral  Gantheaume 
was  already  preparing  in  secret  the  means  of  his 
removal  to  France." — J.  G.  Lockhart,  Life  of 
Napoleon  Buonaparte,  ch.  12. 

Also  dj  :  Duke  of  Rovigo,  Memoirs,  v.  1,  ch. 
Q-Xl.— Memoirs  of  Napoleon  dictated  at  St.  HeletM, 
V.  2. — Letters  from  the  army  of  Bonaparte  in  Egypt. 
— M.  de  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs  of  Napoleon, 
V.  1,  ch.  15-33. 

A.  D.  1799  (April — September). — Murder  of 
the  French  envoys  at  Rastadt. — Disasters  in 
North  Italy. — Suvyarroff's  victories. — Anglo- 
Russian  invasion  of  Holland  and  capture  of  the 
Dutch  fleet. — "While  the  French  armies  were 
thus  humiliated  in  the  field,  the  representatives 
of  the  republic  at  the  congress  of  Rastadt  [where 
peace  negotiations  with  the  states  of  the  emjjire 
had  been  in  progress  for  months]  became  the 
victims  of  a  sanguinary  tragedy.  As  France 
had  declared  war  against  the  emperor  [as  sover- 
eign of  Austria],  and  not  against  the  empire,  the 
congress  had  not  necessarily  been  broken  off; 
but  the  representatives  of  the  German  states  were 
■withdrawn  one  after  another,  until  the  successes 
of  the  Austrians  rendered  the  position  of  the 
French  ministers  no  longer  secure.  At  length 
they  received  notice,  from  the  nearest  Austrian 
commander,  to  depart  within  twenty-four  hours ; 
and  the  French  ministers  —  Jean  Debry,  Bonnier, 
and  Roberjeot  —  left  Rastadt  with  their  families 
and  attendants  late  in  the  evening  of  the  8th  of 
Floreal  (the  28th  of  April).  The  night  was  very 
dark,  and  they  appear  to  have  been  apprehensive 
of  danger.  At  a  very  short  distance  from  Ras- 
tadt they  were  surrounded  by  a  troop  of  Austrian 
hussars,  who  stopped  the  carriages,  dragged  the 
three  ministers  out,  and  massacred  them  in  the 
presence  of  their  wives  and  children.  The  hus- 
sars then  plundered  the  carriages,  and  took  away, 
especially,  all  the  papers.  Fortunately  for  Jean 
Debry,  he  had  been  .stunned,  but  not  mortally 
wounded ;  and  after  the  murderers  were  gone 
the  cold  air  of  the  night  restored  him  to  life. 
This  crime  was  supposed  to  have  been  perpe- 
trated at  the  instigation  of  tlie  imperial  court, 
for  reasons  which  have  not  been  very  clearly  ex- 
plained ;  but  the  representatives  of  the  German 
states  proclaimed  loudly  their  indignation.  The 
reverses  of  the  republican  arms,  and  the  tragedy 
of  Rastadt,  were  eagerly  embraced  by  the  oppo- 
sition in  France  as  occasions  for  raising  a  violent 
outcry  against  the  directory.  ...  It  was  in  the 
midst  of  this  general  unpopularity  of  the  direc- 
tors that  the  elections  of  the  year  VII.  of  the 
republic  took  place,  and  a  great  majority  of  the 
patriots  obtained  admission  to  the  councils,  and 
thus  increased  the  numerical  force  of  the  opposi- 
tion. .  .  .  The  directory  had  made  great  efforts 
to  repair  the  reverses  which  had  marked  the 
opening  of  the  campaign.  Jourdain  had  been 
deprived  of  the  command  of  the  army  of  the 
Danube,  which  had  been  placed,  along  with  that 
of  Switzerland,  under  the  orders  of  Massena. 
The  command  of  the  army  of  Italy  had  been 
transferred  from  Scherer  to  Moreau ;  and  Mac- 
donald  had  received  orders  to  withdraw  his  forces 
from   Naples  and  the  papal  states,  in  order  to 


unite  them  with  the  army  in  Upper  Italy.  The 
Russians  under  Suwarrow  had  now  joined  the 
Austrian  army  in  Italy ;  and  this  chief,  who  was 
in  the  height  of  his  reputation  as  a  military 
leader,  was  made  commander-in-chief  of  the  com- 
bined Austro-Russian  forces,  Melas  command- 
ing the  Austrians  under  him.  Suwarrow  ad- 
vanced rapidly  upon  the  Adda,  which  protected 
the  French  lines ;  and,  on  the  8th  of  Floreal  (the 
27th  of  April),  forced  the  passage  of  that  river 
in  two  places,  at  Brivio  and  Trezzo,  above  and 
below  the  position  occupied  by  the  division  of 
Serrurier,  which  formed  the  French  left,  and 
which  was  thus  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  the  army. 
Moreau,  who  took  the  command  of  the  French 
forces  on  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  made  a 
vain  attempt  to  drive  the  enemy  back  over  the 
Adda  at  Trezzo,  and  thus  recover  his  communi- 
cation with  Serrurier ;  and  that  division  was  sur- 
rounded, and,  after  a  desperate  resistance, 
obliged  to  lay  down  its  arms,  with  the  exception 
of  a  small  number  of  men  who  made  their  way 
across  the  mountains  into  Piedmont.  Victor's 
division  effected  its  retreat  without  much  loss, 
and  Jloreau  concentrated  his  forces  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Milan.  This  disastrous  engagement, 
which  took  place  on  the  9th  of  Floreal,  was 
known  as  the  battle  of  Cassano.  Moreau  re- 
mained at  Milan  two  days  to  give  the  members 
of  the  government  of  the  Cisalpine  republic,  and 
all  the  Milanese  families  who  were  politically 
compromised,  time  to  make  their  escape  in  his 
rear ;  after  which  he  continued  his  retreat.  .  .  . 
He  was  allowed  to  make  this  retreat  without  any 
serious  interruption;  for  Suwarrow,  instead  of 
pursuing  him  actively,  lost  his  time  at  Milan  in 
celebrating  the  triumph  of  the  anti-revolutionary 
party."  Moreau  first  "established  his  army  in 
a  strong  position  at  the  confluence  of  the  Tanaro 
and  the  Po,  covered  by  both  rivers,  and  com- 
manding all  the  roads  to  Genoa ;  so  that  he  could 
there,  without  great  danger,  wait  the  arrival  of 
Macdonald."  But  soon,  finding  his  position  made 
critical  by  a  general  insurrection  in  Piedmont, 
he  retired  towards  the  mountains  of  Genoa.  ' '  On 
the  6th  of  Prairial  (the  25th  of  May),  Macdonald 
was  at  Florence;  but  he  lost  much  time  there; 
and  it  was  only  towards  the  end  of  the  republican 
month  (the  middle  of  June),  that  he  at  length  ad- 
vanced into  the  plains  of  Piacenza  to  form  his 
junction  with  Moreau."  On  the  Trebbia  he  en- 
countered Suwarrow's  advance,  under  General 
Ott,  and  rashly  attacked  it.  Having  forced  back 
Ott's  advanced  guard,  the  French  suddenly 
found  themselves  confronted  by  Suwarrow  him- 
self and  the  main  body  of  his  army.  ' '  Macdonald 
now  resolved  to  unite  all  his  forces  behind  the 
Trebbia,  and  there  risk  a  battle ;  but  he  was  an- 
ticipated by  Suwarrow,  who  attacked  him  next 
morning,  and,  after  a  very  severe  and  sanguinary 
engagement,  the  French  were  driven  over  the 
Trebbia.  The  combat  was  continued  next  day, 
and  ended  again  to  the  disadvantage  of  the 
French ;  and  their  position  had  become  so  critical, 
that  Macdonald  found  it  necessary  to  retreat 
upon  the  river  Nura,  and  to  make  his  way  round 
the  Apennines  to  Genoa.  The  French,  closely 
pursued,  experienced  considerable  loss  in  their 
retreat,  until  Suwarrow,  hearing  Moreau's  can- 
non in  his  rear,  discontinued  the  pursuit,  in  order 
to  meet  him."  Moreau  routed  Bellegarde,  in 
Suwarrow's  rear,  and  took  3,000  prisoners;  but 
no  further  collision  of  importance  occurred  dur- 


1359 


FRANCE,  1799. 


Campaigns  in 
Italy  and  Switzerland. 


FRANCE,  1799. 


ing  the  nest  two  months  of  the  summer.  "  Su- 
warrow  had  been  prevented  by  the  orders  of  the 
Aulic  Council  from  following  up  with  vigour 
his  victory  on  the  Trebbia,  and  had  been  obliged 
to  occupy  himself  with  sieges  which  employed 
vnth  little  advantage  valuable  time.  Recruits 
were  reaching  the  French  armies  in  Italy,  and 
they  were  restored  to  a  state  of  greater  efficiency. 
It  was  already  the  month  of  Thermidor  (the 
middle  of  July),  and  Moreau  saw  the  necessity 
of  assuming  the  offensive  and  attacking  the 
Austro-Russians  while  they  were  occupied  with 
the  sieges ;  but  he  was  restrained  by  the  orders 
of  the  directory  to  wait  the  arrival  of  Joubert. 
The  latter,  who  had  just  contracted  an  advan- 
tageous marriage,  by  which  the  moderate  party 
had  hoped  to  attach  him  to  their  cause,  lost  an 
entire  month  in  the  celebration  of  bis  nuptial 
festivities,  and  only  reached  the  army  of  Italy 
in  the  middle  of  Thermidor  (the  beginning 
of  August),  where  he  immediately  succeeded 
Moreau  in  the  command ;  but  he  prevailed  upon 
that  able  general  to  remain  with  him,  at  least 
until  after  his  first  battle.  The  French  army  had 
taken  a  good  position  in  advance  of  Novi,  and 
were  preparing  to  act  against  the  enemy  while 
he  was  still  occupied  in  the  sieges,  when  news 
arrived  that  Alessandria  and  Mantua  had  sur- 
rendered, and  that  Suwarrow  was  preparing  to 
unite  against  them  the  whole  strength  of  his 
forces.  Joubert  immediately  resolved  to  fall 
back  upon  the  Apennines,  and  there  act  upon 
the  defensive;  but  it  was  already  too  late,  for 
Suwarrow  had  advanced  with  such  rapidity  that 
he  was  forced  to  accept  battle  in  the  position  he 
occupied,  which  was  a  very  strong  one.  The 
battle  began  early  in  the  morning  of  the  38th  of 
Thermidor  (the  15th  of  August);  and  very  early 
in  the  action  Joubert  received  a  mortal  wound 
from  a  ball  which  struck  him  near  the  heart. 
The  engagement  continued  with  great  fury  dur- 
ing the  greater  part  of  the  day,  but  ended  in  the 
entire  defeat  of  the  French,  who  retreated  from 
the  field  of  battle  in  great  confusion.  The  French 
lost  about  10,000  men  in  killed  and  wounded, 
and  a  great  number  of  prisoners.  The  news  of 
this  reverse  was  soon  followed  by  disastrous  in- 
telligence from  another  quarter.  The  English 
had  prepared  an  expedition  against  Holland, 
which  was  to  be  assisted  by  a  detachment  of 
Russian  troops.  The  English  forces,  under  Aber- 
cromby,  landed  near  the  mouth  of  the  Helder  in 
North'Holland,  on  the  10th  of  Fructidor  (the  27th 
of  August),  and  defeated  the  French  and  Dutch  re- 
publican army,  commanded  by  Brune,  in  a  deci- 
sive engagement  [at  the  English  camp,  established 
on  a  well-drained  morass,  called  the  Zyp]  on  the 
22nd  of  Fructidor  (the  8th  of  September).  Brune 
retreated  upon  Amsterdam ;  and  the  Russian  con- 
tingent was  thus  enabled  to  effect  its  junction 
with  the  English  without  opposition.  As  one  of 
the  first  consequences  of  this  invasion,  the  Eng- 
lish obtained  possession  of  the  whole  Dutch  fleet, 
upon  the  assistance  of  which  the  French  govern- 
ment had  counted  in  its  designs  against  England. 
This  succession  of  ill  news  excited  the  revolu- 
tionary party  to  a  most  unusual  degree  of  vio- 
lence."—T.  Wright,  Sist.  of  I¥ance,  bh.  6,  ch. 
22-23  {v.  2). 

Also  m:  H.  Spalding,  Suvoroff,  ch.  7-8. — 
L.  M.  P.  de  Laverne,  Life  of  Field-Marshal  Sou- 
varof  ch.  6. — E.  Vehse,  Memoirs  of  tlie  Oourt  of 
Austria,  ch.  15,  sect.  2  {v.  2). — J.  Adolphus,  Sist. 


ofEng.:  Beign  of  Geo.  TIL,  ch.  108  (».  7).— Gen. 
Sir  H.  Bunbury,  Narratives  of  the  Great  War 
with  France,  pp.  1-58. 

A.  D.  1799  (August — December). — Campaign 
in  Svyitzerland. — Battle  of  Zurich. — Defeat  of 
the  Russians. — SuwarrofTs  retreat  across  the 
Alps. — Reverses  in  Italy,  and  on  the  Rhine. — 
Fall  of  the  Parthenopean  and  Roman  Repub- 
lics.— Since  the  retreat  of  Massena  in  June,  the 
Archduke  Charles  had  been  watching  the  French 
on  the  Limmat  and  expecting  the  arrival  of  Rus- 
sian reinforcements  under  Korsakoff;  "but  the 
Aulic  Council,  with  unaccountable  infatuation, 
ordered  him  at  this  important  juncture  to  repair 
with  the  bulk  of  his  army  to  the  Rhine,  leaving 
Switzerland  to  Korsakoff  and  the  Russians.  Be- 
fore these  injudicious  orders,  however,  could  be 
carried  into  effect,  Massena  had  boldly  assumed 
the  offensive  (Aug.  14)  by  a  false  attack  on  Zu- 
rich, intended  to  maek  the  operations  of  his  right 
wing,  which  meanwhile,  under  Lecourbe,  was 
directed  against  the  St.  Gothard,  in  order  to  cut 
oS.  the  communication  between  the  allied  forces 
in  Switzerland  and  In  Italy.  These  attacks 
proved  completely  successful,  ...  a  French 
detachment  .  .  .  seizing  the  St.  Gothard,  and 
establishing  itself  at  Airolo,  on  the  southern  de- 
clivity. Lecourbe's  left  had  meanwhile  cleared 
the  banks  of  the  lake  of  Zurich  of  the  enemy, 
who  were  driven  back  into  Glarus.  To  obtain 
these  brilliant  successes  on  the  right,  Massena 
had  been  obliged  to  weaken  his  left  wing;  and 
the  Archduke,  now  reinforced  by  20,000  Russians, 
attempted  to  avail  himself  of  this  circumstance 
to  force  the  passage  of  the  Limmat,  below  Zu- 
rich (Aug.  16  and  17);  but  this  enterprise,  the 
success  of  which  might  have  altered  the  fate  of 
the  war,  failed  from  the  defective  construction  of 
the  pontoons;  and  the  positive  orders  of  the 
Aulic  Council  forbade  his  remaining  longer  In 
Switzerland.  Accordingly,  leaving  25,000  men 
under  Hotze  to  support  Korsakoff,  he  marched 
for  the  Upper  Rhine,  where  the  French,  at  his 
approach,  abandoned  the  siege  of  Philipsburg, 
and  retired  to  Marmheim;  but  this  important 
post,  the  defences  of  which  were  imperfectly 
restored,  was  carried  by  a  coup-de-main  (Sept. 
18),  and  the  French  driven  with  severe  loss  over 
the  Rhine.  But  this  success  was  dearly  bought 
by  the  disasters  in  Switzerland,  which  followed 
the  Archduke's  departure.  It  had  been  arranged 
that  SuwarrofE  was  to  move  from  Bellinzona  (Sept. 
21),  and  after  retaking  the  St.  Gothard  combine 
with  Korsakoff  in  a  front  attack  on  JIassena, 
while  Hotze  assailed  him  in  flank.  But  Massena, 
who  was  now  the  superior  in  numbers,  deter- 
mined to  anticipate  the  arrival  of  SuwarrofE  by 
striking  a  blow,  for  which  the  presumptuous 
confidence  of  Korsakoff  gave  him  increased  fa- 
cility. On  the  evening  of  24th  September,  the 
passage  of  the  river  was  surprised  below  Zurich, 
and  the  heights  of  Closter-Fahr  carried  by  storm ; 
and,  in  the  course  of  the  next  day,  Korsakoff, 
with  his  main  army,  was  completely  hemmed  in 
at  Zurich  by  the  superior  generalship  of  the 
French  commander,  who  summoned  the  Russians 
to  surrender.  But  the  bravery  shown  by  Korsa- 
koff in  these  desperate  circumstances  equalled 
his  former  arrogance:  on  the  28th  the  Russian 
columns,  issuing  from  the  town,  forced  their 
way  with  the  courage  of  despair  through  the 
surrounding  masses  of  French,  while  a  slender 
rear-guard  defended  the  ramparts  of  Zurich  till  the 


1360 


FRANCE,  1799. 


French  reverses. 


FRANCE,  1799. 


remainder  had  extricated  themselves.  The  town 
was  at  length  entered,  and  a  frightful  carnage 
ensued  in  the  streets,  in  the  midst  of  which  the 
illustrious  Lavater  was  barbarously  shot  by  a 
French  soldier:  while  Korsakoff,  after  losing 
8,000  killed  and  wounded,  5,000  prisoners,  100 
pieces  of  cannon,  and  all  his  ammunition,  stores, 
and  military  chest,  succeeded  in  reaching  SchafE- 
hausen.  The  attack  of  Soult  above  the  lake 
(Sept.  25)  was  equally  triumphant.  The  gallant 
Hotze,  who  commanded  in  that  quarter,  was 
killed  in  the  first  encounter;  and  the  Austrians, 
giving  way  in  consternation,  were  driven  over  the 
Thur,  and  at  length  over  the  Rhine,  with  the 
loss  of  20  guns  and  3,000  prisoners.  Suwarroff 
in  the  meantime  was  gallantly  performing  his 
part  of  the  plan.  On  the  23d  of  September,  the 
French  posts  at  Airolo  and  St.  Gothard  were 
carried,  after  a  desperate  resistance,  by  the  Rus- 
sian main  force,  while  their  flank  was  turned  by 
Rosenberg;  and  Lecourbe,  hastily  retreating, 
broke  down  the  Devil's  Bridge  to  check  the  ad- 
vance of  the  enemy.  A  scene  of  useless  butchery 
followed,  the  two  parties  firing  on  each  other 
from  the  opposite  brinks  of  the  impassable  abyss ; 
but  the  flank  of  the  French  was  at  length  turned, 
the  bridge  repaired,  and  the  Russians,  pressing 
on  in  triumph,  joined  the  Austrian  division  of 
AufEenberg,  at  Wasen,  and  repulsed  the  French 
beyond  Altdorf.  But  this  was  the  limit  of  the 
old  marshal's  success.  After  effecting  with  se- 
vere loss  the  passage  of  the  tremendous  defiles 
and  ridges  of  the  Schachenthal,  between  Alt- 
dorf and  Mutten,  he  found  that  Linken  and 
Jellachich,  who  were  to  have  moved  from  Coire 
to  co-opei'ate  with  him,  had  again  retreated  on 
learning  the  disaster  at  Zurich ;  and  Suwarroff 
found  himself  in  the  midst  of  the  enemy,  with 
Massena  on  one  side  and  Molitor  on  the  other. 
With  the  utmost  difliculty  the  veteran  conqueror 
was  prevailed  upon,  for  the  first  time  in  his  life, 
to  order  a  retreat,  which  had  become  indispensa- 
ble, and  the  heads  of  his  columns  were  turned 
towards  Glarus  and  the  Orisons.  But  though 
the  attack  of  Massena  on  their  rear  in  the  Mut- 
tenthal  was  repulsed  with  the  loss  of  2,000 
men,  their  onward  route  was  barred  at  Naefels 
by  Molitor,  who  defied  all  the  efforts  of  Prince 
Bagrathion  to  dislodge  him;  and  in  the  midst 
of  a  heavy  fall  of  snow,  which  obliterated  the 
mountain  paths,  the  Russian  army  wound  its 
way  (Oct.  5)  in  single  file  over  the  rugged 
and  sterile  peaks  of  the  Alps  of  Glarus. 
Numbers  perished  of  cold,  or  fell  over  the 
precipices;  but  nothing  could  overcome  the 
unconquerable  spirit  of  the  soldiers:  without 
fire  or  stores,  and  compelled  to  bivouac  on  the 
snow,  they  still  struggled  on  through  incredible 
hardships,  till  the  dreadful  march  terminated 
(Oct.  10)  at  Ilantz.  Such  was  the  famous  pas- 
sage of  the  Alps  by  Suwarroff.  Korsakoff  in 
the  meanwhile  (Oct.  1-7)  had  maintained  a  des- 
perate conflict  near  Constance,  till  the  return  of 
the  Archduke  checked  the  efforts  of  the  French ; 
and  the  Allies,  abandoning  the  St.  Gothard,  and 
all  the  other  posts  they  still  held  in  Switzerland, 
concentrated  their  forces  on  the  Rhine,  which 
became  the  boundary  of  the  two  armies.  ...  In 
Italy,  after  the  disastrous  battle  of  Novi,  the 
Directory  had  given  the  leadership  of  the  armies, 
both  of  Italy  and  Savoy,  to  the  gallant  Cham- 
pionnet,  but  he  could  muster  only  54,000  troops 
and  6,000  raw  conscripts  to  oppose  Melas,  who 


had  succeeded  Suwarroff  in  the  command,  and 
who  had  68,000,  besides  his  garrisons  and  de- 
tachments. The  proposition  of  Championnet 
had  been  to  fall  back,  with  his  army  still  entire, 
to  the  other  side  of  the  Alps:  but  his  orders 
were  positive  to  attempt  the  relief  of  Coni,  then 
besieged  by  the  Austrians ;  and  after  a  desultory 
warfare  for  several  weeks,  he  commenced  a  de- 
cisive movement  for  that  purpose  at  the  end  of 
October,  with  35,000  men.  But  before  the  dif- 
ferent French  columns  could  effect  a  junction, 
they  were  .separately  assailed  by  Melas:  the  di- 
visions of  Grenier  and  Victor  were  overwhelmed 
at  Genola  (Nov.  4),  and  defeated  with  the  loss  of 
7,000  men;  and  though  St.  Cyr  repulsed  the  Im- 
perialists (Nov.  10)  on  the  plateau  of  Novi,  Coni 
was  left  to  its  fate,  and  surrendered  with  all  its 
garrison  (Dec.  4).  An  epidemic  disorder  broke 
out  in  the  French  army,  to  which  Championnet 
himself,  and  numerous  soldiers,  fell  victims :  the 
troops  giving  way  to  despair,  abandoned  their 
standards  by  hundreds  and  returned  to  France ; 
and  it  was  with  difficulty  that  the  eloquent  ex- 
hortations of  St.  Cyr  succeeded  in  keeping  to- 
gether a  sufficient  number  to  defend  the  Bochetta 
pass,  in  front  of  Genoa,  the  loss  of  which  would 
have  entailed  destruction  on  the  whole  army. 
The  discomfited  Republicans  were  driven  back 
on  their  own  frontiers;  and,  excepting  Genoa, 
the  tricolor  flag  was  everywhere  expelled  from 
Italy.  At  the  same  time  the  campaign  on  the 
Rhine  was  drawing  to  a  close.  The  army  of 
Massena  was  not  strong  enough  to  follow  up  the 
brilliant  success  at  Zurich,  and  the  jealousies  of 
the  Austrians  and  Russians,  who  mutually  laid 
on  each  other  the  blame  of  the  late  disasters,  pre- 
vented their  acting  cordially  in  concert  against 
him.  Suwarroff  at  length,  in  a  fit  of  exaspera- 
tion, drew  off  his  troops  to  winter  quarters  in 
Bavaria,  and  took  no  further  share  in  the  war ; 
and  a  fruitless  attempt  in  November  against 
Philipsburg,  by  Lecourbe,  who  had  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  command  on  the  lower  Rhine,  closed 
the  operations  in  that  quarter." — Epitome  of  Ali- 
son's Hist,  of  Europe,  sects.  245-251  {ch.  28,  v.  7 
of  comfplete  iDork). — Meantime,  the  French  had 
been  entirely  expelled  from  southern  Italy.  On 
the  withdrawal  of  Macdonald,  with  most  of  his 
army,  from  Naples,  "Cardinal  Ruffo,  a  soldier, 
churchman,  and  politician,  put  himself  at  the 
head  of  a  numerous  body  of  insurgents,  and 
commenced  war  against  such  French  troops  as 
had  been  left  in  the  south  and  in  the  middle  of 
Italy.  This  movement  was  actively  supported 
by  the  British  fleet.  Lord  Nelson  recovered 
Naples ;  Rome  surrendered  to  Commodore  Trow- 
bridge. Thus  the  Parthenopean  and  Roman  re- 
publics were  extinguished  forever.  The  royal 
family  returned  to  Naples,  and  that  fine  city  and 
country  were  once  more  a  kingdom.  Rome,  the 
capital  of  the  world,  was  occupied  by  Neapolitan 
troops." — Sir  "W.  Scott,  Life  of  Napoleon,  ch.  38. 

Also  in  :  L.  M.  P.  de  Laverne,  Life  of  8ou- 
■narof,  ch.  6.— H.  Spalding,  Samroff. — P.  CoUetta, 
Hist,  of  the  Kingchm  of  Naples,  bk.  4,  ch.  2  and 
bk.  5,  ch.  1-3  (v.  1). — T.  J.  Pettigrew,  Memoirs  of 
Lord  Nelson,  ii.  1,  ch.  8-9. 

A.  D.  1799  (September — October).— Disas- 
trous ending  of  the  Anglo-Russian  invasion  of 
Holland. — Capitulation  of  the  Duke  of  York. 
— Dissolution  of  the  Dutch  East  India  Com- 
pany.— "It  is  very  obvious  that  the  Duke  of 
York  was  selected  in  an  unlucky  hour  to  be  the 


1361 


FRANCE,  1799. 


Anglo-Russian  fiasco 
in  Holland. 


FRANCE,  1799. 


commander-in-chief  of  this  Anglo-Russian  expe- 
dition, when  we  compare  the  time  in  which 
Abercrombie  was  alone  on  the  marshy  promon- 
tory of  the  Helder  .  .  .  with  the  subsequent 
period.  On  the  10th  of  September  Abercrom- 
bie successfully  repulsed  the  attack  of  General 
Brune,  who  had  come  for  the  purpose  from  Haar- 
lem to  Alkmar;  on  the  19th  the  Duke  of  York 
landed,  and  soon  ruined  everything.  The  first 
division  of  the  Russians  had  at  length  arrived  on 
the  15th,  under  the  command  of  General  Herr- 
mann, for  whom  it  was  originally  destined,  al- 
though unhappily  it  afterwards  came  into  tlie 
hands  of  General  KorsakoS.  The  duke  there- 
fore thought  he  might  venture  on  a  general 
attack  on  the  19th.  In  this  attack  Herrmann  led 
the  right  wing,  which  was  formed  by  the  Rus- 
sians, and  Abercrombie,  with  whom  was  the 
Prince  of  Orange,  the  left,  whilst  the  centre  was 
left  to  the  Duke  of  York,  the  commander-in- 
chief.  This  decisive  battle  was  fought  at  Ber- 
gen, a  place  situated  to  the  north  of  Alkmar. 
The  combined  army  was  victorious  on  both 
wings,  and  Horn,  on  the  Zuyder  Zee,  was  occu- 
pied ;  the  Duke  of  York,  who  was  only  a  general 
for  parades  and  reviews,  merely  indulged  the 
centre  with  a  few  manoeuvres  hither  and  thither. 
.  .  .  The  Russians,  therefore,  who  were  left 
alone  in  impassible  marshes,  traversed  by  ditches, 
and  unknown  to  their  officers,  lost  many  men, 
and  were  at  length  surrounded,  and  even  their 
general  taken  prisoner.  The  duke  concerned 
himself  very  little  about  the  Russians,  and  had 
long  before  prudently  retired  into  his  trenches ; 
and,  as  the  Russians  were  lost,  Abercrombie  and 
the  Crown  Prince  were  obliged  to  relinquish 
Horn."  The  incapacity  of  the  commander-in- 
chief  held  the  army  paralyzed  during  the  fort- 
night following,  suffering  from  sickness  and 
want,  while  it  would  still  have  been  practicable 
to  push  forward  to  South  Holland.  ' '  A  series 
of  bloody  engagements  took  place  from  the  2nd 
till  the  6th  of  October,  and  the  object  of  the 
attack  upon  the  whole  line  of  the  French  and 
Batavian  army  would  have  been  attained  had 
Abercrombie  alone  commanded.  The  English 
and  Russians,  who  call  this  the  battle  of  Alkmar, 
were  indisputably  victorious  in  the  engagements 
of  the  2nd  and  3rd  of  October.  They  even  drove 
the  enemy  before  them  to  the  neighbourhood  of 
Haarlem,  after  having  taken  possession  of  Alk- 
mar ;  but  on  the  6th,  Brune,  who  owes  his  other- 
wise very  moderate  military  renown  to  this  en- 
gagement alone,  having  received  a  reinforcement 
of  some  thousands  on  the  4th  and  5tli,  renewed 
the  battle.  The  fighting  on  this  day  took  place 
at  Castricum,  on  a  narrow  strip  of  land  between 
the  sea  and  the  lake  of  Haarlem,  a  position  fa- 
vourable to  the  French.  The  French  report  is,  as 
usual,  full  of  the  boasts  of  a  splendid  victory; 
the  English,  however,  remained  in  possession 
of  the  field,  and  did  not  retire  to  their  trenches 
behind  Alkmar  and  to  the  marshes  of  Zyp  till 
the  7th.  ...  In  not  more  than  eight  days  after- 
wards, the  want  in  the  army  and  the  anxiety 
of  its  Incapable  commander-in-cliief  became  so 
great,  the  number  of  the  sick  increased  so  rapidly, 
and  the  fear  of  the  difiiculties  of  embarkation  in 
winter  so  grew  and  spread,  that  the  duke  ac- 
cepted the  most  shameful  capitulation  that  had 
ever  been  offered  to  an  English  general,  except  at 
Saratoga.  This  capitulation,  concluded  on  the 
19th  of  October,  was  only  granted  because  the 


English,  by  destroying  the  dykes,  had  it  in  their 
power  to  ruin  the  country."— F.  C.  Schlosser, 
Hist,  of  tlie  Eighteenth  Century,  v.  7,  pp.  149-151. 
— "For  the  failure  in  accomplishing  the  great  ob- 
jects of  emancipating  Holland  and  restoring  its 
legitimate  ruler;  for  the  clamorous  joy  with 
which  her  enemies,  foreign  and  domestic,  hailed 
the  event;  the  government  of  Great  Britain  had 
many  consolations.  .  .  .  The  Dutch  fleet,  which, 
in  the  hands  of  an  enterprising  enemy,  might 
have  been  so  injuriously  employed,  was  a  cap- 
ture of  immense  importance :  if  Holland  was  ever 
to  become  a  friend  and  ally,  we  had  abundant 
means  of  promoting  her  prosperity  and  re-estab- 
lishing her  greatness;  if  an  enemy,  her  means 
of  injury  and  hopes  of  rivalship  were  effectually 
suppressed.  Her  East-India  Company,  .  .  .  long 
the  rival  of  our  own  in  power  and  prosperity, 
who.se  dividends  in  some  years  had  risen  to  the 
amount  of  40  per  cent.,  now  finally  closed  its 
career,  making  a  paltry  final  payment  in  part  of 
the  arrears  of  dividends  for  the  present  and  three 
preceding  years." — J.  Adolphus,  Hist,  of  Eng. : 
Reign  of  George  III.,  ch.  109  (».  7). 

Also  in:  G.  R.  Gleig,  Life  of  Gen.  Sir  B. 
Abereromhy  {Eminent  British  Military  Comman- 
ders, 1).  3). 

A.  D.  1799  (November). — Return  of  Bona- 
parte frqfn  Egypt.  —  The  first  Napoleonic 
Coup  d'Etat. — Revolution  of  the  18th  Bru- 
maire. — End  of  the  First  Republic. — Creation 
of  the  Consulate. — "  When  Bonaparte,  by  means 
of  the  bundle  of  papers  which  Sidney  Smith 
caused  to  find  their  way  through  the  French 
lines,  learned  the  condition  of  affairs  in  Europe, 
there  was  but  one  course  consistent  with  his 
character  for  him  to  pursue.  There  was  nothing 
more  to  be  done  in  Egypt ;  there  was  everything 
to  be  done  in  France.  If  he  were  to  lead  his 
army  back,  even  in  case  he  should,  by  some 
miracle,  elude  the  eager  eyes  of  Lord  Nelson,  the 
act  would  be  generally  regarded  as  a  confessioa 
of  disaster.  If  he  were  to  remain  with  the  army, 
he  could,  at  best,  do  nothing  but  pursue  a  purely 
defensive  policy;  and  if  the  army  were  to  be 
overwhelmed,  it  was  no  part  of  Napoleonism  to 
be  involved  in  the  disaster.  ...  It  would  be  far 
shrewder  to  throw  the  responsibility  of  the  future 
of  Egypt  on  another,  and  to  transfer  himself  to 
the  field  that  was  fast  ripening  for  the  coveted 
harvest.  Of  course  Bonaparte,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, did  not  hesitate  as  to  which  course 
to  pursue.  Robbing  the  army  of  such  good 
oflScers  as  survived,  he  left  it  in  command  of  the 
only  one  who  had  dared  to  raise  his  voice  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  work  of  the  18th  Fructidor  .  .  .  the 
heroic  but  indignant  Kleber.  AV  as  there  ever  a 
more  exquisite  revenge  V  .  .  .  On  the  arrival  of 
Bonaparte  in  Paris  everything  seemed  ready  to 
his  hand.  .  .  .  The  policy  which,  in  the  seizure 
of  Switzerland  and  the  Papal  States,  he  had 
taken  pains  to  inaugurate  before  his  departure 
for  Egypt  had  borne  its  natural  fruit.  As  never 
before  in  the  history  of  Europe,  England,  Hol- 
land, Russia,  Austria,  Naples,  and  even  Turkey 
had  joined  hands  in  a  common  cause,  and  as  a 
natural  consequence  the  Directory  had  been  de- 
feated at  every  point.  Nor  was  it  unnatural  for 
the  people  to  attribute  all  these  disasters  to  the 
inefficiency  of  the  government.  The  Directory 
had  really  fallen  into  general  contempt,  and  at 
the  new  election  on  the  30th  Prairial  it  had  been 
practically  overthrown.     Rewbell,  who   by  his 


1362 


FRANCE,  1799. 


Overthrow 
of  the  Directory. 


FRANCE,  1799. 


influence  had  stood  at  the  head  of  affairs,  had 
been  obliged  to  give  way,"  and  Sieyfis  had  been 
put  in  his  place.  "  By  the  side  of  this  fantastic 
statesman  .  .  .  Barras  had  been  retained,  prob- 
ably for  no  other  reason  than  that  he  was  sure 
to  be  found  with  the  majority,  while  the  other 
members,  Gohier,  Moulins,  and  Roger-Ducos 
were  men  from  whose  supposed  mediocrity  no  very 
decided  opposition  could  be  anticipated.  Thus 
the  popular  party  was  not  only  revenged  for  the 
outrages  of  Fructidor,  but  it  had  also  made  up 
the  new  Directory  of  men  who  seemed  likely  to 
be  nothing  but  clay  in  the  hands  of  Bonaparte. 
.  .  .  The  manner  in  which  the  General  was  re- 
ceived can  have  left  no  possible  doubt  remaining 
in  his  mind  as  to  the  strength  of  his  hold  on  the 
hearts  of  the  people.  It  must  have  been  apparent 
to  all  that  he  needed  but  to  declare  himself,  in  order 
to  secure  a  well-nigh  unanimous  support  and  fol- 
lowing of  the  masses.  But  with  the  political  lead- 
ers the  case,  for  obvious  reasons,  was  far  different. 
.  .  .  His  popularity  was  so  overwhelming,  that 
in  his  enmity  the  leaders  could  anticipate  nothing 
but  annihilation,  in  his  friendship  nothing  but 
insignificance.  .  .  .  The  member  of  the  govern- 
ment who,  at  the  time,  wielded  most  influence, 
was  SieySs,  a  man  to  whom  personally  the  Gen- 
■eral  had  so  unconquerable  an  aversion,  that  Jose- 
phine was  accustomed  to  refer  to  him  as  her 
husband's  bete  noir.  It  was  evident  that  Sieyfes 
was  the  most  formidable  obstacle  to  the  General's 
-advance."  As  a  first  movement,  Bonaparte  en- 
deavored to  bring  about  the  removal  of  Sieyfis 
from  the  Directory  and  his  own  election  to  the 
place.  Failing  this,  his  party  attempted  the  im- 
mediate creation  of  a  dictatorship.  When  that, 
too,  was  found  impracticable,  Sieyfs  was  per- 
suaded to  a  reconciliation  and  alliance  with  the 
ambitious  soldier,  and  the  two,  at  a  meeting, 
planned  the  proceedings  ' '  which  led  to  that  dark 
day  in  French  history  known  as  the  18th  Bru- 
maire  [November  9,  1799].  It  remained  only  to 
get  absolute  control  of  the  milit-ary  forces,  a  task 
at  that  time  in  no  way  difficult.  The  officers 
who  had  returned  with  Bonaparte  from  Egypt 
were  impatient  to  follow  wherever  their  master 
might  lead.  Moreau,  who,  since  the  death  of 
Hoche,  was  regarded  as  standing  next  to  Bona- 
parte in  military  ability,  was  not  reluctant  to 
cast  in  his  lot  with  the  others,  and  Macdonald  as 
well  as  Serurier  soon  followed  his  example. 
Beruadotte  alone  would  yield  to  neither  flattery 
nor  intimidation.  .  .  .  While  Bonajjarte  was  thus 
marshalling  his  forces  in  the  Rue  de  la  Victoire, 
the  way  was  opening  in  the  Councils.  A  com- 
mission of  the  Ancients,  made  up  of  the  leading 
conspirators,  had  worked  all  night  drawing  up 
the  proposed  articles,  in  order  that  in  the  morning 
the  Council  might  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  vote 
theiu.  The  meeting  was  called  for  seven  o'clock, 
and  care  was  taken  not  to  notify  those  members 
whose  opposition  there  was  reason  to  fear.  .  .  . 
The  articles  were  adopted  without  discussion. 
Those  present  voted,  first,  to  remove  the  sessions 
of  the  Councils  from  Paris  to  Saint  Cloud  (a  privi- 
lege which  the  constitution  conferred  upon  the 
Ancients  alone),  thus  putting  them  at  once  beyond 
the  power  of  influencing  the  populace  and  of 
standing  in  the  way  of  Bonaparte.  TThey  then 
passed  a  decree  giving  to  Bonaparte  the  com- 
mand of  the  military  forces,  at  the  same  time 
inviting  him  to  come  to  the  Assembly  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 


Constitution."  Bonaparte  appeared,  accordingly, 
before  the  Council ;  but  instead  of  taking  an  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  constitution,  he  made  a 
speech  which  he  closed  by  declaring :  ' '  We  want 
a  Republic  founded  on  true  liberty  and  national 
representation.  We  will  have  it,  I  swear;  I 
swear  it  in  my  own  name  and  that  of  my  com- 
panions in  arms."  "Thus  the  mockery  of  the 
oath-taking  in  the  Council  of  Ancients  was  ac- 
complished. The  General  had  now  a  more  dif- 
ficult part  to  perform  in  the  Council  of  Five 
Hundred.  As  the  meeting  of  the  Assembly  was 
not  to  occur  until  twelve  o'clock  of  the  following 
day,  Bonaparte  made  use  of  the  intervening  time 
in  posting  his  forces  and  in  disposing  of  the 
Directory.  .  .  .  There  was  one  locality  in  the 
city  where  it  was  probable  aggressive  force  would 
be  required.  The  Luxembourg  was  the  seat  of  the 
Directory,  and  the  Directory  must  at  all  hazards 
be  crushed.  .  .  .  Bonaparte  knew  well  how  to 
turn  all  such  ignominious  service  to  account. 
In  close  imitation  of  that  policy  which  had  left 
Kleber  in  Egypt,  he  placed  the  Luxembourg  in 
charge  of  the  only  man  in  the  nation  who  could 
now  be  regarded  as  his  rival  for  popular  favor. 
Moreau  fell  into  the  snare,  and  by  so  doing  lost 
a  popularity  which  he  was  never  afterwards  able 
to  regain.  Having  thus  placed  his  military 
forces,  Bonaparte  turned  his  attention  to  the 
Directors.  The  resignations  of  Sieyfes  and  of 
Roger-Ducos  he  already  had  upon  his  table.  It 
remained  only  to  procure  the  others.  Barras, 
without  warning,  was  confronted  by  Talleyrand 
and  Bruix,  who  asked  him  without  circumlocu- 
tion to  resign  his  office,"  which  he  did,  after 
slight  hesitation.  Gohier  and  Moulins  were  ad- 
dressed by  Bonaparte  in  person,  but  firmly  re- 
sisted his  importunities  and  his  threats.  They 
were  then  made  prisoners  by  Moreau.  "The 
night  of  the  18th  passed  in  comparative  tran- 
quillity. The  fact  that  there  was  no  organized 
resistance  is  accounted  for  by  Lanfrey  with  a 
single  mournful  statement,  that  '  nothing  of  the 
kind  could  be  expected  of  a  nation  that  had  been 
decapitated.  All  the  men  of  rank  in  France  for 
the  previous  ten  years,  either  by  character  or 
genius  or  virtue,  had  been  mown  down,  first  by 
the  scafEolds  and  proscriptions,  next  by  war.'  " 
On  the  morrow,  the  19th  of  Brumaire  "(Novem- 
ber 10)  the  sitting  of  the  two  councils  began 
at  two  o'clock.  In  the  Council  of  Five  Hvmdred 
the  partisans  of  Bonaparte  were  less  numerous 
than  in  that  of  the  Ancients,  and  a  powerful  in- 
dignation at  the  doings  of  the  previous  day  began 
quickly  to  show  itself.  In  the  midst  of  a  warm 
debate  upon  the  resignation  of  Barras,  which 
had  just  been  received,  "the  door  was  opened, 
and  Bonaparte,  surrounded  by  his  grenadiers, 
entered  the  hall.  A  burst  of  indignation  at 
once  arose.  Every  member  sprang  to  his  feet. 
'  What  is  this  ? '  they  cried,  '  swords  here !  armed 
men!  Awayl  we  will  have  no  dictator  here.' 
Then  some  of  the  deputies,  bolder  than  the  others, 
surrounded  Bonaparte  and  overwhelmed  him 
with  invectives.  '  You  are  violating  the  sanctity 
of  the  laws ;  what  are  you  doing,  rash  man  ? ' 
exclaimed  Bigonnet.  '  Is  it  for  this  that  you 
have  conquered  ? '  demanded  Destrem,  advancing 
towards  him.  Others  seized  him  by  the  collar  of 
his  coat,  and,  shaking  him  violently,  reproached 
him  with  treason.  This  reception,  though  the 
General  had  come  with  the  purpose  of  intimidat- 
ing the  Assembly,  fairly  overwhelmed  him.    Eye- 


1363 


FRANCE,  1799. 


Bonaparte 
First  Consul. 


FRANCE,  1799. 


■witnesses  declare  that  he  turned  pale,  and  fell 
fainting  into  the  arms  of  his  soldiers,  wlio  drew 
him  out  of  the  hall."  His  brother  Lucien,  who 
was  President  of  the  Council,  showed  better 
nerve.  By  refusing  to  put  motions  that  were 
made  to  vote,  and  finally  by  resigning  his  ofBce 
and  quitting  the  chair,  he  threw  the  Council  into 
confusion.  Then,  appearing  to  the  troops  out- 
side, who  supposed  him  to  be  still  President  of 
the  Council,  he  harangued  them  and  summoned 
them  to  clear  the  chamber.  "  The  grenadiers 
poured  into  the  hall.  A  last  cry  of  '  Vive  la 
Republique '  was  raised,  and  a  moment  later  the 
hall  was  empty.  Thus  the  crime  of  the  con- 
spirators was  consummated,  and  the  First  French 
Republic  was  at  an  end.  After  this  action  it 
remained  only  to  put  into  the  hands  of  Bonaparte 
the  semblance  of  regular  authority.  ...  A 
phantom  of  the  Council  of  Five  Hundred  —  Cor- 
net, one  of  them,  says  30  members  —  met  in  the 
evening  and  voted  the  measures  which  had  been 
previously  agreed  upon  by  the  conspirators. 
Bonaparte,  SieySs,  and  Roger-Ducos  were  ap- 
pointed provisional  consuls ;  57  members  of  the 
Council  who  had  been  most  prominent  in  their 
opposition  were  excluded  from  their  seats ;  a  list 
of  proscriptions  was  prepared ;  two  commission- 
ers chosen  from  the  assemblies  were  appointed 
to  assist  the  consuls  in  their  work  of  organiza- 
tion ;  and,  finally,  .  .  .  they  adjourned  the  legis- 
lative body  until  the  20th  of  February." — C.  K. 
Adams,  Democracy  and  Monarchy  in  France, 
ch.  4. 

Also  ts:  P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon  I. — A. 
Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  French  Rev.  (Am.  ed.),  v.  4, 
pp.  407^30. — M.  de  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs 
of  Napoleon,  v.  1,  ch.  24r-27. — Count  Miot  de  Melito, 
Memoirs,  ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1799  (November  —  December). —  The 
constitution  of  the  consulate. — Bonaparte  as 
First  Consul. —  "During  the  three  months  which 
followed  the  ISthBrumaire,  approbation  and  ex- 
pectation were  general.  A  provisional  govern- 
ment had  been  appointed,  composed  of  three 
consuls,  Bonaparte,  Sieyes,  and  Roger-Ducos, 
with  two  legislative  commissioners,  entrusted  to 
prepare  the  constitution  and  a  definitive  order  of 
things.  The  consuls  and  the  two  commissioners 
were  installed  on  the  21st  Brumaire.  This  pro- 
visional government  abolished  the  law  respecting 
hostages  and  compulsory  loans;  it  permitted  the 
return  of  the  priests  proscribed  since  the  18th 
Fructidor ;  it  released  from  prison  and  sent  out  of 
the  republic  the  emigrants  who  had  been  ship- 
wrecked on  the  coast  of  Calais,  and  who  for  four 
years  were  captives  in  France,  and  were  exposed 
to  the  heavy  punishment  of  the  emigrant  army. 
All  these  measures  were  very  favourably  re- 
ceived. But  public  opinion  revolted  at  a  pro- 
scription put  in  force  against  the  estrerae  repub- 
licans. Thirty-six  of  them  were  sentenced  to 
transportation  to  Guiana,  and  twenty-one  were 
put  under  serveillance  in  the  department  of 
Charante-Inferieure,  merely  by  a  decree  of  the 
consuls  on  the  report  of  Fouche,  minister  of 
police.  The  public  viewed  unfavourably  all 
who  attacked  the  government,  but  at  the  same 
time  it  exclaimed  against  an  act  so  arbitrary  and 
imjust.  The  consuls,  accordingly,  recoiled  be- 
fore their  own  act;  they  first  commuted  trans- 
portation into  surveillance,  and  soon  withdrew 
surveillance  itself.  It  was  not  long  before  a  rup- 
ture broke  out  between  the  authors  of  the  18th 


Brumaire.  During  their  provisional  authority 
it  did  not  create  much  noise,  because  it  took 
place  in  the  legislative  commissions.  The  new 
constitution  was  the  cause  of  it.  Sieyes  and 
Bonaparte  could  not  agree  on  this  subject:  the 
former  wished  to  Institute  France,  the  latter  to 
govern  it  as  a  master.  .  .  .  Bonaparte  took  part 
in  the  deliberations  of  the  constituent  committee, 
with  his  instinct  of  power,  he  seized  upon  every- 
thing in  the  ideas  of  Siej^es  which  was  calculated 
to  serve  his  projects,  and  caused  the  rest  to  be 
rejected.  ...  On  the  24th  of  December,  1799 
(Nivose,  year  VIII.),  forty-five  days  after  the 
18th  Brumaire,  was  published  the  constitution 
of  the  year  VIII. ;  it  was  composed  of  the  wrecks 
of  that  of  Sieyes,  now  become  a  constitution  of 
servitude." — F.  A.  Mignet,  Hist,  of  the  French 
Rev.,  ch.  14. — "The  new  constitution  was  still 
republic  in  name  and  appearance,  but  monarchi- 
cal in  fact,  the  latter  concealed,  by  the  govern- 
ment being  committed,  not  to  the  hand  of  one 
individual,  but  of  three.  The  three  persons  so 
fixed  upon  were  denominated  consuls,  and  ap- 
pointed for  ten  years ; —  one  of  them,  however, 
was  really  ruler,  although  he  only  obtained  the 
modest  name  of  First  Consul.  The  rights  which 
Bonaparte  caused  to  be  given  to  himself  made  all 
the  rest  nothing  more  than  mere  deception.  The 
First  Consul  was  to  invite  the  others  merely  to 
consultation  on  affairs  of  state,  whilst  he  himself, 
either  immediately  or  througli  the  senate,  was  to 
appoint  to  all  places  of  trust  and  authority,  to 
decide  absolutely  upon  questions  of  peace  or 
war,  and  to  be  assisted  by  a  council  of  state. 
...  In  order  to  cover  and  conceal  the  power  of 
the  First  Consul,  especially  in  reference  to  the 
appointment  of  persons  to  offices  of  trust  and 
authority,  a  senate  was  created,  which  neither 
belonged  to  the  people  nor  to  the  government, 
but  immediately  from  the  very  beginning  was  an 
assembly  of  courtiers  and  placemen,  and  at  a 
later  period  became  the  mere  tool  of  every  kind 
of  despotism,  by  rendering  it  easy  to  dispense 
with  the  legislative  body.  The  senate  consisted 
of  eighty  members,  a  part  of  whom  were  to  be 
immediately  nominated  from  the  lists  of  notabil- 
ity, and  the  senate  to  fill  up  its  own  body  from 
persons  submitted  to  them  by  the  First  Consul, 
the  tribunate,  and  the  legislative  body.  Each 
senator  was  to  have  a  salary  of  25,000  f. ;  tiieir 
meetings  were  not  public,  and  their  business  very 
small.  From  the  national  lists  the  senate  was 
also  to  select  consuls,  legislators,  tribunes,  and 
judges  of  the  Court  of  Cassation.  Large  lists 
were  first  presented  to  the  communes,  on  which, 
according  to  Roederer,  there  stood  some  500,000 
names,  out  of  which  the  communes  selected 
50,000  for  the  departmental  lists,  from  which 
again  5,000  were  to  be  chosen  for  the  national 
list.  From  these  5,000  names,  selected  from  the 
departmental  list,  or  from  what  was  termed  the 
national  list,  the  senate  was  afterwards  to  elect 
the  members  of  the  legislature  and  the  high  of- 
ficers of  government.  The  legislature  was  to 
consist  of  two  chambers,  the  tribunate  and  the 
legislative  body  —  the  former  composed  of  100, 
and  the  latter  of  300  members.  The  chambers 
had  no  power  of  taking  the  initiative,  that  is, 
they  were  obliged  to  wait  till  bills  were  sub- 
mitted to  them,  and  could  of  themselves  origi- 
nate nothing :  they  were,  however,  permitted  to 
express  wishes  of  all  kinds  to  the  government. 
Each  bill  {projet  de  loi)  was  introduced  into  the 


1364 


FRANCE,  1799. 


Kliber  in  Egyijt. 


FRANCE,  1800-1801. 


tribunate  by  three  members  of  the  council  of 
state,  and  there  defended  by  them,  because  the 
tribunate  alone  had  the  right  of  discussion, 
whilst  the  mere  power  of  saying  Yea  or  Nay  was 
conferred  upon  the  members  of  the  legislative 
body.  The  tribunate,  having  accepted  the  bill, 
sent  three  of  its  members,  accompanied  by  the 
members  from  the  council  of  state,  to  defend  the 
measure  in  the  assembly  of  the  legislative  body. 
Every  year  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
tive body  was  to  retire  from  office,  being,  how- 
ever, always  re-eligible  as  long  as  their  names 
remained  on  the  national  list.  The  sittings  of  the 
legislative  body  alone  were  public,  because  they 
were  only  permitted  to  be  silent  listeners  to  the 
addresses  of  the  tribunes  or  councillors  of  state, 
and  to  assent  to,  or  dissent  from,  the  proposed 
law.  Not  above  100  persons  were,  however,  al- 
lowed to  be  present  as  auditors ;  the  sittings  were 
not  allowed  to  continue  longer  than  four  months ; 
both  chambers,  however,  might  be  summoned  to 
an  extraordinary  sitting.  .  .  .  "When  the  consti- 
tution was  ready  to  be  brought  into  operation, 
Sieyes  terminated  merely  as  he  had  begun,  and 
Bonaparte  saw  with  pleasure  that  he  showed 
himself  both  contemptible  and  venal.  He  be- 
came a  dumb  senator,  with  a  yearly  income  of 
25,000  f. ;  and  obtained  800,000  f.  from  the 
directorial  treasury,  whilst  Roger  Ducos  was 
obliged  to  go  away  contented  with  a  douceur 
of  130,000  f .  ;  and,  last  of  all,  Sieyes  conde- 
scended to  accept  from  Bonaparte  a  i^resent  of 
the  national  domain  of  Crosne,  which  he  after- 
wards exchanged  for  another  estate.  For  col- 
leagues in  his  new  dignity  Bonaparte  selected 
very  able  and  skilful  men,  but  wholly  destitute 
of  all  nobility  of  mind,  and  to  whom  it  never 
once  occurred  to  offer  him  any  opposition ;  these 
were  Cambacer^s  and  Lebrun.  The  former,  a 
celebrated  lawyer,  although  formerly  a  vehe- 
ment Jacobin,  impatiently  waited  till  Bonaparte 
brought  forth  again  all  the  old  plunder;  and 
then,  covered  with  orders,  he  strutted  up  and 
down  the  Palais  Royal  like  a  peacock,  and  ex- 
hibited himself  as  a  show.  Lebrun,  who  was 
afterwards  created  a  duke,  at  a  later  period  dis- 
tinguished himself  by  being  the  first  to  revive 
the  use  of  hair  powder;  in  fact,  he  was  com- 
pletely a  child  and  partisan  of  the  olden  times, 
although  for  a  time  he  had  played  the  part  of  a 
Girondist.  ...  As  early  as  the  25th  and  36th  of 
December  the  First  Consul  took  up  his  abode  in 
the  Tuileries.  There  the  name  of  citizen  alto- 
gether disappeared,  for  the  consul's  wife  caused 
herself  again  to  be  addressed  as  Madame.  Every- 
thing which  concerned  the  government  now  began 
to  assume  full  activity,  and  the  adjourned  legis- 
lative councils  were  summoned  for  the  1st  of 
January,  in  order  that  they  might  be  dissolved." 
— F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hist,  of  the  Eighteenth  Cen- 
tury, V.  7,  pp.  189-192. 

Also  in  :  P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon  I. ,  ». 
1,  eh.  13-14— A.  Thiers,  Hint,  of  the  Consulate 
and  Empire,  bk.  1-3  (».  1). — H.  C.  Lockwood, 
Const.  Hist,  of  Prance,  ch.  3  a7id  app.  4. 

A.  D.  i8oo. — Convention  with  the  United 
States.  See  United  States  of  Aji.  :  A.  D. 
1800. 

A.  D.  i8oo  (January — June). —  Affairs  in 
Eg^pt. — The  repudiated -Treaty  of  El  Arish. 
— Kl^ber's  victory  at  Heliopolis. — His  assas- 
sination.— "Affairs  in  Egypt  had  been  on  the 
whole  unfavourable  to  the  French,   since   that 


army  had  lost  the  presence  of  the  commander-in. 
chief.  Kleber,  on  whom  the  command  devolved, 
was  discontented  both  at  the  unceremonious  and 
sudden  manner  in  which  the  duty  had  been  im- 
posed upon  him,  and  with  the  scarcity  of  means 
left  to  support  his  defence.  Perceiving  himself 
threatened  by  a  large  Turkish  force,  which  was 
collecting  for  the  purpose  of  avenging  the  de- 
feat of  the  vizier  at  Aboukir,  he  became  desirous 
of  giving  up  a  settlement  which  he  despaired  of 
maintaining.  He  signed  accordingly  a  convention 
with  the  Turkish  plenipotentiaries,  and  Sir  Sid- 
ney Smith  on  the  part  of  the  British  [at  El 
Arish,  January  28,  1800],  by  which  it  was  pro- 
vided that  the  French  should  evacuate  Egypt, 
and  that  Kleber  and  his  army  should  be  trans- 
ported to  France  In  safety,  without  being  mo- 
lested by  the  British  fleet.  When  the  British 
government  received  advice  of  this  convention 
they  refused  to  ratify  it,  on  the  ground  that  Sir 
Sidney  Smith  had  exceeded  his  powers  in  enter- 
ing into  it.  The  Earl  of  Elgin  having  been  sent 
out  as  plenipotentiary  to  the  Porte,  it  was  as- 
serted that  Sir  Sidney's  ministerial  powers  were 
superseded  by  his  appointment.  .  .  .  The  truth 
was  that  the  arrival  of  Kleber  and  his  army  in 
the  south  of  France,  at  the  very  moment  when 
the  successes  of  Suwarrow  gave  strong  hopes  of 
making  some  impression  on  her  frontier,  might 
have  had  a  most  material  effect  upon  the  events 
of  the  war.  .  .  .  The  treaty  of  El  Arish  was  in 
consequence  broken  off.  Kleber,  disappointed 
of  this  mode  of  extricating  himself,  had  recourse 
to  arms.  The  Vizier  Jousseff  Pacha,  having 
crossed  the  Desert  and  entered  Egypt,  received 
a  bloody  and  decisive  defeat  from  the  French 
general,  near  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  city  of 
Heliopolis,  on  the  30th  of  March,  1800  [follow- 
ing which  Kleber  crushed  with  great  slaughter  a 
revolt  that  had  broken  out  in  Cairo].  The  meas- 
ures which  Kleber  adopted  after  this  victory 
were  well  calculated  to  maintain  the  possession 
of  the  country,  and  reconcile  the  inhabitants  to 
the  French  government.  .  .  .  While  busied  in 
these  measures,  he  was  cut  short  by  the  blow  of 
an  assassin.  A  fanatic  Turk,  called  Soliman 
Haleby,  a  native  of  Aleppo,  imagined  he  was 
inspired  by  Heaven  to  slay  the  enemy  of  the 
Prophet  and  the  Grand  Seignior.  He  concealed 
himself  in  a  cistern,  and  springing  out  on  Kleber 
when  there  was  only  one  man  in  company  with 
him,  stabbed  him  dead  [June  14].  .  .  .  The 
Baron  Menou,  on  whom  the  command  now  de- 
volved, was  an  inferior  person  to  Kleber.  .  .  . 
Menou  altered  for  the  worse  several  of  the  regu- 
lations of  Kleber,  and,  carrying  into  literal  exe- 
cution what  Buonaparte  had  only  written  and 
spoken  of,  he  became  an  actual  Mahommedan." 
— Sir  W.  Scott,  Life  of  Napoleon  Buonaparte, 
eh.  40. 

Also  in  :  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate  and 
Empire,  bk.  5  {v.  1). 

A.  D.  1800-1801  (May — February). —  Bona- 
parte's second  Italian  campaign. — The  cross- 
ing of  the  Alps. — The  Battle  of  Marengo. — 
Moreau  in  Germany. — Hohenlinden. — Austrian 
siege  of  Genoa. — "  Preparations  for  the  new  cam- 
paign in  spring  were  completed.  Moreau  was 
made  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  of  the 
Rhine,  150,000  strong.  The  plan  of  the  campaign 
was  concerted  between  the  First  Consul  and  Car- 
not,  who  had  superseded  Berthier  a.3  Minister  at 
War.     The  operations  were  conducted  with  the 


1365 


FRANCE,  1800-1801. 


Bo}iaparte^s  Second 
Italian  Campaign. 


FRANCE,  1800-1801. 


utmost  secresy.  Napoleon  had  detenniQed  to 
strike  the  decisive  blow  against  Austria  in  Italy, 
and  to  command  there  in  person.  By  an  article 
in  the  Constitution  the  First  Consul  was  forbid- 
den to  take  command  of  an  army.  To  this  inter- 
diction he  cheerfully  assented ;  but  he  evaded  it, 
as  soon  as  the  occasion  veas  ripe,  by  giving  the 
nominal  command  of  the  army  of  Italy  to  Ber- 
thier.  He  began  to  collect  troops  at  Dijon,  which 
were,  he  publicly  announced,  intended  to  ad- 
vance upon  Italy.  They  consisted  chiefly  of  con- 
scripts and  invalids,  with  a  numerous  staff,  and 
were  called  'the  army  of  reserve.'  Meantime, 
while  caricatures  of  some  ancient  men  with 
wooden  legs  and  little  boys  of  twelve  years  old, 
entitled  'Bonaparte's  Army  of  Reserve,'  were 
amusing  the  Austrian  public,  the  real  army  of 
Italy  was  formed  in  the  heart  of  France,  and  was 
marching  by  various  roads  towards  Switzerland. 
.  .  .  The  artillery  was  sent  piecemeal  from  dif- 
ferent arsenals;  the  provisions  necessary  to  an 
army  about  to  cross  barren  mountains  were  for- 
warded to  Geneva,  embarked  on  the  lake,  and 
landed  at  Villeneuve,  near  the  entrance  to  the 
valley  of  the  Simplon.  The  situation  of  the 
French  army  in  Italy  had  become  critical.  Mas- 
s6na  had  thrown  himself  into  Genoa  with  12,000 
men,  and  was  enduring  all  the  rigours  of  a  siege, 
pressed  by  30,000  Austrians  under  General  Ott, 
seconded  b}'  the  British  fleet.  Suchet,  with  the 
remainder  of  the  French  armj',  about  10,000 
strong,  completely  cut  off  from  communication 
with  Massfina,  had  concentrated  his  forces  on  the 
Var,  was  maintaining  an  unequal  contest  with 
Melas,  the  Austrian  commander-in-chief,  and 
strenuously  defending  the  French  frontier.  Na- 
polean's  plan  was  to  transport  his  army  across 
the  Alps,  plant  himself  in  the  rear  of  the  Aus- 
trians, intercept  their  communications,  then  ma- 
noeuvre so  as  to  place  his  own  army  and  that  of 
MassSna  on  the  Austrian  right  and  left  flanks  re- 
spectively, cut  off  their  retreat,  and  finally  give 
them  battle  at  the  decisive  moment.  While  all 
Europe  imagined  that  the  multifarious  concerns 
of  the  Government  held  the  First  Consul  at  Paris, 
he  was  travelling  at  a  rapid  rate  towards  Geneva, 
accompanied  only  by  Ids  secretar}'.  He  left 
Paris  on  the  6th  of  May,  at  two  in  the  morning, 
leaving  Cambacerfes  to  preside  until  his  return, 
and  ordering  Fouche  to  announce  that  he  was 
about  to  review  the  army  at  Dijon,  and  might 
possibly  go  as  far  as  Geneva,  but  would  return 
in  a  fortnight.  'Should  anything  happen,'  he 
significantly  added,  '  I  shall  be  back  like  a  thun- 
derbolt.'. .  .  On  the  13th  the  First  Consul  re- 
viewed the  vanguard  of  his  army,  commanded  by 
General  Lannes,  at  Lausanne.  'The  whole  army 
consisted  of  nearly  70,000  men.  Two  columns, 
each  of  about  6,000  men,  were  put  in  motion,  one 
under  Tureau,  the  other  under  Chabran,  to  take 
the  routes  of  Mont  Cenis  and  the  Little  St.  Ber- 
nard. A  division  consisting  of  15, 000  men,  imder 
Moncey,'  detached  from  the  army  of  the  Rhine, 
was  to  march  by  St.  Gothard.  Moreau  kept  the 
Austrian  army  of  the  Rhine,  under  General  Kray, 
on  the  defensive  before  Ulm  [to  which  he  had 
forced  his  way  in  a  series  of  important  engage- 
ments, at  Engen,  May  3,  at  Moeskirch,  May  4,  at 
Biberach,  May  9,  and  atHochstadt,  June  19],  and 
held  himself  in  readiness  to  cover  the  operations 
of  the  First  Consul  in  Italy.  The  main  body  of 
the  French  army,  in  numbers  about  40, 000,  nomi- 
nally commanded  by  Berthier,  but  in  fact  by  the 


First  Consul  himself,  marched  on  the  15th  from 
Lausanne  to  the  village  of  St.  Pierre,  at  the  foot 
of  the  Great  St.  Bernard,  at  which  all  trace  of  a 
practicable  road  entirely  ceased.  General  Mare- 
soot,  the  engineer  who  had  been  sent  forward 
from  Geneva  to  reconnoitre,  reported  the  paths 
to  be  '  barely  passable. '  '  Set  forward  imme- 
diately ! '  wrote  Napoleon.  Field  forges  were 
established  at  St.  Pierre  to  dismount  the  guns, 
the  carriages  and  wheels  were  slung  on  poles, 
and  the  ammunition-boxes  carried  b}'  mules.  A 
number  of  trees  were  felled,  then  hollowed  out, 
and  the  pieces,  being  jammed  into  these  rough 
cases,  100  soldiers  were  attached  to  each  and  or- 
dered to  drag  them  up  the  steeps.  .  .  .  The 
whole  army  effected  the  passage  of  the  Great  St. 
Bernard  in  three  days." — R.  H.  Home,  Hist,  of 
Napoleon  Bonaparte,  ch.  18. — "  From  May  16  to 
May  19,  the  solitudes  of  the  vast  mountain  track 
echoed  to  the  din  and  tumult  of  war,  as  the  French 
soldiery  swept  over  its  heights  to  reach  the  val- 
ley of  the  Po  and  the  plains  of  Lombardy.  A 
hill  fort,  for  a  time,  stopped  the  daring  invaders, 
but  the  obstacle  was  passed  by  an  ingenious 
stratagem;  and  before  long  Bonaparte,  exulting 
in  hope,  was  marching  from  the  verge  of  Pied- 
mont on  Milan,  having  made  a  demonstration 
against  Turin,  in  order  to  hide  his  real  purpose. 
By  June  2  the  whole  French  army,  joined  by  the 
reinforcement  sent  by  Moreau,  was  in  possession 
of  the  Lombard  capital,  and  threatened  the  line 
of  its  enemy's  retreat,  having  successfully  accom- 
plished the  first  part  of  the  brilliant  design  of  its 
great  leader.  While  Bonaparte  was  thus  descend- 
ing from  the  Alps,  the  Austrian  commander  had 
been  pressing  forward  the  siege  of  Genoa  and  his 
operations  on  the  Var.  Massena,  however,  stub- 
bornly held  out  in  Genoa ;  and  Suchet  had  defended 
the  defiles  of  Provence  with  a  weak  force  with 
such  marked  skill  that  his  adversary  had  made 
little  progress.  When  first  informed  of  the  ter- 
rible apparition  of  a  hostile  army  gathering  upon 
his  rear,  Melas  disbelieved  what  he  thought  im- 
possible ;  and  when  he  could  no  longer  discredit 
what  he  heard,  the  movements  by  Mont  Cenis 
and  against  Turin,  intended  to  perplex  him,  had 
made  him  hesitate.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  real 
design  of  the  First  Consul  was  fully  revealed,  the 
brave  Austrian  chief  resolved  to  force  his  way  to 
the  Adige  at  any  cost ;  and,  directing  Ott  to  raise 
the  siege  of  Genoa,  and  leaving  a  subordinate  to 
hold  Suchet  in  check,  he  began  to  draw  his  divi- 
ded army  together,  in  order  to  make  a  desperate 
attack  on  the  audacious  foe  upon  his  line  of  re- 
treat. Ott,  however,  delayed  some  days  to  re- 
ceive the  keys  of  Genoa,  which  fell  [June  4]  after 
a  defence  memorable  in  the  annals  of  war ;  and, 
as  the  Austrian  forces  had  been  widely  scattered, 
it  was  June  12  [after  a  severe  defeat  at  Monte- 
bello,  on  the  9th,  by  Lannes]  before  50,000  men 
were  assembled  for  an  offensive  movement  round 
the  well-known  fortresses  of  Alessandria.  Mean- 
while, the  First  Consul  had  broken  up  from 
IVIilan ;  and,  whether  ill-informed  of  his  enemy's 
operations,  or  apprehensive  that,  after  the  fall  of 
Genoa,  Melas  would  escape  by  a  march  south- 
wards, he  had  advanced  from  a  strong  position 
he  had  taken  between  the  Ticino,  the  Adda,  and 
the  Po,  and  had  crossed  the  Scrivia  into  the  plains 
of  Marengo,  with  forces  disseminated  far  too 
widely.  Melas  boldly  seized  the  opportunity  to 
escape  from  the  weakened  meshes  of  the  net 
thrown  round  him ;  and  attacked  Bonaparte  on 


1366 


FRANCE,  1800-1801. 


Marenf/o 
and  Hohenlinden. 


FRANCE,  1801. 


the  morning  of  June  14  with  a  vigor  .and  energy 
which  did  him  honor.  The  battle  raged  cou- 
f  usedly  for  several  hours ;  but  the  French  had  be- 
gun to  give  way  and  fly,  when  the  arrival  of  an 
isolated  division  on  the  field  [that  of  Desaix,  who 
had  been  sent  soutliward  by  Bonaparte,  and  who 
turned  back,  on  his  own  responsibility,  when  he 
heard  the  sounds  of  battle]  and  the  unexpected 
charge  of  a  small  body  of  horsemen,  suddenly 
changed  defeat  into  a  brilliant  victory.  The  im- 
portance was  tlien  seen  of  the  commanding  posi- 
tion of  Bonaparte  on  the  rear  of  his  foe ;  the  Aus- 
trian army,  its  retreat  cut  off,  was  obliged  to  come 
to  terms  after  a  single  reverse ;  and  within  a  few 
days  an  armistice  was  signed  by  which  Italy  to 
the  Mincio  was  restored  to  the  French,  and  the 
disasters  of  1799  were  effaced.  .  .  .  While  Italy 
had  beeu  regained  at  one  stroke,  the  campaign 
in  Germany  had  progressed  slowly  ;  and  though 
Moreaii  was  largely  superior  in  force,  he  had  met 
more  than  one  check  near  Ulm,  on  the  Danube. 
The  stand,  however,  made  ably  by  Kray,  could 
not  lessen  the  effects  of  Marengo ;  and  Austria, 
after  that  terrible  reverse,  endeavored  to  negoti- 
ate with  the  dreaded  conqueror.  Bonaparte,  how- 
ever, following  out  a  purpose  which  he  had 
already  made  a  maxim  of  policy,  and  resolved  if 
possible  to  divide  the  Coalition,  refused  to  treat 
with  Austria  j  ointly  with  England,  except  ou  con- 
ditions known  to  be  futile ;  and  after  a  pause  of 
a  few  weeks  hostilities  were  resumed  with  in- 
creased energy.  By  this  time,  however,  the 
French  armies  had  acquired  largely  preponderat- 
ing strength ;  and  while  Brune  advanced  victori- 
ously to  the  Adige  —  the  First  Consul  had  re- 
turned to  the  seat  of  government  —  Moreau  in 
Bavaria  marclied  ou  the  rivers  which,  descending 
from  the  Alps  to  the  Danube,  form  one  of  the 
bulwarks  of  the  Austrian  Monarchy.  He  was  at- 
tacked incautiously  by  the  Archduke  John  — •  the 
Archduke  Charles,  who  ought  to  have  been  in 
command,  was  in  temporary  disgrace  at  the  Court 
—  and  soon  afterwards  [December  3]  he  won  a 
great  battle  at  Hohenlinden,  between  thelser  and 
the  Inn,  the  success  of  the  French  being  complete 
and  decisive,  though  the  conduct  of  their  chief 
has  not  escaped  criticism.  This  last  disaster 
proved  overwhelming,  and  Austria  and  the  States 
of  the  Empire  were  forced  to  submit  to  the 
terms  of  Bonaparte.  After  a  brief  delay  peace 
was  made  at  LunevUle  in  February  1801." — W. 
O'C.  Morris,  The  Ft-eneh  Rev.  and  First  Empire, 
eh.  10. 

Also  ln  :  C.  Botta,  Italy  during  the  Consulate 
and  Empire  of  Napoleon,  eh.  1-3. — Baron  Joraini, 
Life  of  Napoleon,  eh.  6  (b.  1). — C.  Adams,  Great 
Campaigns  in  Europe  from  XIQQ  to  \S1Q,  eh.  3. — 
Duke  de  Rovigo,  Memoirs,  v.  1,  rh.  19-30. 

A.  D.  1800-1801  (June— February).— The 
King  of  Naples  spared  at  the  intercession  of 
the  Russian  Czar. — The  Czar  won  away 
from  the  Coalition. — The  Pope  befriended. — 
"  Replaced  in  his  richest  territories  by  the  allies, 
the  King  of  Naples  was  bound  by  every  tie  to 
assist  them  in  the  campaign  of  1800.  He  accord- 
ingly sent  an  army  into  the  march  of  Ancona, 
under  the  command  of  Count  Roger  de  Damas. 
.  .  .  Undeterred  by  the  battle  of  Marengo,  the 
Count  de  Damas  marched  against  the  Prencli 
general  MioUis,  who  commanded  in  Tuscany, 
and  sustained  a  defeat  by  him  near  Sienna.  Re- 
treat became  now  necessary,  the  more  especially 
as  the  armistice  which  was  entered  into  by  Gen- 


eral Melas  deprived  the  Neapolitans  of  any  assis> 
tance  from  the  Austrians,  and  rendered  theii 
whole  expedition  utterly  hopeless.  They  were 
not  even  included  by  name  in  the  armistice,  and 
were  thus  left  exposed  to  the  whole  vengeance  of 
the  French.  ...  At  this  desperate  crisis,  the 
Queen  of  the  Two  Sicilies  took  a  resolution  which 
seemed  almost  as  desperate,  and  could  only  have 
been  adopted  by  a  woman  of  a  bold  and  de- 
cisive character.  She  resolved,  notwithstanding 
the  severity  of  the  season,  to  repair  in  person  to 
the  court  of  the  Emperor  Paul,  and  implore  his 
intercession  with  the  First  Consul,  in  behalf  of 
her  husband  and  his  territories."  The  Russian 
autocrat  was  more  than  ready  to  accede  to  her 
request.  Disgusted  and  enraged  at  the  discom- 
fiture of  Suwarrow  in  Switzerland,  dissatisfied 
with  the  conduct  of  Austria  in  that  unfortunate 
campaign,  and  equally  dissatisfied  with  England 
in  the  joint  invasion  of  the  Batavian  republic,  he 
made  prompt  preparations  to  quit  the  coalition 
and  to  ally  himself  with  the  First  Consul  of 
France.  Bonaparte  welcomed  his  overtures  and 
gave  them  every  flattering  encouragement,  con- 
ceding instantly  the  grace  which  he  asked  on  be- 
half of  the  King  and  Queen  of  Naples.  "The 
respect  paid  by  the  First  Consul  to  the  wishes  of 
Paul  saved  for  the  present  the  royal  family  of 
Naples ;  but  Murat  [who  commanded  the  army 
sent  to  central  and  southern  Italy],  nevertheless, 
made  them  experience  a  full  portion  of  the  bitter 
cup  which  the  vanquished  are  generally  doomed 
to  swallow.  General  Damas  was  commanded  in 
the  haughtiest  terms  to  evacuate  the  Roman 
States,  and  not  to  presume  to  claim  any  benefit 
from  the  armistice  which  had  been  extended  to 
the  xVustrians.  At  the  same  time,  while  the  Ne- 
apolitans were  thus  compelled  hastily  to  evacuate 
the  Roman  territories,  general  surprise  was  ex- 
hibited when,  instead  of  marching  to  Rome,  and 
re-establishing  the  authority  of  the  Roman  Re- 
public, Murat,  according  to  the  orders  which  he 
had  received  from  the  First  Consul,  carefully  re- 
spected the  territory  of  the  Church,  and  rein- 
stalled the  oflicers  of  the  Pope  in  what  had  been 
long  termed  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter's.  This 
unexpected  turn  of  circumstances  originated  in 
high  policy  on  the  part  of  Buonaparte.  .  .  .  Be- 
sides evacuating  the  Ecclesiastical  States,  the 
Neapolitans  were  compelled  by  Murat  to  restore 
various  paintings,  statues,  and  other  objects  of 
art,  which  they  had,  in  imitation  of  Buonaparte, 
taken  forcibly  from  the  Romans, — so  captivating 
is  the  influence  of  bad  example.  A  French  army 
of  about  18,000  men  was  to  be  quartered  in 
Calabria.  .  .  .  The  harbours  of  the  Neapolitan 
dominions  were  of  course  to  be  closed  against  the 
English.  A  cession  of  part  of  the  isle  of  Elba, 
and  the  relinquishment  of  all  pretensions  upon 
Tuscany,  summed  up  the  sacrifices  of  the  King 
of  Naples  [stipulated  in  the  truce  of  Foligno, 
signed  in  February,  1801],  who,  considering  how 
often  he  had  braved  Napoleon,  had  great  reason 
to  thank  the  Emperor  of  Russia  for  his  effectual 
mediation." — Sir  W.  Scott,  Life  of  Napoleon,  eh. 
38. 

A.  D.  1801  (February).— The  Peace  of  Lune- 
ville.— The  Rhine  boundary  confirmed.  See 
GERM.tNY:  A.  D.  1801-1803. 

A.  D.  1801  (March). — Recovery  of  Louisiana 
from  Spain.     See  Louisiana:   A.  D.  1798-1803. 

A.  D.  1801. — Expedition  against  the  Blacks 
ofHayti.     See  Hatti:  A.  D.  1633-1803. 


1367 


FRANCE,  1801-1802. 


The  Northern 
Maritime  League. 


FRANCE,  1801-1803. 


A.  D.  1801-1802.— The  import  of  the  Peace  of 
Luneville. — Bonaparte's  preparations  for  con- 
flict with  England. — The  Northern  Maritime 
League. — English  bombardment  of  Copen- 
hagen and  summary  crushing  of  the  League. 
— Murder  of  the  Russian  Czar. — English  ex- 
pedition to  Egypt. — Surrender  of  the  French 
army. — Peace  of  Amiens. — "The  treaty  of 
Luuevllle  was  of  far  greater  import  than  the 
treaties  -which  had  ended  the  struggle  of  the  first 
coalition.  .  .  .  The  significance  then  of  the  Peace 
of  Luneville  lay  in  this,  not  only  that  it  was  the 
close  of  the  earlier  revolutionary  struggle  for 
supremacy  in  Europe,  the  abandonment  by  France 
of  her  effort  to  'liberate  the  peoples,'  to  force 
new  institutions  on  the  nations  about  her  by 
sheer  dint  of  arms ;  but  that  it  marked  the  con 
centration  of  all  her  energies  on  a  struggle  with 
Britain  for  the  supremacy  of  the  world.  For 
England  herself  the  event  which  accompanied 
it,  the  sudden  withdrawal  of  AVilliam  Pitt  from 
office,  which  took  place  in  the  very  month  of 
the  treaty,  was  hardly  less  significant.  .  .  .  The 
bul'ii  of  the  old  Jlinistry  returned  in  a  few  days 
to  office  with  ^Ir.  Addington  at  their  head, 
and  his  administration  received  the  support  of 
the  whole  Tory  party  in  Parliament.  ...  It 
was  with  anxiety  that  England  found  itself 
guided  by  men  like  these.  .  .  .  The  country 
stood  utterly  alone ;  while  the  peace  of  Luneville 
secured  France  from  all  hostility  on  the  Conti- 
nent. ...  To  strike  at  England's  wealth  had 
been  among  the  projects  of  the  Directory:  it 
was  now  the  dream  of  the  First  Consul.  It  was 
in  vain  for  England  to  produce,  if  he  shut  her 
out  of  every  market.  Her  carrying-trade  must 
be  annihilated  If  he  closed  every  port  against 
her  ships.  It  was  this  gigantic  project  of  a 
'  Continental  System '  that  revealed  itself  as  soon 
as  Buonaparte  became  finally  master  of  France. 
From  France  itself  and  its  dependencies  in  Hol- 
land and  the  Netherlands  English  trade  was 
already  excluded.  But  Italy  also  was  shut 
against  her  after  the  Peace  of  Luneville  [and  the 
Treaty  of  Foligno  with  the  King  of  Naples],  and 
Spain  not  only  closed  her  own  ports  but  forced 
Portugal  to  break  with  her  English  ally.  In  the 
Baltic,  Buonaparte  was  more  active  than  even  in 
the  Mediterranean.  In  a  treaty  with  America, 
which  was  destined  to  bring  this  power  also  in 
the  end  into  his  great  attack,  he  had  formally 
recognized  the  rights  of  neutral  vessels  which 
England  was  hourly  disputing.  .  .  .  The  only 
powers  which  now  possessed  naval  resources 
were  the  powers  of  the  North.  .  .  .  Both  the 
Scandinavian  states  resented  the  severity  with 
which  Britain  enforced  that  right  of  search  which 
had  brought  about  their  armed  neutrality  at  the 
close  of  the  American  war ;  while  Denmark  was 
besides  an  old  ally  of  France,  and  her  sympathies 
were  still  believed  to  be  French.  The  First  Con- 
sul therefore  had  little  trouble  in  enlisting  them 
in  a  league  of  Neutrals,  which  was  in  effect  a 
declaration  of  war  against  England,  and  which 
Prussia  as  before  showed  herself  ready  to  join. 
Russia  indeed  seemed  harder  to  gain."  But 
Paul,  the  Czar,  afraid  of  the  opposition  of  Eng- 
land to  his  designs  upon  Turkey,  dissatisfied 
with  the  operations  of  the  coalition,  and  flattered 
by  Bonaparte,  gave  himself  up  to  the  influence 
of  the  latter.  ' '  It  was  to  check  the  action  of 
Britain  in  the  East  that  the  Czar  now  turned  to 
the  French  Consul,  and  seconded  his  efforts  for 


the  formation  of  a  naval  confederacy  in  the 
North,  while  his  minister,  Rostopchin.  planned 
a  division  of  the  Turkish  Empire  in  Europe  be- 
tween Russia  and  her  allies.  ...  A  squabble 
over  Malta,  which  had  been  blockaded  since  its 
capture  by  Buonaparte,  and  which  surrendered 
at  last  [September,  1800]  to  a  British  fleet,  but 
whose  possession  the  Czar  claimed  as  his  own  on 
the  ground  of  an  alleged  election  as  Grand  Mas- 
ter of  the  Order  of  St.  John,  served  as  a  pretext 
for  a  quarrel  with  England ;  and  at  the  close  of 
1800  Paul  openly  prepared  for  hostilities.  .  .  . 
The  Danes,  who  throughout  the  year  had  been 
struggling  to  evade  the  British  right  of  search, 
at  once  joined  this  neutral  league,  and  were  fol- 
lowed by  Sweden  in  their  course.  .  .  .  But  dex- 
terous as  the  combination  was,  it  was  shattered 
at  a  blow.  On  the  1st  of  April,  1801,  a  British 
fleet  of  18  men-of-war  [under  Sir  Hj'de  Parker, 
with  Nelson  second  in  command]  forced  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Belt,  appeared  before  Copenhagen, 
and  at  once  attacked  the  city  and  its  fleet.  In 
spite  of  a  brave  resistance  from  the  Danish  bat- 
teries and  gunboats  six  Danish  ships  were  taken, 
and  the  Crown  Prince  was  forced  to  conclude  an 
armistice  which  enabled  the  English  ships  to 
enter  the  Baltic.  .  .  .  But  their  work  was  really 
over.  The  seizure  of  English  goods  and  the 
declaration  of  war  had  bitterly  irritated  the  Rus- 
sian nobles,  whose  sole  outlet  for  the  sale  of  the 
produce  of  their  vast  estates  was  thus  closed  to 
them ;  and  on  the  24th  of  March,  nine  days  be- 
fore the  battle  of  Copenhagen,  Paul  fell  in  a 
midnight  attack  by  conspirators  in  his  own  pal- 
ace. With  Paul  fell  the  Confederacy  of  the 
North.  ...  At  the  very  moment  of  the  attack 
on  Copenhagen,  a  stroke  as  effective  wrecked 
his  projects  in  the  East.  ...  In  March,  1801,  a 
force  of  15,000  men  under  General  Abercrombie 
anchored  in  Aboukir  Bay.  Deserted  as  they 
were  by  Buonaparte,  the  French  had  firmly 
maintained  their  hold  on  Egypt.  .  .  .  But  their 
army  was  foolishly  scattered,  and  Abercrombie 
was  able  to  force  a  landing  five  days  after  his 
arrival  on  the  coast.  The  French  however 
rapidly  concentrated ;  and  on  the  21st  of  March 
their  general  attacked  the  English  army  on  the 
ground  it  had  won,  with  a  force  equal  to  its  own. 
The  battle  [known  as  the  battle  of  Alexandria] 
was  a  stubborn  one,  and  Abercrombie  fell  mor- 
tally wounded  ere  its  close ;  but  after  six  hours' 
fighting  the  French  drew  off  with  heavy  loss; 
and  their  retreat  was  followed  by  the  investment 
of  Alexandria  and  Cairo.  ...  At  the  close  of 
June  the  capitulation  of  the  1.3,000  soldiers  who 
remained  closed  the  French  rule  over  Egypt." 
Threatening  preparations  for  an  invasion  of  Eng- 
land were  kept  up,  and  gunboats  and  flatboats 
collected  at  Boulogne,  which  Nelson  attacked 
unsuccessfully  in  August,  1801.  "The  First 
Consul  opened  negotiations  for  peace  at  the  close 
of  1801.  His  offers  were  at  once  met  by  the  Eng- 
lish Government.  .  .  .  The  negotiations  which 
went  on  through  the  winter  between  England 
and  the  three  allied  Powers  of  France,  Spain, 
and  the  Dutch,  brought  about  in  March,  1802, 
the  Peace  of  Amiens. "  The  treaty  secured  "a 
pledge  on  the  part  of  France  to  withdraw  its  forces 
from  Southern  Italy,  and  to  leave  to  themselves 
the  republics  it  had  set  up  along  its  border  in  Hol- 
land, Switzerland,  and  Piedmont.  In  exchange 
for  this  pledge,  England  recognized  the  French 
government,  restored  all  the  colonies  which  they 


1368 


FRANCE,  1801-1803. 


First  Consuc 
for  Life. 


FRANCE.  1801-1803. 


had  lost,  save  Ceylon  and  Trinidad,  to  France 
and  its  allies  [including  the  restoration  to 
Holland  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  and  Dutch 
Guiana,  and  of  Minorca  and  the  citadel  of  Port 
Mahon  to  Spain. whileTurkeyregained  possession 
of  Egypt],  acknowledged  the  Ionian  Islands  as 
a  free"  republic,  and  engaged  to  restore  Malta 
within  three  months  to  its  old  masters,  the 
Knights  of  St.  John."— J.  R.  Green,  Mst.  of  the 
Enqlish  People,  hk.  9,  ch.  5  (».  4). 

Also  m:  R.  Southey,  Life  of  Nelson,  ch.  t  (».  3). 
—J.  Gifford,  Political  Life  of  Pitt,  ch.  AT!  {v.  6).— C. 
Joyneville,  Lifeand  Times  of  Alexander  L,  v.  1,  c?i. 
4— A  Rambaud,  Mst.  of  Russia,  v.  3,  ch.  11-13. 
— G.  R.  Gleig,  Life  of  Gen.  Sir  B.  Abercromby 
(Eminent  Briiish  'Military  Commanders,  v.  3). 

A.   D.    1801-1803.— Domestic    measures    of 
Bonaparte.— His     Legion      of      Honor.- His 
wretched    educational   scheme.— He   is  made 
First  Consul  for  life.— His  whittling  away  of 
the  Constitution.— Revolutions  instigated  and 
dictated  in  the  Dutch,  Swiss,   and  Cisalpine 
Republics.— Bonaparte  president  of  the  Italian 
Republic— "  The  concordat  was  succeeded  by 
the  emigrants'  recall,  which  resolution  was  pre- 
sented and  passed  April  36.     The  irrevocability 
of  the  sale  of  national  property  was  again  estab- 
lished, and  amnesty  granted  to  all  emigrants  but 
the  leaders  of  armed  forces,  and  some  few  whose 
offences  were  specially  grave.     The  property  of 
emigrants  remaining  unsold  was  restored,  except- 
ing   forests,    which   Bonaparte   reserved   to  be 
gradually  returned  as  bribes  to  great  families. 
.  Two  important  projects  were  presented  to 
the  Tribunal  and  Legislative  Corps,  the  Legion 
of  Honor,  and  free   schools.      The   Convention 
awarded  prizes  to  the  troops  for  special  acts  of 
daring,  and  the  First  Consul  increased  and  ar- 
ranged the  distribution,  but  that  was  not  enough : 
he  wanted  a  vast  system  of  rewards,  adapted  to 
excite  amour  propre,  repay  service,  and  give  him 
a  new  and  potent  means  of  Influencing  civilians 
as  well  as  soldiers.     He  therefore  conceived  the 
idea  of  the  Legion  of  Honor,  embracing  all  kinds 
of  service  and  title  to  public   distinction.  .  .  . 
But  this  plan  for  forming  an  order  of  chivalry 
was  contested  even  by  the  Council  of  State  as 
offensive   to   that   equality  which  its   members 
were  to  defend  [under  the  oath  prescribed  to  the 
Legion],   and   as  a  renewal  of  aristocracy.     It 
only  passed  the  Tribunal  and  Legislative  Corps 
by  a  very  small  majority,  and  this  after  the  re- 
moval of  so  many  of  the  opposition  party.     The 
institution  of  the  Legion  of  Honor  was  specious, 
and,  despite  the  opposition  it   met  with  in  its 
early  days,  suits  a  people  who  love  distinction, 
despite  their  passion  for  equality,  provided  it  be 
not  hereditary.     As  for  the  educational  scheme, 
it  was  wretched,  doing  absolutely  nothing  for 
the  primary  schools.     The  state  had  no  share  in 
It.     The  Commune  was  to  provide  the  buildings 
when  the  pupils  could  pay  a  teacher,  thus  for- 
saking the  plans  of  the  great  assemblies.     The 
wisest  statesmen  desired  to  sustain  in  an  Im- 
proved form  the  central  schools  founded  by  the 
Convention ;  but  Bonaparte  meant  to  substitute 
barracks  to  educate  young  men  for  his  service. 
...  He  diminished  scientific  study ;  suppressed 
history  and  philosophy,  which  were  incompatible 
with  despotism;   and  completed  his  system  of 
secondary  instruction  by  creating  6,000  scholar- 
ships, to  be  used  as  means  of  influence,  like  the 
ribbon  of  the  Legion  of  Honor.  ...  All  his 


measures  succeeded,  and  yet  he  was  not  content: 
he  wanted  to  extend  his  power.  .  .  .  Cambaceres 
....  when  the  Amiens  treaty  was  presented  to 
the   Tribunal    and   Legislature,  .  .  .  proposed, 
through  the  president  of  the  former,   that  the 
Senate  should  be  invited  to  give  the  First  Consul 
some  token  of  national  gratitude  (May  6,  1803). 
.  The  Senate  only  voted  to  prolong  the  First 
Consul's  power  for  ten  years  (May  8),  with  but 
one  protesting  voice,  that  of  Lanjuinais,  who  de- 
nounced the  flagrant  usurpation  that  threatened 
the  Republic.      This  was  the  last  echo  of  the 
Gironde  ringing  through  the  tame  assembli-S  of 
the  Consulate.     Bonaparte  was  very  angry  hav- 
ing expected  more;  but  CambacerSs  calmed  him 
and  suggested  a  mode  of  evading  the  question, 
namely,   to  reply  that  an  extension  of  power 
could  only  be  granted  by  the  people,  and  then  to 
make  the  Council  of  State  dictate  the  formula  to 
be  submitted  to  the  people,  substituting  a  life- 
consulate  for  ten  years.     This  was  accordingly 
done.  .  .  .  The  Council  of  State  even  added  the 
First  Consul's  right  to  name  his  successor.    This 
ho  thought  prematui-e  and  likely  to  make  trouble, 
and  therefore  erased  it.    .    .    .   Registers  were 
opened  at  the  record  offices  and  mayoralties  to 
receive  votes,  and  there  were  three  million  and 
a  half  votes  in  the  affirmative ;  a  few  thousand 
only  daring  to  refuse,  and  many  abstaining  from 
voting.     La  Fayette  registered  a  '  no' .  .  .  and 
sent  the   First   Consul   a  noble   letter.  ...  La 
Fayette  then  ceased  tlie  relations  he  had  hitherto 
maintained  with  the  Fir.st  Consul  since  his  return 
to  France.  .  .  .  The  Senate  counted  the  popular 
vote  on  the  proposal  they  did  not  make,  and 
carried  the  result  to  the  Tuileries  in  a  body, 
August  3,  1803 ;  and  the  result  was  proclaimed 
in  the  form  of   a  Senatus-Consultum,  in  these 
terms:  '  The  French  people  name  and  the  Senate 
proclaim  Napoleon  Bonaparte  First  Consul  for 
life.'    This  was  the  first  official  use  of  the  pre- 
nomen  Napoleon,  which  was  soon,  in  conformity 
with  royal   custom,   to  be  substituted   for  the 
family  name  of  Bonaparte.  .  .  .  The  next  day 
various  modifications  of  the  Constitution  were 
offered  to  the  Council  of  State.  .  .  .  The  Senate 
were  given  the  right  to  interpret  and  complete 
the  Constitution,  to  dissolve  the  Legislature  and 
Tribunal,  and,  what  was  even  more,  to  break  the 
judgment  of  tribilnals,  thus  subordinating  jus- 
tice to  policy.     But  these  extravagant  preroga- 
tives could  only  be  used  at  the  request  of  the 
government.      The   Senate  was  limited  to   130 
members,  40  of  whom  the  First  Consul  was  to 
elect.    The  Tribunal  was  reduced  to  50  members, 
and   condemned   to  discuss  with   closed   doors, 
divided  into  sections.  .  .  .  Despotism   concen- 
trated more  and  more.     Bonaparte  took  back  his 
refusal  to  choose  his  successor,  and  now  claimed 
that  right.     He  also  formed  a  civil  list  of  sis 
millions.   .  .  .  The  Senate  agreed  to  everything, 
and  the  Senatus-Consultum  was  published  Au- 
gust 5    .  .  .  The  Republic  was  now  but  a  name. 
.  .  Early  in  1803  things  grew  dark  on  the  Eng- 
lish shore,"  and  "  the  loss  of  San  Domingo  [to 
which  Bonaparte  had  sent  an  expedition  at  the 
beginning  of  1801]  seemed  inevitable  [see  Hayti: 
A  D.  1633-1803].     While  making  this  expedi- 
tion, doomed  to  so  fatal  an  end,  Bonaparte  con- 
tinued his  haughty  policy  on  the  European  con- 
tinent.    By  article  second  of  the  Luneville  treaty 
France  and  Austria  mutually  guaranteed  the  in- 
dependence of  the  Dutch,  Swiss,  Cisalpme,  and 


1369 


FRANCE,  1801-1803 


Republic-making. 


FRANCE,  1801-1804. 


Ligurian  republics,  and  their  freedom  in  the 
adoption  of  whatever  form  of  government  they 
saw  fit  to  choose.  Bonaparte  interpreted  this 
article  by  substituting  for  independence  his  own 
more  or  less  direct  rule  in  those  republics.  .  .  . 
During  the  negotiations  preceding  the  Amiens 
treaty  he  stirred  up  a  revolution  in  Holland. 
That  country  had  a  Directory  and  two  Chambers, 
as  in  the  French  Constitution  of  year  III.,  and 
he  wished  to  impose  a  new  constitution  on  the 
Chambers,  putting  them  more  into  his  power; 
they  refused,  and  he  expelled  them  by  means  of 
the  Directory,  whom  he  had  won  over  to  his  side. 
The  Dutch  Directory,  in  this  imitation  of  Novem- 
ber 9,  was  sustained  by  French  troops,  occupying 
Holland  under  Augereau,  now  reconciled  to  Bona- 
parte (September,  1801).  The  new  Constitution 
was  put  to  popular  vote.  A  certain  number 
voted  against  it.  The  majority  did  not  vote, 
Silence  was  taken  for  consent,  and  the  new  Con- 
stitution was  proclaimed  October  17,  1801.  .  .  . 
The  English  government  protested,  but  did  not 
resist.  At  the  same  time  he  [Bonaparte]  imposed 
on  the  Cisalpine  republic,  but  without  conflict  or 
opposition,  a  constitution  even  more  anti-liberal 
than  the  French  one  of  year  VIII. ;  the  president 
who  there  replaced  the  First  Consul  having  su- 
preme power.  But  who  was  to  be  that  Presi- 
dent? The  Cisalpines  for  an  instant  were  simple 
enough  to  think  that  they  could  choose  an  Italian : 
they  decided  on  Count  Jlelzi,  well  known  in  the 
Milanese.  They  were  soon  undeceived,  when 
Bonaparte  called  Cisalpine  delegates  to  Lj'ons  in 
midwinter.  These  delegates  were  landowners, 
scholars,  and  merchants,  some  hundreds  in  num- 
ber, and  his  agents  explained  to  them  that  none 
but  Bonaparte  '  was  worthy  to  govern  their  re- 
public or  able  to  maintain  it.'  They  eagerly 
offered  him  the  presidency,  which  he  accepted  in 
lofty  terms,  and  took  Melzi  for  vice-president 
(January  25,  1803).  Italian  patriots  were  con- 
soled for  this  subjection  by  tlie  change  of  name 
from  Cisalpine  to  Italian  Republic,  which  seemed 
to  promise  the  unity  of  Italy.  Bonaparte  threw 
out  this  hope,  never  meaning  to  gratify  it.  .  .  . 
He  acted  as  master  in  Switzerland  as  well  as 
Italy  and  Holland.  Since  Switzerland  had 
ceased  to  be  the  scene  of  war,  she  had  been 
given  over  to  agitation,  fluctuating  between 
revolutionary  democracy  and  the  old  aristocracy 
joined  to  the  retrograde  democracy  of  the  small 
Catholic  cantons.  Modern  democracy  was  at 
strife  with  itself.  .  .  .  Bonaparte  encouraged  the 
strife,  that  Switzerland  might  call  him  in  as  ar- 
biter. Suddenly,  late  in  July,  1803,  he  withdrew 
his  troops,  which  had  occupied  Switzerland  ever 
since  1798.  Civil  war  broke  out  at  once;  the 
smaller  Catholic  cantons  and  the  aristocrats  of 
Berne  and  Zurich  overthrew  the  government  es- 
tablished at  Berne  by  the  moderate  democrats. 
The  government  retired  to  Lausanne,  and  the 
country  was  thus  divided.  Bonaparte  then  an- 
nounced that  he  would  not  suffer  a  Swiss  counter- 
revolution, and  that  if  the  parties  could  not  agree 
he  must  mediate  between  them.  He  summoned 
the  insurrectional  powers  of  Berne  to  dissolve, 
and  invited  all  citizens  who  had  held  ofiice  in  the 
central  Swiss  government  within  three  years,  to 
meet  at  Paris  and  confer  with  him,  announcing 
that  30,000  men  under  General  Ney  were  ready 
to  support  his  mediation.  The  democratic  gov- 
ernment at  Lausanne  were  willing  to  receive  the 
French;   the  aristocratic  government  at  Berne, 


anxious  to  restore  the  Austrians,  appealed  to 
European  powers,  who  replied  by  silence,  Eng- 
land only  protesting  against  French  interference. 
.  .  .  Bonaparte  responded  to  the  English  pro- 
test by  so  extraordinary  a  letter  that  his  charge 
d'affaires  at  London  dared  not  communicate  it 
verbatim.  It  said  that,  if  England  succeeded  in 
drawing  the  continental  powers  into  her  cause, 
the  result  would  be  to  force  France  to  '  conquer 
Europe !  Who  knows  how  long  it  would  take  the 
First  Consul  to  revive  the  Empire  of  the  West?' 
(October  38,  1802).  .  .  .  There  was  slight  resis- 
tance to  Ney's  troops  in  Switzerland.  All  the 
politicians  of  the  new  democracy  and  some  of 
the  aristocrats  went  to  Paris  at  the  First  Consul's 
summons.  He  did  not  treat  their  country  as  he 
had  Holland  and  Italy,  but  gave  her,  instead,  a 
vain  show  of  institutions,  a  constitution  imposing 
on  the  different  parties  a  specious  compromise. 
.  .  .  Switzerland  was  dependent  on  France  in 
regard  to  general  policy,  and  was  bound  to  fur- 
nish her  with  troops;  but,  at  least,  she  adminis- 
tered her  own  affairs  (January,  1803)." — H.  Mar- 
tin, Popular  Hist,  of  Pi-ance  from  the  First  Rev., 
V.  3,  ch.  8-9. 

Also  in  :  F.  C.  Schlosser,  Hist,  of  the  18th  Cen- 
tury, v.  7,  pp.  286-803.— Mrs.  L.  Hug  and  R. 
Stead,  Story  of  Switzerland,  ch.  30-31.— C.  Botta, 
Italy  during  tlie  Conmdate  and  Empire  of  Napo- 
leon, ch.  3. — M.  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs  of 
Napoleon,  v.  2,  ch.  30-30. — Duchess  D'Abrantes, 
Memoirs  of  Napoleon,  v.  1,  ch.  80. — Count  M. 
Dumas,  Memoirs,  ch.  9  (p.  2). — H.  A.  Taine,  T/ie 
Modern  Regime,  v.  1,  bk.  3,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1801-1804.— The  Civil  Code  and  the 
Concordat. —  "Four  years  of  peace  separated 
the  Treaty  of  Luneville  from  the  next  outbreak 
of  war  between  France  and  any  Continental 
Power.  They  were  years  of  the  extension  of 
French  influence  in  every  neighbouring  State; 
in  France  itself,  years  of  the  consolidation  of 
Bonaparte's  power,  and  of  the  decline  of  every- 
thing that  checked  his  personal  rule.  .  .  .  Among 
the  institutions  which  date  from  this  period,  two, 
equally  associated  with  the  name  of  Napoleon, 
have  taken  a  prominent  place  in  history,  the 
Civil  Code  and  the  Concordat.  Since  the  middle 
of  the  18th  century  the  codification  of  law  had 
been  pursued  with  more  or  less  success  by  almost 
every  Government  in  the  western  continent.  The 
Constituent  Assembly  of  1789  had  ordered  the 
statutes  by  which  it  superseded  the  variety  of 
local  customs  in  France  to  be  thus  cast  into  a 
systematic  form.  .  .  .  Bonaparte  instinctively 
threw  himself  into  a  task  so  congenial  to  his  own 
systematizing  spirit,  and  stimulated  the  efforts 
of  the  best  jurists  in  Prance  by  his  own  personal 
interest  and  pride  in  the  work  of  legislation.  A 
Commission  of  lawj^ers,  appointed  by  the  First 
Consul,  presented  the  successive  chapters  of  a 
Civil  Code  to  the  Council  of  State.  In  the  dis- 
cussions in  the  Council  of  State  Bonaparte  him- 
self took  an  active,  though  not  always  a  bene- 
ficial, part.  ...  In  March,  1804,  France  received 
the  Code  which,  with  few  alterations,  has  formed 
from  that  time  to  the  present  the  basis  of  its 
civil  rights.  ...  It  is  probable  that  a  majority 
of  the  inhabitants  of  Western  Europe  believe 
that  Napoleon  actually  invented  the  laws  which 
bear  his  name.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  sub- 
stance of  these  laws  was  fixed  by  the  successive 
Assemblies  of  the  Revolution ;  and,  in  the  final 
revision  which  produced  the  Civil  Code,  Napo- 


1370 


FRANCE,  1801-1804. 


Cwil  Code 
and  Concordat, 


FRANCE.  1802-1803. 


leon  appears  to  have  originated  neither  more  nor 
less  than  several  of  the  members  of  his  Coun- 
cil whose  names  have  long  been  forgotten.  He 
is  unquestionably  entitled  to  the  honour  of  a 
great  legislator,  not,  however,  as  one  who,  like 
Solon  or  like  Mahomet,  himself  created  a  new 
body  of  law.  .  .  .  Four  other  Codes,  appearing 
at  intervals  from  the  year  1804  to  the  year  1810, 
embodied,  in  a  corresponding  form,  the  Law  of 
Commei'ce,  the  Criminal  Law,  and  the  Rules  of 
Civil  and  of  Criminal  Process.  .  .  .  Far  more 
distinctively  the  work  of  Napoleon  himself  was 
the  reconciliation  with  the  Church  of  Rome  ef- 
fected by  the  Concordat  [July,  1801].  It  was  a 
restoration  of  religion  similar  to  that  restoration 
of  political  order  which  made  the  public  service 
the  engine  of  a  single  will.  The  bishops  and 
priests,  whose  appointment  the  Concordat  trans- 
ferred from  tlieir  congregations  to  the  Govern- 
ment, were  as  much  instruments  of  the  First  Con- 
sul as  his  prefects  and  his  gensdarmes.  .  .  .  An 
alliance  with  the  Pope  offered  to  Bonaparte  the 
means  of  supplanting  the  popular  organisation 
of  the  Constitutional  Church  by  an  imposing 
hierarchy,  rigid  in  its  orthodo.xy  and  imquestion- 
ing  in  Its  devotion  to  himself.  In  return  for  the 
consecration  of  his  own  rule,  Bonaparte  did  not 
shrink  from  inviting  the  Pope  to  an  exercise  of 
authority  such  as  the  Holy  See  had  never  even 
claimed  in  France.  The  whole  of  the  existing 
French  Bishops,  both  the  exiled  non-jurors  and 
those  of  the  Constitutional  Church,  were  sum- 
moned to  resign  their  sees  into  the  hands  of  the 
Pope ;  against  all  who  refused  to  do  so  sentence 
of  deposition  was  pronounced  by  the  Pontiff.  .  .  . 
The  sees  were  reorganised,  and  filled  up  by  nomi- 
nees of  the  First  Consul.  The  position  of  the 
great  body  of  the  clergy  was  substantially  altered 
in  its  relation  to  the  Bishops.  Episcopal  power 
was  made  despotic,  like  all  other  powers  in 
France.  ...  In  the  greater  cycle  of  religious 
change,  the  Concordat  of  Bonaparte  appears  in 
another  light.  ...  It  converted  the  Catholicism 
of  France  from  a  faith  already  far  more  indepen- 
dent than  that  of  Feuelon  and  Bossuet  into  the 
Catholicism  which  incur  day  has  outstripped  the 
bigotry  of  Spain  and  Austria  in  welcoming  the 
dogma  of  Papal  infallibility." — C.  A.  Fyffe,  Hist, 
of  Modern  Europe,  v.  1,  ch.  fi.  — "  It  is  .  .  .  easy, 
from  the  official  reports  which  have  been  pro- 
served,  to  see  what  part  the  First  Consul  took  in 
the  framing  of  the  Civil  Code.  While  we  recog- 
nise that  his  intervention  was  advantageous  on 
some  minor  points,  .  .  .  we  must  say  that  his 
views  on  the  subjects  of  legislation  in  which  this 
intervention  was  most  conspicuous,  were  most 
often  inspired  by  suggestions  of  personal  interest, 
or  by  political  considerations  which  ought  to 
have  no  weight  with  the  legislator.  .  .  .  Bona- 
parte came  by  degrees  to  consider  himself  the 
principal  creator  of  a  collective  work  to  which 
he  contributed  little  more  than  his  name,  and 
which  probably  would  have  been  much  better 
if  the  suggestions  of  a  man  of  action  and  execu- 
tive authority  had  not  been  blended  with  the 
views,  necessarily  more  disinterested,  larger  and 
more  humane,  of  the  eminent  jurisconsults  whose 
glory  he  tried  to  usurp." — P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of 
Napoleon,  v.  2,  ch.  5. 

Also  in:  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate  and 
the  Empire,  v.  1,  hk.  12-14. — W.  H.  Jervis,  Hist, 
of  the  Church  of  Ei'ance,  b.  2,  ch.  11. — J.  E.  Dar- 
ras,  General  Hist,  of  the  Catholic  Church,  -v.  4, 


pp.    547-554.  —  The     Cods-Napoleon,    trans,    by 
Richards. 
A.  D.  i8o2. — Fourcroy's  education  law.   See 

Education,  Modern:  Euiiope.\n  Countries, 
France:  A.  D.  1565-1802. 

A.  D.  i8o2  (August — September). — Annexa- 
tion of  Piedmont,  Parma,  and  the  Isle  of  Elba. 

—  A  "flagrant  act  of  the  First  Consul's  at  this 
time  was  the  seizure  and  annexation  of  Piedmont. 
Although  that  country  was  reconquered  by  the 
Austro-Russian  army  in  1799,  the  King  of  Sar- 
dinia had  not  been  restored  when,  by  the  battle 
of  Marengo,  it  came  again  into  the  possession  of 
the  French.  Bonaparte  then  united  part  of  it  to 
the  Cisalpine  Republic,  and  promised  to  erect 
the  rest  into  a  separate  State ;  but  he  afterwards 
changed  his  mind ;  and  by  a  decree  of  April  20th 
1801,  ordered  that  Piedmont  should  form  a  mili- 
tary division  of  France.  .  .  .  Charles  Emanuel, 
disgusted  with  the  injustice  and  insults  to  which 
he  was  exposed,  having  abdicated  his  throne  in 
favour  of  his  brother  Victor  Emanuel,  Duke  of 
Aosta,  June  4th  1802,  Bonaparte  .  .  .  caused 
that  part  of  Piedmont  which  had  not  been  united 
to  the  Italian  Republic  to  be  annexed  to  Prance, 
as  the  27th  Military  Department,  by  a  formal 
Senatus-Consulte  of  September  11th  1802.  A 
little  after,  October  11th,  on  the  death  of  Ferdi- 
nand de  Bourbon,  Duke  of  Parma,  father  of  the 
King  of  Etruria,  that  duchy  was  also  seized  by 
the  rapacious  French  Republic.  The  isle  of 
Elba  had  also  been  united  to  France  by  a  Senatus- 
Consulte  of  August  26th. "—  T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist, 
of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  7,  ch.  11  (».  4). 

Also  in:  A.  Gallenga,  Hist,  of  Piedmont,  v.  3, 
ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1802-1803. — Complaints  against  the 
English  press. — The  Peltier  trial. — The  First 
Consul's  rage. — War  declared  by  Great  Brit- 
ain.— Detention  of  all  the  English  in  France, 
Italy,  Switzerland  and  the  Netherlands.— 
Occupation  of  Hanover. — "Mr.  Addington  was 
wont  to  say  in  after  years  that  the  ink  was 
scarcely  dry,  after  the  signature  of  the  treaty  of 
Amiens,  when  discontents  arose  which  perilled 
the  new  peace.  On  the  24th  of  May  [1802],  M. 
Otto  tolcl  Lord  Glenbervie  that  if  the  English 
press  were  not  controlled  from  censuring  Napo- 
leon, there  must  be  a  war  to  the  death :  and  in 
the  course  of  the  summer,  six  requisitions  were 
formally  made  to  the  British  government,  the 
purport  of  which  was  that  the  press  must  be 
controlled ;  the  royal  emigrants  sent  to  Warsaw ; 
the  island  of  Jersey  cleared  of  persons  disaffected 
to  the  French  government;  and  all  Frenchmen 
dismissed  from  Great  Britain  who  wore  the  deco- 
rations of  the  old  monarchy.  The  reply  was, 
that  the  press  was  free  in  England  ;  and  that  if 
any  of  the  emigrants  broke  the  laws,  they  should 
be  punished ;  but  that  otherwise  they  could  not 
be  molested.  The  government,  however,  used 
its  influence  in  remonstrance  with  the  editors  of 
newspapers  which  were  abusive  of  the  French. 
Cobbet  was  pointed  out  by  name  by  Napoleon, 
as  a  libeller  who  must  be  punished ;  and  Peltier, 
a  royalist  emigrant,  who  had  published  some  in- 
centives to  the  assassination  of  the  French  ruler, 
or  prophecies  which  might  at  such  a  crisis  be 
fairly  regarded  as  incentives.  M.  Peltier's  object 
was  to  use  his  knowledge  of  the  tools  of  Napo- 
leon, and  his  great  political  and  literary  experi- 
ence, in  laying  bare  the  character  and  policy  of 
Napoleon ;  and  he  began,  in  the  summer  of  1803, 


1371 


FRANCE,  1802-1803. 


War  with  England. 


FRANCE,  1803-1803. 


a  journal,  the  first  number  of  which  occasioned 
the  demand  for  his  punishment.  He  was  prose- 
cuted by  the  Attorney-General,  and  defended  by 
Sir  James  Mackintosh,  in  a  speech  which  was 
translated  into  nearly  all  the  languages  of  Eu- 
rope, and  uni%'ersally  considered  one  of  the  most 
prodigious  efforts  of  oratory  ever  listened  to  in 
any  age.  The  Attorney-General,  Mr.  Percival, 
declared  in  Court,  that  he  could  hardly  hope  for 
an  impartial  decision  from  a  jury  whose  faculties 
had  been  so  roused,  dazzled  and  charmed.  .  .  . 
M.  Peltier  was  found  guilty ;  but  the  Attorney- 
General  did  not  call  for  judgment  on  the  instant. 
War  w'as  then  —  at  the  close  of  February  [1803] 
—  imminent;  and  the  matter  was  dropped.  M. 
Peltier  was  regarded  as  a  martyr,  and,  as  far  as 
public  opinion  went,  was  rather  rewarded  than 
punished  in  England.  He  was  wont  to  say  that 
he  was  tried  in  England  and  punished  in  France. 
His  property  was  confiscated  by  the  consular 
agents;  and  his  only  near  relations,  his  aged 
father  and  his  sister,  died  at  Nantes,  through 
terror  at  his  trial.  By  this  time  the  merchants 
of  Great  Britain  were  thoroughly  disgusted 
with  France.  Not  only  had  Napoleon  prevented 
all  commercial  intercourse  between  the  nations 
throughout  the  year,  but  he  had  begun  to  con- 
fiscate English  merchant  vessels,  driven  by  stress 
of  weather  into  his  ports.  By  this  time,  too,  the 
Minister's  mind  was  made  up  as  to  the  impossi- 
bility of  avoiding  war.  .  .  .  Napoleon  had  pub- 
lished [Jan.  30,  1803]  a  Report  of  an  official  agent 
of  his,  Sebastiani,  who  had  explored  the  Levant, 
striving  as  he  went  to  rouse  the  Mediterranean 
States  to  a  desertion  of  England  and  an  alliance 
with  France.  He  reported  of  the  British  force 
at  Alexandria,  and  of  the  means  of  attack  and 
defence  there;  and  his  employer  put  forth  this 
statement  in  the  '  Moniteur, '  his  own  paper,  while 
complaining  of  the  insults  of  the  English  press 
towards  himself.  Our  ambassador  at  i'aris.  Lord 
Whitworth,  desired  an  explanation:  and  the  re- 
ception of  his  demand  by  the  First  Consul  .  .  . 
was  characteristic.  ...  He  sent  for  Lord  Whit- 
worth to  wait  on  him  at  nine  in  the  morning  of  the 
18th ;  made  him  sit  down ;  and  then  poured  out 
his  wratli  'in  the  style  of  an  Italian  bully,'  as 
tlie  record  has  it :  and  the  term  is  not  too  strong ; 
for  he  would  not  allow  Lord  Whitworth  to  speak. 
The  first  impression  was,  that  it  was  his  design 
to  ten-ify  England :  but  Talleyrand's  anxiety  to 
smooth  matters  afterwards,  and  to  explain  away 
what  his  master  had  said,  shows  that  the  ebulli- 
tion was  one  of  mere  temper.  And  this  was 
presently  confirmed  by  his  behaviour  to  Lord 
Whitworth  at  a  levee,  when  the  saloon  was 
crowded  with  foreign  ambassadors  and  their 
suites,  as  well  as  with  French  courtiers.  The 
whole  scene  was  set  forth  in  the  newspapers  of 
every  country.  Napoleon  walked  about,  trans- 
ported with  passion:  asked  Lord  Whitworth  if 
he  did  not  know  that  a  terrible  storm  had  arisen 
between  the  two  governments;  declared  that 
England  was  a  violator  of  treaties ;  took  to  wit- 
ness the  foreigners  present  that  if  England  did 
not  immediately  surrender  Malta,  war  was  de- 
clared; and  condescended  to  appeal  to  them 
whether  the  right  was  not  on  his  side ;  and,  when 
Lord  Wliitworth  would  have  replied,  silenced 
him  by  a  gesture,  and  observed  that,  Lady  Whit- 
worth being  out  of  health,  her  native  air  would  be 
of  service  to  her;  and  she  should  have  it,  sooner 
than  she  expected .  — After  this,  there  could  be  little 


hope  of  peace  in  the  most  sanguine  mind.  .  .  . 
Lord  Whitworth  left  Paris  on  the  12th  of  May; 
and  at  Dover  met  General  Andreossi,  on  his  way 
to  Paris.  On  the  16th,  it  became  publicly  known 
that  war  was  declared:  and  on  the  same  day 
Admiral  Cornwallis  received  telegraphic  orders 
which  caused  him  to  appear  before  Brest  on  the 
18th.  On  the  17th,  an  Order  in  Council,  direct- 
ing reprisals,  was  issued ;  and  with  it  the  procla- 
mation of  an  embargo  being  laid  on  all  French 
and  Dutch  ships  in  British  ports.  ...  On  the 
next  day.  May  18th,  1808,  the  Declaration  of 
War  was  laid  before  parliament,  and  the  feverish 
state,  called  peace,  which  had  lasted  for  one  year 
and  sixteen  days,  passed  into  one  of  open  hos- 
tility. The  reason  why  the  vessels  of  the  Dutch 
were  to  be  seized  with  those  of  the  French  was 
that  Napoleon  had  filled  Holland  with  French 
troops,  and  was  virtually  master  of  the  country. 
...  In  July,  the  militia  force  amounted  to  173,- 
000  men;  and  the  deficiency  was  in  ofilcers  to 
command  them.  The  minister  proposed,  in  ad- 
dition to  all  the  forces  actually  in  existence,  the 
formation  of  an  army  of  reserve,  amounting  to 
50,000  men:  and  this  was  presently  agreed  to. 
There  was  little  that  the  parliament  and  people 
of  England  would  not  have  agreed  to  at  this 
moment,  under  the  provocation  of  Napoleon's 
treatment  of  the  English  in  France.  His  first 
act  was  to  order  the  detention,  as  prisoners  of 
war,  of  all  the  English  then  in  the  country,  be- 
tween the  ages  of  18  and  60.  The  exasperation 
caused  by  this  cruel  measure  was  all  that  he 
could  have  expected  or  desired.  Many  were  the 
young  men  thus  doomed  to  lose,  in  wearing  ex- 
pectation or  despair,  twelve  of  the  best  years  of 
their  lives,  cut  off  from  family,  profession,  mar- 
riage, citizenship  —  everything  that  yoimg  men 
most  value.  Many  were  the  parents  separated 
for  twelve  long  years  from  the  young  creatures 
at  home,  whom  they  had  left  for  a  mere  pleasure 
trip :  and  many  were  the  grey -haired  fathers  and 
mothers  at  home  who  went  down  to  the  grave 
during  those  twelve  years  without  another  sight 
of  the  son  or  daughter  who  was  pining  in  some 
small  provincial  town  in  France,  without  natural 
occupation,  and  well  nigli  without  hope.  In 
June,  the  English  in  Rouen  were  removed  to  the 
neighbourhood  of  Amiens;  those  in  Calais  to 
Lisle ;  those  at  Brussels  to  Valenciennes.  Before 
the  month  was  out,  all  the  English  in  Italy  and 
Switzerland,  in  addition  to  those  in  Holland, 
were  made  prisoners.  How  many  the  whole 
amounted  to  does  not  appear  to  have  been  ascer- 
tained :  but  it  was  believed  at  the  time  that  there 
were  11,000  in  France,  and  1,300  in  Holland. 
The  first  pretence  was  that  these  travellers  were 
detained  as  hostages  for  the  prizes  which  Napo- 
leon accused  us  of  taking  before  the  regular 
declaration  of  war;  but  when  proposals  were 
made  for  an  exchange,  he  sent  a  savage  answer 
that  he  would  keep  his  prisoners  till  the  end  of 
the  war.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  there 
could  be  two  opinions  about  the  nature  of  the 
man  after  this  act.  The  naval  captures  of  which 
Napoleon  complained,  as  made  prior  to  a  declara- 
tion of  war,  were  of  two  merchant  ships  taken 
by  English  frigates:  and  we  find  notices  of  such 
being  brought  into  port  on  the  25th  of  May. 
Whether  they  were  captured  before  the  18th, 
there  is  no  record  that  we  can  find.  .  .  .  On  the 
sea,  our  successes  seemed  a  matter  of  course ;  but 
meantime  a  blow  was  struck  at  Great  Britain, 


1372 


FRANCE,  1802-1803. 


Execution  of  the 
Due  (T Enghien. 


FRANCE,  1804^1805. 


and  especially  at  her  sovereign,  which  proved 
that  the  national  exasperation  against  France  was 
even  yet  capable  of  increase.  On  the  breaking 
out  of  the  war,  George  III.  issued  a  proclama- 
tion, as  Elector  of  Hanover,  declaring  to  Ger- 
many that  the  Germanic  states  had  nothing  to 
fear  "in  regard  to  the  new  hostilities,  as  he  was 
entering  into  war  as  King  of  Great  Britain,  and 
not  as  Elector  of  Hanover.  Whatever  military 
preparations  were  going  forward  in  Hanover 
were  merely  of  a  defensive  character.  Napoleon, 
however,  set  such  defence  at  defiance.  On  the 
13th  of  June,  news  amved  of  the  total  surrender 
of  Hanover  to  the  French.  .  .  .  Government  re- 
solved to  declare  the  Elbe  and  the  "Weser,  and 
all  the  ports  of  Western  Germany,  in  a  state  of 
blockade ;  as  the  French  had  now  command  over 
all  the  intermediate  rivers.  It  was  calculated 
that  this  would  annoy  and  injure  Napoleon 
effectually,  as  it  would  cause  the  ruin  of  foreign 
merchants  trading  from  the  whole  series  of  ports. 
English  merchants  would  suffer  deeply;  but  it 
was  calculated  that  English  capital  and  stock 
■would  hold  out  longer  than  those  of  foreign  mer- 
chants. Thus  was  the  sickening  process  of  pri- 
vate ruin,  as  a  check  to  public  aggression,  entered 
upon,  before  war  had  been  declared  a  month. " — 
H.  Martineau,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  1800-1815,  bk.  1, 
ch.  4. 

Also  in:  M.  de  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs 
of  Napoleon,  v.  2,  ch.  28-30. — Sir  J.  Mackintosh, 
Speech  in  Defense  of  Jean  Peltier  (Miscellaneous 
Works). — J.  Ashton,  English  Caricature  and 
Satire  on  Napoleon  I.,  v.  1,  ch.  24-37. 

A.  D.  1803  (April — May). — Sale  of  Louisiana 
to  the  United  States  of  America.  See  Louisi- 
ana: A.  D.  1798-1803;  and  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1803, 

A.  D.  1803. — Loss  of  San  Domingo,  or 
Hayti.     See  H.\.yti:  A.  D.  1632-1803. 

A.  D.  1804-1805. — Royalist  plots  and  Bona- 
parte's use  of  them. — The  abduction  and  exe- 
cution of  the  Due  d'Enghien. — The  First  Con- 
sul becomes  Emperor. — His  coronation  by  the 
Pope. — His  acceptance  of  the  crown  of  Italy. 
— Annexation  of  Genoa  to  France. — The  rup- 
ture with  England  furnished  Bonaparte  "  with 
the  occasion  of  throwing  off  the  last  disguise  and 
openly  restoring  monarchy.  It  was  a  step  which 
required  all  his  audacity  and  cunning.  He  had 
crushed  Jacobinism,  but  two  great  parties  re- 
mained. There  was  first  the  more  moderate  re- 
publicanism, which  might  be  called  Girondism, 
and  was  widely  spread  among  all  classes  and 
particularly  in  the  array.  Secondly,  there  was 
the  old  royalism,  which  after  many  years  of  help- 
less weakness  had  revived  since  Brumaire.  These 
two  parties,  though  hostile  to  each  other,  were 
forced  into  a  sort  of  alliance  by  the  new  attitude 
of  Bonaparte,  who  was  hurrying  France  at  once 
into  a  new  revolution  at  home  and  into  an  abyss 
of  war  abroad.  England,  too,  after  the  rupture, 
favoured  the  efforts  of  these  parties.  Royalism 
from  England  began  to  open  conmiunications 
with  moderate  republicanism  in  France.  Piche- 
gru  acted  for  the  former,  and  the  great  representa- 
tive of  the  latter  was  Moreau,  who  had  helped  to 
make  Brumaire  in  the  tacit  expectation  probably 
of  rising  to  the  consulate  in  due  course  when 
Bonaparte's  term  should  have  expired,  and  was 
therefore  hurt  in  his  personal  claims  as  well  as 
in  his  republican  principles.  Bonaparte  watched 
the  movement  through  his  ubiquitous  police,  and 


with  characteristic  strategy  determined  not  mere- 
ly to  defeat  it  but  to  make  it  his  stepping-stone  to 
monarchy.  He  would  ruin  Moreau  by  fastening 
on  him  the  stigma  of  royalism ;  he  would  per- 
suade France  to  make  him  emperor  in  order  to 
keep  out  the  Bourbons.  He  achieved  this  with 
the  peculiar  mastery  which  he  always  showed  in 
villainous  intrigue.  .  .  .  Pichegru  [who  had  re- 
turned secretly  to  Prance  from  England  some 
time  in  January,  1804]  brought  with  him  wilder 
partisans,  such  as  Georges  [Cadoudal]  the  Chouan. 
No  doubt  Moreau  would  gladly  have  seen  and 
gladly  have  helped  an  insurrection  against  Bona- 
parte. .  .  .  But  Bonaparte  succeeded  in  associat- 
ing him  with  royalist  schemes  and  with  schemes 
of  assassination.  Controlling  the  Senate,  he  was 
able  to  suppress  the  jury;  controlling  every 
avenue  of  publicity,  he  was  able  to  suppress 
opinion;  and  the  army,  Moreau's  fortress,  was 
won  through  its  hatred  of  royalism.  In  this  way 
Bonaparte's  last  personal  rival  was  removed. 
There  remained  the  royalists,  and  Bonaparte 
hoped  to  seize  their  leader,  the  Comte  d'Artois, 
who  was  expected,  as  the  police  knew,  soon  to 
join  Pichegru  and  Georges  at  Paris.  What  Bona- 
parte would  have  done  with  him  we  may  judge 
from  the  course  he  took  when  the  Comte  did  not 
come.  On  March  15,  1804,  the  Due  d'Enghien, 
grandson  of  the  Prince  de  Conde,  residing  at 
Ettenheim  in  Baden,  was  seized  at  midnight  by  a 
party  of  dragoons,  brought  to  Paris,  where  he 
arrived  on  the  20th,  confined  in  the  castle  of  Vin- 
cennes,  brought  before  a  military  commission  at 
two  o'clock  the  next  morning,  asked  whether  he 
had  not  borne  arms  against  the  republic,  which 
he  acknowledged  himself  to  have  done,  con- 
ducted to  a  staircase  above  the  moat,  and  there 
shot  and  buried  in  the  moat.  .  .  .  That  the  Due 
d'Enghien  was  innocent  of  the  conspiracy,  was 
nothing  to  the  purpose ;  the  act  was  political,  not 
judicial;  accordingly  he  was  not  even  charged 
with  complicity.  That  the  execution  would  strike 
horror  into  the  cabinets,  and  perhaps  bring  about 
a  new  Coalition,  belonged  to  a  class  of  considera- 
tions which  at  this  time  Bonaparte  systematically 
disregarded.  This  affair  led  immediately  to  the 
thought  of  giving  heredity  to  Bonaparte's  power. 
The  thought  seems  to  have  commended  itself 
irresistibly  even  to  strong  republicans  and  to 
those  who  were  most  shocked  by  the  murder.  To 
make  Bonaparte's  position  more  secure  seemed 
the  only  way  of  averting  a  new  Reign  of  Terror 
or  new  convulsions.  He  himself  felt  some  em- 
barrassment. Like  Cromwell,  he  was  afraid  of 
the  republicanism  of  the  army,  and  heredity  pure 
and  simple  brought  him  face  to  face  with  the 
question  of  divorcing  Josephine.  To  propitiate 
the  army,  he  chose  from  the  titles  suggested  to 
him  —  consul,  stadtholder,  &c.  —  that  of  emperor, 
undoubtedly  the  most  accurate,  and  having  a 
sufficiently  military  sound.  The  other  difficulty 
after  much  furious  dissension  between  the  two 
families  of  Bonaparte  and  Beauharnais,  was 
evaded  by  giving  Napoleon  himself  (but  none  of 
his  successors)  a  power  of  adoption,  and  fixing 
the  succession,  in  default  of  a  direct  heir,  natural 
or  adoptive,  first  in  Joseph  and  his  descendants, 
then  in  Louis  and  his  descendants.  Except  ab- 
staining from  the  regal  title,  no  attempt  was 
made  to  conceal  the  abolition  of  republicanism. 
.  .  .  The  change  was  made  by  the  constituent 
power  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Senatus-consulte  is 
dated  May  18,  1804.     The  title  of  Emperor  had 


1373 


PKANCE,  1804-1805. 


Napoleon  crowned 
Emperor. 


FRANCE,  1804-1805. 


an  ulterior  meaning.  Adopted  at  the  moment 
when  Napoleon  began  to  feel  himself  master 
both  in  Italy  and  Germany,  it  revived  the  mem- 
ory of  Charles  the  Great.  To  himself  it  was  the 
more  satisfactory  on  that  account,  and,  strange 
to  say,  it  gave  satisfaction  rather  than  offence  to 
the  Head  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  Francis  II. 
Since  Joseph,  the  Habsburg  Emperors  had  been 
tired  of  their  title,  which,  being  elective,  was 
precarious.  They  were  desirous  of  becoming 
hereditary  emperors  in  Austria,  and  they  now 
took  this  title  (though  without  as  yet  giving  up 
the  other).  Francis  II.  bartered  his  acknowledge- 
ment of  Napoleon's  new  title  against  Napoleon's 
acknowledgement  of  his  own.  It  required  some 
impudence  to  condemn  Moreau  for  royalism  at 
the  very  moment  that  his  rival  was  re-establish- 
ing monarchy.  Yet  his  trial  began  on  May  15th. 
The  death  of  Pichegru,  nominally  by  suicide,  on 
April  6th,  had  already  furnished  the  rising  sul- 
tanism  with  its  first  dark  mystery.  Moreau  was 
condemned  to  two  years'  imprisonment,  but  was 
allowed  to  retire  to  the  United  States." — J.  R. 
Seeley,  Short  Hist,  of  Napoleon  I.,  ch.  3,  sect.  4. 
— C.  C.  Fauriel,  The  Last  Days  of  the  Co7isulate. 
—  Chancellor  Pasquier,  in  his  Memoirs,  narrates 
the  circumstances  of  the  seizure  of  the  Due  d' 
Enghien  at  considerable  length,  and  says:  "This 
is  what  really  occurred,  according  to  what  I  have 
been  told  by  those  better  situated  to  know.  A 
council  was  held  on  the  9th  of  March.  It  is  almost 
certain  that  previous  to  this  council,  which  was 
a  kind  of  official  affair,  a  more  secret  one  had 
been  held  at  the  house  of  Joseph  Bonaparte.  At 
the  first  council,  to  which  were  convened  only  a 
few  persons,  all  on  a  footing  of  family  intimacy, 
it  was  discussed  by  order  of  the  First  Consul, 
what  would  be  proper  to  do  with  a  prince  of  the 
House  of  Bourbon,  in  case  one  should  have  him 
in  one's  power,  and  the  decision  reached  was  that 
if  he  was  captured  on  French  territory,  one  had 
the  right  to  take  his  life,  but  not  otherwise.  At 
the  council  held  on  the  9th,  and  which  was  com- 
posed of  the  three  Consuls,  the  Chief  Justice,  the 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  M.  Fouche,  al- 
though the  latter  had  not  then  resumed  the  post 
of  Minister  of  Police,  the  two  men  who  expressed 
contrary  opinions  were  M.  de  Talleyrand  and  M. 
de  Cambacer^s.  M.  de  Talleyrand  declared  that 
the  prince  should  be  sent  to  his  death.  M.  Le- 
brun,  the  Third  Consul,  contented  himself  with 
saying  that  such  an  event  would  have  a  terrible 
echo  throughout  the  world.  M.  de  CambacerSs 
contended  earnestly  that  it  would  be  sufficient 
to  hold  the  prince  as  hostage  for  the  safety  of  the 
First  Consul.  The  latter  sided  with  M.  de  Talley- 
rand, whose  counsels  then  prevailed.  The  dis- 
cussion was  a  heated  one,  and  when  the  meeting 
of  the  council  was  over,  M.  de  Cambacerfes 
thought  it  his  duty  to  make  a  last  attempt,  so  he 
followed  Bonaparte  into  his  study,  and  laid  be- 
fore him  with  perhaps  more  strength  than  might 
be  expected  from  his  character,  the  consequences 
of  the  deed  he  was  about  to  perpetrate,  and  the 
universal  horror  it  would  excite.  ...  He  spoke 
in  vain.  In  the  privacy  of  his  study,  Bonaparte 
expressed  himself  even  with  greater  violence 
than  he  had  done  at  the  council.  He  answered 
that  the  death  of  the  duke  would  seem  to  the 
world  but  a  just  reprisal  for  what  was  being  at- 
tempted against  him  personally;  that  it  was 
necessary  to  teach  the  House  of  Bourbon  that 
the  blows  struck  with  its  sanction  were  liable  to 


recoil  on  its  own  head ;  that  this  was  the  only 
way  of  compelling  it  to  abstain  from  its  dastardly 
schemes,  and  lastly,  that  matters  had  gone  too 
far  to  retrace  one's  steps.  M.  de  Talleyrand 
supplied  this  last  argument."— Chancellor  Pas- 
quier, Memoirs,  v.  1,  pp.  190-191.— "Bonaparte's 
accession  to  the  Empire  was  proclaimed  with  the 
greatest  pomp,  without  waiting  to  inquire  whether 
the  people  approved  of  his  promotion  or  other- 
wise. The  proclamation  was  coldly  received, 
even  by  the  populace,  and  excited  little  enthu.si- 
asm.  .  .  .  The  Emperor  was  recognised  by  the 
soldiery  with  more  warmth.  He  visited  the  en- 
campments at  Boulogne,"  and,  afterwards,  "ac- 
companied with  his  Empress,  who  bore  her 
honours  both  gracefully  and  meekly,  visited  Aix- 
la-Chapelle  and  the  frontiers  of  Germany.  They 
received  the  congratulations  of  all  the  powers  of 
Europe,  excepting  England,  Russia,  and  Sweden, 
upon  their  new  exaltation.  .  .  .  IBut  the  most 
splendid  and  public  recognition  of  his  new  rank 
was  yet  to  be  made,  by  the  formal  act  of  coro- 
nation, which,  therefore.  Napoleon  determined 
should  take  place  witli  circumstances  of  solem- 
nity which  had  been  beyond  the  reach  of  any  tem- 
poral prince,  however  powerful,  for  many  ages. 
.  .  .  Though  Charlemagne  had  repaired  to  Rome 
to  receive  inauguration  from  the  hands  of  the 
Pontiff  of  that  day,  Napoleon  resolved  that  he 
who  now  owned  the  proud,  and  in  Protestant 
eyes  profane,  title  of  Vicar  of  Christ,  should 
travel  to  Prance  to  perform  the  coronation.  .  .  . 
The  Pope,  and  the  cardinals  whom  he  consulted, 
implored  the  illumination  of  Heaven  upon  their 
councils ;  but  it  was  the  stern  voice  of  necessity 
which  assured  them  that,  except  at  the  risk  of 
dividing  the  Church  by  a  schism,  they  could  not 
refuse  to  comply  with  Buonaparte's  requisition. 
The  Pope  left  Rome  on  the  5th  November.  .  .  . 
On  the  2d  December  [1804]  the  coronation  took 
place  in  the  ancient  catliedral  of  Notre  Dame. 
.  .  .  The  crown  having  been  blessed  by  the  Pope, 
Napoleon  took  it  from  the  altar  with  his  own 
hands,  and  placed  it  on  his  brows.  He  then  put 
the  diadem  on  the  head  of  his  Empress,  as  if  de- 
termined to  show  that  his  authority  was  the 
child  of  his  own  actions.  .  .  .  The  northern  states 
of  Italy  had  followed  the  example  of  France 
through  all  her  change  of  models.  .  .  .  The 
authorities  of  the  Italian  (late  Cisalpine)  Repub- 
lic, had  a  prescient  guess  of  what  was  expected 
of  them.  A  deputation  appeared  at  Paris  to  de- 
clare the  absolute  necessity  which  they  felt,  that 
their  government  should  assume  a  monarchical 
and  hereditary  form.  On  the  17th  March  [1805], 
they  obtained  an  audience  of  the  Emperor,  to 
whom  they  intimated  the  unanimous  desire  of 
their  countrymen  that  Napoleon,  founder  of  the 
Italian  Republic,  should  be  monarch  of  the  Ital- 
ian Kingdom.  .  .  .  Buonaparte  granted  the  pe- 
tition of  the  Italian  States,  and  .  .  .  upon  tlie 
11th  April,  .  .  .  with  his  Empress,  set  off  to  go- 
through  the  form  of  coronation  as  King  of  Ital}'. 
.  .  .  The  new  kingdom  was,  in  all  respects, 
modeled  on  the  same  plan  with  the  French  Em- 
pire. An  order,  called  'of  the  Iron  Crown,'  was 
established  on  the  footing  of  that  of  the  Legion 
of  Honour.  A  large  French  force  was  taken  into 
Italian  pay,  and  Eugene  Beauharnais,  the  son  of 
Josephine  by  her  former  marriage,  who  enjoyed 
and  merited  the  confidence  of  his  father-in-law, 
was  created  viceroy,  and  appointed  to  represent, 
in  that  character,  the  dignity  of  Napoleon.    Napo- 


1374 


FRANCE,  1804-1805. 


The  Tliird  Coalition. 


FRANCE,  1805. 


ieon  did  not  leave  Italy  without  further  exten- 
sion of  his  empire.  Genoa,  once  the  proud  and 
the  powerful,  resigned  her  independence,  and  licr 
Doge  presented  to  the  Emperor  a  request  tliat 
the  Ligurian  Republic  .  .  .  should  be  considered 
in  future  as  a  part  of  the  French  nation." — Sir 
W.  Scott,  Life  of  Napoleon,  ch.  4S(Paris  ed.,  1838). 
— "Genoa  and  the  Ligurian  Republic  were  in- 
corporated with  France,  June  3d  1805.  .  .  .  The 
Duchies  of  Parma  and  Piacenza,  which,  together 
with  Guastalla,  had  been  already  seized,  were 
declared  dependencies  of  the  French  Empire  by 
an  imperial  decree  of  July  31st.  The  principality 
of  Piombino  was  bestowed  on  Napoleon's  sister 
Eliza,  wife  of  the  Senator  Bacciocchi,  but  on 
conditions  which  retained  it  under  the  Emperor's 
suzerainty :  and  the  little  state  was  increased  by 
the  addition  of  the  Republic  of  Lucca. " — T.  H. 
Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  7,  ch.  11  (».  4). 

Also  in:  C.  Botta,  Italy  during  the  Consulate 
and  Empire  of  Napoleon,  ch.  3-4. — Memoirs  dic- 
tated l>y  Napoleon  to  Ms  Generals  at  St.  Helena,  v.  6, 
pp.  219-335.— J.  Fouche,  Memoirs,  pp.  360-374. 
— Count  Miot  de  Melito,  Memoirs,  ch.  1(3-17. — 
W.  Hazlitt,  Life  of  Napoleon,  ch.  33-34  (v.  2).— 
M'me  de  Remusat,  Memoirs,  bk.  1,  ch.  4-10  (v.  1). 
— P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon,  v.  3,  ch.  9-10. — 
M.  de  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs  of  Napoleon, 
V.  8,  ch.  1-13. 

A.  D.  1 80S  (January  — April).— The  Third 
European  Coalition. — "In  England  Pitt  re- 
turned to  office  in  May,  1804,  and  this  in  itself 
was  an  evil  omen  for  France.  He  enjoyed  the 
confidence,  not  only  of  his  own  nation  but  of 
Europe,  and  he  at  once  set  to  work  to  resume  the 
threads  of  that  coalition  of  which  England  had 
formerly  directed  the  resources.  Alexander  I.  of 
Russia  had  begun  to  see  through  the  designs  of 
Napoleon;  he  found  that  he  had  been  duped  in 
the  joint  mediation  in  Germany,  he  resented  the 
occupation  of  Hanover  and  he  ordered  his  court 
to  put  on  mourning  for  the  duke  of  Enghieu. 
Before  long  he  broke  off  diplomatic  relations  with 
Prance  (Sept.  1804),  and  a  Russian  war  was  now 
only  a  question  of  time.  Austria  was  the  power 
most  closely  affected  by  Napoleon's  assumption 
of  the  imperial  title.  .  .  .  While  hastening  to 
acknowledge  Napoleon,  Austria  was  busied  in 
military  preparations  and  began  to  resume  its  old 
connection  with  England.  Prussia  was  the  power 
on  which  France  was  accustomed  to  rely  with 
implicit  confidence.  But  the  occupation  of  Han- 
over and  the  interference  with  the  commerce  of 
the  Elbe  had  weakened  Frederick  William  III.  's 
belief  in  the  advantages  of  a  neutral  policy,  and, 
though  he  could  not  make  up  his  mind  to  definite 
action,  he  began  to  open  negotiations  with  Russia 
in  view  of  a  rupture  with  France.  The  fluctua- 
tions of  Prussian  policy  may  be  followed  in  the 
alternating  influence  of  the  two  ministers  of  for- 
eign affairs,  Haugwitz  and  Hardenberg.  Mean- 
while Napoleon,  ignorant  or  reckless  of  the  grow- 
ing hostility  of  the  great  powers,  continued  his 
aggressions  at  the  expense  of  the  lesser  states. 
.  .  .  These  acts  gave  the  final  impulse  to  the  hos- 
tile powers,  and  before  Napoleon  quitted  Italy 
the  Coalition  had  been  formed.  On  the  11th  of 
April,  1805,  a  final  treaty  was  signed  between 
Russia  and  England.  The  two  powers  pledged 
themselves  to  form  an  European  league  against 
Prance,  to  conclude  no  peace  without  mutual  con- 
sent, to  settle  disputed  points  in  a  congress  at 
the  end  of  the  war,  and  to  form  a  federal  tribunal 


for  the  maintenance  of  the  system  which  should 
then  be  established.  The  immediate  objects  of 
the  allies  were  the  abolition  of  French  rule  in 
Italy,  Holland,  Switzerland,  and  Hanover;  the 
restoration  of  Piedmont  to  the  king  of  Sardinia; 
the  protection  of  Naples ;  and  the  erection  of  a 
permanent  barrier  against  France  by  the  union 
of  Holland  and  Belgium  under  the  House  of 
Orange.  The  coalition  was  at  once  joined  by  Gus- 
tavus  IV.  of  Sweden,  who  inherited  his  father's 
devotion  to  the  cause  of  legitimate  monarchy,  and 
who  hoped  to  recover  power  in  Pomerania.  Aus- 
tria, terrified  for  its  Italian  possessions  by  Bona- 
parte's evident  intention  to  subdue  the  whole 
peninsula,  was  driven  into  the  league.  Prussia, 
in  spite  of  the  attraction  of  recovering  honour 
and  independence,  refused  to  listen  to  the  solici- 
tations of  England  and  Russia,  and  adhered  to  its 
feeble  neutrality.  Of  the  other  German  states 
Bavaria,  Baden,  and  Wurtemberg  were  allies  of 
France.  As  far  as  effective  operations  were  con- 
cerned, the  coalition  consisted  only  of  Austria 
and  Russia.  Sweden  and  Naples,  which  had 
joined  secretly,  could  not  make  efforts  on  a  great 
scale,  and  England  was  as  yet  content  with  pro- 
viding subsidies  and  the  invaluable  services  of  its 
fleet.  It  was  arranged  that  one  Austrian  army 
under  the  archduke  Charles  should  invade  Lom- 
bardy,  while  Mack,  with  a  second  army  and  the 
aid  of  Russia,  should  occupy  Bavaria  and  advance 
upon  the  Rhine." — R.  Lodge,  Hist,  of  Modern 
Europe,  ch.  34,  sect.  13-15. 

Also  m:  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  1789- 
1815,  ch.  39  (».  9). 

A.  D.  1805  (March — December). — Napoleon's 
plans  and  preparations  for  the  invasion  of 
England. — Nelson's  long  pursuit  of  the  French 
fleets. — His  victory  and  death  at  Trafalgar. — 
Napoleon's  rapid  march  to  the  Danube. — Ca- 
pitulation of  Mack  at  Ulm.^The  French  in 
Vienna. — The  great  battle  of  Austerlitz. — 
"While  the  coalition  was  forming,  and  Napo- 
leon seemed  wantonly  to  be  insulting  Europe 
and  ignoring  the  danger  of  exciting  fresh  enemies, 
he  was  in  fact  urging  on  with  all  rapidity  his 
schemes  for  the  invasion  of  England,  which  he 
probably  hoped  might  be  so  successful  as  to 
paralyse  all  action  on  the  part  of  the  European 
powers.  The  constantly  repeated  representa- 
tions of  his  naval  officers  had  forced  him,  much 
against  his  will,  to  believe  that  his  descent  upon 
England  would  be  impracticable  unless  secured 
by  the  presence  of  his  fleet.  In  spite  of  the  gen- 
eral voice  of  those  who  knew  the  condition  of 
the  French  navy,  he  determined  to  act  with  his 
fleet  on  the  same  principles  as  he  would  have 
acted  with  his  army ;  a  gigantic  combination  of 
various  squadrons  was  to  be  effected,  and  a  fleet 
great  enough  to  destroy  all  hope  of  opposition  to 
sweep  the  Channel.  For  this  purpose  the  18 
ships  of  the  line  at  Brest  under  Admiral  Gan- 
theaume,  the  squadron  at  Rochefort  under  Ville- 
neuve,  and  the  Toulon  fleet  under  Latouche- 
Treville,  were  to  unite.  The  last  mentioned 
admiral  was  Intrusted  with  the  chief  command. 
Sailing  up  the  coast  of  France,  he  was  to  liberate 
from  their  blockade  the  squadrons  of  Rochefort 
and  Brest,  and  with  their  combined  fleets  appear 
before  Boulogne.  But  Latouche-Treville  died, 
and  Napoleon  intrusted  his  plans  to  Villeneuve. 
Those  plans,  all  of  them  arranged  without  re- 
gard to  the  bad  condition  of  the  French  ships, 
or  to  the  uncertainty  of  the  weather,  were  tre- 


1375 


FRANCE,  1805. 


Capitulation  of 
Mack. 


FRANCE,  1805. 


quently  changed;  at  one  time  Villeneuve  from 
Toulon,  and  Slissiessy,  his  successor,  at  Roche- 
fort,  were  to  proceed  to  the  West  Indies,  draw- 
ing the  English  fleet  thither ;  then  Gantheaums 
was  to  appear  from  Brest,  throw  troops  into  Ire- 
land, and  thus  cover  the  flotilla.  At  another 
time,  all  the  fleets  were  to  assemble  at  the  West 
Indies,  and,  joining  with  the  Spanish  fleet  at 
Ferrol,  appear  in  the  Straits  of  Calais.  To  com- 
plete this  last  measure  Villeneuve  set  sail  from 
Toulon  on  the  30th  of  March  1805,  joined  Gra- 
vina  at  Cadiz,  and  reached  Martinique  on  the 
13th  of  May  with  20  ships  of  the  line,  and  7 
frigates.  His  voyage  was  so  slow  that  Missiessy 
had  returned  from  the  West  Indies  to  France, 
and  the  junction  failed.  In  hot  pursuit  of  Ville- 
neuve, Nelson,  who  had  at  length  found  out  his 
destination,  had  hurried.  At  Martinique  Gan- 
theaume,  with  the  Brest  fleet,  should  have  joined 
Villeneuve ;  unfortunately  forhim,  Admiral  Corn- 
wallis  blockaded  his  fleet.  Villeneuve  therefore 
had  to  return  to  Europe  alone,  sailing  for  Ferrol 
to  pick  up  a  squadron  of  15  ships.  He  was  then, 
at  the  head  of  35  ships,  ordered  to  appear  before 
Brest,  liberate  Gantheaume,  and  appear  in  the 
Channel.  Back  again  in  pursuit  of  him  Nelson 
sailed,  but  supposed  that  he  would  return  to  the 
Mediterranean  and  not  to  Ferrol ;  he  therefore 
again  missed  him ;  but  as  he  had  found  means  to 
inform  the  English  Government  that  Villeneuve 
was  returning  to  Europe,  Calder,  with  a  fleet  of 
15  ships,  was  sent  to  intercept  him.  The  fleets 
encountered  off  Cape  Finisterre.  The  French 
had  27  vessels,  Calder  but  18,  and  after  an  inde- 
cisive battle,  in  which  two  Spanish  ships  were 
taken,  he  was  afraid  to  renew  the  engagement, 
and  Villeneuve  was  thus  enabled  to  reach  Ferrol 
in  safety.  However,  all  the  operations  towards 
concentration  had  led  to  absolutely  nothing,  and 
the  English  fleets,  which  the  movements  towards 
the  West  Indies  were  to  have  decoyed  from  the 
Channel,  were  either  still  off  the  coast  of  France 
or  in  immediate  pursuit  of  the  fleet  of  Villeneuve. 
Nelson  returned  to  Gibralter,  and  as  soon  as  he 
found  out  where  Villeneuve  was,  he  joined  his 
fleet  to  that  of  Cornwallis  before  Brest,  and  him- 
self returned  to  England.  .  .  .  Meanwhile  Ville- 
neuve had  not  been  able  to  get  ready  for  sea  till 
the  11th  of  August.  ...  He  was  afraid  to  ven- 
ture northwards,  and  with  the  full  approbation 
of  his  Spanish  colleague  Gravina,  determined  to 
avail  himself  of  a  last  alternative  which  Napo- 
leon had  suggested,  and  sailed  to  Cadiz.  This 
was  a  fatal  blow  to  the  gigantic  schemes  of  Na- 
poleon. Up  till  the  22nd  of  August  he  still  be- 
lieved that  Villeneuve  would  make  his  appear- 
ance, and  in  fact  wrote  to  him  that  day  at  Brest, 
closing  his  letter  with  the  words,  'England  is 
ours.'  As  the  time  for  his  great  stroke  drew 
near  he  grew  nervously  anxious,  constantly 
watching  the  Channel  for  the  approach  of  the  fleet, 
and  at  last,  when  his  Minister  of  Marine,  DecrSs, 
told  him  that  the  fleet  had  gone  to  Cadiz,  he 
broke  forth  in  bitter  wrath  against  both  his  Minis- 
ter and  Villeneuve,  whom  he  accused  of  the  most 
shameful  weakness.  But  Napoleon  was  not  a 
man  who  let  his  success  be  staked  upon  one  plan 
alone.  Though  studiously  hiding  from  his  peo- 
ple the  existence  of  the  coalition,  and  not  scrup- 
ling to  have  recourse  to  forged  letters  and  fabri- 
cated news  for  the  purpose,  he  was  fully  aware 
of  its  existence.  .  .  .  Without  much  difficulty, 
therefore,   he  at  once  resigned  his  great  plans 


upon  England,  and  directed  his  army  towards 
the  eastern  frontier." — J.  F.  Bright,  Hist,  of 
England,  period  3,  pp.  1261-1364.  —  "  In  the  first 
days  of  September,  1805,  Napoleon's  great  army 
was  in  full  march  across  France  and  Germany, 
to  attain  the  Danube.  .  .  .  The  Allies  .  .  .  had 
projected  four  separate  and  ill-combined  attacks; 
the  first  on  Hanover  and  Holland  by  a  Russian 
and  British  force ;  the  second,  on  Lower  Italy  by 
a  similar  body;  the  third,  by  a  great  Austrian 
army  on  Upper  Italy;  and  the  fourth,  by  a 
United  Austrian  and  Russian  army,  moving 
across  Southern  Germany  to  the  Rhine.  ...  By 
this  time,  the  Austrian  Mack  had  drawn  close  to 
the  Inn,  in  order  to  compel  Bavaria  to  join  the 
Allies,  and  was  even  making  his  way  to  the  Iller, 
but  his  army  was  far  distant  from  that  of  the 
Russian  chief,  Kutusoff,  and  still  further  from 
that  of  Buxhowden,  the  one  in  Galicia,  the  other 
in  Poland.  .  .  .  Napoleon  had  seized  this  posi- 
tion of  affairs,  with  the  comprehensive  know- 
ledge of  the  theatre  of  war,  and  the  skill  of  ar- 
ranging armies  upon  it,  in  which  he  has  no  equals 
among  modern  captains.  He  opposed  Massena 
to  the  Archdukes,  with  a  much  weaker  force, 
confident  that  his  great  lieutenant  could  hold 
them  in  check.  He  neglected  the  attacks  from 
the  North  Sea,  and  the  South ;  but  he  resolved  to 
strike  down  Mack,  in  overwhelming  strength, 
should  he  advance  without  his  Russian  supports. 
.  .  .  The  great  mass  of  the  Grand  Army  had 
reached  the  Main  and  Rhine  by  the  last  week  of 
September.  The  left  wing,  joined  by  the  Ba- 
varian forces,  and  commanded  by  Bernadotte  and 
Marmont,  had  marched  from  Hanover  and  Hol- 
land, and  was  around  Wurtzburg;  the  centre, 
the  corps  of  Soult,  and  Davoust,  moved  from  the 
channel,  was  at  Spire  and  Mannheim,  and  the 
right  wing,  formed  of  the  corps  of  Ney  and 
Lannes,  with  the  Imperial  Guard,  and  the  horse 
of  Murat,  filled  the  region  between  Carlsruhe  and 
Strasburg,  the  extreme  right  under  Augereau, 
which  had  advanced  from  Brittany,  being  still 
behind  but  drawing  towards  Huningen.  By  this 
time  Mack  was  upon  the  Iller,  holding  the  for- 
tress of  Ulm  on  the  upper  Danube,  and  extending 
his  forces  thence  to  Memmingen.  .  .  .  By  the  first 
days  of  October  the  great  French  masses  .  .  . 
were  in  full  march  from  the  Rhine  to  the  Main, 
across  Wilrtemberg  and  the  Franconian  plains; 
and  cavalry  filled  the  approaches  to  the  Black 
Forest,  in  order  to  deceive  and  perplex  Mack. 
.  .  .  The  Danube  ere  long  was  reached  and 
crossed,  at  Donauworth,  Ingolstadt,  and  other 
points ;  and  Napoleon  already  stood  on  the  rear 
of  his  enemy,  interposing  between  him  and 
Vienna,  and  cut  him  off  from  the  Russians,  even 
now  distant.  The  net  was  quickly  drawn  round 
the  ill-fated  Mack.  ...  By  the  third  week  of 
October,  the  Grand  Army  had  encompassed  the 
Austrians  on  every  side,  and  Napoleon  held  his 
quarry  in  his  grasp.  Mack  .  .  .  had  not  the 
heart  to  strike  a  desperate  stroke,  and  to  risk  a 
battle ;  and  he  capitulated  at  Ulm  on  the  19th  of 
October.  Two  divisions  of  his  army  had  con- 
trived to  break  out;  but  one  was  pursued  and 
nearly  destroyed  by  Murat,  and  the  other  was 
compelled  by  Augereau  to  lay  down  its  arms,  as 
it  was  on  its  way  to  the  hills  of  the  Tyrol.  An 
army  of  85,000  men  had  thus,  so  to  speak,  been 
well-nigh  effaced;  and  not  20,000  had  effected 
their  escape.  France  meanwhile  had  met  a 
crushing  disaster  on  the  element  which  England 


1376 


FRANCE,  1805. 


Trafalgar 
and  Austerlitz. 


FRANCE,  1805. 


had  made  her  own.  We  have  seen  how  Ville- 
neuve  had  put  into  Cadiz,  afraid  to  face  tlie  hos- 
tile fleets  off  Brest,  and  how  tliis  had  baffled  the 
project  of  the  descent.  Napoleon  was  indignant 
with  his  ill-fated  admiral.  ...  At  a  hint  of  dis- 
grace the  susceptible  Frenchman  made  up  his 
mind,  at  any  risk,  to  fight.  By  this  time  Nelson 
had  left  England,  and  was  off  Cadiz  with  a  pow- 
erful fleet;  and  he  actually  weakened  his  force 
by  four  sail-of-the-line,  in  order  to  lure  his  ad- 
versary out.  On  the  20tlx  of  October,  1805,  the 
allied  fleet  was  in  the  open  sea;  it  had  been  de- 
clared at  a  council  of  war,  that  a  lost  battle  was 
almost  certain,  so  bad  was  the  condition  of  many 
of  the  crews ;  but  Villeneuve  was  bent  on  chal- 
lenging Fate ;  and  almost  courted  defeat,  in  his 
despair.  ...  On  the  morning  of  the  21st,  the 
allied  fleet,  33  war  ships,  and  a  number  of  frig- 
ates, was  off  Cape  Trafalgar,  making  for  the 
Straits.  .  .  .  Nelson  advanced  slowly  against  his 
doomed  enemy,  with  37  ships  and  their  attendant 
frigates ;  the  famous  signal  floated  from  his  mast, 
'  England  expects  every  man  to  do  his  duty  ' ; 
and,  at  about  noon,  Collingwood  pierced  Ville- 
neuve's  centre,  nearly  destroying  the  Santa  Anna 
with  a  single  broadside.  Ere  long  Nelson  had 
broken  Villeneuve 's  line,  with  the  Victory,  caus- 
ing frightful  destruction;  and  as  other  British 
ships  came  up  by  degrees  they  relieved  the  lead- 
ing ships  from  the  pressure  of  their  foes,  and 
completed  the  ruin  already  begun.  At  about 
one,  Nelson  met  his  death  wound,  struck  by 
a  shot  from  the  tops  of  the  Redoutable.  .  .  . 
Pierced  through  and  through,  the  shattered  allied 
centre  was  soon  a  collection  of  captured  wrecks. 
.  .  .  Only  11  ships  out  of  33  escaped;  aud  the 
burning  Achille,  like  the  Orient  at  the  Nile, 
added  to  the  grandeur  and  horrors  of  an  appal- 
ling scene.  Villeneuve,  who  had  fought  most 
honourably  in  the  Bucentaure,  was  compelled  to 
strike  his  flag  before  the  death  of  Nelson.  The 
van  of  the  allies  that  had  fled  at  Trafalgar,  was 
soon  afterwards  captured  by  a  British  squadron. 
Though  dearly  bought  by  the  death  of  Nelson, 
the  victory  may  be  compared  to  Lepanto ;  and  it 
blotted  France  out  as  a  great  Power  on  the  ocean. 
Napoleon  .  .  .  never  tried  afterwards  to  meet 
England  at  sea.  .  .  .  His  success,  at  this  mo- 
ment, had  been  so  wonderful,  that  what  he 
called  '  the  loss  of  a  few  ships  at  sea, '  seemed  a 
trifling  and  passing  rebuff  of  fortune.  .  .  .  He 
had  discomfitted  the  whole  plan  of  the  Allies; 
and  the  failure  of  the  attack  on  the  main  scene 
of  the  theatre  had  caused  all  the  secondary  at- 
tacks to  fail.  .  .  .  Napoleon,  throwing  out  de- 
tachments to  protect  his  flanks,  had  entered 
Vienna  on  the  14th  of  November.  .  .  .  The 
House  of  Hapsburg  and  its  chief  had  fled.  .  .  . 
Extraordinary  as  his  success  had  been,  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Emperor  had,  in  a  few  days,  become 
grave.  .  .  .  Napoleon  had  not  one  hundred 
thousand  men  in  hand  —  apart  from  the  bodies 
that  covered  his  flanks  —  to  make  head  against 
his  converging  enemies.  Always  daring,  how- 
ever, he  resolved  to  attack  the  Allies  before  they 
could  receive  aid  from  Prussia ;  and  he  marched 
from  Vienna  towards  the  close  of  November, 
having  taken  careful  precautions  to  guard  his 
rear.  ...  By  this  time  the  Allies  were  around 
Olmiitz,  the  Archdukes  were  not  many  marches 
away,  and  a  Prussian  army  was  nearly  ready  to 
move.  Had  the  Russians  and  Austrians  fallen 
back  from  Olmiitz  and  effected  their  junction 

13 


with  the  Archdukes,  they  could,  therefore,  hive 
opposed  the  French  with  a  force  more  than  two- 
fold in  numbers.  .  .  .  But  the  folly  and  pre- 
sumption which  reigned  among  the  young  nobles 
surrounding  the  Czar — Alexander  was  now  at 
the  head  of  his  army — brought  on  the  Coalition 
deserved  punishment,  and  pedantry  had  its  part 
in  an  immense  disaster.  The  force  of  Napoleon 
appeared  small,  his  natural  line  of  retreat  was 
exposed,  and  a  theorist  in  the  Austrian  camp 
persuaded  the  Czar  and  the  Austrian  Emperor, 
who  was  at  the  head  of  his  troops  at  Olmiitz,  to 
consent  to  a  magnificent  plan  of  assailing  Napo- 
leon by  the  well-known  method  of  Freflerick 
the  Great,  in  the  Seven  Years'  War,  of  turning 
his  right  wing,  by  an  attack  made,  in  the  oblique 
order,  in  great  force,  and  of  cutting  him  off  from 
his  base  at  Vienna,  and  driving  him,  routed,  into 
Bohemia.  This  grand  project  on  paper,  which, 
involved  a  march  across  the  front  of  the  hostile 
army  within  reach  of  the  greatest  of  masters  of 
war,  was  hailed  with  exultation.  .  .  .  The  Allies 
were  soon  in  full  march  from  Olmiitz,  and  prep- 
arations were  made  for  the  decisive  movement 
in  the  night  of  the  1st  December,  1805.  Napo- 
leon had  watched  the  reckless  false  step  being 
made  by  his  foes  with  unfeigned  delight ;  '  that 
army  is  mine,'  he  proudly  exclaimed.  .  .  .  The 
sun  of  Austerlitz  rose  on  the  3nd,  the  light  of 
victory  often  invoked  by  Napoleon.  .  .  .  The 
dawn  of  the  winter's  day  revealed  three  large 
columns,  succeeded  by  a  fourth  at  no  great  dis- 
tance, toiling  through  a  tract  of  marshes  and 
frozen  lakes,  to  outflank  Napoleon's  right  on  the 
Goldbach,  the  allied  centre,  on  the  tableland  of 
Prittzen,  immediately  before  the  French  front, 
having  been  dangerously  weakened  by  this  great 
turning  movement.  The  assailants  were  opposed 
by  a  small  force  only,  under  Davoust,  one  of  the 
best  of  the  marshals.  .  .  .  Ere  long  Napoleon, 
who,  like  a  beast  of  prey,  had  reserved  his  strength 
until  it  was  time  to  spring,  launched  Soult  in 
force  against  the  Russian  and  Austrian  centre, 
enfeebled  by  the  detachment  against  the  French 
right  and  exposed  to  the  whole  weight  of  Napo- 
leon's attacks ;  and  Pratzeu  was  stormed  after  a 
fierce  struggle,  in  which  Bernadotte  gave  the  re- 
quired aid  to  Soult.  The  allied  centre  was  thus 
rent  asunder.  Launes  meanwhile  had  defeated  the 
allied  right.  .  .  .  Napoleon  now  turned  with 
terrible  energy  and  In  overwhelming  strength 
against  the  four  columns,  that  had  assailed  his 
right,  but  had  begun  to  retreat.  His  victorious 
centre  was  aided  by  his  right,  now  set  free ;  the 
Russians  and  Austrians  were  struck  with  panic, 
a  horrible  scene  of  destruction  followed,  the  fly- 
ing troops  were  slain  or  captured  in  thousands, 
and  multitudes  perished,  engulfed  in  the  lakes, 
the  French  artillery  shattering  their  icy  surface. 
The  rout  was  decisive,  complete,  and  appalling ; 
about  80,000  of  the  Allies  were  engaged;  they 
lost  all  their  guns  and  nearly  half  their  numbers, 
and  the  remains  of  their  army  were  a  worthless 
wreck.  Napoleon  had  only  60,000  men  in  the 
fight.  ....  The  memorable  campaign  of  1805  is, 
perhaps,  the  grandest  of  Napoleon's  exploits  in 
war." — W.  O'C.  Morris,  Napoleoii,  ch.  7. 

Also  in  :  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate  and 
Empire,  bk.  33  (».  3).— R.  Sou  they.  Life  of  Nel- 
son, ch.  8-9  (».  3). — W.  C.  Russell,  Nelson  and 
the  Naval  Supremacy  of  Eng.,  ch.  17-20. — Lord 
Nelson,  Dispatches  and  Letters,  v.  6-7. — Capt.  E. 
J.  de  la  Gravifere,  Sketches  of  the  last  Naval  War, 

77 


FRANCE,  1805. 


King-malcing. 


FRANCE,  1806. 


pt.  6  (s.  2). — C.  Adams,  Oreat  Campaigns  in  Eu- 
rope, from  1796  to  1870,  ch.  3. — Baron  de  Marbot, 
Memoirs,  v.  1,  ch.  30-23.— A.  T.  Mahan,  Influ- 
etwes  of  Sea  Power  upon  the  French  Rev. ,  ch.  15- 
16  (».  2). 

A.  D.  1805-1806  (December— August).— The 
Peace  of  Presburg. — Humiliation  of  Austria. 
— Formation  of  the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine. 
— Extinction  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire. — The 
goading  of  Prussia  to  war.  See  Germany: 
A.  D.  1805-1806;  and  1806  (.J.Ajf dary— August). 

A.  D.  1805-1806  (December — September). — 
Dethronement  of  the  dynasty  of  Naples. — Be- 
stowal of  the  crown  upon  Joseph  Bonaparte. 
— The  treaty  of  Presburg  was  "  immediately  fol- 
lowed by  a  measure  hitherto  unprecedented  in 
European  history  —  the  pronouncing  a  sentence 
of  dethronement  against  an  independent  sover- 
eign, for  no  other  cause  than  his  having  con- 
templated hostilities  against  the  French  Emperor. 
On  the  26th  December  [1805]  a  menacing  proc- 
lamation proceeded  from  Presburg  .  .  .  vphich 
evidently  bore  marks  of  Napoleon's  composition, 
against  the  house  of  Naples.  The  conqueror  an- 
nounced that  Marshal  St.  Cyr  would  advance  by 
rapid  strides  to  Naples,  '  to  punish  the  treason 
of  a  criminal  queen,  and  precipitate  her  from  the 
throne.  We  have  pardoned  that  infatuated  king, 
who  thrice  has  done  everything  to  ruin  himself. 
Shall  we  pardon  him  a  fourth  time  ?  .  .  .  No ! 
The  dynasty  of  Naples  has  ceased  to  reign  —  its 
existence  is  incompatible  with  the  repose  of 
Europe  and  the  honour  of  my  crown. "...  The 
ominous  announcement,  made  from  the  depths  of 
Moravia,  that  the  dynasty  of  Naples  had  ceased 
to  reign,  was  not  long  allowed  to  remain  a  dead 
letter.  Massena  was  busily  employed,  in  Janu- 
ary, in  collecting  his  forces  in  the  centre  of  Italy, 
and  before  the  end  of  that  month  50,000  men, 
under  the  command  of  Joseph  Buonaparte,  had 
crossed  the  Pontifical  States  and  entered  the 
Neapolitan  territory  in  three  columns,  which 
marched  on  Gaeta,  Capua,  and  Itri.  Resistance 
was  impossible ;  the  feeble  Russian  and  English 
forces  which  had  disembarked  to  support  the 
Italian  levies,  finding  the  whole  weight  of  the 
war  likely  to  be  directed  against  them,  withdrew 
to  Sicily ;  the  court,  thunderstruck  by  the  men- 
acing proclamation  of  27th  December,  speedily 
followed  their  example.  .  .  .  In  vain  the  intrepid 
Queen  Caroline,  who  still  remained  at  Naples, 
armed  the  lazzaroni,  and  sought  to  infuse  into 
the  troops  a  portion  of  her  own  indomitable 
courage;  she  was  seconded  by  none;  Capua 
opened  its  gates;  Gaeta  was  invested;  the  Cam- 
pagna  filled  with  the  invaders ;  she,  vanquished 
but  not  subdued,  compelled  to  yield  to  necessity, 
followed  her  timid  consort  to  Sicily ;  and,  on  the 
15th  February,  Naples  beheld  its  future  sovereign, 
Joseph  Buonaparte,  enter  its  walls.  .  .  .  During 
the  first  tumult  of  invasion,  the  peasantry  of 
Calabria  .  .  .  submitted  to  the  enemy.  .  .  .  But 
the  protraction  of  the  siege  of  Gaeta,  which  oc- 
cupied Massena  with  the  principal  army  of  the 
French,  gave  them  time  to  recover  from  their 
consternation.  ...  A  general  insurrection  took 
place  in  the  beginning  of  March,  and  the  peas- 
ants stood  firm  in  more  than  one  position;  but 
they  were  unable  to  withstand  the  shock  of  the 
veterans  of  France,  and  in  a  decisive  action  in 
the  plain  of  Campo-Tenese  their  tumultuary 
levies,  though  15,000  strong,  were  entirely  dis- 
persed.    The  victorious  Reynier  penetrated  even 


to  Reggio,  and  the  standards  of  Napoleon  waved 
on  its  towers,  in  sight  of  the  English  videttes 
on  the  shores  of  Sicily.  When  hostilities  had 
subsided,  Joseph  repaired  in  person  to  the  theatre 
of  war.  ...  He  received  at  Savigliano,  the  prin- 
cipal town  of  the  province,  the  decree  by  which 
Napoleon  created  him  king  of  the  Two  Sicilies. 
By  so  doing,  however,  he  was  declared  not  to 
lose  his  contingent  right  of  succession  to  the 
throne  of  France ;  but  the  two  crowns  were  never 
to  be  united." — Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe, 
1789-1815,  ch.  40,  sect.  150,  and  43,  sect.  31-23  {i\ 
9). — "Joseph's  tenure  of  his  new  dominions  was 
yet  Incomplete.  The  fortress  of  Gaeta  still  held 
out,  .  .  .  and  the  British  in  Sicily  (who  had 
already  taken  the  Isle  of  Capri,  close  to  the  capi- 
tal) sent  5,000  men  to  their  aid  under  Sir  John 
Stuart,  who  encountered  at  Maida  (July  6)  a 
French  corps  of  7,500,  under  Reynier.  The 
battle  presented  one  of  the  rare  instances  in  which 
French  and  British  troops  have  actually  crossed 
bayonets;  but  French  enthusiasm  sank  before 
British  intrepidity,  and  the  enemy  were  driven 
from  the  field  with  the  loss  of  half  their  number. 
The  victory  of  Maida  had  a  prodigious  moral 
effect  in  raising  the  spirits  and  self-confidence  of 
the  British  soldiery;  but  its  immediate  results 
were  less  considerable.  The  French  were  indeed 
driven  from  Calabria,  but  the  fall  of  Gaeta  (July 
18th),  after  the  loss  of  its  brave  governor,  the 
Prince  of  Hesse-Philipsthal,  released  the  main 
army  under  Massena :  the  British,  exposed  to  be 
attacked  by  overwhelming  numbers,  re-embarked 
(Sept.  5)  for  Palermo,  and  the  Calabrian  insurrec- 
tion was  suppressed  with  great  bloodshed.  But 
an  amnesty  was  at  length  .  .  .  published  by 
Joseph,  who  devoted  himself  with  great  zeal  and 
admirable  judgment  to  heal  the  wounds  of  his 
distracted  kingdom." — Epitome  of  Alison's  Hist, 
of  Eu.ro2)e,  sect.  398. 

Also  ln  :  P.  Colletta,  Sist.  of  tlie  Kingdom  of 
I^aples,  bk.  5,  ch.  4,  and  bk.  6,  ch.  1-3. — C.  Botta, 
Italy  during  the  Consulate  and  Empire  of  Napo- 
leon, ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1806  (January — October). — Napoleon's 
triumphant  return  to  Paris. — Death  of  Pitt. — 
Peace  negotiations  with  England.  —  King- 
making  and  prince-making  by  the  Corsican 
Csesar. — On  the  37th  of  December,  the  day  after 
the  signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Presburg,  Napoleon 
left  Vienna  for  Paris.  "En  route  for  Paris  he 
remained  a  week  at  Munich  to  be  present  at  the 
marriage  of  Eugene  Beauharnais  to  the  Princess 
Augusta,  daughter  of  the  King  of  Bavaria.  Jose- 
phine joined  him,  and  the  whole  time  was  passed 
in  fetes  and  rejoicings.  On  this  occasion  he  pro- 
claimed Eugene  his  adopted  son,  and,  in  default 
of  issue  of  his  own,  his  successor  in  the  kingdom 
of  Italy.  Accompanied  by  Josephine,  Napoleon 
re-entered  Paris  on  the  36th  of  January,  1806, 
amidst  the  most  enthusiastic  acclamations.  The 
national  vanity  was  raised  to  the  highest  pitch  by 
the  glory  and  extent  of  territory  he  had  acquired. 
The  Senate  at  a  solemn  audience  besought  him 
to  accept  the  title  of  '  the  Great ' ;  and  public  re- 
joicings lasting  many  days  attested  his  popularity. 
An  important  political  event  in  England  opened 
new  views  of  security  and  peace  to  the  empire. 
William  Pitt,  the  implacable  enemy  of  the  Revo- 
lution, had  died  on  the  33rd  of  January,  at  the 
early  age  of  47;  and  the  Government  was  en- 
trusted to  the  hands  of  his  great  opponent,  Charles 
James  Fox.     The  disastrous  results  of  the  war  of 


1378 


PKANCE,  1806. 


British 

Orders  in  Council. 


FRANCE,  1806-1810. 


which  Pitt  had  been  the  mainstay  probably  has- 
tened his  death.  After  the  capitulation  of  Ulm 
he  never  rallied.  The  well-known  friendship  of 
Fox  for  Napoleon,  added  to  his  avowed  prin- 
ciples, afforded  the  strongest  hopes  that  England 
and  France  were  at  length  destined  to  cement  the 
peace  of  the  world  by  entering  into  friendly  rela- 
tions. Aided  by  Talleyrand,  who  earnestly  coun- 
selled peace.  Napoleon  made  overtures  to  the 
English  Government  through  Lord  Yarmouth, 
who  was  among  the  detenus.  He  offered  to  yield 
the  long-contested  point  of  Malta  —  consenting  to 
the  continued  possession  of  that  island,  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope,  and  other  conquests  in  the  East 
and  West  Indies  by  Great  Britain,  and  proposing 
generally  that  the  treaty  should  be  conducted  on 
the  uti  possidetis  principle:  that  is,  allowing  each 
party  to  retain  whatever  it  had  acquired  in  the 
course  of  the  war.  Turkey  acknowledged  Na- 
poleon as  Emperor  and  entered  into  amicable  re- 
lations with  the  French  nation;  and  what  was 
still  more  important,  Russia  signed  a  treaty  of 
peace  in  July,  influenced  by  the  pacific  inclina- 
tions of  the  English  Minister.  Napoleon  resolved 
to  surround  his  throne  with  an  order  of  nobles,  and 
to  place  members  of  his  family  on  the  thrones  of 
the  conquered  countries  adjoining  France  in  order 
that  they  might  become  parts  of  his  system  and 
co-operate  in  his  plans.  Two  decrees  of  the  31st 
of  March  declared  Joseph  Bonaparte  King  of  Na- 
ples, and  Murat  Grand  Duke  of  Berg  and  Cleves. 
Louis  Bonaparte  was  made  King  of  Holland  a 
few  months  afterwards,  and  Jerome  King  of 
Westphalia  in  the  following  year.  The  Princess 
Pauline  received  the  principality  of  Guastalla, 
and  Talleyrand,  Bernadotte,  and  Berthier  those 
of  Benevento,  Ponte-Corvo,  and  Neufchatel.  Fif- 
teen dukedoms  were  created  and  bestowed  on  the 
most  distinguished  statesmen  and  generals  of  the 
empire,  each  with  an  income  amounting  to  a  fif- 
teenth part  of  the  revenue  of  the  province  at- 
tached to  it.  These  became  grand  fiefs  of  the 
empire.  Cambacerfes  and  Lebrun  were  made 
Dukes  of  Parma  and  Placenza ;  Savary,  Duke  of 
Rovigo ;  Junot,  of  Abrantes ;  Lannes,  of  Monte- 
bello,  &c.  The  manners  of  some  of  these  Repub- 
lican soldiers  were  ill  adapted  to  courtly  forms, 
and  afforded  amusement  to  the  members  of  the 
ancient  and  legitimate  order.  .  .  .  Napoleon's 
desire  to  conciliate  and  form  alliances  with  the 
established  dynasties  and  aristocracies  of  Europe 
kept  pace  with  his  daring  encroachments  on  their 
hitherto  exclusive  dignity.  Besides  the  marriage 
of  Eugene  Beauharnais  to  a  Princess  of  Bavaria, 
an  alliance  was  concluded  between  the  hereditary 
Prince  of  Baden  and  Mademoiselle  Stephanie 
Beauharnais,  a  niece  of  the  Empress.  The  old 
French  noblesse  were  also  encouraged  to  appear 
at  the  Tuileries.  During  the  Emperor's  visit  at 
Munich  the  Republican  calendar  was  abolished 
and  the  usual  mode  of  computing  time  restored 
in  France.  .  .  .  The  negotiations  with  England 
went  on  tardily,  and  the  news  of  Fox's  alarming 
state  of  health  excited  the  gravest  fears  in  the 
French  Government.  Lord  Lauderdale  arrived 
in  Paris,  on  the  part  of  England,  in  the  mouth  of 
August;  but  difficulties  were  continually  started, 
and  before  anything  was  decided  the  death  of  Fox 
gave  the  finishing  blow  to  all  hope  of  peace. 
Lord  Lauderdale  demanded  his  passports  and  left 
Paris  in  October.  Napoleon  wished  to  add  Sicily 
to  his  brother's  new  kingdom  of  Naples;  but 
British  ships  were  able  to  protect  the  King  and 


Queen  of  Naples  in  that  insular  position,  and  the 
English  Government  refused  to  desert  their  allies 
on  this  occasion  or  to  consent  to  any  compensa- 
tion or  adjustment  offered.  On  this  point  prin- 
cipally turned  the  failure  of  the  attempt  at  peace 
as  far  as  can  be  discovered  from  the  account  of 
the  negotiations. " — R.  H.  Home,  Hist,  of  Napo- 
leon, ch.  36. 

Also  in  :  M'me  de  Remusat,  Memoirs,  c7i.  16-31 
(b.  8). — Duke  of  Rovigo,  Memmrs,  v.  1,  pt.  2,  ch. 
18-21.— P.  Lanfrey,  Sist.  of  Napoleon,  e.  3,  ch.  15. 

A.  D.  i8o6  (October).— The  subjugation  of 
Prussia  at  Jena.  See  Germany:  A.  D.  1806 
(October). 

A.  D.  1806-1807.  —  Napoleon's  campaign 
against  the  Russians. — Eylau  and  Friedland. 
See  Germany:  A.  D.  1806-1807;  and  1807  (Feb- 
nu.uiY — June). 

A.  D.  1806-1810. — Commercial  vyarfare  with 
England. — British  Orders  in  Council  and  Na- 
poleon's Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees. —  The 
"Continental  System." — "As  the  war  ad- 
vanced, after  the  Peace  of  Amiens,  the  neutrals 
became  bolder  and  more  aggressive.  American 
ships  were  constantly  arriving  at  Dutch  and 
French  ports  witli  sugar,  coffee,  and  other  pro- 
ductions of  the  French  and  Spanish  West  Indies. 
And  East  India  goods  were  imported  by  them 
into  Spain,  Holland,  and  France.  .  .  .  By  the 
rivers  and  canals  of  Germany  and  Flanders  goods 
were  floated  into  the  warehouses  of  the  enemy,  or 
circulated  for  the  supply  of  his  customers  in 
neutral  countries.  ...  It  was  a  general  com- 
plaint, therefore,  that  the  enemy  carried  on 
colonial  commerce  under  the  neutral  flag,  cheaply 
as  well  as  safely ;  that  he  was  enabled  not  only 
to  elude  British  hostilities,  but  to  rival  British 
merchants  and  planters  in  the  European  markets ; 
that  by  the  same  means  the  hostile  treasuries 
were  filled  with  a  copious  stream  of  revenue ;  and 
that  by  this  licentious  use  of  the  neutral  flag,  the 
enemy  was  enabled  to  employ  his  whole  military 
marine  for  purposes  of  offensive  war,  without 
being  obliged  to  maintain  a  squadron  or  a  ship 
for  the  defence  of  his  colonial  ports.  .  .  .  Such 
complaints  made  against  neutral  states  found  a 
powerful  exposition  in  a  work  entitled  '  War  in 
Disguise  and  the  Frauds  of  the  Neutral  Flag,' 
supposed  to  have  been  written  by  Mr.  James 
Stephen,  the  real  author  of  the  orders  in  Coun- 
cil. The  British  Government  did  not  see  its 
way  at  once  to  proceed  in  the  direction  of 
prohibiting  to  neutral  ships  the  colonial  trade, 
which  they  had  enjoyed  for  a  considerable  time; 
but  the  first  step  was  taken  to  paralyse  the  re- 
sources of  the  enemy,  and  to  restrict  the  trade  of 
neutrals,  by  the  issue  of  an  order  in  Council  in 
May  1806,  declaring  that  all  the  coasts,  ports, 
and  rivers  from  the  Elbe  to  Brest  should  be  con- 
sidered blockaded,  though  the  only  portion  of 
those  coasts  rigorously  blockaded  was  that  in- 
cluded between  the  Ostend  and  the  mouth  of  the 
Seine,  in  the  ports  of  which  preparations  were 
made  for  the  invasion  of  England.  The  northern 
ports  of  Germany  and  Holland  were  left  partly 
open,  and  the  navigation  of  the  Baltic  altogether 
free.  Napoleon,  then  in  the  zenith  of  his  power, 
saw,  in  this  order  in  Council,  a  fresh  act  of  wan- 
tonness, and  he  met  it  by  the  issue  of  the  Berlin 
decree  of  November  21,  1806.  In  that  document, 
remarkable  for  its  boldness  and  vigour.  Napoleon 
charged  England  with  having  set  at  nought  the 
dictates  of  International  law,  with  having  made 


1379 


FRANCE,  1806-1810. 


The  Berlin  and 
Milan  Decrees. 


FRANCE,  1806-1810. 


prisoners  of  war  of  private  individuals,  and  with 
having  taken  the  crews  out  of  merchant  ships. 
He  charged  this  country  with  having  captured 
private  property  at  sea,  extended  to  commercial 
ports  the  restrictions  of  blockade  applicable  only 
to  fortified  places,  declared  as  blockaded  places 
which  were  not  invested  by  naval  forces,  and 
abused  the  right  of  blockade  in  order  to  benefit 
her  own  trade  at  the  expense  of  the  commerce  of 
Continental  states.  He  asserted  the  right  of 
combating  the  enemy  with  the  same  arms  used 
against  himself,  especially  when  such  enemy 
Ignored  all  ideas  of  justice  and  every  liberal 
sentiment  which  civilisation  imposes.  He  an- 
noimced  his  resolution  to  apply  to  England  the 
same  usages  which  she  had  established  in  her 
maritime  legislation.  He  laid  down  the  princi- 
ples which  France  was  resolved  to  act  upon  until 
England  should  recognise  that  the  rights  of  war 
are  the  same  on  land  as  on  sea.  .  .  .  And  upon 
these  premises  the  decree  ordered,  1st,  That  the 
British  islands  should  be  declared  in  a  state  of 
blockade.  2nd,  That  all  commerce  and  corre- 
spondence with  the  British  islands  should  be  pro- 
hibited ;  and  that  letters  addressed  to  England  or 
Englishmen,  written  in  the  English  language, 
should  be  detained  and  taken.  3rd,  That  every 
British  subject  found  in  a  country  occupied  by 
French  troops,  or  by  those  of  their  allies,  should 
be  made  a  prisoner  of  war.  4th,  That  all  mer- 
chandise and  property  belonging  to  British  sub- 
jects should  be  deemed  a  good  prize.  5th,  That 
all  commerce  in  English  merchandise  should  be 
prohibited,  and  that  all  merchandise  belonging  to 
England  or  her  colonies,  and  of  British  manufac- 
ture, should  be  deemed  a  good  prize.  And  6th, 
That  no  vessel  coming  direct  from  England  or  her 
colonies  be  allowed  to  enter  any  French  port,  or 
any  port  subject  to  French  authority ;  and  that 
every  vessel  which,  by  means  of  a  false  declara- 
tion, should  evade  such  regulations,  should  at 
once  be  captured.  The  British  Government  lost 
no  time  in  retaliating  against  France  for  so  bold 
a  course;  and,  on  January  7,  1807,  an  order  in 
Council  was  issued,  which,  after  reference  to  the 
orders  issued  by  France,  enjoined  that  no  vessel 
should  be  allowed  to  trade  from  one  enemy's 
port  to  another,  or  from  one  port  to  another  of 
a  French  ally's  coast  shut  against  English  ves- 
sels; and  ordered  the  commanders  of  the  ships 
of  war  and  privateers  to  warn  every  neutral 
vessel  coming  from  any  such  port,  and  destined 
to  another  such  port,  to  discontinue  her  voy- 
age, and  that  any  vessel,  after  being  so  warned, 
which  should  be  found  proceeding  to  another 
such  port  should  be  captured  and  considered  as 
lawful  prize.  This  order  in  Council  having 
reached  Napoleon  at  Warsaw,  he  immediately 
ordered  the  confiscation  of  all  English  merchan- 
dise and  colonial  produce  found  in  the  Hanseatic 
Towns.  .  .  .  But  Britain,  in  return,  went  a  step 
further,  and,  by  order  in  Council  of  November 
11,  1807,  declared  all  the  ports  and  places  of 
France,  and  those  of  her  allies,  and  of  all  coun- 
tries where  the  English  flag  was  excluded,  even 
though  they  were  not  at  war  with  Britain,  should 
be  placed  under  the  same  restrictions  for  com- 
merce and  navigation  as  if  they  were  blockaded, 
and  consequently  that  ships  destined  to  those 
ports  should  be  liable  to  the  visit  of  British 
cruisers  at  a  British  station,  and  there  subjected 
to  a  tax  to  be  imposed  by  the  British  Parliament. 
Napoleon  was  at  Milan  when  this  order  in  Coun- 


cil was  issued,  and  forthwith,  on  December  17, 
tlie  famous  decree  appeared,  by  which  he  im- 
posed on  neutrals  just  the  contrary  of  what  was 
prescribed  to  them  by  England,  and  further  de- 
clared that  every  vessel,  of  whatever  nation,  that 
submitted  to  the  order  in  Council  of  November 
11,  should  by  that  very  act  become  denational- 
ised, considered  as  British  property,  and  con- 
demned as  a  good  prize.  The  decree  placed  the 
British  islands  in  a  state  of  blockade,  and  ordered 
that  every  ship,  of  whatever  nation,  and  with 
whatever  cargo,  proceeding  from  English  ports 
or  English  colonies  to  countries  occupied  by 
English  troops,  or  going  to  England,  should  be  a 
good  prize.  This  England  answered  by  the  order 
in  Council  of  April  26,  1809,  which  revoked  the 
order  of  1807  as  regards  America,  but  confirmed 
the  blockade  of  all  the  ports  of  France  and  Hol- 
land, their  colonies  and  dependencies.  And  then 
France,  still  further  incensed  against  England, 
issued  the  tariff  of  Trianon,  dated  August  5, 
1810,  completed  by  the  decree  of  St.  Cloud  of 
September  12,  and  of  Fontainebleau  of  October 
19,  which  went  the  length  of  ordering  the  seizure 
and  burning  of  all  British  goods  found  in  France, 
Germany,  Holland,  Italy,  Spain,  and  in  every 
place  occupied  by  French  troops.  .  .  .  The 
princes  of  the  Rhenish  Confederation  hastened  to 
execute  it,  some  for  the  purpose  of  enriching 
themselves  by  the  wicked  deed,  some  out  of 
hatred  towards  the  English,  and  some  to  show 
their  devotion  towards  their  master.  From  Carls- 
ruhe  to  Munich,  from  Cassel  to  Dresden  and 
Hamburg,  everywhere,  bonfires  were  made  of 
English  goods.  And  so  exacting  were  the 
French  that  when  Frankfort  exhibited  the  least 
hesitation  in  carrying  out  the  decree,  French 
troops  were  sent  to  execute  the  order.  By  means 
such  as  these  [known  as  the  Continental  System 
of  Napoleon]  the  commerce  of  the  world  was 
greatly  deranged,  if  not  destroyed  altogether, 
and  none  suffered  more  from  them  than  England 
herself." — L.  Levi,  Hist,  of  British  Cammerce,  pt. 
2,  ch.  4  {with  appended  text  of  Orders  and  Decrees). 
— "The  object  of  the  Orders  in  Council  was 
.  .  .  twofold :  to  embarrass  France  and  Napoleon 
by  the  prohibition  of  direct  import  and  export 
trade,  of  all  external  commerce,  which  for  them 
could  only  be  carried  on  by  neutrals ;  and  at  tlie 
same  time  to  force  into  the  Continent  all  the 
British  products  or  manufactures  that  it  could 
take.  .  .  .  The  whole  system  was  then,  and  has 
since  been,  roundly  abused  as  being  in  no  sense 
a  military  measure,  but  merely  a  gigantic  exhi- 
bition of  commercial  greed ;  but  this  simply  begs 
the  question.  To  win  her  fight  Great  Britain 
was  obliged  not  only  to  weaken  Napoleon,  but 
to  increase  her  own  strength.  The  battle  be- 
tween the  sea  and  the  land  was  to  be  fought  out 
on  Commerce.  England  had  no  army  wherewith 
to  meet  Napoleon ;  Napoleon  had  no  navy  to  cope 
with  that  of  his  enemy.  As  in  the  case  of  an 
impregnable  fortress,  the  only  alternative  for 
either  of  these  contestants  was  to  reduce  the 
other  by  starvation.  On  the  common  frontier, 
the  coast  line,  they  met  in  a  deadly  strife  in 
which  no  weapon  was  drawn.  The  imperial  sol- 
diers were  turned  into  coast-guards-men  to  shut 
out  Great  Britain  from  her  markets ;  the  British 
ships  became  revenue  cutters  to  prohibit  the 
trade  of  France.  The  neutral  carrier,  pocketing 
his  pride,  offered  his  service  to  either  for  pay, 
and  the  other  then  regarded  him  as  taking  part 


1380 


FRANCE,  1806-1810. 


Potver  and  weakness 
of  the  Empire. 


FRANCE,  1807. 


In  hostilities.  The  ministry,  in  the  exigencies  of 
debate,  betrayed  some  lack  of  definite  conviction 
as  to  their  precise  aim.  Sometimes  the  Orders 
were  justified  as  a  military  measure  of  retalia- 
tion ;  sometimes  the  need  of  supporting  British 
commerce  as  essential  to  her  life  and  to  her  naval 
strength  was  alleged;  and  their  opponents  in 
either  case  taunted  them  with  inconsistency. 
Napoleon,  with  despotic  simplicity,  announced 
clearly  his  purpose  of  ruining  England  through 
her  trade,  and  the  ministry  really  needed  no 
other  arguments  than  his  avowals.  '  Salus  civi- 
tatis  suprema  lex.'  To  call  the  measures  of 
either  not  military,  is  as  inaccurate  as  it  would 
be  to  call  the  ancient  practice  of  circumvallation 
unmilitary,  because  the  only  weapon  used  for  it 
was  the  spade.  .  .  .  The  Orders  in  Council  re- 
ceived various  modifications,  due  largely  to  the 
importance  to  Great  Britain  of  the  American 
market,  which  absorbed  a  great  part  of  her  manu- 
factures; but  these  modifications,  though  sensi- 
bly lightening  the  burden  upon  neutrals  and  in- 
troducing some  changes  of  form,  in  no  sense 
departed  from  the  spirit  of  the  originals.  The 
entire  series  was  finally  withdrawn  in  June,  1813, 
but  too  late  to  avert  the  war  with  the  United 
States,  which  was  declared  in  the  same  month. 
Napoleon  never  revoked  his  Berlin  and  Milan 
decrees,  although  by  a  trick  he  induced  an  over- 
eager  President  of  the  United  States  to  believe 
that  he  had  done  so.  .  .  .  The  true  function  of 
Great  Britain  in  this  long  struggle  can  scarcely 
be  recognized  unless  there  be  a  clear  appre- 
ciation of  the  fact  that  a  really  great  national 
movement,  like  the  French  Revolution,  or  a 
really  great  military  power  under  an  incompar- 
able general,  like  the  French  Empire  under 
Napoleon,  is  not  to  be  brought  to  terms  by  or- 
dinary military  successes,  which  simply  destroy 
the  organized  force  opposed.  ...  If  the  course 
of  aggression  which  Bonaparte  had  inherited 
from  the  Revolution  was  to  continue,  there  were 
needed,  not  the  resources  of  the  Continent  only, 
but  of  the  world.  There  was  needed  also  a 
diminution  of  ultimate  resistance  below  the 
stored-up  aggressive  strength  of  France ;  other- 
wise, however  procrastinated,  the  time  must 
come  when  the  latter  should  fail.  On  both  these 
points  Great  Britain  withstood  Napoleon.  She 
shut  him  off  from  the  world,  and  by  the  same 
act  prolonged  her  own  powers  of  endurance  be- 
yond his  power  of  aggression.  This  in  tlie  retro- 
spect of  history  was  the  function  of  Great  Britain 
in  the  Revolutionary  and  Napoleonic  period ;  and 
that  the  successive  ministries  of  Pitt  and  his  fol- 
lowers pursued  the  course  best  fitted,  upon  the 
whole,  to  discharge  that  function,  is  their  justifi- 
cation to  posterity." — Capt.  A.  T.  Mahan,  The 
Influence  of  Sea  Power  upon  the  French  Rev.  and 
Empire,  eh.  18-19  (v.  3). 

Also  in:  H.  Adams,  Sist.  of  the  U.  S.,  v.  3, 
cJi.  4  and  16,  and  v.  4,  ch.  4. — Lord  Brougham, 
Life  and  Times,  by  himself,  ch.  10  (».  2).  See 
also :  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1804r- 
1809. 

A.  D.  1807  (February  —  September). —  The 
Turkish  alliance. —  Ineffective  attempts  of 
England  against  Constantinople  and  in  Egypt. 
—See  Turks:  A.  D.  1806-1807. 

A.  D.  1807  (June — July). — The  Treaties  of 
Tilsit  with  Russia  and  Prussia. — The  latter 
shorn  of  half  her  territory. — Formation  of  the 
kingdom  of  Westphalia. — Secret  understand- 


ings between  Napoleon   and  the   Czar.     See 

Germany:  A.  D.  1807  (June— July). 

A.  D.  1807  (July— December).— The  seemmg 
power  and  real  weakness  of  Napoleon's  em- 
pire.—"The   dangers  .  .  .  that   lay  hid    under 
the  new  arrangement  of  the  map  of  Europe  [by 
the  Treaty  of  Tilsit],  and  in  the  results  of  French 
conquests,  were  as  yet  withdrawn  from  almost 
every  eye ;  and  the  power  of  Napoleon  was  now 
at  its  height,  though  his  empire  was  afterwards 
somewhat  enlarged.  ...  If  England  still  stood 
in  arms  against  it,  she  was  without  an  avowed 
ally  on  the  Continent ;  and,  drawing  to  itself  the 
great  Power  of  the  North,  it  appeared  to  threaten 
the  civilized  world  with  that  universal  and  set- 
tled domination  which  had  not  been  seen  since  the 
fall  of  Rome.     The  Sovereign  of  Prance  from 
the  Scheldt  to  the  Pyrenees,  and  of  Italy  from 
the  Alps  to  the  Tiber,  Napoleon  held  under  his 
immediate   sway  the  fairest  and   most  favored 
part  of  the  Continent;  and  yet  this  was  only  the 
seat   and   centre   of  that  far-spreading  and  im- 
mense authority.      One  of  his  brothers,  Louis, 
governed  the  Bataviau  Republic,  converted  into 
the  kingdom  of  Holland ;  another,  Joseph,  wore 
the  old  Crown  of  Naples ;  and  a  third,  Jerome, 
sat  on  the  new  throne  of  Westphalia ;  and  he  had 
reduced  Spain  to  a  simple  dependency,  while, 
with  Austria  humbled  and  Prussia  crushed,  he 
was  supreme  in  Germany  from  the  Rhine  to  the 
Vistula,    through   his    confederate,    subject,    or 
allied  States.     This  enormous  Empire,  with  its 
vassal  appendages,  rested  on  great  and  victorious 
armies  in  possession  of  every  point  of  vantage 
from  the  Niemen  to  the  Adige  and  the  Garonne, 
and  proved  as  yet  to  be  irresistible ;   and  as  Ger- 
many,  Holland,  Poland,  and  Italy  swelled  the 
forces   of    France   with   large   contingents,    the 
whole  fabric  of  conquest  seemed  firmly  cemented. 
Nor  was  the  Empire  the  mere  creation  of  brute 
force  and  the  spoil  of  the  sword ;  its  author  en- 
deavoured,  in  some  measure,   to  consolidate  it 
through  better  and  more  lasting  influences.     Na- 
poleon,  indeed,    suppressed  the  ideas  of    1789 
everywhere,    but  he   introduced  his  Code   and 
large  social  reforms  into  most  of  the  vassal  or 
allied  States ;  he  completed  the  work  of  destroy- 
ing Feudalism  which  the  Revolution  had  daringly 
begun ;  and  he  left  a  permanent  mark  on  the  face 
of  Europe,  far  beyond  the  limit  of  Republican 
France,  in  innumerable  monuments  of  material 
splendour.  .  .  .  Nor  did  the  Empire  at  this  time 
appear  more  firmly  established  abroad  than  within 
the  limits  of  the  dominant  State  which  had  be- 
come mistress  of  Continental  Europe.     The  pros- 
perity of  the   greater   part  of  France   was  im- 
mense ;  the  finances,  fed  by  the  contributions  of 
war,   seemed  overflowing   and  on  the   increase; 
and  if   sounds  of  discontent  were  occasionally 
heard,  they  were  lost  in  the  universal  acclaim 
which  greeted  the  author  of  the  national  great- 
ness, and  the  restorer  of  social  order  and  welfare. 
...  In  the  splendour  and  success  of  the  Imperial 
era,  the  animosities  and  divisions  of  the  past  dis- 
appeared, and  France  seemed  to  form  a  united 
people.     If,  too,  the  cost  of  conquest  was  great, 
and  exacted  a  tribute  of  French  blood,  the  mili- 
tary power  of  the  Empire  shone  with  the  bright- 
est radiance  of  martial  renown ;  Marengo,  Aus- 
terlitz,  Jena,  and  Friedland  could  in  part  console 
even  thinned  households.   .   .   .  The  magnificent 
public  works  with  which  Napoleon  adorned  this 
part  of  his    reign    increased   this  sentiment  of 


1381 


FRANCE,  1807. 


The  crushed 

Nation. 


FRANCE,  1807-1808. 


national  grandeur ;  it  was  now  tliat  the  Madeleine 
raised  its  front,  and  the  Column,  moulded  from 
captured  cannon;  .  .  .  and  Paris,  decked  out 
with  triumphal  arches,  with  temples  of  glory, 
and  with  stately  streets,  put  on  the  aspect  of 
ancient  Rome,  gathering  into  her  lap  the  gor- 
geous spoils  of  subjugated  and  dependent  races. 
.  .  .  Yet,  notwithstanding  its  apparent  strength, 
this  structure  of  conquest  and  domination  was 
essentially  weak,  and  liable  to  decay.  The  work 
of  the  sword,  and  of  new-made  power,  it  was  In 
opposition  to  the  nature  of  things.  .  .  .  The  ma- 
terial and  even  social  benefits  conferred  by  the 
Code,  and  reform  of  abuses,  could  not  compen- 
sate vanquished  but  martial  races  for  the  mise- 
ry and  disgrace  of  subjection;  and,  apart  from 
the  commercial  oppression  [of  the  Continental 
System,  which  destroyed  commerce  in  order  to  do 
injury  to  England],  .  .  .  the  exasperating  pres- 
sure of  French  officials,  the  exactions  of  the  vic- 
torious French  armies,  and  the  severities  of  the 
conscription  introduced  among  them,  provoked 
discontent  in  the  vassal  States  on  which  the  yoke 
of  the  Empire  weighed.  .  .  .  The  prostration, 
too,  of  Austria  and  Prussia  .  .  .  had  a  direct 
tendency  to  make  these  powers  forget  their  old 
discords  in  common  suffering,  and  to  bring  to  an 
end  the  internal  divisions  through  which  France 
had  become  supreme  in  Germany.  .  .  .  The  tri- 
umphant policy  of  Tilsit  contained  the  germs  of 
a  Coalition  against  France  more  formidable  than 
she  had  yet  experienced.  At  the  same  time,  the 
real  strength  of  the  instrument  by  which  Napo- 
leon maintained  his  power  was  being  gradually 
but  surely  impaired;  the  imperial  armies  were 
more  and  more  filled  with  raw  conscripts  and  ill- 
affected  allies,  as  their  size  increased  with  the 
extension  of  his  rule ;  and  the  French  element  in 
them,  on  which  alone  reliance  could  be  placed  in 
possible  defeat,  was  being  dissipated,  exhausted, 
and  wasted.  .  .  .  Nor  was  the  Empire,  within 
France  Itself,  free  from  elements  of  instability 
and  decline.  The  finances,  well  administered  as 
they  were,  were  so  burdened  by  the  charges  of 
war  that  they  were  only  sustained  by  conquest ; 
and,  flourishing  as  their  condition  seemed,  they 
had  been  often  cruelly  strained  of  late,  and  were 
unable  to  bear  the  shock  of  disaster.  The  sea- 
ports were  beginning  to  suffer  from  the  policy 
adopted  to  subdue  England.  .  .  .  Meanwhile, 
the  continual  demands  on  the  youth  of  the  nation 
for  never-ceasing  wars  were  gradually  telling  on 
its  military  power;  Napoleon,  after  Eylau,  had 
had  recourse  to  the  ruinous  expedient  of  taking 
beforehand  the  levies  which  the  conscription 
raised ;  and  though  complaints  were  as  yet  rare, 
the  anticipation  of  the  resources  of  France, 
which  filled  the  armies  with  feeble  boys,  unequal 
to  the  hardships  of  a  rude  campaign,  had  been 
noticed  at  home  as  well  as  abroad.  Nor  were  the 
moral  ills  of  this  splendid  despotism  less  certain 
than  its  bad  material  results.  .  .  .  The  inevitable 
tendency  of  the  Empire,  even  at  the  time  of  its 
highest  glory,  was  to  lessen  manliness  and  self- 
reliance,  to  fetter  and  demoralize  the  human 
mind,  and  to  weaken  whatever  public  virtue  and 
mental  independence  France  possessed;  and  its 
authority  had  already  begun  to  disclose  some  of 
the  harsher  features  of  Caesarian  despotism."— 
W.  O'C.  Morris,  The  French  Rev.  and  First  Em- 
pire, ch.  12. — "  Notwithstanding  so  many  brilliant 
and  specious  appearances,  France  did  not  possess 
either  true   prosperity   or   true   greatness.     She 


was  not  really  prosperous ;  for  not  only  was  there 
no  feeling  of  securitj',  a  necessary  condition  for 
the  welfare  of  nations,  but  all  the  evils  produced 
by  so  many  j'ears  of  war  still  weighed  heavily  on 
her.  .  .  .  She  was  not  really  great,  for  all  her 
great  men  had  either  been  banished  or  put  to 
silence.  She  could  still  point  with  pride  to  her 
generals  and  soldiers,  although  the  army,  which, 
if  brave  as  ever,  had  gradually  sunk  from  the 
worship  of  the  countrj'  and  liberty  to  that  of 
glory,  and  from  the  worship  of  glory  to  that  of 
riches,  was  corrupt  and  degenerate;  but  where 
were  her  great  citizens  ?  Where  were  her  great 
orators,  her  great  politicians,  her  great  philoso- 
phers, her  great  writers  of  every  kind  ?  Where, 
at  least,  were  their  descendants  ?  All  who  had 
shown  a  spark  of  genius  or  pride  had  been  sac- 
rificed for  the  benefit  of  a  single  man.  They  had 
disappeared;  some  crushed  under  the  wheels  of 
his  chariot,  others  forced  to  live  obscurely  in 
some  unknown  retreat,  and,  what  was  graver 
still,  their  race  seemed  extinct.  .  .  .  France  was 
imprisoned,  as  it  were,  in  an  iron  net,  and  the 
issues  were  closed  to  all  the  generous  and  ardent 
youth  that  had  either  intellectual  or  moral 
activity." — P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon,  v.  3, 
ch.  5. 

Also  in:  H.  A.  Taine,  Tlie  Modern  Regime, 
bk.  1,  ch.  3,  and  bk.  3,  ch.  3  (».  1). 

A.  D.  1807  (September — November). — For- 
cible seizure  of  the  Danish  fleet  by  the  Eng- 
lish.— Frustration  of  Napoleon's  plans. — Al- 
liance ■with  Denmark. — War  with  Sweden. 
See  SCANDINAVLW  States:  A.  D.  1807-1810. 

A.  D.  1807  (October — November). — French 
invasion  and  occupation  of  Portugal. — Flight 
of  the  royal  family  to  Brazil. — Delusive  treaty 
of  partition  with  Spain.  See  Portugal;  A.  D. 
1807. 

A.  D.  1 807-1 808. — Napoleon's  alienation  of 
Talleyrand  and  others. — Charles  jMaurice  Tal- 
leyrand de  Perigord,  made  Bishop  of  Autun  by 
King  Louis  XVI. ,  in  1789,  and  Prince  of  Bene- 
vento  by  Napoleon,  in  1806,  had  made  his  first 
appearance  in  public  life  as  one  of  the  clerical 
deputies  in  the  States-General  of  1789,  and  had 
taken  the  popular  side.  He  was  the  only  bishop 
having  a  benefice  in  France  who  took  the  new 
oath  required  of  the  clergy,  and  he  proposed 
the  appropriation  of  church  property  to  the 
wants  of  the  public  treasury.  He  subsequently 
consecrated  the  first  French  bishops  appointed 
under  the  new  constitution,  and  was  excommuni- 
cated therefor  by  the  Pope.  On  the  approach  of 
the  Terror  he  escaped  from  France  and  took 
refuge  first  in  England,  afterwards  in  the  United 
States.  In  1795  he  was  permitted  to  return  to 
Paris,  and  he  took  an  important  part  in  the  revo- 
lution of  the  18th  Brumaire  which  overthrew  the 
Directory  and  made  Napoleon  First  Consul.  In 
the  new  government  he  received  the  post  of 
Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  which  he  retained 
under  the  Empire,  until  ISO"?,  when  he  obtained 
permission  to  retire,  with  the  title  of  "vice-grand 
electeur."  "M.  de  Talleyrand,  the  Empire  once 
established  and  fortunate,  had  attached  himself 
to  it  with  a  sort  of  enthusiasm.  The  poesy  of 
victory,  and  the  eloquence  of  an  exalted  imagina- 
tion, subdued  for  a  time  the  usual  nonchalance 
and  moderation  of  his  character.  He  entered 
into  all  Napoleon's  plans  for  reconstituting  an 
empire  of  the  Francs,  and  reviving  the  system 
of  flefs  and  feudal  dignitaries.   ..."  Any  other 


1382 


FRANCE,  1807-1808. 


Napoleon  and 
Talleyrand. 


FRANCE,  1807-1808. 


system,'  he  said,  'but  a  military  one,  is  in 
our  circumstances  at  present  impossible.  I  am, 
then,  for  making  that  system  splendid,  and  com- 
pensating France  for  her  liberty  by  her  gran- 
deur.' The  principality  he  enjoyed,  though  it 
by  no  means  satisfied  him,  was  a  link  between 
him  and  the  policy  under  which  he  held  it.  .  .  . 
But  he  had  a  strong  instinct  for  the  practical ;  all 
governments,  according  to  his  theory,  might  be 
made  good,  except  an  impossible  one.  A  govern- 
ment depending  on  constant  success  in  difficult 
undertakings,  at  home  and  abroad,  was,  accord- 
ing to  his  notions,  impossible.  This  idea,  after 
the  Peace  of  Tilsit,  more  or  less  haunted  him. 
It  made  him,  in  spite  of  himself,  bitter  against 
his  chief — bitter  at  first,  more  because  he  liked 
him  than  because  he  disliked  him.  He  would 
still  have  aided  to  save  the  Empire,  but  lie  was 
irritated  because  he  thought  he  saw  the  Empire 
drifting  into  a  system  which  would  not  admit  of 
its  being  saved.  A  sentiment  of  this  kind,  how- 
ever, is  as  little  likely  to  be  pardoned  by  one 
who  is  accustomed  to  consider  that  his  will  must 
be  law,  as  a  sentiment  of  a  more  hostile  nature. 
Napoleon  began  little  by  little  to  hate  the  man 
for  whom  he  had  felt  at  one  time  a  predilection, 
and  if  he  disliked  any  one,  he  did  that  which  it  is 
most  dangerous  to  do,  and  most  useless ;  that  is, 
he  wounded  liis  pride  without  dimiuisldng  his 
importance.  It  is  true  that  M.  de  Talleyrand 
never  gave  any  visible  sign  of  being  irritated. 
But  few,  whatever  the  philosophy  with  which 
they  forgive  an  injury,  pardon  an  humiliation; 
and  thus,  stronger  and  stronger  grew  by  degrees 
that  mutual  dissatisfaction  which  the  one  vented 
at  times  in  furious  reproaches,  and  the  other  dis- 
guised under  a  studiously  respectful  indifference. 
This  carelessness  as  to  the  feelings  of  those  whom 
it  would  have  been  wiser  not  to  offend,  was  one 
of  the  most  fatal  errors  of  the  conqueror.  .  .  . 
He  had  become  at  this  time  equally  indifferent  to 
the  hatred  and  affection  of  his  adherents;  and 
.  .  .  fancied  that  everything  depended  on  his 
own  merits,  and  nothing  on  the  merits  of  his 
agents.  The  victory  of  Wagram,  and  the  mar- 
riage with  Marie-Louise,  commenced,  indeed,  a 
new  era  in  his  history.  Fouche  was  dismissed, 
though  not  without  meriting  a  reprimand  for  his 
intrigues;  and  Talleyrand  fell  into  unequivocal 
disgrace,  in  some  degree  provoked  by  his  wit- 
ticisms ;  whilst  round  these  two  men  gathered  a 
q\iiet  and  observant  opposition,  descending  with 
the  clever  adventurer  to  the  lowest  classes,  and 
ascending  with  the  dissatisfied  noble  to  the 
highest.  .  .  .  M.  de  Talleyrand's  house  then  (the 
only  place,  perhaps,  open  to  all  persons,  where 
the  government  of  the  day  was  treated  without 
reserve)  became  a  sort  of  '  rendezvous '  for  a 
circle  which  replied  to  a  victory  by  a  bon  mot, 
and  confronted  the  borrowed  ceremonies  of  anew 
court  by  the  natural  graces  and  acknowledged 
fashi'ons  of  an  old  one. " — Sir  H.  L.  Bulwer,  His- 
torical Characters,  v.  1  .■  Talleyrand,  pt.  4,  sect. 
9-10. 

Also  est  :  C.  K.  McHarg,  Life  of  Prince  Talley- 
rand, cli.  1-13. — Memoirs  of  Talleyrand,  c.  1. 

A.  D.  1807-1808.— Napoleon's  over-ingenious 
plottings  in  Spain  for  the  theft  of  the  crown. 
— The  popular  rising.  See  Spaix:  A.  D.  1807- 
1808. 

A.  D.  1807-1808  (November  —  February). — 
Napoleon  in  Italy. — His  arbitrary  changes  in 
the  Italian  constitution.^His  annexation  of 


Tuscany  to  France. —  His  quarrel  with  the 
Pope  and  seizure  of  the  Papal  States. — "Na- 
poleon ...  set  out  for  Italy,  where  great  politi- 
cal changes  were  in  progress.  Destined,  like  all 
the  subordinate  thrones  which  surrounded  the 
great  nation,  to  share  in  the  rapid  mutations 
which  its  government  underwent,  the  kingdom 
of  Italy  was  soon  called  upon  to  accept  a  change 
in  its  constitution.  Napoleon,  in  consequence, 
suppressed  the  legislative  body,  and  substituted 
in  its  room  a  Senate,  which  was  exclusively  in- 
trusted with  the  power  of  submitting  observa- 
tions to  government  on  the  jjublic  wants,  and  of 
superintending  the  budget  and  public  expendi- 
ture. As  the  members  of  this  Senate  were  nomi- 
nated and  paid  by  government,  this  last  shadow 
of  representative  institutions  became  a  perfect 
mockery.  Nevertheless  Napoleon  was  received 
with  unbounded  adulation  by  all  the  towns  of 
Italy;  their  deputies,  who  waited  upon  him  at 
Milan,  vied  with  eacli  other  in  elegant  flattery. 
He  was  the  Redeemer  of  France,  but  the  Creator 
of  Italy:  they  had  supplicated  heaven  for  his 
safety,  for  his  victories ;  they  offered  him  the  trib- 
ute of  their  eternal  love  and  fidelity.  Napo- 
leon received  their  adulation  in  the  most  gracious 
manner ;  but  he  was  careful  not  to  lose  sight  of 
the  main  object  of  his  policy,  the  consolidation  of 
his  dominions,  the  rendering  them  all  dependent 
on  his  imperial  crown,  and  the  fostering  of  a 
military  spirit  among  his  subjects.  .  .  .  From 
Milan  the  Emperor  travelled  by  Verona  and  Pa- 
dua to  Venice ;  he  there  admired  the  marble  pal- 
aces, varied  scenery,  and  gorgeous  architecture 
of  the  Queen  of  the  Adriatic,  which  appeared  to 
extraordinary  advantage  amidst  illuminations, 
fireworks,  and  rejoicings;  and  returning  to  Mi- 
lan, arranged,  with  an  authoritative  hand,  all  the 
affairs  of  the  peninsula.  The  discontent  of  Melzi, 
who  still  retained  a  lingering  partiality  for  the 
democratic  Institutions  which  he  had  vainly  hoped 
to  see  established  in  his  country,  was  stifled  by 
the  title  of  Duke  of  Lodi.  Tuscany  was  taken 
from  the  King  of  Etruria,  on  whom  Napoleon 
had  settled  it,  and  united  to  France  by  the  title 
of  the  department  of  Taro;  while  magnificent 
public  works  were  set  on  foot  at  Milan  to  dazzle 
the  ardent  imagination  of  the  Italians,  and  con- 
sole them  for  the  entire  loss  of  their  national  in- 
dependence and  civil  liberty.  The  cathedral  was 
daily  adorned  with  fresh  works  of  sculpture ;  its 
exterior  decorated  and  restored  to  its  original 
purity,  while  thousands  of  pinnacles  and  statues 
rose  on  all  sides,  glittering  in  spotless  brilliancj' 
in  the  blue  vault  of  heaven.  The  Forum  of  Buo- 
naparte was  rapidly  advancing;  the  beautiful 
basso-relievos  of  the  arch  of  the  Simplon  already 
entranced  the  admiring  gaze  of  thousands ;  the 
roads  of  the  Simplon  and  Mount  Cenis  were  kept 
in  the  finest  order,  and  daily  attracted  fresh 
crowds  of  strangers  to  the  Italian  plains.  But  in 
the  midst  of  all  this  external  splendour,  the 
remains  of  which  still  throw  a  halo  round  the 
recollection  of  the  French  domination  in  Italy,  the 
finances  of  all  the  states  were  involved  in  hopeless 
embarrassment,  and  suffering  of  the  most  grind- 
ing kind  pervaded  all  classes  of  the  people.  .  .  . 
The  encroachments  thus  made  on  the  Italian 
peninsula  were  not  the  only  ones  which  Napoleon 
effected,  in  consequence  of  the  liberty  to  dispose 
of  western  Europe  acquired  by  him  at  the  treaty 
of  Tilsit.  The  territory  of  the  great  nation  was 
rounded  also  on  the  side  of  Germany  and  Holland. 


138^ 


FRANCE,  1807-1808. 


The  Assemblage 
at  Erfurt. 


FRANCE,  1809. 


On  the  11th  of  November,  the  important  town 
and  territory  of  Flushing  were  ceded  to  France 
by  the  King  of  Holland,  who  obtained,  in  return, 
merely  an  elusory  equivalent  in  East  Friesland. 
On  the  21st  of  January  following,  a  decree  of  the 
senate  united  to  the  French  empire,  besides  these 
places,  the  important  towns  of  Kehl  Cassel,  and 
Wesel,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Rhine.  Shortly 
after,  the  French  troops,  who  had  already  taken 
possession  of  the  whole  of  Tuscany,  in  virtue  of 
the  resignation  forced  upon  the  Queen  of  Etru- 
ria,  invaded  the  Roman  territories,  and  made  them- 
selves masters  of  the  ancient  capital  of  the  world. 
They  immediately  occupied  the  castle  of  St. 
Angelo,  and  the  gates  of  the  city,  and  entirely 
dispossessed  the  papal  troops  [see  Papacy  :  A.  D. 
1808-1814],  .  .  .  France  now,  without  disguise, 
assumed  the  right  of  annexing  neutral  and  inde- 
pendent states  to  its  already  extensive  dominions, 
by  no  other  authority  than  the  decree  of  its  own 
legislature." — Sir  A.  Alison,  Sist.  of  Europe, 
1789-1815,  ch.  51,  sect.  51-53  (v.  11). 

Also  in  :  C.  Botta,  Italy  (hiring  the  Consulate 
and  Empire  of  Napoleon,  ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1807-1809. — The  American  embargo 
and  non-intercourse  laws.  See  United  States 
OF  Am.  :  A.  D.  1804-1809,  and  1808. 

A.  D.  1808  (May — September).— Bestowal  of 
the  Spanish  crown  on  Joseph  Bonaparte. — The 
national  revolt. — French  reverses. — Flight  of 
Joseph  Bonaparte  from  Madrid. — Landing  of 
British  forces  in  the  Peninsula.  See  Spain: 
A.  D.  1808  (Mat— September). 

A.  D.  1808  (September— October). — Imperial 
conference  and  Treaty  of  Erfurt. — The  as- 
semblage of  kings. — "  Napoleon's  relations  with 
the  Court  of  Russia,  at  one  time  very  formal,  be- 
came far  more  amicable,  according  as  Spanish 
affairs  grew  complicated.  After  the  capitulation 
of  Baylen  they  became  positively  affectionate. 
The  Czar  was  too  clear-sighted  not  to  understand 
the  meaning  of  this  gradation.  He  quickly 
understood  that  the  more  difficulties  Napoleon 
might  create  for  himself  in  Spain,  the  more  would 
he  be  forced  to  make  concessions  to  Russia.  .  .  . 
The  Russian  alliance,  which  at  Tilsit  had  only 
been  an  arrangement  to  flatter  Napoleon's  am- 
bition, had  now  become  a  necessity  to  him.  Each 
side  felt  this;  hence  the  two  sovereigns  were 
equally  impatient  to  meet  again;  the  one  to 
strengthen  an  alliance  so  indispensable  to  the  suc- 
cess of  his  plans,  the  other  to  derive  from  it  all 
the  promised  advantages.  It  was  settled,  there- 
fore, that  the  desired  interview  should  take  place 
at  Erfurt  towards  the  end  of  September,  1808. 
.  .  .  The  two  Emperors  met  on  the  27th  of  Sep- 
tember, on  the  road  between  Weimar  and  Erfurt. 
They  embraced  each  other  with  that  air  of  per- 
fect cordiality  of  which  kings  alone  possess  the 
secret,  especially  when  their  intention  is  rather 
to  stifle  than  to  embrace.  They  made  their  entry 
into  the  town  on  horseback  together,  amidst  an 
immense  concourse  of  people.  Napoleon  had 
wished  by  its  magnificence  to  render  the  recep- 
tion worthy  of  the  illustrious  guests  who  had 
agreed  to  meet  at  Erfurt.  He  had  sent  thither 
from  the  storehouses  of  the  crown,  bronzes,  porce- 
lain, the  richest  hangings,  and  the  most  sumptu- 
ous furniture.  He  desired  that  the  Comedie- 
Franfaise  should  heighten  the  brilliant  effects  of 
these  fetes  by  performing  the  chief  masterpieces 
of  our  stage,  from  '  Cinna '  down  to  '  La  Mort  de 
Cesar, '  before  this  royal  audience.  .  .  .  All  the 


natural  adherents  of  Napoleon  hastened  to  answer 
his  appeal  by  flocking  to  Erfurt,  for  he  did  not 
lose  sight  of  his  principal  object,  and  his  desire 
was  to  appear  before  Europe  surrounded  by  a 
court  composed  of  kings.  In  this  cortege  were 
to  be  seen  those  of  Bavaria,  of  Wurtemburg,  of 
Saxony,  of  Westphalia,  and  Prince  William  of 
Prussia ;  and  beside  these  stars  of  first  magnitude 
twinkled  the  obscure  Pleiades  of  the  Rhenish 
Confederation.  The  reunion,  almost  exclusively 
German,  was  meant  to  prove  to  German  idealists 
the  vanity  of  their  dreams.  Were  not  all  present 
who  had  any  weight  in  Germany  from  their 
power,  rank,  or  riches  ?  Was  it  not  even  hinted 
that  the  Emperor  of  Austria  had  implored  the 
favour,  without  being  able  to  obtain  it,  of  ad- 
mission to  the  conferences  of  Erfurt  ?  This  re- 
port was  most  improbable.  .  .  .  The  kings  of 
intellect  came  in  their  turn  to  bow  down  before 
Cfesar.  Goethe  and  Wieland  were  presented  to 
Napoleon;  they  appeared  at  his  court,  and  by 
their  glory  adorned  his  triumph.  German  pa- 
triotism was  severely  tried  at  Erfurt ;  but  it  may 
be  said  that  of  all  its  humiliations  the  one  which 
the  Germans  most  deeply  resented  was  that  of 
beholding  their  greatest  literary  genius  decking 
himself  out  with  Napoleon's  favours  [the  decora- 
tion of  the  Legion  of  Honour,  which  Goethe  ac- 
cepted]. .  .  .  The  theatrical  effect  which  Napo- 
leon had  in  view  in  this  solemn  show  at  Erfurt 
having  once  been  produced,  his  principal  object 
was  attained,  for  the  political  questions  which 
remained  for  settlement  with  Alexander  could 
not  raise  any  serious  difficulty.  In  view  of  the 
immediate  and  certain  session  of  two  such  im- 
portant provinces  as  those  of  Wallachia  and 
Moldavia,  the  Czar,  without  much  trouble,  re- 
nounced that  division  of  the  Ottoman  Empire 
with  which  he  had  been  tantalised  for  more  than 
a  year.  .  .  .  He  bound  himself  ...  by  the  Treaty 
of  Erfurt  to  continue  his  co-operation  with  Napo- 
leon in  the  war  against  England  (Article  2),  and, 
should  it  so  befall,  also  against  Austria  (Article 
10) ;  but  the  affairs  in  Spain  threw  every  attack 
upon  England  into  the  background.  .  .  .  The 
only  very  distinct  engagement  which  the  treaty 
imposed  on  Alexander  was  the  recognition  of 
'  the  new  order  of  things  established  by  France 
in  Spain.'" — P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon,  r.  3, 
ch.  10. 

Also  IN :  Prince  Tallej'rand,  Memoirs,  v.  1. 

A.  D.  1808-1809. — Reverses  in  Portugal. — 
Napoleon  in  the  field. — French  victories  re- 
sumed.— The  check  at  Corunna.  See  Spain: 
A.  D.  1808-1809  (August— January). 

A.  D.  1809  (January  —  September).  —  Re- 
opened war  with  Austria. — Napoleon's  ad- 
vance to  Vienna. — His  defeat  at  Aspern  and 
victory  at  Wagram. — The  Peace  of  Schon- 
brunn. — Fresh  acquisitions  of  territory.  See 
Germany:  A.  D.  1809  (January — June),  and 
(July — September). 

A.  D.  1809  (February — July). — Wellington's 
check  to  the  French  in  Spain  and  Portugal. — 
His  passage  of  the  Douro. — Battle  of  Tala- 
vera.  See  Spain:  A.  D.  1809  (February — 
July). 

A.  D.  1809  (May). — Annexation  of  the  States 
of  the  Church. — Removal  of  the  Pope  to  Sa- 
vona.     See  Papacy:  A.  D.  1808-1814. 

A.  D.  1809  (December).— Withdrawal  of  the 
English  from  Spain  into  Portugal.  See  Spain: 
A.  D.  1809  (August — December). 


1384 


FRANCE,  1810. 


The  Divorce  of 
Josephine. 


FRANCE,  1810-1813. 


A.  D.    j8io  (February  —  December).  —  An- 
nexations  of  territory  to  the   empire. — Hol- 
land, the   Hanse   Towns,  and  the  Valais   in 
Switzerland. — Other    reconstructions  of   the 
map  of  Germany. —  "It  was  not  till  December 
10th  1810  [after  the  abdication  of  King  Louis  — 
see  Netherlands  (Holland)  :  A.  D.  1806-1810] 
that  Holland  was  united  to  France  by  a  formal 
senatus-consulte.     By  the  first  article  of  the  same 
law,  the  Hanse  Towns  [Hamburg,  Bremen,  and 
Lubeck],   the  Duchy  of   Lauenburg,   and    the 
countries  situated  between  the  North  Sea  and  a 
line  drawn  from  the  confluence  of  the  Lippe  with 
the  Rhine  to  Halteren,  from  Haltereu  to  the  Ems 
above  Telgte,  from  the  Ems  to  the  confluence  of 
the  Werra  with  the  Weser,  and  from  Stolzenau 
on  that  river  to  the  Elbe,  above  the  confluence 
of  the  Stecknitz,  were  at  the  same  time  incorpo- 
rated with  the  French  Empire.  .  .  .  The  line  de- 
scribed would  include  the  northern  part  of  West- 
phalia and  Hanover,  and  the  duchy  of  Olden- 
burg. .  .  .  The  Duke  of  Oldenburg  having  ap- 
pealed to  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  the  head  of  his 
house,  against  this  spoliation,  Napoleon  offered 
to  compensate  him  with  the  town  and  territory 
of  Erfurt  and  the  lordship  of  Blaukenheim,  which 
had  remained  under  French  administration  since 
the  Peace  of  Tilsit.     But  this  offer  was  at  once 
rejected,  and  Alexander  reserved,  by  a  formal 
protest,  the  rights  of  his  relative.     This  annexa- 
tion was  only  the  complement  of  other  incorpo- 
rations with  the  French  Empire  during  the  year 
1810.     Early  in  the  year,  the  Electorate  of  Han- 
over had  been  annexed  to  the  Kingdom  of  West- 
phalia.    On  February  16th  Napoleon  had  erected 
the  Grand  Duchy  of  Frankfort,  and  presented  it 
to  the  Prince  Primate  of  the  Confederation  of  the 
Rhine,  with  a  reversal  in  favour  of  Eugene  Beau- 
harnais.    On  November  12th  the  Valais  in  Switz- 
erland was  also  annexed   to  France,  with  the 
view  of  securing  the  road  over  the  Simplon.     Of 
all  these  annexations,  that  of  the  Hanse  Towns 
and  the  districts  on  the  North  Sea  was  the  most 
important,  and  one  of  the  principal  causes  of  the 
war  that  ensued  between  France  and  Russia. 
These  annexations  were  made  without  the  slight- 
est negociation  with  any  European  cabinet,  and 
it  would  be  superfluous  to  add,  without  even  a 
pretext  of  right,  though  the  necessity  of  them 
from  the  war  with  England  was  alleged  as  the 
motive." — T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
bk.  7,  ch.  15,  10 ith  foot-note  («.  4). — "  'The  Eng- 
lish,' said  Napoleon,    '  have  torn  asunder  the 
public  rights  of  Europe ;   a  new  order  of  things 
governs  the  universe.     Fresh  guarantees  having 
become  necessary  to  me,  the  annexation  of  the 
mouths  of  the  bcheldt,   of  the  Meuse,  of  the 
Rhine,  of  the  Ems,  of  the  Weser,  and  of  the  Elbe 
to  the  Empire  appears  to  me  to  be  the  first  and 
the  most  important.  .  .  .  The  annexation  of  the 
Valais  is  the  anticipated  result  of  the  immense 
works  that  I  have  been  making  for  the  past  ten 
years  in  that  part  of  the  Alps. '    And  this  was  all. 
To  justify  such  violence  he  did  not  condescend 
to  allege  any  pretext  —  to  urge  forward  oppor- 
tunities that  were  too  long  in  developing,  or  to 
make  trickery  subserve  the  use  of  force  — ■  he  con- 
sulted nothing  but  his  policy ;  in  other  words,  his 
good  pleasure.     To  take  possession  of  a  country, 
it  was  sufficient  that  the  country  suited  him :  he 
said  so  openly,  as  the  simplest  thing  in  the  world, 
and  thought  proper  to  add  that  these  new  usur- 
pations were  but  a  beginning,  the  first,  accord- 


ing to  his  own  expression,  of  those  which  seemed 
to  him  still  necessary.  And  it  was  Europe,  dis- 
contented, humbled,  driven  wild  by  the  barbar- 
ous follies  of  the  continental  system,  that  he  thus 
defied,  as  though  he  wished  at  any  cost  to  con- 
vince every  one  that  no  amicable  arrangement  or 
conciliation  was  possible ;  and  that  there  was  but 
one  course  for  governments  or  men  of  spirit  to 
adopt,  that  of  fighting  unto  death. " — P.  Lanfrey, 
Hist,  of  Napoleon,  v.  4,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1810-1812. — Continued  hostile  atti- 
tude towards  the  United  States  of  America. 
See  United  St.\tbs  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1810-1813. 

A.  D.  1810-1812.— The  War  in  the  Penin- 
sula.— Wellington's  Lines  of  Torres  Vedras. 
— French  retreat  from  Portugal. — English  ad- 
vance into  Spain.  See  Sp.un:  A.  D.  1809-1810 
(October — September),  and  1810-1813. 

A.  D.  1810-1812. — Napoleon's  divorce  from 
Josephine  and  marriage  to  Marie-Louise  of 
Austria. — His  rupture  with  the  Czar  and  prep- 
arations for  war  with  Russia. — "  Napoleon  now 
revived  the  idea  which  he  had  often  entertained 
before,  of  allying  himself  with  one  of  the  great 
ruling  families.  A  compliant  senate  and  a  packed 
ecclesiastical  council  pronounced  his  separation 
from  Josephine  Beauharnais,  who  retired  with  a 
magnificent  pension  to  Malmaison,  where  she 
died.  As  previous  marriage  proposals  to  the 
Russian  court  had  not  been  cordially  received. 
Napoleon  now  turned  to  Austria.  'The  matter 
was  speedily  arranged  with  Metternich,  and  in 
March,  1810,  the  archduchess  Maria  Louisa  ar- 
rived in  France  as  the  emperor's  wife.  The 
great  importance  of  the  marriage  was  that  it 
broke  the  last  links  which  bound  Russia  to  France, 
and  thus  overthrew  the  alliance  of  Tilsit.  Alex- 
ander had  been  exasperated  by  the  addition  of 
Western  Galicia  to  the  grand-duchy  of  Warsaw, 
which  he  regarded  as  a  step  towards  the  restora- 
tion of  Poland,  and  therefore  as  a  breach  of  the 
engagement  made  at  Tilsit.  The  annexation  of 
Oldenburg,  whose  duke  was  a  relative  of  the 
Czar,  was  a  distinct  personal  insult.  Alexander 
showed  his  irritation  by  formally  deserting  the 
continental  system,  which  was  more  ruinous  to 
Russia  than  to  almost  any  other  country,  and  by 
throwing  his  ports  open  to  British  commerce 
(Dec.  1810).  .  .  .  The  chief  grievance  to  Russia 
was  the  apparent  intention  of  Napoleon  to  do 
something  for  the  Poles.  The  increase  of  the 
grand -duchy  of  Warsaw  by  the  treaty  of  Vienna 
was  so  annoying  to  Alexander  that  he  began  to 
meditate  on  the  possibility  of  restoring  Poland 
himself,  and  making  it  a  dependent  kingdom  for 
the  Czar,  in  the  same  way  as  Napoleon  had 
treated  Italy.  He  even  went  so  far  as  to  sound 
the  Poles  on  the  subject ;  but  he  found  that  they 
had  not  forgotten  the  three  partitions  of  their 
country,  and  that  their  sympathies  were  rather 
with  France  than  with  Russia.  At  the  same  time 
Napoleon  was  convinced  that  until  Russia  was 
subdued  his  empire  was  unsafe,  and  all  hopes  of 
avenging  himself  upon  England  were  at  an  end. 
All  through  the  year  1811  it  was  known  thatwar 
was  inevitable,  but  neither  power  was  in  a  hurry 
to  take  the  initiative.  Meanwhile  the  various 
powers  that  retained  nominal  independence  had 
to  make  up  their  minds  as  to  the  policy  they 
would  pursue.  For  no  country  was  the  decision 
harder  than  for  Prussia.  Neutrality  was  out  of 
the  question,  as  the  Prussian  territories,  lying 
between  the  two  combatants,  must  be  occupied 


1385 


FRANCE.  1810-1812. 


The  Rufisian 
Expedition. 


FRANCE,  1812. 


by  one  or  the  other.  The  friends  and  former 
colleagues  of  Stein  were  unanimous  for  a  Russian 
alliance  and  a  desperate  struggle  for  liberty.  But 
Hardenberg,  who  had  become  chancellor  in  1810, 
was  too  prudent  to  embark  in  a  contest  which  at 
the  time  was  hopeless.  The  Czar  had  not  been 
so  consistent  in  his  policy  as  to  be  a  very  desira- 
ble ally;  and,  even  with  Russian  assistance,  it 
was  certain  that  the  Prussian  frontiers  could  not 
be  defended  against  the  French,  who  had  already 
garrisons  in  the  chief  fortresses.  Hardenberg 
fully  sympathised  with  the  patriots,  but  he  sacri- 
ficed enthusiasm  to  prudence,  and  offered  the 
support  of  Prussia  to  France.  The  treaty  was 
an-anged  on  the  24th  of  February,  1812.  Fred- 
erick William  gave  the  French  a  free  passage 
through  his  territories,  and  undertook  to  furnisli 
20,000  men  for  service  in  the  field,  and  as  many 
more  for  garrison  duty.  In  return  for  this  Na- 
poleon guaranteed  the  security  of  the  Prussian 
kingdom  as  it  stood,  and  held  out  the  prospect  of 
additions  to  it.  It  was  an  unnatural  and  hollow 
alliance,  and  was  understood  to  be  so  by  the 
Czar.  Scharnhorst,  Gneisenau,  and  other  friends 
of  Stein  resigned  their  posts,  and  many  Prussian 
officers  entered  the  service  of  the  Czar.  Austria, 
actuated  by  similar  motives,  adopted  the  same 
policy,  but  with  less  reluctance.  After  this  ex- 
ample had  been  set  by  the  two  great  powers, 
none  of  the  lesser  states  of  Germany  dared  to 
disobey  the  peremptory  orders  of  Napoleon. 
But  Turkey  and  Sweden,  both  of  them  old  allies 
of  France,  were  at  this  crisis  in  the  opposition. 
.  .  .  The  Swedes  were  threatened  with  starva- 
tion by  Napoleon's  stern  command  to  close  their 
ports  not  only  against  English,  but  against  all 
German  vessels.  Bernadotte,  who  had  just  been 
adopted  as  the  heir  of  the  childless  Charles  XIII. , 
determined  to  throw  in  his  lot  with  his  new  coun- 
try, rather  than  with  his  old  commander.  He 
had  also  hopes  of  compensating  Sweden  for  the 
loss  of  Finland  by  wresting  Norway  from  the 
Danes,  and  this  would  never  be  agreed  to  by 
Prance.  Accordingly  Sweden  prepared  to  sup- 
port the  cause  of  Alexander." — R.  Lodge,  Hist, 
of  Modern  Europe,  ch.  24,  sect.  38  andAl.- — "Na- 
poleon's Russian  expedition  should  not  be  re- 
garded as  an  isolated  freak  of  insane  pride.  He 
himself  regarded  it  as  the  unfortunate  effect  of 
a  fatality,  and  he  betrayed  throughout  an  un- 
wonted reluctance  and  perplexity.  '  The  war 
must  take  place,'  he  said,  '  It  lies  in  the  nature  of 
things.'  That  is,  it  arose  naturally,  like  the 
other  Napoleonic  wars,  out  of  the  quarrel  with 
England.  Upon  the  Continental  system  he  had 
staked  everything.  He  had  united  all  Europe  in 
the  crusade  against  England,  and  no  state,  least 
of  all  such  a  state  as  Russia,  could  withdraw 
from  the  system  without  practically  joining  Eng- 
land. Nevertheless,  we  may  wonder  tliat,  if  he 
felt  obliged  to  make  war  on  Russia,  he  should 
have  chosen  to  wage  it  in  the  manner  he  did,  by 
an  overwhelming  invasion.  For  an  ordinary 
war  his  resources  were  greatly  superior  to  those 
of  Russia.  A  campaign  on  the  Lithuanian  fron- 
tier would  no  doubt  have  been  unfavourable  to 
Alexander,  and  might  have  forced  him  to  con- 
cede the  points  at  issue.  Napoleon  had  already 
experienced  in  Spain  the  danger  of  rousing  na- 
tional spirit.  It  seems,  however,  that  this  lesson 
had  been  lost  on  him." — J.  R.  Seeley,  Short  Hist,  of 
Napoleon,  ch.  5,  sect.  3. — "Warnings  and  cautions 
were  not  .  .  .  wanting  to  him.     He  had  been  at 


several  different  times  informed  of  the  desperate 
plans  of  Russia  and  her  savage  resolve  to  destroy 
all  around  him,  provided  he  could  be  involved  in 
the  destruction  of  the  Empire.  He  was  cau- 
tioned, with  even  more  earnestness,  of  the  Ger- 
man conspiracies.  Alquicr  transmitted  to  him 
from  Stockholm  a  significant  remark  of  Alexan- 
der's: '  If  the  Emperor  Napoleon  should  experi- 
ence a  reverse,  the  whole  of  Germany  will  rise 
to  oppose  his  retreat,  or  to  prevent  the  arrival  of 
his  reinforcements.'  His  brother  Jerome,  who 
was  still  better  situated  for  knowing  what  was 
going  on  in  Germany,  informed  him,  in  the 
month  of  January,  1811,  of  the  proposal  that  had 
been  made  to  him  to  enter  into  a  secret  league 
against  France,  but  the  only  thanks  he  received 
from  Napoleon  was  reproach  for  having  encour- 
aged such  overtures  by  his  equivocal  conduct. 
.  .  .  Marshal  Davout  and  General  Rapp  trans- 
mitted him  identically  the  same  information 
from  Hamburg  and  Dantzig.  But  far  from  en- 
couraging such  confidential  communications.  Na- 
poleon was  irritated  by  them.  ...  '  I  do  not 
know  why  Rapp  meddles  in  what  does  not  con- 
cern him  [he  wrote].  ...  I  beg  you  will  not 
place  such  rhapsodies  under  my  eyes.  My  time 
is  too  precious  to  waste  on  such  twaddle. "... 
In  presence  of  such  hallucination,  caused  by 
pride  and  infatuation,  we  seem  to  hear  Macbeth 
in  his  delirium  insulting  the  messengers  who 
announced  to  him  the  approach  of  the  enemy's 
armies." — P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon,  «.  4,  ch. 
6. — "  That  period  ought  to  have  been  esteemed 
the  happiest  of  Napoleon's  life.  What  more 
could  the  wildest  ambition  desire  ?  .  .  .  AU 
obeyed  him.  Nothing  was  wanting  to  make  him 
happy  !  Nothing,  if  he  could  be  happy  who 
possessed  not  a  love  of  justice.  .  .  .  The  being 
never  existed  who  possessed  ampler  means  for 
promoting  the  happiness  of  mankind.  Nothing 
was  required  but  justice  and  prudence.  The 
nation  expected  these  from  him,  and  granted  him 
that  unlimited  confidence  which  he  afterwards  so 
cruelly  abused.  .  .  .  Instead  of  considering  with 
calmness  and  moderation  how  he  might  best  em- 
ploy his  vast  resources,  he  ruminated  on  projects 
beyond  the  power  of  man  to  execute ;  forgetting 
what  innumerable  victims  must  be  sacrificed  in 
the  vain  attempt.  ...  He  aspired  at  universal 
despotism,  for  no  other  reason  than  because  a 
nation,  isolated  from  tlie  continent  and  profiting 
by  its  happy  situation,  had  refused  to  submit  to 
his  intolerable  yoke.  ...  In  the  hope  of  con- 
quering that  invincible  enemy,  he  vainly  endeav- 
oured to  grasp  the  extremities  of  Europe.  .  .  . 
Misled  by  his  rash  and  hasty  temper,  he  adopted 
a  false  line  of  politics,  and  converted  in  the  north, 
as  he  had  done  before  in  the  south,  the  most  use- 
ful and  powerful  of  his  allies  into  a  dangerous 
enemy."— E.  Labaume,  Circumstantial  Narrative 
of  the  Campaign  in  Russia,  pt.  1,  bk.  1. 

Also  in  :  C.  Joyneville,  Life  and  Times  of  Al- 
exaiuler  I.,  v.  2,  ch.  3. — Imbert  de  Saint  Araand, 
Memoirs  of  the  Empress  Mane  Louise. 

A.  D.  i8i2  (June).  —  The  captive  Pope 
brought  to  Fontainebleau.  See  Pap.vcy  ;  A.  D. 
1808-1814. 

A.  D.  i8i2  (June— August).— Defeat  by  the 
English  in  Spain  at  Salamanca. — Abandon- 
ment of  Madrid  by  King  Joseph.  See  Sp.\in': 
A.  D.  1812  (June— August). 

A.  D.  i8i2  (June — December). — Napoleon's 
Russian  campaign. — The  advance  to  Moscow. 


1386 


FRANCE,  1812. 


Tke  return  from 
Russia, 


FRANCE,  1814. 


—The  burning  of  the  city.— The  retreat  and 
its  horrors.     See  RussLV:  A.  D.  1813. 

A.  D.  1812-1813  (December — March).— Na- 
poleon's return  from  Russia. — His  measures 
for  creating  a  new  army. — "Whilst  Europe, 
agitated  at  once  by  hope,  by  fear,  and  by  hatred, 
was  inquiring  what  had  become  of  Napoleon, 
whether  he  had  perished  or  had  been  saved,  he 
was  crossing  in  a  sledge  —  accompanied  by  the 
Duke  of  Vicenza,  the  Grand  Marshal  Duroc, 
Count  Lobau,  General  Lefevre-Desnouettes,  and 
the  Mameluke  Rustan  —  the  vast  plains  of  Lith- 
uania, of  Poland,  and  of  Saxony,  concealed  by 
thick  furs;  for  if  his  name  had  been  imprudently 
uttered,  or  his  countenance  recognised,  a  tragical 
catastrophe  would  have  instantly  ensued.  The 
man  who  had  so  greatly  excited  the  admira- 
tion of  nations,  who  was  the  object  of  their  .  .  . 
superstition,  would  not  at  that  moment  have  es- 
caped their  fury.  In  two  places  only  did  he 
allow  himself  to  be  known,  Warsaw  and  Dres- 
den. .  .  .  That  he  might  not  occasion  too  great 
surprise,  he  caused  himself  to  be  preceded  by  an 
oflScer  with  a  few  lines  for  the  '  Moniteur, '  saying 
that  on  December  5  he  had  assembled  his  gen- 
erals at  Smorgoni,  had  delegated  the  command 
to  King  Murat,  only  so  long  as  military  opera- 
tions were  interrupted  by  the  cold,  that  he  had 
traversed  Warsaw  and  Dresden,  and  that  he  was 
about  to  arrive  in  Paris  to  take  in  hand  the  affairs 
of  the  Empire.  .  .  .  Napoleon  followed  close  on 
the  steps  of  the  officer  who  was  to  announce  his 
arrival.  On  December  18,  at  half-past  11  P.  M., 
he  entered  the  Tuileries.  .  .  .  On  the  next  morn- 
ing, the  19th,  he  received  the  ministers  and 
grandees  of  the  court  .  .  .  with  extreme  hauteur, 
maintaining  a  tranquil  but  severe  aspect,  appear- 
ing to  expect  explanations  instead  of  affording 
them  himself,  treating  foreign  affairs  as  of 
minor  consequence,  and  those  of  a  domestic 
nature  as  of  principal  import,  demanding  some 
light  upon  these  last,  —  in  short,  questioning 
others  in  order  to  avoid  being  questioned  himself. 
...  On  Sunday,  the  20th  of  December,  the  sec- 
ond day  after  his  arrival.  Napoleon  received  the 
Senate,  the  Council  of  State,  and  the  principal 
branches  of  the  administration,"  which  severally 
addressed  to  him  the  most  fulsome  flatteries  and 
assurances  of  support.  "After  an  infuriated 
populace  basely  outraging  vanquished  princes, 
nothing  can  be  seen  more  melancholy  than  these 
great  bodies  prostrating  themselves  at  the  feet 
of  a  power,  bestowing  upon  it  a  degree  of  ad- 
miration which  increases  with  its  errors,  speaking 
with  ardour  of  their  fidelity,  already  about  to 
expire,  and  swearing  to  die  in  its  cause  when 
they  are  on  the  eve  of  hailing  the  accession  of 
another.  Happy  are  those  countries  whose  es- 
tablished Constitutions  spare  them  these  hu- 
miliating spectacles!"  As  speedily  as  possible. 
Napoleon  applied  himself  to  the  recreation  of 
his  lost  army,  by  anticipating  the  conscription 
for  1814,  and  by  making  new  calls  upon  the 
classes  which  had  already  furnished  their  con- 
tingents. All  his  measures  were  submissively 
sanctioned  by  the  obsequious  Senate ;  but  many 
murmurs  of  discontent  were  heard  among  the 
people,  and  some  movements  of  resistance  needed 
to  be  put  down.  "However,  when  the  en- 
lightened classes  of  a  country  approve  a  measure, 
their  support  is  extremely  efficacious.  In  Prance, 
all  those  classes  perceiving  that  it  was  necessary 
energetically  to  defend  the  country  against  a  for- 


eign enemy,  though  the  Government  had  been 
still  more  in  the  wrong  than  they  were,  the 
levies  were  effected,  and  the  high  functionaries, 
sustained  by  a  moral  acquiescence  which  they 
had  not  always  obtained,  fulfilled  their  duty, 
though  in  heart  full  of  sad  and  sinister  forebod- 
ings."—  A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate  and  the 
Empire,  bk.  47  (■«.  4). 

Also  in  :  Duchess  d'Abrantes,  Memoirs  of  Na- 
poleon, V.  2,  ch.  43. 

A.  D.  1812-1813.— Germanic  rising  against 
Napoleon. —  War  of  Liberation. —  Liitzen. — 
Bautzen. —  Dresden. —  Leipsic. —  The  retreat 
of  the  French  from  beyond  the  Rhine.  See 
Germany:  A.  D.  1813-1813,  to  1813 (October- 
December). 

A.  D.  1813  (February  — March).— The  new 
Concordat  signed  and  retracted  by  the  Pope, 
See  Papacy:  A.  D,  1808—1814. 

A.  D.  1813  (June — November). —  Defeat  at 
Vittoria  and  in  the  Pyrenees. — Retreat  from 
Spain.     See  Spain:  A.  D.  1813-1814. 

A.  D.  1813  (November —  December) — Dutch 
independence  regained.  See  Netherlands 
(Holland):  A.  D.  1813. 

A.  D.  1814  (January).— The  Pope  set  free,  to 
return  to  Rome.   See  Papacy  :  A.  D.  1808-1814. 

A.  D.  1814  (January — March). — The  allied 
invasion. — Napoleon's  campaign  of  defense. — 
His  cause  lost. — Surrender  of  Paris. — "The 
battle  of  Leipzig  was  the  overthrow  of  the  French 
rule  in  Germany;  there  only  remained,  as  evi- 
dence of  what  they  had  lost,  150,000  men,  gar- 
risons of  the  fortresses  of  the  Vistula,  the  Oder, 
and  the  Elbe.  Each  success  of  the  allies  had  been 
marked  by  the  desertion  of  one  of  the  peoples 
that  had  furnished  its  contingent  to  the  Grand 
Army  of  1813:  after  Prussia,  Austria ;  at  Leipzig 
the  Saxons :  the  French  had  not  been  able  to  re- 
gain the  Rhine  except  by  passing  over  the  bodies 
of  the  Bavarians  at  Hanau.  Baden,  Wurtem- 
berg,  Hesse,  and  Darmstadt  declared  their  defec- 
tion at  nearly  the  same  time ;  the  sovereigns  were 
still  hesitating  whether  to  separate  themselves 
from  Napoleon,  when  their  people  and  regiments, 
worked  upon  by  the  German  patriots,  had  already 
passed  into  the  allied  camp.  Jerome  Bonaparte 
had  again  quitted  Cassel ;  Denmark  found  itself 
forced  to  adhere  to  the  Coalition.  Napoleon  had 
retired  to  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine.  Would 
Alexander  cross  this  natural  frontier  of  revolu- 
tionary France  ?  '  Convinced, '  says  M.  Bogdano- 
vitch,  '  by  the  experience  of  many  years,  that 
neither  losses  inflicted  on  Napoleon,  nor  treaties 
concluded  with  him,  could  check  his  insatiable 
ambition,  Alexander  would  not  stop  at  setting 
free  the  involuntary  allies  of  France,  and  resolved 
to  pursue  the  war  till  he  had  overthrown  his 
enemy. '  The  allied  sovereigns  found  themselves 
reunited  at  Frankfort,  and  an  immediate  march 
to  Paris  was  discussed.  Alexander,  Stein,  Blii- 
cher,  Gneisenau,  and  all  the  Prussians  were  on 
the  side  of  decisive  action.  The  Emperor  Francis 
and  Mettemich  only  desired  Napoleon  to  be  weak- 
ened, as  his  downfall  would  expose  Austria  to 
another  danger,  the  preponderance  of  Russia  on 
the  Continent.  Bernadotte  insisted  on  Napoleon's 
dethronement,  with  the  ridiculous  design  of  ap- 
propriating the  crown  of  France,  traitor  as  he  was 
to  her  cause.  England  would  have  preferred  a 
solid  and  immediate  peace  to  a  war  which  would 
exhaust  her  in  subsidies,  and  augment  her  already 
enormous  debt.    These  divergencies,  these  hesi- 


1387 


FRANCE,  1814. 


T)ie  Allies  in 
I>\ance. 


FRANCE,  1814. 


tations,  gave  Napoleon  time  to  strengthen  his 
position.  After  Hanau,  in  the  opinion  of  Ney, 
'the  allies  might  have  counted  their  stages  to 
Paris. '  Napoleon  had  re-opened  the  negotiations. 
The  relinquishment  of  Italy  (when  Murat  on  his 
side  negotiated  the  preservation  of  his  kingdom 
of  Naples),  of  Holland,  of  Germany,  and  of  Spain, 
and  the  confinement  of  France  between  her 
natural  boundaries  of  the  Rhine  and  the  Alps; 
such  were  the  '  Conditions  of  Frankfort.'  Napo- 
leon sent  an  answer  to  Metternich,  '  that  he  con- 
sented to  the  opening  of  a  congress  at  Mannheim ; 
that  the  conclusion  of  a  peace  which  would  in- 
sure the  independence  of  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  had  always  been  the  aim  of  his  policy.' 
This  reply  seems  evasive,  but  could  the  proposals 
of  the  allies  have  been  serious  ?  Encouraged  by 
disloyal  Frenchmen,  they  published  the  declara- 
tion of  Frankfort,  by  which  they  affirmed  '  that 
they  did  not  make  war  with  France,  but  against 
the  preponderance  which  Napoleon  had  long  ex- 
ercised beyond  the  limits  of  his  empire.'  Deceit- 
ful assurance,  too  obvious  snare,  which  could 
only  take  in  a  nation  weary  of  war,  enervated  by 
twenty -two  years  of  sterile  victories,  and  at  the 
end  of  its  resources  !  During  this  time  Alexan- 
der, with  the  deputies  of  the  Helvetian  Diet  sum- 
moned at  Frankfort,  discussed  the  basis  of  a  new 
Swiss  Confederation.  Holland  was  already  raised 
by  the  partisans  of  the  house  of  Orange,  and  en- 
tered by  the  Prussians.  The  campaign  of  France 
began.  Alexander  issued  at  Freiburg  a  procla- 
mation to  his  troops.  .  .  .  He  refused  to  receive 
Caulaincourt  at  Freiburg,  declaring  that  he  would 
only  treat  in  France.  '  Let  us  spare  the  French 
negotiator  the  trouble  of  the  journey,'  he  said  to 
Metternich.  "  It  does  not  seem  to  me  a  matter  of 
indifference  to  the  allied  sovereigns,  whether  the 
peace  with  France  is  signed  on  this  side  of  the 
Rhine,  or  on  the  other,  in  the  very  heart  of  France. 
Such  an  historical  event  is  well  worth  a  change 
of  quarters.'  Without  counting  the  armies  of 
Italy  and  the  Pyrenees,  Napoleon  had  now  a  mere 
handful  of  troops,  80.000  men,  spread  from  Nime- 
guen  to  Bale,  to  resist  500,000  allies.  The  army 
of  the  North  (Wintzingerode)  invaded  Holland, 
Belgium,  and  the  Rhenish  provinces;  the  array 
of  Silesia  (Bliicher)  crossed  the  Rhine  between 
Mannheim  and  Coblentz  and  entered  Nancy ;  the 
army  of  Bohemia  (Schwartzenberg)  passed 
through  Switzerland,  and  advanced  on  Troyes, 
where  the  Royalists  demanded  the  restoration  of 
the  Bourbons.  Napoleon  was  still  able  to  bar 
for  some  time  the  way  to  his  capital.  He  first 
attacked  the  army  of  Silesia ;  he  defeated  the  van- 
guard, the  Russians  of  Sacken,  at  St.  Didier, 
and  Bliicher  at  Brienne ;  but  at  La  Rothiere  he 
encountered  the  formidable  masses  of  the  Silesian 
and  Bohemian  armies,  and  after  a  fierce  battle 
(1st  February,  1814)  had  to  fall  back  on  Troyes. 
After  this  victory  had  secured  their  junction,  the 
two  armies  separated  again,  the  one  to  go  down 
the  Marne,  the  other  the  Seine,  with  the  intention 
of  reuniting  at  Paris.  Napoleon  profited  by  this 
mistake.  He  threw  himself  on  the  left  flank  of 
the  army  of  Silesia,  near  Champeaubert,  where 
he  dispersed  the  troops  of  Olsoufief  and  Polta- 
ratski,  inflicting  on  them  a  loss  of  2,500  men,  and 
took  the  generals  prisoners.  At  Montmirail,  in 
spite  of  the  heroism  of  Zigrote  and  Lapoukhiue, 
he  defeated  Sacken ;  the  Russians  alone  lost  2,800 
men  and  five  guns  (11th  February).  At  Chateau 
Thierry,  he  defeated  Sacken  and  York  reunited, 


and  again  the  Russians  lost  1,500  men  and  five 
guns.  At  Vauchamp  it  was  the  turn  of  Bliicher, 
who  lost  3,000  Russians,  4,000  Prussians,  and  fif- 
teen guns.  The  army  of  Silesia  was  in  terrible 
disorder.  '  The  peasants,  exasperated  by  the  dis- 
order inseparable  from  a  retreat,  and  excited  by 
exaggerated  rumours  of  French  successes,  took 
up  arms,  and  refused  supplies.  The  soldiers  suf- 
fered both  from  cold  and  hunger.  Champagne  af- 
fording no  wood  for  bivouac  fires.  When  the 
weather  became  milder,  their  shoes  wore  out,  and 
the  men,  obliged  to  make  forced  marches  with 
bare  feet,  were  carried  by  hundreds  into  the  hos- 
pitals of  the  country '  (Bogdanovitch).  Whilst 
the  army  of  Silesia  retreated  in  disorder  on  the 
army  of  the  North,  Napoleon,  with  50, 000  soldiers 
full  of  enthusiasm,  turned  on  that  of  Bohemia, 
crushed  the  Bavarians  and  Russians  at  Mormans, 
the  Wurtembergers  at  Montereaii,  the  Prussians 
at  Alery ;  these  Prussians  made  part  of  the  army 
of  Bliicher,  who  had  detached  a  corps  to  hang  on 
the  rear  of  Napoleon.  This  campaign  made  a 
profound  impression  on  the  allies.  Castlereagh 
expressed,  in  Alexander's  presence,  the  opinion 
that  peace  should  be  made  before  they  were 
driven  across  the  Rhine.  The  military  chiefs  be- 
gan to  feel  uneasy.  Sesslavine  sent  news  from 
Joigny  that  Napoleon  had  180,000  men  at  Troyes. 
A  general  insurrection  of  the  eastern  provinces 
was  expected  in  the  rear  of  the  allies.  It  was  the 
firmness  of  Alexander  which  maintained  the  Coali- 
tion, it  was  the  military  energy  of  Bliicher  which 
saved  it.  Soon  after  his  disasters  he  received  re- 
inforcements from  the  army  of  the  North,  and 
took  the  offensive  against  the  marshals;  then, 
hearing  of  the  arrival  of  Napoleon  at  La  Ferte 
Gaucher,  he  retreated  in  great  haste,  finding  an 
unexpected  refuge  at  Soissons,  which  had  just 
been  taken  by  the  army  of  the  North.  At  Craonne 
(March  7)  and  at  Laon  (10th  to  12th  March),  with 
100,000  men  against  30,000,  and  with  strong  posi- 
tions, he  managed  to  repulse  all  the  attacks  of 
Napoleon.  At  Craonne,  however,  the  Russian 
loss  amounted  to  5,000  men,  the  third  of  their 
effective  force.  The  battle  of  Laon  cost  them 
4,000  men.  Meanwhile,  De  Saint  Priest,  a  gen- 
eral in  Alexander's  service,  had  taken  Rheims  by 
assault,  but  was  dislodged  by  Napoleon  after 
a  fierce  struggle,  where  the  emigre  commander 
was  badly  wounded,  and  4,000  of  his  men  were 
killed  (13th  March).  The  Congress  of  Chatillon- 
sur-Seine  was  opened  on  the  28th  of  February. 
Russia  was  represented  by  Razoumovski  and  Nes- 
selrode,  Napoleon  by  Caulaincourt,  Austria  by 
Stadion  and  Metternich.  The  conditions  pro- 
posed to  Napoleon  were  the  reduction  of  France 
to  its  frontiers  of  1793,  and  the  right  of  the  allies 
to  dispose,  without  reference  to  him,  of  the  recon- 
quered countries.  Germany  was  to  be  a  confedera- 
tion of  independent  States,  Italy  to  be  divided 
into  free  States,  Spain  to  be  restored  to  Ferdinand, 
and  Holland  to  the  house  of  Orange.  'Leave 
France  smaller  than  I  found  her  ?  Never  I '  said 
Napoleon.  Alexander  and  the  Prussians  would 
not  hear  of  a  peace  which  left  Napoleon  on  the 
throne.  Still,  however,  they  negotiated.  Aus- 
tria and  England  were  both  agreed  not  to  push 
him  to  extremities,  and  many  times  proposed  to 
treat.  After  Napoleon's  great  success  against 
Bliicher,  Castlereagh  declared  for  peace.  '  It 
wQuld  not  be  a  peace,'  cried  the  Emperor  of  Rus- 
sia ;  '  it  would  be  a  truce  which  would  not  allow 
us  to  disarm  one  moment.     I  cannot  come  4(X) 


1388 


PRANCE,  1814. 


TJie  Allies  in 
Paris, 


FRANCE,   1814. 


leagues  every  day  to  your  assistance.  No  peace, 
as  long  as  Napoleon  is  on  tlie  throne. '  Napoleon, 
in  his  turn,  intoxicated  by  his  success,  enjoined 
Caulaiucourt  only  to  treat  on  the  basis  of  Prank- 
fort —  natural  frontiers.  .  .  .  As  fortune  returned 
to  the  allies,  the  congress  was  dissolved  (19th  of 
March).  The  Bourbon  princes  were  already  in 
France ;  Louis  XVIII.  was  ou  the  point  of  being 
proclaimed.  Alexander,  tired  of  seeing  the  armies 
of  Bohemia  and  Silesia  fly  in  turn  before  thirty 
or  forty  thousand  French,  caused  the  allies  to 
adopt  the  fatal  plan  of  a  march  ou  Paris,  which 
was  executed  in  eight  days.  Bliicher  and 
Schwartzenberg  united,  with  200,000  men,  were 
to  bear  down  all  opposition  on  their  passage. 
The  first  act  in  the  drama  was  tlie  battle  of  Arcis- 
sur-Aube,  where  the  Russians  took  six  guns  from 
Napoleon.  The  latter  conceived  a  bold  scheme, 
which  perhaps  might  have  saved  him  if  Paris 
could  have  resisted,  but  which  was  his  ruin.  He 
threw  himself  on  the  rear  of  the  allied  army, 
abandoning  to  them  the  route  to  Paris,  but  reck- 
oning on  raising  Eastern  France,  and  cutting  off 
their  retreat  to  the  Rhine.  The  allies,  uneasy  for 
one  moment,  were  reassured  by  an  intercepted  let- 
ter of  Napoleon's,  and  by  the  letters  of  the  Parisian 
royalists,  which  revealed  to  them  the  weakness 
of  the  capital.  '  Dare  all  ! '  writes  Talleyrand  to 
them.  They,  in  their  turn,  deceived  Napoleon,  by 
causing  him  to  be  followed  by  a  troop  of  cavalry, 
continued  their  march,  defeated  Marmont  and 
Mortier,  crushed  the  National  Guards  of  Pacthod 
(battle  of  La  FSre-Champenoise),  and  arrived  in 
sight  of  Paris.  Barclay  de  Tolly,  forming  the 
centre,  first  attacked  the  plateau  of  Romaiuville, 
defended  by  Marmont ;  on  his  left,  the  Prince  of 
Wurtemberg  threatened  Vincennes;  and  ou  his 
right,  Bliicher  deployed  before  Montmartre,  which 
was  defended  by  Mortier.  The  heights  of  Chau- 
mont  and  those  of  Montmartre  were  taken ;  Mar- 
mont and  Mortier  with  Moncey  were  thrown  back 
on  the  ramparts.  Marmont  obtained  an  armis- 
tice from  Colonel  Orlof,  to  treat  for  the  capitula- 
tion of  Paris.  King  Joseph,  the  Empress  !Marie- 
Louise,  and  all  the  Imperial  Government  had 
already  fled  to  the  Loire.  Paris  was  recom- 
mended '  to  the  generosity  of  the  allied  monarchs ' ; 
the  army  could  retire  on  the  road  to  Orleans. 
Such  was  the  battle  of  Paris ;  it  had  cost,  according 
to  M.  Bogdauovitch,  8,400  men  to  the  allies,  and 
4,000  to  the  French  (30th  March).  .  .  .  The  allied 
troops  maintained  a  strict  discipline,  and  were  not 
quartered  on  the  inhabitants.  Alexander  had  not 
come  as  a  friend  of  the  Bourbons  —  the  fiercest 
enemy  of  Napoleon  was  least  bitter  against  the 
French ;  he  intended  leaving  them  the  choice  of 
their  government.  He  had  not  favoured  any  of 
the  intrigues  of  the  emigres,  and  had  scornfully 
remarked  to  Jomini,  '  What  are  the  Bourbons  to 
me  ? ' " — A.  Rambaud,  JIM.  of  Russia,  v.  2,  ch.  13. 

Also  in:  C.  Joyneville,  Life  and  Times  of 
Alexander  I. ,  v.  3,  ch.  1. — M.  de  Beauchamp,  Nar- 
rative of  the  Invasions  of  France,  1814-15. — Duke 
de  Rovigo,  Memoirs,  v.  3,  pt.  3,  ch.  20-32. — J. 
Philippart,  Campaign  in  Qermani/  and  France, 
1813,  V.  1,  p.  279  and  after,  and  v.  2. 

A.  D.  1814  (January — May).— Desertion  of 
Napoleon  by  Murat. — Murat's  treaty  with  the 
allies. — French  evacuation  of  Italy.  See  Italy  : 
A.  D.  1814. 

A.  D.  1814  (February— April).— Reverses  in 
the  south. — Wellington's  invasion.  See  Spain  : 
A.  D.  1813-1814. 


A.  D.  1814  (March — April). — Friendly  recep- 
tion of  the  Allies  in  Paris. — Collapse  of  the 
empire. — Abdication  of  Napoleon. — Treaty  of 
Fontainebleau. — "At  an  early  hour  in  the  morn- 
ing [of  the  31st  of  March],  the  Allied  troops  had 
taken  possession  of  the  barriers,  and  occupied  the 
principal  avenues  leading  to  the  city.  Picquets 
of  the  Cossacks  of  the  Guard  were  stationed  at 
the  corners  of  the  principal  streets.  Vast  mul- 
titudes thronged  the  Boulevards,  in  anxious  and 
silent  expectation  of  pending  events.  The  royal- 
ists alone  were  active.  The  leaders,  a  small  band 
indeed,  had  early  assembled  in  the  Place  Louis 
XV.,  whence,  with  Bourbon  banners  displayed, 
they  proceeded  along  the  principal  streets,  ha- 
ranguing the  people  and  National  Guard;  but 
though  not  interfered  with  by  the  police, —  for  all 
seemed  to  feel  that  the  Imperial  government  was 
at  an  end, — they  were  listened  to  with  sucli  per- 
fect indifierence,  that  many  began  to  think  their 
cause  absolutely  hopeless.  It  was  between  ten 
and  eleven  o'clock  when  the  procession  began  to 
enter  the  city.  Light  horsemen  of  the  Russian 
Guard  opened  the  march;  at  the  head  of  the 
main  column  rode  the  Emperor  of  Russia  and 
the  King  of  Prussia.  .  .  .  Then  followed  3.5,000 
men,  cavalry,  infantry,  and  artillery,  the  elite  of 
the  armies,  in  all  the  pride  and  circumstance  of 
war  and  conquest.  At  first  the  multitude  looked 
on  in  silent  amazement ;  but  the  affability  of  the 
officers,  above  all,  the  condescending  manner  of 
the  Czar,  dispelled  any  fear  they  might  still  enter- 
tain ;  and  shouts  of  '  Vive  Alexander ! '  began  to  be 
heard ;  cries  of  '  Vive  le  Roi  de  Prusse ! '  were  soon 
added.  .  .  .  The  shouts  of  welcome  increased  at 
every  step.  The  conquerors  were  now  hailed  as 
liberators;  '  Vivent  les  Allies! '  '  Vivent  nos  libe- 
rateurs!'  sounded  through  the  air,  mingled  at 
last  with  the  long-forgotten  cry  of  '  Vive  le  Roi ! ' 
'Vivent  les  Bourbons!"  .  .  .  "rhe  Emperor  Alex- 
ander had  no  sooner  seen  the  troops  file  past  on 
the  Place  Louis  XV.,  than  he  repaired  to  the 
hotel  of  Talleyrand,  where  in  the  evening,  a  coun- 
cil was  assembled  to  deliberate  on  the  important 
step  next  to  be  taken,  and  on  the  best  mode 
of  turning  the  glorious  victories  achieved  to 
an  honourable  and  beneficial  account.  .  .  .  The 
points  discussed  were:  I.  The  possibility,  on 
sufficient  guarantees,  of  a  peace  with  Napoleon; 
II.  The  plan  of  regency  under  Marie  Louise; 
and.  III.  The  restoration  of  the  Bourbons.  The 
choice  was  not  without  difficulties.  The  first 
plan  was  easily  dismissed;  as  the  reception  of 
the  Allies  proved  clearly  that  the  power  of  Na- 
poleon was  broken.  The  second  seemed  more 
likely  to  find  favour,  as  promising  to  please  the 
Emperor  of  Austria;  but  was  finally  rejected,  as 
being,  in  fact,  nothing  more  than  a  continuance 
of  the  Imperial  reign  under  a  different  title. 
Against  the  restoration  of  the  Bourbons,  it  was 
urged  that  the  nation  at  large  had  evinced  no 
desire  for  their  recall,  and  seemed  to  have  almost 
forgotten  them.  This,  Talleyrand  said,  was  ow- 
ing entirely  to  the  Congress  of  Chatillon,  and  the 
negotiations  carried  on  with  Napoleon ;  introduc- 
ing at  the  same  time,  the  Abbe  de  Pradt  and  Baron 
Louis,  who  fully  confirmed  the  assertion.  On 
being  asked  how  he  expected  to  obtain  a  declara- 
tion in  favour  of  the  exiled  family,  Talleyrand 
replied,  that  he  was  certain  of  the  Senate ;  and  that 
their  vote  would  influence  Paris,  the  example  of 
which  would  be  followed  by  all  France.  Alexan- 
der having  on  this  assurance  taken  the  oisinion 


1389 


FRANCE,  1814. 


Abdication  of 
Napoleon. 


FRANCE,  1814. 


of  the  King  of  Prussia  and  Prince  Schwarzenberg, 
signed  a  declaration  to  the  effect  that  '  the  Allies 
would  treat  no  more  with  Napoleon  Bonaparte, 
or  with  any  member  of  his  family. '  A  proclama- 
tion was  issued  at  the  same  time,  calling  on  the 
Conservative  Senate  to  assemble  and  form  a  pro- 
visional government,  for  the  purpose  of  drawing 
up  a  constitution  suitable  to  the  wishes  of  the 
French  people.  This  the  Allies  promised  to 
guarantee ;  as  it  was  their  wish,  they  said,  to  see 
France  'powerful,  happy,  and  prosperous.'  A 
printer  was  ready  in  attendance ;  and  before  dark, 
this  memorable  decree  was  seen  placarded  in  all 
the  streets  of  Paris.  The  inconstant  populace  had 
not  even  waited  for  such  a  signal,  and  had  been 
already  engaged  in  destroying  the  emblems  of 
the  Imxjerial  government;  an  attempt  had  even 
been  made  to  pull  down  the  statue  of  Napoleon 
from  the  summit  of  the  column  of  Austerlitz,  in  the 
Place  Vendome  I  The  decisive  impulse  thus  given, 
events  moved  rapidly  forward.  Caulaincourt's 
zealous  efforts  in  favour  of  his  master  could  eifect 
nothing  after  the  declaration  already  noticed. 
On  the  2d,  he  took  his  departure  for  Fontain- 
bleau;  having,  however,  received  the  assurance 
that  Napoleon  would  be  suitably  provided  for. 
.  .  .  The  funds  rose  five  per  cent. ,  and  all  other 
public  securities  in  proportion,  on  the  very  day 
after  the  occupation  of  the  capital ;  and  wherever 
the  Allied  Sovereigns  appeared  in  public,  they 
were  loudly  cheered  and  hailed  as  liberators. 
From  the  first,  officers  of  the  Allied  armies  filled 
the  public  walks,  theatres,  and  coffee-houses, 
and  mixed  with  the  people  as  welcome  guests 
rather  than  as  conquering  invaders.  The  press, 
so  long  enslaved  by  Napoleon,  took  the  most 
decided  part  against  its  oppressor;  and  from 
every  quarter  injurious  pamphlets,  epigrams, 
and  satires,  now  poured  upon  the  fallen  ruler. 
Madame  de  Stael  had  characterised  him  as  '  Robes- 
pierre on  horseback ' ;  De  Pradt  had  more  wit- 
tily termed  him  '  Jupiter  Scapin ' ;  and  these  say- 
ings were  not  forgotten.  But  by  far  the  most 
vivid  sensation  was  produced  by  Chateaubriand's 
tract  of  'Bonaparte  and  the  Bourbons';  30,000 
copies  of  which  are  said  to  have  been  sold  in  two 
days.  In  proportion  as  the  popular  hatred  of 
the  Emperor  evinced  itself,  grew  the  boldness 
of  his  adversaries.  On  the  first  of  April,  the 
Municipal  Council  of  Paris  met  and  already  de- 
clared the  throne  vacant;  on  the  next  day,  the 
Conservative  Senate  formed  a  Provisional  Govern- 
ment, and  issued  a  decree,  declaring,  first,  '  That 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  had  forfeited  the  throne 
and  the  right  of  inheritance  established  in  his 
family ;  3d,  That  the  people  and  army  of  France 
were  disengaged  and  freed  from  the  oath  of 
fidelity  wliich  they  had  taken  to  him  and  his 
constitution.'  .  .  .  The  members  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Assembly  who  happened  to  be  in  Paris,  fol- 
lowed the  example  of  the  Senate.  The  Assemlily 
had  been  dissolved  in  January,  and  could  not 
meet  constitutionally  unless  summoned  by  the 
Sovereign ;  this  objection  was,  however,  set  aside, 
and  the  Assembly  having  met,  ratified  the  act  of 
deposition  passed  by  the  Senate.  All  the  public 
functionaries,  authorities  and  constituted  bodies 
in  and  near  Paris,  hastened  to  send  in  their  sub- 
mission to  the  new  powers :  it  was  a  general  race  in 
which  honour  was  not  always  the  prize  of  speed ; 
for  every  address,  every  act  of  submission  sent  in 
to  the  new  government,  teemed  with  invectives 
against  the  deposed  ruler.      .  .  It  was  in  the 


night  between  the  8d  and  3d,  that  Caulaincourt 
returned  from  his  mission,  and  informed  Na  poleon 
of  the  events  which  had  passed.  ...  In  what 
manner  the  Emperor  received  these  fatal  tidings 
we  are  not  told.  ...  At  first  it  would  seem  that 
he  entertained,  or  affected  to  entertain,  thoughts 
of  resorting  to  arms;  for  in  the  morning  he  re- 
viewed his  Guard,  and  addressed  them  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms: — '  Officers  and  soldiers  of  my  Old 
Guard,  the  enemy  has  gained  three  marches  on 
us,  and  outstripped  us  at  Paris.  Some  factious 
men,  emigrants  whom  I  liad  pardoned,  have 
surrounded  the  Emperor  Alexander;  they  have 
mounted  the  white  cockade,  and  would  force  us 
to  do  the  same.  In  a  few  days  I  shall  attack  the 
enemy,  and  force  them  to  quit  the  capital.  I  rely 
on  you :  am  I  right  ? '  "The  troops  readily  re- 
plied with  loud  cheers  to  this  address,  calling 
out  '  To  Paris !  to  Paris ! '  but  the  Marshals  and 
senior  officers  were  by  no  means  so  zealous  in  the 
cause.  .  .  .  The  Generals  and  Marshals  .  .  .  fol- 
lowed the  Emperor  to  his  apartments  after  the 
review ;  and  having  advised  him  to  negotiate  with 
the  Allies,  on  the  principle  of  a  personal  abdica- 
tion, ended  by  informing  him,  that  they  would 
not  accompany  him  if  he  persisted  in  the  pro- 
posed attack  on  Paris.  The  scene  which  followed 
seems  to  have  been  of  a  very  undignified  descrip- 
tion. Napoleon  was  almost  convulsed  with  rage ; 
he  tore  and  trampled  under  foot  the  decree  of 
the  Senate ;  vowed  vengeance  against  the  whole 
body,  who  should  yet,  he  said,  be  made  to  pay  for 
their  deed  of  '  felony  ' ;  but  ended,  nevertheless, 
by  ignobly  signing  the  abdication  demanded  of 
him.  We  say  ignobly ;  for  nothing  can  be  more 
debasing  in  character,  than  to  sink  down  from  a 
very  tempest  of  passion  to  tame  submission.  .  .  . 
The  act  of  abdication  was  worded  in  the  follow- 
ing terms:  'The  Allied  powers  having  pro- 
claimed that  the  Emperor  Napoleon  is  tlie  sole 
obstacle  to  the  re-establishment  of  peace  in 
Europe,  the  Emperor  Napoleon,  faithful  to  his 
oath,  declares  that  he  is  ready  to  descend  from 
the  throne,  to  quit  France,  and  even  to  relinquish 
life,  for  the  good  of  the  country,  which  is  in- 
separable from  the  rights  of  his  son,  from  those 
of  the  regency  in  the  person  of  the  Empress,  and 
from  the  maintenance  of  the  laws  of  the  empire. 
Done  at  our  Palace  of  Fontainbleau,  4th  April 
1814.  Napoleon.'  Caulaincourt,  Marshals  Ney 
and  M'Donald,  were  appointed  to  carry  this  con- 
ditional abdication  to  Paris.  .  .  .  The  commis- 
sioners on  returning  to  Fontainbleau  found  the 
Emperor  in  his  cabinet,  impatiently  awaiting  the 
result  of  their  mission.  Marshal  Ney  was  the 
first  to  speak ;  and  in  that  abrupt,  harsh  and  not 
very  respectful  tone  which  he  had  lately  assumed 
towards  his  falling  sovereign,  told  him  at  once, 
that  '  France,  the  array  and  the  cause  of  peace, 
demanded  his  unconditional  abdication.'  Cau- 
laincourt added,  that  the  full  sovereignty  of  the 
Isle  of  Elba,  with  a  suitable  establishment,  had 
been  offered  by  the  Emperor  Alexander;  and 
Marshal  M'Donald,  who  had  so  zealously  de- 
fended the  cause  of  his  master,  confirmed  the 
statement, — declaring  also  that,  '  in  his  opinion, 
the  Imperial  cause  was  completely  lost,  as 
they  had  all  three' — the  commissioners  —  'failed 
against  a  resolution  irrevocably  fixed.'  '  What! ' 
exclaimed  Napoleon,  '  not  only  my  own  abdica- 
tion, but  that  of  Marie  Louise,  and  of  my  son  1 
Tills  is  rather  too  much  at  once. '  And  with  these 
words    he    delayed   the  answer  till   next  day. 


1390 


FRANCE,  1814. 


The  Bourbon 
Restoration. 


FRANCE,  1814. 


intending,  he  said,  to  consider  the  subject,  and 
consult  the  army.  .  .  .  AVords  ran  high  between 
the  fallen  chieftain  and  his  former  subordinates; 
there  were  altercations,  recriminations,  and  pain- 
ful scenes,  and  it  was  only  when  Napoleon  had 
signed  the  following  unconditional  abdication 
chat  perfect  calm  was  restored: — 'The  Allied 
Sovereigns  having  declared  that  the  Emperor 
Xapoleon  is  the  only  obstacle  to  the  re-establi.sli- 
inent  of  a  general  peace,  the  Emperor  Napoleon, 
faithful  to  his  oath,  declares,  that  he  renounces, 
for  himself  and  his  heirs,  the  throne  of  France 
and  Italy ;  and  that  there  is  no  personal  sacrifice, 
not  even  that  of  life  itself,  which  he  is  not  will- 
ing to  make  for  the  interest  of  Prance.  Napo- 
leon. Fontainbleau,  6th  April  1814.'  This  de- 
plorable document  is  written  in  so  agitated  and 
faltering  a  hand  as  to  be  almost  illegible,  .  .  . 
According  to  the  treaty  signed  at  Paris  on  the 
10th,  and  usually  called  the  Treaty  of  Fontain- 
bleau, Napoleon,  from  being  Emperor  of  France 
and  King  of  Italy,  became  Emperor  of  Elba  I 
He  was  to  have  a  guard  and  a  navy  suited  to 
the  extent  of  his  dominions,  and  to  receive  from 
France  a  pension  of  six  millions  of  francs  annu- 
ally. The  Duchies  of  Parma,  Placentia  and 
Giiastala,  were  to  be  conferred  in  sovereignty  on 
Marie  Louise  and  her  heirs.  Two  millions  and  a 
half  of  francs  were  further  to  be  paid  annually 
by  the  French  government  to  the  Empress  Jose- 
phine and  other  members  of  the  Bonaparte  fam- 
ily. Splendid  as  these  terms  were  for  a  dethroned 
and  defenceless  monarch,  Napoleon  ratified  the 
treaty  with  reluctance,  and  delayed  the  signature 
as  long  as  possible ;  still  clinging,  it  would  seem, 
to  some  vague  hope  of  returning  fortune.  It  is 
even  related  by  Fain,  Norvins,  Constant,  and  in 
the  pretended  Memoirs  of  Caulaincourt,  that  he 
attempted  to  commit  suicide  by  talking  poison, 
and  was  only  saved  by  the  weakness  of  the  dose, 
and  the  remedies  administered  by  his  attendants, 
who,  hearing  his  groans,  hastened  to  his  bedside. 
It  is  certain  that  he  was  very  unwell  on  the 
following  morning,  the  13th  April,  a  circum- 
stance easily  accounted  for  by  the  anxiety  he 
had  undergone ;  but  there  can  be  little  difticulty 
in  rejecting  the  tale  of  poison,  for  it  is  mentioned 
in  none  of  the  St.  Helena  Memoirs.  "^Lieut. -Col. 
J.  Mitchell,  The  Fall  of  Ifapoleon,  bk.  3,  ch.  8 
(V.  2). 

Also  in:  M.  de  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs 
of  Napoleon,  v.  4,  eh.  20-23. — Duke  of  Rovigo, 
Memoirs,  v.  4,  pt.  1,  ch.  4^10. — Prince  Talleyrand, 
Memoirs,  pt.  7  (v.  2). 

A.  D.  1814  (April— June).— Departure  of  Na- 
poleon for  Elba. — Louis  XVIII.  called  to  the 
throne.  —  Settlement  of  the  constitution. — 
Evacuation  of  France  by  the  Allies. —  The 
Treaty  of  Paris. — Determination  of  the  new 
boundaries  of  the  kingdom. — "April  20,  every- 
thing being  ready  for  Napoleon's  journey,  and 
the  commissioners  of  the  four  great  powers  who 
were  to  accompany  him  having  arrived,  the 
former  drew  up  the  imperial  guard  in  the  grand 
courtyard  at  Fontainebleau  to  take  leave  of  them. 
'  Soldiers, '  said  he,  '  I  have  one  mission  left  to 
fulfil  in  life, —  to  recount  to  posterity  the  glori- 
ous deeds  we  have  done  together.'  Would  to 
Heaven  he  had  kept  his  word  and  done  nothing 
else!  He  kissed  the  flag,  and  his  brave  soldiers, 
who  only  saw  the  man  who  so  often  led  them  on 
to  victory,  burst  into  tears.  Seven  or  eight 
hundred  of  them  were  to  form  the  army  left  to 


him  who  had  had  a  million  soldiers  at  his  com- 
mand, and  they  were  sent  in  advance.  Napoleon 
going  by  another  road,  unescorted  save  by  Gen- 
eral Drouot,  Bertrand,  and  the  four  foreign  com- 
missioners with  their  people.  In  the  first  de- 
partments through  which  they  passed  .  .  .  the 
people  who  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  the  inva- 
sion forgot  the  evil  wrought  by  Napoleon,  and 
only  saw  the  defender  of  his  country.  They 
shouted  'Long  live  the  Emperor!  Down  with 
foreigners!'  But  beyond  Lyons,  where  the  foe 
never  penetrated,  the  population  became  hostile : 
old  royalist  and  Catholic  passions  were  revived 
in  proportion  as  they  went  farther  south;  the 
mob  cried  '  Long  live  the  King  I  down  with  the 
tyrant ! '  and  others  howled  '  Long  live  the  allies ! ' 
At  Avignon  and  Orgon  a  furious  rabble  attacked 
the  carriages,  demanding  that  the  tyrant  should 
be  handed  over  to  them  to  be  hung  or  thrown 
into  the  Rhone.  The  man  who  braved  the  storm 
of  shot  and  shell  with  utter  indifference  gave 
way  before  these  ignoble  perils,  and  disguised 
himself;  otherwise  the  commissioners  could 
scarcely  have  saved  his  life  at  Orgon.  The  sad 
journey  closed  at  the  Gulf  of  St.  Raphael,  on 
the  coast  of  Provence.  .  .  .  An  English  frigate 
awaited  him  and  bore  him  to  Elba,  where  he 
landed  at  Porto-Perraio,  May  4.  While  the  Em- 
pire was  crumbling  to  drust  .  .  .  and  the  fallen 
Emperor  went  into  exile,  the  new  government 
was  working  hard  to  hold  its  own  at  Paris.  The 
royalists  were  at  sword's  points  with  the  national 
sovereignty  party  in  the  commission  chosen  by 
the  senate  to  draw  up  a  constitution.  The  pre- 
tender's agent.  Abbe  de  Montesquiou,  failed  to 
win  acceptance  of  the  principle  that  royal  right 
is  superior  to  the  nation's  will ;  and  the  formula 
adopted  was  as  follows:  'The  French  people 
freely  call  to  the  throne  of  France,  Louis  Stanis- 
las Xavier  de  France,  brother  of  the  late  king, 
and,  after  him,  the  other  members  of  the  house 
of  Bourbon.'  Thus  they  did  not  recognize  in  the 
king  whom  they  elected  the  title  of  Louis  XVIII. , 
and  did  not  admit  that  between  him  and  his 
brother,  Louis  XVI.,  there  had  been  a  rightful 
king,  the  poor  child  who  died  in  the  Temple  and 
whom  royalists  called  Louis  XVII.  Tlie  reign 
of  Louis  Stanislas  Xavier  was  to  date  from  the 
day  when  he  swore  allegiance  to  the  Constitution : 
the  executive  power  was  vested  in  the  king,  who 
shared  the  legislative  power  with  the  Senate  and 
a  Chamber  of  Deputies.  The  Constitution  sanc- 
tioned individual  liberty,  freedom  of  worship 
and  the  press,  the  sale  of  national  goods,  the 
public  debt,  and  proclaimed  oblivion  of  all  acts 
committed  since  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution. 
The  principles  of  1789  were  maintained,  and  in 
the  sad  state  of  Prance  there  was  nothing  better 
to  be  done  than  to  rally  round  this  Constitution, 
which  was  voted  by  the  Senate,  April  6,  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  Legislature.  .  .  .  Tlie  Senate's 
lack  of  popularity  gave  the  royalist  party  hope 
that  the  act  of  April  6  might  be  retracted,  and  at 
this  time  that  party  won  a  faint  success  in  a 
matter  on  which  they  laid  great  stress.  Count 
d'Artois  was  on  his  way  to  Paris,  and  declared 
that  he  would  not  lay  aside  the  white  cockade  on 
entering.  The  temporary  government  ordered 
the  national  guard  to  assume  the  white  cockade, 
and  let  Count  d'Artois  in  without  conditions 
(April  12).  He  was  received  in  solemn  state,  the 
marshals  marching  before  him,  still  wearing  their 
tri-colored  cockades  and  plumes,  which  the  gov- 


1391 


FRANCE,  1814. 


The  Peace  of 
Paris. 


FRANCE,  1814-1815. 


eminent  dared  not  attack.  The  rabble  was  cold, 
but  the  middle  classes  received  the  prince  favor- 
ably, and  he  proved  gracious  to  every  one.  .  .  . 
D'Artois  .  .  .  insisted  on  being  recognized,  un- 
conditionally, as  lieutenant-general  of  the  king- 
dom, as  he  had  entered  Paris  without  making 
terms ;  but  this  time  the  Senate  and  temporary 
government  did  not  yield.  They  intended  that 
the  prince  should  make  a  solemn  promise,  in  his 
brother's  name,  in  regard  to  the  Constitution. 
The  czar  interfered  aad  explained  to  D'Artois 
that  the  allies  were  pledged  to  the  Senate  and  the 
nation,  and  he  was  forced  to  submit  and  receive 
the  lieutenant-generalcy  of  the  kingdom  from 
the  Senate,  '  until  Louis  Stanislas  Xavier  of 
France  should  accept  the  Constitutional  Charter.' 
.  .  .  The  day  after  his  proclamation  as  lieu- 
tenant-general, the  white  cockade  was  finally 
adopted,  and  .  .  .  Imposed  upon  the  army  and 
various  public  buildings,  though  the  national 
cockade  was  still  worn  by  many  French  soldiers 
from  the  Garonne  to  the  Elbe,  and  many  warlike 
deeds  still  signalized  the  final  efforts  of  their 
arms,  even  after  Napoleon  had  laid  aside  his 
sword.  .  .  .  By  degrees  the  truce  became  uni- 
versal, and  the  next  question  was  to  fix  the  terms 
of  peace.  .  .  .  The  enemy  held  nothing  but  Paris 
and  the  unfortified  towns,  French  garrisons  still 
occupying  all  the  strongholds  of  Prance,  old  and 
new,  and  several  important  places  far  beyond  the 
Rhine.  .  .  .  This  was  a  powerful  means  of  gain- 
ing, not  the  preservation  of  the  natural  frontiers, 
which  could  no  longer  be  hoped  for,  but  at  least 
an  important  advance  on  the  limits  of  the  ancient 
monarchy.  Unluckily  a  movement,  natural  but 
hasty,  broke  out  all  over  France,  to  claim  the 
immediate  evacuation  of  her  soil  by  foreign 
armies;" — an  impatience  wliich  allowed  no  time 
for  bargaining  in  the  matter,  and  which  precipi- 
tated an  agreement  (April  23)  with  the  allied 
powers  "to  leave  the  French  dominion  as  it  had 
been  on  the  1st  of  January,  1793,  in  proportion 
as  the  places  still  occupied  beyond  those  limits 
by  French  troops  should  be  evacuated  and  re- 
stored to  the  allies.  .  .  .  This  compact  surren- 
dered to  the  allies,  without  any  compensation, 
53  strongholds,  12,600  pieces  of  ordnance,  arse- 
nals and  magazines  filled  with  vast  supplies." 
The  new  king,  calling  himself  Louis  XVIII. ,  ar- 
rived in  Paris  on  the  3d  of  May,  from  England, 
where  he  had  latterly  resided.  He  had  offended 
the  czar,  ruffled  public  feeling  in  France,  even 
before  he  arrived,  by  saying  publicly  to  the  Eng- 
lish people  that  he  owed  his  restoration,  under 
Providence,  to  them.  Negotiations  for  a  definite 
treaty  of  peace  were  opened  at  once.  ' '  At  Met- 
ternich's  suggestion,  the  allies  decided  to  con- 
clude their  arrangements  with  France  In  Paris, 
and  to  reserve  general  arrangements  with  Europe 
for  a  congress  at  Vienna  [see  Vienna  :  The  Con- 
gress op].  Talleyrand  did  not  object,  although 
this  plan  was  evidently  unfavorable  to  France. 
.  .  .  The  royal  council  directed  Talleyrand  to  try 
to  win  for  the  northern  frontier  those  million 
people  promised  beyond  the  old  limits ;  but  Louis 
XVIII. ,  by  angering  the  czar,  completed  the  sad 
work  of  April  23.  Alexander  thought  of  renew- 
ing with  the  Bourbons  the  alliance  that  he  had 
planned  with  Napoleon,  and  marrying  to  the 
Duke  de  Berri,  Louis's  nephew,  that  one  of  his 
sisters  to  whom  Napoleon  preferred  Marie  Louise. 
Louis  .  .  .  responded  churlishly  to  the  czar's 
advances.     Accordingly,  when  France  demanded 


a  solid  frontier,  including  the  South  of  Belgium, 
.  .  .  Lord  Castlereagh  absolutely  refused,  and 
was  supported  by  Prussia,  hostile  to  France,  and 
by  Austria,  indifferent  on  that  score,  but  dis- 
posed to  follow  England  in  everything.  Russia 
did  not  side  with  Prance.  .  .  .  The  allies  were 
willing  to  grant,  in  place  of  the  old  dominion  of 
the  monarchy,  on  the  Rhine  side,  the  line  of  the 
Queich,  which  opened  communication  with  Lan- 
dau, and  to  the  southeast  the  department  of  Vau- 
cluse  (once  County  Venaissin)  given  up  by  the 
Pope,  besides  Chambery  and  a  part  of  Savoy; 
finally,  in  the  Jura  region,  Moutbeliard.  Tlua 
made  nearly  600,000  people.  As  for  the  colonies, 
England  reluctantly  returned  Martinique,  Gua- 
deloupe, and  the  Isle  of  Bourbon,  but  refused  to 
restore  the  Isle  de  France  [or  Mauritius,  captured 
in  1810],  that  great  military  post  which  is  to  the 
Indian  Ocean  what  Malta  is  to  the  Mediterranean. 
This  island  was  bravely  defended  for  some  years 
by  its  governor.  .  .  .  The  English  declared  that 
they  would  also  keep  Malta,  taken  from  Prance, 
and  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  wrested  from  Hol- 
land, saying  that  all  these  belonged  to  them, 
being  on  the  road  to  India.  .  .  .  Secret  articles 
provided  that  Holland,  under  the  rule  of  the 
House  of  Orange,  should  be  increased  by  the 
countries  ceded  by  France,  between  the  sea,  the 
French  frontier  of  1790,  and  the  Meuse  (Austrian 
Netherlands  and  Liege).  The  countries  ceded 
by  France  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Rhine  were  to 
be  divided  as  '  compensation '  among  the  Ger- 
man states.  Austria  was  to  have  the  country 
bounded  by  the  Po,  Ticino,  and  Lake  Maggiore, 
that  is,  the  old  Venetian  states,  Milan,  and  Man- 
tua. The  territory  of  the  former  Republic  of 
Genoa  was  to  be  given  to  the  King  of  Sardinia. 
Such  was  the  end  of  the  wars  of  the  Empire. 
Republican  France  reached  the  goal  of  the  old 
monarchy,  the  natural  limits  of  ancient  Gaul ; 
the  Empire  lost  them." — H.  Martin,  Popular 
Hist,  of  France,  v.  2,  ch.  17.— "The  Peace  of 
Paris  [signed  May  30]  was  followed  by  some 
subsidiary  treaties.  .  .  .  By  a  Convention  of 
June  3rd  between  Austria  and  Bavaria,  Maxi- 
milian Joseph  restored  to  Austria  the  T}'rol  with 
the  Vorarlberg,  the  principality  of  Salzburg,  the 
district  of  the  Inn  and  the  Hausrilck.  During 
the  visit  of  the  Emperor  Alexander  and  the  King 
of  Prussia  to  London  in  June,  it  was  agreed  that 
the  Article  of  the  Peace  of  Paris  stipulating  the 
aggrandisement  of  Holland,  should  be  carried 
out  by  the  annexation  of  Belgium  to  that  coun- 
try, an  arrangement  which  was  accepted  by  the 
Sovereign  of  the  Netherlands,  July  21st  1814." 
— T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  hk.  7,  ch. 
16. 

Also  in  ;  A.  de  Lamartine,  Sut.  of  the  Resto- 
ration,  bk.  13-14  and  16  (».  1-2).— E.  E.  Crowe, 
Hist,  of  the  Reigns  of  Louis  XVIII.  and  Gltarles 
X..V.  1,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  18x4-1815.- Ten  months  of  Bourbon 
rule  and  its  follies. — Return  of  Napoleon  from 
Elba.— Flight  of  the  King.— The  Hundred 
Days. — Preparations  for  war. — "The  peace  of 
Paris  did  not  endure  a  year.  Ten  months  of 
Bourbon  rule, vengeful,  implacable,  stupid;  alike 
violent  in  act  and  in  language ;  sulBced  to  bring 
France  once  more  to  the  brink  of  revolution. 
Two  acts  alone  are  sufficient  to  demonstrate  the 
folly  of  the  royalists  —  the  resumption  of  the 
white  flag,  and  the  changing  of  the  numbers  of 
the   regiments.      A   prudent   king  would  have 


1392 


FRANCE.  1814-1815. 


Napoleon''s  return. 


FRANCE,  1814-1815. 


adopted  the  tricolour  when  he  agreed  to  a  con- 
stitutional charter,  and  would  have  refrained  from 
wounding  military  sensibility  by  destroying  the 
numbers  of  the  regiments.  Sut  more  stupid  than 
these  acts  was  the  political  policy  pursued,  a 
policy  which  aroused  on  all  sides  suspicions  of 
what  was  worse  than  the  grinding  but  gilded 
despotism  of  Napoleon  —  namely,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment favoured  a  forcible  resumption  of  the 
confiscated  lands,  the  restoration  of  tithes,  and  of 
the  abolished  exactions  and  imposts  of  feudalism. 
It  has  been  surmised,  and  with  much  reason, 
that  had  Napoleon  not  reappeared  a  popular 
movement  would  have  extorted  from  the  king  a 
really  constitutional  government.  In  that  case 
France  might  have  taken  some  real  steps  towards 
a  free  government,  and  the  bases  of  liberty  rather 
than  of  equality  might  have  been  laid.  But 
while  the  Powers  were  wrangling  at  Vienna,  and 
the  Bourbons  were  irritating  France,  Napoleon 
was  watching  from  Elba  for  the  opportunity  of 
resuming  empire.  It  was  not  in  the  nature  of 
the  man  to  yield  passively  to  anything,  even  to 
the  inevitable.  So  long  as  a  chance  remained  he 
looked  out  keenly  for  the  propitious  hour.  He 
selected  Elba  as  a  residence  because  thence  '  he 
could  keep  an  eye  upon  France  and  upon  the 
Bourbons.'  It  was  his  duty,  he  said,  to  guard 
the  throne  of  France  for  his  family  and  for  his 
son.  Thus,  in  making  peace  at  Fontainebleau, 
he  only  bowed  to  a  storm  he  could  not  then  re- 
sist, and  cherished  in  his  mind  the  project  of  an 
imperial  restoration.  The  hour  for  which  he 
waited  came  at  length.  In  February,  1815,  he 
had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  with  the  aid 
of  the  army  he  could  overthrow  the  Bourbons, 
whose  government,  he  said,  was  good  for  priests, 
nobles,  and  countesses  of  the  old  time,  but  worth 
nothing  to  the  living  generation.  The  army,  he 
knew,  was  still,  and  would  be  always,  devoted 
to  him.  .  .  .  He  had  weighed  all  the  chances  for 
and  against  the  success  of  his  enterprise,  and  he 
had  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  he  should  suc- 
ceed; for,  'Fortune  had  never  deserted  him  on 
great  occasions. '  It  has  been  said  that  his  de- 
parture was  precipitated  by  a  report  of  the  disso- 
lution of  the  Congress  of  Vienna.  ...  It  is 
possible,  indeed,  that  the  rumour  of  an  intention 
to  confine  him  upon  an  island  in  the  Atlantic 
may  have  exercised  some  influence  over  him ;  but 
the  real  reasons  for  the  selection  of  the  26th  of 
February  were  that  he  was  tired  of  inactivity, 
and  convinced  that  the  favourable  moment  had 
arrived.  Therefore,  instructing  Murat  to  second 
him  by  assuming  a  strong  position  in  front  of 
Ancona,  he  embarked  his  faithful  Thousand,  and 
set  sail  for  France.  On  the  1st  of  March  he 
landed  on  the  shores  of  the  Gulf  of  Juan,  and  on 
the  20th  he  entered  the  Tuileries.  As  he  had 
predicted,  the  army  rallied  to  the  tricolour;  the 
generals  could  neither  restrain  nor  guide  their 
soldiers;  the  Bourbon  dukes  and  princes,  and  the 
brave  Duchess  of  Angouleme — 'the  only  man  of 
the  family ' —  were  utterly  powerless  before  the 
universal  military  disaffection ;  and  one  after  the 
other  they  were  chased  out  of  France.  The  army 
had  restored  Napoleon.  Louis  XVIII.  drove  out 
of  Paris  by  the  road  to  St.  Denis  on  the  19th,  a 
few  hours  before  Napoleon,  on  the  20th,  drove 
in  by  the  Barrier  of  Italy ;  and  on  the  23rd,  after 
a  short  stay  at  Lille,  the  King  was  safe  in  Ghent. 
'The  great  question  is,'  wrote  Lord  Castlereagh 
to  the  Duke  of  Wellington  three  davs  afterwards, 

^^  1393 


while  yet  in  ignorance  of  the  event,  '  can  the  Bour- 
bons get  Frenchmen  to  fight  for  them  against 
Frenchmen?'  The  result  showed  that  they  could 
not.  In  the  then  state  of  France  the  army  was  mas- 
ter of  France.  Louis  and  his  ministers  had  done 
nothing  to  conciliate,  and  almost  everything  to 
irritate,  the  people;  and  even  so  early  as  Novem- 
ber, 1814,Wellington  did  not  see  what  means  the 
King  had  of  resisting  the  attack  of  a  few  hundred 
officers  determined  to  risk  everything.  During 
the  period  occupied  by  Napoleon  in  passing  from 
Elba  to  Paris,  the  conduct  of  the  sovereigns  and 
diplomatists  assembled  at  Vienna  offered  a  strik- 
ing contrast  to  the  weakness  and  inaptitude  of 
the  Bourbons.  .  .  .  That  there  was  fear  in  Vienna 
is  manifest,  but  the  acts  of  the  Allied  Powers 
show  that  fear  speedily  gave  place  to  resolution. 
For,  as  early  as  the  12th  of  March,  before  the 
Allies  knew  where  Napoleon  was,  or  anything 
about  him,  except  that  he  was  somewhere  at 
large  in  France,  they  drew  up  that  famous  de- 
claration, and  signed  it  the  next  day,  in  which 
they  declared  that  he  had  broken  the  sole  legal 
tie  to  which  his  existence  was  attached,  and  that 
it  was  possible  to  keep  with  him  '  neither  peace 
nor  truce. '  '  The  Powers,  in  consequence, '  so  runs 
this  document,  'declare  that  Napoleon  Buona- 
parte is  placed  beyond  the  pale  of  civil  and  social 
relations,  and  that,  as  a  common  enemy  and  dis- 
turber of  the  peace  of  the  world,  he  has  delivered 
himself  over  to  public  justice.'  This  declaration, 
which  has  been  the  subject  of  vehement  criti- 
cism, was  the  natural  consequence  of  the  pre- 
vailing and  correct  appreciation  of  Napoleon's 
character.  There  was  not  a  nation  in  Europe 
which  felt  the  slightest  particle  of  confidence  or 
trust  in  him.  Hence  this  declaration,  made  so 
promptly,  was  drawn  up  in  ignorance  of  any 
professions  he  might  make,  because,  beforehand, 
Europe  felt  that  no  professions  of  his  could  be 
relied  on.  The  news  of  his  success  was  followed 
by  a  treaty,  adopted  on  the  25th  of  Jlarch,  re- 
newing the  alliance  of  Chaumont,  whereby  Great 
Britain,  Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia  bound  them- 
selves to  provide  each  150,000  men;  to  employ, 
in  addition,  all  their  resources,  and  to  work  to- 
gether for  the  common  end  —  the  maintenance  of 
the  Treaty  of  Paris,  and  of  the  stipulations  deter- 
mined on  and  signed  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna. 
Further,  they  engaged  not  to  lay  down  their 
arms  but  by  common  consent;  nor  before  the 
object  of  the  war  should  have  been  attained ;  nor, 
continues  the  document,  '  until  Buonaparte  shall 
have  been  rendered  absolutely  unable  to  create 
disturbance,  and  to  renew  attempts  for  possess- 
ing himself  of  supreme  power  in  France.'  All  the 
Powers  of  Europe  generally,  and  Louis  XVIII. 
specially,  were  invited  to  accede  to  the  treaty; 
but,  at  the  instance  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  the 
Four  Great  Powers  declared  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  that,  although  they  desired  to  see  his 
Most  Christian  Majesty  restored  to  the  throne, 
and  also  to  contribute  to  that  'auspicious result,' 
yet  that  their  '  principles'  would  not  permit  them, 
to  prosecute  the  war  '  with  a  view  of  imposing 
any  particular  Government  on  France.'  With 
Napoleon  they  refused  to  hold  any  communica- 
tion whatever ;  and  when  he  sent  couriers  to  an- 
nounce that  he  intended  to  observe  existing 
treaties,  they  were  stopped  on  the  frontiers.  .  .  . 
Wellington,  on  his  own  responsibility,  acted  for 
England,  signed  treaties,  undertook  heavy  en- 
gagements in  her  name,  and  agreed  to  command 


FRANCE,  1814-1815. 


The  Waterloo 
Campaign. 


FRANCE,  1815. 


an  army  to  be  assembled  in  Belgium;  and  hav- 
ing satisfied,  as  well  as  he  could,  the  clamour 
of  '  all '  for  subsidies  from  England,  he  took  his 
departure  from  Vienna  on  the  89th  of  March,  and 
arrived  in  Brussels  on  the  4th  of  April.  The 
British  Parliament  and  nation  confirmed  readily 
the  proceedings  of  the  Government  and  of  the 
Duke  of  Wellington  at  Vienna.  .  .  .  Napoleon 
had  formed  a  Ministry  on  the  very  evening  of 
his  return  to  the  Tuileries.  ...  He  felt  certain 
that  war  would  ensue.  Knowing  that  at  the 
moment  when  he  returned  from  Elba  a  large 
part  of  the  best  troops  of  England  were  in 
America,  that  the  German  force  on  the  Rhine 
was  weak,  and  that  the  Russian  armies  were  in 
Poland,  he  calculated  that  the  Allied  Powers 
would  not  be  in  a  position  to  open  the  campaign, 
at  the  earliest,  until  the  middle  of  July;  and, 
for  a  moment,  he  hoped  that,  by  working  on  the 
feelings  of  his  father-in-law,  the  Emperor  of 
Austria,  and  by  rousing  the  anger  of  the  Em- 
peror Alexander  against  his  allies,  he  would  be 
able,  if  not  to  reduce  his  enemies  to  two,  Eng- 
land and  Prussia,  at  least  to  defer  the  period  of 
hostilities  until  the  autumn.  .  .  .  Before  his  great 
schemes  of  military  preparation  were  half  com- 
plete he  found  himself  compelled  by  events  to 
begin  the  war.  What  he  actually  did  accomplish 
between  March  and  June  has  been  the  subject 
of  fierce  controversy.  His  friends  exaggerate, 
his  enemies  undervalue,  his  exertions  and  their 
results.  But  no  candid  inquirer  can  fail  to  see, 
that  if  his  energetic  activity  during  this  period  is 
far  below  that  of  the  Convention  when  threatened 
by  Europe,  it  is  far  above  the  standard  fixed  by 
his  passionate  critics.  The  real  reason  why  he 
failed  to  raise  a  larger  military  force  during  the 
hundred  days  was  that  his  genius  worked  upon 
exhausted  materials.  The  nation,  to  use  an  ex- 
pressive vulgarism,  was  '  used  up. '  .  .  .  The 
proper  conscription  for  1815  had  been  levied  in 
the  autumn  of  1813.  The  drafts  on  the  rising 
generation  had  been  anticipated,  and  hence  there 
remained  little  available  except  the  old  soldiers. 
.  .  .  The  result  of  Napoleon's  prodigious  exer- 
tions to  augment  the  military  force  of  France 
appears  to  be  this:  Napoleon  found  ready  to  his 
hand  a  force  of  223,973  men  of  all  arms,  officers 
included,  giving  a  disposable  effective  of  155,000 
men  ready  to  take  the  field.  By  the  13th  of  June 
he  had  raised  this  force  to  276,982  men,  officers 
included:  that  is  247,609  of  the  line,  and  29,373 
of  the  Imperial  Guard.  The  number  disposable 
for  war  was  198,130;  and  it  therefore  follows 
that  Napoleon  had  increased  the  general  effective 
by  53,010  men,  and  that  part  of  it  disposable  for 
•war  by  43,130."— G.  Hooper,  Waterloo,  bk.  1, 
eh.  1. 

Ax80  IK:  Imbert  de  Saint- Amand,  The  Duch- 
ess of  Angouleme  and  the  two  Restorations,  pt.  1. — 
F.  P.  Guizot,  Memoirs  of  My  Time,  v.  1,  ch.  3. — 
J.  C.  Ropes,  The  First  Napoleon,  lect.  6. — E.  E. 
Crowe,  Hist,  of  the  Reigns  of  Louis  XVIII.  and 
Charles  X.,  v.  1,  ch.  4-6.— R.  H.  Home,  Life  of 
Napoleon,  ch.  41-42. — Gen.  Sir  N.  Campbell,  Na- 
poleon at  Foniainebleau  and  Elba. 

A.  D.  1814-1815.- The  Congress  of  Vienna 
and  the  fruits  of  its  labors.     See  Vienna,  Tee 

C0NQEEB8   OF, 

A.  D.  1815  (June).— Napoleon's  last  cam- 
paign.— His  final  defeat  and  overthroTO'  at 
Waterloo. — "The  nearest  troops  of  the  allies 
were  the  Prussian  army  in  the  Rhenish  prov- 


inces, and  the  army  of  British,  Dutch,  Belgians, 
Brunswickers,  and  Hanoverians,  occupying  Bel- 
gium. Napoleon's  scheme,  the  best  in  his  des- 
perate circumstances,  was  to  expel  the  British 
and  Prussians,  who  were  moving  west,  from 
Belgium,  win  the  Rhine  frontier  —  to  arouse  the 
enthusiasm  of  all  France  —  before  the  Austrians 
were  ready,  and  carry  the  war  out  of  France. 
The  Duke  of  Wellington  proceeded  to  Belgium, 
for  the  first  and  last  time  to  measure  his  skill 
with  Napoleon's,  and  Marshal  Blucher  took  over 
from  Kleist  the  command  of  the  Prussians.  The 
two  armies,  the  Prussian  and  the  British,  took' 
up  a  line  extending  from  Liege  to  the  sea.  The 
country  on  this  line  was  open  along  the  west, 
affording  by  nature  little  means  of  resisting  an 
invasion,  but  most  of  the  fortresses  commanding 
the  roads  had  been  put  in  a  state  of  moderate  re- 
pair. The  Prussians  held  the  line  of  the  Meuse 
and  Sambre  to  beyond  Charleroi,  the  head-quar- 
ters being  at  Namur.  They  numbered  about 
117,000  men  .  .  .  with  312  guns.  .  .  .  The  motley 
mass  of  the  British  and  their  allies  numbered 
106,000  men  .  .  .  with  196  guns.  ...  So  en- 
tirely ignorant  were  the  allies  of  Napoleon's 
movements,  that  on  the  very  day  on  which  he 
burst  across  the  frontier,  Wellington  wrote  to  the 
Czar,  who  was  at  Vienna,  respecting  the  general 
invasion  of  Prance.  At  that  time  the  frontier 
of  France  approached  within  six  miles  of  Char- 
leroi (which  is  itself  but  34  miles  by  the  main 
road  from  Brussels).  The  Charleroi  road  was 
not  only  the  most  direct  to  Brussels,  but  was  un- 
protected by  fortresses ;  and  the  line  of  the  allied 
armies  was  weakest  here  at  the  point  of  junction 
between  them.  ...  It  was  against  the  central 
weak  point  that  Napoleon  resolved  to  move,  down 
the  basins  of  the  Sambre  and  the  Meuse.  .  .  . 
The  mass  of  the  troops  was  being  assembled 
within  a  league  of  the  frontier,  but  behind  some 
small  hills  which  completely  screened  them  from 
the  enemy's  outposts.  To  conceal  his  designs  to 
the  last  moment,  the  line  of  sentries  along  the 
frontier  was  tripled,  and  any  attempt  to  pass  the 
line  was  forbidden  under  pain  of  death.  The 
arrangements  were  being  carried  out  by  Soult, 
who  on  the  2nd  June  had  been  appointed  chief 
of  the  staff.  .  .  .  The  army  concentrated  on  the 
frontier  consisted  (according  to  Colonel  Chesney) 
of  90,000  infantry  and  22,000  cavalry  — in  all 
112,000  men  —  with  344  guns.  .  .  .  Napoleon, 
accompanied  by  his  brother  Jerome,  arrived  in 
the  camp,  and  in  the  evening  of  the  14th  his 
soldiers,  already  elated  by  his  presence,  were  ex- 
cited to  the  highest  pitch  of  enthusiasm  by  an 
address  from  Napoleon.  ...  A  general  order 
fixed  the  attack  upon  the  allies'  position  for  three 
o'clock  in  the  following  morning  (15th)."  At 
the  appointed  time  "the  French  left  was  in  mo- 
tion, Reille  proceeding  from  Solre  down  the  right 
bank  of  the  Sambre.  He  was  soon  brought  into 
collision  with  the  Prussian  outposts  near  Thuin : 
he  drove  them  back  and  secured  at  ten  o'clock 
the  bridge  of  Marchiennes. "  The  movements  of 
other  corps  were  delayed  by  various  causes. 
Nevertheless,  "of  the  Prussians  only  Ziethen's 
corps,  and  of  Wellington's  army  only  Perpon- 
cher's  Dutch-Belgians,  were  as  yet  near  the 
menaced  position ;  while  40,000  French  had  passed 
the  Sambre  at  5Iarchiennes  and  70,000  more  were 
entering  Charleroi.  When  Reille  deployed  in 
front  of  Gosselies,  the  Prussians  called  in  their 
detachments  aud  retired  from  it  upon  Fleurus, 


1394 


FRANCE,  1815. 


Tlie  Waterloo 
Campaign. 


PRANCE,  1815. 


.  .  .  leaving  open  the  road  through  Quatre  Bras 
to  Brussels.  Nay,  who  had  just  come  up,  then 
took  command  of  the  left,  .  .  .  which  was  now 
directed  upon  Quatre  Bras;  and  Napoleon  gal- 
loped off  to  the  road  between  Charleroi  and 
Fleurus,  where  the  retiring  Prussians  were  con- 
centrating. ...  At  dark  Ziethen  [with  the  First 
Prussian  corps]  still  held  Fleurus  with  his  ad- 
vanced guard,  and  the  wood  on  its  south,  the 
bulk  of  his  troops  lay  for  the  night  upon  the  hill 
of  Ligny,  above  the  village  of  Bry.  His  loss 
during  the  day's  manoiuvring  has  been  estimated 
at  2,000.  On  the  French  left,  Ney  ...  had 
come  in  contact  with  the  advance  guard  of  Wel- 
lington's army,  a  battalion  of  Nassauers  and  a 
light  battery,  in  front  of  the  village  of  Frasnes, 
two  miles  from  Quatre  Bras,  the  name  applied 
to  the  furm-liuildings  at  the  intersection  of  the 
four  main  roads,  —  Brussels,  Nivelles,  Charleroi, 
Namur.  .  .  .  After  a  few  cannon-shots  the  out- 
post fell  back  from  Frasnes  to  Quatre  Bras." 
Nej',  after  a  reconnoissance,  postponed  attack 
until  morning.  "It  had  been  intended  by  Napo- 
leon that  the  whole  army  should  have  crossed  the 
Sarabre  before  noon ;  but  from  the  several  delays 
,  .  .  wlien  night  fell  on  the  15th,  half  of  the 
cavalry  of  the  guard,  two  of  Grouchy's  reserve 
divisions,  Lobau's  corps,  and  one  half  of  Gerard's 
corps  were  still  on  the  south  of  the  river.  Ap- 
parently relying  on  secret  information  from  Paris 
—  which  contradicted  the  rumours  that  Napoleon 
was  about  to  join  the  army  —  Wellington  had 
been  lulled  into  a  false  security,  and  the  reports 
as  to  the  concentration  had  been  neglected.  News 
of  the  enemy's  advance  across  the  Sambre  did  not 
reach  him  till  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of 
the  15th,  when  the  Prince  of  Orange  in  person 
reported  the  skimiish  at  Thuin.  As  he  did  not 
yet  know  the  point  of  concentration,  the  British 
general,  '  never  precipitate  or  nervous  '  (Hooper), 
merely  issued  orders  for  all  the  troops  to  be  in 
readiness.  ...  At  night  intelligence  was  re- 
ceived from  Mons  that  the  French  concentration 
was  at  Charleroi,  and  orders  were  issued  for  the 
immediate  movement  of  the  troops.  .  .  .  Wel- 
lington and  the  Prince  of  Orange,  with  several 
of  the  staff  officers,  went  —  it  is  said,  to  prevent 
a  panic  in  Brussels  —  to  the  Duchess  of  Rich- 
mond's ball,  where  '  Belgium's  capital  had  gath- 
ered then  her  beauty  and  her  chivalry,'  and, 
'while  all  went  merry  as  a  marriage  bell,' the 
staff  officers  stole  away  one  by  one.  The  Duke 
himself,  'throwing  away  golden  minutes ' (Ham- 
ley),  as  if  to  show  his  contidence  in  his  fortunes, 
remained  to  a  late  hour  to  return  thanks  after  sup- 
per for  the  health  of  the  Prince  Regent  of  Great 
Britain,  which  the  Prince  of  Orange  proposed. 
.  BU'icher  had  received,  at  his  head-quarters 
at  Namur,  news  on  the  morning  of  the  14th  of 
the  French  concentration,  and  he  had  ordered 
forward  the  corps  of  Pirch  and  Thielemann.  .  .  . 
Napoleon  did  not  foresee  Blilcher's  promptitude, 
and  nothing  was  done  in  the  early  morning  of 
the  16th  to  proceed  with  the  execution  of  the  in- 
tended surprise.  .  .  .  No  orders  were  issued  by 
the  Emperor  till  eight,  when  Napoleon's  resolu- 
tion was  taken,  —  to  strike  at  the  Prussians,  who 
would,  he  believed,  if  defeated,  retire  upon  their 
natural  base  of  communications,  through  Namur 
and  Liege,  and  he  would  thus  be  left  to  deal 
separately  with  the  British,  who  could  not  move 
from  their  base,  the  sea.  The  French  army  was 
to  advance  in  two  wings,  the  left  under  Ney,  the 


right  under  Grouchy,  with  the  reserve  under  the 
Emperor  liimself.  Ney  was  to  capture  Quatre 
Bras,  reconnoitre  the  Brussels  road,  and  hold 
himself  in  readiness  to  march  to  Brussels,  which 
Napoleon  hoped  to  be  able  to  enter  the  following 
morning.  .  .  .  Napoleon  had  64,000  men  to  at- 
tack the  position  at  Ligny ;  Ney  on  the  left  wing 
had  45,000  for  Quatre  Bras;  Lobau  had  10,000  to 
support  either  wing  of  the  Grand  Army;  5,000 
troops  were  in  the  rear;  and  the  victorious  wing, 
whether  Ney's  or  Grouchy's,  was  to  wheel  round 
and  manoeuvre  in  the  direction  of  the  other, 
Thielemann  having  come  up  before  the  French 
delivered  their  attack,  Bliicher  had  85,000  men 
on  the  field.  Wellington  arrived  at  Quatre  Bras 
(which  is  20  miles  from  Brussels)  at  11  o'clock  in 
the  forenoon.  As  Marshal  Ney  gave  no  sign  of 
an  imminent  attack,  Wellington  galloped  over, 
about  seven  miles,  to  confer  with  Bliicher.  .  .  . 
Wellington,  after  some  discussion,  in  which  he 
expressed  his  disapproval  of  Blucher's  position, 
agreed  to  move  to  the  rear  of  the  Prussians,  to 
act  as  a  reserve,  if  his  own  position  at  Quatre 
Bras  were  not  attacked.  ...  He  reached  Quatre 
Bras  when  his  own  position  was  being  assailed, 
and  no  help  could  be  sent  to  Bliicher,  ...  At 
about  three  o'clock,  when  the  heavy  cannonade 
a  few  miles  to  the  west  intimated  that  a  desperate 
battle  was  in  progress  at  Quatre  Bras,  the  signal 
for  attack  [on  the  Prussians,  at  Ligny]  was  given. 
The  French  left  sped  forward  with  impetuosity ; 
the  resistance  was  vigorous  but  futile,  and  the 
enemy  streamed  through  the  village.  Bliicher 
immediately  moved  forward  fresh  troops  and  re- 
took the  village,  but  was  unable  to  retain  it.  .  .  . 
Thrice  the  Grenadiers  forced  their  way  into  and 
through  the  village,  but  only  to  be  driven  back 
again."  But  "  Bliicher  gradually  exhausted  his 
reserves,  and  when,  in  the  dusk.  Napoleon  saw 
the  last  battalion  moved  forward  and  the  ground 
behind  Ligny  vacant,  he  exclaimed,  '  they  are 
lost  I '  The  Guards  and  the  Cuirassiers  were 
immediately  ordered  to  attack,"  and  the  wearied 
Prussian  infantry  were  broken  by  their  onset. 
"The  fugitives  fled  precipitately  over  the  fields 
and  along  the  roads  to  the  east,  and  the  order  for 
the  whole  to  retire  was  immediately  given.  .  .  . 
Bliicher  himself  gathered  a  few  of  his  squadrons 
to  check  the  hot  pursuit  near  Sombreffe,  and 
thrice  led  them  to  the  charge.  His  squadrons 
were  broken,  and  after  the  last  charge  his  horse 
fell  dead,  and  the  veteran  marshal  lay  under  it. 
His  aid-de-camp,  Nostitz,  stood  by  him,  and 
covered  him  with  a  cloak;  the  Cuirassiers  gal- 
loped past  without  noticing  him.  .  .  .  Gneisenau, 
wlio  took  temporary  command  from  the  accident 
to  Bliicher,  ordered  a  retreat  upon  Wavre,  with 
the  view  of  joining  Billow's  corps  and  keeping 
open  the  comniunications  with  Wellington.  .  .  . 
The  loss  on  each  side  has  been  very  variously 
estimated.  Napoleon  put  his  own  loss  at  7,000 
men,  Charras  puts  it  at  11,000,  and  the  loss  of 
the  Prussians  at  18,000.  The  retreat  upon  Wavre 
abandoned  the  communications  with  Namur  and 
Liege,  through  which  the  Prussian  supplies  came 
from  the  lower  Rhine,  for  a  new  line  by  Lou  vain, 
but  it  kept  the  Prussians  on  a  line  parallel  to  the 
road  on  which  Wellington  must  reUeat,  and  thus 
still  enabled  the  two  armies  to  aid  each  other. 
'  This  nol)le  daring  at  once  snatched  from  Napo- 
leon the  hoped-for  fruits  of  his  \-ictory,  and  the 
danger  Ligny  had  for  a  few  hours  averted  was 
left  impending  over  him'  (Chesney)." — H.    R. 


1395 


FRANCE,  1815. 


The  Waterloo 
Campaign, 


FRANCE,  1815. 


Clinton,  The  War  in  the  Peninsula  and  Welling- 
ton's Campaigns  in  France  and  Belgium,  ch.  12. 
—  On  "Wellington's  return  to  Quatre  Bras  from 
his  interview  with  Blilcher,  he  found,  as  stated 
above,  that  the  Prince  of  Orange  had  already 
■become  desperately  engaged  with  the  superior 
forces  of  Ney.  ' '  The  Duke's  presence  gave  new 
life  to  the  battle,  and  when  Picton's  division, 
followed  by  the  Brunswickers  and  Van  Merle's 
Belgian  horse,  arrived,  he  took  the  offensive, 
pushing  forward  right  up  to  the  edge  of  the 
farm  of  Gemioncourt.  Ney,  reinforced  by  the 
rest  of  Reille's  corps  and  part  of  Kellermau's 
cavalry,  violently  retorted,  and  in  the  charge, 
which  partially  broke  into  spray  before  the 
squares,  Wellington  ran  the  risk  of  death  or 
capture.  But  he  leaped  his  horse  over  the 
92d  Highlanders  lining  the  ditch  on  the  Namur 
road,  while  his  gallant  pursuers,  cut  up  by 
the  infantry  fire,  were  killed  or  driven  off.  Ney 
■was  further  reinforced  by  more  guns  and  cav- 
alry, and  Wellington's  brigades  continued  to 
arrive  in  parcels.  The  Marshal  was  always 
superior  in  horsemen  and  cannon,  but  after  5 
o'clock  his  opponent  had  larger  numbers  of  foot. 
Holding  firmly  to  the  cross-roads  and  the  high- 
way to  Namur,  Wellington  became  the  stronger 
as  the  day  waned ;  and  when  the  Guards  emerged 
from  the  Nivelles  road  and  the  Allies  pressed 
forward,  Ney,  who  had  no  fresh  troops,  was 
driven  back,  and  his  antagonist  remained  at  sun- 
down master  of  the  whole  field  of  battle.  The 
position  was  maintained,  but  the  cost  was  great, 
for  there  were  no  fewer  than  4,600  killed  and 
wounded,  more  than  half  being  British  soldiers. 
The  thunder  of  cannon  to  the  eastward  had  also 
died  away,  but  none  knew  as  yet  at  Quatre  Bras 
how  Blucher  had  fared  at  the  hands  of  his  re- 
doubtable foe.  Wellington,  who  slept  at  his 
head-quarters  in  Genappe,  was  on  the  field  and 
scrutinising  his  outposts  at  daybreak  on  the  17th. 
Soon  after  came  a  report,  confirmed  a  little  later, 
that  the  Prussians  had  retreated  on  Wavre.  .  .  . 
Napoleon  had  a  belief  that  Blucher  would  retreat 
upon  LiSge,  which  caused  him  at  a  late  hour  in 
the  day  to  despatch  Grouchy  to  that  side,  and 
thus  touch  was  lost.  Wtiile  the  French  were 
cooking  and  Napoleon  was  pondering,  definite 
intelligence  was  brought  to  Wellington,  who, 
learning  for  certain  that  Blucher  was  at  Wavre, 
promised  to  stand  fast  himself  at  Mont  St.  Jean 
and  fight,  if  Blucher  would  support  him  with 
two  corps.  The  intrepid  Marshal  replied  that  he 
■would  come  with  his  whole  army,  and  Welling- 
ton got  the  famous  answer  before  night.  Thus 
■was  made,  between  generals  who  thoroughly 
trusted  each  other,  that  combination  which  led 
to  the  Battle  of  Waterloo.  It  was  no  chance 
combat,  but  the  result  of  a  deliberate  design, 
rendered  capable  of  execution,  even  when  Blucher 
was  ■wounded,  by  his  resolve  to  retreat  upon 
Wavre,  and  by  Napoleon,  who  acted  on  con- 
jecture that  the  Prussians  would  hurry  towards 
their  base  at  Liege.  The  morning  at  Quatre 
Bras  was  peaceful ;  the  Allies  cooked  their  food 
before  starting  rearward.  Wellington,  it  is  said, 
lay  down  for  a  moment,  and  snatched  perhaps  a 
little  sleep.  There  was  no  stir  in  front  or  on  the 
exposed  left  flank ;  and,  covered  by  a  strong  dis- 
play of  horsemen,  the  Allied  divisions  tramped 
steadily  towards  Mont  St.  Jean.  .  .  .  The  retreat 
continued  all  day.  A  thunderstorm,  so  often  a 
precursor  of  Wellington's  battles,   deluged  the 


fields  with  rain,  and  pursuer  and  pursued  strug- 
gling through  the  mire,  were  drenched  to  the  skin 
by  nightfall.  .  .  .  The  results  of  t-wo  days'  war- 
fare may  be  thus  summed  up.  Napoleon  had 
inflicted  a  defeat,  yet  not  a  decisive  defeat,  upon 
the  Prussians,  who  escaped  from  his  ken  to 
Wavre.  He  had  then,  at  a  late  hour  on  the  17th, 
detached  Grouchy  with  33,000  men  to  follow 
them,  and  Grouchy  at  night  from  Gembloux  re- 
ported that  they  had  retired  in  three  directions. 
Moving  himself  in  the  afternoon,  Napoleon, 
uniting  with  Ney,  had  pursued  Wellington  to 
Mont  St.  Jean,  and  slept  in  the  comfortable  be- 
lief that  he  had  separated  the  Allies.  At  that 
very  time  Wellington,  ■who  had  assembled  his 
whole  force  except  17,000  men,  .  .  .  was  in  close 
communication  ■with  Blucher,  and  intended  on 
the  18th  to  stop  Napoleon  by  delivering  battle, 
and  to  hold  him  fast  until  Blucher  could  cut  in 
on  his  right  flank  and  rear.  Thus  it  was  the 
Allies  who  were  united  practically,  and  the 
French  army  which  was  separated  into  two  groups 
unable  to  support  each  other.  .  .  .  The  tempest 
which  burst  over  the  retreating  columns  on  the 
17th  followed  them  to  their  bivouacs  and  raged 
all  night,  and  did  not  cease  until  late  on  the  fate- 
ful Sunday.  Wellington,  mounting  his  faithful 
Copenhagen  at  break  of  day,  rode  from  the  vil- 
lage of  Waterloo  to  the  field,  ■where  the  armies 
on  both  sides,  protected  by  watchful  sentries, 
were  still  contending  with  the  mischiefs  inflicted 
by  the  storm.  The  position  was  the  crest  of  a 
gentle  slope  stretching  from  Sraohain  to  the 
Nivelles  road,  having  upon  and  in  advance  of  its 
right  the  chateau,  garden,  and  wood  of  Hougou- 
mont,  and  in  the  centre,  where  the  Charleroi  road 
cut  through  the  little  ridge,  the  farm  of  La  Haye 
Sainte.  Both  these  posts  were  occupied,  but  the 
latter,  unfortunately,  not  so  solidly  as  Hougou- 
mont.  .  .  .  The  position  was  well  filled  by  the 
69,000  men  of  all  arms  and  156  guns  which 
were  present  that  day.  Napoleon,  who  slept  at 
the  farm  of  Caillou,  and  who  had  been  out  on 
foot  to  the  front  during  the  night,  was  also  early 
in  the  field,  and  glad  of  the  gift  wliich  he  thought 
fortune  had  placed  in  his  hands.  When  Reille 
had  joined  him  from  Genappe,  he  had  72,000 
men,  all  admirable  soldiers,  and  240  guns,  with 
which  to  engage  in  combat,  and  he  reckoned  that 
the  chances  were  ninety  to  ten  in  liis  favour.  He 
mounted  his  charger,  reconnoitred  his  oppo- 
nent's position,  and  then  gave  the  orders  which, 
promptly  and  finely  obeyed,  disclosed  the  French 
array.  ...  It  ■n'as  now  nearly  eleven  o'clock, 
and,  although  his  opponent  knew  it  not,  Welling- 
ton had  got  news  of  the  march  from  Wavre  of 
Bulow,  whose  leading  troops  were  actually,  at 
that  time,  close  to  the  wood  of  St.  Lambert  on 
the  French  right ;  while  Grouchy  TN'as  at  Sart  les 
Walhain,  between  Gembloux  and  Wavre.  It  is 
not  practicable  here  to  give  a  full  account  of  the 
battle  of  Waterloo;  we  can  only  describe  its 
broad  outlines.  The  first  gun  was  fired  about 
twenty  or  thirty  minutes  past  eleven,  and  pre- 
luded a  dashing  and  sustained  attack  on  Hou- 
goumont,  which  failed  to  carry  the  house,  gar- 
den, or  orchard,  but  did  gain  the  wood.  It  was 
probably  intended  to  divert  attention  from  the 
attack  on  the  left  and  centre,  which  Ney,  mass- 
ing his  guns  opposite  the  British  left,  was  pre- 
paring to  execute.  Wellington  watched  and  in 
some  measure  controlled  the  fight  for  Hougou- 
mont,  and  then  rode  off  to  the  centre,  taking  post 


1396 


FRANCE,  1815. 


The   Waterloo 
Campaign. 


FRANCE,  1815. 


at  a  solitary  tree  which  grew  near  the  Charleroi 
road  above  La  Haye  Sainte.  Ney  at  half  past 
one  sent  forward  the  whole  of  D'Erlon's  corps, 
aad  although  some  of  them  pushed  close  up  to 
and  over  the  Wavre  road,  stormed  the  orchard  of 
La  Haye  Sainte  and  took  the  Pappelotte  farm, 
yet  at  the  critical  moment  Sir  William  Pon- 
sonby's  Union  Brigade  of  horse  charged  into  the 
French  infantry,  already  shattered  by  the  fire  of 
Picton's  troops,  and  the  net  result  of  the  com- 
bined operation  was  that  two  eagles  and  3,000 
prisoners  were  captured,  while  nearly  that  num- 
ber of  killed  and  wounded  remained  on  the 
ground.  On  the  other  side  of  La  Ha^'e  Sainte 
tlie  Household  Brigade,  led  by  Lord  Anglesea  in 
person,  charged  in  upon  and  routed  a  large  body 
of  French  cuirassiers.  The  grand  attack  thus 
completely  failed,  and  the  centre,  like  the  right, 
remained  intact.  It  was  just  before  this  combat 
began  that  Napoleon  saw  something  like  troops 
towards  St.  Lambert  and  despatched  two  bri- 
gades of  light  cavalry  to  reconnoitre.  A  Prus- 
sian staff  officer  was  caught  beyond  Planchenoit, 
and  from  him  came  the  unexpected  and  unwel- 
come information  that  the  whole  Prussian  army 
was  approaching.  .  .  .  The  signs  of  danger  on 
his  right  flank,  the  punishment  of  D'Erlon's 
corps,  the  ineffectual  attempt  upon  the  British 
Guards  in  and  about  Hougoumont,  were  followed 
by  a  kind  of  pause  and  the  combat  reverted  to 
cannonading  and  skirmishing.  But  towards  four 
o'clock  Napoleon,  increasing  the  fire  of  his  artil- 
lery, threw  forward  a  mass  of  cavalry,  forty 
squadrons,  and  then  began  that  series  of  reiter- 
ated onsets  of  horse  which  lasted  for  two  hours. 
.  .  .  Twice  they  were  driven  down  the  slope, 
and  the  third  time,  when  they  came  on,  they 
were  strengthened  by  Kellerman  and  Guyot  un- 
til they  reached  a  force  of  77  squadrons,  or  13,000 
men;  but  these  also  were  repulsed,  the  British 
horse,  what  remained  of  them,  charging  when 
the  French  were  entangled  among  the  squares 
and  disordered  by  the  musketry  and  guns.  Four 
times  these  fine  troopers  charged,  yet  utterly 
failed  to  penetrate  or  move  a  single  foot  bat- 
talion. But  some  time  before  the  final  effort, 
Ney  by  a  fierce  attack  got  possession  of  La  Haye 
Sainte,  and  thus,  just  as  the  cavalry  were  ex- 
hausted, the  French  infantry  were  established 
within  sixty  yards  of  the  Allied  centre.  And 
although  the  Emperor  was  obliged  to  detach 
one-half  of  his  Guard  to  the  right,  because 
Blucher  had  brought  into  play  beyond  Planche- 
noit against  Lobau  nearly  30,000  men,  still  the 
capture  of  La  Haye  Sainte  was  justly  regarded 
as  a  grave  event.  "Wellington  during  the  cav- 
alry fight  had  moved  three  brigades  on  his  right 
nearer  to  Hougoumont,  and  had  called  up 
Chasse  and  his  Belgians  to  support  them ;  and  it 
was  a  little  before  this  time  that  he  cried  out  to 
Brigadier-General  Adam,  'By  G — ,  Adam,  I 
think  we  shall  beat  them  yet!'.  .  .  The  crisis  of 
the  battle  had  come  for  Napoleon.  Unable  after 
eight  hours'  conflict  to  do  more  than  capture  La 
Haye  Sainte ;  hardly  pressed  by  the  Prussians, 
now  strong  and  aggressive ;  owing  such  success 
as  he  had  obtained  to  the  valour  and  discipline 
of  his  soldiers  —  the  Emperor  delivered  his  last 
stroke,  not  for  victory  —  he  could  no  longer  hope 
to  win  —  but  for  safety.  He  sent  forward  the 
last  ten  battalions  of  his  Guard  to  assail  the  Brit- 
ish right,  and  directed  the  whole  remaining  in- 
fantry force  available  to  attack  all  along  the  line. 


The  Guard  marched  onward  in  two  columns, 
which  came  successively  in  contact  with  their 
opponents.  Napier's gunsand  theBritisb  Guards, 
who  rising  from  the  ground  showed  across  the 
head  of  the  first  column,  fired  heavily  and  charg- 
ing drove  them  in  confusion  back  towards  La 
Belle  Alliance ;  and  the  second  column,  struck  in 
flank  by  the  musketry  of  the  53nd  and  95th  was 
next  broken  by  a  bayonet  charge  and  pursued  by 
Colonel  Colborne  to  and  beyond  the  Charleroi 
road.  As  Ziethen's  Prussians  were  falling  upon 
the  French  near  Pappelotte,  and  Pirch  and 
Bulow  wrestling  with  the  Imperial  Guard  in 
Planchenoit,  Wellington  ordered  the  whole  of  the 
British  line  to  advance.  The  cheers  arising  on 
the  right  where  he  was,  extended  along  the  front 
and  gave  new  strength  to  the  wearied  soldiers. 
He  led  the  way.  As  he  neared  the  Charleroi 
road,  the  riflemen,  full  of  Peninsular  memories, 
began  to  cheer  him  as  he  galloped  up,  but  he 
called  out,  '  No  cheering,  my  lads ;  forward  and 
complete  your  victory.'  He  found  that  good 
soldier,  Colborne,  halted  for  a  moment  before 
three  squares  of  the  rallied  Imperial  Guard.  '  Go 
on,  Colborne, '  he  said ;  '  better  attack  them,  they 
won't  stand.'  Nor  did  they.  Wellington  then 
turned  to  the  right,  where  Vivian's  Light  Cav- 
alry were  active  in  the  gloom,  and  we  next  find 
him  once  more  with  the  53nd  near  Rossomme,  the 
farthest  point  of  the  advance,  where  that  regi- 
ment halted  after  its  grand  march  over  the  bat- 
tlefield. Somewhere  on  the  highway  he  met 
Blucher,  who  had  so  nobly  kept  his  word,  and  it 
was  then  that  Gneisenau  undertook  to  chase  the 
fugitives  over  the  frontier.  The  French,  or  per- 
haps we  should  say  the  Napoleonic  army,  was 
destroyed,  and  the  power  which  its  mighty 
leader  had  built  up  on  the  basis  of  its  astonishing 
successes  was  gone  forever." — G.  Hooper,  Wel- 
lington, ch.  9. 

Also  in  :  D.  Gardner,  Quatre  Bras,  Ligny,  and 
Waterloo. — L't.  Col.  C.  C.  Chesney,  Waterloo 
Lett's. — W.  Sibome,  Hist,  of  the  War  in  France 
and  Belgium  in  1815. — Gen.  Sir  J.  S.  Kennedy, 
Notes  on  the  Battle  of  Waterloo. — W.  H.  Maxwell, 
Life  of  Wellington,  v.  3,  ch.  28-33.— G.  R.  Gleig, 
Story  of  the  Battle  of  Waterloo.—^.  O'C.  Morris, 
Great  Commanders  of  Modern  Times,  and  the 
Campaign  of  1815. 

A.  D.  1815  (June — August). — Napoleon's  re- 
turn to  Paris. — His  final  abdication. — His  sur- 
render of  himself  to  the  English. — His  cap- 
tivity at  St.  Helena. — "The  vanquished  army 
had  lost  200  pieces  of  ordnance,  and  30,000  men 
hors  de  combat  or  prisoners;  as  many  more  re- 
mained, independently  of  Grouchy 's  35,000  men; 
but  the  difficulty  was  to  rally  them  in  presence 
of  an  enemy,  that  had  taken  lessons  in  audac- 
ity and  activity  from  Napoleon  himself.  The 
loss  of  the  allies  was  not  less  considerable,  but 
there  remained  to  them  150,000  men,  the  confi- 
dence of  victory,  and  the  certainty  of  being 
seconded  by  300,000  allies,  who  were  crossing 
the  Rhine  from  Mentz  to  Bale.  Such  was  the 
issue  of  this  struggle,  commenced  imder  such 
happy  auspices,  and  which  resulted  more  fatal 
to  France  than  the  battles  of  Poitiers  and  Azin- 
court.  It  must  be  admitted,  that  this  disaster 
was  the  work  of  a  multitude  of  unheard-of  cir- 
cumstances :  if  Napoleon  can  be  reproached  for 
certain  faults,  it  must  be  allowed  that  fortune 
dealt  cruelly  with  him  in  the  lesser  details,  and 
that  his  enemies,  in  return,  were  as  fortunate  as 


1397 


FRANCE,  1815. 


The  Second 
Abdication  of  Napoleon. 


FRANCK,  1815. 


they  showed  themselves  skillful.  However  un- 
just be  the  spirit  of  party,  we  are  forced  to 
render  homage'  to  the  merits  of  two  generals, 
who,  unexpectedly  attacked  in  their  cantonments 
extending  from  Dinant  and  LiSge  to  Renaix, 
near  Tournay,  had  taken  such  wise  measures  as 
to  be  in  condition  next  morning  for  giving  battle 
to  equal  forces,  and  for  afterwards  conquering 
by  an  able  concentration  of  the  two  armies.  .  .  . 
In  the  very  battle  of  Waterloo,  the  French  might 
be  censured  for  having  attempted  the  first  attack 
in  masses  too  deep.  This  system  was  never  suc- 
cessful against  the  murderous  fire  of  English 
infantry  and  artUlery.  .  .  .  There  were  likewise 
extraordinary  charges  of  cavalry,  which,  being 
devoid  of  support,  became  heroic  but  useless 
struggles.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  it  is  almost 
certain  that  Napoleon  would  have  remained 
master  of  the  field  of  battle,  but  for  the  arrival 
of  65,000  Prussians  on  his  rear;  a  decisive  and 
disastrous  circumstance,  that  to  prevent  was  not 
entirely  in  his  power.  As  soon  as  tlie  enemy  led 
130,000  men  on  the  battle-field,  with  scarcely 
50,000  to  oppose  them,  all  was  lost.  .  .  .  Napo- 
leon had  but  one  course  left  him,  which  was  to 
direct  Grouchy  through  the  Ardennes  on  Laon, 
to  collect  at  this  point  all  that  could  be  drawn 
from  the  interior,  from  Metz  and  from  Rapp's 
corps,  leaving  but  garrisons  in  Lorraine  and  Al- 
sace. The  imperial  cause  was  very  much  shaken, 
but  not  entirely  lost;  should  all  "Frenchmen  de- 
termine on  opposing  Evirope  with  the  courage 
of  the  Spartans  of  Leonidas,  the  energy  of  the 
Russians  in  1813,  or  of  the  Spaniards  of  Palafox. 
Unfortunately  for  them,  as  for  Napoleon,  opinion 
was  very  much  divided  on  this  subject,  and  the 
majority  still  believing  that  the  struggle  inter- 
ested only  the  power  of  the  emperor  and  his 
family,  the  fate  of  the  country  seemed  of  little 
consequence.  Prince  Jerome  had  collected  25, 000 
men  in  rear  of  Avesnes :  he  was  ordered  to  lead 
them  to  Laon ;  there  remained  200  pieces  of  ar- 
tillery, beside  those  of  Grouchy.  .  .  .  Reaching 
Laon  on  the  19th,  where  he  had  at  first  resolved 
to  await  the  junction  of  Grouchy  and  Jerome, 
the  emperor  discussed,  with  the  small  number 
of  the  trustworthy  who  had  followed  him,  the 
course  he  should  adopt  after  this  frightful  dis- 
aster. Should  he  repair  to  Paris,  and  concert 
with  the  chambers  and  his  ministers,  or  else  re- 
main with  the  army,  demanding  of  the  chambers 
to  invest  him  with  dictatorial  power  and  an  un- 
limited confidence,  under  the  conviction  that  he 
would  obtain  from  them  the  most  energetic 
measures,  for  saving  France  and  conquering  her 
independence,  on  heaps  of  ruins  ?  As  it  always 
happens,  his  generals  were  divided  in  opinion; 
some  wished  him  to  proceed  to  Paris,  and  deposit 
the  crown  into  the  hands  of  the  nation's  dele- 
gates, or  receive  it  from  them  a  second  time, 
with  the  means  of  defending  it.  Others,  with  a 
better  appreciation  of  the  views  of  the  deputies, 
affirmed,  that  far  from  sympathizing  with  Na- 
poleon, and  seconding  him,  they  woiild  accuse 
him  of  having  lost  France,  and  would  endeavor 
to  save  the  country  by  losing  the  emperor.  .  .  . 
Lastly,  the  most  prudent  thought  that  Napoleon 
should  not  go  to  Paris,  but  remain  at  the  head  of 
the  army,  in  order  to  treat  with  the  sovereigns 
himself,  by  offering  to  abdicate  in  favor  of  his 
son.  It  is  said,  that  Napoleon  inclined  to  the  idea 
of  remaining  at  Laon  with  the  army ;  but  the 
advice  of  the  greatest  number  determined  him. 


and  he  departed  for  Paris. " — Baron  de  Jomini, 
Hist,  of  the  Campaign  of  Waterloo,  pp.  184-189. 
— "  It  was  a  moment  of  unrelieved  despair  for 
the  public  men  who  gathered  round  him  on  his 
return  to  Paris,  and  among  these  were  several 
whose  fame  was  of  earlier  date  than  his  own. 
La  Fayette,  the  man  of  1789;  Carnot,  organizer 
of  victory  to  the  Convention ;  Lucien,  who  had 
decided  the  revolution  of  Brumaire, —  all  these 
met  in  that  comfortless  deliberation.  Carnot 
was  for  a  dictatorship  of  public  safety,  that  is, 
for  renewing  his  great  days  of  1793 ;  Lucien  too 
liked  the  Roman  sound  of  the  word  dictator. 
'  Dare ! '  he  said  to  his  brother,  but  the  spring  of 
that  terrible  will  was  broken  at  last.  '  I  have 
dared  too  much  already,'  said  Napoleon.  Jlean- 
while,  in  the  Chamber  of  Representatives  the 
word  was  not  dictatorship  but  liberty.  Here 
La  Fayette  caused  the  assembly  to  vote  itself 
permanent,  and  to  declare  guilty  of  high  treason 
whoever  should  attempt  to  dissolve  it.  He 
hinted  that,  if  the  word  abdication  were  not  soon 
pronounced  on  the  other  side,  he  would  himself 
pronounce  the  word  '  decheance. '  The  second 
abdication  took  place  on  June  22d.  '  I  ofEer  my- 
self a  sacrifice  to  the  hatred  of  the  enemies  of 
France.  My  public  life  is  finished,  and  I  pro- 
claim my  son,  under  the  title  of  Napoleon  II., 
Emperor  of  the  French.'  On  the  25th  he  retired 
to  Malmaison,  where  Josephine  had  died  the  year 
before.  He  had  by  no  means  yet  ceased  to  hope. 
AVhen  his  son  was  passed  over  by  the  Chamber 
of  Representatives,  who  named  an  executive 
commission  of  five,  he  protested  that  he  had  not 
intended  to  make  way  for  a  new  Directory.  .  .  . 
On  the  27th  he  went  so  far  as  to  offer  his  services 
once  more  as  general,  '  regarding  myself  still  as 
the  first  soldier  of  the  nation. '  He  was  met  by 
a  refusal,  and  left  Malmaison  on  the  29th  for 
Rochefort,  well  furnished  with  books  on  the 
United  States.  France  was  by  this  time  entering 
upon  another  Reign  of  Terror.  Massacre  had 
begun  at  Marseilles  as  early  as  the  25th.  What 
should  Napoleon  do  ?  He  had  been  formerly  the 
enemy  of  every  other  nation,  and  now  he  was 
the  worst  enemy,  if  not  of  France,  yet  of  the 
triumphant  faction  in  France.  He  lingered  some 
days  at  Rochefort,  where  he  had  arrived  on  July 
3d,  and  then,  finding  it  impossible  to  escape  the 
vigilance  of  the  English  cruisers,  went  on  the 
1.5th  on  board  the  '  Bellerophon  '  and  surrendered 
himself  to  Captain  Maitland.  It  was  explained 
to  him  that  no  conditions  could  be  accepted,  but 
that  he  would  be  '  conveyed  to  England  to  be 
received  in  such  manner  as  the  Prince  Regent 
should  deem  expedient.'  He  had  written  at  the 
lie  d'Aix  the  following  characteristic  letter  to 
the  Prince  Regent: — '  Royal  Highness,  —  A  prey 
to  the  factions  which  divide  my  country  and  to 
the  ermiity  of  the  powers  of  Europe,  I  have  ter- 
minated my  public  career,  and  I  come,  like 
Themistocles,  to  seat  myself  at  the  hearth  of  the 
British  people.  I  place  myself  under  the  pro- 
tection of  its  laws,  which  I  claim  from  your 
Royal  Highness  as  the  most  powerful,  the  most 
constant,  and  the  most  generous  of  my  enemies.' 
It  was  perhaps  the  only  course  open  to  him.  In 
France  his  life  could  scarcely  have  been  spared, 
and  Blilcher  talked  of  executing  him  on  the  spot 
where  the  Due  d'Enghien  had  fallen.  He  there- 
fore could  do  nothing  but  what  he  did.  His 
reference  to  Themistocles  shows  that  he  was  con- 
scious of  being  the  worst  enemy  that  England 


]o98 


FRANCE,  1815. 


The  Exile 
to  St.  Helena. 


FRANCE,  1815. 


had  ever  had.  Perhaps  he  remembered  that  at 
the  rupture  of  the  treaty  of  Amiens  he  had 
studied  to  envenom  the  contest  by  detaining  tlie 
EngUsh  residents  in  France.  Still  he  might  re- 
flect, on  the  other  hand,  that  England  was  the 
only  great  country  which  had  not  been  trampled 
down  and  covered  with  massacre  by  his  soldiers. 
It  would  have  been  inexcusable  if  the  English 
Government  had  given  way  to  vindictive  feel- 
ings, especially  as  they  could  well  afford  to  be 
magnanimous,  having  just  won  the  greatest  of 
all  victories.  But  it  was  necessary  to  deprive 
him  of  the  power  of  exciting  new  wars,  and  the 
experiment  of  Elba  had  shown  that  this  involved 
depriving  him  of  his  liberty.  The  frenzy  which 
had  cost  the  lives  of  millions  must  be  checked. 
This  was  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  declara- 
tion of  March  loth,  by  which  he  had  been  ex- 
communicated as  a  public  enemy.  It  was  there- 
fore necessary  to  impose  some  restraint  upon 
him.  He  must  be  separated  from  his  party  and 
from  aU  the  revolutionary  party  in  Europe.  So 
long  as  he  remained  in  Europe  this  would  involve 
positive  imprisonment.  The  only  arrangement 
therefore  which  would  allow  him  tolerable  per- 
sonal comfort  and  enjoyment  of  life,  was  to  send 
him  out  of  Europe.  From  these  considerations 
grew  the  decision  of  the  Government  to  send 
him  to  St.  Helena.  An  Act  of  Parliament  was 
passed  '  for  the  better  detaining  in  custody  Na- 
poleon Bonaparte,'  and  another  Act  for  subject- 
ing St.  Helena  to  a  special  system  of  government. 
He  was  kept  on  board  the  '  Bellerophon '  till 
August  4tli,  when  he  was  transferred  to  the 
'  Northumberland. '  On  October  15th  he  arrived 
at  St.  Helena,  accompanied  by  Counts  Montholon, 
Las  Cases,  and  Bertrand,  with  their  families. 
General  Gourgaud,  and  a  number  of  servants. 
In  April,  1816,  arrived  Sir  Hudson  Lowe,  an  offi- 
cer who  had  been  knighted  for  bringing  the 
news  of  the  capture  of  Paris  in  1814,  as  governor. 
The  rest  of  his  life,  which  continued  till  May  5, 
1821,  was  occupied  partly  in  quarrels  with  this 
governor,  which  have  now  lost  their  interest, 
partly  in  the  task  he  had  undertaken  at  the  time 
of  his  first  abdication,  that  of  relating  his  past 
life.  He  did  not  himself  write  this  narrative, 
nor  does  it  appear  that  he  even  dictated  it  word 
for  word.  It  is  a  report  made  partly  by  General 
Gourgaud,  partly  by  Count  Montholon,  of  Na- 
poleon's impassioned  recitals;  but  they  assure 
us  that  this  report,  as  published,  has  been  read 
and  corrected  throughout  by  him.  It  gives  a 
tolerably  complete  account  of  the  period  between 
the  siege  of  Toulon  and  the  battle  of  Marengo. 
On  the  later  period  there  is  little,  except  a  memoir 
on  the  campaign  of  1815,  to  which  the  editors  of 
the  Correspondence  have  been  able  to  add  another 
on  Elba  and  the  Hundred  Days." — J.  R.  Seeley, 
Short  Hist,  of  Napoleon  I.,  ch.  6,  sect.  5. 

Also  in  :  Count  de  Las  Cases,  Life,  Exile  and 
Conversations  of  Napoleon. —  Gen.  Count  Mon- 
tholon, Hist,  of  the  Captivity  of  Napoleon. —  W. 
Forsyth,  Hist,  of  the  Captivity  of  Napoleun.—B.  E. 
O'Meara,  Napoleon  in  Exile. — Sir  W.  Scott,  Life 
of  Napoleon,  v.  3,  ch.  49-56. — A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of 
the  Consulate  and  the  Empire,  ch.  61-63  (v.  5). 

A.  D.  i8is  (July — November). — English  and 
Prussian  armies  in  Paris. — Return  of  Louis 
XVIII. — Restoration  of  the  art-spoils  of  Napo- 
leon.— Indemnities  demanded. — Russian,  Aus- 
trian and  Spanish  armies  on  French  soil. — The 
second  Treaty  of  Paris.— •'The  7th  of  July  was 


the  proudest  day  in  the  annals  of  England.  On 
that  day  her  victorious  army,  headed  by  Welling- 
ton, made  their  public  entry,  alongwith  the  Prus- 
sians, into  Paris,  where  an  English  drum  had  not 
been  heard  for  nearly  four  hundred  years.  .  .  . 
The  French  regarded  them  with  melancholy 
hearts  and  anxious  looks.  Few  persons  were  to 
be  seen  in  the  streets.  .  .  .  The  English  estab- 
lished themselves  in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne  in  a 
regular  camp ;  the  Prussians  bivouacked  in  the 
churches,  on  the  quays,  and  in  tlie  principal 
streets.  On  the  following  day  Louis  S VIII. ,  who 
had  followed  in  the  rear  of  the  English  army  from 
Ghent,  made  his  public  entrance,  escorted  by 
the  national  guard.  But  his  entry  was  attended 
by  still  more  melancholy  circumstances,  and  of 
sinister  augury  to  the  future  stability  of  his  dy- 
nasty. Even  the  royalists  were  downcast ;  their 
patriotic  feelings  were  deeply  wounded  by  the 
defeat  of  France.  .  .  .  There  was  something  in 
the  restoration  of  the  monarch  by  the  arms  of  the 
old  rivals  and  enemies  of  France  which  added  in- 
expressibly to  its  bitterness.  .  .  .  The  reality  of 
subjugation  was  before  their  eyes.  Blucher  kept 
aloof  from  all  intercourse  with  the  court,  and 
haughtily  demanded  a  contribution  of  100,000,- 
000  francs  .  .  .  for  the  pay  of  his  troops,  as  Na- 
poleon had  done  from  the  Prussians  at  Berlin. 
Already  the  Prussian  soldiers  insisted  with  loud 
cries  that  the  pillar  of  Austerlitz  should  be  pulled 
down,  as  Napoleon  had  destroyed  the  pillar  of 
Rosbach ;  and  Blucher  was  so  resolute  to  destroy 
the  bridge  of  Jena,  that  he  had  actually  begun 
operations  by  running  mines  under  the  arches  for 
blowing  it  up.  .  .  .  Wellington  as  steadily  re- 
sisted the  ruthless  act,  but  he  had  great  diificulty 
in  maintaining  his  point ;  and  it  was  only  by  his 
placing  a  sentinel  on  the  bridge,  and  repeated  and 
earnest  remonstrances,  that  the  destruction  of  that 
beautiful  monument  was  prevented.  ...  A  still 
more  melancholy  humiliation  than  they  had  yet 
experienced  ere  long  befell  the  French  nation. 
The  Allied  sovereigns  now  arrived  in  Paris,  and 
insisted  upon  the  restoration  of  the  objects  of 
art  in  the  museum  of  the  Louvre,  which  had  been 
pillaged  from  their  respective  states  by  the  orders 
of  Napoleon.  The  justice  of  this  demand  could 
not  be  contested :  it  was  only  wresting  the  prey 
from  the  robber.  .  .  .  Nothing  wounded  the 
French  so  profoundly  as  this  breaking  up  of  the 
trophies  of  the  war.  It  told  them,  in  language 
not  to  be  misunderstood,  that  conquest  had  now 
reached  their  doors :  the  iron  went  into  the  soul 
of  the  nation.  A  memorial  from  all  the  artists  of 
Europe  at  Rome  claimed  for  the  Eternal  City  the 
entire  restoration  of  the  immortal  works  of  art 
which  had  once  adorned  it.  The  Allied  sovereigns 
acceded  to  the  j  ust  demand ;  and  Canova,  impas- 
sioned for  the  arts  and  the  city  of  his  choice,  has- 
tened to  Paris  to  superintend  the  removal.  It  was 
most  effectually  done.  The  bronze  horses  .  .  . 
[from  Venice]  were  restored  to  their  old  station 
in  front  of  the  Church  of  St.  Mark.  The  Trans- 
figuration and  the  Last  Communion  of  St.  Jerome 
resumed  their  place  in  the  halls  of  the  Vatican ; 
the  Apollo  and  the  Laocoon  again  adorned  the 
precincts  of  St.  Peter's;  the  Venus  was  enshrined 
anew  amidst  beauty  in  the  Tribune  of  Florence, 
and  the  Descent  from  the  Cross  by  Rubens  was 
restored  to  the  devout  worship  of  the  Flemings 
in  the  cathedral  of  Antwerp.  .  .  .  The  claims 
preferred  by  the  different  Allied  powers  for  resti- 
tution not  merely  of  celebrated  objects  of  art, 


1399 


FRANCE,  1815. 


Second  Treaty 
of  Paris. 


FRANCE,  1815. 


but  of  curiosities  and  valuable  articles  of  all  kinds, 
which  had  been  carried  off  by  the  French  during 
their  occupation  of  the  different  countries  of  Eu- 
rope, especially  under  Napoleon,  were  immense, 
and  demonstrated  at  once  the  almost  incredible 
length  to  which  the  system  of  spoliation  and 
robbery  had  been  carried  by  the  republican  and 
imperial  authorities.  Their  amount  may  be  esti- 
mated by  one  instance  from  an  official  list,  pre- 
pared by  the  Prussian  authorities  in  1815.  It 
appears  that,  during  the  years  1806  and  1807, 
there  had  been  violently  taken  from  the  Prussian 
states,  on  the  requisition  of  M.  Donore,  and 
brought  to  Paris, —  statues,  paintings,  antiquities, 
cameos,  manuscripts,  maps,  gems,  antiques,  rari- 
ties, and  other  valuable  articles,  the  catalogue  of 
which  occupies  53  closely  printed  pages  of  M. 
Schoell's  valuable  Recueil.  Among  them  are  127 
paintings,  many  of  them  of  the  very  highest 
value,  taken  from  the  palaces  of  Berlin  and  Pots- 
dam alone;  187  statues,  chiefly  antique,  taken 
from  the  same  palaces  during  the  same  period ; 
and  86  valuable  manuscripts  and  documents 
seized  in  the  city  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  on  the  oc- 
cupation of  that  city,  then  a  neutral  power,  in 
1803,  by  the  armies  of  the  First  Consul  on  the  in- 
vasion of  Hanover.  The  total  articles  reclaimed 
by  the  Prussians  exceeded  two  thousand.  .  .  , 
The  claims  of  states  and  cities  for  indemnity  on 
account  of  the  enormous  exactions  made  from 
them  by  the  French  generals,  under  the  authority 
of  the  Convention  and  the  Emperor,  were  still 
more  extraordinary.  .  .  .  The  vast  amount  of 
these  claims  for  indemnities  in  money  or  terri- 
tories, and  the  angry  feelings  with  which  they 
were  urged,  were  of  sinister  augury  to  the  French 
nation,  and  augmented,  in  a  most  serious  degree, 
the  difficulties  experienced  by  those  who  were  in- 
trusted with  the  conduct  of  the  negotiations. 
But,  be  they  what  they  may,  the  French  had  no 
means  of  resisting  them ;  all  they  could  trust  to 
was  the  moderation  or  jealousies  of  their  con- 
querors. The  force  which,  during  the  months  of 
July  and  August,  advanced  from  all  quarters  into 
their  devoted  territory,  was  immense,  and  such 
as  demonstrated  that,,  if  Napoleon  had  not  suc- 
ceeded in  dissolving  the  alliance  by  an  early  vic- 
tory in  the  Netherlands,  the  contest,  even  with- 
out the  battle  of  Waterloo,  would  have  been 
hopeless.  The  united  armies  of  Russians  and 
Austrians,  350,000  strong,  under  Schwartzenberg 
and  Barclay  de  ToUy,  crossed  the  Rhine  in  various 
places  from  Bale  to  Coblentz,  and,  pressing  rap- 
idly forward,  soon  occupied  the  whole  eastern 
provinces  of  France.  The  Austrians  and  Piedmon- 
tese,  a  hundred  thousand  more,  passed  Mont 
Cenis,  or  descended  the  Rhone  from  Geneva  to 
Lyons.  The  Spaniards  made  their  appearance  in 
Beam  or  Roussillon.  The  armies  of  Blucher  and 
Wellington,  now  reinforced  to  200,000  effective 
men,  occupied  Paris,  its  environs,  Normandy,  and 
Picardy.  Eighty  thousand  Prussians  and  Ger- 
mans, in  addition,  were  advancing  through  the 
Rhenish  provinces  and  Belgium.  Before  the 
Allied  sovereigns  returned  to  Paris,  in  the  middle 
of  July,  the  French  territory  was  occupied  by 
800,000  men,  to  oppose  which  no  considerable 
force  remained  but  the  army  beyond  the  Loire, 
which  mustered  65, 000  combatants.  .  .  .  Austria 
insisted  upon  getting  back  Lorraine  and  Alsace ; 
Spain  put  in  a  claim  to  the  Basque  provinces; 
Prussia  alleged  that  her  security  would  be  incom- 
plete unless  Mayence,  Luxembourg,  and  all  the 


frontier  provinces  of  France  adjoining  her  terri- 
tory, were  ceded  to  her;  and  the  King  of  the 
Netherlands  claimed  the  whole  of  the  French 
fortresses  of  the  Flemish  barrier.  The  monarchy 
of  Louis  seemed  on  the  eve  of  dissolution;  and 
so  complete  was  the  prostration  of  the  vanquished, 
that  there  appeared  no  power  capable  of  prevent- 
ing it.  It  was  with  no  small  difficulty,  and  more 
from  the  mutual  jealousies  of  the  dUIerent  pow- 
ers than  any  other  cause,  that  these  natural  re- 
prisals for  French  rapacity  were  prevented  from 
taking  place.  The  negotiation  was  protracted  at 
Paris  till  late  in  autumn;  Russia,  which  had 
nothing  to  gain  by  the  proposed  partition,  took 
part  with  France  throughout  its  whole  continu- 
ance ;  and  the  different  powers,  to  support  their 
pretensions  in  this  debate,  maintained  their 
armies,  who  had  entered  on  all  sides,  on  the 
French  soil ;  so  that  above  800,000  foreign  troops 
were  quartered  on  its  inhabitants  for  several 
months.  At  length,  however,  by  the  persevering 
efforts  of  Lord  Castlereagh,  M.  Nesselrode,  and 
M.  Talleyrand,  all  difficulties  were  adjusted,  and 
the  second  treaty  of  Paris  was  concluded  in  No- 
vember 1815,  between  France  and  the  whole 
Allied  powers.  By  this  treaty,  and  the  relative 
conventions  which  were  signed  the  same  day, 
conditions  of  a  very  onerous  kind  were  imposed 
upon  the  restored  government.  The  French  fron- 
tier was  restored  to  the  state  in  which  it  stood  in 
1790,  by  which  means  the  whole  of  the  territory, 
far  from  inconsiderable,  gained  by  the  treaty  of 
1814,  was  resumed  by  the  Allies.  In  consequence 
of  this,  France  lost  the  fortresses  of  Landau, 
Sarre-Louis,  Philipville,  and  Marienburg,  with, 
the  adjacent  territory  of  each.  Versoix,  with  a 
small  district  round  it,  was  ceded  to  the  canton 
of  Geneva ;  the  fortress  of  Huningen  was  to  be 
demolished ;  but  the  little  country  of  the  Venai- 
sin,  the  first  conquest  of  the  Revolution,  was  pre- 
served to  France.  Seven  hundred  millions  of 
francs  (£28,000,000  sterling)  were  to  be  paid  to 
the  Allied  powers  for  the  expenses  of  the  war; 
in  addition  to  which  it  was  stipulated  that  an 
army  of  150,000  men,  composed  of  30,000  from 
each  of  the  great  powers  of  England,  Russia, 
Austria,  and  Prussia,  and  the  lesser  powers  of 
Germany,  was  to  occupy,  for  a  period  not  less 
than  three,  or  more  than  five  years,  the  whole 
frontier  fortresses  of  France ;  .  .  .  and  this  large 
force  was  to  be  maintained  entirely  at  the  expense 
of  the  French  govermnent.  In  addition  to  this, 
the  different  powers  obtained  indemnities  for  the 
spoliations  inflicted  on  them  by  France  during 
the  Revolution,  which  amounted  to  the  enormous 
sum  of  735,000,000  of  francs  more  (£29,400,000 
sterling).  A  hundred  millions  of  francs  were 
also  provided  to  the  smaller  powers  as  an  indem- 
nity for  the  expenses  of  the  war ;  so  that  the  total 
sums  which  France  had  to  pay,  besides  maintain- 
ing the  army  of  occupation,  amounted  to  no  less 
than  fifteen  hundred  and  thirty-five  millions  of 
francs,  or  £61,400,000  sterling.  .  .  .  Great  Brit- 
ain, in  a  worthy  spirit,  surrendered  the  whole 
sum  falling  to  her  out  of  the  indemnity  for  the 
war,  amounting  to  nearly  £5,000,000  sterling,  to 
the  Eling  of  the  Netherlands,  to  restore  the 
famous  barrier  against  France  which  Joseph  II. 
had  so  insanely  demolished." — Sir  A.  Alison, 
Hist,  of  Europe,  1789-1815,  ch.  95  (».  20). 

Also  in  :  Prince  de  Talleyrand,  Menwirs,  pt.  9 
{v.  3).— E.  Hertslet,  TJie  Map  of  Europe  by  Treaty, 
No.  40  (B.  1). 


1400 


FRANCE,  1815. 


Louis  XVIII. 


FRANCE,  1815-1830. 


A.  D.  1815  (September).— The  Holy  Alliance. 
See  Holt  Alli.vnce. 

A.  D.  1815-1830. — The  restored  monarchy. 
— Louis  XVIII.  and  Charles  X. — Careerof  the 
Reactionaries. — Conquest  of  Algiers. — Ordi- 
nances of  July. — Revolution. — Abdication  and 
exile  of  the  king. — "France  was  defeated  but 
not  crushed.  Indeed  she  had  gained  Avignou 
and  some  districts  of  Alsace  since  1793,  and  she 
had  gained  social  and  political  stability  by  having 
millions  of  peasants  as  small  proprietors  in  the 
soil;  moreover,  as  Napoleon  always  waged  his 
wars  at  the  expense  of  his  conquered  fnes,  the 
French  national  debt  was  after  all  the  wars  only 
one-sixth  of  the  debt  of  Great  Britain.  So  France 
soon  rose  to  a  position  of  strength  and  prosperity 
hardly  equalled  in  all  Europe,  in  spite  of  bad 
harvests,  political  unrest,  and  the  foreign  occu- 
pation which  ended  in  1818.  The  royalists,  after 
a  quarter  of  a  century  of  repression,  now  re- 
venged themselves  witli  truly  French  vehemence. 
In  France  a  victorious  party  generally  crushes 
its  opponents ;  and  the  elections,  held  during  the 
full  swing  of  the  royalist  reaction,  sent  up  to 
Paris  a  Legislative  Assembly  '  more  royalist  than 
the  king  himself.'  Before  it  assembled,  Louis 
XVIII.,  in  spite  of  his  promise  only  to  punish 
those  who  were  declared  by  the  Assembly  to  be 
traitors,  proscribed  fifty-seven  persons  who  had 
deserted  to  Napoleon  in  the  'Hundred  Days.' 
...  Of  the  proscribed  men  thirty-eight  were 
banished  and  a  few  were  shot.  Among  the  latter 
the  most  illustrious  was  Marshal  Ney,  whose 
past  bravery  did  not  shield  him  from  the  extreme 
penalty  for  the  betrayal  of  the  military  oath. 
.  .  .  This  impolitic  execution  rankled  deep  in 
the  breasts  of  all  Napoleon's  old  soldiers,  but  for 
the  present  all  opposition  was  swept  away  in  the 
furious  tide  of  reaction.  Brune,  one  of  Napo- 
leon's marshals,  was  killed  by  the  royalist  popu- 
lace of  Avignon;  and  the  Protestants  of  the 
south,  who  were  suspected  of  favouring  Napo- 
leon's home  policy,  suffered  terrible  outrages 
at  Nlmes  and  Uz6s  in  this  '  white  terror. '  The 
restored  monarchy  had  far  stronger  executive 
powers  than  the  old  system  wielded  before  1789, 
for  it  now  drew  into  its  hands  the  centralised 
powers  which,  under  the  Directory  and  the  Em- 
pire, had  replaced  the  old  cumbrous  provincial 
system;  but  even  this  gain  of  power  did  not 
satisfy  the  hot-headed  royalists  of  the  Chamber. 
Thej- instituted  judicial  courts  under  a  provost 
(prevot),  which  passed  severe  sentences  without 
right  of  appeal.  Dismissing  the  comparatively 
Liberal  ministers  Talleyrand  and  Fouche,  Louis 
in  September  1816  summoned  a  more  royalist 
ministry  under  the  Due  de  Richelieu,  which  was 
itself  hurried  on  by  the  reactionaries.  Chateau- 
briand fanned  the  flames  of  royalist  passion  by 
his  writings,  until  the  king  even  found  it  neces- 
sary to  dissolve  this  mischievous  Chamber,  and 
the  new  deputies  who  assembled  (February  1817) 
showed  a  more  moderate  spirit.  France  was 
soon  delivered  from  the  foreign  armies  of  occu- 
pation, for  the  sovereigns  of  Russia,  Austria, 
and  Prussia,  meeting  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  (Sep- 
tember 1818),  in  order  to  combat  revolutionary 
atteippts,  decided  that  an  early  evacuation  of 
French  territory  would  strengthen  the  Bourbon 
rule  in  France ;  and  they  renewed  the  Quadruple 
Alliance,  which  aimed  at  upholding  existing 
treaties.  The  discontent  in  Germany  and  Italy 
awakened  a  sympathetic  echo  in  France,  which 


showed  itself  in  the  retirement  of  the  Due  de 
Richelieu  and  the  accession  of  a  more  progressive 
minister,  Decazes  (November  1819).  This  check 
to  the  royalist  reaction  was  soon  swept  away  by 
an  event  of  sinister  import.  The  Due  de  Berry, 
second  son  of  the  Comte  d'Artois,  was  assassi- 
nated (February  1820),  as  he  was  leaving  the  opera- 
house,  by  a  fanatic  who  aimed  at  cutting  off  the 
direct  Bourbon  line  (February  1830).  His  design 
utterly  failed,  for  a  posthumous  son,  the  cele- 
brated Comte  de  Chambord,  was  born  in  Sep- 
tember 1830 ;  and  the  only  result  was  a  new  out- 
burst of  royalist  fury.  Liberty  of  the  press  was 
suspended,  and  a  new  complicated  electoral  sys- 
tem restricted  the  franchise  to  those  who  paid  at 
least  1,000  francs  a  year  in  direct  taxation:  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies,  a  fifth  part  of  which  was 
renewed  every  year  by  an  electorate  now  repre- 
senting only  the  wealthy,  became  every  year 
more  reactionary,  while  the  Left  saw  its  numbers 
decline.  The  ultra-roj'alist  ministry  of  Vill^le 
soon  in  its  turn  aroused  secret  conspiracies,  for 
the  death  of  Napoleon  (May  5,  1821)  was  now 
awakening  a  feeling  of  regret  for  the  comparative 
liberty  enjoyed  in  France  during  the  Empire. 
Military  conspiracies  were  formed,  only  to  be 
discovered  and  crushed,  and  the  veteran  republi- 
can Lafayette  was  thought  to  be  concerned  in  a 
great  attempt  projected  in  the  eastern  depart- 
ments with  its  headquarters  at  Belfort ;  and  the 
terrible  society  of  the  Carbonari  secretly  spread 
its  arms  through  the  south  of  France,  where  it 
found  soil  as  favourable  as  in  Italy  itself.  .  .  . 
A  revolution  in  Spain  held  Ferdinand  a  prisoner 
in  his  palace  at  Madrid.  Louis  determined  to 
uphold  the  throne  of  his  Bourbon  relative,  and 
sent  an  army  which  quickly  effected  its  object 
(1833).  'The  Pyrenees  no  longer  exist,'  ex- 
claimed Louis  XVIII.  In  fact,  everywhere  in 
Europe  absolutism  seemed  to  be  triumphant, 
and  the  elections  of  December  1833  sent  up  a 
further  reinforcement  to  the  royalist  party ;  also 
the  approaching  end  of  the  sensible  old  king 
foreshadowed  a  period  of  still  more  violent  re- 
action under  his  hot-headed  brother  Charles. 
Louis  XVIII.  died  on  September  16,  1824.  At 
his  death  the  restoration  seemed  firmly  estab- 
lished. .  .  .  France  had  quickly  recovered  from 
twenty  years  of  warfare,  and  was  thought  to 
have  the  strongest  government  in  Europe.  Al- 
ways the  chief  of  the  reactionary  nobles,  Charles 
had  said,  '  It  is  only  Lafayette  and  I  who  have 
not  changed  since  1789.'  Honest,  sincere,  and 
affable  as  the  new  king  was,  yet  his  popularity 
soon  vanished  when  it  was  seen  how  entirely  he 
was  under  the  control  of  his  confessor ;  and  the 
ceremonies  of  his  coronation  at  Rheims  showed 
that  he  intended  to  revive  the  almost  forgotten 
past.  In  Guizot's  words,  'Louis  XVIII.  was  a 
moderate  of  the  old  system  and  a  liberal-minded 
inheritor  of  the  18th  century :  Charles  X.  was  a 
true  Smigre,  and  a  submissive  bigot.'  Among 
the  first  bills  which  Charles  proposed  to  the 
Chambers  was  one  to  indemnify  those  who  had 
lost  their  lands  in  the  Revolution,  To  give  these 
lands  back  would  have  caused  general  uusettle- 
ment  among  thousands  of  small  cultivators ;  but 
the  former  landowners  received  an  indemnity  of 
a  milliard  of  francs,  which  they  exclaimed  against 
for  its  insufficiency  just  as  loudly  as  the  radicals 
did  for  its  extravagance:  by  this  tardy  act  of 
justice  the  State  endeavoured  to  repair  some  of 
the  unjust  confiscations  of  the  revolutionary  era. 


1401 


FRANCE,  1815-1830. 


Charles  X. 


FRANCE,  1830-1840. 


.  .  .  The  attempts  made  by  the  Jesuits  to  regain 
their  legal  status  in  France,  in  spite  of  the  pro- 
hibition dating  from  before  the  fall  of  the  old 
regime,  aroused  further  hostility  to  the  king, 
who  was  well  known  to  favour  their  cause. 
Nothing,  however,  so  strengthened  the  growing 
opposition  in  the  Chambers  and  in  the  coimtry  at 
large  as  a  rigorous  measure  aimed  at  the  news- 
papers, pamphlets,  and  books  which  combated 
the  clerical  reaction.  These  publications  were 
to  pay  a  stamp  duty  per  page,  while  crushing 
fines  were  devised  to  ruin  the  offending  critics. 
One  of  the  leaders  of  the  opposition,  Casimir 
Perier,  exclaimed  against  this  measure  as  ruin- 
ous to  trade:  '  Printing  would  be  suppressed  in 
France  and  transferred  to  Belgium. '  The  king 
persevered  in  his  mad  enterprise :  he  refused  to 
receive  a  petition  from  the  most  august  literary 
society  in  Europe,  the  Academic  Pranfaise,  and 
cashiered  its  promoters  as  if  they  were  clerks 
under  his  orders.  Strange  to  say,  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies  passed  the  measure,  while  that  of 
the  Peers  rejected  it  —  an  event  greeted  by  illumi- 
nations all  over  Paris  (April  1827).  A  few  days 
afterwards,  at  a  review  of  the  National  Guards 
in  Paris,  the  troops  raised  cries  for  the  liberty  of 
the  press  and  for  the  charter  granted  in  1815. 
The  next  day  they  were  disbanded  by  royal 
command,  but  were  foolishly  allowed  to  retain 
their  arms,  which  were  soon  to  be  used  against 
the  government.  Charles  next  created  seventy- 
six  new  peers  to  outvote  his  opponents  in  the 
Upper  House.  He  also  dissolved  the  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  but  found  the  new  members  less 
pliable.  Finally,  Charles  had  to  give  way  for 
the  time,  and  accept  a  more  moderate  ministry 
under  Martignac  in  place  of  the  reactionary 
Villfele  Cabinet.  .  .  .  Charles  was  soon  able  to 
dismiss  this  ministry,  the  last  liope  of  concili- 
ation, and  formed  (August  1829)  a  ministry  under 
Coimt  Polignac,  one  of  whose  colleagues  was  the 
General  Bourmont  who  had  deserted  to  the  allies 
the  day  before  Waterloo.  The  king's  speech  at 
the  opening  of  the  next  session  (March  1830)  was 
curt  and  threatening,  and  the  Chamber  was  soon 
prorogued.  Reform  banquets,  a  custom  which 
the  French  borrowed  from  English  reformers, 
increased  the  agitation,  which  the  Polignac  min- 
istry vainly  sought  to  divert  by  ambitious  proj- 
ects of  invasion  and  partition  of  some  neigh- 
bouring States.  The  only  practical  outcome  of 
these  projects  was  the  conquest  of  the  pirate 
stronghold  of  Algiers.  This  powerful  fortress 
had  been  bombarded  and  reduced  by  Lord  Ex- 
mouth  with  the  British  fleet  in  1816,  and  the 
captives,  mostly  Italians,  were  released  from 
that  den  of  slave-dealers ;  but  the  Dey  of  Algiers 
had  resumed  his  old  habits,  complaints  from  the 
French  were  met  by  defiance,  and  at  last  the 
French  envoy  quitted  the  harbour  amid  a  shower 
of  bullets.  A  powerful  expedition  effected  a 
landing  near  the  strongly-fortified  harbour,  and 
easily  beat  back  the  native  attack;  and  then 
from  the  land  side  soon  battered  down  the  de- 
fences of  the  city  [see  Barbary  Statbs  :  A.  D. 
1830].  Thus  the  city  whicli  had  long  been  the 
terror  of  Mediterranean  sailors  became  the  nu- 
cleus of  the  important  French  colony  of  Algeria 
(July  4,  1830).  The  design  of  Charies  X.  and  of 
liis  reactionary  Polignac  ministry  to  divert  the 
French  people  from  domestic  grievances  to  for- 
eign conquest  needed  the  genius  and  strength  of 
a  Napoleon  to  ensure  success.     The  mere  fact  of 


the  expedition  being  under  the  command  of  the 
hated  General  Bourmont  had  made  it  unpopular. 
...  So,  although  the  victory  was  triumphantly 
announced  throughout  France,  yet  the  elections 
sent  up  a  majority  hostile  to  the  king.  Never- 
theless, with  his  usual  blind  obstinacy,  Charles 
on  the  25th  July  1830  issued  the  famous  ordi- 
nances which  brought  matters  to  a  crisis.  The 
first  suspended  the  liberty  of  the  press,  and 
placed  books  under  a  strict  censorship;  the 
second  dissolved  the  newly-elected  Chamber  of 
Deputies;  the  third  excluded  licensed  dealers 
(patentes)  from  the  franchise;  the  fourth  sum- 
moned a  new  Chamber  under  the  new  conditions, 
every  one  of  which  violated  the  charter  granted 
by  the  late  king.  The  Parisians  at  once  flew 
to  arms,  and  raised  barricades  in  the  many  nar- 
row streets  which  then  favoured  street-defence. 
Marmont,  hated  by  the  people  as  being  the  first 
of  Napoleon's  marshals  who  had  treated  with  the 
allies,  was  to  quell  the  disturbances  with  some 
20,000  troops  of  the  line;  but  on  the  second  day's 
fighting  (July  28)  the  insurgents,  aided  by  the 
disbanded  National  Guards,  and  veterans  of  the 
empire,  beat  back  the  troops ;  and  on  the  third 
day  the  royal  troops,  cut  off  from  food  and  sup- 
plies, and  exhausted  by  the  heat,  gave  way  be- 
fore the  tricolour  flag ;  the  defection  of  two  line 
regiments  left  the  Louvre  unguarded;  a  panic 
spread  among  other  regiments,  and  soon  the  tri- 
colour floated  above  the  Tuileries.  Charles  there- 
upon set  the  undignified  example,  soon  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  so  many  kings  and  princes,  of  giving 
way  when  it  was  too  late.  He  offered  to  with- 
draw the  hated  ordinances,  but  was  forced  to 
flee  from  St.  Cloud.  He  then  tried  the  last  ex- 
pedient, also  doomed  to  failure,  of  abdicating  in 
favour  of  his  little  grandson  the  Due  de  Bor- 
deaux, since  better  known  as  the  Comte  de  Cham- 
bord.  Retiring  slowly  with  his  family  to  Cher- 
bourg, the  batSed  monarch  set  out  for  a  second 
and  last  exile,  spent  first  at  Holyrood  Palace, 
Edinburgh,  and  ended  at  GOritz  in  Bohemia. 
More  than  5,000  civilians  and  700  soldiers  were 
killed  or  wounded  in  these  terrible  '  three  days ' 
of  July  1830,  which  ended  all  attempts  to  re-es- 
tablish the  tyranny  of  the  old  regime.  The  vic- 
tims were  appropriately  buried  in  the  Place  de 
la  Bastille.  They  freed  not  France  alone,  but 
dealt  a'fierce  blow  at  the  system  of  Metternich." 
— J.  H.  Rose,  Century  of  Continental  History,  ch. 
23. 

Also  in:  D.  Turnbull,  The  Frencit  Ben.  of 
1830. — A.  de  Lamartine,  The  Restoration  of  Mon- 
archy in  France,  bk.  32-50  (v.  3-4). — E.  E.  Crowe, 
Hist,  of  the  Reigns  of  Louis  XVIII.  and  Charles 
X. — Prince  de  Talleyrand,  Memoirs,  pt.  10  {v.  3- 
4). — G.  L.  Dickinson,  Revolution  and  Reaction  in 
Modern  Pi-ance,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1822. — The  Congress  of  Verona. — 
French  intervention  in  Spain  approved.  See 
Verona  :  The  Congress  of. 

A.  D.  1823-1827. — Interference  in  Spain,  to 
suppress  the  revolution  and  reinstate  King 
Ferdinand.     See  Spain:  A.  D.  1814-1827. 

A.  D.  i827-i829.^Intervention  on  behalf  of 
Greece. — Battle  of  Navarino.  See  Greece: 
A.  D.  1821-1829. 

A.  D.  1830-1840. — The  monarchy  renewed 
under  Louis  Philippe. — Its  steady  drift  from 
the  constitutional  course. —  "The  Constitutional 
party  set  their  hopes  on  Louis  Philippe.  Duke 
of  Orleans.     This  prince,  born  in  1773,  was  the 


1401 


FRANCE,  1830-1840. 


Louis  Philippe. 


FRANCE,  1841-1848. 


son  of  that  notorious  '  Egalite '  who  during  the 
revolution  had  ended  his  checkered  career  under 
the  guillotine.  His  grandmother  was  the  noble 
Elizabeth  Charlotte,  a  native  of  the  Palatinate, 
who  had  the  misfortune  to  be  the  wife  of  the 
effeminate  Duke  of  Orleans,  brother  of  Louis 
XIV.  Louis  Philippe  was  a  Bourbon,  like  King 
Charles ;  but  the  opposition  of  several  members 
of  this  Orleans  branch  of  the  royal  house  had 
caused  it  to  be  regarded  as  a  separate  family. 
From  his  youth  up  he  had  displayed  a  great  deal 
of  popular  spirit  and  common-sense.  .  .  .  Seem- 
ingly created  by  his  nature  and  career  to  be  a 
citizen  king,  he  had  long  since,  as  early  as  1814, 
determined  to  accept  the  throne  in  case  it  were 
offered  him."  The  offer  came  in  1830  with 
the  revolution  of  July.  On  the  31st  of  that 
month  he  accepted  the  office  of  lieutenant-gen- 
eral of  the  kingdom,  conferred  by  the  vote  of  a 
meeting  of  fifty  delegates.  ' '  The  '  Society  of  the 
Friends  of  the  People '  [an  organization  of  the 
pronounced  republicans],  not  very  well  pleased 
with  this  result  of  the  '  great  week '  [as  the  week 
of  the  revolution  was  called],  laid  before  Lafay- 
ette, on  the  following  day,"  their  programme, 
"  and  commissioned  him  to  make  the  duke  guar- 
antee the  popular  rights  therein  set  forth  by  his 
signature.  With  this  document  in  his  pocket, 
Lafayette  made  his  .  .  .  visit  to  Louis  Philippe 
in  the  Palais  Royal.  In  the  course  of  conversa- 
tion he  said  to  him,  '  You  know  that  I  am  a  re- 
publican, and  consider  the  American  constitution 
the  most  perfect.'  'I  am  of  the  same  opinion,' 
replied  the  duke ;  '  no  one  could  have  been  two 
years  in  America  and  not  share  that  view.  But 
do  you  think  that  that  constitution  could  be 
adopted  in  France  in  its  present  condition  —  with 
the  present  state  of  popular  opinion?'  'No,' 
said  Lafayette ;  '  what  France  needs  is  a  popular 
monarchy  surrounded  by  republican — thoroughly 
republican  —  institutions. '  '  There  I  quite  agree 
with  you,'  rejoined  Louis  Philippe.  Enchanted 
with  this  political  harmony,  the  old  general  con- 
sidered it  unnecessary  to  present  the  programme, 
and  went  security  to  the  republicans  for  the 
duke,  the  patriot  of  1789.  ...  On  the  3d  of 
August  the  Chamber  was  opened  by  the  Duke 
of  Orleans,  and  the  abdication  of  the  king  and 
dauphin  announced.  .  .  .  The  question  whether 
the  constitution  was  to  be  changed,  and  how, 
gave  rise  to  an  animated  contest  between  radicals 
and  liberals.  The  confidence  in  Louis  Philippe 
was  so  great,  that  they  were  content  with  a  few 
improvements.  The  throne  was  declared  vacant, 
and  Louis  Philippe  proclaimed  king  of  the 
French.  .  .  .  August  8th,  Louis  Philippe  ap- 
peared in  the  Palais  Bourbon,  took  the  oath  to 
the  constitution,  and  was  thereupon  proclaimed 
king.  .  .  .  None  of  the  great  monarchs  had  so 
difficult  a  task  as  Louis  Philippe.  If  he  attached 
himself  to  the  majority  of  his  people  and  showed 
himself  in  earnest  with  '  the  republican  institu- 
tions which  ought  to  surround  the  throne,'  he 
had  all  the  continental  powers  against  him;  if 
he  inclined  toward  the  absolute  system  of  the 
latter,  then  not  alone  the  extreme  parties,  but 
also  the  men  of  the  constitutional  monarchy,  .  .  . 
rose  against  him.  .  .  .  His  system,  which  he 
himself  named  a  happy  medium  (juste  milieu), 
would  have  been  a  happy  medium  if  he  had 
struck  the  middle  and  kept  it ;  but  he  gradually 
swerved  so  much  toward  the  right  that  the  mid- 
dle was  far  to  his  left.     From  the  outset  he  had 


three  parties  against  him — Legitimists,  Bona- 
partists,  and  Republicans."  At  intervals,  there 
were  demonstrations  and  insurrections  under- 
taken in  the  interest  of  each  of  these.  In  July, 
1835,  the  assassination  of  the  king  was  attempted, 
by  the  explosion  of  an  infernal  machine,  which 
killed  and  wounded  sixty  people.  "  The  whole 
Republican  party  was  unjustly  made  responsible 
for  this  attempt,  and  new  blows  were  struck  at 
the  juries  and  the  Press.  Every  Press  offence 
involving  a  libel  of  the  king  or  the  administra- 
tion was  to  be  tried  from  this  time  on  before  the 
Court  of  Peers,  and  the  composition  of  that  body 
rendered  conviction  certain.  With  these  '  Sep- 
tember laws '  the  reaction  was  complete,  the 
power  of  the  Republicans  was  broken.  Their 
activity  did  not  cease,  however.  Their  numerous 
societies  continued  to  exist  in  secret,  and  to  the 
political  affiliated  themselves  the  social  societies, 
which  .  .  .  demanded,  among  other  impossibili- 
ties, the  abolition  of  private  property.  It  was 
these  baleful  excrescences  which  deprived  repub- 
licanism of  all  credit,  and  outbreaks  like  that  of 
May  12th,  1839,  where  a  few  hundred  members 
of  the  '  Society  of  the  Seasons,'  with  Barbfesand 
Blanqui  at  their  head,  disarmed  military  posts 
and  proclaimed  the  republic,  found  not  the 
slightest  response.  The  repeated  attempts  which 
were  made  on  the  king's  life  were  also  unsuccess- 
ful. "  The  relations  of  Louis  Philippe  ' '  to  foreign 
powers  became  better  the  more  he  approximated 
to  their  system,  putting  restraints  upon  societies, 
the  Press,  and  juries,  and  energetically  crushing 
popular  revolts.  Naturally  he  was  by  this  very 
means  constantly  further  estranging  the  mass  of 
the  people.  .  .  .  What  the  Legitimists  and  Re- 
publicans had  not  effected— a  change  of  gov- 
ernment—  the  Napoleouids  now  took  in  hand." 
Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  son  of  ex-king  Louis 
of  Holland  and  Hortense  Beauharnais,  made  his 
appearance  among  the  soldiers  of  the  garrison  at 
Strasburg,  October  30, 1836,  with  the  expectation 
that  they  would  proclaim  him  emperor  and  set 
the  example  of  a  rising  in  his  favor.  But  the 
attempt  was  a  wretched  failure ;  Louis  Napoleon 
was  arrested  and  contemptuously  sent  out  of  the 
country,  to  America,  without  punishment.  In 
1840  he  repeated  his  undertaking,  at  Boulogne, 
more  abortively  than  in  the  first  instance;  was 
again  made  prisoner,  and  was  consigned,  this 
time,  to  the  castle  of  Ham,  from  which  he  es- 
caped six  years  later.  ' '  All  the  world  laughed  at 
his  folly;  but  without  the  scenes  of  Strasburg 
and  Boulogne,  and  the  martyrdom  of  a  six  years' 
imprisonment,  his  name  certainly  would  not  have 
produced  such  an  effect  in  the  year  1848." — W. 
Mliller,  Political  History  of  Recent  Times,  sect.  7 
and  14. 

Also  EN:  L.  Blanc,  Hist,  of  Ten  Tears,  1830- 
1840. — F.  P.  Guizot,  Memoirs  to  Illustrate  the 
Hist,  of  My  Own  Time,  v.  3^. 

A.  D.  1831-1832. — Intervention  in  the  Neth- 
erlands.—  Siege  of  Antwerp.  See  Nether- 
lands: A.  D.  1830-1833. 

A.  D.  1833-1840.  —  The  Turko-Egyptian 
question  and  its  settlement.  SeeTuKKS:  A.  D. 
1831-1840. 

A.  D.  1833-1846. — The  subjugation  of  Al- 
geria.—War  with  Abd-el-Kader.  See  Barbart 
St.ates:  a.  D.  1830-1846. 

A.  D.  1841-1848.— The  limited  electoral  body 
and  its  corruption. — Agitation  for  reform. — 
The   suppressed    banquet   at   Paris   and   the 


1403 


FRANCE,  1841-1848. 


The  Revohtiion 
of  1&J8. 


FRANCE,  1841-1848. 


revolution  which  followed. —  Abdication  and 
flight  of  the  king. — "The  mouarchy  of  Louis 
Philippe  lasted  for  18  years.  But  the  experi- 
ment was  practicable  only  so  long  as  the  throne 
rested  on  a  small  body  of  obedient  electors.  The 
qualification  for  the  franchise  was  so  high  that 
it  was  held  only  by  300,000  people.  So  small  a 
constituency  could  be  '  managed '  by  the  skill  of 
M.  Guizot  and  M.  Thiers  [who  were  the  chief 
rivals  of  the  time  in  political  leadership].  It 
could  be  '  managed '  through  gifts  of  places, 
bribes,  the  iuflilence  of  local  magnates,  and  the 
pressure  of  public  officials.  There  was  never 
perhaps  so  corrupt  an  electoral  body.  .  .  .  M. 
Guizot,  who  was  an  austere  puritan  at  home,  and 
who  has  entered  into  a  competition  with  Saint 
Augustin  as  a  writer  of  religious  meditations, 
raised  many  sneers  to  the  lips  of  worldlings,  not 
only  by  lending  his  hand  to  the  infamous  in- 
trigue of  the  Spanish  Marriages,  but  by  allowing 
his  subordinates  to  traffic  in  places  for  the  sake 
of  getting  votes.  His  own  hands,  of  course, 
were  clean ;  no  one  spoke  a  whisper  against  his 
personal  purity.  But  he  seemed  to  have  much 
practical  sympathy  with  the  advice  which  Pitt, 
in  one  of  Landor's  'Imaginary  Conversations,' 
gives  to  his  young  disciple  Canning.  Pecuniary 
corruption  was  the  very  breath  of  tife  to  the  con- 
stitutional monarchy.  The  voters  were  bought  as 
freely  as  if  they  had  stood  in  the  market-place. 
The  system  admirably  suited  the  purpose  of  the 
little  family  party  of  princes  and  parliamentary 
chiefs  who  ruled  the  country.  But  it  was  as  arti- 
ficial and  fleeting  as  the  sand  castles  which  a 
child  builds  on  the  edge  of  the  advancing  tide." — 
J.  Macdonell,  France  since  tli-e  First  Empire,  pp. 
172-174. — "The  population  of  France  was  then 
34,000,000,  and  the  privilege  of  the  political  fran- 
chise was  vested  exclusively  in  those  who  paid 
in  direct  taxes  a  sum  not  less  than  £8.  This 
class  numbered  little  more  than  200,000.  .  .  . 
The  government  had  130,000  places  at  its  dis- 
posal, and  the  use  which  was  made  of  these  dur- 
ing the  18  years  of  Louis  Philippe's  reign  was 
productive  of  corruption  more  widespread  and 
shameless  than  France  had  known  since  the  first 
revolution.  In  the  scarcely  exaggerated  lan- 
guage used  by  M.  de  Lamartine,  the  government 
had  '  succeeded  in  making  of  a  nation  of  citizens 
a  vile  band  of  beggars. '  It  was  obvious  to  all 
who  desired  the  regeneration  of  France  that  re- 
form must  begin  with  the  representation  of  the 
people.  To  this  end  the  liberals  directed  much 
effort.  They  did  not  as  yet  propose  universal 
suffrage,  and  their  leaders  were  divided  between 
an  extension  of  the  franchise  to  all  who  paid  £3 
of  direct  taxes  and  an  extension  which  went  no 
lower  than  £4.  The  demand  for  reform  was 
resisted  by  the  government.  .  .  .  Among  the 
leaders  of  the  liberal  party  were  men  of  high 
character  and  commanding  influence.  Arago, 
Odillon  Barrot,  Louis  Blanc,  Thiers,  Lamartine, 
were  formidable  assailants  for  the  strongest 
government  to  encounter.  Under  their  guidance 
the  agitation  for  reform  assumed  dimensions  ex- 
ceedingly embarrassing  and  even  alarming.  For 
once  France  borrowed  from  England  her  method 
of  political  agitation.  Reform  banquets,  at- 
tended by  thousands  of  persons,  were  held  in 
all  the  chief  towns,  and  the  pressure  of  a  peaceful 
public  opinion  was  employed  to  obtain  the  remedy 
of  a  great  wrong.  The  police  made  feeble  at- 
tempts to  prevent  such  gatherings,   but  were 


ordinarily  unsuccessful.  But  the  king  and  M. 
Guizot,  strong  in  the  support  of  the  army  and  a 
purchased  majority  of  the  deputies,  and  appar- 
ently little  aware  of  the  vehemence  of  the  popu- 
lar desire,  made  no  effort  to  satisfy  or  propitiate. 
Louis  Philippe  had  wisely  set  a  high  value  on 
the  maintenance  of  cordial  relations  with  Eng- 
land. .  .  .  The  Queen  of  England  gratified  him 
by  a  visit  [1843],  which  he  returned  a  few  months 
after.  .  .  .  During  these  visits  there  was  much 
conversation  regarding  a  Spanish  matter  which 
was  then  of  some  interest.  The  Spanish  govern- 
ment was  looking  around  to  find  suitable  hus- 
bands for  their  young  queen  and  her  sister.  The 
hands  of  the  princesses  were  offered  to  two  sons 
of  Louis  Philippe.  But  .  .  .  England  looked 
with  disfavour  upon  a  close  alliance  between  the 
crowns  of  France  and  Spain.  The  king  would 
not  offend  England.  He  declined  the  hand  of 
the  Spanish  queen,  but  accepted  that  of  her 
sister  for  his  fourth  son,  the  Due  de  Montpensier. 
Queen  Victoria  and  her  ministers  approved  of 
that  marriage  on  the  condition  voluntarily  offered 
by  King  Louis,  that  it  should  not  take  place  till 
the  Spanish  queen  was  married  and  had  children. 
But  in  a  few  years  the  king  violated  his  pledge, 
and  pressed  upon  Spain  an  arrangement  under 
which  the  two  marriages  were  celebrated  to- 
gether [1846].  ...  To  Louis  Philippe  himself 
the  transaction  was  calamitous.  He  had  broken 
his  kingly  word,  and  he  stood  before  Europe 
and  before  his  own  people  a  dishonoured  man. 
.  .  .  Circumstances  made  it  easy  for  the  opposi- 
tion to  enhance  the  general  discontent.  Many 
evidences  of  shameless  corruption  were  at  this 
time  brought  to  light.  .  .  .  'The  crops  failed  in 
1845  and  1846,  and  prices  rose  to  a  famine  point. 
.  .  .  The  demand  for  parliamentary  reform  be- 
came constantly  more  urgent;  but  M.  Guizot 
heeded  it  not.  The  reformers  took  up  again  their 
work  of  agitation.  They  announced  a  great 
procession  and  reform  banquet.  The  police, 
somewhat  hesitatingly,  interdicted  the  demon- 
stration, and  its  promoters  resolved  to  submit; 
but  the  people,  Insutticiently  Informed  of  these 
movements,  gathered  for  the  procession  in  the 
early  morning.  All  that  day  [February  33,  1848] 
the  streets  were  thronged,  and  the  excitement  of 
the  people  increased  from  hour  to  hour ;  but  few 
soldiers  were  seen,  and  consequently  no  conflict 
occurred.  Next  morning  the  strategic  points  of 
the  city  were  garrisoned  by  a  strong  force  of 
soldiers  and  national  guards,  and  the  people  saw 
that  the  government  feared  them.  Business  was 
suspended,  and  the  constantly  rising  agitation 
foretold  irrepressible  tumults.  The  men  of  the 
faubourgs  appeared  once  more.  Towards  even- 
ing a  few  barricades  were  thrown  up,  and  a  few 
gunsmiths'  shops  were  plundered.  Worst  of  all, 
the  national  guard  appeared  to  sympathize  with 
the  people.  ...  To  appease  the  angry  mob,  no 
measure  seemed  so  hopeful  as  the  sacrifice  of  the 
ministry.  Guizot  resigned.  Thiers  and  Odillon 
Barrot,  chiefs  of  the  liberal  party,  were  received 
into  the  cabinet.  Marshal  Bugeaud  was  ap- 
pointed to  command  the  troops.  But  before  the 
day  closed  a  disaster  had  occurred  which  made  all 
concession  vain.  Before  one  of  the  public  oflSces 
there  was  stationed  a  battalion  of  infantry, 
around  which  there  surged  an  excited  crowd. 
A  shot  came  from  the  crowd,  and  was  promptly 
responded  to  by  a  volley  which  killed  or  wounded 
50  persons.      The   bodies  of  the   victims  were 


1404 


FRANCE,  1841-1848. 


The  Provisional 
Oovemment. 


FRANCE,  1848. 


placed  on  waggons  and  drawn  along  the  streets, 
that  the  fury  of  the  people  might  be  excited  to 
the  highest  "pitch.  During  that  .sleepless  night, 
Marshal  Bugeaud,  skilfully  directing  the  forces 
which  he  commanded,  had  taken  the  barricades 
and  effectively  checked  the  rioters.  But  in  early 
morning  the  new  ministers  ordered  him  to  desist 
and  withdraw  his  troops.  They  deemed  it  use- 
less to  resist.  Concession  was,  in  their  view, 
the  only  avenue  to  tranquillity.  The  soldiers 
retired;  the  crowds  pressed  on  to  the  Tuileries." 
The  king,  terrified  by  their  approach,  was  per- 
suaded to  sign  an  abdication  in  favor  of  his 
grandson,  the  Comte  de  Paris,  and  to  fly  in  haste, 
with  his  family,  from  the  palace  and  from  Paris. 
A  week  later  tlie  royal  family  "reached  the  coast 
and  embarked  for  England,  .  .  .  their  majesties 
travelling  under  the  lowly  but  well-chosen  in- 
cognito of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Smith.  .  .  .  Immediately 
on  the  departure  of  the  king,  a  provisional  gov- 
ernment was  organized,  with  M.  Lamartine  at  its 
head." — R.  Mackenzie,  The  Nineteenth  Century, 
bk.  3,  cli.  1. 

Also  m:  F.  P.  Guizot,  France  under  Louis 
Philippe. — JI.  Caussidi^re,  Memoirs,  v.  1. 

A.  D.  1848  (February— May).— The  three 
months  of  Provisional  Government. — Its  ex- 
traordinary measures. — Its  absolutism. ^Crea- 
tion of  the  Ateliers  Nationaux. — The  conse- 
quences.—  On  the  morning  of  February  24th  — 
the  morning  of  the  king's  flight  —  !M.  de  Lamar- 
tine, entering  the  Palais  Bourbon,  where  the 
Chamber  of  Ceputies  held  its  meetings,  found  in 
the  vestibule  seven  or  eight  persons  waiting  for 
him.  "Who  they  were  we  are  not  told  —  or 
what  they  were,  except  that  they  belonged  to  the 
newspaper  press.  Even  the  names  of  the  papers 
with  which  they  were  connected  are  not  expressly 
stated  —  though  the  '  National '  and  '  Reforme ' 
are  indicated.  Thej'  demanded  a  secret  confer- 
ence. Lamartine  took  them  into  a  distant  apart- 
ment." There  they  "  proposed  to  him  to  substi- 
tute for  Louis-Philippe  the  Comte  de  Paris  as 
king,  and  the  Duchess  of  Orleans  as  regent,  and 
to  place  him  [Lamartine]  over  them  as  minister." 
"  Lamartine  does  not  appear  to  have  been  sur- 
prised at  the  proposal.  He  does  not  appear  to 
have  doubted  the  power  of  seven  or  eight  journal- 
ists to  dethrone  a  king,  create  a  regent,  and  ap- 
point a  minister !  And  he  was  right.  The  '  Na- 
tional '  and  the  '  Reforme, '  whose  representatives 
stood  before  him,  did  more  than  all  this,  a  couple 
of  hours  after.  .  .  .  He  objected  to  their  scheme 
that  such  an  arrangement  would  not  last,  and 
declared  himself  in  favour  of  a  republic,  i)ased 
on  universal  suffrage ;  .  .  .  they  expressed  their 
conviction,  and  separated,  agreed,  apparently, 
on  the  course  of  action  to  be  pursued."  A  few 
hours  later,  the  Chamber  was  invaded  by  a  body 
of  rioters,  fresh  from  the  sack  of  the  Tuileries. 
The  Duchess  of  Orleans,  who  had  presented  her- 
self at  the  Chamber  with  her  two  children,  fled 
before  them.  "M.  Sauzet,  the  President,  disap- 
peared. Lamartine  [who  was  speaking]  remained 
in  the  tribune,  and  desired  Dupont  de  I'Eure  to 
take  the  vacant  chair."  Thereupon  a  Provisional 
Government  was  appointed,  in  some  fashion  not 
clearly  detailed.  It  underwent  certain  changes, 
by  unexplained  additions,  within  the  following 
day  or  two,  but  ' '  in  the  '  Moniteur '  of  February 
27  (the  third  day  of  the  existence  of  the  Pro- 
visional Government),  its  members  are  arranged 
thus:— MM.  Arago,  Dupont  de  I'Eure,  Albert 


(ouvrier),  F.  Marrast,  F.  Flocon,  Lamartine,  Marie, 
L.  Blanc,  Cremieux,  Ledru  Rollin,  Garnier  Pagfis. 
.  .  .  Within  two  days  after  its  formation  it  was 
on  the  brink  of  ruin  under  an  attack  from  the 
Terrorists  [or  Red  Republicans,  who  assumed 
the  red  flag  as  their  standard].  .  .  .  The  contest 
had  left  the  members  of  the  government  in  a 
state  of  mind  which  M.  de  Lamartine  thinks 
peculiarly  favourable  to  wise  legislation.  .  .  . 
'  Every  member  of  the  Council  sought  [he  says], 
in  the  depths  of  his  heart  and  of  his  intellect,  for 
some  great  reform,  some  great  legislative,  politi- 
cal, or  moral  improvement.  Some  proposed  the 
instantaneous  abolition  of  negro  slavery.  Others, 
the  abolition  of  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the 
laws  of  September  upon  the  press.  Some,  the 
proclamation  of  fraternity  among  nations,  in 
order  to  abolish  war  by  abolishing  conquest. 
Some,  the  abolition  of  the  qualification  of  elec- 
tors. And  all,  the  principles  of  mutual  charity 
among  all  classes  of  citizens.  As  quickly  as 
these  great  democratic  truths,  rather  felt  than 
discussed,  were  converted  into  decrees,  they  were 
printed  in  a  press  set  up  at  the  door  of  the  coun- 
cil-room, thrown  from  the  windows  to  the  crowd, 
and  despatched  by  couriers  through  the  de- 
partments.'. .  .  The  important  decrees,  which 
actually  bear  date  February  25  or  26,  and  which 
may  therefore  be  referred  to  this  evening  of  in- 
stinct, inspiration,  and  enthusiasm,  are  these: — 
The  18th,  which  sets  at  liberty  all  persons  de- 
tained on  political  grounds.  The  19th,  by  which 
the  government  —  1,  Engages  to  secure  the  exis- 
tence of  the  operative  (ouvrier)  by  employment: 
2,  Engages  to  secure  employment  (garantir  du 
travail)  to  all  citizens:  3,  Admits  that  operatives 
ought  to  combine  in  order  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of 
their  labour:  4,  And  promises  to  return  to  the 
operatives,  whose  property  it  is,  the  million 
which  will  fall  in  from  the  civil  list.  The  22nd, 
which  dissolves  the  Municipal  Guards.  The  26th, 
which  declares  that  the  actual  government  of 
France  is  republican,  and  that  the  nation  will 
immediately  be  called  on  to  ratify  by  its  votes 
this  resolution  of  the  government  and  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Paris.  The  29th,  which  declares  that 
Royalty,  under  any  name  whatever,  ...  is 
abolished.  .  .  .  And  the  30th,  which  directs  the 
immediate  establishment  of  national  workshops 
(ateliers  nationaux).  We  confess  that  we  agree 
with  Lamartine  in  thinking  that  they  bear  the 
stamp  of  instinct  much  more  than  that  of  reason. 
.  .  .  The  declaration  that  the  actual  government 
of  France  was  republican  .  .  .  was  palpably  un- 
true. The  actual  government  of  France  at  that 
time  was  as  far  removed  from  republicanism  as 
it  was  possible  for  a  government  to  be.  It  was  a 
many -headed  Dictatorship — a  despotic  oligar- 
chy. Eleven  men  —  some  appointed  in  the  offices 
of  a  newspaper,  and  the  others  by  a  mob  which 
had  broken  into  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  —  ruled 
France,  during  three  months,  with  an  absolute- 
ness of  which  there  is  no  other  example  in  his- 
tory. .  .  .  Theydissolved  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties ;  they  forbade  the  peers  to  meet ;  they  added 
200,000  men  to  the  regular  army,  and  raised 
a  new  metropolitan  army  of  20,000  more  at 
double  the  ordinary  pay;  to  meet  this  expense 
they  added  45  centimes  to  the  direct  taxes;  they 
restricted  the  Bank  from  cash  payments;  they 
made  its  paper  a  legal  tender,  and  then  required 
it  to  lend  them  fifty  millions ;  .  .  .  they  altered 
the  hours  of  labour  throughout  France,  and  sub- 


1405 


PRANCE,  1848. 


Ateliers  Nationaux. 


FRANCE,  1848. 


jected  to  heavy  fines  any  master  who  should 
allow  his  operatives  to  remain  at  work  for  the 
accustomed  period.  .  .  .  The  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  19th  decree,  promising  employ- 
ment to  all  applicants,  was  the  creation  of  the 
ateliers  nationaux  by  the  30th.  These  worlishops 
were  Immediately  opened  in  the  outskirts  of 
Paris.  A  person  who  wished  to  take  advantage 
of  the  offers  of  the  Government  took  from  the 
person  with  whom  he  lodged  a  certificate  that  ho 
was  an  inhabitant  of  the  Department  de  la  Seine. 
This  certificate  he  carried  to  the  mairie  of  his 
arrondissement,  and  obtained  an  order  of  admis- 
sion to  an  atelier.  If  he  was  received  and  em- 
ployed there,  he  obtained  an  order  on  his  mairie 
for  forty  sous.  If  he  was  not  received,  after 
having  applied  at  all  of  them,  and  found  them 
all  full,  he  received  an  order  for  thirty  sous. 
Thirty  sous  is  not  high  pay ;  but  it  was  to  be 
had  for  doing  nothing;  and  hopes  of  advancement 
were  held  out.  Every  body  of  eleven  persons 
formed  an  escouade ;  and  their  head,  the  escoua- 
dier,  elected  by  his  companions,  got  half  a  franc 
a  day  extra.  Five  escouades  formed  a  brigade ; 
and  the  brigadier,  also  elected  by  his  subordi- 
nates, received  three  francs  a  day.  Above  these 
again  were  the  lieutenants,  the  chefs  de  com- 
pagnie,  the  chefs  de  service,  and  the  chefs  d'ar- 
rondissement,  appointed  by  the  Government,  and 
receiving  progressively  higher  salaries.  Besides 
this,  bread  was. distributed  to  their  families  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  children.  The  hours 
supposed  to  be  employed  in  labour  were  nine 
and  a  half.  .  .  .  This  semi-military  organisation, 
regular  payment,  and  nominal  work  produced 
results  which  we  cannot  suppose  to  have  been  un- 
expected by  the  Government.  M.  Emile  Thomas 
tells  us  that  in  one  mairie,  that  containing  the 
Faubourg  St.-Antoine,  a  mere  supplemental 
bureau  enrolled,  from  March  13  to  20,  more  than 
1,000  new  applicants  every  day.  We  have  be- 
fore us  a  list  of  those  who  had  been  enrolled  on 
May  19,  and  it  amounts  to  87,943.  A  month 
later  it  amounted  to  135,000  —  i-epresenting,  at 
4  to  a  family,  600,000  persons  —  more  than  one 
half  of  the  population  of  Paris.  To  suppose  that 
such  an  army  as  this  could  be  regularly  organ- 
ised, fed,  and  paid,  for  months  in  idleness,  and 
then  quietly  disbanded,  was  a  folly  of  which  the 
Provisional  Government  was  not  long  guilty. 
They  soon  saw  that  the  monster  which  they  had 
created  could  not  be  subdued,  if  it  could  be 
subdued  at  all,  by  any  means  short  of  civil  war. 
...  'A  thunder-cloud  (says  M.  de  Lamartine) 
was  always  before  our  eyes.  It  was  formed  by 
the  ateliers  nationaux.  This  army  of  120,000 
work-people,  the  great  part  of  whom  were  idlers 
and  agitators,  was  the  deposit  of  the  misery,  the 
laziness,  the  vagrancy,  the  vice,  and  the  sedition 
which  the  flood  of  the  revolution  had  cast  up 
and  left  on  its  shores.'.  .  .  As  they  were  man- 
aged, the  ateliers  nationaux,  it  is  now  admitted, 
produced  or  aggravated  the  very  evils  which 
they  professed  to  cure  or  to  palliate.  They  pro- 
duced or  continued  the  stagnation  of  business 
which  they  were  to  remedy ;  and,  when  they  be- 
came absolutely  intolerable,  the  attempt  to  put 
an  end  to  them  occasioned  the  civil  war  which 
they  were  to  prevent." — N.  AV.  Senior,  Journals 
kept  in  Prance  and  Italy,  1848-1852,  v.  1,  pp. 
14-59. 

Also  in:  Marquis  of  Normanby,  A    Year  of 
Revolution,  ch.  3-11  (ti.  1). — L.  Blanc,  Historical 


Revelations,  1848. — A.  de  Lamartine,  Hist,  of  the 
Revolution  of  IMS. — J.  P.  Simpson,  Pictures  from 
Revolutionary  Paris. 

A.  D.  1848  (April— December).  The  Con- 
stituent National  Assembly,  and  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Second  Republic. — Savage  and 
terrible  insurrection  of  the  workmen  of  the 
Ateliers  Nationaux. — Vigorous  dictatorship  of 
Cavaignac. — Appearance  of  Louis  Napoleon. 
— His  election  to  the  Presidency  of  the  Re- 
public.— The  election  by  universal  suffrage  of 
a  Constituent  National  Assembly,  twice  deferred 
on  account  of  fears  of  popular  turbulence,  took 
place  on  the  23d  of  April,  and  resulted  in  the 
return  of  a  very  Conservative  majority,  largely 
composed  of  Napolconists,  Legitimists  and  Or- 
leanists.  The  meeting  of  the  Assembly  was 
opened  on  the  7th  of  May.  "The  moderates  were 
anxious  to  invest  M.  de  Lamartine  with  a  dicta- 
torial authority,"  which  he  declined.  "Event- 
ually an  executive  commission  of  five  was  ap- 
pointed. .  .  .  The  commission  consisted  of  Arago, 
Gamier  Pag^s,  Marie,  Lamartine,  and  Ledru 
Rollin.  .  .  .  This  conciliatory  executive  com- 
mission was  elected  by  the  Assembly  on  the  10th 
of  May.  On  the  15th,  the  '  conciliated '  mob  broke 
into  the  chamber,  insulted  the  deputies,  turned 
them  out,  proclaimed  a  provisional  government, 
and  then  marched  to  the  Hotel  deVille,  where  they 
were  installed  with  due  revolutionary  solem- 
nity ; "  but  the  National  Guard  rallied  to  the  sup- 
port of  the  government,  and  the  insurrection  was 
promptly  suppressed.  "Eleven  vacancies  in  the 
Assembly  had  to  be  filled  in  the  department  of  the 
Seine,  on  account  of  double  returns.  These  elec- 
tions produced  fresh  uneasiness  in  Paris.  Eighth 
on  the  list  stood  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte ;  and 
among  the  names  mentioned  as  candidates  was 
that  of  Prince  de  Joinville,  the  most  popular  of 
the  Orleans  princes.  The  executive  commission 
appears  to  have  been  more  afraid  of  the  latter 
than  of  the  former ;  and  to  prevent  the  disagree- 
able circumstance  of  France  returning  him  to 
the  Assembly  as  one  of  her  representatives,  they 
thought  themselves  justified  in  declaring  the 
whole  Orleans  family  incapable  of  serving  France 
in  any  capacity.  .  .  .  Louis  Napoleon,  on  the 
first  proclamation  of  the  Republic,  had  at  once 
offered  his  services ;  but  was  by  the  Provisional 
Government  requested  to  withdraw,  as  his  great 
name  might  trouble  the  republic.  .  .  .  Two  Bo- 
napartes  had  been  elected  members  for  Corsica, 
and  three  sat  in  the  Assembly ;  but,  as  the  next 
heir  of  the  Emperor,  Louis  Napoleon  caused 
them  much  uneasiness.  .  .  .  Already  mobs  liad 
gone  about  the  Boulevard  crying  'Vive  I'Bm- 
pereur.'  The  name  of  Bonaparte  was  not  un- 
popular with  the  bourgeoisie ;  it  was  a  guarantee 
of  united  and  strong  government  to  all.  On  his 
election,  Louis  Napoleon  wrote  to  the  President 
of  the  Assembly :  a  phrase  in  his  letter  gave  con- 
siderable offence.  Some  days  before,  Lamartine 
had  proposed  his  exclusion  from  the  Assembly 
and  the  country ;  but,  as  it  appeared  he  was  in 
no  way  implicated  in  the  seditious  cries,  they 
voted  his  admission  by  a  large  majority.  The 
phrase  which  gave  umbrage  was :  '  If  the  coun- 
try imposes  duties  upon  me,  I  shall  know  how  to 
fulfil  them.' .  .  .  However,  by  a  subsequent  let- 
ter, dated  the  15th,  he  restored  confidence,  by 
saying  he  would  resign  rather  than  be  a  cause  of 
tumult.  But  the  real  difficulties  of  the  govern- 
ment arose  from  a  different  cause.    The  National 


1406 


FRANCE,  1848. 


Insurrection 
of  the  Workmen. 


FEANCE,  1848. 


Assembly  bore  with  impatience  the  expense  of 
the  Ateliers  Nationaux :  it  was  enough  to  submit 
to  the  factious  spirit  of  those  bodies ;  but  it  was 
too  much  to  pay  them  for  keeping  on  foot  an  or- 
ganized insurrection,  ever  ready  to  break  out 
and  deluge  the  capital  in  blood.  The  executive 
commission  had  been  desirous  of  finding  means 
gradually  to  lessen  the  numbers  receiving  wages; 
and  on  the  13th  of  May,  it  was  resolved  to  close 
the  lists.  The  commission  foresaw  that  if  the 
Ateliers  were  at  once  abolished,  it  would  pro- 
duce a  rebellion  in  Paris;  and  they  hoped,  first, 
by  preventing  any  more  being  inscribed,  and 
then  by  setting  them  to  task-work,  that  they 
should  gradually  get  the  numbers  reduced.  .  .  . 
But  the  Assembly  would  not  wait;  they  ordered 
all  the  workmen  between  18  and  25  years  old, 
and  unmarried,  to  be  drafted  into  the  army,  or 
to  be  discharged ;  and  they  were  breaking  them 
up  so  rapidly,  that  if  the  workmen  wanted  to 
fight  it  was  evident  that  it  must  be  done  at  once 
or  not  at  all.  .  .  .  General  Cavaignao,  who  had 
been  sent  for  from  Africa,  was  on  his  arrival  in 
Paris  named  Minister  at  War,  and  had  command 
of  the  troops.  .  .  .  Preparations  for  the  conflict 
commenced  on  Thursday  the  22nd  of  June ;  but 
it  was  noon  of  the  following  day  ere  the  first 
shot  was  fired.  It  is  said,  that  had  the  execu- 
tive commission  known  what  they  were  about, 
the  heads  of  the  insurrection  might  have  been 
aU  arrested  in  the  meantime,  for  they  were 
walking  about  all  day,  and  at  one  time  met  in 
the  Jardin  des  Plantcs.  The  fighting  on  the  23d 
continued  all  day,  with  much  slaughter,  and 
little  practical  result.  .  .  .  The  extent  of  the  in- 
surgent lines  swallowed  up  the  troops,  so  that, 
though  great  numbers  were  in  Paris,  there  ap- 
peared to  be  a  deficiency  of  them,  and  loud  com- 
plaints were  made  against  the  inefficiency  of  the 
executive  commission.  During  the  night  the 
fighting  ceased,  and  both  parties  were  occupied 
in  strengthening  their  positions.  The  Assembly 
was  sitting  in  permanence ;  they  were  highly  in- 
censed against  the  executive  commission,  and 
wished  them  to  send  in  their  resignations ;  but  the 
latter  refused,  saying  it  was  cowardly  to  do  so 
in  the  face  of  insurrection.  The  Assembly  then 
formally  deposed  the  commission,  and  appointed 
Cavaignac  dictator;  to  which  arrangement  the 
executive  commission  at  once  assented.  The  Gen- 
eral instantly  ordered  the  National  Guards  to  pre- 
vent assemblages  in  the  streets,  and  that  no  one 
should  go  out  without  a  pass:  any  one  going 
about,  out  of  uniform,  without  permission,  was 
walked  home.  In  this  manner  many  persons 
carrying  ammunition  to  the  insurgents  were  ar- 
rested. At  noon,  he  sent  a  flag  of  truce  with  a 
proclamation,  ofliering  an  amnesty  to  the  rebels, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  ex-prefect  CaussidiSre ; 
but  it  was  unhesitatingly  rejected.  This  latter 
personage,  though  he  was  not  among  the  barri- 
cades, was  by  many  thought  to  be  the  head  of 
the  insurrection.  The  troops  of  the  insurgents 
were  managed  with  great  military  skill,  showing 
that  persons  of  military  knowledge  must  have 
had  the  command;  though  no  one  knew  who 
were  their  leaders.  .  .  .  During  the  early  part 
of  the  day,  the  fighting  was  mainly  on  the  south- 
ern side  of  the  river.  The  church  of  St.  Gervais 
and  the  bridges  were  carried  with  great  slaugh- 
ter, as  well  as  the  church  of  St.  Severin,  and 
their  great  head-quarters  the  Pantheon ;  and  by 
four  o'clock,  the  troops  had  conquered  the  whole 


of  the  south  bank  of  the  Seine.  On  the  other 
side,  a  hot  engagement  was  going  on  in  the  Fau- 
bourgs Poissonnifire  and  St.  Denis:  these  were 
carried  with  great  loss  at  a  late  hour,  whence 
the  insurrection  was  forced  back  to  its  great 
stronghold,  the  Clos  St.  Lazare;  which  defied 
every  effort  of  General  Lamoricifere  to  take  it  on 
Saturday.  An  unfinished  hospital  served  as  a 
citadel,  and  several  churches  and  public  build- 
ings as  out-posts ;  while  the  old  city  wall,  which 
they  had  loop-holed,  enabled  them  to  fire  on  the 
troops  in  comparative  security ;  but  the  buildings 
were  breached  with  cannon,  and  the  insurgents 
by  four  o'clock  on  Sunday  were  dispersed.  .  .  . 
A  desperate  struggle  was  going  on  at  a  late  hour 
in  the  Faubourg  du  Temple ;  and  on  the  Monday 
morning  the  insurgents  made  a  stand  behind  the 
Canal  St.  Martin,  where  they  sent  to  treat  on  con- 
dition of  retaining  their  arms.  But  Cavaignac 
would  hear  of  no  terms.  It  was  thought,  at 
one  time,  that  they  had  surrendered ;  when  some 
soldiers,  going  within  the  lines,  were  surprised 
and  murdered.  Hostilities  at  once  began  again, 
and  the  insurgents  were  finally  subdued  by  one 
o'clock  on  Monday  the  26th.  The  victory  was 
dearly  bought:  8,000  were  ascertained  to  have 
been  killed  or  wounded;  and,  as  many  bodies 
were  thrown  into  the  Seine  unrecognised,  this  is 
much  under  the  number.  Nearly  14,000  prison- 
ers were  taken,  and  3,000  of  these  died  of  gaol 
fever.  .  .  .  The  excellent  Archbishop  of  Paris, 
Denis  Auguste  AfEre,  fell  a  sacrifice  to  his  Chris- 
tian benevolence.  Horrified  at  the  slaughter,  he, 
attended  by  two  of  his  vicars  carrying  the  olive- 
branch  of  peace,  passed  between  the  combatants. 
The  firing  ceased  at  his  appearance;  but,  from 
the  discharge  of  a  single  musket,  it  began  again: 
he,  nevertheless,  mounted  the  barricade  and  de- 
scended into  the  midst  of  the  insurgents,  and  was 
in  the  act  of  addressing  them,  when  some  patriot, 
fearing  the  effect  of  his  exhortations,  shot  him 
from  a  window.  .  .  .  General  Cavaignac,  imme- 
diately after  the  pacification  of  Paris,  laid  down 
the  temporary  dictatorship  with  which  he  had 
been  invested  by  the  Assembly ;  but  their  grati- 
tude for  the  salvation  of  society  led  them  to  ap- 
point him  President  of  the  Council,  with  the 
power  to  name  his  own  Ministry.  He  at  once 
sent  adrift  all  the  red  republican  party,  and  chose 
a  Ministry  from  among  the  moderate  class  of  re- 
publicans; to  which  he  afterwards  added  some 
members  of  the  old  opposition.  .  .  .  Prince  Louis 
Napoleon  was  again  thrust  upon  the  Assembly, 
by  being  elected  for  Corsica;  but  he  wrote  a 
letter  on  the  8th  of  July,  saying,  that  though  he 
did  not  renounce  the  honour  of  one  day  sitting  as 
a  representative  of  the  people,  he  would  wait  till 
the  time  when  his  return  to  France  could  not  in 
any  way  serve  as  a  pretext  to  the  enemies  of  the 
republic.  .  .  .  On  Tuesday,  the  26th  of  Septem- 
ber, shortly  after  the  president  had  taken  his 
seat,  Louis  Napoleon  appeared  quietly  in  the 
chamber,  and  placed  himself  on  one  of  the  back 
benches.  .  .  .  The  discussion  of  the  constitution, 
which  had  been  referred  to  a  committee,  was  the 
only  subject  of  interest,  except  the  important 
question  of  how  the  president  should  be  elected. 
It  was  proposed  by  some  that  the  assembly  itself 
should  elect  a  president,  a  proposition  which  was 
eventually  negatived  by  a  large  majority.  The 
real  object  was  to  exclude  Louis  Napoleon,  whose 
great  name  gave  him  every  chance  of  success,  if 
an  appeal  were  made  to  the  universal  suffrage  of 


1407 


FRANCE,  1848. 


Louis  Napoleon^' 
President. 


FRANCE,  1851. 


the  nation,  which  the  republicans  distrusted. 
Another  amendment  was  moved  to  exclude  all 
pretenders  to  the  throne ;  on  which,  allusion  be- 
ing made  to  Louis  Napoleon,  he  mounted  the 
rostrum,  and  denied  that  he  was  a  pretender. 
.  .  .  The  red  republicans  were  desirous  of  hav- 
ing no  president,  and  that  the  constituent  assem- 
bly itself  should  name  the  ministers.  It  was  not 
the  only  constitutional  point  in  dispute:  for 
weeks  and  months  the  debate  on  the  constitution 
dragged  its  weary  length  along;  amendments 
were  discussed,  and  the  work  when  turned  out 
was,  as  might  have  been  expected,  a  botch  after 
all.  ...  It  was  eventually  agreed,  that  to  give 
validity  to  the  election  of  a  president  it  should 
be  necessary  that  he  should  have  more  than  a 
half  of  all  the  votes  given ;  that  is  to  say,  more 
votes  than  all  the  other  candidates  put  together; 
if  not,  the  assembly  was  to  choose  between  the 
highest  candidate  on  the  list  and  his  competitors, 
by  which  means  they  hoped  to  be  able  to  get  rid 
of  Bonaparte.  .  .  .  The  constitution  was  pro- 
claimed on  the  10th  of  November.  .  .  .  The 
legitimist  and  Orleanist  parties  refused  to  start  a 
candidate  for  fear  of  weakening  Bonaparte,  and 
thus  throwing  the  choice  into  the  hands  of  the 
assembly,  who  would  choose  General  Cavaignac. 
Both  these  parties  gave  the  former  at  least  a 
negative  support;  and  as  M.  Thiers  declared  that 
nine-tenths  of  the  country  were  opposed  to  the 
General  as  too  revolutionary,  it  was  clear  that  in 
the  country  itself  reaction  was  going  on  faster 
than  in  the  assembly.  .  .  .  Louis  Napoleon's 
chief  support  was  from  the  inhabitants  of  the 
country  districts,  the  peasantry.  .  .  .  On  the 
10th  of  December,  5,534,530  votes  were  recorded 
for  Louis  Napoleon.  General  Cavaignac  had 
1,448,303.  Then  came  LedruRoUiu;  then  Ras- 
pail.  Lamartine  got  17,914;  23,319  were  dis- 
allowed, as  being  given  for  some  of  the  banished 
royal  family.  The  total  number  of  voters  was 
7,449,471."— E.  S.  Cayley,  The  European  Revolu- 
tion of  1848,  V.  1,  ch.  4-5. 

Also  in  :  J.  F.  Corkran,  Hist,  of  the  ConMitaent 
Natioiuil  Assembly  from  May,  1848. — Marquis  of 
Normanby,  A  Year  of  Revolution,  ch.  18-15  («.  2). 
H.  C.  Lockwood,  Const.  Hist,  of  France,  ch.  5, 
and  app.  8. 

A.  D.  1849. — Intervention  at  Rome,  to  crush 
the  revolutionary  republic  and  restore  the 
Pope. — French  capture  and  occupation  of  the 
city.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1848-1849. 

A.  D.  1849-1850. — Disagreement  with  Eng- 
land in  Greece. — The  Don  Pacifico  affair.  See 
Greece:  A.  D.  1846-1850. 

A.  D.  1851.— The  plot  of  the  Coup  d'Etat.— 
"In  the  beginning  of  the  winter  of  1851  France 
was  still  a  republic;  but  the  Constitution  of  1848 
had  struck  no  root.  There  was  a  feeling  that 
the  country  had  been  surprised  and  coerced  into 
the  act  of  declaring  itself  a  republic,  and  that  a 
monarchical  system  of  government  was  the  only 
one  adapted  for  France.  The  sense  of  instability 
which  sprang  from  this  belief  was  connected  with 
an  agonising  dread  of  insurrections.  .  .  .  More- 
over, to  those  who  watched  and  feared,  it  seemed 
that  the  shadow  on  the  dial  was  moving  on  with 
a  terrible  steadiness  to  the  hour  when  a  return  to 
anarchy  was,  as  it  were,  pre-ordained  by  law ; 
for  the  constitution  required  that  a  new  president 
should  be  chosen  in  the  spring  of  the  following 
year.  ...  In  general,  France  thought  it  best 
that,  notwithstanding  the  Rul(5  of  the  Constitu- 


tion, which  stood  in  the  way,  the  then  President 
should  be  quietly  re-elected ;  and  a  large  majority 
of  the  Assembly,  faithfully  representing  this 
opinion,  had  come  to  a  vote  which  sought  to  give 
it  effect ;  but  their  desire  was  baffled  by  an  un- 
wise provision  of  the  Republican  Charter  which 
had  laid  it  down  that  no  constitutional  change 
should  take  place  without  the  sanction  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  Assembly.  By  this  clumsy  bar 
the  action  of  the  State  system  was  hampered,  and 
many  whose  minds  generally  inclined  them  to  re- 
spect legality  were  forced  toaclinowledge  that  the 
Constitution  wanted  a  wrench. "  The  President  of 
the  republic.  Prince  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte, 
"  had  always  wished  to  bring  about  a  change  in 
the  constitution,  but,  originally,  he  had  hoped 
to  be  able  to  do  this  with  the  aid  and  approval 
of  some  at  least  of  the  statesmen  and  eminent 
generals  of  the  country."  But,  "  although  there 
were  numbers  in  France  wlio  would  have  been 
heartily  glad  to  see  the  Republic  crushed  by 
some  able  dictator,  there  were  hardly  any  public 
men  who  believed  that  in  the  President  of  the 
Republic  thej'  would  find  the  man  they  wanted. 
Therefore  his  overtures  to  the  gentlemen  of 
France  were  always  rejected.  Every  statesman 
to  whom  he  applied  refused  to  entertain  his  pro- 
posals. Every  general  whom  he  urged  always 
said  that  for  whatever  he  did  he  must  have  '  an 
order  from  the  Minister  of  AVar. '  The  President 
being  thus  rebuffed,  his  plan  of  changing  the 
form  of  government  with  the  assent  of  some  of 
the  leading  statesmen  and  generals  of  the  coun- 
try degenerated  into  schemes  of  a  very  different 
kind;  and  at  length  he  fell  into  the  hands  of 
persons  of  the  quality  of  Persigny,  Morny,  and 
Fleury.  .  .  .  The  President  had  been  a  promoter 
of  the  law  of  the  31st  of  May,  restricting  the 
franchise,  but  he  now  became  the  champion  of 
universal  suffrage.  To  minds  versed  in  politics 
this  change  might  have  sufficed  to  disclose  the 
nature  of  the  schemes  upon  which  the  Chief  of 
the  State  was  brooding;  but,  from  first  to  last, 
words  tending  to  allay  suspicion  had  been  used 
with  great  industry  and  skill.  From  the  mo- 
ment of  his  coming  before  the  public  in  Febru- 
ary 1848,  the  Prince  laid  hold  of  almost  every 
occasion  he  could  find  for  vowing,  again  and 
again,  that  he  harbored  no  schemes  against  the 
Constitution.  ...  It  was  natural  that  in  looking 
at  the  operation  which  changed  the  Republic  into 
an  Empire,  the  attention  of  the  observer  should 
be  concentrated  upon  the  person  who,  already 
the  Chief  of  the  State,  was  about  to  attain  to 
tlie  throne ;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that 
what  may  be  called  the  literary  part  of  the  trans- 
action was  performed  by  the  President  in  person. 
He  was  the  lawyer  of  the  confederacy.  He  no 
doubt  wrote  the  Proclamations,  the  Plebiscites, 
and  the  Constitutions,  and  all  such  like  things; 
but  it  seems  that  the  propelling  power  which 
brought  the  plot  to  bear  was  mainly  supplied  by 
Count  de  Morny,  and  by  a  resolute  Major,  named 
Fleury.  M.  Morny  was  a  man  of  great  daring, 
and  gifted  with  more  than  common  powers  of 
fascination.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the 
Chamber  of  Deputies  in  the  time  of  the  monar- 
chy ;  but  he  was  rather  known  to  the  world  as  a 
speculator  than  as  a  politician.  He  was  a  buyer 
and  seller  of  those  fractional  and  volatile  inter- 
ests in  trading  adventures,  which  go  by  the  name 
of  '  Shares. "...  He  knew  how  to  found  a  '  com- 
pany,' and  he  now  undertook  to  establish  institu- 


1408 


FRANCE,  1851. 


The  Plot  of 
the  Coup  d'Etat. 


FRANCE,  1851. 


tions  which  were  destined  to  be  more  lucrative 
to  him  than  any  of  his  former  adventures.  .  .  . 
It  seems,  however,  that  the  man  who  was  the 
most  able  to  make  the  President  act,  to  drive  him 
deep  into  his  own  plot,  and  fiercely  carry  him 
through  it,  was  Major  Fleury.  .  .  .  He  was  dar- 
ing and  resolute,  and  his  daring  was  of  the  kind 
which  holds  good  in  the  moment  of  danger.  If 
Prince  Louis  Bonaparte  was  bold  and  ingenious 
in  designing,  Fleury  was  the  man  to  execute. 
.  .  .  The  language  held  by  the  generals  who  de- 
clared that  they  would  act  under  the  authority 
of  the  Minister  of  War  and  not  without  it,  sug- 
gested the  contrivance  which  was  resorted  to. 
Fleury  determined  to  find  a  military  man  capable 
of  command,  capable  of  secrecy,  and  capable  of 
a  great  venture.  The  person  chosen  was  to  be 
properly  sounded,  and  if  he  seemed  willing,  was 
to  be  admitted  into  the  plot.  He  was  then  to  be 
made  Minister  of  War,  in  order  that  through  him 
the  whole  of  the  land  forces  should  be  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  plotters.  Fleury  went  to  Algeria  to 
find  the  instrument  required,  and  he  so  well  per- 
formed his  task  that  he  hit  upon  a  general  oflicer 
who  was  christened,  it  seems,  Jacques  Arnaud 
Le  Roy,  but  was  known  at  this  time  as  Achille 
St.  Arnaud.  .  .  .  He  readily  entered  into  the 
plot.  From  the  moment  that  Prince  Louis  Bona- 
parte and  his  associates  had  entrusted  their  secret 
to  the  man  of  Fleury 's  selection,  it  was  perhaps 
hardly  possible  for  them  to  flinch,  for  the  exi- 
gencies of  St.  Arnaud,  formerly  Le  Roy,  were 
not  likely  to  be  on  so  modest  a  scale  as  to  consist 
with  the  financial  arrangements  of  a  Rei^ublic 
governed  by  law,  and  the  discontent  of  a  person 
of  his  quality  with  a  secret  like  that  in  his  charge 
would  plainly  bring  the  rest  of  the  brethren  into 
danger.  He  was  made  Minister  of  War.  This 
was  on  the  37th  of  October.  At  the  same  time 
M.  Maupas  or  de  Maupas  was  brought  into  the 
Ministry.  .  .  .  Persigny,  properly  Fialin,  was  in 
the  plot.  He  was  descended  on  one  side  of  an 
ancient  family,  and  disliking  his  father's  name 
he  seems  to  have  called  himself  for  many  years 
after  the  name  of  his  maternal  grandfather.  .  .  . 
It  was  necessary  to  take  measures  for  paralyzing 
the  National  Guard,  but  the  force  was  under  the 
command  of  General  Perrot,  a  man  whose  hon- 
esty could  not  be  tampered  with.  To  dismiss 
him  suddenly  would  be  to  excite  suspicion.  The 
following  expedient  was  adopted :  the  President 
appointed  as  Chief  of  the  Staff  of  the  National 
Guard,  a  person  named  Vieyra.  The  past  life 
and  the  then  repute  of  this  person  were  of  such 
a  kind,  that  General  Perrot,  it  seems,  conceived 
himself  insulted  by  the  nomination,  and  instantly 
resigned.  That  was  what  the  brethren  of  the 
Elysee  wanted.  On  Sunday,  the  30th,  General 
Lawfestine  was  appointed  to  the  command.  .  .  . 
His  function  was  —  not  to  lead  the  force  of 
which  he  took  the  command  but  —  to  prevent  it 
from  acting.  .  .  .  Care  had  been  taken  to  bring 
into  Paris  and  its  neighborhood  the  regiments 
most  likely  to  serve  the  purpose  of  the  Elysee, 
and  to  give  the  command  to  generals  who  might 
be  expected  to  act  without  scruples.  The  forces 
in  Paris  and  its  neighborhood  were  under  the 
orders  of  General  ]\Iagnan.  .  .  .  From  time  to 
time  the  common  soldiery  were  gratified  with 
presents  of  food  and  wine,  as  well  as  with  an 
abundance  of  flattering  words,  and  their  exaspera- 
tion against  civilians  was  so  well  kept  alive  that 
men  used  to  African  warfare  were  brought  into 


the  humor  for  calling  the  Parisians  'Bedouins.' 
There  was  massacre  in  the  very  sound.  The 
army  of  Paris  was  in  the  temper  required.  It 
was  necessary  for  the  plotters  to  have  the  con- 
currence of  M.  St.  Georges,  the  director  of  the 
state  printing-office.  M.  St.  Georges  was  sub- 
orned. Then  all  was  ready.  On  the  Monday 
night  between  the  1st  and  2d  of  December,  the 
President  had  his  usual  assembly  at  the  Elysee. 
Ministers  who  were  loyally  ignorant  of  what 
was  going  on  were  mingled  with  those  who  were 
in  the  plot.  ...  At  the  usual  hour  the  assembly 
began  to  disperse,  and  by  eleven  o'clock  there 
were  only  three  guests  who  remained.  These 
were  Morny  (who  had  previously  taken  care  to 
show  himself  at  one  of  the  theatres),  Maupas, 
and  St.  Arnaud,  formerly  Le  Roy.  'There  was, 
besides,  an  orderly  oSicer  of  the  President,  called 
Colonel  Seville,  who  was  initiated  in  the  secret. 
.  .  .  They  were  to  strike  the  blow  that  night. 
.  .  .  By  and  by  they  were  apprised  that  an 
order  which  had  been  given  for  the  movement  of 
a  battalion  of  gendarmerie,  had  duly  taken  effect 
without  exciting  remark.  .  .  .  The  President 
entrusted  a  packet  of  manuscripts  to  Colonel 
Seville,  and  despatched  him  to  the  state  printing- 
office.  It  was  in  the  streets  which  surround  this 
buUding  that  the  battalion  of  gendarmerie  had 
been  collected.  When  Paris  was  hushed  in 
sleep,  the  battalion  came  quietly  out,  and  folded 
round  the  state  printing-office.  From  that  mo- 
ment until  their  work  was  done  the  printers  were 
all  close  captives,  for  no  one  of  them  was  suf- 
fered to  go  out.  ...  It  is  said  that  there  was 
something  like  resistance,  but  in  the  end,  if  not 
at  first,  the  printers  obeyed.  Each  compositor 
stood  whilst  he  worked  between  two  policemen, 
and,  the  manuscript  being  cut  into  many  pieces, 
no  one  could  make  out  the  sense  of  what  he  was 
printing.  By  these  proclamations  the  President 
asserted  that  the  Assembly  was  a  hot-bed  of 
plots ;  declared  it  dissolved ;  pronounced  for  uni- 
versal suffrage;  proposed  a  new  constitution; 
vowed  anew  that  his  duty  was  to  maintain  the 
Republic ;  and  placed  Paris  and  the  twelve  sur- 
rounding departments  under  martial  law.  In 
one  of  the  proclamations  he  appealed  to  the 
army,  and  strove  to  whet  its  enmity  against 
civilians,  by  reminding  it  of  the  defeats  inflicted 
upon  the  troops  in  1830  and  1848.  The  Presi- 
dent wrote  letters  dismissing  the  members  of  the 
Government  who  were  not  in  the  plot ;  but  he 
did  not  cause  these  letters  to  be  delivered  until 
the  following  morning.  He  also  signed  a  paper 
appointing  Morny  to  the  Home  Ofiice.  .  .  .  The 
order  from  the  Minister  of  War  was  probably 
signed  by  half-past  two  in  the  morning,  for  at 
three  it  was  in  the  hands  of  Magnan.  At  the 
same  hour  Maupas  (assigning  for  pretext  the  ex- 
pected arrival  of  foreign  refugees),  caused  a 
number  of  Commissaries  to  be  summoned  in  all 
haste  to  the  Prefecture  of  Police.  At  half-past 
three  in  the  morning  these  men  were  in  atten- 
dance. .  .  .  It  was  then  that,  for  the  first  time,  the 
main  secret  of  the  confederates  passed  into  the 
hands  of  a  number  of  subordinate  agents.  Dur- 
ing some  hours  of  that  night  every  one  of  those 
humble  Commissaries  had  the  destinies  of  France 
in  his  hands ;  for  he  might  either  obey  the  Minis- 
ter, and  so  place  his  country  in  the  power  of  the 
Elysee,  or  he  might  obey  the  law,  denounce  the 
plot,  and  bring  its  contrivers  to  trial.  Maupas 
gave  orders  for  the  seizure  at  the  same  minute  of 


1409 


FRANCE,  1851. 


The  Triumph  of  the 
Coup  (TEtat. 


FRANCE,  1851. 


the  foremost  Generals  of  France,  and  several  of 
her  leading  Statesmen.  Parties  of  the  police, 
each  under  the  orders  of  a  Commissary,  were  to 
be  at  the  doors  of  the  persons  to  be  arrested  some 
time  beforehand,  but  the  seizures  were  not  to 
take  place  until  a  quarter  past  six.  ...  At  the 
appointed  minute,  and  whilst  it  was  still  dark, 
the  designated  houses  were  entered.  The  most 
famous  generals  of  France  were  seized.  General 
Changarnier,  General  Bedeau,  General  Lamori- 
ciSre,  General  Cavaignac,  and  General  Leflo 
were  taken  from  their  beds,  and  carried  away 
through  the  sleeping  city  and  thrown  into  prison. 
In  the  same  minute  the  like  was  done  with  some 
of  the  chief  members  and  officers  of  the  Assem- 
bly, and  amongst  others  with  Thiers,  Miot,  Baze, 
Colonel  Charras,  Roger  du  Nord,  and  several  of 
the  democratic  leaders.  Some  men  believed  to 
be  the  chiefs  of  secret  societies  were  also  seized. 
The  general  object  of  these  night  arrests  was 
that,  when  morning  broke,  the  army  should  be 
without  generals  inclined  to  observe  the  law,  that 
the  Assembly  should  be  without  the  machinery 
for  convoking  it,  and  that  all  the  political  parties 
in  the  State  should  be  paralyzed  by  the  disap- 
pearance of  their  chiefs.  The  number  of  men 
thus  seized  in  the  dark  was  seventy-eight. 
Eighteen  of  these  were  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly. Whilst  it  was  still  dark,  Morny,  escorted 
by  a  body  of  infantry,  took  possession  of  the 
Home  Office,  and  prepared  to  touch  the  springs 
of  that  wondrous  machinery  by  which  a  clerk 
can  dictate  to  a  nation.  Already  he  began  to 
tell  40,000  communes  of  the  enthusiasm  with 
which  the  sleeping  city  had  received  the  an- 
nouncement of  measures  not  hitherto  disclosed. 
When  the  light  of  the  morning  dawned,  people 
saw  the  Proclamations  on  the  walls,  and  slowly 
came  to  hear  that  numbers  of  the  foremost  men 
of  France  had  been  seized  in  the  night-time,  and 
that  every  General  to  whom  the  friends  of  law 
and  order  could  look  for  help  was  lying  in  one 
or  other  of  the  prisons.  The  newspapers,  to 
which  a  man  might  run  in  order  to  know  truly 
what  others  thought  and  intended,  were  all 
seized  and  stopped.  The  gates  of  the  Assembly 
were  closed  and  guarded,  but  the  Deputies,  who 
began  to  flock  thither,  found  means  to  enter  by 
passing  through  one  of  the  official  residences 
which  formed  part  of  the  building.  They  had 
assembled  in  the  Chamber  in  large  numbers,  and 
some  of  them  having  caught  Dupin,  their  reluc- 
tant President,  were  forcing  him  to  come  and  take 
the  chair,  when  a  body  of  infantry  burst  in  and 
drove  them  out,  striking  some  of  them  with  the 
butt-ends  of  their  muskets.  .  .  .  Driven  from 
their  Chamber,  the  Deputies  assembled  at  the 
Mayoralty  of  the  10th  arrondissement.  There, 
upon  the  motion  of  the  illustrious  Berryer,  they 
resolved  that  the  act  of  Louis  Bonaparte  was  a 
forfeiture  of  the  Presidency,  and  they  directed 
the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  meet  and 
proceed  to  the  judgment  of  the  President  and 
his  accomplices.  These  resolutions  had  just 
been  voted,  when  a  battalion  of  the  Chasseurs  de 
Vincennes  entered  the  courtyard.  .  .  .  An  aide- 
de-camp  of  General  Magnan  came  with  a  written 
order  directing  the  officer  in  command  of  the 
battalion  to  clear  the  hall,  to  do  this  if  necessary 
by  force,  and  to  carry  off  to  the  prison  of  Mazas 
any  Deputies  offering  resistance.  .  .  .  The  num- 
ber of  Deputies  present  at  this  moment  was  220. 
The  whole  Assembly  declared  that  they  resisted. 


and  would  yield  to  nothing  short  of  force.  .  .  . 
T5iey  were  carried  off,  some  to  the  Fort  of  Mount 
Valerian,  some  to  the  fortress  of  Vincennes,  and 
some  to  the  prison  of  Mazas.  ...  By  the  laws 
of  the  Republic,  the  duty  of  taking  cognizance 
of  offences  against  the  Constitution  was  cast 
upon  the  Supreme  Court.  The  Court  was  sitting, 
when  an  armed  force  entered  the  hall,  and  the 
judges  were  driven  from  the  bench,  but  not  until 
they  had  made  a  judicial  order  for  the  impeach- 
ment of  the  President." — A.  W.  Kinglake,  The 
Invasion  of  the  Crimea,  v.  1,  ch.  14. 

Also  in:  E.  Tenot, Pam  in  December,  1851,  ch. 
1-4. — V.  Hugo,  Napoleon  the  Little. — M.  de 
Maupas,  The  Story  of  the  Coup  d'Etat. — B.  Jer- 
rold.  Life  of  Napoleon  ILL,  bk.  8  (».  3). 

A.  D.  1851.— The  bloody  Triumph  of  the 
Coup  d'Etat. — Destruction  of  the  Second  Re- 
public.— "The  second  part  of  the  Coup  d'fetat, 
which  drenched  the  boulevards  with  innocent 
blood,  has  cast  a  shade  of  horror  over  the  whole 
transaction  that  time  has  been  unable  to  efface. 
Paris  is  never  so  reduced  in  a  crisis,  whether  the 
cause  be  just  or  unjust,  that  she  is  bereft  of 
hands  to  erect  and  defend  barricades  in  her 
streets.  In  the  Faubourg  St.  Antoine  an  incipi- 
ent rising  on  the  2d  was  suppressed  immediately 
by  the  troops.  The  volcanic  district  from  the 
Hotel  de  Ville  northward  to  the  boulevards  also 
showed  signs  of  uneasiness,  and  throughout  the 
morning  of  the  3d  the  military  were  busy  pulling 
down  partially  completed  barricades  and  dispers- 
ing small  bodies  of  insurgents.  There  seems  to 
be  little  question  that  the  army  was  embittered 
against  the  populace.  If  this  were  so,  the  proc- 
lamation circulated  by  the  president  through 
the  ranks  on  the  2d  was  not  calculated  to  ap- 
pease it.  He  styled  the  soldiers  as  the  '  flower  of 
the  nation, '  He  pointed  out  to  them  that  his  in- 
terests and  theirs  were  the  same,  and  that  they 
had  suffered  together  in  the  past  from  the  course 
of  the  Assembly.  He  reminded  them  of  the 
years  1830  and  1848,  when  the  army  had  fought 
the  people  in  the  streets  of  Paris,  and  concluded 
by  an  allusion  to  the  military  grandeur  of  the 
Bonapartes.  During  the  afternoon  of  the  3d  and 
morning  of  the  4th  the  troops  remained  inactive, 
pending  orders  from  the  minister  of  war,  and 
in  this  interval  several  strong  barricades  were 
erected  in  the  restless  quarters.  On  the  after- 
noon of  the  4th  the  boulevards,  from  the  Made- 
leine to  the  Rue  du  Sentier,  were  occupied  by  a 
great  body  of  troops  awaiting  orders  to  move 
east  through  the  Boulevard  Bonne  Nouvelle  upon 
the  barricaded  district.  The  soldiers  stood  at 
ease,  and  the  officers  lounged  about,  smoking 
tlieir  cigars.  The  sidewalks,  windows,  and 
balconies  were  crowded  with  men,  women, 
and  children,  thoughtless  onlookers  of  the  great 
military  display.  Suddenly  a  single  shot  was 
heard.  It  was  fired  from  a  window  near  the 
Rue  du  Sentier.  The  troops  at  the  head  of  the 
column  faced  sharply  to  the  south,  and  com- 
menced a  deliberate  fusillade  upon  the  crowded 
walks  and  balconies.  The  battalions  farther 
west  caught  the  murderous  contagion,  until  the 
line  of  fire  extended  into  the  Boulevard  des 
Italiens.  In  a  few  moments  the  beautiful  boule- 
vards were  converted  into  a  bloody  pandemonium. 
The  sidewalks  were  strewn  with  corpses  and 
stained  with  blood.  The  air  was  rent  with 
shrieks  and  groans  and  the  breaking  of  glass, 
while  the  steady,  incessant  rattling  of  the  mus- 


1410 


FRANCE,  1851. 


Fall  of  the  Second 
Republic. 


FRANCE,  1851-1852. 


ketry  was  intensified  by  an  occasional  can- 
non-sliot,  tliat  brouglit  down  witli  a  crash  the 
masonry  from  some  fine  fafade.  This  continued 
for  nearly  twenty  minutes,  when  a  lack  of  peo- 
ple to  kill  seems  to  have  restrained  the  mad  vol- 
leys of  the  troops.  If  any  attempt  was  made  by 
officers  to  check  their  men,  it  was  wholly  un- 
availing, and  in  some  cases  miserable  fugitives 
were  followed  into  buildings  and  massacred. 
Later  in  the  day  the  barricades  were  attacked, 
and  their  defenders  easily  overcome.  By  night- 
fall insurgent  Paris  was  thoroughly  cowed. 
These  allegations,  though  conflicting  with  svforn 
statements  of  Republicans  and  Imperialists,  can 
hardly  be  refuted.  The  efforts  of  the  Napole- 
onic faction  to  portray  the  thoughtless  crowd  of 
the  boulevards  as  desperate  and  bloody-minded 
rebels  have  never  been  successful,  while  the  op- 
position so  brilliantly  represented  by  the  author 
of  '  Histoire  d'un  Crime '  have  been  too  fierce  and 
immoderate  in  their  accusations  to  win  public 
credence.  The  questions  as  to  who  fired  the  first 
shot,  and  whether  it  was  fired  as  a  signal  for,  or 
a  menace  against  the  military,  are  points  on 
which  Frenchmen  of  different  political  parties 
still  debate.  It  is  charitable  to  accept  M.  Hugo's 
insinuation  that  the  soldiery  were  drunk  with  the 
president's  wine,  even  though  the  fact  implies  a 
low  state  of  discipline  in  the  service.  To  what 
extent  was  the  president  responsible  for  the 
boulevard  horror?  M.  Victor  Hugo  and  M.  de 
Maupas  do  not  agree  upon  this  point,  and  it 
seems  useless  to  discuss  it.  Certain  facts  are  in- 
disputable. We  Ivnow  the  army  bore  small  love 
toward  the  Parisians,  and  we  know  it  was  in  the 
streets  by  order  of  the  president.  We  know  that 
the  latter  was  in  bad  company,  and  playing  a 
dangerous  game.  We  may  discard  M.  Victor 
Hugo's  statement  as  to  the  orders  issued  by  the 
president  from  the  Elysee  on  the  fatal  day,  but 
we  cannot  disguise  the  fact  that  the  boulevard 
horror  subdued  Paris,  and  crowned  his  cause 
with  success.  In  other  words,  Louis  Napoleon 
was  the  gainer  by  the  slaughter  of  unoffending 
men,  women,  and  children,  and  in  after-years, 
when  referring  to  the  4th  of  December,  he  found 
it  for  his  interest  to  distort  facts,  and  make 
figures  lie.  .  .  .  Louis  Napoleon  had  expressly 
stated  in  the  proclamation  that  astonished  Paris 
on  the  2d  that  he  made  the  people  judge  between 
him  and  the  Assembly.  The  citizens  of  France 
were  called  upon  to  vote  on  the  20th  and  21st  of 
December  '  Yes '  or  '  No '  to  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  president  should  be  sustained  in  the 
measures  he  had  taken,  should  be  empowered  to 
draw  up  a  new  constitution,  and  should  retain 
the  presidential  chair  for  a  period  of  ten  years. " 
— H.  Murdock,  T/ie  Reconstruction  of  Europe, 
ch.  2. 

Also  in:  V.  Hugo,  History  of  a  Cnme. — E. 
Tenot,  Paris  in  December,  18^51,  ch.  5-6. — M.  de 
Mauoas,  Story  of  the  Coup  (VEtat,  ch.  18-24  (».  2). 
— Count  H.  de  Viel  Castel,  Memoirs,  v.   1,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  1851-1852. — Transportation  and  exile 
of  republicans. —  The  dictator's  constitution 
for  France. — Rapid  progress  of  despotism. — 
The  Second  Empire  ordained. — Elevation  of 
Napoleon  III.  to  the  throne. — "The  struggle 
was  over:  terror  of  the  victors  followed.  Thirty- 
two  departments  were  in  a  state  of  siege.  More 
than  100,000  citizens  were  languishing  in  prison. 
Trial  followed  trial  in  rapid  succession,  the  cases 
being  classed  under  three  heads:  1st,    persons 


found  armed,  or  against  whom  serious  charges 
existed ;  3d,  persons  charged  with  minor  offences ; 
3d,  dangerous  persons.  The  first  class  was  judged 
at  once  by  a  council  of  war,  the  second  sent  to 
various  tribunals,  the  third  transported  without 
trial.  Many  prisoners  were  not  even  questioned. 
Numbers  were  set  free ;  but  multitudes  were  still 
held.  Under  these  conditions  the  date  of  the 
plebiscite,  December  20  and  21,  approached. 
Notices  were  posted  to  the  effect  that  '  any  per- 
son seeking  to  disturb  the  polls  or  to  question 
the  result  of  the  ballot  would  be  tried  by  a  coun- 
cil of  war.'  All  liberty  of  choice  was  taken  from 
the  electors,  many  of  whom  were  arrested  on 
suspicion  of  exciting  others  to  vote  against  the 
president  of  the  republic.  When  the  lists  were 
published  it  was  found  that  the  '  ayes'  had  car- 
ried the  day,  although  many  did  not  vote  at  all. 
Indubitably  the  figures  were  notably  swelled  by 
violence  and  fraud.  .  .  .  December  31,  ex-Mln- 
ister  Baroche  presented  the  result  of  the  ballots 
to  the  prince-president, —  a  strange  title  now 
given  to  Louis  Napoleon,  for  the  time  being,  in 
lieu  of  another.  .  .  .  Next  day,  January  1, 1853, 
Archbishop  Sibour  celebrated  a  Te  Deum  in  Notre 
Dame,  the  prince-president  sitting  under  a  can- 
opy. .  .  .  While  the  man  of  December  2  lodged 
in  the  palace  of  kings,  the  chief  representatives 
of  the  republic  were  cast  into  exile.  The  execu- 
tors of  the  plot  treated  the  captive  representa- 
tives very  differently  according  as  they  were 
conservative  or  repiiblican.  When  the  prisoners 
were  told  that  a  distinction  was  to  be  made 
among  them,  they  honorably  refused  to  give  their 
names,  but  they  were  betrayed  by  an  usher  of 
the  Assembly.  The  republicans  were  then  sent 
to  Mazas,  and  treated  like  common  thieves,  M. 
Thiers  alone  being  allowed  a  bed  instead  of  the 
ordinary  hammock.  The  other  party  were  soon 
set  free,  with  but  few  exceptions,  and  on  the 
8th  of  January  the  generals  imprisoned  at  Ham, 
with  their  companion,  Questor  Baze,  were  sent 
to  Belgium.  Next  day  a  series  of  proscriptions 
came  out.  All  persons  '  convicted  of  taking  part 
in  the  recent  insurrections '  were  to  be  trans- 
ported, some  to  Guiana,  some  to  Algiers.  A 
second  decree  expelled  from  France,  Algiers, 
and  the  French  colonies,  '  as  a  measure  of  public 
safety,'  sixty  representatives  of  the  Left,  includ- 
ing Victor  Hugo  and  certain  others,  for  whom 
it  was  reserved  to  aid  in  the  foundation  of  a  third 
republic.  A  third  decree  commanded  the  tem- 
porary absence  from  France  and  Algiers  of 
eighteen  other  representatives,  including  the  gen- 
erals, with  Thiers,  De  Remusat,  and  several  mem- 
bers of  the  Left,  among  them  Edgar  Quinet  and 
Emile  de  Girardin.  .  .  .  The  next  step  was  to  es- 
tablish the  famous 'mixed  commissions 'in  every 
province.  These  commissions  were  to  try  the 
numerous  prisoners  still  held  captive.  .  .  .  The 
mixed  commissions  of  1853,  as  the  historian  of  the 
coup  d'etat  CM.  Eugene  Tenot)  declares,  '  decided, 
without  legal  proceedings,  without  hearing  of 
witnesses,  without  public  trial,  the  fate  of  thou- 
sands and  thousands  of  republicans.'  They  have 
left  the  indelible  memory  of  one  of  the  most 
monstrous  events  known  in  history.  An  act 
equally  extraordinary  in  another  way  was  the 
promulgation  of  the  new  constitution  framed 
by  the  dictator  alone  (January  14,  1852).  .  .  . 
The  constitution  of  1852  began  by  a  '  recognition, 
confirmation,  and  guarantee  of  the  great  prin- 
ciples proclaimed  in  1789,  which  are  the  founda- 


1411 


FRANCE,  1851-1852. 


The  Second  Empire. 


FRANCE,  1859. 


tion  of  the  public  rights  and  laws  of  France.' 
But  it  did  not  say  one  Tvord  about  the  freedom 
of  the  press,  nor  about  freedom  of  clubs  and 
association.  .  .  .  '  The  government  of  the  French 
republic  is  intrusted  to  Prince  Louis  Napoleon 
Bonaparte  for  the  term  of  ten  years.'  In  the 
preface  Louis  Napoleon  threw  aside  the  fiction 
of  irresponsibility  '  which  deceives  public  senti- 
ment'; the  constitution  therefore  declares  the 
leader  of  the  state  responsible  to  the  French 
people,  but  omits  to  say  how  this  responsibility 
may  be  realized ;  the  French  people  have  no  re- 
source save  revolution.  .  .  .  The  legislative  body 
was  to  consist  of  263  members  (one  for  each  3,500 
electors),  chosen  for  five  years  by  universal  suf- 
frage. This  body  would  vote  upon  the  laws 
and  taxes.  Louis  Napoleon,  having  profited  so 
largely  by  the  repeal  of  the  law  of  j\Iay  31,  could 
scarcely  refuse  to  retain  direct  universal  suffrage, 
but  he  essentially  altered  its  character  by  various 
modifications.  He  also  so  reduced  the  impor- 
tance of  the  only  great  body  still  elective,  tliat 
he  had  little  or  nothing  to  fear  from  it.  Another 
assembly,  the  Senate,  was  to  be  composed  of 
eighty  members,  which  number  might  be  in- 
creased to  150.  The  senators  were  irremovable, 
and  were  to  be  chosen  by  the  president  of  the 
republic,  with  the  exception  of  cardinals,  mar- 
shals, and  admirals,  who  were  senators  by  right. 
The  president  might  give  each  senator  an  income 
of  80,000  francs.  The  Senate  was  the  guardian 
of  the  constitution  and  of  'the  public  liberty.' 
.  .  .  The  executive  power  chose  all  mayors,  and 
was  at  liberty  to  select  them  outside  the  town 
council.  In  fact,  the  constitution  of  1852  sur- 
passed the  constitution  of  the  year  VIII.  as  a 
piece  of  monarchic  reaction.  It  entailed  no  con- 
sulate, but  an  empire, —  dictatorship  and  total 
confiscation  of  public  liberty.  .  .  .  Despotism 
spread  daily  in  every  direction.  On  the  17th  of 
February  the  liberty  of  the  press  was  notably 
reduced,  and  severe  penalties  were  aflixedto  any 
infraction.  In  fact,  the  press  was  made  depen- 
dent on  the  good- will  of  the  president.  Educa- 
tion was  next  attacked,  a  decree  of  March  9, 
1852,  stripping  the  professors  of  the  University 
of  all  the  pledges  and  principles  granted  by  the 
First  Empire.  .  .  .  The  new  power,  in  1852, 
labored  to  turn  all  the  forces  of  the  country  to 
material  interests,  while  it  stifled  all  moral  inter- 
ests. It  suppressed  education  and  the  press,  and 
constantly  stimulated  the  financial  and  industrial 
movement.  .  .  .  Numberless  railroad  companies 
now  sprang  to  life,  and  roads  were  rapidly  built 
upon  a  grand  scale.  The  government  adopted 
the  system  of  grants  on  a  long  term  of  years, — 
say  ninety-nine, —  plus  the  guarantee  of  a  small 
rate  of  interest.  In  everything  the  cry  was  for 
instant  success,  at  anj'  cost.  Great  financial 
operations  followed  on  the  heels  of  tha  first 
grants  to  railroad  companies.  .  .  .  This  year's 
budget,  like  the  constitution,  was  the  work  of  a 
single  man.  The  dictator  settled  it  by  a  decree ; 
then,  having  ordered  the  elections  for  his  Chamber 
of  Deputies,  just  before  his  constitution  went 
into  operation,  he  raised  the  universal  state  of 
siege  (JIarch  28).  This  was  only  a  feint,  for  his 
government  was  a  permanent  state  of  siege.  .  .  . 
The  official  candidates  presented,  or  rather  im- 
posed, were  generally  elected ;  the  republicans 
failed  to  vote  throughout  a  great  part  of  the 
country.  .  .  .  March  29,  the  prince-president 
proceeded  to  install  the  great  state  bodies  at  the 


Tuileries.  It  was  thought  that  he  would  hint  in 
Ills  speech  that  he  expected  the  title  of  Emperor, 
but  he  left  that  point  vague,  and  still  talked  of 
preserving  the  republic.  .  .  .  During  the  session 
a  rumor  was  current  that  Louis  Napoleon  was  to 
be  proclaimed  emperor  on  the  10th  of  May,  after 
the  distribution  of  eagles  to  the  army ;  but  this 
was  not  carried  out.  The  dictator  had  no  desire 
to  be  made  emperor  in  this  fashion.  He  meant 
to  do  it  more  artfuUy,  and  to  make  it  seem  that 
the  nation  forced  the  accomplishment  of  his 
wishes  upon  him.  He  therefore  undertook  a 
fresh  journey  through  the  provinces.  .  .  .  The 
watchword  was  everywhere  given  by  the  au- 
thorities and  influential  persons,  whose  example 
was  imitated  by  the  crowd,  irreconcilable  oppo- 
nents keeping  silent.  ...  He  returned  to  Paris, 
October  16,  and  was  received  in  state  at  the  Or- 
leans station.  The  official  bodies  greeted  him 
with  shouts  of  '  Long  live  the  Emperor ! ' .  .  . 
Next  day,  the  following  paragraph  appeared  In 
the  '  Moniteur ' :  '  The  tremendous  desire  for  the 
restoration  of  the  empire  manifested  through- 
out France,  makes  it  incumbent  upon  the  presi- 
dent to  consult  the  Senate  upon  the  subject.' 
The  Senate  and  Legislature  were  convened  No- 
vember 4;  the  latter  was  to  verify  the  votes, 
should  the  Senate  decide  that  the  people  must 
be  consulted  in  regard  to  a  change  in  the  form 
of  government,  which  no  one  doubted  would  be 
the  case.  .  .  .  The  Senate  .  .  .  passed  a  decree 
for  the  submission  of  the  restoration  of  the  he- 
reditary empire  for  popular  acceptance  (Novem- 
ber 7) ;  the  senators  then  went  in  a  body  to  St. 
Cloud  to  inform  the  prince-president  of  this  de- 
cision. .  .  .  The  people  were  then  called  upon 
to  vote  for  the  plebiscite  decreed  by  the  Senate 
(November  20  and  21).  Republican  and  legiti- 
mist protests  were  circulated  in  despite  of  the 
police,  the  government  publishing  them  in  the 
official  organ,  the  '  Moniteur,' as  if  in  defiance, 
thinking  that  the  excessive  violence  of  the  re- 
publican proscripts  of  London  and  Guernsey 
would  alarm  the  peace-loving  public.  The  result 
of  the  vote  was  even  greater  than  that  of  Decem- 
ber 20,  1851 ;  the  authenticity  of  the  figures  may 
indeed  be  doubted,  but  there  is  not  a  doubt  that 
there  was  really  a  large  majority  in  favor  of  the 
plebiscite.  France  abandoned  the  struggle !  On 
the  evening  of  December  1,  the  three  great  state 
bodies,  the  two  Chambers  and  the  State  Council, 
went  to  St.  Cloud,  and  the  president  of  the  Legis- 
lature presented  the  result  of  the  ballot  to  the 
new  emperor,  who  sat  enthroned,  between  his 
uncle  Jerome  and  his  cousin  Napoleon." — H. 
Martin,  Popular  Hist,  of  France,  1789-1878,  v.  3, 
ch.  15. 

Axso  m:  H.  C.  Lockwood,  Const.  Hist,  of 
France,  ch.  6,  and  app.  9. 

A.  D.  1853-1856.— The  Crimean  war.  See 
Russi.i ;     A.  D.  1853-1851,  to  18.54-1856. 

A,  D.  1855-1895.  Acquisitions  in  Africa. 
See  Afrka:     A.  D.  1855,  1876-1880,  and  after. 

A.  D.  1857-1860. — Operations  with  England 
in  China.     See  China  :  A.  L).  1856-1860. 

A.  D.  1858. — Orsini  attempt  to  assassinate 
Napoleon  III.    See  England  :    A.  I).  1858-1S59. 

A.  D.  1858-1886.— Conquest  of  Tonkin  and 
Cochin  China.     See  Tonkin. 

A.  D.  1859.— Alliance  with  Sardinia  and 
war  with  Austria. — Acquisition  of  Savoy  and 
Nice.  See  IrKhX  :  A.  D.  1806-1859,  and  1809- 
1861. 


1412 


FRANCE,  1860. 


The  Hohenzollern 
Incident. 


FRANCE,  1870. 


A.  D.  i860. — The  Chevalier-Cobden  com- 
mercial  treaty  with   England.      See  Taeiff 

Legislation  (France):  A.  D.  1853-1860. 

A.  D.  1860-1870. — Modifications  of  the  im- 
perial constitution.  —  "Originally  .  .  .  the 
power  of  the  Legislative  Body  was  limited  to  vot- 
ing and  rejecting  as  a  whole  the  laws  submitted 
to  it  by  the  Executive ;  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  criticism  or  control  of  the  general  policy  of 
the  reign:  but  the  year  1860  opened  a  period  of 
development  in  the  direction  of  liberty ;  by  a 
decree  of  the  November  of  that  year  the  Emperor 
permitted  the  Deputies  to  draw  up  an  address  in 
answer  to  his  speech,  giving  them  thereby  the 
opportunity  to  criticise  his  policy;  by  that  of 
December  1861  he  allowed  them  to  vote  the 
budget  by  sections,  that  is  to  say,  to  discuss  and, 
if  desirable,  reject  its  items;  by  that  of  January 
1867  he  substituted  for  the  Address  the  right  of 
questioning  the  Ministers,  who  might  be  dele- 
gated to  the  Chamber  by  the  Emperor  to  take 
part  in  certain  definite  discussions;  lastly,  by  that 
of  September  1869  he  gave  to  the  Legislative 
Body  the  right  of  initiating  laws,  removed  the  re- 
strictions hitherto  retained  on  the  right  of  amend- 
ment and  of  questions,  and  made  the  Ministers 
responsible  to  the  Chamber.  Thus  the  Constitu- 
tion was  deliberately  modified,  by  the  initiative 
of  the  Emperor  himself,  from  the  form  of  im- 
perial despotism  to  that  of  parliamentary  mon- 
archy: this  modified  Constitution  was  submitted 
to  a  plebiscite  in  May  1870,  and  once  more  the 
people  ratified  the  Empire  by  over  seven  million 
votes  against  a  million  and  a  half." — G.  L.  Dick- 
inson, Bevolution  and  Reaction  in  Modern  France, 
eh.  7,  sect.  3. 

A.  D.  1861-1867. — Intervention  in  Mexico 
and  its  humiliating  failure.  See  Mexico:  A.  D. 
1861-1867. 

A.  D.  1862. — Commercial  treaty  with  Ger- 
many. See  Tariff  Legislation  (Germany): 
A.  D.  1853-1893. 

A.  D.  1866. —  Withdrawal  of  troops  from 
Rome.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1863-1866. 

A.  D.  1866-1870. —  Territorial  concessions 
demanded  from  Germany. — The  Luxemburg 
question. — War  temporarily  averted.  See  Ger- 
many: A.  D.  1866-1870. 

A.  D.  1867. — Last  defense  of  Papal  sov- 
ereignty at  Rome. —  Defeat  of  Garibaldi  at 
Mentana.     See  Italy:  A.  D.  1807-1870. 

A.  D.  1870  (June— July).— "  The  Hohenzol- 
lern incident." —  Unjustifiable  declaration  of 
war  against  Prussia. —  "Towards  the  last  of 
June,  1870,  there  arose  what  is  known  as  the 
'  Hohenzollern  incident,'  which  assumed  so  much 
importance,  as  it  led  up  to  the  Franco-German 
War.  In  June,  1868,  Queen  Isabella  had  been 
chased  from  Spain,  and  had  sought  refuge  in 
France.  The  Spanish  Cortes,  maintaining  the 
monarchical  form,  offered  the  Crown  of  Spain  to 
Prince  Hohenzollern,  a  relation  of  the  King  of 
Prussia  [see  Spain:  A.  D.  1866-1873].  The 
French  Minister  at  Madrid  telegraphed  that 
Prince  Leopold  Hohenzollern  had  been  nomi- 
nated to  the  throne  of  Spain,  and  had  accepted. 
This  produced  the  utmost  excitement  and  indig- 
nation among  the  French  people.  The  Paris 
press  teemed  with  articles  more  or  less  violent, 
calling  on  the  government  to  prevent  this  out- 
rage, even  at  the  cost  of  war.  The  journals  of 
all  shades  were  unanimous  in  the  matter,  con- 
tending that  it  was  an  insult  and  a  peril  to 


France,  and  could  not  be  tolerated.  The  Oppo- 
sition in  the  Chamber  made  the  incident  an  occa- 
sion for  attacking  the  government,  alleging  that 
it  was  owing  to  its  weak  and  vacillating  policy 
that  France  was  indebted  to  her  fresh  humilia- 
tion. The  government  journals,  however,  laid 
the  whole  blame  upon  the  ambition  of  Count  Bis- 
marck, who  had  become  to  them  a  bete  noire. 
.  .  .  Both  parties  vied  with  each  other  in  showing 
the  extent  of  their  dislike  to  the  great  Prussian 
Chancellor.  Much  pressure  was  soon  brought 
to  bear  in  the  proper  quarters ;  the  result  of  this 
was  the  withdrawal  of  the  Hohenzollern  candi- 
dacy. Explanations  were  made,  better  counsels 
seemed  to  prevail,  and  all  immediate  trouble 
appeared  averted.  It  seemed  quite  certain  that 
all  danger  of  a  war  between  France  and  Ger- 
many was  at  an  end,  and  all  being  quiet  on  the 
banks  of  the  Seine,  on  the  3d  of  July  I  left 
Paris  in  pursuit  of  health  and  recreation  at  the 
healing  waters  of  Carlsbad,  of  far-off  Bohemia. 
I  was  in  excellent  relations  with  the  Duke  de 
Gramont,  and  everything  appeared  to  be  serene. 
I  had  hardly  reached  Carlsbad,  when  scanty 
news  was  received  of  a  somewhat  threatening 
character.  I  could  hardly  believe  that  anything 
very  serious  was  likely  to  result;  yet  I  was 
somewhat  uneasy.  Going  to  drink  the  water  at 
one  of  the  health-giving  springs,  early  in  the 
morning  of  July  15th,  my  Alsatian  valet  brought 
me  the  startling  news,  that  a  private  telegram, 
received  at  midnight,  gave  the  intelligence  that 
France  had  declared  war  against  Germany.  The 
news  fell  upon  the  thousands  of  visitors  and  the 
people  of  Carlsbad,  like  a  clap  of  thunder  in  a 
cloudless  sky,  and  the  most  intense  excitement 
prevailed.  The  nearest  railroad  station  to  Carls- 
itad,  at  that  time,  was  Eger.  ...  I  rode  all  night 
from  Carlsbad  to  Eger.  Taking  the  railroad 
from  Eger  to  Paris,  and  passing  through  Bavaria, 
Baden,  Darmstadt  and  the  valley  of  the  Rhine, 
the  excitement  was  something  prodigious,  recall- 
ing to  me  the  days  at  home  of  the  firing  upon 
Sumter,  in  1861.  The  troops  were  rushing  to 
the  depots;  the  trains  were  all  blocked,  and 
confusion  everywhere  reigned  supreme.  After 
great  delays,  and  much  discomfort,  and  a  jour- 
ney of  fifty -two  hours,  I  reached  Paris  at  ten 
o'clock  at  night,  July  18th.  The  great  masses  of 
people,  naturally  so  excitable  and  turbulent,  had 
been  maddened  by  the  false  news  so  skilfully ' 
disseminated,  that  King  William,  at  Ems,  had  in- 
sulted the  French  nation  through  its  Ambassa- 
dor. ...  It  soon  turned  out  that  all  the  reports 
which  had  been  spread  over  Paris,  that  King 
William  had  insulted  the  French  Ambassador 
were  utterly  false,  and  had  not  the  slightest 
foundation.  The  French  Ambassador,  M.  Bene- 
detti,  denied  that  he  had  received  the  least  indig- 
nity from  the  Emperor.  .  .  .  The  exaggerations 
in  Paris  and  France  of  this  simple  incident  sur- 
passed all  bounds,  and  they  were  apparently 
made  to  inflame  the  people  still  more.  It  really 
appeared  that  the  Government  of  France  had  de- 
termined to  have  war  with  Germany,  coute  que 
coOte.  The  alleged  causes  growing  out  of  the 
talk  that  Germany  was  to  put  a  German  prince 
on  the  throne  of  Spain  were  but  a  mere  pretext. 
.  .  .  After  eighteen  years  of  peace,  the  courtiers 
and  adventurers  who  surrounded  the  Emperor 
seemed  to  think  that  it  was  about  time  to  have 
a  war."' — E.  B.  Washburne,  Recolleciions  of  a 
Minister  to  Prance,  v.  1,  ch.  3. — "It  is  a  popular 


1413 


FEANCE,  1870. 


Beginning  of 
War  with  Pfussia. 


FRANCE,  1870. 


fiction  that  the  king  turned  his  back  on  Benedetti, 
or  that  he  answered  that  he  '  had  nothing  more  to 
say  to  him,'  or  that  he  out  and  out  refused  him 
an  audience.  An  extra  of  the  German  papers  of 
July  14th  did  indeed  read  to  that  effect  :  Bis- 
marck himself  had  drawn  up  the  notice  for  the 
papers.  He  had  made  no  false  additions,  but 
here  and  there  he  had  erased  and  omitted  some 
of  the  words  spoken  at  Ems,  thus  rendering 
possible  at  least  the  whole  false  conception  of  the 
matter.  Bismarck  ventured  on  such  a  step,  hav- 
ing clearly  counted  the  costs  ;  the  result  showed 
how  closely  he  had  made  his  calculations.  .  .  .It 
was  the  war  of  1870  that  fundamentally  changed 
the  relations  of  the  chancellor  to  the  mass  of  the 
people.  After  1871  he  was  immensely  popular. 
.  .  .  People  believed  that  he  could  do  anything, 
that  he  could  make  possible  what  was  impossible 
for  other  men.  .  .  .  Bismarck  was  very  soon 
surrounded  with  an  almost  mythical  halo." — W. 
Maurenbrecher,  Gri'indung  den  deutscTien  Beichs 
(trans,  from  the  Oerman).  pp.  13-258. 

Also  nsr:  W.  Milller,  Political  Rist.  of  Becent 
Times,  sect.  35. — G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Refounding 
of  the  German  Empire,  ch.  11. — W.  Rilstow,  The 
War  for  the  Rhine  Frontier,  1870,  ch.  6  (s.  1). 

A.  D.  1870  (July — August). — Disastrous  open- 
ing of  the  war. — Defeats  at  Worth,  Spichern 
and  Gravelotte. — Bazaine's  army  shut  up  in 
Metz. — "July  23d  Napoleon  intrusted  the  re- 
gency to  the  empress  for  the  period  of  his  absence 
from  Paris.  .  .  .  On  the  28th,  .  .  .  accompanied 
by  his  son,  [he]  left  for  Metz,  to  assume  com- 
mand of  the  army.  .  .  .  The  army  consisted  of 
eight  corps.  Of  these,  the  1st,  under  Marshal 
ilacMahon,  was  statrioned  at  Strasburg ;  the  2d, 
under  General  Frossard,  at  St.  Avoid;  the  3d, 
under  Marshal  Bazaine,  at  Metz ;  the  4th,  under 
General  Ladmirault,  at  Diedenhofen  (Thionville) ; 
the  5th,  under  General  Failly,  at  Bitsch ;  the  6th, 
under  Marshal  Canrobert,  in  the  camp  at  Chalons ; 
the  7th,  under  General  Felix  Douay,  at  Belfort; 
the  8th,  —  the  Imperial  Guard — under  General 
Bourbaki,  at  Nancy.  Accordingly,  the  French 
forces  were  divided  into  two  groups,  the  larger 
stationed  on  the  Moselle,  and  the  smaller  in 
Alsace.  To  the  latter  belonged  the  1st  and  7th 
corps,  both  of  which  were  placed  under  the  com- 
mand of  Marshal  MacMahon,  with  orders  to  pre- 
vent the  crown  prince's  army  from  entering  Al- 
sace. The  larger  group  comprised  the  2d,  3d, 
and  4th  corps.  .  .  .  The  6th  and  8th  were  to 
have  formed  the  reserve ;  but  the  greatly  superior 
numbers  of  Prince  Frederic  Charles  and  Stein- 
metz,  who  were  advancing  against  this  larger 
group,  necessitated  the  immediate  bringing  of 
those  corps  to  the  front.  The  connection  be- 
tween the  two  groups  was  to  be  maintained  by 
the  5th  corps,  stationed  at  Bitsch.  Skirmishing 
of  the  advanced  posts  and  collisions  between  re- 
connoitering  parties  began  on  the  19th  of  July. 
The  most  important  of  these  minor  engagements 
■was  that  at  Saarbrilcken,  on  the  2d  of  August 
[the  French  claiming  a  victory].  .  .  .  August 
4th  the  crown  prince  crossed  the  French  frontier 
and  attacked  the  town  of  Weissenburg,  on  the 
little  river  Lauter.  .  .  .  Weissenburg  was  suc- 
cessfully carried  by  Prussian  and  Bavarian  bat- 
talions combined,  and  the  Geisberg  by  sixteen 
battalions  of  Prussians  alone.  .  .  .  August  5th 
MacMahon  with  his  corps  took  up  his  position 
at  W5rth,  fortifying  the  heights  westward  from 
Sauerbach,  together  with  the  villages  of  Frosch- 


weiler  and  Elsasshausen,  in  the  intention  of  meet- 
ing at  that  place  the  advancing  columns  of  the 
crown  prince,  whose  attack  he  expected  on  the 
7th.  To  strengthen  his  army  sufficiently  for  the 
task  required  of  it  he  endeavored  to  bring  up 
General  Felix  Douay's  corps  from  Belfort  and 
Miihlhausen,  and  that  of  General  Failly  from 
Bitsch;  but  only  one  division  of  the  former  ar- 
rived in  time,  and  a  division  of  the  latter  which 
was  sent  to  his  support  did  not  reach  the  neigh- 
borhood of  the  battle-field  until  the  evening  of 
the  6th,  in  time  to  afford  a  partial  protection  on 
the  retreat.  Consequently,  MacMahon  was  left 
with  not  more  than  45,000  men  to  face  the  crown 
prince's  whole  army.  .  .  .  On  the  morning  of 
the  6th  the  advance  guard  of  the  5th  corps  be- 
came involved  in  a  sharj)  action  with  the  enemy," 
and  "from  a  mere  skirmish  of  the  advance  guard 
resulted  the  decisive  battle  of  Worth.  .  .  .  After 
AViJrth  itself  had  been  carried,  the  fighting  was 
most  severe  around  the  fortified  village  of  Frosch- 
weiler.  This  was  finally  taken,  and  a  desperate 
charge  of  the  French  cuirassiers  repulsed.  'There- 
upon MacMahon's  army  broke  and  fled  in  wild 
confusion,  some  toward  the  passes  of  the  Vosges, 
others  to  Strasburg  ®r  Bitsch.  .  .  .  The  trophies 
of  victory  were  numerous  and  valuable :  200  oSi- 
cers  and  9,000  men  prisoners.  .  .  .  The  French 
lost  6,000  dead  and  wounded;  the  German  loss 
was  489  officers  and  10,153  men  —  a  loss  greater 
than  that  of  Sadowa.  .  .  .  Mac^Mahon,  with 
about  15,000  of  his  defeated  troops,  reached 
Zabern  on  the  morning  of  the  7th,  and  set  out 
thence  for  Chalons,  whither  Generals  Douay  and 
Failly  were  also  directed  to  lead  their  forces.  A 
new  army  was  to  be  formed  at  that  point,  and 
northern  Alsace  was  abandoned  to  the  crown 
prince's  victorious  troops.  The  Badish  division 
received  orders  to  march  against  Strasburg,  and 
by  the  9th  the  whole  corps  was  assembled  before 
that  city,  Hagenau  having  been  taken  by  the 
cavalry  on  the  wa}'.  .  .  .  Preparations  for  a  siege 
were  made,  a  regular  siege  corps  being  formed 
.  .  .  and  placed  under  the  command  of  General 
Werder.  With  the  remainder  of  the  third  army 
the  crown  prince  left  WOrth  on  the  8th  of  August, 
marched  through  the  unguarded  passes  of  the 
Vosges,  and  entered  Nancy  on  the  16th.  .  .  . 
Detachments  were  left  behind  to  blockade  Bitsch 
and  Pfalzburg.  At  Nancy  the  prince  rested  for 
a  few  days  and  waited  for  decisive  news  from 
the  Saar  and  Moselle.  A  second  victory  was 
won  on  the  6th  of  August  at  Spichern  [or  For- 
bach].  Like  the  battle  of  Worth,  this  action 
was  not  the  result  of  a  strategical  combination, 
but  rather  of  a  misunderstanding.  .  .  .  Frossard 
[whose  corps  was  encountered  at  Spichern]  fell 
Ijack  on  Metz  by  way  of  Saargemilnd.  Bazaine, 
who,  although  not  more  than  seven  or  eight 
miles  from  the  field  of  battle,  had  made  no  at- 
tempt to  come  to  Frossard's  assistance,  led  his 
corps  to  the  same  place.  In  this  battle,  owing 
to  the  unfavorable  nature  of  the  ground,  the 
losses  of  the  conquerors  were  heavier  than  those 
of  the  conquered.  The  Germans  had  223  officers 
and  4,648  men  dead,  wounded,  and  missing; 
while  the  French,  according  to  their  own  reports, 
lost  249  officers  and  3,829  men,  2,000  of  whom 
were  taken  prisoners.  August  7th  the  victors 
continued  their  forward  march,  capturing  great 
stores  of  provisions  in  Forbach.  On  the  9th  St. 
Avoid  was  taken,  and  foraging  parties  advanced 
almost  to  Metz.     Marching  through  the  Rhenish 


1414 


FRANCE,  1870. 


Bazaine  in  Metz. 


PRANCE,  1870. 


Palatinate,  part  of  Prince  Frederic  Charles's  army- 
directed  its  course  toward  Metz  by  way  of  Saar- 
briicken,  and  part  tlirougli  Saargemilnd.  .  .  . 
In  the  imperial  head-quarters  at  Metz  the  greatest 
consternation  prevailed.  ...  It  was  [finally]  de- 
cided to  concentrate  five  army  corps  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  Moselle,  at  Metz,  and  to  form  a 
second  army,  consisting  of  four  corps,  under 
MacMahon's  command,  in  the  camp  at  Chalons. 
The  first  line  of  defence  on  the  Rhine  and  Saar 
had  been  abandoned,  and  France  was  to  be  de- 
fended on  the  Moselle.  By  this  decision  Alsace 
and  Lorraine  were  surrendered  to  the  foe  at  the 
very  outset."  On  the  9th  of  August  the  French 
emperor  transferred  the  chief  command  from 
himself  to  Marshal  Bazaine,  while  Lebceuf  at 
the  same  time  withdrew  from  the  direction  of  the 
staff.  Simultaneously,  at  Paris,  the  Grammont- 
OUivier  ministry  resigned,  and  was  succeeded  by 
a  cabinet  formed  under  the  presidency  of  Count 
Palikao  (General  Montauban).  "New  levies  were 
called  into  the  field,  comprising  all  unmarried 
men  between  the  ages  of  25  and  30  not  already 
enrolled  in  the  '  garde  mobile. "...  In  the  Ger- 
man head-quarters  ...  it  was  resolved  in  some 
way  to  make  Bazaine's  army  harmless,  either  by 
shutting  him  up  in  Metz  or  by  pushing  him 
northward  to  the  Belgian  frontier.  .  .  .  The  task 
was  a  difficult  one.  .  .  .  All  depended  upon  what 
course  Bazaine  might  conclude  to  pursue,  and 
the  energy  with  which  he  executed  his  plans. 
It  was  his  purpose  to  leave  Metz  with  the  field 
army  and  join  MacJIahon  at  Chalons.  There 
would  then  be  300,000  French  at  that  place  to 
block  the  German  march  to  Paris.  In  that  event 
the  Germans  would  have  to  leave  60,000  men  be- 
fore Metz  .  .  .  and  Diedenhofen,  and  would  not 
have  enough  left  to  venture  an  attack  on  the 
united  and  well-intrenched  armies  at  Chalons. 
Accordingly,  the  union  of  those  two  armies  must 
be  prevented  at  any  price,  and  Bazaine  be  at- 
tacked before  Metz.  The  execution  of  this  plan 
led  to  the  severe  fighting  near  that  city  —  the 
battle  of  Colombey-Nouilly  (Borny),  on  the  14th, 
Vionville  on  the  16th,  and  Gravelotte  on  the 
18th."  The  battle  of  Gravelotte  was  "the  first 
battle  in  the  war  in  which  a  pre-arranged  plan 
[Moltke's]  was  actually  carried  out.  ...  It  was 
a  brilliant  victory,  and  followed  by  important 
results.  Bazaine's  army  was  shut  up  in  the  for- 
tress and  among  the  outlying  forts,  and  ren- 
dered unavailable  for  further  service  in  the  field. 
The  losses  of  the  French  amounted  to  about 
13,000  men,  including  600  officers;  the  Ger- 
man loss  was  899  officers  and  19,260  men,  of 
whom  328  officers  and  4,909  men  were  killed  out- 
right. The  number  of  combatants  on  the  side  of 
the  French  was  about  140,000,  on  the  side  of  the 
Germans  178,818,  the  former  having  550,  and  the 
latter  823  cannon.  It  must  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  the  French  occupied  a  position  very 
much  of  the  nature  of  a  fortress,  which  had  to 
be  carried  by  storm." — W.  Miiller,  Political  His- 
tory of  Recent  Times,  sect.  25. 

Also  in:  Count  H.  von  Moltke,  TJie  Franco- 
German  War  of  1870-71,  sect.  1.— Col.  A.  Borb- 
staedt  and  Maj.  F.  Dwyer,  The  Franco-Oerman 
War,  ch.  10-29. 

A.  D.  1870  (August— September).— Invest- 
ment of  Metz  by  the  Germans. — Disastrous 
attempt  of  MacMahon  to  rescue  Bazaine. — 
The  catastrophe  at  Sedan. — "The  huge,  stub- 
born, vehement  and  bloody  conflict  waged  in  the 


rural  tract  between  the  northern  edges  of  the 
Bois  de  Vaux  and  the  Forest  of  Jaumont,  which 
the  French  Marshal  called  the  '  Defence  of  the 
Lines  of  Amanvillers,'  the  French  Army,  'the 
Battle  of  St.  Privat,'  and  the  Germans  the  battle 
of  'Gravelotte  —  St.  Privat,' established  the  mas- 
tery of  the  latter  over  'the  Army  of  the  Rhine.' 
JIarshal  Bazaine  had  not  proved  strong  enough 
to  extricate  the  Army  he  was  suddenly  appointed 
to  command  from  the  false  position  in  which  it 
had  been  placed  by  the  errors  and  hesitations  of 
the  Emperor  and  Marshal  Leboeuf.  .  .  .  The 
German  leaders  forthwith  resolved,  and  acted  on 
the  resolve,  to  take  the  largest  advantage  of  suc- 
cess. When  the  broadening  day  showed  that  the 
French  were  encamped  under  the  guns  of  the 
fort,  and  that  they  did  not  betray  the  faintest 
symptom  of  fighting  for  egress  on  any  side,  the 
place  was  deliberately  invested.  .  .  .  Soon  the 
blockade  was  so  far  completed  that  only  adven- 
turous scouts  were  able  at  rare  intervals  to  work 
their  way  through  the  German  lines.  As  early 
as  the  forenoon  of  the  19th,  the  King  had  de- 
cided to  form  what  came  to  be  called  the  '  Army 
of  the  Meuse '  out  of  the  Corps  which  were  not 
needed  to  uphold  the  investment  of  Metz,  and 
thus  place  himself  in  a  condition  to  assail  the 
French  Army  collecting  at  Chalons.  .  .  .  This 
formidable  force  was  put  under  the  command  of 
the  Crown  Prince  of  Saxony,  who  had  shown 
himself  to  be  an  able  soldier.  Consequently, 
there  remained  behind  to  invest  Bazaine,  seven 
Corps  d'Armee  and  a  Division  of  Reserve  under 
General  von  Kummer.  .  .  .  One  Army  had  been 
literally  imprisoned,  another  remained  at  large, 
and  behind  it  were  the  vast  resources  of  France. 
Three  Marshals  were  cooped  up  in  the  cage  on 
the  Moselle;  one,  MacMahon,  and  the  Emperor 
were  still  in  the  field ;  and  upon  the  forces  with 
them  it  was  resolved  to  advance  at  once,  because 
prudence  required  that  they  should  be  shattered 
before  they  could  be  completely  organized,  and 
while  the  moral  effect  of  the  resounding  blows 
struck  in  Alsace  and  Lorraine  had  lost  none  of 
its  terrible  power.  Therefore  the  King  and  Gen- 
eral von  Moltke  started  on  the  morrow  of  victory 
to  march  on  Paris  through  the  plains  of  Cham- 
pagne."— G.  Hooper,  The  CamjMign  of  Sedan, 
ch.  10. — "While  the  German  invasion  had  thus 
been  rolling  from  Lorraine  into  the  flats  of  Cham- 
pagne, the  shattered  right  wing  of  the  army  of 
the  Rhine,  with  reinforcements  sent  off  from 
Paris,  had  been  drawn  together  in  the  well- 
known  plains  made  memorable  by  the  defeat  of 
Attila.  By  20  Aug.  the  first  and  fifth  French 
corps  marched  rapidly  from  the  Upper  Moselle 
to  the  Marne,  had  been  joined  by  the  seventh 
corps  from  Belfort  and  by  the  twelfth  formed  in 
and  despatched  from  Paris ;  and  this  force,  num- 
bering perhaps  130,000  men,  with  from  400  to 
500  guns,  had  been  concentrated  round  the  great 
camp  of  ChSlons.  Macmahon  was  given  the 
supreme  command,  and  the  first  operations  of 
the  experienced  chief  showed  that  he  understood 
the  present  state  of  affairs,  and  were  in  accord 
with  the  rules  of  strategy.  Bazaine,  he  knew, 
was  in  peril  near  Metz,  and  certainly  had  not 
attained  the  Meuse ;  and  he  was  at  the  head  of 
the  last  army  which  France  could  assemble  for 
tlie  defence  of  her  capital.  In  these  circum- 
stances, impressed  perhaps  by  the  grand  mem- 
ories of  the  campaign  of  1814,  he  most  properly 
resolved  to  fall    back    towards  Paris;    but  as 


1415 


FRANCE,  1870. 


MacMahon''3  march 
to  the  Me  use. 


FRANCE,  1870. 


Bazaine  was  possibly  not  far  distant,  and  a  position 
on  the  flank  of  the  German  advance  might  afford 
a  favourable  opportunity  to  strike,  he  withdrew 
northwards  on  the  21st  to  Rheims,  in  the  double 
hope  that  he  would  approach  his  colleague  and 
threaten  the  communications  of  the  advancing 
enemy.  This,  we  repeat,  was  following  the  art 
of  war,  and  had  JIacmahon  firmly  adhered  to  his 
purpose,  there  would  have  been  no  Sedan  and  no 
treaty  of  Frankfort.  Unhapi3ily  the  marshal,  a 
hero  in  the  field,  was  deficient  in  real  strength  of 
character,  and  at  this  critical  moment  evil  coun- 
sels and  false  information  shook,  and  at  last 
changed,  a  resolve  that  ought  to  have  never  fal- 
tered. A  new  administration  had  been  formed 
in  Paris,  and  Palikao,  the  minister  of  war,  de- 
voted to  the  Empire,  and  especially  bent  on  sat- 
isfying the  demands  of  the  excited  capital,  which 
passionately  insisted  on  the  relief  of  Bazaine, 
had  conceived  a  project  by  which  he  hoped  that 
this  great  object  would  be  effected  and  the  'dy- 
nasty '  be  restored  in  popular  opinion.  The  army 
of  the  Meuse,  he  argued,  was  near  that  stream, 
round  Verdun ;  the  third  army  was  far  away  to 
the  south ;  there  was  a  considerable  interval  be- 
tween the  two  masses ;  and  the  army  of  Chalons, 
then  at  Rheims,  was  not  far  from  the  Upper 
Meuse.  In  those  circumstances  it  was  quite 
practicable,  should  Macmahon  rapidly  advance 
to  the  Meuse,  to  overpower  with  his  largely 
superior  force  the  army  of  the  Meuse  before  sup- 
port could  be  sent  from  the  distant  third  army ; 
and  the  enemy  in  his  path  being  swept  aside, 
the  marshal  could  then  descend  on  Metz,  fall 
with  the  collected  strength  of  the  army  of  Cha- 
lons on  the  divided  fragments  of  the  investing 
force,  and  triumphantly  effect  his  junction  with 
Bazaine,  having  routed,  perhaps,  the  first  and 
second  armies  before  the  third  could  appear  on 
the  scene.  The  defiles  and  woods  of  the  Argonne 
and  the  Ardennes,  stretching  between  the  French 
and  the  German  armies,  Palikao  Insisted,  would 
form  a  screen  to  conceal  the  advance  of  the  army 
of  Chalons,  and  would  greatly  facilitate  the  pro- 
posed movement.  This  project  reached  Macma- 
hon on  21  Aug.,  and  may  be  pronounced  one  of 
the  most  reckless  ever  designed  by  a  desperate 
gambler  in  war.  .  .  .  Macmahon  at  first  refused 
to  listen  to  what  he  condemned  as  a  hopeless  proj- 
ect; but  bad  advisers  found  their  way  to  him, 
and  his  resolution  was  already  yielding  when  a 
calamitous  event  fixed  his  shifting  purpose.  A 
despatch  from  Bazaine,  obscure  and  untrue,  an- 
nounced that  he  was  on  his  way  northward. 
Macmahon  inferred  that  his  beleaguered  col- 
league had  left  Metz  and  eluded  his  foes,  and, 
thinking  that  he  would  reach  Bazaine  before 
long,  in  an  evil  hour  for  France  and  for  himself, 
he  consented  to  attempt  the  march  to  the  Meuse. " 
W.  O'C.  Morris,  The  Campaign  of  Sedan  {Eng- 
lish Historical  Bev.,  ApHl,  1888). — "It  was  not 
until  the  afternoon  of  August  23  that  MacMa- 
hon's  array  passed  through  Rheims.  Anxious, 
and  knowing  that  everything  depended  on  speed, 
he  addressed  some  columns  as  they  toiled  on- 
wards, reminding  them  that  French  soldiers  had 
marched  thirty  miles  a  day  under  the  sun  of 
Africa.  The  difference,  however,  was  great  be- 
tween raids  made  by  a  few  light  reginients  and 
the  advance  of  a  raw  unwieldy  mass ;  and  though 
the  marshal  endeavoured  to  huny  them  forward, 
he  was  confronted  with  almost  insurmountable 
obstacles.     Scarcely  had  the  army  made  a  march 


towards  establishing  itself  at  Bethniville,  on  the 
Suippe,  when  commissariat  difficulties  obliged 
him  to  re-approach  the  line  of  the  railway.  He 
made  a  movement  on  his  left,  and  reached  Rethel 
on  the  24th,  in  order  to  obtain  for  his  troops  sev- 
eral days'  subsistence.  This  distribution  occu- 
pied the  whole  of  the  25th.  ...  As  the  direction 
of  the  French  movement  could  not  now  be  con- 
cealed, at  this  point  MacMahon  made  arrange- 
ments for  marching  with  all  possible  rapidity. 
It  may  be  doubted,  however,  whether  Napoleon 
himself,  at  the  head  of  the  grand  army  could 
have  made  the  haste  which  the  marshal  designed 
with  his  raw  and  partly  demoralized  troops.  .  .  . 
His  army  was  altogether  unequal  to  forced 
marches,  and  moved  at  this  critical  moment  with 
the  sluggishness  inherent  in  its  defective  organ- 
ization. Encumbered  with  stragglers,  badly 
pioneered,  and  checked  by  hindrances  of  every 
kind,  it  made  hardly  ten  miles  a  day ;  and  it  was 
the  27th  of  August  before  its  right  column,  still 
far  from  the  Meuse,  passed  through  Vouziers, 
and  the  left  reached  Le  ChSne.  ...  On  the  27th 
it  was  openly  boasted  of  in  Paris  that  MacJIahon 
had  gained  at  least  forty-eight  hours'  start  of  the 
Crown  Prince,  and  his  coming  success  was  firmly 
counted  on  by  the  imperialist  cabinet,  whereas, 
in  reality,  the  whole  scheme  was  foiled  before- 
hand by  Von  Moltke's  and  General  Blumenthal's 
prompt  combination.  ...  If  in  fighting,  in  the 
boldness  of  their  cavalrj',  the  activity  of  their 
staff,  the  cool  firing  of  their  infantry,  and  the 
skilful  tactical  use  of  their  guns,  the  superiority 
of  the  Germans  to  their  antagonists  had  been 
already  proved;  it  only  required  the  contrast 
now  presented  between  the  movements  of  the 
two  armies  to  show,  that  in  no  point  had  the 
difference  of  training  and  moral  feeling  told  more 
in  favour  of  the  invaders  than  in  that  of  the 
marching,  on  which  the  elder  Napoleon  so  often 
relied  for  his  advantage  over  these  very  Germans 
.  .  .  Between  the  27th  and  the  morning  of  the 
29th,  the  right  column  of  the  French  army  had 
only  its  outposts  at  Buzancy,  while  the  left, 
though  its  outposts  touched  Stenay,  was  only  at 
Stonne  and  Beaumont,  both  columns  spreading  a 
long  way  backward ;  in  other  words,  they  were 
still  a  march  from  the  Meuse,  which  they  ought 
to  have  passed  three  days  before,  and  their  rear- 
ward divisions  were  yet  distant.  The  German 
armies,  from  the  26th  to  the  29th,  made  astonish- 
ing exertions  to  close  on  MacMahon  as  he  crossed 
towards  the  Meuse,  and  success  was  already 
within  their  grasp.  The  force  of  the  Crown 
Prince  of  Saxony,  in  two  columns,  had  reached 
the  Meuse  at  Dun  on  the  27th,  and  was  thus  in  a 
position  to  arrest  and  retard  the  vanguard  of  the 
French  whenever  it  attempted  to  cross  the  river. 
Meanwhile  the  army  of  the  Crown  Prince  of 
Prussia,  hastening  forward  by  Varennes  and 
Grand  Pre,  and  to  the  left  by  Senuc  and  Suippe, 
had  arrived  close  to  the  line  of  march  of  MacMa- 
hoa's  right  column,  and  by  the  evening  of  the 
28th  had  occupied  it  about  Vouziers.  A  step 
farther,  and  this  immense  army  would  be  upon 
the  positions  of  the  luckless  French,  who,  as- 
sailed in  flank  and  rear  by  superior  numbers, 
could  not  fail  to  be  involved  in  terrible  disaster. 
.  .  .  JIacMahon  [on  the  27th],  observing  that 
the  enemy  so  completelj'  surrounded  him,  felt- 
more  than  ever  satisfied  that  it  would  be  impos- 
sible to  carry  out  the  plan  which  had  been  pre- 
scribed to  him  at  Paris;  and  to  save,  if  possible, 


1416 


FRANCE,  1870. 


Sedan. 


FRANCE,  1870. 


the  sole  army  which  France  had  at  her  disposal, 
he  accordingly  resolved  to  turn  back  in  a  westerly 
direction.  .  .  .  The  same  evening  he  sent  .  .  . 
[a]  telegram  to  the  Count  Palikao,  at  Paris.  .  .  . 
In  reply  to  this,  the  government  sent  a  telegram 
to  the  emperor  at  eleven  o'clock  the  same  night, 
telling  him  that  if  they  abandoned  Bazaine  there 
would  certainly  be  a  revolution  in  Paris,  and 
they  would  themselves  be  attacked  by  all  the 
enemy's  forces.  .  .  .  The  emperor  admits  that 
he  could  unquestionably  have  set  this  order  aside, 
but  '  he  was  resolved  not  to  oppose  the  decision 
of  the  regency,  and  had  resigned  himself  to  sub- 
mit to  the  consequences  of  the  fatality  which  at- 
tached itself  to  all  the  resolutions  of  the  govern- 
ment.' As  for  MacMahon,  he  again  bowed  to 
the  decision  intimated  to  him  from  Paris,  and 
once  more  turned  towards  ]Metz.  These  orders 
and  counter-orders  naturally  occasioned  further 
delay,  and  the  French  headquarters  had  reached 
no  farther  than  Stonne  on  the  28th.  ...  On 
Monday,  August  29,  De  Failly  occupied  the 
country  between  Beaumont  and  Stonne,  on  the 
left  bank  of  the  Meuse ;  wliile  the  main  body  of 
the  French  army,  under  ilacMahon  in  person,  had 
crossed  the  river,  and  were  encamped  on  the  right 
bank  at  Vaux,  between  Mouzon  and  Carignan, 
and  on  the  morning  of  the  30th  tlie  emperor 
telegraphed  to  Paris  that  a  brilliant  victory  might 
be  expected.  MacMahon's  position  was  in  a 
sharp  wedge  of  country  formed  by  the  conflu- 
ence of  the  rivers  Meuse  and  Chiers,  and  it  was 
his  intention  to  advance  towards  Montmfedy. 
The  other  part  of  his  army  was  close  to  the  river 
on  its  left  bank.  .  .  .  The  battle  —  or  rather 
series  of  battles,  for  the  fighting  extended  over 
three  days  —  which  was  to  decide  whether  or  not 
he  would  reach  Metz  and  liberate  Bazaine,  began 
in  earnest  a  little  before  noon  on  Tuesday,  Au- 
gust 30." — H.  M.  Hozier,  The  Fntnco-Prussian 
War,  V.  1,  fh.  13. — "The  retreating  French  were 
concentrated,  or  rather  massed,  under  the  walls 
of  Sedan,  in  a  valley  commonly  called  the  Sink 
of  Givonne.  The  army  consisted  of  twenty- 
nine  brigades,  fifteen  divisions,  and  four  corjjs 
d'armee,  numbering  ninety  thousand  men.  '  It 
was  there,'  says  Victor  Hugo,  'no  one  could 
guess  what  for,  without  order,  without  disci- 
pline, a  mere  crowd  of  men,  waiting,  as  it  seemed, 
to  be  seized  by  an  immensely  powerful  hand. 
It  seemed  to  l3e  under  no  particular  anxiety. 
The  men  who  composed  it  knew,  or  thought  they 
knew,  that  the  enemy  was  far  away.  Calculat- 
ing four  leagues  as  a  day's  march,  they  believed 
the  Germans  to  be  at  three  days'  distance.  The 
commanders,  however,  towards  nightfall,  made 
some  preparations  for  safety.  The  whole  army 
formed  a  sort  of  horse-shoe,  its  point  turning 
towards  Sedan.  This  disposition  proved  that  its 
chiefs  believed  themselves  in  safety.  The  valley 
was  one  of  those  which  the  Emperor  Napoleon 
used  to  call  a  "bowl,"  and  which  Admiral  Van 
Tromp  designated  by  a  less  polite  name.  No 
place  could  have  been  better  calculated  to  shut 
in  an  army.  Its  very  numbers  were  against  it. 
Once  in,  if  the  way  out  were  blocked,  it  could 
never  leave  it  again.  Some  of  the  generals, — 
General  Wimpfen  among  them  —  saw  this,  and 
were  uneasy;  but  the  little  court  around  the  em- 
peror was  confident  of  safety.  "At  worst," 
they  said,  "we  can  always  reach  the  Belgian 
frontier."  The  commonest  military  precautions 
were  neglected.     The   army  slept   soundly   on 


the  night  of  August  31.  At  the  worst  they  be- 
lieved themselves  to  have  a  Hue  of  retreat  open 
to  Mezifires,  a  town  on  the  frontier  of  Belgium. 
No  cavalry  reconnoissance  was  made  that  night; 
the  guards  were  not  doubled.  The  French  be- 
lieved themselves  more  than  forty  miles  from  the 
German  army.  They  behaved  as  if  they  thought 
tliat  army  unconceutrated  and  ill-informed,  at- 
tempting vaguely  several  things  at  once,  and  in- 
capable of  converging  on  one  point,  namely, 
Sedan.  They  thought  they  knew  that  the  column 
under  the  Prince  of  Saxony  was  marching  upon 
Chalons,  and  that  the  Crown  Prince  of  Prussia 
was  marching  upon  Metz.  But  that  night,  while 
the  French  army,  in  fancied  security,  was  sleep- 
ing at  Sedan,  this  is  what  was  passing  among 
the  enemy.  By  a  quarter  to  two  A.  M.  the  army 
of  the  Prince  of  Saxony  was  on  its  march  east- 
ward with  orders  not  to  fire  a  shot  till  five  o'clock, 
and  to  make  as  little  noise  as  possible.  They 
marched  without  baggage  of  any  kind.  At  the 
same  hour  another  division  of  the  Prussian  army 
marched,  with  equal  noiselessness,  from  another 
direction  on  Sedan,  while  the  Wiirtemburgers 
secured  the  road  to  Meziires,  thereby  cutting  off 
the  possibility  of  a  retreat  into  Belgium.  At  the 
same  moment,  namely,  five  o'clock, —  on  all  the 
hills  around  Sedan,  at  all  points  of  the  compass, 
appeared  a  dense  dark  mass  of  German  troops, 
with  their  commanders  and  artillery.  Not  one 
sound  had  been  heard  by  the  French  army,  not 
even  an  order.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
men  were  in  a  circle  on  the  heights  round  the 
Sink  of  Givonne.  They  had  come  as  stealthily 
and  as  silently  as  serpents.  They  were  there 
when  the  sun  rose,  and  the  French  army  were 
prisoners.'  [Victor  Hugo,  Chases  Vues\  —  The 
battle  was  one  of  artillery.  The  German  guns 
commanded  every  part  of  the  crowded  valley. 
Indeed  the  fight  was  simply  a  massacre.  There 
was  no  hope  for  the  French,  though  they  fought 
bravely.  Their  best  troops,  the  Garde  Imperiale, 
were  with  Bazaine  at  Metz.  Marshal  MacMahon 
was  wounded  very  early  in  the  day.  The  com- 
mand passed  first  to  General  Ducrot,  who  was 
also  disabled,  and  afterwards  to  Wimpfen,  a 
brave  African  general  who  had  hurried  from  Al- 
geria just  in  time  to  take  part  in  this  disastrous 
day.  He  told  the  emperor  that  the  only  hope 
was  for  the  troops  to  cut  their  way  out  of  the 
valley ;  but  the  army  was  too  closely  crowded, 
too  disorganized,  to  make  this  practicable.  One 
Zouave  regiment  accomplished  this  feat,  and 
reached  Belgium.  That  night  —  the  night  of 
September  1  —  an  aide-de-camp  of  the  Emperor 
Napoleon  carried  this  note  to  the  camp  of  the 
king  of  Prussia;  —  Monsieur  Mou  FrJre, — Not 
having  been  able  to  die  in  midst  of  my  troops,  it 
only  remains  for  me  to  place  my  sword  in  the 
hands  of  your  Majesty.  I  am  your  Majesty's 
good  brother.  Napoleon.  .  .  .  With  Napoleon 
III.  fell  not  only  his  own  reputation  as  a  ruler, 
but  the  glory  of  his  uncle  and  the  prestige  of  his 
name.  The  fallen  emperor  and  Bismarck  met  in 
a  little  house  upon  the  banks  of  the  Meuse. 
Chairs  were  brought  out,  and  they  talked  in  the 
open  air.  It  was  a  glorious  autumn  morning. 
The  emperor  looked  care-worn,  as  well  he  might. 
He  wished  to  see  the  king  of  Prussia  before  the 
articles  of  capitulation  were  drawn  up :  but  King 
William  declined  the  interview.  When  the  ca- 
pitulation was  signed,  however,  he  drove  over  to 
visit  the  captive  emperor  at  a  chateau  where  the 


1417 


FRANCE,  1870. 


Fall  of  the 
Second  Empire. 


FRANCE,  1870. 


latter  had  taken  refuge.  Their  interview  was 
private;  only  the  two  sovereigns  were  present. 
The  French  emperor  afterwards  expressed  to  the 
Crown  Prince  of  Prussia  his  deep  sense  of  the 
courtesy  shown  him.  He  was  desirous  of  pass- 
ing as  unnoticed  as  possible  through  French  ter- 
ritory, where,  indeed,  exasperation  against  him, 
as  the  first  cause  of  the  misfortunes  of  France, 
was  so  great  that  his  life  would  have  been  in 
peril.  The  next  day  he  proceeded  to  the  beau- 
tiful palace  at  Cassel  called  Wilhelmshohe,  or 
William's  [Height].  It  had  been  built  at  ruinous 
expense  by  Jerome  Bonaparte  while  king  of  West- 
phalia, and  was  then  called  Napoleon's  Rest. 
'.  .  .  Thus  eighty  thousand  men  capitulated  at 
Sedan,  and  were  marched  as  prisoners  into  Ger- 
many; one  hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand 
French  soldiers  remained  shut  up  in  Metz,  be- 
sides a  few  thousand  more  in  Strasburg,  Phals- 
bourg,  Toul,  and  Belfort.  But  the  road  was 
open  to  Paris,  and  thither  the  various  German 
armies  marched,  leaving  the  Landwehr,  which 
could  not  be  ordered  to  serve  beyond  the  limits 
of  Germany,  to  hold  Alsace  and  Lorraine,  already 
considered  a  part  of  the  Fatherland." — E.  W. 
Latimer,  Prance  in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  ch. 
13. — -"The  German  army  had  lost  in  the  battle 
of  Sedan  about  460  officers  and  8, 500  men  killed 
and  wounded.  On  the  French  side  the  loss  sus- 
tained in  the  battle  and  at  the  capitulation 
amounted  according  to  their  returns  to  the  fol- 
lowing: Killed  3, 000 men;  wounded  14,000;  pris- 
oners (in  the  battle)  21,000;  prisoners  (at  the 
capitulation)  83,000;  disarmed  in  Belgium  3,000; 
Xat&WiA,mO."— The  Franco-German  War:  Ger- 
man Official  Account,  pt.  1,  v.  2,  p.  408. 

Also  m:  Capt.  G.  Fitz-George,  Plan  of  the 
battle  of  Sedan,  with  Memoir. — A.  Forbes,  My 
Experiences  of  the  War  bet.  Prance  and  Germany, 
pt.  1,  ch.  4  (v.  1).— Col.  A.  Borbstaedt  and  Maj. 
F.  Dwyer,  The  Franco-German  War,  ch.  30-40. 
— G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Befoundiny  of  the  German 
Empire,  ch.  14. 

A.  D.  1870  (September).  —  Revolution  at 
Paris. — Collapse  of  the  empire.  —  Self-con- 
stitution of  the  Government  of  National  De- 
fense.— At  Paris,  the  whole  truth  of  the  tre- 
mendous disaster  at  Sedan  was  but  slowly 
learned.  On  the  afternoon  of  Saturday,  Septem- 
ber 3,  Count  de  Palikao  intimated  a  little  part  of 
it,  only,  "  in  a  statement  to  the  Corps  Legislatif, 
announcing  that  Marshal  Bazaiue,  after  a  vigorous 
sally,  had  been  obliged  to  retire  again  under  the 
walls  of  Metz,  and  that  Macmahon,  after  a  series 
of  combats,  attended  by  reverses  and  successes  — 
having  at  the  outset  driven  a  part  of  the  enemy's 
array  into  the  Meuse  —  had  been  compelled  to 
retreat  to  Sedan  and  Mezifires,  a  portion  of  his 
army  having  taken  refuge  in  Belgium.  The 
junction  of  the  two  armies  had  therefore  not  been 
made.  The  situation  was  serious,  calmly  ob- 
served the  Minister  of  War,  but  not  hopeless. 
Not  hopeless  I  when  the  truth  was  that  one  army 
was  blockaded  and  the  other  prisoner,  and  that 
there  were  no  reserves.  ...  At  a  midnight  sit- 
ting Count  de  Palikao,  still  determined  to  con- 
ceal a  portion  of  the  truth,  intimated  that  part  of 
Marshal  Macmahon's  army  had  been  driven  back 
into  Sedan,  that  the  remainder  had  capitulated, 
and  that  the  Emperor  had  been  made  prisoner.  M. 
Jules  Favre  met  this  announcement  of  fresh  dis- 
asters by  a  motion,  declaring  the  Emperor  and 
his  dynasty  to  have  forfeited  all  rights  conferred 


by  the  Constitution,  demanding  the  appointment 
of  a  Parliamentary  Committee  invested  with  the 
governing  power,  and  having  for  its  special  mis- 
sion the  expulsion  of  the  enemy  from  French  terri- 
tory, and  further  maintaining  General  Trochu  in 
his  post  as  Governor  of  Paris.  The  Chamber  then 
adjourned  till  the  morrow.  But  Paris  had  touched 
one  of  those  crises  when,  as  Pascal  says,  a  grain 
of  sand  will  give  a  turn  to  history  and  change  the 
life  of  nations,  and  the  morrow  brought  with  it 
the  downfall  of  the  Ministry,  of  the  dynasty,  of 
the  Empire,  and  of  that  bizarre  constitutional 
edifice  which  had  been  kept  waiting  so  long  for 
its  complemental  crown.  ...  It  had  been  in- 
timated that  the  Corps  Legislatif  would  reas- 
semble at  noon,  before  which  time  numerous 
groups  collected  on  the  Place  de  la  Concorde,  and 
eventually  swelled  to  a  considerable  crowd.  The 
bridge  leading  to  the  Palais  Bourbon  was  guarded 
by  a  detachment  of  mounted  gendarmes,  and 
numerous  sergents-de-ville.  .  .  .  Battalions  of 
National  Guards  having,  however,  arrived,  the 
gendarmes,  after  flourishing  their  swords,  opened 
their  ranks  and  allowed  them  to  pass,  followed 
by  a  considerable  portion  of  the  crowd,  shouting 
'  Vive  la  Republique !  '  and  singing  the  '  Chant 
du  Depart.'  The  iron  gates  of  the  Palais  Bour- 
bon having  been  opened  to  admit  a  deputation 
of  National  Guards,  the  crowd  precipitated  itself 
forward,  and  in  a  few  minutes  the  steps  and 
courtyard  were  alike  invaded.  Cries  of  'Vive 
la  Garde  Nationale ! '  '  Vive  la  Ligne ! '  '  Vive  la 
Republique ! '  resounded  on  all  sides,  and  the 
soldiers  who  occupied  the  court  of  the  Palais 
Bourbon,  after  making  a  show  of  resistance, 
ended  by  hoisting  the  butt  ends  of  their  rifles  in 
the  air  in  sign  of  sympathy,  joining  at  the  same 
time  in  the  shouts  of  the  crowd,  while  the  latter, 
encountering  no  further  opposition,  proceeded 
to  invade  the  passages  of  the  Chamber,  at  the 
moment  Count  de  Keratry  was  attacking  the 
Ministry  for  surrounding  the  Corps  Legislatif 
with  troops  and  sergents-de-ville,  contrary  to  the 
orders  of  General  Trochu.  Count  de  Palikao, 
having  explained  the  relative  positions  of  the 
Governor  of  Paris  and  the  Minister  of  War,  in- 
troduced a  bill  instituting  a  Council  of  Govern- 
ment and  National  Defence,  composed  of  five 
members  elected  by  the  Legislative  Body,  the 
ministers  to  be  appointed  with  the  approval  of 
the  members  of  this  Council,  and  he,  Count  de 
Palikao,  to  occupy  the  post  of  Lieutenant-Gen- 
eral.  M.  Jules  Favre  having  claimed  priority 
for  the  motion  which  he  had  introduced  the  day 
before,  M.  Thiers,  pleading  the  necessity  for 
union,  next  moved  that: — 'In  view  of  existing 
circumstances,  the  Chamber  appoints  a  Com- 
mission of  Government  and  National  Defence. 
A  Constituent  Assembly  will  be  convoked  as  soon 
as  circumstances  permit.'  The  Chamber  having 
declared  in  favour  of  their  urgency,  these  several 
propositions  were  eventually  referred  to  the 
Bureau,  and  the  sitting  was  suspended.  It  was 
during  this  period  that  the  crowd  penetrated  into 
the  Salles  des  Quatre  Colonnes  and  de  la  Paix. 
...  At  half-past  two,  when  the  sitting  was  re- 
sumed, the  galleries  were  crowded  and  very 
noisy.  The  members  of  tlie  Left  only  were  in 
their  places.  It  was  in  vain  the  President  at- 
tempted to  obtain  silence,  in  vain  the  solemn 
huissiers  commanded  it.  MM.  Gambetta  and 
Cremieux  appeared  together  at  the  tribune,  and 
the  former  begged  of  the  people  to  remain  quiet. 


1418 


FRANCE,  1870. 


The  Government 
of  National  Defense. 


FRANCE,  1870. 


...  A  partial  silence  having  been  secured, 
Count  de  Palikao,  followed  by  a  few  members 
of  the  majority,  entered  the  Chamber,  but  did  not 
essay  to  speak.  ...  A  minute  or  two  after- 
wards, the  clamour  arose  again,  and  a  noisy 
multitude  commenced  invading  the  floor  of  the 
hall.  .  .  .  Nothing  was  left  to  the  President 
but  to  put  on  his  hat  and  retire,  which  he  did, 
together  with  Count  de  Palikao  and  the  mem- 
bers by  whom  the  latter  had  been  accompanied. 
By  this  time  the  Chamber  was  completely  in- 
vaded by  National  and  Mobile  Guards,  in  com- 
pany with  an  excited  crowd,  whose  advance  it 
was  in  vain  now  to  attempt  to  repel.  M.  Jules 
Favre,  having  mounted  the  tribune,  obtained  a 
moment's  silence.  '  No  scenes  of  violence,'  cried 
he ;  '  let  us  reserve  our  arms  for  our  enemies. ' 
Finding  it  utterly  impossible  to  obtain  any  fur- 
ther hearing  inside  the  Chamber,  M.  Gambetta, 
accompanied  by  the  members  of  the  Left,  pro- 
ceeded to  the  steps  of  the  peristyle,  and  there 
announced  the  dethronement  of  the  Emperor  to 
the  people  assembled  outside.  Accompanied  by 
one  section  of  the  crowd,  they  now  hurried  to  the 
Hotel  de  Ville,  and  there  installed  themselves  as 
a  Provisional  Government,  whilst  another  section 
took  possession  of  the  Tuileries  —  whence  the 
Empress  had  that  morning  taken  flight  —  as  na- 
tional property.  A  select  band  of  Republicans, 
mindful  of  what  Count  —  now  Citoyen — Henri 
Rochefort  had  done  to  bring  Imperialism  into 
disrepute,  proceeded  to  the  prison  of  Sainte 
Pelagic  and  conducted  the  author  of  the  Lan- 
teme,  and  other  political  prisoners,  in  triumph 
to  the  Hotel  de  Ville.  The  deputies  who  quitted 
the  Chamber  when  it  was  invaded  by  the  mob, 
met  that  same  afternoon  at  the  President's  resi- 
dence, and  sent  a  deputation  to  the  Hotel  de 
Ville,  with  a  proposal  to  act  in  common  with  the 
new  Government.  This  proposition  was,  how- 
ever, declined,  on  the  score  of  the  Republic 
having  been  already  proclaimed  and  accepted  by 
the  population  of  Paris.  At  an  evening  meeting 
of  nearly  two  hundred  deputies,  held  under  the 
presidency  of  M.  Thiers,  MM.  Jules  Favre  and 
Simon  attended  on  the  part  of  the  Provisional 
Government  to  explain  that  they  were  anxious 
to  secure  the  support  of  the  deputies,  whom  they 
hinted,  however,  could  best  serve  their  country 
in  the  departments.  After  this  unequivocal  re- 
buff, the  deputies,  who  had  in  the  meantime  been 
apprised  that  seals  had  been  placed  on  the  doors 
of  the  Corps  Legislatif ,  saw  that  nothing  remained 
to  them  but  to  protest,  and  protest  they  accord- 
ingly did  against  the  events  of  the  afternoon. 
.  .  .  Not  one  of  the  two  hundred  deputies  pres- 
ent so  much  as  dared  suggest  the  breaking  of  the 
seals  and  the  assembling  in  the  Legislative  Cham- 
ber. .  .  .  The  Government  which  grasped  the 
reins  of  power  on  the  utter  collapse  of  Imperial 
institutions  was  a  mob-named  one  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  term,  the  names  having  been  chalked 
by  the  populace  on  the  pillars  of  the  portico  of  the 
Palais  Bourbon  during  that  invasion  of  the  Cham- 
ber on  the  Sunday  afternoon  which  resulted  in 
the  overthrow  of  the  Imperial  regime.  The  list 
appears  to  have  been  accepted  by  the  principal 
members  of  the  Left,  who,  although  they  would 
have  preferred  disassociating  themselves  from  M. 
Rochefort,  nevertheless  felt  that  it  was  impossible 
to  leave  him  out  of  the  combination,  and  there- 
fore adroitly  —  and  not  inappropriately,  as  the 
safety  of  Paris  was  especially  in  their  keeping  — 


made  it  embrace  all  the  deputies  for  Paris,  save, 
as  M.  Jules  Simon  observed,  the  most  illustrious 
—  meaning  M.  Thiers,  who  refused  to  join  it. 
.  .  .  The  Government  of  National  Defence,  as  it 
elected  to  style  itself,  on  M.  Rochefort's  sugges- 
tion, was  composed  of  the  following  members : — 
General  Trochu,  president;  Jules  Favre,  Vice 
President  and  Minister  for  Foreign  Aifairs; 
Emanuel  Arago;  Cremieux,  Minister  of  Justice ; 
Jules  Ferry,  Secretary ;  Leon  Gambetta,  Minister 
of  the  Interior ;  Garnier-Pag6s ;  Glais-Bizoin ;  Eu- 
gene Pelletan ;  Ernest  Picard,  Minister  of  Finance ; 
Henri  Rochefort;  and  Jules  Simon,  Minister  of 
Public  Instruction.  Subsequently  it  associated 
with  it  General  Le  Flo,  Minister  of  War;  Ad- 
miral Fourichon,  Minister  of  Marine ;  M.  Dorian, 
Minister  of  Public  Works ;  and  M.  Magnin,  Min- 
ister of  Agriculture  and  Commerce.  These,  with 
Count  de  Keratry,  charged  with  the  Prefecture 
of  Police,  M.  Etienne  Arago,  appointed  Mayor  of 
Paris,  composed  altogether  no  less  than  eighteen 
members,  upwards  of  two-thirds  of  whom  were 
Bretons,  advocates,  or  journalists.  .  .  .  For  some 
days  the  new  Government  was  prodigal  of  proc- 
lamations and  decrees.  Its  first  acts  were  to  close 
the  doors  of  the  Palais  Bourbon  and  the  Palais 
du  Luxembourg,  and  dissolve  the  Corps  Legis- 
latif and  abolish  the  Senate  as  bouches  inutiles 
politiques,  to  issue  proclamations  to  the  army, 
or  rather  the  debris  of  one,  justifying  the  Revo- 
lution and  appealing  to  the  troops  to  continue 
their  heroic  efforts  for  the  defence  of  the  country, 
and  to  the  National  Guard,  thanking  them  for 
their  past,  and  asking  for  their  future  patriotism. 
It  released  all  functionaries  from  their  oaths,  dis- 
missed the  ambassadors  at  foreign  courts,  ap- 
pointed prefects  in  all  the  departments,  and  new 
mayors  in  the  twenty  arrondissementsof  the  capi- 
tal, proclaimed  the  complete  liberty  of  the  press, 
ordered  all  Germans  not  provided  with  special 
permission  to  remain,  to  quit  the  departments  of 
the  Seine  and  Seine-et-Oise  within  four-and- 
twenty  hours.  ...  It  pressed  forward  the  pro- 
visioning of  the  city  and  its  works  of  defence, 
increased  the  herds  of  sheep  and  oxen  and  the 
stores  of  corn  and  flour,  provisionally  abolished  all 
local  customs  and  octroi  dues,  and  fixed  the 
price  of  butcher's  meat,  armed  the  outer  forts 
and  the  enceinte,  blew  up  or  mined  all  the 
bridges  and  fired  all  the  woods  in  the  environs, 
razed  thousands  of  houses  to  the  ground,  felled 
roadside  trees,  and  constructed  huge  barricades 
with  them ;  laid  in  fact  all  the  beautiful  suburbs 
in  waste ;  listened  to  the  thousand  and  one  wild 
schemes  put  forth  by  patriotic  madmen  for  ex- 
terminating the  invaders,  and  launched  a  huge 
captive  balloon,  which  hovered  daily  over  Paris 
to  give  timely  notice  of  their  dreaded  arrival." — 
H.  Vizetelly,  ed.    Paris  in  Peril,  ch.  1. 

Also  in  :  J.  Favre,  Tke  Oov't  of  the  National 
Defence,  June —  October. — W.  Rustow,  The  War 
for  tlie  Rhine  Prontier,  ch.  22  (».  2). 

A.  D.  1870  (September— October).— Futile 
striving  for  allies  and  for  peace  without  ter- 
ritorial sacrifices. —  Investment  of  Paris. — 
Garabetta's  organization  of  defense  in  the 
provinces. —  Bazaine's  surrender  at  Metz. — 
"  The  Government  of  National  Defence  .  .  .  im- 
agined that  the  fall  of  the  Empire  would  sim- 
plify the  cruel  position  of  France  towards  the 
enemy.  The  Dynasty  which  had  declared  war 
being  reversed,  and  the  men  now  in  power  hav- 
ing been  throughout  opposed  to  war  and  in  favour 


1419 


FRANCE,  1870. 


Siege  of  Paris. 


FRANCE,  1870-1871. 


of  German  unity,  and  now  demanding  nothing 
but  peace,  what  motive  could  the  King  of  Prus- 
sia have  to  continue  the  invasion  of  France  ?  It 
was  further  to  be  considered  that  free  France 
would  defend  her  integrity  to  the  last  drop  of  her 
blood ;  that  she  would  voluntarily  give  up  neither 
an  inch  of  her  territory  nor  a  stone  of  her  for- 
tresses. Such  were  the  ideas  which  the  new  Min- 
ister of  Foreign  Affairs,  M.  Jules  Favre,  expressed 
on  the  6th  of  September,  in  a  circular  addressed 
to  the  French  agents  in  foreign  countries.  The 
Cabinet  of  Berlin  was  not  slow  in  disabusing 
him  of  these  convictions.  Far  from  accepting 
the  view  that  the  Emperor  Napoleon  was  the  sole 
promoter  of  war.  Count  Bismarck,  in  two  de- 
spatches of  the  13th  and  of  the  16th  of  Septem- 
ber, threw  the  responsibility  of  the  conflict  on  the 
French  nation.  He  stated  that  the  vast  majority 
of  the  Chambers  had  voted  for  war,  and  that  the 
Emperor  was  justified  iii  assuring  the  King  that 
he  had  been  forced  into  a  war  to  which  he  was 
personally  averse.  ...  In  order  to  be  secure 
against  future  aggression,  Germany  -would  ask 
for  guarantees  from  the  French  nation  itself,  and 
not  from  a  transitory  Government.  ...  In  any 
case,  Germany  would  require  Strasburg  and  Metz. 
Thus  the  accession  to  power  of  the  Republican 
Governmeut  did  not  modify  the  reciprocal  posi- 
tions of  the  two  belligerents.  Nevertheless,  hope 
was  entertained  in  Paris  that  the  friendly  inter- 
vention of  the  great  powers  might  induce  the 
victor  to  soften  his  rigour; "  but  iutervention  was 
declined  by  the  Berlin  Cabinet  and  not  under- 
taken. "On  the  19th  of  September  the  invest- 
ment of  Paris  was  completed.  At  the  desire  of 
the  French  Government,  the  English  Cabinet  ap- 
plied to  the  German  bead-quarters,  with  the  ob- 
ject of  obtaining  for  M.  Jnles  Favre  an  interview 
with  Count  Bismarck.  This  request  having  been 
granted,  the  two  statesmen  held  conferences,  on 
the  19th  and  30th  of  September,  at  Ferri^res,  a 
castle  of  Baron  Rothschild  near  Jleaux.  During 
these  interviews  the  French  Minister  was  senti- 
mental and  the  German  Minister  coldly  logical. 
They  could  not  come  to  an  agreement  on  any  sin- 
gle point.  .  .  .  The  Government  of  Paris  .  .  . 
again  proclaimed  that  France  would  not  cede  an 
inch  of  her  territory.  Meanwhile,  in  consequence 
of  the  investment  of  Paris,  the  Government  of 
National  Defence  was  divided  into  two  parts; 
some  of  its  Delegates  withdrew  to  Tours,  form- 
ing a  delegation  of  the  central  Government  which 
remained  in  Paris.  The  German  armies  had  con- 
tinued their  onward  march,  as  well  as  their  opera- 
tions against  the  fortresses.  Toul  capitulated  on 
the  23rd  and  Strasburg  on  the  28th  of  September. 
On  the  otli  of  October,  King  AVilliam  had  estab- 
lished his  headquarters  at  Versailles. "  Meantime 
"the  Government  of  National  Defence  made  a 
last  attempt  to  secure  allies,  or  at  least  the  help 
of  powerful  mediators.  With  this  object  M. 
Thiers,  who  had  placed  himself  at  the  disposal  of 
the  Administration  of  the  4th  of  September,  was 
sent  on  a  mission  to  the  European  Courts.  From 
the  12th  of  September  till  the  20th  of  October, 
the  old  statesman  visited  in  succession  London, 
Vienna,  St.  Petersburg,  and  Florence.  In  none 
of  these  cities  were  his  measures  attended  with 
happy  results."  At  St.  Petersburg  and  at  Lon- 
don he  was  told  —  and  he  was  himself  convinced 
— "that  the  King  of  Prussia  was  compelled  to 
consider  the  public  opinion  of  Germany,  and  that 
France  would  have  to  resign  herself  to  territorial 


sacrifices. "  He  returned  to  France  to  advise,  and 
to  procure  authority  for,  a  conference  with  the 
German  Chancellor.  But  events  had  already  oc- 
curred which  aggravated  the  forlorn  condition  of 
France.  "The  youngest  and  most  enterprising 
member  of  the  Government  of  Paris,  M.  Gam- 
betta,  had  left  the  Capital  on  the  8th  of  October 
in  a  balloon  for  Tours.  It  was  his  intention  to 
organise  national  defence  in  the  Provinces.  The 
day  after  his  arrival  at  Tours,  he  issued  a  fiery 
Proclamation  to  the  French  people.  .  .  .  With  an 
energy  that  called  forth  universal  admiration,  the 
Government  of  Tours,  over  which  Gambetta  pre- 
sided as  Dictator,  organised  resistance,  formed  a 
new  army,  and  gathered  together  every  possible 
resource  for  defence  both  in  men  and  in  materials. 
All  these  efforts  could  not  arrest  the  progress  of 
the  invasion.  From  the  11th  to  the  31st  of  Octo- 
ber, the  Germans  took  successively  Orleans,  Sois- 
sons,  Schlestadt  and  Dijon.  Round  Paris  they 
repulsed  the  sallies  of  Malmaison,  Champigny, 
and  le  Bourget.  But  all  these  defeats  of  heroic 
soldiers  waned  when  compared  to  the  appalling 
and  decisive  catastrophe  of  Metz.  After  the  bat- 
tle of  Gravelotte,  Marshal  Bazaine  had  unsuccess- 
fully attempted  several  sallies.  ...  On  the  7th 
of  October,  after  an  unfortunate  battle  at  Woippy, 
lasting  nine  hours,  Bazaine  considered  the  situa- 
tion desperate.  His  only  thought  was  to  obtain 
the  most  favourable  conditions  he  could,  and  with 
this  object  he  sent  General  Boyer  to  the  head- 
quarters at  Versailles."  After  two  weeks  of  ne- 
gotiation, "on  the  21st  of  October,  the  army  en- 
camped within  the  walls  of  Metz  found  itself 
without  provisions.  .  .  .  Negotiations  with  Prince 
Frederick  Charles,  nephew  of  the  King  and  Com- 
mander-in-chief of  the  besieging  Army,  were 
opened  on  the  25th,  and  terminated  on  the  37th 
of  October.  The  conditions  were  identical  with 
those  of  Sedan :  capitulation  of  the  town  and  its 
forts  with  all  the  material  of  war,  all  the  army  of 
the  Rhine  to  be  prisoners  and  the  officers  to  be 
liberated  on  parole." — E.  Simon,  The  Emp&ror 
William  and  his  Reign,  ch.  13  (e.  2).  —  "The 
French  Army  of  the  Rhine  at  the  time  of  the  sur- 
render still  numbered  178,000  men,  inclusive  of 
6,000  officers  and  20,000  men  remaining  tempora- 
rily in  Metz  as  sick  or  convalescent. ' ' —  Tlie  Franco- 
Oerinan  War:  German  Official  Account,  pt.  2,  v. 
1,  p.  201. 

Also  in  :  A.  Forbes,  My  Experiences  of  the  War 
between  France  and  Oermany,  pt.  2  (ji.  1). 

A.  D.  1870-1871. — The  war  in  the  provinces. 
— Unsuccessful  attempts  to  relieve  the  capital. 
— Distress  in  Paris. — Capitulation  and  armis- 
tice.— "The  surrender  of  Metz  and  the  release 
of  the  great  army  of  Prince  Frederick  Charles 
by  which  it  was  besieged  fatally  changed  the 
conditions  of  the  French  war  of  national  defence. 
Two  hundred  thousand  of  the  victorious  troops 
of  Germany  under  some  of  their  ablest  generals 
were  set  free  to  attack  the  still  untrained  levies 
on  the  Loire  and  in  the  north  of  France,  which, 
with  more  time  for  organisation,  might  well  have 
forced  the  Germans  to  raise  the  siege  of  Paris. 
The  army  once  commanded  by  Steinmetz  was 
now  reconstituted,  and  despatched  under  Gen- 
eral Manteuffel  towards  Amiens ;  Prince  Frederick 
Charles  moved  with  the  remainder  of  his  troops 
towards  the  Loire.  Aware  that  his  approach 
could  not  long  be  delayed,  Gambetta  insisted  that 
Aurelle  de  Paladines  should  begin  the  march  on 
Paris.     The  general  attacked  Tann  at  Coulmiers 


1420 


FRANCE,  1870-1871. 


War  in 
the  Provinces. 


FRANCE,  1870-1871. 


on  the  9th  of  November,  defeated  him,  and 
re-occupied  Orleans,  the  first  real  success  that 
the  French  had  gained  in  the  war.  There  was 
great  alarm  at  the  German  headquarters  at  Ver- 
sailles; the  possibility  of  a  failure  of  the  siege 
was  discussed;  and  40,000  troops  were  sent 
southwards  in  haste  to  the  support  of  the  Bava- 
rian general.  Aurelle,  however,  did  not  move 
upon  the  capital :  his  troops  were  still  unfit  for 
the  enterprise;  and  he  remained  stationary  on 
the  north  of  Orleans,  in  order  to  improve  his  or- 
ganisation, to  await  reinforcements,  and  to  meet 
the  attack  of  Frederick  Charles  in  a  strong  posi- 
tion. In  the  third  week  of  November  the  lead- 
ing divisions  of  the  army  of  Metz  approached, 
and  took  post  between  Orleans  and  Paris.  Gam- 
betta  now  insisted  that  the  effort  should  be  made 
to  relieve  the  capital.  Aurelle  resisted,  but  was 
forced  to  obey.  The  garrison  of  Paris  had 
already  made  several  unsuccessful  attacks  upon 
the  lines  of  their  besiegers,  the  most  vigorous 
being  that  of  Le  Bourget  ou  the  30th  of  October, 
in  which  baj'onets  were  crossed.  It  was  arranged 
that  in  the  last  days  of  November  General  Tro- 
ohu  should  endeavour  to  break  out  on  the  south- 
ern side,  and  that  simultaneously  the  army  of  the 
Loire  should  fall  upon  the  enemy  in  front  of  it 
and  endeavour  to  force  its  way  to  the  capital. 
On  the  28th  the  attack  upon  the  Germans  ou  the 
north  of  Orleans  began.  For  several  days  the 
struggle  was  renewed  by  one  division  after  an- 
other of  the  armies  of  Aurelle  and  Prince  Fred- 
erick Charles.  Victory  remained  at  last  with  the 
Germans ;  the  centre  of  the  French  position  was 
carried;  the  right  and  left  wings  of  the  army 
were  severed  from  one  another  and  forced  to  re- 
treat, the  one  up  the  Loire,  the  other  towards 
the  west.  Orleans  on  the  5th  of  December  passed 
back  into  the  hands  of  the  Germans.  The  sortie 
from  Paris, which  began  with  a  successful  attack 
by  General  Ducrot  upon  Champigny  beyond  the 
Marne,  ended  after  some  days  of  combat  in  the 
recovery  by  the  Germans  of  the  positions  which 
they  had  lost,  and  in  the  retreat  of  Ducrot  into 
Paris.  In  the  same  week  Manteuffel,  moving 
against  the  relieving  army  of  the  north,  encoun- 
tered it  near  Amiens,  defeated  it  after  a  hard 
struggle,  and  gained  possession  of  Amiens  itself. 
After  the  fall  of  Amiens,  Manteuffel  moved  upon 
Rouen.  This  city  fell  into  his  hands  without  re- 
sistance. .  .  .  But  the  Republican  armies,  unlike 
those  which  the  Germans  had  first  encountered, 
were  not  to  be  crushed  at  a  single  blow.  Under 
the  energetic  command  of  Faidherbe  the  army 
of  the  north  advanced  again  upon  Amiens.  Goe- 
ben,  who  was  left  to  defend  the  line  of  the 
Somme,  went  out  to  meet  him,  defeated  him  on 
the  23rd  of  December,  and  drove  him  bask  to 
Arras.  But  again,  after  a  week's  interval,  Faid- 
herbe pushed  forward.  On  the  3rd  of  January 
he  fell  upon  Goeben's  weak  division  at  Bapaume, 
and  handled  it  so  severely  that  the  Germans 
would  on  the  following  day  have  abandoned 
their  position,  if  the  French  had  not  themselves 
been  the  first  to  retire.  Faidherbe,  however,  had 
only  fallen  back  to  receive  reinforcements.  After 
some  days'  rest  he  once  more  sought  to  gain 
the  road  to  Paris,  advancing  this  time  by  the 
eastward  line  through  St.  Quentin.  In  front  of 
this  town  Goeben  attacked  him.  The  last  battle 
of  the  army  of  the  North  was  fought  on  the  19th 
of  January.  The  French  general  endeavoured 
to  disguise  his  defeat,  but  the  German  comman- 


der had  won  all  that  he  desired.  Faidherbe's 
army  was  compelled  to  retreat  northwards  in 
disorder;  its  part  in  the  war  was  at  an  end. 
During  the  last  three  weeks  of  December  there 
was  a  pause  in  the  operations  of  the  Germans  on 
the  Loire.  .  .  .  Gambetta  .  .  .  had  .  .  .  deter- 
mined to  throw  the  army  of  Bourbaki,  strength- 
ened by  reinforcements  from  the  south,  upon 
Germany  itself.  The  design  was  a  daring  one, 
and  had  the  .  .  .  French  armies  been  capable  of 
performing  the  work  which  Gambetta  required 
of  them,  an  inroad  into  Baden,  or  even  the  re- 
conquest  of  Alsace,  would  most  seriously  have 
affected  the  position  of  the  Germans  before  Paris. 
But  Gambetta  miscalculated  the  power  of  young, 
untrained  troops,  imperfectly  armed,  badly  fed, 
against  a  veteran  army.  In  a  series  of  hard- 
fought  struggles  the  army  of  the  Loire  under 
General  Chanzy  was  driven  back  at  the  begin- 
ning of  January  from  Vendome  to  Le  Mans.  On 
the  12th,  Chanzy  took  post  before  this  city  and 
fought  his  last  battle.  While  he  was  making  a 
vigorous  resistance  in  the  centre  of  the  line,  the 
Breton  regiments  stationed  on  his  right  gave 
way ;  the  Germans  pressed  round  him,  and  gained 
possession  of  the  town.  Chanzy  retreated  to- 
wards Laval,  leaving  thousands  of  prisoners  in 
the  hands  of  the  enemy,  and  saving  only  the 
debris  of  an  army.  Bourbaki  in  the  meantime, 
with  a  numerous  but  miserably  equipped  force, 
had  almost  reachetl  Bel  fort.  .  .  .  Werder  had 
evacuated  Dijon  and  fallen  back  xiponVesoul; 
part  of  his  army  was  still  occupied  in  the  siege 
of  Belfort.  As  Bourbaki  approached  he  fell 
back  with  the  greater  part  of  his  troops  in  order 
to  cover  the  besieging  force,  leaving  one  of  his 
lieutenants  to  make  a  flank  attack  upon  Bour- 
baki at  Villersexel.  This  attack,  one  of  the  fiercest 
in  the  war,  delayed  the  French  for  two  days,  and 
gave  Werder  time  to  occupy  the  strong  positions 
that  he  had  chosen  about  Montbeliard.  Here,  on 
the  15th  of  January,  began  a  struggle  which 
lasted  for  three  days.  The  French,  starving  and 
perishing  with  cold,  though  far  superior  in  num- 
ber to  their  enemy,  were  led  with  little  effect 
against  the  German  entrenchments.  On  the  18th 
Bourbaki  began  his  retreat.  Werder  was  unable 
to  follow  him ;  ]\Ianteuffcl  with  a  weak  force  was 
still  at  some  distance,  and  for  a  moment  it  seemed 
possible  that  Bourbaki,  by  a  rapid  movement 
westwards,  might  crush  this  isolated  foe.  Gam- 
betta ordered  Bourbaki  to  make  the  attempt:  the 
commander  refused  to  court  further  disaster  with 
troops  who  were  not  fit  to  face  an  enemy,  and 
retreated  towards  Pontarlier  in  the  hope  of  mak- 
ing his  way  to  Lyons.  But  IVIanteuffel  now  de- 
scended in  front  of  him;  divisions  of  Werder's 
army  pressed  down  from  the  north ;  the  retreat 
was  cut  off;  and  the  unfortunate  French  general, 
whom  a  telegram  from  Gambetta  removed  from 
his  command,  attempted  to  take  his  own  life. 
On  the  1st  of  February,  the  wreck  of  his  army, 
still  numbering  85,000  men,  but  reduced  to  the 
extremity  of  weakness  and  misery,  sought  refuge 
beyond  the  Swiss  frontier.  The  war  was  now 
over.  Two  days  after  Bourbaki's  repulse  at 
Montbeliard  the  last  unsuccessful  sortie  was  made 
from  Paris.  There  now  remained  provisions  only 
for  another  fortnight;  above  40,000  of  the  inhab- 
itants had  succumbed  to  the  privations  of  the 
siege ;  all  hope  of  assistance  from  the  relieving 
armies  before  actual  famine  should  begin  disap- 
peared.    On  the  23rd  of  January  Favre  sought 


U21 


FRANCE,  1870-1871. 


Capitulation 
of  Paris. —  Peace. 


FRANCE,  1871. 


the  German  Chancellor  at  Versailles  in  order  to 
discuss  the  conditions  of  a  general  armistice  and 
of  the  capitulation  of  Paris.  The  negotiations 
lasted  for  several  days ;  on  the  28th  an  armistice 
was  signed  with  the  declared  object  that  elections 
might  at  once  be  freely  held  for  a  National  As- 
sembly, which  should  decide  whether  the  war 
should  be  continued,  or  on  what  conditions  peace 
should  be  made.  The  conditions  of  the  armistice 
were  that  the  forts  of  Paris  and  all  their  material 
of  war  should  be  handed  over  to  the  German 
army ;  that  the  artillery  of  the  enceinte  should 
be  dismounted;  and  that  the  regular  troops  in 
Paris  should,  as  prisoners  of  war,  surrender  their 
arms.  The  National  Guard  were  permitted  to 
retain  their  weapons  and  their  artillery.  Imme- 
diately upon  the  fulfilment  of  the  first  two  con- 
ditions all  facilities  were  to  he  given  for  the 
entry  of  supplies  of  food  into  Paris.  The  articles 
of  the  armistice  were  duly  executed,  and  on  the 
30th  of  January  the  Prussian  flag  waved  over 
the  forts  of  the  French  capital."— C.  A.  FyfCe, 
Mist,  of  Modern  Europe,  v.  3,  ch.  6. 

Also  ln:  H.  Murdock,  The  Beconstruciion  of 
Europe,  ch.  29-30. — Daily  News  Corr.  of  the  War, 
ch.  18-31.— Cassell's  Ms«.  of  the  War,  v.  1,  ch.  36, 
V.  2,  ch.  1-18. — Comte  d'Herrison,  Journal  of  a 
Staff  Officer  in  Paris.— E.  B.  Washburne,  Mecol- 
lections  of  a  Minister  to  France,  r.  1,  cli.  5-10. — 
J.  A.  O'Shea,  An  Iron-bound  City.—F.  T.  Jlar- 
zials,  Life  of  Oambetta,  ch.  5. — H.  von  Moltke, 
The  Franco- German  War  of  1870-71,  sects.  3- 
7.— T.  G.  Bowles,  Th^  Defence  of  Paris.— W. 
Rilstow,  The  War  for  the  Rhine  Frontier,  1870, 
V.  3. 

A.  D.  1871  (January — May). — Preliminaries 
of  Peace  signed  at  Versailles. — The  Treaty 
of  Frankfort. — Cession  of  Alsace  and  one-fifth 
of  Lorraine. — Five  milliards  of  indemnity. — 
"  On  the  afternoon  of  January  28  [1871]  the 
capitulation  of  Paris  was  signed,  and  an  armis- 
tice agreed  upon  to  expire  on  February  19  at 
noon.  The  provinces  occupied  by  the  armies  of 
Bourbaki  and  Manteuffel  were  alone  excluded 
from  this  agreement.  On  January  29  the  Ger- 
man troops  quietly  took  possession  of  the  Paris 
forts.  The  regulars  and  mobiles  became  prison- 
ers of  war,  with  the  exception  of  12,000  men 
who  were  left  under  arms  to  preserve  order.  At 
the  earnest  request  of  Favre  the  National  Guard 
were  allowed  to  retain  their  arms.  If  Pavre 
urged  this  as  a  measure  to  counteract  the  impe- 
rialistic ideas  supposed  to  be  still  cherished  by 
the  prisoners  returning  from  Germany,  it  was  a 
political  crime  as  well  as  a  military  folly.  The 
National  Guard  became  the  armed  Commune. 
.  .  .  While  the  armies  withdrew  to  the  lines 
stipulated  in  the  armistice,  the  elections  went 
quietly  forward.  The  assembly  convened  at 
Bordeaux,  and  manifested  a  spirit  that  won  for 
it  universal  respect.  On  February  17  M.  Thiers 
was  appointed  chief  of  the  executive  power,  and 
having  named  his  ministry,  he  repaired  to  Ver- 
sailles to  arrange  the  preliminaries  of  peace. 
The  conferences  that  followed  with  the  German 
chancellor  were  perhaps  the  most  trying  ordeals 
to  which  the  Frenchman  had  ever  been  subjected. 
No  peace  was  possible  save  on  the  basis  of  the 
cession  of  miles  of  territory  and  the  strongest  of 
fortresses.  France  must  also  pay  a  war  indem- 
nity of  no  less  than  five  milliards  of  francs. 
Bismarck,  it  is  true,  thought  Thiers  'too  sentimen- 
tal for  business,  .  .  .  hardly  fit  indeed  to  buy  or 


sell  a  horse,'  but  no  diplomatist,  however  astute, 
could  have  made  better  terms  for  stricken  France. 
So  thought  the  assembly  at  Bordeaux ;  and  when 
Thiers  announced  the  result  of  his  mission  with 
a  quivering  lip,  he  had  its  sympatliy  and  sup- 
port. On  the  2d  of  March  the  assembly  formally 
ratified  the  peace  preliminaries  by  a  vote  of  54ft 
to  107.  It  had  been  stipulated  in  the  armistice 
that  the  German  troops  should  not  occupy  Paris. 
The  extension  of  time  granted  by  the  Germans 
entitled  them  to  some  compensation,  and  the  entry 
of  Paris  was  the  compensation  claimed.  The 
troops  detailed  for  this  purpose  were  not  chosen 
at  random.  To  the  Frenchman  who  on  the  1st 
day  of  March  beheld  them  pass  along  the  Ave- 
nue de  Malakoff  or  the  Champs  Elysees  it  was  an 
ominous  pageant.  It  was  a  German  and  not  a 
Prussian  army  that  he  beheld.  .  .  .  That  night 
the  Hessians  smoked  their  pipes  on  the  Trocadero, 
and  the  Bavarians  stacked  their  arms  in  the 
Place  de  la  Concorde,  while  the  lights  blazing 
from  the  palace  of  the  Elysee  announced  the 
German  military  headquarters.  On  the  third 
day  of  the  month,  the  Bordeaux  Assembly  hav- 
ing ratified  the  peace  preliminaries,  the  German 
troops  marched  out,  and  Paris  was  left  to  herself 
again.  The  war  was  over.  Be3'ond  the  Rhine- 
land,  in  Bavaria  and  Wilrtemberg  as  well  as  in 
the  north,  all  was  joy  and  enthusiasm  over  the 
return  of  the  army  that  had  answered  before  the 
world  the  question,  '  What  is  the  German  Father- 
land ? '  On  the  10th  of  Maj'  the  definite  treaty 
of  peace  was  signed  at  Frankfort  by  which 
Prance  ceded  Alsace  and  a  portion  of  Lorraine, 
including  the  fortresses  of  INIetz  and  Strasburg, 
to  her  conqueror. " — H.  Murdock,  Tl(c  Reconstruc- 
tion of  Europe,  ch.  30. — The  following  are  the 
heads  of  the  Preliminary  Treaty  concluded  at 
Versailles,  to  which  the  final  Treaty  of  Frank- 
fort conformed :  "1.  France  renounces  in  favour 
of  the  German  Empire  the  following  rights:  the 
fifth  part  of  Lorraine  including  Metzand  Thion- 
ville,  and  Alsace  less  Belfort.  2.  France  will 
pay  the  sum  of  five  milliards  of  francs,  of  which 
one  milliard  is  to  be  paid  in  1871  and  the  remain- 
ing four  milliards  by  instalments  extending  over 
three  years.  3.  The  German  troops  will  begin 
to  evacuate  the  French  territory  as  soon  as  the 
Treaty  is  ratified.  They  will  then  evacuate  the 
interior  of  Paris  and  some  departments  lying  in 
the  western  region.  The  evacuation  of  the  other 
departments  will  take  place  gradually  after  pay- 
ment of  the  first  milliard,  and  proportionately  to 
the  payment  of  the  other  four  milliards.  Inter- 
est at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent,  per  annum  will 
be  paid  on  the  amount  remaining  due  from  the 
date  of  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty.  4.  The 
German  troops  will  not  levy  any  requisitions  in 
the  departments  occupied  by  them,  but  will  be 
maintained  at  the  cost  of  France.  A  delay  will 
be  granted  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories 
annexed  to  choose  between  the  two  nationalities. 
6.  Prisoners  of  war  will  be  immediately  set  at 
liberty.  7.  Negotiations  for  a  definitive  Treaty 
of  Peace  will  be  opened  at  Brussels  after  the 
ratification  of  this  Treaty.  8.  The  administra- 
tion of  the  departments  occupied  by  the  German 
troops  will  be  entrusted  to  French  officials,  but 
under  the  control  of  the  chiefs  of  the  German 
Corps  of  occupation.  9.  The  present  Treaty 
confers  upon  the  Germans  no  rights  whatever  in 
the  portions  of  territories  not  occupied.  10. 
This  Treaty  will  have  to    be  ratified   by  the 


1422 


FRANCE,  1871. 


Insurrection  of  the 
Commune. 


FRANCE,  1871. 


National  Assembly  of  France."— C.  Lowe,  Prince 
Bismarck,  v.  1,  ch.  9. 

Also  in:  E.  Hertslet,  The  Map  of  Europe  ly 
Treaty,  v.  3,  7ios.  438  and  446. 

A.  D.  1871  (March — May). — Insurrection  of 
the  Communists  of  Paris. — Second  siege  and 
reduction  of  the  capital. — "  On  the  3d  of  March 
the  German  army  of  occupation  —  which  had 
been  in  the  assigned  part  of  tlie  city  since  the  1st 
— marched  off  through  the  Arc  de  Triomphe,  and 
on  the  7th  the  German  headquarters  were  moved 
from  Versailles.  The  great  Franco-Prussian  War 
was  over  .  .  .  But  before  .  .  .  peace  could  be 
attained,  the  country  had  yet  to  suffer  from  the 
so-called  patriots  of  the  Red  Republicans  worse 
outrage  than  it  had  endured  at  the  hands  of  the 
German  invaders.  When  the  negotiations  for 
the  capitulation  of  Paris  were  in  progress.  Count 
Bismarck  had  warned  M.  Favre  of  the  danger  of 
allowing,  as  he  proposed,  the  National  Guard  to 
retain  their  arms;  and  the  members  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  National  Defence  might  themselves 
have  seen  the  risk  they  were  incurring,  had  they 
calmly  considered  the  various  emeutes  that  had 
taken  place  during  the  siege,  and  in  which  the 
National  Guard  had  always  played  such  a  con- 
spicuous part  on  the  side  of  disaffection.  Now, 
in  the  full  consciousness  of  their  strength  — 
somewhere  about  100,000  —  and  in  their  posses- 
sion of  a  powerful  artillery, —  for  during  the  Ger- 
man occupation  they  had,  on  the  pretext  of  keep- 
ing them  safe,  got  a  large  number  of  carmon  into 
their  hands, —  they  seemed  determined  to  attempt 
the  revival  of  the  Reign  of  Terror.  .  .  .  The  ap- 
pointment of  General  d'Aurelle  de  Paladines  as 
their  commander  gave  great  offence,  and  on  the 
9th  March  an  attempt  to  place  the  tricolor  on  the 
column  in  the  Place  de  la  Bastille  instead  of  the 
red  flag  of  revolution  led  to  an  outbreak.  A 
promise  in  the  event  of  the  cannon  being  given 
up,  of  the  continuance  of  pay  till  '  ordinary  work 
was  resumed,'  was  disregarded,  and  the  dismissal 
of  D'Aurelle  and  the  full  recognition  of  the  right 
of  the  National  Guard  to  elect  its  own  officers  de- 
manded. An  effort  of  the  government  to  seize 
the  cannon  in  the  Place  des  Vosges  failed,  and  it 
was  now  clear  enough  that  more  energetic  action 
than  negotiations  must  take  place.  On  the  morn- 
ing of  the  18th  March  a  large  force  of  regular 
troops  under  Generals  Viuoy  and  Lecomte  pro- 
ceeded to  Montmarte  and  took  possession  of  the 
guns;  but  the  want  of  horses  for  their  immediate 
removal  gave  time  for  the  Reds  to  assemble  and 
frustrate  the  effort,  while,  worst  of  all,  a  large 
number  of  the  regular  troops  fraternized  with 
the  insurgents.  General  Lecomte  and  General 
Clement  Thomas  were  taken  prisoners  and  a' most 
immediately  shot.  The  outbreak,  thus  begun, 
spread  rapidly;  for,  througli  some  unaccounta- 
ble timidity  of  the  government,  the  government 
forces  were  withdrawn  from  the  city,  and  the 
insurgents  left  free  to  act  as  they  pleased.  They 
seized  General  Chanzy  at  the  Orleans  railway 
station,  took  possession  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice 
and  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  and  threw  up  barricades 
round  all  the  revolutionary  quarters.  The  Cen- 
tral Committee  of  the  National  Guard,  the  lead- 
ing man  of  which  was  Assi,  .  .  .  summoned  the 
people  of  Paris  to  meet  '  in  their  comitia  for  the 
communal  elections,'  and  declared  their  intention 
of  resigning  their  power  into  the  hands  of  the 
Commune  thus  chosen.  The  National  Assembly 
removed  from  Bordeaux  and  held  its  sittings  at 


Versailles !  but  bitter  as  was  the  feeling  of  the 
majority  of  the  Deputies  against  the  new  turbu- 
lence, the  position  of  affairs  prevented  any  action 
from  being  taken  against  the  insurgents.  The 
removal  of  General  d'Aurelle  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  Admiral  Saisset  in  his  place  was  of  no 
avail.  A  number  of  the  inhabitants  of  Paris, 
styling  themselves  'Men  of  Order,'  attempted  to 
influence  affairs  by  a  display  of  moral  force,  but 
they  were  flred  on  and  dispersed.  The  Assembly 
was  timid,  and  apparently  quite  unable  to  bring 
its  troops  into  play.  .  .  .  Through  Admiral 
Saisset  concessions  were  offered,  but  the  demands 
of  the  Communists  increased  with  the  prospect 
of  obtaining  anything.  They  now  modestly  de- 
manded that  they  should  supersede  the  Assembly 
wherever  there  was  any  prospect  of  collision  of 
power,  and  be  allowed  to  control  the  finances; 
and  as  a  very  natural  consequence  the  negotia- 
tions were  abandoned.  This  was  on  the  35th  of 
March,  and  on  the  26th  the  Commune  was  elected, 
the  victory  of  the  Reds  being  very  easily  gained, 
as  hardly  any  of  those  opposed  to  them  voted. 
Two  days  afterwards  the  Commune  was  pro- 
claimed at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  the  members  who 
had  been  elected  being  seated  on  a  platform  in 
red  arm-chairs.  The  leading  man  of  the  new 
system  was  the  honest  but  hot-headed  and  Utopian 
Delescluze ;  Cluseret,  a  man  of  considerable  mili- 
tary genius,  who  had  led  a  life  of  a  very  wild 
nature  in  America,  and  who  was  the  soul  of  the 
resistance  when  the  actual  fighting  began,  was 
Delegate  of  War;  Grousset,  of  Foreign  Affairs; 
and  Rigault,  of  Public  Safety.  The  new  gov- 
ernment applied  it,self  vigorously  to  changes; 
conscription  was  abolished,  and  the  authority  of 
the  Versailles  government  declared  'null  and 
void.'  Seeing  that  a  desperate  struggle  must  in- 
evitably ensue,  a  very  large  number  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Paris  quitted  the  city,  and  the  Ger- 
man authorities  allowed  the  prisoners  from  Metz 
and  Sedan  to  return  so  as  to  swell  the  forces  at 
the  disposal  of  M.  Thiers.  They  also  intimated 
that,  in  view  of  the  altered  circumstances,  it 
might  again  become  necessary  for  them  to  oc- 
cupy the  forts  they  had  already  evacuated.  The 
first  shot  in  the  second  siege  of  Paris,  in  which 
Frenchmen  were  arrayed  against  Frenchmen, 
was  fired  on  the  2d  April,  when  a  strong  division 
of  the  Versailles  array  advanced  against  the  Na- 
tional Guards  posted  at  Courbevoie,  and  drove 
them  into  Paris  across  the  Pont  de  Neuilly. 
During  the  ensuing  night  a  large  force  of  in- 
surgents gathered,  and  were  on  the  morning  of 
the  3d  led  in  three  columns  against  Versailles. 
Great  hopes  had  been  placed  on  the  sympathy  of 
the  regular  troops,  but  they  were  doomed  to  dis- 
appointment. .  .  .  The  expedition  .  .  .  not  only 
failed,  but  it  .  .  .  cost  the  Commune  two  of  its 
leading  men,  —  Duval,  and  that  Flourens  who 
had  already  made  himself  so  conspicuous  in  con- 
nection with  revolutionary  outbreaks  under  the 
Empire  and  the  Government  of  National  Defence, 
—  both  of  whom  were  taken  and  promptly  shot 
by  the  Versailles  authorities.  The  failure  and 
the  executions  proved  so  exasperating  tliat  the 
'  Commune  of  Paris '  issued  a  proclamation  de- 
nouncing the  Versailles  soldiers  as  banditti.  .  .  . 
They  had  ample  means  of  gratifying  their  pas- 
sion for  revenge,  for  they  had  in  their  hands  a 
number  of  leading  men,  including  Darboy,  Arch- 
bishop of  Paris,  and  M.  Bonjean,  President  of 
the  Court  of  Cassation,  and  these  —  two  hundred 


1423 


FRANCE,  1871. 


The  Government  of 
the  Commune. 


FRANCE,  1871. 


in  all  —  they  proclaimed  their  intention  of  hold- 
ing as  hostages.  M.  Thiers  was  still  hesitating, 
and  waiting  for  a  force  sufficiently  powerful  to 
crush  all  opposition ;  and  in  this  he  was  no  douht 
right,  for  any  success  of  the  Communists,  even 
of  the  most  temporary  character,  would  have 
proved  highly  dangerous.  The  Germans  had 
granted  permission  to  the  government  to  increase 
their  original  30,000  troops  to  150,000,  and  pris- 
oners of  Metz  and  Sedan  had  been  pouring 
steadily  back  from  Germany  for  this  purpose. 
On  the  8th  April  Marshal  MacMahon  took  com- 
mand of  tlie  forces  at  Versailles.  A  premature 
attack  on  the  forts  of  Issy,  Vanves,  and  Mont- 
rouge  on  the  11th  failed,  but  on  the  17th  and 
19th  several  of  the  insurgent  positions  were  car- 
ried ;  on  the  35th  the  bombardment  of  Issy  and 
Vanves  was  begun,  and  from  that  time  onwards 
operations  against  the  city  were  carried  on  with 
the  greatest  activity,  the  insurgents  being  on  all 
occasions  put  to  the  sword  in  a  most  merciless 
manner.  Issy  was  taken  on  the  8th  May,  and 
Vanves  on  the  4th,  and  the  enceinte  laid  bare. 
Inside  Paris  all  this  time  there  was  nothing  but 
jealousy.  .  .  .  First  one  leader,  and  then  another, 
was  tried,  found  wanting,  and  disgraced.  .  .  .  On 
the  21st  May  the  defenders  of  the  wall  at  the  gate 
of  St.  Cloud  were  driven  from  their  positions  by 
the  heavy  artillery  fire,  and  the  besieging  army, 
having  become  aware  of  the  fact,  pushed  forward 
and  secured  this  entrance  to  the  city ;  and  by  the 
evening  of  the  22d  there  were  80,000  Versaillists 
within  the  walls.  Next  day  they  gained  fresh 
ground,  and  were  ready  to  re-occupy  the  Tuileries 
and  the  Hotel  de  Ville ;  but  before  this  was  pos- 
sible the  Communists,  mad  with  despair,  had  re- 
solved on  that  series  of  outrages  against  humanity 
that  will  make  their  names  detested  and  their 
cause  distrusted  as  long  as  the  story  of  their 
crimes  stands  recorded  in  the  annals  of  history. 
They  had  already  perpetrated  more  than  one  act 
of  vandalism.  ...  On  the  12th  May,  in  accord- 
ance with  a  public  decree,  they  had  destroyed 
the  private  residence  of  M.  Thiers  with  all  its 
pictures  and  books ;  on  the  16th  the  magnificent 
column  erected  in  the  Place  Vendome  in  memory 
of  Napoleon  I. ,  and  crowned  by  liis  statue,  was 
undermined  at  one  side  and  then  pulled  to  the 
ground  by  means  of  ropes  and  utterly  destroyed ; 
and  now  on  the  24th,  in  the  last  efforts  of  des- 
pairing rage,  bands  of  men  and  women,  still  more 
frantic  and  eager  for  blood  than  were  those  of 
the  Reign  of  Terror,  rushed  through  the  doomed 
city.  Early  in  the  morning  the  Tuileries,  the 
Hotel  de  Ville,  the  Ministry  of  Finance,  the  Palais 
d'Orsay,  and  other  public  and  private  buildings 
were  seen  to  be  on  fire.  The  Louvre,  too,  with 
all  its  inestimable  treasures,  was  in  flames,  and 
was  saved  with  the  greatest  difficulty.  If  the 
Commune  was  to  perish,  it  had  clearly  resolved 
that  the  city  was  to  perish  with  it.  Men  and 
women  marched  about  in  bands  with  petroleum, 
and  aided  the  spread  of  the  conflagration  by  fir- 
ing the  cit}'  in  different  places.  Heedless  of  the 
flames,  the  Versailles  troops  pressed  on,  eager,  if 
possible,  to  save  the  lives  of  the  200  hostages, 
but,  alas,  in  vain.  A  passion  for  blood  had 
seized  on  the  Commune,  and  its  last  expiring 
effort  was  to  murder  in  cold  blood,  not  only  a 
large  number  of  the  hostages,  but  also  batches  of 
fresh  victims,  seized  indiscriminately  about  the 
streets  by  bands  of  men  and  women,  and  dragged 
off  to  instant  death.     On  the  26th  Belleville  was 


Recollections  of  a 
5-7.— P.  Vesinier, 
-P.  O.  Lissagaray, 

-W.  P.  Fetridge, 
-J.  Leigh- 


captured,  and  on  the  27th  and  28th  the  Cemetery 
of  Pere  la  Chaise  was  the  scene  of  the  final  strug- 
gle,—  a  struggle  of  such  a  desperate  nature  — 
for  there  was  no  quarter— that,  for  days  after, 
the  air  of  the  district  was  literally  fraught  with 
pestilence.  Many  of  the  leaders  of  the  Commune 
had  fallen  in  the  final  contest,  and  all  the  others 
who  were  captured  by  the  Versailles  troops  dur- 
ing the  fighting  were  "at  once  shot.  Of  the  30,000 
prisoners  who  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the 
government,  a  large  number,  both  men  and 
women,  were  executed  without  mercy,  and  the 
rest  distributed  in  various  prisons  to  await  trial, 
as  also  were  Rossel,  Assi,  Grousset,  and  others,  who 
were  captured  after  the  resistance  was  at  an  end. 
Cluseret  succeeded  in  making  good  his  escape. 
...  Of  the  prisoners,  about  10,000  were  set  free 
without  trial,  and  the  others  were  sentenced  by 
various  courts-martial  during  the  following 
months  and  on  through  the  coming  year,  either 
to  death,  transportation  or  imprisonment." — H. 
Martin,  Popular  Hist,  of  France  from  the  First 
Eewlution,  v.  3,  ch.  24. 

Also  in  :  E.  B.  Washbume, 
Minister  to  France,  v.  2,  ch. 
Hist,  of  the  Commune  of  Paris.- 
Hist.  of  the  Cotnmune  of  1871.- 
Pise  and  Fall  of  the  Paris  Commiine.- 
ton,  Paris  iindcr  the  Commune. 

A.  D.  1 87 1  (April— May).— The  government 
of  the  Commune  in  Paris. — "For  the  conduct 
of  affairs  the  Communal  Council  divided  itself 
into  ten  'commissions,'  of  finance,  war,  public 
safety,  external  relations,  education,  justice, 
labour  and  exchange,  provisions,  the  public  ser- 
vice, and  the  general  executive.  Of  these  the 
most  efficient  appears  to  ha  ve  been  that  of  finance ; 
by  advances  from  the  bank  and  by  the  revenues  of 
the  post,  the  telegraph,  the  octrois,  &c.,  means 
were  found  to  provide  for  the  current  expendi- 
ture. The  other  commissions  were  admittedly 
inefficient,  and  especially  the  one  which  was  most 
important  for  the  moment,  that  of  war: — 'as  to 
a  general  plan, '  says  Lissagaray,  '  there  never  was 
one :  the  men  were  abandoned  to  themselves,  be- 
ing neither  cared  for  nor  controlled ; '  '  at  the 
Ministry,'  says  Gastyne,  'no  one  is  at  his  place. 
They  pass  their  time  in  running  after  one  another. 
The  most  insignificant  Lieutenant  will  take  orders 
from  nobody,  and  wants  to  give  them  to  every- 
body. They  smoke,  chat  and  chaff.  They  dis- 
pute with  the  contractors.  They  buy  irresponsi- 
bly right  and  left  because  the  dealers  give  com- 
missions or  have  private  relations  with  the  ofii- 
cials ; ' '  in  the  army  of  Versailles, '  said  a  member 
of  the  Commune,  'they  don't  get  drunk:  incurs 
they  are  never  sober;'  'the  administration  of 
war,'  said  another,  'is  the  organisation  of  dis- 
organisation;' '  I  feel  myself,'  said  Rossel,  on  re- 
signing his  command,  'incapable  of  any  longer 
bearing  the  responsibility  of  a  command  where 
every  one  deliberates  and  no  one  obeys.  The 
central  committee  of  artillery  has  deliberated  and 
prescribed  nothing.  The  Commune  has  deliber- 
ated and  resolved  upon  nothing.  The  Central 
Committee  deliberates  and  has  not  yet  Imown  how 
to  act.  .  .  .  My  predecessor  committed  the  fault 
of  struggling  against  this  absurd  situation.  I  re- 
tire, and  have  the  honour  to  ask  you  for  a  cell 
at  Mazas.'  The  same  incompetence,  leading  to 
the  same  result  of  anarchy,  was  displayed  by  the 
Executive  Commission: — 'in  less  than  a  fort- 
night,' said  Grosset,  '  conflicts  of  every  kind  had 


1424 


FRANCE.  1871. 


The  Founding  of  the 
Third  Republic, 


FRANCE,  1871-1876. 


arisen;  the  Executive  Commission  gave  orders 
which  were  not  executed ;  each  particular  com- 
mission, thinking  itself  sovereign  in  its  turn,  gave 
orders  too,  so  that  the  Executive  Commission 
could  have  no  real  responsibility.'  On  April  20 
the  Executive  Commission  was  replaced  by  a  com- 
mittee, composed  of  a  delegate  from  each  of  the 
nine  other  commissions;  still  efficiency  could  not 
be  secured,  and  at  the  end  of  the  mouth  it  was 
proposed  to  establish  a  Committee  of  Public 
Safety.  This  proposition  was  prompted  by  the 
traditions  of  1793,  and  brouglit  into  overt  antag- 
onism the  two  conflicting  tendencies  of  the  Com- 
mune :  there  were  some  of  its  members  who  were 
ready  to  save  the  movement  by  a  despotism,  to 
secure  at  every  cost  a  strong  administration,  and 
Impose  the  Commune,  if  need  be  by  terror,  upon 
Paris  and  the  provinces.  ...  On  the  other  hand 
there  was  a  strong  minority  which  opposed  the 
proposal,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  tantamount 
to  an  abdication  on  the  part  of  the  Communal 
Council.  .  .  .  The  appointment  of  the  Commit- 
tee was  carried  by  forty-live  votes  to  twenty- 
three  ;  many  of  those  who  voted  for  it  regarded 
it  as  merely  another  'Executive  Commission,' 
subordinate  to,  and  at  any  moment  subject  to 
dismissal  by,  the  Commune ;  and  so,  in  effect,  it 
proved ;  it  was  neither  more  terrible  nor  more 
efficient  than  the  body  to  whicli  it  succeeded ;  it 
came  into  existence  on  the  1st  of  May,  and  on  the 
9th  the  complaint  was  already  advanced  that 
'your  Committee  of  Public  Safety  has  not 
answered  our  expectations;  it  has  been  an  ob- 
stacle, instead  of  a  stimulus; '  on  the  10th  a  new 
committee  was  appointed,  with  similar  results; 
all  that  the  innovation  achieved  was  to  bring  into 
clear  relief  the  fact  that  there  existed  in  the  Com- 
mune a  Jacobin  element  ready  to  recur  to  the  tra- 
ditions of  1793,  and  to  make  Paris  the  mistress  of 
France  by  the  guillotine  or  its  modern  equiva- 
lent."— G.  L.  Dickinson,  Revolution  and  Beactioii 
ill  Modern  France,  pp.  267-270. 

A.  D.  1871-1876.— The  Assembly  at  Bor- 
deaux.— Thiers  elected  Chief  of  the  Executive 
Power. — The  founding  of  the  Republic. — The 
recovery  of  order  and  prosperity. — Resigna- 
tion of  Thiers. — Election  of  Marshal  Mac- 
Mahon. — Plans  of  the  Monarchists  defeated. 
—Adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  1875. — "The 
elections  passed  off  more  quietly  than  was  to  be 
expected,  and  the  Assembly  which  came  to- 
gether at  Bordeaux  on  tlie  13th  of  February  ex- 
actly represented  the  sentiment  of  the  nation  at 
that  particular  moment.  France  being  eager  for 
peace,  the  Assembly  was  pacific.  It  was  also 
somewhat  unrepublican,  for  the  Republic  had 
been  represented  in  the  provinces  only  by  Gam- 
betta,  the  promoter  of  war  to  the  knife,  who 
had  sacrificed  the  interests  of  the  Republic  to 
what  he  conceived  to  be  the  interests  of  the 
national  honor.  Politics  had,  in  truth,  been  little 
thought  of,  and  Thiers  was  elected  in  27  de- 
partments upon  very  diverse  tickets,  rather 
on  account  of  his  opposition  to  the  war  and 
his  efforts  in  favor  of  peace  than  on  account 
of  his  fame  as  a  liberal  orator  and  historian. 
Moved  by  the  same  impulse,  the  Assembly 
almost  unanimously  appointed  him  Chief  of  the 
Executive  Power  of  the  French  Republic,  and 
intrusted  to  him  the  double  task  of  governing 
the  country  and  of  treating  with  the  German  Em- 
peror. ...  It  was  apparently  in  the  name  of  the 
Republic  that  peace  was  negotiated  and  the  Gov- 

1425 


ernment  gradually  reconstructed.  .  .  .  The  As- 
sembly, however,  which  was  all-powerful,  held 
that  to  change  the  form  of  government  was  one 
of  its  rights.  It  might  have  been  urged  that  the 
electors  had  scarcely  contemplated  this,  and  that 
the  Monarchists  were  in  the  majority  simply  be- 
cause they  represented  peace,  while  in  the  prov- 
inces the  Republic  had  meant  nothing  but  war 
to  the  hilt.  But  these  distinctions  were  not 
thought  of  in  the  press  of  more  urgent  business, 
namely,  the  treaty  which  was  to  check  the  shed- 
ding of  blood,  and  the  rudiments  of  administra- 
tive reconstruction.  No  monarchy  would  have 
been  willing  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  this 
Treaty.  .  .  .  The  Right  accordingly  consented 
to  accept  the  name  of  Republic  as  a  make- 
shift, provided  it  should  be  talked  about  as  little 
as  possible.  Thiers  had  come  to  think,  especi- 
ally since  the  beginning  of  the  war,  that  the  Re- 
public was  the  natural  heir  of  Napoleon  III. 
.  .  .  He  had,  however,  been  struck  with  the 
circumstance  that  so  many  Legitimists  had  been 
elected  to  the  Assembly,  and  he  was  no  more 
eager  than  they  to  stop  to  discuss  constitutions. 
.  .  .  He  was  the  more  disposed  to  wait,  inas- 
much as  he  saw  in  the  Chamber  the  very  rapid 
formation  and  growth  of  a  group  in  which  he 
had  great  confidence.  Of  these  deputies  M. 
Jules  Simon  has  given  a  better  definition  than 
they  could  themselves  formulate,^ for  this  polit- 
ical philosopher  has  written  a  masterly  history  of 
these  years.  .  .  .  Here  is  what  Simon  says  of 
this  party  in  the  Assembly :  '  There  were  in  this 
body  some  five-score  firm  spirits  who  were  alike 
incapable  either  of  forsaking  the  principles 
whereon  all  society  rests,  or  of  giving  up  free- 
dom. Of  all  forms  of  government  they  would 
have  preferred  constitutional  monarchy,  had  they 
found  it  established,  or  could  they  have  restored 
it  by  a  vote  without  resort  to  force.  But  they 
quickly  perceived  that  neither  the  Legitimists 
nor  the  Bonapartists  would  consent  to  the  con- 
stitutional form;  that  such  a  monarchy  could 
obtain  a  majority  neither  in  the  Parliament  nor 
among  the  people.  .  .  .  Some  of  these  men  en- 
tertained for  the  Republic  a  distrust  which,  at 
first,  amounted  to  aversion.  Being  persuaded, 
however,  that  they  must  choose  between  the  Re- 
public and  the  Empire  .  .  .  they  did  not  de- 
spair of  forming  a  Republic  at  once  liberal  and 
conservative.  In  a  word,  they  thrust  aside  the 
Legitimate  Monarchy  as  chimerical.  Republican 
and  Caesarian  dictatorship  as  alike  hateful.  .  .  . 
Of  this  party  M.  Thiers  was  not  merely  the  head, 
but  the  body  also.'.  .  .  But  there  was  another 
party,  which,  although  the  least  numerous  in  the 
Assembly  and  split  into  factions  at  that,  was  the 
most  numerous  in  the  country, —  the  Republican 
party." — P.  de  Remusat,  Thiers,  ch.  6-7. — "In 
the  wake  of  Thiers  followed  such  men  as  Remu- 
sat, Casimir  Perier,  Leon  Say,  and  Lafayette. 
This  added  strength  made  the  Republicans  the 
almost  equal  rivals  of  the  other  parties  combined. 
So  great  was  Thiers'  influence  that,  despite  his 
conversion  to  Republicanism,  he  was  still  able  to 
control  the  Monarcliical  Assembly.  A  threat  of 
resignation,  so  great  was  the  dread  of  what 
might  follow  it,  and  so  jealous  were  the  Mon- 
archists of  two  shades  and  the  Imperialists  of 
each  other,  was  enough  to  bring  the  majority  to 
the  President's  terms.  It  was  under  such  polit- 
ical conditions  that  the  infant  Republic,  during 
its  first  year,  undertook  the  tasks  of  preserving 


FRANCE,  1871-1876. 


Presidency  of  Thiers 
and  MacMahon. 


FRANCE,  1871-1876. 


peace,  of  maintaiiiing  internal  order,  of  retrieving 
disaster,  of  tempting  back  prosperity  and  thrift 
to  the  desolated  land,  of  relieving  it  of  the  bur- 
dens imposed  b)'  war,  and,  at  the  same  time,  of 
acquiring  for  itself  greater  security  and  perma- 
nency. The  recovery  of  France  was  wonderfully 
rapid ;  her  people  began  once  more  to  taste  sweet 
draughts  of  liberty ;  the  indemnity  was  almost 
half  diminished ;  and  her  industries,  at  the  end  of 
the  year,  were  once  more  in  full  career.  But  the 
Republic  was  a  long  way  from  complete  and  un- 
questioned recognition.  The  second  year  of  the 
Republic  (1873-73)  was  passed  amid  constant  con- 
flicts between  the  rival  parties.  Thiers  still  main- 
tained his  ascendency,  and  stoutly  adhered  to 
his  defence  of  Republican  institutions ;  but  the 
Assembly  was  restive  under  him,  and  energetic 
attempts  were  made  to  bring  about  a  fusion  be- 
tween the  Legitimists  and  the  Orleanists.  These 
attempts  were  rendered  futile  by  the  obstinacy  of 
the  Count  of  Chambord,  who  would  yield  nothing, 
either  of  principle  or  even  of  symbol,  to  his 
cousin  of  Orleans.  The  want  of  harmony  among 
the  Iilonarchists  postponed  the  consideration  of 
what  should  be  the  permanent  political  constitu- 
tion of  France  until  November  of  the  year  1873, 
when  a  committee  of  thirty  was  chosen  to  rec- 
ommend constitutional  articles.  Against  this 
the  Republicans  protested.  They  declared  that 
the  Assembly  had  only  been  elected  to  make 
peace  with  Germany ;  .  .  .  that  dissolution  was 
the  only  further  act  that  the  Assembly  was  com- 
petent to  perform.  This  indicated  the  confidence 
of  the  Republicans  in  their  increased  strength  in 
the  country;  and  the  fact  that  the  Monarchists 
refused  to  dissolve  shows  that  they  were  not  far 
from  holding  this  opinion  of  their  opponents. 
Despite  the  rivalries  and  bitterness  of  the  fac- 
tions, the  Republic  met  with  no  serious  blow 
from  the  time  of  its  provisional  establishment  in 
February,  1871,  until  :May,  1873.  Up  to  the  latter 
period  two  thirds  of  the  enormous  indemnity  had 
been  paid,  and  the  German  force  of  occupation 
had  almost  entirely  retired  from  French  territory. 
.  .  .  But  in  May,  1873,  a  grave  misfortune,  alike 
to  France  and  to  the  Republican  institutions,  oc- 
curred. At  last  the  Monarchical  reactionists  of 
the  Assembly  had  gathered  courage  to  make  open 
war  upon  President  Thiers.  Perceiving  that  his 
policy  was  having  the  effect  of  nourisliing  and 
adding  ever  new  strength  to  the  Republican  cause, 
and  that  every  month  drifted  them  further  from 
the  opportunity  and  hope  of  restoring  Mon- 
archy or  Empire  .  .  .  they  now  forgot  their 
own  difierences,  and  resolved,  at  all  hazards,  to 
get  rid  of  the  Republic's  most  powerful  pro- 
tector  The  Due  de  Broglie,  the  leader  of 

the  reactionary  Monarchists,  offered  a  resolution 
in  the  Assembly  which  was  tantamount  to  a 
proposition  of  want  of  confidence  in  President 
Thiers.  After  an  acrimonious  debate,  in  which 
Thiers  himself  took  part,  De  Broglie's  motion 
was  passed  by  a  majority  of  fourteen.  The 
President  had  no  alternative  but  to  resign ;  and 
thus  the  executive  power,  at  a  critical  moment, 
passed  out  of  Republican  into  Monarchical  hands. 
Marshal  MacMahon  was  at  once  chosen  President. 
.  .  .  MacMahon  was  strongly  Catholic  in  re- 
ligion ;  and  so  far  as  he  was  known  to  have  any 
political  opinions,  they  wavered  between  Legiti- 
mism and  Imperialism  —  they  were  certainly  as 
far  as  possible  from  Republicanism.  Now  was 
formed  and  matured  a  deliberate  project  to  over- 


throw the  young  Republic,  and  to  set  up  Mou 
archy  in  its  place.  All  circumstances  combined 
to  favor  its  success.  The  new  President  was 
found  to  be  at  least  willing  that  the  thing  should, 
if  it  could,  be  done.  His  principal  minister,  De 
Broglie,  entered  warmly  into  the  plot.  The 
Orleanist  princes  agreed  to  waive  their  claims, 
and  the  Count  of  Paris  was  persuaded  to  pay  a 
visit  to  the  Count  of  Chambord  at  his  retreat  at 
Frohsdorf,  to  aclinowledge  the  elder  Bourbon's 
right  to  the  throne,  and  to  abandon  his  own  pre- 
tensions. The  Assembly  was  carefully  can- 
vassed, and  it  was  found  that  a  majority  could 
be  relied  upon  to  proclaim,  at  the  ripe  moment, 
Chambord  as  king,  with  the  title  of  Henry  V. 
The  Republic  was  now,  in  the  early  autumn  of 
1873,  in  the  most  serious  and  real  peril.  It 
needed  but  a  word  from  the  Bourbon  pretender 
to  overthrow  it,  and  to  replace  it  by  the  tlirone 
of  the  Capets  and  the  Valois.  Happily,  the  old 
leaven  of  Bourbon  bigotry  existed  in  '  Henry  V.' 
He  conceded  the  point  of  reigning  with  parlia- 
mentary institutions,  but  he  would  not  accept  the 
tricolor  as  the  flag  of  the  restored  monarchy.  He 
insisted  upon  returning  to  France  under  the 
white  banner  of  his  ancestors.  To  him  the 
throne  was  not  worth  a  piece  of  cloth.  To  his 
obstinacy  in  clinging  to  this  trifle  of  symbolism 
the  Republic  owed  its  salvation.  The  scheme  to 
restore  the  monarchy  thus  fell  through.  The  re- 
sult was  that  the  two  wings  of  Monarchists  flew 
apart  again,  and  the  Republicans,  being  now 
united  and  patient  under  the  splendid  leadership 
of  Gambetta,  once  more  began  to  wax  in  strength. 
It  only  remained  to  tlie  Conservatives  to  make  the 
best  of  the  situation  —  to  proceed  to  the  forming 
of  a  Constitution,  and  to  at  least  postpone  to  as 
late  a  period  as  possible  the  permanent  establish- 
ment of  the  Republic.  The  first  step  was  to  con- 
firm MacMahon  in  the  Presidency  for  a  definite 
period;  and  'the  Septennate,'  giving  him  a  lease 
of  power  for  seven  years — that  is,  until  the 
autumn  of  1880 — ^was  voted.  ...  It  was  not 
until  late  in  the  year  1875  that  the  Constitution 
which  is  now  the  organic  law  of  France  was 
finally  adopted  [see  Constitution  of  Fr.«cce]. 
The  chief  circumstance  which  impelled  a  major- 
ity of  the  Assembly  to  take  this  decisive  step  was 
the  alarming  revival  of  Imperialism  in  the  coun- 
try. This  was  shown  in  the  success  of  Bonapart- 
ists  in  isolated  elections  to  fill  vacancies.  Much 
as  the  Royalists  distrusted  a  Republic,  they 
dreaded  yet  more  the  restoration  of  the  Empire ; 
and  the  rapid  progress  made  by  the  jiartisans  of 
the  Empire  forced  them  to  adopt  what  was  really 
a  moderate  Republican  Constitution.  This  Con- 
stitution provided  that  the  President  of  the  Re- 
public should  be  elected  by  a  joint  convention  of 
the  Senate  and  the  Chamber  of  Deputies;  that 
the  Senate  should  consist  of  300  members,  of 
whom  75  were  to  be  elected  for  life  by  the  As- 
sembly, and  the  remaining  335  by  electoral  col- 
leges, composed  of  the  deputies,  the  councillors- 
general,  the  members  of  the  councils  d'arron- 
dissement,  and  delegates  chosen  from  municipal 
councils ;  that  the  vacancies  in  the  life  senator- 
ships  should  be  filled  by  the  Senate  itself,  while 
the  term  of  the  Senators  elected  by  the  colleges 
should  be  nine  years,  one  third  retiring  every 
three  years;  that  the  Chamber  of  Deputies 
should  consist  of  533  members,  and  that  the 
deputies  should  be  chosen  by  single  districts,  in- 
stead of,  as  formerly,  in  groups  by  departments; 


1426 


FRANCE,  1871-1876. 


Jules  Grivy, 
President. 


FRANCE,  1875-1889. 


that  the  President  could  only  dissolve  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate ; 
that  money  bills  should  originate  in  the  Lower 
Chamber,  and  that  the  President  should  have 
the  right  of  veto.  The  'Septennate'  organized 
and  the  Constitution  adopted,  the  Assembly, 
which  had  clung  to  power  for  about  five  years, 
had  no  reason  for  continued  existence,  and  at  last 
dissolved  early  in  1876,  having  provided  that  the 
first  general  election  under  the  new  order  of 
things  should  take  place  in  February.  .  .  .  The 
result  of  the  elections  proved  three  things  —  the 
remarkable  growth  of  Republican  sentiment;  the 
great  progress  made,  in  spite  of  the  memory  of 
Sedan,  by  the  Bonapartist  propaganda;  and  the 
utter  hopelessness  of  any  attempt  at  a  Royalist 
restoration." — G.  M.  Towle,  Modern  France,  ch.  4. 

Also  in  :  J.  Simon,  The  Gov't  of  M.  Thiers, 
F.  Le  Goff.  Life  of  Thiers,  ch.  8-9. 

A.  D.  1872-1889. — Reform  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion. See  Education,  Modern:  Eueopean 
Countries.— France:  A.  D.  1833-1889. 

A.  D.  1875-1889.— Stable  settlements  of  the 
Republic. — -Presidencies  of  MacMahon  and 
GrIvy. — Military  operations  in  Tunis,  Mada- 
gascar and  Tonquin. — Revision  of  the  consti- 
tution.—  Expulsion  of  the  princes. —  Boulan- 
gerism. — Election  of  M.  Sadi  Carnot  to  the 
presidency. — "The  last  day  of  the  year  1875 
saw  a  final  prorogation  of  this  monarchist  as- 
sembly which  had  established  the  Republic.  It 
had  been  in  existence  nearly  five  years.  The 
■elections  to  the  Senate  gave  a  small  majority  to 
the  Republicans,  Those  to  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties (February,  1876)  gave  about  two-thirds  of  its 
533  seats  to  Republicans,  mostly  moderate  Re- 
publicans. The  ministry  to  which  the  leadership 
of  this  assembly  was  soon  confided,  was  therefore 
naturally  a  ministry  of  moderate  Republicans. 
M.  Dufaure  was  prime  minister,  and  M.  Leon 
Say  minister  of  finance.  .  .  .  The  Dufaure  min- 
istry was  not  long-lived,  being  succeeded  before 
the  year  1876  closed,  by  a  ministry  led  by  M. 
Jules  Simon,  a  distinguished  orator  and  writer. 
The  tenure  of  French  cabinets  in  general  has  been 
so  little  permanent  under  the  Third  Republic, 
that  in  the  nineteen  years  which  have  elapsed 
since  the  fall  of  the  Empire,  twenty-five  cabinets 
have  had  charge  of  the  executive  government. 
.  .  .  Few  events  had  marked  the  history  of  the 
Simon  ministry  when,  suddenly,  in  May,  1877, 
the  President  of  the  Republic  demanded  its  resig- 
nation. jMuch  influenced  of  late  by  Monarchist 
advisers,  he  had  concluded  that  the  moderate 
Republican  cabinets  did  not  possess  the  confi- 
dence of  the  chambers,  and,  feeling  that  the 
responsibility  of  maintaining  the  repose  and  se- 
curity of  France  rested  upon  him,  had  resolved, 
rather  than  allow  the  management  of  the  affairs 
of  the  country  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  M.  Gam- 
betta  and  the  Radicals,  to  appoint  a  ministry  of 
conservatives,  trusting  that  the  country  would 
ratify  the  step.  A  ministry  was  organized  under 
the  Duke  of  Broglie,  and  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties was  first  prorogued,  and  then,  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  dissolved.  The  death  of  M. 
Thiers  in  September  caused  a  great  national 
demonstration  in  honor  of  that  patriotic  states- 
man, '  the  liberator  of  the  territory."  The  result 
of  the  ensuing  elections  was  a  complete  victory 
for  the  Republicans,  who  secured  nearly  three- 
fourths  of  the  seats  in  the  new  Chamber.  The 
Marshal,  appointing  a  ministry  composed  of  ad- 


herents of  his  policy  who  were  not  members  of 
the  Assembly,  attempted  to  make  head  against 
the  majority,  but  was  forced  in  December  to 
yield  to  the  will  of  the  people  and  of  their  repre- 
sentatives, and  to  recall  M.  Dufaure  and  the 
moderate  Republicans  to  office.  The  year  1878 
therefore  passed  off  quietly,  being  especially  dis- 
tinguished by  the  great  success  of  the  universal 
exhibition  held  at  Paris.  ...  At  the  beginning 
of  1879  elections  were  held  in  pursuance  of  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution,  for  the  renewal  of 
a  portion  of  the  Senate.  .  .  .  Elections  were  held 
for  the  filling  of  82  seats.  Of  these  the  Republi- 
cans won  66,  the  Monarchist  groups  16.  This 
was  a  loss  of  42  seats  on  the  part  of  the  latter, 
and  assured  to  the  Republicans  a  full  control  of 
the  Senate.  It  had  also  the  effect  of  definitively 
establishing  the  Republic  as  the  permanent  gov- 
ernment of  France.  The  Republican  leaders 
therefore  resolved  to  insist  upon  extensive 
changes  in  the  personnel  of  the  Council  of  State 
and  the  judiciary  body.  .  .  .  When  they  also 
proposed  to  make  extensive  changes  in  other  de- 
partments, Marshal  MacMahon,  who  foresaw  the 
impossibility  of  maintaining  harmonious  rela- 
tions with  the  cabinets  which  the  Republican 
majority  would  now  demand,  took  these  new 
measures  as  a  pretext,  and,  on  January  30,  1879, 
resigned  the  office  of  President  of  the  Republic. 
On  the  same  day  the  Senate  and  Chamber,  united 
in  National  Assembly,  elected  as  his  successor, 
for  the  constitutional  term  of  seven  years,  M. 
Jules  Grevy,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Depu- 
ties a  moderate  Republican  who  enjoyed  general 
respect.  M.  Grevy  was  71  years  old.  M.  Gam- 
betta  was  chosen  to  succeed  him  as  president  of 
the  Chamber.  The  cabinet  was  remodelled,  M. 
Dufaure  resigning  his  office  and  being  succeeded 
by  M.  Waddington.  In  the  reorganized  ministry 
one  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  new  members 
was  M.  Jules  Perry,  its  minister  of  education. 
He  soon  brought  forward  two  measures  which 
excited  violent  discussion:  the  one  dealing  with 
the  regulation  of  superior  education,  the  other 
with  the  constitution  of  the  Supreme  Council 
of  Public  Instruction.  ...  In  March,  1880,  the 
Senate  rejected  the  bill  respecting  universities. 
The  ministry,  now  composed  of  members  of  the 
'  pure  Left '  (instead  of  a  mixture  of  these  and 
the  Left  Centre)  under  M.  deFreycinet,  resolved 
to  enforce  the  existing  laws  against  non-author- 
ized congregations.  The  Jesuits  were  warned 
to  close  their  establishments ;  the  others,  to  apply 
for  authorization.  Failing  to  carry  out  these 
decrees,  M.  de  Freycinet  was  forced  to  resign, 
and  was  succeeded  as  prime  minister  by  M. 
Ferry,  under  whose  orders  the  decrees  were  exe- 
cuted in  October  and  November,  establishments 
of  the  Jesuits  and  others,  to  the  number  of  nearly 
300,  being  forcilily  closed  and  their  inmates  dis- 
persed. Laws  were  also  passed  in  the  same  year 
and  in  1881  for  the  extension  of  public  education, 
and  a  general  amnesty  proclaimed  for  persons  en- 
gaged in  the  insurrection  of  the  commune.  In 
April  and  May,  1881,  on  pretext  of  chastising 
tribes  on  the  Tunisian  frontier  of  Algeria,  who 
had  committed  depredations  on  the  French  terri- 
tories in  Northern  Africa,  a  military  force  from 
Algeria  entered  Tunis,  occupied  the  capital,  and 
forced  the  Bey  to  sign  a  treaty  by  which  he  put 
himself  and  his  country  under  the  protectorate 
of  France.  .  .  .  The  elections,  in  August,  re- 
sulted in  a  Chamber  composed  of  467  Republi- 


1427 


FRANCE,  1875-1889. 


Military 
Operations, 


FRANCE,  1875-1889. 


cans,  47  Bonapartists,  and  43  Royalists,  whereas 
its  predecessor  had  consisted  of  387  Republicans, 
81  Bonapartists,  and  61  Royalists.  In  response 
to  a  general  demand,  M.  Gambetta  became  prime 
minister  on  the  meeting  of  the  new  Assembly  in 
the  autumn.  .  .  .  But  his  measures  failed  to  re- 
ceive the  support  of  the  Chamber,  and  he  was 
forced  to  resign  after  having  held  the  office  of 
prime  minister  but  two  months  and  a  half  (Janu- 
ary, 1882).  On  the  last  day  of  that  year  31. 
Gambetta,  still  the  most  eminent  French  states- 
man of  the  time,  died  at  Paris,  aged  forty-four. 
.  .  .  The  death  of  Gambetta  aroused  the  Mon- 
archists to  renewed  activity.  Prince  Napoleon 
issued  a  violent  manifesto,  and  was  arrested. 
Bills  were  brought  in  which  were  designed  to 
exclude  from  the  soil  of  France  and  of  FVeneh 
possessions  all  members  of  families  formerly 
reigning  in  France.  Finally,  however,  after  a 
prolonged  contest,  a  decree  suspending  the  dukes 
of  Aumale,  Chartres,  and  Alengon  from  their 
functions  in  the  army  was  signed  by  the  Presi- 
dent. Some  months  later,  August,  1883,  the 
Count  of  Chambord  ('  Henry  V.')  died  at  Frohs- 
dorf ;  by  this  event  the  elder  branch  of  the  house 
of  Bourbon  became  extinct  and  the  claims  urged 
by  both  Legitimists  and  Orleanists  were  united 
in  the  person  of  the  Count  of  Paris.  During  the 
year  1883  alleged  encroachments  upon  French 
privileges  and  interests  in  the  northwestern  por- 
tion of  Madagascar  had  embroiled  France  in  con- 
flict with  the  Hovas,  the  leading  tribe  of  that 
island.  The  French  admiral  commanding  the 
squadron  in  the  Indian  Ocean  demanded  in  1883 
the  placing  of  the  northwestern  part  of  the  island 
under  a  French  protectorate,  and  the  payment 
of  a  large  indemnity.  These  terms  being  refused 
by  the  queen  of  the  Hovas,  Tamatave  was  bom- 
barded and  occupied,  and  desultory  operations 
continued  until  the  summer  of  1883,  when  an  ex- 
pedition of  the  Hovas  resulted  in  a  signal  defeat 
of  the  French.  A  treaty  was  then  negotiated, 
in  accordance  with  which  the  foreign  relations 
of  the  island  were  put  under  the  control  of 
France,  while  the  queen  of  Madagascar  retained 
the  control  of  internal  affairs  and  paid  certain 
claims.  A  treaty  executed  in  1874  between  the 
emperor  of  Annam  and  the  French  had  conceded 
to  the  latter  a  protectorate  over  that  country. 
His  failure  completely  to  carry  out  his  agreement, 
and  the  presence  of  Chinese  troops  in  Tonquin, 
were  regarded  as  threatening  the  securitj-  of  tlie 
French  colony  of  Cochin  China.  A  small  expe- 
dition sent  out  [1882]  under  Commander  Riviere 
to  enforce  the  provision  of  the  treaty  was  de- 
stroyed at  Hanoi.  Reinforcements  were  sent 
out.  But  tlie  situation  was  complicated  by  the 
presence  of  bands  of  'Black  Flags,'  brigands 
said  to  be  unauthorized  by  the  Annam  govern- 
ment, and  by  claims  on  tlie  part  of  China  to  a 
suzerainty  over  Tonquin.  A  treaty  was  made 
with  Annam  in  August,  1883,  providing  for  the 
cession  of  a  province  to  France,  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  French  protectorate  over  Annam 
and  Tonquin.  This,  however,  did  not  by  any 
means  wholly  conclude  hostilities  in  that  province. 
Sontay  was  taken  from  the  Black  Flags  in  De- 
cember, and  Bacninh  occupied  in  March,  1884. 
The  advance  of  the  French  into  regions  over 
which  China  claimed  suzerainty,  and  which  were 
occupied  by  Chinese  troops,  brought  on  hostili- 
ties with  that  empire.  In  August,  1884,  Admiral 
Courbet  destroyed  the  Chinese  fleet  and  arsenal 


at  Foo-chow ;  in  October  he  seized  points  on  the 
northern  end  of  the  island  of  Formosa,  and  pro- 
claimed a  blockade  of  that  portion  of  the  island. 
On  the  frontier  between  Tonquin  and  China  the 
French  gained  some  successes,  particularly  in 
the  capture  of  Lang-Son;  yet  the  climate,  and 
the  numbers  and  determination  of  the  Chinese 
troops,  rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  secure 
substantial  results  from  victories.  Finally,  after 
a  desultorj'  and  destructive  war,  a  treaty  was 
signed  in  June,  1885,  which  arranged  that  For- 
mosa should  be  evacuated,  that  Annam  should 
in  future  have  no  diplomatic  relations  except 
through  France,  and  that  France  should  have 
virtually  complete  control  over  both  it  and  Ton- 
quin, though  the  question  of  Chinese  suzerainty 
was  left  unsettled.  ...  It  was  not  felt  that  the 
expeditions  against  Madagascar,  Annam,  and 
China  had  achieved  brilliant  success.  Tliey  had, 
moreover,  been  a  source  of  much  expense  to 
France ;  at  first  popular,  they  finally  caused  the 
downfall  of  the  ministry  which  ordered  them. 
That  ministry,  the  ministry  of  M.  Jules  Ferry, 
.  .  .  remained  in  power  an  unusual  length  of 
time, —  a  little  more  than  two  years.  Its  princi- 
pal achievement  in  domestic  affairs  consisted  in 
bringing  about  the  revision  of  the  constitution, 
which,  framed  by  the  Versailles  Assembly  in 
1875,  was  felt  b}'  many  to  contain  an  excessive 
number  of  Monarchical  elements.  ...  In  1885, 
after  the  fall  of  the  Ferry  cabinet,  a  law  was 
passed  providing  for  scrutin  de  liste ;  each  de- 
partment being  entitled  to  a  number  of  deputies 
proportioned  to  the  number  of  its  citizens,  the 
deputies  for  each  were  to  be  chosen  on  a  general 
or  departmental  ticket.  In  the  same  year  a  law 
was  passed  declaring  ineligible  to  the  office  of 
President  of  the  Republic,  senator  or  deputy, 
any  prince  of  families  formerly  reigning  in 
France.  ...  In  December  the  National  Assembly 
re-elected  M.  Grevy  President  of  the  Republic. 
In  the  ministry  led  by  jM.  de  Freycinet,  which 
held  office  during  the  year  1886,  great  promi- 
nence was  attained  by  the  minister  of  war,  Gen- 
eral Boulanger,  whose  management  of  his  de- 
partment and  political  conduct  won  him  great 
popularity.  .  .  .  The  increasing  activity  of  the 
agents  of  the  Monarchist  party,  the  strength 
which  that  party  had  shown  in  the  elections  of 
the  preceding  year,  and  the  demonstrations  which 
attended  the  marriage  of  the  daughter  of  the 
Count  of  Paris  to  the  crown  prince  of  Portugal, 
incited  the  Republican  leaders  to  more  stringent 
measures  against  the  princes  of  houses  formerly 
reigning  in  France.  The  government  was  in- 
trusted by  law  ■nith  discretionary  power  to  expel 
them  all  from  France,  and  definitely  charged  to 
expel  actual  claimants  of  the  throne  and  their 
direct  heirs.  The  Count  of  Paris  and  his  son  the 
Duke  of  Orleans,  Prince  Napoleon  and  his  son 
Prince  Victor,  were  accordingly  banished  by 
presidential  decree  in  June,  1886.  General  Bou- 
langer struck  off  from  the  army -roll  the  names 
of  all  princes  of  the  Bonaparte  and  Bourbon 
families.  The  Duke  of  Aumale,  indignantly 
protesting,  was  also  banished;  in  the  spring  of 
1889  he  was  permitted  to  return.  Meanwhile, 
within  the  Republican  ranks,  dissensions  in- 
creased. The  popularity  c'  General  Boulanger 
became  more  and  more  threatening  to  the  cabi- 
nets of  which  he  was  a  member.  An  agitation 
in  his  favor,  conducted  with  much  skill,  caused 
fear  lest  he  were  aspiring  to  a  military  dictator 


1428 


FRANCE,  1875-1889. 


FRANCIS. 


ship  of  France.  ...  In  the  autumn  of  1887,  an 
inquiry  into  the  conduct  of  General  CafiEarel, 
deputy  to  the  commander-in-chief,  accused  of 
selling  decorations,  implicated  M.  Daniel  Wilson, 
son-in-law  of  M.  Grevy,  who  was  alleged  to  have 
undertaken  to  obtain  appointments  to  office  and 
lucrative  contracts  in  return  for  money.  M. 
Grevy's  unwise  attempts  to  shield  his  son-in-law 
brought  about  his  own  fall.  The  chambers,  de- 
termined to  force  his  resignation,  refused  to 
accept  any  ministry  proposed  by  him.  After 
much  resistance  and  irritating  delays  he  submit- 
ted, and  resigned  the  presidency  of  the  Republic 
on  December  3,  1887.  On  the  next  day  the 
houses  met  in  National  Assembly  at  Versailles  to 
choose  the  successor  of  M.  Grevy.  .  .  .  The  most 
prominent  candidates  for  the  Republicans  were 
M.  Ferry  and  M.  de  Freycinet ;  the  former,  how- 
ever, was  unpopular  with  the  country.  The 
followers  of  both,  finding  their  election  impossi- 
ble, resolved  to  cast  their  votes  for  M.  Sadi  Oar- 
not,  a  Republican  of  the  highest  integrity  and 
universally  respected.  M.  Carnot,  a  distinguished 
engineer,  grandson  of  the  Carnot  wlio  had,  as 
minister  of  war,  organized  the  victories  of  the 
armies  of  the  Revolution,  was  accordingly  elected 
Presidentof  the  French  Republic.  .  .  .  The  chief 
difficulties  encountered  by  the  cabinet  arose  out 
of  the  active  propagandism  exercised  in  behalf 
of  General  Boulauger.  .  .  .  His  name  .  .  .  be- 
came the  rallying-point  of  those  who  were  hostile 
to  the  parliamentary  system,  or  to  the  Republi- 
can government  in  its  present  form.  Alarmed 
both  by  his  singular  popularity  and  by  his  po- 
litical intrigues,  the  government  instituted  a 
prosecution  of  him  before  the  High  Court  of 
Justice ;  upon  this  he  fled  from  the  country,  and 
the  dangers  of  the  agitation  in  his  favor  were, 
for  the  time  at  least,  quieted.  On  May  5,  1889, 
the  one-hundredth  anniversary  of  the  assembly 
of  the  States-General  was  held  at  Versailles.  On 
the  nest  day,  President  Carnot  formally  opened 


the  Universal  Exhibition  at  Paris."— V.  Duruy, 
Hist,  of  France,  pp.  666-677. 

Also  in  :  H.  C.  Lockwood,  Const.  Hist,  of 
France,  ch.  7,  and  app.  10.— F.  T.  Marzials,  Life 
of  Oambetta. — Annals  of  the  Amer.  Academy 
of  Political  and  Social  Science,  March,  1893,  sup- 
plement. 

A.  D.  1877-1882.— Anglo-French  control  of 
Egyptian  finances.  See  Egypt  :  A.  D.  1875- 
1883  ;  and  1883-1883. 

A.  D.  1881-1895. — Territorial  claims  and 
acquisitions  in  Africa.  See  Africa  :  A.  D. 
1881-1887,  and  after. 

A.  D.  1892.— New  Protective  Tariff.  See 
T.\RiFP  Legislation  :  A.  D.  1871-1893. 

A.  D.  1892-1893. — The  Panama  Canal  scan- 
dal.    See  Pan.\ma  Canal. 

A.  D.  1894-1895. — Assassination  of  Presi- 
dent Carnot. — Election  and  resignation  of  M. 
Casimir-Perier. — Election  of  M.  Faure  to  the 
Presidency. — The  most  startling  of  all  the  deeds 
in  the  recent  revival  of  anarchistic  activity  was 
the  assassination  of  M.  Carnot,  President  of  the 
French  Republic,  on  the  24th  of  June.  While 
driving  through  the  streets  of  Lyons,  he  was 
mortally  stabbed  by  an  Italian  Anarchist  named 
Santo  Caserio.  A  joint  convention  of  the  two 
chambers  of  the  legislature  was  immediately 
summoned  for  a  presidential  election.  The  con- 
vention met  at  Versailles,  June  37,  and  on  the 
first  ballot  chose  M.  Casimir-Perier  by  451  out  of 
a  total  of  851  votes.  On  the  15th  of  January, 
1895,  M.  Casimir-Perfer  astonished  the  world 
and  threw  France  into  consternation,  almost,  by 
suddenly  and  peremptorily  resigning  the  Presi- 
dency. The  reason  given  was  the  intolerable 
powerlessness  and  practical  inutility  of  the 
President  under  the  existing  constitution.  The 
exciting  crisis  which  this  resignation  produced 
was  passed  through  without  disorder,  and  on  the 
17th  the  National  Assembly  elected  M.  Fran9ois 
Felix  Faure  to  the  office  of  President. 


FRANCE,   BANK   OF.     See  Money  and 
Banking  :  17TH-19Tn  Centuries. 
FRANCE,    ISLE    OF.     See    ]VL4.scarene 

Islands. 


FRANCHE  COMTE.— In  the  dissolution  of 
the  last  kingdom  of  Burgundy  (see  Burgundy, 
THE  last  Kingdom  :  A.  D.  1033),  its  northern 
part  maintained  a  connection  with  the  Empire, 
which  had  then  become  Germanic,  much  longer 
than  the  southern.  It  became  divided  into  two 
chief  states — the  County  Palatine  of  Burgundy, 
known  afterwards  as  Franche  Comte,  or  the 
"free  county,"  and  Lesser  Burgundy,  which  em- 
braced western  Switzerland  and  northern  Savoy. 
"The  County  Palatine  of  Burgundy  often  passed 
from  one  dynasty  to  another,  and  it  is  remarkable 
for  the  number  of  times  that  it  was  held  as  a 
separate  state  by  several  of  the  great  princes  of 
Europe.  .  .  .  But,  through  all  these  changes  of 
dynasty,  it  remained  an  acknowledged  fief  of  the 
Empire,  till  its  annexation  to  France  under 
Lewis  the  Fourteenth.  The  capital  of  this  county, 
it  must  be  remembered,  was  Dole.  The  ecclesi- 
astical metropolis  of  Besanyon,  though  sur- 
rounded by  the  county,  remained  a  free  city  of 
the  Empire  from  the  days  of  Frederick  Barba- 
rossa  [A.  D.  1153-1190]  to  those  of  Ferdinand 
the  Third  [A.  D.  1637-1657].  It  was  then  merged 
in  the  county,    and  along  with  the  county  it 


passed  to  France." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Histcrical 
Oeography  of  Europe,  ch.  8,  sect.  5. 

A.  D.  1512. — Included  in  the  Circle  of  Bur- 
gundy.    See  Germany:  A.  D.  1493-1519. 

A.  D.  1648.— Still  held  to  form  a  part  of  the 
Empire.     See  Germany:  A.  D.  1648. 

A.  D.  1659.— Secured  to  Spain.  See  France: 
A.  D,  1659-1661. 

A.  D.  1674. — Final  conquest  by  Louis  XIV. 
and  incorporation  with  France.  See  Nether- 
lands (Holland)  :  A.  D.  1674-1678  ;  also,  Nime- 
guen.  Peace  op. 


FRANCHISE,  Elective,  in  England.  See 
England:  A.  D.  1884-1885. 

FRANCIA,  Doctor,  The  Dictatorship  of. 
See  Paraguay  :  A.  D.  1608-1873. 

FRANCIA.  See  France:  9th  Century; 
also,  Germany  :  A.  D.  843-963. 

FRANCIS  (called  Phoebus),  King  of  Na- 
varre, A.  D.  1479-1.50.3 Francis  I.  (of  Lor- 

raine),GerraanicEmperor,174.5-1765 Fran- 
cis I.,  King  of  France,  151.5-1.547 Francis 

I.,  King  of  Naples  or  the  Two  Sicilies,  1835- 

1830 Francis  II.,  Germanic  Emperor, 1793- 

1806  ;  Emperor  of  Austria,  1806-1835  ;  King  of 

Hungary  and  Bohemia,  1793-1835 Francis 

II.,  King  of  France,  1.5.59-1.560 Francis  11., 

King  of  Naples  or  the  Two  Sicilies,  A.  D. 
1859-1861 Francis  Joseph  I.,  Emperor  of 


1429 


FRANCIS. 


FRANKS. 


Austria,  1848  ;  King  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia, 

1848-. 

FRANCISCANS.   See  Mendicant  Orders, 

also.  Beguines,  etc. 

FRANCO- GERMAN,  OR  FRANCO- 
PRUSSIAN  WAR,  The.  See  France  :  A.  D. 
1870  (.June— July),  to  1870-1871. 

FRANCONIA :  The  Duchy  and  the  Circle. 
— "Among  the  great  duchies  [of  the  old  Ger- 
manic kingdom  or  empire  of  the  ninth,  tenth  and 
eleventh  centuries],  that  of  Eastern  Francia, 
Franken,  or  Franconia  is  of  much  less  impor- 
tance iu  European  history  than  that  of  Saxony. 
It  gave  the  ducal  title  to  the  bishops  of  Wilrz- 
hurg;  but  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  in  any  sense 
continued  in  any  modern  state.  Its  name  gradu- 
ally retreated,  and  the  circle  of  Franken  or  Fran- 
conia [see  Germany  :  A.  D.  1493-1519]  took  in 
only  the  most  eastern  part  of  the  ancient  duchy. 
The  western  and  northern  part  of  the  duchy,  to- 
gether with  a  good  deal  of  territory  which  was 
strictly  Lotharingian,  became  part  of  the  two 
Rhenish  circles.  Thus  Fulda,  the  greatest  of 
German  abbeys,  passed  away  from  the  Frankish 
name.  In  north-eastern  Francia,  the  Hessian 
principalities  grew  up  to  the  north-west.  Within 
the  Franconiau  circle  lay  Wiirzburg,  the  see  of 
the  bishops  who  bore  the  ducal  title,  the  other 
great  bishopric  of  Bamberg,  together  with  the 
free  city  of  Nlirnberg,  and  various  smaller  prin- 
cipalities. In  the  Rhenish  lands,  both  within  and 
without  the  old  Francia,  one  chief  characteristic 
is  the  predominance  of  the  ecclesiastical  princi- 
palities, Mainz,  Koln,  Worms,  Speyer,  and  Strass- 
burg.  The  chief  temporal  power  which  arose  in 
this  region  was  the  Palatinate  of  the  Rhine,  a 
power  which,  like  others,  went  through  many 
unions  and  divisions,  and  spread  into  four  circles, 
those  of  Upper  and  Lower  Rhine, Westfalia,  and 
Bavaria.  Tliis  last  district,  though  united  with 
the  Palatine  Electorate,  was,  from  the  early  part 
of  the  fourteenth  century,  distinguished  from  the 
Palatinate  of  the  Rhine  as  the  Oberpfalz  or  Up- 
per Palatinate." — E.  A.  Freeman,  Historical 
Oeog.  of  Europe,  cTi.  8,  sect.  1. — See,  also,  Ale- 
MANNi  :  A.  D.  496-504. 

FRANCONIA,  The  Electorate  of.  See  Ger- 
many: A.  D.  112.5-11.53. 

FRANCONIAN  OR  SALIC  IMPERIAL 
HOUSE. — The  emperors,  Conrad  II.,  Henry 
III.,  Henry  IV.,  and  Henry  V.,  who  reigned  from 
1034  until  1125,  over  the  Germanic-Roman  or 
Holy  Roman  Empire,  were  of  the  Salic  or  Fran- 
coniau house.     See  GERSi.-i.NY  :     A.  D.  973-1133. 

FRANKALMOIGN.  See  Feudal  Tenures. 

FRANKFORT,  Treaty  of.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1871  (January— May), 


FRANKFORT  ON   THE  MAIN,   Origin 

of.     See  Ai.emanni  :  A.  D.  49(3-504. 

A.  D.  1287. — Declared  an  imperial  city.  See 
Cities,  Imperial  and  Free,  op  Germany. 

A.  D.  1525. — Formal  establishment  of  the 
Reformed  Religion.  See  Papacy  :  A.  D.  1522- 
1523. 

A.  D.  1744.— The  "  Union  "  formed  by  Fred- 
erick the  Great.  See  Austria  :  A.  D.  1743- 
1744. 

A.  D.  1759.— Surprised  by  the  French.  See 
Germany  :  A.  D.  17.59  (April — August). 

A.  D.  1801-1803 — One  of  six  free  cities 
which  survived  the  Peace  of  Luneville.  See 
Germany  :  A.  D.  1801-1803. 


A.  D.  1806. — Loss  of  municipal  freedom. — 
Transfer,  as  a  grand  duchy,  to  the  ancient 
Elector  of  Mayence.  See  Germany  :  A.  D. 
1805-1806. 

A.  D.  1810. — Erected  into  a  grand  duchy  by 
Napoleon.  See  France:  A.  D.  1810  (February 
— December). 

A.  D.  1810-1815. — Loss  and  recovery  of  au- 
tonomy as  a  "  free  city."  See  Cities,  Imperial 
AND  free,  of  Germany  ;  and  Vienna,  The  Con- 
gress OF. 

A.  D.  1848-1849. — Meeting  of  the  German 
National  Assembly. — Its  work,  its  failure,  and 
its  end. — Riotous  outbreak  in  the  city.  See 
GERM.1.NY:  A.  D.  1848  (M.\rch— September)  ; 
and  1848-1850. 

A.  D.  1866. — Absorption  by  Prussia.  See 
Germany:  A.  D.  1866. 


FRANKLIN,    Benjamin,    and    the  Press. 

See  Printing  :  A.  D.  1704-1729 Electrical 

Discovery.     See  Electrical  Discovery  :   A. 

D.  1745-1747 Plan  of  Union  in  1754.     See 

United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1754 Colo- 
nial Representative  in  England. — Examina- 
tion before  Parliament.  See  Pennsylvania  : 
A.  D.  1757-1762  ;  and  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1765-176S,  1766 Signing  of  the  Dec- 
laration.    See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D. 

1776    (July) Mission    to    France.      See 

United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1776-1778,  1778 
(Febru.\ry).  1783  (September — November). 
.  .  .  .  Framing  of  the  Constitution.  See  United 
States  of  Am,  :  A.  D.  1787. 

FRANKLIN,  Sir  John.  See  Polar Explo- 
r.\tion  :  A.  D.  1819-1823,  and  after. 

FRANKLIN,  The  ephemeral  state  of.  See 
Tennessee  :  A,  D,  1785  ;  and  1785-1796, 

FRANKLIN,  Tenn.,  Battles  at  and  near. 
See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A,  D,  1863  (Febru- 
ary— April  :  Tennessee),  and  1864  (No\'ember: 
Tennessee). 

FRANKLIN,  OR  FRANKLEYN,  The.— 
"  'There  is  scarce  a  small  village,'  says  Sir  John 
Fortescue  [15th  century]  'in  which  you  may  not 
find  a  knight,  an  escjuire,  or  some  substantial 
householder  (paterfamilias)  commonly  called  a 
frankleyn,  possessed  of  considerable  estate ;  be- 
sides others  who  are  called  freeholders,  and  many 
yeomen  of  estate  sufficient  to  make  a  substantial 
jury.'  .  .  .  By  a  frankleyn  in  this  place  we  are 
to  understand  what  we  call  a  country  squire,  like 
the  frankleyn  of  Chaucer  ;  for  the  word  esquire 
in  Fortcscue's  time  was  only  used  in  its  limited 
sense,  for  the  sons  of  peers  and  knights,  or  such 
as  had  obtained  the  title."— H.  Hallam,  The 
Middle  A'/es.  ch.  S,  ]it.  3,  icitlinote  (f.  3). 

FRANKPLEDGE.— An  old  English  law  re- 
quired all  men  to  combine  in  associations  of  ten, 
and  to  become  standing  sureties  for  one  another, 
—  which  was  called  "  frankpledge." 


FRANKS  :   Origin  and  earliest  history. — 

"  It  is  well  known  that  the  name  of  'Frank'  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  long  list  of  German  tribes 
preserved  to  us  in  the  '  Germania '  of  Tacitus. 
Little  or  nothing  is  heard  of  them  before  the 
reign  of  Gordian  III.  In  A.  D.  340  Aurelian, 
then  a  tribune  of  the  sixth  legion  stationed  on 
the  Rhine,  encountered  a  body  of  marauding 
Franks  near  Mayence,  and  drove  them  back  into 
their  marshes.  The  word  'Francia 'is  also  found 
at  a  still  earlier  date,    in  the  old  Roman  chart 


1430 


FRANKS. 


FRANKS,  A.  r>.  410-420. 


called  the  '  Charta  Peutingeria,'  and  occupies  on 
the  map  the  right  bank  of  the  Rhine  from  op- 
posite Coblentz  to  the  sea.  The  origin  of  the 
Franks  has  been  the  subject  of  frequent  debate, 
to  which  French  patriotism  has  occasionally  lent 
some  asperity.  .  .  .  At  the  pre.sent  day,  however, 
historians  of  every  nation,  including  the  French, 
are  unanimous  in  considering  the  Franks  as  a 
powerful  confederacy  of  German  tribes,  who  in 
the  time  of  Tacitus  inhabited  the  north-western 
parts  of  Germany  bordering  on  the  Rhine.  And 
this  theor}'  is  so  well  supported  by  many  scattered 
notices,  sliglit  in  themselves,  but  powerful  when 
combined,  that  we  can  only  wonder  that  it  should 
ever  have  been  called  in  question.  Nor  was  this 
aggregation  of  tribes  under  the  new  name  of 
Franks  a  singular  instance ;  the  same  took  place 
in  the  case  of  the  Alemanni  and  Saxons.  .  .  . 
The  etymology  of  the  name  adopted  by  the  new 
confederacy  is  also  uncertain.  The  conjecture 
which  lias  most  probability  in  its  favour  is  that 
adopted  long  ago  by  Gibbon,  and  confirmed  in 
recent  times  by  the  authority  of  Grimm,  which 
connects  it  with  the  German  word  Frank  (free). 
.  .  .  Tacitusspeaksof  nearly  all  the  tribes,  whose 
various  appellations  were  afterwards  merged  in 
that  of  Frank,  as  living  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
the  Rhine.  Of  these  the  principal  were  the 
Sicambri  (the  chief  people  of  the  old  Isctevonian 
tribe),  who,  as  there  is  reason  to  believe,  were 
identical  with  the  Salian  Franks.  The  confedera- 
tion further  comprised  the  Bructeri,  the  Chamavi, 
Ansibarii,  Tubantes,  Marsi,  and  Chasuarii,  of 
whom  the  five  last  had  formerly  belonged  to  the 
celebrated  Cheruscan  league,  which,  under  the 
hero  Arminius,  destroyed  three  Roman  legions 
in  the  Teutoburgian  Forest.  The  strongest  evi- 
dence of  the  identity  of  these  tribes  with  the 
Franks,  is  the  fact  that,  long  after  their  settle- 
ment in  Gaul,  the  distinctive  names  of  the  origi- 
nal people  were  still  occasionally  used  as  synony- 
mous with  that  of  the  confederation.  .  .  .  The 
Franks  advanced  upon  Gaul  from  two  different 
directions,  and  under  the  different  names  of 
Salians,  and  Ripuarians,  the  former  of  whom  we 
have  reason  to  connect  more  particularly  with 
the  Sicambrian  tribe.  The  origin  of  the  words 
Salian  and  Ripuarian,  which  are  first  used  re- 
spectively by  Ammianus  Marcellinus  and  Jor- 
nandes,  is  very  obscure,  and  has  served  to  ex- 
ercise the  ingenuity  of  ethnographers.  There 
are,  however,  no  sufficient  grounds  for  a  decided 
opinion.  At  the  same  time  it  is  by  no  means  im- 
probable that  the  river  Yssel,  Isala  or  Sal  (for  it 
has  borne  all  these  appellations),  may  have  given 
its  name  to  that  portion  of  the  Franks  who  lived 
along  its  course.  With  still  greater  probability 
may  the  name  Ripuarii,  or  Riparii,  be  derived 
from  '  Ripa, '  a  term  used  by  the  Romans  to  sig- 
nify the  Rhine.  These  dwellers  on  '  the  Bank ' 
were  those  that  remained  in  their  ancient  settle- 
ments while  their  Salian  kinsmen  were  advanc- 
ing into  the  heart  of  Gaul." — W.  C.  Perry,  The 
Franks,  cli.  3. 

Also  in:  P.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  France:  Ancient 
Oaul,  bk.  3,  ch.  9  and  11. — T.  Smith,  Arminius, 
pt.  2,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  253. — First  appearance  in  the  Roman 
world. — "  When  in  the  year  353  the  different  gen- 
erals of  Rome  were  once  more  fighting  each  other 
for  the  imperial  dignity,  and  the  Rhine-legions 
marched  to  Italy  to  fight  out  the  cause  of  their 
emperor  Valerianus  against  .  .  .  Aemilianus  of 


the  Danube-army,  this  seems  to  have  been  the 
signal  for  the  Germans  pushing  forward,  es- 
pecially towards  the  lower  Rhine.  These  Ger- 
mans were  the  Franks,  who  appear  here  for  the 
first  time,  perhaps  new  opponents  only  in  name ; 
for,  although  the  identification  of  them,  already 
to  be  met  with  in  later  antiquity,  with  tribes  for- 
merly named  on  the  lower  Rhine  —  partly,  the 
Chamavi  settled  beside  the  Bructeri,  partly  the 
Sugambri  formerly  mentioned  subject  to  the 
Romans — is  uncertain  and  at  least  inadequate, 
there  is  here  greater  probability  than  in  the  case 
of  the  Alamanni  that  the  Germans  hitherto  de- 
pendent on  Rome,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Rhine, 
and  the  Germanic  tribes  previously  dislodged 
from  the  Rhine,  took  at  that  time  —  under  the 
collective  name  of  the  '  Free ' —  the  offensive  in 
concert  against  the  Romans." — T.  Mommsen. 
Hist,  of  Home,  bk.  8,  c7i.  4. 

A.  D.  277. — Repulse  from  Gaul,  by  Probus. 
See  Gaul:  A.  D.  277. 

A.  D.  279. — Escape  from  Pontus.  See  Stka- 
cuse:  a.  D.  279. 

A.  D.  295-297. — In  Britain.  See  Britain: 
A.  D.  288-297. 

A.  D.  306.— Defeat  by  Constantine. —  Con- 
stantino the  Great,  A.  D.  306,  fought  and  defeated 
the  Saliau  Franks  in  a  great  battle  and  ' '  carried 
off  a  large  number  of  captives  to  Treves,  the 
chief  residence  of  the  emperor,  and  a  rival  of 
Rome  itself  in  the  splendour  of  its  public  build- 
ings. It  was  in  the  circus  of  this  city,  and  in 
the  presence  of  Constantine,  that  the  notorious 
'  Ludi  Francici '  were  celebrated ;  at  which  several 
thousand  Pranks,  including  their  kings  Regaisus 
and  Ascaricus,were  compelled  to  fight  with  wild 
beasts,  to  the  inexpressible  delight  of  the  Chris- 
tian spectators." — W.  C.  Perry,  The  Franks,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  355. — Settlement  in  Toxandria.  See 
Gaul:  A.  D.  35.5-361;  also,  Toxandria. 

5th-ioth  Centuries. — Barbarities  of  the  con- 
quest of  Gaul. — State  of  society  under  the 
rule  of  the  conquerors. — Evolution  of  Feudal- 
ism. See  Gaul:  5th-8th,  and  5th-10th  Cen- 
turies. 

A.  D.  406-409. — Defense  of  Roman  Gaul. 
See  Gaul:  A.  D.  406-409. 

A.  D.  410-420. — The  Franks  join  in  the  at- 
tack on  Gaul. — After  vainly  opposing  the  en- 
trance of  Vandals,  Burguudians  and  Sueves  into 
Gaul,  A.  D.  406,  "the  Franks,  the  valiant  and 
faithful  allies  of  the  Roman  republic,  were  soon 
[about  A.  D.  410-420]  tempted  to  imitate  the 
invaders  whom  they  had  so  bravely  resisted. 
Treves,  the  capital  of  Gaul,  was  pillaged  by  their 
lawless  bands;  and  the  humble  colony  which 
they  so  long  maintained  in  the  district  of  Tox- 
andria, in  Brabant,  insensibly  multiplied  along 
the  banks  of  the  Meuse  and  Scheldt,  till  their 
independent  power  filled  the  whole  extent  of  the 
Second,  or  Lower,  Germany.  .  .  .  The  ruin  of 
the  opulent  provinces  of  Gaul  may  be  dated  from 
the  establishment  of  these  barbarians,  whose  al- 
liance was  dangerous  and  oppressive,  and  who 
were  capriciously  impelled,  by  interest  or  passion, 
to  violate  the  public  peace." — E.  Gibbon,  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ch.  31. — "They 
[the  Franks]  resisted  the  great  invasion  of  the 
Vandals  in  the  time  of  Stilicho,  but  did  not 
scruple  to  take  part  in  the  subsequent  ravages. 
Among  the  confusions  of  that  disastrous  period, 
indeed,  it  is  not  improbable  that  they  seized 
the  cities  of  Spires,  Strasburg,  Amiens,  Arras, 


1431 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  410-430. 


PRANKS,  A.  D.  511-753. 


Therouane  and  Tournai,  and  by  their  assaults  on 
Treves  compelled  the  removal  of  the  prsfectural 
government  to  Aries.  Chroniclers  who  flourished 
two  centuries  later  refer  to  the  year  418  large 
and  permanent  conquests  in  Gaul  by  a  visionary 
king  called  Pharamund,  from  whom  the  French 
monarchy  is  usually  dated.  But  history  seelis 
in  vain  for  any  authentic  marks  of  his  perform- 
ances. " —  P.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  France :  Ancient 
Oaul,  bk.  3,  ch.  11,  sect.  5. 

A.  D.  448-456. — Origin  of  the  Merovingian 
dynasty. — The  royal  dynasty  of  the  kingdom  of 
the  Franks  as  founded  by  Clovis  is  called  the 
Merovingian.  "  It  is  thought  that  the  kings  of 
the  different  Prankish  people  were  all  of  the  same 
family,  of  which  the  primitive  ancestor  was  Mero- 
veus  (Meer-wig,  warrior  of  the  sea).  After  him 
those  princes  were  called  Merovingians  (Meer- 
wings);  they  were  distinguished  by  their  long 
hair,  which  they  never  cut.  A  Meroveus,  grand- 
father of  Clovis,  reigned,  it  is  said,  over  the 
Franks  between  448  and  456 ;  but  only  his  name 
remains,  in  some  antient  historians,  and  we  know 
absolutely  nothing  more  either  of  his  family,  his 
power,  or  of  the  tribe  which  obeyed  him:  so  that 
we  see  no  reason  why  his  descendants  had  taken 
his  name.  .  .  .  The  Franks  appear  in  history  for 
the  first  time  in  the  year  241.  Some  great  captain 
only  could,  at  this  period,  unite  twenty  different 
people  in  a  new  confederation;  this  chief  was, 
apparently,  the  Meroveus,  whose  name  appeared 
for  such  a  long  time  as  a  title  of  glory  for  his  de- 
scendants, although  tradition  has  not  preserved 
any  trace  of  his  victories." — .1.  C.  L.  S.  de  Sis- 
mondi,  The  French  under  tlie  Meroeinr/ians,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  451.— At  the  battle  of  Chalons.  See 
Huns:  A.  D.  451. 

A.  D.  481-511.— The  kingdom  of  Clovis.— 
"The  Salian  Franks  had  .  .  .  associated  a  Ro- 
man or  a  Romanized  Gaul,  Aegidius,  with  their 
native  chief  in  the  leadership  of  the  tribe.  But, 
in  the  year  481,  the  native  leadership  passed  into 
the  hands  of  a  chief  who  would  not  endure  a 
Roman  colleague,  or  the  narrow  limits  within 
which,  in  the  general  turmoil  of  the  world,  his 
tribe  was  cramped.  He  is  known  to  history  by 
the  name  of  Clovis,  or  Chlodvig,  which  througli 
many  transformations,  became  the  later  Ludwig 
and  Louis.  Clovis  soon  made  himself  feared  as 
the  most  ambitious,  the  most  unscrupulous,  and 
the  most  energetic  of  the  new  Teutonic  founders 
of  states.  Ten  years  after  the  fall  of  the  West- 
ern empire  [which  was  in  476],  seven  years  before 
the  rise  of  the  Gothic  kingdom  of  Theoderic, 
Clovis  challenged  the  Roman  patrician,  Syagrius 
of  Soissons,  who  had  succeeded  to  Aegidius,  de- 
feated him  in  a  pitched  field,  at  Nogent,  near 
Soissons  (486),  and  finally  crushed  Latin  rivalry 
in  northern  Gaul.  Ten  years  later  (496),  in  another 
famous  battle,  Tolbiac  (Ziilpich),  near  Cologne, 
he  also  crushed  Teutonic  rivalry,  and  established 
his  supremacy  over  the  kindred  Alamanni  of  the 
Upper  Rhine.  Then  he  turned  himself  with  bit- 
ter hostility  against  the  Gothic  power  in  Gaul. 
The  Franks  hated  the  Goths,  as  the  ruder  and 
fiercer  of  the  same  stock  hate  those  who  are  a  de- 
gree above  them  in  the  arts  of  peace,  and  are  sup- 
posed to  be  below  them  in  courage  and  the  pur- 
Buits  of  war.  There  was  another  cause  of  an- 
tipathy. The  Goths  were  zealous  Arians;  and 
Clovis,  under  the  influence  of  his  wife  Clotildis, 
the  niece  of  the  Burgundian  Gundobad,  and  in 
consequence,  it  is  said,  of  a  vow  made  in  battle 


at  Tolbiac,  had  received  Catholic  baptism  from 
St.  Remigius  of  Rheims  [see  Christianity  :  A.  D. 
496-800].  The  Frank  king  threw  his  sword  into 
the  scale  against  the  Arian  cause,  and  became  the 
champion  and  hope  of  the  Catholic  population  all 
over  Gaul.  Clovis  was  victorious.  He  crippled 
the  Burgundian  kingdom  (500),  which  was  finally 
destroyed  by  his  sons  (534).  In  a  battle  near 
Poitiers,  he  broke  the  power  of  the  West  Goths 
in  Gaul ;  he  drove  them  out  of  Aquitaine,  leaving 
them  but  a  narrow  slip  of  coast,  to  seek  their  last 
settlement  and  resting-place  in  Spain ;  and,  when 
he  died,  he  was  recognized  by  all  the  world,  by 
Theoderic,  by  the  Eastern  emperor,  w-ho  honoured 
him  with  the  title  of  the  consulship,  as  the  master 
of  Gaul.  Nor  was  his  a  temporary  conquest. 
The  kingdom  of  the  West  Goths  and  the  Bur- 
gundians  had  become  the  kingdom  of  the  Franks. 
The  invaders  had  at  length  arrived  who  were  to 
remain.  It  was  decided  that  the  Franks,  and  not 
the  Goths,  were  to  direct  the  future  destinies  of 
Gaul  and  Germany,  and  that  the  Catholic  faith, 
and  not  Arianism,  was  to  be  the  religion  of  these 
great  realms." — R.  W.  Church,  Beginning  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  c7i.  2. 

Alsoin:  W.  C.  Perry,  The  Franks,  ch.  2. — J. 
C.  L.  S.  deSismondi,  The  TVench  under  the  Mero- 
vingians, trans,  by  Bellingham,  ch.  4-5. — See,  also, 
Goths  (Visigoths):  A.  D.  507-509. 

A.  D,  481-768. — Supremacy  in  Germany,  be- 
fore Charlemagne.  See  Germany:  A.  D.  481- 
768. 

A.  D.  496. — Conversion  to  Christianity. — See 
above:  A.  D.  481-511;  also,  Ale.manni:  A.  D. 
496-504. 

A.  D.  496-504. — Overthrovs-  of  the  Alemanni. 
See  Alemanni:  A.  D.  496-504;  also,  Sdevi: 
A.  D.  460-500. 

A.  D.  511-752. — The  house  of  Clovis. — As- 
cendancy of  the  Austrasian  Mayors  of  the 
Palace. — On  the  death  of  Clovis,  his  dominion, 
or,  speaking  more  strictly,  the  kingly  ofl3ce  in 
his  dominion,  was  divided  among  his  four  sons, 
who  were  lads,  then,  ranging  in  age  from  twelve 
to  eighteen.  The  eldest  reigned  in  Metz,  the 
second  at  Orleans,  the  third  in  Paris,  and  the 
youngest  at  Soissons.  These  princes  extended 
the  conquests  of  their  father,  subduing  the  Thu- 
ringians  (A.  D.  515-538),  overthrowing  the  king- 
dom of  the  Burgundians  (A.  D.  538-534),  dimin- 
ishing the  possessions  of  the  Visigoths  in  Gaul 
(A.  D.  531-533),  acquiring  Provence  from  the 
Ostrogoths  of  Italy  and  securing  from  the  Em- 
peror Justinian  a  clear  Roman-imperial  title  to 
the  whole  of  Gaul.  The  last  survivor  of  the 
four  brother-kings,  Clotaire  I.,  reunited  tlie  whole 
Frank  empire  under  his  own  sceptre,  and  on  his 
death,  A.  D.  561,  it  was  again  divided  among 
his  four  sons.  Six  years  later,  on  tlie  death  of 
the  elder,  it  was  redivided  among  the  three  sur- 
vivors. Neustria  fell  to  Chilperic,  whose  capital 
was  at  Soissons,  Austrasia  to  Sigebert,  who 
reigned  at  Metz,  and  Burgundia  to  Guntram, 
who  had  his  seat  of  government  at  Orleans. 
Each  of  the  kings  took  additionally  a  third  of 
Aquitaine,  and  Provence  was  shared  between 
Sigebert  and  Guntram.  "  It  was  agreed  on  this 
occasion  that  Paris,  which  was  rising  into  great 
importance,  should  be  held  in  common  by  all, 
but  visited  by  none  of  the  three  kings  without 
the  consent  of  the  others."  The  reign  of  these 
three  brothers  and  their  sons,  from  561  to  613, 
was  one  long  revolting  tragedy  of  civil  war, 


1432 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  511-753. 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  539-553. 


murder,  lust,  and  treachery,  made  horribly  inter- 
esting by  the  rival  careers  of  the  evil  Frede- 
gunda  and  the  great  unfortunate  Brunhilda, 
queens  of  Neustria  and  Austrasia,  respectively. 
In  613  a  second  Clotaire  surviving  his  royal  liin, 
united  the  Frank  monarchy  once  more  under  a 
single  crown.  But  power  vpas  fast  slipping  from 
the  hands  of  the  feeble  creature  who  wore  the 
crown,  and  passing  to  that  one  of  his  ministers 
who  succeeded  in  making  himself  the  representa- 
tive of  royalty  —  namely,  the  Mayor  of  the  Pal- 
ace. There  was  a  little  stir  of  energy  in  his  son, 
Dagobert,  but  from  generation  to  generation, 
after  him,  the  Merovingian  kings  sank  lower 
into  that  character  which  gave  them  the  name  of 
the  faineant  kings  ("rois  faineans")  —  the  sloth- 
ful or  lazy  kings  —  while  the  mayors  of  the  pal- 
ace ruled  vigorously  in  their  name  and  tumbled 
them,  at  last,  from  the  throne.  ' '  While  the  Mero- 
vingian race  in  its  decline  is  notorious  in  history 
as  having  produced  an  unexampled  number  of 
imbecile  mouarchs,  the  family  which  was  des- 
tined to  supplant  them  was  no  less  wonderfully 
prolific  in  warriors  and  statesmen  of  the  highest 
class.  It  is  not  often  that  great  endowments  are 
transmitted  even  from  father  to  son,  but  the  line 
from  which  Charlemagne  sprang  presents  to  our 
admiring  gaze  an  almost  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion of  five  remarkable  men,  within  little  more 
than  a  single  century.  Of  these  the  first  three 
held  the  mayoralty  of  Austrasia  [Pepin  of  Lan- 
den,  Pepin  of  Heristal,  and  Carl,  or  Charles 
Martel,  the  Hammer] ;  and  it  was  they  who  pre- 
vented the  permanent  establishment  of  absolute 
power  on  the  Roman  model,  and  secured  to  the 
German  population  of  Austrasia  an  abiding  vic- 
tory over  that  amalgam  of  degraded  Romans  and 
corrupted  Gauls  which  threatened  to  leaven  the 
European  world.  To  them,  under  Providence, 
we  owe  it  that  the  centre  of  Europe  is  at  this 
day  German,  and  not  Gallo-Latin. "  Pepin  of 
Heristal,  JIayor  in  Austrasia,  broke  the  power  of 
a  rival  Neustrian  family  in  a  decisive  battle 
fought  near  the  village  of  Testri,  A.  D.  687,  and 
gathered  the  reins  of  the  three  kingdoms  (Bur- 
gundy included)  into  his  own  hands.  His  still 
more  vigorous  son,  Charles  Martel,  won  the  same 
ascendancy  for  himself  afresh,  after  a  struggle 
which  was  signalized  by  three  sanguinary  bat- 
tles, at  Ambl^ve  (A.  D.  716),  at  Vinci,  near  Cam- 
brai  (717)  and  at  Soissons  (718).  When  firm  in 
power  at  home,  he  turned  his  arms  against  the 
Frisians  and  the  Bavarians,  whom  he  subdued, 
and  against  the  obstinate  Saxons,  whose  country 
he  harried  six  times  without  bringing  them  to 
submission.  His  great  exploit  in  war,  however, 
was  the  repulse  of  the  invading  Arabs  and  Moors, 
on  the  memorable  battle-field  of  Tours  (A.  D. 
782),  where  the  wave  of  Mahommedan  invasion 
was  rolled  back  in  western  Europe,  never  to  ad- 
vance beyond  the  Pyrenees  again.  Karl  died  in 
741,  leaving  three  sons,  among  whom  his  power 
■was,  in  the  Frank  fashion,  'divided.  But  one  of 
them  resigned,  in  a  few  years,  his  sovereignty, 
to  become  a  monk;  another  was  deposed,  and 
the  third.  Pepin,  surnamed  "The  Little,"  or 
"The  Short,"  became  supreme.  He  contented 
himself,  as  his  father,  his  grandfather,  and  his 
great  grandfather  had  done,  with  the  title  of 
Mayor  of  the  Palace,  until  752,  when,  with  the 
approval  of  the  Pope  and  by  the  act  of  a  great 
assembly  of  leudes  and  bishops  at  Soissons,  he 
was  lifted  on  the  shield  and  crowned  and  an- 


nointed  king  of  the  Franks,  while  the  last  of 
the  Merovingians  was  shorn  of  his  long  royal 
locks  and  placed  in  a  monastery.  The  friendli- 
ness of  tlie  Pope  in  this  matter  was  the  result 
and  the  cementation  of  an  alliance  which  bore 
important  fruits.  As  the  champion  of  the  church, 
Pepin  made  war  on  the  Lombards  and  conquered 
for  the  Papacy  the  first  of  its  temporal  dominions 
in  Italy.  In  his  own  realm,  he  completed  the 
expulsion  of  the  Moors  from  Septimania,  crushed 
an  obstinate  revolt  in  Aquitaine,  and  gave  a  firm 
footing  to  the  two  thrones  which,  when  he  died 
in  768,  he  left  to  his  sons,  Carl  and  Carloman,  and 
which  became  in  a  few  years  the  single  throne  of 
one  vast  empire,  under  Carl  —  Carl  the  Great' — 
Charlemagne. — W.  C.  Perry,  Tlie  Franks,  ch.Z-6. 

Also  en  :  P.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  Prance :  Ancient 
Gaul,  eh.  13-15.— J.  C.  L.  S.  de  Sismondi,  The 
French  wider  the  Meramngiana,  eh.  6-13. — See, 
also,  Austrasia  and  Nedstkia,  and  Mayor  of 
THE  Palace. 

A.  D.  528. — Conquest  of  Thuringia.  See 
Thuklngians,  The. 

A.  D.  539-553. — Invasion  of  Italy. — Formal 
relinquishment  of  Gaul  to  them. — During  the 
Gothic  war  in  Italy, — when  Belisarius  was  re- 
conquering the  cradle  of  the  Roman  Empire  for 
the  Eastern  Empire  which  still  called  itself 
Roman,  although  its  seat  was  at  Constantinople, 
— -both  sides  solicited  the  help  of  the  Franks. 
Theudebert,  who  reigned  at  Metz,  promised  his 
aid  to  both,  and  kept  his  word.  "  He  advanced 
[A.  D.  539,  with  100,000  men]  toward  Pavia, 
where  the  Greeks  and  Goths  were  met,  about  to 
encounter,  and,  with  an  unexpected  impartiality, 
attacked  the  astonished  Goths,  whom  he  drove  to 
Ravenna,  and  then,  while  the  Greeks  were  yet  re- 
joicing over  his  performance,  fell  upon  them 
with  merciless  fury,  and  dispersed  them  through 
Tuscany."  Theudebert  now  became  fired  with 
an  ambition  to  conquer  all  Italy ;  but  his  savage 
army  destroyed  everything  in  its  path  so  reck- 
lessly, and  pursued  so  unbridled  a  course,  that 
famine  and  pestilence  soon  compelled  a  retreat 
and  only  one-third  of  its  original  number  re- 
crossed  the  Alps.  Notwithstanding  this  treach- 
ery, the  emperor  Justinian  renewed  his  offers  of 
alliance  with  the  Franks  (A.  D.  540),  and  "  pledged 
to  them,  as  the  price  of  their  fidelity  to  his  cause, 
besides  the  usual  subsidies,  the  relinquishment 
of  every  lingering  claim,  real  or  pretended, 
which  the  empire  might  assert  to  the  sovereignty 
of  the  Gauls.  The  Franks  accepted  the  terms, 
and  '  from  that  time,'  say  the  Byzantine  authori- 
ties, '  the  German  chiefs  presided  at  the  games 
of  the  circus,  and  struck  money  no  longer,  as 
usual,  with  the  effigy  of  the  emperors,  but  with 
their  own  image  and  superscription.  Theude- 
bert, who  was  the  principal  agent  of  these  trans- 
actions, if  he  ratified  the  provisions  of  the  treaty, 
did  not  fulfill  them  in  person,  but  satisfied  him- 
self with  sending  a  few  tributaries  to  the  aid  of 
his  ally.  But  his  first  example  proved  to  be  more 
powerful  than  his  later,  and  large  swarms  of 
Germans  took  advantage  of  the  troubles  in  Italy 
to  overrun  the  country  and  plunder  and  slay  at 
will.  For  twelve  years,  under  various  leaders, 
but  chiefly  under  two  brothers  of  the  Alemans, 
Lutherr  and  Bulihelin,  they  continued  to  harass 
the  unhappy  object  of  all  barbaric  resentments, 
till  the  sword  of  Narses  finally  exterminated 
them  [A.  D.  553]."— P.  Godwin,  Hist,  of  France: 
Ancient  Gaul,  bk.  3,  ch.  12. 


1433 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  539-553. 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  768-814. 


Also  in:  E.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  ch.  41. 

A.  D.  547. — Subjugation  of  Bavarians  and 
Alemanni.     See  Bavaria:  A.  D.  547. 

A.  D.  768-814. — Charlemagne,  Emperor  of 
the  Romans. — As  a  crowned  dynasty,  the  Car- 
lovingians  or  Carolingians  or  Cartings  begin 
their  history  with  Pepin  tlie  Short.  As  an  estab- 
lished .sovereign  house,  they  find  their  founder 
in  King  Pepin's  father,  the  great  palace  mayor, 
Carl,  or  Charles  Martel,  if  not  in  his  grandfather, 
Pepin  Heristal.  But  the  imperial  splendor  of 
the  house  came  to  it  from  the  second  of  its  kings, 
whom  the  French  call '  Charlemagne,'  but  whom 
English  readers  ought  to  know  as  Charles  the 
Great.  The  French  form  of  the  name  has  been 
always  tending  to  represent  '  Charlemagne  '  as  a 
king  of  France,  and  modern  historians  object  to 
it  for  that  reason.  ' '  France,  as  it  was  to  be  and 
as  we  know  it,  had  not  come  into  existence  in 
his  [Charlemagne's]  days.  What  was  to  be  the 
France  of  history  was  then  but  one  province  of 
the  Frank  kingdom,  and  one  with  which  Charles 
was  personally  least  connected.  .  .  .  Charles, 
king  of  the  Franks,  was,  above  all  things,  a  Ger- 
man. ...  It  is  entirely  to  mistake  his  place  and 
his  work  to  consider  him  in  the  light  of  a  speci- 
ally '  French '  king,  a  predecessor  of  the  kings 
who  reigned  at  Paris  and  brought  glory  upon 
France.  .  .  .  Charles  did  nothing  to  make  modern 
France.  The  Prank  power  on  which  he  rose  to 
the  empire  was  in  those  days  still  mainly  Ger- 
man ;  and  his  characteristic  work  was  to  lay  the 
foundations  of  modern  and  civilized  Germany, 
and,  indirectly,  of  the  new  commonwealth  of 
nations,  which  was  to  arise  in  the  West  of  Eu- 
rope."— R.  W.  Church,  The  Beyinnings  of  the 
Middle  Ages,  ch.  7. — "  At  the  death  of  King  Pip- 
pin the  kingdom  of  the  Franks  was  divided  into 
two  parts,  or  rather  .  .  .  the  government  over 
the  kingdom  was  divided,  for  some  large  parts 
of  the  territory  seem  to  have  been  in  the  hands 
of  the  two  brothers  together.  The  fact  is,  that 
we  know  next  to  nothing  about  this  division, 
and  hardly  more  about  the  joint  reign  of  the 
brothers.  The  only  thing  really  clear  is,  that 
they  did  not  get  along  very  well  together,  that 
Karl  was  distinctly  the  more  active  and  capable 
of  the  two,  and  that  after  four  years  the  younger 
brother,  Karlmann,  died,  leaving  two  sons.  Here 
was  a  chance  for  the  old  miseries  of  division  to 
begin  again ;  but  fortunately  the  Franks  seem  by 
this  time  to  have  had  enough  of  that,  and  to  have 
seen  that  their  greatest  hope  for  the  future  lay 
in  a  united  government.  The  widow  and  chil- 
dren of  Karlmann  went  to  the  court  of  the  Lom- 
bard king  Desiderius  and  were  cared  for  by 
him.  The  whole  Prankish  people  acknowledged 
Charlemagne  as  their  king.  Of  course  he  was 
not  yet  called  Charlemagne,  but  simply  Karl, 
and  he  was  yet  to  show  himself  worthy  of  the 
addition 'Magnus.' .  .  .  The  settlement  of  Saxony 
went  on,  with  occasional  military  episodes,  by 
the  slower,  but  more  certain,  processes  of  educa- 
tion and  religious  conversion.  It  appears  to  us 
to  be  anything  but  wise  to  force  a  religion  upon 
a  people  at  the  point  of  the  sword ;  but  the 
singular  fact  is,  that  in  two  generations  there 
was  no  more  truly  devout  Christian  people,  ac- 
cording to  the  standards  of  the  time,  than  just 
these  same  Saxons.  A  little  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  from  the  time  when  Charlemagne  had 
thrashed  the  nation  into  unwilling  acceptance  of 


Frankish  control,  the  crown  of  the  Empire  he 
founded  was  set  upon  the  head  of  a  Saxon  prince. 
The  progress  in  friendly  relations  between  the 
two  peoples  is  seen  in  the  second  of  the  great 
ordinances  by  which  Saxon  affairs  were  regu- 
lated. This  edict,  called  the  '  Capitulum  Saxoni- 
cum,'  was  published  after  a  great  diet  at  Aachen, 
in  797,  at  which,  we  are  told,  there  came  together 
not  only  Franks,  but  also  Saxon  leaders  from  all 
parts  of  their  country,  who  gave  their  approval 
to  the  new  legislation.  The  general  drift  of  these 
new  laws  is  in  the  direction  of  moderation.  .  .  . 
The  object  of  this  legislation  was,  now  that  the 
armed  resistance  seemed  to  be  broken,  to  give 
the  Saxons  a  government  which  should  be  as 
nearly  as  possible  like  that  of  the  Franks.  The 
absolute  respect  and  subjection  to  the  Christian 
Church  is  here,  as  it  was  formerly,  kept  always 
in  sight.  The  churches  and  monasteries  are  still 
to  be  the  centres  from  which  every  effort  at 
civilization  is  to  go  out.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  real  agency  in  this  whole  process  was 
the  organized  Church.  The  fruit  of  the  great 
alliance  between  Frankish  kingdom  and  Roman 
papacy  was  beginning  to  be  seen.  The  papacy 
was  ready  to  sanction  any  act  of  her  ally  for  the 
fair  promise  of  winning  the  great  territory  of 
North  Germany  to  its  spiritual  allegiance.  The 
most  solid  result  of  the  campaigns  of  Charle- 
magne was  the  founding  of  the  great  bishoprics 
of  Minden,  Paderborn,  Verden,  Bremen,  Osna- 
briick,  and  Halberstadt.  .  .  .  About  these  bish- 
oprics, as,  on  the  whole,  the  safest  places,  men 
came  to  settle.  Roads  were  built  to  connect 
them ;  markets  sprang  up  in  their  neighborhood ; 
and  thus  gradually,  during  a  development  of 
centuries,  great  cities  grew  up,  which  came  to  be 
the  homes  of  powerful  and  wealthy  traders,  and 
gave  shape  to  the  whole  politics  of  the  North. 
Saxony  was  become  a  part  of  the  Frankish  Em- 
pire, and  all  the  more  thoroughly  so,  because 
there  was  no  royal  or  ducal  line  there  which  had 
to  be  kept  in  place." — E.  Emerton,  Introd.  to  the 
Study  of  the  Middle  Ayes,  ch.  13. —  Between  768 
and  800  Charlemagne  extinguished  the  Lombard 
kingdom  and  made  himself  master  of  Italy,  as 
the  ally  and  patron  of  the  Pope,  bearing  the  old 
Roman  title  of  Patrician ;  he  crossed  the  Pyre- 
nees, drove  the  Saracens  southward  to  the  Ebro, 
and  added  a  "Spanish  March"  to  his  empire 
(see  Spain  :  A.  D.  778);  he  broke  the  obstinate 
turbulence  of  the  Saxons,  in  a  series  of  bloody 
campaigns  which  (see  Saxons:  A.  D.  772-804) 
consumed  a  generation ;  he  extirpated  the  trouble- 
some Avars,  still  entrenched  along  the  Danube, 
and  he  held  with  an  always  firm  hand  the  whole 
dominion  that  came  to  him  by  inheritance  from 
his  father.  "He  had  won  his  victories  with 
Frankish  arms,  and  he  had  taken  possession  of 
the  conquered  countries  in  the  name  of  the 
Frankish  people.  Every  step  which  he  had  taken 
had  been  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  na- 
tion assembled  in  the  great  meetings  of  the  spring- 
time, and  his  public  documents  carefully  express 
the  share  of  the  nation  in  his  great  achieve- 
ments. Saxony,  Bavaria,  Lombardy,  Aquitaine, 
the  Spanish  Mark,  all  these  great  countries,  lying 
outside  the  territory  of  Frankland  proper,  had 
been  made  a  part  of  its  possession  by  the  might 
of  his  arm  and  the  wisdom  of  his  counsel.  But 
when  this  had  all  been  done,  the  question  arose, 
by  what  right  he  should  hold  all  this  power,  and 
secure  it  so  that  it  should  not  fall  apart  as  soon 


1434 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  768-814. 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  768-814. 


as  he  should  be  gone.  As  king  of  the  Franks  it 
was  Impossible  that  he  should  not  seem  to  the 
conquered  peoples,  however  mild  and  beneficent 
his  rule  might  be,  a  foreign  prince ;  and  though 
he  might  be  able  to  force  them  to  follow  his 
banner  in  war,  and  submit  to  his  judgment  in 
peace,  there  was  still  wanting  the  one  common 
interest  which  should  bind  all  these  peoples, 
strangers  to  the  Franks  and  to  each  other,  into 
one  united  nation.  About  the  year  800  this  prob- 
lem seems  to  have  been  very  much  before  the 
mind  of  Charlemagne.  If  we  look  at  the  boun- 
daries of  his  kingdom,  reaching  from  the  Eider 
in  the  north  to  the  Ebro  and  the  Garigliano  in  the 
south,  and  from  the  ocean  in  the  west  to  the  Elbe 
and  the  Enns  in  the  east,  we  shall  say  as  the 
people  of  his  own  time  did,  '  this  power  is  Im- 
perial.' That  word  may  mean  little  to  us,  but 
in  fact  it  has  often  in  history  been  used  to  de- 
scribe just  the  kind  of  power  which  Charlemagne 
in  the  year  800  really  had.  .  .  .  The  idea  of  em- 
pire includes  under  this  one  term,  kingdoms, 
duchies,  or  whatever  powers  might  be  in  exis- 
tence ;  all,  however,  subject  to  some  one  higher 
force,  which  they  feel  to  be  necessary  for  their 
support.  .  .  .  But  where  was  the  model  upon 
wliich  Charlemagne  might  build  his  new  empire  ? 
Surely  nowhere  but  in  that  great  Roman  Empire 
whose  western  representative  had  been  finally 
allowed  to  disappear  by  Odoacer  the  Heruliau 
in  the  year  476.  .  .  .  After  Odoacer  the  Eastern 
Empire,  with  its  capital  at  Constantinople,  still 
lived  on,  and  claimed  for  itself  all  the  rights 
which  had  belonged  to  both  parts.  That  Eastern 
Empire  was  still  alive  at  the  time  of  Charle- 
magne. We  have  met  with  it  once  or  twice  in 
our  study  of  the  Franks.  Even  Clovis  had  been 
tickled  with  the  present  of  the  title  of  Consul, 
sent  him  by  the  Eastern  Emperor;  and  from 
time  to  time,  as  the  Pranks  had  meddled  with 
the  affairs  of  Italy,  they  had  been  reminded  that 
Italy  was  in  name  still  a  part  of  the  Imperial 
lands.  .  .  .  But  now,  when  Charlemagne  him- 
self was  thinking  of  taking  the  title  of  Emperor, 
he  found  himself  forced  to  meet  squarely  the 
question,  whether  there  could  be  two  indepen- 
dent Christian  Emperors  at  the  same  time.  .  .  . 
On  Christmas  Day,  in  the  year  800,  Charlemagne 
was  at  Rome.  He  had  gone  thither  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  Pope  Leo,  who  had  been  accused  of 
dreadful  crimes  by  his  enemies  in  the  city,  and 
had  been  for  a  time  deprived  of  his  office.  Char- 
lemagne had  acted  as  judge  in  the  case,  and  had 
decided  in  favor  of  Leo.  According  to  good 
Teutonic  custom,  the  pope  had  purified  himself 
of  his  charges  by  a  tremendous  oath  on  the  H0I3' 
Trinity,  and  had  again  assumed  the  duties  of 
the  papacy.  The  Christmas  service  was  held  in 
great  state  at  St.  Peter's.  While  Charlemagne 
was  kneeling  in  prayer  at  the  grave  of  the 
Apostle,  the  pope  suddenly  approached  him,  and, 
in  the  presence  of  all  the  people,  placed  upon  his 
head  a  golden  crown.  As  he  did  so,  the  people 
cried  out  with  one  voice,  '  Long  life  and  victory 
to  Charles  Augustus,  the  mighty  Emperor,  the 
Peace-bringer,  crowned  by  God ! '  Einhard,  who 
ought  to  have  Icnown,  assures  us  that  Charles  was 
totally  surprised  by  the  coronation,  and  often 
said  afterward  that  if  he  had  known  of  the  plan 
he  would  not  have  gone  into  the  church,  even 
upon  so  high  a  festival.  It  is  altogether  proba- 
ble that  the  king  had  not  meant  to  be  crowned 
at  just  that  moment  and  in  just  that  way;   but 


that  he  had  never  thought  of  such  a  possibility 
seems  utterly  incredible.  By  this  act  Charle- 
magne was  presented  to  the  world  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  ancient  Roman  Emperors  of  the 
West,  and  so  far  as  power  was  concerned,  he  was 
that.  But  he  was  more.  His  power  rested,  not 
upon  any  inherited  ideas,  but  upon  two  great 
facts:  first,  he  was  the  head  of  the  Germanic 
Race ;  and  second,  he  was  the  temporal  head  of 
the  Christian  Church.  The  new  empire  which 
he  founded  rested  on  these  two  foundations." — • 
E.  Emerton,  Introd.  to  the  Study  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  ch.  14. — The  great  empire  which  Charles 
labored,  during  all  the  remainder  of  his  life,  to 
organize  in  this  Roman  imperial  character,  was 
vast  in  its  extent.  "As  an  organized  mass  of 
provinces,  regularly  governed  by  imperial  offi- 
cers, it  seems  to  have  been  nearly  bounded,  in 
Germany,  by  the  Elbe,  the  Saale,  the  Bohemian 
mountains,  and  a  line  drawn  from  thence  cross- 
ing the  Danube  above  Vienna,  and  prolonged  to 
the  Gulf  of  Istria.  Part  of  Dalmatia  was  com- 
prised in  the  duchy  of  Friuli.  In  Italy  the  em- 
pire extended  not  much  beyond  the  modern  fron- 
tier of  Naples,  if  we  exclude,  as  was  the  fact,  the 
duchy  of  Benevento  from  anything  more  than  a 
titular  subjection.  The  Spanish  boundary  .  .  . 
was  the  Ebro." — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle  Ages, 
ch.  1,  pt.  1. — "The  centre  of  his  realm  was  the 
Rhine ;  his  capitals  Aachen  [or  Aix-la-Chapelle] 
and  Engilenheim  [or  Ingelheim] ;  his  army 
Prankish;  his  sympathies  as  they  are  shewn  in 
the  gathering  of  the  old  hero-lays,  the  composition 
of  a  German  grammar,  .  .  .  were  all  for  the  race 
from  which  he  sprang.  .  .  .  There  were  in  his 
Empire,  as  in  his  own  mind,  two  elements ;  those 
two  from  the  union  and  mutual  action  and  re- 
action of  which  modern  civilization  has  arisen. 
These  vast  domains,  reaching  from  the  Ebro  to 
the  Carpathian  mountains,  from  the  Eyder  to  the 
Liris,  were  all  the  conquests  of  the  Frankish 
sword,  and  were  still  governed  almost  exclusively 
by  viceroys  and  officers  of  Prankish  blood.  But 
the  conception  of  the  Empire,  that  which  made 
it  a  State  and  not  a  mere  mass  of  subject  tribes, 
.  .  .  was  inherited  from  an  older  and  a  grander 
system,  was  not  Teutonic  but  Roman  —  Roman 
in  its  ordered  rule,  in  its  uniformity  and  pre- 
cision, in  its  endeavour  to  subject  the  individual 
to  the  system  —  Roman  in  its  effort  to  realize  a 
certain  limited  and  human  perfection,  whose 
very  completeness  shall  exclude  the  hope  of 
further  progress."  With  the  death  of  Charles  in 
814  the  territorial  disruption  of  his  great  empire 
began.  "The  returning  wave  of  anarchy  and 
barbarism  swept  up  violent  as  ever,  yet  it  could 
not  wholly  obliterate  the  past:  the  Empire, 
maimed  and  shattered  though  it  was,  had  struck 
its  roots  too  deep  to  be  overthrown  by  force." 
The  Teutonic  part  and  the  Romanized  or  Latin- 
ized part  of  the  empire  were  broken  in  two,  never 
to  unite  again;  but,  in  another  century,  it  was 
on  the  German  and  not  the  Gallo-Latin  side  of 
the  line  of  its  disruption  that  the  imperial  ideas 
and  the  imperial  titles  of  Charlemagne  came  to 
life  again,  and  his  Teutonic  Roman  Empire  — 
the  "Holy  Roman  Empire,"  as  it  came  to  be 
called  —  was  resurrected  by  Otto  the  Great,  and 
established  for  eight  centuries  and  a  half  of 
enduring  influence  in  the  politics  of  the  world. 
— J.  Bryce,  Th^i  Holy  Roman  Empire,  ch.  5. — 
"Gibbon  has  remarked,  that  of  all  the  heroes  to 
whom  the  title  of  'The  Great'  has  been  given, 


1435 


FBANKS,  A.  D.  768-814. 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  814-962. 


Charlemagne  alone  has  retained  it  as  a  permanent 
addition  to  his  name.  The  reason  may  perhaps 
be,  that  in  no  other  man  were  ever  united,  in  so 
large  a  measure,  and  in  such  perfect  harmony, 
the  qualities  which,  in  their  combination,  con- 
stitute the  heroic  character,  such  as  energy,  or 
the  love  of  action ;  ambition,  or  the  love  of  power ; 
curiosity,  or  the  love  of  knowledge;  and  sensi- 
bility, or  the  love  of  pleasure  —  not,  indeed,  the 
love  of  forbidden,  of  unhallowed,  or  of  enervat- 
ing pleasure,  but  the  keen  relish  for  those  blame- 
less delights  by  which  the  burdened  mind  and 
jaded  spirits  recruit  and  renovate  their  powers. 
.  .  .  For  the  charms  of  social  intercourse,  the 
play  of  a  buoyant  fancy,  the  exhilaration  of 
honest  mirth,  and  even  the  refreshment  of  athletic 
exercises,  require  for  their  perfect  enjoyment 
that  robust  and  absolute  health  of  body  and  of 
mind  which  none  but  the  noblest  natures  possess, 
and  in  the  possession  of  which  Charlemagne  ex- 
ceeded all  other  men.  His  lofty  stature,  his  open 
countenance,  his  large  and  brilliant  eyes,  and  the 
dome-like  structure  of  his  head,  imparted,  as  we 
learn  from  Eginhard,  to  all  his  attitudes  the 
dignity  which  becomes  a  king,  relieved  by  the 
graceful  activity  of  a  practiced  warrior.  .  .  . 
Whether  he  was  engaged  in  a  frolic  or  a  chase  — 
composed  verses  or  listened  to  homilies  —  fought 
or  negotiated  —  cast  down  thrones  or  built  them 
up  —  studied,  conversed,  or  legislated,  it  seemed 
as  if  he,  and  he  alone,  were  the  one  wakeful  and 
really  living  agent  in  the  midst  of  an  inert,  vision- 
ary, and  somnolent  generation.  The  rank  held 
by  Charlemagne  among  great  commanders  was 
achieved  far  more  by  this  strange  and  almost 
superhuman  activity  than  by  any  pre-eminent 
proficiency  in  the  art  or  science  of  war.  He  was 
seldom  engaged  in  any  general  action,  and  never 
undertook  any  considerable  siege,  excepting  that 
of  Pavia,  which,  in  fact,  was  little  more  than  a 
protracted  blockade.  But,  during  forty -six  years 
of  almost  unintermitted  warfare,  he  swept  over 
the  whole  surface  of  Europe,  from  the  Ebro  to 
the  Oder,  from  Bretagne  to  Hungary,  from  Den- 
mark to  Capua,  with  such  a  velocity  of  move- 
ment, and  such  a  decision  of  purpose,  that  no 
power,  civilized  or  barbarous,  ever  provoked  his 
resentment  without  rapidly  sinking  beneath  his 
prompt  and  irresistible  blows.  And  though  it  be 
true,  as  Gibbon  has  observed,  that  he  seldom,  if 
ever,  encountered  In  the  field  a  really  formidable 
antagonist,  it  is  not  less  true  that,  but  for  his  mili- 
tar)'  skill,  animated  by  his  sleepless  energy,  the 
countless  assailants  by  whom  he  was  encompassed 
must  rapidly  have  become  too  formidable  for  re- 
sistance. For  to  Charlemagne  is  due  the  introduc- 
tion into  modern  warfare  of  the  art  by  which  a 
general  compensates  for  the  numerical  inferiority 
of  his  own  forces  to  that  of  his  antagonists  —  the 
art  of  moving  detached  bodies  of  men  along  remote 
but  converging  lines  with  such  mutual  concert  as 
to  throw  their  united  forces  at  the  same  moment 
on  any  meditated  point  of  attack.  Neither  the 
Alpine  marches  of  Hannibal  nor  those  of  Napoleon 
were  combined  with  greater  foresight,  or  executed 
with  greater  precision,  than  the  simultaneous  pas- 
sages of  Charlemagne  and  Count  Bernard  across 
the  same  mountain  ranges,  and  their  ultimate 
union  in  the  vicinity  of  their  Lombard  enemies. " — 
Sir  J.  Stephen,  Lect's  on  the  Hist,  of  France,  lect.  3. 
Also  in:  E.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  ch.  49. — See,  also,  Germany: 
A.  D.  800. 


A.  D.  814-962. — Dissolution  of  the  Carolin- 
gian  Empire. — Charlemagne,  at  his  death,  was 
succeeded  by  his  son  Ludwig,  or  Louis  the  Pious 
—  the  single  survivor  of  three  sons  among  whom 
he  had  intended  that  his  great  empire  should  be 
shared.  Mild  in  temper,  conscientious  in  char- 
acter, Louis  reigned  with  success  for  sixteen 
years,  and  then  lost  all  power  of  control,  through 
the  turbulence  of  his  family  and  the  disorders  of 
his  times.  He  "tried  in  vain  to  satisfy  his  sons 
(Lothar,  Lewis,  and  Charles)  by  dividing  and  re- 
dividing:  they  rebelled;  he  was  deposed,  and 
forced  by  the  bishops  to  do  penance,  again  re- 
stored, but  without  power,  a  tool  in  the  hands  of 
contending  factions.  On  his  death  the  sons  flew 
to  arms,  and  the  first  of  the  dynastic  quarrels  of 
modern  Europe  was  fought  out  on  the  field  of 
Fontenay.  In  the  partition  treaty  of  Verdun 
[A.  D.  843]  which  followed,  the  Teutonic  prin- 
ciple of  equal  division  among  heirs  triumphed 
over  the  Roman  one  of  the  transmission  of  an 
indivisible  Empire :  the  practical  sovereignty  of 
all  three  brothers  was  admitted  in  their  respec- 
tive territories,  a  barren  precedence  only  reserved 
to  Lothar,  with  the  imperial  title  which  he,  as 
the  eldest,  already  enjoyed.  A  more  important 
result  was  the  separation  of  the  Gaulish  and  Ger- 
man nationalities.  .  .  .  Modern  Germany  pro- 
claims the  era  of  A.  D.  843  the  beginning  of  her 
national  existence  and  celebrated  its  thousandth 
anniversary  [in  1843].  To  Charles  the  Bald  was 
given  Francia  Occidentalis,  that  is  to  say,  Neus- 
tria  and  Aquitaine ;  to  Lothar,  who  as  Emperor 
must  possess  the  two  capitals,  Rome  and  Aachen, 
a  long  and  narrow  kingdom  stretching  from  the 
North  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean,  and  including 
the  northern  half  of  Ital}' ;  Lewis  (suruamed,  from 
his  kingdom,  the  German)  received  all  east  of  the 
Rhine,  Franks,  Saxons,  Bavarians,  Austria,  Ca- 
rinthia,  with  possible  supremacies  over  Czechs 
and  Moi-avians  beyond.  Throughout  these  re- 
gions German  was  spoken ;  through  Charles's 
kingdom  a  corrupt  tongue,  equally  removed  from 
Latin  and  from  modern  French.  Lothar's,  being 
mixed  and  having  no  national  basis,  was  the 
weakest  of  the  three,  and  soon  dissolved  into  the 
separate  sovereignties  of  Italy,  Burgundy  and 
Lotharingia,  or,  as  we  call  it,  Lorraine.  On  the 
tangled  history  of  the  period  that  follows  it  is 
not  possible  to  do  more  than  touch.  After  pass- 
ing from  one  branch  of  the  Carolingian  line  to 
another,  the  imperial  sceptre  was  at  last  possessed 
and  disgraced  by  Charles  the  Fat,  who  united  all 
the  dominions  of  his  great-grandfather.  This  un- 
worthy heir  could  not  avail  himself  of  recovered 
territory  to  strengthen  or  defend  the  expiring 
monarchy.  He  was  driven  out  of  Italy  in  A.  D. 
887  and  his  death  in  888  has  been  usually  taken 
as  the  date  of  the  extinction  of  the  Carolingian 
Empire  of  the  West.  .  .  .  From  all  sides  the 
torrent  of  barbarism  which  Charles  the  Great  had 
stemmed  was  rushing  down  upon  his  empire. 
.  .  .  Under  such  strokes  the  already  loosened 
fabric  swiftly  dissolved.  No  one  thought  of 
common  defence  or  wide  organization ;  the  strong 
built  castles,  the  weak  became  their  bondsmen, 
or  took  shelter  under  the  cowl:  the  governor  — 
count,  abbot,  or  bishop  —  tightened  his  grasp, 
turned  a  delegated  into  an  independent,  a  per- 
sonal into  a  territorial  authority,  and  hardly 
owned  a  distant  and  feeble  suzerain.  ...  In  Ger- 
many, the  greatness  of  the  evil  worked  at  last 
its   cure.     When  the  male  line  of  the  eastern 


1436 


Iivngitxtde      Ea»t 


CENTRAL  EUROPE 

888  A.  D. 
The  Boundaries  of  the  Separate  Kingdoma  formed  on  the 
disintegration  of  Che  Empire  are  ahown  thus:-*-  .4..+  .+ 


Zongitude      Eaat  10         friym       Oreenwieh  1&' 


1437 


FRANKS,  A.  D.  814-963. 


FREE  MASONS. 


branch  of  the  Carolingians  had  ended  in  Lewis 
(surnamed  the  Child),  son  of  Amulf  [A.  D.  911], 
the  chieftains  chose  and  the  people  accepted 
Conrad  the  Franconian,  and  after  him  Henry  the 
Saxon  duke,  both  representing  the  female  line  of 
Charles.  Henry  laid  the  foundations  of  a  firm 
monarchy,  driving  hack  the  Magyars  and  Wends, 
recovering  Lotharingia,  founding  towns  to  be 
centres  of  orderly  life  and  strongholds  against 
Hungarian  irruptions.  He  had  meant  to  claim 
at  Rome  his  kingdom's  rights,  rights  which  Con- 
rad's weakness  had  at  least  asserted  by  the  de- 
mand of  tribute;  but  death  overtook  him,  and 
the  plan  was  left  to  be  fulfilled  by  Otto  his  son. " 
—J.  Bryce,  Ths  Holy  Roman  Einjnre,  ch.  6. — "The 
division  of  888  was  really  the  beginning  of  the 
modern  states  and  the  modern  divisions  of 
Europe.  The  Carolingian  Empire  was  broken  up 
into  four  separate  kingdoms:  the  Western  King- 
dom, answering  roughly  to  France,  the  Eastern 
Kingdom  or  Germany,  Italy,  and  Burgundy.  Of 
these,  the  three  first  remain  as  the  greatest  na- 
tions of  the  Continent :  Burgundy,  by  that  name, 
has  vanished ;  but  its  place  as  a  European  power 
is  occupied,  far  more  worthily  than  by  any  King 
or  Csesar,  by  the  noble  confederation  of  Switzer- 
land."— E.  A.  Freeman,  The  Franks  and  the 
Oauls.     (Historical  Essays,  \st  series,  no.  7.) 

Also  in  :  E.  F.  Henderson,  Select  Hist.  Does, 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  bk.  2,  no.  3. — P.  Godwin, 
Hist,  of  France:  Ancient  Gaul,  ch.  18. — R.  W. 
Church,  The  Beginning  of  the  Middle  Ages,  eh.  8. 
— F.  Guizot,  Hist,  of  Civilization,  led.  24. — Sir 
F.  Palgrave,  Hist,  of  Normandy  and  France,  v. 
1-2.— See,  also,  Germ,\ny:  A.  D.  843-963;  and 
France:  A.  D,  843,  and  after. 

A.  D.  843-962.  —  Kingdom  of  the  East 
Franks.     See  Germany:  A,  D.  843-962. 


FRATRES  MINORES.  See  Mendicant 
Orders. 

FRATRICELLI,  The.     See  Beguines,  etc. 

FRAZIER'S  FARM,  OR  GLENDALE, 
Battle  of.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1862  (June — July  :  Virginia). 


FREDERICIA,  Battle  of  (1849).  See  Scan- 
dinavian States  (Denmark)  :  A.  D.  1848-1863. 

Siege  of  (1864).  See  Germany:  A.  D.  1861- 
1866. 


FREDERICK  I.  (called  Barbarossa),  Em- 
peror, A.  D.  1155-1190;  King  of  Germany, 
1152-1190;  King  of  Italy,  11.55-1190 Fred- 
erick I.,  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  1523- 

1533 Frederick  I.,  King  of  Prussia,  1701- 

1713;  III.,  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  168S-1713. 

Frederick    I.,    Elector    of    Brandenburg, 

1417-1440 Frederick   II.,    Emperor,    1220- 

1350;  King  of  Germany,  1312-1350.  See  Italy: 
A.  D.   1183-13.00;   and  Germany:    A.  D.   1138- 

1368 Frederick  II.,  King  of  Denmark  and 

Norway,  15.58-1.588 Frederick  II.,  King  of 

Naples,    1496-1,503 Frederick    II.    (called 

The  Great),   King  of  Prussia,  1740-1786 

Frederick   II.,  King  of  Sicily,   139.5-1337 

Frederick  II.,  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  1440- 

1470 Frederick  III.,  Emperor,  and  King  of 

Germany,  1440-1493 Frederick  III.,  Ger- 
man Emperor  and  King  of  Prussia,  1888, 
March— .Tune Frederick  III.,  King  of  Den- 
mark   and    Norway,    1648-1670 Frederick 

III.,  King  of  Sicily,  1355-1377.    ...Frederick 


IV.,  King  of  Denmark  and  Norway,  1699-1730. 
Frederick  V.,  King  of  Denmark  and  Nor- 
way,  1746-1766 Frederick   V.,  Elector   of 

the  Palatinate  (and  King-elect  of  Bohemia), 
and  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  See  Germany- 
A.  D.  1618-1630,  1620,  1621-1633,  1631-1632,  and 

1648 Frederick  VI.,  King  of  Denmark  and 

Norway,  1808-1814;  King  of  Denmark,    1S14- 

1839 Frederick  VII.,    King   of   Denmark, 

1848-1863 Frederick  Augustus  I.,  Elector 

of  Saxony,  1694-1733;  King  of  Poland,  1697- 

1704   (deposed),    and    1709-1733 Frederick 

Augustus  II.,  Elector  of  Saxony  and   King  of 

Poland,  1733-1763 Frederick  Henry,  Stadt- 

holder  of  the  United  Provinces,  1625-1647 

Frederick  William  (called  The  Great  Elector), 
Elector  of  Brandenburg,  1640-1688 Fred- 
erick William  I.,  King  of  Prussia,  1713-1740. 
....Frederick  William  II.,   King  of  Prussia, 

1786-1797 Frederick  William  III.,  King  of 

Prussia,  1797-1840 Frederick  William  IV., 

King  of  Prussia,  1840-1861. 


Battle    of.       See 
D.  1863  (October- 


FREDERICKSBURG, 

United  States  of  Am.  :  A 
December:  Virginia). 

Sedgfwick's  demonstration  against.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1863  (April — 
May:  Virgini.\). 

FREDERICKSHALL.  — Siege  by  the 
Swedes.— Death  of  Charles  XII.  (1718).  See 
Scandinavian  States  (Sweden):  A.  D.  1707- 
1718. 

FREDERICKSHAMN,  Peace  of  (1809). 
See  ScANDiNAvrAN  Statk.s  :  A.  I).  1S()7_1810. 

FREDLINGEN,  Battle  of  (1703).  See 
Netherlands  :  A.  I).  17(13-1704. 

FREE  CHURCH  OF  SCOTLAND.  See 
Scotland:  A.  D.  1843. 

FREE  CITIES.  See  Cities,  Imperial  and 
FREE,  OP  Germany  ;  also,  Italy:  A.  D.  1056- 
1153,  and  after ;  and  Hansa  Towns. 

FREE  COMPANIES,  The.  See  Italy: 
A.  D.  1343-1393;  and  Fr.^-ce:  A.  D.  1360-1380. 

FREE  LANCES.     See  L.oices.  Free. 

FREE  MASONS.— "  The  fall  of  the  Knights 
Templars  has  been  connected  with  the  origin  of 
the  Freemasons,  and  the  idea  has  prevailed  that 
the  only  secret  purpose  of  the  latter  was  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  suppressed  order.  Jacques 
de  Molai,  while  a  prisoner  in  Paris,  is  said  to  have 
created  four  new  lodges,  and  the  day  after  his 
execution,  eight  knights,  disguised  as  masons,  are 
said  to  have  gone  to  gather  up  the  ashes  of  their 
late  Grand  blaster.  To  conceal  their  designs,  the 
new  Templars  assumed  the  symbols  of  the  trade, 
but  took,  it  is  said,  the  name  of  Francs  'Masons' 
to  distinguish  themselves  from  ordinary  crafts- 
men, and  also  in  memory  of  the  general  appella- 
tion given  to  them  in  Palestine.  Even  the  alle- 
gories of  Freemasonry,  and  the  ceremonies  of  its 
initiations,  have  been  explained  by  a  reference  to 
the  history  of  the  persecutions  of  the  Templars. 
The  Abbe  Barruel  says,  that  '  every  thing  —  the 
signs,  the  language,  the  names  of  grand  master,  of 
knight,  of  temple  —  all,  in  a  word,  betray  the 
Freemasons  as  descendants  of  the  proscribed 
knights.'  Lessing,  in  Germany,  gave  some  au- 
thority to  this  opinion,  by  asserting  positively 
that  '  the  lodges  of  the  Templars  were  in  the  very 
highest  repute  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  cen- 
turies, and  that  out  of  such  a  lodge,  which  had 


1438 


FREE  MASONS. 


FREMONT. 


been  constantly  kept  up  in  London,  was  estab- 
lished the  society  of  Freemasons,  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  by  Sir  Christopher  Wren.'  Les- 
sing  is  of  opinion  that  the  name  Mason  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  English  meaning  of  the  word,  but 
comes  from  Massonney,  a  '  lodge '  of  the  Knights 
Templars.  This  idea  may  have  caused  the  Free- 
masons to  amalgamate  the  external  ritual  of  the 
Templars  with  their  own,  and  to  found  the  higher 
French  degrees  which  have  given  colour  to  the 
very  hypothesis  which  gave  rise  to  their  introduc- 
tion. But  the  whole  story  appears  to  be  most 
improbable,  and  only  rests  upon  the  slight  foun- 
dation of  fancied  or  accidental  analogies.  At- 
tempts have  also  been  made  to  show  that  the 
Freemasons  are  only  a  continuation  of  the  frater- 
nities of  architects  which  are  supposed  to  have 
originated  at  the  time  of  the  building  of  Solomon's 
Temple.  The  Egyptian  priests  are  supposed  to 
have  taught  those  who  were  initiated  a  secret  and 
sacred  system  of  architecture ;  this  is  said  to  have 
been  transmitted  to  the  Dionysiac  architects,  of 
whom  the  first  historical  traces  are  to  be  found 
in  Asia  Minor,  where  they  were  organized  into  a 
secret  faternity.  ...  It  is,  however,  a  mere  mat- 
ter of  speculation  whether  the  Jewish  and  Dionys- 
iac architects  were  closely  connected,  but  there 
is  some  analogy  between  tlie  latter  and  the  Ro- 
man guilds,  which  Numa  is  said  to  have  first  in- 
troduced, and  which  were  probably  the  proto- 
types of  the  later  associations  of  masons  which 
flourished  until  the  end  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
The  hordes  of  barbarians  which  then  ruthlessly 
swept  away  whatever  bore  the  semblance  of 
luxury  and  elegance,  did  not  spare  the  noblest 
specimens  of  art,  and  it  was  only  when  they  be- 
came converted  to  Christianity,  that  the  guilds 

'  were  re-established.  During  the  Lombard  rule 
they  became  numerous  in  Italy.  ...  As  their 
numbers  increased,  Lombardy  no  longer  sufficed 
for  the  exercise  of  their  art,  and  they  travelled 
into  all  the  countries  where  Christianity,  only  re- 
cently established,  required  religious  buildings. 
.  .  .  These  associations,  however,  became  nearly 
crushed  by  the  power  of  the  monastic  institutions, 
so  that  in  the  early  part  of  the  Middle  Ages  the 
words  artist  and  priest  became  nearly  synony- 
mous; but  in  the  twelfth  century  they  emanci- 

■  pated  themselves,  and  sprang  into  new  life.  The 
names  of  the  authors  of  the  great  architectural 
creations  of  this  period  are  almost  all  unknown ; 
for  these  were  not  the  work  of  individuals,  but 
of  fraternities.  ...  In  England  guilds  of  masons 
are  said  to  have  existed  in  the  year  926,  but  this 
tradition  is  not  supported  by  history ;  in  Scotland 
similar  associations  were  established  towards  the 
end  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  Abbe  Grandi- 
dier  regards  Freemasonry  as  nothing  more  than 
a  servile  imitation  of  the  ancient  and  useful  fra- 
ternity of  true  masons  established  during  the 
building  of  the  Cathedral  of  Strasburg,  one  of  the 
masterpieces  of  Gothic  architecture,  and  which 
caused  the  fame  of  its  builders  to  spread  through- 
out Europe.  In  many  towns  similar  fraternities 
were  established.  .  .  .  The  origin  of  the  Free- 
masons of  the  present  day  is  not  to  be  attributed 
to  these  fraternities,  but  to  the  Rosicrucians  [see 
RosicRUCiAi^s]  who  first  appeared  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventeenth  century. " — A.  P.  Marras, 
Secret  Fraternities  of  the  Middle  Ages,  ch.  7-8. 

Also  in:  J.  G.  Findel,  Hist,  of  IPreeinasonry. 
— C.  W.  Heckethom,  Secret  Societies  of  all  Ages 
and  Countries,  hk.  8  {v.  1). 


FREE-SOIL  PARTY,  The.  See  United 
St.\tes  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1848. 

FREE  SPIRIT,  Brethren  and  Sisters  of 
the.     See  Beguines. 

FREE  TRADE  IN  ENGLAND.  See  Tar- 
iff Legisl.\tion  (Engl.\nd):  A.  D.  1836-1839; 
1843;  1845-1846;  and  1846-1879. 

FREEDMEN  OF  THE  SOUTH.— The 
emancipated  slaves  of  the  United  States. 

FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU,  The.  See 
United  St.\tes  op  Am.:  A.  D.  186.5-1866. 

FREEDOM  OF  CONSCIENCE.  See 
Toleration,  Religious. 


FREEDOM  OF  THE  PRESS:  A.  D.  1695. 
— Expiration  of  the  Censorship  lav7  in  Eng- 
land.    See  PrintIi\g  :  A.  D.  16!)"). 

A.  D.  1734. — Zenger's  trial  at  Nev7  York. — 
See  New  York  ;  A.  D.  1720-1734. 

A.  D.  1755. — Liberty  attained  in  Massachu- 
setts.    See  Printing  :  A.  D.  153.5-1709. 

A.  D.  1762-1764.  —  Prosecution  of  John 
Wilkes.     See  Englanb:  A.  D.  1762-1764. 

A.  D.  1771. — Last  contest  of  the  British 
Parliament  with  the  Press.  See  Engl.^nd: 
A.  D.  1771. 

A.  D.  1817.— The  trials  of  William  Hone. 
See  England:  A.  D.  1816-1830. 


FREEHOLD.    See  Feudal  Tenures. 
FREEMAN'S     FARM,     Battle     of.      See 

United  States  op  Am.  ;   A.  D.    1777  (July — 
October). 

FREGELL./E. — Fregellffi,  a  Latin  colony, 
founded  by  the  Romans,  B.  C.  329,  in  the  Vol- 
scian  territory,  on  the  Liris,  revolted  in  B.  C.  135. 
and  was  totally  destroyed.  A  Roman  colony, 
named  Fabrateria,  was  founded  near  the  site. — 
G.  Long,  Decline  of  the  Roman  Reiniblio,  v.  1,  ch.  17. 


FREIBURG  (in  the  Breisgau).— Freiburg 
became  a  free  city  in  1120,  but  lost  its  freedom  a 
century  later,  and  passed,  in  1868,  under  the 
domination  of  the  Hapsburgs. 

A.  D.  1638. — Capture  by  Duke  Bernhard. 
See  Germany:  A.  D.  1634-1639. 

A.  D.  1644. — Siege  and  capture  by  the  Im- 
perialists.— Attempted  recovery  by  Cond6  and 
Turenne. — The  three  days  battle.  See  Ger- 
many: A.  D.  1643-1644. 

A.  D.  1677. —  Taken  by  the  French.  See 
Netherl-^nds  (Holland)  :  A.  D.  1674-1678. 

A.  D.  1679. —  Retained  by  France.  See 
Nimeguen,  'The  Peace  op. 

A.  D.  1697. —  Restored  to  Germany.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1697. 

A.  D.  1713-1714. — Taken  and  given  up  by 
the  French.     See  Utrecht:  A.  D.  1712-1714. 

A.  D.  1744-1748. — Taken  by  the  French  and 
restored  to  Germany.  See  Austria  :  A.  D.  1744- 
1745;  and  Aix-la-Chapblle:  The  Congress. 


FREJUS,  Origin  of.     See  Forum  Julii. 

FREMONT,  General  John  C,  and  the  con- 
quest  of  California.      Sec   C.\lifornia  :  A.  D. 

1846-1847 Defeat  in  Presidential  election. 

See  United   States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.    1856 

Command  in  the  west. — Proclamation  of  Free- 
dom.— Removal.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1861  (July — September:  Missouri),  and 

(August  —  October  :    Missouri) Command 

in  West  Virginia.  See  United  States  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1863  (M.A.y— June:  Virginia). 


1439 


FRENCH  AND  INDIAN  WAR. 


FUGGERS. 


FRENCH  AND  INDIAN  WAR.— The  four 
intercolonial  wars  of  the  17th  and  18th  centuries, 
in  America,  commonly  known,  respectively,  as 
"King  William's  War,"  "Queen  Anne's  War," 
"  King  George's  War,"  and  the  French  and  In- 
dian War,  were  all  of  them  conflicts  with  the 
French  and  Indians  of  Canada,  or  New  France ; 
but  the  last  of  the  series  (coincident  with  the 
' '  Seven  Years  War  "  in  Europe)  became  especially 
characterized  in  the  colonies  by  that  designation. 
Its  causes  and  chief  events  are  to  be  found  re- 
lated under  the  following  headings:  C.\nada: 
A.  D.  1730-1753,  1755,  1736,  1756-1757,  1758, 
1759, 1760;  Nova  Scotia:  A.  D.  1749-1755, 1753; 
Ohio  (Valley):  A.  D.  1748-1754,  1754,  1755; 
Cape  Breton  Island:  A.  D.  1758-1760;  also, 
for  an  account  of  the  accompanying  Cherokee 
War,  South  Carolina  :  A.  D.  1759-1761. 

FRENCH  FUR'y,  The.  See  Netherlands : 
A.  D.  1581-1584. 

FRENCH  SPOLIATION  CLAIMS.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1800. 

FRENCHTOWN  (now  Monroe,  Mich.), 
Battle  at.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1813-181:1     Harrison's  Campaign. 

FRENTANIANS,  The.     SeeSABiNES. 

FRIARS.— "Carmelite  Friars,"  "White 
Friars."  See  Carmelite  Friars. — Austin 
Friars.  See  Austin  Canons. — "  Preaching 
Friars,"  "  Begging  Friars,"  "Minor  Friars," 
"  Black  Friars,"  "  Grey  Friars."  See  Mendi- 
cant Orders. 

FRIEDLAND,  Battle  of.  See  Germany: 
A.  D.  1807  (FEBRU-iRY — June). 

FRIEDLINGEN,  Battleof.  SeeGBRMANY: 
A.  D.  1703. 

FRIENDLY  ISLANDS.     See  Tonga. 

FRIENDLY  SOCIETIES.  See  Insurance. 

FRIENDS,  The  Society  of.     See  Qitakers 

FRIENDS  OF  THE  PEOPLE,  The  So- 
ciety of  the.     See  France:  A.  D.  1830-1840. 

FRIESLAND.— See  Netherlands:  A.  D. 
1417-1430. 

FRIGIDUS,  Battle  of  the  (A.  D.  394).  See 
Rome  ;  A.  D.  379-395. 

FRILING,  The.     See  L^tl 

FRIMAIRE,  The  month.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1793  (October). 


FRISIANS,  The.— "Beyond  the  Batavians, 
upon  the  north,  dwelt  the  great  Frisian  family, 
occupying  the  regions  between  the  Rhine  and 
Ems.  The  Zuyder  Zee  and  the  Dollart,  both 
caused  by  the  terrific  inundations  of  the  13th 
century,  and  not  existing  at  this  period  [the 
early  Roman  Empire],  did  not  then  interpose 
boundaries  between  kindred  tribes."— J.  L.  Mot- 
ley, Rise  of  the  Dutch  Republic,  introd.,  sect.  2. — 
"The  Frisians,  adjoining  [the  Batavi]  ...  in 
the  coast  district  that  is  still  named  after  them, 
as  far  as  the  lower  Ems,  submitted  to  Drusus  and 
obtained  a  position  similar  to  that  of  the  Batavi. 
There  was  imposed  on  them  instead  of  tribute 
simply  the  delivery  of  a  number  of  bullocks' 
hides  for  the  wants  of  the  army ;  on  the  other 
hand  they  had  to  furnish  comparatively  large 
numbers  of  men  for  the  Roman  service.  They 
were  the  most  faithful  allies  of  Drusus  as  after- 
wards of  Germanicus." — T.  Mommsen,  Hist,  of 
R)me,  bk.  8.  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  528-729. — Struggles  against  the  Frank 
dominion,  before  Charlemagne.  See  Germ.\ny: 
A  D  481-768. 


FRITH-GUILDS.     See  Guilds,  Medieval. 

FROEBEL  AND  THE  KINDERGAR- 
TEN. See  Education,  Modern:  Reforms 
&c. :   1816-1893, 

FROG'S  POINT,  Battle  At.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1776  (September — No- 
vember). 

FRONDE,  FRONDEURS,  The.  See 
Fr.^nce:  a.  D.  1647-1648,  1649, 1650-1651, 1651- 
1653;  and  Borde.\ux:  A.  D.  1653-1653. 

FRONT  ROYAL,  Stonewall  Jackson's  cap- 
ture of.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1862 
(May — June:  Virginia). 

FRONTENAC,  Count,  in  New  France. 
See  Canada:  A,  D.  1669-1687,  to  1696. 

FRONTENAC,  Fort.  See  Kingston,  Can- 
ada. 


FRUCTIDOR,  The  Month.     See  France: 
A.  D.  1793  (October). 
The  Coup  d'Etat  of  the  Eighteenth  of. 

France  :  A.  D.  1797  (September). 


See 


FRUELA  I.,  King  of  Leon  and  the  Astu- 

rias,  or  Oviedo,  A.  I).  757-768 Fruela  II., 

King  of  Leon  and  the  Asturias,  or  Oviedo, 
A.  D.  933-925. 

FRUMENTARIAN  LAW,  The  First.  See 
Rome:  B.  C.  133-131. 

FUEGIANS,  The.  See  American  Aborigi- 
nes:  P.ATAGONIANS. 

FUENTES  D'ONORO,  Battle  of  (i8n). 
See  Spain:  A.  D.  1810-1813. 

FUFIAN  LAW,  The.  See  ^lian  and  Fu- 
FIAN  Laws. 

FUGGERS,  The.— "Hans  Fugger  was  the 
founder  of  the  Fugger  family,  whose  members 
still  possess  extensive  estates  and  authority  as 
princes  and  counts  in  Bavaria  and  Wurtemburg. 
He  came  to  Augsburg  in  1365  as  a  poor  but  ener- 
getic weaver's  apprentice,  acquired  citizenship 
by  marrying  a  burgher's  daughter,  and,  after 
completing  an  excellent  masterpiece,  was  ad- 
mitted into  the  guild  of  weavers.  .  .  .  Hans 
Fugger  died  in  1409,  leaving  behind  him  a  for- 
tune of  3,000  florins,  which  he  had  made  by  his 
skill  and  diligence.  This  was  a  considerable 
sum  in  those  da3's,  for  the  gold  mines  of  the  New 
World  had  not  yet  been  opened  up,  and  the  nec- 
essaries of  life  sold  for  very  low  prices.  The 
sons  carried  on  their  father's  business,  and  with 
so  much  skill  and  success  that  they  were  always 
called  the  rich  Fuggers.  The  importance  and 
wealth  of  the  family  increased  every  day.  By 
the  year  1500  it  was  not  easy  to  find  a  frequented 
route  by  sea  or  land  where  Pugger's  wares  were 
not  to  be  seen.  On  one  occasion  the  powerful 
Hanseatic  league  seized  twenty  of  their  ships, 
which  were  sailing  with  a  cargo  of  Hungarian 
copper,  down  the  Vistula  to  Cracow  and  Dantzic. 
Below  ground  the  miner  worked  for  Fugger, 
above  it  the  artisan.  In  1448  they  lent  150,000 
florins  to  the  then  Archdukes  of  Austria,  the 
Emperor  Frederick  the  Third  (father  of  Maxi- 
milian) and  his  brother  Albert.  In  1509  a  cen- 
tury had  passed  since  the  weaver  Hans  Fugger 
had  died  leaving  his  fortune  of  3,000  florins,  ac- 
quired by  his  laborious  industry.  His  grand- 
children were  now  the  richest  merchants  in 
Europe;  without  the  aid  of  their  money  the 
mightiest  princes  of  the  continent  could  not  com- 
plete any  important  enterprise,  and  their  family 
was  connected  with  the  noblest  houses   by   the 


1440 


FUGGERS. 


GALATA. 


ties  of  relationship.  They  were  raised  to  the 
rank  of  noblemen  and  endowed  with  honourable 
privileges  by  the  Emperor  Maximilian  the  First." 
— A.  W.  Grube,  Heroes  of  History  and  Legend, 
ch.  13. 

FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW,  AND  ITS 
REPEAL.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
179.3,  ISoO,  and  1864  (June). 

FULAHS.The.     See  Africa :  The  inhabit- 

ING  RACES. 

FULFORD,  Battle  of.  See  England  :  A.  D. 
1066  (September). 

FULTON'S  FIRST  STEAMBOAT.  See 
Steam  Navigation  :  The  Beginnings. 

FUNDAMENTAL  AGREEMENT  OF 
NEW  HAVEN.  See  Connecticut:  A.  D. 
1639. 

FUNDAMENTAL  ORDERS  OF  CON- 
NECTICUT. See  Connecticut:  A.  D.  1636- 
1639. 

FUORUSCITI.— In  Italy,  during  the  Guelf 
and  Gbibelline  contests  of  the  13th  and  14th  cen- 
turies (see  Italy:  A.  D.  1315-1293),  "almost 
every  city  had  its  body  of  '  f  uorusciti ' ;  —  literally, 
'  those  who  had  gone  out ' ;  —  prescripts  and  exiles, 
in  fact,  who  represented  the  minorities  ...  in 
the  different  communities;  —  Ghibelline  f uorus- 
citi from  Guelph  cities,  and  Guelph  fuorusciti 
from  Ghibelline  cities." — T.  A.  Trollope,  Hist,  of 
the  Commomoealth  of  Florence,  v.  1,  p.  380. 


FORST.  —  Prince;  the  equivalent  Gterman 
title.     See  Germany:  A.  D.  1135-1272. 

FURY,  The  French.  See  Netherlands; 
A.  D.  1581-1584. 

FURY,  The  Spanish.  See  Netherlands: 
A  D   1575—1577 

FUSILLADES.  See  France:  A.  D.  1793- 
1794  (October — April). 

FUTTEH  ALI  SHAH,  Shah  of  Persia, 
A.  D.  1798-1834. 

FUTTEHPORE,  Battle  of  (1857).  See  In- 
DL\:  A.  D.  18.57-1858  (July— June). 

FYLFOT-CROSS,  The.     See  Tri-Skehon. 

FYRD,  The. — "The  one  national  army  [in 
Saxon  England,  before  the  Norman  Conquest]  was 
the  fyrd,  a  force  which  had  already  received  in 
the  Karolingian  legislation  the  name  of  landwehr 
by  which  the  German  knows  it  stiU.  The  fyrd 
was  in  fact  composed  of  the  whole  mass  of  free 
landowners  who  formed  the  folk :  and  to  the  last 
it  could  only  be  summoned  by  the  voice  of  the 
folk-moot.  In  theory  therefore  such  a  host  rep- 
resented the  whole  available  force  of  the  country. 
But  in  actual  warfare  its  attendance  at  the  king's 
war-call  was  limited  by  practical  difficulties. 
Arms  were  costly ;  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
fyrd  came  equipped  with  bludgeons  and  hedge- 
stakes,  which  could  do  little  to  meet  the  spear 
and  battleaxe  of  the  invader." — J.  R.  Green,  The 
Conquest  of  England,  p.  133. 


G. 


GA,  The.     See  Gau. 

GABELLE,  The. — "In  the  spring  of  the  year 
1343,  the  king  [Philip  de  Valois,  king  of  France] 
published  an  ordinance  by  which  no  one  was 
allowed  to  sell  salt  in  France  unless  he  bought  it 
from  the  store-houses  of  the  crown,  which  gave 
him  the  power  of  committing  any  degree  of  ex- 
tortion in  an  article  that  was  of  the  utmost  neces- 
sity to  his  subjects.  This  obnoxious  tax,  which 
at  a  subsequent  period  became  one  of  the  chief 
sources  of  the  revenue  of  the  crown  of  France, 
was  termed  a  gabelle,  a  word  of  Prankish  or 
Teutonic  origin,  which  had  been  in  use  from  the 
earliest  period  to  signify  a  tax  in  general,  but 
which  was  from  this  time  almost  restricted  to  the 
extraordinary  duty  on  salt.  .  .  .  This  word  ga- 
belle is  the  same  as  the  Anglo-Saxon  word  '  gaf  ol, ' 
a  tax." — T.  "Wright,  Hist,  of  Prance,  v.  1,  p.  364, 
and  foot-note. — See,  also,  Tallle  and  Gabelle. 

GABINIAN  law,  The.  See  Rome:  B.C. 
69-63. 

gachupines  and  GUADALUPES.— 
In  the  last  days  of  Spanish  rule  in  Mexico,  the 
Spanish  official  party  bore  the  name  of  Gachu- 
pines, while  the  native  party,  which  prepared  for 
revolution,  were  called  Guadalupes. — E.  J.  Payne. 
Hist,  of  European  Colonies,  ;;.  303. — The  name  of 
the  Guadalupes  was  adopted  by  the  Mexicans 
"in  honour  of  'Our  Lady  of  Guadalupe,'  the 
tutelar  protectress  of  Mexico;"  while  that  of 
the  Gachupines  "  was  a  sobriquet  gratuitously 
bestowed  upon  the  Spanish  faction." — W.  H. 
Chynoweth,  The  Fall  of  Maximilian,  p.  3. 

GADEBUSCH,  Battle  of  (1712).  See  Scan- 
dinavian States  (Sweden)  :  A.  D.  1707-1718. 

GADENI,  The.  See  Britain,  Celtic 
Tribes. 

GADES  (Modern  Cadiz),  Ancient  commerce 
of. — "At  this  period  [early  in  the  last  century 

1441 


before  Christ]  Gades  was  undoubtedly  one  of  the 
most  important  emporiums  of  trade  in  the  world : 
her  citizens  having  absorbed  a  large  part  of  the 
commerce  that  had  previously  belonged  to  Car- 
thage. In  the  time  of  Strabo  they  still  retained 
almost  the  whole  trade  with  the  Outer  Sea,  or  At- 
lantic coasts. " — E.  H.  Bunbury,  Hist,  of  Ancient 
Oeog.,  ch.  18,  sect.  6  (v.  2). — See,  also,  Utica. 

GADSDEN  PURCHASE,  The.  See  Ari- 
zona: A.  D.  1853. 

GAEL.     See  Celts. 


GAETA  :  A.  D.  1805-1806.— Siege  and  Cap- 
ture by  the  French.  See  France  :  A.  D.  1805- 
1806  (December — September). 

A.  D.  1848.— The  refuge  of  Pope  Pius  IX. 
See  Italy:  A.  D.  1848-1849. 

GAFOL. — A  payment  in  money,  or  kind,  or 
work,  rendered  in  the  way  of  rent  by  a  villein- 
tenant  to  his  lord,  among  the  Saxons  and  early 
English.  The  word  signified  tribute. — F.  See- 
bohm,  English  Village  Community,  ch.  3  and  5. 

GAG,  The  Atherton.  See  United  States  of 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1836. 

GAGE,  General  Thomas,  in  the  command 
and  government  at  Boston.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1774  fMARCH— April)  ; 
1775  (April),  (April — May),  and  (June). 

GAI  SABER,  El.  See  Provence:  A.  D. 
1179-1207. 

GAIN  AS,  The.     See  Englaot):    A.  D.  547- 

"gAINES'  mill.  Battle  of.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1863  (June — July:  Vir- 
ginia). 

GALATA,  The  Genoese  colony.  See  Genoa: 
A.  D.  1361-1299;  also  Constantinople:  A.  D. 
1361-1453,  and  1348-1355. 


GALAT^. 


GANGWAY. 


GALATjE,  The.     See  Gauls. 

GALATIA.— GALATIANS.— In  280  B.  C. 
a  l)ody  of  Gauls,  or  Celts,  invaded  Greece,  under 
Brennus,  and  in  the  following  year  three  tribes 
of  them  crossed  into  Asia  Minor.  There,  as  in 
Greece,  they  committed  terrilile  ravages,  and 
were  a  desolating  scourge  to  tlie  land,  sometimes 
employed  as  mercenaries  by  one  and  another  of 
the  princes  who  fought  over  the  fragments  of 
Alexander's  Empire,  and  sometimes  roaming  for 
plunder  on  their  own  account.  Antiochus,  son 
of  Seleucus,  of  Syria,  is  said  to  have  won  a  great 
victory  over  them ;  but  it  was  not  until  239  B.  C. 
that  they  were  seriously  checked  by  Attains, 
King  of  Pergamus,  who  defeated  them  in  a  great 
battle  and  forced  them  to  settle  in  the  part  of 
ancient  Phrj'gia  which  afterwards  took  its  name 
from  them,  being  called  Galatia,  or  Gallo-Grsecia, 
or  Eastern  Gaul.  When  the  Romans  subjugated 
Asia  Minor  they  found  the  Galatse  among  their 
most  formidable  enemies.  The  latter  were  per- 
mitted for  a  time  to  retain  a  certain  degree  of 
independence,  under  tetrarchs,  and  afterwards 
under  kings  of  their  own.  But  finally  Galatia 
became  a  Roman  province.  "When  St.  Paul 
preached  among  them,  they  seemed  fused  Into 
the  Hellenistic  world,  speaking  Greek  like  the 
rest  of  Asia;  yet  the  Celtic  language  long  lin- 
gered among  them  and  St.  Jerome  says  he  found 
the  country  people  still  using  it  in  his  day  (fourth 
cent.  A.  D.). " — J.  P.  Mahaffy,  Story  of  Alexander's 
Eminre,  ch.  8,— See,  also,  Gaitls:  B.  C.  280-279. 
Invasion  op  Greece. 

GALBA,  Roman  Emperor,  A.  D.  68-69. 

GALEN,  and  Ancient  Medical  Science^ 
See  Medical  Science  :  2d  Century. 

GALERIUS,  Roman  Emperor,  A.  D.  305- 
311. 

GALICIA  (Spain),  Settlement  of  Sueves 
and  Vandals  in.     See  Spain  ;  A.  D.  409-414. 

GALILEE. — The  Hebrew  name  Galil,  ap- 
plied originally  to  a  little  section  of  country,  be- 
came in  the  Roman  age,  as  Galilsea,  the  name  of 
the  whole  region  in  Palestine  north  of  Samaria 
and  west  of  the  river  Jordan  and  the  Sea  of 
Galilee.  Ewald  interprets  the  name  as  meaning 
the  "march  "or  frontier  land;  but  in  Smith's 
"Dictionary  of  the  Bible"  it  is  said  to  signify  a 
"  circle  "or  "  circuit."  It  had  many  heathen  in- 
habitants and  was  called  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles. 
— H.  Ewald,  Hist,  of  Israel,  bk.  5,  sect.  1. 

GALLAS,  The.  See  Africa:  The  Inhab- 
iting Races;  and  Abyssinia:  15th-19th  Cen- 
turies. 

GALLATIN,  Albert,  Negotiation  of  the 
Treaty  of  Ghent.  See  United  States  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1814  (December). 

GALLDACHT.     See  Pale,  The  English. 

GALLEON  OR  GALEON.— GALERA.- 
GALEAZA.— GALEASSES.  See  Car.vvels; 
also,  England:  A.  D.  1588;  also,  Peru:  A.  D. 
1550-1816. 

GALLI,  The.     See  Gauls. 

GALLIA.     See  Gaul. 

GALLIA  BRACCATA,  COMATA  AND 
TOGATA. — "The  antient  historians  make  some 
allusion  to  another  division  of  Gaul,  perhaps  intro- 
duced by  the  soldiers,  for  it  was  founded  solely 
upon  the  costume  of  the  inhabitants.  Gallia  To- 
gata,  near  the  Rhone,  comprehended  the  Gauls 
who  had  adopted  the  toga  and  the  Roman  manners. 
In  Gallia  Comata,  to  the  north  of  the  Loire,  the 
inhabitants  wore  long  plaited  hair,  which  we  tind 


to  this  day  among  the  Bas  Britons.  Gallia  Bra- 
cata,  to  the  south  of  the  Loire,  wore,  for  the  na- 
tional costume,  trousers  reaching  from  the  hips 
to  the  ancles,  called  'braccte.'" — J.  C.  L.  S.  de 
Sismondi,  The  French  under  the  Merovingians, 
trans,  by  Bellingham,  ch.  2,  note. 

GALLIA  CISALPINA.     See  Rome:   B.  C. 
390-347. 


GALLICAN  CHURCH:  A.  D.  1268.— The 
Pragmatic  Sanction  of  St.  Louis.  See  France  : 
A.  D.  1268. 

A.  D.  1438. — The  Pragmatic  Sanction  of 
Charles  VII.,  affirming  some  of  the  decrees 
of  the  reforming  Council  of  Basel.  See 
Fk.^nce  :  A.  D.  1438. 

A.  D.  15x5-1518. — Abrogation  of  the  Prag- 
matic Sanction. — The  Concordat  of  Bologna. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1515-1518. 

A.  D.  1653-1713. — The  conflict  of  Jesuits 
and  Jansenists. — Persecution  of  the  latter. — 
The  Bull  Unigenitus  and  its  tyrannical  en- 
forcement. See  Port  Royal  and  the  Jansen- 
ists. 

A.  D.  1791-1792. — The  civil  constitution  of 
the  clergy. — The  oath  prescribed  by  the  Na- 
tional Assembly.  See  France:  A.  D.  1789- 
1791 ;  1790-1791 ;  and  1791-1792. 

A.  D.  1793. — Suppression  of  Christian  wor- 
ship in  Paris  and  other  parts  of  France. — The 
worship  of  Reason.  See  Prance:  A.  D.  1793 
(November). 

A.  D.  1802. — The  Concordat  of  Napoleon. — 
Its  Ultramontane  influence.  See  France; 
A.  D.  1801-1804. 

A.  D.  1833-1880.— The  Church  and  the 
Schools.  See  Education,  Modern:  France: 
A.  D.  1833-1889. 


GALLICIA,  The  kingdom  of.  See  Spain: 
A.  D.  713-737. 

GALLIENUS,  Roman  Emperor,  A.  D.  253- 
268. 

GALLOGLASSES.— The  heavy-armed  foot- 
soldiers  of  the  Irish  in  their  battles  with  the 
English  during  the  14th  century.  See,  also, 
Rapparee. 

GALLS.  See  Ireland  :  9th-1  0th  Centuries. 

GALVANI.  See  Electrical  DiscovEiiT  : 
A.  1).  1786-1800. 

GAMA,  Voyage  of  Vasco  da.  See  Portu- 
gal: A.  D.  1463-1198. 

GAMBETTA  AND  THE  DEFENSE  OF 
FRANCE.  Sec-  France  i  A.  D.  1870  (Septem- 
ber—October), and  1870-1871. 

GAMMADION,  The.     See  Tri-skelion. 

GAMORI.     See  Geomori. 

GANAWESE  OR  KANAWHAS,  The. 
See  American  Aborigines:  Algonquian  Fam- 
ily. 

GANDARIANS,  Jhe.     See  Gedrosians. 

GANDASTOGUES,  OR  CONESTOGAS, 
The.     See  American  Aborigines:  Susquehan- 

NAS. 

GANGANI,  The.  See  Ireland,  Tribes  op 
Early  Celtic  Inhabitants. 

GANGWA'V,  The.— On  the  floor  of  the  Eng- 
lish House  of  Commons,  "  the  long  lines  of  seats 
rise  gradually  on  each  side  of  the  chair  —  those 
to  the  Speaker's  right  being  occupied  by  the  up- 
holders of  the  Government,  and  those  to  the  left 
accommodating  the  Opposition.  One  length  of 
seating  runs  iri  an  unbroken  line  beneatli  each 


1442 


GANGWAY. 

of  the  side  galleries,  and  these  are  known  as  the 
'back  benches.'  The  other  lengths  are  divided 
into  two  nearly  equal  parts  by  an  unseated  gap 
of  about  a  yard  wide.  This  is  'the  gangway.' 
Though  nothing  more  than  a  convenient  means 
of  access  for  members,  this  space  has  come  tobe 
regarded  as  the  barrier  that  separates  the  thick 
and  thin  supporters  of  the  rival  leaders  from 
their  less  fettered  colleagues  —  that  is  to  say,  the 
steady  men  from  the  Radicals,  Nationalists,  and 
free-lances  geneTaUy."— Popular  Acc't  of  Pa/rlia- 
mentary  Procedure,  p.  6. 

GAON.— THE  GAONATE.     See  Jews:  7th 

Centuhy.  . 

GARAMANTES,  The.— The  ancient  inhab- 
itants of  the  north  African  region  now  called 
Fezzan,  were  known  as  the  Garamantes. — E.  H. 
Bunbury,  Hist,  of  Ancient  Oeog.,  cJt.  8,  sect.  1. 
GARCIA,  King  of  Leon  and  the  Asturias, 

or  Oviedo,  A.  D.  910-914 Garcia  I.,  King 

of  Navarre,  885-891 Garcia   II.,   King  of 

Spain,  925-970 Garcia  III.,  King  of  Na- 
varre, 1035-1054 Garcia  IV.,  King  of  Na- 
varre, 1134-1150. 

GARFIELD,  General  James  A.— Campaign 
in  Kentucky.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1862  (J AOTJAKY— February:  Kentucky— 
Tennessee) Presidential  election.  —  Ad- 
ministration. —  Assassination.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1880,  and  1881. 

GARIBALD,  King  of  the  Lombards,  A.  D. 
672-673. 

GARIBALDI'S  ITALIAN  CAMPAIGNS. 
See  Italy:  A.  D.  1848-1849;  1856-1859;  1859- 
1861;  1862-1866;  and  1867-1870. 

GARIGLIANO,  Battle  of  the  (1503)-  See 
Italy:  A.  D.  1501-1504. 

GARITIES,  The.  See  Aquitaine:  The 
Ancient  Ti;ibes. 

GARRISON,  William  Lloyd,  and  the 
American  Abolitionists.  See  Slatbky,  Negro  : 
A.  D.  1828-1832. 

GARTER,  Knights  of  the  Order  of  the.— 
"About  this  time  [A.  B.  1343]  the  king  of  Eng- 
land [Edward  III]  resolved  to  rebuild  and  em- 
bellish the  great  castle  of  Windsor,  which  king 
Arthur  had  first  founded  in  time  past,  and  where 
he  had  erected  and  established  that  noble  round 
table  from  whence  so  many  gallant  knights  had 
issued  forth,  and  displayed  the  valiant  prowess 
of  their  deeds  at  arms  over  the  world.  King 
Edward,  therefore,  determined  to  establish  an 
order  of  knighthood,  consisting  of  himself,  his 
children,  and  the  most  gallant  knights  in  Chris- 
tendom, to  the  number  of  forty.  He  ordered  it 
to  be  denominated  'knights  of  the  blue  garter,' 
and  that  the  feast  should  be  celebrated  every 
year  at  Windsor,  upon  St.  George's  day.  He 
summoned,  therefore,  all  the  earls,  barons,  and 
knights  of  his  realm,  to  inform  them  of  his  inten- 
tions ;  they  heard  it  with  great  pleasure ;  for  it 
appeared  to  them  highly  honourable,  and  capable 
of  increasing  love  and  friendship.  Forty  knights 
were  then  elected,  according  to  report  and  esti- 
mation the  bravest  in  Christendom,  who  sealed, 
and  swore  to  maintain  and  keep  the  feast  and  the 
statutes  which  had  been  made.  The  king  founded 
a  chapel  at  Windsor,  in  honour  of  St.  George, 
and  established  canons,  there  to  serve  God,  with 
a  handsome  endowment.  He  then  issued  his  proc- 
lamation for  this  feast  by  his  heralds,  whom  he 
sent  to  France,  Scotland,  Burgundy,  Hainault, 
Flanders,  Brabant,  and  the  empire  of  Germany, 


6AU. 

and  offered  to  all  knights  and  squires,  that  might 
come  to  this  ceremony,  passports  to  last  for  fifteen 
days  after  it  was  over.     The  celebration  of  this 
order  was  fixed  for  St.  George's  day  next  ensu- 
ing, to  be  held  at  Windsor,   1344."— Froissart 
(Johnes),  Chronicles,  bk.  1,  ch.  100.— "The  popu- 
lar tradition,  derived  from  Polydore  Vergil,  is 
that,  having  a  festival  at  Court,  a  lady  chanced 
to  drop  her  garter,  when  it  was  picked  up  by  the 
King.     Observing  that  the  incident  made  the  bye- 
standers  smile  sTgnificantly,  Edward  exclaimed 
in  a  tone  of  rebuke,  '  Honi  soit  qui  mal  y  pense ' 
— '  Dishonoured  be  he  who  thinks  evil  of  it ' :  and 
to  prevent  any  further  inuendos,  he  tied  the  garter 
round  his  own  knee.     This  anecdote,  it  is  true, 
has  been  characterized  by  some  as  an  improbable 
fable :  why,  we  know  not.   ...  Be  the  origin  of 
the  institution,  however,  what  it  may,  no  Order 
in  Europe  is  so  ancient,  none  so  illustrious,  for 
'  it  exceeds  in  majesty,   honour  and   fame  all 
chivalrous  fraternities  in  the  world.'  ...  By  a 
Statute   passed  on  the  17th  January,  1805,  the 
Order  is  to  consist  of  the  Sovereign  and  twenty- 
five   Knights  Companions,  together  with  such 
lineal   descendants   of   George   III.   as   may  be 
elected,  always  excepting  the  Prince  of  Wales, 
who  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  original  institu- 
tion.    Special  Statutes  have   since,  at  different 
times,  been  proclaimed  for  the  admission  of  Sov- 
ereigns and  extra  Knights.  "—Sir  B.  Burke,  Book 
of  Orders  of  Knighthood,  p.  98. 

Also  in:  J.  Buswell,  Hist.  Acc't  of  the  Knights 
of  the  Garter.— C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng. 
Hist.,  2d  series,  c.  3. 

GARUMNI,  The  Tribe  of  the.  See  Aqui- 
taine  :  The  Ancient  Tribes. 

GASCONY.  — GASCONS:     Origin.      See 

Aquitaine  :  A.  D.  681-768. 

A.  D.  778. — The  ambuscade  at  Roncesvalles. 
See  Spain  :  A.  D.  778. 

A.  D.  781.— Embraced  in  Aquitaine.  See 
Aquitaine:  A.  D.  781. 

nth  Century.- The  Founding  of  the  Duke- 
dom.    See  Burgundy:  A.  D.  1032. 

GASIND,  The.     See  Comitatus. 

GASPE,  The  burning  of  the.  See  United 
States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1772. 

GASTEIN,  Convention  of  (1865).  See  Ger- 
many: A.  D.  1801-1866. 

GATES,  General  Horatio,  and  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A  D  1775  (:May— August)  ;  1777  (July- Octo- 
ber); 1777-1778;  1780  (Februakt— August)  ; 
1780-1781. 

GATH.     See  Philistines. 

GATHAS,  The.     See  Zoroastiiians. 

GAU,  OR  GA,  The.— "Next  [after  the  Mark, 
in  the  settlements  of  the  Germanic  peoples]  in 
order  of  constitution,  if  not  of  time,  is  the  union 
of  two,  three,  or  more  Marks  in  a  federal  bond 
for  purposes  of  a  religious,  judicial,  or  even  po- 
litical character.  The  technical  name  for  such  a 
union  is  in  Germany  a  Gau  or  Bant ;  in  England 
the  ancient  name  6a  has  been  almost  universally 
superseded  by  that  of  Scir  or  Shire.  For  the 
most  part  the  natural  divisions  of  the  country 
are  the  divisions  also  of  the  Ga ;  and  the  size  of 
this  depends  upon  such  accidental  limits  as  well 
as  upon  the  character  and  dispositions  of  the 
several  collective  bodies  which  we  have  called 
Marks.     The  Ga  is  the  second  and  final  form  of 


1443 


GAU. 


GAUL,  B.  C.  58-51. 


unsevered  possession ;  for  every  larger  aggregate 
is  but  tlie  result  of  a  gradual  reduction  of  such 
districts,  under  a  higher  political  or  administra- 
tive unity,  different  only  in  degree  and  not  in 
kind  from  what  prevailed  individually  in  each. 
The  kingdom  is  only  a  larger  Ga  than  ordinary ; 
indeed  the  Ga  itself  was  the  original  kingdom. 
.  .  .  Some  of  the  modem  shire-divisions  of  Eng- 
land in  all  probability  have  remained  unchanged 
from  the  earliest  times ;  so  that  here  and  there  a 
now  existent  Shire  may  be  identical  in  territory 
with  an  ancient  Ga.  But  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  this  observation  can  be  very  extensively 
applied." — J.  M.  Kemble,  The  Saxons  in  Eng- 
land, bk.  1,  c?i.  3. 

GAUGAMELA,  OR  ARBELA,  Battle  of 
(B.  C.  331).     See  Macedonia:  B.  C.  334^330. 


GAUL:  described  by  Caesar. — "Gallia,  in 
the  widest  sense  of  the  term,  is  divided  into 
three  parts,  one  part  occupied  by  the  Belgae,  a 
second  by  the  Aquitani,  and  a  third  by  a  people 
whom  the  Romans  name  Galli,  but  in  their  own 
tongue  tliey  are  named  Celtae.  Tliese  three 
people  differ  in  language  and  social  institutions. 
The  Garumna  (Garonne)  is  the  boundary  between 
the  Aquitani  and  the  Celtae ;  the  rivers  Matrona 
(Mame,  a  branch  of  the  Seine)  and  the  Sequana 
(Seine)  separate  the  Celtae  from  the  Belgae.  .  .  . 
That  part  of  Gallia  which  is  occupied  by  the 
Celtae  begins  at  the  river  Rhone:  it  is  bounded 
by  the  Garonne,  the  Ocean  and  the  territory  of 
the  Belgae ;  on  the  side  of  the  Sequani  and  the 
Helvetii  it  also  extends  to  the  Rhine.  It  looks  to 
the  north.  The  territory  of  the  Belgae  begins 
where  that  of  the  Celtae  ends :  it  extends  to  the 
lower  part  of  tlie  Rliine;  it  looks  towards  the 
north  and  the  ri.sing  sun.  Aquitania  extends 
from  the  Garonne  to  the  Pyrenean  mountains  and 
that  part  of  the  Ocean  which  borders  on  Spain. 
It  looks  in  a  direction  between  the  setting  sun 
and  the  north." — Julius  Caesar,  Oallic  Wars,  bk. 
1,  ch.  1;  trans,  by  O.  Long  (Decline  of  the  Soman 
Republic,  v.  3,  ch.  22). 

B.  C.  125-121.  —  First  Roman  conquests. 
See  Salyes  ;  Allobroges  ;  and  ^DUi. 

B.  C.  58-51. — Cffisar's  conquest. — Caesar  was 
consul  for  the  year  695  A.  U.  (B.  C.  59).  At  the 
expiration  of  his  consulship  he  secured,  by  vote 
of  the  people,  the  government  of  the  two  Gauls 
(see  Rome  :  B.  C.  63-58),  not  for  one  year,  which 
was  the  customary  term,  but  for  five  years  — 
afterwards  extended  to  ten.  Cisalpine  Gaul 
(northern  Italy)  had  been  fully  subjugated  and 
was  tranquil ;  Transalpine  Gaul  (Gaul  west  and 
north  of  the  Alps,  or  modern  Prance,  Switzer- 
land and  Belgium)  was  troubled  and  threatening. 
In  Transalpine  Gaul  the  Romans  had  made  no 
conquests  beyond  the  Rhone,  as  yet,  except  along 
the  coast  at  the  south.  The  country  between  the 
Alps  and  the  Rhone,  excepting  certain  territories 
of  Massilia  (Marseilles)  which  still  continued  to 
be  a  free  city,  in  alliance  with  Rome,  had  been 
fully  appropriated  and  organized  as  a  province 
—  the  Provence  of  later  times.  The  territory 
between  the  Rhone  and  the  Cevennes  mountains 
was  less  fully  occupied  and  controlled.  Csesar's 
first  proceeding  as  proconsul  in  Gaul  was  to  ar- 
rest the  migration  of  the  Helvetii,  who  had 
determined  to  abandon  their  Swiss  valleys  and  to 
seize  some  new  territory  in  Gaul.  He  blocked 
their  passage  through  Roman  Gaul,  then  followed 
them  in  their  movement  eastward  of  the  Rhone, 


attacked  and  defeated  them  with  great  slaughter, 
and  forced  the  small  remnant  to  return  to  their 
deserted  mountain  homes.  The  same  year  (B.  C. 
58)  he  drove  out  of  Gaul  a  formidable  body  of 
Sue  vie  Germans  who  had  crossed  the  Rhine  some 
years  before  under  their  king,  Ariovistus.  They 
were  almost  annihilated.  The  next  year  (B.  C. 
57)  he  reduced  to  submission  the  powerful  tribes 
of  the  Belgian  region,  who  had  provoked  attack 
by  leaguing  themselves  against  the  Roman  in- 
trusion in  Gaul.  The  most  obstinate  of  those 
tribes  —  the  Nervii — were  destroyed.  In  the 
following  year  (B.  C.  56)  Cfesar  attacked  and 
nearly  exterminated  the  Veueti,  a  remarkable 
maritime  people,  who  occupied  part  of  Armorica 
(modern  Brittany);  he  also  reduced  the  coast 
tribes  northwards  to  submission,  while  one  of  his 
lieutenants,  Crassus,  made  a  conquest  of  Aqui- 
tania. The  conquest  of  Gaul  was  now  apparently 
complete,  and  next  year  (B.  C.  55),  after  routing 
and  cutting  to  pieces  another  horde  of  Germanic 
invaders  —  the  Usipetes  and  Tenctheri  —  who  had 
ventured  across  the  lower  Rhine,  Coesar  traversed 
the  channel  and  invaded  Britain.  This  first  in- 
vasion, which  had  been  little  more  than  a  rccon- 
noissance,  was  repeated  the  year  following  (B.  C. 
54),  with  a  larger  force.  It  was  an  expedition 
having  small  results,  and  Caesar  returned  from  it 
in  the  early  autumn  to  find  his  power  in  Gaul 
undermined  everywhere  by  rebellious  conspira- 
cies The  first  outbreak  occurred  among  the 
Belgae,  and  found  its  vigorous  leader  in  a  young 
chief  of  the  Eburones,  Ambiorix  by  name.  Two 
legions,  stationed  in  tlie  midst  of  the  Eburones, 
were  cut  to  pieces  while  attempting  to  retreat. 
But  the  effect  of  this  great  disaster  was  broken 
by  the  bold  energy  of  Coesar,  who  led  two  legions, 
numbering  barely  7,000  men,  to  the  rescue  of  his 
lieutenant  Cicero  (brother  of  the  orator)  whose 
single  legion,  camped  in  the  Nervian  territory, 
was  surrounded  and  besieged  by  60,000  of  the 
enemy.  Ciesar  and  his  7,000  veterans  sufficed 
to  rout  the  60,000  Belgians.  Proceeding  with 
similar  vigor  to  further  operations,  and  raising 
new  legions  to  increase  his  force,  the  proconsul 
had  stamped  the  rebellion  out  before  the  close  of 
the  year  53  B.  C. ,  and  the  Eburones,  who  led  in 
it,  had  ceased  to  exist.  But  the  next  year  (B.  C. 
53)  brought  upon  him  a  still  more  serious  rising, 
of  the  Gallic  tribes  in  central  Gaul,  leagued  with 
the  Belgians.  Its  leader  was  Vercingetorix,  a 
gallant  and  able  young  chief  of  the  Arverni.  It 
was  begun  by  the  Carnutes,  who  massacred  the 
Roman  settlers  in  their  town  of  Genabum  (prob- 
ably modern  Orleans,  but  some  say  Gien,  farther 
up  the  Loire).  Caesar  was  on  the  Italian  side  of 
the  Alps  when  the  news  reached  him,  and  the 
Gauls  expected  to  be  able  to  prevent  his  joining 
the  scattered  Roman  forces  in  their  country. 
But  his  energy  baffled  them,  as  it  had  baffled 
them  many  times  before.  He  was  across  the 
Alps,  across  the  Rhone,  over  the  Cevennes  — 
through  six  feet  of  snow  in  the  passes  —  and  in 
their  midst,  with  such  troops  as  he  could  gather 
in  the  Province,  before  they  dreamed  of  lying  in 
wait  for  him.  Then,  leaving  most  of  these  forces 
with  Decimus  Brutus,  in  a  strong  position,  he 
stole  away  secretly,  recrossed  the  Cevennes,  put 
himself  at  the  head  of  a  small  body  of  cavalry  at 
Vienne  on  the  Rhone,  and  rode  straight  through 
the  country  of  the  insurgents  to  join  his  veteran 
legions,  first  at  Langres  and  afterwards  at  Sens. 
In  a  few  weeks  he  was  at  the  head  of  a  strong 


1444 


GAUL,  B.  C.  58-51. 


GAUL,  A.  D.  406-409. 


.nrmy,  had  taken  the  guilty  town  of  Genabum 
and  had  given  it  up  to  fire  and  the  sword.  A 
little  later  the  capital  of  the  Bituriges,  Avaricum 
(modern  Bourges),  suffered  the  same  fate.  Next, 
attempting  to  reduce  the  Arvernian  town  of  Ger- 
govia,  ho  met  with  a  check  and  was  placed  in  a 
serious  strait.  But  with  the  able  help  of  his 
lieutenant  Labienus,  who  defeated  a  powerful 
combination  of  the  Gauls  near  Lutetia  (modern 
Paris),  he  broke  the  toils,  reunited  his  army, 
which  he  had  divided,  routed  Vercingetorix  in 
a  great  battle  fought  in  the  valley  of  the  Vin- 
geanne,  and  shut  him  up,  with  80,000  men,  in  the 
city  oi:  Alesia.  The  siege  of  Alesia  (modern 
Allse-Sainte-Reine,  west  of  Dijon)  which  fol- 
lowed, was  the  most  extraordinary  of  Csesar's 
military  exploits  in  Gaul.  Holding  his  circum- 
vallation  of  the  town,  against  80,000  within  its 
walls  and  thrice  as  many  swarming  outside  of  it, 
he  scattered  the  latter  and  forced  the  surrender 
of  the  former.  His  triumph  was  his  greatest 
shame.  Like  a  very  savage,  he  dragged  the 
knightly  Vercingetorix  in  his  captive  ti-ain,  ex- 
hibited him  at  a  subsequent  "  triumph"  in  Rome, 
and  then  sent  him  to  be  put  to  death  in  the 
ghastly  Tullianum.  The  fall  of  Alesia  practi- 
cally ended  the  revolt;  although  even  the  next 
year  found  some  fighting  to  be  done,  and  one 
stronghold  of  the  Cadurci,  Uxellodunum  (modern 
Puy-dTssolu,  near  Vayrac),  held  out  with  great 
obstinacy.  It  was  taken  by  tapping  with  a  tun- 
nel the  spring  which  supplied  the  besieged  with 
water,  and  Caesar  punished  the  obstinacy  of  the 
garrison  by  cutting  off  their  hands.  Gaul  was 
then  deemed  to  be  conquered  and  pacified,  and 
Caesar  was  prepared  for  the  final  contest  with  his 
rivals  and  enemies  at  Rome. — Csesar,  GallicWar. 

Also  in  :  G.  Long,  Decline  of  tlie  Roman,  Re- 
public, V.  4. — Napoleon  IIL,  History  of  CcBsar. — 
T.  A.  Dodge,  Ca-mr,  c/i.  4-25, 

2d-3d  Century. — Introduction  of  Christian- 
ity.    See  Chkisti.inity  :  A.  D.  100-312  (Gaul). 

2d-7th  Century. — Ancient  Commerce.  See 
Tr.\db. 

A.  D.  277. — The  invaders  driven  back  by 
Probus. —  "The  most  important  service  which 
Probus  [Roman  Emperor,  A.  D.  276-282]  ren- 
dered to  the  republic  was  the  deliverance  of 
Gaul,  and  the  recovery  of  seventy  flourishing 
cities  oppressed  by  the  barbarians  of  Germany, 
who,  since  the  death  of  Aurelian,  had  ravaged 
that  great  province  with  impunity.  Among  the 
various  multitude  of  those  fierce  invaders,  we 
may  distinguish,  with  some  degree  of  clearness, 
three  great  armies,  or  rather  nations,  successively 
vanquished  by  the  valour  of  Probus.  He  drove 
back  the  Pranks  into  their  morasses;  a  descrip- 
tive circumstance  from  whence  we  may  infer  that 
the  confederacy  known  by  the  manly  appellation 
of  '  Free '  already  occupied  the  flat  maritime 
country,  intersected  and  almost  overflown  by  the 
stagnating  waters  of  the  Rhine,  and  that  several 
tribes  of  the  Frisians  and  Batavians  had  acceded 
to  their  alliance.  He  vanquished  the  Burgun- 
dians  [and  the  Lygians],  .  .  .  The  deliverance 
of  Gaul  is  reported  to  have  cost  the  lives  of  400,- 
000  of  the  invaders  —  a  work  of  labour  to  the 
Romans,  and  of  expense  to  the  emperor,  who 
gave  a  piece  of  gold  for  the  head  of  every  bar- 
barian."— E.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  ch.  12. — See,  also,  Ltgians. 

A.  D.  287. — Insurrection  of  the  Bagauds. 
See  Bagauds;  also,  Dedititius. 


'  A.  D.  355-361. — Julian's  recovery  of  the  prov- 
ince from  the  barbarians. — During  the  civil 
wars  and  religious  quarrels  which  followed  the 
deatli  of  Constantine  the  Great  —  more  especially 
in  the  three  years  of  the  usurpation  of  Magnen- 
tius,  in  the  west  (A.  D.  350-353),  Gaul  was  not 
only  abandoned,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  bar- 
barians of  Germany,  but  Franks  and  Alemanni 
were  invited  by  Constantius  to  enter  it.  "  In  a 
little  while  a  large  part  of  the  north  and  east  of 
Gaul  were  in  their  almost  undisputed  possession. 
The  Alamans  seized  upon  the  countries  which 
are  now  called  Alsace  and  Lorraine;  the  Franks 
secured  for  themselves  Batavia  and  Toxandria: 
forty -five  flourishing  cities,  among  them  Cologne, 
Treves,  Spires,  Worms,  and  Strasburg,  were 
ravaged;  and,  in  short,  from  the  sources  of  the 
Rhine  to  its  mouth,  forty  miles  inland,  there  re- 
mained no  safety  for  the  population  but  in  the 
strongly  fortified  towns."  In  this  condition  of 
the  Gallic  provinces,  Julian,  the  j'oimg  nephew 
of  the  emperor,  was  raised  to  the  rank  of  Csesar 
and  sent  thither  with  a  trifling  force  of  men  to 
take  the  command.  "During  an  administration 
of  six  j'ears  [A.  D.  355-361]  this  latest  Caesar  re- 
vived in  Gaul  the  memory  of  the  indefatigable 
exploits  and  the  vigorous  rule  of  the  first  Caesar. 
Insufficient  and  ill-disciplined  as  his  forces  were, 
and  bafiled  and  betrayed  as  he  was  by  those  who 
should  have  been  his  aids,  he  drove  the  fierce  and 
powerful  tribes  of  the  Alamans,  who  were  now 
the  hydra  of  the  western  provinces,  beyond  the 
Upper  Rhine;  the  Chamaves,  another  warlike 
tribe,  he  pursued  into  the  heart  of  their  native 
forests ;  while  the  still  fiercer  and  more  warlike 
Franks  were  dislodged  from  their  habitations  on 
the  Meuse,  to  accept  of  conditions  from  his 
hands.  ...  A  part  of  these,  called  the  Salians, 
and  destined  to  figure  hereafter,  were  allowed  to 
settle  in  permanence  in  Toxandria,  between  the 
Meuse  and  the  Scheld,  near  the  modern  Tongres. 
.  .  .  By  three  successful  expeditions  beyond  the 
Rhine  [he]  restored  to  their  friends  a  multitude 
of  Roman  captives,  recovered  the  broken  and 
down-trodden  lines  of  the  empire,  humiliated 
many  of  the  proud  chiefs  of  the  Germans,  and 
impressed  a  salutary  awe  and  respect  upon  their 
truculent  followers.  ...  He  spent  the  intervals 
of  peace  which  his  valor  procured  in  recuperat- 
ing the  wasted  energies  of  the  inhabitants.  Their 
dilapidated  cities  were  repaired,  the  excesses  of 
taxation  retrenched,  the  deficient  harvests  com- 
pensated by  large  importations  of  corn  from 
Britain,  and  the  resources  of  suspended  indus- 
try stimulated  into  new  action.  Once  more,  says 
Libanius,  the  Gauls  ascended  from  the  tombs  to 
marry,  to  travel,  to  enjoy  the  festivals,  and  to 
celebrate  the  public  games." — P.  Godwin,  Hist, 
of  France:  Ancient  Gaul,  bk.  2,  eh.  7. 

Also  in  :  E.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  ch.  19. 

A.  D.  365-367. — Expulsion  of  the  Alemanni 
by  Valentinian.    See  Alemanni:  A.  D.  365-367. 

A.  D.  378. — Invasion  of  the  Alemanni. — 
Their  destruction  by  Gratian.  See  ALEM.\j«m : 
A.  D.  378. 

A.  D.  406-409. — The  breaking  of  the  Rhine 
barrier. — The  same  year  (A.  D.  406)  in  which 
Radagaisus,  with  his  motley  barbaric  horde, 
invaded  Italy  and  was  destroyed  by  Stilicho,  a 
more  fatal  assault  was  made  upon  Gaul.  Two 
armies,  in  which  were  gathered  up  a  vast  multi- 
tude of  Suevi,  Vandals,  Alans  and  Burgundians, 


1445 


GAUL,  A.  D.  406-409. 


GAUL,  5TH-10TH  CENTURIES. 


passed  the  Rhine.  The  Franks  opposed  them  as 
faithful  allies  of  the  Roman  power,  and  defeated 
a  Vandal  army  in  one  great  battle,  where  20,000 
of  the  invaders  were  slain;  but  the  Alans  came 
opportunely  to  the  rescue  of  their  friends  and 
forced  the  Frank  defenders  of  Gaul  to  give  way. 
"The  victorious  confederates  pursued  their 
march,  and  on  the  last  day  of  the  year,  in  a  sea- 
son when  the  waters  of  the  Rhine  were  most 
probably  frozen,  they  entered  without  opposition 
the  defenceless  provinces  of  Gaul.  This  mem- 
orable passage  of  the  Suevi,  the  Vandals,  the 
Alani,  and  the  Burgundians,  who  never  after- 
wards retreated,  may  be  considered  as  the  fall  of 
the  Roman  empire  in  the  countries  beyond  the 
Alps ;  and  the  barriers  which  had  so  long  separa- 
ted the  savage  and  the  civilized  nations  of  the 
earth  were,  from  that  fatal  moment,  levelled 
with  the  ground.  .  .  .  The  flourishing  city  of 
Mentz  was  surprised  and  destroyed,  and  many 
thousand  Christians  were  inhumanly  massacred 
iu  the  church.  Worms  perished  after  a  long  and 
obstinate  siege ;  Strasburg,  Spires,  Rheims,  Tour- 
nay,  Arras,  Amiens,  experienced  the  cruel  op- 
pression of  the  German  yoke ;  and  the  consum- 
ing flames  of  war  spread  from  the  banks  of  the 
Rhine  over  the  greatest  part  of  the  seventeen 
provinces  of  Gaul.  That  rich  and  extensive 
country,  as  far  as  the  ocean,  the  Alps,  and  the 
Pyrenees,  was  delivered  to  the  barbarians,  who 
drove  before  them  in  a  promiscuous  crowd  the 
bishop,  the  senator,  and  the  virgin,  laden  with 
the  spoils  of  their  houses  and  altars. " — E.  Gib- 
bon, Decline  and  Fall  of  the  R^ma/i  Empire,  ch.  30. 

A.  D.  407-411. — Reign  of  the  usurper  Con- 
stantine.     See  Britain:  A.  D.  407. 

A.  D.  410-419. — Establishment  of  the  Visi- 
goths in  the  kingdom  of  Toulouse.  See  Goths 
(Visigoths):  A.  D.  410-419. 

A.  D.  410-420. — The  Franks  join  in  the  at- 
tack on  Gaul.— See  Franks:  A.  D.  410-430. 

Sth-8th  Centuries. — Barbarities  of  the  Frank 
conquest.—  The  conquestsof  the  Franks  in  Gaul, 
under  Clovis,  began  in  486  and  ended  with  his 
death  in  511  (see  Fr-UTEs:  A.  D.  481-511).  "In 
the  year  533,  Theoderik,  one  of  the  sons  and 
successors  of  Chlodowig,  said  to  those  Fraukish 
warriors  whom  he  commanded :  '  Follow  me  as 
far  as  Auvergne,  and  I  will  make  you  enter  a 
country  where  you  will  take  as  much  gold  and 
silver  as  you  possibly  can  desire ;  where  you  can 
carry  away  in  abundance  flocks,  slaves,  and 
garments.'  The  Franks  took  up  arms  and  once 
more  crossing  the  Loire,  they  advanced  on  the 
territory  of  the  Bituriges  and  Arvernes.  These 
paid  with  interest  for  the  resistance  they  had 
dared  to  the  first  invasion.  Everything  amongst 
them  was  devastated ;  the  churches  and  monas- 
teries were  razed  to  their  foundations.  The 
young  men  and  women  were  dragged,  their 
hands  bound,  after  the  luggage  to  be  sold  as 
slaves.  The  inhabitants  of  this  unfortunate  coun- 
try perished  in  large  numbers  or  were  ruined  by 
the  pillage.  Nothing  was  left  them  of  what 
they  had  possessed,  says  an  ancient  chronicle, 
except  the  land,  which  the  barbarians  could  not 
carry  away.  Sucl>  were  the  neighbourly  rela- 
tions kept  up  by  the  Franks  with  the  Gallic 
populations  whicli  liad  remained  beyond  their 
limits.  Their  conduct  with  respect  to  the  natives 
of  the  northern  provinces  was  hardly  less  hostile. 
When  Hilperik,  the  son  of  Chlother,  wished,  in 
the  year  584,  to  send  his  daughter  in  marriage  to 


the  king  of  the  West  Goths,  or  Visigoths,  settled 
in  Spain,  he  came  to  Paris  and  carried  away  from 
the  houses  belonging  to  the  '  fisc '  a  great  num- 
ber of  men  and  women,  who  were  heaped  up  in 
chariots  to  accompany  and  serve  the  bride  elect. 
Those  who  refused  to  depart,  and  wept,  were 
put  in  prison:  several  strangled  themselves  in 
despair.  Many  people  of  the  best  families  en- 
listed by  force  into  this  procession,  made  their 
will,  and  gave  their  property  to  the  churches. 
'  The  son,'  says  a  contemporary,  '  was  separated 
from  his  father,  the  mother  from  her  daughter; 
they  departed  sobbing,  and  pronouncing  deep 
curses ;  so  many  persons  in  Paris  were  in  tears 
that  it  might  be  compared  to  the  desolation  of 
Egypt. '  In  their  domestic  misfortunes  the  kings 
of  the  Franks  sometimes  felt  remorse,  and  trem- 
bled at  the  evil  they  had  done.  .  .  .  But  this 
momentary  repentance  soon  yielded  to  the  love 
of  riches,  the  most  violent  passion  of  the  Franks. 
Their  incursions  into  the  south  of  Gaul  recom- 
menced as  soon  as  that  country,  recovered  from 
its  terrors  and  defeats,  no  longer  admitted  their 
garrisons  nor  tax  collectors.  Karle,  to  whom  the 
fear  of  his  arms  gave  the  surname  of  Marteau, 
made  an  inroad  as  far  as  Slarseilles;  he  took 
possession  of  Lyons,  Aries,  and  Vienne,  and  car- 
ried off  an  immense  booty  to  the  territory  of  the 
Franks.  When  this  same  Karle,  to  insure  his 
frontiers,  went  to  fight  the  Saracens  in  Aquita- 
nia,  he  put  the  whole  country  to  fire  and  sword; 
he  burnt  Bergiers,  Agde,  and  Nflnes ;  the  arenas 
of  the  latter  city  still  bear  traces  of  the  fire.  At 
death  of  Karle,  his  two  sons,  Karlemann  and 
Peppin,  continued  the  great  enterprise  of  re- 
placing the  inhabitants  of  the  south,  to  whom 
the  name  of  Romans  was  still  given,  under  the 
yoke  of  the  Pranks.  .  .  .  Southern  Gaul  was  to 
the  sons  of  the  Franks  what  entire  Gaul  had  been 
to  their  fathers ;  a  country,  the  riches  and  climate 
of  which  attracted  them  incessantly,  and  saw 
them  return  as  enemies,  as  soon  as  it  did  not 
purchase  peace  of  them." — A.  Thierry,  Narra- 
tives of  the  Merovingian  Era,  Historical  Essays, 
etc. ,  essay  24. 

5th-ioth  Centuries. — The  conquerors  and 
the  conquered. — State  of  society  under  the 
barbarian  rule. — The  evolution  of  Feudalism. 
— "After  the  conclusion  of  the  great  struggles 
which  took  place  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
whether  between  the  German  conquerors  and  the 
last  forces  of  the  empire,  or  between  the  nations 
which  had  occupied  different  portions  of  Gaul, 
until  the  Franks  remained  sole  masters  of  the 
country,  two  races,  two  populations,  which  had 
nothing  in  common  but  religion,  appear  forcibly 
brought  together,  and,  as  it  were,  face  to  face 
with  each  other,  in  one  political  community. 
The  GaUo-Roman  population  presents  under  the 
same  law  very  different 'and  very  unequal  condi- 
tions; the  barbarian  population  comprises,  to- 
gether with  its  own  peculiar  classifications  of 
ranks  and  conditions,  distinct  laws  and  nationali- 
ties. In  the  first  we  find  citizens  absolutely  free, 
coloni,  or  husbandmen  belonging  to  the  lands  of 
a  proprietor,  and  domestic  slaves  deprived  of  all 
civil  rights;  in  the  second,  we  see  the  Prankish 
race  divided  into  two  tribes,  each  having  its  own 
peculiar  law  [the  law  of  the  Salic  Franks  or  Salic 
law,  and  the  law  of  the  Ripuarian  Franks  or 
Ripuarian  law] ;  the  Burgundians,  the  Goths,  and 
the  rest  of  the  'Teutonic  races,  who  became  sub- 
jected, either  of  their  own  accord  or  by  force,  to 


1446 


GAUL,  5TH-10TH  CENTURIES. 


GAUL,  5TH-10TH  CENTURIES. 


the  Frankish  empire,  governed  by  other  and  en- 
tirely different  laws;  but  among  them  all,  as 
well  as  among  the  Franks,  we  find  at  least  three 
social  conditions  —  two  degrees  of  libertj',  and 
slavery.  Among  these  incongruous  states  of  ex- 
istence, the  criminal  law  of  the  dominant  race 
established,  by  means  of  the  scale  of  damages  for 
crime  or  personal  injury,  a  lund  of  hierarchy  — 
the  starting-point  of  that  movement  towards  an 
assimilation  and  gradual  transformation,  which, 
after  the  lapse  of  four  centuries,  from  the  fifth  to 
the  tenth,  gave  rise  to  the  society  of  the  feudal 
times.  The  first  rank  in  the  civil  order  belonged 
to  the  man  of  Frankish  origin,  and  to  the  Bar- 
barian who  lived  under  the  law  of  the  Franks ;  in 
the  second  rank  was  placed  the  Barbarian,  who 
lived  under  the  law  of  his  own  country;  next 
came  the  native  freeman  and  proprietor,  the 
Roman  possessor,  and,  in  the  same  degree,  the 
Lidus  or  German  colonus ;  after  them,  the  Roman 
tributary  —  i.  e.,  the  native  colonus;  and,  last  of 
all,  the  slave,  without  distinction  of  origin. 
These  various  classes,  separated  on  the  one  hand 
by  distance  of  rank,  on  the  other  by  difference  of 
laws,  manners,  and  language,  were  far  from 
being  equally  distributed  between  the  cities  and 
the  rural  districts.  All  that  was  elevated  in  the 
Gallo-Roman  population,  of  whatever  character 
it  might  be,  was  found  in  the  cities,  where  its 
noble,  rich,  and  industrious  families  dwelt,  sur- 
rounded by  their  domestic  slaves;  and,  among 
the  people  of  that  race,  the  only  constant  resi- 
dents in  the  country  were  the  half-servile  coloni 
and  the  agricultural  slaves.  On  the  contrary, 
the  superior  class  of  the  German  population  es- 
tablished itself  in  the  country,  where  each  family, 
independent  and  proprietary,  was  maintained  on 
its  own  domain  by  the  labour  of  the  Lidi  whom 
it  had  brought  thither,  or  of  the  old  race  of 
coloni  who  belonged  to  the  soil.  The  only  Ger- 
mans who  resided  in  the  cities  were  a  small  num- 
ber of  officers  in  the  service  of  the  Crown,  and  of 
individuals  without  family  and  patrimony,  who, 
in  spite  of  their  original  habits,  sought  a  liveli- 
hood by  following  some  employment.  The 
social  superiority  of  the  dominant  race  rooted  it- 
self firmly  in  the  localities  inhabited  by  them, 
and  passed,  as  has  been  already  remarked,  from 
the  cities  to  the  rural  districts.  By  degrees,  also, 
it  came  to  pass  that  the  latter  drew  off  from  the 
former  the  upper  portion  of  their  population, 
who,  in  order  to  raise  themselves  still  higher, 
and  to  mix  with  the  conquerors,  imitated,  as  far 
as  they  were  able,  their  mode  of  life.  .  .  .  "While 
Barbarism  was  thus  occupying  or  usurping  all  the 
vantage  points  of  the  social  state,  and  civil  life 
in  the  intermediate  classes  was  arrested  in  its 
progress,  and  sinking  gradually  to  the  lowest 
condition,  even  to  that  of  personal  servitude,  an 
ameliorating  movement  already  commenced  be 
fore  the  fall  of  the  empire,  still  continued,  and 
declared  itself  more  and  more  loudly.  The 
dogma  of  a  common  brotherhood  in  the  eyes  of 
God,  and  of  one  sole  redemption  for  all  mankind, 
preached  by  the  Church  to  the  faithful  of  every 
race,  touched  the  heart  and  awakened  the  mind 
in  favour  of  the  slave,  and,  in  consequence,  en- 
franchisements became  more  frequent,  or  a  treat- 
ment more  humane  was  adopted  on  the  part  of 
the  masters,  whether  Gauls  or  Germans  by  origin. 
The  latter,  moreover,  had  imported  from  their 
country,  where  the  mode  of  life  was  simple  and 
without  luxury,  usages  favourable  to  a  modified 


slavery.  The  rich  barbarian  was  waited  upon 
by  free  persons  —  by  the  children  of  his  relatives, 
his  clients  and  his  friends;  the  tendcncj'  of  his 
national  manners,  different  from  that  of  the 
Roman,  induced  him  to  send  the  slave  out  of  his 
house,  and  to  establish  him  as  a  labourer  or  ar- 
tisan on  some  portion  of  land  to  which  he  then 
became  permanently  attached,  and  the  destina- 
tion of  which  he  followed,  whether  it  were  in- 
herited or  sold.  .  .  .  Domestic  slavery  made  the 
man  a  chattel,  a  mere  piece  of  moveable  property. 
The  slave,  settled  on  a  spot  of  land,  from  that 
time  entered  into  the  category  of  real  property. 
At  the  same  time  that  this  last  class,  which 
properly  bore  the  name  of  serfs,  was  increased 
at  the  expense  of  the  first,  the  classes  of  the 
coloni  and  Lidi  would  naturally  multiply  simul- 
taneously, by  the  very  casualties  of  ruin  and  ad- 
verse circumstances  which,  at  a  period  of  inces- 
sant commotions,  injured  the  condition  of  the 
freemen.  ...  In  the  very  heart  of  the  Barbarian 
society,  the  class  of  small  proprietors,  which  had 
originally  formed  its  strength  and  glory,  de- 
creased, and  finally  became  extinct  by  sinking 
into  vassalage,  or  a  state  of  still  more  ignoble 
dependence,  which  partook  more  or  less  of  the 
character  of  actual  servitude.  .  .  .  The  freemen 
depressed  towards  servitude  met  the  slave  who 
had  reached  a  sort  of  half  liberty.  Thus,  through 
the  whole  extent  of  Gaul,  was  formed  a  vast  body 
of  agricultural  labourers  and  rural  artisans,  whose 
lot,  though  never  uniform,  was  brought  more  and 
more  to  a  level  of  equality;  and  the  creative 
wants  of  society  produced  a  new  sphere  of  indus- 
try in  the  country,  while  the  cities  remained 
stationary,  or  sank  more  and  more  into  decay. 
.  .  .  On  every  large  estate  where  improvement 
flourished,  the  cabins  of  those  employed,  Lidi, 
coloni  or  slaves,  grouped  as  necessity  or  conveni- 
ence suggested,  were  multiplied  and  peopled 
more  numerously,  till  they  assumed  the  form  of 
a  hamlet.  "When  these  hamlets  were  situated  in 
a  favourable  position  .  .  .  they  continued  to  in- 
crease till  they  became  villages.  .  .  .  The  build- 
ing of  a  church  soon  raised  the  village  to  the 
rank  of  a  parish ;  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  new 
parish  took  its  place  among  the  rural  circon- 
scriptions.  .  .  .  Thence  sprung,  altogether  spon- 
taneously, under  the  sanction  of  the  intendant, 
joined  to  that  of  the  priest,  rude  outlines  of  a 
municipal  organization,  in  which  the  church  be- 
came the  depository  of  the  acts  which,  in  accor- 
dance with  the  Roman  law,  were  inscribed  on  the 
registers  of  the  city.  It  is  in  this  wa}'  that  be- 
yond the  towns,  the  cities,  and  the  boroughs, 
where  the  remains  of  the  old  social  condition 
lingered  in  an  increasing  state  of  degradation, 
elements  of  future  improvement  were  formed. 
.  .  .  This  modification,  already  considerably  ad- 
vanced in  the  ninth  century,  was  completed  in 
the  course  of  the  tenth.  At  that  period,  the  last 
class  of  the  Gallo-Frankish  society  disappeared 
—  viz.,  that  of  persons  held  as  chattels,  bought, 
exchanged,  transferred  from  one  place  to  another, 
like  any  other  kind  of  moveable  goods.  The 
slave  now  belonged  to  the  soil  rather  than  to 
the  person;  his  service,  hitherto  arbitrary,  was 
changed  into  customary  dues  and  regulated  em- 
ployment; he  had  a  settled  abode,  and,  in  conse- 
quence, a  right  of  possession  in  the  soil  on  which 
he  was  dependent.  This  is  the  earliest  form  in 
which  we  distinctly  trace  the  first  impress  of  the 
modern  world  upon  the  civil  state.     The  word 


144 


GAUL,  5TH-10TH  CENTURIES. 


GAULS. 


serf  henceforward  took  its  definite  meaning;  it 
became  the  generic  name  of  a  mixed  condition  of 
servitude  and  freedom,  in  which  we  find  blended 
together  the  states  of  the  colonus  and  Lidus  — 
two  names  which  occur  less  and  less  frequently 
in  the  tenth  century,  till  they  entirely  disappear. 
This  century,  the  point  to  which  all  the  social 
efforts  of  the  four  preceding  ones  which  had 
elapsed  since  the  Prankish  conquest  had  been 
tending,  saw  the  intestine  struggle  between  the 
Roman  and  German  manners  brought  to  a  con- 
clusion by  an  important  revolution.  The  latter 
definitively  prevailed,  and  from  their  triumph 
arose  the  feudal  system;  that  is  to  say,  a  new 
form  of  the  state,  a  new  constitution  of  property 
and  domestic  life,  a  parcelling  out  of  the  sover- 
eignty and  jurisdiction,  all  the  public  powers 
transformed  into  demesnial  privileges,  the  idea  of 
nobility  devoted  to  the  profession  of  arms,  and 
that  of  ignobility  to  industry  and  labour.  By  a 
remarkable  coincidence,  the  complete  establish- 
ment of  this  system  is  the  epoch  when  the  dis- 
tinction of  races  terminates  in  Frankish  Gaul  — 
when  all  the  legal  consequences  of  diversity  of 
origin  between  Barbarians  and  Romans,  conquer- 
ors and  subjects,  disappear.  The  law  ceases  to 
be  personal,  and  becomes  local;  the  German 
codes  and  the  Roman  code  itself  are  replaced  by 
custom ;  it  is  the  territory  and  not  the  descent 
which  distinguishes  the  inhabitant  of  the  Gallic 
soil ;  finally,  instead  of  national  distinctions,  one 
mixed  population  appears,  to  which  the  historian 
is  able  henceforward  to  give  the  name  of  French. " 
— A.  Thierry,  Formation  and  Progress  of  the 
Tiers  Etat  in  France,  v.  1,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  412-453. — The  mixed  administration, 
Roman  and  barbarian. — "A  praetorian  prefect 
still  resided  at  Treves;  a  vicar  of  the  seventeen 
Gallic  provinces  at  Aries:  each  of  these  provinces 
had  its  Roman  duke;  each  of  the  hundred  and 
fifteen  cities  of  Gaul  had  its  count;  each  city  its 
curia,  or  municipality.  But,  collaterally  with 
this  Roman  organisation,  the  barbarians,  assem- 
bled in  their  '  mallum,'  of  which  their  kings  were 
presidents,  decided  on  peace  and  war,  made  laws, 
or  administered  justice.  Each  division  of  the 
army  had  its  Graf  Jarl,  or  Count ;  each  subdivi- 
sion its  centenary,  or  hundred-man ;  and  all  these 
fractions  of  the  free  population  had  the  same 
right  of  deciding  by  suffrage  in  their  own  mal- 
lums,  or  peculiar  courts,  all  their  common  affairs. 
In  cases  of  opposition  between  the  barbarian  and 
the  Roman  jurisdiction,  the  overbearing  arro- 
gance of  the  one,  and  the  abject  baseness  of  the 
other,  soon  decided  the  question  of  supremacy. 
In  some  provinces  the  two  powers  were  not  con- 
current: there  were  no  barbarians  between  the 
Loire  and  the  Meuse,  nor  between  the  Alps  and 
the  Rhone ;  but  the  feebleness  of  the  Roman  gov- 
ernment was  only  the  more  conspicuous.  A  few 
great  proprietors  cultivated  a  part  of  the  prov- 
ince with  the  aid  of  slaves;  the  rest  was  desert, 
or  only  inhabited  by  Bagaudse,  runaway  slaves, 
who  lived  by  robbery.  Some  towns  still  main- 
tained a  show  of  opulence,  but  not  one  gave  the 
slightest  sign  of  strength;  not  one  enrolled  its 
militia,  nor  repaired  its  fortifications.  .  .  .  Hono- 
rius  wished  to  confer  on  the  cities  of  southern 
Gaul  a  diet,  at  which  they  might  have  deliberated 
on  public  affairs:  he  did  not  even  find  public 
spirit  enough  to  accept  the  offered  privilege. " — 
J.  C.  L.  de  Sismondi,  Fall  of  tlie  Rwnan  Empire, 
ch.  7  (-0.  1). 


A.  D.  451. — Attila's  invasion.  See  Htjjts: 
A.  D.  4.51. 

A.  D.  453-484. — Extension  of  the  Visigothic 
kingdom.  See  Goths  (Visigoths):  A.  D.  453- 
484. 

A.  D.  457-486.— The  last  Roman  sover- 
eignty.— The  last  definite  survival  of  Roman  sov- 
ereignty in  Gaul  lingered  until  486  in  a  district 
north  of  the  Seine,  between  the  Marne  and  the 
Oise,  which  had  Soissons  for  its  capital.  It  was 
maintained  there,  in  the  first  instance,  by  ^gi- 
dius,  a  Gallic  noble  whom  Marjorian,  one  of  the 
last  of  the  emperors  at  Rome,  made  Master-Gen- 
eral of  Gaul.  The  respect  commanded  by  jEgi- 
dius  among  the  surrounding  barbarians  was  so 
great  that  the  Salian  Franks  invited  him  to  rule 
over  them,  in  place  of  a  licentious  young  king, 
Childeric,  whom  they  had  driven  into  exile.  He 
was  king  of  these  Franks,  according  to  Gregory 
of  Tours,  for  eight  years  (457-464),  until  he  died. 
Childeric  then  returned,  was  reinstated  in  his 
kingdom  and  became  the  father  of  Clovis  (or 
Chlodwig),  the  founder  of  the  great  Frank  mon- 
archy. But  a  son  of  ^gidius,  named  Syagrius, 
was  still  the  inheritor  of  a  kingdom,  known  as 
the  "Kingdom  of  Syagrius,"  embracing,  as  has 
been  said,  the  country  around  Soissons,  between 
the  Seine,  the  Marne  and  the  Oise,  and  also  in- 
cluding, in  the  opinion  of  some  writers,  Troyes 
and  Auxerre.  The  first  exploit  of  Clovis — the 
beginning  of  his  career  of  conquest — was  the 
overthrow  of  this  "king  of  the  Romans,"  as  Sya- 

frius  was  called,  in  a  decisive  battle  fought  at 
oissons,  A.  D.  486,  and  the  incorporation  of  his 
kingdom  into  the  Frank  dominions.  Syagrius  es- 
caped to  Toulouse,  but  was  surrendered  to  Clovis 
and  put  to  death. — P.  Godwin,  Sist.  of  Frarvae: 
Ancient  QaiiX,  bk.  3,  ch.  11. 

Also  in  :  W.  C.  Perry,  The  Franks,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  474. — Invasion  of  Ostrogoths.  See 
Goths  (Ostrogoths)  :  A.  D,  473-474. 

A.  D.  507-509. — Expulsion  of  the  Visigoths. 
See  Goths  (Visigoths)  :  A.  D.  507-509. 

A.  D.  540. — Formal  relinquishment  of  the 
country  to  the  Franks  by  Justinian.  See 
Franks:  A.  D.  539-558. 


GAULS. — "The  Gauls,  properly  so  called, 
the  Galatse  of  the  Greeks,  the  Galli  of  the  Romans, 
and  the  Gael  of  modern  history,  formed  the  van 
of  the  great  Celtic  migration  which  had  poured 
westward  at  various  intervals  during  many  hun- 
dred 3'ears.  .  .  .  Having  overrun  the  south  of 
Gaul  and  penetrated  into  Spain,  they  lost  a  part 
of  the  territory  thus  acquired,  and  the  restoration 
of  the  Iberian  fugitives  to  Aquitania  placed  a 
barrier  between  the  Celts  in  Spain  and  their  breth- 
ren whom  they  had  left  behind  them  in  the  north. 
In  the  time  of  the  Romans  the  Galli  were  found 
established  in  the  centre  and  east  of  the  country 
denominated  Gaul,  forming  for  the  most  part  a 
great  confederation,  at  the  head  of  which  stood 
the  Arvemi.  It  was  the  policy  of  the  Romans  to 
raise  the  .(Edui  into  competition  with  this  domi- 
nant tribe.  .  .  .  The  Arvemi,  whose  name  is  re- 
tained in  the  modern  appellation  of  Auvergne, 
occupied  a  large  district  in  the  middle  and  south 
of  Gaul,  and  were  surrounded  by  tributary  or  de- 
pendent clans.  The  iEdui  lay  more  to  the  north 
and  east,  and  the  centre  of  their  possessions  is 
marked  by  the  position  of  their  capital  Bibracte, 
the  modem  Autun,  situated  in  the  highlands 
which  separate  the  waters  of  the  Loire,  the  Seine 


1448 


GAULS. 


GEDROSIANS. 


and  the  Saone.  .  .  .  Other  Gallic  tribes  stretched 
beyond  the  Saone :  the  Sequani,  who  afterwards 
made  an  attempt  to  usurp  this  coveted  preemi- 
nence (the  valley  of  the  Doubs  formed  the  centre 
of  the  Sequanese  territory,  which  reached  to  the 
Jura  and  the  Rhine) ;  the  Helvetii  and  othermoun- 
tain  races,  whose  scanty  pastures  extended  to  the 
sources  of  the  Rhine ;  the  Allobroges,  who  dwelt 
upon  the  Isere  and  Rhone,  and  who  were  the  first 
of  their  race  to  meet  and  the  first  to  succumb  be- 
fore the  prowess  of  the  Roman  legions.  Accord- 
ing to  the  classification  both  of  Caesar  and  Strabo, 
the  Turones,  Pictones  and  Santones  must  be  com- 
prised under  the  same  general  denomination. " — 
C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Romans,  ch.  5  (».  1). — 
See,  also,  Celts. 

B.C.  390-347.  —  Invasions  of  Italy. —  De- 
struction of  Rome.     See  Rome  :  B.  C.  .390-347. 

B.  C.  295-191. — Roman  conquest  of  the  Cis- 
alpine tribes.     See  Ro.me:  B.  C.  295-191. 

B.  C.  280-279. — Invasion  of  Greece. — In  the 
year  280  B.  C.  the  Gauls,  who  had  long  before 
passed  from  northern  Italy  around  the  Adriatic 
to  its  eastern  coast,  made  their  first  appearance 
in  Macedonia  and  northern  Greece.  The  Mace- 
donian throne  was  occupied  at  the  time  by  the 
infamous  usurper,  Ptolemy  Ceraunus  (see  Mace- 
donia: B.  C.  297-380),  and  the  Celtic  savages 
did  one  good  service  to  Greece  by  slaying  him, 
in  the  single  battle  that  was  fought.  The  whole 
open  country  was  abandoned  to  them,  for  a  time, 
and  they  swept  it,  as  far  southward  as  the  valley 
of  the  Peneus,  in  Thessaly ;  but  the  walled  cities 
were  safe.  After  ravaging  the  country  for  some 
months  the  Gauls  appear  to  have  retired ;  but  it 
was  only  to  return  again  the  next  year  in  more 
formidable  numbers  and  under  a  chief,  Brennus, 
of  more  vigor  and  capability.  On  this  occasion 
the  country  suffered  fearfully  from  the  barbaric 
swarm,  but  defended  itself  with  something  lilie 
the  spirit  of  the  Greece  of  two  centuries  before. 
The  .iEtolians  were  conspicuous  in  the  struggle ; 
the  Peloponnesian  states  gave  little  assistance. 
The  policy  of  defense  was  much  the  same  as  at 
the  time  of  the  Persian  invasion,  and  the  enemy 
was  confronted  in  force  at  the  pass  of  Thermop- 
ylae. Brennus  made  a  more  desperate  attempt 
to  force  the  pass  than  Xerxes  had  done  and  was 
beaten  back  with  a  tremendous  slaughter  of  his 
Gauls.  But  he  found  traitors,  as  Xerxes  had 
done,  to  guide  him  over  the  mountains,  and  the 
Greeks  at  Thermopylse,  surrounded  by  the  enemy, 
could  only  escape  by  sea.  The  Gauls  marched 
on  Delphi,  eager  for  the  plunder  of  the  great 
temple,  and  there  they  met  with  some  fatal  dis- 
aster. Precisely  what  occurred  is  not  known. 
According  to  the  Greeks,  the  god  protected  his 
sanctuary,  and  the  accounts  they  have  left  are 
full  of  miracles  and  prodigies  —  of  earthquakes, 
lightnings,  tempests,  and  disease.  The  only  clear 
facts  seem  to  be  that  Delphi  was  successfully 
defended ;  that  the  Gauls  retreated  in  disorder 
and  were  destroyed  in  vast  numbers  before  the 
remnant  of  them  got  away  from  the  country. 
Brennus  is  said  to  have  killed  himself  to  escape 
the  wrath  of  his  people  for  the  failure  of  the  ex- 
pedition. One  large  body  of  the  great  army  had 
separated  from  the  rest  and  gone  eastward  into 
Thrace,  before  the  catastrophe  occurred.  These 
subsequently  passed  over  to  Asia  and  pursued 
there  an  adventurous  career,  leaving  a  historic 
name  in  the  country  —  see  Galatia. — C.  Thirl- 
wall.  Hist,  of  Gh-eece,  ch.  60. 


GAULS,  Praefect   of  the.     See  PR.fflTORiAK 
T' 1?  y?r  IT  p"  f  r  s 
GAUSARAPOS,   OR    GUUCHIES,   The. 

See  American  Aborigines:  Pampas  Tribes. 

GAVELKIND,  Irish.— "The  Irish  law  of 
succession  in  landed  property,  known  as  that  of 
Irish  gavelkind,  was  a  logical  consequence  of  the 
theory  of  tribal  ownership.  If  a  member  of  the 
tribe  died,  his  piece  of  land  did  not  descend  by 
right  to  his  eldest  son,  or  even  to  all  his  children 
equally.  Originally,  it  reverted  to  its  sole  abso- 
lute owner,  the  tribe,  every  member  of  which 
had  a  right  to  use  proportionate  to  his  tribal 
status.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  essential  prin- 
ciple of  inheritance  by  gavelkind." — S.  Bryant, 
Celtic  Ireland,  ch.  6. 

Also  en:  Sir  H.  Maine,  Early  Hist,  of  Institu- 
tions, led.  7. 

GAVELKIND,  Kentish.  See  Feudal  Ten- 
ures. 

GAVEREN,  Battle  of  (1453).  See  Ghent: 
A.  D.  1451-1453. 

GAZA:  Early  history.     See  Philistines. 
B.  C.  332.— Siege    by    Alexander.  —  In    his 

march  from  Phoenicia  to  Egypt  (see  Macedonia, 
&c. :  B.  C.  334-330),  Alexander  the  Great  was 
compelled  to  pause  for  several  months  and  lay 
siege  to  the  ancient  Philistine  city  of  Gaza.  It 
was  defended  for  the  Persian  king  by  a  brave 
eunuch  named  Batis.  In  the  course  of  the  siege, 
Alexander  received  a  severe  wound  in  the  shoul- 
der, which  irritated  his  savage  temper.  When 
the  town  was  at  length  taken  by  storm,  he  gave 
no  quarter.  Its  male  inhabitants  were  put  to 
the  sword  and  the  women  and  children  sold  to 
slavery.  The  euuuch  Batis,  being  captured  alive, 
but  wounded,  was  dragged  by  the  feet  at  the  tail 
of  a  chariot,  driven  at  full  speed  by  Alexander 
himself.  The  "greatest  of  conquerors"  proved 
himself  often  enough,  in  this  way,  to  be  the 
greatest  of  barbarians  —  in  his  age. — G.  Grote, 
Hist,  of  (Greece,  pt.  2,  ch.  93. 

B.  C.  312.— Battle  between  Ptolemy  and 
Demetrius.     See  Macedonia  :  B.  C.  315-310. 

B.  C.  100. — Destruction  by  Alexander  Jan- 
naeus. — Gaza  having  sided  with  the  Egyptian 
king,  in  a  war  between  Alexander  Jannseus,  one 
of  the  Asmoneau  kings  of  the  Jews,  and  Ptolemy 
Lathyrus  of  Egypt  and  Cyprus,  the  former  laid 
siege  to  the  city,  about  100  B.  C.,  and  acquired 
possession  of  it  after  several  months,  through 
treachery.  He  took  his  revenge  by  massacring 
the  inhabitants  and  reducing  the  city  to  ruins. 
It  was  rebuilt  not  long  afterwards  by  the  Romans. 
— G.  Long,  Decline  of  the  Boman  Republic,  v.  8, 
ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1516. — Defeat  of  the  Mamelukes  by 
the  Turks.     See  Turks:  A.  D.  1481-1530. 

GAZACA.     See  Ecbatana. 

GAZARI,  The.     See  Cathajiists. 

GAZNEVIDES,  OR  GHAZNEVIDES. 
See  Turks:  A.  D.  999-1183. 

GEARY  ACT,  The.  See  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1892. 

GEDDES,  Jenny,  and  her  stool.  See  Scot- 
land: A.  D.  1637. 

GEDROSIANS,  The.— "Close  to  the  Indus, 
and  beyond  the  bare,  hot,  treeless  shores  of  the 
ocean,  the  southern  part  of  the  plain  [of  eastern 
Iran]  consists  of  sandy  flats,  in  which  nothing 
grows  but  prickly  herbs  and  a  few  palms.     The 


1449 


GEDROSIANS. 


GENEVA. 


springs  are  a  day's  journey  from  each  other,  and 
often  more.  This  region  Tvas  possessed  by  a 
people  whom  Herodotus  calls  Sattagydis  and  the 
companions  of  Alexander  of  Macedonia,  Gedro- 
sians.  .  .  .  Neighbours  of  the  Gandarians,  who, 
as  we  know,  dwelt  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Indus 
down  to  the  Cabul,  the  Gedrosians  led  a  wander- 
ing, predatory  life ;  under  the  Persian  kings  they 
were  united  into  one  satrapy  with  the  Gandari- 
ans."— M.  Duncker,  Hist,  of  Antiquity,  bk.  7, 
ell.  1  (v.  5). 

GEIZA  II.,  King  of  Hungary,  A.  D.  1141- 
1160. 

GELA,  Founding  of.  See  Stracusb,  Found- 
ing OF. 

GELASIUS  11.,  Pope,  A.  D.  1118-1119. 

GELEONTES.     See  Phyl^. 

GELHEIM,  Battle  of  {1298).  SeeGBRMANT: 
A.  D.  1273-1308. 

GELONI,  The. — An  ancient  colony  of  Greeks 
Intermixed  with  natives  which  shared  the  coun- 
try of  the  Budini,  on  the  steppes  between,  the 
"Ural  Mountains  and  the  Caspian  Sea. — 6.  Grote, 
Hist,  of  Greece,  pt.  2,  ■».  3,  ch.  17. 

GELVES,  Battle  of  (1510).  See  Baebaey 
States:  A.  D.  1505-1510. 

GEMARA,  The.     See  TALsruD. 

GEMBLOURS,  Battle  of  (1578).  SeeNETH- 
EKL.ANDs:  A.  D.  1577-1581. 

GEMEINDE.  — GEMEINDERATH.  See 
Switzerland:  A.  D.  1848-1890. 

GEMOT. —  A  meeting,  assembly,  council, 
moot.     See  Witenagbmot. 

GENABUM,  OR  CENABUM.— The  prin- 
cipal town  of  the  Gallic  tribe  called  the  Carnutes; 
identified  by  most  archaeologists  with  the  modem 
city  of  Orleans,  France,  though  some  think  its 
site  was  at  Gien.     See  Gaul,  C.iEsar's  conquest 

OP. 

GENAUNI,  The.     See  Riletians. 

GENERAL  PRIVILEGE  OF  ARAGON. 
See  Cortes,  The  early  Spanish. 

GENERALS,  Execution  of  the  Athenian. 
See  Greece:  B.C.  406. 

GENET,  "  Citizen,"  the  mission  of.  See 
United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1793. 

GENEVA:  Beginnings  of  the  city.  SeeHBL- 
VETn,  The  Arrested  Migr.vtion  op  the. 

A.  D.  SOD. — Under  the  Burgundians.  See 
Burgundians:  a.  D.  500. 

loth  Century. — In  the  kingdom  of  Aries.  See 
Burgundy:  A.  D.  843-933. 

A.  D.  1401. — Acquisition  of  the  Genevois,  or 
County,  by  the  House  of  Savoy. — The  city  sur- 
rounded.    See  Savoy:    Hth-ISth   Centuries. 

A.  D.  1504-1535.— The  emancipation  of  the 
city  from  the  Vidomme  and  the  Prince-Bishop. 
— Triumph  of  the  Reformation. — "Geneva  was 
nominally  a  free  city  of  the  Empire,  but  had  in 
reality  been  governed  for  some  centuries  by  its 
own  bishop,  associated  with  a  committee  of  lay- 
assessors,  and  controlled  by  the  general  body  of 
the  citizens,  in  whose  hands  the  ultimate  power 
of  taxation,  and  of  election  of  the  magistrates  and 
regulation  of  the  police,  rested.  The  prince- 
bishop  did  not  exercise  his  temporal  jurisdiction 
directly,  but  through  an  officer  called  the  Vi- 
domme (vice-dominus),  whose  rights  had  in  the 
15th  century  become  hereditary  in  the  dukes  of 
Savoy.  These  rights  appear  to  have  been  exer- 
cised without  any  considerable  attempt  at  en- 
croachment till  the  beginning  of  the  following 


century,  when  Charles  III.  succeeded  to  the 
ducal  crown  (1504).  To  his  ambition  the  bishop, 
John,  a  weak  and  willing  tool  of  the  Savoy 
famil}',  to  which  he  was  nearly  allied,  ceded 
everything ;  and  the  result  was  a  tyrannical  at- 
tempt to  destroy  the  liberties  of  the  Genevese. 
The  Assemblj'  of  the  citizens  rose  in  arms;  a 
bitter  and  sanguinary  contest  ensued  between 
the  Eidgenossen  [Confederates]  or  Patriot  party 
on  the  one  side,  and  the  Mamelukes  or  monarch- 
ical party  on  the  other  side.  By  the  help  of  the 
free  Helvetian  states,  particularly  Berne  and 
Friburg,  the  Patriots  triumphed,  the  friends  of 
Savoy  were  banished,  the  Vidommate  abolished, 
and  its  powers  transferred  to  a  board  of  magis- 
trates. The  conduct  of  the  bishops  in  this  con- 
flict .  .  .  helped  greatly,  as  may  be  imagined, 
to  shake  the  old  hierarchical  authority  in  Geneva ; 
and  when,  in  1533,  Farel  first  made  his  appear- 
ance in  the  city,  he  found  a  party  not  indisposed 
to  join  him  in  his  eager  and  zealous  projects  of 
reform.  He  had  a  hard  fight  for  it,  however, 
and  was  at  first  obliged  to  yield,  and  leave  the 
city  for  a  time;  and  it  was  not  till  August  1535 
that  he  and  Viret  and  Froment  succeeded  in 
abolishing  the  mass,  and  establishing  the  Prot- 
estant faith." — J.  Tulloch,  Leaders  of  the  Bef- 
ormation,  pp.  161-162. 

Also  in  :  J.  Planta,  Hist,  of  tlie  Helvetic  Con- 
federacy, bk.  2,  ch.  6  («.  2). — I.  Spon,  Hist,  of 
the  City  and  State  of  Oeneva,  bk.  2. — See,  also, 
Switzerland:  A.  D.  1531-1648. 

A.  D.  1536. — The  coming  of  Calvin.  See 
Papacy:  A.  D.  1521-1535. 

A.  D.  1536-1564.  —  Calvin's  Ecclesiastical 
State. —  "  Humanly  speaking,  it  was  amereaeci- 
dent  which  caused  Calvin  to  yield  to  the  en- 
treaties of  his  friends  to  remain  in  the  city  where 
he  was  to  begin  his  renowned  efforts  in  the  cause 
of  reform.  Geneva  had  been  from  ancient  times 
one  of  the  most  flourishing  imperial  cities  of  the 
Burgundian  territory;  it  was  situated  on  the 
frontiers  of  several  countries  where  the  cross 
roads  of  various  nationalities  met.  The  city, 
which  fh  itself  was  remarkable,  belonged  origi- 
nally to  the  German  empire ;  the  language  of  its 
inhabitants  was  Romanic;  it  was  bounded  on 
one  side  by  Burgundy,  on  the  other  by  German 
Switzerland.  .  .  .  Geneva  was  apparently  in  a 
state  of  political,  ecclesiastical,  and  moral  decay. 
With  the  puritanical  strictness  of  Geneva,  as  it 
afterwards  became,  before  the  mind's  eye,  it  is 
diflScult  to  picture  the  Geneva  of  that  day.  An 
unbridled  love  of  pleasure,  a  reckless  wanton- 
ness, a  licentious' frivolity  had  taken  possession 
of  Genevan  life,  while  the  State  was  the  play- 
thing of  intestine  and  foreign  feuds.  .  .  .  Re- 
formers had  already  appeared  in  the  city:  Vinet, 
Farel,  Theodore  Beza;  they  were  Frenchmen, 
Farel  a  near  neighbour  of  Geneva.  These  French 
Reformers  are  of  quite  a  different  stamp  from 
our  Germans,  who,  according  as  Luther  or  Mel- 
ancthon  is  taken  as  their  type,  have  either  a 
plebeian  popular,  or  learned  theological  charac- 
ter. They  are  either  popular  orators  of  great 
power  and  little  polish,  or  they  belong  to  the 
learned  circles,  and  keep  strictly  to  this  charac- 
ter. In  France  they  were  mostly  men  belonging 
not  to  the  lower,  but  to  the  middle  and  higher 
ranks  of  society,  refined  and  cultivated ;  and  in 
this  fact  lay  the  weakness  of  Calvinism,  which 
knew  well  how  to  rule  the  masses,  but  never  to 
gain  their  affection.  .  .   .  His  [Calvin's]  great- 


1450 


GENEVA. 


The  Rule  of 
Calvin. 


GENEVA. 


ness  .  .  .  was  shown  in  the  fanatical  zeal  with 
which  he  entered  the  city,  ready  to  stake  his  life 
for  his  cause.  He  began  to  teach,  to  found  a 
school,  to  labour  on  the  structure  which  was  the 
idea  of  his  life,  to  introduce  reforms  in  doctrine, 
worship,  the  constitution  and  discipline  of  the 
Church,  and  he  preached  with  that  powerful  elo- 
quence only  possessed  by  those  in  whom  char- 
acter and  teaching  are  in  unison.  The  purified 
worship  was  to  take  place  within  bare,  unadorned 
walls;  no  picture  of  Christ,  nor  pomp  of  any 
kind,  was  to  disturb  the  aspirations  of  the  soul. 
Life  outside  the  temple  was  also  to  be  a  ser- 
vice of  God ;  games,  swearing,  dancing,  singing, 
worldly  amusements,  and  pleasure  were  re- 
garded by  him  as  sins,  as  much  as  real  vice  and 
crime.  He  began  to  form  little  congregations, 
like  those  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church,  and  it 
need  scarcely  be  said  that  even  in  this  worldly 
and  pleasure-loving  city  the  apparition  of  this 
man,  in  the  full  vigour  of  life,  all  conviction  and 
determination,  half  prophet  and  half  tribune, 
produced  a  powerful  impression.  The  number 
of  his  outward  followers  increased,  but  they  were 
outward  followers  only.  Most  of  them  thought 
it  would  be  well  to  make  use  of  the  bold  Re- 
former to  oppose  the  bishop,  and  that  he  would 
find  means  of  establishing  a  new  and  independent 
Church,  but  they  seemed  to  regard  freedom  as 
libertinism.  Calvin  therefore  regarded  the  course 
things  were  taking  with  profound  dissatisfaction. 
...  So  he  delivered  some  extremely  severe  ser- 
mons, which  half  frightened  and  half  estranged 
his  hearers;  and  at  Easter,  1538,  when  the  con- 
gregation came  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
he  took  the  imheard-of  step  of  sending  them  all 
back  from  the  altar,  saying,  '  You  are  not  worthy 
to  partake  of  the  Lord's  body ;  you  are  just  what 
you  were  before ;  your  sentiments,  your  morals, 
and  your  conduct  are  unchanged.'  This  was 
more  than  could  be  hazarded  without  peril  to 
his  life.  The  effect  was  indescribable ;  his  own 
friends  disapproved  of  the  step.  But  that  did 
not  dismay  him.  He  had  barely  time  to  flee  for 
his  life,  and  he  had  to  leave  Geneva  in  a  state  of 
transition  —  a  chaos  which  justified  a  saying  of 
his  own,  that  defection  from  one  Church  is  not 
renovation  by  another.  He  was  now  once  more 
an  exile.  He  wandered  about  on  the  frontiers  of 
his  country,  in  the  German  cities  of  Strasburg, 
Basle,  &c.,  and  we  several  times  meet  with  him 
in  the  religious  discussions  between  1540  and 
1550.  .  .  .  But  a  time  came  wlien  they  wished 
him  back  at  Geneva.  ...  In  September,  1541, 
he  returned  and  began  his  celebrated  labours, 
Endowed  with  supreme  power,  like  Lycurgus 
at  Sparta,  he  set  to  work  to  make  Geneva  a  city 
of  the  Lord  —  to  found  an  ecclesiastical  state  in 
which  religion,  public  life,  government,  and  the 
worship  of  God  were  to  be  all  of  a  piece,  and  an 
extraordinary  task  it  was.  Calvinistic  Geneva 
became  the  school  of  reform  for  western  Europe, 
and  scattered  far  and  wide  the  germs  of  similar 
institutions.  In  times  when  Protestantism  else- 
where had  become  cool,  this  school  carried  on  the 
conflict  with  the  mediaeval  Church.  Calvin  was 
implacable  in  his  determination  to  purify  the 
worship  of  God  of  all  needless  adjuncts.  All 
that  was  calculated  to  charm  and  affect  the  senses 
was  abolished ;  spiritual  worship  should  be  inde- 
pendent of  all  earthly  things,  and  should  consist 
of  edification  by  the  word,  and  simple  spiritual 
songs.     All  the  traditional  externals  that  Luther 


had  retained  —  altars,  pictures,  ceremonials,  and 
decorations  of  every  kind  —  were  dispensed  with. 
.  .  .  Calvin  next  established  a  system  of  Church 
discipline  which  controlled  the  individual  in 
every  relation  of  life,  and  ruled  him  from  the 
cradle  to  the  grave.  He  retained  all  the  means 
by  which  ecclesiastical  authority  enforced  obedi- 
ence on  the  faithful  in  the  Middle  Ages  —  bap- 
tism, education  up  to  confirmation,  penance, 
penal  discipline,  and  excommunication.  .  .  . 
Calvin  began  his  labours  late  in  the  autumn  of 
1541,  and  he  acquired  and  maintained  more 
power  than  was  ever  exercised  by  the  most  pow- 
erful popes.  He  was  indeed  only  the  '  preacher 
of  the  word,'  but  through  his  great  influence  he 
was  the  lawgiver,  the  administrator,  the  dictator 
of  the  State  of  Geneva.  There  was  nothing  in 
the  commonwealth  that  had  not  been  ordained 
by  him,  and  this  indicates  a  remarkable  aspect 
of  his  character.  The  organization  of  the  State 
of  Geneva  began  with  the  ordinances  of  the  2nd 
of  January,  1542.  There  were  four  orders  of 
officials — pastors,  teachers,  elders,  and  deacons. 
The  Consistory  was  formed  of  the  pastors  and 
elders.  ...  It  was  the  special  duty  of  the  Consis- 
tory, which  was  composed  of  the  clergy  and 
twelve  laymen,  to  see  that  the  ordinances  were 
duly  observed,  and  it  was  the  supreme  tribunal 
of  morals.  The  twelve  laymen  were  elected  for 
a  year,  by  the  council  of  two  hundred,  on  the 
nomination  by  the  clergy.  The  Consistory  met 
every  Thursday  to  see  that  everything  in  the 
church  was  in  order.  They  had  the  power 
of  excommunication,  but  this  only  consisted  in 
exclusion  from  the  community  of  the  faithful, 
and  the  loss  of  the  privilege  of  partaking  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  It  also  decided  questions  relat- 
ing to  marriage.  The  deacons  had  the  care  of 
the  poor  and  of  almsgiving.  Calvin  himself 
was  the  soul  of  the  whole  organization.  But  he 
was  a  cold,  stiff,  almost  gloomy  being,  and  his 
character  produces  a  very  different  impression 
from  the  genial  warmth  of  Luther,  who  could  be 
cheerful  and  merry  with  his  family.  Half  Old 
Testament  prophet,  half  Republican  demagogue, 
Calvin  could  do  anything  in  his  State,  but  it  was 
by  means  of  his  personal  influence,  the  authority 
of  his  words,  'the  majesty  of  his  character,'  as 
was  said  by  a  magistrate  of  Geneva  after  his 
death.  He  was  to  the  last  the  simple  minister, 
whose  frugal  mode  of  life  appeared  to  his  ene- 
mies like  niggardliness.  After  a  reign  of  twenty - 
three  years,  he  left  behind  him  the  possessions  of 
a  mendicant  monk.  .  .  .  No  other  reformer  es- 
tablished so  rigid  a  church  discipline.  .  .  .  All 
noisy  games,  games  of  chance,  dancing,  singing 
of  profane  songs,  cursing  and  swearing,  were 
forbidden,  and  .  .  .  church-going  and  Sabbath- 
keeping  were  strictly  enjoined.  The  moral  po- 
lice took  account  of  everything.  Every  citizen 
had  to  be  at  home  by  nine  o'clock,  under  heavy 
penalties.  Adultery,  which  had  previously  been 
punished  by  a  few  days'  imprisonment  and  a 
small  fine,  was  now  punished  by  death.  ...  At 
a  time  when  Europe  had  no  solid  results  of  re- 
form to  show,  this  little  State  of  Geneva  stood 
up  as  a  great  power ;  year  by  year  it  sent  forth 
apostles  into  the  world,  who  preached  its  doc- 
trines everywhere,  and  it  became  the  most  dreaded 
counterpoise  to  Rome,  when  Rome  no  longer  had 
any  bulwark  to  defend  her.  ...  It  formed  a 
weighty  counterpoise  to  the  desperate  efforts 
which  the  ancient  Church  and  monarchical  power 


U51 


GENEVA. 


GENOA,  1261-1299. 


were  making  to  crush  the  spirit  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. It  was  impossible  to  oppose  Caraffa,  Philip 
II.,  and  the  Stuarts,  with  Luther's  passive  resis- 
tance ;  men  were  wanted  who  were  ready  to  wage 
war  to  the  knife,  and  such  was  the  Calvinistio 
school.  It  everywhere  accepted  the  challenge; 
throughout  all  the  conflicts  for  political  and  re- 
ligious liberty,  up  to  the  time  of  the  tirst  emi- 
gration to  America,  in  France,  the  Netherlands, 
England,  and  Scotland,  we  recognise  the  Genevan 
school.  A  little  bit  of  the  world's  history  was 
enacted  in  Geneva,  which  forms  the  proudest 
portion  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies."—  L.  Hausser,  The  Period  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, ch.  18. 

Also  m :  P.  Henry,  Life  and  Times  of  Calvin, 
pt.  2-3.— J.  H.  Merle  D'Aubigne,  Hist,  of  the 
Reformation  in  the  time  of  Calvin,  bk.  9  and  11. — • 
F.  P.  Guizot,  Calvin,  ch.  12-23.— L.  von  Ranke, 
Civil  Wars  and  Monarchy  in  Fi'aiice,  16i/t-17<A 
Centuries,  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1570. — Treaty  with  the  Duke  of  Sa- 
voy.— Agreement  of  non-molestation.  See  Sa- 
voy: A.  D.  1559-1580. 

A.  D.  1 602-1603. — The  escalade  of  the  Sa- 
voyards and  its  repulse. — Treaty  of  St.  Julien. 
— Finding  a  pretext  in  some  hostile  manifesta- 
tions which  had  appeared  among  the  Genevese 
during  a  conflict  between  the  French  king  and 
himself,  Charles  Emanuel  I. ,  duke  of  Savoy,  chose 
to  consider  himself  at  war  with  Geneva,  and 
"determined  to  flght  out  his  quarrel  without 
further  notice.  The  night  of  the  11th  to  the  12th 
of  December,  1602,  is  forever  memorable  in  the 
annals  of  Geneva.  4,000  Savoyards,  aided  by 
darkness,  attempted  the  escalade  of  its  walls ;  an 
unforeseen  accident  disconcerted  them ;  the  citi- 
zens exhibited  the  most  heroic  presence  of  mind ; 
the  ladders  by  which  the  aggressors  ascended 
were  shot  down  by  a  random  cannon-ball;  the 
troops  outside  fell  into  confusion ;  those  who  had 
already  entered  the  town  were  either  mowed 
down  in  fight  or  hung  on  the  scafEold  on  the 
morrow;  thus  the  whole  enterprise  miscarried. 
It  was  in  vain  that  the  Duke  came  forward  with 
his  whole  host,  and  tried  to  prevail  by  open  force 
where  stratagem  had  failed.  He  was  thwarted 
by  the  intervention  of  the  French  and  Swiss,  and 
compelled  by  their  threats  to  sign  the  Treaty  of 
St.  Julien  (July  21st,  1603),  which  secured  the 
independence  of  the  Genevese.  Charles  never- 
theless did  not,  to  his  last  day,  give  up  his  de- 
signs upon  that  city." — A.  Gallenga,  Hist,  of 
Piedmont,  v.  3,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1798. — Forcibly  united  to  the  French 
Republic.  See  Switzerland:  A.  D.  1792- 
1798. 

A.  D.  1814. — United  with  the  Swiss  Con- 
federation. See  Switzerland:  A.  D.  1803- 
1848. 

A.  D.  1815. — United  as  a  canton  to  the 
Swiss  Confederation,  by  the  Congress  of 
■Vienna.     See  Vienna,  The  Congress  of. 


GENEVA  CONVENTION,  The.  See  Red 
Cross. 

GENEVA  TRIBUNAL  OF  ARBITRA- 
TION. See  Al.^ama  Claims:  A.  D.  1871,  and 
1871-1873. 

GENEVOIS,  The.  See  Savoy  am)  Pied- 
mont: 11th-15th  Centuries. 

GENGHIS  KHAN,  The  conquests  of.  See 
Mongols:  A.  D.  1153-1327. 


GENOA:  Origin  and  rise  of  the  city. — "Gen- 
oa, anciently  Genua,  was  the  chief  maritime 
city  of  Liguria,  and  afterwards  a  Roman  muni- 
cipium.  tfnder  the  Lombards  the  constant  inva- 
sions of  the  Saracens  united  the  professions  of 
trade  and  war,  and  its  greatest  merchants  be- 
came also  its  greatest  generals,  while  its  naval 
captains  were  also  merchants.  The  Crusades 
were  of  great  advantage  to  Genoa  [see  Crusades: 
A.  D.  1104-1111]  in  enabling  it  to  establish  trad- 
ing settlements  as  far  as  the  Black  Sea ;  but  the 
power  of  Pisa  in  the  East,  as  well  as  its  posses- 
sion of  Corsica  and  Sardinia,  led  to  wars  between 
it  and  Genoa,  in  which  the  Genoese  took  Corsica 
[see  Corsica:  Eaklt  History]  and  drove  the 
Pisans  out  of  Sardinia.  By  land  the  Genoese 
territory  was  extended  to  Nice  on  one  side  and  to 
Spezia  on  the  other." — A.  J.  C.  Hare,  Cities  of 
Northern  and  Central  Italy,  v.  1,  p.  30. 

A.  D.  1256-1257.— Battles  with  the  Vene- 
tians at  Acre.     See  Venice:  A.  D.  1256-1258, 

A.  D.  1261-1299. — The  supplanting  of  Venice 
at  Constantinople  and  in  the  Black  Sea  trade. 
— Colonies  in  the  Crimea. — Wars  with  Venice. 
— Victory  at  Curzola  and  favorable  treaty  of 
peace. — "  During  the  Latin  dynast)^  in  Constan- 
tinople the  Genoese  never  gained  the  first  place 
in  the  commerce  of  the  Black  Sea.  ...  It  was 
Venice  who  held  the  key  of  all  this  commerce,  at 
Constantinople ;  when,  after  diverting  the  whole 
course  of  the  fourth  Crusade,  she  induced  Chris- 
tendom to  waste  its  energies  on  subduing  the 
Greek  empire  for  her  benefit  [see  Byzantine 
Empire:  A.  D.  1303-1204].  With  the  exiled  Greek 
dynasty,  however,  the  Genoese  were  always  on 
the  best  of  terms,  at  Trebizond,  Nicea,  and  in 
Roumania ;  and  recognizing  that  as  long  as  the 
Latins  were  all-powerful  in  Constantinople  she 
would  have  to  relinquish  the  cream  of  the  Black 
Sea  commerce  to  the  Queen  of  the  Adriatic,  she 
at  length  determined  to  strike  a  bold  stroke  and 
replace  a  Greek  again  on  the  throne."  This  was 
accomplished  in  1261,  when  Baldwin  II.  fled  from 
the  Byzantine  capital  and  Michael  Paleologus 
took  possession  of  his  throne  and  crown  (see 
Greek  Empire  op  Nicea:  A.  D.  1204-1261). 
For  the  assistance  given  in  that  revolution,  the 
Genoese  obtained  the  treaty  of  Niufeo,  '  ■  which 
firmly  established  their  influence  in  the  Black 
Sea.  .  .  .  Thus  did  the  brave  mariner-town  of 
Genoa  turn  the  scale  of  the  vast,  but  rotten. 
Eastern  Empire ;  and  her  reward  was  manifold. 
The  grateful  emperor  gave  her  streets  and  quays 
in  Constantinople,  immunity  from  tribute,  and  a 
free  passage  for  her  commerce.  ...  In  addition 
to  these  excellent  terms  in  the  treaty  of  Ninfeo, 
the  emperor  conceded  to  various  Genoese  private 
families  numerous  Islands  in  the  Archipelago. 
.  .  .  But  the  great  nucleus  of  this  power  was  the 
streets,  churches,  and  quays  in  Constantinople 
which  were  allotted  to  the  Genoese,  and  formed 
a  vast  emporium  of  strength  and  commerce, 
which  must  have  eventually  led  to  entire  pos- 
session of  Constantinople,  had  not  the  '  podesta, '  or 
ruler  of  the  Genoese  colony  there,  thought  fit, 
from  personal  motives,  or  from  large  offers  made 
him  by  the  Venetians,  to  attempt  a  restoration  of 
the  Latin  line.  .  .  .  His  conspiracy  was  dis- 
covered, and  the  Genoese  were  sent  away  in  a 
body  to  Eraclea.  However,  on  representation 
from  home  that  it  was  none  of  their  doing,  and 
that  Guercio  had  been  acting  entirely  on  his  own 
account,  the  emperor  yielded  in  perpetuity  to  the 


1452 


GENOA,  1261-1299. 


GENOA,  1378-1379. 


Genoese  the  town  of  Pera,  on  the  sole  condition 
that  the  governors  should  do  him  homage  [see, 
also,  CoNSTAKTiKOPLE :   A.  D.  1261-1453].  .  .   . 
Thus  were  the  Genoese  established  in  this  com- 
manding position ;  here  they  had  a  separate  gov- 
ernment of  their  own,  from  here  they  ruled  the 
road  of  commerce  from  China  to  Europe ;  and, 
taking  advantage  of  the  weakness  of  the  em- 
perors, they  were  able  to  do  much  as  they  wished 
about  building  fortresses  and  palaces,  with  gar- 
dens to  the  water's  edge ;  and  thus  from  Pera, 
with  its  citadel  of  Galata  behind  it,  they  were 
enabled  to  dictate  what  terms  they  pleased  to 
ships  passing  to  and  from  the  Bosphorus."     In 
the  Black  Sea,  "from  time  immemorial,  the  small 
tongue  of  land  now  known  as  the  Crimea,  then 
as  the  Tauric  Chersonese,  was  the  mart  towards 
which  all  the  caravan  trade  of  Asia  was  directed 
by  this  northern  road,  and  upon  this  tongue  of 
land  sprang  up  a  group  of  noble  cities  which, 
until  finally  seized  by  the  Turks,  were  without 
exception  Genoese  property.    Of  these,  Caffa  was 
the  chief.     When  this  city   was    built  on  the 
ruins  of  Theodosia,  and  by  whom,  is  somewhat 
shrouded  in  mystery.     Certain  it  is  that  Genoa 
had  a  colony  here  soon  after  the  first  Crusade. 
.  .  .  Second  only  to  Caffa  in  importance,  and  bet- 
ter known  to  us  by  name,  was  the  town  of  Crim, 
which  gave  its  name  eventually  to  the  whole 
peninsula,  which  originally  it  had  got  from  the 
Crim  Tatars.   .   .  .  Prior  to  its  cession    to    the 
Genoese,  it  had  been  the  residence  of  a  Tatar 
emperor,  .  .  .  Here,  then,  in  this  narrow  tongue 
of  land,  which  we  now  call  the  Crimea,  was  the 
kernel  of  Genoess  prosperity.     As  long  as  she 
flourished  here  she  flourished  at  home.     And 
when  at  length  the  Turkish  scourge  swept  over 
this  peninsula  and  swallowed  up  her  colonies,  the 
Ligurian  Republic,  by  a  process  of  slow  decay, 
withered  like  a  sapless  tree."    The  supplanting 
of  the  Venetians  at  Constantinople  by  the  Genoese, 
and  the  great  advantages  gained  by  the  latter  in 
the  commerce  of  the  Black  Sea,  led  necessarily 
to  war  between  the  rival  republics.     "To  main- 
tain her  newly  acquired  influence  in  the  East, 
Genoa  sent  forth  a  fleet  under  the  joint  command 
of  Pierino  Grimaldi,  a  noble,  and  Perchelto  Mal- 
lone,  the  people's  representative.     They  encoun- 
tered the  Venetian  squadron  at  Malvasia  [1263] 
which  was  greatly  inferior  to  their  own.     But 
as  the  combatants  were   just  warming   to  their 
work,  Mallone,  actuated  by  party  spirit,  with- 
drew his  ships  and  sailed  away.     The  Venetians 
could  scarcely  believe  what  they  saw ;  they  an- 
ticipated some  deep  laid  stratagem,  and  withdrew 
for  a  while  from  the  contest.     When  however 
they  beheld  Mallone's  galleys  fairly  under  sail, 
they  wonderingly  attacked  Grimaldi  and  his  13 
ships  and  obtained  an  easy  victory.     Grimaldi 
fell  at  his  post.  .  .  .  This  fatal  day  of  Malvasia 
[sometimes  called    the    battle  of    Sette  Pozzi] 
might  easily  have  secured  Venice  her  lost  place 
in  the  Black  Sea  had  she  been  able  to  follow  up 
her  victory,  but  with  inexplicable  want  of  vigour 
she  remained  inactive."     Genoa,  meantime,  re- 
covered from  the  disaster  and  sent  out  another 
fleet  which  captured  a  rich  squadron  of  Venetian 
merchant  ships    in  the   Adriatic,   taking  large 
booty.     "It  surprises  us  immensely  to  find  how 
for  the  nest  thirty  years  Genoa  was  able  to  keep 
up  a  desultory  warfare  with  Venice,  when  she 
was  at  the  height  of  her  struggle  with  Pisa ;  and 
it  surprises  us  still  more  that  Venice  raised  not  a 


hand   to  assist  Pisa,  though  she  was  on  most 
friendly  terms  with  her,  and  when  by  so  doing 
she  could  have  ruined  Genoa.  .  .  .  After  the  fall 
of  Pisa  at  Meloria,  in  1296  [1384],  Genoa  could 
transfer  her  attention  with  all  the  greater  vigour 
to  her  contest  against  Venice.     Four  years  after 
this  victory  men's  minds  were  again  bent  on  war. 
Venice  cared  not  to  pay  a  tax  to  her  rival  on  all 
ships  which  went  to  Caffa,  Genoa  resented  the 
treatment  she  had  received  in  Cyprus,  and  thus 
the  rivals  prepared  for  another  and  more  deter- 
mined contest  for  supremac}'."     The  Venetians 
sent  a  fleet  to  operate  in  the  Black  Sea.   ' '  Fire  was 
set  to  the  houses  of  Galata,  irreparable  damage 
was  done  to  Caffa,  and  in  the  Ai'chipelago  every- 
thing Genoese  was  burnt,  and  then  off  they  sailed 
for  Cyprus,  whilst  the  Genoese  were  squabbling 
amongst  themselves.     With  much  trouble  the 
many  rulers  of  Genoa  succeeded  at  length  in  ad- 
justing their  difference,  and  a  goodly  array  of  76 
galleys  was  entrusted  to  the  care  of  Lamba  D'Oria 
to  punish  the  Venetians  for  their  depredations. 
.  .  .  Much  larger  was  the  force  Venice  produced 
for  the  contest,  and  when  the  combatants  met  off 
Curzola,    amongst    the    Dalmatian    islands,  the 
Genoese  were  anxious  to  come  to  terms,  and 
sought  them,  but  the  Venetians  haughtily  re- 
fused.  .   .   .  This  battle  of  Curzola  [September 
8,  1298]  was  a  sharp  and  vehement  struggle,  and 
resulted  In  terrible  loss  to  the  Venetians,  four  of 
whose  galleys  alone  escaped  to  tell  the  tale.  .  .  . 
Had  Lamba  D'Oria  but  driven  the  contest  home, 
Venice  was  ill-prepared  to  meet  him ;  as  it  was, 
he  determined  to  sail  off  to  Genoa,  taking  with 
him  the  Venetian  admiral  .  .  .  Dandolo.   Chained 
to  the  mast  of  his  own  vessel,  and  unable  to  sus- 
tain the  effects  of  his  humiliation,  there,  as  he 
stood,  Dandolo  dashed  his  head  against  the  mast 
and  died.  .  .  .  The  natural  result  of  such  a  vic- 
tory was  a  most  favourable   peace  for  Genoa, 
signed  under  the  direction  of  Matteo  Visconti, 
lord  of  Milan,  in  1299;   and  thus  the   century 
closed    on  Genoa  as  without  doubt    the  most 
powerful  state  in  Italy,  and  unquestionably  the 
mistress  of  the  Mediterranean.  .  .  .  The   next 
outbreak  of  war  between  the  two  Republics  had 
its  origin  in  the  occupation  of  the  island  of  Chios, 
in  1349,"  and  Genoa  in  that  struggle  encountered 
not  the  Venetians    alone,   but  the   Greeks  and 
Catalans  in  alUance  with  them  (see  Constanti- 
nopi.e:  a.  D.  1348-1355).— J.  T.  Bent,  Genoa; 
ch.  6  and  8.     See,  also,  Tr.^de. 

Also  ik:  W.  C.  Hazlitt,  Hist,  of  the  Venetian 
Republic,  ch.  11  (».  2). 

A.  D.  1282-1290. — War  with  Pisa. —  The 
great  victory  of  Meloria. — Capture  of  the  chain 
of  the  Pisan  harbor.    See  Pisa  ;  A.  D.  1063-1293. 

A.  D.  1313. — Alliance  with  the  Emperor 
Henry  VII.  against  Naples.  See  Italy:  A.  D. 
1310-1313. 

A.  D.  1318-1319. — Feuds  of  the  four  great 
families.— Siege  of  the  city  by  the  exiles  and 
the  Lombard  princes,  and  its  defense  by  the 
King  of  Naples.     See  Italy  ;  A.  D.  1313-1330. 

A.  D.  1348-1355. —  War  with  the  Greeks, 
Venetians  and  Aragonese.  See  Constantino- 
ple; AD.  1348-1355. 

A.  D.  1353. — Annexed  by  the  Visconti  to 
their  Milanese  principality.  See  Milan  :  A.  D. 
1277-1447. 

A.  D.  1378-1379. — Renewed  war  with  Ven- 
ice.—The  victory  at  Pola.  See  Venice:  A.  D. 
1378-1379. 


1453 


GENOA,  1379-1381. 


GENOA,  1500-1507. 


A.  D.  1379-1381. —  The  disastrous  war  of 
Chioggia. — Venice  triumphant.  See  Venice: 
A.  D.  1379-1381. 

A.  D.  1381-1422. — A  succession  of  foreign 
masters  : — The  King  of  France,  the  Marquis 
of  Monferrat  and  the  Duke  of  Milan. — The 
history  of  Genoa  for  more  than  a  century  after 
the  disastrous  War  of  Chioggia  "is  one  long 
and  melancholy  tissue  of  internal  and  external 
troubles,  coming  faster  and  faster  upon  one 
another  as  the  inherent  vitality  of  the  Republic 
grew  weaker.  .  .  .  During  this  period  we  have 
a  constant  and  unhealthy  craving  for  foreign 
masters,  be  they  Marquises  of  Slonferrato,  Dukes 
of  Milan,  or  the  more  formidable  subverters  of 
freedom,  the  kings  of  France.  ...  In  1396  .  .  . 
Adorno  [then  doge  of  Genoa],  finding  himself  un- 
able to  tyrannize  as  he  wished,  decided  on  hand- 
ing over  the  government  to  Charles  VI.  of  France. 
In  this  he  was  ably  backed  up  by  many  members 
of  the  old  nobility,  as  the  signatures  to  the  treaty 
testify.  The  king  was  to  be  entitled  '  Defender 
of  the  Commune  and  People,'  and  was  to  respect 
in  every  way  the  existing  order  of  things.  So 
on  the  37th  of  November,  in  that  year,  the  great 
bell  in  the  tower  of  the  ducal  palace  was  rung, 
the  French  standard  was  raised  by  the  side  of  the 
red  cross  of  Genoa,  and  in  the  great  council  hall, 
where  her  rulers  had  sat  for  centuries,  now  sat 
enthroned  the  French  ambassadors,  whilst  Anto- 
niotto  Adorno  handed  over  to  them  the  sceptre 
and  keys  of  the  city.  These  s3'mbols  of  govern- 
ment were  graciously  restored  to  him,  with  the 
admonition  that  he  should  no  longer  be  styled 
'doge,'  but  'governor'  in  the  name  of  France. 
Thus  did  Adorno  sell  his  country  for  the  love  of 
power,  preferring  to  be  the  head  of  many  slaves, 
rather  than  to  live  as  a  subordinate  in  a  free  com- 
munity. The  first  two  governors  sent  by  France 
after  Adorno's  death  were  unable  to  cope  with 
the  seething  mass  of  corruption  they  found  within 
the  city  walls,  until  the  Marshal  Boucicault  was 
sent,  whose  name  was  far  famed  for  cruelty  in 
Spain  against  the  Moors,  in  Bulgaria  against  the 
Turks,  and  in  France  against  the  rebels."  The 
government  of  Boucicault  was  hard  and  cruel, 
and  "  his  name  is  handed  down  by  the  Genoese  as 
the  most  hateful  of  her  many  tyrants. "  In  1409 
they  took  advantage  of  his  absence  from  the  city 
to  bring  in  the  Marquis  of  Monferrato,  wlio  es- 
tablished himself  in  his  place.  "It  was  but  for 
a  brief  period  that  the  Genoese  submitted  to  the 
Marquis  of  Monferrato ;  they  preferred  to  return 
to  their  doges  and  internal  quarrels.  .  .  .  Through- 
out the  city  nothing  was  heard  but  the  din  of 
arms.  Brother  fought  against  brother,  father 
against  son,  and  for  the  whole  of  an  unusually 
chill  December,  in  1414,  there  was  not  a  by-path 
in  Genoa  which  was  not  paved  with  lances,  bat- 
tle-axes and  dead  bodies.  .  .  .  Out  of  this  fiery 
trial  Genoa  at  length  emerged  with  Tommaso 
Campofregoso  as  her  doge,  one  of  the  few  bright 
lights  which  illumined  Liguria  during  the  early 
part  of  this  century.  .  .  .  The  Genoese  arms 
during  this  time  of  quiescence  again  shone  forth 
■with  something  of  their  ancient  brilliancy.  Cor- 
sica was  subdued,  and  a  substantial  league  was 
formed  with  Henry  V.  of  England,  .  .  .  1431,  by 
which  perpetual  friendship  and  peace  by  land 
and  sea  was  sworn.  Short,  however,  was  the 
period  during  which  Genoa  could  rest  contented 
at  home.  Campofregoso  was  driven  from  the 
dogeship,  and  fMlippo  Maria,  Visconti  of  Milan, 


was  appointed  protector  of  the  Republic  [1423], 
and  through  this  allegiance  the  Genoese  were 
drawn  into  an  unprofitable  war  for  the  succession 
in  Naples,  in  which  the  Duke  of  Milan  and  the 
Pope  supported  the  claims  of  Queen  Joanna  and 
her  adopted  son,  Louis  of  Anjou.  against  Al- 
phonso  of  Aragon." — J.  T.  Bent,  Genoa,  ch.  9. — 
The  Universal  Hist.,  ch.  73,  sect.  3-4  (ti.  2.5).. 

A.  D.  1385-1386.— Residence  of  Pope  Urban 
VI.     See  Italy  (Southern):  A.  D.  1343-1389. 

A.  D.  1407-1448.— The  Bank  of  St.  George. 
— "The  Bank  of  St.  George  was  founded  in 
Genoa  in  the  year  1407.  It  was  an  immense  suc- 
cess and  a  great  support  to  the  government.  It 
gradually  became  a  republic  within  the  republic, 
more  peaceful  and  better  regulated  than  its  mis- 
tress. "  In  1448  the  administration  of  Corsica  and 
of  the  Genoese  colonies  in  the  Levant  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  Bank,  which  thenceforward  ap- 
pointed governors  and  conducted  colonial  affairs. 
— G.  B.  Malleson,  Studies  from  Genoese  History, 
p.  75. 

Also  in:  J.  T.  Bent,  Genoa,  ch.  11. — See,  also, 
Corsica  :  Early  history. 

A.  D.  1421-1435. — Submission  to  the  Duke 
of  Milan,  and  recovery  of  the  freedom  of  the 
city.     See  Italy:  A.  D.    1412-1447. 

A.  D.  1458-1464. — Renewed  struggles  of  do- 
mestic faction  and  changes  of  foreign  masters. 
— Submission  to  the  Dukes  of  Milan. — "Gen- 
oa, wearied  with  internal  convulsions,  which 
followed  each  other  incessantly,  had  lost  all  in- 
fluence over  the  rest  of  Italy ;  continually  op- 
pressed by  faction,  it  no  longer  preserved  even 
the  recollection  of  liberty.  In  1458,  it  had  sub- 
mitted to  the  king  of  France,  then  Charles  VII. ; 
and  John  of  Anjou,  duke  of  Calabria,  had  come 
to  exercise  the  functions  of  governor  in  the 
king's  name.  He  made  it,  at  the  same  time,  his 
fortress,  from  whence  to  attack  the  kingdom  of 
Naples  [see  Italy:  A.  D.  1447-1480].  But  this 
war  had  worn  out  the  patience  of  the  Genoese ; 
they  rose  against  the  French ;  and,  on  the  17th  of 
July,  1461,  destroyed  the  army  sent  to  subdue 
them  by  Rene  of  Anjou.  The  Genoese  had  no 
sooner  thrown  ofE  a  foreign  yoke  than  they  be- 
came divided  into  two  factions,  —  the  Adorni  and 
the  Fregosi  [severally  partisans  of  two  families 
of  that  name  which  contended  for  the  control  of 
the  republic] :  both  had  at  different  times,  and 
more  than  once,  given  them  a  doge.  The  more 
violent  and  tyrannical  of  these  factious  magis- 
trates was  Paolo  Fregoso,  also  archliishop  of 
Genoa,  who  had  returned  to  his  country,  in  1462, 
as  chief  of  banditti ;  and  left  it  again,  two  years 
afterwards,  as  chief  of  a  band  of  pirates.  The 
Genoese,  disgusted  with  their  independence, 
which  was  disgraced  by  so  many  crimes  and 
disturbances,  had,  on  the  13th  of  April,  1464, 
yielded  to  Francesco  Sforza,  duke  of  Milan ;  and 
afterwards  remained  subject  to  his  son  Galeazzo. " 
— J.  C.  L.  de  Sismondi,  Hist,  of  the  Italian  Be- 
])ublics,  ch.  11. 

Also  in:  B.  Duffy,  The  Tuscan  Republics,  ch. 
23. 

A.  D.  1475. — Loss  of  possessions  in  the 
Crimea.     See  Turks:   A.  D.  1451-1481. 

A.  D.  1500-1507. — Capitulation  to  Louis 
XII.  of  France,  conqueror  of  Milan. — Revolt 
and  subjugation. — Bv  the  conquest  of  Milan 
(see  Italy:  A.  D.  1499-1500),  Louis  XII.  of 
France  acquired  the  signoria  of  Genoa,  which 
had  been  held  by  the  deposed  duke,  Ludovico 


1454 


GENOA,  1500-1507. 


GENS. 


Sforza.  "According  to  the  capitulation,  one 
half  of  the  magistrates  of  Genoa  should  be  noble, 
the  other  half  plebeian.  They  were  to  be  chosen 
by  the  suffrages  of  their  fellow-citizens;  they 
'  were  to  retain  the  government  of  the  whole  of 
Liguria,  and  the  administration  of  their  own 
finances,  with  the  reservation  of  a  fl.xed  sum 
payable  yearly  to  the  king  of  France.  But  the 
French  could  never  comprehend  that  nobles  were 
on  an  equality  with  villains;  that  a  king  was 
bound  by  conditions  imposed  by  his  subjects ;  or 
that  money  could  be  refused  to  him  who  had 
force.  All  the  capitulations  of  Genoa  were  succes- 
sively violated ;  while  the  Genoese  nobles  ranged 
themselves  on  the  side  of  a  king  against  their 
country:  they  were  known  to  carry  insolently 
about  them  a  dagger,  on  which  was  inscribed, 
'  Chastise  villains ' ;  so  impatient  were  they  to 
separate  themselves  from  the  people,  even  by 
meanness  and  assassination.  That  people  could 
not  support  the  double  yoke  of  a  foreign  master 
and  of  nobles  who  betrayed  their  country.  On 
the  7th  of  February,  1507,  they  revolted,  drove 
out  the  French,  proclaimed  the  republic,  and 
named  a  new  doge ;  but  time  failed  them  to  or- 
ganize their  defence.  On  the  3d  of  April,  Louis 
advanced  from  Grenoble  with  a  powerful  army. 
He  soon  arrived  before  Genoa:  the  newly-raised 
militia,  unable  to  withstand  veteran  troops,  were 
defeated.  Louis  entered  Genoa  on  the  29th  of 
April;  and  immediately  sent  the  doge  and  the 
greater  number  of  the  generous  citizens,  who 
had  signalized  themselves  in  the  defence  of  their 
country,  to  the  scaffold. " — J.  C.  L.  de  Sismondi, 
nist.  of  the  Italian  Eepublics,  ch.  14. 

AiiSO  IN :  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  the  Latin  and 
Teutonic  Nations  from  1494  to  1514,  p.  260. 

A.  D.  1527-1528. — French  dominion  momen- 
tarily restored  and  then  overthrown  by  An- 
drew Doria. — The  republic  revived.  See 
Italy:  A.  D.  1527-1529. 

A.  D.  1528-1559. — The  conspiracy  of  Fiesco 
and  its  failure. — Revolt  and  recovery  of  Cor- 
sica.— "Sustained  by  the  ability  of  Doria,  and 
protected  by  the  arms  of  Charles  V. ,  the  Repub- 
lic, during  near  nineteen  years  subsequent  to 
this  auspicious  revolution,  continued  in  the  en- 
joyment of  dignified  independence  and  repose. 
But,  the  memorable  conspiracy  of  Louis  Fiesco, 
Count  of  Lavagna,  the  Catiline  of  Liguria,  had 
nearly  subverted  Genoa,  and  reduced  it  anew  to 
the  obedience  of  France,  or  exposed  it  once  more 
to  all  the  misfortunes  of  anarchy.  The  massacre 
of  Doria  and  his  family  constituted  one  of  the 
primary  objects  of  the  plot;  while  the  dissimu- 
lation, intrepidity,  and  capacity,  which  marked 
its  leader  .  .  .  have  rendered  the  attempt  one  of 
the  most  extraordinary  related  in  modern  history. 
It  was  accompanied  with  complete  success  till  the 
moment  of  its  termination,  jeannetin  Doria,  the 
heir  of  that  house,  having  perished  by  the  dag- 
ger, and  Andrew,  his  uncle,  being  with  difficulty 
saved  by  his  servants,  who  transported  him  out 
of  the  city,  the  Genoese  Senate  was  about  to 
submit  unconditionally  to  Fiesco,  when  that 
nobleman,  by  a  sudden  and  accidental  death,  at 
once  rendered  abortive  his  own  hopes  and  those 
of  his  followers.  The  government,  resuming 
courage,  expelled  the  surviving  conspirators ;  and 
Doria,  on  his  return  to  the  city,  sullied  the  lustre 
of  his  high  character,  by  proceeding  to  acts  of 
cruelty  against  the  brothers  and  adherents  of  the 
Count  of  Lavagna.     Notwithstanding  this  cul- 


pable and  vindictive  excess,  he  continued  invari- 
ably firm  to  the  political  principles  which  he  had 
inculcated,  for  maintaining  the  freedom  of  the 
Commonwealth.  Philip,  Prince  of  Spain,  son  of 
Charles  V.,  having  visited  Genoa  in  the  suc- 
ceeding year,  attempted  to  induce  the  senate, 
under  specious  pretences  of  securing  their  safety, 
to  consent  to  the  construction  of  a  citadel,  garri- 
soned by  Spaniards.  But  he  found  in  that  as- 
sembly, as  well  as  in  Doria,  an  insurmountable 
opposition  to  the  measure,  which  was  rejected 
with  unanimous  indignation.  The  island  of 
Corsica,  which  had  been  subjected  for  ages  to 
Genoa,  and  which  was  oppressed  by  a  tyrannical 
administration,  took  up  arms  at  this  period  [1558- 
1559] ;  and  the  French  having  aided  the  insur- 
gents, they  maintained  a  long  and  successful 
struggle  against  their  oppressors.  But  the  peace 
concluded  at  Cateau  between  Philip,  King  of 
Spain,  and  Henry  11.,  in  which  the  Spanish  court 
dictated  terms  to  France,  obliged  that  nation  to 
evacuate  their  Corsican  acquisitions,  and  to  re- 
store the  island  to  the  Genoese  [see  France: 
A.  D.  1547-1559].  Soon  afterwards  [1559],  at 
the  very  advanced  age  of  ninety,  Andrew  Doria 
expired  in  his  own  palace,  surrounded  by  the 
people  on  whom  he  had  conferred  freedom  and 
tranquillity ;  leaving  the  Commonwealth  in  do- 
mestic repose  and  undisturbed  by  foreign  war." 
—Sir  N.  W.  Wraxall,  Hist,  of  France,  1574^ 
1610,  ■».  3,  pp.  43-44. 

Also  ln:  G.  B.  Malleson,  Studies  from,  Genoese 
History,  ch.  1-3. 

A.  D.  1625-1626. — Unsuccessful  attack  by 
France  and  Savoy.  See  France  :  A.  D.  1624^ 
1626. 

A.  D.  1745. — The  republic  sides  with  Spain 
and  France  in  the  War  of  the  Austrian  Suc- 
cession.    See  Italy:  A.  D.  1745. 

A.  D.  1746-1747. — Surrendered  to  the  Aus- 
trians.  —  Popular  rising.  —  Expulsion  of  the 
Austrian  garrison. — Long  siege  and  deliver- 
ance of  the  city.     See  Italy:  A.  D.   1746-1747. 

A.  D.  1748. — Territory  secured  by  the  Treaty 
of  Aix-la-Chapelle.  See  Alx-la-Chapelle: 
A.  D.  1748. 

A.  D.  1768. — Cession  of  Corsica  to  France. 
See  Corsica:  A.  D.  1729-1769. 

A.  D.  1796. — Treaty  of  peace  with  France. 
See  France  :  A.  D.  1796  (October). 

A.  D.  1797. — Revolution  forced  by  Bona- 
parte.— Creation  of  the  Ligurian  Republic. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1797  (M.\y— October). 

A.  D.  1800. — Siege  by  the  Austrians. — Mas- 
s^na's  defense. — Surrender  of  the  city.  See 
France:  A.  D.  1800-1801  (May— February). 

A.  D.  1805. — Surrender  of  independence. — 
Annexation  to  France.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1804-1805. 

A.  D.  1814.— Reduction  of  the  forts  by  Eng- 
lish troops. — Surrender  of  the  French  garri- 
son.    See  Italy:  A.  D.  1814. 

A.  D.  1814-1815.— Annexation  to  the  king- 
dom of  Sardinia.  See  Prance:  A.  D.  1814 
(April — June)  ;  and  Vienna,  The  Congress  of. 


GENOLA,  Battle   of  (1799).     See  France: 
A.  D.  1799  (August — December). 
GENS,  GENTES,  GENTILES.— "When 

Roman  history  begins,  there  were  within  the 
city,  and  subordinate  to  the  common  city  gov- 
ernment, a  large  number  of  smaller  bodies,  each 
of  which  preserved  its  Individuality  and  some 


1455 


GENS. 


GEORGE. 


semblance  of  governmental  machinery.  These 
were  clans  [gens],  and  in  prehistoric  times  eacli 
of  tliem  is  taken  to  have  had  an  independent  po- 
litical existence,  living  apart,  worshiping  its  own 
gods,  and  ruled  over  by  its  own  chieftain.  This 
clan  organization  is  not  supposed  to  have  been 
peculiar  at  all  to  Rome,  but  ancient  society  in 
general  was  composed  of  an  indefinite  number  of 
such  bodies,  which,  at  the  outset,  treated  with 
each  other  in  a  small  way  as  nations  might  treat 
with  eacli  other  to-day.  It  needs  to  be  noted, 
however,  that,  at  any  rate,  so  far  as  Rome  is 
concerned,  this  is  a  matter  of  inference,  not  of 
historical  proof.  The  earliest  political  divisions 
in  Latium  of  which  we  have  any  trace  consisted  of 
sucli  clans  united  into  communities.  If  they  ever 
existed,  separately,  therefore  their  union  must 
have  been  deliljerate  and  artificial,  and  the  body 
thus  formed  was  the  canton  ('  civitas'  or  '  popu- 
lus ').  Each  canton  had  a  fixed  common  strong- 
hold ('capitoliura,'  ' height,' or 'arx' — cf.  'arceo' 
— 'citadel')  situated  on  some  central  elevation. 
The  clans  dwelt  around  in  hamlets  ('  vici '  or 
'  pagi')  scattered  through  the  canton.  Original- 
ly, the  central  stronghold  was  not  a  place  of 
residence  like  the  'pagi,'  but  a  place  of  refuge 
.  .  .  and  a  place  of  meeting.  ...  In  all  of  this, 
therefore,  the  clan  seems  to  lie  at  tlie  very  foun- 
dation. .  .  .  Any  clan  in  the  begirming,  of 
course,  must  have  been  simply  a  family.  When 
it  grew  so  large  as  to  be  divided  into  sections, 
the  sections  were  known  as  families  ('familise') 
and  their  union  was  the  clan.  In  this  view  the 
family,  as  we  find  it  existing  in  the  Roman  state, 
wa3  a  subdivision  of  the  clan.  In  other  words, 
historically,  families  did  not  unite  to  form  clans, 
but  the  clan  was  the  primitive  thing,  and  the 
families  were  its  branches.  Men  thus  recog- 
nized kinship  of  a  double  character.  They  were 
related  to  all  the  members  of  their  clan  as  '  gen- 
tiles, '  and  again  more  closely  to  all  the  members 
of  their  branch  of  the  clan  at  once  as  '  gentiles ' 
and  also  as  '  agnati. '  As  already  stated,  men  be- 
longed to  the  same  family  ('agnati ')  when  they 
could  trace  their  descent  through  males  from  a 
common  ancestor  who  gave  its  name  to  the 
family,  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  was  its  epo- 
nym.  Between  the  members  of  a  clan  the  chief 
evidence  of  relationship  in  historical  times  was 
tradition.  .  .  .  We  have  thus  outlined  what  is 
known  as  the  patriarchal  tlieory  of  society,  and 
hinted  at  its  application  to  certain  facts  in  Roman 
history.  It  should  be  remembered,  however, 
that  it  is  only  a  theory,  and  that  it  is  open  to 
some  apparent  and  to  some  real  criticism. " — A. 
Tighe,  Development  of  the  Jionuin  Goiist.,  ch.  2. — 
T.  Mommsen,  Hist,  of  Rome,  bk.  1,  ch.  5. — "The 
patricians  were  divided  into  certain  private  asso- 
ciations, called  Gentes,  which  we  may  translate 
Houses  or  Clans.  All  the  members  of  each  Gens 
were  called  gentiles;  and  they  bore  the  same 
name,  which  always  ended  in  -ius ;  as  for  instance, 
every  member  of  the  Julian  Gens  was  a  Julius; 
every  member  of  the  Cornelian  Gens  was  a 
Cornelius,  and  so  on.  Now  in  every  Gens  there 
were  a  number  of  Families  which  were  distin- 
guished by  a  name  added  to  the  name  of  the 
Gens.  Thus  the  Scipios,  SuUas,  Cinnas,  Cethegi, 
Lentuli,  were  all  families  of  the  Cornelian  Gens. 
Lastly,  every  person  of  every  Family  was  denoted 
by  a  name  prefixed  to  the  name  of  the  Gens. 
The  name  of  the  person  was,  in  Latin,  pranomen ; 
that  of  the  Gens  or  House,  nomen ,  that  of  the 


Family,  cognomen.  Thus  Caius  Julius  Csesar 
was  a  person  of  the  Csesar  Family  in  the  Julian 
Gens;  Lucius  Cornelius  Scipio  was  a  person  of 
the  Scipio  Family  in  the  Cornelian  Gens ;  and  so 
forth."— H.  G.  Liddell,  Hist,  of  Rome,  bk.  1,  ch. 
3. — "There  is  no  word  in  the  English  language 
which  satisfactorily  renders  the  Latin  word  '  gens. ' 
The  term  '  clan '  is  apt  to  mislead ;  for  the  Scotch 
Highland  clans  were  very  different  from  the 
Roman  ' gentes.'  The  word  'House'  is  not  quite 
correct,  for  it  always  implies  relationship,  which 
was  not  essential  in  the  '  gens ' ;  but  for  want  of 
a  better  word  we  shall  use  '  House '  to  express 
'  gens,' except  where  the  spirit  of  the  language 
rejects  the  term  and  requires  '  family '  instead. 
The  German  language  has  in  the  word  '  Ge- 
schlecht '  an  almost  equivalent  term  for  the  Latin 
'gens'." — W.  lime,  Hist,  of  Rome,  bk.  1,  ch.  13, 
foot-note. 

Also  ik:  Fustel  de  Coulanges,  Tlie  Ancient 
City,  bk.  2,  ch.  10. — On  the  Greek  gens,  see  Pht- 

GENSERIC  AND  THE  VANDALS.  See 
Vakdals:  a.  D.  439-439. 

GENTILES.     See  Gens. 

GENUCIAN  LAW,  The.— A  law  which 
prohibited  the  taking  of  interest  for  loans  is  said 
to  have  been  adopted  at  Rome,  B.  C.  343,  on  the 
proposal  of  the  tribune  Genucius;  but  modern 
historians  are  skeptical  as  to  the  actual  enact- 
ment of  the  law. — ^W.  Ihne,  Hiat.  of  Rome,  bk.  3, 
ch.  5. 

GEOK  TEPE,  Siege  and  capture  of  (i88i). 
See  Russia:  A.  D.  1869-1881. 

GEOMORI,  OR  GAMORI,  The.— "As  far 
as  our  imperfect  information  enables  us  to  trace, 
these  early  oligarchies  of  the  Grecian  states, 
against  which  the  first  usurping  despots  con- 
tended, contained  in  themselves  more  repulsive 
elements  of  inequality,  and  more  mischievous 
barriers  between  the  component  parts  of  the 
population,  than  the  oligarchies  of  later  days. 
.  .  .  The  oligarchy  was  not  (I'ke  the  government 
so  denominated  in  subsequent  times)  the  govern- 
ment of  a  rich  few  over  the  less  rich  and  the 
poor,  but  that  of  a  peculiar  order,  sometimes  a 
Patrician  order,  over  all  the  remaining  society. 
.  .  .  The  country-population,  or  villagers  who 
tilled  the  land,  seem  in  these  early  times  to  have 
been"  held  to  a  painful  dependence  on  the  great 
proprietors  who  lived  in  the  fortified  town,  and 
to  have  been  distinguished  by  a  dress  and  habits 
of  their  own,  which  often  drew  upon  them  an 
unfriendly  nickname.  .  .  .  The  governing  pro- 
prietors went  by  the  name  of  the  Gamori,  or 
Geomori,  according  as  the  Doric  or  Ionic  dialect 
might  be  used  in  describing  them,  since  they 
were  found  in  states  belonging  to  one  race  as 
well  as  to  the  other.  They  appear  to  have  con- 
stituted a  close  order,  transmitting  their  privi- 
leges to  their  children,  but  admitting  no  new 
members  to  a  participation.  The  principle  called 
by  Greek  thinkers  a  Timocracy  (the  apportion- 
ment of  political  rights  and  privileges  according  to 
comparative  property)  seems  to  have  been  little, 
if  at  all,  applied  in  the  earlier  times.  We  Itnow 
no  example  of  it  earlier  than  Solon." — G.  Grote, 
Hist,  of  Greece,  pt.  3,  ch.  9. 

GEONIM,  The.    See  Jews:  7th  Century. 

GEORGE  L,  King  of  England  (first  of  the 
Hanoverian  or  Brunswick  line),   A.    D.  1714- 

173? George  II.,   King  of  England,  1727- 

1760 George  III.,  King  of  England,  1760- 


1456 


GEORGE. 


GEORGIA,  1734. 


.  George  IV.,  King  of  England,  1820- 


1820. 
1830. 

GEORGE,  HENRY,  and  the  Single  Tax 
Movement.  See  Social  Movements  :  A.  D.  1880. 


GEORGIA :  The  Aboriginal  Inhabitants. 
See  American  Aborigines:  ApAL.\cnES,  Musk- 
HOGEAN  Family,  Cherokees. 

A.  D.  1539-1542. — Traversed  by  Hernando 
deSoto.     See  Florida:  A.  D.  1528-1.543. 

A.  D.  1629.  —  Embraced  in  the  Carolina 
grant  to  Sir  Robert  Heath.  See  America: 
A.  D.  1029. 

A.  D.  1663.  —  Embraced  in  the  Carolina 
grant  to  Monk,  Clarendon,  and  others.  See 
North  Carolina  :  A.  D.  1663-1670. 

A.  D.  1732-1739.  —  Oglethorpe's  colony. — 
"Among  the  members  of  Parliament  during  the 
rule  of  Sir  Robert  Walpole  was  one  almost  un- 
known to  us  now,  but  deserving  of  honour  be- 
yond most  men  of  his  time.  His  name  was  James 
Oglethorpe.  He  was  a  soldier,  and  had  fought 
against  the  Turks  and  in  the  great  Marlborough 
wars  against  Louis  XIV.  In  advanced  life  he 
became  the  friend  of  Samuel  Johnson.  Dr.  John- 
son urged  him  to  write  some  account  of  his  ad- 
ventures. '  I  know  no  one, '  he  said,  '  whose  life 
would  be  more  interesting :  if  I  were  furnished 
with  materials  I  should  be  very  glad  to  write  it.' 
Edmund  Burke  considered  him  '  a  more  extraor- 
dinary person  than  any  he  had  ever  read  of.' 
John  Wesley  '  blessed  God  that  ever  he  was  born. ' 
Oglethorpe  attained  the  great  age  of  ninety-si.x, 
and  died  in  the  year  1785.  ...  In  Oglethorpe's 
time  it  was  in  the  power  of  a  creditor  to  im- 
prison, according  to  his  pleasure,  the  man  who 
owed  him  money  and  was  not  able  to  pay  it.  It 
was  a  common  circumstance  that  a  man  should 
be  imprisoned  during  a  long  series  of  years  for  a 
trifling  debt.  Oglethorpe  had  a  friend  upon 
whom  this  hard  fate  had  fallen.  His  attention 
was  thus  painfully  called  to  the  cruelties  which 
were  inflicted  upon  the  unfortunate  and  helpless. 
He  appealed  to  Parliament,  and  after  inquiry  a 
partial  remedy  was  obtained.  The  benevolent 
exertions  of  Oglethorpe  procured  liberty  for  mul- 
titudes who  but  for  him  might  have  ended  their 
lives  in  captivity.  This,  however,  did  not  con- 
tent him.  Liberty  was  an  incomplete  gift  to  men 
who  had  lost,  or  perhaps  had  scarcely  ever  pos- 
sessed, the  faculty  of  earning  their  own  mainte- 
nance. Oglethorpe  devised  how  he  might  carry 
these  unfortunates  to  a  new  world,  where,  under 
happier  auspices,  they  might  open  a  fresh  career. 
He  obtained  [A.  D.  1732]  from  King  George  II. 
a  charter  by  which  the  country  between  the  Sa- 
vannah and  the  Alatamaha,  and  stretching  west- 
ward to  the  Pacific,  was  erected  into  the  province 
of  Georgia.  It  was  to  be  a  refuge  for  the  de- 
serving poor,  and  next  to  them  for  Protestants 
suffering  persecution.  Parliament  voted  £10,000 
in  aid  of  the  humane  enterprise,  and  many  be- 
nevolent persons  were  liberal  with  their  gifts. 
In  November  the  first  exodus  of  the  insolvent 
took  place.  Oglethorpe  sailed  with  120  emi- 
grants, mainly  selected  from  the  prisons —  penni- 
less, but  of  good  repute.  He  surveyed  the  coasts 
of  Georgia,  and  chose  a  site  for  the  capital  of  his 
new  State.  He  pitched  his  tent  where  Savannah 
now  stands,  and  at  once  proceeded  to  mark  out 
the  line  of  streets  and  squares.  Next  year  the 
colony  was  joined  by  about  a  hundred  German 
Protestants,  who  were  then  under  persecution 
92 

145 


for  their  beliefs.  .  .  .  The  fame  of  Oglethorpe's 
enterprise  spread  over  Europe.  All  struggling 
men,  against  whom  the  battle  of  life  went  hard, 
looked  to  Georgia  as  a  land  of  promise.  They 
were  the  men  who  most  urgently  required  to 
emigrate;  but  they  were  not  always  the  men 
best  fitted  to  conquer  the  difficulties  of  the  im- 
migrant's life.  The  progress  of  the  colony  was 
slow.  The  poor  persons  of  whom  it  was  origi- 
nally composed  were  honest  but  ineffective,  and 
could  not  in  Georgia  more  than  in  England  find 
out  the  way  to  become  self-supporting.  Encour- 
agements were  given  which  drew  from  Germany, 
from  Switzerland,  and  from  the  Highlands  of 
Scotland  men  of  firmer  texture  of  mind  —  better 
fitted  to  subdue  the  wilderness  and  bring  forth 
its  treasures.  With  Oglethorpe  there  went  out, 
on  his  second  expedition  to  Georgia  [1736],  the 
two  brothers  John  and  Charles  Wesley.  Charles 
went  as  secretary  to  the  Governor.  John  was  even 
then,  although  a  very  young  man,  a  preacher  of 
unusual  promise.  ...  He  spent  two  years  in 
Georgia,  and  these  were  unsuccessful  years.  His 
character  was  unformed ;  his  zeal  out  of  propor- 
tion to  his  discretion.  The  people  felt  that  he 
preached  '  personal  satires '  at  them.  He  involved 
himself  in  quarrels,  and  at  last  had  to  leave  the 
colony  secretly,  fearing  arrest  at  the  instance  of 
some  whom  he  had  offended.  He  returned  to  be- 
gin his  great  career  in  England,  with  the  feeling 
that  his  residence  in  Georgia  had  been  of  much 
value  to  himself,  but  of  very  little  to  the  people 
whom  he  sought  to  benefit.  Just  as  Wesley 
reached  England,  his  fellow-labourer  George 
Whitefield  sailed  for  Georgia.  ...  He  founded 
an  Orphan-House  at  Savannah,  and  supported  It 
by  contributions  —  obtained  easily  from  men  un- 
der the  power  of  his  unequalled  eloquence.  He 
visited  Georgia  very  frequently,  and  his  love  for 
that  colony  remained  with  him  to  the  last.  Sla- 
very was,  at  the  outset,  forbidden  in  Georgia. 
It  was  opposed  to  the  gospel,  Oglethorpe  said, 
and  therefore  not  to  be  allowed.  He  foresaw, 
besides,  what  has  been  so  bitterly  experienced 
since,  that  slavery  must  degrade  the  poor  white 
labourer.  But  soon  a  desire  sprung  up  among 
the  less  scrupulous  of  the  settlers  to  have  the  use 
of  slaves.  Within  seven  years  from  the  first 
landing,  slave-ships  were  discharging  their  car- 
goes at  Savannah." — R.  Mackenzie,  America:  A 
History,  bk.  1,  ch.  10. 

Also  in:  T.  M.  Harris,  Biog.  Memoriah  of 
James  Ogletlurrpe,  ch.  1-10. —  R.  Wright,  Memoir 
of  Gen.  Jos.  Oglethorpe,  ch.  1-9. 

For  text  of  charter,  etc.,  see  in  G.  White,  Hist. 
Coil's  of  Georgia,  pp.  1-20. 

A.  D.  1734.— The  settlement  of  the  Salz- 
burgers. — "As  early  as  October  the  12th,  1732, 
the  '  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  Christian 
Knowledge '  expressed  to  the  Trustees  a  desire' 
'  that  the  persecuted  Salzburgers  should  have 
an  asylum  provided  for  them  in  Georgia.'.  .  . 
These  Germans  belonged  to  the  Archbishopric  of 
Salzburg,  then  the  most  eastern  district  of  Ba- 
varia; but  now  forming  a  detached  district  in 
upper  Austria,  and  called  Salzburg  from  the 
broad  valley  of  the  Salzer,  which  is  made  by  the 
approximating  of  the  Norric  and  Rhetian  Alps. 
Their  ancestors,  the  Vallenges  of  Piedmont,  had 
been  compelled  by  the  barbarities  of  the  Dukes  of 
Savoy,  to  find  a  shelter  from  the  storms  of  perse- 
cution in  the  Alpine  passes  and  vales  of  Salz- 
burg and  the  Tyrol,  before  the  Reformation;  and 

7 


GEORGIA,  1734. 


GEORGIA,  1738-1743. 


frequently  since  had  they  been  hunted  out  by 
the  hirelings  and  soldiery  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
.  .  .  The  quietness  which  they  had  enjoyed  for 
nearly  half  a  century  was  now  rudely  broken  in 
upon  by  Leopold,  Count  of  Firraian  and  Arch- 
bishop of  Salzburg,  who  determined  to  reduce 
them  to  the  Papal  faith  and  power.  He  began 
in  the  year  1729,  and,  ere  he  ended  in  1732,  not 
far  from  30,000  had  been  driven  from  their 
homes,  to  seek  among  the  Protestant  States  of 
Europe  that  charity  and  peace  which  were  denied 
them  in  the  glens  and  fastnesses  of  their  native 
Alps.  More  than  two-thirds  settled  in  the  Prus- 
sian States ;  the  rest  spread  themselves  over  Eng- 
land, Holland,  and  other  Protestant  countries. 
Thrilling  is  the  story  of  their  exile.  The  march  of 
these  Salzburgers  constitutes  an  epoch  in  the 
history  of  Germany.  .  .  .  The  sympathies  of  Re- 
formed Christendom  were  awakened  on  tiieir  be- 
half, and  the  most  hospitable  entertainment  and 
assistance  were  everywhere  given  them. "  Forty- 
two  families,  numbering  78  persons,  accepted  an 
invitation  to  settle  in  Georgia,  receiving  allot- 
ments of  land  and  provisions  until  they  could 
gather  a  harvest.  They  arrived  at  Savannah  in 
March,  1734,  and  were  settled  at  a  spot  which 
they  selected  for  themselves,  about  thirty  miles 
in  the  interior.  "Oglethorpe  marked  out  for 
them  a  town ;  ordered  workmen  to  assist  in  build- 
ing houses ;  and  soon  the  whole  body  of  Germans 
went  up  to  their  new  home  at  Ebeuezer." — W. 
B.  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Georgia,  bk.  2,  ch.  3  (8.  1). 

Also  in:  F.  Shoberl,  Persecutions  of  Popery, 
ch.  9  {v.  2).— E.  B.  Speirs,  The  Salzburgers  (Eng. 
Hist.  Bev.,  Oct.,  1890). 

A.  D.  1735-1749. — The  Slavery  question. — 
Original  exclusion  and  subsequent  admission 
of  negro  slaves. —  Among  the  fundamental  regu- 
lations of  the  Trustees  was  one  prohibiting  negro- 
slavery  in  the  colony.  "  It  was  policy  and  not 
philanthropy  which  prohibited  slavery;  for, 
though  one  of  the  Trustees,  in  a  sermon  to  recom- 
mend charity,  declared,  '  Let  avarice  defend  it  as 
it  will,  there  is  an  honest  reluctance  in  humanity 
against  buying  and  selling,  and  regarding  those 
of  our  own  species  as  our  wealth  and  posses- 
sions ' ;  and  though  Oglethorpe  himself,  speaking 
of  slavery  as  against  '  the  gospel  as  well  as  the 
fundamental  law  of  England ',  asserted,  '  we  re- 
fused, as  Trustees,  to  make  a  law  pennitting 
such  a  horrid  crime ' ;  yet  in  the  otRcial  publica- 
tions of  that  body  its  inhibition  is  based  onl}'  on 
political  and  prudential,  and  not  on  humane  and 
liberal  grounds;  and  even  Oglethorpe  owned  a 
plantation  and  negroes  near  Parachucla  in  South 
Carolina,  about  forty  miles  above  Savannah.  .  .  . 
Their  [the  Trustees']  design  was  to  provide  for 
poor  but  honest  persons,  to  erect  a  barrier  be- 
tween South  Carolina  and  the  Spanish  settle- 
ments, and  to  establish  a  wine  and  silk-growing 
colony.  It  was  thought  by  the  Trustees  that 
neither  of  these  designs  could  be  secured  if 
slavery  was  introduced.  .  .  .  But  while  the  Trus- 
tees disallowed  negroes,  they  instituted  a  system 
of  white  slavery  which  was  fraught  with  evil  to 
the  servants  and  to  the  colony.  These  were 
white  servants,  consisting  of  Welch,  English,  or 
German,  males  and  females  —  families  and  in- 
dividuals—  who  were  indented  to  individuals 
or  the  Trustees,  for  a  period  of  from  four  to 
fourteen  years.  ...  On  arriving  in  Georgia, 
their  service  was  sold  for  the  term  of  inden- 
ture, or  apportioned  to  the  inhabitants  by  the 


magistrates,  as  their  necessities  required.  .  .  . 
Two  years  had  not  elapsed  since  the  landing 
of  Oglethorpe  before  many  complaints  origi- 
nated from  this  cause;  and  in  the  summer  of 
1735  a  petition,  signed  by  seventeen  freeholders, 
setting  forth  the  unprofitableness  of  white  ser- 
vants, and  the  necessity  for  negroes,  was  carried 
by  Mr.  Hugh  Sterling  to  the  Trustees,  who,  how- 
ever, resented  the  appeal  as  an  insult  to  their 
honour.  .  .  .  The  plan  for  substitutmg  white  for 
black  labour  failed  through  the  sparscness  of  the 
supply  and  the  refractoriness  of  the  servants. 
As  a  consequence  of  the  inability  of  the  set- 
tlers to  procure  adequate  help,  the  lands  granted 
them  remained  uncleared,  and  even  those  which 
the  temporary  industry  of  the  first  occupants 
prepared  remained  uncultivated.  .  .  .  There 
accumulated  on  the  Trustees'  hands  a  body  of 
idle,  clamourous,  mischief-making  men,  who  em- 
ployed their  time  in  declaiming  against  the  very 
government  whose  charity  both  fed  and  clothed 
them.  .  .  .  For  nearly  fifteen  years  from  1733, 
the  date  of  the  first  petition  for  negroes,  and  the 
date  of  their  express  law  against  their  importa- 
tion, the  Trustees  refused  to  listen  to  any  similar 
representations,  except  to  condemn  them,"  and 
they  were  supported  by  the  Salzburgers  and  the 
Highlanders,  both  of  whom  opposed  the  intro- 
duction of  negro  slaves.  But  finally,  in  1749, 
the  firmness  of  the  Trustees  gave  way  and  they 
yielded  to  the  clamor  of  the  discontented  colony. 
The  importation  of  black  slaves  was  permitted, 
under  certain  regulations  intended  to  diminish 
the  evils  of  the  institution.  "The  change  in  the 
tenure  of  grants,  and  the  permission  to  hold 
slaves,  had  an  immediate  effect  on  the  prosperity 
of  the  colony. " — W.  B.  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Georgia, 
bk.  2,  ch.  9  (B.  1). 

A.  D.  1738-1743.— War  with  the  Spaniards 
of  Florida. — Discontents  in  the  colony. — "The 
assieuto  enjoj-ed  under  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  by 
the  English  South  Sea  Company,  the  privilege, 
that  is,  of  transporting  to  the  Spanish  colonies  a 
certain  number  of  slaves  annually,  .  .  .  was 
made  a  cover  for  an  extensive  smuggling  trade 
on  the  part  of  the  English,  into  wliich  private 
merchants  also  entered.  ...  To  guard  against 
these  systematic  infractions  of  their  laws,  the 
Spaniards  maintained  a  numerous  fleet  of  vessels 
in  the  preventive  service,  known  as  'guarda 
costas.'by  which  some  severities  were  occasion- 
ally exercised  on  suspected  or  detected  smug- 
glers. These  severities,  grossly  exaggerated, 
and  resounded  throughout  the  British  dominions, 
served  to  revive  in  England  and  the  colonies  a 
hatred  of  the  Spaniards,  which,  since  the  time  of 
Philip  II.,  had  never  wholly  died  out.  Such 
was  the  temper  and  position  of  the  two  nations 
when  the  colonization  of  Georgia  was  begun,  of 
which  one  avowed  object  was  to  erect  a  baiTier 
against  the  Spaniards,  among  whom  the  run- 
away slaves  of  South  Carolina  were  accustomed 
to  find  shelter,  receiving  in  Florida  an  assign- 
ment of  lands,  and  being  armed  and  organized 
into  companies,  as  a  means  of  strengthening  that 
feeble  colony.  A  message  sent  to  St.  Augustine 
to  demand  the  surrender  of  the  South  Carolina 
runaways  met  with  a  point  blank  refusal,  and 
the  feeling  against  the  Spaniards  ran  very  high 
in  consequence.  .  .  .  Oglethorpe  .  .  .  returned 
from  his  second  visit  to  England  [Sept.  1738], 
with  a  newly-enlisted  regiment  of  soldiers,  and 
the  apijointment.   also,   of  military  commander 


1458 


GEORGIA,  1738-1743. 


GEORGIA,  1743-1764. 


for  Georgia  and  the  Caroliuas,  with  orders  'to 
give  no  offense,  but  to  repel  force  by  force.' 
Both  in  Spain  and  England  the  administrators 
of  the  government  were  anxious  for  peace.  .  .  . 
I'he  ferocious  clamors  of  the  merchants  and  the 
mob  .  .  .  absolutely  forced  Walpole  into  a  war 
[see  ENGL.VND:  A.  t).  1739-1741.— The  War  of 
Jenkins'  Eak].  Travelling  300  miles  through 
the  forests,  Oglethorpe  held  at  Coweta,  on  the 
Chattahoochee,  just  below  the  present  site  of 
Columbus,  a  new  treaty  with  the  Creeks,  by 
which  they  confirmed  their  former  cessions,  ac- 
knowledged themselves  subject  to  the  King 
of  Great  Britain,  and  promised  to  exclude  from 
their  territories  all  but  English  settlers.  After 
finishing  the  treaty,  Oglethorpe  returned  through 
the  woods  by  way  of  Augusta  to  Savannah, 
where  he  found  orders  from  England  to  make  an 
attack  on  Florida.  He  called  at  once  on  South 
Carolina  and  the  Creeks  for  aid,  and  in  the  mean 
time  made  an  expedition,  in  which  he  captured 
the  Fort  of  Picolata,  over  against  St.  Augustine, 
thus  securing  the  navigation  of  the  St.  John's, 
and  cutting  off  the  Spaniards  from  their  forts  at 
St.  Mark's  and  Pensacola.  South  Carolina  en- 
tered very  eagerly  into  the  enterprise.  Money 
was  voted ;  a  regiment,  500  strong,  was  enlisted, 
partly  in  North  Carolina  and  Virginia.  This 
addition  raised  Oglethorpe's  force  to  1,200  men. 
The  Indians  that  joined  him  were  as  many  more. 
Having  marched  into  Florida,  he  took  a  small 
fort  or  two,  and,  assisted  by  several  ships  of  war, 
laid  siege  to  St.  Augustine.  But  the  garrison 
was  1,000  strong,  besides  militia.  The  fortifica- 
tions proved  more  formidable  than  had  been  ex- 
pected. A  considerable  loss  was  experienced  by 
a  sortie  from  the  town,  falling  heavily  on  the 
Highland  Rangers.  Presently  the  Indians  de- 
serted, followed  by  part  of  the  Carolina  regiment, 
and  Oglethorpe  was  obliged  to  give  over  the  en- 
terprise. .  .  .  From  the  time  of  this  repulse,  the 
good  feeling  of  the  Carolinians  toward  Ogle- 
thorpe came  to  an  end.  Many  of  the  disappoint- 
ed Georgia  emigrants  had  removed  to  Charleston, 
and  many  calumnies  against  Oglethorpe  were 
propagated,  and  embodied  in  a  pamphlet  pub- 
lished there.  The  Moravians  also  left  Georgia, 
unwilling  to  violate  their  consciences  by  bearing 
arms.  Most  unfortunately  for  the  new  colony, 
the  Spanish  war  withdrew  the  Highlanders  and 
others  of  the  best  settlers  from  their  farms  to 
convert  them  into  soldiers." — R.  Hildreth,  Hist, 
of  the  U.  8.,  ch.  25  (».  2). — "After  the  late  incur- 
sion into  Florida,  the  General  kept  possession 
of  a  southern  region  which  the  Spaniards  had 
claimed  as  their  own;  and,  as  they  had  taken 
encouragement  from  the  successful  defence  of  St. 
Augustine,  and  the  well-known  dissensions  on 
the  English  side,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  they 
would  embrace  the  earliest  opportunity  of  taking 
their  revenge.  .  .  .  The  storm,  which  had  been 
so  long  anticipated,  burst  upon  the  colony  in  the 
year  1742.  The  Spaniards  had  .  .  .  fitted  out, 
at  Havana,  a  fleet  said  to  consist  of  56  saU  and 
7,000  or  8,000  men.  The  force  was  probably  not 
quite  so  great ;  if  it  was,  it  did  not  all  reach  its 
destination,"  being  dispersed  by  a  storm,  "so 
that  only  a  part  of  the  whole  number  succeeded 
in  reaching  St.  Augustine.  The  force  was  there 
placed  under  the  command  of  Don  Manuel  de 
Monteano,  the  Governor  of  that  place.  .  .  .  The 
fleet  made  its  appearance  on  the  coast  of  Georgia 
on  the  21st  of  June  " ;  but  all  its  attempts,  first  to 


take  possession  of  the  Island  of  Amelia,  and 
afterwards  to  reduce  the  forts  at  Frederica,  were 
defeated  by  the  vigor  and  skill  of  General  Ogle- 
thorpe. After  losing  heavily  in  a  fight  called 
the  Battle  of  the  Bloody  Marsh,  the  Spaniards 
retreated  about  the  middle  of  July.  The  follow- 
ing year  they  prepared  another  attempt;  but 
Oglethorpe  anticipated  it  by  a  second  demonstra- 
tion on  his  own  part  against  St.  Augustine,  which 
had  no  other  result  than  to  disconcert  the  plans 
of  the  enemy. — W.  B.  O.  Peabody,  Life  of  Ogle- 
tlwrpe  (Library  of  Am.  Biog. ,  2d  series,  v.  3),  ch. 
11-12. — "While  Oglethorpe  was  engaged  in  re- 
pelling the  Spaniards,  the  trustees  of  Georgia 
had  been  fiercely  assailed  by  their  discontented 
colonists.  They  sent  Thomas  Stevens  to  England 
with  a  petition  containing  many  charges  of  mis- 
management, extravagance,  and  peculation,  to 
which  the  trustees  put  in  an  answer.  After  a 
thorough  examination  of  documents  and  wit- 
nesses in  committee  of  the  whole,  and  hearing 
counsel,  the  House  of  Commons  resolved  that '  the 
petition  of  Thomas  Stevens  contains  false,  scan- 
dalous, and  malicious  charges';  in  consequence 
of  which  Stevens,  the  next  day,  was  brought  to 
the  bar,  and  reprimanded  on  his  knees.  .  .  . 
Oglethorpe  himself  had  been  a  special  mark  of 
the  malice  and  obloquy  of  the  discontented  set- 
tlers. .  .  .  Presently  his  lieutenant  colonel,  a 
man  who  owed  everything  to  Oglethorpe's  favor, 
re-echoing  the  slanders  of  the  colonists,  lodged 
formal  charges  against  him.  OgJethorpe  pro- 
ceeded to  England  to  vindicate  his  character, 
and  the  accuser,  convicted  by  a  court  of  inquiry 
of  falsehood,  was  disgraced  and  deprived  of  his 
commission.  Appointed  a  major  general,  or- 
dered to  join  the  army  assembled  to  oppose  the 
landing  of  the  Pretender,  marrying  also  about 
this  time,  Oglethorpe  did  not  again  return  to 
Georgia.  The  former  scheme  of  administration 
having  given  rise  to  innumerable  complaints,  the 
government  of  that  colony  was  intrusted  to  a 
president  and  four  counselors." — R.  Hildreth, 
Hist,  of  the  U.  S.,  ch.  25  (v.  3). 

Also  in  :  C.  C.  Jones,  Hist,  of  Georgia,  ch.  17- 
22  (ti.  1). 

A.  D.  1743-1764. — Surrender  to  the  Crown. 
— Government  as  a  royal  province. — "  On  Ogle- 
thorpe's departure  [1743],  William  Stephens,  the 
secretary,  was  made  President,  and  continued  in 
office  until  1751,  when  he  was  succeeded  by 
Henry  Parker.  'The  colony,  when  Stephens  came 
into  office,  comprised  about  1,500  persons.  It 
was  almost  at  a  stand-still.  The  brilliant  pros- 
pects of  the  early  days  were  dissipated,  and  im- 
migration had  ceased,  thanks  to  the  narrow  policy 
and  feeble  government  of  the  Trustees.  An  In- 
dian rising,  in  1749,  headed  by  Mary  Musgrove, 
Oglethorpe's  Indian  Interpreter,  and  her  husband, 
one  Bosomworth,  who  laid  claim  to  the  whole 
country,  came  near  causing  the  destruction  of 
the  colony,  and  was  only  repressed  by  much  ne- 
gotiation and  lavish  bribes.  The  colony,  thus 
feeble  and  threatened,  struggled  on,  until  it  was 
relieved  from  danger  from  the  Indians  and  from ' 
the  restrictive  laws,  and  encouraged  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  Parker,  and  the  establishment  of  a 
representative  government.  This  produced  a 
turn  in  the  affairs  of  Georgia.  Trade  revived, 
immigration  was  renewed,  and  everything  began 
to  wear  again  a  more  hopeful  look.  Just  at  this 
time,  however,  the  original  trust  was  on  the  point 
of  expiring  by  limitation.     There  was  a  party  iu 


1459 


GEORGIA,  1743-1764. 


GEORGIA,  1816-1818. 


the  colony  who  desired  a  renewal  of  the  charter ; 
but  the  Trustees  felt  that  their  scheme  had  failed 
in  every  way,  except  perhaps  as  a  defence  to 
South  Carolina,  and  when  the  limit  of  the  charter 
was  reached,  they  turned  the  colony  over  to  the 
Crown.  ...  A  form  of  government  was  estab- 
lished similar  to  those  of  the  other  royal  prov- 
inces, and  Captain  John  Reynolds  was  sent  out 
as  the  first  Governor."  The  administration  of 
Reynolds  produced  wide  discontent,  and  in  1757 
he  "was  recalled,  being  "succeeded  by  Henry 
Ellis  as  Lieutenant-governor.  The  change  proved 
fortunate,  and  brought  rest  to  the  colony.  Ellis 
ruled  peaceably  and  with  general  respect  for  more 
than  two  years,  and  was  then  promoted  to  the 
governorship  of  Nova  Scotia.  In  the  same  year 
his  successor  arrived  at  Savannah,  in  the  person 
of  James  Wright,  who  continued  to  govern  the 
province  until  it  was  severed  from  England  by 
the  Revolution.  The  feebleness  of  Georgia  had 
prevented  her  taking  part  in  the  union  of  the 
colonies,  and  she  was  not  represented  in  the  Con- 
gress at  Albany.  Georgia  also  escaped  the  rav- 
ages of  the  French  war,  partly  by  her  distant 
situation,  and  partly  by  the  prudence  of  Governor 
Ellis ;  and  the  conclusion  of  that  war  gave  Florida 
to  England,  and  relieved  the  colony  from  the  con- 
tinual menace  of  Spanish  aggression.  A  great 
Congress  of  southern  Governors  and  Indian  chiefs 
followed,  in  which  Wright,  more  active  than  his 
predecessor,  took  a  prominent  part.  Under  his 
energetic  and  firm  rule,  the  colony  began  to  pros- 
per greatly,  and  trade  increased  rapidly ;  but  the 
Governor  gained  at  the  same  time  so  much  in- 
fluence, and  was  a  man  of  so  much  address,  that 
he  not  only  held  the  colony  down  at  the  time  of 
the  Stamp  Act,  but  seriously  hampered  its  action 
in  the  years  which  led  to  revolution." — H.  C. 
Lodge,  Short  Hist,  of  tlie  Eng.  Colonies  in  Am. , 
ch.  9. 

A.  D.  1760-1775. — Opening  events  of  the 
Revolution.  See  United  States  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1760-1775,  to  1775. 

A.  D.  1775-1777. — The  end  of  royal  govern- 
ment.— •  Constitutional  organization  of  the 
state. — "The  news  of  the  battle  of  Lexington 
reached  Savannah  on  the  night  of  the  10th  of 
May,  1775,  and  produced  intense  excitement 
among  all  classes.  On  the  night  of  the  11th, 
Noble  Wimberly  Jones,  Joseph  Habersham,  Ed- 
ward Telfair,  and  a  few  others,  impressed  with 
the  necessity  of  securing  all  military  stores,  and 
m-eserving  them  for  colonial  use,  took  from  the 
King's  magazine,  in  Savannah,  about  500  pounds 
of  powder.  .  .  .  Tradition  asserts  that  part  of 
this  powder  was  sent  to  Boston,  and  used  by  the 
militia  at  the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill.  .  .  .  The 
activity  of  the  Liberty  party,  and  its  rapid  in- 
crease, .  .  .  gave  Governor  Wright  just  cause 
for  alarm;  and  he  wrote  to  General  Gage,  ex- 
pressing his  amazement  '  that  these  southern 
provinces  should  be  left  in  the  situation  they  are, 
and  the  Governors  and  King's  ofiicers,  and  friends 
of  Government,  naked  and  exposed  to  the  resent- 
ment of  an  enraged  people. ' .  .  .  The  assistance 
so  earnestly  solicited  in  these  letters  would  have 
been  promptly  rendered,  but  that  they  never 
reached  their  destination.  The  Committee  of 
Safety  at  Charleston  withdrew  them  from  their 
envelopes,  as  they  passed  through  the  port,  and 
substituted  others,  stating  tliat  Georgia  was 
quiet,  and  there  existed  no  ueed  either  of  troops 
or  vessels. "    The  position  of  Governor  Wright 


soon  became  one  of  complete  powerlessness  and 
he  begged  to  be  recalled.  In  Januarj^  1776, 
however,  he  was  placed  under  arrest,  by  order  of 
the  Council  of  Safety,  and  gave  his  parole  not  to 
leave  town,  nor  communicate  with  the  men-of- 
war  which  had  just  arrived  at  Tybee;  notwith- 
standing which  he  made  his  escape  to  one  of  the 
Iving's  ships  on  the  11th  of  February.  ' '  The  first 
effective  organization  of  the  friends  of  liberty  in 
the  province  took  place  among  the  deputies  from 
several  parishes,  who  met  in  Savannah,  on  the 
18th  January,  1775,  and  formed  what  has  been 
called  '  A  Provincial  Congress.'  Guided  by  the 
action  of  the  other  colonies,  a  '  Council  of  Safety ' 
was  created,  on  the  23d  June,  1775,  to  whom  was 
confided  the  general  direction  of  the  measures 
proper  to  be  pursued  in  carrying  out  resistance 
to  the  tyrannical  designs  of  the  King  and  Parlia- 
ment. William  Ewen  was  the  first  President  of 
this  Council  of  Safety,  and  Seth  John  Cuthbert 
was  the  Secretary.  On  the  4th  July,  the  Pro- 
vincial Congress  (now  properly  called  such,  as 
every  parish  and  district  was  represented)  met  in 
Savannah,  and  elected  as  its  presiding  officer 
Archibald  Bulloch.  This  Congress  cortferred 
upon  the  'Council  of  Safety,'  'full  power  upon 
every  emergency  during  the  recess  of  Congress.' " 
Soon  finding  the  need  of  a  more  definite  order  of 
government,  the  Provincial  Congress,  on  the  15th 
of  April,  1776,  adopted  provisionally,  for  six 
months,  a  series  of  "Rules  and  Regulations," 
under  which  Archibald  Bulloch  was  elected  Presi- 
dent and  Commander-in-chief  of  Georgia,  and 
John  Glen,  Chief  Justice.  After  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  steps  were  taken  toward  the 
settling  of  the  government  of  the  state  on  a  per- 
manent basis.  On  the  proclamation  of  President 
Bulloch  a  convention  was  elected  which  met  in 
Savannah  in  October,  and  which  framed  a  con- 
stitution that  was  ratified  on  the  5th  of  February, 
1777. — W.  B.  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Georgia,  hk.  4,  ch. 
2,  and  hk.  5,  ch.  1  (ii.  2). 

A.  D.  1776-1778. — The  V7ar  in  the  North. — 
The  Articles  of  Confederation. — The  alliance 
with  France.  See  United  States  op  Aja. :  A.D. 
1776,  to  1778. 

A.  D.  1778-1779. — Savannah  taken  and  the 
state  subjugated  by  the  British.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  ;  A.  D.  1778-1779. 

A.  D.  1779. — Unsuccessful  attack  on  Savan- 
nah by  the  French  and  Americans.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1779  (September — Octo- 
ber). 

A.  D.  1780. — Successes  of  the  British  arms 
in  South  Carolina.  See  United  States  op  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1780  (February — August). 

A.  D.  1780-1783. — Greene's  campaign  in  the 
South. — Lafayette  and  Washington  in  Vir- 
ginia.— Siege  of  Yorktown  and  surrender  of 
Cornwallis. —  Peace.  See  United  States  op 
Am.  :  A.  D.  1780,  to  1783. 

A.  D.  1787-1788. — The  formation  and  adop- 
tion of  the  Federal  Constitution.  See  United 
States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1787,  and  1787-1789. 

A.  D.  1802. — Cession  of  Western  land  claims 
to  the  United  States.  See  United  States  of 
Am.:  a.  D.  1781-1786;  and  Mississippi:  A.D. 
1798-1804. 

A.  D.  1813-1814.  — The  Creek  War.  See 
United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1813-1814  (Au- 
gust— April). 

A.  D.  1816-1818.— The  First  Seminole  War 
See  Florida:  A.  D.  1816-1818. 


1460 


GEORGIA,  1861. 


GERMAN  EMPIRE. 


A.  D.  1861  (January).  —  Secession  from  the 
Union.  See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1861 
(Jahu  AST— February). 

A.  D.  1861  (October — December). —  Savan- 
nah threatened. — The  Union  forces  in  posses- 
sion of  the  mouth  of  the  river.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  :  A.  D.  1861  (October — Decem- 
ber: South  Carolina — Georgia). 

A.  D.  1862  (February  —  April). —  Reduction 
of  Fort  Pulaski  and  sealing  up  of  the  port  of 
Savannah  by  the  National  forces.  See  United 
States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1863  (February — April: 
Georgia — Florida). 

A.  D.  1864  (May  —  September). — Sherman's 
campaign  against  Atlanta. — The  capture  of 
the  city.  See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1864  (May:  Georgia),  and  (May — September: 
Georgia). 

A.  D.  i864(September— October).— Military 
occupation  of  Atlanta. — Removal  of  the  in- 
habitants.— Hood's  Raid  to  Sherman's  rear. 
See  United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1864  (Sep- 
tember—October: Georgia). 

A.  D.  1864  (November  —  December). —  De- 
struction of  Atlanta. —  Sherman's  March  to 
the  Sea.  See  United  St.ites  of  Am.  :  A.  D. 
1864  (November — December  :  Georgia). 

A.  D.  1865  (March — May).— Wilson's  Raid. 
— End  of  the  Rebellion.  See  United  States 
OP  Am.  :  A.  D.  1865  (April— May). 

A.  D.  i865-i868.^Reconstruction.  See  Uni- 
ted States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1865  (May — July), 
and  after,  to  1868-1870. 


GEORGETOWN      UNIVERSITY.      See 

Education,  Modern:  America:  A.D. 1769-1884, 
GEOUGEN,  The.  See  Turks  :  6th  Centy 
GEPIDjE,  The.  See  Goths:  Origin  of; 
Huns;  Lombards:  Early  History;  and  Avars. 
GERALDINES,  The.— The  Geraldines  of 
Irish  history  were  descendants  of  Maurice  and 
William  Fitzgerald,  two  of  the  first  among  the 
Anglo-Norman  adventurers  to  engage  in  the  con- 
quest of  Ireland,  A.  D.  1169-1170.  Their  mother 
was  a  "Welsh  princess,  named  Nest,  or  Nesta, 
who  is  said  to  have  been  the  mistress  of  Henry 
I.  of  England,  and  afterwards  to  have  married 
the  Norman  baron,  Gerald  Fitz  Walter,  who  be- 
came the  father  of  the  Fltzgeralds.  ' '  Maurice 
Fitzgerald,  the  eldest  of  the  brothers,  became 
the  ancestor  both  of  the  Earls  of  Kildare  and 
Desmond;  William,  the  younger,  obtained  an 
immense  grant  of  land  in  Kerry  from  the  Mc- 
Carthys,—  indeed  as  time  went  on  the  lordship 
of  the  Desmond  Fitzgeralds  grew  larger  and 
larger,  until  it  covered  nearly  as  much  ground  as 
many  a  small  European  kingdom.  Nor  was  this 
all.  The  White  Knight,  the  Knight  of  Glyn, 
and  the  Knight  of  Kerry  were  all  three  Fitzger- 
alds, all  descended  from  the  same  root,  and  all 
owned  large  tracts  of  country.  The  position  of 
the  Geraldines  of  Kildare  was  even  more  impor- 
tant, on  account  of  their  close  proximity  to  Dub- 
lin. In  later  times  their  great  keep  at  Maynooth 
dominated  the  whole  Pale,  while  their  followers 
swarmed  everywhere,  each  man  with  a  G.  em- 
broidered upon  his  breast  in  token  of  his  allegi- 
ance. By  the  beginning  of  the  16th  century 
their  power  had  reached  to,  perhaps,  the  highest 
point  ever  attained  in  these  islands  by  any  sub- 

i'ect.     Whoever  might  be  called  the  Viceroy  in 
reland  it  was  the  Earl  of  Kildare  who  practically 
governed  the  country." — Hon.  E.  Lawless,  The 


Story  of  Ireland,  ch.  14. —  See,  also,  Ireland: 
A.  D.  1515;  and  for  some  account  of  the  subse- 
quent rebellion  and  fall  of  the  Geraldines,  see 
Ireland:  A.  D.  1535-1553. 

GERALDINES,  League  of  the.  See  Ire- 
land; A. D.  1559-1603. 

GERBA,  OR  JERBA,  The  disaster  at 
(1560).  See  Barbary  States:  A.  D.  1543- 
1560. 

GEREFA. —  "  The  most  general  name  for  the 
fiscal,  administrative  and  executive  officer  among 
the  Anglosaxons  was  Gerefa,  or  as  it  is  written 
in  very  early  documents  geroefa :  but  the  pecu- 
liar functions  of  the  individuals  comprehended 
under  it  were  further  defined  by  a  prefix  com- 
pounded with  it,  as  scirgerefa,  the  reeve  of  the 
shire  or  sheriff :  tungeref a,  the  reeve  of  the  farm 
or  baDlff.  The  exact  meaning  and  etymology  of 
this  name  have  hitherto  eluded  the  researches  of 
our  best  scholars." — J.  M.  Kemble,  The  Saxons 
in  England,  bk.  2,  ch.  5  (v.  2). — See,  also,  Shebe; 
and  Ealdorman. 

GERGESENES,  The.— One  of  the  tribes  of 
the  Canaanites,  whose  territory  is  believed  by 
Lenormant  to  have  "included  all  Decapolis  and 
even  Galilee,"  and  whose  capital  he  places  at 
Gerasa,  now  Djerash,  in  Perea. — F.  Lenormant 
and  E.  Chevallier,  Manual  of  Ancient  Hist.,  bk. 
6,  ch.  1  (».  2). 

GERGITHIAN  SIBYL.     See  Cum^. 

GERGITHIANS,  The.  See  Troja;  and 
Asia  Minor  :  The  Greek  Colonies. 

GERGOVIA  OF  THE  ARVERNL— "The 
site  of  Gergovia  of  the  Arverni  is  supposed  to 
be  a  hill  on  the  bank  of  the  Allier,  two  miles 
from  the  modern  Clermont  in  Auvergne.  The 
Romans  seem  to  have  neglected  Gergovia,  and  to 
have  founded  the  neighbouring  city,  to  which 
they  gave  the  name  Augustonemetum.  The 
Roman  city  became  known  afterwards  as  Civitas 
Arvernorum,  in  the  middle  ages  Arverna,  and 
then,  from  the  situation  of  its  castle,  clarus  mons, 
Clermont." — C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Romans,  ch. 
12  (v.  2,  p.  20,  foot-?iote). —  For  an  account  of 
Cfesar's  reverse  at  Gergovia  of  the  Arverni,  see 
Gaul:  B.C.  58-51. 

GERGOVIA    OF    THE    BOIANS.       See 

BOIANS. 

GERIZIM.— "The  sacred  centre  of  the  Sa- 
maritans is  Gerizim,  the  '  Mount  of  Blessings. '  On 
its  summit  a  sacred  rock  marks  the  site  where, 
according  to  their  tradition,  Joshua  placed  the 
Tabernacle  and  afterwards  built  a  temple,  re- 
stored later  by  Sanballat,  on  the  return  of  the 
Israelites  from  captivity."  C.  R.  Conder,  Syrian 
Stone  Lore,  ch.  4. 

GERM  THEORY  OF  DISEASE,  Origin 
and  development  of  the.  See  Medical  Sci- 
ence :  17-18TH  Centuries,  and  19th  Century. 

GERMAN,  High  and  Low.— The  distinction 
made  between  High  German  and  Low  German  is 
that  resulting  from  differences  of  language,  etc. , 
between  the  Germanic  peoples  which  dwelt  an- 
ciently in  the  low,  flat  countries  along  the  Ger- 
man Ocean  and  the  Baltic,  and  those  which  occu- 
pied the  higher  regions  of  the  upper  Rhine, 
Elbe  and  Danube. 

GERMAN  EAST  AFRICAN  AND 
WEST  AFRICAN  ASSOCIATIONS.  See 
Africa:  A,  D.  1884-1891. 

GERMAN  EMPIRE,  The  Constitution  of 
the  new.    See  Constitution  of  Germany. 


1461 


GERMAN  FLATS. 


GERMANY. 


GERMAN  FLATS:  A.  D.  1765.— Treaty 
with  the  Indians.  See  United  States  of  Am.  : 
A.  D.  1765-1768. 

A.  D.  1778. — Destruction    by    Brant.      See 

United  States  op  Am.  :  A.  D.  1778  (June-No- 
vember). 


GERMAN  NATIONS,  The  wandering  of. 
See  Goths  ;  Franks  ;  Alemanni  ;  Maucomanki; 
QuADi ;  GEPID.E ;  Saxons  ;  Angles  ;  Burgun- 
DiANS  ;  Vandals  ;  Suevi  :  Lombards. 

GERMAN  SOUTHWEST  AFRICA.— 
The  whole  regiou  on  the  western  coast  of  S. 
Africa,  between  Cape  Colony  and  Portuguese 
territory,  comprising  Great  Namaqualand  and 
Damaralaud,  except  Waltish  Bay  (which  England 
holds),  was  taken  up  by  Germany  in  1883-.'). 

GERMAN  UNIVERSITIES.  See  Educa- 
tion, MEDI.iEVAL:   GeR.MANT. 


GERMANIA.  "The  meaning  of  the  name 
may  be  either  '  good  shouters '  (Grimm),  or, 
accordingto  other  writers,  'East-men,' or  'neigh- 
bours.'"— "W".  Stubbs,  Go7ist.  Hist,  of  England,  d. 
1,  p.  17,  note. 

GERMANIC   CONFEDERATION,    The 

First.  See  Germany:  A.  D.  1814-1820 The 

Second.  See  Germany  :  A.  D.  1870  (Septem- 
ber— Dece.mbek). 

GERMANIC  DIET,  The.  Sec  Diet.  Ger- 
manic. 

GERMANIC  PEOPLES  OF  THE  ALE- 
MANNIC  LEAGUE.  See  Alemanni:  A.  D. 
•213. 

GERMANICUS,  Campaigns  of.     See  Ger- 

M.\NY:   A.  D.  14-16. 

GERMANTOWN,  Battle  of.  See  United 
States  of  Am.  ;  A.  D.  1777  (January— Decem- 
ber). 


GERMANY. 


The  national  name. — "The  nations  of  the 
Germania  had  no  common  name  recognised  by 
themselves,  and  were  content,  when,  ages  after, 
they  had  realised  their  unity  of  tongue  and  de- 
scent, to  speak  of  their  language  simply  as  the 
Lingua  Theotisca,  the  language  of  the  people 
(theod).  .  .  .  Whence  the  name 'Deutsch.'  Zeuss 
derives  it  rather  from  the  root  of  '  deuten,'  to  ex- 
plain, so  that  'theotisc'  should  mean  'signifi- 
cant. '  But  the  root  of  '  theod '  and  '  deuten '  is 
the  same.  .  .  .  The  general  name  by  which  the 
Romans  knew  them  [Germani]  was  one  which 
they  had  received  from  their  Gallic  neighbours." 
— W.  Stubbs,  Co7ist.  Hist,  of  England,  v.  1,  ch.  3, 
and  foot-note. — "In  Gothic  we  have  'thiuda,' 
people;  'thiudisks,'  belonging  to  the  people. 
.  .  .  The  High-German,  which  looks  upon  San- 
skrit 't'  and  Gothic  'th'  as  'd,'  possesses  the 
same  word,  as  'diot,'  people;  'diutisc,'  popu- 
laris;  hence  Deutsch,  German,  and  'deuten,' to 
explain,  literally  to  Germanize." — F.  Max  Milller, 
Lects.  on  the  Science  of  Language,  2d  series,  lect.  5. 
—  The  account  which  Tacitus  gives  of  the  origin 
of  the  name  Germany  is  this :  ' '  The  name  Ger- 
many .  .  .  they  [the  Germans]  say,  is  modern 
and  newly  Introduced,  from  the  fact  that  the 
tribes  which  first  crossed  the  Rhine  and  drove 
out  the  Gauls,  and  are  now  called  Tungrians, 
■were  then  called  Germans.  Thus  what  was  the 
name  of  a  tribe,  and  not  of  a  race,  gradually  pre- 
vailed, till  all  called  themselves  by  this  self-in- 
vented name  of  Germans,  which  the  conquerors 
had  first  employed  to  inspire  terror." — Tacitus, 
Oermany;  trans,  by  Church  and  Brodrihb,  ch.  2. 
— "  It  is  only  at  the  mouth  of  the  Elbe  that  the 
Germany  of  the  really  historical  period  begins: 
and  this  is  a  Germany  only  in  the  eyes  of  scholars, 
antiquarians,  and  generalizing  ethnologists.  Not 
one  of  the  populations  to  whom  the  name  is  here 
extended  would  have  attached  any  meaning  to 
the  word,  except  so  far  as  they  had  been  in- 
structed by  men  who  had  studied  certain  Latin 
writers.  'There  was  no  name  which  was,  at  one 
and  the  same  time,  native  and  general.  There 
were  native  names,  but  they  were  limited  to 
special  populations.  There  was  a  general  name, 
but  it  was  one  which  was  applied  by  strangers 
and  enemies.  What  this  name  was  for  the  north- 
em  districts,  we  know  beforehand.      It  was  that 


of  Saxones  and  Saxonia  in  Latin;  of  Sachsen 
and  Sachsenland  in  the  ordinary  German.  Evi- 
dence, however,  that  any  German  population 
ever  so  named  Itself  is  wholly  wanting,  though 
it  is  not  impossible  that  some  unimportant  tribe 
may  have  done  so :  the  only  one  so  called  being 
the  Saxons  of  Ptolemy,  who  places  them,  along 
with  several  others,  in  the  small  district  between 
the  Elbe  and  the  Eyder,  and  on  three  of  the 
islands  off  the  coast.  .  .  .  The  Franks  gave  it  its 
currency  and  generality;  for,  in  the  eyes  of  a 
Frank,  Saxony  and  Friesland  contained  all  those 
parts  of  Germany  which,  partly  from  their  dif- 
ference of  dialect,  partly  from  their  rudeness, 
partly  from  their  paganism,  and  partly  from  the 
obstinacy  of  their  resistance,  stood  in  contrast  to 
the  Empire  of  Charlemagne  and  his  successors. 
A  Saxon  was  an  enemy  whom  the  Franks  had  to 
coerce,  a  heathen  whom  they  had  to  convert. 
What  more  the  term  meant  is  uncertain." — R.  G. 
Latham,  Introd.  to  Kemble's  " Horm  Ferales." — 
See,  also,  Teutones. 

As  known  to  Tacitus. — "  Germany  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  Galli,  the  Rhseti,  and  Parmonii, 
by  the  rivers  Rhine  and  Danube;  mountain 
ranges,  or  the  fear  which  each  feels  for  the  other, 
divide  it  from  the  Sarmatse  and  Daci.  Elsewhere 
ocean  girds  it,  embracing  broad  peninsulas  and 
islands  of  unexplored  extent,  where  certain  tribes 
and  kingdoms  are  newly  known  to  us,  revealed 
by  war.  The  Rhine  springs  from  a  precipitous 
and  inaccessible  height  of  the  Rhsetian  Alps, 
bends  slightly  westward,  and  mingles  with  the 
Northern  Ocean.  The  Danube  pours  down  from 
the  gradual  and  gently  rising  slope  of  Mount 
Abnoba,  and  visits  many  nations,  to  force  its 
way  at  last  through  six  channels  into  the  Pontus ; 
a  seventh  mouth  is  lost  in  marshes.  The  Ger- 
mans themselves  I  should  regard  as  aboriginal, 
and  not  mixed  at  all  with  other  races  through 
immigration  or  intercourse.  For,  in  formertimes, 
it  was  not  by  land  but  on  shipboard  that  those 
who  sought  to  emigrate  would  arrive ;  and  the 
boundless  and,  so  to  speak,  hostile  ocean  beyond 
us,  is  seldom  entered  by  a  sail  from  our  world. 
And,  besides  the  perils  of  rough  and  unknown 
seas,  who  would  leave  Asia,  or  Africa,  or  Italy 
for  Germany,  with  its  wild  country,  its  inclement 
skies,  its  sullen  manners  and  aspect,  unless  in- 


1461 


c 


b 


h 

tl\. 

■&'?■'  = 

0  "  V  T/  ^ 

a  a  »5    0 


S 


C>5 


i 

o 


•5b 


5    —    "^ 
C5    *      ■ 


■r    ^ 
q    2 


ilh 


■:  -a  -g  i-  V  ■= 
"3   ►    «  t:  o 


■S5   S"i 


r 


GERMANY. 


Roman 
Campaigns. 


GERMANY. 


deed  it  were  his  liome  ?  In  tlieir  ancient  songs, 
their  only  way  of  remembering  or  recording  the 
past,  they  celebrate  an  earth-born  god,  Tuisco, 
and  his  son  Mannus,  as  the  origin  of  their  race, 
as  their  founders.  To  Mannus  they  assign  three 
sons,  from  whose  names,  they  say,  the  coast  tribes 
are  called  Ingfevones ;  those  of  the  interior,  Her- 
minones;  all  the  rest,  Istoevones.  Some,  with  the 
freedom  of  conjecture  permitted  by  antiquity, 
assert  that  the  god  had  several  descendants,  and 
the  nation  several  appellations,  as  Marsi,  Gam- 
brivii,  Suevi,  Vaudilii,  and  that  these  are  genuine 
old  names.  The  name  Germany,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  say,  is  modern  and  newly  Introduced." 
—Tacitus,  Oermany;  trans,  by  A.  J.  Church  and 
W.  J.  Brodribb,  ch.  1-3. 

B.C.    12-9. —  Campaigns  of  Drusus.— The 
first  serious  advance  of  the  Roman  arms  beyond 
the  Rhine  was  made  in  the  reign  of  Augustus, 
by  the  emperor's  step-son,  Drusus.     Caesar  had 
crossed  the  river,  only  to  chastise  and  terrify  the 
tribes  on  the  right  bank  which  threatened  Gaul. 
Agrippa,  some  years  later,  repeated  the  opera- 
tion, and  withdrew,  as  Ca?sar  had   done.     But 
Drusus  invaded  Germany  with  intentions  of  con- 
quest and  occupation.     His  first  campaign  was 
undertaken  in  the  spring  of  the  year  12  B.  C.    He 
crossed  the   Rhine  and  drove  the  Usipetes  into 
their  strongholds ;  after  which  he  embarked  his 
legions  on  transport  ships  and  moved  them  down 
the  river  to  the  ocean,  thence  to  coast  northwards 
to  the  mouth  of  the  Ems,  and  so  penetrate  to  the 
heart  of  the  enemy's  country.     To  facilitate  this 
bold  movement,  lie  had  caused  a  channel  to  be 
cut  from  the  Rhine,  at  modern  Arnheim,  to  the 
Zuyder  Zee,  utilizing  the  river  Yssel.     The  ex- 
pedition was  not  successful  and  retreated  overland 
from  the  Frisian  coast  after  considerable  disaster 
and  loss.     The   next  year,   Drusus  returned  to 
the  attack,  marching  directly  into  the  German 
country  and    advancing    to  the  banks  of    the 
Weser,  but  retreating,  again,  with  little  to  show 
of  substantial  results.     He  established  a  fortified 
outpost,  however,  on  the  Lippe,  and  named  it 
Aliso.     During  the  same  summer,  he  is  said  to 
have  fixed  another  post  in  the  country  of  the 
Chatti.     Two  years  then  passed  before  Drusus 
was  again  permitted  by  the  emperor  to  cross  the 
Rhine.     On   his  third  campaign  he  passed  the 
Weser  and  penetrated  the  Hercynian  forest  as 
far  as  the  Elbe,— the  Germans  declining  every- 
where to  give  him  battle.     Erecting  a  trophy  on 
the  bank  of  the  Elbe,  he  retraced  his  steps,  but 
suffered  a  fall  from  his  horse,  on  the  homeward 
march,  which  caused  his  death.     "If  the  Ger- 
mans were   neither  reduced   to  subjection,  nor 
even  overthrown  in  any  decisive  engagement,  as 
the  Romans  vainly  pretended,  yet  their  spirit  of 
aggression  was  finally  checked  and  from  thence- 
forth, for  many  generations,  they  were  fully  oc- 
cupied with  the  task  of  defending  themselves." 
— C.  Merivale,  Hist,  of  the  Eomans,  ch.  36. 

B.  C.  8— A.  D.  II.— Campaigns  of  Tiberius. 
—The  work  of  Roman  conquest  in  Germany,  left 
unfinished  by  Drusus,  was  taken  up  by  his 
brother  Tiberius  (afterwards  emperor)  under  the 
direction  of  Augustus.  Tiberius  crossed  the  Rhine, 
for  the  first  time,  B.  C.  8.  The  frontier  tribes 
made  no  resistance,  but  offered  submission  at 
onca  Tiberius  sent  their  chiefs  to  Augustus, 
then  holding  his  court  at  Lugdunum  (Lyons),  to 
make  terms  with  the  emperor  in  person,  and 
Augustus  basely  treated  them  as  captives  and 


threw  them   into  prison.     The  following   year 
found  the  German  tribes  again  under  arms,  and 
Tiberius  again  crossed  the  Rhine ;  but  it  was  only 
to  ravage  the  country,  and  not  to  remain.     Then 
followed  a  period  of  ten  j;ears,  durmg  which  the 
emperor's  step-son,  dissatisfied  with  his  position 
and  on  ill  terms  with  Augustus,  retired  to  Rhodes. 
In  the  summer  of  A.  D.  4,  he  returned  to  the 
command  of  the  legions  on  the  Rhine.     Mean- 
time, under  other  generals,— Domitius  and  Viui- 
cius,— they  had  made  several  campaigns  beyond 
the  river;  had  momentarily  crossed  the  Elbe; 
had  constructed  a  road  to  the  outposts  on  the 
Weser;  had  fought  the  Cherusci,  with  doubtful 
results,  but  had  not  settled  the  Roman  power  in 
Germany.     Tiberius  invaded   the  country  once 
more,  with  a  powerful  force,  and  seems  to  have 
crushed  all  resistance  in  the  region  between  the 
lower    Rhine   and    the  Weser.      The   following 
spring,  he  repeated,  with  more  success,  the  move- 
ment of  Drusus  by  land  and  sea,  sending  a  flo- 
tilla around  to  the  Elbe  and  up  that  stream,  to  a 
point  where  it  met  and  co-operated  with  a  column 
moved   overland,    through   the   wilderness.      A 
single  battle  was  fought  and  the  Germans  de- 
feated ;  but,  once  more,  when  winter  approached, 
the  Romans  retired  and  no  permanent  conquest 
was  made.     Two  years  later  (A.  D.  6),  Tiberius 
turned  his  arms  against  the  powerful  nation  of 
the  Marcomanni,  which  had  removed  itself  from 
the  German  mark,  or  border,  into  the  country 
formerly  occupied  by  the  Boii  —  modern  Bohe- 
mia.    Here,  under  their  able  chief  Marbod,  or 
Maroboduus,  they  developed  a  formidable  mili- 
tary organization  and  became  threatening  to  the 
Roman  frontiers  on  the  Upper  Danube.     Two 
converging  expeditions,  from  the  Danube  and 
from  the  Rhine,  were  at  the  point  of  crushing  the 
Marcomanni   between  them,  when  news  of  the 
alarming  revolt,  in  Pannonia  and  Dalmatia,  called 
the  "Batoaian  War,"  caused  the  making  of  a 
hasty  peace  with  Maroboduus.     The  Batonian  or 
Pannonian  war   occupied  Tiberius    for    nearly 
three  years.     He  had  just  brought  it  to  a  close, 
when  intelligence  reached  Rome  of  a  disaster  in 
Germany  which   filled  the  empire  with   horror 
and  dismay.     The  tribes  in  northwestern  Ger- 
many, between  the  lower  Rhine  and  the  Elbe, 
supposed  to  be  cowed  and  submissive,  had  now 
found  a  leader  who  could  unite  them  and  excite 
them  to  disdain  the  Roman  yoke.     This  leader 
was  Arminius,  or  Hermann,  a  young  chief  of  the 
Cherusci,  who  had  been  trained  in  the  Roman 
military  service  and  admitted  to  Roman  citizen- 
ship but  who  hated  the  oppressors  of  his  coun- 
try with  implacable  bitterness.     The  scheme  of 
insurrection  organized  by  Arminius  was  made 
easy  of  execution  by  the  insolent  carelessness  and 
the  incapacity  of  the  Roman  commander  in  Ger- 
many, L.  Quintilius  Varus.     It  succeeded  so  well 
that  Varus  and  his  army,— three  entire  legions, 
horse,  foot  and  auxiliaries,— probably  20,000  men 
in  all,— were  overwhelmed  in  the  Teutoburger 
Wald'  north  of  the  Lippe,  and  destroyed.     Only 
a  few  skulking  fugitives  reached  the  Rhine  and 
escaped  to  tell  the  fate  of  the  rest.     This  was 
late  in  the  summer  of  A.  D.  9.     In  the  following 
spring  Tiberius  was  sent  again  to  the  Rhine-fron- 
tier, with  as  powerful  a  levy  of  men  and  equip- 
ments as  the  empire  could  collect.     He  was  ac- 
companied by  his  nephew,  Germanicus,  son  of 
Drusus,  destined  to  be  his  successor  in  the  field 
of  German  conquest.     But  dread  and  fear  were 


1463 


GERJIANY. 


Wandering 
of  the  Natio7is. 


GERilANY,  3D  CENTURY. 


in  the  Roman  heart,  and  the  ciimpaign  of  Tibe- 
rius, delayed  another  twelve  months,  until  A.  D. 
11,  was  conducted  too  cautiously  to  accomplish 
any  important  result.  He  traversed  and  ravaged 
a  considerable  region  of  the  German  country,  but 
withdrew  again  across  the  Rhine  and  left  it,  ap- 
parently, unoccupied.  This  was  his  last  cam- 
paign. Returning  to  Rome,  he  waited  only  two 
years  longer  for  the  imperial  sovereignty  to 
which  he  succeeded  on  the  death  of  Augustus, 
who  had  made  him,  by  adoption,  his  son  and  his 
heir. — C.  Merivale,  Jlist.  of  the  Romans,  ch. 
36-38. 

Also  in  :  T.  Mommsen,  Hist,  of  Home,  bk.  8, 
ch.  1. — Sir  E.  Creasy,  Fifteen  Decisive  Battles  of 
the  World,  ch.  5. — T.  Smith,  Arminius,  pt.  1,  ch. 
4-6. 

A.  D.  14-16. — Campaigns  of  Germanicus. — 
Germanicus  —  the  son  of  Drusus  —  was  given 
the  command  on  the  Rhine  at  the  beginning  of 
the  year  13  A.  D.  The  following  year,  Augus- 
tus died  and  Tiberius  became  emperor;  where- 
upon Germanicus  found  himself  no  longer  re- 
strained from  crossing  the  river  and  assuming 
the  offensive  against  Arminius  and  his  tribes. 
His  first  movement,  that  autumn,  was  up  the 
valley  of  the  Lippe,  which  he  laid  waste,  far 
and  wide.  The  next  spring,  he  led  one  column, 
from  Mentz,  against  the  Chatti,  as  far  as  the 
upper  branches  of  the  Weser,  while  he  sent 
another  farther  north  to  chastise  the  Cherusci 
and  the  Marsi,  surprising  and  massacring  the 
latter  at  their  feast  of  Tanfana.  Later  in  the 
same  year,  he  penetrated,  by  a  double  expedition, 
—  moving  by  sea  and  by  land,  as  his  father  had 
done  before,  —  to  the  country  between  the  Ems 
and  the  Lippe,  and  laid  waste  the  territory  of 
the  Bructeri,  and  their  neighbors.  He  also  vis- 
ited the  spot  where  the  army  of  Varus  had  per- 
ished, and  erected  a  monument  to  the  dead.  On 
the  return  from  this  expedition,  four  legions, 
under  Caecina,  were  beset  in  the  same  manner 
that  Varus  had  been,  and  under  like  difficulties ; 
but  their  commander  was  of  different  stuff  and 
brought  them  safely  through,  after  punishing 
his  pursuers  severely.  But  the  army  had  been 
given  up  as  lost,  and  only  the  resolute  opposition 
of  Agrippina,  the  wife  of  Germanicus,  had  pro- 
vented  the  Roman  commander  at  Vetera,  on  tlie 
Rhine,  from  destroying  the  bridge  there,  and 
abandoning  the  legions  to  their  supposed  fate. 
In  the  spring  of  A.  D.  16,  Germanicus  again  em- 
barked his  army,  80,000  strong,  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Rhine,  on  board  transports,  and  moved  it  to 
the  moutli  of  the  Ems,  where  the  fleet  remained. 
Thence  he  marched  up  the  Ems  and  across  to  the 
Weser,  and  was  encountered,  in  the  country  of 
the  Cherusci,  by  a  general  levy  of  the  German 
tribes,  led  by  Arminius  and  Inguiomerus.  Two 
great  battles  were  fought,  in  which  the  Romans 
were  victorious.  But,  when  returning  from  this 
campaign,  the  fleet  encountered  a  storm  in  which 
so  much  of  it  perished,  with  the  troops  on  board, 
that  the  disaster  threw  a  heavy  cloud  of  gloom 
over  the  triumph  of  Germanicus.  The  young 
general  was  soon  afterwards  recalled,  and  three 
years  later  he  died, — of  poison,  as  is  supposed, — 
at  Antioch.  "The  central  government  ceased 
from  this  time  to  take  any  warm  interest  in  the 
s>ib  j  ugation  of  the  Germans ;  and  the  dissensions 
of  their  states  and  princes,  which  peace  was  not 
slow  in  developing,  attracted  no  Roman  emissa- 
ries to  the  barbarian  camps,  and  rarely  led  the 


legions  beyond  the  frontier,  which  was  now  al- 
lowed to  recede  finally  to  the  Rhine." — C.  Meri- 
vale, Hist,  of  the  Somans,  ch.  42. 

Also  IN ;  T.  Mommsen,  Hist,  of  Rome,  bk.  8, 
ch.  1. — T.  Smith,  Armimus,  pt.  1,  ch.  7. 

3d  Century. — Beginning  of  the  "Wandering 
of  the  Nations." — "  Towards  the  middle  of  the 
third  century,  ...  a  change  becomes  perceptible 
in  the  relations  and  attitude  of  the  German 
peoples.  Many  of  the  nations,  which  have  been 
celebrated  in  the  annals  of  the  classical  writers, 
disappear  silently  from  history ;  new  races,  new 
combinations  and  confederacies  start  into  life, 
and  the  names  which  have  achieved  an  imperisha- 
ble notoriety  from  their  connection  with  the  long 
decay  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
come  forward,  and  still  survive.  On  the  soil 
whereon  the  Sigambri,  Marsi,  Chauci,  and  Che- 
rusci had  struggled  to  preserve  a  rude  indepen- 
dence, Franks  and  Saxons  lived  free  and  formid- 
able; Alemanni  were  gathered  along  the  foot  of 
the  Roman  wall  which  connected  the  Danube 
with  the  Rhine,  and  had,  hitherto,  preserved  in- 
violate the  Agri  decumates ;  while  eastern  Ger- 
many, allured  by  the  hope  of  spoil,  or  impelled 
by  external  pressure,  precipitated  itself  under 
the  collective  term  of  Goths  upon  the  shrinking 
settlements  of  the  Dacia  and  the  Danube.  The 
new  appellations  which  appear  in  western  Ger- 
many in  the  third  century  have  not  unnaturally 
given  rise  to  the  presumption  that  unknown 
peoples  had  penetrated  through  the  land,  and 
overpowered  the  ancient  tribes,  and  national 
vanity  has  contributed  to  the  delusion.  As  the 
Burgundians  .  .  .  were  flattered  by  being  told 
they  were  descendants  of  Roman  colonists,  so 
the  barbarian  writers  of  a  later  period  busied 
their  imaginations  in  the  solitude  of  monastic 
life  to  enhance  the  glory  of  their  countrymen,  by 
the  invention  of  what  their  inkling  of  classical 
knowledge  led  them  to  imagine  a  more  illustrious 
origin.  .  .  .  Fictions  like  these  may  be  referred 
to  as  an  index  of  the  time  wlien  the  young  bar- 
barian spirit,  eager  after  fame,  and  incapable  of 
balancing  probabilities,  first  gloated  over  the 
marvels  of  classical  literature,  though  its  refined 
and  delicate  beauties  eluded  their  grosser  taste ; 
but  they  require  no  critical  examination ;  there 
are  no  grounds  for  believing  that  Franks,  Saxons, 
or  Alemanni,  were  other  than  the  original  inhabi- 
tants of  the  country,  though  there  is  a  natural 
difliculty  arising  from  the  want  of  written  con- 
temporary evidence  in  tracing  the  transition,  and 
determining  the  tribes  of  which  the  new  con- 
federacies were  formed.  At  the  same  time, 
though  no  immigration  of  strangers  was  pos- 
sible, a  movement  of  a  particular  tribe  was  not 
unfrequent.  The  constant  internal  dissensions 
of  the  Germans,  combined  with  their  spirit  of 
warlike  enterprise,  led  to  frequent  domestic  wars; 
and  the  vanquished  sometimes  chose  rather  to  seek 
an  asylum  far  from  their  native  soil,  where  they 
might  live  in  freedom,  than  continue  as  bondmen 
or  tributaries  to  the  conqueror.  Of  such  a  nature 
were  the  wanderings  of  the  Usipites  and  Tcuch- 
teri  [Tenchteri]  in  Cfesar's  time,  the  removal  of  the 
Ubii  from  Nassau  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Coin 
and  Xanthen;  and  to  this  must  be  ascribed  the 
appearance  of  the  Burgundians,  who  had  dwelt 
beyond  the  Oder,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Main  and 
the  Necker.  Another  class  of  national  emigra- 
tions, were  those  which  implied  a  final  abaiuion- 
ment  of  the  native  Germany  with  the  object  of 


1464 


GERMANY,  3D  CENTURY. 


Wandering 
of  the  Nations. 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  481-768. 


seeking  a  new  settlement  among  the  possessions 
of  tlie  sinking  empire.  Those  of  the  Goths,  Van- 
dals, Alans,  Sueves,  the  second  movement  of  the 
Burgundians,  may  be  included  in  this  categorj' ; 
the  invasions  of  the  Franks,  Aleraanni,  and  Sax- 
ons, on  the  contrary,  cannot  be  called  national 
emigrations,  for  they  never  abandoned,  with  their 
families,  their  original  birthplace ;  their  outwan- 
derings,  like  the  emigrations  of  the  present  day, 
were  partial;  their  occupation  of  the  enemy's 
territory  was,  in  character,  military  and  progres- 
sive; and,  with  the  exception  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
settlement  in  Britain,  their  connection  with  the 
original  stock  was  never  interrupted.  In  all  the 
migrations  of  German  peoples  spoken  of  from 
Csesar  downwards,  the  numbers  of  the  emigrants 
appear  to  be  enormously  exaggerated.  The 
Usipites  and  Teuohteri  are  estimated  by  CiEsar 
at  430,000  souls.  How  could  such  a  multitude 
find  nourishment  during  a  three  years'  wander- 
ing? If  80,000  Burgundian  Wehrmen  came  to 
the  Rhine  to  the  assistance  of  Valentinian,  as 
Cassiodorius,  Jerome,  and  other  chroniclers  state, 
the  numbers  of  the  whole  nation  must  have  ap- 
proached 400,000,  and  it  is  impossible  to  believe 
that  such  a  mass  could  obtain  support  in  the 
narrow  district  lying  between  the  Alemanni,  the 
Hermunduri,  and  the  Chatti.  In  other  cases, 
vague  expressions,  and  still  more  the  wonderful 
achievements  of  the  Germans  in  the  course  of 
their  emigrations,  have  led  to  the  supposition  of 
enormous  numbers ;  but  Germany  could  not  find 
nourishment  for  the  multitudes  which  have  been 
ascribed  to  it.  Corn  at  that  period  was  little 
cultivated;  it  was  not  the  food  of  the  people, 
whose  chief  support  was  flesh.  .  .  .  The  con- 
quests of  the  barbarians  may  be  ascribed  as  much 
to  the  weakness  of  their  adversaries,  to  their 
want  of  energy  and  union,  as  to  their  own 
strength.  There  was,  in  fact,  no  enemy  to  meet 
them  in  the  field ;  and  their  domination  was,  at 
least,  as  acceptable  to  the  provincial  inhabitants 
as  that  of  the  imbecile,  but  rapacious  ministers 
of  the  Roman  government.  ...  It  was  not  the 
lust  of  wandering,  but  the  influence  of  external 
circumstances  which  brought  them  to  the  vicin- 
ity of  the  Danube :  at  first  the  aggressions  of  the 
Romans,  then  the  pressure  of  the  Huns  and  the 
Sclavonic  tribes.  The  whole  intercourse  of  Ger- 
many with  Rome  must  be  considered  as  one  long 
war,  which  began  with  the  invasion  of  Csesar; 
which,  long  restrained  by  the  superior  power  of 
the  enemy,  warmed  with  his  growing  weakness, 
and  only  ended  with  the  extinction  of  the  Roman 
name.  The  wars  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth 
centuries,  were  only  a  continuance  of  the  ancient 
hostility.  There  might  be  partial  truce,  or  occa- 
sional intermission ;  some  tribes  might  be  almost 
extirpated  by  the  sword ;  some,  for  a  time,  bought 
off  by  money ;  but  Rome  was  the  universal 
enemy,  and  much  of  the  internal  restlessness  of 
the  Germans  was  no  more  than  the  natural  move- 
ment towards  the  hostile  borders.  As  the  inva- 
sion of  northern  Germany  gave  rise  to  the  first 
great  northern  union,  so  the  conquest  of  Dacia 
brought  Goths  from  the  Vistula  to  the  south, 
while  the  erection  of  the  giant  wall  naturally 
gathered  the  Suevic  tribes  along  its  limits,  only 
waiting  for  the  opportunity  to  break  through. 
Step  by  step  this  battle  of  centuries  was  fought ; 
from  the  time  of  Caracalla  the  flood  turned,  wave 
followed  wave  like  the  encroaching  tide,  and  the 
ancient  landmarks  receded  bit  by  bit,  till  Rome 


itself  was  buried  beneath  the  waters.  .  .  .  Three 
great  confederacies  of  German  tribes,  more  or 
less  united  by  birth,  position,  interest,  or  lan- 
guage, may  be  discerned,  during  this  period,  in 
immediate  contact  with  the  Romans — the  Ale- 
raanni, the  Goths,  and  the  Pranks.  A  fourth, 
the  Saxons,  was  chiefly  known  from  its  maritime 
voyages  off  the  coast  of  Gaul  and  Britain.  There 
were  also  many  independent  peoples  which  can- 
not be  enumerated  among  any  of  the  political 
confederacies,  but  which  acted  for  themselves, 
and  pursued  their  individual  ends:  such  were 
the  Burgundians,  the  Alans,  the  Vandals,  and 
the  LomlDards." — T.  Smith,  Arminius,  pt.  2,  ch.  1. 

Also  IK:  R.  G.  'La,t\ia.ia,NationaUties  of  Europe, 
V.  3,  ch.  21. — See,  also,  Ai,emanni;  Marcomanni; 
QcADi;  Goths;  Gepid^;  Saxons;  Angles, 
Franks;  Burgundians;  Vandals;  Suevi;  Lom- 
bards; and,  also.  Appendix  A,  vol.  5. 

A.  D.  277. — Invasion  by  Probus. — The  vigor- 
ous emperor  Probus,  who,  in  the  year  2T7,  drove 
from  Gaul  the  swarms  of  invaders  that  had  rav- 
aged the  unhappy  province  with  impunity  for 
two  years  past,  then  crossed  the  Rhine  and  har- 
ried the  country  of  the  marauders,  as  far  as  the 
Elbe  and  the  Neckar.  "  Germany,  exhausted  by 
the  ill  success  of  the  last  emigration,  was  aston- 
ished by  his  presence.  Nine  of  the  most  consid- 
erable princes  repaired  to  his  camp  and  fell  pros- 
trate at  his  feet.  Such  a  treaty  was  humbly 
received  by  the  Germans  as  it  pleased  the  con- 
queror to  dictate. "  Probus  then  caused  a  stone 
wall,  strengthened  at  intervals  with  towers,  to 
be  built  from  the  Danube,  near  Neustadt  and 
Ratisbou,  to  Wimpfen  on  the  Neckar,  and  thence 
to  the  Rhine,  for  the  protection  of  the  settlers  of 
the  "  Agri  Decumates."  But  the  wall  was  thrown 
down,  a  few  years  afterwards,  by  the  Alemanni. 
— E.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Pall  of  the  Boman  Em- 
pire, ch.  12. 

Sth  Century. —  Conversion  of  the  Franks. 
See  Ciiristianity:  A.  D.  496-800. 

A.  D.  481-768. — Acquisition  of  supremacy  by 
the  Franks. — The  original  dominions  of  Clovis, 
or  Chlodwig — with  whose  reign  the  career  of 
the  Franks  as  a  consolidated  people  began  —  cor- 
responded nearly  to  the  modern  kingdom  of  Bel- 
gium. His  first  conquests  were  from  the  Romans, 
in  the  neighboring  parts  of  Gaul,  and  when  those 
were  finished,  "  the  king  of  the  Franks  began  to 
look  round  upon  the  other  German  nations  settled 
upon  its  soil,  with  a  view  to  the  further  exten- 
sion of  his  power.  A  quarrel  with  the  Alemanni 
supplied  the  first  opportunity  for  the  gratification 
of  his  ambition.  For  more  than  a  century  the 
Alemanni  had  been  in  undisturbed  possession  of 
Alsace,  and  the  adjoining  districts;  Mainz, 
Worms,  Speyer,  Strasburg,  Basel,  Constanz,  Bre- 
genz,  lay  within  their  territory.  .  .  .  The  Vose- 
gen  range  was  a  bulwark  on  the  side  of  Gaul, 
waste  lands  separated  them  from  the  Burgun- 
dians, who  were  settled  about  the  Jura  and  in  the 
south-west  part  of  Helvetia,  and  the  Moselle  di- 
vided them  from  the  Ripuarian  Franks.  It  is  un- 
known whether  they  formed  a  state  distinct  from 
their  brethren  on  the  right  of  the  Rhine ;  prob- 
ably such  was  the  case,  for  the  Alemanni,  at  all 
times,  were  divided  into  separate  tribes,  between 
which,  however,  was  generally  a  common  union ; 
nor  is  it  certain  whether  the  Alsatian  Alemanni 
were  under  one  or  several  Adelings ;  a  single  king 
is  mentioned  as  having  fallen  in  the  battle  with 
Chlodwig,  who  may  have  been  merely  an  elected 


1466 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  481-768. 


The  Franks. 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  481-768. 


military  leader.  Equally  obscure  is  the  cause  of 
their  war  with  Chlodwig,  though  it  has  been 
assumed,  perhaps  too  hastily,  by  all  recent  his- 
torians, that  the  Frank  king  became  involved  in 
it  as  an  ally  of  the  Ripuarians.  The  Ripuarian 
Franks  were  settled,  as  the  name  imports,  upon 
the  banks  of  the  Rhine,  from  the  Moselle  down- 
wards ;  their  chief  seat  was  the  city  of  Cologne. 
It  is  probable  that  they  consisted  of  the  remains 
of  the  ancient  Ubii,  strengthened  by  the  adven- 
turers who  crossed  over  on  the  iirst  invasion,  and 
the  name  implies  that  they  were  regarded  by  the 
Romans  as  a  kind  of  limitanean  soldiery.  For, 
in  the  common  parlance  of  the  Romans  of  that 
period,  the  tract  of  land  lying  along  the  Rhine 
was  called  Ripa,  in  an  absolute  sense,  and  even 
the  river  itself  was  not  unfrequently  denominated 
by  the  same  title.  Ripuarii  are  Ripa-wehren, 
Hreop,  or  Hrepa-wehren,  defenders  of  the  shore. 
About  the  close  of  the  iif  th  century  these  Ripuarii 
were  under  the  government  of  a  king,  named 
Sigebert,  usually  called  '  the  lance. '  The  story 
told  by  modern  writers  is,  that  this  Sigebert,  hav- 
ing fallen  into  dispute  with  the  Alemanni,  called 
upon  Chlodwig  for  assistance,  a  call  which  the 
young  king  willingly  listened  to.  The  Alemanni 
had  invaded  the  Ripuarian  territory,  and  ad- 
vanced within  a  short  distance  of  Cologne,  when 
Chlodwig  and  his  Franks  joined  the  Ripuarii;  a 
battle  took  place  at  Zlilpich,  about  twenty -two 
English  miles  from  Cologne,  which,  after  a  fierce 
struggle,  ended  in  the  defeat  of  the  Alemanni. 
.  .  .  Chlodwig  was  following  up  his  victory  over 
the  Alemanni,  perhaps  with  unnecessary  feroci- 
ty, when  he  was  stopped  in  his  course  by  a  flatter- 
ing embassy  from  the  great  Theodorich.  Many 
of  the  Alemanni  had  submitted,  after  the  death 
of  their  chief,  on  the  field  of  battle.  '  Spare  us,' 
they  cried,  '  for  we  are  now  thy  people  ! '  but 
there  were  many  who,  abhorring  the  Frank  yoke, 
fled  towards  the  south,  and  threw  themselves 
under  the  protection  of  the  Ostrogothic  king, 
who  had  possessed  himself  of  the  ancient  Rhsetia 
and  Vindelicia." — T.  Smith,  Arminius,  pt.  3,  ch. 
4. — The  sons  of  Clovis  pushed  their  conquests  on 
the  Germanic  as  well  as  on  the  Gallic  side  of  the 
Rhine.  Theodoric,  or  Theuderik,  who  reigned 
at  Metz,  with  the  aid  of  his  brother  Clotaire,  or 
Chlother,  of  Soissons,  subjugated  the  Thurin- 
gians,  between  A.  D.  515  and  528.  "How  he 
[Theuderik]  acquired  authority  over  the  Ale- 
mans  and  the  Bavarians  is  not  known.  Perhaps 
in  the  subjugation  of  Thuringia  he  had  taken 
occasion  to  extend  his  sway  over  other  nations ; 
but  from  this  time  forth  we  find  not  only  these, 
but  the  Saxons  more  to  the  north,  regarded  as 
the  associates  or  tributaries  of  the  Eastern  or 
Ripuarian  Franks.  From  the  Elbe  to  the  Meuse, 
and  from  the  Northern  Ocean  to  the  .sources  of 
the  Rhine,  a  region  comprising  a  great  part  of 
ancient  Germany,  the  ascendency  of  the  Franks 
was  practically  acknowledged,  and  a  kingdom 
was  formed  [Austrasia — Oster-rike  —  the  East- 
ern Kingdom]  which  was  destined  to  overshadow 
all  the  other  Merovingian  states.  The  various 
tribes  which  composed  its  Germanic  accretions, 
remote  and  exempt  from  the  influences  of  the 
Roman  civilization,  retained  their  fierce  customs 
and  their  rude  superstitions,  and  continued  to 
be  governed  by  tlieir  hereditary  dukes;  but 
their  wild  masses  marched  under  the  standards 
of  the  Franks,  and  conceded  to  those  formidable 
conquerors  a  certain  degree  of  political  suprem- 


acy." When,  in  558,  Clotaire,  by  the  death  of 
his  brothers,  became  the  sole  king  of  the  Franks, 
his  empire  embraced  all  Roman  Gaul,  except  Sep- 
timania,  still  held  by  the  Visigoths,  and  Brittany, 
but  slightly  subjected;  "while  in  ancient  Ger- 
many, from  the  Rhine  to  the  Weser,  the  power- 
ful duchies  of  the  Alemans,  the  Thuringians,  the 
Bavarians,  the  Frisons,  and  the  Saxons,  were  re- 
garded not  entirely  as  subject,  and  yet  as  tribu- 
tary provinces."  During  the  next  century  and 
a  half,  the  feebleness  of  the  Merovingians  lost 
their  hold  upon  these  German  tributaries.  "  As 
early  as  the  time  of  Chlother  II.  the  Langobards 
had  recovered  their  freedom;  under  Dagobert 
[623-638],  the  Saxons;  under  Sighebert  II.  [638- 
656],  the  Thuringians;  and  now,  during  the  late 
broils  [670-687],  the  Alemans,  the  Bavarians  and 
the  Frisons."  But  the  vigorous  Mayors  of  the 
Palace,  Pepin  Heristal  and  Karl  Martel,  applied 
themselves  resolutely  to  the  restoration  of  the 
Frank  supremacy,  in  Germany  as  well  as  in 
Aquitaine.  Pepin  "found  the  task  nearly  im- 
possible. Time  and  again  he  assailed  the  Frisons, 
the  Saxons,  the  Bavarians,  and  the  Alemans, 
but  could  Isind  them  to  no  truce  nor  peace  for 
any  length  of  time.  No  less  than  ten  times 
the  Frisons  resumed  their  arms,  while  the  revolts 
of  the  others  were  so  Incessant  that  he  was  com- 
pelled to  abandon  all  hope  of  recovering  the 
southern  or  Roman  part  of  Gaul,  in  order  to 
direct  his  attention  exclusively  to  the  Germans. 
The  aid  which  he  received  from  the  Cliristian 
missionaries  rendered  him  more  successful  among 
them.  Those  intrepid  propagandists  pierced 
where  his  armies  could  not.  .  .  .  The  Franks 
and  the  Popes  of  Rome  had  a  common  interest  in 
this  work  of  the  conversion  of  the  Germans,  the 
Franks  to  restrain  irruptions,  and  the  Popes  to 
carry  their  spiritual  sway  over  Europe."  Pepin 
left  these  unfinished  German  wars  to  his  son  Karl, 
the  Hammer,  and  Karl  prosecuted  them  with 
characteristic  energy  during  his  first  years  of 
power.  ' '  Almost  every  month  he  was  forced  into 
some  expedition  beyond  the  Rhine.  .  .  .  The 
Alemans,  the  Bavarians,  and  the  Prisons,  he  suc- 
ceeded in  subjecting  to  a  formal  confession  at  least 
of  the  Prankish  supremacy ;  but  the  turbulent 
and  implacable  Saxons  batfled  his  most  strenu- 
ous efforts.  Their  wild  tribes  had  become,  witliin 
a  few  years,  a  powerful  and  numerous  nation; 
they  had  appropriated  the  lands  of  the  Thurin- 
gians and  Hassi,  or  Catti,  and  joined  to  themselves 
other  confederations  and  tribes;  and,  stretching 
from  the  Rhine  to  the  Elbe,  offered  their  marshes 
and  forests  a  free  asylum  to  all  the  persecuted 
sectaries  of  Odhinn,  to  all  the  lovers  of  native  and 
savage  independence.  Six  times  in  succession 
the  armies  of  Karl  penetrated  the  wilderness  they 
called  their  home,  ravaging  their  fields  and  burn- 
ing their  cabins,  but  the  Saxon  war  was  still 
renewed.  He  left  it  to  the  energetic  labors  of 
other  conquerors,  to  Christian  missionaries,  .  .  . 
to  break  the  way  of  civilization  into  those  rude  and 
darkened  realms."  Karl's  sons  Pepin  and  Karlo- 
man  crushed  revolts  of  the  Alemans,  or  Suabians, 
and  the  Bavarians  in  743,  and  Karloman  humbled 
the  Saxons  in  a  great  campaign  (744),  compelling 
them  in  large  numbers  to  submit  to  Christian 
baptism.  After  that,  Germany  waited  for  its  first 
entire  master  — Charlemagne. — P.  Godwin,  Hist, 
of  Prance:  Ancient  Oaul,  ch.  13-15. 

Also  in:  W.  C.  Perry,  The  Franks,  ch.  2-6.— 
See,  also,  Franks,  and  Austrasia. 


1466 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  687-800.       Tlie  Carolingians.      GERMANY,  A.  D.  687-800. 


A.  D.  687-800. — Rise  of  the  Carolingians 
and  the  Empire  of  Charlemagne. — "Towards 
the  close  of  the  Merovingian  period,  .  .  .  the 
kingdom  of  the  Franks  .  .  .  was  divided  into 
four  great  districts,  or  kingdoms  as  they  were 
called :  Austrasia,  or  the  eastern  kingdom,  from 
the  river  Rhine  to  the  Meuse,  with  Metz  as  its 
principal  city;  Neustria,  or  the  western  king- 
dom, extending  from  Austrasia  to  the  ocean  on 
the  west,  and  to  the  Loire  on  the  south ;  Aqui- 
taine,  south  of  that  river  to  the  foot  of  the  Pyre- 
nees; and  Burgundy,  from  the  Rlione  to  the 
Alps,  including  Switzerland.  These  four  king- 
doms became,  before  the  extinction  of  the  Mero- 
vingian race,  consolidated  into  two, —  viz.,  Aus- 
trasia and  Neustria,  Eastern  and  Western  Francia, 

—  modern  Germany  and  modern  France,  roughly 
speaking, —  of  which  the  first  was  to  gain  the 
pre-eminence,  as  it  was  the  seat  of  the  power  of 
that  race  of  Charlemagne  which  seized  upon  the 
kingdoms  of  the  Merovingians.  But  in  these 
kingdoms,  while  the  family  of  Clovis  occupied 
them,  the  roj'al  power  became  more  and  more 
feeble  as  time  went  on,  a  condition  which  is  illus- 
trated by  the  title  given  in  history  to  these  kings, 

—  that  of  '  rois  faineants. "...  The  most  power- 
ful officer  of  a  Frankish  king  was  his  steward, 
or,  as  he  was  called,  the  mayor  of  his  palace. 
...  In  Austrasia  the  office  had  become  heredi- 
tary in  the  family  of  Pepin  of  Landen  (a  small 
village  near  Lifige),  and  under  its  guidance  the 
degenerate  children  of  Clovis  in  that  kingdom 
fought  for  the  supremacy  with  those  equally  de- 
generate in  Neustria,  at  that  time  also  under  the 
real  control  of  another  mayor  of  the  palace, 
called  Ebroin.  The  result  of  this  struggle,  after 
much  bloodshed  and  misery,  was  reached  in  the 
year  687  at  the  battle  of  Testry,  in  which  the 
Austrasians  completely  defeated  the  Neustrians. 
.  .  .  The  Merovingian  princes  were  still  nomi- 
nally kings,  while  all  the  real  power  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  descendants  of  Pepin  of  Landen, 
mayors  of  the  palace,  and  the  policy  of  govern- 
ment was  as  fully  settled  by  them  as  if  they  had 
been  kings  de  jure  as  well  as  de  facto.  This 
family  produced  in  its  earlier  days  some  persons 
who  have  become  among  the  most  conspicuous 
figures  in  history:  —  Pepin,  the  founder;  Pepin 
le  Gros,  of  Heristal ;  Charles,  his  son,  commonly 
called  Martel,  or  the  Hammerer ;  Pepin  le  Bref , 
under  whom  the  Carlovingian  dynasty  was,  by 
aid  of  the  Pope,  recognized  as  the  lawful  suc- 
cessor of  the  Merovingians,  even  before  the  ex- 
tinction of  that  race ;  and,  lastly,  Charles,  sur- 
named  the  Great,  or  Charlemagne,  one  of  the 
few  men  of  the  human  race  who,  by  common 
consent,  have  occupied  the  foremost  rank  in 
history.  .  .  .  The  object  of  Pepin  of  Heristal 
was  two-fold, — to  repress  the  disposition  of  the 
turbulent  nobles  to  encroach  upon  the  royal  au- 
thority, and  to  bring  again  under  the  yoke  of 
the  Pranks  those  tribes  in  Germany  who  had  re- 
volted against  the  Frankish  rule  owing  to  the 
weakness  of  the  Merovingian  government.  He 
measurably  accomplished  both  objects.  .  .  .  He 
seems  to  have  had  what  perhaps  is  the  best  test 
at  all  times  of  the  claims  of  a  man  to  be  a  real 
statesman :  some  consciousness  of  the  true  nature 
of  his  mission, —  the  establishment  of  order.  .  .  . 
His  son  and  successor,  Charles  Martel,  was  even 
more  conspicuous  for  the  possession  of  this  genius 
of  statesmanship,  but  he  exhibited  it  in  a  some- 
what different  direction.     He,  too,  strove  to  hold 


the  nobles  in  check,  and  to  break  the  power  of 
the  Frisian  and  the  Saxon  tribes ;  and  he  fought 
besides,  fortunately  for  his  fame,  one  of  the  fif- 
teen decisive  battles  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
that  of  Poitiers,  In  733,  by  which  the  Saracens, 
who  had  conquered  Spain,  and  who  had  strong 
hopes  of  gaining  possession  of  the  whole  of 
Western  Europe,  were  driven  back  from  North- 
ern France,  never  to  return.  .  .  .  His  son,  Pepin 
le  Bref,  is  equally  conspicuous  with  the  rest  in 
history,  but  in  a  somewhat  different  way.  He 
continued  the  never-ending  wars  in  Germany 
and  in  Gaul  with  the  object  of  securing  peace 
by  the  sword,  and  with  more  or  less  success. 
But  his  career  is  noteworthy  principally  because 
he  completed  the  actual  deposition  of  the  last  of 
the  Merovingian  race,  whose  nominal  servants 
but  real  masters  he  and  his  predecessors,  mayors 
of  the  palace,  had  been,  and  because  he  sought 
and  obtained  the  sanction  of  the  Church  for  this 
usurpation.  .  .  .  The  Pope's  position  at  this  time 
was  one  of  very  great  embarrassment.  Har- 
assed by  the  Lombards,  who  were  not  only  rob- 
bers, but  who  were  also  Arians,  and  who  admit- 
ted-none  of  the  Catholic  clergy  to  their  councils, 

—  with  no  succor  from  the  Emperors  at  Constan- 
tinople (whose  subject  he  nominally  was)  against 
the  Lombards,  and,  indeed,  in  open  revolt  against 
them  because  as  bishop  and  patriarch  of  the 
West  he  had  forbidden  the  execution  of  the  de- 
cree against  the  placing  of  images  in  the  churches, 

—  for  these  and  many  such  reasons  he  sorely 
needed  succor,  and  naturally  in  his  necessity  he 
turned  to  the  powerful  King  of  the  Franks.  The 
coronation  of  Pepin  le  Bref,  first  by  St.  Boni- 
face, and  then  by  the  Pope  himself,  was  the  first 
step  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  alliance  on  his  part. 
Pepin  was  soon  called  upon  to  do  his  share  of  the 
work.  Twice  at  the  bidding  of  the  Pope  he  de- 
scended from  the  Alps,  and,  defeating  the  Lom- 
bards, was  rewarded  by  him  and  the  people  of 
Rome  with  the  title  of  Patrician.  .  .  .  On  the 
death  of  Pepin,  the  Lombards  again  took  up  arms 
and  harassed  the  Church's  territory.  Charle- 
magne, his  successor,  was  called  upon  to  come 
to  the  rescue,  and  he  swept  the  Lombard  power 
in  Italy  out  of  existence,  annexing  its  territory  to 
the  Frankish  kingdom,  and  confirming  the  grant 
of  the  Exarchate  and  of  the  Pentapolis  which  his 
father  had  made  to  the  Popes.  "This  was  in  the 
year  774.  .  .  .  For  twenty-five  years  Charle- 
magne ruled  Rome  nominally  as  Patrician,  under 
the  supremacy,  equally  nominal,  of  the  Emperor 
at  Constantinople.  The  true  sovereign,  recog- 
nized as  such,  was  the  Pope  or  Bishop  of  Rome, 
but  the  actual  power  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
mob,  who  at  one  time  towards  the  close  of  the 
century,  in  the  absence  of  both  Emperor  and 
Patrician,  assaulted  the  Pope  while  conducting 
a  procession,  and  forced  him  to  abandon  the  city. 
This  Pope,  Leo,  with  a  fine  instinct  as  to  the 
quarter  from  which  succor  could  alone  come, 
hurried  to  seek  Charlemagne,  who  was  then  in 
Germany  engaged  in  one  of  his  never-ending 
wars  against  the  Saxons.  The  appeal  for  aid 
was  not  made  in  vain,  and  Charles  descended 
once  more  from  the  Alps  in  the  summer  of  799, 
with  his  Frankish  hosts.  On  Christmas  day, 
A.  D.  800,  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter  .  .  . 
Pope  Leo,  during  the  mass,  and  after  flie  reading 
of  the  gospel,  placed  upon  the  brow  of  Charle- 
magne, who  had  abandcttied  his  northern  furs  for 
the  dress  of  a  Roman  patrician,  the  diadem  of 


1467 


GERMANY.  A.  D. 


37-800.  Charlemagiie's  Restora-  GERMANY,    A.    D.    814-843. 
tion  of  the  Empire. 


the  Csesars,  and  hailed  him  Imperator  Semper 
Augustus,  while  the  multitude  shouted,  '  Carolo, 
Augusto  a  Deo  coronato  maguo  et  pacifico  Im- 
peratori  Vita  et  Victoria.'  In  that  shout  and 
from  that  moment  one  of  the  most  fruitful  epochs 
of  history  begins." — C.  J.  Stille,  Studies  in  Me- 
diceval  History,  ch.  3. — See,  also,  Fkauks:  A.  D. 
768-814. 

A.  D.  8oo. —  Charlemagne's  restoration  of 
the  Roman  Empire. — "Three  hundred  and 
twenty -four  years  had  passed  since  the  last 
CiEsar  of  the  West  resigned  his  power  into  the 
hands  of  the  senate,  and  left  to  his  Eastern 
brother  the  sole  headship  of  the  Roman  world. 
To  the  latter  Italy  had  from  that  time  been  nom- 
inally subject;  but  it  was  only  during  one  brief 
interval,  between  the  death  of  Totila  the  last 
Ostrogothic  king  and  the  descent  of  Alboin  the 
first  Lombard,  that  his  power  had  been  really 
effective.  In  the  further  provinces,  Gaul,  Spain, 
Britain,  it  was  only  a  memory.  But  the  idea  of 
a  Roman  Empire  as  a  necessary  part  of  the 
world's  order  had  not  vanished:  it  had  been  ad- 
mitted by  those  who  seemed  to  be  destroying  it ; 
it  had  been  cherished  by  the  Church ;  was  still 
recalled  by  laws  and  customs ;  was  dear  to  the 
subject  populations,  who  fondly  looked  back  to 
the  days  when  slavery  was  at  least  mitigated  by 
peace  and  order.  .  .  .  Both  the  extinction  of  the 
Western  Empire  in  [A.  D.  476]  .  .  .  and  its  revival 
in  A.  D.  800  have  been  very  generally  misunder- 
stood in  modem  times.  .  .  .  When  Odoacer 
compelled  the  abdication  of  Romulus  Augustu- 
lus,  he  did  not  abolish  the  Western  Empire  as  a 
separate  power,  but  caused  it  to  be  reunited  with 
or  sink  into  the  Eastern,  so  that  from  that  time 
there  was,  as  there  had  been  before  Diocletian, 
a  single  undivided  Roman  Empire.  In  A.  D. 
800  the  very  memory  of  the  separate  Western 
Empire,  as  it  had  stood  from  the  death  of  Theo- 
dosius  till  Odoacer,  had,  so  far  as  appears,  been 
long  since  lost,  and  neither  Leo  nor  Charles  nor 
any  one  among  their  advisers  dreamt  of  reviving 
it.  They,  too,  like  their  predecessors,  held  the 
Roman  Empire  to  be  one  and  indivisible,  and 
proposed  by  the  coronation  of  the  Frankish  king, 
not  to  proclaim  a  severance  of  the  East  and 
West,  but  to  reverse  the  act  of  Constantine,  and 
make  Old  Rome  again  the  civil  as  well  as  the 
ecclesiastical  capital  of  the  Empire  that  bore  her 
name.  .  .  .  Although  therefore  we  must  in  prac- 
tice speak  during  the  next  seven  centuries  (down 
till  A.  D.  1453,  when  Constantinople  fell  before 
the  Mohammedan)  of  an  Eastern  and  a  Western 
Empire,  the  phrase  is  in  strictness  incorrect,  and 
was  one  which  either  court  ought  to  have  repu- 
diated. The  Byzantines  always  did  repudiate 
it;  the  Latins  usually;  although,  yielding  to 
facts,  they  sometimes  condescended  to  employ  it 
themselves.  But  their  theory  was  always  the 
same.  Charles  was  held  to  be  the  legitimate 
successor,  not  of  Romulus  Augustulus,  but  of 
Basil,  Heraclius,  Justinian,  Arcadius,  and  all 
the  Eastern  line.  .  .  .  North  Italy  and  Rome 
ceased  for  ever  to  own  the  supremacy  of  Byzan- 
tium; and  while  the  Eastern  princes  paid  a 
shameful  tribute  to  the  Mussulman,  the  Frankish 
Emperor  —  as  the  recognised  head  of  Christen- 
dom —  received  from  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem 
the  keys  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  and  the  banner 
of  Calvary ;  the  gift  of  the  Sepulchre  itself,  says 
Eginhard,  from  Aaron  king  of  the  Persians  [the 
Caliph  Haroun  el  Rashid].  .  .  .  Four  centuries 


later,  when  Papacy  and  Empire  had  been  forced 
into  the  mortal  struggle  by  which  the  fate  of 
both  was  decided,  three  distinct  theories  regard- 
ing the  coronation  of  Charles  will  be  found  ad- 
vocated by  three  different  parties,  all  of  them 
plausible,  all  of  them  to  some  extent  misleading. 
The  Swabian  Emperors  held  the  crown  to  have 
been  won  by  their  great  predecessor  as  the  prize 
of  conquest,  and  drew  the  conclusion  that  the 
citizens  and  bishop  of  Rome  had  no  rights  as 
against  themselves.  The  patriotic  party  among 
the  Romans,  appealing  to  the  early  history  of  the 
Empire,  declared  that  by  nothing  but  the  voice 
of  their  senate  and  people  could  an  Emperor  be 
lawfully  created,  he  being  only  their  chief  mag- 
istrate, the  temporary  depositary  of  their  author- 
ity. 'The  Popes  pointed  to  the  indisputable  fact 
that  Leo  imposed  the  crown,  and  argued  that  as 
God's  earthly  vicar  it  was  then  his,  and  must 
always  continue  to  be  their  right  to  give  to 
whomsoever  they  would  an  office  which  was 
created  to  be  the  handmaid  of  their  own.  Of 
these  three  it  was  the  last  view  that  eventually 
prevailed. " —  J.  Bryce,  Tlie  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
ch.  4-5. 

Also  ln:  J.  I.  Mombert,  Hist,  of  GJiarles  the 
Great,  ch.  14.— See,  also,  Pbanks:  A.D.  768-814. 

A.  D.  805. — Conquest  of  the  Avars. — Crea- 
tion of  the  Austrian  March.  See  Avabs,  and 
Austria;  A.  D.  805-1246. 

A.  D.  814-843. —  Division  of  the  Empire  of 
Charlemagne. — "There  was  a  manifest  conflict, 
during  his  later  years,  in  the  court,  in  the  coun- 
cils, in  the  mind  of  Charlemagne  [who  died  in 
814],  between  the  King  of  the  Franks  and  the 
Emperor  of  the  West ;  between  the  dissociating, 
independent  Teutonic  principle,  and  the  Roman 
principle  of  one  code,  one  dominion,  one  sover- 
eign. The  Church,  though  Teutonic  in  descent, 
was  Roman  in  the  sentiment  of  unity.  .  .  .  That 
unity  had  been  threatened  by  the  proclaimed 
division  of  the  realm  between  the  sons  of  Char- 
lemagne. The  old  Teutonic  usage  of  equal  dis- 
tribution seemed  doomed  to  prevail  over  the  au- 
gust unity  of  the  Roman  Empire.  What  may 
appear  more  extraordinary,  the  kingdom  of  Italy 
was  the  inferior  appanage:  it  carried  not  vrith 
it  the  Empire,  which  was  still  to  retain  a  certain 
supremacy;  that  was  reserved  for  the  Teutonic 
sovereign.  It  might  seem  as  if  this  were  but  the 
continuation  of  the  Lombard  kingdom,  which 
Charlemagne  still  held  by  the  right  of  conquest. 
It  was  bestowed  on  Pepin ;  after  his  death  en- 
trusted to  Bernhard,  Pepin's  illegitimate  but 
only  son.  Wiser  counsels  prevailed.  The  two 
elder  sons  of  Charlemagne  died  without  issue; 
Louis  the  third  son  was  summoned  from  his 
kingdom  of  Aquitaine,  and  solemnly  crowned 
[813]  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  as  successor  to  the 
whole  Empire."— H.  H.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Latin 
Christianity,  bk.  5,  ch.  3  (v.  3).— "Instead  of 
being  preoccupied  with  the  care  of  keeping  the 
empire  united,  Louis  divided  it  in  the  year  817 
by  giving  kingdoms  to  his  three  sons.  The  eld- 
est, Lothaire,  had  Italy ;  Louis,  Bavaria ;  Pepin, 
Aquitaine.  A  nephew  of  the  emperor,  Bernard, 
Imagined  himself  wronged  by  this  partition,  and 
took  up  arms  to  hold  Italy.  Vanquished  with- 
out striking  a  blow,  he  delivered  himself  up  to 
his  uncle,  who  caused  his  eyes  to  be  put  out. 
He  expired  under  that  torture.  Louis  reproached 
himself  later  for  that  cruel  death,  and  to  expiate 
it,  subjected  himself  to  a  public  penance.     In 


1468 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  814-843. 


Division  of  the 
Empire. 


GERMANY,   A.   D.  911. 


833,  there  was  born  to  him  a  fourth  son.  To 
make  him  a  sharer  of  his  inlicritance,  the  em- 
peror, annulling  in  829  the  partition  of  817,  gave 
him  German}',  thus  depriving  his  elder  sons  of 
part  of  the  inheritance  jjreviously  assigned  them. 
This  provoked  the  resentment  of  those  princes; 
they  rose  iu  rebellion  against  their  father,  and 
the  rest  of  the  reign  of  Louis  was  only  a  suc- 
cession of  impious  contests  with  his  turbulent 
sons.  In  833,  he  deposed  Pepin,  and  gave  his 
kingdom  of  Aquitaine  to  his  youngest  born, 
Charles.  Twice  deposed  himself,  and  twice  re- 
stored, Louis  only  emerged  from  the  cloister,  for 
which  he  was  so  well  fitted,  to  repeat  the  same 
faults.  AVhen  Louis  the  Good-natured  died  in 
840,  it  was  not  his  cause  only  which  he  had  lost 
through  his  weakness,  but  that  of  the  empire. 
Those  intestine  quarrels  presaged  its  dismember- 
ment, which  ere  long  happened.  The  sons  of 
Louis,  to  serve  their  own  ambition,  had  revived 
the  national  antipathies  of  the  different  races. 
Lothaire  placed  himself  at  the  head  of  the  Ital- 
ians ;  Louis  rallied  the  Germans  round  him,  and 
Charles  the  Bald  the  Franks  of  Gaul,  who  were 
henceforward  called  Frenchmen.  Those  three 
peoples  aspired  to  break  up  the  union  whose  bond 
Charlemagne  had  imposed  upon  them,  as  the 
three  brothers  aspired  to  form  each  for  himself  a 
kingdom.  The  question  was  decided  at  the  great 
battle  of  Fontanet,  near  Auxerre,  in  841.  Lo- 
thaire, who  fought  therein  for  the  preservation 
of  the  empire  and  of  his  authority,  was  con- 
quered. By  the  treaty  of  Verdun  [843 — see 
Verdun,  Treaty  of]  it  was  decided  that  Louis 
should  have  Germany  to  the  east  of  the  Rhine; 
Charles,  France  to  the  west  of  the  Scheld,  the 
■Meuse,  the  Saone,  and  the.  Rhone;  finally,  Lo- 
thaire, Italy,  with  the  long  range  of  country  com- 
prised between  the  Alps  and  the  Cevennes,  the 
Jura,  the  Saone,  the  Rhine,  and  the  Meuse,  which 
from  his  name  was  called  Lotharingia.  This 
designation  is  still  to  be  traced  in  one  of  the 
recently  French  provinces,  Lorraine." — S.  Men- 
zies.  Hist,  of  Europe  from  the  Decadence  of  the 
Western  Empire  to  the  Reformation,  eh.  13. 
A.  D.  843. — Accession  of  Louis  XL 
A.  D.  843-962. — Treaty  of  Verdun. — Definite 
separation  from  France. — The  kingdom  of  the 
East  Franks. —  The  partition  of  the  empire  of 
Charlemagne  among  his  three  grandsons,  by  the 
Treaty  of  Verdun,  A.  D.  843  (see  Verdun,  Treaty 
OF;  also,  Franks:  A.  D.  814-962),  gave  to  Charles 
the  Bald  a  kingdom  which  nearly  coincided  with 
France,  as  afterwards  existing  under  that  name, 
"before  its  Burgundian  and  German  annexations. 
It  also  founded  a  kingdom  which  roughly  an- 
swered to  the  later  Germany  before  its  great  ex- 
tension to  the  East  at  the  expense  of  the  Slavonic 
nations.  And  as  the  Western  kingdom  was 
formed  by  the  addition  of  Aquitaine  to  the  West- 
ern Francia,  so  the  Eastern  kingdom  was  formed 
by  the  addition  of  the  Eastern  Francia  to  Bavaria. 
Lewis  of  Bavaria  [surnamed  '  the  German  ']  be- 
came king  of  a  kingdom  which  we  are  tempted 
to  call  the  kingdom  of  Germany.  Still  it  would 
as  yet  be  premature  to  speak  of  France  at  all, 
or  even  to  speak  of  Germany,  except  in  the 
geographical  sense.  The  two  kingdoms  are 
severally  the  kingdoms  of  the  Eastern  and  of 
the  Western  Franks.  .  .  .  The  Kings  had  no 
special  titles,  and  their  dominions  had  no  special 
names  recognized  in  formal  use.  Every  king 
who  ruled  over  any  part  of  the  ancient  Francia 


was  a  king  of  the  Franks.  .  .  .  The  East- 
ern part  of  the  Fraukish  dominions,  the  lot  of 
Lewis  the  German  and  his  successors,  is  thus 
called  the  Eastern  Kingdom,  the  Teutonic  King- 
dom. Its  king  is  the  King  of  the  East-Franks, 
sometimes  simply  the  King  of  the  Eastern  men, 
sometimes  the  King  of  Germany.  .  .  .  The  title 
of  King  of  Germany  is  often  found  in  the  ninth 
century  as  a  description,  but  it  was  not  a  formal 
title.  The  Eastern  king,  like  other  kings,  for 
the  most  part  simply  calls  himself  '  Rex,'  till  the 
time  came  when  his  rank  as  King  of  Germany, 
or  of  the  East-Franks,  became  simply  a  step 
towards  the  higher  title  of  Emperor  of  the  Ro- 
mans. .  .  .  This  Eastern  or  German  kingdom,  as 
it  came  out  of  the  division  of  887  [after  the  de- 
position of  Charles  III.,  called  Charles  the  Fat, 
who  came  to  the  throne  in  881,  and  who  had 
momentarily  reunited  all  the  Frankish  crowns,  ex- 
cept that  of  Burgundy],  had,  from  nortli  to  south, 
nearly  the  same  extent  as  the  Germany  of  later 
times.  It  stretched  from  the  Alps  to  the  Eider. 
Its  southern  boundaries  were  somewhat  fluctuat- 
ing. Verona  and  Aquileia  are  sometimes  counted 
as  a  German  march,  and  the  boundary  between 
Germany  and  Burgundy,  crossing  the  modern 
Switzerland,  often  changed.  To  the  north-east 
the  kingdom  hardly  stretched  beyond  the  Elbe, 
except  in  the  small  Saxon  land  between  the  Elbe 
and  the  Eider  [called  '  Saxony  beyond  the  Elbe ' 
—  modern  Holstein].  The  great  extension  of  the 
German  power  over  the  Slavonic  lands  beyond 
the  Elbe  had  hardly  yet  begun.  To  the  south- 
east lay  the  two  border-lands  or  marks ;  the  East- 
ern Mark,  which  grew  into  the  later  duchy  of 
Oesterreich  or  the  modern  Austria,  and  to  the 
south  of  it  the  mark  of  Kfirnthen  or  Carinthia. 
But  the  main  part  of  the  kingdom  consisted  of 
the  great  duchies  of  Saxony,  Eastern  Francia, 
Alemannia,  and  Bavaria.  Of  these  the  two  names 
of  Saxony  and  Bavaria  must  be  carefully  marked 
as  having  widely  different  meanings  from  tho.se 
which  they  bear  on  the  modern  map.  Ancient 
Saxony  lies,  speaking  roughly,  between  the 
Eider,  the  Elbe,  and  the  Rhino,  though  it  never 
actually  touches  the  last-named  river.  To  the 
south  of  Saxony  lies  the  Eastern  Francia,  the 
centre  and  kernel  of  the  German  kingdom.  The 
Main  and  the  Neckar  both  join  the  Rhine  within 
its  borders.  To  tlie  south  of  Francia  lie  Ale- 
mannia and  Bavaria.  This  last,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered, borders  on  Italy,  with  Bijtzen  for  its  fron- 
tier town.  Alemannia  is  the  land  in  which  both 
the  Rhine  and  the  Danube  take  their  source ;  it 
stretches  on  both  sides  of  the  Bodensee  or  Lake 
of  Constanz,  with  the  Rsetian  Alps  as  its  southern 
boundary.  For  several  ages  to  come,  there  is  no 
distinction,  national  or  even  provincial,  between 
the  lands  north  and  south  of  the  Bodensee." — 
E.  A.  Freeman,  Historical  Oeog.  of  Europe,  ch.  6, 
sect.  1. 

Also  in  :  Sir  F,  Palgrave,  Hist,  of  Normandy 
and  England,  v.  1-3. —  On  the  indefiniteness  of 
the  name  of  the  Germanic  kingdom  in  this  period, 
see  France  :  9th  Century. 

A.  D.  881.— Accession  of  Charles  III.  (called 
The  Fat),  aftervyards  King  of  all  the  Franks 
and  Emperor. 

A.  D.  888. — Accession  of  Arnulf,  afterwards 
Emperc. 

A.  D.  899. — Accession  of  Louis  III.  (called 
The  Child). 

A.  D.  911. — Election  of  Conrad  I. 


1469 


GERMANY,   A.  D.  911-936.        The  Saxon  line.       GERMANY,  A.  D.  936-973. 


A.  D.  911-936. — Conrad  the  Franconian  and 
Henry  the  Fowler.— Beginning  of  the  Saxon 
line. — Hungarian  invasion. — The  building  of 
towns. — In  911,  on  the  death  of  Louis,  surnaraed 
the  Child,  the  German  or  Bast-Frank  branch  of 
the  dynasty  of  Charlemagne  had  become  e.xtinct. 
"There  remained  indeed  Charles  the  Simple,  ac- 
knowledged as  king  in  some  parts  of  France,  but 
rejected  in  others,  and  possessing  no  personal 
claims  to  respect.  The  Germans  therefore  wise- 
ly determined  to  chose  a  sovereign  from  among 
themselves.  They  were  at  tliis  time  divided  into 
five  nations,  eacli  under  its  own  duke,  and  distin- 
guished by  difference  of  laws,  as  well  as  of  origin ; 
the  Franks,  whose  territory,  comprising  Fran- 
conia  and  the  modern  Palatinate,  was  considered 
as  the  cradle  of  the  empire,  and  who  seem  to  have 
arrogated  some  superiority  over  tlie  rest,  the  Sua- 
bians,  tlie  Bavarians,  the  Sa.xons  .  .  .  and  the 
Lorrainers,  who  occupied  tlie  left  bank  of  the 
Rhine  as  far  as  its  termination.  The  choice  of 
these  nations  in  their  general  assembly  fell  upon 
Conrad,  duke  of  Franconia.  according  to  some 
writers,  or  at  least  a  man  of  high  rank,  and  de- 
scended througli  females  from  Charlemagne. 
Conrad  dying  without  male  issue,  the  crown  of 
Germany  was  bestowed  [A.  D.  919]  upon  Henry 
the  Fowler,  duke  of  Saxony,  ancestor  of  the 
three  Othos,  who  followed  him  in  direct  succes- 
sion. To  Henry,  and  to  the  first  Otho  [A.  D.  936- 
973],  Germany  was  more  indebted  tlian  to  any 
sovereign  since  Charlemagne. " — H.  Hallam,  The 
Middle  Ages,  ch.5.  —  "  In  934,  the  Hungarians,  who 
were  as  much  dreaded  as  the  angel  of  destruction, 
re-appeared.  They  came  from  the  grassy  plains 
of  Hungary,  mounted  on  small  and  ugly,  but 
strong  horses,  and  swept  along  the  Danube  like 
a  hailstorm.  Wlierever  they  came  they  set  fire 
to  farms,  hamlets,  and  towns,  and  killed  all  liv- 
ing creatures  or  carried  tliem  off.  And  often  they 
bound  their  prisoners  to  the  tails  of  their  horses, 
and  dragged  them  along  till  tliey  died  from  the 
dreadful  torture.  Their  very  figures  inspired 
disgust  and  terror,  for  their  faces  were  brown, 
and  disfigured  by  scars  to  absolute  hideousness ; 
their  heads  were  shaven,  and  brutal  ferocity  and 
rapacity  shone  out  of  their  deep-set  eyes.  And 
though  the  Germans  fought  bravely,  these  ene- 
mies always  overmatched  tliem,  because  they  ap- 
peared now  here,  now  there,  on  their  fleet  horses, 
and  fell  upon  isolated  districts  before  they  were 
expected  or  could  be  stopped.  .  .  .  When  on  a 
sudden  the  terrible  cry,  '  The  Hungarians  are 
coming,  the  Hungarians  are  coming,'  resounded 
through  the  land,  all  fled  who  could,  as  if  tlie  wild 
legions  of  hell  were  marching  through  Saxony  and 
Thuringia.  King  Henry,  however,  would  not  fly, 
but  encountered  them  in  combat,  like  a  true 
knight.  Yet  he  lost  the  battle,  either  because  he 
was  ill,  or  because  his  soldiers  were  too  few,  and 
unaccustomed  to  the  enemy's  mode  of  fighting, 
which  enabled  them  to  conquer  while  they  were 
fleeing.  Henry  was  obliged  to  shut  himself  up 
in  tlie  royal  palace  of  Werla.  near  Goslar,  which 
he  bravely  defended.  The  Hungarians  stormed 
it  again  and  again,  but  they  could  not  scale  the 
w'alls ;  while  Henry's  men  by  a  daring  sally  took 
a  Hungarian  chieftain  prisoner,  which  so  terrified 
the  besiegers  that  they  concluded  a  truce  for  nine 
years  on  condition  tliat  their  chief  should  be  re- 
leased, and  that  Henry  should  engage  to  pay  a 
yearly  tribute.  Henry  submitted  to  the  dislionour- 
able  sacrifice  that  he  might  husband  his  strength 


for  better  times.  .  .  .  How  important  it  was  to 
have  fortified  places  which  could  not  be  stormed 
by  cavalry,  and  therefore  afforded  a  safe  refuge 
to  the  neiglibouring  peasantry,  Henry  recognised 
in  939,  when  the  Hungarians  marched  through 
Bavaria  and  Suabia  to  Lorraine,  plundered  the 
time-honoured  monastery  of  St.  Gall,  and  burnt 
the  suburbs  of  Constance,  but  could  not  take  the 
fortified  town  itself.  Henry,  accordingly,  pub- 
lished an  order  throughout  the  land,  that  at  suit- 
able places  large  fortresses  should  be  built,  in 
which  every  ninth  man  from  the  neighbouring 
district  must  take  garrison  duty.  Certainly  liv- 
ing in  towns  was  contrary  to  the  customs  of  the 
North  Germans,  and  here  and  there  there  was 
much  resistance;  but  they  soon  recognised  the 
wisdom  of  the  royal  order,  and  worked  night  and 
day  with  such  diligence  that  there  soon  arose 
throughout  the  land  towns  with  stately  towers 
and  strong  walls,  behind  whose  battlements  the 
armed  burghers  defiantly  awaited  the  Hungarians. 
Hamburg  was  then  fortified,  Itzehoe  built,  the 
walls  of  Magdeburg,  Halle,  and  Erfurt  extended, 
for  these  towns  had  stood  since  the  time  of  Charle- 
magne. Quedlinburg,  Merseburg,  Meissen,  Wit- 
tenberg, Goslar,  Soest,  Nordhausen,  Duderstadt, 
Gronau,  PSlde,  were  rebuilt,  and  many  others  of 
which  the  old  chroniclers  say  nothing.  Those 
who  dwelt  in  the  cities  were  called  burghers,  and 
in  order  that  they  might  not  be  idle  they  began 
to  practise  many  kinds  of  industry,  and  to  barter 
their  goods  with  the  peasants.  The  emperor  en- 
couraged the  building  of  towns,  and  granted 
emancipation  to  every  slave  who  repaired  to  a 
town,  allowed  the  towns  to  hold  fairs  and  mar- 
kets, granted  to  them  the  light  of  coining  money 
and  levying  taxes,  and  gave  them  many  landed 
estates  and  forests.  Under  such  encouragement 
town  life  rapidly  developed,  and  the  emperor,  in 
his  disputes  with  the  lawless  nobility,  always  re- 
ceived loyal  support  from  his  disciplined  burgh- 
ers. After  a  few  centuries  tlie  towns,  which  had 
now  generally  become  republics,  under  the  name 
of  'free  imperial  towns,'  became  the  seats  of  the 
perfection  of  European  trade,  science,  and  cul- 
ture. .  .  .  These  incalculable  benefits  are  due  to 
Henry's  order  to  build  towns." — A.  W.  Griibe, 
Heroes  of  History  and  Legend,  ch.  8. — At  the  ex- 
piration of  the  nine  years  truce,  the  Hungarians 
resumed  their  attacks,  and  were  defeated  by 
Henry  in  two  bloody  battles. 

A.  D.  936-973. — Restoration  of  the  Roman 
Empire  by  Otho  L,  called  the  Great. — "  Otho 
the  Great,  sou  and  successor  of  Henry  I.,  added 
the  kingdom  of  Italy  to  the  conquests  of  his  father, 
and  procured  also  the  Imperial  dignity  for  him- 
self, and  his  successors  in  Germany.  Italy  had 
become  a  distinct  kingdom  since  the  revolution, 
which  happened  (888)  at  the  death  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  the  Fat.  Ten  princes  in  succession  oc- 
cupied the  throne  during  the  space  of  seventy- 
three  years.  Several  of  these  princes,  such  as 
Guy,  Lambert,  Arnulf,  Louis  of  Burgundy,  and 
Berenger  I.,  were  invested  with  the  Imperial 
dignity.  Berenger  I.,  having  been  assassinated 
(934),  this  latter  dignity  ceased  entirely,  and  the 
city  of  Rome  was  even  dismembered  from  the 
kingdom  of  Italy.  The  sovereignty  of  that  city 
was  seized  by  the  famous  Marozia,  widow  of  a 
nobleman  named  Alberic.  She  raised  her  son  to 
the  pontificate  by  the  title  of  John  XI. ;  and  the  bet- 
ter to  establish  lier  dominion,  she  espoused  Hugo 
King  of  Italy  (932),  who  became,  in  consequence 


1470 


GERMANT,  A.  D.  936-973. 


The  restored 
Roman  Empire. 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  936-973. 


of  this  marriage,  master  of  Rome.  But  Alberic, 
another  son  of  Marozia,  soon  stirred  up  the  people 
against  this  aspiring  princess  and  her  husband 
Hugo.  Having  driven  Hugo  from  the  throne, 
and  slmt  up  his  mother  in  prison,  he  assumed  to 
himself  the  sovereign  authority,  under  the  title 
of  Patrician  of  the  Romans.  At  his  death  (954) 
he  transmitted  the  sovereignty  to  his  son  Octa- 
vian,  who,  though  onl}'  nineteen  years  of  age, 
caused  himself  to  be  elected  pope,  by  the  title  of 
John  XII.  This  epoch  was  one  most  disastrous 
for  Italy.  The  weakness  of  the  government  ex- 
cited factions  among  the  nobility,  gave  birth  to 
anarchy,  and  fresh  opportunity  for  the  depreda- 
tions of  the  Hungarians  and  Arabs,  who,  at  this 
period,  were  the  scourge  of  Italy,  which  they 
ravaged  with  impunity.  Pavia,  the  capital  of 
the  kingdom,  was  taken,  and  burnt  by  the  Hun- 
garians. These  troubles  increased  on  the  acces- 
sion of  Berenger  II.  (950),  grandson  of  Berenger 
I.  That  prince  associated  his  son  Adelbert  with 
him  in  the  royal  dignity ;  and  the  public  voice 
accused  them  of  having  caused  the  death  of  King 
Lothaire,  son  and  successor  of  Hugo.  Lothaire 
left  a  young  widow,  named  Adelaide,  daughter 
of  Rodolph  II.,  King  of  Burgundy  and  Italy.  To 
avoid  the  importunities  of  Berenger  II.,  who 
wished  to  compel  her  to  marry  his  son  Adelbert, 
this  princess  called  in  the  King  of  Germany  to  her 
aid.  Otho  complied  with  the  solicitations  of  the 
distressed  queen ;  and,  on  this  occasion,  undertook 
his  first  expedition  into  Italy  (951).  The  city  of 
Pavia,  and  several  other  places,  having  fallen 
into  his  hands,  he  made  himself  be  proclaimed 
King  of  Italy,  and  married  the  young  queen,  his 
protegee.  Berenger  and  his  son,  being  driven 
for  shelter  to  their  strongholds,  had  recourse  to 
negociation.  They  succeeded  in  obtaining  for 
themselves  a  confirmation  of  the  royal  title  of 
Italy,  on  condition  of  doing  homage  for  it  to  the 
King  of  Germany.  ...  It  appears  that  it  was 
not  without  the  regret,  and  even  contrary  to  the 
wish  of  Adelaide,  that  Otho  agreed  to  enter  into 
terms  of  accommodation  with  Berenger.  .  .  . 
Afterwards,  however,  he  lent  a  favourable  ear  to 
the  complaints  which  Pope  John  XII.  and  some 
Italian  noblemen  had  addressed  to  him  against 
Berenger  and  his  son ;  and  took  occasion,  on  their 
account,  to  conduct  a  new  army  into  Italy  (961). 
Berenger,  too  feeble  to  oppose  him,  retired  a 
second  time  within  his  fortifications.  Otho 
marched  from  Pavia  to  Milan,  and  there  made 
himself  be  crowned  King  of  Italy ;  from  thence 
he  passed  to  Rome,  about  the  commencement  of 
the  following  year.  Pope  John  XII. ,  who  had 
himself  invited  him,  and  again  implored  his  pro- 
tection against  Berenger,  gave  him,  at  first,  a 
very  brilliant  reception;  and  revived  the  Imperial 
dignity  in  his  favour,  which  had  been  dormant 
for  thirty-eight  years.  It  was  on  the  2d  of  Feb- 
ruary, 962,  that  the  Pope  consecrated  and 
crowned  him  Emperor;  but  he  had  soon  cause  to 
repent  of  this  proceeding.  Otho,  immediately 
after  his  coronation  at  Rome,  undertook  the 
siege  of  St.  Leon,  a  fortress  in  Umbria,  where 
Berenger  and  his  queen  had  taken  refuge.  While 
engaged  in  the  siege,  he  received  frequent  in- 
timations from  Rome,  of  the  misconduct  and 
immoralities  of  the  Pope.  The  remonstrances 
which  he  thought  It  his  duty  to  make  on  this 
subject,  offended  the  young  pontiff,  who  resolved, 
in  consequence,  to  break  off  union  with  the  Em- 
peror.   Hurried  on  by  the  impetuosity  of  his  char- 


acter, he  entered  into  a  negociation  with  Adelbert; 
and  even  persuaded  him  to  come  to  Rome,  in 
order  to  concert  with  him  measures  of  defence. 
On  the  first  news  of  this  event,  Otho  put  himself 
at  the  head  of  a  large  detachment,  with  which 
he  marched  directly  to  Rome.  The  Pope,  how- 
ever, did  not  think  it  advisable  to  wait  his  ap- 
proach, but  fled  with  the  King,  his  new  ally. 
Otho,  on  arriving  at  the  capital,  exacted  a  solemn 
oath  from  the  clergy  and  the  people,  that  hence- 
forth they  would  elect  no  pope  without  his  coun- 
sel, and  that  of  the  Emperor  and  his  successors. 
Having  then  assembled  a  council,  he  caused  Pope 
John  XII.  to  be  deposed;  and  Leo  VIII.  was 
elected  in  his  place.  This  latter  Pontiff  was 
maintained  in  the  papacy,  in  spite  of  all  the 
efforts  which  his  adversary  made  to  regain  it. 
Berenger  II. ,  after  having  sustained  a  long  siege  at 
St.  Leon,  fell  at  length  (964)  into  the  hands  of  the 
conqueror,  who  sent  him  into  exile  at  Bamberg, 
and  compelled  his  son,  Adelbert,  to  take  refuge 
in  the  court  of  Constantinople.  All  Italy,  to  the 
extent  of  the  ancient  kingdom  of  the  Lombards, 
fell  under  the  dominion  of  the  Germans;  only  a 
few  maritime  towns  in  Lower  Italy,  with  the 
greater  part  of  Apulia  and  Calabria,  still  remained 
in  the  power  of  the  Greeks.  This  kingdom,  to- 
gether with  the  Imperial  dignity,  Otho  transmit- 
ted to  his  successors  on  the  throne  of  Germany. 
From  this  time  the  Germans  held  it  to  be  an  in- 
violable principle,  that  as  the  Imperial  dignity 
was  strictly  united  with  the  royalty  of  Italy, 
kings  elected  by  the  German  nation  should,  at 
the  same  time,  in  virtue  of  that  election,  become 
Kings  of  Italy  and  Emperors.  The  practice  of 
this  triple  coronation,  viz.,  of  Germany,  Italy, 
and  Rome,  continued  for  many  centuries;  and 
from  Otho  the  Great,  till  Maximilian  I.  (1508),  no 
king  of  Germany  took  the  title  of  Emperor,  un- 
til after  he  had  been  formally  crowned  by  the 
Pope." — C.  W.  Koch,  Tlie  Eevolutio7i»  of  Europe, 
period  3. — "  At  the  first  glance  it  would  seem  as 
if  the  relation  in  which  Otho  now  stood  to  the 
pope  was  the  same  as  that  occupied  by  Charle- 
magne ;  on  a  closer  inspection,  however,  we  find 
a  wide  difference.  Charlemagne's  connexion 
with  the  see  of  Rome  was  produced  by  mutual 
need;  it  was  the  result  of  long  epochs  of  political 
combination  embracing  the  development  of  vari- 
ous nations;  their  mutual  understanding  rested 
on  an  internal  necessity,  before  which  all  oppos- 
ing views  and  Interests  gave  way.  The  sover- 
eignty of  Otho  the  Great,  on  the  contrary,  rested 
on  a  principle  fundamentally  opposed  to  the  en- 
croachment of  spiritual  influences.  The  alliance 
was  momentary ;  the  disruption  of  it  inevitable. 
But  when,  soon  after,  the  same  pope  who  had 
invoked  his  aid,  John  XII.,  placed  himself  at  the 
head  of  a  rebellious  faction,  Otho  was  compelled 
to  cause  him  to  be  formally  deposed,  and  to 
brush  the  faction  that  supported  him  by  repeated 
exertions  of  force,  before  he  could  obtain  perfect 
obedience ;  he  was  obliged  to  raise  to  the  papal 
chair  a  pope  on  whose  co-operation  he  could  rely. 
The  popes  have  often  asserted  that  they  trans- 
ferred the  empire  to  the  Germans ;  and  if  they 
confined  this  assertion  to  the  Carolingian  race, 
they  are  not  entirely  wrong.  The  coronation  of 
Charlemagne  was  the  result  of  their  free  deter- 
mination. But  if  they  allude  to  the  German 
emperors,  properly  so  called,  the  contrary  of  their 
statement  is  j  ust  as  true ;  not  only  Carlmann  and 
Otho  the  Great,  but  their  successors,  constantly 


1471 


GERMANY,  A,  D.  936-973. 


The  restored 
Roman  Empire. 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  973-1122. 


had  to  conquer  the  imperial  throne,  and  to 
defend  it,  when  conquered,  sword  in  hand.  It 
has  been  said  that  the  Germans  would  have  done 
more  wisely  if  they  had  not  meddled  with  the 
empire ;  or,  at  least,  if  they  had  first  worked  out 
their  own  internal  political  institutions,  and  then, 
with  matured  minds,  taken  part  in  the  gen- 
eral affairs  of  Europe.  But  the  things  of  this 
world  are  not  wont  to  develop  themselves  so 
methodically.  A  nation  is  often  compelled  by 
circumstances  to  increase  its  territorial  extent,  be- 
fore its  internal  growth  is  completed.  For  was 
it  of  slight  importance  to  its  inward  progress 
that  Germany  thus  remained  in  unbroken  con- 
nexion with  Italy? — the  depository  of  all  that 
remained  of  ancient  civilisation,  the  source 
whence  all  the  forms  of  Christianity  had  been 
derived.  The  mind  of  Germany  has  always  un- 
folded itself  by  contact  with  the  spirit  of  an- 
tiquity, and  of  the  nations  of  Roman  origin.  .  .  . 
The  German  imperial  government  revived  the 
civilising  and  Christianising  tendencies  which 
had  distinguished  the  reigns  of  Charles  Martell 
and  Charlemagne.  Otho  the  Great,  in  following 
the  course  marked  out  by  his  illustrious  pre- 
decessors, gave  it  a  fresh  national  importance 
by  planting  German  colonies  in  Slavonian  coun- 
tries simultaneously  with  the  diffusion  of  Chris- 
tianity. He  Germanised  as  well  as  converted 
the  population  he  had  subdued.  He  con- 
firmed his  fathers  conquests  on  the  Saale  and 
the  Elbe,  by  the  establishment  of  the  bishoprics 
of  Meissen  and  Osterland.  After  having  con- 
quered the  tribes  on  the  other  side  the  Elbe  in 
those  long  and  perilous  campaigns  where  he 
commanded  in  person,  he  established  there,  too, 
three  bishopries,  which  for  a  time  gave  an  ex- 
traordinary impulse  to  the  progress  of  conver- 
sion. .  .  ."  And  even  where  the  project  of  Ger- 
manising the  population  was  out  of  the  question, 
the  supremacy  of  the  German  name  was  firmly 
and  actively  maintained.  In  Bohemia  and  Po- 
land bishoprics  were  erected  under  German  met- 
ropelitans ;  from  Hamburg  Christianity  found  its 
way  into  the  north;  missionaries  from  Passau 
traversed  Hungary,  nor  is  it  improbable  that  the 
influence  of  these  vast  and  sublime  efforts  ex- 
tended even  to  Russia.  The  German  empire  was 
the  centre  of  the  conquering  religion;  as  itself 
advanced,  it  extended  the  ecclesiastico-military 
State  of  which  the  Church  was  an  integral  part; 
it  was  the  chief  representative  of  the  unity  of 
western  Christendom,  and  hence  arose  the  neces- 
sity under  which  it  lay  of  acquiring  a  decided 
ascendancy  over  the  papacy.  This  secular  and 
Gtermanic  principle  long  retained  the  predomi- 
nancy it  had  triumphantly  acquired.  .  .  .  How 
magnificent  was  the  position  now  occupied  by 
the  German  nation,  represented  in  the  persons  of 
the  mightiest  princes  of  Europe  and  united  under 
their  sceptre ;  at  the  head  of  an  advancing  civi- 
lisation, and  of  the  whole  of  western  Christendom ; 
in  the  fullness  of  youthful  aspiring  strength! 
We  must  here  however  remark  and  confess,  that 
Germany  did  not  wholly  understand  her  position, 
nor  fulfil  her  mission.  Above  all,  she  did  not 
succeed  in  giving  complete  reality  to  the  idea  of 
a  western  empire,  such  as  appeared  about  to  be 
established  under  Otho  I.  Independent  and  often 
hostile,  though  Christian  powers  arose  through 
all  the  borders  of  Germany ;  in  Hungary  and  in 
Poland,  in  the  northern  as  well  as  in  the  southern 
possessions  of  the  Normans ;  England  and  France 


were  snatched  again  from  German  influence. 
Spain  laughed  at  the  German  claims  to  a  uni- 
versal supremacy ;  her  kings  thought  themselves 
emperors;  even  the  enterprises  nearest  home  — 
those  across  the  Elbe  —  were  for  a  time  stationary 
or  retrograde.  If  we  seek  for  the  causes  of  these 
unfavourable  results,  we  need  only  turn  our  eyes 
on  the  internal  condition  of  the  empire,  where 
we  find  an  incessant  and  tempestuous  struggle  of 
all  the  forces  of  the  nation.  Unfortunately  the 
establishment  of  a  fixed  rule  of  succession  to  the 
imperial  crown  was  continually  prevented  by 
events." — L.  Ranke,  Hist,  of  the  Reformation  in, 
Oermany,  introd. — See,  also,  Italy:  A.  D.  961- 
1039 ;  and  Roman  EMPraE,  The  Holy. 

A.  D.  955. — Great  defeat  and  repulse  of  the 
Hungarians  by  Otho  I.  See  Hungarlvns:  A.  D. 
934-955. 

A.  D.  973-1122. — End  of  the  Saxon  line. — 
Election  of  the  Franconians. — Reformation  of 
the  Papacy. — Contest  of  Henry  IV.  with  the 
Head  of  the  Church. — The  question  of  Investi- 
tures.—  "  Otho  II.  had  a  short  and  troubled  reign, 
973-983  A.  D.,  having  to  repress  the  Slavi,  the 
Danes,  the  Greeks  of  Lower  Italy,  and  to  defend 
Lorraine  against  the  French.  He  died  at  Rome 
in  his  twenty-eighth  year,  983  A.  D.  Otho  III. 
(aged  three  years)  succeeded  under  the  regency 
of  his  mother,  Theophania  (a  Greek  princess), 
who  had  to  contend  with  the  rebellious  nobles, 
the  Slavi,  the  Poles,  the  Bohemians,  and  with 
France,  which  desired  to  conquer  Lorraine.  This 
able  lady  died  991  A.  D.  Otho  III.  made  three 
expeditions  into  Italy,  and  in  998  A.  D.  put  down 
the  republic  of  Rome,  which  had  been  created  by 
the  patrician  Crescentius.  The  resistance  of 
Crescentius  had  been  pardoned  the  preceding 
year,  but  on  this  occasion  he  was  publicly  be- 
headed on  the  battlements  of  Rome,  in  view  of 
the  army  and  of  the  people.  In  999  A.  D.  Otho 
placed  ills  tutor  Gerbert  in  the  papal  chair  as 
Sylvester  II.  The  tutor  and  the  emperor  were 
in  advance  of  their  age.  The  former  had  gleaned 
from  Saracen  translations  from  the  Greek,  as  well 
as  from  Latin  literature,  and  was  master  of  the 
science  of  the  day.  It  is  supposed  that  they  had 
planned  to  remove  the  seat  of  empire  to  Rome  — 
a  project  which,  had  he  lived,  he  would  not 
have  been  able  to  carry  out,  for  the  centre  of 
political  power  had  long  moved  northward :  he 
died  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-two,  1003  A.  D. 
Henry  II.  (the  Holy),  Duke  of  Bavaria,  was 
elected  emperor,  and  had  to  battle,  like  hi?  pre- 
decessors, with  rebellious  nobles,  with  the  Poles, 
and  Bohemians,  and  the  Slavi.  He  was  thrice  in 
Italy,  and  died  1024  A.  D.  'Perhaps,  with  the 
single  exception  of  St.  Louis  IX.,  there  was  no 
other  prince  of  the  middle  ages  so  uniformly 
swayed  by  justice.'  Conrad  II.  (the  Salic)  of 
Franconia  was  elected  emperor  in  a  diet  in  the 
plains  between  Mentz  and  Worms,  near  Oppeu- 
heim,  which  was  attended  by  princes,  nobles, 
and  50,000  people  altogether.  His  reign  wap 
remarkable  for  the  justice  and  mercy  which  he 
always  kept  in  view.  The  kingdom  of  Aries 
and  Burguudv  was  united  to  the  empire,  1033 
A.  D.  He  checked  the  Poles,  the  Hungarians, 
and  the  Lombards,  and  gave  Schleswick  to  Den- 
mark as  a  fief.  In  1037  A.  D.  he  granted  to  the 
lower  vassals  of  the  empire  the  hereditary  suc- 
cession to  their  oflices  and  estates,  and  so  ex- 
tended the  privileges  of  the  great  nobles,  as  to 
make  them  almost  Independent   of  the  crown. 


1472 


GERMANY,  A.   D.  973-1122. 


The  Papacy  ami 
the  Empire, 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  973-1122. 


Henry  HI.  succeeded,  1039  A.  D. ,  and  establislied 
the  imperial  power  with  a  high  hand. " — -W.  B. 
Boyce,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  History,  pp. 
330-231. — "Henry  HI.  was,  as  sovereign,  able, 
upright,  and  resolute ;  and  liis  early  deatli  —  for 
his  reign  was  cut  short  by  disasters  that  preyed 
upon  liis  health —  is  one  of  the  calamities  of  his- 
tory. The  cause  of  the  Roman  Court  he  j  udged 
with  vigor  and  good  sense.  His  strong  hand, 
more  than  any  man's,  dragged  the  Cliurcli  out  of 
the  slough  it  had  fallen  into  [see  Ro.me:  A,  D. 
962-1057].  ...  A  few  years  before,  in  1033,  a 
child  ten  years  old,  son  of  one  of  the  noble 
houses,  had  been  put  cm  the  papal  throne,  under 
the  name  of  Benedict  IX.  ;  and  was  restored  to  it 
by  force  of  arms,  five  years  later,  when  he  had 
grown  into  a  lewd,  violent,  and  wilful  boy  of 
fifteen.  At  the  age  of  twenty-one  he  was  weary 
of  the  struggle,  and  sold  out,  for  a  large  sum  of 
money  paid  down,  to  a  rich  jnirchaser, —  first 
plundering  the  papal  treasury  of  all  the  funds  he 
could  lay  his  hands  on.  His  successor,  Gregory 
VI.,  naturally  complained  of  his  hard  bargain, 
which  was  made  harder  by  another  claimant 
(Sylvester  III.),  elected  by  a  different  party; 
while  no  law  that  could  possibly  be  quoted  or 
invented  would  make  valid  the  purchase  and  sale 
of  the  spiritual  sovereignty  of  the  world,  wliich 
in  theory  the  Papacy  still  was.  Gregory  appears 
to  have  been  a  respectable  and  even  conscientious 
magistrate,  by  the  standard  of  that  evil  time. 
But  his  open  purchase  of  the  dignity  not  only 
gave  a  shock  to  whatever  right  feeling  there  was 
left,  but  it  made  the  extraordinary  dilemma  and 
scandal  of  three  popes  at  once, —  a  knot  which 
the  German  king,  now  Emperor,  was  called  in 
to  cut.  .  .  .  The  worthless  Benedict  was  dis- 
missed, as  having  betrayed  his  charge.  The  im- 
potent Sylvester  was  not  recognized  at  all.  The 
respectable  Gregory  was  duly  convinced  of  his 
deep  guilt  of  Simony, —  because  he  had  '  thought 
that  the  gift  of  God  could  be  purchased  with 
money, ' —  and  was  suffered  as  a  penitent  to  end 
his  days  in  peace.  A  fourth,  a  German  ecclesi- 
astic, who  was  clean  of  all  these  intrigues,  was 
set  in  the  chair  of  Peter,  where  he  reigned  right- 
eously for  two  years  under  the  name  of  Clement 
II." — J.  H.  Allen,  Christian  History  in  its  Tliree 
Orait  Periods :  Second  period,  pp.  57-58. — "With 
the  popes  of  Henry's  appointment  a  new  and 
most  powerful  force  rose  to  the  control  of  the 
papacy  —  a  strong  and  earnest  movement  for  ref- 
ormation which  had  arisen  outside  the  circle  of 
papal  influence  during  the  darkest  days  of  its 
degradation,  indeed,  and  entirely  independent  of 
the  empire.  This  had  started  from  the  monas- 
tery of  Cluny,  founded  in  910,  in  eastern  France, 
as  a  reformation  of  the  monastic  life,  but  it  in- 
volved gradually  ideas  of  a  wider  reformation 
throughout  the  whole  church.  Two  great  sins 
of  the  time,  as  it  regarded  them,  were  especially 
attacked,  the  marriage  of  priests  and  simony,  or 
the  purchase  of  ecclesiastical  preferment  for 
money,  including  also  appointments  to  church 
offices  by  temporal  rulers.  .  .  .  The  earnest  spirit 
of  Henry  III.  was  not  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
demand  for  a  real  reformation,  and  with  the  third 
pope  of  his  appointment,  Leo  IX.,  in  1048,  the 
Ideas  of  Cluny  obtained  the  direction  of  affairs. 
.  .  .  One  apparently  insignificant  act  of  Leo's 
had  important  consequences.  He  brought  back 
with  him  to  Rome  the  monk  Hildebrand.  He 
had  been  brought  up  in  a  monastery  in  Rome  in 

93  ^^73 


the  strictest  ideas  of  Cluny,  had  been  a  supporter 
of  Gregory  VI. ,  one  of  the  three  rival  popes  de- 
posed by  Henry,  who,  notwithstanding  his  out- 
right purchase  of  the  papacy,  represented  the 
new  reform  demand,  and  had  gone  with  him  into 
exile  on  his  deposition.  It  does  not  appear  that 
he  exercised  any  decisive  influence  during  the 
reign  of  Leo  IX.,  but  so  great  was  his  ability 
and  such  the  power  of  his  personality  that  very 
soon  he  became  the  directing  spirit  in  the  papal 
policy,  though  his  influence  over  the  papacy  be- 
fore his  own  pontificate  was  not  so  great  nor  so 
constant  as  it  has  sometimes  been  said  to  have 
been.  So  long  as  Henry  lived  the  balance  of 
power  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  emperor, 
but  in  1056  happened  that  disastrous  event, 
which  occurred  so  many  times  at  critical  points 
of  imperial  history,  from  Arnulf  to  Henry  VI., 
the  premature  death  of  the  emperor.  His  son, 
Henry  IV. ,  was  only  six  years  old  at  his  father's 
deatli,  and  a  minority  followed  just  in  the  crisis 
of  time  needed  to  enable  the  feudal  princes  of 
Germany  to  recover  and  strengthen  their  inde- 
pendence against  the  central  government,  and  to 
give  free  hands  to  the  papacy  to  carry  out  its 
plans  for  throwing  off  the  imperial  control. 
Never  again  did  an  emperor  occujij',  in  respect 
either  to  Germany  or  the  papacy,  the  vantage- 
ground  on  which  Henry  HI.  had  stood.  .  .  .  The 
triumph  of  the  reform  movement  and  of  its  eccle- 
siastical theory  is  especially  connected  with  the 
name  of  Hildebrand,  or  Gregory  VII.,  as  he  called 
himself  when  pope,  and  was  very  largely,  if  not 
entirely,  due  to  his  indomitable  spirit  and  iron 
will,  which  would  yield  to  no  persuasion  or 
threats  or  actual  force.  He  is  one  of  the  most 
interesting  personalities  of  history.  .  .  .  The 
three  chief  points  which  the  reform  party  at- 
tempted to  gain  were  the  independence  of  the 
church  from  all  outside  control  in  the  election  of 
the  pope,  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  and  the  abo- 
lition of  simony  or  the  purchase  of  ecclesiastical 
preferment.  The  foundation  for  the  first  of  these 
was  laid  under  Nicholas  II.  by  assigning  the 
selection  of  the  pope  to  the  college  of  cardinals 
in  Rome,  though  it  was  only  after  some  consid- 
erable time  that  this  reform  was  fully  secured. 
The  second  point,  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  had 
long  been  demanded  by  the  church,  but  the  re- 
quirement had  not  been  strictly  enforced,  and  in 
many  parts  of  Europe  married  clergy  were  the 
rule.  ...  As  interpreted  by  the  reformers,  the 
third  of  their  demands,  the  suppression  of  simony, 
was  as  great  a  step  in  advance  and  as  revolution- 
ary as  the  first.  Technically,  simony  was  the 
sin  of  securing  an  ecclesiastical  office  by  bribery, 
named  from  the  incident  recorded  in  the  eighth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  concerning  Simon  Magus. 
But  at  this  time  the  desire  for  the  complete  in- 
dependence of  the  church  had  given  to  it  a  new 
and  wider  meaning  which  made  it  include  all 
appointment  to  positions  in  the  church  by  lay- 
men, including  kings  and  the  emperor.  .  .  .  Ac- 
cording to  the  conception  of  the  public  law  the 
bisliop  was  an  officer  of  the  state.  He  had,  in 
the  great  majority  of  cases,  political  duties  to 
perform  as  important  as  his  ecclesiastical  duties. 
The  lands  which  formed  the  endowment  of  his 
office  had  always  been  considered  as  being,  still 
more  directly  than  any  other  feudal  land,  the 
property  of  the  state.  ...  It  was  a  matter  of 
vital  importance  whether  officers  exercising  such 
important  functions  and  controlling  so  large  a 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  973-1133. 


Henry  IV. 
and  Hildebrand. 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  973-1133. 


part  of  its  area  —  probably  everywhere  as  much 
as  one-third  of  the  territory  —  should  bo  selected 
by  the  state  or  by  some  foreign  power  beyond 
its  reach  and  having  its  own  peculiar  interests  to 
seek.  But  this  question  of  lay  investiture  was 
as  vitally  important  for  the  church  as  for  the 
state.  ...  It  was  as  necessary  to  the  centraliza- 
tion and  independence  of  the  church  that  it 
should  choose  these  officers  as  that  it  should  elect 
the  head  of  all  —  the  pope.  This  was  not  a  ques- 
tion for  Germany  alone.  Every  northern  state 
had  to  face  the  same  difficulty.  .  .  .  The  struggle 
was  so  much  more  bitter  and  obstinate  with  the 
emperor  than  with  any  other  sovereign  because 
of  the  close  relation  of  the  two  powers  one  to 
another,  and  because  the  whole  question  of  their 
relative  rights  was  bound  up  with  it.  It  was  an 
act  of  rebellion  on  the  part  of  the  papacy  against 
the  sovereign,  who  had  controlled  it  with  almost 
absolute  power  for  a  century,  and  it  was  rising 
into  an  equal,  or  even  superior,  place  beside  the 
emperor  of  what  was  practically  a  new  power,  a 
rival  for  his  imperial  position.  ...  It  was  abso- 
lutely impossil)le  that  a  conflict  with  these  new 
claims  should  be  avoided  as  soon  as  Henry  IV. 
arrived  at  an  age  to  take  the  government  into 
his  own  hands  and  attempted  to  exercise  his  im- 
perial rights  as  he  understood  them." — G.  B. 
Adams,  Civilization  During  the  Middle  Ages,  ch. 
10. — "At  Gregory's  accession,  he  [Henry]  was  a 
young  man  of  twenty-three.  His  violence  had 
already  driven  a  whole  district  into  rebellion. 
.  .  .  The  Pope  sided  with  the  insurgents.  He 
summoned  the  young  king  to  his  judgment-seat 
at  Rome ;  threatened  at  his  refusal  to  '  cut  him 
off  as  a  rotten  limb ' ;  and  passed  on  him  the  awful 
sentence  of  excommunication.  The  double  terror 
of  rebellion  at  home  and  the  Church's  curse  at 
length  broke  down  the  passionate  pride  of  Henry. 
Humbled  and  helpless,  he  crossed  the  Alps  in 
midwinter,  groping  among  the  bleak  precipices 
and  ice-fields,  —  the  peasants  passing  him  in  a 
rude  sledge  of  hide  down  those  dreadful  slopes,^ 
and  went  to  beg  absolution  of  Gregory  at  the 
mountain  castle  of  Canossa.  History  has  few 
scenes  more  dramatic  than  that  which  shows  the 
proud,  irascible,  crest-fallen  young  sovereign 
confronted  with  the  fiery,  little,  indomitable  old 
man.  To  quote  Gregory's  own  words: — 'Here 
he  came  with  few  attendants,  and  for  three  days 
before  the  gate  —  his  royal  apparel  laid  aside, 
barefoot,  clad  in  wool,  and  weeping  abundantly 
—  he  never  ceased  to  implore  the  aid  and  com- 
fort of  apostolic  mercy,  till  all  there  present  were 
moved  with  pity  and  compassion ;  insomuch  that, 
interceding  for  him  with  many  prayers  and  tears 
they  all  wondered  at  my  strange  severity,  and 
some  even  cried  out  that  it  was  not  so  much  the 
severe  dignity  of  an  apostle  as  the  cruel  wrath  of 
a  tyrant.  Overcome  at  length  by  the  urgency 
of  his  appeal  and  the  entreaties  of  all  present,  I 
relaxed  the  bond  of  anathema,  and  received  him 
to  the  favor  of  communion  and  the  bosom  of 
our  holy  Mother  the  Church.'  It  was  a  truce 
which  one  party  did  not  mean  nor  the  other  hope 
to  keep.  It  was  policy,  not  real  terror  or  con- 
viction, that  had  led  Henry  to  humble  himself 
bsfore  the  Pope.  It  was  policy,  not  contrition 
or  compassion,  that  had  led  Gregory  (against  his 
better  judgment,  it  is  said)  to  accept  his  Sover- 
eign's penance.  In  the  war  of  policy,  the  man 
of  the  world  prevailed.  Freed  of  the  Church's 
curse,  he  quickly  won  back  the  strength  he  had 


lost.  He  overthrew  in  battle  the  rival  whom 
Gregory  upheld.  He  swept  his  rebellious  lands 
with  sword  and  flame.  He  carried  his  victorious 
army  to  Rome,  and  was  there  crowned  Emperor 
by  a  rival  Pope  [1084].  Gregory  himself  was 
only  saved  by  his  ferocious  allies,  Norman  and 
Saracen,  at  cost  of  the  devastation  of  half  the 
capital, —  that  broad  belt  of  ruin  which  still 
covers  the  half  mile  between  the  Coliseum  and 
the  Lateran  gate.  Then,  hardlj-  rescued  from 
the  popular  wrath,  he  went  away  to  die,  defeated 
and  heart-broken,  at  Salerno,  with  the  almost 
despairing  words  on  his  lips ;  '  I  have  loved 
righteousness  and  hated  iniquity,  and  therefore 
I  die  in  exile ! '  But  '  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh  or 
bones,'  as  a  body  hath,  and  so  it  will  not  stay 
mangled  and  bruised.  The  victory  lay,  after 
all,  with  the  combatant  who  could  appeal  to 
fanaticism  as  well  as  force. " — J.  H.  Allen,  Chris- 
tian History  in  its  Three  Creat  Periods :  second 
period,  pp.  69-73. — "  Meanwhile,  the  Saxons  had 
recognized  Hermann  of  Ijuxemburg  as  their 
King,  but  in  1087  he  resigned  the  crown;  and 
another  claimant,  Eckbert,  Margrave  of  Meissen, 
was  murdered.  The  Saxons  were  now  thoroughly 
weary  of  strife,  and  as  years  and  bitter  experi- 
ence had  softened  the  character  of  Henry,  they 
were  the  more  willing  to  return  to  their  alle- 
giance. Peace  was  therefore,  for  a  time,  restored 
in  Germany.  The  Papacy  did  not  forgive  Henry. 
He  was  excommunicated  several  times,  and  in 
1091  his  son  Conrad  was  excited  to  rebel  against 
him.  In  1104  a  more  serious  rebellion  was  headed 
by  the  Emperor's  second  son  Henry,  who  had 
been  crowned  King,  on  promising  not  to  seize  the 
government  during  his  father's  lifetime,  in  1099. 
The  Emperor  was  treated  very  cruelly,  and  had 
to  sign  his  own  abdication  at  Ingelheim  in  1105. 
A  last  effort  was  made  on  his  behalf  by  the  Duke 
of  Lotharingia;  but  worn  out  by  his  sorrows 
and  struggles,  Henry  died  in  August,  1106.  His 
body  lay  in  a  stone  coffin  in  an  unconsecrated 
chapel  at  Speyer  for  five  years.  Not  till  1111, 
when  the  sentence  of  excommunication  was  re- 
moved, was  it  properly  buried.  Henry  V.  was 
not  so  obedient  to  the  Church  as  the  Papal  party 
had  hoped.  He  stoutly  maintained  the  very 
point  which  had  brought  so  much  trouble  on  his 
father.  The  right  of  investiture,  he  declared, 
had  always  belonged  to  his  predecessors,  and  he 
was  not  to  give  up  what  they  had  handed  on  to 
him.  In  1110  he  went  to  Rome,  accompanied  by 
a  large  army.  Next  3'ear  Pope  Paschal  II,  was 
forced  to  crown  him  Emperor;  but  as  soon  as 
the  Germans  had  crossed  the  Alps  again  Paschal 
renewed  all  his  old  demands.  The  struggle  soon 
spread  to  Germany.  The  Emperor  was  excom- 
municated ;  and  the  discontented  princes,  as  eager 
as  ever  to  break  the  royal  power,  sided  with  the 
Pope  against  him.  Peace  was  not  restored  till 
1133,  when  Calixtus  II.  was  Pope.  In  that  year, 
in  a  Diet  held  at  Worms,  both  parties  agreed  to 
a  compromise,  called  the  Concordat  of  Worms. " 
— J.  Sime,  History  of  Germany,  ch.  8. — "The 
long-desired  reconciliation  was  effected  in  the 
form  of  the  following  concordat.  The  emperor 
renounced  the  right  of  investiture  with  the  ring 
and  crosier,  and  conceded  that  all  bishoprics  of  the 
empire  should  be  filled  by  canonical  election  and 
free  consecration ;  the  election  of  the  German 
bishops  (not  of  the  Italian  and  Burgundian) 
should  be  held  in  presence  of  the  emperor;  the 
bishops  elect  should  receive  investiture,  but  only 


1474 


GERMANY,  A.  D.  973-1122. 


The  College  of 
Electors. 


GERMANY,  1135-1272. 


of  their  fiefs  and  regalia,  by  the  sceptre  in  Ger- 
many before,  in  Italy  and  in  Burgundy  after, 
their  consecration ;  for  these  grants  they  should 
promise  fidelity  to  tlie  emperor;  contested  elec- 
tions should  be  decided  by  the  emperor  in  favour 
of  him  who  should  be  considered  by  the  pro- 
vincial synod  to  possess  the  better  right.  Finally 
he  should  restore  to  the  Roman  Church  all  the 
possessions  and  regalia  of  St.  Peter.  This  con- 
vention secured  to  the  Church  many  things,  and 
above  all,  the  freedom  of  ecclesiastical  elections. 
Hitherto,  the  different  Churches  had  been  com- 
pelled to  give  their  consent  to  elections  that  had 
been  made  by  the  king,  but  now  the  king  was 
pledged  to  consent  to  the  elections  made  by  the 
Churches;  and  although  these  elections  took 
place  in  his  presence,  he  could  not  refuse  his  con- 
sent and  investiture  without  violating  the  treaty, 
in  which  he  had  promised  that  for  the  future 
elections  should  be  according  to  the  canons. 
This,  and  the  great  difference,  that  the  king, 
when  he  gave  the  ring  and  crosier,  invested  the 
bishop  elect  with  his  chief  dignity,  namely,  his 
bishopric,  but  now  granted  him  by  investiture 
with  the  sceptre,  only  the  accessories,  namely 
the  regalia,  was  felt  by  Lothaire,  the  successor 
of  Henry,  when  he  required  of  pope  Innocent  II. 
the  restoration  of  the  right  of  investiture.  Upon 
one  important  point,  the  homage  which  was  to 
be  sworn  to  the  king,  the  concordat  was  silent. 
By  not  speaking  of  it,  Calixtus  seemed  to  toler- 
ate it,  and  the  Roman  see  therefore  permitted  it, 
although  it  had  been  prohibited  by  Urban  and 
Paschal.  It  is  certain  that  Calixtus  was  as  fully 
convinced  as  his  predecessors,  that  the  condition 
of  vassals,  to  which  bishops  and  abbots  were  re- 
duced by  their  oath  of  homage,  could  hardly  be 
reconciled  with  the  nature  and  dignity  of  the 
episcopacy,  or  with  the  freedom  of  the  Church, 
but  he  perhaps  foresaw,  that  by  insisting  too 
strongly  upon  its  discontinuance,  he  might  awaken 
again  the  unholy  war,  and  without  any  hopes  of 
benefit,  inflict  many  evils  upon  the  Church. 
Sometime  later  Adrian  endeavoured  to  free  the 
Italian  bishops  from  the  homage,  instead  of 
which,  the  emperor  was  to  be  content  with  an 
oath  of  fidelity :  but  Frederick  I.  would  not  re- 
nounce the  homage  unless  they  resigned  the  re- 
galia. The  greatest  concession  made  by  the 
papal  see  in  this  concordat,  was,  that  by  its 
silence  it  appeared  to  have  admitted  the  former 
pretensions  of  the  emperors  to  take  a  part  in  the 
election  of  the  Roman  pontiff.  ...  In  the  fol- 
lowing year  the  concordat  was  ratified  in  the 
great  council  of  three  hundred  bishops,  the  ninth 
general  council  of  the  Church,  which  was  con- 
vened by  Calixtus  in  Rome." — J.  J.  I.  D&llinger, 
History  of  the  Church,  v.  3,  jyp.  345-347.— See, 
also,  Papacy:  A.  D.  1056-1122;  Canossa;  Rome: 
A.  D.  1081-1084;  and  Saxony:  A.  D.  1073-1075. 

Also  in  ;  A.  F.  Villemain,  Life  of  Gregory  VII., 
Ik.  2. — Comte  C.  F.  Montalembert,  The  Monks  of 
the  ^yest,  bk.  19.— H.  H.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Latin 
Christianity,  bk.  6-8. — W.  R.  W.  Stephens,  Hil- 
defrrand  and  His  Times. — E.  F.  Henderson,  Select 
Hist.  Docs,  of  the  Middle  Ages,  bk.  4. 

A.  D.  iioi.  —  Disastrous  Crusade  under 
Duke  Welfof  Bavaria.  See  Crusades:  A.  D. 
1101-1103. 

A.  D.  1125. — Election  of  Lothaire  II.,  King, 
afterwards  Emperor. 

A.  D.  1 125-1272. —  The  rise  of  the  College 
of  Electors. — The  election  of  Lothaire  II.,  in 


1125,  when  a  great  assembly  of  nobles  and  church 
dignitaries  was  convened  at  Mentz,  and  when 
certain  of  the  chiefs  made  a  selection  of  candi- 
dates to  be  voted  for,  has  been  regarded  by  some 
historians  —  Hallam,  Comyn  and  Dunham,  for 
example  —  as  indicating  the  origin  of  the  German 
electoral  college.  They  have  held  that  a  right 
of  "  pretaxation,"  or  preliminary  choice,  was 
gradually  acquired  by  certain  princes,  which 
grew  into  the  finally  settled  electoral  right.  But 
this  view  is  now  looked  upon  as  more  than 
questionable,  and  is  not  supported  by  the  best 
authorities.  "  At  the  election  of  Rudolph  [1272 
or  3  ?J  we  meet  for  the  first  time  the  fully  de- 
veloped college  of  electors  as  a  single  electoral 
body  ;  the  secondary  matter  of  a  doubt  regard- 
ing what  individuals  composed  it  was  definitely 
settled  before  Rudolph's  reign  had  come  to  an 
end.  How  did  the  college  of  electors  develop 
itself?  .  .  .  The  problem  is  made  more  difficult 
at  the  outset  from  the  fact  that  in  the  older  form 
of  government  in  Germany  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion at  all  of  a  simple  electoral  right  in  a  modern 
sense.  The  electoral  right  was  amalgamated 
with  a  hereditary  right  of  that  family  which  had 
happened  to  come  to  the  throne :  it  was  only  a 
right  of  selection  from  among  the  heirs  available 
within  this  family.  Inasmuch  now  as  such 
selection  could  —  as  well  from  the  whole  charac- 
ter of  German  kingship  as  in  consequence  of  its 
amalgamation  with  the  empire  —  take  place  al- 
ready during  the  lifetime  of  the  ruling  member 
of  the  family,  it  is  easy  to  understand  that  in 
ages  in  which  the  ruling  race  did  not  die  out 
during  many  generations,  the  right  came  to  be 
at  last  almost  a  mere  form.  Usually  the  king, 
with  the  consent  of  those  who  had  the  right  of 
election,  would,  already-  during  his  lifetime, 
designate  as  his  successor  one  of  his  heirs,  —  if 
possible  his  oldest  son.  Such  was  the  rule  in  the 
time  of  the  Ottos  and  of  the  Salian  emperors.  It 
was  a  rule  which  could  not  be  adhered  to  in 
the  first  half  of  the  12th  century  after  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  Salian  line,  when  free  elections, 
not  determined  beforehand  by  designation,  took 
place  in  the  years  1135,  1138  and  1152.  Neces- 
sarily the  element  of  election  now  predominated. 
But  had  any  fixed  order  of  procedure  at  elections 
been  handed  down  from  the  past  ?  The  very 
principle  of  election  having  been  disregarded  in 
the  natural  course  of  events  for  centuries,  was 
it  any  wonder  that  the  order  of  procedure  should 
also  come  to  be  half  forgotten  1  And  had  not  in 
the  meantime  social  readjustments  in  the  elec- 
toral body  so  disturbed  this  order  of  procedure, 
or  such  part  of  it  as  had  been  important  enough 
to  be  preserved,  as  necessarily  to  make  it  seem 
entirely  antiquated?  AVith  these  questions  the 
electoral  asseniblies  of  the  year  1125  as  well  as 
of  the  year  1138  were  brought  face  to  face,  and 
they  found  that  practically  only  those  precedents 
could  be  taken  from  what  seemed  to  have  been 
the  former  customary  mode  of  elections  which 
provided  that  the  archbishop  of  Mainz  as  chan- 
cellor of  the  empire  should  first  solemnly  an- 
nounce the  name  of  the  person  elected  and  the 
electors  present  should  do  homage  to  the  new 
king.  This  was  at  the  end  of  the  whole  election, 
after  the  choice  had  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
been  already  made.  For  the  material  part  of 
the  election,  on  the  other  hand,  the  part  that 
preceded  this  announcement,  they  found  an  ap- 
parently new  expedient       A  committee  was  to 


U75 


GERMANY,  1135-127 


The  College  of  Electors.       GERMANY,  1125-1372. 


draw  up  an  agreement  as  to  the  person  to  be 
chosen ;  in  the  two  cases  iu  question  the  manner 
of  constituting  tliis  committee  differed.  Some- 
thing essential  had  now  been  done  towards  es- 
tablishing a  mode  of  procedure  at  elections 
which  should  accord  with  the  changed  circum- 
stances. One  case  however  had  not  been  pro- 
vided for  in  these  still  so  informal  and  uncertain 
regulations ;  the  case,  namely,  that  those  taking 
part  in  the  election  could  come  to  no  agreement 
at  all  with  regard  to  the  person  whose  choice 
was  to  be  solemnly  announced  by  the  archbishop 
of  Mainz.  And  how  could  men  have  foreseen 
such  a  case  in  the  first  half  of  the  13th  century  ? 
Up  till  then  double  elections  had  absolutely  never 
taken  place.  Anti-kings  there  had  been,  indeed, 
but  never  two  opposing  kings  elected  at  the 
same  time.  In  the  year  1198,  however,  this  con- 
tingency arose ;  Philip  of  Suabia  and  Otto  IV. 
were  contemporaneously  elected  and  the  final 
unanimity  of  choice  that  in  11.52  had  still  been 
counted  on  as  a  matter  of  course  did  not  come 
about.  As  a  consequence  questions  with  regard 
to  the  order  of  procedure  now  came  up  which 
had  hardly  ever  been  touched  upon  before. 
First  and  foremost  this  one :  can  a  better  right 
of  one  of  the  elected  kings  be  founded  on  a  ma- 
jority of  the  votes  obtained  ?  And  in  connec- 
tion with  it  this  other  :  who  on  the  whole  has  a 
right  to  cast  an  electoral  vote  ?  Even  though 
men  were  inclined  now  to  answer  the  first  ques- 
tion in  the  affirmative,  the  second,  the  presup- 
position for  the  practical  application  of  the  prin- 
ciple that  had  been  laid  down  iu  the  first,  oflFcred 
all  the  greater  difficulties.  Should  one,  after  the 
elections  of  the  years  1125  and  1152  and  after 
the  development  since  1180  of  a  more  circum- 
scribed class  of  princes  of  the  realm,  accept  the 
existence  of  a  narrower  electoral  committee  ? 
Did  this  have  a  right  to  elect  exclusively,  or  did 
it  only  have  a  simple  right  of  priority  in  the 
matter  of  casting  votes,  or  perhaps  only  a  cer- 
tain precedence  when  the  election  was  being  dis- 
cussed ?  And  how  were  the  limits  to  be  fixed 
for  the  larger  circle  of  electors  below  this  elec- 
toral committee  ?  These  are  questions  which  the 
German  electors  put  to  themselves  less  soon  and 
less  clearly  than  did  the  pope.  Innocent  III., 
whom  they  had  called  upon  to  investigate  the 
double  election  of  the  year  1198.  .  .  .  He  speaks 
repeatedly  of  a  narrower  electoral  body  with 
which  rests  chiefly  the  election  of  the  king,  and 
he  knows  only  princes  as  the  members  of  this 
body.  And  beyond  a  doubt  the  repeated  ex- 
pressions of  opinion  of  the  pope,  as  well  as  this 
whole  matter  of  having  two  kings,  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  13th  century,  gave  men  iu  German}' 
cause  for  reflection  with  regard  to  these  weighty 
questions  concerning  the  constitutional  forms  of 
the  empire.  One  of  the  most  important  results 
of  this  reflection  on  the  subject  is  to  be  found  in 
the  solution  given  by  the  Sachsenspiegel.  whicli 
was  compiled  about  1230.  Eike  von  Repgow 
knows  in  his  law-book  only  of  a  precedence  at 
elections  of  a  smaller  committee  of  princes,  but 
mentions  as  belonging  to  this  committee  certain 
particular  princes  :  the  three  Rhenish  arch- 
bishops, the  count  Palatine  of  the  Rhine,  the 
duke  of  Saxony,  the  margrave  of  Brandenburg 
and  —  his  right  being  questionable  indeed  —  the 
king  of  Bohemia.  ...  So  far,  at  all  events,  did 
the  question  with  regard  to  the  limitation  of  the 
electors  seem  to  have  advanced  towards  its  solu- 


tion by  the  year  1230  that  an  especial  electoral 
college  of  particular  persons  was  looked  upon  as 
the  nucleus  of  those  electing.     But  side  by  side 
with  this  view  the  old  theory  still  held  its  own, 
that  certainly  all  princes  at  least  had  an  equal 
right  in  the  election.     Under  Emperor  Frederick 
II.,  for  instance,  it   was   still   energetically  up- 
held.    A  decision  one  way  or  the   other  could 
only  be  reached  according  to  the  way  in  which 
the  next  elections  should  actually  be  carried  out. 
Henry  Raspe  was  elected  in  the  year  1246  almost 
exclusively  by  ecclesiastical  princes,  among  them 
the  three  Rhenish  archbishops.     He  was  the  first 
'  priest-king' (Pfaffenkonig).  The  second  'priest- 
king  '  was  William  of  Holland.     He  was  chosen 
by  eleven  princes,  among  whom  was  only  one 
layman,  the  duke  of  Brabant.     The  others  were 
bishops  ;  among  them,  in  full   force,  the   arch- 
bishops of  the  Rhine.     Present  were  also  many 
counts.     But  William  caused  himself  still  to  be 
subsequently  elected  by  the  duke  of  Saxony  and 
the  margrave  of  Brandenburg,  while  the  king  of 
Bohemia  was  also  not  behindhand  in  acknowl- 
edging him  —  that,  too,  with  special  empliasis. 
What   transpired  at  the  double  election  of  Al- 
phonse  and  Richard  in   the  year  1257  has  not 
been  handed  down  with  perfect  trustworthiness. 
Richard   claimed  later  to  have  been  elected  by 
Mainz,  Cologne,  the   Palatinate   and   Bohemia ; 
Alphonse  by  Treves,  Saxony,  Brandenburg  and 
Bohemia.     But    in    addition  to   the   princes  of 
these  lands,  other  German  princes  also  took  part, 
—  according  to  the  popular  view  by  assenting, 
according  to  their  own  view,  in  part  at  least,  by 
actually    electing.      All    the    same    the    lesson 
taught  by  all   these  elections  is   clear  enough. 
The  general  right  of  election  of  the  princes  dis- 
appears almost   altogether  ;   a  definite  electoral 
college,  which  was  looked  upon   as  possessing 
almost  exclusively   the   sole  right  of  electing, 
conies  into  prominence,  and  the  component  parts 
which  made  it  up  correspond  in  substance  to  the 
theory  of  the  Sachsenspiegel.     And  whatever  in 
the  year  1257  is  not  established  firmly  and  com- 
pletely and  in  all  directions,  stands  there  as  in- 
controvertible at  the  election  of  Rudolph.     The 
electors,  and  they  only,  now  elect ;  all  share  of 
others  in  the  election  is  done  away  with.     Al- 
though in  place  of  Ottocar  of  Bohemia,  who  was 
at  war  with  Rudolph,  Bavaria  seems  to  have  been 
given  the  electoral  vote,  yet  before  Rudolph's 
reign  is  out,  in  the  year  1290,  Bohemia  at  last 
attains  to  the  dignity  which  the  Sachsenspiegel, 
even  if  with  some  hesitation,  had  assigned  to  it. 
One  of  the  most  important  revolutions  in   the 
German  form  of   government  was  herewith  ac- 
complished.    From  among  the  aristocratic  class 
of  the  princes  an  oligarchy  had  raised  itself  up, 
a  representation  of  the  princely  provincial  powers 
as  opposed  to  the  king.      Uncon.sciously,  as  it 
were,  had  it  come  into  being,  not  exactly  desired 
by  any  one  as  a  whole,  nor  yet  the  result  of  a 
fixed   purpose   even    as    regarded    its    separate 
parts.     It  must  clearly  have  corresponded  to  a 
deep  and  elementary  and  gradually  developing 
need  of  the  time.     Undoubtedly  from  a  national 
point  of  view  it  denotes  progress  ;  henceforward 
at  elections  the  danger  of    '  many   heads  many 
minds '  was  avoided  ;  the  era  of  double  elections 
was    practically   at    an    end." — K.    Laniprecht, 
Deutsche  Geschichte  (trans,  from  the  Oerman),  v. 
4,  pp.  23-28.— In  1356  the  Margraf  of  Branden- 
burg was  recognized  in  the  Golden  Bull  as  one 


1476 


GERMANY,  1135-1273. 


Causes  nf     GERMANY,  12-13TH  CENTURIES. 

Disintegration. 


of  the  Kurf firsts, — that  is  as  "  one  of  the  Seven 
who  have  a  right  ...  to  choose,  to  'kieren' 
the  Romish  Kaiser;  and  who  are  therefore  called 
Kur  Princes,  Kurfilrste,  or  Electors.  .  .  .  Flirst 
(Prince)  I  suppose  is  equivalent  originally  to  our 
noun  of  number,  '  First.'  The  old  verb  '  kieren' 
(participle  '  erkoren' still  in  use,  not  to  mention 
'Val-kyr'  and  other  instances)  is  essentially  the 
same  word  as  our  'choose,'  being  written  '  kiesen' 
as  well  as  'kieren.'  Nay,  say  the  etymologists, 
it  is  also  written  '  Kussen'  ('  to  kiss,'  — to  choose 
with  such  emphasis  !),  and  is  not  likely  to  fall  ob- 
solete in  that  form. — The  other  Six  Electoral 
Dignitaries,  who  grew  to  Eight  by  degrees,  and 
may  be  worth  noting  once  by  the  readers  of  this 
book,  are:  1.  Three  Ecclesiastical,  Mainz,  Coin, 
Trier  (Mentz,  Cologne,  Treves),  Archbishops  all. 
...  2.  Three  Secular,  Sachsen,  Pfalz,  Bohmen 
(Saxony,  Palatinate,  Bohemia) ;  of  which  the  last, 
Bohmen,  since  it  fell  from  being  a  kingdom  in 
itself,  to  being  a  province  of  Austria,  is  not  very 
vocal  in  the  Diets.  These  Six,  with  Branden- 
burg, are  the  Seven  Kurfiirsts  in  old  time  :  Scp- 
temvirs  of  the  Country,  so  to  speak.  But  now 
Pfalz,  in  the  Thirty-Years  War  (under  our  Prince 
Rupert's  Father,  whom  the  Germans  call  the 
'Winter-King'),  got  abrogated,  put  to  the  ban, 
so  far  as  an  indignant  Kaiser  could  ;  and  the  vote 
and  Kur  of  Pfalz  was  given  to  his  Cousin  of 
Baiern  (Bavaria),  — so  far  as  an  indignant  Kaiser 
could  [see  Gkum-^nt:  A.  D.  1631-1623].  How- 
ever, at  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  (1648)  it  was 
found  incompetent  to  any  Kaiser  to  abrogate 
Pfalz,  or  the  like  of  Pfalz,  a  Kurfi'irst  of  the 
Empire.  So,  after  jargon  inconceivable,  it  was 
settled.  That  Pfalz  must  be  reinstated,  though 
with  territories  much  clipped,  and  at  the  bottom 
of  the  list,  not  the  top  as  formerly  ;  and  that 
Baiern,  who  could  not  stand  to  be  balked  after 
twenty-years  possession,  must  be  made  Eighth 
Elector  [see  Germ.\ny  :  A.  D.  1648].  The  Ninth, 
we  saw  (Year  1693),  was  Gentleman  Ernst  of 
Hanover  [see  Germ.\ny  :  A.  D.  1648-170,5]. 
There  never  was  any  Tenth."  —  T.  Carlyle,  Fred- 
erick the  Orcat,  bk.  3,  ch.  4.  —  "  All  the  rules  and 
requisites  of  the  election  were  settled  bv  Charles 
the  Fourth  in  the  Golden  Bull  [A.  D.  13.56  —  see 
below:  A.  D.  1347-1493],  thenceforward  a  fun- 
damental law  of  the  Empire." — J.  Bryce,  The 
Holy  RiiniDi  Empire,  eh.  14. 

i2-i3th  Centuries. — Causes  of  the  Disinte- 
gration of  the  Empire. — "The  whole  differ- 
ence between  French  and  German  constitutional 
history  can  be  summed  up  in  a  word :  to  the 
ducal  power,  after  its  fall,  the  crown  fell  heir  in 
France ;  the  lesser  powers,  which  had  been  its 
own  allies,  in  Germany.  The  event  was  the  same, 
the  results  were  different :  in  France  centraliza- 
tion, in  Germany  disintegration.  The  fall  of  the 
power  of  the  stem-duchies  is  usually  traced  to 
the  subjugation  of  the  mightiest  of  the  dukes, 
Henry  the  Lion  [see  Saxony:  A.  D.  1178-1183], 
who  refused  military  service  to  the  Emperor 
Frederick  Barbarossa  just  when  the  latter  most 
needed  him  in  the  struggle  against  the  Lom- 
bards. .  .  .  The  emperor  not  only  banned  the 
duke,  he  not  only  took  away  his  duchy  to  be- 
stow it  elsewhere,  but  he  entirely  did  away 
with  this  whole  form  of  rule.  The  western  part, 
Westphalia,  went  to  the  archbishops  of  Cologne; 
in  the  East  the  different  margraves  were  com- 
pletely freed  from  the  last  remnants  of  depen- 
dence that  might  have  continued  to  exist.     In 

14 


the  intervening  space  the  little  ecclesiastical  and 
secular  lords  came  to  be  directly  vmdcr  the  em- 
peror without  a  trace  of  an  intermediate  power 
and  with  the  title  of  bishop  or  abbot,  imperial 
count,  or  prince.  If  one  of  these  lords,  Bernard 
of  Ascanium,  received  the  title  of  Saxon  duke, 
that  title  no  longer  betokened  the  head  of  a 
stem  or  nation  but  simply  an  honorary  distinc- 
tion above  other  counts  and  lords.  What  hap- 
pened here  had  already  begun  to  take  place  in 
the  other  duchy  of  the  Guelphs,  in  Bavaria, 
through  the  detachment  from  it  of  Austria ; 
sooner  or  later  the  same  process  came  about  in  all 
parts  of  the  empire.  With  the  fall  of  the  old 
stem-duchies  those  lesser  powers  which  had  been 
under  their  shadow  or  subject  to  them  gained 
everywhere  an  increase  of  power ;  partly  by  this 
acquiring  the  ducal  title  as  an  honorary  distinc- 
tion by  the  ruler  of  a  smaller  district,  partly  by 
joining  rights  of  the  intermediate  powers  that 
had  just  been  removed  to  their  own  jurisdictions 
and  thus  coming  into  direct  dependence  on  the 
empire.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  origin  of  the  idea  of 
territorial  supremacy.  The  '  dominus  terras ' 
comes  to  feel  himself  no  longer  as  a  person  com- 
missioned by  the  emperor  but  as  lord  in  his  own 
land.  ...  As  to  the  cities,  behind  their  walls, 
remnants  of  old  Germanic  liberty  had  been  pre- 
served. Especially  in  the  residences  of  the  bish- 
ops had  artisans  and  merchants  thriven  and  these 
classes  had  gradually  thrown  off  their  bondage, 
forming,  both  together,  the  new  civic  community. 
.  .  .  The  burghers  could  find  no  better  way  to 
show  their  independence  of  the  princes  than  that 
the  community  itself  should  exercise  the  rights 
of  a  territorial  lord  over  its  members.  Thus  did 
the  cities  as  well  as  the  principalities  come  to 
form  separate  territories,  only  that  the  latter  had 
a  monarchical,  the  former  a  republican  form  of 
government.  .  .  .  Itisanatiual  question  to  ask, 
on  the  whole,  when  this  new  formation  of  terri- 
tories was  completed.  .  .  .  The  question  ought 
really  only  to  be  put  in  a  general  way :  at  what 
period  in  German  history  is  it  an  established  fact 
that  there  are  in  the  empire  and  under  the  em- 
pire separate  territorial  powers  (principalities 
and  cities)  ?  As  such  a  period  we  can  designate 
approximately  the  end  of  the  13th  and  beginning 
of  the  13th  centuries.  From  that  time  on  the 
double  nature  of  imperial  power  and  of  terri- 
torial power  is  an  established  fact  and  the 
mutual  relations  of  these  two  make  up  the  whole 
internal  history  of  later  times.  .  .  .  The  last  ruler 
who  had  spread  abroad  the  glory  of  the  imperial 
name  had  been  Frederick  II.  For  a  long  time 
after  him  no  one  had  worn  the  imperial  crown 
at  all,  and  of  those  kings  who  reigned  during  a 
whole  quarter  of  a  century  not  one  succeeded  in 
making  himself  generally  recognized.  There 
came  a  time  when  the  duties  of  the  state,  if  they 
were  fulfilled  at  all,  were  fulfilled  by  the  terri- 
torial powers.  Those  are  the  years  which  pass 
by  the  name  of  the  interregnum.  .  .  .  Rudolph  of 
Hapsburg  and  his  successors,  chosen  from  the 
most  different  houses  and  pursuing  the  most 
different  policies,  have  quite  the  same  position 
in  two  regards:  on  the  one  hand  the  crown,  in 
the  weak  state  in  which  it  had  emerged  from  the 
interregnum,  saw  itself  compelled  to  make  per- 
manent concessions  to  the  territorial  powers  in 
order  to  maintain  itself  from  one  moment  to 
another ;  on  the  other  hand  it  finds  no  refuge  for 
itself  but  in  the  constant  striving  to  found  its 

77 


GERMANY,  12-13TH  CENTURIES.   The  Hohenstnufen 

dynasty. 


GERMANY,  1138-1268. 


own  power  on  just  such  privileged  territories. 
When  the  kings  strive  to  make  the  princes  and 
cities  more  powerful  by  .giving  them  numerous 
privileges,  and  at  the  same  time  by  bringing  to- 
gether a  dynastic  appanage  to  gain  for  them- 
selves an  influential  position:  this  is  no  policy 
that  wavers  between  conceding  and  maintaining. 
.  .  The  crown  can  only  keep  its  place  above 
the  territories  by  first  recognizing  the  territorial 
powers  and  then,  through  just  such  a  recognized 
territorial  power  by  creating  for  itself  the  means 
of  upholding  its  rights.  .  .  .  The  next  great  step 
in  the  onward  progress  of  the  territorial  power 
was  the  codification  of  the  privileges  which  the 
chief  princes  had  obtained.  Of  the  law  called 
the  '  Golden  Bull'  only  the  one  provision  is  gen- 
erally known,  that  the  seven  electors  shall 
choose  the  emperor ;  yet  so  completely  does  the 
document  in  question  draw  the  affairs  of  the 
whole  empire  into  the  range  of  its  provisions 
that  for  centuries  it  could  pass  for  that  empire's 
fundamental  law.  It  is  true  that  for  the  most 
part  it  did  not  create  a  new  system  of  legislation, 
but  only  sanctioned  what  already  existed.  But 
for  the  position  of  all  the  princes  it  was  signifi- 
cant enough  that  the  seven  most  considerable 
among  them  were  granted  an  independence 
which  comprised  sovereign  rights,  and  this  not 
by  way  of  a  privilege  but  as  a  part  of  the  law  of 
the  land.  A  sharply  defined  goal,  and  herein 
lies  the  deepest  significance,  was  thus  set  up  at 
which  the  lesser  territories  could  aim  and  which, 
after  three  centuries,  they  were  to  attain.  .  .  . 
This  movement  was  greatly  furthered  when  on 
the  threshbold  of  modern  times  the  burning 
question  of  church  reform,  after  waiting  in  vain 
to  be  taken  up  by  the  emperor,  was  taken  up 
by  the  lower  classes,  but  with  revolutionary 
excesses.  .  .  .  The  mightiest  intellectual  move- 
ment of  German  history  found  at  last  its  only 
political  mainstay  in  the  territories.  .  .  .  This 
whole  development,  finally,  found  its  political 
and  legal  completion  through  the  Thirty  Years 
War  and  the  treaty  of  peace  which  concluded  it. 
The  new  law  which  the  Peace  of  Westphalia 
now  gave  to  the  empire  proclaimed  expressly 
that  all  territories  should  retain  their  rights, 
especially  the  right  of  making  alliances  among 
themselves  and'  with  foreigners  so  long  as  it 
could  be  done  without  violating  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  emperor  and  the  empire.  Here- 
with the  territories  were  proclaimed  .  .  .  states 
under  the  empire." — I.  Jastrow,  OeschicMe  der 
deutschen  Einheitstraum  vnd  seiner  Erfulliing 
(tni IIS.  from  the  German),  jip.  30-37. 

A.  D.  1 138-1268. — The  house  of  Suabia,  or 
the  Hohenstaufen.— Its  struggles  in  Germany 
and  Italy,  and  its  end. — The  Factions  of  the 
Guelfs  and  Ghibellines.— Frederick  Barba- 
rossa  and  Frederick  the  Second. — On  the 
death  of  Henry  V.,  in  1125,  the  male  line  of  the 
house  of  Franconia  became  extinct.  Frederick, 
duke  of  Suabia,  and  his  brother  Conrad,  duke 
of  the  Franks,  were  grandchildren  of  Henry  IV. 
on  their  mother's  side,  and,  inheriting  the  patri- 
monial estates,  were  plainly  the  heirs  of  the 
crown,  if  the  crown  was  to  be  recognized  as 
hereditary  and  dynastic.  But  jealousy  of  their 
house  and  a  desire  to  reassert  the  elective  de- 
pendence of  the  imperial  office  prevailed  against 
their  claims  and  their  ambition.  At  an  election 
which  was  denounced  as  irregular,  the  choice 
fell  upon  Lothaire  of  Saxony.     The  old  imperial 


family  was  not  only  set  aside,  but  its  bitterest 
enemies  were  raised  over  it.  "The  consequences 
wore  a  feud  and  a  struggle  which  grew  and 
widened  into  the  long-lasting,  far-reaching,  his- 
torical conflict  of  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines  (see 
Guelfs  and  Ghibellines;  also,  Saxony:  Dis- 
solution OF  THE  old  Ducht).  The  Saxon  em- 
peror Lothaire  found  his  strongest  support  in  the 
great  "WOlf,  Welf,  or  Guelf  nobleman,  Henry  the 
Proud,  duke  of  Bavaria,  to  whom  he  (Lothaire) 
now  gave  his  daughter  in  marriage,  together 
with  the  dukedom  of  Saxony,  and  whom  he  in- 
tended to  make  his  successor  on  the  imperial 
throne.  But  the  scheme  failed.  On  Lothaire's 
death,  in  1138,  the  partisans  of  the  Suabian 
family  carried  the  election  of  Conrad  (the  Cru- 
sader—  see  Crusades:  A.  D.  1147-1149),  and 
the  dynasty  most  commonly  called  Hohenstaufen 
rose  to  power.  It  took  the  name  of  Hohenstaufen 
from  its  original  family  seat  on  the  lofty  hill 
of  Staufen,  in  Suabia,  overlooking  the  valley  of 
the  Rems.  Its  party,  in  the  wars  and  factions  of 
the  time,  received  the  name  of  the  Waiblingen, 
from  the  birth-place  of  the  Suabian  duke  Fred- 
erick —  the  little  town  of  Waiblingen  in  Fran- 
conia. Under  the  tongue  of  the  Italians,  when 
these  party  names  and  war-cries  were  carried 
across  the  Alps,  Waiblingen  became  Ghibelline 
and  Welf  became  Guelf.  During  the  first  half 
century  of  the  reign  of  the  Hohenstaufen,  the 
history  of  Germany  is  the  history,  for  the  most 
part,  of  the  strife  in  which  the  Guelf  dukes, 
Henry  the  Proud  and  Henry  the  Lion,  are  the 
central  figures,  and  which  ended  in  the  breaking 
up  of  the  old  powerful  duchy  of  Saxony.  But 
Italy  was  the  great  historical  field  of  the  energies 
and  the  ambitions  of  the  Hohenstaufen  emperors. 
There,  Frederick  Barbarossa  (Frederick  Redbeard, 
as  the  Italians  called  him),  the  second  of  the  line, 
and  Frederick  II.,  his  adventurous  grandson, 
fought  their  long,  losing  battle  with  the  popes  and 
with  the  city-republics  of  Lombardy  and  Tuscany. 
— U.  Balzani,  The  Popes  and  the  Holienstaufen. 
—  Frederick  Barbarossa,  elected  Emperor  in 
1153,  passed  into  Italy  in  1154.  "He  came  there 
on  the  invitation  of  the  Pope,  of  the  Prince  of 
Capua,  and  of  the  toyvns  which  had  been  sub- 
jected to  the  ambition  of  Milan.  He  marched  at 
the  head  of  his  German  feudatories,  a  splendid 
and  imposing  array.  His  first  object  was  to 
crush  the  power  of  Milan,  and  to  exalt  that  of 
Pavia,  the  head  of  a  rival  league.  Nothing 
could  stand  against  him.  At  Viterbo  he  was 
compelled  to  hold  the  stirrup  of  the  Pope,  and 
in  return  for  this  submission  he  received  the 
crown  from  the  Pontiff's  hands  in  the  Basilica  of 
St.  Peter.  He  returned  northwards  by  the  valley 
of  the  Tiber,  dismissed  his  army  at  Ancona,  and 
with  diflSculty  escaped  safely  into  Bavaria.  His 
passage  left  little  that  was  solid  and  durable  be- 
hind it.  He  had  effected  nothing  against  the 
King  of  Naples.  His  friendship  with  the  Pope 
was  illusory  and  short-lived.  The  dissensions  of 
the  North,  which  had  been  hushed  for  a  moment 
by  his  presence,  broke  out  again  as  soon  as  his 
back  was  turned.  He  had,  however,  received 
the  crown  of  Charles  the  Great  from  the  hands  of 
the  successor  of  St.  Peter.  But  Frederick  was 
not  a  man  to  brook  easily  the  miscarriage  of  his 
designs.  In  1158  he  collected  another  armyat 
Ulm.  Brescia  was  quickly  subdued ;  Lodi,  which 
had  been  destroyed  by  the  Milanese,  was  rebuilt, 
and   Milan  itself  was  reduced  to  terms.     This 


1478 


GERMANY,  1138-1268. 


Frederick  Barbarossa 
and  Frederick  II. 


GERMANY,  1138-1268. 


peace  lasted  but  for  a  short  time ;  Milan  revolted, 
and  was  placed  under  the  ban  of  the  Empire. 
The  fate  of  Cremona  taught  the  Milanese  what 
they  had  to  expect  from  the  clemency  of  the 
Emperor.  After  a  desultory  warfare,  regular 
siege  was  laid  to  the  town.  On  March  1,  1162, 
Milan,  reduced  by  famine,  surrendered  at  discre- 
tion, and  a  fortnight  later  all  the  inhabitants  were 
ordered  to  leave  the  town.  The  circuit  of  the 
walls  was  partitioned  out  among  the  most  piti- 
less enemies  of  its  former  greatness,  and  the  in- 
habitants of  Lodi,  of  Cremona,  of  Pavia,  of  No- 
vara,  and  of  Como  were  encouraged  to  wreak 
their  vengeance  on  their  defeated  rival.  For  six 
days  the  imperial  army  laboured  to  overturn  the 
walls  and  public  buildings,  and  when  the  Em- 
peror left  for  Pavia,  on  Palm  Sunday  1162,  not  a 
fiftieth  part  of  the  city  was  standing.  This  ter- 
rible vengeance  produced  a  violent  reaction. 
The  homeless  fugitives  were  received  by  their 
ancient  enemies,  and  local  jealousies  were  merged 
in  common  hatred  of  the  common  foe.  Frederick 
had  already  been  excommunicated  by  Pope  Alex- 
ander III.  as  the  supporter  of  his  rival  Victor. 
Verona  undertook  to  be  the  public  vindicator  of 
discontent.  Five  years  after  the  destruction  of 
Milan  the  Lombard  league  numbered  fifteen 
towns  amongst  its  members.  Venice,  Verona, 
Vicenza,  Treviso,  Perrara,  Brescia,  Bergamo, 
Cremona,  Milan,  Lodi,  Piacenza,  Parma,  Modena, 
and  Bologna.  The  confederation  solemnly  en- 
gaged to  expel  the  Emperor  from  Italy.  The 
towns  on  the  frontier  of  Piedmont  asked  and  ob- 
tained admission  to  the  league,  and  to  mark  the 
dawn  of  freedom  a  new  town  was  founded  on 
the  low  marshy  ground  which  is  drained  by  the 
Bormida  and  the  Tanaro,  and  which  afterwards 
witnessed  the  victory  of  Marengo.  It  was  named 
by  its  founders  Alessandria,  in  honour  of  the 
Pope,  who  had  vindicated  their  independence  of 
the  Empire.  .  .  .  The  Lombard  league  had  un- 
fortunately a  very  imperfect  constitution.  It 
had  no  common  treasure,  no  uniform  rules  for 
the  apportionment  of  contributions;  it  existed 
solely  for  the  purposes  of  defence  against  the  ex- 
ternal foe.  The  time  was  not  yet  come  when 
self-sacrifice  and  self-abnegation  could  lay  the 
foundations  of  a  united  Italy.  Frederick  spent 
six  years  in  preparing  vengeance.  In  1174  he 
laid  siege  to  the  new  Alexandria,  but  did  not 
succeed  in  taking  it.  A  severe  struggle  took 
place  two  years  later.  In  1176  a  new  army  ar- 
rived from  Germany,  and  on  May  29  Frederick 
Barbarossa,  was  entirely  defeated  at  Legnano. 
In  1876  the  seventh  hundred  anniversary  of  the 
battle  was  celebrated  on  the  spot  where  it  was 
gained,  and  it  is  still  regarded  as  the  birthday  of 
Italian  freedom." — O.  Browning,  Ouelplis  and 
Ohibellinea,  cli.  1.  — See,  also,  Italy:  A.  D.  1154- 
1162  to  1174-1183.— "The  end  was  that  the  Em- 
peror had  to  make  peace  with  both  the  Pope  and 
the  cities,  and  in  1183  the  rights  of  the  cities 
were  acknowledged  in  a  treaty  or  law  of  the  Em- 
pire, passed  at  Constanz  or  Constance  in  Swabia. 
In  the  last  years  of  his  reign,  Frederick  went  on 
the  third  Crusade,  and  died  on  the  way  [see  Cru- 
sades: A.  D.  1188-1193].  Frederick  was  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son  Henry  the  Sixth,  who  had  al- 
ready been  chosen  King,  and  who  in  the  next  year, 
1191,  was  crowned  Emperor.  The  chief  event  of 
his  reign  was  the  conquest  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Sicily,  which  he  claimed  in  right  of  his  wife 
Constance,  the  daughter  of  the  first  King  "Wil- 


liam. He  died  in  1197,  leaving  his  son  Frederick 
a  young  child,  who  had  already  been  chosen 
King  in  Germany,  and  who  succeeded  as  heredi- 
tary King  in  Sicily.  The  Norman  Kingdom  of  ■ 
Sicily  thus  came  to  an  end,  except  so  far  as  it 
was  continued  through  Frederick,  who  was  de- 
scended from  the  Norman  Kings  through  his 
mother.  On  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Henry, 
the  election  of  young  Frederick  seems  to  have 
been  quite  forgotten,  and  the  crown  was  dis- 
puted between  his  uncle  Philip  of  Swabia  and 
Otto  of  Saxony.  He  was  son  of  Henry  the  Lion, 
who  had  been  Duke  of  Saxony  and  Bavaria,  but 
who  had  lost  the  more  part  of  his  dominions  in 
the  time  of  Frederick  Barbarossa.  Otto's  mother 
was  Matilda,  daughter  of  Henry  the  Second  of 
England.  .  .  .  Both  Kings  were  crowned,  and, 
after  the  death  of  Philip,  Otto  was  crowned  Em- 
peror in  1209.  But  presently  young  Frederick 
was  again  chosen,  and  in  1230  he  was  crowned 
Emperor,  and  reigned  thirty  years  till  his  death 
in  1250.  This  Frederick  the  Second,  who  joined 
together  so  many  crowns,  was  called  the  Wonder 
of  the  World.  And  he  well  deserved  the  name, 
for  perhaps  no  King  that  ever  reigned  had 
greater  natural  gifts,  and  in  thought  and  learn- 
ing he  was  far  above  the  age  in  which  he  lived. 
In  his  own  kingdom  of  Sicily  he  could  do  pretty 
much  as  he  pleased,  and  it  flourished  wonder- 
fully in  his  time.  But  in  Germany  and  Italy  he 
had  constantly  to  struggle  against  enemies  of  all 
kinds.  In  Germany  he  had  to  win  the  support 
of  the  Princes  by  granting  them  pi-ivileges  which 
did  much  to  undermine  the  royal  power,  and  on 
the  other  hand  he  showed  no  favour  to  tlie  rising 
power  of  the  cities.  In  Italy  he  had  endless 
strivings  with  one  Pope  after  another,  with  In- 
nocent the  Third,  Honorius  the  Third,  Gregory 
the  Ninth,  and  Innocent  the  Fourth ;  as  well  as 
with  the  Guelfic  cities,  which  withstood  him 
much  as  they  had  withstood  his  grandfather. 
He  was  more  than  once  excommunicated  by  the 
Popes,  and  in  1345  Pope  Innocent  the  Fourth 
held  a  Council  at  L3'ons,  in  which  he  professed 
to  depose  the  Emperor.  More  than  one  King 
was  chosen  in  opposition  to  him  in  Germany, 
just  as  had  been  done  in  the  time  of  Henry  the 
Fourth,  and  there  were  civil  wars  all  his  time, 
both  in  Germany  and  in  Italy,  while  a  great  part  of 
the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  was  beginning  to  slip 
away  from  the  Empire  altogether." — E.  A.  Free- 
man, General  Sketch  of  European  Hist.,  ch.  11. — 
"It  is  probable  that  there  never  lived  a  human 
being  endowed  with  greater  natural  gifts,  or 
whose  natural  gifts  were,  according  to  the  means 
afforded  him  by  his  age,  more  sedulously  culti- 
vated, than  the  last  Emperor  of  the  House  of 
Swabia.  There  seems  to  be  no  aspect  of  human 
nature  which  was  not  developed  to  the  highest 
degree  in  his  person.  In  versatility  of  gifts,  in 
what  we  may  call  manysidedness  of  character, 
he  appears  as  a  sort  of  mediteval  Alkibiad§s, 
while  he  was  imdoubtedly  far  removed  from  Al- 
kibiadgs'  utter  lack  of  principle  or  steadiness  of 
any  kind.  Warrior,  statesman,  lawgiver,  scholar, 
there  was  nothing  in  the  compass  of  the  political 
or  intellectual  world  of  his  age  which  he  failed 
to  grasp.  In  an  age  of  change,  when,  in  every 
corner  of  Europe  and  civilized  Asia,  old  king- 
doms, nations,  systems,  were  falling  and  new 
ones  rising,  Frederick  was  emphatically  the  man 
of  change,  the  author  of  things  new  and  unheard 
of  —  he  was  stupor  muudi  et  immutator  mirabilis. 


1479 


GERMANY,  1138-1268. 


Frederick  11. 


GERMANY,  1138-126 


A  suspected  heretic,  a  suspected  Mahometan,  he 
was  the  subject  of  all  kinds  of  absurd  and  self 
contradictory  charges ;  but  the  charges  mark  real 
features  in  the  character  of  the  man.  He  was 
something  unlike  any  other  Emperor  or  any 
other  man.  ...  Of  all  men,  Frederick  the  Second 
might  have  been  expected  to  be  the  founder  of 
something,  the  beginner  of  some  new  era,  politi- 
cal or  intellectual.  He  was  a  man  to  whom  some 
great  institution  might  well  have  looked  back  as 
its  creator,  to  whom  some  large  body  of  men, 
some  sect  or  party  or  nation,  might  well  have 
looked  back  as  their  prophet  or  founder  or  deliv- 
erer. But  the  most  gifted  of  the  sons  of  men 
has  left  behind  him  no  such  memory,  while  men 
whose  gifts  cannot  bear  a  comparison  with  his 
are  reverenced  as  founders  by  grateful  nations, 
churches,  political  and  philosophical  parties. 
Frederick  in  fact  founded  nothing,  and  he  sowed 
the  seeds  of  the  destruction  of  many  things.  His 
great  charters  to  the  spiritual  and  temporal 
princes  of  Germany  dealt  the  death-blow  to  the 
Imperial  power,  while  he,  to  say  the  least,  looked 
coldly  on  the  rising  power  of  the  cities  and  on 
those  commercial  Leagues  which  were  in  his 
time  the  best  element  of  German  political  life. 
In  fact,  in  whatever  aspect  we  look  at  Frederick 
the  Second,  we  find  him,  not  the  first,  but  the 
last,  of  every  series  to  which  he  belongs.  An 
English  writer  [Capgrave],  two  hundred  years 
after  his  time,  had  the  penetration  to  see  that  he 
was  really  the  last  Emperor.  He  was  the  last 
Prince  in  whose  style  the  Imperial  titles  do  not 
seem  a  mockery ;  he  was  the  last  under  whose 
rule  the  three  Imperial  kingdoms  retained  any 
practical  connexion  with  one  another  and  with 
the  ancient  capital  of  all,  ...  He  was  not  only 
the  last  Emperor  of  the  whole  Empire ;  he  might 
almost  be  called  the  last  King  of  its  several  King- 
doms. After  his  time  Burgundy  vanishes  as  a 
kingdom.  .  .  .  Italy  too,  after  Frederick,  van- 
ishes as  a  kingdom;  any  later  exercise  of  the 
royal  authority  in  Italy  was  something  which 
came  and  went  wholly  by  fits  and  starts.  .  .  . 
Germany  did  not  utterly  vanish,  or  uttei'ly  split 
in  pieces,  like  the  sister  kingdoms;  but  after 
Frederick  came  the  Great  Interregnum,  and  after 
the  Great  Interregnum  the  royal  power  in  Ger- 
many never  was  what  it  had  been  before.  In 
his  hereditary  Kingdom  of  Sicily  he  was  not  ab- 
solutely the  last  of  his  dynasty,  for  his  son  Man- 
fred ruled  prosperously  and  gloriously  for  some 
years  after  his  death.  But  it  is  none  the  less  clear 
that  from  Frederick's  time  the  Sicilian  Kingdom 
was  doomed.  .  .  .  Still  more  conspicuously  than 
all  was  Frederick  the  last  Christian  King  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  last  baptized  man  who  really  ruled 
the  Holy  Land  or  wore  a  crown  in  the  Holy 
City.  ...  In  the  world  of  elegant  letters  Fred- 
erick has  some  claim  to  be  looked  on  as  the 
founder  of  that  modern  Italian  language  and  lit- 
erature wliich  first  assumed  a  distinctive  shape 
at  his  Sicilian  court.  But  in  the  wider  field  of 
political  history  Frederick  appears  nowhere  as  a 
creator,  but  rather  everywhere  as  an  involuntary 
destroyer.  .  .  .  Under  Frederick  the  Empire  and 
everything  connected  with  It  seems  to  crumble 
and  decay  while  preserving  its  external  splen- 
dour. As  soon  as  its  brilliant  possessor  is  gone,  it 
at  once  falls  asunder.  It  is  a  significant  fact  that 
one  who  in  mere  genius,  in  mere  accomplish- 
ments, was  surely  the  greatest  prince  who  ever 
wore  a  crown,  a  prince  who  held  the  greatest 


place  on  earth,  and  who  was  concerned  during  a 
long  reign  in  some  of  the  greatest  transactions 
of  one  of  the  greatest  ages,  seems  never,  even 
from  his  own  flatterers,  to  have  received  that 
title  of  Great  which  has  been  so  lavishly  bestowed 
on  far  smaller  men.  .  .  .  Many  causes  combined 
to  produce  this  singular  result,  that  a  man  of  the 
extraordinary  genius  of  Frederick,  and  possessed 
of  every  advantage  of  birth,  office,  and  oppor- 
tunity, should  have  had  so  little  direct  effect 
upon  the  world.  It  is  not  enough  to  attribute 
his  failure  to  the  many  and  great  faults  of  his 
moral  character.  Doubtless  they  were  one  cause 
among  others.  But  a  man  who  influences  future 
ages  is  not  necessarily  a  good  man.  .  .  .  The 
weak  side  in  the  brilliant  career  of  Frederick  is 
one  which  seems  to  have  been  partly  inherent  in 
his  character,  and  partly  the  result  of  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  he  found  himself.  Capable 
of  every  part,  and  in  fact  playing  every  part  by 
turns,  he  had  no  single  definite  object,  pursued 
honestly  and  steadfastly,  throughout  his  whole 
life.  With  all  his  powers,  with  all  his  brilliancy, 
his  course  throughout  life  seems  to  have  been  in 
a  manner  determined  for  him  by  others.  He  was 
ever  drifting  into  wars,  into  schemes  of  policy, 
which  seem  to  be  hardly  ever  of  his  own  choos- 
ing. He  was  the  mightiest  and  most  dangerous 
adversary  that  the  Papacy  ever  had.  But  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  withstood  the  Papacy 
from  any  personal  choice,  or  as  the  voluntary 
champion  of  any  opposing  principle.  He  be- 
came the  enemy  of  the  Papacy,  he  planned 
schemes  which  involved  the  utter  overthrow  of 
Papacy,  yet  he  did  so  simply  because  he  found 
that  no  Pope  would  ever  let  him  alone.  .  .  . 
The  most  really  successful  feature  in  Frederick's 
career,  his  acquisition  of  Jerusalem  [see  Cru- 
sades: A.  D.  1216-1229],  is  not  only  a  mere  epi- 
sode in  his  life,  but  it  is  something  that  was 
absolutely  forced  upon  him  against  his  will.  .  .  . 
"With  other  Crusaders  the  Holy  War  was,  in  some 
cases,  the  main  business  of  their  lives;  in  all 
cases  it  was  something  seriously  undertaken  as  a 
matter  either  of  policy  or  of  religious  duty.  But 
the  Crusade  of  the  man  who  actually  did  recover 
the  Holy  City  Is  simply  a  grotesque  episode  in 
his  life.  Excommunicated  for  not  going,  ex- 
communicated again  for  going,  excommunicated 
again  for  coming  back,  threatened  on  every  side, 
he  still  went,  and  he  succeeded.  What  others 
had  failed  to  win  by  arms,  he  contrived  to  win 
by  address,  and  all  that  came  of  his  success  was 
that  it  was  made  the  ground  of  fresh  accusations 
against  him.  .  .  .  For  a  man  to  influence  his 
age,  he  must  in  some  sort  belong  to  his  age.  He 
should  be  above  it,  before  it,  but  he  should  not 
be  foreign  to  it.  .  .  .  But  Frederick  belongs  to 
no  age;  intellectually  he  is  above  his  own  age, 
above  every  age ;  morally  it  can  hardly  be  denied 
that  he  was  below  his  age ;  but  in  nothing  was 
he  of  his  age." — E.  A.  Freeman,  The  Emperor 
Frederick  the  Second  {Historical  Essays,  v.  1,  Es- 
say 10). — For  an  account  of  Frederick's  brilliant 
Sicilian  court,  and  of  some  of  the  distinguishing 
features  of  his  reign  in  Southern  Italy,  as  well  as 
of  the  end  of  his  family,  in  the  tragical  deaths  of 
his  son  Manfred  and  his  grandson  Conradin 
(1268),  see  It.\ly:  A.  D.  1183-1250. 

Also  in:  T.  L.  Kington,  Hist,  of  Frederick  the 
Second. — J.  Bryce,  The  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
eh.  10-13.— H.  H.  Milman,  Hist,  of  Latin  Chris- 
tianity, bk.  8,  ch.  7,  and  bk.  9. 


1480 


GERMANY,  1143-1153. 


The  great 
Interregnum. 


GERMANY,  1350-1373. 


A.  D.  1142-1152. — Creation  of  the  Elector- 
ate of  Brandenburg.  See  Br.vndenedrg  :  A.  D. 
1143-1152. 

A.  D.  1156. — The  Margravate  of  Austria 
created  a  Duchy.  See  Austria:  A.  D.  805- 
134G. 

A.  D.  1180-1214. — Bavaria  and  the  Palati- 
nate of  the  Rhine  acquired  by  the  house  of 
Wittelsbach.     See  B.vvaiua:  A.  U.  1180-1356. 

A.  D.  1196-1197. — The  Fourth  Crusade.  See 
Crusades:  A.  D.  1196-1197. 

13th  Century. — The  rise  of  the  Hanseatic 
League.     See  IIansa  Towts's. 

13th  Century. — Cause  of  the  multiplication 
of  petty  principalities  and  states. — "  AVliile 
the  duchies  and  counties  of  Germany  retained 
their  original  character  of  offices  or  governments, 
they  were  of  course,  even  though  considered  as 
hereditary,  not  subject  to  partition  among  chil- 
dren. When  they  acquired  the  nature  ot  fiefs, 
it  was  still  consonant  to  the  principles  of  a  feudal 
tenure  that  the  eldest  son  should  inherit  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  primogeniture ;  an  inferior  pro- 
vision or  api)anage,  at  most,  being  reserved  for 
the  younger  children.  The  law  of  England  fa- 
voured the  eldest  exclusively;  that  of  France 
gave  him  great  advantages.  But  in  Germany  a 
different  rule  began  to  prevail  about  the  thir- 
teenth century.  An  equal  partition  of  the  in- 
heritance, without  the  least  regard  to  priority  of 
birth,  was  the  general  law  of  its  piincipalities. 
Sometimes  this  was  effected  by  undivided  pos- 
session, or  tenancy  in  common,  the  brothers  re- 
siding together,  and  reigning  jointly.  This 
tended  to  preserve  the  integrity  ot  dominion; 
but  as  it  was  frequently  incommodious,  a  more 
usual  practice  was  to  divide  the  territory.  From 
such  partitions  are  derived  those  numerous  inde- 
pendent principalities  of  the  same  house,  many 
of  which  still  subsist  in  Germany.  In  1589  there 
were  eight  reigning  princes  of  the  Palatine  family ; 
and  fourteen,  in  1675,  of  that  of  Saxony.  Origi- 
nally these  partitions  were  in  general  absolute 
and  without  reversion;  but,  as  their  effect  in 
weakening  families  became  evident,  a  practice 
was  introduced  of  making  compacts  of  reciprocal 
succession,  by  which  a  fief  was  prevented  from 
escheating  to  the  empire,  until  all  the  male  pos- 
terity of  the  first  feudatory  should  be  extinct. 
Thus,  while  the  German  empire  survived,  all  the 
princes  of  Hesse  or  of  Saxony  had  reciprocal 
contingencies  of  succession,  or  what  our  lawyers 
call  cross-remainders,  to  each  other's  dominions. 
A  different  system  was  gradually  adopted.  By 
the  Golden  Bull  of  Charles  IV.  the  electoral  ter- 
ritory, that  is,  the  particular  district  to  which  the 
electoral  suffrage  was  inseparably  attached,  be- 
came incapable  of  partition,  and  was  to  descend 
to  the  eldest  son.  In  the  15tli  century  the  pres- 
ent house  of  Brandenburg  set  the  first  example 
of  establishing  primogeniture  by  law ;  the  princi- 
palities of  Anspach  and  Bayreuth  were  dismem- 
bered from  it  for  the  benefit  of  younger  branches ; 
but  it  was  declared  that  all  the  other  dominions 
of  the  family  should  for  the  future  belong  ex- 
clusively to  the  reigning  elector.  This  politic 
measure  was  adopted  in  several  other  families; 
but,  even  in  the  16th  century,  the  prejudice 
was  not  removed,  and  some  German  princes  de- 
nounced curses  on  their  posterity,  if  they  should 
introduce  the  impious  custom  of  primogeniture. 
.  .  .  Weakened  by  these  subdivisions,  the  princi- 
palities of  Germany  in  the  14th  and  15th  centu- 


ries shrink  to  a  more  and  more  diminutive  size  in 
the  scale  of  nations." — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle 
Ages,  eh.  5  (».  2). — See,  also,  Cities,  Imperiai, 

AND  FREE,  OF  GeRMANT. 

A.  D.  I2I2.— The  Children's  Crusade.  See 
Crusades:  A.  D.  1213. 

A.  D.  1231-1315. — Relations  of  the  Swiss 
Forest  Cantons  to  the  Empire  and  to  the 
House  of  Austria.  See  Switzerland:  The 
Three  Forest  Cantons. 

A.  D.  1250-1272. — Degradation  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire. — The  Great  Interregnum. — 
Anarchy  and  disorder  universal. — Election  of 
Rudolf  of  Hapsburg.— "  With  Frederick  [the 
Second]  fell  the  Empire.  From  the  ruin  that 
overwhelmed  the  greatest  of  its  houses  it  emerged, 
living  indeed,  and  destined  to  a  long  life,  but 
so  shattered,  crijjpled,  and  degraded,  that  it 
could  never  more  be  to  Europe  and  to  Germany 
what  it  once  had  been.  .  .  .  The  German  king- 
dom broke  down  beneath  the  weight  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  To  be  universal  sovereign  Germany  had 
sacrificed  her  own  political  existence.  The  neces- 
sity which  their  projects  in  Italy  and  disputes 
with  the  Pope  laid  the  Emperors  under  of  pur- 
chasing by  concessions  the  support  of  their  own 
princes,  the  ease  with  which  in  their  absence  the 
magnates  could  usurp,  the  difficulty  which  the 
monarch  returning  found  in  resuming  the  priv- 
ileges of  his  crown,  the  temptation  to  revolt  and 
set  up  pretenders  to  the  throne  which  the  Holy 
See  held  out,  these  were  the  causes  whose  steady 
action  laid  the  foundation  of  that  territorial  in- 
dependence which  rose  into  a  stable  fabric  at  the 
era  of  the  Great  Interregnum.  Frederick  II.  had, 
by  two  Pragmatic  Sanctions,  A.  D.  1330  and  1232, 
granted,  or  rather  confirmed,  rights  already  cus- 
tomary, such  as  to  give  the  bishops  and  nobles 
legal  sovereignty  in  their  own  towns  and  terri- 
tories, except  when  the  Emperor  should  be  pres- 
ent; and  thus  his  direct  jurisdiction  became  re- 
stricted to  his  narrowed  domain,  and  to  the  cities 
immediately  dependent  on  the  crown.  With  so 
much  less  to  do,  an  Emperor  became  altogether  a 
less  necessary  personage;  and  hence  the  seven 
magnates  of  the  realm,  now  by  law  or  custom 
sole  electors,  were  in  no  haste  to  fill  up  the  place 
of  Conrad  IV.,  whom  the  supporters  of  his  father 
Frederick  had  acknowledged.  AVilliam  of  Hol- 
land [A.  D.  1254]  was  in  the  field,  but  rejected  by 
the  Swabian  party :  on  his  death  a  new 'election 
was  called  for,  and  at  last  set  on  foot.  The  arch- 
bishop of  Cologne  advised  his  brethren  to  choose 
some  one  rich  enough  to  support  the  dignity,  not 
strong  enough  to  be  feared  by  the  electors:  both 
requisites  met  in  the  Plantagenet  Richard,  earl  of 
Cornwall,  brother  of  the  English  Henry  III.  He 
received  three,  eventually  four  votes,  came  to 
Germany,  and  was  crowned  at  Aachen  [A.  D. 
1256].  But  three  of  the  electors,  finding  that  his 
bribe  to  them  was  lower  than  to  the  others,  se- 
ceded in  disgust,  and  chose  Alfonso  X.  of  Castile, 
who,  shrewder  than  his  competitor,  continued  to 
watch  the  stars  at  Toledo,  enjoying  the  splen- 
dours of  his  title  while  troubling  himself  about 
it  no  further  than  to  issue  now  and  then  a 
proclamation.  Meantime  the  condition  of  Ger- 
many was  frightful.  The  new  Didius  Julianus, 
the  chosen  of  princes  baser  than  the  praetorians 
whom  they  copied,  had  neither  the  character 
nor  the  outward  power  and  resources  to  make 
himself  respected.  Every  floodgate  of  anarchy 
was  opened:  prelates  and  barons  extended  their 


1481 


GERMANY,  1250-1272. 


Rudolf 
of  Hapsburg. 


GERMANY,  1273-1308. 


domains  by  war :  robber-knights  infested  the  high- 
ways and  "the  rivers:  the  misery  of  the  weak,  the 
tyranny  and  violence  of  the  strong,  were  such  as 
had  not  been  seen  for  centuries.  Tilings  were 
even  worse  than  under  the  Saxon  and  Franconian 
Emperors;  for  the  petty  nobles  who  had  then 
been  in  some  measure  controlled  by  their  dukes 
were  now,  after  the  extinction  of  the  great  houses, 
left  without  any  feudal  superior.  Only  in  the 
cities  was  shelter  or  peace  to  be  found.  Those  of 
'the  Rhine  had  already  leagued  themselves  for 
mutual  defence,  and  maintained  a  struggle  in  the 
interests  of  commerce  and  order  against  universal 
brigandage.  At  last,  when  Richard  had  been 
some  time  dead,  it  was  felt  that  such  things 
could  not  go  on  for  ever :  with  no  public  law,  and 
no  courts  of  justice,  an  Emperor,  the  embodiment 
of  legal  government,  was  the  only  resource.  The 
Pope  himself,  having  now  sufficiently  improved 
the  weakness  of  his  enemy,  found  the  disorgani- 
zation of  Germany  beginning  to  tell  upon  his 
revenues,  and  threatened  that  if  the  electors  did 
not  appoint  an  Emperor,  he  would.  Thus  urged, 
they  chose,in  1373  [1273?],  Rudolf,  countof  Haps- 
burg, founder  of  the  house  of  Austria.  From 
this  point  there  begins  a  new  era.  We  have  seen 
the  Roman  Empire  revived  in  A.  D.  800,  by  a 
prince  whose  vast  dominions  gave  ground  to  his 
claim  of  universal  monarchy;  again  erected,  in 
A.  D.  962,  on  the  narrower  but  firmer  basis  of  the 
German  kingdom.  We  have  seen  Otto  the  Great 
and  his  successors  during  the  three  following  cen- 
turies, a  line  of  monarchs  of  unrivalled  vigour 
and  abilities,  strain  every  nerve  to  make  good 
the  pretensions  of  their  office  against  the  rebels  in 
Italy  and  the  ecclesiastical  power.  Those  efforts 
had  now  failed  signally  and  hopelessly.  Each 
successive  Emperor  had  entered  the  strife  with 
resources  scantier  than  his  predecessors,  each  had 
been  more  decisively  vanquished  by  the  Pope, 
the  cities,  and  the  princes.  The  Roman  Empire 
might,  and,  so  far  as  its  practical  utility  was  con- 
cerned, ought  now  to  have  been  suffered  to  ex- 
pire; nor  could  it  have  ended  more  gloriously 
than  with  the  last  of  the  Hohenstaufen.  That  it 
did  not  so  expire,  but  lived  on  600  years  more, 
tUl  it  became  a  piece  of  antiquarianism  hardly 
more  venerable  than  ridiculous — till,  as  Voltaire 
said,  all  that  could  be  said  about  it  was  that  it 
was  neither  holy,  nor  Roman,  nor  an  empire  — 
was  owing  partly  indeed  to  the  belief,  still  un- 
shaken, that  it  was  a  necessary  part  of  the  world's 
order,  yet  chiefly  to  its  connection,  which  was  by 
this  time  indissoluble,  with  the  German  king- 
dom. The  Germans  had  confounded  the  two 
characters  of  their  sovereign  so  long,  and  had 
grown  so  fond  of  the  style  and  pretensions  of  a 
dignity  whose  possession  appeared  to  exalt  them 
above  the  other  peoples  of  Europe,  that  it  was 
now  too  late  for  them  to  separate  the  local  from 
the  universal  monarch.  If  a  German  king  was 
to  be  maintained  at  all,  he  must  be  Roman  Em- 
peror; and  a  German  king  there  must  still  be. 
.  .  .  That  head,  however,  was  no  longer  what  he 
had  been.  The  relative  position  of  Germany  and 
France  was  now  exactly  the  reverse  of  that  which 
they  had  occupied  two  centuries  earlier.  Ru- 
dolf was  as  conspicuously  a  weaker  sovereign 
than  Philip  III.  of  France,  as  the  Franconian 
Emperor  Henry  III.  had  been  stronger  than  the 
Capetian  Philip  I.  In  every  other  state  of  Eu- 
rope the  tendency  of  events  had  been  to  central- 
ize the  administration  and  increase  the  power  of 


the  monarch,  even  in  England  not  to  diminish  it. 
in  Germany  alone  had  political  union  become 
weaker,  and  tlie  independence  of  the  princes  more 
confirmed. " — J.  Bryce,  T/ie  Holy  Roman  Empire, 
ch.  13.— See,  also,  It.ua':  A.  D.  1250-1530. 

A.  D.  1273-1308. — The  first  Hapsburg  kings 
of  the  Romans,  Rodolph  and  Albert. — The 
choice  made  (A.  D.  1273)  by  the  German  Electors 
of  Rodolph  of  Hapsburg  for  King  of  the  Ro- 
mans (see  Austria:  A.  D.  1246-1282),  was  duly 
approved  and  confirmed  by  Pope  Gregory  X., 
who  silenced,  by  his  spiritual  admonitions,  the 
rival  claims  of  King  Alfonso  of  Castile.  But 
Rodolph,  to  secure  this  papal  confirmation  of 
his  title,  found  it  necessary  to  promise,  through 
his  ambassadors,  a  renewal  of  the  Capitulation 
of  Otho  IV.,  respecting  the  temporalities  of  the 
Pope.  This  he  repeated  in  person,  on  meeting 
the  Pope  at  Lausanne,  in  1275.  On  that  occasion, 
"an  agreement  was  entered  into  which  after- 
wards ratified  to  the  Church  the  long  disputed  gift 
of  Charlemagne,  comprising  Ravenna,  Emilia, 
Bobbio,  Cesena,  Forumpopoli,  Forli,  Faenza, 
Imola,  Bologna,  Ferrara,  Comacchio,  Adria,  Ri- 
mini, Urbino,  Monteferetro,  and  the  territory  of 
Bagno.  Rodolph  also  bound  himself  to  protect 
the  privileges  of  the  Church,  and  to  maintain 
the  freedom  of  Episcopal  elections,  and  the  right 
of  appeal  in  all  ecclesiastical  causes ;  and  having 
stipulated  for  receiving  the  imperial  crown  in 
Rome  he  promised  to  undertake  an  expedition  to 
the  holy  land.  If  Rodolph  were  sincere  in  these 
last  engagements,  the  disturbed  state  of  his  Ger- 
man dominions  afforded  him  an  apology  for  their 
present  non-fulfilment :  but  there  is  good  reason 
for  believing  that  he  never  intended  to  visit 
either  Rome  or  Palestine ;  and  his  indifference  to 
Italy  has  even  been  the  theme  of  panegyric  with 
his  admirers.  The  repeated  and  mortifying  re- 
verses of  the  two  Frederics  were  before  his  eyes; 
there  was  little  to  excite  his  sympathy  with  the 
Italians ;  and  tliough  Lombardy  seemed  ready  to 
acknowledge  his  supremacy,  the  Tuscan  cities 
evinced  aspirations  after  Independence."  Dur- 
ing the  early  years  of  Rodolph's  reign  he  was  em- 
ployed in  establishing  his  authority,  as  against 
the  contumacy  of  Ottocar,  King  of  Bohemia, 
and  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  (see  Austria:  A.  D. 
1246-1282).  Meantime,  Gregory  X.  and  three 
short-lived  successors  in  the  papal  office  passed 
awa3%  and  Nicholas  III.  had  come  to  it  (1377). 
That  vigorous  pontiff  called  Rodolph  to  account 
for  not  having  yet  surrendered  the  states  of  the 
Church  in  due  form,  and  whispered  a  hint  of  ex- 
communication and  interdict.  ' '  Rodolph  was 
too  prudent  to  disregard  this  admonition:  he 
evaded  the  projected  crusade  and  journey  to 
Rome ;  but  he  took  care  to  send  thither  an  emis- 
sary, who  in  his  name  surrendered  to  the  Pope 
the  territory  already  agreed  on.  .  .  .  During  his 
entire  reign  Rodolph  maintained  his  indifference 
towards  Italy. "  His  views  ' '  were  rather  directed 
to  the  wilds  of  Hungary  and  Germany  than  to 
the  delicious  regions  of  the  south.  ...  He  com- 
pelled Philip,  Count  of  Savoy,  to  surrender 
Morat,  Payerne,  and  Guminen,  which  had  been 
usurped  from  the  Empire.  By  a  successful  ex- 
pedition across  the  Jura,  he  brought  back  to 
obedience  Otho  IV.  Count  of  Burgundy;  and 
forced  him  to  renounce  the  allegiance  he  had 
proffered  to  Philip  III.  King  of  France.  .  .  . 
He  crushed  an  insurrection  headed  by  an  impos- 
tor, who  had  persuaded  the  infatuated  multitude 


1482 


GERMANY,  1373-1308. 


Henry 
of  Luxemburg. 


GERMANY,  1308-1313. 


to  believe  that  he  was  the  Emperor  Frederic  II. 
And  he  freed  his  dominions  from  rapine  and 
desolation  by  the  destruction  of  several  castles, 
whose  owners  infested  the  country  with  their 
predatory  incursions."  Before  his  death,  in  1391, 
Rodolph  ' '  grew  anxious  to  secure  to  his  son  Albert 
the  succession  to  the  throne,  and  his  nomination 
by  the  Electors  ere  the  grave  closed  upon  himself. 
.  .  .  But  all  his  entreaties  were  unavailing;  he 
was  coldly  reminded  that  he  himself  was  still 
the  'King,'  and  that  the  Empire  was  too  poor  to 
support  two  kings.  Rodolph  might  now  repent 
his  neglect  to  assume  the  imperial  crown:  but 
the  character  of  Albert  seems  to  have  been  the 
real  obstacle  to  his  elevation.  With  many  of  the 
great  qualities  of  his  father,  this  prince  was  de- 
ficient in  his  milder  virtues;  and  his  personal 
bravery  and  perseverance  were  tainted  with  pride, 
haughtiness,  and  avarice."  On  Rodolph's  death, 
the  Electors  chose  for  his  successor  Adolphus, 
Count  of  Nassau,  a  choice  of  which  they  soon 
found  reason  to  repent.  By  taking  pay  from 
Edward  I.  of  England,  for  an  alliance  with  the 
latter  against  the  King  of  France,  and  by  at- 
tempts to  enforce  a  purchased  claim  upon  the 
Landgraviate  of  Thuringia,  Adolphus  brought 
himself  into  contempt,  and  in  1298  he  was  sol- 
emnly deposed  by  the  Electors,  who  now  con- 
ferred the  kingship  upon  Albert  of  Austria  whom 
they  had  rejected  six  years  before.  "The  de- 
posed sovereign  was,  however,  strongly  sup- 
ported ;  and  he  promptly  collected  his  adherents, 
and  marched  at  the  head  of  a  vast  army  against 
Albert,  who  was  not  unprepared  for  his  recep- 
tion. A.  great  battle  took  place  at  Gelheim,  near 
"Worms;  and,  after  a  bloody  contest,  the  troops 
of  Adolphus  were  entirely  defeated,"  and  he 
himself  was  slain.  But  Albert,  now  unopposed 
ia  Germany,  found  his  title  disputed  at  Rome. 
Boniface  VIII.,  the  most  arrogant  of  all  popes, 
refused  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  his  elec- 
tion, and  drove  him  into  a  close  alliance  with  the 
Pope's  implacable  and  finally  triumphant  enemy, 
Philip  IV.  of  France  (see  P.\pact:  A.  D.  1294- 
1348).  He  was  soon  at  enmity,  moreover,  with 
a  majority  of  the  Electors  who  had  given  the 
crown  to  him,  and  they,  stimulated  by  the  Pope, 
were  preparing  to  depose  him,  as  they  had  de- 
posed Adolphus.  But  Albert's  energy  broke  up 
their  plans.  He  humbled  their  leader,  the  Arch- 
bishop-Elector of  Mentz,  and  the  rest  became 
submissive.  The  Pope  now  came  to  terms  with 
him,  and  invited  him  to  Rome  to  receive  the  im- 
perial crown ;  also  offering  to  him  the  crown  of 
France,  if  he  would  take  it  from  the  head  of  the 
excommunicated  Philip;  but  while  these  pro- 
posals were  under  discussion,  Boniface  suffered 
humiliations  at  the  hands  of  the  French  king 
which  caused  his  death.  During  most  of  his 
reign,  Albert  was  busy  with  undertakings  of 
ambition  and  rapacity  which  had  no  success. 
He  attempted  to  seize  the  counties  of  Holland, 
Zealand,  and  Friesland,  as  fiefs  reverting  to  the 
crown,  on  the  death  of  John,  Count  of  Holland, 
in  1299.  He  claimed  the  Bohemian  crown  in 
1306,  when  Wenceslaus  V. ,  the  young  king,  was 
assassinated,  and  invaded  the  country ;  but  only 
to  be  beaten  back.  He  was  defeated  at  Lucka, 
in  1308,  when  attempting  to  grasp  the  inheri- 
tance of  the  Landgrave  of  Thuringia  —  under  the 
very  transaction  which  had  chiefly  caused  his 
predecessor  Adolphus  to  be  deposed,  and  he  him- 
lelf  invested  with  the  Roman  crown.    Finally, 


he  was  in  hostilities  with  the  Swiss  Forest  Can- 
tons, and  was  leading  his  forces  against  them,  in 
May,  1308,  when  he  was  assassinated  by  several 
nobles,  including  his  cousin  John,  whose  enmity 
he  had  incurred.— Sir  R.  Comyn,  Hist,  of  the 
Western  Empire,  ch.  14-17  («.  1). 

Also  in  :  W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of  Aus- 
tria, ch.  5  (v.  1). 

A.  D.  1282. —  Acquisition  of  the  duchy  of 
Austria  by  the  House  of  Hapsburg.  See  Aus- 
tria: A.  D.  134(3-1283. 

A.  D.  1308-1313.— The  reign  of  Henry  of 
Luxemburg. —  The  king  (subsequently  crowned 
emperor)  chosen  to  succeed  Albert  was  Count 
Henry  of  Luxemburg,  an  able  and  excellent 
prince.  The  new  sovereign  was  crowned  as 
Henry  VH.  "Henry  did  not  make  the  extension 
of  his  private  domains  his  object,  yet  favoring 
fortune  brought  it  to  him  in  the  largest  measure. 
Since  the  death  of  Wenzel  III.,  the  succession 
to  the  throne  of  Bohemia  had  been  a  subject  of 
constant  struggles.  A  very  small  party  was  in 
favor  of  Austria;  but  the  chief  power  was  in  the 
hands  of  Henry  of  Carinthia,  husband  of  Anna, 
AVenzel's  eldest  daugliter.  But  he  was  hated  by 
the  people,  whose  hopes  turned  more  and  more 
to  Elizabeth,  a  younger  daughter  of  Wenzel; 
though  she  was  kept  in  close  confinement  by 
Henry,  who  was  about  to  marry  her,  it  was  sup- 
posed, below  her  rank.  She  escaped,  fled  to  the 
emperor,  and  implored  his  aid.  He  gave  her  in 
marriage  to  his  young  son  John,  sending  him  to 
Bohemia  in  charge  of  Peter  Aichspalter,  to  take 
possession  of  the  kingdom.  He  did  so,  and  it 
remained  for  more  than  a  century  in  the  Luxem- 
burg family.  This  King  John  of  Bohemia  was 
a  man  of  mark.  His  life  was  spent  in  the  cease- 
less pursuit  of  adventure  —  from  tournament  to 
tournament,  from  war  to  war,  from  one  enter- 
prise to  another.  We  meet  him  now  in  Avignon, 
and  now  in  Paris;  then  on  the  Rhine,  in  Prussia, 
Poland,  or  Hungary,  and  then  prosecuting  large 
plans  in  Italy,  but  hardly  ever  in  his  own  king- 
dom. Yet  his  restless  activity  accomplished  very 
little,  apart  from  some  important  acquisitions  in 
Silesia.  Henry  then  gave  attention  to  the  public 
peace ;  came  to  an  understanding  with  Leopold 
and  Frederick,  the  proud  sons  of  Albert,  and  put 
under  the  ban  Everard  of  Wirtemberg,  long  a 
fomenter  of  disturbances,  sending  against  him  a 
strong  imperial  army.  ...  At  the  Diet  of  Spires, 
in  September,  1309,  it  was  cheerfully  resolved 
to  carry  out  Henry's  cherished  plan  of  reviving 
the  traditional  dignity  of  the  Roman  emperors 
by  an  expedition  to  the  Eternal  City.  Henry 
expected  thus  to  renew  the  authority  of  his  title 
at  home,  as  well  as  in  Italy,  where,  in  the  tradi- 
tional view,  the  imperial  crown  was  as  impor- 
tant and  as  necessary  as  in  Germany.  Every 
thing  here  had  gone  to  confusion  and  ruin  since 
the  Hohenstaufens  had  succumbed  to  the  bitter 
hostility  of  the  popes.  The  contending  parties 
still  called  themselves  Guelphs  and  Ghibellines, 
though  they  retained  little  of  the  original  char- 
acteristics attached  to  these  names.  A  formal 
embassy,  with  Matteo  Visconti  at  its  head,  in- 
vited Henry  to  Milan;  and  the  parties  every 
where  anticipated  his  coming  with  hope.  The 
great  Florentine  poet,  Dante,  hailed  him  as  a 
saviour  for  distracted  Italy.  Thus,  with  the 
pope's  approval,  he  crossed  the  Alps  in  the 
autumn  of  1310,  attended  by  a  splendid  escort 
of  princes  of    the  empire.     The  news  of    his 


1483 


GERMANY,   1308-1313.         Lewis  and  Frederick.         GERMANY,   1314-1347. 


approach  excited  general  wonder  and  expectation, 
and  liis  reception  at  Milan  in  December  was  like 
a  triumph.  He  was  crowned  King  of  Lombardy 
■without  opposition.  But  when,  in  the  true  im- 
perial spirit,  he  announced  that  he  had  come  to 
serve  the  nation,  and  not  one  or  another  party, 
and  proved  liis  sincerity  by  treating  both  parties 
alike,  all  whose  selfish  hopes  were  deceived  con- 
spired against  hira.  Brescia  endured  a  frightful 
siege  for  four  months,  showing  that  the  national 
hatred  of  German  rule  still  survived.  At  length 
a  union  of  all  his  adversaries  was  formed  under 
King  Robert  of  Naples,  the  grandson  of  Charles 
of  Anjou,  who  put  Conradin  to  death.  Mean- 
while Henry  VII.  went  to  Rome,  May  1312,  and 
received  the  crown  of  the  Coesars  from  four  car- 
dinals, plenipotentiaries  of  the  pope,  in  the  church 
of  St.  John  Lateran,  south  of  the  Tiber,  St. 
Peter's  being  occupied  by  tlie  Neapolitan  troops. 
But  many  of  his  German  soldiers  left  him,  and 
he  retired,  with  a  small  army,  to  Pisa,  after  an 
unsuccessful  effort  to  take  Florence.  From  the 
faithful  city  of  Pisa  he  proclaimed  King  Robert 
under  the  ban,  and,  in  concert  with  Frederick  of 
Sicily,  prepared  for  war  by  land  and  sea.  But 
the  pope,  now  a  mere  tool  of  the  King  of  France, 
commanded  an  armistice;  and  when  Henry,  in 
an  independent  spirit,  hesitated  to  obey,  Clement 
V.  pronounced  the  ban  of  the  Church  against 
him.  It  never  reached  the  emperor,  who  died 
suddenly  in  the  monastery  of  Buon-Convento: 
poisoned,  as  the  German  annalists  assert,  by  a 
Dominican  monk,  in  the  sacramental  cup,  Au- 
gust 24,  1313.  He  was  buried  at  Pisa.  Mean- 
while his  array  in  Bohemia  had  been  completely 
successful  in  establishing  King  John  on  the 
throne." — C.  T.  Lewis,  A  Hist,  of  Germany,  bk. 
3,  ch.  10.— See,  also,  Italy:  A.  D.  1310-1313. 

A.  D.  1314-1347. — Election  of  rival  emperors, 
Lewis  (Ludowic)  of  Bavaria  and  Frederic  of 
Austria.— Triumph  of  Lewis  at  the  Battle  of 
Miihldorf. — Papal  interference  and  excommu- 
nication of  Lewis. — Germany  under  interdict. 
— Unrelenting  hostility  of  the  Church. — "The 
death  of  Heinric  [Henry]  replunged  Germany 
into  horrors  to  which,  since  tlie  e.xtinction  of  the 
Swabian  line  of  emperors,  it  had  been  a  stranger. 
Tlie  Austrian  princes,  who  had  never  forgiven 
the  elevation  of  the  Luxemburg  famil}^,  espoused 
the  interests  of  Frederic,  their  head;  the  Bohemi- 
ans as  naturally  opposed  them.  From  the  acces- 
sion of  John,  the  two  houses  were  of  necessity 
hostile ;  and  it  was  evident  that  there  could  be 
no  peace  in  Germany  until  one  of  them  was  sub- 
jected to  the  other.  The  Bohemians,  indeed, 
could  not  hope  to  place  their  king  on  the  vacant 
throne,  since  their  project  would  have  found  an 
insurmountable  obstacle  in  the  jealousy  of  the  elec- 
tors ;  but  they  were  at  least  resolved  to  support 
the  pretensions  of  a  prince  hostile  to  the  Aus- 
trians.  .  .  .  The  diet  being  convoked  at  Frank- 
fort, the  electors  repaired  thither,  but  with  very 
different  views;  for,  as  their  suffrages  were 
already  engaged,  while  the  more  numerous  party 
proclaimed  the  duke  of  Bavaria  as  Ludowic  V", 
another  no  less  eagerly  proclaimed  Frederic. 
Although  Ludowic  was  a  member  of  the  Austro- 
Hapsburg  family  —  his  mother  being  a  daughter 
of  Rodolf  I.  —  he  had  always  been  the  enemy  of 
the  Austrian  princes,  and  in  the  same  degree  the 
ally  of  the  Luxemburg  faction.  The  two  candi- 
dates being  respectively  crowned  kings  of  the 
Bomans,    Ludowic    at   Aix-la-Chapelle,    by  the 


arclibishop  of  Mentz  —  Frederic  at  Bonn,  by  the 
metropolitan  of  Cologne,  a  civil  war  was  inevit- 
able :  neither  had  virtue  enough  to  sacrifice  hia 
own  rights  to  the  good  of  the  state.  .  .  .  The 
contest  would  have  ended  in  favour  of  the  Aus- 
trians,  but  for  the  rashness  of  Frederic,  who,  in 
September  1322,  without  waiting  for  the  arrivai' 
of  his  brother  Leopold,  assailed  Ludowic  between 
3Iahldorf  and  Ettingeu  in  Bavaria.  .  .  .  The  bat- 
tle was  maintained  with  equal  valour  from  the 
rising  to  the  setting  sun ;  and  was  evidently  in 
favour  of  the  Austrians,  when  an  unexpected 
charge  in  flank  by  a  body  of  cavalry  under  the 
margrave  of  Nuremburg  decided  the  fortune  of 
the  day.  Heinric  of  Austria  was  first  taken  pris- 
oner ;  and  Frederic  himself,  who  disdained  to  flee, 
was  soon  in  the  same  condition.  To  his  ever- 
lasting honour,  Ludowic  received  Frederic  with 
the  highest  assurances  of  esteem ;  and  though  the 
latter  was  conveyed  to  the  strong  fortress  of 
Trapnitz,  in  the  Upper  Palatinate,  he  was  treated 
with  every  indulgence  consistent  with  his  safe 
custody.  But  the  contest  was  not  yet  decided ;  the 
valiant  Leopold  was  still  at  the  head  of  a  sep- 
arate force;  and  pope  John  XXII.,  the  natural 
enemy  of  the  Ghibelins,  incensed  at  some  suc- 
cours which  Ludowic  sent  to  that  party  in  Lom- 
bardy, excommunicated  the  king  of  the  Romans, 
and  declared  him  deposed  from  his  dignity. 
Among  the  ecclesiastics  of  the  empire  this  iniqui- 
tous sentence  had  its  weight ;  but  had  not  other 
events  been  disastrous  to  the  king,  he  might  have 
safely  despised  it.  By  Leopold  he  was  signally 
defeated ;  he  had  the  mortification  to  see  the  in- 
constant king  of  Bohemia  join  the  party  of  Aus- 
tria ;  and  the  still  heavier  misfortune  to  learn  that 
the  ecclesiastical  and  two  or  three  secular  electors 
were  proceeding  to  another  choice— that  of 
Charles  de  Valois,  whose  interests  were  warmly 
supported  by  the  pope.  In  this  emergency,  his 
only  chance  of  safety  was  a  reconciliation  with  his 
enemies ;  and  Frederic  was  released  on  condition 
of  his  renouncing  ah  claim  to  the  empire.  But 
though  Frederic  sincerely  resolved  to  fulfil  his 
share  of  tlie  compact,  Leopold  and  the  other 
princes  of  his  family  refused ;  and  their  refusal 
was  approved  by  the  pope.  "With  the  magnanim- 
ity of  his  character,  Frederic,  unable  to  execute 
the  engagements  which  lie  had  made,  voluntarily 
surrendered  himself  to  his  enemy.  But  Ludowic, 
who  would  not  be  outdone  in  generosity,  re- 
ceived him,  not  as  a  prisoner,  but  a  friend.  '  They 
ate,'  says  a  contemporary  writer,  'at  the  same 
table,  slept  on  the  same  couch ; '  and  when  the 
King  left  Bavaria,  the  administration  of  that 
duchy  was  confided  to  Frederic.  Two  such  men 
could  not  long  remain  even  politically  hostile; 
and  by  another  treaty,  it  was  agreed  that  they 
should  exercise  conjointly  the  government  of  the 
empire.  Wlien  this  arrangement  was  condemned 
both  by  the  pope  and  the  electors,  Ludowic  pro- 
iwsed  to  take  Italy  as  his  seat  of  government,  and 
leave  Germany  to  Frederic.  But  the  death  [1326] 
of  the  war-like  Leopold  —  the  great  support  of 
the  Austrian  cause  —  and  the  continued  opposi- 
tion of  the  states  to  any  compromise,  enabled 
Ludowic  to  retain  the  sceptre  of  the  kingdom; 
and  in  1329,  that  of  Frederic  strengthened  his 
part}'.  But  his  reign  was  destined  to  be  one  of 
troubles.  .  .  .  His  open  warfare  against  the  heai 
of  the  church  did  not  much  improve  his  affairs, 
the  vindictive  pope,  in  addition  to  the  former 
sentence,  placing  all  Germany  under  an  interdict. 


1484 


GERMANY,  131^1347. 


T)ie  Golden  Bull 
of  Charles  IV. 


GERMANY,  1347-1493. 


.  .  In  1338,  the  diet  of  Frankfort  issued  a  dec- 
laration for  ever  memorable  in  the  annals  of  free- 
dom. That  the  imperial  authority  depended  on 
God  alone;  that  the  pope  had  no  temporal  in- 
fluence, direct  or  indirect,  within  the  empire; 
...  it  concluded  by  empowering  the  emperor 
(Ludowic  while  in  Italy  [see  Italy:  A.  D.  1313- 
1330]  had  received  the  imperial  crown  from  the 
anti-poj^e  whom  he  had  created  in  opposition  to 
John  XXII.)  to  raise,  of  his  own  authority,  the 
interdict  which,  during  four  years,  had  oppressed 
the  country.  Another  diet,  held  the  following 
year,  ratified  this  bold  declaration.  .  .  .  But  this 
conduct  of  the  diet  was  above  the  comprehension 
of  the  vulgar,  who  still  regarded  Ludowic  as 
under  the  curse  of  God  and  the  church.  .  .  .  Un- 
fortunately for  the  national  independence,  Ludo- 
wic himself  contradicted  the  tenor  of  his  hitherto 
spirited  conduct,  by  mean  submissions,  by  humili- 
ating applications  for  absolution.  They  were  un- 
successful; and  he  had  the  mortitication  to  see 
the  king  of  Bohemia,  who  had  always  acted  an 
unaccountable  part,  become  his  bitter  enemy.  .  .  . 
From  this  moment  the  fate  of  Ludowic  was  de- 
cided. In  conjunction  with  the  pope  and  the 
French  king,  Charles  of  Bohemia,  who  in  1346 
succeeded  to  his  father's  kingdom  and  antipathy, 
commenced  a  civil  war;  and  in  the  midst  of  these 
troubled  scenes  the  emperor  breathed  his  last 
[October  11,  1347].  Twelve  mouths  before  the 
decease  of  Ludowic,  Charles  of  Bohemia  [son  of 
John,  the  blind  king  of  Bohemia,  who  fell,  fight- 
ing for  the  French,  at  the  battle  of  Crecy],  assisted 
by  Clement  VI.,  was  elected  king  of  the  Romans." 
— S.  A.  Dunham,  Hist,  of  the  Oermanic  Empire, 
bk.  1,  ch.  4  (i).  1). 

Also  in:  J.  I.  von  Dollinger,  Studies  in  Euro- 
pean History,  ch.  5. — -J.  C.  Robertson,  Hist,  of  the 
Christian  Church,  bk.  8,  ch.  3,  «.  7.— M.  Creigh- 
ton.  Hist,  of  the  Papacy  durinrj  the  Period  of  the 
Reformation,  introd.,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1347-1493.— The  Golden  Bull  of 
Charles  IV. — The  Luxemburg  line  of  emper- 
ors, and  the  reappearance  of  the  Hapsburgs. 
— The  Holy  Roman  Empire  as  it  was  at  the 
end  of  the  Middle  Ages. — "John  king  of  Bo- 
hemia did  not  himself  wear  the  imperial  crown ; 
but  three  of  his  descendants  possessed  it,  with 
less  interruption  than  could  have  been  expected. 
His  son  Charles  IV.  succeeded  Louis  of  Bavaria 
in  1347 ;  not  indeed  without  opposition,  for  a 
double  election  and  a  civil  war  were  matters  of 
course  in  Germany.  Charles  IV.  has  been  treated 
with  more  derision  by  his  contemporaries,  and 
consequently  by  later  writers,  than  almost  any 
prince  in  history ;  yet  he  was  remarkably  suc- 
cessful in  the  only  objects  that  he  seriously  pur- 
sued. Deficient  in  personal  courage,  insensible 
of  humiliation,  bending  without  sliame  to  the 
pope,  to  the  Italians,  to  the  electors,  so  poor  and 
so  little  reverenced  as  to  be  arrested  by  a  butcher 
at  Worms  for  want  of  paj'ing  his  demand, 
Charles  IV.  affords  a  proof  that  a  certain  dex- 
terity and  cold-blooded  perseverance  may  occa- 
sionally supply,  in  a  sovereign,  the  want  of 
more  respectable  qualities.  He  has  been  re- 
proached with  neglecting  the  empire.  But  he 
never  deigned  to  trouble  himself  about  the  em- 
pire, except  for  his  private  ends.  He  did  not 
neglect  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia,  to  which  he 
almost  seemed  to  render  Germany  a  province. 
Bohemia  had  been  long  considered  as  a  fief  of 
the  empire,  and  indeed  could  pretend  to  an  elec- 


toral vote  by  no  other  title.  Charles,  however, 
gave  the  states  by  law  the  right  of  choosing  a 
king,  on  the  extinction  of  the  royal  family,  which 
seems  derogatory  to  the  imperial  prerogative. 
...  He  constantly  resided  at  Prague,  where  he 
founded  a  celebrated  university,  and  embellished 
the  city  with  buildings.  This  kingdom,  aug- 
mented also  during  his  reign  by  the  acquisition 
of  Silesia,  he  bequeathed  to  his  son  Wenceslaus, 
for  whom,  by  pliancy  towards  the  electors  and 
the  court  of  Rome,  he  had  procured,  against  all 
recent  example,  the  imperial  succession.  The 
reign  of  Charles  IV.  is  distinguished  in  the  con- 
stitutional history  of  the  empire  by  his  Golden 
Bull  [1356] ;  an  instrument  which  finally  ascer- 
tained the  prerogatives  of  the  electoral  college 
[see  above:  A.  D.  1125-1153].  The  Golden  Bull 
terminated  the  disputes  which  had  arisen  between 
different  members  of  the  same  house  as  to  their 
right  of  suffrage,  which  was  declared  inherent  in 
certain  definite  territories.  The  number  was  ab- 
solutely restraiued  to  seven.  The  place  of  legal 
imperial  elections  was  fixed  at  Frankfort;  of 
coronations,  at  Aix-la-Chapelle ;  and  the  latter 
ceremony  was  to  be  performed  by  the  arch-bishop 
of  Cologne.  These  regulations,  though  conso- 
nant to  ancient  usage,  had  not  always  been  ob- 
served, and  their  neglect  had  sometimes  excited 
questions  as  to  the  validity  of  elections.  The 
dignity  of  elector  was  enhanced  by  the  Golden 
Bull  as  highly  as  an  imperial  edict  could  carry  it ; 
they  were  declared  equal  to  kings,  and  conspiracy 
against  their  persons  incurred  the  penalty  of  high 
treason.  Many  other  privileges  are  granted  to 
render  them  more  completely  sovereign  within 
their  dominions.  It  seems  extraordinary  that 
Charles  should  have  voluntarily  elevated  an  oli- 
garchy, from  whose  pretensions  his  predecessors 
had  frequently  suffered  injury.  But  he  had 
more  to  apprehend  from  the  two  great  families 
of  Bavaria  and  Austria,  whom  he  relatively  de- 
pressed by  giving  such  a  preponderance  to  the 
seven  electors,  than  from  anj'  members  of  the 
college.  By  his  compact  with  Brandenburg  [see 
Brandenburg:  A.  D.  1168-1417]  he  had  a  fair 
prospect  of  adding  a  second  vote  to  his  own. 
.  .  .  The  next  reign,  nevertheless,  evinced  the 
danger  of  investing  the  electors  w;ith  such  pre- 
ponderating authority.  Wenceslaus  [elected  in 
1378],  a  supine  and  voluptuous  man,  less  re- 
spected, and  more  negligent  of  Germany,  if  pos- 
sible, than  his  father,  was  regularly  deposed  by 
a  majority  of  the  electoral  college  in  1400.  .  .  . 
They  chose  Robert  count  palatine  instead  of 
Wenceslaus ;  and  though  the  latter  did  not  cease 
to  have  some  adherents,  Robert  has  generally 
been  counted  among  the  lawful  emperors.  Upon 
his  death  [1410]  the  empire  returned  to  the  house 
of  Luxemburg ;  Wenceslaus  himself  waiving  his 
rights  in  favour  of  his  brother  Sigismund  of 
Hungary."  On  the  death  of  Sigismund,  in  1437, 
the  house  of  Austria  regained  the  imperial  throne, 
in  the  person  of  Albert,  duke  of  Austria,  who 
bad  married  Sigismund's  only  daughter,  the 
queen  of  Hungarj'  and  Bohemia.  ' '  He  died  in 
two  years,  leaving  his  wife  pregnant  with  a  son, 
Ladislaus  Posthumus,  who  afterwards  reigned  in 
the  two  kingdoms  just  mentioned ;  and  the  choice 
of  the  electors  fell  upon  Frederic  duke  of  Styria, 
second-cousin  of  the  last  emperor,  from  whose 
posteritj'  it  never  departed,  except  in  a  single  in- 
stance, upon  the  extinction  of  his  male  line  in 
1740.    Frederic  III.  reigned  53  years  [1440-1493], 


1485 


GERMANY,  1347-1488. 


The  Hohenzollems. 


GERMANY,  1417. 


a  longer  period  than  any  of  his  predecessors;  and 
his  personal  character  was  more  insignificant. 
.  .  .  Frederic,  always  poor,  and  scarcely  able  to 
protect  himself  in  Austria  from  the  seditions  of 
his  subjects,  or  the  inroads  of  the  king  of  Hun- 
gary, was  yet  another  founder  of  his  family,  and 
left  their  fortunes  incomparably  more  prosperous 
than  at  his  accession.  Tlie  marriage  of  his  son 
Maximilian  with  the  heiress  of  Burgundy  [see 
Netherlands:  A.  D.  1477]  began  that  aggran- 
dizement of  the  house  of  Austria  wliich  Frederic 
seems  to  have  anticipated.  The  electors,  who 
had  lost  a  good  deal  of  their  former  spirit,  and 
were  grown  sensible  of  the  necessity  of  choosing 
a  powerful  sovereign,  made  no  opposition  to 
Maximilian's  becoming  king  of  the  Romans  in 
his  father's  lifetime." — H.  Hallam,  The  Middle 
Ages,  ch.  5  («.  2). — "It  is  important  to  remark 
that,  for  more  than  a  century  after  Charles  IV. 
had  fixed  his  seat  in  Bohemia,  no  emperor  ap- 
peared, endowed  with  the  vigour  necessary  to 
uphold  and  govern  the  empire.  The  bare  fact 
that  Charles's  successor,  Wenceslas,  was  a  pris- 
oner in  the  hands  of  the  Bohemians,  remained 
for  a  long  time  unknown  in  Germany :  a  simple 
decree  of  the  electors  sufficed  to  dethrone  him. 
Rupert  the  Palatine  only  escaped  a  similar  fate 
by  death.  When  Sigismund  of  Luxemburg, 
(who,  after  many  disputed  elections,  kept  posses- 
sion of  the  field.)  four  years  after  his  election, 
entered  the  territory  of  the  empire  of  which  he 
was  to  be  crowned  sovereign,  he  found  so  little 
sympatliy  that  he  was  for  a  moment  inclined  to 
return  to  Hungary  without  accomplishing  the 
object  of  his  journey.  The  active  part  he  took 
in  the  affairs  of  Bohemia,  and  of  Europe  gener- 
ally, has  given  him  a  name ;  but  in  and  for  the 
empire,  he  did  nothing  worthy  of  note.  Between 
the  years  1422  and  1430  he  never  made  his  ap- 
pearance beyond  Vienna;  from  the  autumn  of 
1431  to  that  of  1433  he  was  occupied  with  his 
coronation  journey  to  Rome;  and  during  the 
three  years  from  1434  to  his  death  he  never  got 
beyond  Bohemia  and  Moravia;  nor  did  Albert 
II.,  who  has  been  the  subject  of  such  lavish 
eulogy,  ever  visit  the  dominions  of  the  empire. 
Frederic  III. ,  however,  far  outdid  all  his  prede- 
cessors. During  seven-and-twenty  years,  from 
1444  to  1471,  he  was  never  seen  within  the  boun- 
daries of  the  empire.  Hence  it  liappened  that 
the  central  action  and  tlie  visible  manifestation 
of  sovereignty,  in  as  far  as  any  such  existed  in  the 
empire,  fell  to  the  share  of  the  princes,  and  more 
especially  of  tlie  prince-electors.  In  the  reign  of 
Sigismund  we  find  them  convoking  the  diets, 
and  leading  the  armies  into  the  field  against  the 
Hussites :  tlie  operations  against  the  Bohemians 
were  attributed  entirely  to  them.  In  this  man- 
ner the  empire  became,  like  the  papacy,  a  power 
which  acted  from  a  distance,  and  rested  chiefly 
upon  opinion.  .  .  .  The  emperor  was  regarded, 
in  the  first  place,  as  the  supreme  feudal  lord, 
who  conferred  on  property  its  highest  and  most 
sacred  sanction.  .  .  .  Although  he  was  regarded 
as  the  head  and  source  of  all  temporal  jurisdic- 
tion, yet  no  tribunal  found  more  doubtful  obedi- 
ence than  his  own.  The  fact  that  royalty  ex- 
isted in  Germany  had  almost  been  suffered  to  fall 
into  oblivion ;  even  the  title  had  been  lost.  Henry 
VII.  thought  it  an  affront  to  be  called  King  of 
Germany,  and  not,  as  he  had  a  right  to  be  called 
before  any  ceremony  of  coronation,  King  of  the 
Romans.     In  the  15th  century  the  emperor  was 


regarded  pre-eminently  as  the  successor  of  the 
ancient  Roman  Ciesars,  whose  rights  and  digni- 
ties had  been  transferred,  first  to  the  Greeks,  and 
tlien  to  the  Germans  in  the  persons  of  Charle- 
magne and  Otho  the  Great ;  as  the  true  secular 
head  of  Christendom.  .  .  .  The  opinion  was  con- 
fidently entertained  in  Germany  that  the  other 
sovereigns  of  Christendom,  especially  those  of 
England,  Spain,  and  France,  were  legally  subject 
to  the  crown  of  the  empire :  the  only  controversy 
was,  whether  their  disobedience  was  venial,  or 
ought  to  be  regarded  as  sinful." — L.  von  Ranke. 
Hist,  of  the  Reformation  in  Oermany,  v.  1,  pp. 
52-56. 

Also  m:  Sir  R.  Comyn,  Hist,  of  the  Western 
Empire,  ch.  24  (v.  1). — E.  F.  Henderson,  Select 
Hist.  Doc's  of  the  Middle  Ages,  bk.  2,  no.  10. — 
See,  also,  Austria:  A.  D.  1330-1364,  to  1471- 
1491. 

A.  D.  1363-1364.  —  Tyrol  acquired  by  the 
House  of  Austria,  v(rith  the  reversion  of  the 
crowns  of  Bohemia  and  Hungary.  See  Austria  : 
A.  D.  1330-1364. 

A.  D.  1378. — Final  surrender  of  the  Arelate 
to  France.     See  Burgundy  :  A.  D.  1127-1378. 

A.  D.  1386-1388.— Defeat  of  the  Austrians 
by  the  Swiss  at  Sempach  and  Naefels.  See 
Switzerland:  A.  D.  1386-1388. 

A.  D.  1405-1434.— The  Bohemian  Reforma- 
tion and  the  Hussite  wars.  See  Bohemia  :  A.  D. 
1405-1415,  and  1419-1434. 

A.  D.  1414-1418. — Failure  of  demands  for 
Church  Reform  in  the  Council  of  Constance. 
See  Pap.^cy:  A.  D.  1414-1418. 

A.  D.  1417. — The  Electorate  of  Branden- 
burg conferred  on  the  Hohenzollems. — "The 
March  of  Brandenburg  is  one  of  those  districts 
which  was  first  peopled  by  the  advance  of  the 
German  nation  towards  the  east  during  the 
twelftli  and  thirteenth  centuries.  It  was  in  the 
beginning,  like  Silesia,  Mecklenburg,  Pomerania, 
Prussia,  and  Livonia,  a  German  colony  settled 
upon  an  almost  uncultivated  soil :  from  the  very 
first,  however,  it  seems  to  have  given  the  greatest 
promise  of  vigour.  .  .  .  Possession  was  taken  of 
the  soil  upon  the  ground  of  the  rights  of  the 
princely  Ascanian  house  —  we  know  not  whether 
these  rights  were  founded  upon  inheritance,  pur- 
chase, or  cession.  The  process  of  occupation 
was  so  gradual  that  the  institutions  of  the  old 
German  provinces,  like  those  constituting  the 
nortliern  march,  had  time  to  take  firm  root  in  the 
newly-acquired  territory ;  and  owing  to  the  con- 
stant necessity  for  unsheathing  the  sword,  the 
colonists  acquired  warlike  habits  which  tended 
to  give  them  spirit  and  energy.  .  .  .  The  As- 
canians  were  a  warlike  but  cultivated  race,  in- 
cessantly acquiring  new  possessions,  but  gener- 
ous and  openhanded ;  and  new  life  followed  in 
their  footsteps.  They  soon  took  up  an  important 
political  position  among  the  German  princely 
houses:  their  possessions  extended  over  a  great 
part  of  Thuringia,  Moravia,  Lausitz,  and  Silesia; 
the  electoral  dignity  wliich  they  assumed  gave 
to  them  and  to  their  country  a  high  rank  in  the 
Empire.  In  the  Neumark  and  in  Pomerellen  the 
Poles  retreated  before  them,  and  on  the  Pome- 
ranian coasts  they  protected  tlie  towns  founded 
by  the  Teutonic  order  from  the  invasion  of  the 
Danes.  It  has  been  asked  whether  this  race 
miglit  not  have  greatly  extended  its  power ;  but 
they  were  not  destined  even  to  make  the  attempt. 
It  is  said  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth 


1486 


GERMANY,  1417. 


Bundschuh 
insurrections. 


GERMANY,  1493-1519. 


century  nineteen  members  of  this  family  were 
assembled  on  the  Margrave's  Hill  near  Rathenau. 
In  the  year  1330,  of  all  these  not  one  remained, 
or  had  even  left  an  heir.  ...  In  Brandenburg 
...  it  really  appeared  as  if  the  e.xtinction  of  the 
ruling  family  would  entail  ruin  upon  the  coun- 
try. It  had  formed  a  close  alliance  with  the  im- 
perial power  —  which  at  that  moment  was  the 
subject  of  contention  between  the  two  great 
families  of  Wittelsbach  and  Lu.xemburg  —  was 
involved  in  the  quarrels  of  those  two  races, 
injured  by  all  their  alternations  of  fortune,  and 
sacrificed  to  their  domestic  and  foreign  policy, 
which  was  totally  at  variance  with  the  interests 
of  Brandenburg.  At  the  very  beginning  of  the 
struggle  the  March  of  Brandenburg  lost  its 
dependencies.  ...  At  length  the  Emperor  Sig- 
mund,  the  last  of  the  house  of  Luxemburg,  found 
himself  so  fully  occupied  with  the  disturbances 
In  the  Empire  and  the  dissensions  in  the  Church, 
that  he  could  no  longer  maintain  his  power  in 
the  March,  and  intrusted  the  task  to  his  friend 
and  relation,  Frederick,  Burgrave  of  Niirnberg, 
to  whom  he  lay  under  very  great  obligations,  and 
who  liad  assisted  him  with  money  at  his  need. 
...  It  was  a  great  point  gained,  after  so  long  a 
period  of  anarchy,  to  find  a  powerful  and  pru- 
dent prince  ready  to  undertake  the  government 
of  the  province.  He  could  do  nothing  in  the 
open  field  against  the  revolted  nobles,  but  he 
assailed  and  vanquished  them  in  their  hitherto 
impregnable  strong-holds  surrounded  with  walls 
fifteen  feet  thick,  which  he  demolished  with 
his  clumsy  but  effective  artillery.  In  a  few 
years  he  had  so  far  succeeded  that  he  was  able  to 
proclaim  a  Landfriede,  or  public  peace,  accord- 
ing to  which  each  and  every  one  who  was  an 
enemy  to  him,  or  to  those  compreliended  in  the 
peace,  was  considered  and  treated  as  the  enemy 
of  all.  But  the  effect  of  all  this  would  have  been 
but  transient,  had  not  the  Emperor,  who  had  no 
son,  and  who  was  won  by  Frederick's  numerous 
services  and  by  his  talents  for  action,  made  the 
Electorate  hereditary  in  his  family.  .  .  .  The 
most  important  day  in  the  history  of  the  March 
of  Brandenburg  and  the  family  of  Zollern  was 
the  18th  of  April,  1417,  when  in  the  market-place 
of  Constance  the  Emperor  Sigraund  formally 
invested  the  Burgrave  with  the  dignity  of  Elec- 
tor, placed  in  his  hands  the  flag  with  the  arms  of 
the  March  and  received  from  him  the  oath  of 
allegiance.  From  this  moment  a  prospect  was 
afforded  to  the  territory  of  Brandenburg  of  re- 
covering its  former  prosperity  and  increasing  its 
importance,  while  to  the  house  of  Zollern  a  career 
of  glory  and  usefulness  was  opened  worthy  of 
powers  which  were  thus  called  into  action." — L. 
von  Ranke,  Memoirs  of  the  ITovse  of  Branden- 
burg, bk.  1,  ch.  2. — See,  also,  BTt.^'NDENBtnRG: 
A.  D.  1168-1417;  and  Hohenzollern,  Rise  of 
THE  House  of. 

A.  D.  1467-1471. — Crusade  against  George 
Podiebrad,  king  of  Bohemia.  See  Bohemia: 
A.  I).  14.')8-U71. 

A.  D.  1467-1477. —  Relations  of  Charles  the 
Bold  of  Burgundy  to  the  Empire.  See  Bur- 
gundy: A.  D.  1467,  and  1476-1477. 

A.  D.  1492-1514. — The  Bundschuh  insurrec- 
tions of  the  Peasantry. —  Several  risings  of  the 
German  peasantry,  in  the  later  part  of  the  15th 
and  early  part  of  the  16th  century,  were  named 
from  the  Bundschuh,  or  peasants'  clog,  which 
the  insurgents  bore  as  their  emblem  or  pictured 


on  their  banners.  "While  the  peasants  in  the 
Rhoetian  Alps  were  gradually  throwing  off  the 
yoke  of  the  nobles  and  forming  the  '  Graubund  ' 
[see  Switzerland:  A.  D.  1396-1499],  a  struggle 
was  going  on  between  the  neighbouring  peas- 
antry of  Kerapten  (to  the  east  of  Lake  Constance) 
and  their  feudal  lord,  the  Abbot  of  Kempten. 
It  began  in  1423,  and  came  to  an  open  rebel- 
lion in  1492.  It  was  a  rebellion  against  new 
demands  not  sanctioned  by  ancient  custom, 
and  though  it  was  crushed,  and  ended  in  little 
good  to  the  peasantry  (many  of  whom  fled  into 
Switzerland),  yet  it  is  worthy  of  note  because 
in  it  for  the  first  time  appears  the  banner 
of  the  Bundschuh.  The  next  rising  was  in 
Elsass  (Alsace),  in  1493,  the  peasants  finding 
allies  in  the  burghers  of  the  towns  along  the 
Rhine,  who  had  their  own  grievances.  The 
Bundschuh  was  again  their  banner,  and  it  was 
to  Switzerland  that  their  anxious  eyes  were 
turned  for  help.  This  movement  also  was  pre- 
maturely discovered  and  put  down.  Then,  in 
1501,  other  peasants,  close  neighbours  to  those 
of  Kempten,  caught  the  infection,  and  in  1503, 
again  in  Elsass,  but  this  time  further  north,  in 
the  region  about  Speyer  and  the  Neckar,  lower 
down  the  Rhine,  nearer  Franconia,  the  Bund- 
schuh was  raised  again.  It  numlaered  on  its 
recruit  rolls  many  thousands  of  peasants  from 
the  country  round,  along  the  Neckar  and  the 
Rhine.  The  wild  notion  was  to  rise  in  arms,  to 
make  themselves  free,  like  the  Swiss,  by  the 
sword,  to  acknowledge  no  superior  but  the  Em- 
peror, and  all  Germany  was  to  join  the  League. 
They  were  to  pay  no  taxes  or  dues,  and  com- 
mons, forests,  and  rivers  were  to  be  free  to  all. 
Here,  again,  they  mixed  up  religion  with  their 
demands,  and  '  Only  what  is  just  before  God ' 
was  the  motto  on  the  banner  of  the  Bundschuh. 
They,  too,  were  betrayed,  and  in  savage  triumph 
the  Emperor  Maximilian  ordered  their  property 
to  be  confiscated,  their  wives  and  children  to  be 
banished,  and  themselves  to  be  quartered  alive. 
.  .  .  Few  .  .  .  really  fell  victims  to  this  cruel 
order  of  the  Emperor.  The  ringleaders  dispersed, 
fleeing  some  into  Switzerland  and  some  into  the 
Black  Forest.  For  ten  years  now  there  was 
silence.  The  Bundschuh  banner  was  furled,  but 
only  for  a  while.  In  1513  and  1513,  on  the  east 
side  of  the  Rhine,  in  the  Black  Forest  and  the 
neighbouring  districts  of  Wurtemberg,  the  move- 
ment was  again  on  foot  on  a  still  larger  scale. 
It  had  found  a  leader  in  Joss  Fritz.  A  soldier, 
with  commanding  presence  and  great  natural 
eloquence,  ...  he  bided  his  time.  .  .  .  Again 
the  League  was  betrayed  .  .  .  and  Joss  Fritz, 
with  the  banner  under  his  clothes,  had  to  fly  for 
his  life  to  Switzerland.  .  .  .  He  returned  after  a 
while  to  the  Black  Forest,  went  about  his  secret 
errands,  and  again  bided  his  time.  In  1514  the 
peasantry  of  the  Duke  Ulrich  of  Wiirtemberg 
rose  to  resist  the  tyranny  of  their  lord  [in  a  com- 
bination called  '  the  League  of  Poor  Conrad  ']. 
.  .  .  The  same  year,  in  the  valleys  of  the  Aus- 
trian Alps,  in  Carinthia,  Styria,  and  Crain,  simi- 
lar risings  of  the  peasantry  took  place,  all  of 
them  ending  in  the  triumph  of  the  nobles. " —  F. 
Seebohra. —  T/ie  Era  of  the  Protestant  Rexolution, 
pt.  1,  ch.  4.  — See,  also,  below:  A.  D.  1534-1525. 

A.  D.  1493. —  Maximilian  I.  becomes  em- 
peror. 

A.  D.  1493-1519. — The  reign  of  Maximilian. 
— His  personal   importance  and   his  imperial 


1487 


GERIVIANY,  1493-1519. 


Maximilian  I. 


GERMANY,  1493-1519. 


powerlessness. — Constitutional  reforms  in  the 
Empire. — The  Imperial  Chamber. — The  Cir- 
cles.—  The  Aulic  Council. — "Frederic  [the 
Third]  died  in  1493,  after  a  protracted  and  in- 
glorious reign  of  53  years.  ...  On  the  death  of 
his  father,  Maximilian  had  been  seven  years  king 
of  the  Romans;  and  his  accession  to  the  im- 
perial crown  encountered  no  opposition.  .  .  . 
Scarcely  had  he  ascended  the  throne,  when 
Charles  VIIL,  king  of  France,  passed  through 
the  Milanese  into  the  south  of  Italy,  and  seized  on 
Naples  without  opposition  [see  Italy:  A.  D. 
1494^1496].  Maximilian  endeavoured  to  rouse 
the  German  nation  to  a  sense  of  its  danger,  but 
in  vain.  .  .  .  With  difficulty  he  was  able  to  de- 
spatch 3,000  men  to  aid  the  league,  which  Spain, 
the  pope,  the  Milanese,  and  the  Venetians  had 
formed,  to  expel  the  ambitious  intruders  from 
Italy.  To  cement  his  alliance  with  Fernando  the 
Catholic,  he  married  his  son  Philip  to  Juana,  the 
daughter  of  the  Spaniard.  The  confederacy  tri- 
umphed ;  not  through  the  efforts  of  Maximilian, 
but  through  the  hatred  of  the  Italians  to  the 
Gallic  yoke.  .  .  .  Louis  XII.,  who  succeeded  to 
Charles  (1498),  .  .  .  forced  Philip  to  do  homage 
for  Flanders;  surrendering,  indeed,  three  incon- 
siderable towns,  that  he  might  be  at  liberty  to 
renew  the  designs  of  his  house  on  Lombardy  and 
Naples.  .  .  .  The  French  had  little  difficulty  in 
expelling  Ludovioo  Moro,  the  usurper  of  Milan, 
and  in  retaining  possession  of  the  country  during 
the  latter  part  of  Maximilian's  reign  [see  Italy  ; 
A.  D.  1499-1500].  Louis,  indeed,  did  homage 
for  the  duchy  to  the  Germanic  head ;  but  such 
homage  was  merely  nominal:  it  involved  no 
tribute,  no  dependence.  The  occupation  of  this 
fine  province  by  the  French  made  no  impression 
on  the  Germans ;  they  regarded  it  as  a  fief  of  the 
house  of  Austria,  not  of  the  empire :  but  even  if 
it  had  stood  in  the  latter  relation,  they  would  not 
have  moved  one  man,  or  voted  one  florin,  to  avert 
its  fate.  That  the  French  did  not  obtain  similar 
possession  of  Naples,  and  thereby  become  en- 
abled to  oppose  Slaximiliau  with  greater  effect, 
was  owing  to  the  valour  of  the  Spanish  troops, 
who  retained  the  crown  in  the  house  of  Aragon. 
His  disputes  with  the  Venetians  were  inglorious 
to  his  arms;  they  defeated  his  armies,  and  en- 
croached considerably  on  his  Italian  possessions. 
He  was  equally  unsuccessful  with  the  Swiss, 
whom  he  vainly  persuaded  to  aclinowledge  the 
supremacy  of  his  house.  .  .  .  For  many  of  his 
failures  ...  he  is  not  to  be  blamed.  To  carry 
on  his  vast  enterprises  he  could  command  only 
the  resources  of  Austria:  had  he  been  able  to 
wield  those  of  the  empire,  his  name  would  have 
been  more  formidable  to  his  enemies;  and  it  is  no 
slight  praise,  that  with  means  so  contracted  he 
could  preserve  the  Netherlands  against  the  open 
violence,  no  less  than  the  subtle  duplicity,  of 
France.  But  the  internal  transactions  of  Maxi- 
milian's reign  are  those  only  to  which  the  atten- 
tion of  the  reader  can  be  directed  with  pleasure. 
In  1495  we  witness  the  entire  abolition  of  the 
right  of  diffidation  [private  warfare,  see  Land- 
priede], —  a  right  which  from  time  immemorial 
had  been  the  curse  of  the  empire.  .  .  .  The  pass- 
ing of  the  decree  which  for  ever  secured  the  public 
peace,  by  placing  under  the  ban  of  the  empire, 
and  fining  at  2,000  marks  in  gold,  every  city, 
every  individual  that  should  hereafter  send  or 
accept  a  defiance,  was  nearly  unanimous.  In 
regard  to  the  long-proposed   tribunal   [to  take 


cognizance  of  all  violations  of  the  public  tran- 
quillity], which  was  to  retain  the  name  of  the 
Imperial  chamber,  Maximilian  relaxed  much 
from  the  pretensions  of  his  father.  ...  It  was 
solemnly  decreed  that  the  new  court  should  con- 
sist of  one  grand  judge,  and  of  16  assessors,  who 
were  presented  by  the  states,  and  nominated  by 
the  emperor.  .  .  .  Though  a  new  tribunal  was 
formed,  its  competency,  its  operation,  its  sup- 
port, its  constitution,  the  enforcement  of  its  de- 
cisions, were  left  to  chance ;  and  many  successive 
diets  —  even  many  generations  —  were  passed  be- 
fore anything  like  an  organised  system  could  be 
introduced  into  it.  For  the  execution  of  its 
decrees  the  Swabian  league  was  soon  employed ; 
then  another  new  authority,  the  Council  of  Re- 
gency. .  .  .  But  these  authorities  were  insufficient 
to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  decrees  emanat- 
ing from  the  chamber ;  and  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  restore  the  proposition  of  the  circles, 
which  had  been  agitated  in  the  reign  of  Albert  II. 
.  .  .  Originally  they  comprised  only  —  1.  Ba- 
varia, 2.  Franconia,  3.  Saxony,  4.  the  Rhine,  5. 
Swabia,  and  6.  Westphalia;  thus  excluding  the 
states  of  Austria  and  the  electorates.  But  this  ex- 
clusion was  the  voluntary  act  of  the  electors,  who 
were  jealous  of  a  tribunal  which  might  encroach 
on  their  own  privileges.  In  1512,  however,  the 
opposition  of  most  appears  to  have  been  removed ; 
for  four  new  circles  were  added.  7.  The  circle 
of  Austria  comprised  the  hereditary  dominions  of 
that  house.  8.  That  of  Burgundy  contained  the 
states  inherited  from  Charles  the  Rash  in  Franche- 
Comte  and  the  Netherlands.  9.  That  of  the 
Lower  Rhine  comprehended  the  three  ecclesias- 
tical electorates  and  the  Palatinate.  10.  That  of 
Upper  Saxony  extended  over  the  electorate  of 
that  name  and  the  march  of  Brandenburg.  .  .  . 
Bohemia  and  Prussia  .  .  .  refused  to  be  thus 
partitioned.  Each  of  these  circles  had  its  internal 
organisations,  the  elements  of  which  were  pro- 
mulgated in  1512,  but  which  was  considerably 
improved  by  succeeding  diets.  Each  had  its  he- 
reditary president,  or  director,  and  its  hereditary 
prince  convoker,  both  offices  being  frequently 
vested  in  the  same  individual.  .  .  .  Each  circle 
had  its  military  chief,  elected  by  the  local  states, 
whose  duty  it  was  to  execute  the  decrees  of  the 
Imperial  Chamber.  Generally  this  office  was  held 
by  the  prince  director.  .  .  .  The  establishment 
of  the  Imperial  Chamber  was  .  .  .  disagreeable 
to  the  emperor.  To  rescue  from  its  jurisdiction 
such  causes  as  he  considered  lay  more  peculiarly 
within  the  range  of  his  prerogative,  and  to  en- 
croach by  degrees  on  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
odious  tribunal,  Maximilian,  in  1501,  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  celebrated  Aulic  Council.  But 
the  competency  of  this  tribunal  was  soon  ex- 
tended :  from  political  affairs,  investitures,  char- 
ters, and  the  niuuerous  matters  which  concerned 
the  Imj^erial  chancery,  it  immediately  passed  to 
judicial  crimes.  .  .  .  By  an  imperial  edict  of 
1518,  the  Aulic  Council  was  to  consist  of  18  mem- 
bers, all  nominated  by  the  emperor.  Five  only 
were  to  be  chosen  from  the  states  of  the  empire, 
the  rest  from  those  of  Austria.  About  half  were 
legists,  the  other  half  nobles,  but  all  dependent 
on  their  chief.  .  .  .  When  he  [Maximilian]  la- 
boured to  make  this  council  as  arbitrary  in  the 
empire  as  in  Austria,  he  met  with  great  opposi- 
tion. .  .  .  But  his  purpose  was  that  of  encroach- 
ment no  less  than  of  defence ;  and  his  example 
was  so  well  imitated  by  his  successors,  that  in 


1488 


GERMANY,  1493-1519. 


Beginning  of  the 
Reformation. 


GERMANY,  1517-1523. 


most  cases  the  Aulic  Council  was  at  length  ac- 
knowledged to  have  a  concurrent  jurisdiction 
with  the  Imperial  Chamber,  in  many  the  right  of 
prevention  over  its  rival." — S.  A.  Dunham,  Ilist. 
of  the  Germanic  Empire,  bk.  3,  cJi.  1  ()'.  2).— "The 
received  opinion  which  recognises  in  [Maximilian] 
the  creative  founder  of  the  later  constitution  of 
the  empire,  must  be  abandoned.  .  .  .  He  had 
not  the  power  of  keeping  the  princes  of  the  em- 
pire together ;  ...  on  the  contrary,  everything 
about  him  split  into  parties.  It  followed  of 
necessity  that  abroad  he  rather  lost  than  gained 
ground.  .  .  .  The  glory  which  surrounds  the 
memory  of  Maximilian,  the  high  renown  which 
he  enjoyed  even  among  his  contemporaries,  were 
therefore  not  won  by  the  success  of  his  enter- 
prises, but  by  his  personal  qualities.  Every  good 
gift  of  nature  had  been  lavished  upon  him  in 
profusion.  .  .  .  He  was  a  man  .  .  .  formed  to 
excite  admiration,  and  to  inspire  enthusiastic  at- 
tachment; formed  to  be  the  romantic  hero,  the 
exhaustless  theme  of  the  people. " — L.  von  Ranke, 
Hist,  of  the  Reformation  in  Oermany,  v.  1,  pp. 
379-381. 

Also  in:  The  same,  Hist,  of  the  Latin  and 
Teutonic  Nations  from  1494  to  1514,  bk.  1,  ch.  3, 
and  bk.  2,  ch.  2 and  4. — See,  also,  Austria:  A.  D. 
1477-1495. 

A.  D.  1496-1499. — The  Swabianwar. — Prac- 
tical separation  of  the  Swiss  Confederacy 
from  the  Empire.  See  Switzerland:  A.  D, 
1396-1499. 

A.  D.  1508-1509. — The  League  of  Cambrai 
against  Venice.  See  Venice:  A.  D.  1508- 
1509. 

A.  D.  1513-1515. — The  emperor  in  the  pay 
of  England. — Peace  with  France.  See  France  : 
A.  D.  1513-1515. 

A.  D.  1516. — Abortive  invasion  of  Milaness 
by  Maximilian.  See  France:  A.  D.  1516- 
1517. 

A.  D.  1517-1523. —  Beginning  of  the  move- 
ment of  Religious  Reformation. — Papal  Indul- 
gences, and  Luther's  attack  on  them. — "The 
Reformation,  like  all  other  great  social  convul- 
sions, was  long  in  preparation  [see  Papacy  :  15th 
-16th  Centuries],  It  was  one  part  of  that 
general  progress,  complex  in  its  character,  which 
marked  the  .  .  .  period  of  transition  from  the 
Middle  Ages  to  modern  civilization.  .  .  .  But 
while  the  Reformation  was  one  part  of  a 
change  extending  over  the  whole  sphere  of 
human  knowledge  and  activity,  it  had  its  own 
specific  origin  and  significance.  These  are  still, 
to  some  extent,  a  subject  of  controversy.  .  .  . 
One  of  its  causes,  as  well  as  one  of  the  sources 
of  its  great  power,  was  the  increasing  discontent 
with  the  prevailing  corruption  and  misgovern- 
ment  in  the  Church,  and  with  papal  interference 
in  civil  affairs.  .  .  .  The  misconduct  of  the 
popes  in  the  last  half  of  the  fifteenth  century 
was  not  more  flagrant  than  that  of  their  prede- 
cessors in  the  tenth  century.  But  the  fifteenth 
century  was  an  age  of  light.  What  was  done 
by  the  pontiffs  was  not  done  in  a  corner,  but 
under  the  eyes  of  all  Europe.  Besides,  there 
was  now  a  deep-seated  craving,  especially  in  the 
Teutonic  peoples,  who  had  so  long  been  under 
the  tutelage  of  a  legal,  judaizing  form  of  Chris- 
tianity, for  a  more  spiritual  type  of  religion. 
.  .  .  The  Reformation  may  be  viewed  in  two 
aspects.  On  the  one  hand  it  is  a  religious  revo- 
lution affecting  the  beliefs,  the  rites,  the  ecclesi- 
94 


astical  organization  of  the  Church,  and  the  form 
of  Christian  life.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a 
great  movement  in  which  sovereigns  and  nations 
are  involved;  the  occasion  of  wars  and  treaties; 
the  close  of  an  old,  and  the  introduction  of 
a  new,  period  in  the  history  of  culture  and 
civilization.  Germany,  including  the  Nether- 
lands and  Switzerland,  was  the  stronghold  of 
the  Reformation.  It  was  natural  that  such  a 
movement  should  spring  up  and  rise  to  its  highest 
power  among  a  people  in  whom  a  love  of  inde- 
pendence was  mingled  with  a  yearning  for  a 
more  spiritual  form  of  religion  than  was  encour- 
aged by  mediaeval  ecclesiasticism.  Hegel  has 
dwelt  with  eloquence  upon  the  fact  that  while 
the  rest  of  the  world  was  gone  out  to  America 
or  to  the  Indies,  in  quest  of  riches  and  a  domin- 
ion that  should  encircle  the  globe,  a  simple  monk, 
turning  away  from  empty  forms  and  the  things 
of  sense,  -nas  finding  him  whom  the  disciples 
once  sought  in  a  sepulchre  of  stone.  Unques- 
tionably the  hero  of  the  Reformation  was  Martin 
Luther.  ...  As  an  English  writer  has  pointed 
out,  Luther's  whole  nature  was  identified  with 
his  great  work,  and  while  other  leaders,  like 
Melancthon  and  even  Calvin,  can  be  separated 
in  thought  from  the  Reformation,  'Luther,  apart 
from  the  Reformation,  would  cease  to  be  Luther.' 
...  In  1517  John  Tetzel,  a  hawker  of  indul- 
gences, the  proceeds  of  wliich  were  to  help  pay 
for  the  building  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  appeared 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Wittenberg.  To  per- 
suade the  people  to  buy  his  spiritual  wares,  he 
told  them,  as  Luther  himself  testifies,  that  as  soon 
as  their  money  clinked  in  the  bottom  of  the  chest 
the  souls  of  their  deceased  friends  forthwith  went 
up  to  heaven.  Luther  was  so  struck  with  the 
enormity  of  this  traffic  that  he  determined  to  stop 
it.  He  preached  against  it,  and  on  October  31, 
1517,  he  posted  on  the  door  of  the  Church  of  All 
Saints,  at  Wittenberg,  his  ninety-five  theses  [for 
the  full  text  of  these,  see  Papacy:  A.  D.  1517], 
relating  to  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  selling 
indulgences.  Indulgences  .  .  .  were  at  first 
commutations  of  penance  by  the  payment  of 
money.  The  right  to  issue  them  had  gradually 
become  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  popes. 
The  eternal  punishment  of  mortal  sin  being  re- 
mitted or  commuted  by  the  absolution  of  the 
priest,  it  was  open  to  the  pope  or  his  agents,  by 
a  grant  of  indulgences,  to  remove  the  temporal 
or  terminable  penalties,  which  might  extend  into 
purgatory.  For  the  benefit  of  the  needy  he  could 
draw  upon  the  treasury  of  merit  stored  up  by 
Christ  and  the  saints.  Although  it  was  expressly 
declared  by  Pope  Sixtus  IV.,  that  souls  are  de- 
livered from  purgatorial  fires  in  a  way  analogous 
to  the  efficacy  of  prayer,  and  although  contrition 
was  theoretically  required  of  the  recipient  of  an 
indulgence,  it  often  appeared  to  the  people  as  a 
simple  bargain,  according  to  which,  on  payment 
of  a  stipulated  sum,  the  individual  obtained  a 
full  discharge  from  the  penalties  of  sin,  or  pro- 
cured the  release  of  a  soul  from  the  flames. 
Luther's  theses  assailed  the  doctrines  which  made 
this  baneful  traffic  possible.  .  .  .  Unconsciously 
to  their  author,  they  struck  a  blow  at  the  au- 
thority of  Rome  and  of  the  priesthood.  Luther 
had  no  thought  of  throwing  off  his  allegiance  to 
the  Roman  Church,  Even  his  theses  were  only 
propositions,  propounded  for  academic  debate, 
according  to  the  custom  in  mediaeval  universities. 
He  concluded  them  with  the  solemn  declaration 


1489 


GERMANY,  1517-1523. 


Luther  at 
the  Diet  of  Worms. 


GERMANY,  1519. 


that  he  affirmed  nothing,  but  left  all  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Church.  .  .  .  The  theses  stirred  up 
a  commotion  all  over  Germany.  ...  A  contro- 
versy arose  between  the  new  champion  of  reform 
and  the  defenders  of  indulgences.  It  was  during 
this  dispute  that  Luther  began  to  realize  that 
human  authority  was  against  him  and  to  see  the 
necessity  of  planting  himself  more  distinctly  on 
the  Scriptures.  His  clear  arguments  and  reso- 
lute attitude  won  the  respect  of  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  who,  though  he  often  sought  to  restrain 
his  vehemence,  nevertheless  protected  him  from 
his  enemies.  This  the  elector  was  able  to  do  be- 
cause of  his  political  importance,  which  became 
still  greater  when,  after  the  death  of  Maximilian, 
he  was  made  regent  of  Northern  Germany." — 
G.  P.  Fisher,  History  of  the  Christian  Church, 
■pp.  287-293. —"At  first  neither  Luther,  nor 
others,  saw  to  what  the  contest  about  the  indul- 
gences would  lead.  The  Humanists  believed  it 
to  be  only  a  scholastic  disputation,  and  Hutten 
laughed  to  see  theologians  engaged  in  a  fight 
with  each  other.  It  was  not  till  the  Leipzig  dis- 
putation (1519),  where  Luther  stood  forward  to 
defend  his  views  against  Eck,  that  the  matter 
assumed  a  grave  aspect,  took  another  turn,  and 
after  the  appearance  of  Luther's  appeals  '  To  the 
Christian  Nobility  of  the  German  Nation,'  'On 
the  Babylonian  Captivity,'  and  against  Church 
abuses,  that  it  assumed  national  importance.  All 
the  combustible  materials  were  ready,  the  spark 
was  thrown  among  them,  and  the  flames  broke 
out  from  every  quarter.  Hundreds  of  thousands 
of  German  hearts  glowed  responsive  to  the  com- 
plaints which  the  Wittenberg  monk  flung  against 
Papal  Rome,  in  a  language  whose  sonorous  splen- 
dour and  iron  strength  were  now  first  heard  in 
all  the  fulness,  force,  and  beauty  of  the  German 
idiom.  That  was  an  imperishable  service  ren- 
dered to  his  country  by  Luther.  He  wrote  in 
German,  and  he  wrote  such  German.  The 
papal  ban  hurled  back  against  him  in  1520  was 
disregarded.  He  burnt  it  outside  the  gate  of 
Wittenberg  by  the  leper  hospital,  in  the  place 
where  the  rags  and  plague-stained  garments  of 
the  lepers  were  wont  to  be  consumed.  The  no- 
bility, the  burghers,  the  peasants,  all  thrilled  at 
his  call.  Now  the  moment  had  come  for  a  great 
emperor,  a  second  Charlemagne,  to  stand  forward 
and  regenerate  at  once  religion  and  the  empire. 
There  was,  however,  at  the  head  of  the  state, 
only  Charles  V.,  the  grandson  of  Maximilian,  a 
man  weak  where  he  ought  to  have  been  strong, 
and  strong  whei-e  he  ought  to  have  been  weak,  a 
Spanish  Burgundian  prince,  of  Romance  stock, 
who  despised  and  disliked  the  German  tongue, 
the  tongue  of  the  people  whose  imperial  crown 
he  bore,  a  prince  whose  policy  was  to  combat 
France  and  humble  it.  It  was  convenient  for 
him,  at  the  time,  to  have  the  pope  on  his  side,  so 
he  looked  with  dissatisfied  eyes  on  the  agitation 
in  Germany.  The  noblest  hearts  among  the 
princes  bounded  with  hope  that  he  would  take 
the  lead  in  the  new  movement.  The  lesser  no- 
bility, the  cities,  the  peasantry,  all  expected  of 
the  emperor  a  reformation  of  the  empire  politi- 
cally and  religiously.  .  .  .  But  all  hopes  were 
dashed.  Charles  V.  as  little  saw  his  occasion  as 
had  Maximilian.  He  took  up  a  hostile  position 
to  the  new  movement  at  once.  He  was,  however, 
brought  by  the  influential  friends  of  Luther, 
among  whom  first  of  all  was  the  Elector  of  Sax- 
ony, to  hear  what  the  reformer  had  to  say  for 


himself,  before  he  placed  him  under  the  ban  of 
the  empire.  Luther  received  the  imperial  safe- 
conduct,  and  was  summoned  to  the  Diet  of 
Worms,  there  to  d«fend  himself.  He  went,  not- 
withstanding that  he  was  warned  and  reminded 
of  the  fate  of  Huss.  '  I  will  go  to  Worms, '  said 
he,  '  even  were  as  many  devils  set  against  me  as 
there  are  tiles  on  the  roofs.'  It  was  probably  on 
this  journey  that  the  thoughts  entered  his  mind 
which  afterwards  (1530)  found  their  expression 
in  that  famous  chorale,  '  Eine  feste  Burg  ist  unser 
Gott,'  which  became  the  battle-song  of  Protes- 
tants. Those  were  memorable  days,  the  17th 
and  18th  of  April,  1521.  in  which  a  poor  monk 
stood  up  before  the  emperor  and  all  the  estates 
of  the  empire,  undazzled  by  their  threatening 
splendour,  and  conducted  his  own  case.  At  that 
moment  when  he  closed  his  defence  with  the 
stirring  words,  '  Let  me  be  contradicted  out  of 
Holy  Scripture  —  till  that  is  done  I  will  not  re- 
cant. Here  stand  I.  I  can  do  no  other,  so  help 
me  God,  amen ! '  then  he  had  reached  the  pinna- 
cle of  his  greatness.  The  result  is  well  known. 
The  emperor  and  his  papal  adviser  remained  un- 
moved, and  the  ban  was  pronounced  against  the 
heretic.  Luther  was  carried  off  by  his  protector, 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  and  concealed  in  the 
Wartburg,  where  he  worked  at  his  translation 
of  the  Bible.  .  .  .  Brandenburg,  Hesse,  and  Sax- 
ony declared  in  favour  of  reform.  In  1523 
Magdeburg,  Wismar,  Rostock,  Stettin,  Danzig, 
Riga,  expelled  the  monks  and  priests,  and  ap- 
pointed Lutheran  preachers.  Nl'irnberg  and  Bres- 
lau  hailed  the  Reformation  with  delight." — 
S.  Baring-Gould,  The  Church  in  Oermaiiy,  cJi. 
18.— See  Papacy:  A.  D.  1516-1517,  to  1522- 
1525. 

Also  in  :  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  the  Reforma- 
tion in  Oermany. — L.  Hausser,  The  Period  of  the 
Reformation. — J.  H.  Merle  d'Aubigne,  Hist,  of 
the  Reformation.  —  M.  J.  Spaulding,  Hist,  of  the 
Protestant  Reformation. — F.  Seebohm,  The  Era  of 
the  Protestant  Revolution.  —  P.  Bayne,  Martin 
Luther. — C.  Beard,  Martin  Lutfier  and  tlie  Ref- 
ormation.— J.  Kostlin,  Life  of  Luther. 

A.  D.  1519. — Contest  for  the  imperial  crovyn. 
— Three  royal  candidates  in  the  field. — Elec- 
tion of  Charles  V.,  the  Austro-Spanish  mon- 
arch of  many  thrones. — In  his  last  years,  Maxi- 
milian made  great  efforts  to  secure  the  Imperial 
Crown  for  his  grandson  Charles,  who  had  already 
inherited,  through  his  mother  Joanna,  of  Spain, 
the  kingdoms  of  Castile,  Aragon,  and  the  Two 
Sicilies,  and  through  his  father,  Philip  of  Austria, 
the  duchy  of  Burgundy  and  the  many  lordships 
of  the  Netherlands.  "  In  1518  he  obtained  the 
consent  of  the  majority  of  the  electors  to  the  Ro- 
man crown  being  bestowed  on  that  [jrince.  The 
electors  of  Treves  and  Saxony  alone  opposed  the 
project,  on  the  ground  that,  as  Maximilian  had 
never  received  the  Imperial  crown  [but  was 
styled  Emperor  Elect]  he  was  himself  still  King 
of  the  Romans,  and  that  consequently  Charles 
could  not  assume  a  dignity  that  was  not  vacant. 
To  obviate  this  objection,  Maximilian  pressed 
Leo  to  send  the  golden  crown  to  Vienna ;  but  this 
plan  was  defeated  by  the  intrigues  of  the  French 
court.  Francis,  who  intended  to  become  a  can- 
didate for  the  Imperial  crown,  intreated  the  Pope 
not  to  commit  himself  by  such  an  act ;  and  while 
these  negociations  were  pending,  Maximilian  died 
at  Wels,  in  Upper  Austria,  January  13th  1519. 
.  .  .  Three  candidates  for  the  Imperial  crown 


1490 


GERMANY,  1519. 


Charles  V, 


GERMANY,  1520-1531. 


appeared  in  the  field :  the  Kiug.s  of  Spain,  France, 
and  England.    Francis  I.  [of  France]  was  now  at 
tlie  height  of  his  reputation.     His  enterprises  had 
hitherto  been  crowned  with  success,  the  popular 
testof  abilit)%  and  the  world  accordingly  gave  him 
credit  for  a  political  wisdom  which  he  was  far 
from   possessing.      He  appears  to  have  gained 
three  or  four  of  the  Electors  by  the  lavish  distri- 
bution of  his  money,  which  his  agent,  Bonnivet, 
was  obliged  to  carry  through  Germany  on  the 
backs  of  horses ;  for  the  Fuggers,  the  rich  bank- 
ers of  Augsburg,  were  in  the  interest  of  Charles, 
and  refused  to  give  the  French  any  accommoda- 
tion.    But  the  bought  votes  of  these  venal  Elec- 
tors could  not  be  depended  on,  some  of  whom  sold 
themselves  more  than  once  to  different  parties. 
The  infamy  of  Albert,  Elector  of  Mentz,  in  these 
transactions,   was  particularly   notorious.      The 
chances    of    Henry   VIII.     [of    England]    were 
throughout  but   slender.      Henry's   hopes,  like 
those  of  Francis,  were  chiefly  founded  on  the  cor- 
ruptibility of  the  Electors,  and  on  the  expectation 
that  both  his  rivals,  from  the  very  magnitude  of 
their  power,    might  be  deemed  ineligible.     Of 
the  three  candidates  the  claims  of  Charles  seemed 
the  best  founded  and  the  most  deserving  of  suc- 
cess.    The  House   of  Austria  had  already  fur- 
nished six  emperors,  of  whom  the  last  three  had 
reigned  eighty  years,  as  if  by  an  hereditary  suc- 
cession.  Charles's  Austrian  possessions  made  him 
a  German  prince,  and  from  their  situation  consti- 
tuted  him   the   natural   protector  of    Germany 
against  the   Turks.      The   pi-evious  canvass  of 
Maximilian  had  been  of  some  service  to  his  cause, 
and  all  these  advantages  he  seconded,  like  his 
competitors,  by  the  free  use  of  bribery.   .  .  .  Leo 
X.,  the  weight  of  whose  authority  was  sought 
both  by  Charles  and  Francis,  though  he  seemed 
to  favour  each,  desired  the  success  of  neither.   He 
secretly  advised  the  Electors  to  choose  an  emperor 
from  among  their  own  body;  and  as  this  seemed 
an  easy  solution  of  the   difficulty,  they  unani- 
mously offered  the  crown  to  Frederick  the  AVise, 
Elector  of   Saxony.      But  Frederick  magnani- 
mously refused  it,  and  succeeded  in  uniting  the 
suffrages  of  the  Electors  in  favour  of  Charles; 
principally  on  the  ground  that  he  was  the  sover- 
eign best  qualified  to  meet  the  great  danger  im- 
pending from  the  Turk.   .   .   .  The  new  Emperor, 
now  in  his  20th  year,  assumed  the  title  of  Charles 
V.  ...  He  was  proclaimed  as  '  Emperor  Elect, ' 
the  title  borne  by  his  grandfather,  which  he  sub- 
sequently altered  to  that  of  '  Emperor  Elect  of 
the  Romans,'  a  designation  adopted  by  his  succes- 
sors, with  the  omission  of  the  word  '  elect, '  do wn  to 
the  dissolution  of  the  empire. " — T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist, 
of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  3,  ch.  3  {i\  1). — On  his  elec- 
tion to  the  Imperial  throne,  Charles  ceded  to  his 
younger  brother,  Ferdinand,  all  the  German  pos- 
sessions of  the  family.     The  latter,  therefore,  be- 
came  Archduke   of    Austria,    and   the   German 
branch  of  the  House  of  Austria  was  continued 
through  him ;  while  Charles  himself  became  the 
founder  of  a  new   branch   of  the  House  —  the 
Spanish.— See  Austria :  A.  D.  1496-1.526. 

Also  in:  W.  Robertson,  Hist,  of  the  Reign,  of 
Charles  V.,  bk.  1.— J.  S.  Brewer,  The  Reign  of 
Henry  VIII.,  ch.  11  {v.  1). — J.  Van  Praet,  Essays 
on  the  Pol.  Hist,  of  the  ISth-llth  Centuries,  ch.  3 

{!•■    1). 

A.  D.  iS20-:52i.— The  Capitulation  of 
Charles  V. — His  first  Diet,  at  Worms,  and  its 
political  measures. — The  election  of  Charles  V. 


"was  accompanied  with  a  new  and  essential 
alteration  in  the  constitution  of  the  empire. 
Hitherto  a  general  and  verbal  promise  to  confirm 
the  Germanic  privileges  had  been  deemed  a  suf- 
ficient security ;  but  as  the  enormous  power  and 
vast  possessions  of  the  new  emperor  rendered 
him  the  object  of  greater  jealousy  and  alarm 
than  his  predecessors,  the  electors  digested  into 
a  formal  deed  or  capitulation  all  their  laws,  cus- 
toms, and  privileges,  which  the  ambass;idors  of 
Charles  signed  before  his  election,  and  which  he 
himself  ratified  before  his  coronation;  and  this 
example  has  been  followed  by  his  successors.  It 
consisted  of  36  articles,  partly  relating  to  the 
Germanic  body  in  general,  and  partly  to  the  elec- 
tors and  states  in  particular.  Of  those  relating 
to  the  Germanic  body  in  general,  the  most  promi- 
nent were,  not  to  confer  the  escheated  fiefs,  but 
to  re-unite  and  consolidate  them,  for  the  benefit 
of  the  emperor  and  empire;  not  to  intrust  the 
charges  of  the  empire  to  any  but  Germans ;  not  to 
grant  dispensations  of  the  common  law ;  to  use 
the  German  language  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
chancery ;  and  to  put  no  one  arbitrarily  to  the 
ban,  who  had  not  been  previously  condemned  by 
the  diet  or  imperial  chamber.  He  was  to  main- 
tain the  Germanic  body  In  the  exercise  of  its 
legislative  powers,  in  its  right  of  declaring  war 
and  making  peace,  of  passing  laws  on  commerce 
and  coinage,  of  regulating  the  contingents,  im- 
posing and  directing  the  perception  of  ordinary 
contributions,  of  establishing  and  superintending 
the  superior  tribunals,  and  of  judging  the  per- 
sonal causes  of  the  states.  Finally,  he  promised 
not  to  cite  the  members  of  the  Germanic  body 
before  any  tribunal  except  those  of  the  empire, 
and  to  maintain  them  in  their  legitimate  priv- 
ileges of  territorial  sovereignty.  The  articles 
which  regarded  the  electors  were  of  the  utmost 
importance,  because  they  confirmed  the  rights 
which  had  been  long  contested  with  the  em- 
perors. .  .  .  Besides  these  concessions,  he  prom- 
ised not  to  make  any  attempt  to  render  the  ira- 
jjerial  crown  hereditary  in  his  family,  and  to 
re-establish  the  council  of  regency,  in  conformity 
with  the  advice  of  the  electors  and  great  princes 
of  the  empire.  On  the  6th  of  January,  1531, 
Charles  assembled  his  first  diet  at  Worms,  where 
he  presided  in  person.  At  his  proposition  the 
states  passed  regulations  to  terminate  the  troubles 
which  had  already  arisen  during  the  short  in- 
terval of  the  interregnum,  and  to  prevent  the  re- 
vival of  similar  disorders.  .  .  .  The  imperial 
chamber  was  re-established  in  all  its  authority, 
aud  the  public  peace  again  promulgated,  and  en- 
forced by  new  penalties.  In  order  to  direct  the 
affairs  of  the  empire  during  the  absence  of 
Charles,  a  council  of  regency  was  established. 
.  .  .  It  was  to  consist  of  a  lieutenant-general,  ap- 
pointed by  the  emperor,  and  22  assessors,  of 
whom  18  were  nominated  by  the  states,  and  four 
by  Charles,  as  possessor  of  the  circles  of  Bur- 
gundy and  Austria.  ...  At  the  same  time  an  aid 
of  30,000  foot  and  4,000  horse  was  granted,  to 
accompany  the  emperor  in  his  expedition  to 
Rome ;  but  the  diet  endeavoured  to  prevent  him 
from  interfering,  as  Maximilian  had  done,  in  the 
affairs  of  Italy,  by  stipulating  that  these  troops 
were  only  to  be  employed  as  an  escort,  aud  not 
for  the  purpose  of  aggression." — W.  Coxe,  Hist, 
of  the  House  of  Austria,  ch.  36  (».  1). 

Also  in  :  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  the  Reforma- 
tion in  Germany,  bk.  3,  ch.  4  («.  1). 


]491 


GERMANY.  1522-1535. 


The  Peasants'  War, 


GERMANY,  1534-1525. 


A.  D.  1522-1525. — Systematic  organization 
and  adoption  in  northern  Germany  of  the 
Lutheran  Reformation. — The  Diets  at  Nurem- 
berg.— The  Catholic  League  of  Ratisbon.  See 
Papacy:  A.  D,  1532-1525. 

A.  D.  1524-1525. — The  Peasants' War. — "A 
political  ferment,  very  different  from  that  pro- 
duced by  the  Gospel,  had  long  been  troubling  the 
empire.  The  people,  weighed  down  under  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  oppression,  attached  in  many 
places  to  the  lands  belonging  to  the  lords,  and 
sold  with  them,  threatened  to  rise,  and  furiously 
burst  their  chains.  In  Holland,  at  the  end  of 
the  preceding  century,  the  peasants  had  mustered 
around  standards  Inscribed  with  the  words 
'  bread  '  and  '  cheese,'  to  them  the  two  necessaries 
of  life.  In  1503  the  '  Cobblers'  League '  ['  Bund- 
schuh'  —  see  above:  A.  D.  1492-1514]  had  burst 
forth  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Spires.  In  1513 
this  was  renewed  in  Brisgau,  and  encouraged  by 
the  priests.  In  1514  Wurtemburg  had  witnessed 
'the  League  of  poor  Conrad,'  the  object  of 
which  was  to  uphold  '  the  justice  of  God  '  by  re- 
volt. In  1515  terrible  commotions  had  taken 
place  in  Carinthia  and  Hungary.  These  insur- 
rections were  stifled  by  torrents  of  blood,  but  no 
relief  had  been  given  to  the  peoples.  A  political 
reform  was  as  much  wanted  as  a  religious  one. 
The  people  had  a  right  to  it,  but  they  were  not 
ripe  to  enjoy  it.  Since  the  commencement  of  the 
Reformation  these  popular  agitations  had  been 
suspended,  the  minds  of  men  being  absorbed 
with  other  thoughts.  .  .  .  But  everything  showed 
that  peace  would  not  last  long.  .  .  .  'fhe  main 
dykes  which  had  hitherto  kept  the  torrent  back 
were  broken,  and  nothing  could  restrain  its  fury. 
Perhaps  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  movement 
communicated  to  the  people  by  the  Reform  gave 
new  force  to  the  discontent  which  was  fermenting 
in  the  nation.  .  .  .  Erasmus  did  not  liesitate  to 
say  to  Luther :  '  We  are  now  reaping  the  fruits 
of  the  seed  you  have  sown.'.  .  .  The  evil  was 
augmented  by  the  pretensions  of  certain  fanati- 
cal men,  who  laid  claim  to  celestial  inspirations. 
.  .  .  The  most  distinguished  of  these  enthusiasts 
was  Thomas  Miinzer.  .  .  .  His  first  appearance 
was  at  Zwickau.  He  left  Wittenberg  after 
Luther's  return  [from  his  concealment  at  Wart- 
burg,  1532],  dissatisfied  with  the  inferior  part  he 
had  pla3'ed,  and  he  became  pastor  of  the  little 
town  of  Alstadt  in  Thuringia.  There  he  could 
not  long  be  at  rest,  and  he  accused  the  reformers 
of  founding  a  new  papacy  by  their  attachment 
to  the  letter,  and  of  forming  churches  which 
were  not  pure  and  lioly.  He  regarded  himself 
as  called  of  God  to  bear  a  remedy  for  so  great  an 
evil.  .  .  .  He  maintained  that  to  obey  princes, 
'  destitute  of  reason, '  was  to  serve  God  and  Belial 
at  the  same  time.  Then,  marching  at  the  head 
of  his  parishioners,  to  a  chapel  which  was  visited 
by  pilgrims  from  all  quarters,  he  pulled  it  to  the 
ground.  After  this  e.\ploit  he  was  obliged  to 
quit  the  country,  wandered  over  Germany,  and 
came  to  Switzerland,  spreading  as  he  went, 
wherever  people  would  hear  him,  his  plan  for  a 
universal  revolution.  In  every  place  he  found 
elements  ready  for  his  purpose.  He  threw  his 
powder  upon  the  burning  coals,  and  a  violent 
explosion  soon  followed.  .  .  .  The  revolt  com- 
menced in  those  regions  of  the  Black  Forest,  and 
tlie  sources  of  the  Danube,  which  were  so  often 
the  scene  of  popular  disturbances.  On  the  19th 
of   July,  1534,    the  Thurgovian  peasantry  rose 


against  the  Abbot  of  Reichenau,  who  would  not 
grant  them  an  evangelical  preacher.  Thousands 
soon  gathered  around  the  little  town  of  Tengen, 
to  liberate  an  ecclesiastic  who  was  imprisoned 
there.  The  revolt  spread,  with  inconceivable 
rapidity,  from  Suabia  to  the  Rhine  countries,  to 
Franconia,  to  Thuringia,  and  to  Saxony.  In 
January,  1525,  the  whole  of  these  countries  were 
in  insurrection.  Towards  the  end  of  that  month 
the  peasants  published  a  declaration  in  twelve 
articles,  asking  the  liberty  to  choose  their  own 
pastors,  the  abolition  of  petty  tithes,  serfdom, 
the  duties  on  inheritance,  and  liberty  to  hunt, 
fish,  cut  wood,  &c.,  and  each  demand  was  sup- 
ported by  a  passage  of  Scripture." — J.  H.  Merle 
D'Aubigne,  The  Story  of  the  Reformation,  pt.  3, 
ch.  8  {Hist,  of  the  Refornuition,  bk.  10,  ch.  10-11). 
— "  Had  the  feudal  lords  granted  proper  and  fair 
reforms  long  ago,  they  would  never  have  heard 
of  these  twelve  articles.  But  they  had  refused 
reform,  and  they  now  had  to  meet  revolution. 
And  they  knew  of  but  one  way  of  meeting  it, 
namely,  by  the  sword.  The  lords  of  the  Swabian 
League  sent  their  army  of  foot  and  horsemen, 
under  their  captain,  George  Truchsess.  The 
poor  peasants  could  not  hold  out  against  trained 
soldiers  and  cavalry.  Two  battles  on  the  Dan- 
ube, in  which  thousands  of  peasants  were  slain, 
or  drowned  in  the  river,  and  a  third  equally 
bloody  one  in  Algau,  near  the  Boden  See,  crushed 
this  rebellion  in  Swabia,  as  former  rebellions  had 
so  often  been  crushed  before.  This  was  early  in 
April  1525.  But  in  the  meantime  the  revolution 
had  spread  further  north.  In  the  valley  of  the 
Neckar  a  body  of  6,000  peasants  had  come  to- 
gether, enraged  by  the  news  of  the  slaughter  of 
their  fellow  peasants  in  the  south  of  Swabia." 
They  stormed  the  castle  of  the  young  Count  von 
Helfenstein,  who  had  recently  cut  the  throats  of 
some  peasants  who  met  him  on  the  road,  and  put 
the  Count  to  death,  with  60  of  his  companions. 
"A  yell  of  horror  was  raised  through  Germany 
at  the  news  of  the  peasants'  revenge.  No  yell 
had  risen  when  the  Count  cut  peasants'  throats, 
or  the  Swabian  lords  slew  thousands  of  peasant 
rebels.  Europe  had  not  yet  learned  to  mete  out 
the  same  measure  of  justice  to  noble  and  common 
blood.  .  .  .  Tlie  revolution  spread,  and  the  reign 
of  terror  spread  with  it.  North  and  east  of  the 
valley  of  the  Neckar,  among  the  little  towns  of 
Franconia,  and  in  the  valleys  of  the  Maine,  other 
bands  of  peasants,  mustering  by  thousands,  de- 
stroyed alike  cloisters  and  castles.  Two  hundred 
of  these  lighted  the  night  with  their  flames  during 
the  few  weeks  of  their  temporary  triumph.  And 
here  another  feature  of  the  revolution  became 
prominent.  The  little  towns  were  already  .  .  . 
passing  through  an  internal  revolution.  The 
artisans  were  rising  against  the  wealthier  burgh- 
ers, overturning  the  town  councils,  and  electing 
committees  of  artisans  in  their  place,  making 
sudden  changes  in  religion,  putting  down  the 
JIass,  unfrocking  priests  and  monks,  and  in  fact, 
in  the  interests  of  what  they  thought  to  be  the 
gospel,  turning  all  things  upside  down.  ...  It 
was  during  the  Franconian  rebellion  that  the 
peasants  chose  the  robber  knight  Goetz  von  Ber- 
lichingen  as  their  leader.  It  did  them  no  good. 
More  than  a  robber  chief  was  needed  to  cope 
with  soldiers  used  to  war.  .  .  .  While  all  this 
was  going  on  in  the  valleys  of  the  Maine,  the 
revolution  had  crossed  the  Rhine  into  Elsass  and 
Lothriugen,  and  the  Palatinate  about  Spires  and 


1492 


GERMANY,  1524-1525. 


League 
of  Smalkalde. 


GERMANY,  1530-1532. 


"Worms,  and  in  the  month  of  May  had  been 
crushed  in  blood,  as  in  Swabia  and  Franconia. 
South  and  east,  in  Bavaria,  in  tlie  Tyrol,  and  in 
Carinthia  also,  castles  and  monasteries  went  up 
in  flames,  and  then,  when  the  tide  of  victory 
turned,  the  burning  houses  and  farms  of  the 
peasants  lit  up  the  night  and  their  blood  flowed 
freely.  Meanwhile  Sliinzer,  who  had  done  so 
much  to  stir  up  the  peasantry  in  the  south  to 
rebel,  had  gone  north  into  Thuringia,  and  headed 
a  revolution  in  the  town  of  Miilhausen,  and  be- 
came a  sort  of  Savonarola  of  a  madder  kind.  .  .  . 
But  the  end  was  coming.  The  princes,  with 
their  disciplined  troops,  came  nearer  and  nearer. 
What  could  Mlinzer  do  with  his  8,000  peasants? 
He  pointed  to  a  rainbow  and  expected  a  miracle, 
but  no  miracle  came.  The  battle,  of  course,  was 
lost;  5,000  peasants  lay  dead  upon  the  field  near 
the  little  town  of  Frankeuhausen,  where  it  was 
fought.  Mlinzer  fled  and  concealed  himself  in  a 
bed,  but  was  found  and  taken  before  the  princes, 
thrust  into  a  dungeon,  and  afterwards  beheaded. 
So  ended  the  wild  career  of  this  misguided,  fa- 
natical, self -deceived,  but  yet,  as  we  must  think, 
earnest  and  in  many  ways  heroic  spirit.  .  .  . 
The  princes  and  nobles  now  everywhere  pre- 
vailed over  tlie  insurgent  peasants.  Luther, 
writing  on  June  21,  1525,  says:  —  '  It  is  a  certain 
fact,  that  in  Franconia  11,000  peasants  have  been 
slain.  Markgraf  Casimir  is  cruelly  severe  upon 
his  peasants,  who  have  twice  broken  faith  with 
him.  In  the  Duchy  of  Wurtemberg,  6,000  have 
been  killed;  indifferent  places  in  Swabia,  10,000. 
It  is  said  that  in  Alsace  the  Duke  of  Lorraine 
has  slain  20,000.  Thus  everywhere  the  wretched 
peasants  are  cut  down.' .  .  .  Before  the  Peasants' 
War  was  ended  at  least  100,000  perished,  or 
twenty  times  as  many  as  were  put  to  death  in 
Paris  during  the  Reign  of  Terror  in  1793.  .  .  . 
Luther,  throughout  the  Peasants'  AVar,  sided 
with  tlie  ruling  powers.  .  .  .  The  reform  he 
sought  was  by  means  of  the  civil  power;  and  in 
order  to  clear  himself  and  his  cause  from  all  par- 
ticipation in  the  wild  doings  of  the  peasantry, 
he  publicly  exhorted  the  princes  to  crush  their 
rebellion." — F.  Seebohm,  The  Era  of  the  Protes- 
tant Remhition,  pt.  2,  ch.  5. 

Also  ik  :  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  the  Mefonna- 
tion  in  Oermany,  hk.  3,  ch.  6  (n.  2). — P.  Bayne, 
Martin  Luther:  His  Life  and  Work,  bk.  11  (e.  2). 
—J.  Kastliu,  Life  of  Luther,  pt.  4,  ch.  5.— C.  W. 
C.  Oman,  Tlie  Qerman  Peasant  War  of  1525 
(Eng.  Hist.  Rev.,  v.  5). 

A.  D.  1525-1529. — League  of  Torgau. — The 
Diets  at  Spires. — Legal  recognition  of  the  Re- 
formed Religion,  and  the  withdrawal  of  it. — 
The  Protest  vyhich  gave  rise  to  the  name 
"Protestants."     See  Papacy;  A.  D.  152.5-1529. 

A.  D.  1529. — Turkish  invasion  of  Austria. — 
Siege  of  Vienna.  See  Hungary:  A.  D.  1526- 
1567. 

A.  D.  1530.— The  Diet  at  Augsburg.— The 
signing  and  reading  of  the  Protestant  Con- 
fession of  Faith. — The  condemnatory  decree. 
— Breach  between  the  Protestants  and  the  em- 
peror.    See  Papacy;  A.  D.  1.530-1.531. 

A.  D.  1530-1532. — The  Augsburg  Decree. — 
Alarm  of  the  Protestants. — Their  League  of 
Smalkalde  and  alliance  with  the  king  of 
France. — Pacification  of  Nuremberg  with  the 
emperor. — Expulsion  of  the  Turks  from  Hun- 
gary.—The  decree  issued  by  the  Diet  at  Augs- 
burg was  condemnatory  of  most  of  the  tenets 


peculiar  to  the  protestants,  "  forbidding  any  per- 
son to  protect  or  tolerate  such  as  taught  them, 
enjoining  a  strict  observance  of  the  established 
rites,  and  prohibiting  any  farther  innovation, 
under  severe  penalties.  All  orders  of  men  were 
required  to  assist  with  their  persons  and  fortunes 
in  carrying  this  decree  into  execution ;  and  such 
as  refused  to  obey  it  were  declared  incapable  of 
acting  as  judges,  or  of  appearing  as  parties  in 
the  imperial  chamber,  the  supreme  court  of  judi- 
cature in  the  empire.  To  all  which  was  sub- 
joined a  promise,  that  an  application  should  be 
made  to  the  pope,  requiring  him  to  call  a  general 
council  within  six  months,  in  order  to  terminate 
all  controversies  by  its  sovereign  decisions.  The 
severity  of  this  decree,  which  was  considered  as 
a  prelude  to  the  most  violent  persecution,  alarmed 
the  protestants,  and  convinced  them  that  the  em- 
peror was  resolved  on  their  destruction."  Under 
these  circumstances,  the  protestant  princes  met 
at  Smalkalde,  December  22,  1530,  and  there  "con- 
cluded a  league  of  mutual  defence  against  all 
aggressors,  by  which  they  formed  the  protestant 
states  of  the  empire  into  one  regular  body,  and, 
beginning  already  to  consider  themselves  as  such, 
they  resolved  to  apply  to  the  kings  of  France 
and  England,  and  to  implore  them  to  patronise 
and  assist  their  new  confederacy.  An  affair  not 
connected  with  religion  furnished  them  with  a 
pretence  for  courting  the  aid  of  foreign  princes. " 
This  was  the  election  of  the  emperor's  brother, 
Ferdinand,  to  be  King  of  the  Romans,  against 
which  they  had  protested  vigorously.  "Whea 
the  protestants,  who  were  assembled  a  second 
time  at  Smalkalde  [February,  1531],  received  an 
account  of  this  transaction,  and  heard,  at  the 
same  time,  that  prosecutions  were  commenced  in 
the  imperial  chamber  against  some  of  their  num- 
ber, on  account  of  their  religious  principles,  they 
thought  it  necessary,  not  only  to  renew  their 
former  confederacy,  but  immediately  to  despatch 
their  ambassadors  into  France  and  England." 
The  king  of  France  "listened  with  the  utmost 
eagerness  to  the  complaints  of  the  protestant 
princes;  and,  without  seeming  to  countenance 
their  religious  opinious,  determined  secretly  to 
cherish  those  sparks  of  political  discord  which 
might  be  afterwards  kindled  into  a  flame.  For 
this  purpose  he  sent  William  de  Bellay,  one  of 
the  ablest  negotiators  in  France,  into  Germany, 
who,  visiting  the  courts  of  the  malecontent 
princes,  and  heightening  their  ill-humour  by 
various  arts,  concluded  an  alliance  between  them 
and  his  master,  which,  though  concealed  at  that 
time,  and  productive  of  no  immediate  effects, 
laid  the  foundation  of  a  union  fatal  on  many  oc- 
casions to  Charles's  ambitious  projects.  .  .  .  The 
king  of  England  [Henry  VIII.],  highly  incensed 
against  Charles,  in  complaisance  to  whom,  the 
pope  had  long  retarded,  and  now  openly  opposed, 
his  divorce  [from  Catharine  of  Aragon],  was  no 
less  disposed  than  Francis  to  strengthen  a  league 
which  might  be  rendered  so  formidable  to  the 
emperor.  But  his  favourite  project  of  the  divorce 
led  him  into  such  a  labyrinth  of  schemes  and  ne- 
gotiations, and  he  was,  at  the  same  time,  so  in- 
tent on  abolishing  the  papal  jurisdiction  in  Eng- 
land, that  he  had  no  leisure  for  foreign  affairs. 
This  obliged  him  to  rest  satisfied  with  giving 
general  promises,  together  with  a  small  supply  in 
money,  to  the  confederates  of  Smalkalde.  Mean- 
while, many  circumstances  convinced  Charles 
that  this  was  not  a  juncture  "  in  which  he  could 


1493 


GERMANY,  1530-1532. 


Preparations 
for  War, 


GERMANY,  1533-1546. 


rafford  to  let  his  zeal  for  the  church  push  liim  to 
extremities  with  the  protestants.  ' '  Negotiations 
were,  accordingly,  carried  on  by  his  direction 
with  the  elector  of  Saxony  and  his  associates; 
after  many  delays  .  .  .  terms  of  pacification 
were  agreed  upon  at  Nuremberg  [July  23],  and 
ratified  solemnly  in  the  diet  at  Ratisbon  [August 
3].  In  this  treaty  it  was  stipulated :  that  univer- 
sal peace  be  established  in  Germany,  until  the 
meeting  of  a  genei'al  council,  the  convocation  of 
which  within  six  months  the  emperor  shall  en- 
■deavour  to  procure ;  that  no  person  shall  be  mo- 
lested on  account  of  religion ;  that  a  stop  shall  be 
put  to  all  processes  begun  by  the  imperial  cham- 
ber against  protestants,  and  the  sentences  already 
passed  to  their  detriment  shall  be  declared  void. 
On  their  part,  the  protestants  engaged  to  assist 
the  emperor  with  all  their  forces  in  resisting  the 
invasion  of  the  Turks.  .  .  .  The  protestants  of 
•Germany,  who  had  hitherto  been  viewed  only  as 
a  religious  sect,  came  henceforth  to  be  considered 
as  a  political  body  of  no  small  consequence.  The 
intelligence  which  Charles  received  of  Solyraan's 
having  entered  Hungary,  at  the  head  of  300,000 
men,  brought  the  deliberations  of  the  diet  at 
Ratisbon  to  a  period.  .  .  .  The  protestants,  as  a 
testimony  of  their  gratitude  to  the  emperor,  ex- 
•erted  themselves  with  extraordinary  zeal,  and 
brought  into  the  field  forces  which  exceeded  in 
number  the  quota  imposed  on  them;  and  the 
■catholics  imitating  their  example,  one  of  the 
greatest  and  best-appointed  armies  that  had  ever 
been  levied  in  Germany,  assembled  near  Vienna. 
.  .  .  It  amounted  in  all  to  90,000  disciplined  foot, 
;and  30,000  horse,  besides  a  prodigious  swarm  of 
irregulars.  Of  this  vast  army  .  .  .  the  emperor 
took  the  command  in  person ;  and  mankind 
waited  in  suspense  the  issue  of  a  decisive  battle 
between  the  two  greatest  monarchs  in  the  world. 
But  each  of  them  dreading  the  other's  power  and 
good  fortune,  they  both  conducted  their  oper- 
:ations  with  such  excessive  caution,  that  a  cam- 
paign for  which  such  immense  preparations  had 
been  made  ended  without  any  memorable  event. 
:8olyman,  finding  it  impossible  to  gain  ground 
\ipon  an  enemy  always  attentive  and  on  his 
guard,  marched  back  to  Constantinople  towards 
the  end  of  autumn.  .  .  .  About  the  beginning  of 
this  campaign,  the  elector  of  Saxony  died,  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  son  John  Frederick.  .  .  . 
Immediately  after  the  retreat  of  the  Turks, 
■Charles,  impatient  to  revisit  Spain,  set  out,  on 
his  way  thither,  for  Italy." — W.  Robertson,  Hist. 
,of  tlie  Reign  of  Charles  V.,  bk.  5. 

Also  in  :  L.  von  Ranke,  Hist,  of  ths  lieforma- 
■Uon  in  Oermany,  bk.  6,  ch.  1-8  (».  3). — H.  Steb- 
bing.  Hist,  of  the  Reformation,  ch.  12-13  (».  3). 

A.  D.  1532-1536.— Fanaticism  of  the  Ana- 
baptists of  Miinster. — Siege  and  capture  of 
the  city.     See  An.vbaptists  of  Mijnster. 

A.  D.  1533-1546.— Mercenary  aspects  of  the 
Reformation.— Protestant  intolerance. — Union 
with  the  Swiss  Reformers. — The  Catholic 
Holy  League. — Preparations  for  war. — "  Dur- 
ing the  next  few  years  [after  the  peace  concluded 
at  Nuremberg]  there  was  no  open  hostility  be- 
tween the  two  religious  parties.  .  .  .  But  there 
was  dissension  enough.  In  the  first  place  there 
was  much  disputation  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
articles  concluded  at  Nuremberg.  The  catholic 
princes,  under  the  pretext  that,  if  no  man  was  to 
be  disturbed  for  his  faith,  or  for  things  depend- 
ing on  faith,  he  was  still  amenable  for  certain 


offences  against  the  church,  which  were  purely 
of  a  civil  nature,  were  eager  that  the  imperial 
chamber  should  take  cognisance  of  future  cases, 
at  least,  where  protestants  should  seek  to  invade 
the  temporalities  of  the  church.  .  .  .  But  noth- 
ing was  effected ;  the  tribunal  was  too  powerless 
to  enforce  its  decrees.  In  153-1,  the  protestants, 
in  a  public  assembl}',  renounced  all  obedience  to 
the  chamber;  yet  they  did  not  cease  to  appropri- 
ate to  themselves  the  property  of  such  monas- 
teries and  churches  as,  by  the  conversion  of 
catholics  to  their  faith  —  and  that  faith  was  con- 
tinually progressive —  lay  within  their  jurisdic- 
tion. We  need  scarcely  observe,  that  the  pros- 
pect of  spoliation  was  often  the  most  powerful 
inducement  with  the  princes  and  nobles  to  change 
their  religion.  When  they,  or  the  magistracy  of 
any  particular  city,  renounced  the  faitli  hitherto 
established,  the  people  were  expected  to  follow 
the  example:  the  moment  Lutheranism  was  es- 
tablished in  its  place,  the  ancient  faith  was  abol- 
ished; nobody  was  allowed  to  profess  it;  and, 
with  one  common  accord,  all  who  had  any  pros- 
pect of  benefiting  by  the  change  threw  themselves 
on  the  domains  of  the  expelled  clergy.  That  the 
latter  should  complain  before  the  only  tribunal 
where  justice  could  be  expected,  was  natural; 
nor  can  we  be  surprised  that  the  plunderers 
should  soon  deny,  in  religious  affairs,  the  juris- 
diction of  that  tribunal.  From  the  departure  of 
the  emperor  to  the  year  1538,  some  hundreds  of 
domains  were  thus  seized,  and  some  hundreds  of 
complaints  addressed  to  him  by  parties  who  re- 
solved to  interpret  the  articles  of  Nuremberg  in 
their  own  way.  The  protestants  declared,  in  a 
letter  to  him,  that  their  consciences  would  not 
allow  them  to  tolerate  any  papist  in  their  states. 
.  .  .  By  espousing  the  cause  of  the  exiled  duke 
of  Wittemberg,  they  procured  a  powerful  ally. 
.  .  .  But  a  greater  advantage  was  the  union  of 
the  sacramentarians  [the  Swiss  reformers,  who 
accepted  the  doctrine  of  Zwingli  respecting  the 
purely  symbolical  significance  of  the  commemo- 
ration of  the  Lord's  Supper  —  see  Switzerl.vnd  : 
A.  D.  1538-1531]  with  the  Lutherans.  Of  such  a 
result,  at  the  diet  of  Augsburg,  there  was  not  the 
least  hope ;  but  Bucer,  being  deputed  by  the  im- 
perial cities  to  ascertain  whether  a  union  might 
not  be  effected,  laboured  so  zealously  at  the  task 
that  it  was  effected.  He  consented  to  modify 
some  of  his  former  opinions ;  or  at  least  to  wrap 
them  in  language  so  equivocal  that  they  might 
mean  anything  or  nothing  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
holder.  The  Swiss,  indeed,  especially  those  of 
Zurich,  refused  to  sanction  the  articles  on  which 
Luther  and  Bucer  had  agreed.  Still,  by  the 
union  of  all  protestant  Germany  under  the  same 
lianners,  much  was  gained.  ...  In  the  mean- 
time, the  dissensions  between  the  two  great  par- 
ties augmented  from  day  to  day.  To  pacify 
them,  Charles  sent  fruitless  embassies.  Roused 
by  the  apparent  danger,  in  1538,  the  catholic 
princes  formed,  at  Nuremberg,  a  counter  league 
to  that  of  Smalcald  [calling  it  the  Holy  League]. 
.  .  .  The  death  of  Luther's  old  enemy,  George, 
duke  of  Saxony  [1539],  transferred  the  dominion 
of  that  prince's  states  into  the  hands  of  [his 
brother  Henry]  a  Lutheran.  Henry,  duke  of 
Brunswick,  was  now  the  only  great  secular  prince 
in  the  north  of  Germany  who  adhered  to  the 
Roman  catholic  faith.  ...  A  truce  was  con- 
cluded at  Frankfort,  in  1539;  but  it  could  not 
remove  the  existing  animosity,  which  was  daily 


1494 


GERMANY,  1533-1546. 


Beginning  of 
War. 


GERMANY,  1546-1553. 


augmented.  Both  parties  were  in  tlie  wrong. 
...  At  the  close  of  1540,  Woi-ms  was  the  scene 
of  a  conference  very  different  from  that  where,  20 
years  before,  Luther  had  been  proscribed.  There 
was  an  interminable  theological  disputation.  .  .  . 
As  little  good  resulted,  Charles,  who  was  hasten- 
ing from  the  Low  Countries  to  his  German  do- 
minions, evoked  the  affair  before  a  diet  at  Ratis- 
bon,  in  April,  1541.  .  .  .  The  diet  of  Ratisbon 
was  well  attended ;  and  never  did  prince  exert 
himself  more  zealously  than  Charles  to  make 
peace  between  his  angry  subjects.  But  ...  all 
that  could  be  obtained  was,  that  things  should 
be  suffered  to  remain  in  their  present  state  until 
a  future  diet  or  a  general  council.  The  reduc- 
tion of  Buda,  however,  by  the  Turks,  rendered 
king  Ferdinand,  his  brother,  and  the  whole  of 
Germany,  eager  for  an  immediate  settlement  of 
the  dispute.  .  .  .  Hence  the  diet  of  Spires  in 
1542.  If,  in  regard  to  religion,  nothing  definitive 
was  arranged,  except  the  selection  of  Trent  as 
the  place  most  suitable  for  a  general  council,  one 
good  end  was  secured  —  supplies  for  the  war 
with  the  Turks.  The  campaign,  however,  which 
passed  without  an  action,  was  inglorious  to  the 
Germans,  who  appear  to  have  been  in  a  lamen- 
table state  of  discipline.  Nor  was  the  public 
satisfaction  much  increased  by  the  disputes  of 
the  Smalcald  league  with  Henry  of  Brunswick. 
The  duke  was  angry  with  his  subjects  of  Bruns- 
wick and  Breslau,  who  adhered  to  the  protestant 
league;  and  though  he  had  reason  enough  to  be 
dissatisfied  with  both,  nothing  could  be  more 
vexatious  than  his  conduct  towards  them.  In 
revenge,  the  league  of  Smalcald  sent  19,000  men 
into  the  field, —  a  formidable  display  of  protes- 
tant power !  —  and  Henry  was  expelled  from  his 
hereditary  states,  which  were  seized  by  the  vic- 
tors. He  invoked  the  aid  of  the  imperial  cham- 
ber, which  cited  the  chiefs  of  the  league ;  but  as, 
in  1538,  the  competency  of  that  tribunal  had 
been  denied  in  religious,  so  now  it  was  denied  in 
civil  matters.  .  .  .  The  following  years  exhibit 
on  both  sides  the  same  jealousy,  the  same  du- 
plicity, often  the  same  violence  where  the  mask 
was  no  longer  required,  with  as  many  ineffectual 
attempts  to  procure  a  union  between  them.  .  .  . 
The  progress  of  events  continued  to  favour  the 
reformers.  They  had  already  two  votes  in  the 
electoral  college, —  those  of  Saxony  and  Branden- 
burg ;  they  were  now  to  have  the  preponderance ; 
for  the  elector  palatine  and  Herman  archbishop 
of  Cologne  abjured  their  religion,  thus  placing 
at  the  command  of  the  reformed  party  four  votes 
against  three.  But  this  numerical  superiority 
did  not  long  remain.  .  .  .  The  pope  excommuni- 
cated the  archbishop,  deposed  him  from  his  dig- 
nity, and  ordered  the  chapter  to  proceed  to  a 
new  election ;  and  when  Herman  refused  to  obey, 
Charles  sent  troops  to  expel  him,  and  to  instal 
the  archbishop  elect,  Count  Adolf  of  Nassau. 
Herman  retired  to  his  patrimonial  estates,  where 
he  died  in  the  profession  of  the  reformed  religion. 
These  events  mortified  the  members  of  the  Smal- 
cald league ;  but  they  were  soon  partially  con- 
soled by  the  capture  of  Henry  duke  of  Bruns- 
wick [i546],  who  had  the  temerity  to  collect 
troops  and  invade  his  patrimonial  dominions. 
Their  success  gave  umbrage  to  the  emperor.  .  .  . 
He  knew  that  the  confederates  had  already  30,000 
men  under  arms,  and  that  they  were  actively, 
however  secretly,  augmenting  their  forces.  His 
first  care  was  to  cause  troops  to  be  as  secretly 


collected  in  his  hereditary  states ;  his  second,  to 
seduce,  if  possible,  some  leaders  of  the  protes- 
tants.  With  Maurice  duke  of  Saxony  he  was 
soon  successful ;  and  eventually  with  the  two 
margraves  of  Brandenburg,  who  agreed  to  make 
preparations  for  a  campaign  and  join  him  at  the 
proper  moment.  .  .  .  His  convocation  of  the  diet 
at  Katisbon  [1546],  which  after  a  vain  parade 
ended  in  nothing,  was  only  to  hide  his  real  de- 
signs. As  he  began  to  throw  off  the  mask,  the 
reformed  theologians  precipitately  withdrew; 
and  both  parties  took  the  field,  but  not  until  they 
had  each  published  a  manifesto  to  justify  this 
extreme  proceeding.  In  each  there  was  much 
truth,  and  more  falsehood." — S.  A.  Dunham, 
Hist,  of  the  Germanic  Empire,  bk.  3,  ch.  3  (?'.  3). 

A.  D.  1542-1544. — War  with  Francis  I.  of 
France.  —  Battle  of  Cerisoles. —  Treaty  of 
Crespy.     See  France:  A.  D.  1532-1547. 

A.  D.  1542-1563. — The  beginning  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  reaction. — The  Council  of  Trent. 
See  Papacy:  A.  D.  1537-1563. 

A.  D.  1546-1552. — War  of  Charles  against 
the  Protestants. — The  treachery  of  Maurice  of 
Saxony. — The  battle  of  Muhlberg. — The  em- 
peror's proposed  "Interim"  and  its  failure. — 
His  reverse  of  fortune. — Protestantism  trium- 
phant.—  The  Treaty  of  Passau. —  "Luther's 
death  [which  occurred  in  1546]  made  no  change 
in  the  resolution  which  Charles  had  at  last  taken 
to  crush  the  Reformation  in  his  German  dominions 
by  force  of  arms ;  on  the  contrary,  he  was  more 
than  ever  stimulated  to  carry  out  his  purpose  by 
two  occurrences:  the  adoption  of  the  new  re- 
ligion by  one  who  was  not  only  an  Elector  of  the 
Empire,  but  one  of  the  chief  prelates  of  the^ 
Church,  the  Prince-Archbishop  of  Cologne.  .  .  . 
The  other  event  that  influenced  him  was  the  re- 
fusal of  the  Protestants  to  accept  as  binding  the 
decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  was  com- 
posed of  scarcely  any  members  but  a  few  Italian 
and  Spanish  prelates,  and  from  which  they  ap- 
pealed to  either  a  free  general  Council  or  a  na- 
tional Council  of  the  Empire;  offering,  at  the 
same  time,  if  Charles  should  prefer  it,  to  submit 
the  whole  question  of  religion  to  a  joint  Commis- 
sion, composed  of  divines  of  each  party.  These 
remonstrances,  however,  the  Emperor  treated 
with  contempt.  He  had  been  for  some  time  se- 
cretly raising  troops  in  different  quarters ;  and, 
early  in  1546,  he  made  a  fresh  treaty  with  the 
Pope,  by  which  he  bound  himself  instantly  to 
commence  warlike  operations,  and  which,  though 
it  had  been  negotiated  as  a  secret  treaty,  Paul 
instantly  published,  to  prevent  any  retraction  or 
delay  on  his  part.  War  therefore  now  began, 
though  Charles  professed  to  enter  upon  it,  not 
for  the  purpose  of  enforcinga  particular  religious 
belief  on  the  recusants,  but  for  that  of  re-estab- 
lishing the  Imijerial  authority,  which,  as  he  af- 
firmed, many  of  the  confederate  princes  had 
disowned.  Such  a  pretext  he  expected  to  sow 
disunion  in  the  body,  some  members  of  which 
were  far  from  desirous  to  weaken  the  great  con- 
federacy of  the  Empire :  and,  in  effect,  it  did  pro- 
duce a  hesitation  in  their  early  steps  that  had  the 
most  important  consequences  on  the  first  cam- 
paign; for,  in  spite  of  the  length  of  time  during 
which  he  had  secretly  been  preparing  for  war, 
when  it  came  they  were  more  ready  than  he. 
They  at  once  took  the  field  with  an  army  of 
90,000  men  and  130  guns,  while  he,  for  the  first  few 
weeks  after  the  declaration  of  war,  had  hardly 


1495 


GERMANY,  1546-1553. 


Protestantism 
do  wnf alien. 


GERMANY,  1546-1552. 


10,000  men  with  him  in  Ratisbon.  .  .  .  But  the 
advantage  of  a  single  over  a  divided  command 
was  perhaps  never  more  clearly  e.xeraplified  than 
in  the  first  operations  of  the  two  armies.  He, 
as  the  weaker  party,  took  up  a  defensive  posi- 
tion near  Ingolstadt ;  but,  though  they  advanced 
within  sight  of  bis  lines,  they  could  not  agree  on 
the  mode  of  attack,  or  even  on  the  prudence  of 
attacking  him  at  all.  ...  At  last,  the  confeder- 
ates actually  drew  off,  and  Charles,  advancing, 
made  himself  master  of  many  important  towns, 
which  their  irresolution  alone  had  enabled  him  to 
approach. "  Meanwhile  the  Emperor  had  won  an 
important  ally.  This  was  Duke  Maurice,  of  the 
Albertine  line  of  the  House  of  Saxony  (see  Sax- 
ony: A.  D.  1180-1553),  to  whom  several  oppor- 
tune deaths  had  given  the  ducal  seat  unexpect- 
edly, in  1541,  and  whose  ambition  now  hungered 
for  the  Electorate,  which  was  held  by  the  other 
(the  Ernestine)  branch  of  the  family.  He  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  profiting  by  the  troubles  of  the 
time  to  win  possession  of  it.  "With  this  view, 
though  he  also  was  a  Protestant,  he  tendered  his 
services  to  the  Emperor,  who,  in  spite  of  his 
youth,  discerned  in  him  a  promise  of  very  su- 
perior capacity,  gladly  accepted  his  aid,  and 
promised  to  reward  him  with  the  territories  which 
he  coveted.  The  advantages  which  Protestant- 
ism eventually  derived  from  Maurice's  success 
has  blinded  some  historians  to  the  infamy  of  the 
conduct  by  which  he  achieved  it.  .  .  .  The  Elec- 
tor [John  Frederick]  was  his  [second]  cousin ; 
the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  was  his  father-in-law. 
Pleading  an  unwillingness  while  so  young  (he 
was  barely  21)  to  engage  in  the  war,  he  volun- 
teered to  undertake  the  protection  of  his  cousin's 
dominions  during  his  absence  in  the  field.  His 
offer  was  thankfully  accepted;  but  he  was  no 
sooner  installed  in  his  charge  than  he  began  to 
negotiate  with  the  enemy  to  invade  the  territories 
which  he  had  bound  himself  to  protect.  And  on 
receiving  from  Charles  a  copy  of  a  decree,  called 
the  Ban  of  the  Empire,  which  had  just  been  issued 
against  both  the  Elector  and  the  Landgrave,  he 
at  once  raised  a  force  of  his  own,  with  which  he 
overran  one  portion  of  [the  Elector's]  dominions, 
while  a  division  of  the  Imperial  army  attacked 
the  rest ;  and  he  would  probably  have  succeeded 
at  once  in  subduing  the  whole  Electorate,  had  the 
main  body  of  the  Protestants  been  able  to  maintain 
the  war  on  the  Danube. "  But  Charles's  successes 
there  brought  about  a  suspension  of  hostilities 
which  enabled  the  Elector  to  return  and  "chastise 
Maurice  for  his  treachery ;  to  drive  him  not  only 
from  the  towns  and  districts  which  he  had  seized, 
but  to  strip  him  also  of  the  greater  part  of  the 
territory  which  belonged  to  him  by  inheritance. " 
Charles  was  unable,  at  first,  to  give  any  assis- 
tance to  his  ally.  The  Elector,  however,  who 
was  the  worst  of  generals,  so  scattered  his  forces 
that  when,  "on  the  23d  of  April  [1547],  Charles 
reached  the  Elbe  and  prepared  to  attack  him,  he 
had  no  advantage  over  his  assailant  but  that  of 
position.  That  indeed  was  very  strong.  He  lay 
at  Muhlberg,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  river, 
which  at  that  point  is  300  yards  wide  and  more 
than  four  feet  deep,  with  a  stream  so  rapid  as  to 
render  the  passage,  even  for  horsemen,  a  task  of 
great  difficulty  and  danger."  Against  the  re- 
monstrances of  his  ablest  general,  the  Duke  of 
Alva,  Cliarles,  favored  by  a  heavy  fog,  led  his 
army  across  the  river  and  boldly  attacked.  The 
Elector  attempted  to  retreat,  but  his  retreat  be- 


came a  rout.  Many  fell,  but  many  more  were 
taken  prisoners,  including  the  Elector  and  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse.  The  victory  was  decisive 
for  the  time,  and  Charles  used  it  without  modera- 
tion or  generosity.  He  declared  a  forfeiture  of  the 
whole  Electorate  of  Saxony  by  John  Frederick, 
and  conferred  it  upon  the  treacherous  Maurice ; 
and, ' '  though  Maurice  was  son-in-law  of  the  Land- 
grave of  Hesse,  he  stripped  that  prince  of  his  terri- 
tories, and,  by  a  device  scarcely  removed  from  the 
tricks  of  a  kidnapper,  threw  him  also  into  prison." 
Charles  seemed  now  to  be  completely  master  of 
the  situation  in  Germany,  and  there  was  little  op- 
position to  his  will  in  a  diet  which  he  convened 
at  Augsburg. — C.  D.  Yonge,  Three  Centuries  of 
Modern  History,  ch.  4. — "He  opened  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg  (September  1,  1547),  in  the  hope  of 
finally  bringing  about  the  union  so  long  desired 
and  so  frequently  attempted,  but  which  he  de- 
spaired of  effecting  through  a  council  which  the 
Protestants  had  rejected  in  advance.  ...  By 
the  famous  'Interim'  of  Augsburg  —  the  joint 
production  of  Julius  von  Pflug,  Bishop  of  Naum- 
berg;  Michael  Helding,  coadjutor  of  Mentz;  and 
the  wily  and  subtle  John  Agricola,  preacher  to 
the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  —  Protestants  were 
permitted  to  receive  the  Holy  Eucharist  under 
both  kinds ;  the  Protestant  clergy  already  married 
to  retain  their  wives ;  and  a  tacit  approval  given 
to  the  retention  of  property  already  taken  from 
the  Church.  This  instrument  was,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  a  masterpiece  of  duplicity,  and  as 
such  satisfied  no  party.  The  Catholics  of  Ger- 
many, the  Protestants,  and  the  Court  of  Rome, 
each  took  exception  to  it.  .  .  .  Maurice,  the  new 
Elector  of  Saxony,  unwilling  to  give  the  Interim 
an  unconditional  approval,  consulted  with  a  num- 
ber of  Protestant  theologians,  headed  by  Mclanc- 
thon,  as  to  how  far  he  might  accept  its  provisions 
with  a  safe  conscience.  In  reply  they  drew  up 
what  is  known  as  tlie  Leipsig  Interim  (1548),  in 
which  they  stated  that  questions  of  ritual  and 
ceremony,  and  others  of  minor  importance,  which 
they  designated  by  the  generic  word  adiaphora, 
might  be  wholly  overlooked ;  and  even  in  points 
of  a  strictly  doctrinal  character,  they  expressed 
themselves  favourable  to  concession  and  compro- 
mise. .  .  .  Such  Lutheran  preachers  as  professed 
to  be  faithful  followers  of  their  master,  made  a 
determined  opposition  to  the  '  Interim, 'and  began 
a  vigorous  assault  upon  its  adiaphoristic  clauses. 
The  Anti-adiaphorists,  as  they  were  called,  were 
headed  by  Flacius  Illyricus,  who  being  an  ardent 
disciple  of  Luther's,  and  possessing  somewhat  of 
his  courage  and  energy,  repaired  to  Magdeburg, 
whose  bold  citizens  were  as  defiant  of  imperial 
power  as  they  were  contemptuous  of  papal  au- 
thority. But  in  spite  of  this  spirited  opposition, 
the  Interim  was  gradually  accepted  by  several 
Protestant  countries  and  cities  —  a  fact  which  en- 
couraged the  emperor  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in 
1550,  to  make  a  final  effort  to  have  the  Protestants 
attend  the  sessions  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  again 
openedby  Pope  Julius  III.  .  .  .  After  a  short  de- 
lay, deputies  from  Brandenburg,  Wilrtemberg, 
and  Saxony  began  to  appear  at  Trent;  and  even 
the  Wittenberg  theologians,  headed  by  Melanc- 
thon,  were  already  on  their  way  to  the  Council, 
when  Maurice  of  Saxony,  having  secured  all  the 
advantages  he  hoped  to  obtain  by  an  alliance  with 
the  Catholic  party,  and  regardless  of  the  obliga- 
tions by  which  he  was  bound,  proceeded  to  betray 
both   the   emperor  and  his    country.      Having 


1496 


GERMANY.   1546-1552. 


Protestantism 
recovered. 


GERMANY,  1553-1561. 


received  a  coramissioii  to  carry  into  effect  the 
ban  of  the  empire  passed  upon  Magdeburg,  he 
was  in  a  position  to  assemble  a  large  body  of 
troops  in  Germany  without  exciting  suspicion, 
or  revealing  his  ulterior  purposes.  Besides  unit- 
ing to  himself,  as  confederates  in  his  plot,  John 
Albert,  Duke  of  Mecklenburg;  Albert,  Margrave 
of  Brandenburg;  and  William,  Landgrave  of 
Hesse,  eldest  son  of  Philip  of  Hesse,  he  entered 
into  a  secret  treaty  (Oct.  5,  1551)  with  Henry  11., 
King  of  France,  who,  as  was  pretended,  coming 
into  Germany  as  the  saviour  of  the  country, 
seized  the  cities  of  Metz,  Toul,  and  Verdun. 
Maurice  also  held  out  to  Henry  the  prospect  of 
securing  the  imperial  crown.  Everything  be- 
ing iu  readiness  for  action,  Maurice  advancing 
through  Thuriugia,  seized  the  city  of  Augsburg, 
and  suddenly  made  bis  appearance  before  Inns- 
pruck,  whence  the  emperor,  who  lay  sick  of  a 
severe  attack  of  the  gout,  was  hastily  conveyed 
on  a  litter,  through  the  passes  of  the  mountains, 
to  Villach,  in  Carinthia.  "While  Maurice  was  thus 
making  himself  master  of  Inuspruck,  the  King 
of  the  French  was  carrying  out  his  part  of  the 
programme  by  actively  prosecuting  the  war  in 
Lorraine.  Charles  V. ,  now  destitute  of  the  ma- 
terial resources  necessary  to  carry  on  a  success- 
ful campaign  against  the  combined  armies  of  the 
French  king  and  the  German  princes,  and  de- 
spairing of  putting  an  end  to  the  obstinate  con- 
flict by  his  personal  endeavours,  resolved  to 
re-establish,  if  possible,  his  waning  power  by 
peaceful  negotiations.  To  this  end,  he  commis- 
sioned his  brother  Ferdinand  to  conclude  the 
Treaty  of  Passau  (Julj'  30,  1553),  which  provided 
that  Philip  of  Hesse  should  be  set  at  liberty,  and 
gave  pledges  for  the  speedy  settlement  of  all  re- 
ligious and  political  differences  by  a  Diet,  to  be 
summoned  at  an  early  day.  It  further  provided 
that  neither  the  emperor  nor  the  Protestant 
princes  should  put  any  restraint  upon  freedom  of 
conscience,  and  that  all  questions  arising  in  the 
interval  between  the  two  parties  should  be  re- 
ferred for  settlement  to  an  Imperial  Commis- 
sion, composed  of  an  equal  number  of  Catholics 
and  Protestants.  In  consequence  of  the  war  then 
being  carried  on  by  the  empire  against  France 
for  the  recovery  of  the  three  bishoprics  of  Lor- 
raine of  which  the  French  had  taken  possession, 
the  Diet  did  not  convene  until  February  5,  1555." 
— J.  Alzog,  Manual  of  Universal  Church  History, 
«.  3,  pp.  376-379. 

Also  in:  W.  Robertson,  Hist,  of  the  Beign  of 
Cliarles  V.,  hk.  8-10  (u.  3-3).— L.  von  Ranke, 
Civil  Wars  and  Monarchy  in  France,  ch.  6. — 
E.  E.  Crowe,  Cardinal  Grranvelle  and  Maurice 
of  Saxony  (Eminent  Foreign  Statesmen,  v.  1). 
— L.  Hausser,  T7te  Period  of  tJie  Reformation,  ch. 
15-17. — G.  P.  Fisher,  Hist,  of  the  Reformation, 
eh.  5. —  F.  Kohlrausch,  Hist,  of  Germany,  ch. 
20. 

A.  D.  1547. — Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Charles 
v.,  changing  the  relations  of  the  Netherland 
provinces  to  the  Empire.  See  Netherlands: 
A.  D.  15i7. 

A.  D.  1552-1561. — Battle  of  Sievershausen 
and  death  of  Maurice. — The  Religious  Peace 
of  Augsburg. — Abdication  of  Charles  V. — Suc- 
cession of  Ferdinand  I. — The  halting  of  the 
Reformation  and  the  rally  of  Catholic  resis- 
tance.— By  the  treaty  of  Passau,  Maurice  of 
Saxony  bound  himself  to  defend  the  empire 
against  the  French  and  the  Turks.     "  He  accord- 


ingly took  the  field  against  the  latter,  but  with 
little  success,  the  imperial  commander,  Castaldo, 
contravening  all  his  efforts  by  plundering  Hun- 
gary and  drawing  upon  himself  the  hatred  of  the 
people.  Charles,  meanwhile,  marched  against 
the  French,  and,  without  hesitation,  again  de- 
posed the  corporative  governments  reinstated  by 
Maurice,  on  his  way  through  Augsburg,  Ulni, 
Esslingen,  etc.  Metz,  valiantly  defended  by  the 
Duke  de  Guise,  was  vainly  besieged  for  some 
months,  and  the  Emperor  was  at  length  forced  to 
retreat.  The  French  were,  nevertheless,  driven 
out  of  Italy.  The  aged  emperor  now  sighed  for 
peace.  Ferdinand,  averse  to  open  warfare,  placed 
his  hopes  on  the  imperceptible  effect  of  a  con- 
sistently pursued  system  of  suppression  and 
Jesuitical  obscurantism.  Maurice  was  answer- 
able for  the  continuance  of  the  peace,  the  terms 
of  which  he  had  prescribed.  .  .  .  Albert  the 
"Wild  [of  Brandenburg]  was  the  only  one  among 
the  princes  who  was  still  desirous  of  war.  In- 
different to  aught  else,  he  marched  at  the  head  of 
some  thousand  followers  through  central  Ger- 
many, murdering  and  plundering  as  he  passed 
along,  with  tJie  intent  of  once  more  laying  the 
Franconian  and  Saxon  bishoprics  waste  in  the 
name  of  the  gospel.  The  princes  at  length 
formed  the  Heidelberg  confederacy  against  this 
monster  and  the  emperor  put  him  under  the  bann 
of  the  empire,  which  Maurice  undertook  to  exe- 
cute, although  he  had  been  his  old  friend  and 
companion  in  arms.  Albert  was  engaged  in 
plundering  the  archbishopric  of  Magdeburg, 
when  Maurice  came  up  with  him  at  Sievershaus- 
en. A  murderous  engagement  took  place  (A.  D. 
1553).  Three  of  the  princes  of  Brunswick  were 
slain.  Albert  was  severely  wounded,  and  Mau- 
rice fell  at  the  moment  when  victory  declared  in 
his  favour,  in  the  33d  year  of  his  age,  in  the 
midst  of  his  promising  career.  .  .  .  Every  ob- 
stacle was  now  removed,  and  a  peace,  known  as 
the  religious  peace  of  Augsburg,  was  concluded 
by  the  diet  held  in  that  city,  A.  D.  1555.  This 
peace  was  naturally  a  mere  political  agreement 
provisionally  entered  into  by  the  princes  for 
the  benefit,  not  of  religion,  but  of  themselves. 
Popular  opinion  was  dumb,  knights,  burgesses, 
and  peasants  bending  in  lowly  submission  to  the 
mandate  of  their  sovereigns.  By  this  treaty, 
branded  in  history  as  the  most  lawless  ever  con- 
certed in  Germany,  the  principle  'cujus  regio, 
ejus  religio,'  the  faith  of  the  prince  must  be  that 
of  the  people,  was  laid  down.  By  it  not  only  all 
the  Reformed  subjects  of  a  Catholic  prince  were 
exposed  to  the  utmost  cruelty  and  tyrannj%  but 
the  religion  of  each  separate  country  was  rendered 
dependent  on  the  cajjrice  of  the  reigning  prince; 
of  this  the  Pfalz  offered  a  sad  example,  the  re- 
ligion of  the  people  being  thus  four  times  arbi- 
trarily changed.  .  .  .  Freedom  of  belief,  con- 
fined to  the  immediate  subjects  of  the  empire, 
for  instance,  to  the  reigning  princes,  the  free 
nobility,  and  the  city  councillors,  was  monopo- 
lized by  at  most  30,000  privileged  persons.  .  .  . 
The  false  peace  concluded  at  Augsburg  was  im- 
mediately followed  by  Charles  V.  's  abdication  of 
his  numerous  cro%vns  [see  Netherlands:  A.  D. 
1555].  He  would  willingly  have  resigned  that 
of  the  empire  to  his  son  Philip,  had  not  the 
Spanish  education  of  that  prince,  his  gloomy  and 
bigoted  character,  inspired  the  Germans  with  an 
aversion  as  unconquerable  as  that  with  which  he 
beheld  them.     Ferdinand  had,  moreover,  gained 


1497 


GERMANY,  1552-1561. 


Degeneracy  of 
the  Reformation. 


GERMANY,  1556-1609. 


the  favour  of  the  German  princes.  Charles, 
nevertheless,  influenced  by  affection  towards  his 
son,  bestowed  upon  him  one  of  the  finest  of  the 
German  provinces,  the  Netherlands,  besides  Spain, 
Milan,  Naples,  and  the  West  Indies  (America). 
Ferdinand  received  the  rest  of  the  German 
hereditary  possessions  of  his  house,  besides  Bo- 
hemia and  Hungary.  .  .  .  Ferdinand  I.,  opposed 
in  his  hereditary  provinces  by  a  predominating 
Protestant  party,  which  he  was  compelled  to  tol- 
erate, was  politically  overbalanced  by  his  nephew, 
Philip  II.,  in  Spain  and  Italy,  where  Catholicism 
flourished.  The  preponderance  of  the  Spanish 
over  the  Austrian  branch  of  the  house  of  Habs- 
burg  exercised  the  most  pernicious  influence  on 
the  whole  of  Germany,  by  securing  to  the  Catho- 
lics a  support  which  rendered  reconciliation  im- 
possible. .  .  .  The  religious  disputes  and  petty 
egotism  of  the  several  estates  of  the  empire  had 
utterly  stifled  every  sentiment  of  patriotism,  and 
not  a  dissentient  voice  was  raised  against  the 
will  of  Charles  V.,  which  bestowed  the  whole  of 
the  Netherlands,  one  of  the  finest  of  the  prov- 
inces of  Germany,  upon  Spain,  the  division  and 
consequent  weakening  of  the  powerful  house  of 
Habsburg  being  regarded  by  the  princes  with 
delight.  At  the  same  time  that  the  power  of  the 
Protestant  party  was  shaken  by  the  peace  of 
Augsburg,  Cardinal  Carafifa  mounted  the  pontif- 
ical throne  as  Paul  IV.,  the  first  pope  who,  fol- 
lowing the  plan  of  the  Jesuits,  abandoned  the 
system  of  defence  for  that  of  attack.  The  Ref- 
ormation no  sooner  ceased  to  progress,  than  a 
preventive  movement  began  [see  Papacy:  A.  D. 
1537-1563].  .  .  .  Ferdinand  I.  was  in  a  difficult 
position.  Paul  IV.  refused  to  acknowledge  him 
on  accoimt  of  the  peace  concluded  between  him 
and  the  Protestants,  whom  he  was  unable  to  op- 
pose, and  whose  tenets  he  refused  to  embrace,  not- 
withstanding the  expressed  wish  of  the  majority 
of  his  subjects.  Like  his  brother,  he  intrigued 
and  diplomatized  until  his  Jesuitical  confessor, 
Bobadilla,  and  the  new  pope,  Pius  IV.,  again 
placed  him  on  good  terms  with  Rome,  A.  D. 
1559.  .  .  .  Augustus,  elector  of  Saxony,  the 
brother  of  Maurice,  alarmed  at  the  fresh  alliance 
between  the  emperor  and  pope,  convoked  a 
meeting  of  the  Protestant  leaders  at  Naumberg. 
His  fears  were,  however,  allayed  by  the  peaceful 
proposals  of  the  emperor  (A.  D.  1561).  ...  A 
last  attempt  to  save  the  unity  of  the  German 
church,  in  the  event  of  its  separation  from  that 
of  Rome,  was  made  by  Ferdinand,  who  convoked 
the  spiritual  electoral  princes,  the  archbishops 
and  bishops,  for  that  purpose  to  Vienna,  but  the 
consideration  with  which  he  was  compelled  to 
treat  the  pope  rendered  his  efforts  weak  and  in- 
effectual. .  .  .  The  Protestants,  blind  to  the  unity 
and  strength  resulting  from  the  policy  of  the 
Catholics,  weakened  themselves  more  and  more 
by  division." — W.  Menzel,  Hist,  of  Germany 
sect.  197-198  (e.  2). 

A.  D.  1556-1558.  —  Abdication  of  the  em- 
peror, Charles  V.,  and  election  of  his  brother, 
Ferdinand.     See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  15.55. 

A.  D.  1556-1609.— The  degeneracy  of  the 
Reformation. — Internal  hostilities  of  Protes- 
tantism.— Tolerant  reigns  of  Ferdinand  I.  and 
Maximilian  II. — Renewed  persecution  under 
Rudolf  II. — The  risings  against  hira. — His 
cessions  and  abdications. — "  Germany  was  ex- 
ternally at  peace.  When  the  peace  was  broken 
in  Protestant  states,  the  Protestants  themselves. 


that  is,  a  part  of  their  divines,  were  the  cause  of 
the  disturbance.  These  were  '  frantic '  Luther- 
ans. The  theologian  Flacius,  at  Jena,  openly 
attacked  Melancthon  as  a  '  traitor  to  the  church,' 
on  account  of  his  strivings  for  peace.  The  re- 
ligious controversies  in  the  bosom  of  the  adher- 
ents of  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  been  since 
Luther's  death  inflamed  to  madness  by  a  strict 
Lutheran  party,  by  slaves  of  the  letter,  who 
raged  not  only  against  the  Zwinglian  and  Cal- 
vinistic  reformations,  but  against  Melancthon 
and  those  who  sympathized  with  him.  The 
theological  pugilists  disgraced  Protestantism, 
and  aroused  such  a  spirit  of  persecution  that 
Melancthon  died  on  the  19th  of  April,  1560, 
'  weary  and  full  of  anxiety  of  soul  about  the 
future  of  the  Reformation  and  the  German  na- 
tion. '  His  followers,  '  Lutheran '  preachers  and 
professors,  were  persecuted,  banished,  impris- 
oned, on  account  of  suspicion  of  being  inclined 
to  the  '  Reformed '  [Calvinistic]  as  distinguished 
from  '  Evangelical '  views ;  prayers  for  the  '  ex- 
tirpation of  heresy  '  were  offered  in  the  churches 
of  Saxony,  and  a  medal  struck  '  to  commemorate 
the  victory  of  Christ  over  the  Devil  and  Reason,' 
that  is,  over  Melancthon  and  his  moderate  party. 
.  .  .  Each  parson  and  professor  held  himself  to 
be  a  divinely  inspired  watchman  of  Zion,  who 
had  to  watch  over  purity  of  doctrine.  .  .  .  The 
universal  prevalence  of  '  trials  for  witchcraft '  in 
Protestant  districts,  with  their  chambers  of  tor- 
ture and  burnings  at  the  stake,  marked  the  new 
priestcraft  of  Lutheran  Protestantism  in  its  de- 
Ijasement  into  a  dogmatizing  church.  This 
quickly  degenerating  Protestant  Church  com- 
prised a  mass  of  separate  churches,  because  the 
vanity  and  selfishness  of  the  court  clergy  at  every 
court,  and  the  professors  of  every  university, 
would  have  a  church  of  their  own.  .  .  .  Every 
misfortune  to  the  '  Reformed '  churches  caused  a 
malevolent  joy  in  the  Lutheran  camp,  and  every 
common  measure  against  the  common  enemy 
was  rejected  by  the  Lutheran  clergy  from  hatred 
to  the  '  Reformed. '  .  .   .   The  emperor  Ferdinand 

I.  had  long  been  convinced  that  some  change  was 
required  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  As  he  wrote 
to  his  ambassador  in  Trent,  '  If  a  reform  of  the 
Church  did  not  proceed  from  the  Church  herself, 
he  would  undertake  the  charge  of  it  in  Germany.' 
He  never  ceased  to  ofi'er  his  mediation  between 
the  two  religious  parties.  He  thought,  and 
thought  justly,  that  a  compromise  was  possible 
in  Germany.  .  .  .  The  change  which  gradually 
took  place  in  the  head  and  heart  of  Ferdinand 
had  not  extended  to  those  who  sat  in  St.  Peter's 
chair.  Ferdinand  I.,  to  improve  the  moral  state 
of  the  old  Church,  insisted  most  strongly  on  the 
abolition  of  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy ;  this  the 
Pope  declared  the  most  indispensable  prop  of 
the  Papacy.  As  thus  his  proposals  came  to 
naught,  he  attempted  to  introduce  the  proposed 
reformation  into  his  hereditary  domains;  but 
just  as  he  was  beginning  to  be  the  Reformer  of 
these  provinces,  death  removed  him  from  the 
world,  on  the  35th  of  July,  1564.  .  .  .  His  oldest 
son  and  successor,  JIaximilian  II. ,  .  .  .  was  out 
and  out  German.  Growing  up  in  the  great 
movement  of  the  time,  the  Emperor  Maximilian 

II.  was  warmly  devoted  to  the  new  ideas.  He 
hated  the  Jesuits  and  the  Papacy.  ...  He  re- 
mained in  the  middle  between  Protestants  and 
Catholics,  but  really  above  both.  ...  He  fa- 
vored the  Reformation  in  his  Austrian  dominions; 


1498 


GERMANY,  1536-1609. 


The  Union 
and  the  League, 


GERMANY,  1608-1618. 


at  the  very  time  when  Philip  II.  of  Spain,  the 
son  of  Charles  V.,  had  commenced  the  bloodiest 
persecution  against  the  Reformed  Church  in  the 
Netherlands  ...  ;  at  the  very  time  when  the 
French  court,  ruled  and  led  by  Jesuits,  put  into 
execution  the  long-prepared  conspiracy  of  St. 
Bartholomew.  .  .  .  He  never  ceased  to  call  the 
kings  of  France  and  Spain  to  gentleness  and 
toleration.  .  .  .  '  I  have  no  power, '  said  the  em- 
peror, 'over  consciences,  and  may  constrain  no 
nian's  faith.'  The  princes  unanimously  elected 
the  son  of  Maximilian  as  King  of  the  Romans, 
and  Max  received  another  gratification:  he  was 
elected  king  by  the  gallant  nation  of  the  Poles. 
Thus  the  house  of  Austria  was  again  powerfully 
strengthened.  Hungary,  Poland,  Bohemia,  and 
Germany,  united  under  one  ruler,  formed  a  power 
which  could  meet  Turkey  and  Russia.  The 
Turks  and  the  Russians  were  pressing  forward. 
The  Turkish  wars,  more  than  anything  else, 
prevented  Max  from  carrying  out  his  long-cher- 
ished plan  and  giving  a  constitution  to  the  em- 
pire and  church  of  the  Germans.  He  who  tow- 
ered high  above  the  Papal  party  and  the  miserable 
controversies  of  Protestant  divines,  and  whose 
clear  mind  saw  what  the  times  required,  would 
have  had  every  qualification  for  such  a  task. 
But  in  the  midst  of  his  great  projects,  Maximilian 
11.  died,  in  his  49th  year,  on  the  13th  of  October, 
1576;  as  emperor,  honest,  mild  and  wise,  and 
elevated  above  all  religious  controversies  to  a 
degree  that  no  prince  has  ever  reached.  He  had 
always  been  a  rock  of  offence  to  the  Catholic 
party.  .  .  .  But  Rudolf  [son  of  Maximilian  II.], 
when  he  became  emperor  [1576],  surrounded  by 
secret  Jesuits  who  had  been  his  teachers  and  ad- 
visers, became  the  humblest  slave  of  the  order 
and  let  it  do  what  it  would.  Rudolf  had  been 
sent  by  his  father  for  the  interests  of  his  own 
house  to  the  Spanish  court;  a  terrible  punish- 
ment now  followed  this  self-seeking.  Rudolf 
confirmed  liberty  of  conscience  only  to  the  nobles, 
not  to  the  citizens  or  peasants.  He  forbade  the 
two  latter  classes  to  visit  the  Evangelical  churches, 
he  closed  their  schools,  ordered  them  to  frequent 
Catholic  churches,  threatened  disobedience  with 
banishment,  and  even  in  the  case  of  nobles  he 
dismissed  from  his  court  charges  all  who  were 
not  strict  papists.  The  people  of  Vienna  and 
Austria  liated  him  for  these  orders.  .  .  .  With- 
out any  judicial  investigation  he  threatened  free 
cities  with  '  execution.'  Aix  la  Chapelle  expelled 
his  troops.  Gebhard,  the  elector  of  Cologne, 
married  a  Countess  von  Mansfeld  and  went  over 
to  Protestantism.  .  .  .  The  Protestants  supported 
him  badly ;  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  were  at 
bitter  feud  with  each  other  [see  Papacy  :  A.  D. 
1570-1.597].  ...  It  was  a  croaking  of  ravens, 
and  a  great  field  of  the  dead  was  not  far  off. 
.  .  .  The  Emperor  Rudolf,  ...  on  a  return 
journey  from  Rome,  vowed  to  Our  Lady  of 
Loretto,  'his  Generalissima,'  to  extirpate  heretics 
at  the  risk  of  his  life.  In  his  hereditary  estates 
he  ordered  all  who  were  not  papists  to  leave  the 
territory.  Soon  afterwards  lie  pulled  down  the 
Evangelical  churches,  and  dispersed  the  citizens 
by  arms.  He  intended  soon  to  begin  the  same 
proceedings  in  Hungary  and  Bohemia;  but  in 
Hungary  the  nation  rose  in  defence  of  its  liberty 
and  faith.  The  receipt  of  the  intelligence  that 
the  Hungarian  malcontents  were  progressing 
victoriously  produced  — what  there  had  been 
symptoms  of  before  —  insanity.     Tlie  members 


of  the  house  of  Austria  assembled,  and  declared 
'  The  Emperor  Rudolf  can  be  no  longer  head  of 
the  house,  because  unfortunately  it  is  too  plain 
that  his  Roman  Imperial  Majesty  .  .  .  was  not 
competent  or  fit  to  govern  the  kingdoms.'  The 
Archduke  Matthias  [eldest  brother  of  Rudolf] 
was  elected  head  of  the  Austrian  house  [1606]. 
He  collected  an  army  of  20,000  men,  and  made 
known  that  he  would  depose  the  emperor  from 
the  government  of  his  hereditary  domains.  Ru- 
dolf's Jesuitical  flatterers  had  named  him  the  '  Bo- 
hemian Solomon.'  He  now,  in  terror,  without 
drawing  sword,  ceded  Hungary  and  Austria  to 
Matthias,  and  gave  him  also  the  government  of 
Moravia.  Matthias  guaranteed  religious  liberty 
to  the  Austrians.  Rudolf  did  the  same  to  the 
Bohemians  and  Silesians  by  the  '  Letters  of  Ma- 
jesty.' Rudolf,  to  escape  deposition  by  Mat- 
thias, abdicated  the  throne  of  Bohemia." — W. 
Zimmerman,  Popular  Hist,  of  Oermany,  bk.  5,  ch. 
2  (i\  4). 

Also  in:  F.  Kohlrausch,  Hist,  of  Oermany, 
eh.  21. 

A.  D.  1608-1618. — The  Evangelical  Union 
and  the  Catholic  League. — The  Jiilich-Cleve 
contest. — Troubles  in  Bohemia. — The  begin- 
ning of  the  Thirty  Years  War. — "Many  Prot- 
estants were  alarmed  by  the  attempts  Rudolf 
had  made  to  put  them  down,  and  especially  by 
his  allowing  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  to  seize  the- 
free  city  of  DonauwOrth,  formerly  a  Bavarian 
town,  and  make  it  Catholic.  In  1608  a  number 
of  Protestants  joined  together  and  formed,  for 
ten  years,  a  league  called  The  Union.  Its  forma- 
tion was  due  chiefly  to  the  exertions  of  Prince 
Christian  of  Anhalt,  who  had  busily  intrigued 
with  Henry  IV.  of  France ;  but  its  head  was  the 
Elector  Palatine.  As  the  latter  belonged  to  the 
Reformed  Church,  the  Lutherans  for  the  most 
part  treated  the  Union  coldly ;  and  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  it.  It 
soon  had  an  opportunity  of  acting.  Duke  Wil- 
liam of  Julich,  who  held  Jillich,  Cleve,  and  other 
lands,  died  in  1609.  John  Sigmund,  Elector  of 
Brandenburg,  and  the  Palsgrave  of  Neuberg, 
both  members  of  the  Union,  claimed  to  be  his 
heirs,  and  took  possession  of  his  lands.  The 
Emperor  Rudolf  sent  his  brother,  the  Archduke 
Leopold,  Bishop  of  Passau,  to  drive  out  these 
princes.  The  LTnion  thereupon  formed  an  alli- 
ance with  Henry  IV.  of  France  [see  France: 
A.  D.  1599-1610],  and,  coming  to  the  aid  of  its 
members,  scattered  the  forces  of  the  Archduke 
in  1610.  The  Catholics  now  took  fright,  and 
hastened  to  form  a  League  which  should  hold 
the  Union  in  check.  It  was  formed  for  nine 
years,  and  the  supreme  command  was  given  to- 
Maximilian,  Duke  of  Bavaria.  The  death  of 
Henry  IV.  took  away  from  the  Union  its  chief 
source  of  strength,  so  that  it  shrank  from  a  gen- 
eral war.  The  two  princes,  however,  who  had 
given  rise  to  the  quarrel,  kept  for  a  time  the 
Jiilich-Cleve  territory.  In  1611  [1618]  the  power 
of  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  was  further  in- 
creased by  his  succeeding  to  the  Duchy  of  Prus- 
sia. From  this  time  East  Prussia  was  always 
joined  to  Brandenburg.  It  was  now,  therefore, 
that  the  house  of  Brandenburg  laid  the  founda- 
tions of  its  future  greatness  [see  Prussia]. 
Matthias,  in  order  to  pacify  the  Austrian 
States,  granted  them  full  religious  liberty.  In 
1609  the  Bohemian  States  also  obtained  from 
Rudolf  a  Royal  Charter,  called  '  The  Letter  of 


1499 


GERMANY,  1608-1618. 


Beginning  of  the 
Thirty  Years  War. 


GERMANY,  1618-1620. 


Majesty,'  conceding  to  nobility,  knights  and 
towns  perfect  freedom  in  religious  matters,  and 
the  right  to  build  Protestant  churches  and  schools 
on  their  own  and  on  the  royal  lauds.  Bohemia 
showed  no  gratitude  for  this  favour.  Suspecting 
his  designs,  the  Bohemians  even  shut  Rudolf  up 
in  his  castle  at  Prague  in  1611,  and  asked  Mat- 
thias to  come  to  their  aid.  He  did  so,  and  seized 
the  supreme  power.  Next  j'ear  Rudolf  died. 
Matthias  was  crowned  at  Frankfurt  with  great 
pomp,  but  he  was  no  better  fitted  for  the  throne 
than  his  brother.  He  was  compelled  to  yield 
much  to  the  Protestants,  yet  favoured  tlie  Jesuits 
in  their  continued  efforts  to  convert  Germany. 
His  government  was  so  feeble  that  his  brothers 
at  length  made  him  accept  Ferdinand,  Duke  of 
Styria,  as  his  coadjutor.  In  1617  Ferdinand  was 
elected  as  Rudolf 's  successor  to  the  crowns  of 
Bohemia  and  Hungary,  and  from  this  time  all 
real  power  in  the  Habsburg  possessions  was 
wielded  by  him.  Ferdinand  was  a  young  man. 
but  had  already  given  proof  of  great  energy  of 
character.  .  .  .  The  Protestants  looked  forward 
with  dread  to  his  reign  if  he  should  receive  the 
Imperial  crown.  Styria  had  become  almost 
wholl}'  Lutheran.  When  Ferdinand  succeeded 
his  father,  he  had  driven  out  the  Protestant 
families,  and  made  the  land  altogether  Catholic. 
No  Catholic  i^riuce  had  ever  shown  himself  more 
reckless  as  to  the  means  by  which  he  served  his 
church.  The  Protestants,  therefore,  had  good 
reason  to  fear  that  if  he  became  Emperor  he 
would  renew  the  policy  of  Charles  V.,  and  try 
to  bring  back  the  old  state  of  things,  in  which 
there  was  but  one  Church  as  there  was  but  one 
Empire.  Events  proved  that  these  fears  were 
well  founded.  The  last  da3's  of  Matthias  were 
verj'  troubled.  Two  Protestant  churches  were 
built  in  Bohemia,  one  in  the  territory  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Prague,  the  other  in  that  of  the 
Abbot  of  Braunau.  These  princes,  with  per- 
mission of  the  Emperor,  pulled  down  one  of  the 
churches  and  shut  up  the  other.  The  Protestants 
complained ;  but  their  appeal  was  met  by  the  re- 
ply that  the  Letter  of  Majesty  did  not  permit 
them  to  build  churches  on  the  lands  of  ecclesias- 
tics. This  answer  excited  great  indignation  in 
Bohemia ;  and  a  rumour  was  got  up  that  it  had  not 
come  from  the  Emperor,  but  had  been  written  in 
Prague.  On  May  23,  1618,  a  number  of  Protes- 
tants, headed  by  Count  Thurn,  marched  to  the 
Council  Hall  of  the  Royal  Castle,  and  demanded 
to  be  told  the  real  facts.  When  the  councillors 
hesitated,  two  of  them,  with  the  private  secre- 
tary, were  seized  and  thrown  out  of  the  window 
[see  Bohemia:  A.  D.  1611-1618].  The  Protes- 
tants then  took  possession  of  the  Royal  Castle, 
drove  the  Jesuits  out  of  Bohemia,  and  appointed 
a  council  of  thirty  nobles  to  carry  on  the  govern- 
ment."  These  events  formed  the  beginning  of 
the  "Thirty  Years  War."— J.  Sime,  Hist,  of 
Oermany.  ch.  14.— "The  Thirty  Years'  War  was 
the  last  struggle  which  marked  the  progress  of 
the  Reformation.  This  war,  whose  direction  and 
object  were  equally  undetermined,  may  be  divi- 
ded into  four  distinct  portions,  in  which  the 
Elector  Palatine,  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  France 
played  in  succession  the  principal  part.  It  be- 
came more  and  more  complicated,  until  it  spread 
over  the  whole  of  Europe.  It  was  prolonged  in- 
definitely by  various  causes.  I.  The  intimate 
union  between  the  two  branches  of  the  house  of 
Austria  and  of  the  Catholic  party  —  their  oppo- 


nents, on  the  other  hand,  were  not  homogeneous. 
II.  The  inaction  of  England,  the  tardy  interven- 
tion of  France,  the  poverty  of  Denmark  and 
Sweden,  &c.  The  armies  which  took  part  in 
the  Thirty  Years'  War  were  no  longer  feudal 
militias,  they  were  permanent  armies.  .  .  .  They 
lived  at  the  expense  of  the  countries  which  they 
laid  waste." — J.  Michelet,  Summary  of  Modern 
Hint.,  ch.  12. 

Also  in  :  A.  Gindely,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Years' 
War.  ch.  1-3  {v.  1).— T.  Carlyle,  Hist,  of  Fred- 
erick the  Great,  bk.  3,  eh.  14  (r.  1). 

A.  D.  i6i2.— Election  of  the  Emperor  Mat- 
thias. 

A.  D.  1615. — The  first  newspaper.  See 
Printing  and  Press:  A.  D.  1612-1650. 

A.  D.  1618-1620.— The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Hostilities  in  Bohemia  precipitated  by  Ferdi- 
nand.— His  election  to  the  imperial  throne  and 
his  deposition  in  Bohemia. —  Acceptance  of 
the  Bohemian  crown  by  Frederick,  the  Pala- 
tine Elector. —  His  unsupported  situation. — 
The  Treaty  of  Ulm. — "  The  emperor  was  not  a 
little  disconcerted  when  he  received  the  news  of 
what  was  passing  [in  Bohemia].  For  whence 
could  he  receive  the  aid  necessary  to  put  down 
these  revolutionary  acts  and  restore  order  in  Bo- 
hemia ?  Discontent,  indeed,  was  scarcely  less 
formidably  expressed  even  in  his  Austrian  terri- 
tories, whilst  in  Hungary  its  demonstration  was 
equally  as  serious.  Conciliation  appeared  to  be 
the  only  means  of  preserving  to  the  house  of 
Austria  that  important  countrj-,  and  even  the 
confessor  and  usual  counsellor  of  the  emperor. 
Cardinal  Klesel,  the  most  zealous  opponent  of 
the  Protestants,  advised  that  course.  But  such 
considerations  were  most  strenuously  opposed 
by  young  Ferdinand.  ..  .  At  his  instigation,  and 
that  of  tlie  other  archdukes,  backed  by  the  pope, 
the  pacific  Cardinal  Klesel  was  unexpectedly 
arrested,  and  charged  with  a  variety  of  crimes. 
The  intention  was  to  remove  him  from  the  pres- 
ence of  the  old  and  weak  emperor,  who  was  now 
without  support,  and  obliged  to  resign  all  to  the 
archdukes.  From  this  moment  the  impotency 
of  the  emperor  was  complete,  and  all  hopes  of 
an  amicable  pacification  of  Bohemia  lost.  The 
Bohemians,  likewise,  took  to  arms,  and  possessed 
themselves  of  every  city  in  their  country  as  far  as 
Budweis  and  Pilsen,  which  were  still  occupied 
by  the  imperial  troops.  They  obtained  assistance, 
quite  unlooked  for,  in  the  person  of  one  who  may 
be  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  heroes 
of  that  day.  .  .  .  Count  Ernest  of  Mansfield,  a 
warrior  from  his  youth,  was  of  a  bold  and  enter- 
prising spirit ;  he  had  already  encountered  many 
dangers,  and  had  just  been  raising  some  troops 
for  the  Duke  of  Savoy  against  the  Spaniards. 
The  duke,  who  now  no  longer  required  them, 
gave  him  permission  to  serve  in  the  cause  of  the 
Evangelical  L'nion  in  Germany;  and  by  that 
body  he  was  despatched  with  3,000  men  to 
Bohemia,  as  having  apparently  received  his  ap- 
pointment from  that  countrj-.  He  appeared 
there  quite  unexpectedly,  and  immediately  took 
from  the  imperial  army  the  important  city  of 
Pilsen  [November  21,  1618].  .  .  .  The  Emperor 
Matthias  died  on  the  10th  of  March,  1619  .  .  . 
and  the  Boheniians,  who  acknowledged  his  sov- 
ereignty while  living,  now  resolved  to  renounce 
his  successor  Ferdinand,  whose  hostile  intentions 
were  already  too  clearly  expressed.  Ferdinand 
attained  the  throne  under  circumstances  the  most 


1500 


GERMANY,  1618-1630. 


Tlie  revolt  in 
Bohemia. 


GERMANY,  1620. 


perplexing.  Bohemia  in  arras,  and  threatening 
Vienna  itself  Tvith  invasion ;  Silesia  and  Moravia 
in  alliance  with  them ;  Austria  mucli  disposed  to 
unite  with  them;  Hungary  by  no  means  firmly 
attached,  and  externally  menaced  by  the  Turks; 
besides  which,  encountering  in  every  direction 
the  hatred  of  the  Protestants,  against  whom  his 
zeal  was  undisguised.  .  .  .  Count  Thuru  ad- 
vanced upon  Vienna  with  a  Bohemian  army.  .  .  . 
He  came  before  Vienna,  and  his  men  fired,  even 
upon  the  imperial  castle  itself,  where  Ferdinand, 
surrounded  by  open  and  secret  foes,  had  taken 
up  his  quarters.  He  dared  not  leave  his  capital, 
for  by  so  doing  Austria,  and  with  it  the  preser- 
vation of  the  empire  itself,  must  have  been  sacri- 
ficed. But  his  enemies  looked  upon  him  as  lost ; 
and  they  already  spoke  of  confining  him  in  a 
convent,  and  educating  his  children  in  the  Prot- 
estant faith.  .  .  .  Count  Thurn  was  obliged  soon 
to  return  to  Bohemia,  as  Prague  was  menaced 
by  the  armies  of  Austria,  and  Ferdinand  availed 
himself  of  this  moment  in  order  to  undertake 
another  hazardous  and  daring  project.  .  .  .  He 
.  .  .  resolved  to  proceed  to  Frankfort  to  attend 
the  election  of  emperor.  The  spiritual  electors 
had  been  gained  over ;  Saxony  also  adhered  closely 
to  the  house  of  Austria;  Brandenburg  was  not 
unfriendly ;  hence  the  opposition  of  the  palatinate 
alone  against  him  could  accomplish  nothing; 
accordingly  Ferdinand  was  unanimously  chosen 
emperor  on  the  28th  of  August,  1619."  Just 
two  days  previously,  on  the  26th  of  August,  the 
Bohemians,  at  a  general  assembly  of  the  states, 
had  formally  deposed  Ferdinand  from  the  king- 
ship of  their  nation,  and  proceeded  to  elect  an- 
other king  in  his  place.  "The  Catholics  pro- 
posed the  Duke  of  Savoy  and  Maximilian  of 
Bavaria,  whilst,  in  the  Protestant  interest,  the 
Elector  John  George  of  Saxony,  and  Frederick 
v.,  of  the  palatinate,  were  put  forward.  The 
latter  obtained  the  election,  being  a  son-in-law 
of  King  James  I.  of  England,  from  whom  they 
expected  assistance,  and  who  personally  was  re- 
garded as  resolute,  magnanimous,  and  generous. 
The  incorporated  provinces  of  Moravia,  Silesia 
and  Lusatia  supported  the  election,  and  even  the 
Catholic  states  of  Bohemia  pledged  their  fidelity 
and  obedience.  Frederick  was  warned  against 
accepting  so  dangerous  a  crown  by  Saxony,  Ba- 
varia, and  even  by  his  father-in-law;  but  his 
chaplain,  Scultetus,  and  his  own  consort,  Eliza- 
beth, who  as  the  daughter  of  a  king  aspired  to  a 
royal  crown,  persuaded  him  with  all  their  influ- 
ence to  accept  it.  Frederick  was  accordingly 
ruled  by  them,  received  the  regal  dignity  in  Bo- 
hemia, and  was  crowned  at  Prague  with  great 
pomp  on  the  25th  of  October,  1619.  .  .  .  Ferdi- 
nand in  returning  from  Frankfort  passed  on  to 
Munich,  and  there  concluded  with  the  Duke  of 
Bavaria  that  important  treaty  which  secured  to 
Mm  the  possession  of  Bohemia.  These  two 
princes  had  been  companions  in  youth,  and  the 
Evangelical  Union  had  by  several  incautious  pro- 
ceedings irritated  the  duke.  Maximilian  under- 
took the  chief  command  in  the  cause  of  the 
Catholic  party,  and  stipulated  with  the  house  of 
Austria  that  he  should  be  indemnified  for  every 
outlay  and  loss  incurred,  to  the  extent  even,  if 
necessary,  of  the  surrender  of  the  territories  of 
Austria  itself  into  his  hands.  With  Spain,  also, 
the  emperor  succeeded  in  forming  an  alliance, 
and  the  Spanish  general,  Spinola,  received  orders 
to  invade  the  countries  of  the   palatinate  from 


the  Netherlands.  Subsequently  the  Elector  of 
Mentz  arranged  a  convention  at  Miilhausen  with 
the  Elector  John  George  of  Saxony,  the  Elector 
of  Cologne,  and  the  Landgrave  Lewis  of  Darm- 
stadt, wherein  it  was  determined  to  render  all 
possible  assistance  to  the  emperor  for  the  main- 
tenance of  his  kingdom  and  the  imperial  dignity. 
Frederick,  the  new  Bohemian  king,  was  now 
left  with  no  other  auxiliary  but  the  Evangelical 
Union;  for  the  Transylvanian  prince,  Bethlen 
Gabor,  was,  notwithstanding  all  his  promises,  a 
very  dubious  and  uncertain  allj'.whilst  the  troops 
he  sent  into  Moravia  and  Bohemia  were  not  un- 
like a  horde  of  savage  banditti.  Meanwhile  the 
union  commenced  its  preparations  for  war,  as 
well  as  the  league.  The  whole  of  Germany  re- 
sembled a  grand  depot  for  recruiting.  Every 
eye  was  directed  to  the  Swabian  district,  where 
the  two  armies  were  to  meet ;  there,  however,  at 
Ulm,  on  the  3rd  of  July,  1620,  they  unexpectedly 
entered  into  a  compact,  in  which  the  forces  of 
the  union  engaged  to  lay  down  their  arms,  and 
both  parties  pledged  each  other  to  preserve 
peace  and  tranquillity.  The  unionists  felt  them- 
selves too  weak  to  maintain  the  contest,  since 
Saxony  was  now  likewise  against  them,  and 
Spinola  threatened  them  from  the  Netherlands. 
It  was,  however,  a  great  advantage  for  the  em- 
peror, that  Bohemia  was  excluded  from  this 
treaty,  for  now  the  forces  of  the  league  were  at 
liberty  to  aid  him  in  subjugating  his  royal  ad- 
versary. Maximilian  of  Bavaria,  therefore,  im- 
mediately took  his  departure,  and  on  his  way 
reduced  the  states  of  Upper  Austria  to  the  obedi- 
ence due  to  Ferdinand,  joined  the  imperial  army, 
and  made  a  spirited  attack  upon  Bohemia.  On 
the  other  side,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  took  pos- 
session of  Lusatia  in  the  name  of  the  emperor. " — 
F.  Kohlrausch,  Hist,  of  Germany,  ch.  22. 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  Eist.  of  England, 
1603-1642,  ch.  29-32  (».  3).— W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the 
House  of  Austria,  ch.  46^8  {v.  2). 

A.  D.  1618-1700.— The  Rise  of  Prussia.  See 
Puussi.\  :  A.  D.  1618-1700. 

A.  D.  1620.— The  Thirty  Years  War:  Dis- 
appointment of  the  Bohemians  in  their  elected 
king. — Frederick's  offensive  Calvinism. — De- 
feat of  his  army  before  Prague. — Loss  of 
Bohemian  liberties. — Prostration  of  Protes- 
tantism.— "The  defection  of  the  Union  acceler- 
ated the  downfall  of  Frederick ;  but  its  cordial 
support  could  scarcely  have  hindered  it.  For  the 
Bohemians  had  been  disappointed  in  their  king, 
disappointed  in  the  strength  they  had  expected 
from  him  through  his  connexions,  equally  dis- 
appointed in  the  man,  and  in  the  hopes  of  pro- 
tection and  sympathy  which  they  had  expected 
from  him  in  the  exercise  of  their  religion.  Within 
a  month  of  his  coronation  the  metropolitan  church 
was  spoiled  of  its  images,  the  crucifix  cut  in 
pieces,  the  statues  of  the  saints  cast  out,  broken, 
and  burnt,  the  ornaments  used  in  divine  service, 
and  venerable  in  the  eyes  of  Catholics  and  Lu- 
therans alike,  scattered  here  and  there,  and  turned 
upside  down  with  contempt  and  execration. 
These  proceedings,  whicli  were  presumed,  not 
without  reason,  to  have  the  king's  authority  — 
for  during  their  enactment  the  court  chaplain 
addressed  the  people  in  praise  of  this  purga- 
tion of  the  temple  —  called  forth  loud  com- 
plaints and  increased  the  disaffection  which,  more 
than  any  external  force  brought  against  Fred- 
erick,  produced  his  ruin.     Early  in  November 


1501 


GERMANY,  1620. 


Fall  of  the 
Elector  Palatine. 


GERMANY,  1621-1633. 


Maximilian  appeared  before  Prague,  and  found 
the  Bohemians,  under  Christian  van  Anhalt,  sliil- 
fully  and  strongly  posted  on  the  Weissenberg 
[White  Mountain]  to  offer  battle.  The  cautious 
Bucquoi  would  have  declined  the  offer,  and  at- 
tacked the  city  from  another  point;  but  an  en- 
thusiastic friar  who  broke  in  upon  the  confer- 
ence of  the  leaders,  and,  exliibiting  a  mutilated 
image  of  the  Virgin,  reproached  tliem  with  their 
liesitation,  put  to  flight  all  timid  counsels.  The 
battle  began  at  twelve  o'clock.  It  was  a  Sunday, 
the  octave  of  the  festival  of  All  Saints  [Novem- 
bers, 1620].  .  .  .  In  the  Catholic  army  Bucquoi 
was  at  the  head  of  the  Imperial  division.  Tilly 
commanded  in  chief,  and  led  the  front  to  the 
battle.  He  was  received  with  a  heavy  fire;  and 
for  half  an  hour  the  victory  trembled  in  the  bal- 
ance: then  the  Hungarians,  who  had  been  de- 
feated by  the  Croats  the  day  before,  fled,  and 
all  the  efforts  of  the  Duke  of  Saxe  Weimar  to 
rally  them  proved  fruitless.  Soon  the  whole  Bo- 
hemian army,  Germans,  English,  horse  and  foot, 
fled  in  disorder.  One  gallant  little  band  of 
Moravians  only,  under  the  Count  of  Thurn  and 
the  young  Count  of  Sehlick,  maintained  their 
position,  and,  with  the  exception  of  their  leaders, 
fell  almost  to  a  man.  The  battle  lasted  only  an 
hour;  but  the  victory  was  not  the  less  complete. 
A  hundred  banners,  ten  guns,  and  a  rich  spoil 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  victors.  Four  thou- 
sand of  the  Bohemian  army,  but  scarcely  as 
many  hundreds  of  their  opponents  (if  we  may 
believe  their  account),  lay  dead  upon  the  field. 
.  .  .  Frederick  had  returned  from  the  army  the 
day  before,  with  the  intelligence  that  the  Ba- 
varians were  only  eight  (English)  miles  distant ; 
but  relying  on  the  28,000  men  which  he  liad  to 
cover  his  capital,  he  felt  that  night  no  uneasi- 
ness. .  .  .  He  had  invited  tlie  English  ambas- 
sadors to  dine;  and  he  remained  to  entertain 
them.  After  dinner  he  mounted  his  horse  to  ride 
to  the  Star  Park ;  but  before  he  could  get  out  of 
the  city  gate,  he  was  met  with  the  news  of  the 
total  overthrow  of  his  army.  His  negotiations 
with  Maximilian  failing,  or  receiving  no  answer, 
the  next  morning  he  prepared  for  flight.  .  .  . 
Accompanied  by  his  queen.  Van  Anhalt,  the 
Prince  of  Hohenlohe,  and  the  Count  of  Thurn, 
he  made  a  precipitate  retreat  from  Prague,  leav- 
ing behind  him  the  insignia  of  that  monarchy 
which  he  had  not  the  wisdom  to  firmly  establish, 
nor  resolution  to  defend  to  the  last.  It  must  be 
confessed,  however,  that  his  position,  after  the 
defeat  at  Prague,  was  not  altogether  so  promis- 
ing, and  consequently  his  abandonment  of  his 
capital  not  altogether  so  pusillanimous,  as  some 
have  represented." — B.  Chapman,  Hid  of  Ous- 
tavus  Adolphiis.  ch.  5. — "Frederick  fled  for  his 
life  through  North  Germany,  till  he  found  a 
refuge  at  the  Hague.  The  reign  of  the  Bohemian 
aristocracy  was  at  an  end.  .  .  .  The  chiefs  per- 
ished on  the  scaffold.  Their  lands  were  confis- 
cated, and  a  new  German  and  Catholic  nobility 
arose.  .  .  .  The  Royal  Charter  was  declared  to 
have  been  forfeited  by  rebellion,  and  the  Protes- 
tant churches  in  the  towns  and  on  the  royal 
estates  had  nothing  to  depend  on  but  the  will  of 
the  conqueror.  The  ministers  of  one  great  body 
—  the  Bohemian  Brethren  —  were  expelled  at 
once.  The  Lutherans  were  spared  for  a  time." — 
S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  Thirty  Tears'  War,  ch.  3,  sect.  1. 
Also  in  :  C.  A.  Peschek,  Reformation  and  Anti- 
Reformation  in  Bofiemia,  v.  1,  ch.  9. — See,  also, 


Bohemia;  A.  D.  1621-1648;  and  Hungary:  A.D. 
1606-1660. 

A.  D.  1621-1623.— The  Thirty  Years  War: 
The  Elector  Palatine  placed  under  the  ban. — 
Dissolution  of  the  Evangelical  Union. —  In- 
vasion and  conquest  of  the  Palatinate. — Trans- 
fer of  the  electoral  dignity  to  the  Duke  of 
Bavaria. — "Ferdinand,  though  firm,  patient,  and 
resigned  in  adversity,  was  stern,  vengeful,  and 
overbearing  in  prosperity.  He  was  urged  by 
many  motives  of  resentment,  policy,  and  zeal  to 
complete  the  ruin  of  the  elector  Palatine,  and  he 
did  not  possess  sufficient  magnanimity  to  resist 
the  temptation.  Having  squandered  away  the 
confiscated  property  among  his  Jesuits  and 
favourites,  he  had  still  many  allies  and  adherents 
whose  fidelity  he  was  desirous  to  reward ;  he  was 
anxious  to  recover  Upper  Au.stria,  which  he  had 
mortgaged  to  the  duke  of  Bavaria,  as  a  pledge 
for  the  expenses  of  the  war ;  he  wished  to  regain 
possession  of  Lusatia;  and  he  was  bound  in 
honour  to  satisfy  the  elector  of  Saxony  for  his 
opportune  assistance.  .  .  .  These  motives  over- 
bearing all  considerations  of  justice  and  pru- 
dence, Ferdinand  published  the  ban  of  the  em- 
pire [January  22,  1621],  of  his  own  authority, 
against  the  elector  Palatine  and  his  adherents  the 
prince  of  Anhalt,  the  count  of  Hohenlohe,  and 
the  duke  of  Jaegendorf.  The  execution  of  this 
informal  sentence  he  intrusted  to  the  archduke 
Albert,  as  possessor  of  the  circle  of  Burgundy, 
and  to  the  duke  of  Bavaria,  commanding  the 
former  to  occupy  the  Lower,  and  the  latter  the 
Upper  Palatinate.  This  vigorous  act  was  in- 
stantly followed  by  the  most  decisive  effects;  for 
the  Protestants  were  terrified  by  the  prospect  of 
sharing  the  fate  of  the  unfortunate  elector.  The 
members  of  the  union  now  felt  the  fatal  conse- 
quences of  their  own  indecision  and  want  of  fore- 
sight. .  .  .  Threatened  at  once  by  Spinola  [com- 
manding the  Spanish  auxiliaries  from  the  Nether- 
lands] and  the  duke  of  Bavaria,  and  confounded 
bj'  the  growing  power  of  the  emperor,  they  vied 
in  abandoning  a  confederacy  which  exposed  them 
to  his  vengeance.  On  the  12th  of  April,  1621, 
they  concluded  at  Mentz  a  treaty  of  neutrality, 
by  which  they  promised  not  to  interfere  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Palatinate,  agreed  to  disband  their 
troops  within  a  month,  and  to  enter  into  no  new 
confederacy  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  emperor. 
This  dishonourable  treaty  was  followed  by  the 
dissolution  of  the  union,  which,  on  its  expiration, 
was  not  renewed.  During  these  events,  Spinola, 
having  completed  the  reduction  of  the  Lower 
Palatinate,  was  occupied  in  the  siege  of  Franken- 
dahl,  which  was  on  the  point  of  surrendering, 
and  its  capture  must  have  been  followed  by  the 
submission  of  Heidelberg  and  Manheim.  The 
duke  of  Bavaria  had  been  still  more  successful 
in  the  Upper  Palatinate,  and  had  rapidly  subju- 
gated the  whole  province,  together  with  the  dis- 
trict of  Cham.  The  elector  Palatine,  deserted 
by  the  Protestant  union,  and  almost  abttndoned 
by  his  relatives,  the  kings  of  England  and  Den- 
mark, owed  the  first  revival  of  his  hopes  of  res- 
toration to  Mansfeld,  an  illegitimate  adventurer, 
with  no  other  resources  than  plunder  and  devas- 
tation. Christian  of  Brunswick,  administrator  of 
Halberstadt,  distinguished  indeed  by  illustrious 
birth,  but  equally  an  adventurer,  and  equally 
destitute  of  territory  or  resources,  espoused  his 
cause,  as  well  from  ties  of  affinity  [he  was  the 
cousin  of  Elizabeth,  the  electress  Palatine,  or 


1502 


GERMANY,  1621-1633. 


Cov'^nest  of  the 
Palatinate, 


GERMANY,  1631-1623. 


queen  of  Bohemia,  as  she  preferred  to  be  called] 
as  from  a  chivalrous  attachment  to  his  beautiful 
consort;  and  George  Frederic,  margrave  of  Ba- 
den, even  abdicated  his  dignity  to  devote  him- 
self to  his  support."  Mansfeld,  who  had  held 
his  ground  iu  Bohemia  for  nearly  a  year  after 
the  battle  of  the  White  Mountain,  now  became 
hard  pressed  there  by  Tilly,  and  suddenly  es- 
caped by  forced  marches  (October,  1621,)  into  the 
Lower  Palatinate.  ' '  Here  he  found  a  more  fa- 
vourable field  of  action;  for  Spiuola  being  re- 
called with  the  greater  part  of  the  Spanish  forces, 
had  left  the  remainder  to  Gonzales  de  Cordova, 
who,  after  reducing  several  minor  fortresses,  was 
pressing  the  siege  of  Frankendahl.  The  name 
of  the  brave  adventurer  drew  to  his  standard 
multitudes  of  the  troops,  who  had  been  disbanded 
by  the  Protestant  union,  and  he  was  joined  by  a 
party  of  English,  who  had  been  sent  for  the  de- 
fence of  the  Palatinate.  Finding  himself  at  the 
head  of  20,000  men,  he  cleared  the  country  in  his 
passage,  relieved  Frankendahl.  and  provided  for 
the  safety  of  Heidelberg  and  Mauheim.  Unable, 
however,  to  subsist  in  a  district  so  recently  the 
seat  of  war,  he  turned  into  Alsace,  where  he  in- 
creased his  forces ;  from  thence  he  Invaded  the 
neighbouring  bishoprics  of  Spire  and  Strasburgh, 
levying  heavy  contributions,  and  giving  up  the 
rich  domains  of  those  sees  to  the  devastations  of 
his  troops.  Encouraged  by  this  gleam  of  hope, 
the  elector  Palatine  quitted  his  asylum  in  Hol- 
land, passed  in  disguise  through  Loraine  and 
Alsace,  joined  Mansfeld,  and  gave  his  name  and 
countenance  to  this  predatory  army."  Mans- 
feld, recrossing  the  Rhine,  effected  a  junction 
with  the  margrave  of  Baden;  and  Christian  of 
Brunswick,  after  pillaging  the  rich  sees  of  Lower 
Saxony,  was  on  his  way  with  a  considerable 
force  to  unite  with  both.  "At  tlie  same  time 
the  duke  of  Wirtemberg,  the  landgrave  of  Hesse, 
and  other  Protestant  princes,  began  to  arm,  and 
hopes  were  even  entertained  of  the  revival  of  the 
Protestant  union.  Tilly,  who  had  followed  Mans- 
feld from  Bohemia,  had  in  vain  endeavoured  to 
prevent  his  junction  with  the  margrave  of  Baden. 
Defeated  at  Mingelsheim  by  Mansfeld,  on  the 
29th  of  April,  1622,  he  had  been  reduced  to  the 
defensive,  and  iu  this  situation  saw  a  powerful 
combination  rising  on  every  side  against  the 
house  of  Austria.  He  waited  therefore  for  an 
opportunity  of  attacking  those  enemies  singly, 
whom  he  could  not  resist  when  united,  and  that 
opportunity  was  presented  by  the  separation  of 
the  margrave  of  Baden  from  Mansfeld,  and  his 
attempt  to  penetrate  into  Bavaria.  Tilly  sud- 
denly drew  together  the  Spanish  troops,  and  with 
this  accession  of  force  defeated,  on  the  6th  of 
May,  the  margrave  at  Wimpfen,  with  the  loss  of 
half  his  army,  and  took  his  whole  train  of  artil- 
lery and  military  chest.  Leaving  Mansfeld  em- 
ployed in  the  siege  of  Ladenburgh,  he  next  di- 
rected his  attention  to  Christian  of  Brunswick, 
routed  him  on  the  20th  of  June,  at  Hoechst 
[Hochst],  as  he  was  crossing  the  Main,  pursued 
him  till  his  junction  with  Mansfeld,  and  drove 
their  united  forces  beyond  the  Rhine,  again  to 
seek  a  refuge  and  subsistence  in  Alsace.  These 
successes  revived  the  cause  of  Ferdinand;  the 
margrave  of  Baden  retired  from  the  contest ;  the 
duke  of  Wirtemberg  and  the  other  Protestant 
princes  suspended  their  armaments ;  and  although 
Mansfeld  and  Christian  of  Brunswick  laid  siege 
to  Saverne,  and  evinced  a  resolution  to  maintain 


the  contest  to  the  last  extremity,  yet  the  elector 
Palatine  again  gave  way  to  that  weakness  which 
had  already  lost  him  a  crown."  He  was  per- 
suaded by  his  witless  father-in-law,  James  I.  of 
England,  to  trust  his  cause  to  negotiations  in 
which  the  latter  was  being  duped  by  the  em- 
peror. He  consented,  accordingly,  "to  disavow 
his  intrepid  defenders,  to  dismiss  them  from  his 
service,  to  retire  again  into  Holland,  and  wait 
the  mercy  of  the  emperor.  By  this  disavowal, 
JIansfeld  and  Christian  were  left  without  a  name 
to  countenance  their  operations;  and  after  vari- 
ous negotiations,  feigned  or  real,  for  entering 
into  the  service  of  the  emperor,  Spain,  or  France, 
they  accepted  the  overtures  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange  and  forced  their  way  through  the  Spanish 
array  which  attempted  to  oppose  their  passage, 
to  join  at  Breda  the  troops  of  the  United  Prov- 
inces. The  places  in  Alsace  and  the  bishopric  of 
Spire  which  had  been  occupied  by  the  enemy 
were  recovered  by  the  archduke  Leopold;  and 
Tilly,  having  completed  the  conquest  of  the 
Palatinate  by  the  capture  of  Heidelberg  and 
Manheim,  directed  his  attacks  against  the  forces 
which  Mansfeld  and  Christian  of  Brunswick  had 
again  assembled.  After  a  short  continuance  in 
Holland,  Mansfeld,  in  November,  had  led  his 
predatory  army  into  the  rich  province  of  East 
Friesland,  conquered  the  principal  fortresses, 
and  extorted  enormous  contributions  from  the 
duke,  who  was  in  alliance  with  Spain.  On  the 
other  hand.  Christian,  passing  into  Lower  Sax- 
ony, persuaded  the  states  of  the  circle  to  collect 
an  army  of  observation  amounting  to  12,000  men, 
and  intrust  him  with  the  command ;  and  he  soon 
increased  this  army  to  almost  double  that  num- 
ber, by  the  usual  incitements  of  pillage  and 
plunder.  These  levies  attracting  the  attention 
of  the  emperor,  his  threats,  together  with  the 
advance  of  Tilly,  compelled  the  Saxon  states  to 
dismiss  Christian  and  his  army.  Tlius  left  a 
second  time  without  authority,  he  pushed  towards 
Westphalia,  with  the  hope  of  joining  Mansfeld 
and  renewing  hostilities  in  the  Palatinate;  his 
design  was  however  anticipated  by  Tilly,  who 
overtook  him  at  Loen  [or  Stadtlohn],  in  the  dis- 
trict of  Munster,  and  defeated  him  with  the  loss 
of  6,000  killed  and  4,000  prisoners,  in  August, 
1623.  The  victorious  general  then  turned  towards 
East  Friesland ;  but  Mansfeld,  who  had  hitherto 
maintained  himself  in  that  country,  avoided  an 
unequal  contest  by  disbanding  his  troops,  and 
withdrawing  into  Holland,  in  January,  1624 
.  .  .  Having  despoiled  the  elector  Palatine  of 
all  his  dominions,  and  delivered  himself  from  his 
enemies  in  Germany,  Ferdinand  had  proceeded 
to  carry  his  plans  into  execution,  by  transferring 
the  electoral  dignity  to  the  duke  of  Bavaria,  and 
dividing  the  conquered  territories  among  his  ad- 
herents. ...  He  gained  the  elector  of  Saxony, 
by  promising  him  the  revenues  and  perhaps  the 
cession  of  Lusatia;  and  the  landgrave  of  Hesse 
Darmstadt,  by  offering  to  favour  his  pretensions 
to  the  succession  of  Marburgh,  which  he  was 
contesting  with  the  landgrave  of  Hesse  Cassel. 
.  .  .  Having  thus  gained  those  whose  opposition 
was  most  likely  to  frustrate  his  design,  he  paid 
little  regard  to  the  feeble  threats  of  James,  and 
to  the  remonstrances  of  the  king  of  Denmark. 
...  He  summoned,  on  the  25th  of  February, 
1623,  a  meeting  of  the  electors  and  princes  who 
were  most  devoted  to  his  cause  at  Ratisbon,  and, 
in  concurrence  with  the  majority  of  this  irregular 


1503 


GERMANY,  1631-1623. 


Wall€7i$tein. 


GERMANY,  1634-1626. 


assembly,  transferred  the  Palatine  electorate, 
with  all  its  honours,  privileges,  and  offices,  to 
Maximilian,  duke  of  Bavaria.  To  keep  up,  how- 
ever, the  hopes  of  the  elector  Palatine  and  his 
adherents,  and  not  to  drive  his  family  and  connec- 
tions to  desperation,  the  whole  extent  of  the  plan 
was  not  developed ;  the  partition  of  his  territories 
was  deferred,  the  transfer  of  the  electorate  was 
made  only  for  the  life  of  Maximilian,  and  the 
rights  of  the  sons  and  collateral  heirs  of  the  un- 
fortunate elector  were  expressly  reserved. " — W. 
Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of  Austria,  ch.  49  (v.  2). 

Also  m :  A.  Gindely,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Tears' 
War.  V.  1,  ch.  7.— F.  Schiller,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty 
Tears'  War.  bk.  3.— C.  R.  Markham,  The  Fight- 
ing Veres,  pt.  2,  ch.  3. 

A.  D.  1624-1626. — The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Alliance  of  England,  Holland,  and  Denmark 
to  support  the  Protestant  cause. — Creation  of 
the  imperial  army  of  Wallenstein,  and  its  first 
campaigns. — "  Had  the  Emperor  been  as  wise  as 
he  was  resolute,  it  is  probable  that,  victorious  in 
every  direction,  he  might  have  been  able  to  con- 
clude a  permanent  peace  with  the  Protestant 
Party.  But  the  bigotry  which  was  a  very  part 
of  his  nature  was  spurred  on  by  his  easy  triumphs 
to  refuse  to  sheathe  the  sword  until  heresy  had 
been  rooted  out  from  the  land.  In  vain  did  the 
Protestant  princes,  who  had  maintained  a  selfish 
and  foolish  neutrality,  remonstrate  against  the 
continuance  of  hostilities  after  the  avowed  ob- 
ject for  which  those  hostilities  were  undertaken 
had  been  gained.  In  the  opinion  of  Ferdinand 
II.  the  real  object  still  remained  to  be  accom- 
plished. Under  these  critical  circumstances  the 
emigrants,  now  grown  numerous  [see  Bohemia: 
A.  6.  1621-1648],  and  the  awakened  Protestant 
princes,  earnestly  besought  the  aid  of  a  foreign 
power.  It  was  their  representations  which  at 
length  induced  three  nations  of  the  reformed 
faith  —  England,  Holland,  and  Denmark  —  to 
ally  themselves  to  assist  their  oppressed  brethren 
[see,  also,  France:  A.  D.  1624-1626].  England 
agreed  to  send  subsidies,  Holland  to  supply 
troops.  The  command  of  the  delivering  army 
was  confided  to  Christian  IV. ,  King  of  Denmark 
(162.5).  He  was  to  be  supported  in  Germany  by 
the  partisan  Mansfeldt,  by  Prince  Christian  of 
Brunswick,  and  by  the  Protestants  of  Lower 
Saxony,  who  had  armed  themselves  to  resist  the 
exactions  of  the  Emperor.  Ferdinand  II.,  after 
vainly  endeavouring  to  ward  off  hostilities  by 
negotiations,  despatched  Tilly  to  the  Weser  to 
meet  the  enemy.  Tilly  followed  the  course  of 
that  river  as  far  as  Minden,  causing  to  be  occu- 
pied, as  he  marched,  the  places  which  com- 
manded its  passage.  Pursuing  his  course  north- 
wards, he  crossed  the  river  at  Neuburg  (midway 
between  Minden  and  Bremen),  and  occupied  the 
principality  of  Kalenberg.  The  King  of  Den- 
mark was  near  at  hand,  in  the  Duchy  of  Bruns- 
wick, anxious,  for  the  moment,  to  avoid  a  battle. 
Tilly,  superior  to  him  in  numbers,  was  as  anxious 
to  fight  one.  As  though  the  position  of  the 
King  of  Denmark  were  not  already  sufficiently 
embarrassing,  the  Emperor  proceeded  at  this 
period  to  make  it  almost  unendurable  by  launch- 
ing upon  him  likewise  an  imperial  army.  .  .  . 
TJp  to  the  period  of  the  complete  overthrow  and 
expulsion  from  the  Palatinate  of  Frederic  V., 
ex-King  of  Bohemia,  Ferdinand  had  been  in- 
debted for  all  his  successes  to  Maximilian  of  Ba- 
varia.    It  was  Maximilian  who,  as  head  of  the 


Holy  League,  had  reconquered  Bohemia  for  the 
Emperor:  it  was  Maximilian's  general,  Tilly, 
who  had  driven  the  Protestant  armies  from  the 
Palatinate ;  and  it  was  the  same  general  wlio  was 
now  opposing  the  Protestants  of'the  north  in  the 
lands  watered  by  the  Weser.  ilaximilian  had 
been  rewarded  by  the  cession  to  him  of  the  Pala- 
tinate, but  it  was  not  advisable  that  so  near  a 
neighbour  of  Austria  should  be  made  too  strong. 
It  was  this  feeling,  this  jealou.sy  of  Maximilian, 
which  now  prompted  Ferdinand  to  raise,  for  the 
first  time  in  this  war,  an  imperial  army,  and  to 
send  it  to  the  north.  This  army  was  raised  by 
and  at  the  expense  of  Albert  Wenzel  Eusebius  of 
Waldstein,  known  in  history  as  Wallenstein.  A 
Czech  by  nationality,  born  in  1.583  of  noble  pa- 
rents, who  belonged  to  one  of  the  most  advanced 
sects  of  the  reformers  but  who  died  whilst  their 
son  was  yet  young,  Wallenstein  had,  when  yet 
a  child,  been  committed  to  the  care  of  his  uncle, 
Albert  Slavata,  an  adherent  of  the  Jesuits,  and 
by  him  educated  at  Olmlitz  in  the  strictest  Catho- 
lic faith."  By  marrying,  first,  a  rich  widow, 
who  soon  died,  and  then  an  heiress,  daughter  of 
Count  Harrach,  and  by  purchasing  with  the  for- 
tune thus  acquired  many  confiscated  estates,  he 
had  become  possessed  of  enormous  wealth.  He 
had  already  won  distinction  as  a  soldier.  "For 
his  faithful  services,  Ferdinand  in  1633  nomi- 
nated Wallenstein  to  be  Prince,  a  title  changed, 
the  year  following,  into  that  of  Duke  of  Fried- 
land.  At  this  time  the  yearly  income  he  de- 
rived from  his  various  estates,  all  economically 
managed,  was  calculated  to  be  30,000,000  florins 
—  little  short  of  £2,500,000."  Wallenstein  now, 
in  1625,  "divining  his  master's  wishes,  and  ani- 
mated by  the  ambition  born  of  natural  ability, 
offered  to  raise  and  maintain,  at  his  own  cost,  an 
army  of  50,000  men,  and  to  lead  it  against  the 
enemy.  Ferdinand  eagerly  accepted  the  offer. 
Named  Generalissimo  and. Field  Marshal  in  July 
of  the  same  year,  Wallenstein  inarched  at  the 
head  of  30,000  men,  a  number  which  increased 
almost  daily,  first  to  the  Weser,  thence,  after 
noticing  the  positions  of  Tilly  and  of  King  Chris- 
tian, to  the  banks  of  the  Elbe,  where  he  wintered. 
.  .  .  In  the  spring  .  .  .  Mansfeldt,  with  the  view 
to  prevent  a  junction  between  Till}-  and  Wallen- 
stein, marched  against  the  latter,  and.  though 
his  troops  were  fewer  in  number,  took  up  a 
position  at  Dessau  in  full  view  of  the  imperial 
camp,  and  there  intrenched  himself.  Here  Wal- 
lenstein attacked  (35  April  1636)  and  completely 
defeated  him.  Not  discouraged  by  this  over- 
throw, and  still  bearing  in  mind  the  main  object 
of  the  campaign,  Mansfeldt  fell  back  into  Bran- 
denburg, recruited  there  his  army,  called  to  him- 
self the  Duke  of  Saxc-Weimar  and  tlien  sud- 
denly dashed,  by  forced  marches,  towards  Silesia 
and  iloravia,  with  the  intention  of  reaching  Hun- 
gary, where  Bethlen  Gabor  had  promised  to  meet 
him."  Wallenstein  followed  and  "pressed  him 
so  hard  that,  though  Mansfeldt  did  effect  a  junc- 
tion with  Bethlen  Gabor,  it  was  with  but  the 
skeleton  of  his  arm}'.  Despairing  of  success 
against  numbers  vastly  superior,  Bethlen  Gabor 
withdrew  from  his  new  colleague,  and  Mans- 
feldt, reduced  to  despair,  disbanded  his  remain- 
ing soldiers,  and  sold  his  camp-equipage  to  supply 
himself  with  the  means  of  flight  (September)  [see 
Hungary:  A.  D.  1606-1660].  He  died  soon 
after  (30th  November).  .  .  .  Wallenstein  then 
retraced  his  steps  to  the  north.     Meanwhile  Tilly, 


1504 


GERMANY,  1624-1636. 


Wallenstein. 


GERMANY,  1627-1639. 


left  to  deal  with  Christian  IV.,  had  followed 
that  prince  into  Lower  Saxony,  had  caught,  at- 
tacked and  completely  defeated  him  at  Lutter 
(am  Barenberge),  the  37th  July  1626.  This  vic- 
tory gave  him  complete  possession  of  that  dis- 
affected province,  and,  despite  a  vigorous  attempt 
made  by  the  Margrave  George  Frederic  of  Baden 
to  wrest  it  from  liim,  he  held  it  till  the  return  of 
Wallenstein  from  the  pursuit  of  Mansfeldt.  As 
two  stars  of  so  great  a  magnitude  could  not 
shine  in  the  same  hemisphere,  it  was  then  de- 
cided that  Tilly  should  carry  the  war  into  Hol- 
land whilst  to  AVallenstein  should  be  left  the 
honour  of  dealing  with  the  King  of  Denmark 
and  the  Protestant  princes  of  the  north.'  —G.  B. 
Malleson,  T/ie  BaUle-fiehls  of  Oermamj,  cIi.  1. 

Also  IN:   W.  Zimmermann,  Popular  Hist,   of 
Germany,  bk.  5,  ch.  2  (e.  4). 

A.  D.  1627-1629.— The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Wallenstein's  campaign  against  the  Danes.— 
His  power  and  his  oppression  in  Germany.— 
The  country  devoured  hy  his  array.—Unsuc- 
cessful  siege  of  Stralsund.— First  succor  from 
the  king  of  Svyeden.- The  Peace  of  Lubeck. 
—  The    Edict   of  Restitution.— "  Wallenstein 
opened  the  campaign  of  1627  at  the  head  of  a 
refreshed  and  well-equipped  army  of  40,000  men 
His  first  effort  was  directed  against  Silesia ;  and 
the  Danish  troops,  few  in  number,  and  ill  com- 
manded, gave  way  at  his  approacli.    To  prevent 
the  fusitives  from  infringing  on  the  neutrality 
of  Bralidenburg,  lie  occupied  the  whole  elector- 
ate.    Mecklenburg  and  Pomerania  soon  shared 
the   same  fate.     Remonstrances  and  assurances 
of  perfect  neutrality  were  treated  with  absolute 
scorn;  and   Wallenstein   declared,  in   his  usual 
haughty  style,  that '  the  time  had  arrived  for  dis- 
pensing altogether  with  electors ;  and  that  Ger- 
many ought  to  be   governed  like   France  and 
Spain,  by  a  single  and  absolute  sovereign.'    In 
his  rapid  marcluowards  the  frontiers  of  Holstein, 
he  acted  fully  up  to  the  principle  he  had  laid 
down,  and  naturally  exercised  despotic  power 
as  the  representative  of  the  absolute  monarch  of 
whom  he  spoke.  .  .  .  He  .  .  .  followed  upthe 
Danes,  defeated  their  armies  in  a  series  of  actions 
near  Heiligenhausen,  overran  the  whole  peninsula 
of  .Jutland  before  the  end  of  the  campaign,  and 
forced  the  unhappy  king  to  seek  shelter,  with 
the  wrecks  of  his  army,  in  the  islands  beyond  the 
Belt       .  .  Brilliant  as   the  campaign  of    1627 
proved  in  its  general  result,  few  very  striking 
feats  of  arms  were  performed  during  its  progress. 
Now  it  was  that  the  princes  and  states  of 
Lower  Germany  began  to  feel  the  consequences 
of   their   pusillanimous  conduct;   and  the  very 
provinces  which  had  just  before  refused  to  raise 
troops  for  their  own  protection,  were  obliged  to 
submit,  without  a  murmur,  to  every  species  of 
insult  and  exaction.     Wallenstein's  army,  aug- 
mented to  100,000  men,  occupied  the  whole  coun- 
try and  the  lordly  leader  following,  on  a  far 
greater  scale,  the  principle  on  which  Mansfeld 
had  acted,  made  the  war  maintain  the  war,  and 
trampled  alike  on  the  rights  of  sovereigns  and  of 
subjects.     And  terrible  was  the    penalty  now 
paid  for  the  short-sighted  policy  which  avarice 
and  cowardice  had  suggested,  and  which  cunning 
had  vainly   tried   to  disguise  beneath   affected 
philanthropy,  and  a  generous    love  of  peace. 
Provided  with  imperial  authority,   and  at  the 
head  of  a  force  that  could  no  longer  be  resisted, 
Wallenstein  made   the  empire   serve  as  a  vast 

95  1505 


storehouse,  and  wealthy  treasury  for  the  benefit 
of  the  imperial  army.     He  forbade  eveu  sover- 
eigns and  electors  to  raise  supplies  in  their  own 
countries,  and  was  justly  termed  'the  princes 
scourge,  and  soldiers'  idol.'   The  system  of  living 
by  contriburions  had  completely  demoralised  the 
troops.      Honour  and   discipline   were   entirely 
gone ;  and  it  was  only  beneath  the  eye  of  the 
stern  and  unrelenring  commander,  that  anything 
like  order  continued  to  be  observed.    Dissipation 
and  profligacy  reigned   in  all  ranks;  bands  of 
dissolute  persons  accompanied  every  regiment, 
and   helped  to  extinguish   the    last   sparks  of 
morality  in  the  breast  of  the  soldier.     The  gen- 
erals levied  arbitrary  taxes;  the  inferior  officers 
followed  the  example  of  their  superiors;  and  the 
privates,  soon  ceasing  to  obey  those  whom  they 
ceased  to  respect,  plundered  in  every  direction ; 
while  blows,  insults,  or  death  awaited  all  who 
dared  to  resist.  .  .  .  The  sums  extorted,  in  this 
manner,  prove  that  Germany  must  have  been  a 
wealthy  country  in  the  17th   century;  for  the 
money  pressed  out  of  some  districts,  by  the  im- 
perial troops,  far  exceeds  anything  which   the 
same   quarters  could  now  be  made  to  furnish. 
Complaints   against    the  author    of    such   evils 
were   of  course,  not  wanting ;  but  the  man  com- 
plained of  had  rendered  the  Emperor  all-power- 
ful in  Germany :  from  the  Adriatic  to  tlie  Baltic. 
Ferdinand  reigned  absolute,  as  no  monarch  had 
reigned  since  the  days  of  the  Othos.     This  su- 
premacy was  due   to    Wallenstein    alone;    and 
what  could  the  voice  of  the  humble  and  oppressed 
effect  against  such  an  offender  ?    Or  when  did 
the  voice  of  suffering  nations,  arrest  the  progress 
of  power  and  ambition  ?    During  the  winter  that 
followed  on  the  campaign  of  1627,  Wallenstein 
repaired  to  Prague,    to  claim  [and  to   receive] 
from  the  Emperor,    who   was  residing   in   the 
Bohemian  capital,  additional  rewards  for  the  im- 
portant services  so  lately  rendered.     The  boon 
solicited  was  nothing  less  than  the   Duchy  of 
Mecklenburg,  which  was  to  be  taken  from  its 
legitimate  princes,  on  the  ground  of  their  haying 
joined  the  King  of  Denmark,  and  bestowed  on 
the  successful  general.  .  .  .  Hitherto  the  ocean 
had  alone  arrested  the  progress  of  Wallenstein: 
a  fleet  was  now  to  be  formed,  which  should  en- 
able him  to  give  laws  beyond  the  Belts,  and  per- 
haps beyond  the  Baltic  also.     Every  seaport  in 
Mecklenburg  and  Pomerania  is  ordered   to  be 
taken  possession  of  and  fortified.  .  .  .  Tlie  siege 
of  Stralsund,  which  was  resolved  upon  early  in 
1628    constitutes  one  of  the  most  memorable 
operations  of  the  war.     Not  merely  because  it 
furnishes  an  additional  proof  of   what  may  be 
effected  by  skill,  courage  and  resolution,  against 
vastly  superior  forces,  but  because  its  result  m- 
fluenced  in  an  eminent  degree,  some  of  the  most 
important  events  that  followed.     When  Wallen- 
stein ordered  the  seaports  along  the  coast  of 
Pomerania  to  be  occupied,  Stralsund,  claiming 
its  privilege  as  an  imperial  and  Hanseatic  free 
town,  refused  to  admit  his  troops.  .  .  .  After  a 
good  deal  of  negotiation,   which  only  cost  the 
people  of  Stralsund  some  large  sums  of  money, 
paid  away  in  presents  to  the  imperial  oflicers, 
Arnheim  invested  the  place  on  the  7th  of  May 
with  8,000  men.  .  .  .  The  town  .  .  .  ,  unable  to 
obtain  assistance  from  the  Duke  of  Pomerania, 
the  lord   superior  of   the  province,  who,  how- 
ever willing,  had  no  means  of  furnishing  relief, 
placed  itself  under  the  protection  of  Sweden :  and 


GERMANY,  162T-1639. 


Dismissal 
of  Wallensiein, 


GERMANY,  1630. 


Gustavus  Adolplnis.  fully  sensible  of  the  impor- 
tance of  the  place,  immediately  dispatched  the 
celebrated  David  Leslie,  at  the  liead  of  600  men,  to 
aid  in  its  defence.  Count  Brahe,  with  1,000 
more,  soon  followed;  so  that  when  Wallenstein 
reached  the  army  on  the  2Tth  of  June,  he  found 
himself  opposed  by  a  garrison  of  experienced 
soldiers,  who  had  already  retaken  all  the  out- 
works which  Arnheim  had  captured  in  the  first 
instance.  .  .  .  Rain  began  to  fall  in  such  tor- 
rents that  the  trenches  were  entirely  filled,  and 
the  flat  moor  ground,  on  which  the  army  was 
encamped,  became  completely  inundated  and 
untenable.  The  proud  spirit  of  Friedland,  un- 
used to  yield,  still  persevered;  but  sickness 
attacked  the  troops,  and  the  Danes  having  landed 
at  Jasmund,  he  was  obliged  to  march  against 
them  with  the  best  part  of  his  forces ;  and  in  fact 
to  raise  the  siege.  .  .  .  The  Danes  having 
effected  their  object,  in  causing  the  siege  of  Stral- 
sund  to  be  raised,  withdrew  their  troops  from 
Jasmund,  and  landed  them  again  at  Wolgast. 
Here,  however,  Wallenstein  surprised,  and  de- 
feated them  with  great  loss.  .  .  .  There  being 
on  all  sides  a  willingness  to  liring  the  war  to  an 
end,  peace  was  .  .  .  concluded  at  Lubeck  in 
January  1629.  By  this  treaty  the  Danes  re- 
covered, without  reserve  or  indemnity,  all  their 
former  possessions;  only  pledging  themselves 
not  again  to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  the  Empire. 
.  .  .  The  peace  of  Lubeck  left  Wallenstein  abso- 
lute master  in  Germany,  and  without  an  equal 
in  greatness:  his  spirit  seemed  to  hover  like  a 
storm-charged  cloud  over  the  land,  crushing  to 
the  earth  every  hope  of  liberty  and  successful 
resistance.  JIansfeld  and  Christian  of  Brunswick 
had  disappeared  from  the  scene;  Frederick  V. 
had  retired  into  obscurity.  Tilly  and  Pappen- 
heim,  his  former  rivals,  now  condescended  to 
receive  favours,  and  to  solicit  pensions  and  re- 
wards through  the  medium  of  his  intercession. 
Even  Maximilian  of  Bavaria  was  second  in 
greatness  to  the  all-dreaded  Duke  of  Friedland: 
Europe  held  no  uncrowned  head  that  was  his 
equal  in  fame,  and  no  crowned  head  that  sur- 
passed him  in  power.  .  .  .  Ferdinand,  elated 
with  success,  had  neglected  the  opportunity, 
again  afforded  him  by  the  peace  of  Lubeck,  for 
restoring  tranquillity  to  the  empire.  .  .  .  Instead 
of  a  general  peace,  Ferdinand  signed  the  fatal 
Edict  of  Restitution,  by  which  the  Protestants 
were  called  upon  to  restore  all  the  Catholic 
Church  property  they  had  sequestrated  since  the 
religious  pacification  of  1555 :  such  sequestration 
being,  according  to  the  Emperor's  interpretation, 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  treaty  of  Passau. 
The  right  of  long-established  possession  was  here 
entirely  overlooked ;  and  Ferdinand  forgot,  in 
his  zeal  for  the  church,  that  he  was  actually  set- 
ting himself  up  as  a  .iudge,  in  a  case  in  which  he 
was  a  party  also.  It  was  farther  added,  that, 
according  to  the  same  treaty,  freedom  of  depar- 
ture from  Catholic  countries,  was  the  only  privi- 
lege which  Protestants  had  a  right  to  claim  from 
Catholic  princes.  This  decree  came  like  a  thunder- 
burst  over  Protestant  Germany.  Two  archbishop- 
ricks,  13  bishopricks,  and  a  countless  number  of 
convents  and  clerical  domains,  which  the  Prot- 
estants had  confiscated,  and  applied  to  their  own 
purposes,  were  now  to  be  surrendered.  Imperial 
commissioners  were  appointed  to  carry  the  man- 
date into  eflEect,  and,  to  secure  immediate  obedi- 
ence, troops  were  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  new 


officials.  Wherever  these  functionaries  appeared, 
the  Protestant  service  was  instantly  suspended; 
the  churches  deprived  of  their  bells ;  altars  and 
pulpits  pulled  down;  all  Protestant  books, 
bibles  and  catechisms  were  seized ;  and  gibbets 
were  erected  to  terrify  those  who  might  be  dis- 
posed to  resist.  All  Protestants  who  refused  to 
change  their  religion  were  expelled  from  Augs- 
burg :  sununary  proceedings  of  the  same  kind 
were  resorted  to  in  other  places.  Armed  with  ab- 
solute power,  the  commissioners  soon  proceeded 
from  reclaiming  the  property  of  the  church  to 
seize  that  of  individuals.  The  estates  of  all  per- 
sons who  had  served  under  Mansfeld,  Baden, 
Christian  of  Brunswick;  of  all  who  had  aided 
Frederick  V.,  or  rendered  themselves  obnoxious 
to  the  Emperor,  were  seized  and  confiscated. 
.  .  .  The  Duke  of  Friedland,  who  now  ruled 
with  dictatorial  sway  over  Germany,  had  been 
ordered  to  carry  the  Edict  of  Restitution  into 
effect,  in  all  the  countries  occupied  by  his  troops. 
The  task,  if  we  believe  historians,  was  executed 
with  unbending  rigour." — J.  Mitchell,  Life  of 
Wallenstein,  eh.  3-3. 

Also  in  :  L.  Hausser,  The  Period  of  the  Refor- 
mation.. 1517  to  1648,  ch.  33. 

A.  D.  1627-1631. — War  of  the  Emperor  and 
Spain  with  France,  over  the  succession  to  the 
duchy  of  Mantua.  See  Italy:  A.  D.  1637- 
1631. 

A.  D.  1630.— The  Thirty  Years  War :  Uni- 
versal hostility  to  Wallenstein. —  His  dismis- 
sal by  the  Emperor. — The  rising  of  a  new 
champion  of  Protestantism  in  Sweden. —  ■Wal- 
lenstein had  ever  shown  great  toleration  in  his 
own  domains;  but  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  .  .  . 
he  aided  to  carry  out  the  edict  [of  Restitution] 
in  the  most  barbarous  and  relentless  manner.  It 
would  be  as  tedious  as  painful  to  dwell  upon  all 
the  cruelties  which  were  committed,  and  the  op- 
pression that  was  exercised,  by  the  imperial  com- 
missioners ;  but  a  spirit  of  resistance  was  aroused 
in  the  hearts  of  the  German  people,  which  only 
waited  for  opportunity  to  display  itself.  Nor 
was  it  alone  against  the  emperor  that  wrath  and 
indignation  was  excited.  Wallenstein  drew  down 
upon  his  head  even  more  dangerous  enmity  than 
that  which  sprung  up  against  Ferdinand.  He 
ruled  in  Germany  with  almost  despotic  sway; 
for  the  emperor  himself  seemed  at  this  time  little 
more  than  a  tool  in  his  hands.  His  manners 
were  unpopular,  stern,  reserved,  and  gloomy. 
.  .  .  Princes  were  kept  waiting  in  his  ante-cham- 
ber ;  and  all  petitions  and  remonstrances  against 
his  stern  decrees  were  treated  with  the  mortifying 
scorn  which  adds  insult  to  injury.  The  mag- 
nificence of  his  train,  the  splendor  of  his  house- 
hold, the  luxury  and  profusion  that  spread  every 
where  around  him,  afforded  coutinudl  sources  of 
envy  and  jealous  hate  to  the  ancient  nobility  of 
the  empire.  The  Protestants  throughout  the 
land  were  his  avowed  and  implacable  enemies; 
and  the  Roman  Catholic  princes  viewed  him  with 
fear  and  suspicion.  JIaximiliau  of  Bavaria, 
whose  star  had  waned  under  the  growing  luster 
of  Wallensteiu's  renown,  who  had  lost  that  au- 
thority in  the  empire  which  he  knew  to  be  due 
to  his  services  and  his  genius,  solely  by  the  rise 
and  influence  of  Wallenstein,  and  whose  am- 
bitious designs  of  ruling  Germany  through  an 
emperor  dependent  upon  him  for  power,  had 
been  frustrated  entirely  by  the  genius  which 
placed    the   imperial   throne   upon  a  firm  and 


1506 


GERMANY,  1630. 


77te  coming  of 
Gustavus  Adolphus. 


GERMANY,   1630-1631. 


independent  basis,  took  no  pains  to  conceal  his 
hostility  to  the  Duke  of  Friedland.  .  .  .  Though 
the  soldiery  still  generally  loved  him,  their  offi- 
cers hated  the  hand  that  put  a  limit  to  the  op- 
pression by  which  they  throve,  and  would  fain 
have  resisted  its  power.  .  .  .  While  these  feel- 
lugs  were  gathering  strength  in  Germany ;  while 
Wallenstein,  with  no  friends,  though  man)'  sup- 
porters, saw  himself  an  object  of  jealousy  or 
hatred  to  the  leaders  of  every  party  throughout 
the  empire ;  and  while  the  suppressed  but  cher- 
ished indignation  of  all  Protestant  Germany  was 
preparing  for  the  emperor  a  dreadfid  day  of 
reckoning,  events  were  taking  place  in  other 
countries  which  hurried  on  rapidly  the  dangers 
that  Wallenstein  had  foreseen.  In  France,  a 
weak  king,  and  a  powerful,  politic,  and  relent- 
less minister,  appeared  in  undissembled  hostility 
to  the  house  of  Austria ;  and  the  famous  Cardi- 
nal de  Richelieu  busied  himself,  successfully,  to 
raise  up  enemies  to  the  German  branch  of  that 
family.  ...  In  Poland,  Sigismund,  after  vainly 
contending  with  Gustavus  Adolphus,  and  re- 
ceiving an  inefficient  aid  from  Germany,  was 
anxious  to  conclude  the  disastrous  war  with 
Sweden.  Richelieu  interfered;  Oxenstiern  ne- 
gotiated on  the  part  of  Gustavus;  and  a  truce 
of  six  years  was  concluded  in  August,  1629,  by 
which  the  veteran  and  victorious  Swedish  troops 
were  set  free  to  act  in  any  other  direction.  A 
great  jsart  of  Livonia  was  virtually  ceded  to  Gus- 
tavus, together  with  the  towns  and  territories  of 
Memel,  Braunsberg  and  Elbingen,  and  the  strong 
fortress  of  Pillau.  At  the  same  time,  Richelieu 
impressed  upon  the  mind  of  Gustavus  the  honor, 
the  advantage,  and  the  necessit}'  of  reducing  the 
immense  power  of  the  emperor,  and  delivering  the 
Protestant  states  of  Germany  from  the  oppression 
under  which  they  groaned.  .  .  .  Confident  in 
his  own  powers  of  mind  and  warlike  skill,  sup- 
ported b)'  the  love  and  admiration  of  his  people, 
relying  on  the  valor  and  discipline  of  his  troops, 
and  foreseeing  all  the  mighty  combinations  which 
were  certain  to  take  place  in  his  favor,  Gustavus 
hesitated  but  little.  He  consulted  with  his  min- 
isters, indeed  heard  and  answered  every  objec- 
tion that  could  be  raised;  and  then  applied  to 
the  Senate  at  Stockholm  to  insure  that  his  plans 
were  approved,  and  that  his  efforts  would  be 
seconded  by  his  people.  His  enterprise  met  with 
the  most  enthu.siastic  approbation;  and  then  suc- 
ceeded all  the  bustle  of  active  preparation.  .  .  . 
While  this  storm  was  gathering  in  the  North, 
while  the  towns  of  Sweden  were  bristling  with 
arms,  and  her  ports  filled  with  ships,  Ferdinand 
was  driven  or  [jersuaded  to  an  act  the  most  fatal 
to  himself,  and  the  most  favorable  to  the  King  of 
Sweden.  A  Diet  was  summoned  to  meet  at 
Ratisbon  early  in  the  year  1680 ;  and  the  chief 
object  of  the  emperor  in  taking  a  step  so  danger- 
ous to  the  power  he  had  really  acquired,  and  to 
the  projects  so  boldly  put  forth  in  his  name, 
seems  to  have  been  to  cause  his  son  to  be  elected 
King  of  the  Romans.  .  .  .  The  name  of  the 
archduke.  King  of  Hungary,  is  proposed  to  the 
Diet  for  election  as  King  of  the  Romans,  and  a 
scene  of  indescribable  confusion  and  murmuring 
takes  place.  A  voice  demands  that,  before  any 
such  election  is  considered,  the  complaints  of  the 
people  of  Germany  against  the  imperial  armies 
shall  be  heard ;  and  then  a  perfect  storm  of  accu- 
sations pours  down.  Every  sort  of  tyranny  and 
oppression,  every  sort  of  cruelty  and  exaction. 


every  sort  of  licentiousness  and  vice  is  attributed 
to  the  emperor's  troops ;  but  the  hatred  and  the 
charges  all  concentrate  themselves  upon  the  head 
of  the  great  commander  of  the  imperial  forces; 
and  there  is  a  shout  for  his  instant  dismissal.  .  .  . 
Ferdinand  hesitated,  and  affected  much  surprise 
at  the  charges  brought  against  his  general  and 
his  armies.  He  yielded  in  the  end,  however; 
and  it  is  said,  upon  very  good  authority,  that  his 
ruinous  decision  was  brought  about  by  the  arts 
of  the  same  skillful  politician  who  had  conjured 
up  the  storm  which  now  menaced  the  empire 
from  the  nortli.  Richelieu  had  sent  an  embassa- 
dor to  Ratisbon.  ...  In  the  train  of  the  embas- 
sador came  the  well-known  intriguing  friar. 
Father  Joseph,  the  most  unscrupulous  and  cun- 
ning of  the  cardinal's  emissaries;  and  he,  we  are 
assured,  found  means  to  persuade  the  emperor 
that,  by  yielding  to  the  demand  of  the  electors 
and  removing  AVallcnstein  for  a  time,  he  might 
obtain  the  election  of  the  King  of  Hungary,  and 
then  reinstate  the  Duke  of  Friedland  in  his  com- 
mand as  soon  as  ])opular  anger  had  subsided. 
However  that  might  be,  Ferdinand,  as  I  have 
said,  yielded,  openly  expressing  his  regret  at 
the  step  he  was  about  to  take,  and  the  appre- 
hensions which  he  entertained  for  the  conse- 
quences. Count  Questenberg  and  another  noble- 
man, who  had  been  long  on  intimate  terms  with 
Wallenstein,  were  sent  to  the  camp  to  notify  to 
him  his  removal  from  command,  and  to  soften 
the  disgrace  by  assuring  him  of  the  emperor's 
gratitude  and  affection. " — G.  P.  R.  James,  Dark 
Scenes  of  History  :   Wallenstein,  ch.  3-4. 

Also  in:  S.  R.  Gardiner,  The  Thirty  Tears' 
War,  ch.  7,  sect.  3. — A.  Gindely,  Hist,  of  the 
Thirty  Tears'  War,  v.  3,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1630-1631. — The  Thirty  Years  War: 
The  Coming  of  Gustavus  Adolphus. — His  oc- 
cupation of  Pomerania  and  Brandenburg. — 
The  horrible  fate  of  Magdeburg  at  the  hands 
of  Tilly's  ruffians. —  "On  June  24,  1630,  one 
hundred  years,  to  a  day,  after  the  Augsburg 
Confession  was  promulgated,  Gustavus  Adol- 
phus landed  on  the  coast  of  Pomerania,  near  the 
mouth  of  the  river  Peeue,  with  13,000  men,  vet- 
eran troops,  whose  rigid  discipline  was  sustained 
by  their  piety,  and  who  were  simple-minded, 
noble,  and  glowing  with  the  spirit  of  the  battle. 
He  had  reasons  enough  for  declaring  war  against 
Ferdinand,  even  if  10,000  of  Walleustein's  troops 
had  not  been  sent  to  aid  Sigismund  against  him. 
But  the  controlling  motive,  in  his  own  mind,  was 
to  succor  the  imperiled  cause  of  religious  freedom 
in  Germany.  Coming  as  the  protector  of  the 
evangelic  Church,  he  expected  to  be  joined  by 
the  Protestant  princes.  But  he  was  disappointed. 
Only  the  trampled  and  tortured  people  of  North 
Germany,  who  in  their  despair  were  ready  for 
revolts  and  conspiracies  of  their  own,  welcomed 
him  as  their  deliverer  from  the  bandits  of  Wal- 
lenstein and  the  League.  Gustavus  Adolphus  ap- 
peared before  Stettin,  and  by  threats  compelled 
the  old  duke,  Bogislaw  XIV.,  to  open  to  him  his 
capital  city.  He  then  took  measures  to  secure 
possession  of  Pomerania.  His  army  grew  rapidly, 
while  that  of  the  emperor  was  widely  dispersed, 
so  that  he  now  advanced  into  Brandenburg. 
George  William,  the  elector,  was  a  weak  prince, 
though  a  Protestant,  and  a  brother  of  the  Queen 
of  Sweden ;  he  was  guided  by  his  Catholic  chan- 
cellor, Schwarzenberg,  and  had  painfully  striven 
to  keep  neutral  throughout  the  war,  neither  side. 


1507 


GERMANY,  1630-1631. 


Tilly's  Capture  of 
Madgeburg. 


GERMANY,  1631. 


however,  respecting  his  neutrality.  In  dread  of 
the  plans  of  Gustavus  Adolphus  concerning 
Poraerania  and  Prussia,  he  held  aloof  from  him. 
Meanwhile  Tilly,  general-in-chief  of  the  troops 
of  the  emperor  and  the  League,  drew  near,  but 
suddenly  turned  aside  to  New  Brandenburg,  in 
the  Mecklenburg  territory,  now  occupied  by  the 
Swedes,  captured  it  after  three  assaults,  and  put 
the  garrison  to  the  sword  (1631).  He  then  laid 
siege  to  Magdeburg.  Gustavus  Adolphus  took 
Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  where  there  was  an  im- 
perial garrison,  and  treated  it,  in  retaliation,  with 
the  same  severity.  Tlience,  in  the  spring  of 
1631,  he  set  out  for  Berlin.  ...  In  Potsdam  he 
heard  of  the  fall  of  Magdeburg.  He  then  marched 
with  flying  banners  into  Berlin,  and  compelled 
the  elector  to  become  his  ally.  Magdeburg  was 
the  strong  refuge  of  Protestantism,  and  the  most 
important  trading  centre  in  North  Germany.  It 
had  resisted  the  Augsburg  Interim  of  1548,  and 
now  resisted  the  Edict  of  Restitution,  rejected 
the  newly  appointed  prince  bishop,  Leopold 
AVilliam,  son  of  the  emperor  himself,  and  refused 
to  receive  the  emperor's  garrison.  The  city  was 
therefore  banned  by  the  emperor,  and  was  be- 
sieged for  many  weeks  by  Pappenheim,  a  gen- 
eral of  the  League,  who  was  then  reinforced  by 
Tilly  himself  with  his  army.  Gustavus  Adol- 
phus was  unable  to  make  an  advance,  in  view  of 
the  equivocal  attitude  of  the  two  great  Protes- 
tant electors,  without  exposing  his  rear  to  garri- 
soned fortresses.  From  Brandenburg  as  well  as 
Saxony  he  asked  in  vain  for  help  to  save  the 
Protestant  city.  Thus  Magdeburg  fell,  Ma_v  10, 
1631.  The  citizens  were  deceived  by  a  pretended 
withdrawal  of  the  enemy.  But  suddenly,  at 
early  dawn,  the  badly  guarded  fortifications  were 
stormed." — C.  T.  Lewis,  Hist,  of  Germany,  ch. 
18,  sect.  3-4.  —  Two  gates  of  the  city  having  been 
opened  by  the  storming  party,  "Tilly  marched 
in  with  part  of  his  infantry.  Immediately  occu- 
pying the  principal  streets,  he  drove  the  citizens 
with  pointed  cannon  into  their  dwellings,  there 
to  await  their  destiny.  They  were  not  long  held 
in  suspense ;  a  word  from  Tilly  decided  the  fate 
of  Magdeburg.  Even  a  more  humane  general 
•would  in  vain  have  recommended  mercy  to  such 
soldiers;  but  Tilly  never  made  the  attempt.  Left 
by  their  general's  silence  masters  of  the  lives  of 
all  the  citizens,  the  soldiery  broke  into  the  houses 
to  satiate  their  most  brutal  appetites.  The 
prayers  of  innocence  excited  some  compassion  in 
the  hearts  of  the  Germans,  but  none  in  tlie  rude 
breasts  of  Pappenheim's  Walloons.  Scarcely 
had  the  savage  cruelty  commenced,  when  the 
other  gates  were  thrown  open,  and  the  cavalry, 
with  the  fearful  hordes  of  the  Croats,  poured  in 
upon  the  devoted  inhabitants.  Here  commenced 
a  scene  of  horrors  for  which  history  has  no 
language  —  poetry  no  pencil.  Neither  innocent 
childhood,  nor  helpless  old  age;  neither  youth, 
sex,  rank,  nor  beauty,  could  disarm  the  fury  of 
the  conquerors.  AVives  were  abused  in  the  arms 
of  their  husbands,  daughters  at  the  feet  of  their 
parents;  and  the  defenceless  sex  exposed  to  the 
double  sacrifice  of  virtue  and  life.  No  situation, 
however  obscure,  or  however  sacred,  escaped  the 
rapacity  of  the  enemy.  In  a  single  church  fifty- 
three  women  were  found  beheaded.  The  Croats 
amused  themselves  with  throwing  children  into 
the  flames;  Pappenheim's  Walloons  with  stab- 
bing infants  at  the  mother's  breast.  Some  ofli- 
cers  of  the  League,  horror-struck  at  this  dreadful 


scene,  ventured  to  remind  Tilly  that  he  had  it  in 
his  power  to  stop  the  carnage.  '  Return  in  an 
hour,'  was  his  answer;  '  I  will  see  what  I  can  do; 
the  soldier  must  have  some  reward  for  his  dan- 
ger and  toils.'  These  horrors  lasted  with  un- 
abated fury,  till  at  last  the  smoke  and  flames 
proved  a  check  to  the  plunderers.  To  augment 
the  confusion  and  to  divert  the  resistance  of  the 
inhabitants,  the  Imperialists  had,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  assault,  fired  the  town  in  sev- 
eral places.  The  wind  rising  rapidlj',  spread  the 
flames,  till  the  blaze  became  universal.  Fearful, 
indeed,  was  the  tumult  amid  clouds  of  smoke, 
heaps  of  dead  bodies,  the  clash  of  swords,  the 
crash  of  falling  ruins,  and  streams  of  blood.  The 
atmosphere  glowed;  and  the  intolerable  heat 
forced  at  last  even  the  murderers  to  take  refuge 
in  their  camp.  In  less  than  twelve  hours,  this 
strong,  populous,  and  flourishing  city,  one  of  the 
finest  in  Germany,  was  reduced  to  ashes,  with 
the  exception  of  two  churches  and  a  few  houses. 
.  .  .  The  avarice  of  the  officers  had  saved  400  of 
the  richest  citizens,  in  the  hope  of  extorting  from 
them  an  exorbitant  ransom.  But  this  humanity 
was  confined  to  the  officers  of  the  League,  whom 
the  ruthless  barbarity  of  the  Imperialists  caused 
to  be  regarded  as  guardian  angels.  Scarcely  had 
the  fury  of  the  flames  abated,  when  the  Im- 
perialists returned  to  renew  the  pillage  amid  the 
ruins  and  ashes  of  the  town.  Many  were  suffo- 
cated by  the  smoke ;  many  found  rich  booty  in 
the  cellars,  ^^■here  the  citizens  had  concealed  their 
more  valuable  effects.  On  the  13tli  of  May, 
Tilly  himself  appeared  in  the  town,  after  the 
streets  had  been  cleared  of  ashes  and  dead  bodies. 
Horrible  and  revolting  to  humanity  was  the 
scene  that  presented  itself.  The  living  crawling 
from  under  the  dead,  children  wandering  about 
with  heart-rending  cries,  calling  for  their  parents ; 
and  infants  still  sucking  the  breasts  of  their  life- 
less mothers.  Jlore  than  6,000  bodies  were 
thrown  into  the  Elbe  to  clear  the  streets;  a  much 
greater  number  had  been  consumed  by  the  flames. 
The  whole  number  of  the  slain  was  reckoned  at 
not  less  than  30,000.  The  entrance  of  the  gen- 
eral, which  took  place  on  the  14th,  put  a  stop  to 
the  plunder,  and  saved  the  few  who  had  hitherto 
contrived  to  escape.  About  a  thousand  people 
were  taken  out  of  the  cathedral,  wliere  they  had 
remained  three  daj'S  and  two  nights,  without 
food,  and  in  momentary  fear  of  death." — F. 
Schiller,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Tears'  War.  bk.  3. 

Also  in  :  Sir  E.  Cust,  Li^vs  of  the  Warriors  of 
the  Thirty  Tears'  War.  pt.  1. 

A.  D.  1631  (January). —  The  Thirty  Years 
■War :  The  Treaty  of  Barvyalde  between  Gus- 
tavus Adolphus  and  the  king  of  France. — ' '  On 
the  13th  of  January,  1631,  the  Treaty  of  Bar- 
walde  was  concluded  between  France  and 
Sweden.  Hard  cash  had  been  the  principal  sub- 
ject of  the  negotiation,  and  Louis  XIII.  had 
agreed  to  pay  Gustavus  a  lump  sum  of  $120,000 
in  consideration  of  his  recent  expenditure, —  a 
further  sum  of  S400,000  a  year  for  six  years  to 
come.  Until  that  time,  or  until  a  general  peace, 
if  such  should  supervene  earlier,  Sweden  was  to 
keep  in  the  field  an  army  of  30,000  foot  and  6,000 
horse.  The  object  of  the  alliance  was  declared 
to  be  '  the  protection  of  their  common  friends, 
the  security  of  the  Baltic,  the  freedom  of  com- 
merce, the  restitution  of  the  oppressed  members 
of  the  Empire,  the  destruction  of  the  newly  erected 
fortresses  in  the  Baltic,  the  North  Sea,  and  in  the 


1508 


GERMANY,  1631. 


Victories  of 
Gustaims  Adolphus. 


GERMANY,  1631. 


Grisons  territory,  so  that  all  should  be  left  in  the 
state  in  wliicli  it  was  before  the  German  war  liad 
begun. '  Sweden  was  not  to  '  violate  the  Imperial 
constitution '  where  she  conquered ;  she  was  to 
leave  the  Catholic  religion  undisturbed  in  all  dis- 
tricts where  she  found  it  existing.  She  was  to 
observe  towards  Bavaria  and  the  League  —  the 
spoilt  darlings  of  Richelieu's  anti-Austrian  policy 
—  friendship  or  neutrality,  so  far  as  they  would 
observe  it  towards  her.  If,  at  the  end  of  six 
years,  the  objects  were  not  accomplished,  the 
treaty  was  to  be  renewed."— ^C.  R.  L.  Fletcher, 
Ousiavus  Adolphus  and  tfie  Struggle  of  Protestant- 
ism for  Existence,  ch,  9. 

A.  D.  1631. — The  Thirty  Years  War:  The 
elector  of  Brandenburg  brought  to  terms  by  the 
king  of  Sweden. — The  elector  of  Saxony  fright- 
ened into  line. — Defeat  of  Tilly  at  Leipsig 
(Breitenfeld). — Effects  of  the  great  victory. — 
"Loud  were  the  cries  against  Gustavus  for  not 
having  relieved  Magdeburg.  To  answer  them  he 
felt  liimself  bound  to  publish  a  careful  apology. 
In  this  document  he  declared,  among  other 
things,  that  if  he  could  have  obtained  from  the 
Elector  of  Brandenburg  the  passage  of  Kiistrin 
he  might  not  only  have  raised  the  siege  of  Mag- 
deburg but  have  destroyed  the  whole  of  the  Im- 
perial array.  The  passage,  however,  had  been 
denied  him;  and  though  the  preservation  of 
Magdeburg  so  much  concerned  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  he  could  obtain  from  him  a  passage 
toward  it  neither  by  Wittemberg,  nor  the  Bridge 
of  Dessau,  nor  such  assistance  in  provision  and 
shipping  as  was  necessary  for  the  success  of  the 
enterprise.  .  .  .  Something  more  than  mere  per- 
suasion had  induced  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg, 
after  the  capture  of  Francfort,  to  grant  Gustavus 
possession  of  Spandau  for  a  mouth.  The  month 
expired  on  the  8th  of  June ;  and  the  elector  de- 
manded back  his  stronghold.  The  king,  fettered 
by  liis  promise,  surrendered  it ;  but  the  next  day, 
having  marched  to  Berlin  and  pointed  his  guns 
against  the  palace,  the  ladies  came  forth  as  medi- 
ators, and  the  elector  consented  both  to  surrender 
Spandau  again  and  to  pay,  for  the  maintenance 
of  tlie  Swedish  troops,  a  monthly  subsidy  of 
30,000  rix-dollars.  At  the  end  of  May  Tilly  re- 
moved from  Magdeburg  and  the  Elbe  to  Ascher- 
lebea  This  enabled  the  king  to  take  Werben,  on 
the  confluence  of  the  Elbe  anil  Havel,  where,  after 
the  reduction  of  Tangermllnde  and  Havelberg, 
he  established  his  celebrated  camp. "  In  the  latter 
part  of  July,  Tilly  made  two  attacks  on  the  king's 
camp  at  AVerben,  and  was  repulsed  on  both  occa- 
sions with  heavy  loss.  "In  the  middle  of  August, 
Gustavus  broke  up  his  camp.  His  force  at  that 
time,  according  to  the  muster-rolls,  amounted  to 
13,000  foot,  and  8,850  cavalry.  He  drew  towards 
Leipsig,  then  threatened  by  Tilly,  who,  having 
been  joined  at  Eisleben  by  15,000  men  under 
Fiirstenburg,  now  possessed  an  ami}'  40,000 
strong  to  enforce  the  emperor's  ban  against  the 
Leipsig  decrees  [or  resolutions  of  a  congress  of 
Protestant  princes  which  had  assembled  at  Leip- 
sig in  February,  1631,  moved  to  some  organized 
common  action  by  the  Edict  of  Restitution] 
within  the  limits  of  the  electorate.  The  Elector 
of  Saxony  was  almost  frightened  out  of  his  wits 
by  the  impending  danger.  .  .  .  His  grief  and 
rage  at  the  fall  of  Magdeburg  had  been  so  great 
that,  for  two  days  after  receiving  the  news,  he 
would  admit  no  one  into  his  presence.  But  that 
dire  event  only  added   to  his   perplexity ;    he 


could  resolve  neither  upon  submission,  nor  upoD 
vengeance.  In  May,  indeed,  terrified  by  the 
threats  of  Ferdinand,  he  discontinued  his  levies, 
and  disbanded  a  part  of  his  troops  already  en- 
listed: but  in  June  he  sent  Arnim  to  Gustavus 
with  such  overtures  that  the  king  drank  his 
health,  and  seemed  to  have  grown  sanguine  in 
the  hope  of  his  alliance.  In  July,  his  courage 
still  rising,  he  permitted  Gustavus  to  recruit  in 
his  dominions.  In  August,  his  courage  falling 
again  at  the  approach  of  Fiirstenburg,  he  gave 
liim  and  his  troops  a  free  passage  through  Thu- 
ringia. "  But  now,  later  in  the  same  month,  he 
sent  word  to  Gustavus  Adolphus  "  that  not  only 
Wittemberg  but  the  whole  electorate  was  open  to 
him :  that  not  only  his  son,  but  himself,  would 
serve  imder  the  king ;  that  he  would  advance  one 
month's  payment  for  the  Swedish  troops  imme- 
diately, and  give  security  for  two  monthly  pay- 
ments more.  .  .  .  Gustavus  rejoiced  to  find  the 
Duke  of  Saxony  in  this  temper,  and,  in  pursuance 
of  a  league  now  entered  into  with  him,  and  the 
Elector  of  Brandenburg,  crossed  the  Elbe  at  Wit- 
temberg on  the  4tk  of  Septemlter.  The  Saxons, 
from  16,000  to  20,000  strong,  moving  simultane- 
ously from  Torgau,  the  confederated  armies  met 
at  Dtiben  on  the  JIulda,  three  leagues  from  Leip- 
sig. At  a  conference  held  there,  it  was  debated 
whether  it  would  be  better  to  protract  the  war  or 
to  hazard  a  battle.  The  king  took  the  former 
side,  but  yielded  to  the  strong  representations  of 
the  Duke  of  Saxony.  ...  On  the  6tli  of  Septem- 
ber the  allies  came  within  six  or  eight  miles  of 
the  enemy,  where  they  halted  for  the  night.  .  .  . 
Breitenfeld,  the  place  at  which  Tilly,  urged  by 
the  Importunity  of  Pappenheim,  had  chosen  to 
offer  battle,  was  an  extensive  plain,  in  part  re- 
cently ploughed,  about  a  mile  from  Leipsig  and 
near  the  cemetery  of  that  city.  Leipsig  had  sur- 
rendered to  Tilly  two  days  before.  The  Imperial 
army,  estimated  at  44,000  men,  occupied  a  rising- 
ground  on  the  plain.  .  .  .  The  army  was  drawn 
up  in  one  line  of  great  depth,  having  the  infantry 
in  the  centre,  the  cavalry  on  the  wings,  accord- 
ing to  the  Spanish  order  of  battle.  The  king 
subdivided  his  armj-,  about  20,000  strong,  into 
centre  and  wings,  each  of  which  consisted  of  two 
lines  and  a  reserve.  ...  To  this  disposition  is 
attributed,  in  a  great  degree,  the  success  of  the 
day.  .  .  .  The  tiles  being  so  comparatively  shal- 
low, artillery  made  less  havoc  among  them. 
Then,  again,  the  division  of  the  army  into  small 
maniples,  with  considerable  intervals  between 
each,  gave  space  for  evolutions,  and  the  power 
of  throwing  the  troops  with  rapidity  wherever 
their  services  or  support  might  be  foimd  re- 
quisite. .  .  .  The  battle  began  at  13  o'clock. "  It 
only  ended  with  the  setting  of  the  sun ;  but  long 
before  that  time  the  great  army  of  Tilly  was  sub- 
stantially destroyed.  It  had  scattered  the  Saxons 
easily  enough,  and  sent  them  flying,  with  their 
woi'thless  elector;  but  Gustavus  and  his  disci- 
plined, brave,  powerfully  handled  Swedes  had 
broken  and  ruined  the  stout  but  clumsy  imperial 
lines.  "  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  exaggerate  the 
importance  of  this  success.  On  the  event  of  that 
day,  as  Gustavus  himself  said,  the  whole  (Protes- 
tant) cause,  '  summa  rei,' depended.  The  success 
was  great  in  itself.  The  numbers  engaged  on 
either  side  had  been  nearly  equal.  Not  so  their 
loss.  The  Imperial  loss  in  killed  and  wounded, 
according  to  Swedish  computation,  was  from 
8,000  to  10,000;  according  to  the  enemy's  owd 


1509 


GERMANY,  1631. 


JVallenstein^s 
Recall. 


GERMANY,  1631-1632. 


account,  between  6,000  and  7,000;  while  all  seem 
to  agree  that  the  loss  on  the  side  of  the  allies  was 
only  3,700,  of  which  3,000  were  Saxon.  700 
Swedes.  Besides,  Gustavus  won  the  whole  of 
the  enemy's  artillery,  and  more  than  100  stan- 
dards. Then  the  army  of  Tilly  being  annihilated 
left  him  free  to  choose  his  ne.\t  point  of  attack, 
almost  his  next  victory." — B.  Chapman,  Hist,  of 
Griistainis  Achlphus,  ch.  8.— "  The  battle  of 
Breitenfeld  was  an  epoch  in  war,  and  it  was  an 
epoch  in  history.  It  was  an  epoch  in  war,  be- 
cause first  in  it  was  displayed  on  a  great  scale 
the  superiority  of  mobility  over  weight.  It  was 
an  epoch  in  history,  because  it  broke  the  force 
upon  which  the  revived  Catholicism  had  relied 
for  the  extension  of  its  empire  over  Europe.  .  .  . 
'  Germany  might  tear  herself  and  be  torn  to 
pieces  for  yet  another  half-generation,  but  the 
actual  result  of  the  Thirty-Years'  War  was  as 
good  as  achieved.'" — C.  R.  L.  Fletcher,  Q-usta- 
vus  Adolphus  and  the  Struggle  of  Protestantism 
for  Existence,  ch.  11. 

Also  in:   G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Battle-fields  of 
Oermany,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1631-1632.— The  Thirty  'Y^ears 'War : 
Movements  and  plans  of  the  Swedish  king  in 
southern  Germany. — Temporary  recovery  of 
the  Palatinate. — Occupation  of  Bavaria. — The 
Saxons  in  Bohemia. — Battle  of  the  Lech. — 
Death  of  Tilly. — Wallenstein's  recall. — Siege 
and  relief  of  Nuremberg. — Battle  of  Liitzen, 
and  death  of  Gustavus  Adolphus. — "This  battle, 
sometimes  called  Breitenwald  [Breitenfeld], some- 
times the  First  Battle  of  Leipsic,  .  .  .  was  the 
first  victory  on  the  Protestant  side  that  had  been 
achieved.  It  was  Tilly's  first  defeat  after  thirty 
battles.  It  tilled  with  joy  those  who  had  hitherto 
been  depressed  and  hopeless.  Cities  which  had 
dreaded  to  declare  themselves  for  fear  of  the  fate 
of  Magdeburg  began  to  lift  up  their  heads,  and 
vacillating  princes  to  think  that  they  could  safely 
take  the  part  which  they  preferred.  Gustavus 
knew,  however,  that  he  must  let  the  Germans  do 
as  much  as  possible  for  themselves,  or  he  should 
arouse  their  national  jealousy  of  him  as  a  foreign 
conqueror.  So  he  sent  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to 
awaken  the  old  spirit  in  Bohemia.  As  for  him- 
self, his  great  counsellor,  Oxenstierna,  wanted 
him  to  march  straight  on  Vienna,  but  this  was 
not  his  object.  He  wanted  primarily  to  deliver 
the  northern  states,  and  to  encourage  the  mer- 
chant cities,  Ulm,  Augsburg,  Nuremberg,  which 
had  all  along  been  Protestant,  and  to  dehver  the 
Palatinate  from  its  oppressors.  And,  out  of  mor- 
tification, a  strange  ally  offered  himself,  namely, 
Wallenstein,  wlio  wanted  revenge  on  the  Catho- 
lic League  which  had  insisted  on  his  dismissal, 
and  the  Emperor  who  had  yielded  to  them.  .  .  . 
He  said  that  if  Gustavus  would  trust  him,  he 
would  soon  get  his  old  army  together  again,  and 
chase  Ferdinand  and  the  Jesuits  beyond  the  Alps. 
But  Gustavus  did  not  trust  him,  though  he  sat 
quiet  at  Prague  while  the  Saxons  were  in  pos- 
session of  the  city,  plundering  everywhere,  and 
the  Elector  sending  off  to  Dresden  fifty  waggon- 
loads  filled  with  the  treasures  of  the  Eniperor 
Rudolf's  museum.  .  .  .  Many  exiles  returned, 
and  there  was  a  general  resumption  of  the  Huss- 
ite form  of  worship.  Gustavus  had  marched  to 
Erfurt,  and  then  turned  towards  the  Maine, 
where  there  was  a  long  row  of  those  prince  bish- 
oprics established  on  the  frontier  by  the  policy 
of  Charlemagne  —  Wurtzburg.  Bamberg,  Fulda, 


Koln,  Triers,  Mentz,  Wurms,  Spiers.  These  had 
never  been  secularised  and  were  popularly  called 
the  Priests'  Lane.  They  had  given  all  their  forces 
to  the  Catholic  League,  and  Gustavus  meant  to 
repay  himself  upon  them.  He  permitted  no 
cruelties,  no  persecutions;  but  he  levied  heavy 
contributions,  and  his  troops  made  merry  with  the 
good  Rhenish  wine  when  he  kept  his  Christmas 
at  Mentz.  He  invited  the  dispossessed  Elector 
Palatine  to  join  him,  and  Frederick  started  for 
the  camp,  after  the  christening  of  his  thirteenth 
child.  .  .  .  The  suite  was  numerous  enough  to 
fill  forty  coaches,  escorted  by  seventy  horse  — 
pretty  well  for  an  exiled  prince  dependent  on 
the  bounty  of  Holland  and  England.  .  .  .  There 
was  the  utmost  enthusiasm  for  the  Swede  in 
England,  and  the  j\larquess  of  Hamilton  obtained 
permission  to  raise  a  body  of  volunteers  to  join 
the  Swedish  standards,  and  in  the  August  of  1631 
brought  6.000  English  and  Scots  in  four  small 
regiments ;  but  they  proved  of  little  use  .  .  .  many 
dying.  ...  So  far  as  the  King's  plans  can  be 
understood,  he  meant  to  have  formed  a  number 
of  Protestant  principalities,  and  united  them  in 
what  he  called  'Corpus  Evangelicorum'  around 
the  Baltic  and  the  Elbe,  as  a  balance  to  the  Aus- 
trian Roman  Catholic  power  in  southern  Ger- 
many. Frederick  wanted  to  raise  an  army  of  his 
own  people  and  take  the  command,  but  to  this 
Gustavus  would  not  consent,  having  probably 
no  great  confidence  in  his  capacity.  All  the 
Palatinate  was  free  from  the  enemy  except  the 
three  fortresses  of  Heidelberg,  Frankenthal,  and 
Kreuznach,  and  the  last  of  these  was  immediately 
besieged.  ...  In  the  midst  of  the  exultation 
Frederick  was  grieved  to  learn  that  his  beautiful 
home  at  Heidelberg  had  been  ravaged  by  fire, 
probably  by  the  Spanish  garrison  in  expectation 
of  having  to  abandon  it.  But  as  Tilly  was  col- 
lecting his  forces  again,  Gustavus  would  not 
wait  to  master  that  place  or  Frankenthal,  and 
recrossed  the  Rhine.  Sir  Harry  Vane  had  been 
sent  as  ambassador  from  Charles  I.  to  arrange 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Palatinate,  the  King 
offering  £10,000  a  month  for  the  expense  of  the 
war,  and  proposing  that  if,  as  was  only  too  prob- 
able, he  should  be  prevented  from  performing 
this  promise,  some  of  the  fortresses  should  be 
left  as  guarantees  in  the  hands  of  the  Swedes. 
Frederick  took  great  and  petulant  offence  at  this 
stipulation,  and  complained,  with  tears  in  his 
eyes,  to  Vane  and  the  Marquess  of  Hamilton. 
...  He  persuaded  them  to  suppress  this  article, 
though  they  warned  him  that  if  the  treaty  failed 
it  would  be  by  his  own  fault.  It  did  in  fact  fail, 
for,  as  usual,  the  English  money  was  not  forth- 
coming, and  even  if  it  had  been,  Gustavus  de- 
clared that  he  would  be  no  man's  servant  for  a 
few  thousand  pounds.  Frederick  also  refused 
the  King's  own  stipulation,  that  Lutherans  should 
enjoy  equal  rights  with  Calvinists.  ^Moreover, 
the  Swedish  success  had  been  considerably  more 
than  was  desired  by  his  French  allies.  .  .  .  Louis 
XIII.  was  distressed,  but  Richelieu  silenced  him, 
onl}-  attempting  to  make  a  treaty  with  the 
Swedes  by  which  the  Elector  of  Bavaria  and  the 
Catholic  League  should  be  neutral  on  condition 
of  the  restoration  of  the  bishops.  To  this,  how- 
ever. Gustavus  could  not  fully  consent,  and  im- 
posed conditions  which  the  Catholics  could  not 
accept.  Tilly  was  collecting  his  forces  and  threat- 
ening Nuremberg,  but  the  Swedes  advanced, 
and  he  was  forced  to  retreat,  so  that  ii  was  as  a 


1510 


GERMANY,  1631-1633. 


Death  of 
Gustavus  Adolphus, 


GERMANY,  1633-1634. 


deliverer  that,  oa  the  81st  March  [1632],  Gustavus 
was  received  in  beautiful  old  Nuremberg  with  a 
rapture  of  welcome.  .  .  .  Tilly  had  taken  post 
on  the  Lech,  and  Maximilian  was  collecting  an 
army  in  Bavaria.  The  oljject  of  Gustavus  was 
now  to  beat  one  or  other  of  them  before  they 
could  join  togetlier:  so  he  marched  forward, 
took  Donauwerth,  and  tried  to  take  Ingoldstadt, 
but  found  it  would  occupy  too  much  time,  and, 
though  all  the  generals  were  of  a  contrary  opin- 
ion, resolved  to  attack  Tilly  and  force  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Lech.  The  Imperialists  had  fortitied 
it  to  the  utmost,  but  in  their  very  teeth  the 
Swedes  succeeded  in  taking  advantage  of  a  bend 
in  the  river  to  play  on  tliem  with  their  formid- 
able artillery,  construct  a  pontoon  bridge,  and, 
after  a  desperate  struggle,  effect  a  passage.  Tilly 
was  struck  by  a  cannon-shot  in  the  knee,"  and 
died  soon  afterwards.  "On  went  Gustavus  to 
Augsburg  .  .  .  where  the  Emperor  had  expelled 
the  Lutheran  pastors  and  cleared  the  municipal 
■council  of  Protestant  burgomasters.  In  restor- 
ing the  former  state  of  things,  Gustavus  took  a 
fresh  step,  making  the  magistrates  not  only 
swear  fidelity  to  him  as  an  ally  till  the  end  of 
the  war,  but  as  a  sovereign.  This  made  the  Ger- 
mans begin  to  wonder  what  were  his  ulterior 
views.  Then  he  marched  on  upon  Bavaria,  in- 
tending to  bridge  the  Danube  and  take  Ratisbon, 
but  two  strong  forts  prevented  this.  .  .  .  He, 
however,  made  his  waj'  into  the  country  between 
the  Inn  and  the  Lech,  ilaximilian  retreating  be- 
fore him.  ...  At  Munich  the  inhabitants  brought 
him  their  keys.  As  they  knelt  he  said,  '  Rise, 
worsliip  God,  not  man.'.  .  .  To  compensate  the 
soldiers  for  not  plumlering  the  city,  the  King 
gave  them  each  a  crown  on  the  day  of  their  en- 
trance. .  .  .  Catholic  Germany  was  in  despair. 
There  was  only  one  general  in  whom  there  was 
any  hope,  and  that  was  the  discarded  Wallen- 
stein.  ...  He  made  himself  be  courted.  He 
would  not  come  to  Vienna,  only  to  Znaim  in 
Moravia,  where  he  made  his  terms  like  an  inde- 
pendent prince.  ...  At  last  he  undertook  to 
collect  an  army,  but  refused  to  take  the  com- 
mand for  more  than  three  months.  His  name 
was  enough  to  bring  his  Friedlanders  flocking  to 
his  standard.  Not  only  Catholics,  but  Protestants 
came,  viewing  Gustavus  as  a  foreign  invader. 
.  .  .  Wallenstein  received  subsidies  not  only  from 
the  Emperor,  but  from  the  Pope  and  the  King  of 
Spain,  towards  levj'ing  and  equipping  them,  and 
by  the  end  of  the  three  months  he  had  the  full 
40,000  all  in  full  order  for  the  march.  Then  he 
resigned  the  command.  .  .  .  He  affected  to  be 
bent  only  on  going  back  to  his  tower  and  his 
stars  at  Prague  [the  study  of  astrology  being  his 
favorite  occupation],  and  to  yield  slowly  to  the 
proposals  made  him.  He  was  to  be  Generalis- 
simo, neither  Emperor  nor  Archduke  was  ever  to 
enter  his  camp ;  he  was  to  name  all  his  officers, 
and  have  absolute  control.  .  .  .  Moreover,  he 
might  levy  contributions  as  he  chose,  and  dis- 
pose as  he  pleased  of  lands  and  property  taken 
from  the  enemy ;  Mecklenburg  was  to  be  secured 
to  him,  together  with  further  rewards  yet  un- 
specified :  and  when  Bohemia  was  freed  from  the 
enemy,  the  Emperor  was  to  live  there,  no  doubt 
under  his  control.  .  .  .  There  was  no  help  for  it, 
and  Wallenstein  thus  became  the  chief  power  in 
the  Empire,  in  fact  a  dictator.  The  power  was 
conferred  on  him  in  April.  The  first  thing  he 
did   was  to   turn  the   Saxons  out  of  Bohemia, 


which  was  an  easy  matter."  At  Egra,  Wallen- 
stein was  joined  by  the  Elector  of  Bavaria,  which 
raised  the  Catholic  force  to  60,000.  "The  whole 
army  marched  upon  Nuremberg,  and  Gustavus, 
withonl)-  30,000  men,  da.shed  back  to  its  defence. 
Wallenstein  had  intrenciied  himself  on  an  emi- 
nence called  Flirth. "  As  Nuremberg  was  terribly 
distressed,  his  own  army  suffering,  and  being  in- 
fected with  the  lawless  habits  of  German  warfare, 
Gustavus  found  it  necessar}-  to  attempt  (August 
34)  the  storming  of  the  Imperialists'  camp.  He 
was  repulsed,  after  losing  3,000  of  his  Swedes 
and  thrice  as  many  Germans.  He  then  returned 
to  Bavaria,  while  Wallenstein,  abandoning  his 
hope  of  taking  Nuremberg,  moved  into  Saxony 
and  began  ravaging  the  country.  The  Swedish 
king  followed  him  so  quickly  tliat  he  had  no 
time  to  establish  the  fortified  camp  he  had  in- 
tended, but  was  forced  to  take  up  an  intrenched 
position  at  Llitzen.  There  he  was  attacked  on 
the  6th  of  November.  1633,  and  defeated  in  a 
desperate  battle,  which  became  one  of  the  mem- 
orable conflicts  in  history  because  it  brought  to 
an  end  the  great  and  splendid  career  of  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  the  Swede.  The  king  fell  as  he  was 
leading  a  charge,  and  the  fierce  fight  went  on 
over  his  body  until  the  enemy  had  been  driven 
from  the  field. — C.  M.  Yonge,  Cameos  from  Eng- 
lish History,  Qth  series,  c.  19. 

Also  in  :  G.  B.  Malleson,  Battle-fiekls  of  Oer- 
many,  ch.  8-3. — R.  C.  Trench,  Gnstavus  AdolpJms 
in  Oermany. — .1.  L.  Stevens,  Hist,  of  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  ch.  1.0-18. 

A.  D.  1631-1641.— The  Thirty  Years  War: 
The  war  in  Lorraine. — Possession  of  the 
duchy  taken  by  the  French.  See  LoRK.\rNE: 
A.  D.  1634-1063. 

A.  D.  1632-1634. — The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Retirement  of  Wallenstein  to  Bohemia. — Ox- 
enstiern  in  the  leadership  of  the  Protestant 
cause. — Union  of  Heilbronn. — Inaction  and 
suspicious  conduct  of  Wallenstein. — The  Ban 
pronounced  against  him. — His  assassination. 
— "  The  account  of  the  battle  [of  Liitzen]  trans- 
mitted by  Wallenstein  to  the  Imperial  Court,  led 
Ferdinand  to  think  that  lie  had  gained  the  day. 
.  .  .  But  .  .  .  the  reputed  conqueror  was  glad 
to  shelter  himself  behind  the  mountains  of  the 
Bohemian  frontier.  After  the  battle,  Wallenstein 
found  it  necessary  to  evacuate  Saxony  in  all 
haste;  and,  leaving  garrisons  at  Leipsic,  Plauen, 
Zwickau,  Chenmitz,  Freiberg,  Meissen,  and 
Frauenstein,  he  reached  Bohemia  without  further 
loss,  and  put  his  army  into  winter-quarters. 
After  his  arrival  at  Prague,  he  caused  many  of 
his  officers  to  be  executed  for  their  conduct  at 
Liitzen,  among  whom  were  several  who  belonged 
to  families  of  distinction,  nor  would  he  allow 
them  to  plead  the  Emperor's  pardon.  A  few  he 
rewarded.  The  harshness  of  his  proceedings  in- 
creased the  hatred  already  felt  for  him  by  many 
of  his  officers,  and  esiiecially  the  Italian  portion 
of  them.  .  .  .  Axel  Oxenstiern,  the  Swedish 
Chancellor,  succeeded,  on  the  death  of  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  to  the  supreme  direction  of  the  affairs 
of  Sweden  in  Germany,  and  was  invested  by 
the  Council  at  Stockholm  with  full  powers  both 
to  direct  the  army  and  to  negotiate  with  the 
German  courts.  Duke  Bernhard  of  Saxe-Wei- 
mar  retained  the  military  command  of  the  Swed- 
ish-German army,  divisions  of  which  were  can- 
toned from  the  Baltic  to  the  Danube.  After 
driving  the  Imperialists  from  Saxony,  Bernhard 


1511 


GERMANY,  1633-1634. 


Assassinatioti  of 
Wallenstein. 


GERMANY,  1634-1639. 


had  hastened  into  Franconia,  the  bishoprics  of 
which,  according  to  a  promise  of  Gustavus,  were 
to  be  erected  in  his  favour  into  a  ducliy;  but, 
after  taking  Bamberg,  his  assistance  was  invoked 
by  General  Horn,  on  tlie  Upper  Danube.  One  of 
the  first  cares  of  Oxenstiern  was  to  consolidate 
the  German  alliance;  and,  in  March  1633,  he 
summoned  a  meeting  at  Heilbronn  of  the  States 
of  the  four  Circles  of  the  Upper  and  Lower  Rhine, 
Franconia,  and  Suabia,  as  well  as  deputies  from 
Nuremberg,  Strasburg,  Frankfort,  Ulm,  Augs- 
burg, and  other  cities  of  the  empire.  The  as- 
sembly was  also  attended  by  ambassadors  from 
France,  England,  and  Holland :  and  on  April  9th 
was  effected  the  Union  of  Heilbronn.  Branden- 
burg aijd  Saxony  stood  aloof;  nor  was  France, 
though  she  renewed  the  alliance  with  Sweden, 
included  in  the  Union.  The  French  minister  at 
Heilbronn  assisted,  however,  in  the  formation  of 
the  Union,  although  he  endeavoured  to  limit  the 
power  of  Oxenstiern,  to  whom  the  conduct  of 
the  war  was  intrusted.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Swedes  also  concluded  a  treaty  with  the  Palati- 
nate, now  governed,  or  rather  claimed  to  be  gov- 
erned, by  Louis  Philip,  brother  of  the  Elector 
Frederick  V.,  as  guardian  and  regent  for  the 
iatter's  youthful  sou  Charles  Louis.  The  unfor- 
tunate Frederick  had  expired  at  Mentz  in  his 
37th  year,  not  many  days  after  the  death  of  Gus- 
tavus Adolphus.  .  .  .  Swedish  garrisons  were  to 
be  maintained  in  Frankenthal,  Bacharach,  Kaub, 
and  other  places;  Mannheim  was  to  be  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  Swedes  so  long  as  the  war  should 
last.  .  .  .  After  the  junction  of  Duke  Bernhard 
with  Horn,  the  Swedish  army,  —  for  so  we  shall 
continue  to  call  it,  though  composed  in  great 
part  of  Germans, — endeavoured  to  penetrate  into 
Bavaria;  but  the  Imperial  General  Altringer, 
aided  by  John  von  Werth,  a  commander  of  dis- 
tinction, succeeded  in  covering  Munich,  and  en- 
abled Maximilian  to  return  to  his  capital.  The 
Swedish  generals  were  also  embarrassed  by  a 
mutinj'  of  their  mercenaries,  as  well  as  by  their 
own  misunderstandings  and  quarrels;  and  all 
that  Duke  Bernhard  was  able  to  accomplish  in 
the  campaign  of  1633,  besides  some  forays  into 
Bavaria,  was  the  capture  of  Ratisbon  in  Novem- 
ber." — T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk. 
4,  cJt.  6  (f,  2). — Wallenstein,  meantime,  had  been 
doing  little.  "After  a  long  period  of  inaction 
in  Bohemia,  he  marched  during  the  summer  of 
1633,  with  imperial  pomp  and  splendor,  into  Sile- 
sia. There  he  found  a  mixed  army  of  Swedes, 
Saxons,  and  Brandenburgers,  with  Matthias 
Thurn,  who  began  the  war,  among  them.  Wal- 
lenstein finally  shut  in  this  array  [at  Steinau]  so 
that  he  might  have  captured  it ;  but  he  let  it  go, 
and  went  back  to  Bohemia,  where  he  began  to 
negotiate  with  Saxony  for  peace.  Meanwhile 
the  alliance  formed  at  Heilbronn  had  brought 
Maximilian  of  Bavaria  into  great  distress.  Re- 
gensburg  [Ratisbon],  hitherto  occupied  by  him, 
and  regarded  as  an  outwork  of  Bavaria  and  Aus- 
tria, had  been  taken  by  Bernard  of  Weimar. 
But  AVallensteiu,  whom  "the  emperor  sent  to  the 
rescue,  only  went  into  the  Upper  Palatinate,  and 
then  returned  to  Bohemia.  He  seemed  to  look 
upon  that  country  as  a  strong  and  commanding 
position  from  which  he  could  dictate  peace.  He 
carried  on  secret  negotiations  with  France, 
Sweden,  and  all  the  emperor's  enemies.  He  had, 
indeed,  the  power  to  do  this  under  his  commis- 
sion ;  but  his  attitude  toward  his  master  became 


constantly  more  equivocal.  The  emperor  was 
anxious  to  be  rid  of  him  without  making  him  an 
enemy,  and  wished  to  give  to  his  own  son,  the 
young  King  of  Hungary,  the  command  in  cliief. 
But  the  danger  of  losing  his  place  drove  Wal- 
lenstein to  bolder  schemes.  At  his  camp  at  Pil- 
sen,  all  his  principal  officers  were  induced  by  him 
to  unite  in  a  written  request  that  ho  should  in  no- 
case  desert  them  —  a  step  which  seemed  much 
like  a  conspiracy.  But  some  of  the  generals,  as 
Gallas,  Aldringer,  and  Piccolomini,  soon  aban- 
doned Wallenstein,  and  gave  warning  to  the  em- 
peror. He  secretly  signed  a  jiatent  deposing 
Wallenstein,  and  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  Picco- 
lomini and  Gallas,  January  24, 1634,  but  acted 
with  the  profoundest  dissimulation  imtil  he  had 
made  sure  of  most  of  the  commanders  who- 
served  under  him.  Then,  suddenly,  on  February 
18,  AValleustein,  liis  brother-in-law  Tertzski, 
How,  Neumann,  and  Kinsky  were  put  under  the 
ban,  and  the  general's  possessions  were  confis- 
cated. Now,  .at  length,  Wallenstein  openly  re- 
volted, and  began  to  treat  with  the  Swedes  for 
desertion  to  them;  but  they  did  not  fully  trust 
him.  Attended  only  liy  tive  Sclavonic  regiments, 
who  remained  faithful  to  him,  he  went  to  Eger, 
where  he  was  to  meet  troojis  of  Beruai-d  of  Wei- 
mar; but  before  he  covdd  join  them,  he  and  the 
friends  named  above  were  assassinated,  February 
25,  by  traitors  who  had  remained  in  his  intimate 
companionship,  and  whom  he  trusted,  under  the 
command  of  Colonel  Butler,  an  Irishman,  em- 
ployed by  Piccolomini." — C.  T.  Lewis,  Hist,  of 
Oermany,  ch.  18,  seet.  10. 

Also  in  :  F.  Schiller,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Years' 
War,  bk.  4.— J.  Mitchell,  Life  of  Wallenstein,  eh. 
8-10. — Sir  E.  Cust,  Lives  of  the  Warriors  of  the 
Thirty  Tears    War,  pt.  1. 

A.  D.  1634-1639. — The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Successes  of  the  Imperialists. — Their  victory 
at  Nordlingen. — Richelieu  and  France  become 
active  in  the  war. — Duke  Bernhard's  conquest 
of  Alsace. — Richelieu's  appropriation  of  the 
conquest  for  France. — "  Want  of  union  among 
the  Protestants  prevented  them  from  deriving  all 
the  benefit  which  they  had  at  first  anticipated 
from  Wallenstein's  death.  The  King  of  Hun- 
gary assumed  the  command  of  the  army,  and  by 
the  aid  of  money,  which  was  plentifvdly  distrib- 
uted, the  soldiers  were,  without  difficulty,  kept 
in  obedience ;  not  the  slightest  attempt  was  any 
where  made  to  resist  the  Emperor's  orders.  On 
the  other  hand,  Bernhard  of  Weimar  and  Field- 
Marshal  Horn  were  masters  of  Bavaria.  In  July 
1634,  they  gained  a  complete  victory  at  Land- 
shut,  over  General  Altringer,  who  was  slain  in 
the  action.  .  .  .  The  Swedes,  who  had  so  long 
been  victorious,  were,  in  their  turn,  destined  to 
taste  the  bitterness  of  defeat.  15,000  Spaniards, 
under  the  Cardinal  Infant,  son  of  Philip  III., 
entered  Germany  [see  Netherlands:  A.D.  1631- 
1633,  and  1635-1638],  and  in  conjunction  with 
the  imperial  army,  under  the  King  of  Hungary, 
laid  siege  to  N5rdlingen.  Field-JIarshal  Horn, 
and  Bernhard  of  Weimar,  hurried  to  the  relief  of 
the  place.  Owing  to  the  superiority  of  the 
enemy,  who  was  besides  strongly  intrenched,  the 
Swedish  commanders  had  no  intention  to  hazard 
a  battle,  before  the  arrival  of  the  Rhin-graff 
Count  Otho,  with  another  division  of  the  army, 
which  was  already  close  at  hand;  but  the  im- 
petuosity of  the  Duke  of  Weimar  lost  every 
thing.      Horn  had  succeeded  in  carrying  a  hill. 


1512 


GERMANY,  1634-1639. 


RicheliexCs 
Intrigues, 


GERMANY,   1634-1639. 


called  the  Amsberg,  a  strong  point,  which  placed 
him  in  communication  with  the  town,  and  almost 
secured  the  victory.  Beruhard.  thiuldug  tliat  so 
favourable  au  opening  should  not  be  neglected, 
hurried  on  to  the  attack  of  another  post.  It  was 
taken  and  retakeu;  both  armies  were  gradually, 
and  without  method,  drawn  into  the  combat, 
which,  after  eiglit  hours'  duration,  ended  in  the 
complete  defeat  of  the  Swedes.  Horn  was  made 
prisoner;  and  Berahard  escaped  on  a  borrowed 
horse.  .  .  .  The  defeat  of  Nordlingen  almost 
ruined  tlie  Swedish  cause  in  Germany ;  the  spell 
of  invincibility  was  gone,  and  the  effects  of  the 
panic  far  surpassed  those  which  the  sword  had 
produced.  Strong  fortresses  were  abandoned 
before  the  enemy  came  in  sight ;  provinces  were 
evacuated,  and  armies,  that  had  been  deemed 
almost  inconquerable.  deserted  their  chiefs,  and 
broke  into  bands  of  lawless  robbers,  who  pillaged 
their  way  in  every  direction.  Bavaria,  Suabia 
and  Franconia  were  lost ;  and  it  was  only  behind 
the  Rhine  that  the  scattered  fugitives  could  again 
be  brought  into  something  like  order.  .  .  .  The 
Emperor  refused  to  grant  the  Swedes  any  other 
terms  of  peace  than  permission  to  retire  from  the 
empire.  The  Elector  of  Saxony,  forgetful  of 
■what  was  due  to  his  religion,  and  forgetful  of  all 
that  Sweden  had  done  for  his  country,  concluded, 
at  Prague,  a  separate  peace  with  the  Emperor; 
and  soon  afterwards  joined  the  Imperialists 
against  his  former  allies.  The  fortunes  of  the 
Protestants  would  have  sunk  beneath  this  addi- 
tional blow,  had  not  France  come  to  their  aid. 
Richelieu  had  before  only  nourished  the  war  by 
means  of  subsidies,  and  had,  at  one  time,  become 
nearly  as  jealous  of  the  Swedes  as  of  the  Aus- 
trians;  but  no  sooner  was  their  power  broken, 
than  the  crafty  priest  took  an  active  share  in  the 
contest." — .1.  Mitchell,  Life  of  Wallenstein,  ch.  10. 
— "Richelieu  entered  resolutely  into  the  contest, 
and  in  163.5  displayed  enormous  diplomatic  ac- 
tivity. He  wished  not  only  to  reduce  Austria, 
but,  at  the  same  time,  Spain.  Spanish  soldiers, 
Spanish  treasure,  and  Spanish  generals  made  in 
great  part  the  strength  of  the  imperial  armies, 
and  Spain  besides  never  ceased  to  ferment  internal 
troubles  in  France.  Richelieu  signed  the  treaty 
of  Compiegne  with  the  Swedes  against  Ferdinand 
II.  By  its  conditions  he  granted  them  consider- 
able subsidies  in  order  that  they  should  continue 
the  war  in  Germany.  He  made  the  treaty  of  St. 
Germain  en  Laye  with  Bernard  of  Saxe  Weimar, 
to  whom  he  promised  an  annual  allowance  of 
money  as  well  as  Alsace,  provided  that  he  should 
remain  in  arms  to  wrest  Franche-Comte  from 
Philip  IV.  He  made  the  treaty  of  Paris  with 
the  Dutch,  who  were  to  help  the  King  of  France 
to  conquer  Flanders,  which  was  to  be  divided 
between  France  and  the  United  Provinces.  He 
made  the  treaty  of  Rivoli  with  the  dukes  of 
Savoy,  of  Parma,  and  of  Mantua,  who  were  to 
undertake  in  concert  with  France  the  invasion  of 
the  territories  of  Milan  and  to  receive  a  portion 
of  the  spoils  of  Spain.  At  the  same  time  he  de- 
clared war  against  the  Spanish  Government, 
•which  had  arrested  and  imprisoned  the  Elector 
of  Treves,  the  ally  of  France,  and  refused  to 
surrender  him  when  demanded.  Hostilities  im- 
mediately began  on  five  different  theatres  of  war 
—  in  the  Low  Countries,  on  the  Rhine,  in  East- 
ern Germany,  in  Italy,  and  in  Spain.  The  army 
of  the  Rhine,  commanded  by  Cardinal  de  la 
Valette,  was  to  operate  in  conjunction  with  the 


corps  of  Bernard  of  Sase  "Weimar  against  the 
Imperialists,  commanded  by  Count  Gallas.  To 
this  army  Turenne  was  attached.  It  consisted 
of  20,000  infantry,  5,000  cav.alry,  and  14  guns. 
This  was  the  army  upon  which  Richelieu  mainly 
relied.  .  .  .  Valette  was  to  annoy  the  enemy 
without  exposing  him.self,  and  was  not  to  ap- 
proach the  Rhine;  but  induced  by  Bernard,  who 
had  a  dashing  spirit  and  wished  to  reconquer  all 
he  had  lost,  encouraged  by  the  terror  of  the  Im- 
perialists who  raised  the  siege  of  Mayence,  lie 
determined  to  pass  the  river.  He  was  not  long 
in  repenting  of  that  stej).  He  established  his 
troops  round  Mayence  and  revictualled  this  place, 
which  was  occupied  by  a  Swedish  garrison, 
throwing  in  all  the  supplies  of  which  the  town 
had  need.  The  Imperialists,  who  had  calculated 
on  this  imprudence,  immediately  took  to  cutting 
off  his  supplies,  so  that  soon  everything  was 
wanting  in  the  French  camp.  .  .  .  The  scourge  of 
famine  threatened  the  French :  it  was  necessary  to 
retreat,  to  recross  the  Rhine,  to  pass  the  Sarre, 
and  seek  a  refuge  at  Metz.  Few  retreats  have 
been  so  difficult  and  so  sad.  The  army  was  in 
such  a  pitiable  condition  that  round  Mayence  the 
men  had  to  be  fed  with  roots  and  green  grapes, 
and  the  horses  with  branches  of  trees.  .  .  .  The 
sick  and  the  weary  were  abandoned,  the  guns 
were  buried,  villages  were  burnt  to  stay  the 
pursuit  of  the  enemy,  and  to  prevent  the  wretched 
soldiers  who  would  fall  out  of  the  ranks  from 
taking  refuge  in  them." — H.  M.  Hozier,  Turenne, 
ch.  3.  —  "Meanwhile,  Saxony  had  concluded  with 
the  Emperor  at  Pirna,  at  the  close  of  1634,  a  con- 
vention which  ripened  into  a  treaty  of  alliance, 
to  which  almost  all  the  princes  of  Northern  Ger- 
many subscribed,  at  Prague,  in  the  month  of 
May  following.  The  Electors  of  Saxony  and 
Brandenburg  were  thus  changed  into  enemies  of 
Sweden.  The  Swedish  General,  Banner  [or 
Baner],  who,  at  the  period  of  the  battle  of  NOrd- 
lingen,  had  been  encamped  side  by  side  with  the 
Saxon  arm}'  on  the  White  Hill  near  Prague,  had, 
on  the  first  indication  of  wavering  on  the  part  of 
its  Elector,  managed  skilfully  to  withdraw  his 
troops  from  the  dangerous  proximity.  On  the 
22nd  October  1635,  he  defeated  the  Saxon  army, 
at  DOmitz  on  the  Elbe,  then  invaded  Branden- 
burg, took  Havelberg,  and  even  threatened  Ber- 
lin. Compelled  by  the  approach  of  a  Saxon  and 
Imperialist  array  to  quit  his  prey,  he  turned 
and  beat  the  combined  army  at  W'ittstock  (24th 
September  1636).  After  that  battle,  he  drew  the 
reinforced  Imperialists,  commanded  by  Gallas, 
after  him  into  Pomerania ;  there  he  caused  them 
great  losses  by  cutting  off  their  supplies,  then 
forced  them  back  into  Saxony,  and,  following 
them  up  closely,  attacked  and  beat  them  badly 
at  Chemnitz  (4th  April,  1639)."  In  the  south, 
Duke  Bernhard  had  gained  meantime  some  solid 
successes.  After  his  retreat  from  Mayence,  in 
1635,  he  had  concluded  his  secret  treaty  with 
Richelieu,  placing  himself  wholly  at  the  service 
of  France,  and  I'eceiving  the  promise  of  4,000,000 
francs  yearly,  for  the  support  of  his  army,  and 
the  ultimate  sovereignty  of  Alsace  for  himself. 
"Having  concerted  measures  with  La  Valette 
[1636],  .  .  .  he  invaded  Lorraine,  drove  the  enemy 
thence,  taking  Saarburg  and  Pfalzburg,  and 
then,  entering  Alsace,  took  Saverne.  His  career 
of  conquest  in  Alsace  was  checked  by  the  in- 
vasion of  Burgundy  by  Gallas,  with  an  army  of 
40,000  men.     Duke  Bernhard  marched  with  all 


1513 


GERMANY,  1634-1639. 


Duke  Bernhard. 


GERMANY,  1640-1645. 


haste  to  Dijon,  and  forced  Gallas  to  fall  back, 
with  great  loss,  beyond  the  Saone  (November 
1636).  Pursuing  his  advantages,  early  the  fol- 
lowing year  he  forced  the  passage  of  the  Saone 
at  Gray,  despite  the  vivid  resistance  of  Prince 
Charles  of  Lorraine  (June  1637),  and  pursued 
that  commander  as  far  as  Besan9on.  Reinforced 
during  the  autumn,  he  marched  towards  the 
Upper  Rhine,  and,  undertaking  a  winter  cam- 
paign, captured  Lauilenburg,  after  a  skirmish 
with  John  of  Werth ;  then  Silckingen  and  Wald- 
shut.  and  laid  siege  to  Rheinfelden.  The  Im- 
perialist army,  led  by  John  of  Werth,  succeeded, 
indeed,  after  a  very  hot  encounter,  in  relieving 
that  place ;  but  three  days  later  Duke  Bernhard 
attacked  and  completely  defeated  it  (21st  Feb- 
ruary 1638),  taking  prisoners  not  only  John  of 
Werth  himself,  but  the  generals,  Savelli,  Enke- 
fort,  and  Sperreuter.  The  consequences  of  this 
victory  were  the  fall  of  Rheinfelden,  Rotteln, 
Neuenberg,  and  Freiburg.  Duke  Bernhard  then 
laid  siege  to  Breisach  (July  1638).  .  .  .  The  Im- 
perial general,  GOtz,  advanced  at  the  head  of  a 
force  considerably  outnumbering  that  of  Duke 
Bernhard.  Le.aving  a  portion  of  his  army  before 
the  place,  Duke  Bernhard  then  drew  to  himself 
Turenne,  who  was  l}'ing  in  the  vicinity  with 
3,000  men,  fell  upon  the  Imperialists  at  Witten- 
weiher  (30th  July),  completely  defeated  them, 
and  captured  their  whole  convoy.  Another  Im- 
perialist army,  led  by  the  Duke  of  Lorraine  in 
person,  shared  a  similar  fate  at  Thann,  in  the 
Sundgau,  on  the  4th  October  following.  Gotz, 
who  was  hastening  with  a  strengthened  army  to 
support  the  Duke  of  Lorraine,  attacked  Duke 
Bernhard  ten  days  later,  but  was  repulsed  witli 
great  loss.  Breisach  capitulated  on  the  7th  De- 
cember. Duke  Bernhard  took  possession  of  it  in 
his  own  name,  and  foiled  all  the  efforts  of  Riche- 
lieu to  secure  it  for  France,  by  garrisoning  it 
with  German  soldiers.  To  compensate  the  French 
Cardinal  Minister  for  Breisach,  Duke  Bernhard 
undertook  a  winter  campaign  to  drive  the  Im- 
perialists from  Franche-Comte.  Entering  that 
province  at  the  end  of  December,  he  speedily 
made  himself  master  of  its  richest  part.  He  then 
returned  to  Alsace  with  the  resolution  to  cross 
the  Rhine  and  carry  the  war  once  again  into 
Bavaria,"  and  then,  in  junction  with  Banner,  to 
Vienna.  "  He  had  made  all  the  necessary  prep- 
arations for  this  enterprise,  had  actually  sent  his 
army  across  the  Rhine,  when  he  died  very  sud- 
denly, not  without  suspicion  of  poison,  at  Neu- 
berg  am  Rhein  (8th  July,  1639).  The  lands  he 
had  conquered  he  bequeathed  to  his  brother. 
.  .  .  But  Richelieu  paid  no  attention  to  the 
wishes  of  the  dead  general.  Before  any  of  the 
family  could  interfere,  he  had  secured  all  the 
fortresses  in  Alsace,  even  Breisach,  which  was 
its  key,  for  France." — G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Battle- 
fields of  Oermany,  ch.  5. — "During  [1639]  Picco- 
lomini,  at  the  head  of  the  Imperialist  and  Spanish 
troops,  gave  battle  to  the  French  at  Diedenhofen. 
The  battle  took  place  on  the  7th  of  June,  and  the 
French  were  beaten  and  suffered  great  losses." — 
A.  Gindely,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Years'  Wai;  ch.  8. 

Also  in":  Sir  E.  Cust,  Lives  of  the  Warriors  of 
the  Thirty  Years'  War,  pt.  3.— S.  R.  Gardiner, 
Tlie  Thirty  Years'  War,  ch.  9,  sect.  5, 

A.  D.  1635-1638.— The  Thirty  Years  War : 
Campaigns  in  the  Netherlands. — The  Dutch 
and  French  against  the  Spaniards.  See  Neth- 
eblandb:  a.  D.  1635-1638. 


A.  D.  1636-1637.—  Diet  at  Ratisbon.— At- 
tempted negotiations  of  peace. — Death  of  the 
Emperor  Ferdinand  II. — "An  electoral  diet 
was  assembled  at  Ratisbon,  by  the  emperor  in 
person,  on  the  15th  of  September,  1636,  for  the 
ostensible  purpose  of  restoring  peace,  for  which 
some  vague  negotiations  had  been  opened  under 
the  mediation  of  the  pope  and  the  king  of  Den- 
mark, and  congresses  appointed  at  Hamburgh 
and  Cologne ;  but  with  the  real  view  of  procur- 
ing the  election  of  his  son  Ferdinand  as  king  of 
the  Romans.  .  .  .  Ferdinand  was  elected  with 
'■- 'y  the  fruitless  protest  of  the  Palatine  family, 
and  the  dissenting  voice  of  the  elector  of  Treves. 
.  .  .  The  emperor  did  not  long  survive  this 
happy  event.  He  died  on  the  15th  of  February, 
1637.  .  .  .  Ferdinand  .  .  .  seems  to  have  been 
the  first  who  formally  established  the  right  of 
primogeniture  in  all  his  hereditary  territories.  By 
his  testament,  dated  May  10th,  1621,  he  ordered 
that  all  his  Austrian  dominions  should  devolve  on 
his  eldest  male  descendant,  and  fixed  the  majority 
at  18  years." — W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of 
Austria,  ch.  56  (v.  2). 

A.  D.  1637. — Election  of  the  Emperor  Fer- 
dinand III. 

A.  D.  1640-1645.— The  Thirty  Years  War : 
Campaigns  of  Saner  and  Torstenson. — The 
second  Breitenfeld. —  Jankowitz. —  Mergent- 
heim.  —  Allerheim.  —  War  in  Denmark. — 
Swedish  army  in  Austria. — Saxony  forced  to 
neutrality. — "The  war  still  went  on  for  eight 
years,  but  the  only  influence  that  it  exerted  upon 
the  subsequent  Peace  was  that  it  overcame  the 
last  doubts  of  the  Imperial  court  as  to  the  indis- 
pensable principles  of  the  Peace.  .  .  .  The  first 
event  of  importance  on  the  theatre  of  war  after 
Bernhard's  death  was  Bauer's  attempt  to  join  the 
army  of  Weimar  in  central  Germany.  Not  in  a 
condition  to  pass  the  winter  in  Bohemia,  and 
threatened  in  Saxony  and  Silesia,  he  .  .  .  com- 
menced [March,  1640]  a  retreat  amidst  fearful 
devastations,  crossed  the  Elbe  at  Leitmeritz,  and 
arrived  April  3rd  at  Zwickau.  He  succeeded  in 
joining  with  the  mercenaries  of  Weimar  and  the 
troops  of  Lllneburg  and  Hesse  at  Saalfeld ;  "  but 
no  joint  action  was  found  possible.  "  Until  De- 
cember, the  war  on  both  sides  consisted  of 
marches  hither  and  thither,  accompanied  with 
horrible  devastation;  but  nothing  decisive  oc- 
curred. In  September  the  Diet  met  at  Ratisbon. 
While  wearisome  attempts  were  being  made  to 
bend  the  obstinacy  of  Austria,  Baner  resolved  to 
compel  her  to  yield  by  a  bold  stroke,  to  invade 
the  Upper  Palatinate,  to  surprise  Ratisbon,  and 
to  put  an  end  to  the  Diet  and  Emperor  together. 
.  .  .  NotwithoutdiflicultyGuebriant  [command- 
ing the  French  in  Alsace]  was  induced  to  follow, 
and  to  join  Baner  at  Erfurt.  .  .  .  But  the  sur- 
prise of  Ratisbon  was  a  failure.  .  .  .  The  armies 
now  separated  again.  Baner  exhausted  his  pow- 
ers of  persuasion  in  vain  to  induce  Guebriant  to 
go  with  him.  The  French  went  westward.  Hard 
pressed  himself,  Baner  proceeded  by  forced 
marches  towards  Bohemia,  and  by  the  end  of 
March  reached  Zwickau,  where  he  met  Guebri- 
ant again,  and  they  had  a  sharp  conflict  with  the 
Imperialists  on  the  Saal.  There  Baner  died,  on 
the  31st  of  May,  1641,  leaving  his  army  in  a  most 
critical  condition.  The  warfare  of  the  Swedish- 
French  arms  was  come  to  a  standstill.  Both 
armies  were  near  dissolution,  when,  in  November, 
Torstenson,  the  last  of  the  Gustavus  Adolphus 


1514 


GERMANY,  1640-1645. 


Campaigns 
of  the  Swedes. 


GERMANY,  1643-1644. 


school  of  generals,  and  the  one  who  most  nearly 
equalled  the  master,  appeared  with  the  Swedish 
army,  and  by  a  few  vigorous  strokes,  which  fol- 
lowed each  other  with  unexampled  rapidity,  re- 
stored the  supremacy  of  its  arms.  .  .  .  After 
three  months  of  rest,  which  he  mainly  devoted  to 
the  reorganization  and  payment  of  his  array,  by 
the  middle  of  January  [1642]  he  had  advanced 
towards  the  Elbe  and  the  Altmark ;  and  as  the 
Imperial  forces  were  weakened  by  sending  troops 
to  the  Rhine,  he  formed  the  great  project  of  pro- 
ceeding through  Silesia  to  the  Austrian  hereditary 
dominions.  On  April  3rd  he  crossed  the  Elbe  at 
Werben,  between  the  Imperial  troops,  increased 
his  army  to  20,000  men,  stormed  Glogau  on  May 
4th,  stood  before  Schweidnitz  on  the  30th,  and  de- 
feated Francis  Albert  of  Lauenburg ;  Schweidnitz, 
Neisse,  and  Oppeln  fell  into  his  hands.  Mean- 
while Guebriant,  after  subduing  the  defiant  and 
mutinous  spirit  of  his  troops  by  means  of  money 
and  promises,  had,  on  January  17th,  defeated  the 
Imperialists  near  Kempen,  not  far  from  Crefeld 
[at  Hulst],  for  which  he  was  honoured  with  the 
dignity  of  marshal.  But  this  was  a  short-lived 
gleam  of  light,  and  was  soon  followed  by  dark 
days,  occasioned  by  want  of  money  and  discon- 
tent in  the  camp.  ...  He  had  turned  eastward 
from  the  Rhine  to  seek  quarters  for  his  murmur- 
ing troops  in  nether  Germany,  when  Torstenson 
effected  a  decision  in  Saxony.  After  relieving 
Glogau,  and  having  in  vain  tried  to  enter  Bohe- 
mia, he  had  joined  the  detachments  of  Konigs- 
mark  and  Wrangel,  and  on  October  30th  he  ap- 
peared before  Leipzig.  On  November  2nd  there 
was  a  battle  near  Breitenfeld,  which  ended  in  a 
disastrous  defeat  of  the  Imperialists  and  Leipzig 
surrendered  to  Torstenson  three  weeks  after- 
wards. In  spite  of  all  the  advantages  which 
Torstenson  gained  for  himself,  it  never  came  to 
a  united  action  with  the  French;  and  tlie  first 
victory  won  by  the  French  in  the  Netherlands,  in 
May,  i643,  did  not  alter  this  state  of  things.  Tor- 
stenson .  .  .  was  suddenly  called  to  a  remote 
scene  of  war  in  the  north.  King  Christian  IV.  of 
Denmark  had  been  persuaded,  by  means  of  the 
old  Danish  jealousy  of  Sweden,  to  take  up  arms 
for  the  Emperor.  He  declared  war  just  as  Tor- 
stenson was  proceeding  to  Austria.  Vienna  was 
now  saved ;  but  so  much  the  worse  for  Denmark. 
In  forced  marches,  which  were  justly  admired, 
Torstenson  set  out  from  Silesia  towards  Den- 
mark at  the  end  of  October,  conducted  a  masterly 
campaign  against  tlie  Danes,  beat  them  wherever 
he  met  with  them,  conquered  Holstein  and  Schles- 
wig,  pushed  on  to  Jutland,  then,  while  Wrangel 
and  Horn  carried  on  the  war  (till  the  peace  of 
BrOmsebro,  August,  1645),  he  returned  and  again 
took  up  the  war  against  the  Imperialists,  every- 
where an  unvanquished  general.  The  Imperial- 
ists under  the  incompetent  Gallas  intended  to 
give  Denmark  breathing-time  by  creating  a  diver- 
sion ;  but  it  did  not  save  Denmark,  and  brought 
another  defeat  upon  themselves.  Gallas  did  not 
bring  back  more  than  2,000  men  from  Magdeburg 
to  Bohemia,  and  they  were  in  a  very  disorganized 
state.  He  was  pursued  by  Torstenson,  while 
Ragoczy  threatened  Hungary.  The  Emperor 
hastily  collected  what  forces  he  could  command, 
and  resolved  to  give  battle.  Torstenson  had  ad- 
vanced as  far  as  Glattau  in  February,  and  on 
March  6th,  1645,  a  battle  was  fought  near  Janko- 
witz,  three  miles  from  Tabor.  It  was  the  most 
brilliant  victory  ever  gained  by  the  Swedes.    The 


Imperial  army  was  cut  to  pieces ;  several  of  its 
leaders  imprisoned  or  killed.  In  a  few  weeks 
Torstenson  conquered  Moravia  and  Austria  as 
far  as  the  Danube.  Not  far  from  the  capital  it- 
self he  took  possession  of  the  Wolfsbrilcke.  As 
in  1618,  Vienna  was  in  great  danger."  But  the 
ill-success  of  the  French  "  alwaj's  counterbalanced 
the  Swedes'  advantages.  Either  they  were  beaten 
just  as  the  Swedes  were  victorious,  or  could  not 
turn  a  victory  to  account.  So  it  was  during  this 
year  [1645].  The  west  frontier  of  the  empire 
was  guarded  on  the  imperial  side  by  Jlercy,  to- 
gether with  John  of  Werth,  after  he  was  liberated 
from  prison.  On  26th  March,  Turenne  crossed 
the  Rhine,  and  advanced  towards  Frauconia. 
There  he  encamped  near  Mergentheim  and  Rosen- 
berg. On  5th  May,  a  battle  near  Mergentheim 
ended  with  the  entire  defeat  of  the  French,  and 
Turenne  escaped  with  the  greatest  difficulty  by 
way  of  Hammelburg,  towards  Fulda.  The  vic- 
tors pushed  on  to  the  Rhine.  To  avenge  this 
defeat,  Enghien  was  sent  from  Paris,  and,  at  the 
beginning  of  July,  arrived  at  Spires,  with  12,000 
men.  His  forces,  together  with  KOnlgsmark's, 
the  remnant  of  Turenne's  and  the  Hessians, 
amounted  to  30,000  men.  At  first  Mercy  dexter- 
ously avoided  a  battle  under  unfavourable  cir- 
cumstances, but  on  August  3d  the  contest  was 
inevitable.  A  bloody  battle  was  fought  between 
Nordlingen  and  DonauwOrth,  near  AUerheim 
[called  the  battle  of  N5rdlingen,  by  the  French], 
which  was  long  doubtful,  but,  after  tremendous 
losses,  resulted  in  the  victory  of  the  French. 
Mercy's  fall,  Werth's  imprudent  advance,  and  a 
linal  brave  assault  of  the  Hessians,  decided  the 
day.  But  the  victors  were  so  weakened  that  they 
could  not  fully  take  advantage  of  it.  Conde  was 
ill ;  and  in  the  autumn  Turenne  was  compelled, 
not  without  perceptible  damage  to  the  cause,  to 
retreat  with  his  army  to  the  Neckar  and  the 
Rhine.  Neither  had  Torstenson  been  able  to 
maintain  his  position  in  Austria.  He  had  been 
obliged  to  raise  the  siege  of  Brunn,  and  learnt  at 
the  same  time  that  Ragoczy  had  just  made  peace 
with  the  Emperor.  Obliged  to  retire  to  Bohemia, 
he  found  his  forces  considerably  diminished. 
Meanwhile,  KOnigsmark  had  won  an  important 
advantage.  While  Torstenson  was  in  Austria  he 
gained  a  firm  footing  in  Sa.xony.  Then  came  the 
news  of  AUerheim,  and  of  the  peace  of  BrOmse- 
bro.  Except  Dresden  and  Konigstein,  all  the  im- 
portant points  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Swedes; 
so,  on  the  6th  of  September  [1645],  the  Elector 
John  George  concluded  a  treaty  of  neutrality  for 
six  months.  Besides  money  and  supplies,  the 
Swedes  received  Leipzig,  Torgau,  and  the  right 
of  passage  through  the  country.  Meanwhile, 
Torstenson  had  retreated  into  the  north-east  of 
Bohemia,  and  severe  physical  sufferings  com- 
pelled him  to  give  up  the  command.  He  was 
succeeded  by  Charles  Gustavus  Wrangel." — L. 
Hausser,  The  Period  of  the  Beformation,  1517  to 
1648,  ch.  39. 

Also  in;  W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  ths  Home  of  Aus- 
tria, ch.  58  (p.  2). 

A.  D.  1642-1643.— The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Condi's  victory  at  Rocroi  and  campaign  on  the 
Moselle.  See  France;  A.  D.  1642-1643,  and 
1643. 

A.  D.  1643-1644.— The  Thirty  Years  War: 
Campaigns  of  Turenne  and  Cond^  against 
Merci,  on  the  Upper  Rhine. — Diitlingen. — 
Freiburg. — Philipsburg. — "After  the  death  of 


1515 


GERMANY,  1643-1644. 


Tiirenne  and 
Conde. 


GERMANY,  1646-1648. 


Bernard  of  Saxe  "Weimar,  Marshal  Guebriant  had 
been  phiced  in  command  of  the  troops  of  Wei- 
mar. He  had  besieged  and  taken  Rottweil  in 
Suabia,  but  had  there  been  liillcd.  Rantzau,  who 
succeeded  him  in  command  of  the  Weimar  army, 
marched  (34-25  Nov.,  1643)  upon  Diitliugen  [or 
Tuttlingen],  on  the  Upper  Rhine,  was  there 
beaten  by  Mercy  and  made  prisoner,  with  tlie 
loss  of  many  officers  and  7.000  soldiers.  This 
was  a  great  triumpli  for  the  Bavarians ;  a  terrible 
disaster  for  France.  The  whole  of  the  German 
infantr}'  in  the  French  service  was  dispersed  or 
taken,  the  cavalry  retreated  as  they  best  could 
upon  the  Rhine.  .  .  .  Circumstances  required 
active  measures.  Plenipotentiaries  had  just  as- 
sembled at  Jliinster  to  begin  the  negotiations 
which  ended  with  the  peace  of  Westphalia.  It 
was  desired  that  the  French  Government  should 
support  the  French  diplomatist  by  quick  suc- 
cesses  Tureune  was  sent  to  the  Rhine  with 

reinforcements.  .  .  .  He  re-established  discipline, 
and  breathed  into  [the  army]  a  new  spirit.  .  .  . 
At  the  same  time,  by  negotiations,  the  prisoners 
who  had  been  taken  at  Dtltlingen  were  restored 
to  France,  the  gaps  in  the  ranks  were  filled  up, 
and  in  the  spring  of  1644  Turenne  found  himself 
at  the  head  of  9,000  men,  of  whom  5,000  were 
cavalry,  and  was  in  a  position  to  take  the  field." 
He  "  pushed  through  the  Black  Forest,  and  near 
the  source  of  the  Danube  gained  a  success  over 
a  Bavarian  detachment.  For  some  reason  which 
is  not  clear  he  threw  a  garrison  into  Freiburg, 
and  retired  across  the  Rhine.  Had  he  remained 
near  the  town  he  would  have  prevented  Mercy 
from  investing  it.  So  soon  as  Turenne  was  over 
the  river,  Mercy  besieged  Freiburg,  and  although 
Turenne  advanced  to  relieve  the  place,  a  stupid 
error  of  some  of  his  infantry  made  him  fail,  and 
Freiburg  capitulated  to  Mercy. " — H.  M.  Hozier, 
Turenne,  ch.  3  and  5. — "  Affairs  being  in  so  bad 
a  state  about  the  Black  Forest,  the  Great  Conde, 
at  that  time  Due  d'Enghien,  was  brought  up, 
with  10,000  men;  thus  raising  the  French  to  a 
number  above  the  enemy's.  He  came  crowned 
with  the  immortal  laurels  of  Rocroi ;  and  in  vir- 
tue of  his  birth,  as  a  prince  of  the  blood-royal, 
took  precedence  of  the  highest  officers  in  the  ser- 
vice. Merci,  a  capable  and  daring  general,  aware 
of  his  inferiorit}',  now  posted  himself  a  short 
distance  from  Freyburg,  in  a  position  almost  in- 
accessible. He  garnished  it  with  felled  trees  and 
intrenchments,  mountains,  woods,  and  marshes, 
which  of  themselves  defied  attack."  Turenne 
advocated  a  flank  movement,  instead  of  a  direct 
assault  upon  Jlerci's  position ;  but  Conde,  reck- 
less of  his  soldiers'  lives,  persisted  in  leading 
them  against  the  enemy's  works.  "A  terrible 
action  ensued  (August  3,  1644).  Turenne  made 
a  long  detour  through  a  defile ;  Conde,  awaiting 
his  arrival  on  the  ground,  postponed  the  assault 
till  three  hours  before  sunset,  and  then  ascended 
the  steep.  Merci  had  the  worse,  and  retreated 
to  a  fresh  position  on  the  Black  Jlountain,  where 
he  successfully  repulsed  for  one  day  Conde's  col- 
umns (August  5).  In  this  action  Gaspard  Merci 
was  killed.  Conde  now  adopted  the  flank  move- 
ment, which,  originally  recommended  by  Tu- 
renne, would  have  saved  much  bloodshed;  and 
Merci,  hard  pressed,  escaped  by  a  rapid  retreat, 
leaving  behind  him  his  artillery  and  baggage 
(Aug.  9).  These  are  the  '  three  days  of  Frey- 
burg.' To  retake  the  captured  Freyburg  after 
their  victory  .  .  .  was  the  natural   suggestion 


first  heard."  But  Turenne  persuaded  Conde  that 
the  reduction  of  Philipsburg  was  more  impor- 
tant. ' '  Philipsburg  was  taken  after  a  short  siege ; 
and  its  fall  was  accompanied  b_v  the  submission 
of  the  adjacent  towns  of  Germersheim,  Speier, 
Worms,  Mentz,  Oppenheim  and  Landau.  Conde 
at  this  conjuncture  left  the  Upper  Rhine,  and 
took  away  his  regiments  with  him." — T.  O. 
Cockayne,  Life  of  Turenne,  pp.  30-22. 

Also  in:  G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Battle-fields  of 
Germany,  ch.  6. 

A.  0.1646-1648.— The  Thirty 'V^ears  War: 
Its  final  campaiens. — The  sufferings  of  Ba- 
varia.— Truce  and  peace  negotiations  initiated 
by  the  Elector  Maximilian. — The  ending  of 
the  war  at  Prague.— -"  The  retreat  of  the  French 
[after  the  battle  of  Allerheim]  enabled  the  en- 
emy to  turn  his  whole  force  upon  the  Swedes 
in  Bohemia.  Gustavus  Wrangel,  no  unworthy 
successor  of  Banner  and  Torstensohn,  had,  in 
1646,  been  appointed  Commander-in-chief  of  the 
Swedish  army.  .  .  .  The  Archduke,  after  rein- 
forcing his  army  .  .  .  moved  against  Wrangel, 
in  the  hope  of  being  able  to  overwhelm  him  by 
his  superior  force  before  Koenigsmark  could 
join  him,  or  the  French  effect  a  diversion  in  his 
favour.  Wrangel,  however,  did  not  await  him." 
He  moved  through  Upper  Saxony  and  Hesse,  to 
Weimar,  where  he  was  joined  by  the  flying  corps 
of  Koenigsmark.  Finally,  after  much  delay,  he 
was  joined  likewise  by  Turenne  and  the  French. 
"The  junction  took  place  at  Giessen,  and  they 
now  felt  themselves  strong  enough  to  meet  the 
enemy.  The  latter  had  followed  the  Swedes 
into  Hesse,  in  order  to  intercept  their  commis- 
sariat, and  to  prevent  their  union  with  Turenne. 
In  both  designs  they  had  been  unsuccessful ;  and 
the  Imperialists  now  saw  themselves  cut  off  from 
the  Maine,  and  exposed  to  great  scarcity  and 
want  from  the  loss  of  their  magazines.  Wrangel 
took  advantage  of  their  weakness  to  execute  a 
plan  by  which  he  hoped  to  give  a  new  turn  to 
the  war.  .  .  .  He  determined  to  follow  the  course 
of  the  Danube,  and  to  break  into  the  Austrian 
territories  through  the  midst  of  Bavaria.  .  .  . 
He  moved  hastily,  .  .  .  defeated  a  Bavarian 
corps  near  Donauwerth,  and  passed  that  river,  as 
well  as  the  Lech,  unopposed.  But  by  wasting 
his  time  in  the  unsuccessful  siege  of  Augsburg, 
he  gave  opportunity  to  the  Imperialists,  not  only 
to  relieve  that  city,  but  also  to  repulse  him  as 
far  as  Lauingen.  No  sooner,  however,  had  they 
turned  towards  Suabia,  with  a  view  to  remove 
the  war  from  Bavaria,  than,  seizing  the  oppor- 
tunity, he  repassed  the  Lech,  and  guarded  the 
passage  of  it  against  the  Imperialists  themselves. 
Bavaria  now  lay  open  and  defenceless  before 
him ;  the  French  and  Swedes  quickly  overran  it ; 
and  the  soldiery  indemnified  themselves  for  all 
dangers  by  frightful  outrages,  robberies,  and  ex- 
tortions. The  arrival  of  the  Imperial  troops,  who 
at  last  succeeded  in  passing  the  Lech  at  Thier- 
haupten,  only  increased  the  misery  of  this  coun- 
try, which  friend  and  foe  indiscriminately  plun- 
dered. And  now,  for  the  first  time  during  the 
whole  course  of  this  war,  the  courage  of  Maxi- 
milian, which  for  eight-and-twenty  years  had 
stood  unshaken  amidst  fearful  dangers,  began  to 
waver.  Ferdinand  II.,  his  school-companion  at 
Ingolstadt,  and  the  friend  of  his  youth,  was  no 
more;  and,  with  the  death  of  his  friend  and 
benefactor,  the  strong  tie  was  dissolved  which 
had  linked  the  Elector  to  the  House  of  Austria. 


1516 


GERMANY,  1646-1648. 


End  of  the 
Thirty  Years  War. 


GERMANY. 


.  .  .  Accordingly,  the  motives  whicli  tlie  artifices 
of  France  now  put  in  operation,  in  order  to  detacli 
him  from  the  Austrian  alliance,  and  to  induce 
him  to  lay  down  his  arms,  were  drawn  entirely 
from  political  considerations.  .  .  .  The  Elector 
of  Bavaria  was  unfortunately  led  to  believe  that 
the  Spaniards  alone  were  disinclined  to  peace, 
and  that  nothing  but  Spanish  influence  had  in- 
duced the  Emperor  so  long  to  resist  a  cessation 
of  hostilities.  Maximilian  detested  the  Spaniards, 
and  could  never  forgive  their  having  opposed 
his  application  for  the  Palatine  Electorate.  .  .  . 
All  doubts  disappeared ;  and,  convinced  of  the 
necessity  of  this  step,  he  thought  he  should  suf- 
ficiently discharge  his  obligations  to  the  Emperor 
if  he  invited  him  also  to  share  in  the  benefit  of 
the  truce.  The  deputies  of  the  three  crowns,  and 
of  Bavaria,  met  at  Ulm,  to  adjust  the  conditions. 
But  it  was  soon  evident,  from  the  instructions  of 
the  Austrian  ambassador,  that  it  was  not  the  in- 
tention of  the  Emperor  to  second  the  conclusion 
of  a  truce,  but  if  possible  to  prevent  it.  .  .  . 
The  good  intentions  of  the  Elector  of  Bavaria,  to 
include  the  Emperor  iu  the  benefit  of  the  truce, 
having  been  thus  rendered  unavailing,  he  felt 
himself  justified  in  providing  for  his  own  safety. 
.  .  .  He  agreed  to  the  Swedes  extending  their 
quarters  in  Suabia  and  Franconia,  and  to  his 
own  being  restricted  to  Bavaria  and  the  Palati- 
nate. The  conquests  which  he  had  made  in 
Suabia  were  ceded  to  the  allies,  who,  on  their 
part,  restored  to  him  what  they  had  taken  from 
Bavaria.  Cologne  and  Hesse  Cassel  were  also 
included  in  the  truce.  After  the  conclusion  of 
this  treaty,  upon  the  14th  March,  1647,  the 
French  and  Swedes  left  Bavaria.  .  .  .  Turenne, 
according  to  agreement,  marched  into  Wurtem- 
burg,  where  he  forced  the  Landgrave  of  Darm- 
stadt and  the  Elector  of  Mentz  to  imitate  the 
example  of  Bavaria,  and  to  embrace  the  neutral- 
ity. And  now,  at  last,  France  seemed  to  have 
attained  the  great  object  of  its  policy,  that  of 
depriving  the  Emperor  of  the  support  of  the 
League,  and  of  his  Protestant  allies.  .  .  .  But 
.  .  .  after  a  brief  crisis,  the  fallen  power  of  Aus- 
tria rose  again  to  a  formidable  strength.  The 
jealousy  which  France  entertained  of  Sweden, 
prevented  it  from  permitting  the  total  ruin  of 
the  Emperor,  or  allowing  the  Swedes  to  obtain 
such  a  preponderance  in  Germany,  which  might 
have  been  destructive  to  France  herself.  Accord- 
ingly, the  French  minister  declined  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  the  distresses  of  Austria;  and  the 
army  of  Turenne,  separating  from  that  of  Wrang- 
el,  retired  to  the  frontiers  of  the  Netherlands. 
Wrangel,  indeed,  after  moving  from  Suabia  into 
Franconia,  taking  Schweinfurt,  .  .  .  attempted 
to  make  his  way  into  Bohemia,  and  laid  siege  to 
Egra,  the  key  of  that  kingdom.  To  relieve  this 
fortress,  the  Emperor  put  his  last  army  in  mo- 
tion, and  placed  himself  at  its  head.  But  .  .  . 
on  his  arrival  Egra  was  already  taken. "  Mean- 
time the  Emperor  had  engaged  in  intrigues  with 
the  Bavarian  oflicers  and  had  nearlj'  seduced  the 
whole  army  of  the  Elector.  The  latter  discovered 
this  conspiracy  in  tinae  to  thwart  it ;  but  he  now 
suddenly,  on  his  own  behalf,  struck  hands  with 
the  Emperor  again,  and  threw  over  his  late  agree- 
ments with  the  Swedes  and  French.  "He  had  not 
derived  from  the  truce  the  advantages  he  expected. 
Far  from  tending  to  accelerate  a  general  peace,  it 
had  a  pernicious  influence  upon  the  negociations 
atMunster  and  Osnaburg,  and  had  made  the  allies 


bolder  in  their  demands."  Maximilian,  therefore, 
renounced  the  truce  and  began  hostilities  anew. 
"This  resolution,  and  the  assistance  which  he 
immediately  despatched  to  the  Emperor  in  Bo- 
hemia, threatened  materially  to  injure  the  Swedes, 
and  "Wrangel  was  compelled  in  haste  to  evacuate 
that  kingdom.  He  retired  through  Thuringia 
into  Westphalia  and  Lunenburg,  in  the  hope  of 
forming  a  junction  with  the  French  army  under 
Turenne,  while  the  Imperial  and  Bavarian  army 
followed  him  to  the  Weser,  under  Melander  and 
Gronsfeld.  His  ruin  was  inevitable  if  the  enemj' 
should  overtake  him  before  his  junction  with 
Turenne ;  but  the  same  consideration  which  had 
just  saved  the  Emperor  now  proved  the  salvation 
of  the  Swedes.  .  .  .  The  Elector  of  Bavaria  could 
not  allow  the  Emperor  to  obtain  so  decisive  a 
preponderance  as,  by  the  sudden  alteration  of 
afliairs,  might  delay  the  chances  of  a  general 
peace.  .  .  .  Now  that  the  power  of  the  Emperor 
threatened  once  more  to  attain  a  dangerous  su- 
periority, Maximilian  at  once  ceased  to  pursue 
the  Swedes.  .  .  .  Jlelander,  prevented  by  the  Ba- 
varians from  further  pursuing  Wrangel,  crossed 
by  Jena  and  Erfurt  into  Hesse.  ...  In  this  ex- 
hausted country,  his  army  was  oppressed  by 
want,  while  Wrangel  was  recruiting  his  strength, 
and  remounting  his  cavalry  in  Lunenburg.  Too 
weak  to  maintain  his  wretched  quarters  against 
the  Swedish  general,  when  he  opened  the  cam- 
paign in  the  winter  of  1648,  and  marched  against 
Hesse,  he  was  obliged  to  retire  with  disgrace, 
and  take  refuge  on  the  banks  of  the  Danube. 
.  .  .  Turenne  received  permission  to  join  the 
Swedes ;  and  the  last  campaign  of  this  eventful 
war  was  now  opened  by  the  united  armies. 
Driving  Melander  before  them  along  the  Danube, 
they  threw  supplies  into  Egra,  which  was  be- 
sieged by  the  Imperialists,  and  defeated  the  Im- 
perial and  Bavarian  armies  on  the  Danube,  which 
ventured  to  oppose  them  at  Susmarshausen, 
where  Melander  was  mortally  wounded. "  They 
then  forced  a  passage  of  the  Lech,  at  the  point 
where  Gustavus  Adolphus  formerly  overcame 
Tilly,  and  ravaged  Bavaria  once  more;  while 
nothing  but  a  prolonged  rain-storm,  which  flooded 
the  Inn,  saved  Austria  from  a  similar  devasta- 
tion. Koenigsmark,  with  his  flying  corps,  en- 
tered Bohemia,  penetrated  to  Prague  and  sur- 
prised and  captured  the  lesser  side  of  the  city 
(the  Kleinsite),  thus  acquiring  the  reputation  of 
"closing  the  Thirty  Years'  W\ir  by  the  last  bril- 
liant achievement.  This  decisive  stroke,  which 
vanquished  the  Emperor's  irresolution,  cost  the 
Swedes  only  the  loss  of  a  single  man.  But  the 
old  town,  the  larger  half  of  Prague,  which  is 
divided  into  two  parts  by  the  Moldau,  by  its 
vigorous  resistance  wearied  out  the  efforts  of  the 
Palatine,  Charles  Gustavus,  the  successor  of 
Christina  on  the  throne,  who  had  arrived  from 
Sweden  with  fresh  troops.  .  .  .  The  approach  of 
winter  at  last  drove  the  besiegers  into  their  quar- 
ters, and  in  the  meantime  the  intelligence  arrived 
that  a  peace  had  been  signed  at  Munster,  on  the 
24th  October," — the  "solemn  and  ever  memor- 
able and  sacred  treaty  which  is  known  by  the 
name  of  the  Peace  of  Westphalia." — F.  Schiller, 
Hist,  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War,  bk.  5. 

Also  in  :  G.  B.  Malleson,  The  Battle-fields  of 
Germany,  ch.  7. 

The  Thirty  'Y'ears  War:  Its  horrors.— Its 
destructiveness. — The  state  of  the  country  at 
its  close. — "The  materials  of  wlxich  the  armies 


1517 


GERMANY. 


Horrors  of  the 
Thirty  Years   War. 


GERMANY,  1648. 


■were  composed  passed  inevitably  from  bad  to 
worse.  This,  which  had  been  a  civil  war  at  the 
first,  did  not  continue  such  for  long ;  or  rather  it 
united  presently  all  the  dreadfulness  of  a  civil 
war  and  a  foreign.  It  was  not  long  before  the 
hosts  which  trampled  the  German  soil  had  in 
large  part  ceased  to  be  German  ;  every  region  of 
Europe  sending  of  its  children,  and,  as  it  would 
seem,  of  those  whom  it  must  have  been  gladdest 
to  be  rid  of,  to  swell  the  ranks  of  the  destroyers. 
.  .  .  From  all  quarters  they  came  trooping,  not 
singly,  but  in  whole  battalions.  .  .  .  All  armies 
draw  after  them  a  train  of  camp-followers ;  they 
are  a  plague  which  in  the  very  nature  of  things 
is  inevitable.  But  never  perhaps  did  this  evil 
rise  to  so  enormous  a  height  as  now.  Toward 
the  close  of  this  War  an  Imperial  army  of  40,000 
men  was  found  to  be  attended  by  the  ugly  ac- 
companiment of  140,000  of  these.  The  conflict 
had  in  fact  by  this  time  lasted  so  long  that  the 
soldiery  had  become  as  a  distinct  nation,  camping 
in  the  midst  of  another.  ...  It  is  a  thought  to 
make  one  shudder,  the  passage  of  one  of  these 
armies  with  its  foul  retinue  through  some  fair 
and  smiling  and  well-ordered  region  —  what  it 
found  and  what  it  must  have  left  it,  and  what 
its  doings  there  will  have  been.  .  .  .  When  all 
in  their  immediate  neighbourhood  was  wasted, 
armed  bands  variously  disguised,  as  merchants, 
as  gipsies,  as  travellers,  or  sometimes  as  women, 
would  penetrate  far  into  the  land.  .  .  .  Nor  was 
the  condition  of  the  larger  towns  much  better. 
...  It  did  not  need  actual  siege  or  capture  to 
make  them  acquainted  with  the  miseries  of  the 
time.  With  no  draught-cattle  to  bring  firewood 
in,  there  was  no  help  for  it  but  that  abandoned 
houses,  by  degrees  whole  streets,  and  sometimes 
the  greater  part  of  a  town,  should  be  pulled 
down  to  prevent  those  of  its  inhabitants  who  re- 
mained from  perishing  by  cold,  the  city  thus  liv- 
ing upon  and  gradually  consuming  itself.  .  .  . 
Under  conditions  like  these,  it  is  not  wonderful 
that  the  fields  were  left  nearly  or  altogether  uu- 
tilled ;  for  who  would  sow  what  he  could  never 
hope  to  reap  ?  .  .  .  What  wonder  that  famine, 
thus  invited,  should  before  long  have  arrived  ? 
.  .  .  Persons  were  found  dead  in  the  fields  with 
grass  in  their  mouths :  while  the  tanners'  and 
knackers'  yards  were  beset  for  the  putrid  car- 
casses of  beasts ;  the  multitudes,  fierce  with 
hunger,  hardly  enduring  to  wait  till  the  skin  had 
been  stript  away.  The  bodies  of  malefactors, 
broken  on  the  wheel,  were  secretly  removed  to 
serve  for  food  ;  or  men  climbed  up  the  gibbets, 
and  tore  down  the  bodies  which  were  suspended 
there,  and  devoured  them.  This,  indeed,  was  a 
supply  which  was  not  likely  to  fail.  .  .  .  Pris- 
oners in  Alsace  were  killed  that  they  might  be 
eaten.  Children  were  enticed  from  home.  .  .  . 
Putting  all  together,  it  is  not  too  much  to  .say 
that  the  crowning  hoiTors  of  Samaria,  of  Jeru- 
salem, of  Saguntum,  found  their  parallels,  and 
often  worse  than  their  parallels,  in  Christian  Ger- 
many only  two  centuries  ago.  I  had  thought  at 
one  time  that  there  were  isolated  examples  of 
these  horrors,  one  here,  one  there,  just  enough 
to  warrant  the  assertion  that  such  things  were 
done  ;  but  my  conviction  now  is  that  they  were 
very  frequent  indeed,  and  in  almost  every  part 
of  the  land.  .  .  .  Districts  which  had  for  centu- 
ries been  in  the  occupation  of  civilized  men 
were  repossessed  by  forests.  ...  Of  the  popula- 
tion it  was  found   that  three-fourths,  in  some 


parts  a  far  larger  proportion,  had  perished  ;  or, 
not  having  perished,  were  not  less  effectually 
lost  to  their  native  land,  having  fled  to  Switzer- 
land, to  Holland,  and  to  other  countries,  never 
to  return  from  them  again.  Thus  in  one  group 
of  twenty  villages  which  had  not  exceptionally 
suffered,  8.5  per  cent. ,  or  more  than  four-fifths  of 
the  inhabitants,  had  disappeared.  ...  Of  the 
houses,  three-fourths  were  destroyed.  .  .  .  Care- 
ful German  writers  assure  us  that  there  are  dis- 
tricts which  at  this  present  day  [1873]  have  just 
attained  the  population,  the  agricultural  wealth, 
the  productive  powers  which  they  had  when  the 
War  commenced.  " — R.  C.  Trench,  Onstavua 
Adolphtis  in  Oermany,  and  ritheV  Lect's  on  the 
Tliirty  Years'  Wa7\  led.  'Hand  5. — "There  is  no 
other  example  of  a  destruction  of  civilization  such 
as  the  Thirty  Years  War  in  Germany  produced. 
There  is  no  other  case  where  a  whole  people 
in  all  parts  of  the  land  was  uniformly  exposed 
to  such  severe  losses,  so  that  in  numbers  it  was 
reduced  to  one  half ;  where,  from  riches,  luxury, 
and  abundance  such  as  had  undoubtedly  pre- 
vailed at  the  beginning  of  the  century  men  had 
come  to  poverty  and  to  the  want  of  even  the 
necessaries  of  life.  .  .  .  Beggary  had  long  ceased 
to  be  a  cause  for  shame ;  the  war,  which  had 
brought  down  to  it  in  a  short  time  even  those 
who  had  been  formerly  the  richest,  catised  even 
the  most  dishonorable  trade  to  be  held  in  honor. 
Whoever  by  daily  labor  could  earn  his  daily 
bread  might  think  himself  fortunate.  In  the 
place  of  the  horses  which  war  had  carried  away, 
human  beings  took  to  dragging  carts  in  the  street. 
.  .  .  With  the  ruin  of  the  trade  and  of  the  art 
industry  of  Germany,  which  in  the  16th  century 
would  for  so  many  objects  have  probably  needed 
to  fear  no  rivalry  and  which  was  only  surpassed 
by  that  of  Italy,  went  hand  in  hand  the  rise  and 
increase  of  French  industry.  .  .  .  Thus  did  the 
industrial  triumph  of  France  supplement  its 
political  supremacy ;  thus  did  Germany's  mis- 
fortune become  the  cause  of  enriching  her  west- 
ern neighbor." — H.  von  Zwiedineck-Sildenhorst, 
Deutsche  Geschichte,  1648-1740  {trans,  from  the 
German),  V.  t,  pp.  45-49. — See,  also,  Bohemia: 
A.  D. 1621-1648. 

A.  D.  1648.— The  Peace  of  Westphalia.— 
Cession  of  Alsace  to  France. — Separation  of 
Switzerland  from  the  Empire. — Loosening  of 
the  constitutional  bonds  of  the  Empire.  ' '  The 
opening  of  the  peace  negotiations  between  the 
Emperor  and  his  enemies  was  .  .  .  fixed  for  the 
2.5th  of  March,  1642,  and  the  cities  of  Mlinster  and 
Osnabriick  as  the  places  of  the  sitting;  but 
neither  in  this  year  nor  in  the  next  did  it  fake 
place.  It  was  not  until  the  year  1644  that  in  the 
former  of  these  cities"  were  assembled  the  fol- 
lowing: The  Papal  Nuncio  and  the  envoy  of  the 
Republic  of  Venice,  acting  as  mediators,  two 
imperial  ambassadors,  two  representatives  of 
France,  three  of  Spain,  and  the  Catholic  Electors ; 
later  came  also  the  Catholic  Princes.  To  Osna- 
briick, Sweden  sent  two  ambassadors  and  France 
three,  while  the  Electors,  the  German  Princes 
and  the  imperial  cities  were  represented.  Ques- 
tions of  etiquette,  which  demanded  prior  settle- 
ment, occupied  months,  and  serious  matters  when 
reached  were  dealt  with  slowly  and  jealously, 
with  many  interruptions.  It  was  not  until  tlie 
24th  of  October,  1648,  that  the  articles  of  peace 
forming  the  two  treaties  of  Miinster  and  Osna- 
briick,  and  known  together  as    the   Peace    of 


1518 


c 


L 


^' 


J 


GERMANY,  1648. 


Peace 
of  Westphalia. 


GERMANY,  1648. 


Westph.alia,  were  signed  by  all  the  negotiators  at 
Milnster.  The  more  important  of  the  provisions 
of  the  two  instruments  were  the  following :  "To 
France  was  secured  the  perpetual  possession  of 
the  Bishoprics  of  Metz,  Toul,  and  Verdun,  as  also 
Moyenvic  and  Pignerol.  with  the  right  to  keep  a 
garrison  in  Philipsburg,  and  finally  Breisach, 
Alsace,  with  its  ten  imperial  cities,  and  the 
Sundgau.  The  Emperor  bound  himself  to  gain 
the  assent  of  the  Archduke  Ferdinand,  of  Tyrol 
and  Spain,  to  this  last-named  cession.  France 
made  good  to  the  Archduke  this  loss  by  the  pay- 
ment of  3,000,000  francs.  Although  it  was  not 
expressly  provided  that  the  connection  with  the 
Empire  of  the  German  provinces  ceded  to  France 
should  be  dissolved,  yet  the  separation  became, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  complete  one.  The  Em- 
peror did  not  summon  the  Kings  of  France  to 
the  Diets  of  the  Empire,  and  the  latter  made  no 
demand  for  such  summons.  ...  In  relation  to 
Italy,  the  French  treaty  provided  that  the  peace 
concluded  in  1631  [see  Italy:  A.  D.  1637-1631] 
should  remain  in  force,  except  the  part  relat- 
ing to  Pignerol.  ['Pinerolo  was  definitely  put 
under  the  French  overlordship.' — G.  W.  Kitchin, 
Hist,  of  Prance,  v.  3,  p.  98].  Switzerland  was 
made  independent  of  the  German  Empire;  but 
the  Circle  of  Burgundy  [the  Spanish  Netherlands 
and  Franche-Comte]  was  still  to  form  a  part  of 
the  Empire,  and  after  the  close  of  the  war  be- 
tween France  and  Spain,  in  which  the  Emperor 
and  the  Empire  were  to  take  no  part,  was  to  be 
included  in  the  peace.  No  aid  was  to  be  ren- 
dered to  the  Duke  of  Lorraine  againist  France, 
although  the  Emperor  and  the  Empire  were  left 
free  to  mediate  for  him  a  peace.  Sweden  re- 
ceived Hither  Pomerania,  including  the  Island  of 
Rllgen,  from  Further  Pomerania  the  Island  of 
Wollin  and  several  cities,  with  their  surround- 
ings, among  which  were  Stettin,  as  also  the  ex- 
pectancy of  Further  Pomerania  in  case  of  the 
extinction  of  the  house  of  Brandenburg.  Fur- 
thermore, it  received  the  city  of  Wismar,  in 
Mecklenburg,  and  the  Bishoprics  of  Bremen 
[secularized  and  made  a  Grand  Duchy]  and  Vcr- 
den,  with  reservation  of  the  rights  and  immuni- 
ties of  the  city  of  Bremen.  Sweden  was  to  hold 
all  the  ceded  territory  as  feudal  tenures  of  the 
Empire,  and  be  represented  for  them  in  the  Im- 
perial Diet.  .  .  .  Brandenburg  received  for  its 
loss  of  Pomerania  the  Bishoprics  of  Halberstadt, 
Minden,  and  Caniin,  and  the  expectancy  of  that 
of  Magdeburg  as  soon  as  this  should  become 
vacant  by  the  death  of  its  Administrator,  the 
Saxon  Prince,  although  the  four  bailiwicks  sep- 
arated from  it  were  to  remain  with  Saxony  as 
provided  in  the  Peace  of  Prague.  .  .  .  The  house 
of  Brunswick-Liineberg  was  to  renounce  its  right 
to  the  coadjutorship  of  Magdeburg,  Bremen, 
Halberstadt,  and  Ratzeburg,  and,  in  return  for 
this  renunciation,  was  to  alternate  with  a  Catho- 
lic prelate  in  the  possession  of  the  Bishopric  of 
OsnabrUck.  ...  To  Duke  Maximilian  of  Ba- 
varia was  conveyed  the  Electorate,  together  with 
the  Upper  Palatinate,  to  be  hereditary  in  his 
family  of  the  line  of  William,  for  which  he,  ou 
the  other  hand,  was  to  surrender  to  the  Emperor 
the  account  of  the  13,000,000  florins  which  he 
bad  made  for  the  execution  of  the  sentence 
against  the  Palsgrave  Frederic.  To  the  Pals- 
grave, Charles  Lewis,  son  of  the  proscribed 
Elector  [Frederic,  who  had  died  in  1633],  was 
given  back  the  Lower  Palatinate,  while  a  new 


Electorate,  the  eighth,  was  created  for  him.  .  .  . 
There  were  numerous  provisions  relating  to  the 
restoration  of  the  Dukes  of  Wurtemberg,  the 
Margraves  of  Baden,  and  the  Counts  of  Nassau 
and  those  of  Hanau  to  several  parts  of  the  terri- 
tories which  either  belonged  to  them  or  were 
contested.  A  general  amnesty  was  indeed  pro- 
vided, and  every  one  was  to  be  restored  to  the 
possession  of  the  lands  which  he  had  held  before 
the  war.  This  general  article  was,  however, 
limited  by  various  special  provisions,  as  that  in 
relation  to  the  Palsgrave,  and  was  not  to  be  ap- 
plied to  Austria  at  all.  .  .  .  Specially  important 
are  the  sections  which  relate  to  the  settlement  of 
religious  grievances.  The  treaty  of  Passau  and 
the  Augsburg  religious  peace  were  confirmed; 
the  1st  of  January,  1634,  was  fixed  as  the  time 
which  was  to  govern  mutual  reclamations  be- 
tween the  Catholics  and  Protestants ;  both  parties 
were  secured  the  right  to  all  ecclesiastical  foun- 
dations, whether  in  mediate  or  immediate  con- 
nection with  the  Empire,  which  they  severally 
held  in  possession  on  the  first  day  of  January, 
1634;  if  any  such  had  been  taken  from  them  after 
this  date,  restoration  was  to  be  made,  unless 
otherwise  specially  provided.  The  Ecclesiastical 
Reservation  was  acknowledged  by  the  Protes- 
tants, and  Protestant  holders  of  ecclesiastical 
property  were  freely  admitted  to  the  Imperial 
Diets.  The  right  of  reformation  was  conceded 
to  the  Estates,  and  permission  to  emigrate  to  the 
subjects;  while  it  was  at  the  same  time  provided 
that,  if  in  1634  Protestant  subjects  of  Catholic 
Princes,  or  the  reverse,  enjoyed  freedom  of  re- 
ligion, this  right  should  not  in  the  future  be  di- 
minished. It  was  specially  granted  for  Silesia 
that  all  the  concessions  which  had  been  made 
before  the  war  to  the  Dukes  of  Liegnitz,  Miin- 
sterburg,  and  Oels,  and  to  the  city  of  Breslau, 
relating  to  the  free  exercise  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  should  remain  in  force.  .  .  .  Finally, 
the  Reformed— that  is,  the  adherents  of  Calvin- 
ism —  were  placed  upon  the  same  ground  with 
those  of  the  Augsburg  Confession;  and  it  was 
provided  that  if  a  Lutheran  Estate  of  the  Em- 
pire should  become  a  Calvinist,  or  the  reverse, 
his  subjects  should  not  be  forced  to  change  with 
their  Prince." — A.  Gindely,  Hist,  of  the  Thirty 
Tears'  War,  v.  3,  ch.  10. — "The  emperor,  in  his 
own  name,  and  in  behalf  of  his  family  and  the 
empire,  ceded  the  full  sovereignty  of  Upper  and 
Lower  Alsace,  with  the  prefecture  of  Haguenau, 
or  the  ten  towns  [Haguenau,  Schelestadt,  Weis- 
semburgh,  Colmar,  Landau,  Oberenheim,  Ros- 
heim,  Munster  in  the  Val  de  St.  Gregoire,  Kaiser- 
berg,  and  Turingheim],  and  their  dependencies. 
But  by  one  of  those  contradictions  which  are 
common  in  treaties,  when  both  parties  wish  to 
preserve  their  respective  claims,  another  article 
was  introduced,  binding  the  king  of  France  to 
leave  the  ecclesiastics  and  immediate  nobility  of 
those  provinces  in  the  immediacy  which  they  had 
hitherto  possessed  with  regard  to  the  Roman  em- 
pire, and  not  to  pretend  to  any  sovereignty  over 
them,  but  to  remain  content  with  such  rights  as 
belonged  to  the  house  of  Austria.  Yet  this  was 
again  contradicted  by  a  declaration,  that  this  ex- 
ception should  not  derogate  from  the  supreme 
sovereignty  before  yielded  to  the  king  of  France. " 
— W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  tlie  House  of  Austria,  ch.  59 
{v.  3). — "Respecting  the  rights  of  sovereignty 
due  to  the  princes  and  the  relations  of  the  states 
of  the  empire  with  the  emperor,  the  Peace  of 


1519 


GERMANY,  16-18. 


Effects 
on  the  Empire. 


GERMANY,  1648-1705. 


Westphalia  contained  such  regulations  as  must 
in  the  course  of  time  produce  a  still  greater  re- 
laxation of  those  ties,  already  partially  loosened, 
■which  held  together  the  empire  in  one  entirety. 
...  At  the  Peace  of  Westphalia  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  princes  was  made  completely  legal. 
They  received  the  entire  right  of  sovereignty 
over  their  territory,  together  with  the  power  of 
making  war,  concluding  peace,  and  forming  alli- 
ances among  themselves,  as  well  as  with  foreign 
powers,  provided  such  alliances  were  not  to  the 
injury  of  the  empire.  But  what  a  feeble  ob- 
stacle must  this  clause  have  presented  ?  For 
henceforward,  if  a  prince  of  the  empire,  having 
formed  an  alliance  with  a  foreign  power,  became 
hostile  to  the  emperor,  he  could  immediately 
avail  himself  of  the  pretext  that  it  was  for  the 
benefit  of  the  empire,  the  maintenance  of  his 
rights,  and  the  liberty  of  Germany.  And  in 
order  that  the  said  pretext  might,  with  some  ap- 
pearance of  right,  be  made  available  on  every 
occasion,  foreigners  established  themselves  as  the 
guardians  of  the  empire ;  and  accordingly  France 
and  Sweden  took  upon  themselves  the  responsi- 
bility of  legislating  as  guarantees,  not  only  for 
the  Germanic  constitution,  but  for  everything 
else  that  was  concluded  in  the  Peace  of  West- 
phalia at  Minister  and  Osnaburg.  Added  to  this, 
in  reference  to  the  imperial  cities,  whose  rights 
had  hitherto  never  been  definitively  fixed,  it  was 
now  declared  that  they  should  always  be  in- 
cluded under  the  head  of  the  other  states,  and 
that  they  should  command  a  decisive  voice  In  the 
diets;  thenceforth,  therefore,  their  votes  and 
those  of  the  other  states — the  electoral  and  other 
princes — should  be  of  equal  validity. " — F.  Kohl- 
rausch.  Hist,  of  Germany,  ch.  26. — Peace  between 
Spain  and  the  United  Provinces  was  embodied  in 
a  separate  treaty,  but  negotiated  at  Milnster, 
and  co.ncluded  and  signed  a  few  months  earlier 
in  the  same  year.  The  war  between  Spain  and 
France  went  on.  See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1646 
-1648. 

A.  D.  1648.— Effects  of  the  Peace  of  West- 
phalia on  the  Empire. —  It  becomes  a  loose 
confederacy  and  purely  German. — "Itmay.  .  . 
be  said  of  this  famous  peace,  as  of  the  other  so- 
called  'fundamental  law  of  the  Empire,'  the 
Golden  Bull,  that  it  did  no  more  than  legalize  a 
condition  of  things  already  in  existence,  but 
which  by  being  legalized  acquired  new  impor- 
tance. .  .  .  While  the  political  situation,  to  use 
a  current  phrase,  had  changed  within  the  last 
two  hundred  years,  the  eyes  with  which  men 
regarded  it  had  changed  still  more.  Never  by 
their  fiercest  enemies  in  earlier  times,  not  once 
by  the  Popes  or  Lombard  republicans  in  the  heat 
of  their  strife  with  the  Franconian  and  Swabian 
Ciesars,  had  the  Emperors  been  reproached  as 
mere  German  kings,  or  their  claim  to  be  the  law- 
ful heiis  of  Rome  denied.  The  Protestant  jurists 
of  the  16th  or  ratlier  of  the  17th  century  were  the 
first  persons  who  ventured  to  scoff  at  the  pretend- 
ed lordship  of  the  world,  and  declare  their  Em- 
pire to  be  nothing  more  than  a  German  monarchy, 
in  dealing  with  which  no  superstitious  reverence 
need  prevent  its  subjects  from  making  the  best 
terms  they  could  for  tliemselves,  and  controlling  a 
sovereign  whose  religious  predilections  made  him 
the  friend  of  their  enemies.  ...  It  was  by  these 
views  .  .  .  that  the  states,  or  rather  France  and 
Sweden  acting  on  their  behalf,  were  guided  in  the 
negotiations  of  Osnabrilcli  and  Mttnster.     By  ex- 


torting a  full  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  all 
the  princes,  Catholics  and  Protestants  alike,  in 
their  respective  territories,  they  bound  the  Em- 
peror from  any  direct  interference  with  the  admin- 
istration, either  in  particular  districts  or  through- 
out the  Empire.  All  affairs  of  public  importance, 
including  the  rights  of  making  war  or  peace,  of 
levying  contributions,  raising  troops,  building 
fortresses,  passing  or  interpreting  laws,  were 
henceforth  to  be  left  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
Diet.  .  .  .  Both  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  were 
declared  free  from  all  jurisdiction  of  the  Pope  or 
any  Catholic  prelate.  Thus  the  last  link  which 
bound  Germany  to  Rome  was  snapped,  the  last 
of  the  principles  by  virtue  of  which  the  Empire 
had  existed  was  abandoned.  For  the  Empire 
now  contained  and  recognized  as  its  members 
persons  who  formed  a  visible  body  at  open  war 
with  the  Holy  Roman  Church ;  and  its  constitu- 
tion admitted  schismatics  to  a  full  share  in  all 
those  civil  rights  which,  according  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  early  Middle  Age,  could  be  enjoyed 
by  no  one  who  was  out  of  the  communion  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  The  Peace  of  Westphalia  was 
tlierefore  an  abrogation  of  the  sovereignty  of 
Rome,  and  of  the  theory  of  Church  and  State 
with  which  the  name  of  Rome  was  associated. 
And  in  this  light  was  it  regarded  by  Pope  Inno- 
cent X.,  who  commanded  his  legate  to  protest 
against  it,  and  subsequently  declared  it  void  by 
the  bull  '  Zelo  domus  Dei. ' .  .  .  The  Peace  of 
Westphalia  is  an  era  in  imperial  history  not  less 
clearly  marked  than  the  coronation  of  Otto  the 
Great,  or  the  death  of  Frederick  II.  As  from 
the  days  of  Maximilian  it  had  borne  a  mi.xed  or 
transitional  character,  well  expressed  by  tlie  name 
Romano-Germanic,  so  henceforth  it  is  in  every- 
thing but  title  purely  and  solely  a  German  Em- 
pire. Properly,  indeed,  it  was  no  longer  an 
empire  at  all,  but  a  Confederation,  and  that  of 
the  loosest  sort.  For  it  had  no  common  treasury, 
no  eflicient  common  tribunals,  no  means  of  co- 
ercing a  refractory  member;  its  states  were  of 
different  religions,  were  governed  according  to 
different  forms,  were  administered  judicially 
and  financially  without  any  regard  to  each  other. 
.  .  .  There  were  300  petty  principalities  between 
the  Alps  and  the  Baltic,  each  with  its  own  laws, 
its  own  courts,  ...  its  little  armies,  its  separate 
coinage,  its  tolls  and  custom-houses  on  the  fron- 
tier, its  crowd  of  meddlesome  and  pedantic 
officials.  .  .  .  This  vicious  system,  which  para- 
lyzed the  trade,  the  literature,  and  the  political 
thought  of  Germany,  had  been  forming  itself  for 
some  time,  but  did  not  become  fully  established 
until  the  Peace  of  Westphalia,  by  emancipating 
the  princes  from  imperial  control,  had  made  them 
despots  in  their  own  territories. " —  J.  Bryce,  The 
Holy  Soman  Empire,  ch.  19. 

A.  D.  1648-1705.— After  the  Peace  of  West- 
phalia.— French  influence  in  the  Empire. — 
Creation  of  the  Ninth  Elector. —  After  the 
Peace  of  Westphalia,  the  remainder  of  the  reign 
of  Ferdinand  III.  "passed  in  tranquillity.  .  .  . 
He  caused  his  son  to  be  elected  king  of  the  Ro- 
mans, under  the  title  of  Ferdinand  IV. ;  but  the 
young  prince,  already  king  of  Bohemia  and 
Hungary,  preceded  him  to  the  tomb,  and  left  the 
question  of  the  succession  to  be  decided  by  a 
diet.  Ferdinand  III.  died  in  1657.  .  .  .  The"  in- 
terregnum, and,  indeed,  the  century  which  fol- 
lowed the  death  of  Ferdinand,  showed  the  alarm- 
ing preponderance  of  the  influence  gained  by 


1520 


GERMANY,  1648-1705. 


Austria,   Germany, 
arul  France* 


GERMANY,  1648-1715. 


France  in  the  affairs  of  the  empire,  and  the  con- 
sequent criminality  of  the  princes  who  had  first 
invoked  the  assistance  of  that  power.  Her  re- 
cent victories,  her  character  as  joint  guarantee 
of  the  treat}'  of  Westphalia,  and  the  contiguity 
of  her  possessions  to  the  states  of  the  empire,  en- 
couraged her  ministers  to  demand  the  imperial 
crown  for  the  youthful  Louis  XIV.  Still  more 
extraordinary  is  the  fact  that  four  of  the  electors 
were  gained,  by  that  monarch's  gold,  to  espouse 
his  views.  .  .  .  Fortunately  for  Germany  and  for 
Europe,  the  electors  of  Treves,  Brandenburg, 
and  Saxony  were  too  patriotic  to  sanction  this 
infatuated  proposal ;  they  threatened  to  elect  a 
native  prince  of  their  own  authority,  —  a  menace 
which  caused  the  rest  to  co-operate  with  them  ; 
so  that,  after  some  fruitless  negotiations,  Leo- 
pold, son  of  the  late  emperor,  king  of  Bohemia 
and  of  Hungary,  was  raised  to  the  vacant  dig- 
nity. His  reign  was  one  of  great  humiliation  to 
his  house  and  to  the  empire.  Without  talents 
for  government,  without  generosity,  feeble,  big- 
oted, and  pusillanimous,  he  was  little  qualified  to 
augmenttheglory  of  the  country.  .  .  .Through- 
out his  long  reign  [16.57-1705],  he  had  the  morti- 
fication to  witness,  on  the  part  of  Louis  XIV. ,  a 
series  of  the  most  unprovoked,  wanton,  and  un- 
principled usurpations  ever  recorded  in  history. 
.  .  .  Internally,  the  reign  of  Leopold  affords 
some  interesting  particulars.  .  .  .  Not  the  least 
is  the  establishment  of  a  ninth  electoral  dignity 
in  favour  of  Ernest  Augustus,  Duke  of  Bruns- 
wick Lunenburg,  who  then  became  (1692)  the 
first  elector  of  Hanover.  This  was  the  act  of 
Leopold,  in  return  for  important  aid  in  money 
and  troops  from  two  princes  of  that  house  ;  but 
it  could  not  be  effected  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  electoral  body,  who  long  resisted  it.  .  .  . 
The  establishment  of  a  permanent  diet,  attended, 
not  by  the  electors  in  person,  but  by  their  rep- 
resentatives, is  one  of  the  most  striking  peculiari- 
ties of  Leopold's  reign." — S.  A.  Dunham,  Hist, 
of  the  Oermanic  Empire,  bk.  3,  ch.  3  {v.  3). — See 
Diet,  The  Gei:m.\nic. 

A.  D.  1648-1715. — Relations  of  Austria, 
Germany  and  France  after  the  Thirty  Years 
War.  —  "  The  whole  shamefulness  of  this  disin- 
tegration of  Germany,  showed  itself  in  the  de- 
fenceless state  of  the  empire.  .  .  .  Right  under 
the  greedy  hands  of  France  lay  the  weakest,  the 
most  unguarded  members  of  the  empire.  All 
along  that  priest-avenue  the  Rhine,  from  ]Miin- 
ster  and  Osnabriick  up  to  Constance,  stretclied  a 
confused  mass  of  tiny  states,  incapable  of  in  any 
way  seriously  arming  themselves,  compelled  to 
betray  their  country  through  the  feeling  of  their 
own  utter  weakness.  Almost  all  the  Rhenish 
courts  held  pensions  from  Versailles.  .  .  .  Fully 
oue-third  of  Germany  served  in  the  wars  of  the 
empire  as  a  dead  burden.  .  .  .  The  weakness  of 
Germany  was  to  blame  for  the  new  growth  of 
power  in  Austria  and  France  ;  .  .  .  the  for- 
eigners laughed  at  the  '  querelles  allemandes ' 
and  the  '  mis^re  allemande '  ;  the  Frenchman 
Bonhours  mockingly  asked  the  question  if  it  was 
possible  that  a  German  could  have  intellect. 
...  As  the  born  antagonist  of  the  old  order  of 
things  in  Europe,  the  basis  of  which  was  Ge:- 
many's  weakness,  Prussia  stood  in  a  world  of 
enemies  whose  mutual  jealousies  formed  her  only 
safeguard.  She  was  without  any  natural  ally, 
for  the  German  nation  had  not  yet  come  to  \mder- 
stand  this  budding  power.  .  .  .  Just  as  the  House 

^^  1521 


of  Savoy  was  able  to  tread  its  way  through  the 
superiority  of  the  Hapsburghs  on  the  one  hand 
and  of  the"  Bourbons  on  the  other,  so  did  Prussia, 
although  immeasurably  harder  pressed,  have  to 
find  a  path  for  herself  between  Austria  and 
France,  between  Sweden  and  Poland,  between 
the  maritime  powers  and  the  inert  mass  of  the 
German  empire.  She  had  to  use  every  means  of 
remorseless  egoism,  always  ready  to  change  front, 
always  with  two  strings  to  her  bow.  The  elec- 
torate of  Brandenburg  felt  to  the  very  marrow 
of  its  being  how  deeply  foreign  ideas  had  eaten 
into  Germany.  All  the  disorganized  forces  .  .  . 
which  opposed  the  strong  lead  of  the  new  mon- 
archy placed  their  faith  in  foreign  help.  Dutch 
garrisons  were  stationed  on  the  Lower  Rhine  and 
favored  the  struggle  of  the  Cleve  estates  against 
their  German  lords.  The  diets  of  Magdeburg 
and  of  the  electoral  Mark  counted  on  Austria. 
.  .  .  Frederick  William  breaks  down  the  barriers 
of  the  Netherlanders  in  the  German  Northwest ; 
he  drives  their  troops  from  Cleve  and  from  East 
Friesland.  .  .  .  Then  he  calls  out  to  the  deaf 
nation  his  warning  words,  '  Remember  that  you 
are  Germans,'  and  seeks  to  drive  the  Swedes 
from  the  soil  of  the  empire.  Twice  did  the  ill- 
will  of  France  and  Austria  succeed  in  robbing 
the  Brandenburg  prince  of  the  reward  of  his 
victories,  of  the  rule  in  Pomerania  ;  the  fame  of 
the  day  at  Fehrbellin  [see  Brandenburg  :  A.  D. 
1640-1688]  they  could  not  take  from  him.  .  .  . 
When  the  republic  of  the  Netherlands  threatened 
to  fall  before  the  attack  of  Louis  XIV.,  Branden- 
burg caught  the  raised  arm  of  the  conqueror  [see 
Netherlands  :  A.  D.  1674-1678].  Frederick 
William  carried  on  the  only  serious  war  that  the 
empire  ventured  on  for  the  recovery  of  Alsace 
[see  Austria;  A.  D.  1672-1714].  .  .  .  With  the 
rise  of  Prussia  began  the  long  bloody  work  of 
freeing  Germany  from  foreign  rule.  ...  In  this 
one  state  there  awoke  again,  still  half  uncon- 
scious as  if  drunken  with  long  sleep,  the  old 
hearty  pride  in  the  fatherland.  .  .  .  'The  House 
of  Hapsburgh  recognized  earlier  than  the  Ho- 
henzollerns  did  themselves  how  hostile  this 
modern  North  German  state  was  to  the  old  con- 
stitution of  the  Holy  Empire.  In  Silesia,  in 
Pomerania,  in  the  Jiilich-Cleve  war  of  succession 
—  everywhere  Austria  stood  and  looked  with 
distrust  on  its  dangerous  rival.  .  .  .  Equally 
dangerous  to  Hapsburgh  and  to  the  German  em- 
pire were  the  French  and  the  Turks  ;  how  natu- 
ral was  it  for  Hapsburgh  to  seek  support  from 
Germany,  to  involve  the  empire  in  its  wars,  to 
use  it  as  a  bulwark  towards  the  west  or  for  di- 
versions against  France  in  case  the  Turks 
threatened  the  walls  of  Vienna.  .  .  .  Only  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  in  this  common  action  the 
Austrian  policy,  under  a  more  centralized  guid- 
ance and  backed  by  a  firmer  tradition,  looked 
out  for  its  own  advantage  better  than  did  the 
German  empire — loose,  heavy,  aud  without  con- 
sistent leadership.  When  the  might  of  Louis 
XIV.  began  to  oppress  Germany  the  policy  of  the 
Hapsburghs  was  to  remain  for  a  long  time  luke- 
warm and  inactive.  This  policy  led  Austria  in- 
deed even  to  make  a  league  with  France  and. 
when  she  did  at  last  decide  to  help  the  great 
elector  of  Brandenburg  against  the  enemy  of  the 
empire,  this  happened  so  charily  and  equivocally 
as  to  give  rise  to  the  doubt  whether  the  Austrian 
army^as  not  placed  there  to  keep  watch  over 
the  Brandenburg  forces  or  even  to  positively 


GERMANY,  1648-1715.       Austria  and  the  Empire.         GERMANY,  1648-1780. 


hinder  their  advance.  An  Austrian  writer  him- 
self assures  us  that  Montecuculi  was  in  secret 
commanded  only  to  make  a  show  of  using  his 
weapons  against  the  French.  For  a  long  time 
Austria  stood  by  inactive  while  the  Reannexa- 
tions  [see  Fkakce  :  A.  D.  1679-1681]  were  going 
on.  .  .  .  The  whole  war  as  conducted  by  Austria 
on  the  Rhine  and  in  the  West  [see  Austria  :  A. 
D.  1672-1714]  was  languid  and  sleepy  ;  the  empire 
and  individual  warlike  princes  were  left  to  pro- 
tect themselves.  What  an  entirely  different  dis- 
play of  power  did  Austria  make  when  it  was  a 
question  of  fighting  for  its  own  dynastic  inter- 
ests!"—  H.  von  Treitschke,  Deutxr/ie  Oeschichte 
im  19<e«  Jahrhimdert  (trans,  from  the  German), 
V.  1,  pp.  21-33.  —  "As  in  the  wars  so  in  the  diplo- 
matic negotiations  the  separation  of  the  Austrian 
dynastic  interests  from  the  advantage  and  needs 
of  the  German  empire  often  enough  came  to  light. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  revert  to  the  attitude 
which  the  emperor's  diplomacy  took  at  Nimeguen 
and  Ryswick  [see  Nimeguen  ;  and  France  : 
A.  D.  1697].  .  .  .  When  in  the  conferences  at 
Gertruidenburg  (1710)  Louis  XIV.  was  reduced 
to  being  willing  not  only  to  give  up  the  '  Re- 
annexations'  and  Strassburg  but  even  to  restore 
Alsace  and  the  fortress  of  Valenciennes,  it  was 
also  not  the  interests  of  the  empire  but  solely 
those  of  the  House  of  Hapsburgh  which  led  to 
the  rejection  of  these  offers  and  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  a  war  by  which,  as  it  turned  out 
eventually,  not  one  of  these  demands  was 
gained." — L.  Ilausser,  Deutsche  Oeschichte  (trans, 
from  the  Oerman),  ».  \,  p.  23.  —  "  Louis  XIV.  re- 
garded himself  not  exactly  as  enemy  of  the  Ger- 
man empire  and  of  the  imperial  power  of  the 
House  of  Hapsburgh,  but  rather  as  a  pretendant 
to  the  throne.  As  he  explains  it  in  the  political 
directions  meant  for  his  son,  the  empire  of  the 
West,  the  heritage  of  Charles  the  Great,  belongs 
not  of  right  to  the  Germans  but  to  the  kings  who 
are  crowned  at  Rheims." — Deutsche  Geschichtc 
(1648-1740)  (translated  from  the  Oerman),  v.  1. 
p.  509. 

A.  D.  1648-1780. — The  Austrian  incubus. — 
"  Before  the  Thhty  Years'  War  the  territories  of 
the  German  Hapsburghs  were  not  very  consider- 
able. The  greatest  part  of  Hungary  was  in  the 
hands  of  the  Turks ;  the  Tyrol  belonged  to  a 
collateral  line,  and,  in  the  other  provinces,  the 
independence  of  the  Nobilitjf  was  much  stronger 
than  the  sovereignty  of  the  Archdukes.  The 
Nobles  were  all  zealous  protestants,  so  that  a 
monarchical  power  could  only  be  created  after  a 
victory  of  the  Catholic  faith.  For  the  first  time 
since  1631,  the  crown  was  seen  in  these  regions 
to  assume  a  really  dominant  position.  Efforts  in 
this  direction  had  been  zealously  carried  on  since 
1648 ;  the  Tyrolese  Estates  now  lost  their  most 
important  privileges :  and,  above  all,  the  Em- 
peror succeeded,  by  the  help  of  Polish  and  Ger- 
man troops,  in  driving  out  the  Turks  from  Hun- 
gary, and  at  the  same  time  crushing  the  national 
freedom  of  the  Magyars  with  frightful  blood- 
shed. By  these  victories  the  Monarchy  gained, 
in  the  first  place,  a  largo  increase  of  territory — 
which  placed  it  nearly  on  a  level  with  France. 
In  the  second  place  it  acquired  at  home  the 
power  of  raising  as  many  taxes  and  soldiers  as 
were  necessary  to  increase  the  army  to  the  extent 
of  its  wishes  ;  and  of  distributing  its  officials  and 
troops  —  without  distinction  of  nation  —  as  im- 
perial servants,  throughout  its  dominions.     And 


thus  it  secured  submission  at  home  and  dispos- 
able strength  for  its  operations  abroad.  Here  it 
stopped  short.  As  it  had  no  national,  and,  con- 
sequently, no  warm  and  natural  relation  to  any 
of  its  provinces — which  were  merely  used  as 
passive  tools  to  promote  the  lofty  aims  of  the 
Hapsburgh  family  —  the  Government  had  no  in- 
tention of  using  its  power  at  home  for  the  further- 
ance of  the  public  good,  or  the  building  up  of  a 
generally  useful  Administration.  The  Nobility 
had  no  longer  the  strength  to  resist  the  demands 
of  the  Crown  for  men  and  money,  but  it  still  re- 
tained exemption  from  taxes,  the  jurisdiction 
and  police  among  its  own  peasants,  and  a  multi- 
tude of  feudal  rights,  which,  often  enough,  de- 
graded the  peasant  to  the  condition  of  a  serf,  and 
everywhere  bound  down  agriculture  in  the  most 
galling  bonds.  Of  manufactures  there  nere  little 
or  none  ;  trade  was  carried  on  on  the  system  of 
guilds.  The  State  officials  exercised  Wt  little 
influence  over  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Com- 
munes, or  Provinces ;  and  the  privileged  orders 
had  full  liberty  to  prosecute  their  own  interests 
among  their  inferiors  with  inconsiderate  selfish- 
ness. In  this  aristocracy,  the  Church,  from  its 
wealth  and  its  close  internal  unity,  assumed  the 
first  place ;  and  its  superior  importance  was  still 
farther  enhanced  by  the  fact  of  its  being  the 
chief  bond  of  unity  between  the  otherwise  so 
loosely  compacted  portions  of  the  Empire.  .  .  . 
The  Church  attached  the  Nobility  to  the  Govern- 
ment ;  for  we  must  not  forget  that  a  very  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  estates  of  the  Nobles  had 
passed  into  the  hands  of  new  possessors  who  had 
received  them  as  a  reward  for  being  good  catho- 
lics. The  Church,  too,  taught  all  the  youth  of 
the  Empire  —  in  all  its  different  languages  — 
obedience  to  the  House  of  Hapsburgh,  and  re- 
ceived from  the  Crown,  in  return,  exclusive  con- 
trol of  the  national  education.  It  formed,  in 
spite  of  the  resistance  of  nationalities,  a  sort  of 
public  opinion  in  favour  of  the  unity  of  the  Em- 
pire ;  and  the  Crown,  in  return,  excluded  all  non- 
catholic  opinions  from  the  schools,  from  literature 
and  religion.  Austria,  therefore,  continued  to  be 
catholic,  even  after  1648  ;  and  by  this  we  mean, 
not  only  that  its  Princes  were  personally  devout 

—  or  that  the  Catholic  clergy  were  supported  in 
the  performance  of  their  spiritual  functions  —  or 
that  the  institutions  of  the  Church  were  liberally 
supported  —  but  also  that  the  State  directed  its 
policy  according  to  ecclesiastical  views,  made  use 
of  the  Church  for  political  purpo.ses,  and  crushed 
every  movement  hostile  to  it  in  all  other  spheres 
of  the  national  life.  In  Austria,  therefore,  it  was 
not  merely  a  question  of  theological  differences, 
but  of  the  deepest  and  most  comprehensive  points 
of  distinction  between  the  media?val  and  the 
modern  world.  Austria  was  still,  in  its  whole 
nature,  a  Mediaeval  State  or  Confederacy  of 
States.  The  consequences  of  this  condition  were 
most  strikingly  seen  in  its  relation  to  Germany. 
In  the  first  place,  there  was  a  complete  separa- 
tion, in  regard  to  all  mental  and  spiritual  matters, 
between  the  great  body  of  the  Empire,  and  its 
powerful  Eastern  member.  This  was  the  period 
in  which  Germany  was  awaking  to  a  new  intel- 
lectual life  in  modern  Europe,  and  laying  the 
foundation  of  its  modern  science  in  every  branch 

—  in  History  and  Statistics,  Chemistry  and  Geol- 
ogy, Jurisprudence  and  Philosophy  —  and  assum- 
ing by  its  Literature,  an  equal  rank  with  other 
nations  in  national  refinement  and  civilization. 


1522 


GERMANY,   1648-1780, 


Wars 
with  Louis  XIV. 


GERMANY,  1686. 


By  the  works  of  genius  which  this  period  pro- 
duced Austria  remained  entirely  uninfluenced; 
and  it  has  been  said,  that  Werther  had  only  been 
made  known  to  the  Viennese  in  the  form  of  fire- 
works in  the  Prater.  The  literary  policy  allowed 
no  seed  of  modern  culture  to  enter  the  Empire; 
and  the  Jesuit  schools  hiid  rendered  the  soil  unfit 
for  its  reception.  All  the  progress  of  German 
civilization,  at  this  period,  was  based  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  indeiiendence  of  the  mind  in  art  and 
science.  The  education  of  the  Jesuits,  on  the 
contrary,  though  unsurpassed  where  the  object 
is  to  prepare  men  for  a  special  purpose,  com- 
mences by  disowning  individual  peculiarities,  and 
the  right  of  a  man  to  choose  his  own  career. 
There  was,  at  this  time,  no  other  characteristic  of 
an  Austrian  than  an  entire  estrangement  from 
the  progressof  the  German  mind.  .  .  .  The  prog- 
ress of  the  people  in  science  and  art,  in  politics 
and  military  strength,  was  only  seen  in  the  larger 
secular  territories,  wliich,  after  1648,  enjoyed 
their  own  sovereignty ;  and  even  these  were 
checked  in  their  movements  at  every  step  by  the 
remnants  of  the  Imperial  Constitution.  The 
Members  of  the  Empire  alone,  in  whom  the  de- 
caying remains  of  Mediaeval  existence  still  lin- 
gered on  —  the  Ecclesiastical  Princes  —  the  small 
Counts  —  the  Imperial  Knights  and  the  Imperial 
Towns,  —  clung  to  the  Emperor  and  the  Imperial 
Diet.  In  these,  partly  from  their  small  extent  of 
territory,  partly  from  the  inefficiency  of  their  in- 
stitutions, neither  active  industry,  nor  public 
spirit,  nor  national  pride,  were  to  be  found.  In 
all  which  tended  to  elevate  the  nation,  and  raise 
its  hopes  for  the  future,  they  took,  at  this  period, 
as  little  part  as  Austria  herself.  .  .  .  The  Im- 
perial constitution,  therefore,  was  inwardly  de- 
cayed, and  stood  in  no  relation  to  the  internal 
growth  of  the  nation.  .  .  .  There  was  the  same 
divergence  between  Austria  and  Germany  with 
respect  to  their  foreign  interests,  as  we  have  ob- 
served in  their  internal  relations.  After  the 
Turks  liad  been  driven  from  Hungary,  and  the 
Swedes  from  the  half  of  Pomerania,  Germany 
had  only  two  neighbours  whom  it  was  a  matter 
of  vital  importance  to  watch, —  the  Poles  and  tlie 
French.  In  the  South,  on  the  contrary,  it  had  no 
interests  in  opposition  to  Italy,  except  the  pro- 
tection of  its  frontier  by  the  possession  or  the 
neutrality  of  the  Alpine  passes.  And  yet  it  was 
just  towards  Italy  that  the  eyes  of  the  House  of 
Hapsburg  had  been  uninterruptedly  directed  for 
centuries  jiast.  The  favourite  traditions  of  the 
family,  and  their  political  and  ecclesiastical  in- 
terest in  securing  the  support  of  the  Pope,  and 
thereby  that  of  the  Clergy,  constantly  impelled 
them  to  consolidate  and  extend  their  dominion  in 
that  country.  All  other  considerations  yielded 
to  this ;  and  this  is  intelligible  enough  from  an 
Austrian  point  of  view ;  but  it  was  not  on  that 
account  less  injurious  to  the  German  Empire. 
How  strikingly  was  this  opposition  of  interests 
displayed  at  the  end  of  the  glorious  war  of  the 
Spanish  succession,  when  the  Emperor  rejected 
a  peace  which  would  have  restored  Strasburg 
and  Alsace  to  the  Empire,  because  only  Naples, 
and  not  Sicily  also,  was  offered  to  Austria !  How 
sharply  defined  do  the  same  relations  present 
themselves  to  our  view,  in  tlie  last  years  of  the 
Hapsburg  dynasty,  at  the  peace  of  Vienna  in 
1738!  —  on  which  occasion  the  Emperor  —  in  or- 
der at  least  to  gain  Tuscany,  as  a  compensation 
for  the  loss  of  Naples, —  gave  up  Lorraine  to  the 


French,  without  even  consulting  the  Empire, 
which  he  had  dragged  into  the  war.  Austria 
thus  maintained  a  predominant  influence  in  Italy ; 
but  the  Empire,  during  the  whole  century  after 
the  Peace  of  Westphalia,  did  not  obtain  a  single 
noteworthy  advantage  over  France.  How  much 
more  was  this  the  case  with  respect  to  Poland, 
which  during  the  whole  period  of  the  religious 
wars  had  been  tlie  most  zealous  ally  of  Spain  and 
the  Hapsburgs,  and  which  subsequently  seemed 
to  threaten  no  danger  to  Austrian  interests." — 
H.  Von  Sybel,  History  of  the  French  Revolution, 
bk.  2,  ch.  1  (p.  1). 

A.  D.  1658 — Election  of  the  Emperor,  Leo- 
pold I. 

A.  D.  1660-1664. — Renewed  war  with  the 
Turks. — Victory  of  St.  Gothard. —  Transyl- 
vania liberated. — A  twenty  years  truce.  See 
Hungary:  A.  I).  1660-1 GC4. 

A.  D.  1672-1679. — The  war  of  the  Coalition 
against  Louis  XIV.  See  Netherlands  (Hol- 
land): A.  D.  1673-1674,  and  1G74-1678;  also 
NiMEGHEN,  Peace  op. 

A.  D.  1675-1678. —  War  with  Sweden.— 
Battle  of  Fehrbellin.  See  Brandenburg  ;  A.  D. 
1640-1688 ;  and  Scandinavian  States(Sweden)  : 
A.  D.  1644-1697. 

A.  D.  1679-1681.— The  final  absorption  of 
Alsace  and  Les  Trois-Evech^s  by  France, 
wth  boundaries  widened. — Bold  encroach- 
ments of  the  French  Chambers  of  Reannexa- 
tion. — The  seizure  of  Strasburg.  See  Prance  : 
A.  D.  1679-1681. 

A.  D.  1686. —  The  League  of  Augsburg 
against  Louis  XIV. —  "The  Duke  of  Orleans, 
the  French  King's  brother,  had  married  the  sister 
of  the  Elector  Palatine,  the  last  of  the  House  of 
Simmern,  who  died  in  Jlay  1685,  when  his  next 
relative,  the  Count  Palatine  Philip  William, 
Duke  of  Neuberg,  took  possession  of  the  Elec- 
torate. The  Duchess  of  Orleans  had  by  her  mar- 
riage contract  renounced  all  her  feudal  rights  to 
the  Palatinate,  but  not  her  claims  to  the  allodial 
property  and  the  moveables  of  her  family." 
These  latter  claims,  taken  in  hand  by  Louis  Xi  V. 
on  behalf  of  his  sister-in-law,  were  made  so  for- 
midable that  the  new  Elector  appealed  to  the 
Empire  for  protection,  "and  thus  redoubled  the 
uneasiness  felt  in  Germany,  and  indeed  through- 
out the  greater  part  of  Europe,  respecting  the 
schemes  of  Louis.  The  Prince  of  Orange  availed 
hiuLself  of  these  suspicions  to  forward  his  plans 
against  Louis.  He  artfully  inflamed  the  general 
alarm,  and  at  length  succeeded  in  inducing  the 
Emperor  Leopold,  the  Kings  of  Spain  and 
Sweden,  as  princes  of  the  Empire,  the  Electors 
of  Saxony  and  Bavaria,  the  circles  of  Suabia, 
Franconia,  Upper  Saxony,  and  Bavaria,  to  enter 
into  the  celebrated  League  of  Augsburg  (July 
9th  1686).  The  object  of  this  league  was  to 
maintain  the  Treaties  of  Mlinster  and  Nimeguen 
and  the  Truce  of  Ratisbon.  If  any  of  the  mem- 
bers of  it  was  attacked  he  was  to  be  assisted  by 
the  whole  confederacy  ;  60,000  men  were  to  be 
raised,  who  were  to  be  frequently  drilled,  and  to 
form  a  camp  during  some  weeks  of  every  year, 
and  a  common  fund  for  their  support  was  to  be 
established  at  Frankfort.  The  League  was  to 
be  in  force  only  for  three  years,  but  might  be 
prolonged  at  the  expiration  of  that  term  should 
the  public  safety  require  it.  The  Elector  Pala- 
tine, who  was  in  fact  the  party  most  directly  inter- 
ested, acceded  to  the  League  early  in  September, 


1523 


GERMANY,  1686. 


The  first 
Kings  of  Pr^issia. 


GERMANY,  1700-1740. 


as  well  as  the  Duke  of  Holstein  Gottorp." — 
T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  5,  ch.  5 
({,.  3), — "To  Matlame's  great  anger  Prance  set  up 
a  claim  to  the  Palatinate  on  her  behalf,  Louvois 
persuading  the  King  and  the  royal  family  that 
with  a  few  vigorous  measures  the  Palatinate 
would  he  abandoned  by  the  Neubourgs  and  an- 
nexed to  France  as  part  of  Madame's  dowry. 
This  led  to  the  devastation  of  the  states,  to  which 
Madame  [Charlotte  Elizabeth,  the  Duchess  of 
Orleans]  so  often  and  so  bitterly  alludes  during 
the  next  ten  years.  Obliged  by  Louis  XIV. 's 
policy  to  represent  herself  as  desirous  to  recover 
her  rights  over  her  father's  and  brother's  succes- 
sion, in  many  documents  which  she  was  never 
even  shown,  Madame  protested  in  all  her  private 
letters  against  Prance's  action  in  the  matter,  and 
made  every  one  at  court  thoroughly  aware  of  her 
grief  and  disapproval  of  what  the  king  was 
doing  on  her  behalf." — Life  and  Letters  of  Char- 
lotte Elizabeth,  Princess  Palatine,  ch.  2. 

A.  D.  1689-1696. — The  War  of  the  League 
of  Augsburg,  or  Grand  Alliance,  against  Louis 
XIV.  See  Prance:  A.  D.  1689-1G90  to  169.'5- 
1696. 

A.  D.  1690. — The  second  Devastation  of  the 
Palatinate.     See  Prance:  A.  D.  1689-1690. 

A.  D.  1700. — Interest  in  the  question  of  the 
Spanish  Succession.  See  Spain:  A.  D.  1698- 
1700, 

A.  D.  1700. — Prussia  raised  to  the  dignity 
of  a  kingdom.     See  Prussia:  A.  D.  1700, 

A.  D.  1700-1740. — The  first  king  of  Prussia 
and  his  shabby  court. — The  second  king,  his 
Brobdingnagian  army  and  his  extraordinary 
character. — The  up-bringing  of  Frederick  the 
Great. — The  "Great  Elector"  of  Brandenburg 
"left  to  his  son  Frederic  a  principality  as  con- 
siderable as  any  which  was  not  called  a  kingdom 
[see  Brandenburg  :  A.  D.  1640-1688].  Frederic 
aspired  to  the  style  of  royalty.  Ostentatious  and 
profuse,  negligent  of  his  true  interests  and  of 
his  high  duties,  insatiably  eager  for  frivolous  dis- 
tinctions, he  added  nothing  to  the  real  weight  of 
the  state  which  lie  governed :  perhaps  he  trans- 
mitted his  inheritance  to  his  children  impaired 
rather  than  augmented  in  value ;  but  he  succeeded 
in  gaining  the  great  object  of  his  life,  the  title  of 
King.  In  the  year  1700  he  assumed  this  new  dig- 
nity. He  had  on  that  occasion  to  undergo  all 
the  mortifications  which  fall  to  the  lot  of  ambi- 
tious upstarts.  Compared  with  the  other  crowned 
heads  of  Europe,  he  made  a  figure  resembling 
that  which  a  Nabob  or  a  Commissary,  who  had 
bought  a  title,  would  make  in  the  ccfrnpany  of 
Peers  whose  ancestors  liad  been  attainted  for 
treason  against  the  Plantagenets.  The  envy  of 
the  class  which  Frederic  quitted,  and  the  civil 
scorn  of  the  class  into  which  he  intruded  himself, 
were  marked  in  very  significant  ways.  .  .  .  Fred- 
eric was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Frederic  William, 
a  prince  who  must  be  allowed  to  have  possessed 
some  talents  for  administration,  but  whose  char- 
acter was  disfigured  by  odious  vices,  and  whose 
eccentricities  were  such  as  had  never  before  been 
seen  out  of  a  madhouse.  He  was  exact  and  dili- 
gent in  the  transacting  of  business ;  and  he  was 
the  first  who  formed  the  design  of  obtaining  for 
Prussia  a  place  among  the  European  powers, 
altogether  out  of  proportion  to  her  extent  and 
population,  by  means  of  a  strong  military  organi- 
zation. Strict  economy  enabled  him  to  keep  up 
a  peace  establishment  of  60,000  troops.     These 


troops  were  disciplined  in  such  a  manner,  that, 
placed  beside  them,  the  household  regiments  of 
Versailles  and  St.  James's  would  have  appeared 
an  awkward  squad.  The  master  of  such  a  force 
could  not  but  be  regarded  by  all  his  neighbours 
as  a  formidable  enemy  and  a  valuable  ally.  But 
the  mind  of  Frederic  William  was  so  ill  regulated, 
that  all  his  inclinations  became  passions,  and  all 
his  passions  partook  of  the  character  of  moial  and 
intellectual  disease.  His  parsimony  degenerated 
into  sordid  avarice.  His  taste  for  military  pomp 
and  order  became  a  mania,  like  that  of  a  Dutch 
burgomaster  for  tulips,  or  that  of  a  member  of 
the  Roxburghe  Club  for  Caxtons.  While  the  en- 
voys of  the  Court  of  Berlin  were  in  a  state  of  such 
squalid  poverty  as  moved  the  laughter  of  foreign 
capitals;  while  the  food  placed  before  the 
princes  and  princesses  of  the  blood-royal  of  Prus- 
sia was  too  scanty  to  appease  hunger,  and  so  bad 
that  even  hunger  loathed  it,  no  price  was  thought 
too  extravagant  for  tall  recruits.  The  ambition 
of  the  king  was  to  form  a  brigade  of  giants,  and 
every  country  was  ransacked  by  his  agents  for 
men  above  the  ordinary  stature.  .  .  .  Though  his 
dominant  passion  was  the  love  of  military  dis- 
play, he  was  yet  one  of  the  most  pacific  of  princes. 
We  are  afraid  that  his  aversion  to  war  was  not  the 
effect  of  humanity,  but  was  merely  one  of  his 
thousand  whims.  His  feeling  about  his  troops 
seems  to  have  resembled  a  miser's  feeling  about 
his  money.  He  loved  to  collect  them,  to  count 
them,  to  see  them  increase ;  but  he  could  not  find 
it  in  his  heart  to  break  in  upon  the  precious 
hoard.  He  looked  forward  to  some  future  time 
when  his  Patagonian  battalions  were  to  drive 
hostile  infantry  before  tkem  like  sheep :  but  this 
future  time  was  always  receding ;  and  it  is  prob- 
able that,  if  his  life  had  been  ]5rolonged  30  years, 
his  superb  army  would  never  have  seen  any 
harder  service  than  a  sham  fight  in  the  fields  near 
Berlin.  But  the  great  military  means  which  he 
had  collected  were  destined  to  be  employed  by  a 
spirit  far  more  daring  and  inventive  than  his  own. 
Frederic,  surnamed  the  Great,  son  of  Frederic 
William,  was  born  in  January  1712.  It  may  safely 
be  pronounced  that  he  had  received  from  nature 
a  strong  and  sharp  understanding,  and  a  rare 
firmness  of  temper  and  intensity  of  will.  As  to 
the  other  parts  of  his  character,  it  is  difficult  to 
say  whether  they  are  to  be  ascribed  to  nature,  or 
to  the  strange  training  which  he  underwent.  The 
history  of  his  boyhood  is  painfully  interesting. 
Oliver  Twist  in  the  parish  work-house,  Smike  at 
Dotheboys  Hall,  were  petted  children  when  com- 
pared with  this  wretched  heir-apparent  of  a 
crown.  The  nature  of  Frederic  William  was 
hard  and  bad,  and  the  habit  of  exercising  arbi- 
trary power  had  made  him  frightfully  savage. 
His  rage  constantly  vented  itself  to  right  and 
left  in  curses  and  blows.  When  his  Majesty  took 
a  walk,  every  human  being  fled  before  him,  as 
if  a  tiger  had  broken  loose  from  a  menagerie. 
.  .  .  But  it  was  in  his  own  house  that  he  was 
most  unreasonable  and  ferocious.  His  palace 
was  hell,  and  he  the  most  execrable  of  fiends. 
.  .  .  Early  in  the  year  1740,  Frederic  William 
met  death  with  a  firmness  and  dignity  worthy 
of  a  better  and  wiser  man;  and  Frederic,  who 
had  just  completed  his  38th  year,  became  king 
of  Prussia. " — Lord  JIacaulay,  Frederic  the  Great 
(Essays). — "Frederick  William  I.  became  .  .  . 
the  founder  of  the  first  modern  State  in  Germany. 
His  was  a  nature  in  which  the  repulsive  and  the 


1524 


GERMANY,  1700-1740. 


War  of  the 
Spanish  Succtssion. 


GERMANY,  1703. 


I 


imposing,  the  uncouth  and  the  admirable,  were 
closely  united  In  his  manners  a  rough  and  un- 
refined peasant,  in  his  family  a  tyrant,  in  his 
government  a  despot,  choleric  almost  to  madness, 
his  reign  would  have  been  a  curse  to  the  country, 
had  he  not  united  with  his  unlimited  power  a 
rare  executive  ability  and  an  incorruptible  fidelity 
to  duty;  and  from  first  to  last  he  consecrated  all 
his  powers  to  the  common  weal.  By  him  effec- 
tive limitations  were  put  upon  the  independent 
action  of  the  provinces,  and  upon  the  overgrown 
privileges  of  the  estates.  He  did  not  do  away 
with  the  guilds  of  the  different  orders,  but  placed 
them  under  the  strict  control  of  a  strongly  cen- 
tralized superintendence,  and  compelled  their 
members  to  make  every  necessary  sacrifice  for 
the  sake  of  assisting  him  in  his  efforts  for  the 
prosperity  and  power  of  Prussia.  It  is  astonish- 
ing to  see  with  what  practical  judgment  he  recog- 
nized a  needed  measure  both  in  general  and  in 
detail ;  how  he  trained  a  body  of  officials,  suited 
in  all  grades  to  the  requirements  of  their  position ; 
how  he  disciplined  them  in  activity,  prudence, 
and  rectitude,  by  strict  inspection,  by  encourag- 
ing instruction,  and  by  brutal  punishments;  how 
he  enforced  order  and  economy  in  the  public 
finances ;  how  he  improved  the  administration  of 
his  own  domains,  so  that  it  became  a  fruitful  ex- 
ample to  all  proprietors ;  and  how,  full  of  the  de- 
sire to  make  the  peasants  free  owners  of  the  soil, 
although  he  did  not  yet  venture  on  such  a  radical 
measure,  he  nevertheless  constantly  protected  the 
poor  against  the  arbitrariness  and  oppression  of 
the  higher  classes.  .  .  .  There  was  no  depart- 
ment of  life  to  which  he  did  not  give  encourage- 
ment and  assistance ;  it  is  also  true  that  there  was 
none  which  he  did  not  render  subservient  to  his 
own  will,  and  the  products  of  which  he  did  not 
make  conducive  to  the  one  great  end.— the  inde- 
pendence and  aggrandizement  of  the  State.  So 
that  he  who  was  the  ruler  of,  at  most,  three  million 
people,  created,  without  exhausting  the  country, 
a  standing  army  of  eighty  thousand  men :  a  re- 
markably skilful  and  ready  army,  which  lie  dis- 
ciplined with  barbarous  severity  on  the  slightest 
occasion,  at  the  same  time  that  he  looked  out  for 
the  welfare  of  every  soldier  even  in  the  smallest 
detail,  according  to  his  saying,  that  'a  king's 
warrior  must  live  better  than  a  gentleman's  ser- 
vant.'  What  he  had  in  his  mind,  almost  a  hun- 
dred years  before  Scharnhorst,  was  the  universal 
obligation  of  military  service ;  but  it  fared  with 
him  in  regard  to  this  as  in  regard  to  the  freedom 
of  the  peasants:  strong  as  he  was,  he  could  not 
turn  the  world  he  lived  in  upside  down ;  he  con- 
tented himself  with  bequeathing  his  best  ideas  to 
a  more  propitious  future.  The  foundations  of 
the  government  rested  upon  the  estates  in  spite 
of  all  monarchical  reforms.  Thus,  beside  the 
federative  Empire  of  the  Hapsburgs,  arose  the 
small,  compact  Prussian  State,  which,  by  reason 
of  the  concentration  of  its  forces,  was  a  match 
for  its  five-times-larger  rival." — H.  Von  Sybel, 
77(6  Founding  of  the  German  Empire  by  William 
I.,  bk.  1,  ch.  2  (».  1). 

Also  ik:  T.  Carlyle,  Eist.  of  Frederick  11. , 
called  tilt,  Great,  bk.  3,  c/i.  19,  bk.  5-10  (v.  1-2). 

A.  D.  1702.— The  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession :  Siege  of  Landau. — Battle  of  Fried- 
lingen. —  On  the  part  of  the  Imperialists,  the 
"War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  was  opened  on 
the  Rhine  frontier  in  June  1702,  by  a  movement 
of  the  army  commanded  by  the  Margrave  Louis 


of  Baden,  which  "  came  over  the  Rhine  and  laid 
siege  to  the  important  fortress  of  Landau, —  the 
butwark  of  Alsace  as  it  was  then  regarded.  The 
Margrave  was  subsequently  joined  by  the  Em- 
peror's eldest  son,  the  young  King  of  the  Romans, 
who  desired  to  share  in  the  glory,  though  not 
in  the  toils  of  the  expected  conquest.  .  .  .  The 
Marechal  de  Catinat,  one  of  the  soldiers  of  whom 
France  has  most  reason  to  be  proud, —  the  virtu- 
ous Catinat  as  Rousseau  terms  him  —  held  com-) 
mand  at  this  period  in  Alsace.  So  inferior  were 
his  numbers  that  he  could  make  no  attempt  toj 
relieve  Landau.  But  after  its  reduction  an  op-  ^ 
portunity  appeared  in  which  by  detaching  ai 
portion  of  his  army  he  might  retrieve  the  for- 
tunes of  France  in  another  quarter.  The  Elector 
of  Bavaria,  after  much  irresolution,  had  openly 
espoused  the  cause  of  Louis.  He  seized  upon 
the  city  of  Ulm  and  issued  a  proclamation  in 
favor  of  his  new  ally.  To  support  his  move- 
ments an  enterprising  and  ambitious  ofticer.  the 
Marquis  de  Villars,  was  sent  across  the  Rhine 
with  part  of  the  army  of  Alsace.  The  declara- 
tion of  the  Elector  of  Bavaria  and  the  advance  of 
Villars  into  Germany  disquieted  in  no  slight  de- 
gree the  Prince  Louis  of  Baden.  Leaving  a 
sufficient  garrison  in  Landau,  he  also  passed  the 
Rhine.  The  two  armies  met  at  Friedlingen  on 
the  14th  of  October.  Louis  of  Baden,  a  ponder- 
ous tactician  bred  in  the  wars  against  the  Turks, 
might  out-manceuvre  some  Grand  Vizier,  but 
was  no  match  for  the  quick-witted  Frenchman. 
He  was  signally  defeated  with  the  loss  of  3,000 
men ;  soon  after  which,  the  season  being  now  far 
advanced,  Villars  led  back  his  army  to  winter 
quarters  in  France.  His  victory  of  Friedlingen 
gained  for  him  at  Versailles  the  rank  of  Marechal 
tie  France." — Earl  Stanhope  (Lord  Mahon),  Hist. 
of  Eny.:  Ileign  of  Queen  Anne,  ch.  2. 

Also  in:  W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of 
Austria,  ch.  68  (».  2). — See,  also,  Netherlands: 
A.  D.  1702-1704,  and  Sp.\in:  A.  D.  1702. 

A.  D.  1703. — The  "War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession :  Campaigns  on  the  Upper  Rhine  and 
in  Bavaria. — "Early  in  June  [A.  D.  1703], 
Marshal  Tallard  assumed  the  command  of  the 
French  forces  in  Alsace,  .  .  .  took  Prissac  on 
the  7th  of  September,  and  invested  Landau  on 
the  16th  of  October.  The  allies,  under  the 
Prince  of  Hesse,  attempted  to  raise  the  siege, 
but  were  defeated  with  considerable  loss ;  and, 
soon  after,  Landau  surrendered,  thus  terminating 
with  disaster  the  campaign  on  the  Upper  Rhine. 
Still  more  considerable  were  the  losses  sustained 
in  Bavaria.  Marshal  Villars  commanded  there, 
and,  at  the  head  of  the  French  and  Bavarians, 
defeated  General  Stirum,  who  headed  the  Im- 
perialists, on  the  20th  of  September.  In  De- 
cember, Marshal  Marsin,  who  had  succeeded 
Villars  in  the  command,  made  himself  master  of 
the  important  city  of  Augsburg,  and  in  January, 
1704,  the  Bavarians  got  possession  of  Passau. 
j\Ieanwhile,  a  formidable  insurrection  had  broken 
out  in  Hungary,  which  so  distracted  the  cabinet 
of  Vienna  that  the  capital  seemed  to  be  threatened 
by  the  combined  forces  of  the  French  and  Bava- 
rians after  the  fall  of  Passau.  .  .  .  Instead  of 
confining  the  war  to  one  of  posts  and  sieges  in 
Flanders  and  Italy,  it  was  resolved  [by  the 
French]  to  throw  the  bulk  of  their  forces  at  once 
into  Bavaria,  and  operate  against  Austria  from 
the  heart  of  Germany,  by  pouring  down  the  val- 
ley of  the  Danube.      The  advanced  post  held 


1525 


GERMANY,  1703. 


War  of  the 
Spayiish  Succession. 


GERMANY,  1704. 


there  bj'  the  Elector  of  Bavaria  in  front,  forming 
a  salient  angle,  penetrating,  as  it  were,  into  the 
Imperial  dominions,  the  menacing  aspect  of  the 
Hungarian  insurrection  in  the  rear,  promised  the 
most  successful  issue  to  this  decisive  operation. 
For  this  purpose,  Marshal  Tallard,  with  the 
French  army  on  the  Upper  Rhine,  received  orders 
to  cross  theBlack  Forest  and  advance  into  Swa- 
l)ia,  and  unite  with  the  Elector  of  Bavaria,  which 
he  accordingly  did  at  Donawerth,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  July.  Marshal  Villeroy,  with  forty  bat- 
talions and  thirty-nine  squadrons,  was  to  break 
•off  from  the  army  in  Flanders  and  support  the 
advance  by  a  movement  on  the  Moselle,  so  as  to 
be  in  a  condition  to  join  the  main  army  on  the 
Danube,  of  which  it  would  form,  as  it  were,  the 
left  wing ;  while  Vendome,  with  the  army  of 
Italy,  was  to  penetrate  into  the  Tyrol,  and  ad- 
vance by  Innspruck  on  Salzburg.  The  united 
armies,  which  it  was  calculated,  after  deducting 
all  the  losses  of  the  campaign,  would  muster 
80,000  combatants,  was  then  to  move  direct  by 
Lintz  and  the  valley  of  the  Danube  on  Vienna, 
while  a  large  detachment  penetrated  into  Hun- 
gary to  lend  a  hand  to  the  already  formidable 
insurrection  in  that  kingdom.  The  plan  was 
grandly  conceived.  .  .  .  5larlborough,  by  means 
of  the  secret  information  which  he  obtained  from 
the  French  head-quarters,  had  got  full  intelli- 
gence of  it,  and  its  dangers  to  the  allies,  if  it 
succeeded,  struck  him  as  much  as  the  chances  of 
great  advantage  to  them  if  ably  thwarted.  His 
line  was  instantly  taken." — A.  Alison,  Military 
Life  of  Marlborouyh.  ch.  3,  sect.  30-33. — The 
measures  taken  by  Marlborough  to  defeat  the 
plans  of  the  French  in  this  campaign  are  briefly 
stated  in  the  account  of  his  first  campaigns  in 
the  Netherlands.  See  Netherlands:  A.  D. 
1702-1704. 

Also  in  ;  H.  Martin,  Hist,  of  France  :  Aye  of 
Louis  XIV.  (tr.  by  M.  L.  Booth),  v.  2,  ch.  5.— W. 
Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of  Austria,  ch.  09  (e.  2). 

A.  D.  1704.— Tke  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession :  Marlborough  and  Prince  Eugene  on 
the  Danube. — The  Battle  of  Blenheim. — "Marl- 
borough, with  his  motley  army  of  English,  Dutch, 
Danes  and  Germans,  concealing  his  main  pur- 
pose, was  marching  south  along  the  Rhine,  with 
a  design  to  strike  his  critical  blow,  by  attacking 
the  French  armies  that  were  forming  for  the  cam- 
paign of  the  Danube,  and  thus  protect  the  Em- 
peror and  Vienna,  and  punish  the  Elector  of  Ba- 
varia, whose  territories  would  be  then  exposed. 
On  the  route,  Marlborough  was  joined  by  Prince 
Eugene  and  the  Margrave  of  Baden;  but  as  a 
new  French  force  was  approaching.  Prince  Eugene 
was  sent  to  keep  it  in  check.  Marlborough  and 
the  Prince  of  Baden,  with  united  forces  of  about 
€0,000  men,  then  advanced,  in  rapid  marches, 
and  took,  by  gallant  assault,  the  fortifications  of 
the  Schellenberg  in  Bavaria,  and  the  old  town  of 
Donauworth,  a  critical  and  commanding  position 
on  the  Danube.  The  allies  were  now  masters  of 
the  main  passages  of  the  Danube  —  and  had  a 
strong  place  as  a  basis  of  action.  The  allied 
leaders  thereupon  sent  troops  into  the  heart  of 
Bavaria,  and  devastated  the  countrj'  even  to  the 
vicinity  of  Munich  —  burning  and  destroying  as 
they  marched,  and  taking  several  minor  for- 
tresses. Marlborough's  forces  and  those  of  Prince 
Eugene  were  distant  from  each  other  some  forty 
miles,  when  came  the  news  of  the  inarch  of  a 
French  army  of  35,000  men  under  Tallard,  to 


form  a  junction  with  the  others,  to  succor  the 
Elector,  and  take  revenge  for  the  defeat  of  the 
Schellenberg.  Two  French  Marshals,  Tallard 
and  Marsin,  were  now  in  command ;  their  design 
was  to  attack  Marlborough  and  Eugene's  armies 
in  detail.  By  rapid  marches,  Marlborough  crossed 
the  Danube  and  joined  Prince  Eugene  near  Don- 
auworth, and  thereupon  occurred  one  of  the  most 
important  and  decisive  contests  of  modern  times, 
fought  between  the  old  town  of  Hochstadt  and 
the  village  of  Blenheim,  about  fifteen  miles  south 
of  Donauworth.  The  skilful  tactics  of  the  allied 
generals  precipitated  the  battle.  The  allied 
French  and  Bavarians  numbered  60,000  [56,000; 
Malleson]  men  —  the  English,  Dutch  and  Ger- 
mans and  other  allies,  about  53,000  [53,000;  Mal- 
leson]. The  allies  were  allowed  to  cross  an  in- 
tervening brook  without  opposition,  and  form 
their  lines.  A  great  charge,  in  ful!  force,  of  the 
allies  was  then  made;  they  broke  the  enemy's 
extended  line ;  and  an  ensuing  charge  of  cavalry 
scattered  his  forces  right  and  left,  and  drove 
many  into  the  Danube.  More  than  14,000  French 
and  Bavarians,  who  had  not  struck  a  blow,  ex- 
cept to  defend  their  position,  entrenched  and 
shut  up  in  the  village  of  Blenheim,  waiting  for 
orders  to  move,  were  then  surrounded  by  the 
victorious  allies,  and  compelled  to  surrender  as 
prisoners  of  war.  The  scattered  remnants  of  the 
French  and  Bavarian  army  either  disbanded,  or 
were  driven  over  the  Rhine.  The  garrison  at  Ulm 
capitulated,  and  the  Elector  fled  into  France." — 
J.  W.  Gerard,  The  Peace  of  Utrecht,  ch.  16.— 
"The  armies  of  Marchin  and  of  Max  Emanuel 
[of  Bavaria]  had  been  defeated ;  that  of  Tallard 
had  been  annihilated.  Whilst  the  loss  of  the 
victors  in  killed  and  wounded  reached  12,000 
men,  that  of  the  French  and  Bavarians  exceeded 
14,000.  In  addition,  the  latter  lost  13,000  men 
taken  prisoners,  47  pieces  of  cannon,  25  stan- 
dards, and  90  colours.  Such  was  the  battle  of 
Blenheim.  It  was  one  of  the  decisive  battles  of 
history,  and  it  changed  the  character  of  the  war. 
Up  to  that  moment,  the  action  of  France  against 
Germany  had  been  aggressive ;  thenceforward  it 
became  purely  defensive.  Blenheim,  in  fact, 
dashed  to  the  ground  the  hopes  of  Louis  XIV. 
and  Max  Emanuel  of  Bavaria.  It  saved  the 
house  of  Habsburg  in  Germany,  and  helped  it 
greatly  in  Hungary.  It  showed  likewise  that  it 
was  possible  to  inflict  a  crushing  defeat  on  the 
armies  of  Louis  XIV." — Col.  G.  B.  Malleson, 
Prince  Eugene  of  Samy,  ch.  6. — "Marlborough 
[after  the  battle],  having  detached  part  of  his 
force  to  besiege  Ulm,  drew  near  with  the  bulk  of 
his  array  to  the  Rhine,  which  he  passed  near 
Philipsburg  on  the  6th  of  September,  and  soon 
after  commenced  the  siege  of  Landau,  on  the 
French  side;  Prince  Louis,  with  30,000  men, 
forming  the  besieging  force,  and  Eugene  and 
Marlborough,  with  30,000,  the  covering  army. 
Villeroi,  with  the  French  army,  abandoned  an 
intrenched  camp  which  he  had  constructed  to 
cover  the  town.  Marlborough  followed,  and 
made  every  effort  to  bring  the  French  marshal 
to  battle,  but  in  vain.  .  .  .  Ulm  surrendered  on 
the  16th  of  September,  .  .  .  which  gave  the 
allies  a  solid  foundation  on  the  Danube,  and  ef- 
fectually crushed  the  power  of  the  Elector  of 
Bavaria,  who,  isolated  now  in  the  midst  of  his 
enemies,  had  no  alternative  but  to  abandon  his 
dominions  and  seek  refuge  in  Brussels,  where 
he  arrived  in  the  end  of  September.  .  .  .  The 


1526 


GERMANY,   1704. 


War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession. 


GERMANY,  1711. 


Electress  of  Bavaria,  who  had  been  left  regent  of 
that  state  in  the  absence  of  the  Elector  in  Flan- 
ders, had  now  no  resource  left  but  submission ; 
and  a  treaty  was  accordingly  concluded  in  the  be- 
ginning of  November,  by  which  she  agreed  to  dis- 
band all  her  troops.  Trgves  and  Traerbach  were 
taken  in  the  end  of  December;  the  Hungarian 
insurrection  was  suppressed ;  Landau  capitulated 
in  the  beginning  of  the  same  month ;  a  diversion 
which  the  enemy  attempted  toward  Tr§ves  was 
defeated  by  Marlborough's  activity  and  vigi- 
lance, and  that  city  put  in  a  sufficient  posture  of 
".defense ;  and,  the  campaign  being  now  finished, 
'that  accomplished  commander  returned  to  the 
Hague  and  London." — A.  Alison,  Military  Life 
of  Marlborough,  ch.  2. 

Also  in  :  G.  B.  Malleson,  Battle-fields  of  Oer- 
many,  ch.  10. — W.  Coxe,  Memoirs  of  Marlborough, 
ch.  23-26  (b.  1).— J.  H.  Burton,  Hist,  of  the  Reign 
of  Queen  Anne,  ch.  6  (o.  1). — H.  Martin,  Hist,  of 
France:  Age  of  Louis  XIV.,  v.  2,  ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1705. — The  Election  of  the  Emperor 
Joseph  I. 

A.  D.  1705.— The  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession :  The  dissolution  of  Bavaria. — "The 
campaign  of  1705  was  destitute  of  any  important 
events  on  the  side  of  Germany.  ...  In  Bavaria, 
the  peasants,  irritated  by  the  oppressions  of  the 
Austrian  government,  rose  in  a  body  in  the 
autumn,  and,  could  they  have  been  supported  by 
France,  would  have  placed  the  Emperor  in  great 
danger;  but  without  that  aid  the  insurrection 
only  proved  fatal  to  themselves.  The  insurgents 
were  beaten  in  detail,  and  the  Emperor  now  re- 
solved on  the  complete  dissolution  of  Bavaria  as 
a  state.  The  four  elder  sons  of  Maximilian  were 
carried  to  Klagenfurt  in  Carinthia,  to  be  there 
educated  under  the  strictest  inspection  as  Counts 
of  Wittelsbach,  while  the  younger  sons  were  con- 
signed to  the  care  of  a  court  lady  at  Munich,  and 
the  daughters  sent  to  a  convent.  The  Electress, 
who  had  been  on  a  visit  to  Venice,  was  not  per- 
mitted to  return  to  her  dominions,  and  the  Elector 
Maximilian,  as  well  as  the  Elector  of  Cologne, 
was,  by  a  decree  of  the  Electoral  College,  placed 
under  the  ban  of  the  Empire.  The  Upper  Palati- 
nate was  restored  to  the  Elector  Palatine.  .  .  . 
The  remaining  Bavarian  territories  were  con- 
fiscated, and  divided  among  various  princes." — 
T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  5,  ch.  6 
(v.  3). — AV.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of  Austria, 
ch.  73  (».  3).— The  campaign  of  1705  in  the  Neth- 
erlands was  unimportant;  but  in  Spain  it  had 
brilliant  results.  See  Sp.^in:  A.  D.  1705;  and 
Neth:erl.\nds  :  A.  D.  1705. 

A.  D.  1706-1711. — The  War  of  the  Spanish 
Succession  :  Successes  of  the  French. — During 
1706,  little  was  attempted  on  either  side  by  the 
forces  which  watched  each  other  along  the  Rhine. 
In  1707  Villars,  the  French  commander,  obtained 
liberty  to  act.  "The  Emperor,  greatly  preoccu- 
pied with  Hungary,  had  furnished  but  indiffer- 
ent resources  to  the  new  general  of  the  army  of 
the  Rhine,  Brandenburg-Baireuth ;  the  German 
army  was  ill  paid  and  in  bad  condition  in  its  im- 
mense lines  on  the  right  bank,  which  extended 
along  the  Rhine  from  Philippsburg  as  far  as  Stol- 
hofeu,  then,  in  a  square,  from  Stolhofen  to  the 
Black  Mountains  by  Buhl.  May  23,  the  lines 
were  attacked  simultaneously  at  four  points. 
.  .  .  The  success  was  complete ;  the  enemy  tied 
into  the  mountains,  abandoning  artillery,  bag- 
gage, and  munitions,  and  did  not  stop  till  beyond 


the  Neckar.  The  lines  were  razed ;  Swabia  and 
a  part  of  Franconia  were  put  under  contribution. 
Villars  marched  on  Stuttgart,  crossed  the  Neckar. 
and  subjected  the  whole  country  to  ransom  as 
far  as  the  Danube.  The  enemies  in  vain  rallied 
and  reinforced  themselves  with  tardy  contingents 
of  the  Empire;  they  could  not  prevent  Villars 
from  laying  under  contribution  the  Lower  Neckar, 
then  the  covintry  between  the  Danube  and  Lake 
Constance,  and  from  maintaining  himself  beyond 
the  Rhine  till  he  went  into  winter-quarters. 
French  parties  scoured  the  country  as  conquerors 
as  far  as  the  fatal  field  of  Ilochstadt."  At  the 
beginning  of  the  campaign  of  1708,  it  was  the 
plan  of  the  allies  to  make  their  chief  attack  on 
France  "by  the  way  of  the  Rhine  and  the 
Moselle,  with  two  armies  of  60,000  men  each, 
under  the  command  of  the  Elector  of  Hanover 
and  Eugene,  whilst  Marlborough  occupied  the 
great  French  army  in  Flanders."  But  this  plan 
was  changed.  "Eugene  left  the  Elector  of 
Hanover  in  the  north  of  Swabia,  behind  the  lines 
of  Etlingen,  which  the  allies  had  raised  during  the 
winter  to  replace  the  lines  of  Bilhl  at  Stolhofen, 
and,  with  24,000  soldiers  collected  on  the  Moselle, 
he  marched  by  the  way  of  Coblentz  towards  Bel- 
gium (June  30).  The  French  forces  of  the  Rhine 
and  the  Moselle  followed  this  movement."  The 
campaign  then  ensuing  in  the  Netherlands  was 
that  which  was  signalized  by  Marlborough  and 
Eugene's  victory  at  Oudenarde  and  the  siege  of 
Lille.  In  1709,  "the  attention  of  Europe,  as  in 
1708,  was  chiefly  directed  to  Flanders;  but  it 
was  not  only  on  that  side  that  France  was  men- 
aced. France  was  to  be  encroached  upon  at 
once  on  the  north  and  the  east.  Whilst  the  great 
allied  army  penetrated  into  Artois,  the  army  of 
the  Rhine  and  the  army  of  the  Alps  were  to 
penetrate,  the  latter  into  Bresse  by  the  way  of 
Savoy,  the  former  Into  Franche-Corate  by  the 
way  of  Alsace,  and  to  combine  their  operations. 
.  .  .  The  Germans  had  not  taken  the  offensive  in 
Alsace  till  in  the  month  of  August.  Marshal 
Harcourt,  with  over  20,000  men,  had  covered 
himself  with  the  lines  of  the  Lauter ;  the  Elector  of 
Hanover,  who  had  crossed  the  Rhine  at  Philipps- 
burg with  superior  forces,  did  not  attack  Har- 
court, and  strove  to  amuse  him  whilst  8,000  or 
9,000  Germans,  left  in  Swabia  with  General 
Merci,  moved  rapidly  on  Neuberg  .  .  .  and  es- 
tablished there  a  t§te-du-pont  in  order  to  enter 
Upper  Alsace."  By  swiftly  sending  a  sufficient 
force  to  attack  and  defeat  Merci  at  Neuberg, 
Aug.  36,  Harcourt  completely  frustrated  these 
plans.  "The  Elector  of  Hanover  recrossed  the 
river  and  retired  behind  the  lines  of  Etlingen." 
During  the  two  following  years  the  French  and 
German  forces  on  the  side  of  the  Rhine  did  little 
more  than  observe  one  another. — H.  Martin,  Hist, 
of  France:  Age  of  Louis  XIV.,  v.  2,  ch.  5-6. — 
Meantime,  Ramillies,  Oudenarde  and  Malplaquet 
had  been  fought  in  the  Netherlands;  Prince 
Eugene  had  won  his  victory  at  Turin,  and  the 
contest  had  been  practically  decided  in  Spain,  at 
Almanza.  See  Netherlands:  A.  D.  1706-1707, 
1708-1709,  1710-1712;  Italy:  A.  D.  1701-1718; 
Spain;  A.  D.  1706,  1707,  and  1707-1710;  and 
England;  A.  D.  1710-1712. 

Also  in:  W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of 
Austria,  ch.  75-79  (ti.  3). — F.  P.  Guizot,  Popular 
Hist,  of  France,  ch.  45  (».  5). 

A.  D.  1711. —  Election  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  VI. 


1527 


GERMANY,  1711. 


Frederick  the  Great. 


GERMANY,  1748. 


A.  D.  171 1. —The  War  of  the  Spanish  Suc- 
cession :  Change  in  the  circumstances  of  the 
war.     See  Ai;stri.\:  A.  D.  1711. 

A.  D.  1713-1719. — The  Emperor's  continued 
differences  with  the  King  of  Spain.— The 
Triple  Alliance.— The  Quadruple  Alliance. 
See  Spain;  A.  D.  1713-1725. 

A.  D.  1714. — Ending  of  the  War  of  the 
Spanish  Succession  :  The  Peace  of  Utrecht 
and  the  Treaty  of  Rastadt.  See  Utrecht: 
A.  D.  1712-1714. 

A.  D.  1732-1733. — Interference  in  the  elec- 
tion of  the  King  of  Poland.  See  Poland: 
A.  D.  1732-1733. 

A.  D.  1733-1735.— The  War  of  the  Polish 
Succession. — Cession  of  Lorraine  to  France. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1733-173.5. 

A.  D.  1740. — The  question  of  the  Austrian 
Succession. — The  Pragmatic  Sanction.  See 
Austria:  A,  D.  1718-1738,  and  1740. 

A.  D.  1740-1756. — Early  years  of  the  reign 
of  Frederick  the  Great  in  Prussia. — The  War 
of  the  Austrian  Succession.— When  Frederick 
II. ,  known  as  Frederick  the  Great,  succeeded  his 
father,  in  1740,  "nobody  had  the  least  suspicion 
that  a  tyrant  of  extraordinary  military  and  po- 
litical talents,  of  industry  more  extraordinary 
still,  -without  fear,  without  faith,  and  without 
mercy,  had  ascended  the  throne." — Lord  Macau- 
lay,  Frederic  Vie  Great  (Essays).— The  reign  of 
Frederick  II.  "  was  expected  to  be  an  effeminate 
one ;  but  when  at  the  age  of  twenty -nine  he  be- 
came king,  he  forgot  his  pleasures,  thought  of 
nothing  but  glory,  and  no  longer  employed  him- 
self but  in  attention  to  his  finances,  his  arm}',  his 
policy,  and  his  laws.  His  provinces  were  scat- 
tered, his  resources  weak,  his  power  precarious ; 
his  army  of  seventy  thousand  soldiers  was  more 
remarkable  for  handsomeness  of  the  men,  and 
the  elegance  of  their  appearance,  than  for  their 
discipline.  He  augmented  it,  instructed  it,  exer- 
cised it,  and  fortune  began  to  open  the  tield  of 
glory  to  him  at  the  moment  he  was  fully  pre- 
pared to  enjoy  her  favours.  Charles  XII.  was 
dead,  and  his  station  filled  by  a  king  without 
authority.  Russia,  deprived  of  Peter  the  Great, 
who  had  only  rough-hewn  her  civilization,  lan- 
guished under  the  feeble  government  of  the  Em- 
press Anne,  and  of  a  cruel  and  ignorant  minister. 
Augustus  III.  King  of  Poland  and  Elector  of 
Saxony,  a  Prince  devoid  of  character,  could  not 
inspire  him  with  any  dread.  Louis  XV.,  a  weak 
and  peaceable  king,  was  governed  by  Cardinal 
Fleuri,  who  loved  peace,  but  always  by  his  weak- 
ness suffered  himself  to  be  drawn  into  war.  He 
presented  to  Frederic  rather  a  support  than  an 
obstacle.  The  court  of  France  had  espoused  the 
cause  of  Charles  VII.  against  Francis  I.  Maria 
Theresa,  wife  of  Francis,  and  Queen  of  Hungary, 
saw  herself  threatened  by  England,  Holland,  and 
France ;  and  whilst  she  had  but  little  reason  to 
hope  the  preservation  of  her  hereditary  dominions, 
that  arrogant  princess  wished  to  place  her  hus- 
band on  the  Imperial  Throne.  This  quarrel 
kindled  the  flames  of  war  in  Europe ;  the  genius 
of  Frederic  saw  by  a  single  glance  that  the  mo- 
ment was  arrived  for  elevating  Prussia  to  the 
second  order  of  powers;  he  made  an  offer  to 
Maria  Theresa  to  defend  her,  if  she  would  cede 
Silesia  to  him,  and  threatened  her  with  war  in  case 
of  refusal.  The  Empress,  whose  firmness  noth- 
ing could  shake,  impoliticly  refused  that  prop- 
osition ;  war  was  declared,  and  Frederic  entered 


Silesia  at  the  head  of  eighty  thousand  men. 
This  first  war  lasted  eighteen  months  [see  Aus- 
tria: A.  D.  1740  to  1741].  Frederic,  by  gaining 
five  battles,  shewed  that  Europe  would  recognize 
one  great  man  more  in  her  bloody  annals.  He 
had  begun  the  war  from  ambition,  and  contrary 
to  strict  justice ;  he  concluded  it  with  ability,  but 
by  the  abandonment  of  France  his  ally,  without 
giving  her  information  of  it,  and  he  thus  put  in 
practice,  when  he  was  seated  on  the  throne,  the 
principles  of  Machiavel,  whom  he  had  refuted 
before  he  ascended  it.  Men  judge  according  to 
the  event.  The  hero  was  absolved  by  victory 
from  the  wrongs  with  which  justice  reproached 
him ;  and  this  brilliant  example  serves  to  confirm 
men  in  that  error,  too  generally  and  too  lightly 
adopted,  that  ability  in  politics  is  incompatible 
with  the  strict  rule  of  morality.  Four  years 
after,  in  [1744],  Frederic  again  took  up  arms  [see 
Austria:  A.  D.  1743-1744  to  1744-1745].  He 
invaded  Bohemia,  Upper  Silesia,  and  Moravia. 
Vienna  thought  him  at  her  gates;  but  the  defec- 
tion of  the  Bavarians,  the  retreat  of  the  French, 
and  the  return  of  Prince  Charles  into  Bohemia, 
rapidly  changed  the  face  of  affairs.  The  position 
of  Frederic  became  as  dangerous  as  it  had  been 
menacing ;  he  was  on  the  point  of  being  lost,  and 
he  saw  himself  compelled  to  retire  with  as  much 
precipitation,  as  he  had  advanced  with  boldness. 
The  gaining  the  battle  of  Hohen-Friedberg  saved 
him.  That  retreat  and  that  victory  fixed  the 
seal  to  his  reputation.  It  was  after  this  action 
that  he  wrote  to  Louis  XV.  'I  have  just  dis- 
charged in  Silesia  the  bill  of  exchange  which 
your  majesty  drew  on  me  at  Pontenoy. '  A  letter 
so  much  the  more  modest,  as  Frederic  had  con- 
quered, and  Louis  had  only  been  witness  to  a  vic- 
tory. He  displayed  the  same  genius  and  the 
same  activity  in  the  campaign  of  1745,  and  once 
more  abandoned  France  in  making  his  separate 
peace  at  Dresden.  By  this  treaty  Francis  was 
peaceably  assured  of  the  empire,  and  the  cession 
of  Silesia  was  confirmed  to  Frederic.  France  dur- 
ing this  war  committed  some  wrongs,  which 
might  palliate  the  abandonment  of  Prussia.  The 
French  did  not  keep  Prince  Charles  within 
bounds,  they  made  no  diversion  into  Germany, 
and  fought  no  where  but  in  Flanders.  ...  In 
1756,  Europe  was  again  in  a  flame.  France  and 
England  declared  war  against  each  other,  and 
both  sought  alliances;  Frederic  ranged  himself 
on  the  side  of  England,  and  by  that  became 
the  object  of  the  unreflecting  vengeance  of  the 
French,  and  of  the  alliance  of  that  power  with 
Austria ;  Austria  also  formed  an  alliance  with  the 
Court  of  Petersburg  by  means  of  a  Saxon  secre- 
tary ;  Frederic  discovered  the  project  of  the 
Courts  of  Petersburg,  Dresden,  and  Vienna,  to 
invade  tlie  Prussian  dominions.  He  was  before- 
hand with  them,  and  began  the  war  by  some 
conquests. " — L.  P.  Segur,  the  elder.  Hist,  of  the 
Principal  Erents  of  the  Reign  of  Frederic  William, 
II. ,  King  of  Prussia,  «.  1 ,  iip.  2-6. 

A.  D.  1742. — The  Elector  of  Bavaria  crowned 
Emperor  (Charles  VIL).  See  Austria:  A.  D. 
1741  (October). 

A.  D.  1745.— The  consort  of  Maria  Theresa 
elected  Emperor  (Francis  I.). — Rise  of  the  im- 
perial house  of  Hapsburg-Lorraine.  See  Aus- 
tria: A.  D.  1745 (Sept. — Oct.);  also,  1744-1745. 

A.  D.  1748.— End  and  results  of  the  War  of 
the  Austrian  Succession.  See  Aix-la-Cha- 
pellk  The  Congress. 


1528 


GERMANY,  1755-1756. 


Causes  of  the 
Seven  Years  War. 


GERMANY,  1756. 


A.  D.  1755-1756. — The  Seven  Years  War: 
Its  causes  and  provocations. — "The  great  na- 
tional quarrel  between  England  and  tlio  powers 
whicli  restrained  her  free  movements  on  the  sea 
and  lier  extension  of  colonies,  had  never  ceased. 
England  would  have  the  freedom  of  the  sea ;  and 
on  land  slie  pushed  population  and  ploughs  wliere 
France  paraded  soldiers.  In  such  a  struggle  war 
must  come,  but,  by  laws  invariable  as  the  laws 
of  nature,  the  population  will  win  in  the  end. 
After  much  bickering,  blows  began  in  1754,  and 
at  the  beginning  of  1755  England  despatched  the 
ill-fated  Braddock  with  a  small  force,  which  was 
destroyed  in  July.  ...  As  yet,  however,  the 
quarrel  was  only  colonial.  England  embittered 
it  by  seizing  French  ships  without  any  declara- 
tion of  war.  But  why  did  Frederick  [of  Prussia] 
strike  in,  if  indeed  he  desired  peace  ?  In  truth 
there  was  no  choice  for  him.  As  early  as  1753- 
53  his  secret  agents  had  discovered  that  Austria, 
Russia  and  Sa.xony  were  hatching  a  plot  for  the 
destruction  of  Prussia,  and  such  a  partition  as 
afterwards  befell  unhappy  Poland.  In  1753  a 
Saxon  oiHcial,  Mentzel  byname,  began  to  supply 
the  Prussian  agents  with  copies  of  secret  docu- 
ments from  the  archives  at  Dresden,  which 
proved  that,  during  the  whole  of  the  peace,  ne- 
gotiations had  been  proceeding  for  a  simulta- 
neous attack  on  Fredericlv,  though  the  astute 
Briihl  [Saxon  minister],  mindful  of  former  de- 
feats, objected  to  playing  the  part  of  jackal  to 
the  neighbouring  lions.  In  short,  by  the  end  of 
1755  the  king  knew  that  preparations  were  al- 
ready on  foot  in  Austria  and  Russia,  and  that 
he  would  probably  be  attacked  next  year  cer- 
tainly, or,  at  latest,  the  year  after.  A  great  war 
was  coming  between  England  and  France,  in 
which  the  continental  power  would  attack  Han- 
over, and  tread  closelj'  on  the  skirts  of  Prussia. 
The  situation  was  dangerous,  and  became  terri- 
bly menacing  when  England  bargained  with 
Russia  to  subsidise  a  Muscovite  army  of  55,000 
men  for  defence  of  Hanover.  Ru.ssia  consented 
with  alacrity.  IMoney  was  all  that  the  czarina 
needed  for  her  preparations  against  Frederick, 
and  in  the  autumn  of  17.55  she  assembled,  not 
55,000,  but  70,000  men  on  the  Prussian  frontier, 
nominally  for  the  use  of  England.  But  through- 
out the  winter  all  the  talk  at  St.  Petersburg  was 
of  Frederick's  destruction  in  the  coming  spring. 
It  was  time  for  him  to  stir.  His  first  move  was 
one  of  policy.  He  offered  England  a  '  neutrality 
convention '  by  which  the  two  powers  jointly 
should  guarantee  the  German  Reich  against  all 
foreign  intervention  during  the  coming  war.  On 
the  16th  of  January,  17.56,  the  convention  was 
signed  in  London,  and  the  Russian  agreement 
thrown  over,  as  it  could  well  be,  since  it  had  not 
been  ratified.  Europe  was  now  ranking  herself 
for  the  struggle.  In  preceding  years,  the  Aus- 
trian diplomatist,  Kaunitz,  had  so  managed  the 
French  court,  especially  through  the  medium  of 
Madame  de  Pompadour,  that  Louis  XV.  was 
now  on  the  side  of  Maria  Theresa,  who  had 
bowed  her  neck  so  far  as  to  write  to  the  French 
king's  mistress  as  '  Ma  Cousine.'  while  Frederick 
forgot  policy,  and  spoke  of  the  Pompadour  in 
slighting  terms.  '  Je  ne  la  connais  pas,'  said  he 
once,  and  was  never  forgiven.  .  .  .  The  agree- 
ment with  Russia  to  partition  Prussia  had  already 
been  made,  and  Frederick's  sharp  tongue  had 
betrayed  him  into  calling  the  czarina  that  '  In- 
fame  catin  du  nord. '    Saxony  waited  for  the  ap- 


pearance of  her  stronger  neighbours  in  order  to 
join  them.  England  alone  was  Frederick's  ally." 
— Col.  C.  B.  Brackenbury,  Frederick  the  Great, 
ch.  9. — "The  secret  sources  of  the  Third  Silesiau 
War,  since  called  '  Seven- Years  War,'  go  back 
to  1745 ;  nay,  we  may  sa)',  to  the  First  Invasion 
of  Silesia  in  1740.  For  it  was  in  Maria  Theresa's 
incurable  sorrow  at  lo.ss  of  Silesia,  and  her  in- 
extinguishable hope  to  reconquer  it,  that  this  and 
all  Friedrich's  other  Wars  had  their  origin.  .  .  . 
Traitor  Menzel  the  Saxon  Kanzellist  .  .  .  has 
been  busy  for  Prussia  ever  since  '  the  end  of 
1752.'  Got  admittance  to  the  Presses;  sent  his 
first  Excerpt  '  about  the  time  of  Easter-Fair 
1753,' — time  of  Voltaire's  taking  wing.  And 
has  been  at  work  ever  since.  Copying  Des- 
patches from  the  most  secret  Saxon  Repositories ; 
ready  always  on  Excellency  Maltzahn's  indicat- 
ing the  Piece  wanted  [Maltzahn  being  the  Prus- 
sian Minister  at  Dresden].  .  .  .  Menzel  .  .  . 
lasted  in  free  activity  till  1757;  and  was  then 
put  under  lock  and  key.  Was  not  hanged ;  sat 
prisoner  for  twenty-seven  years  after ;  over-grown 
with  hair,  legs  and  arms  chained  together,  heavy 
iron-bar  uniting  both  ankles;  diet  bread-and- 
water ;  —  for  the  rest,  healthy ;  and  died,  not 
very  miserable  it  is  said,  in  1784." — T.  Carlyle, 
Hist,  of  Fi-iedrich  II.  of  Prussia,  bk.  17,  ch.  1  (v.  7). 

Also  in  :  Due  de  Broglie,  The  King's  Secret, 
ch.  1-3  (v.  1).— Frederick  II.,  Hist,  of  the  Seven 
Tears  War  {Posthumous  Works,  v.  2),  ch.  3. — H. 
Tuttle,  Hist,  of  Prussia,  1745-1756  (».  3),  ch.  6- 
9. — F.  Von  Raumer,  Contributions  to  Modern 
Hist.:  Fi-ederick  11.  and  his  Times,  ch.  24-28.^ 
See,  also,  England:  A.  D.  1754-1755;  and  Ars- 
TRr.\:  A.  D.  175.5-1763. 

A.  D.  1756. — The  Seven  Years  War  :  Fred- 
erick strikes  the  first  blow. — Saxony  subdued. 
— "Finding  that  the  storm  was  wholly  inevita- 
ble, and  must  burst  on  him  next  year,  ho 
[Frederick],  with  bold  sagacity,  determined  to 
forestall  it.  First,  then,  in  August,  17.56,  his 
ambassador  at  Vienna  had  orders  to  demand  of 
the  Empress  Queen  a  statement  of  her  intentions, 
to  announce  war  as  the  alternative,  and  to  de- 
clare that  he  would  accept  no  answer  '  in  the 
style  of  an  oracle.'  The  answer,  as  he  expected, 
was  evasive.  Without  further  delay  an  army 
of  60,000  Prussians,  headed  by  Frederick  in  per- 
son, poured  into  Saxony.  The  Queen  of  Poland 
was  taken  in  Dresden;  the  King  of  Poland  [Au- 
gustus III.  Elector  of  Saxonj',  and,  by  election. 
King  of  Poland]  and  his  troops  were  blockaded 
in  Pirna.  Thus  did  Frederick  commence  that 
mighty  struggle  which  is  known  to  Germans  by 
the  name  of  the  Seven  Years'  War.  The  first 
object  of  the  Prussian  monarch  at  Dresden  was 
to  obtain  possession  of  the  original  documents 
of  the  coalition  against  him,  whose  existence 
he  knew  by  means  of  the  traitor  Menzel.  The 
Queen  of  Poland,  no  less  aware  than  Fred- 
erick of  the  importance  of  these  papers,  had  car- 
ried them  to  her  own  bed-chamber.  She  sat 
down  on  the  trunk  which  contained  the  most  ma- 
terial ones,  and  declared  to  the  Prussian  officer 
sent  to  seize  them  that  nothing  but  force  should 
move  her  from  the  spot.  [The  official  account 
of  this  occurrence  which  Carlyle  produces  repre- 
sents the  Queen  as  '  standing  before  the  door ' 
of  the  '  archive  apartment '  in  which  the  com- 
promising documents  were  locked  up,  she  hav- 
ing previously  sealed  the  door.]  This  officer 
was  of  Scottish  blood.  General  Keith,  the  Earl 


1529 


GERMANY,  1756. 


Seven  Years  War. 


GERMANY,  1757. 


Marischal's  brother.  '  All  Europe, '  said  the 
Queen,  '  would  exclaim  against  this  outrage ;  and 
then,  sir,  you  will  be  the  victim ;  depend  upon  it, 
your  King  is  a  man  to  sacrifice  you  to  his  own 
honour ! '  Keith,  who  knew  Frederick's  character, 
was  startled,  and  sent  for  further  orders ;  but  on 
receiving  a  reiteration  of  the  first  he  did  his  duty. 
The  papers  were  then  made  public,  appended  to 
a  manifesto  in  vindication  of  Frederick's  con- 
duct; and  they  convinced  the  world  that,  al- 
though the  apparent  aggressor  in  his  invasion 
of  Saxony,  he  had  only  acted  on  the  principles 
of  self-defence.  Meanwhile,  the  Prussian  array 
closely  blockaded  the  Saxon  in  Pirna,  but  the  Aus- 
trian, under  Marshal  Brown,  an  officer  of  British 
extraction,  was  advancing  to  its  relief  through  the 
mountain  passes  of  Bohemia.  Frederick  left  a 
sufficient  force  to  maintain  the  blockade,  marched 
against  Brown  with  the  remainder,  and  gave  him 
battle  at  Lowositz  [or  Lobositz]  on  the  1st  of 
October.  It  proved  a  hard-fought  day ;  the  King 
no  longer  found,  as  he  says  in  one  of  his  letters, 
the  old  Austrians  he  remembered;  and  his  loss 
in  killed  and  wounded  was  greater  than  theirs 
[3,308  against  3,984];  but  victory  declared  on 
his  side.  Then  retracing  liis  steps  towards  Pirna 
he  compelled,  by  the  pressure  of  famine,  the 
whole  Saxon  army,  17,000  strong,  to  an  un- 
conditional surrender.  The  officers  were  sent 
home  on  parole,  but  the  soldiers  were  induced, 
partly  by  force  and  partly  by  persuasion,  to  en- 
list in  the  Prussian  ranks,  and  swear  fidelity  to 
Frederick.  Their  former  sovereign.  King  Au- 
gustus, remained  securely  perched  on  his  castle- 
rock  of  KOnigstein,  but,  becoming  weary  of 
confinement,  solicited,  and  was  most  readily 
granted,  passports  to  Warsaw.  During  the  whole 
winter  Frederick  fixed  his  head-quarters  at  Dres- 
den, treating  Saxony  in  all  respects  as  a  con- 
quered province,  or  as  one  of  his  own.  Troops 
and  taxes  were  levied  throughout  that  rich  and 
populous  land  with  unsparing  rigour,  and  were 
directed  against  the  very  cause  which  the  sover- 
eign of  that  land  had  embraced. " —  Lord  Mahon 
(Earl  Stanhope),  Hist,  of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  33 
(V.  4). 

Also  in:  T.  Carlyle,  Hut.  of  Priedrich  II. ,  bk. 
17,  ch.  4-8  (».  7).— Lord  Dover,  Life  of  Frederick 
II,  V.  3,  ch.  1. 

A.  D.  1756-1757.— The  Seven  Years  War: 
Frederick  under  the  Ban  of  the  Empire. — The 
coalition  against  Frederick. — "  All  through  the 
winter  Austria  strained  every  nerve  to  consoli- 
date her  alliances,  and  she  did  not  scruple  to  use 
her  position  at  the  head  of  the  Empire,  in  order 
to  drag  that  body  into  the  quarrel  that  had  arisen 
between  two  of  its  members.  On  his  own  respon- 
sibility, without  consulting  the  electors,  princes, 
and  cities,  the  Emperor  passed  sentence  on  Fred- 
erick, and  condemned  him,  unheard,  as  a  dis- 
turber of  the  peace.  Many  of  the  great  cities 
altogether  refused  to  publish  the  Emperor's  de- 
cree, and  even  among  the  states  generally  sub- 
servient to  Austria  there  were  some  that  were 
alarmed  at  so  flagrant  a  disregard  of  law  and 
precedent.  It  may  have  seemed  a  sign  of  what 
was  to  be  expected  should  Prussia  be  annihilated, 
and  no  state  remain  in  Germany  that  dared  to 
lift  up  its  voice  against  Austria.  Nevertheless, 
in  spite  of  this  feeling,  and  in  spite  of  the  oppo- 
sition of  nearly  all  the  Protestant  states,  Austria 
succeeded  in  inducing  the  Empire  to  espouse  her 
cause.     In  all  three  colleges  of  electors,  princes. 


and  cities  she  obtained  a  majority,  and  at  a  diet, 
held  on  Jan.  17,  1757,  it  was  resolved  that  an 
army  of  the  Empire  should  be  set  on  foot  for  the 
purpose  of  making  war  on  Prussia.  Some  months 
later  Frederick  was  put  to  the  ban  of  the  Empire. 
But  the  use  of  this  antiquated  weapon  served 
rather  to  throw  ridicule  on  those  who  emploj'ed 
it  than  to  injure  him  against  whom  it  was 
launched.  ...  It  has  been  calculated  that  the 
population  of  the  States  arrayed  against  Fred- 
erick the  Great  amounted  to  90,000,000,  and  that 
they  put  430,000  men  into  the  field  in  the  year 
1757.  The  population  of  Prussia  was  4,500,000, 
her  army  200, 000  strong ;  but,  after  deducting  the 
garrisons  of  the  fortresses,  there  remained  little 
over  150,000  men  available  for  service  in  the 
field.  The  odds  against  Frederick  were  great, 
but  they  were  not  absolutely  overwhelming. 
His  territories  were  scattered  and  difficult  of  de- 
fence, the  extremities  hardly  defensible  at  all; 
but  he  occupied  a  central  position  from  which  he 
might,  by  rapidity  of  movement,  be  able  to  take 
his  assailants  in  detail,  unless  tlieir  plans  were 
distinguished  by  a  harmony  unusual  in  the  efforts 
of  a  coalition." — P.  W.  Longman,  Frederick  the 
Oreat  and  the  Seven  Tears'  War,  ch.  8,  sect.  3. 

A.  D.  1756-1758.— War  of  Prussia  with  Swe- 
den in  Pomerania.  See  Scandinavian  States 
(Sweden):  A.  D.  1720-1793. 

A.  D.  i7S7(April— June).— The  Seven  Years 
War:  Frederick's  invasion  of  Bohemia. — 
Victory  at  Prague  and  defeat  at  Kolin. — "At 
the  commencement  of  1757,  the  grand  confed- 
eracy against  the  king  of  Prussia  was  consoli- 
dated by  the  efforts  and  intrigues  of  the  court  of 
Vienna.  The  French  had  drawn  together  80,000 
men  on  the  Rhine,  under  the  command  of  mar- 
shal d'  Etrees ;  the  army  of  execution  was  assem- 
bling in  the  empire ;  the  Swedes  were  preparing 
to  penetrate  into  Pomerania,  and  60,000  Russians 
were  stationed  on  the  frontiers  of  Livonia,  wait- 
ing the  season  of  action  to  burst  into  the  king- 
dom of  Prussia.  AVith  this  favourable  aspect  of 
affairs,  the  empress  prepared  for  the  campaign 
by  augmenting  her  forces  in  Hungary  and  Bo- 
hemia to  150,000  men;  the  main  army,  stationed 
in  the  vicinity  of  Prague,  was  commanded  by 
Prince  Charles,  who  was  assisted  by  the  skill  of 
marshal  Brown,  and  the  other  corps  intrusted 
to  count  Daun.  Frederic  possessed  too  much 
foresight  and  vigilance  to  remain  inactive  while 
his  enemies  were  collecting  their  forces ;  he  there- 
fore resolved  to  carry  the  war  into  the  heart  of  the 
Austrian  territories,  and  by  a  decisive  stroke  to 
shake  the  basis  of  the  confederacy.  He  covered 
this  plan  with  consummate  address ;  he  affected 
great  trepidation  and  uncertainty,  and,  to  de- 
ceive the  Austrians  into  a  belief  that  he  only  in- 
tended to  maintain  himself  in  Saxony,  put  Dres- 
den in  a  state  of  defence,  broke  down  the  bridges, 
and  marked  out  various  camps  in  the  vicinity. 
In  the  midst  of  this  apparent  alarm  three  Prus- 
sian columns  burst  into  Bohemia,  in  April,  and 
rapidly  advanced  towards  Prague.  .  .  .  The 
Austrians,  pressed  on  all  sides,  retreated  with 
precipitation  under  the  walls  of  Prague,  on  the 
southern  side  of  the  Moldau,  while  the  Prussians 
advancing  towards  the  capital  formed  two  bodies; 
one  under  Schwerin  remaining  at  Jung  Bunzlau, 
and  the  other,  headed  by  the  king,  occupying 
the  heights  between  the  Moldau  and  the  Weisse- 
berg.  Expecting  to  be  joined  by  marshal  Daun, 
who  was  hastening  from  Moravia,  the  Austrians 


1530 


GERMANY,  1757. 


Seven  Years  War. 


GERMANY,  1757. 


remained  on  the  defensive;  but  prince  Charles 
took  so  strong  a  position  as  seemed  to  defy  all 
apprehensions  of  an  attack.  .  .  .  These  obstacles, 
however,  were  insufficient  to  arrest  the  daring 
spirit  of  Frederic,  who  resolved  to  attack  the 
Austrians  before  the  arrival  of  Daun.  Leaving 
a  corps  under  prince  Maurice  above  Prague,  he 
crossed  the  Moldau  near  Rostock  and  Podabe  on 
the  5th  of  May,  with  16,000  men,  and  on  the  fol- 
lowing morning  at  break  of  day  was  joined  by 
the  corps  under  marshal  Schwerin.  .  .  .  Victory 
declared  on  the  side  of  the  Prussians,  but  was 
purchased  by  the  loss  of  their  best  troops,  not 
less  than  18,000,  even  by  the  avowal  of  the  king, 
being  killed,  with  many  of  his  bravest  officers, 
and  Schwerin,  the  father  of  the  Prussian  dis- 
cipline, and  the  guide  of  Frederic  in  the  career 
of  victory.  Of  the  Austrians  8,000  were  killed 
and  wounded,  9,000  made  prisoners,  and  38,000 
shut  up  within  the  walls  of  Prague.  ...  A 
column  of  16,000  Au.strians  made  good  their  re- 
treat along  the  Moldau  to  join  the  army  of  mar- 
shal Daun.  Prague  was  Instantly  blockaded  by 
the  victorious  army,  and  not  less  than  100,000 
souls  were  confined  within  the  walls,  almost 
without  the  means  of  subsistence.  They  were 
soon  reduced  to  the  greatest  extremities.  ...  In 
this  disastrous  moment  the  house  of  Austria  was 
preserved  from  impending  destruction  by  the 
skill  and  caution  of  a  general,  who  now,  for  the 
first  time,  appeared  at  the  head  of  an  army. 
This  general  was  Leopold  count  Daun,  a  native 
of  Bohemia.  .  .  .  ■  Daun  had  marched  through 
Moravia  towards  Prague,  to  effect  a  junction 
with  prince  Charles.  On  arriving  at  Boehmisch- 
grod,  within  a  few  miles  of  Prague,  he  was  ap- 
prised of  the  recent  defeat,  and  halted  a  fqw 
days  to  collect  the  fugitives,  till  his  corps  swelled 
so  considerably  that  Frederic  detached  against 
him  the  prince  of  Bevern  with  20,000  men." 
Daun  declined  battle  and  retreated,  until  he  had 
collected  an  array  of  60,000  men  and  restored 
their  courage.  He  then  advanced,  forcing  back 
the  prince  of  Bevern,  and  when  Frederick,  join- 
ing the  latter  with  reinforcements,  attacked  him 
at  Kolin,  ou  the  18th  of  June,  he  inflicted  on  the 
Prussian  king  a  disastrous  defeat  —  the  first 
which  Frederick  had  known.  The  Prussian 
troops,  "  for  the  first  time  defeated,  gave  way  to 
despondency,  and  in  their  retreat  exclaimed, 
'This  is  ourPultawa. '  Daun  purchased  the  vic- 
tory with  the  loss  of  9,000  men;  but  on  the  side 
of  the  Prussians  not  less  than  14,000  were  killed, 
wounded,  and  taken  prisoners,  and  43  pieces  of 
artillery,  with  23  standards,  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  Austrians.  Maria  Theresa  .  .  .  conveyed 
in  person  the  news  of  this  important  victory  to 
the  countess  Daun,  and  instituted  the  military 
order  of  merit,  or  the  Order  of  Maria  Theresa, 
with  which  she  decorated  the  commander  and 
officers  who  had  most  signalised  themselves,  and 
dated  its  commencement  from  the  sera  of  that 
glorious  victory.  To  give  repose  to  the  troops, 
and  to  replace  the  magazines  which  had  been  de- 
stroyed by  the  Prussians,  Daun  remained  several 
days  on  the  field  of  battle ;  and  as  he  advanced 
to  Prague  found  that  the  Prussians  had  raised 
the  siege  on  the  30th  of  June,  and  were  retreating 
with  precipitation  towards  Saxony  and  Lusatia." 
— W.  Coxa,  Hist,  of  the  Sovse  of  AmtHa,  ch.  113 
(V.  3). 

Also  in:   Col.  C.  B.  Brackenbury,  Frederick 
the  Great,  ch.  11-13.— F.  Kugler,  Pict.  Hist,  of 


Germany  during  the  Beign  of  Frederick  the  Great, 
ch.  35. 

A.  D.  1757  (July— December).— The  Seven 
Years  War :  Darkening  and  brightening  of 
Frederick's  career.  —  Closter-Seven.  —  Ross- 
bach. — Leuthen. — The  enemies  of  the  King  of 
Prussia  "were  now  closing  upon  him  from  every 
side.  The  provinces  beyond  the  Vistula  became 
the  prey  of  Russian  hordes,  to  which  only  one 
division  of  Prussians  under  Marshal  Lehwald 
was  opposed.  In  the  result,  however,  their  own 
devastations,  and  the  consequent  want  of  sup- 
plies, proved  a  check  to  their  further  progress 
during  this  campaign.  In  Westphalia  above 
80,000  effective  French  soldiers  were  advancing, 
commanded  by  the  Jlareschal  d'Estrees,  a  grand- 
sou  of  the  famous  minister  Louvois.  The  Duke 
of  Cumberland,  who  had  imdertaken  to  defend 
his  father's  electorate  against  them,  was  at  the 
head  of  a  motley  army  of  scarce  50,000  men. 
.  .  .  His  military  talents  were  not  such  as  to 
supply  his  want  of  numbers  or  of  combination ; 
he  allowed  the  French  to  pass  the  deep  and  rapid 
Weser  unopposed ;  he  gave  them  no  disturbance 
when  laying  waste  great  part  of  the  Electorate ; 
he  only  fell  back  from  position  to  position  until 
at  length  the  enemy  came  up  with  him  at  the 
village  of  Hastenback  near  Hameln.  There,  on 
the  36th  of  July,  an  action  was  fought,  and  the 
Duke  was  worsted  with  the  loss  of  several  hun- 
dred men.  The  only  resource  of  His  Royal  High- 
ness was  a  retreat  across  the  wide  Luneberg 
moors,  to  cover  the  town  of  Stade  towards  the 
mouth  of  the  Elbe,  where  the  archives  and  other 
valuable  effects  from  Hanover  had  been  already 
deposited  for  safety."  Intrigue  at  Versailles 
having  recalled  D'Estrees  and  sent  the  Duke  de 
Richelieu  into  his  place,  the  latter  pressed  the 
Duke  of  Cumberland  so  closely,  hemming  him 
in  and  cutting  off  his  communications,  that  he 
was  soon  glad  to  make  terms.  On  the  8th  of 
September  the  English  Duke  signed,  at  Closter- 
Seven,  a  convention  under  which  the  auxiliary 
troops  in  his  army  were  sent  home,  the  Hanove- 
rians dispersed,  and  only  a  garrison  left  at  Stade. 
"After  the  battle  of  Kolin  and  the  Convention 
of  Closter-Seven,  the  position  of  Frederick,  — 
hemmed  in  on  almost  every  side  by  victorious 
enemies,  —  was  not  only  most  dangerous  but  well- 
nigh  desperate.  To  his  own  eyes  it  seemed  so. 
He  resolved  in  his  thoughts,  and  discussed  with 
his  friends,  the  voluntary  death  of  Otho  as  a 
worthy  example  to  follow.  Fully  resolved  never 
to  fall  alive  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  nor 
yet  to  survive  any  decisive  overthrow,  he  carried 
about  his  person  a  sure  poison  in  a  small  glass 
phial.  Yet  ...  he  could  still,  with  indomitable 
skill  and  energy,  make  every  preparation  for  en- 
countering the  Prince  de  Soubise.  He  marched 
against  the  French  commander  at  the  head  of 
only  22,000  men ;  but  these  were  veterans,  trained 
in  the  strictest  discipline,  and  full  of  confidence 
in  their  chief.  Soubise,  on  the  other  hand,  owed 
his  appointment  in  part  to  his  illustrious  lineage, 
as  head  of  the  House  of  Rohan,  and  still  more  to 
Court-favour,  as  the  minion  of  iladame  de  Pom- 
padour, but  in  no  degree  to  his  own  experience  or 
abilities.  He  had  under  his  orders  nearly  40,000 
of  his  countrymen,  and  nearly  30,000  troops  of  the 
Empire ;  for  the  Germanic  diet  also  had  been  in- 
duced to  join  the  league  against  Frederick.  On 
the  5th  of  November  the  two  armies  came  to  a 
battle  at  Rosbach   [or  Rossbach],  close  to  the 


1531 


GERMANY,  1757. 


Seven  Years  War. 


GERMANY,  1758. 


plain  of  Ltitzen,  where  in  the  preceding  century 
Gustavus  Adolphus  conquered  and  fell.  By  the 
skilful  manoeuvres  of  Frederick  the  French  were 
brought  to  believe  that  the  Prussians  intended 
nothing  but  retreat,  and  they  advanced  in  high 
spirits  as  if  only  to  pursue  the  fugitives.  Of  a 
sudden  they  found  themselves  attacked  witli  all 
the  compactness  of  discipline,  and  all  the  cour- 
age of  despair.  The  troops  of  the  Empire,  a 
motley  crew,  fled  at  the  first  fire.  ...  So  rapid 
was  the  victory  that  the  right  wing  of  the  Prus- 
sians, under  Prince  Ferdinand  of  Brunswick, 
was  never  engaged  at  all.  Great  numbers  of  the 
French  were  cut  down  in  their  flight  by  the 
Prussian  cavalry,  not  a  few  perished  in  the  waters 
of  the  Saale,  and  full  7,000  were  made  pris- 
oners, with  a  large  amount  of  baggage,  artillery 
and  standards.  .  .  .  The  battle  of  Rosbach  was 
not  more  remarkable  for  its  military  results  than 
for  its  moral  influence.  It  was  hailed  through- 
out Germany  as  a  triumph  of  the  Teutonic  over 
the  Gallic  race.  ...  So  precarious  was  now 
Frederick's  position  that  the  battle  of  Rosbach. 
as  he  said  himself,  gained  hira  nothing  but  leisure 
to  fight  another  battle  elsewhere.  During  his 
absence  on  the  Saale,  the  Austrian  armies  had 
poured  over  the  mountains  into  Silesia ;  they  had 
defeated  the  Prussians  under  the  Duke  of  Bevern ; 
they  had  taken  the  main  fortress,  Schweidnitz, 
and  the  capital,  Breslau  ;  nearly  the  whole  prov- 
ince was  already  theirs.  A  flying  detachment  of 
4,000  cavalry,  under  General  Haddick,  had  even 
pushed  into  Brandenburg,  and  levied  a  contribu- 
tion from  the  city  of  Berlin  [entering  one  of  the 
suburbs  of  the  Prussian  capital  and  holding  it 
for  twelve  hours].  The  advancing  season  seemed 
to  require  winter  quarters,  but  Frederick  never 
dreamed  of  rest  until  Silesia  was  recovered.  He 
hastened  by  forced  marches  from  the  Saale  to 
the  Oder,  gathering  reinforcements  while  he  went 
along.  As  he  drew  near  Breslau,  the  Imperial 
commander,  Prince  Charles  of  Lorraine,  flushed 
with  recent  victory  and  confident  in  superior 
numbers,  disregarded  the  prudent  advice  of  Mar- 
shal Daun,  and  descended  from  an  almost  inac- 
cessible position  to  give  the  King  of  Prussia 
battle  on  the  open  plain.  .  .  .  On  the  5th  of  De- 
cember, one  month  from  the  battle  of  Rosbach, 
the  two  armies  met  at  Leuthen,  a  small  vil- 
lage near  Breslau,  Frederick  with  40,000,  Prince 
Charles  of  Lorraine  with  between  60,000  and 
70,000  men.  For  several  hours  did  the  conflict 
rage  doubtfully  and  fiercely.  It  was  decided 
mainly  by  the  skill  and  the  spirit  of  the  Prussian 
monarch.  'The  battle  of  Leuthen.'  says  Napo- 
leon, '  was  a  master-piece.  Did  it  even  stand 
alone  it  would  of  itself  entitle  Frederick  to  im- 
mortal fame.'  In  killed,  wounded  and  taken,  the 
Austrians  lost  no  less  than  27,000  men;  above  50 
standards,  above  100  cannon,  above  4,000  wag- 
gons, became  the  spoil  of  the  victors;  Breslau 
was  taken,  Schweidnitz  blockaded,  Silesia  re- 
covered ;  the  remnant  of  the  Imperial  forces  fled 
back  across  the  mountains ;  and  Frederick,  after 
one  of  the  longest  and  most  glorious  campaigns 
that  History  records,  at  length  allowed  himself 
and  his  soldiers  some  repose." — Lord  Mahon 
(Earl  Stanhope),  Hist,  of  Eng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  34 
(V.  4). 

Also  in:  T.  Carlyle,  Hist,  of  FriedricJi  IT., 
bk.  18,  ch.  5-10.— Lord  Dover,  Life  of  Frederick 
II.,  V.  2,  ch.  3-4.— Sir  E.  Oust,  Annals  of  the  Wars 
<ff  the  \Sth  Century,  v.  2,  pp.  217-240. 


A.  D.  1758.- The  Seven  'Years  War  :  Cam- 
paign in  Hanover. — Siege  of  Olmiitz. — Rus- 
sian defeat  at  Zorndorf. — Prussian  defeat  at 
Hochkirch. — "Before  the  end  of  1757,  England 
began  to  take  a  more  active  part  on  the  Conti- 
nent. Lord  Chatham  brought  about  the  rejection 
of  the  Convention  of  Closter-Zeven  by  Parlia- 
ment, and  the  recall  of  Cumberland  by  the  king. 
The  erticient  Prince  Ferdinand  of  Brunswick  was 
proposed  by  Frederick  and  made  commander  of 
the  English  and  Hanoverian  forces.  He  opened 
the  campaign  of  1758  in  the  winter.  The  French, 
under  Clermont,  being  without  discipline  or  con- 
trol, he  drove  them  in  headlong  flight  out  of 
their  winter-quarters  in  Hanover  and  Westphalia, 
to  the  Rhine  and  across  it ;  and  on  June  23  de- 
feated them  at  the  battle  of  Crefeld.  A  French 
army  under  Soubise  afterward  crossed  the  Rhine 
higher  up,  and  Ferdinand  retreated,  but  suc- 
ceeded in  protecting  the  west  as  far  as  the  Weser 
against  General  Contades.  Frederick  first  retook 
Schweidnitz,  April  16.  He  then,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  junction  of  the  Russians  and  Austrians, 
ventured  to  attack  Austria,  and  invaded  Mora- 
via. His  brother.  Prince  Henry,  had  but  a  small 
force  in  Saxony,  and  Frederick  thought  that  he 
could  best  cover  that  country  by  an  attack  on 
Austria.  But  the  siege  of  Olmiitz  detained  him 
from  Alay  until  July,  and  his  prospects  grew  more 
doubtful.  The  Austrians  captured  a  convoy  of 
300  wagons  of  military  stores,  which  Ziethen 
was  to  have  escorted  to  him.  [Instead  of  300, 
the  convoy  comprised  3,000  to  4,000  wagons,  of 
which  only  200  reached  the  Prussian  camp,  and 
its  destruction  by  General  Loudon  completely 
frustrated  Frederick's  plan  of  campaign.]  Fred- 
erick raised  the  siege,  and,  by  an  admirable  re- 
treat, brought  his  army  through  Bohemia  by  way 
of  Koniggratz  to  Landshut.  Here  he  received 
bad  news.  The  Russians,  under  Fermor,  were 
again  in  Prussia,  occupying  the  eastern  province, 
but  treating  it  mildly  as  a  conquered  country, 
where  the  empress  already  received  the  homage 
of  the  people.  They  then  advanced,  with  fright- 
ful ravages,  through  Pomerania  and  Neumark  to 
the  Oder,  and  were  now  near  Kilstrin,  which  they 
laid  in  ashes.  Frederick  made  haste  to  meet 
them.  He  was  so  indignant  at  the  desolation  of 
the  country  and  the  suffering  of  his  people  that 
he  forbade  quarter  to  be  given.  The  report  of 
this  fact  also  embittered  the  Russians.  At  Zorn- 
dorf, Frederick  met  the  enemy,  50,000  strong, 
August  25,  1758.  They  were  drawn  up  in  a 
great  square  or  phalan.x,  in  the  ancient,  half-bar- 
barous manner.  A  frightfully  bloody  fight  fol- 
lowed, since  the  Russians  would  not  yield,  and 
were  cut  down  in  heaps.  Seidlitz,  the  victor  of 
Rossbach,  by  a  timely  charge  of  his  cavalry,  cap- 
tured the  Russian  artillery,  and  crushed  their 
right  wing.  On  the  second  day  the  Russians 
were  driven  back,  but  not  without  inflicting 
heavy  loss  on  the  Prussians,  who,  though  they 
suffered  much  less  than  their  enemies,  left  more 
than  one  third  of  their  force  on  the  field.  The 
Russians  were  compelled  to  withdraw  from  Prus- 
sia. Frederick  then  hastened  to  Sa.xony.  where 
his  brother  Henry  was  sorely  pressed  by  Daun 
and  the  imperial  army.  He  could  not  even  wait 
to  relieve  Silesia,  where  Neisse,  his  principal  for- 
tress, was  threatened.  Daun,  hearing  of  his  ap- 
proach, took  up  a  position  in  his  way,  between 
Bautzen  and  GOrlitz.  But  Frederick,  whose 
contempt  for  this  prudent  and  slow  general  was 


1532 


GERMANY,  1758. 


Seven  Years  War. 


GERMANY,   1759. 


excessive,  occupied  a  camp  in  a  weak  and  exposed 
position,  at  Hoclikircli,  under  Daun's  very  eyes, 
against  the  protest  of  his  own  generals.  He  re- 
mained there  tliree  days  unmolested ;  but  on  Oc- 
tober 14,  the  day  fixed  for  advancing,  the  Aus- 
trians  attaclied  him  with  twice  his  numbers.  A 
desperate  fight  toolv  place  in  the  burning  village ; 
the  Prussians  were  driven  out,  and  lost  many 
guns.  Fredericlc  himself  was  in  imminent  dan- 
ger, and  his  friends  Keith  and  Duke  Francis  of 
Brunswick  fell  at  his  side.  Yet  the  army  did 
not  lose  its  spirit  or  its  discipline.  AVithin  eleven 
days  Frederick,  who  had  been  joined  by  his 
brother  Henry,  was  in  Silesia,  and  relieved  Neisse 
and  Kosel.  Thus  the  campaign  of  1758  ended 
favorably  to  Frederick.  The  pope  sent  Daun  a 
consecrated  hat  and  sword,  as  a  testimonial  for 
his  victory  at  Hochkirch. " — C.  T.  Lewis,  Hist,  of 
Oernuiny,  bk.  5,  ch.  23,  sect.  7-9. 

Also  in:  G.  B.  Malleson,  Military  Life  of 
Loudon,  ch.  7-8. — F.  Kugler,  Pict.  Hist,  of  Oer- 
inany  during  the  Beign  of  Frederick  the  Great,  ch. 
29-31— Frederick  II.,  Hist,  of  the  Seven  Tears 
War  (Posthumous  Works,  r.  2),  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1759  (April  —  August).  —  The  Seven 
Years  War :  Prince  Ferdinand's  Hanoverian 
campaign. — Defeat  at  Bergen  and  victory  at 
Minden.  —In  the  Hanoverian  field  of  war,  wliere 
Prince  Ferdinand  of  Brunswick  held  command, 
the  campaign  of  1759  was  important,  and  pros- 
perous In  the  end  for  the  allies  of  Prussia.  "Be- 
sides the  Hanoverians  and  Hessians  in  British 
pay,  he  [Prince  Ferdinand]  had  under  his  direc- 
tion 10,000  or  13,000  British  soldiers,  amongst 
whom,  since  the  death  of  the  Duke  of  Marl- 
borough, Lord  George  Sackville  was  the  senior 
officer.  The  French,  on  their  part,  were  making 
great  exertions,  under  the  new  administration  of 
the  Duke  de  Ctioiseul ;  large  reinforcements  were 
sent  into  Germany,  and  early  in  the  year  they 
surprised  by  stratagem  the  free  city  of  Frankfort 
and  made  it  the  place  of  arms  for  their  southern 
army.  No  object  could  be  of  greater  moment  to 
Ferdinand  than  to  dislodge  them  from  this  im- 
portant post."  Marching  quickly,  with  30,000 
of  his  arm}',  he  attacked  the  French,  under  the 
Duke  de  Broglie.  at  Bergen,  on  the  Nidda,  in 
front  of  Frankfort,  April  13,  and  was  repulsed, 
after  heavy  fighting,  with  a  loss  of  2,000  men. 
"This  reverse  would,  it  was  supposed,  reduce 
Prince  Ferdinand  to  tlie  defensive  during  the  re- 
mainder of  the  campaign.  Both  De  Broglie  and 
Contades  eagerly  pushed  forward,  tlieir  oppo- 
nents giving  way  before  them.  Combining  their 
forces,  they  reduced  Cassel,  Munster,  and  Min- 
den, and  they  felt  assured  that  the  whole  Elec- 
torate must  soon  again  be  theirs.  Already  had 
the  archives  and  the  most  valuable  property  been 
scut  off  from  Hanover  to  Stade.  Already  did 
a  new  Hastenbeck — a  new  Closter-Seven  —  rise 
in  view.  But  it  was  under  such  difficulties  that 
the  genius  of  Ferdinand  shone  forth.  AVith  a  far 
Inferior  army  (for  th\is  much  is  acknowledged, 
although  I  do  not  find  the  French  numbers 
clearly  or  precisely  stated),  he  still  maintained 
his  ground  on  the  left  of  the  Weser,  and  sup- 
plied every  defect  by  his  superiority  of  tactics. 
He  left  a  detachment  of  5,000  men  exposed,  and 
seemingly  unguarded,  as  a  bait  to  lure  De  Con- 
tades from  his  strong  position  at  Minden.  The 
French  Mareschal  was  deceived  by  the  feint,  and 
directed  the  Duke  De  Broglie  to  march  forward 
and  profit  by  the  blunder,  as  he  deemed  it  to  be. 


On  the  1st  of  August,  accordingly,  De  Broglie 
advanced  into  the  plain,  his  force  divided  in 
eight  columns. "  Instead  of  the  small  corps  ex- 
pected, he  found  the  wliole  army  of  the  allies  in 
front  of  him.  ,De  Contades  hurried  to  his  assis- 
tance, and  the  French,  forced  to  accept  battle  in 
an  unfavorable  position,  were  overcome.  At  the 
decisive  moment  of  their  retreat,  "the  Prince 
sent  his  orders  to  Lord  George  Sackville,  who 
commanded  the  whole  English  and  some  German 
cavalry  on  the  right  wing  of  the  Allies,  and  who 
had  hitherto  been  kept  back  as  a  reserve.  The 
orders  were  to  charge  and  overwhelm  the  French 
in  their  retreat,  before  they  could  reach  any 
clear  ground  to  rally.  Had  these  orders  been 
duly  fidfilled,  it  is  acknowledged  by  French 
writers  that  their  army  must  have  been  utterly 
destroyed ;  but  Lord  George  either  could  not  or 
would"  not  understand  what  was  enjoined  on  him. 
.  .  .  Under  such  circumstances  the  victory  of  Min- 
den would  not  have  been  signal  or  complete  but 
for  a  previous  and  most  high-spirited  precaution 
of  Prince  Ferdinand.  He  had  sent  round  to  the 
rear  of  the  French  a  body  of  10,000  men,  upder 
his  nephew  —  and  also  the  King  of  Prussia's  — 
the  Hereditary  Prince  of  Brunswick,  .  .  .  Thus 
Ferdinand  became  master  of  the  passes,  and  the 
French  were  constrained  to  continue  their  retreat 
in  disorder.  Upon  the  whole,  their  loss  was 
8,000  men  killed,  wounded,  or  taken,  30  pieces 
of  artillery,  and  17  standards.  .  .  .  Great  was 
the  rejoicing  in  England  at  the  victory  of  Min- 
den " ;  but  loud  the  outcry  against  Lord  George 
Sackville,  who  was  recalled  and  dismissed  from 
all  his  employments. — Lord  Mahon  (Earl  Stan- 
hope), Hist.  ofEng.,  1713-1783,  ch.  36  (o.  4). 

Also  in:  Sir  E.  Cust,  Annals  of  the  Wars  of 
the  ISth  Century,  v.  2,  pp.  327-333, 

A.  D.  1759  (July — November). —  The  Seven 
Years  War  :  Disasters  of  Frederick. — Kun- 
ersdorf. — Dresden. — Maxen. — "Tliree  years  of 
the  war  were  gone  and  the  ardour  of  Frederick's 
enemies  showed  no  signs  of  abating.  The  war 
was  unpopular  in  the  Russian  army,  but  the 
Czarina  thought  no  sacrifice  too  great  for  the 
gratification  of  her  hatred.  France  was  sick  of 
it  too,  and  tottering  on  the  verge  of  national 
bankruptcy,  but  Louis  was  kept  true  to  his  en- 
gagements by  domestic  influences  and  by  the  tm- 
bendiug  determination  of  Maria  Theresa  never  to 
lay  down  arms  until  Prussia  was  thoroughly 
humbled.  .  .  .  Already  Frederick  was  at  his 
wits'  end  for  men  and  mone}'.  Of  the  splendid 
infantry  which  had  stormed  the  heights  at  Prague, 
and  stemmed  the  rout  of  Kollin,  very  little  now 
remained.  .  .  .  Moreover,  Austria,  relying  on 
her  vastly  larger  population,  had  ceased  to  ex- 
change prisoners,  and  after  the  end  of  1759  Rus- 
sia followed  her  example.  .  .  .  Frederick's  pecu- 
niary difficulties  were  even  greater  still.  But  for 
the  English  subsidy  he  could  hardly  have  sub- 
sisted at  all.  .  .  .  The  summer  was  half  gone 
before  there  was  any  serious  flgliting,  Frederick 
had  got  together  125,000  men  of  some  sort,  be- 
sides garrison  troops,  but  he  no  longer  felt  strong 
enough  to  take  the  initiative,  and  the  Austrians 
were  equally  indisposed  to  attack  without  the 
co-operation  of  their  allies.  Towards  the  middle 
of  July  the  Russians,  tinder  Count  Soltikoff,  is- 
sued from  Posen,  advanced  to  the  Oder,  and, 
after  defeating  a  weak  Prussian  corps  near  Kay, 
took  possession  of  Frankfort.  It  now  became 
necessary  for  the  king  to  march  in  person  against 


1533 


GERMANY,  1759. 


Seven  Years  TVctr. 


GERMANY,  1760. 


them,  the  more  especially  as  Laudon  [or  Loudon] 
with  18,000  Austiians  was  on  his  way  to  join 
Soltikotf.  Before  he  could  reach  Frankfort, 
Laudon,  eluding  with  much  dexterity  the  vigi- 
lance of  his  enemies,  effected  his  junction,  and 
Frederick,  with  48,000  men.  found  himself  con- 
fronted by  an  anny  78,000  strong.  The  Rus- 
sians were  encamped  on  the  heights  of  Kuners- 
dorf,  east  of  Frankfort."  Frederick  attacked 
them,  Aug.  12,  with  brilliant  success  at  first, 
routing  their  left  wing  and  taking  70  guns,  with 
several  thousand  prisoners.  "The  Prussian  gen- 
erals then  besought  the  king  to  rest  content  with 
the  advantage  he  had  gained.  The  day  was  in- 
tensely hot;  his  soldiers  had  been  on  foot  for 
twelve  hours,  and  were  suffering  severely  from 
thirst  and  exhaustion ;  moreover,  if  the  Russians 
were  let  alone,  they  would  probably  go  off 
quietly  in  the  night,  as  they  had  done  after  Zorn- 
dorf.  Unhappily  Frederick  refused  to  take  coun- 
sel. He  wanted  to  destroy  the  Russian  army, 
not  merely  to  defeat  it ;  he  had  seized  the  Frank- 
fort bridge  and  cut  off  its  retreat."  He  persisted 
in  his  attack  and  was  beaten  off.  "The  Prus- 
sians were  in  full  retreat  when  Laudon  swept 
down  upon  them  with  eighteen  fresh  squadrons. 
The  retreat  became  a  rout  more  disorderly  than 
in  any  battle  of  the  war  except  Rossbach.  The 
king,  stupefied  with  his  disaster,  could  hardly  be 
induced  to  quit  the  field,  and  was  heard  to  mut- 
ter, '  Is  there  then  no  cursed  bullet  that  can  reach 
me?'  The  defeat  was  overwhelming.  Had  it 
been  properly  followed  up,  it  must  have  put  an 
end  to  the  war,  and  Kunersdorf  would  have 
ranked  among  the  decisive  battles  of  the  world. 
Berlin  lay  open  to  the  enemy;  the  royal  family 
fled  to  JIagdeburg.  For  the  first  (and  last)  time 
in  his  life  Frederick  gave  way  utterly  to  despair. 
'I  have  no  resources  left,'  he  wrote  to  the  min- 
ister Finckenstein  the  evening  after  the  battle, 
'  and  to  tell  the  truth  I  hold  all  for  lost.  I  shall 
not  survive  the  ruin  of  ray  country.  Farewell 
forever.'  The  same  night  he  resigned  the  com- 
mand of  the  army  to  General  Finck.  Eighteen 
thousand,  five  hundred  of  his  soldiers  were  killed, 
wounded,  or  prisoners,  and  the  rest  were  so  scat- 
tered that  no  more  than  3,000  remained  under  his 
command.  All  the  artillery  was  lost,  and  most  of 
his  best  generals  were  killed  or  wounded.  .  .  . 
By  degrees,  however,  the  prospect  brightened. 
The  fugitives  kept  coming  in,  and  the  enemy 
neglected  to  give  the  finishing  stroke.  Frederick 
shook  off  his  despair,  and  resumed  the  command 
of  his  army.  Artillery  was  ordered  up  from 
Berlin,  and  the  troops  serving  against  the  Swedes 
were  recalled  from  Pomerania.  Within  a  week 
of  Kunersdorf  he  was  at  the  head  of  33,000  men, 
and  in  a  position  to  send  relief  to  Dresden,  which 
was  besieged  by  an  Austrian  and  Imperialist 
army.  The  relief,  as  it  happened,  arrived  just 
too  late."  Dresden  was  surrendered  by  its  com- 
mandant, Schmettau,  on  the  4th  of  Sept.,  to  the 
great  wrath  of  Frederick.  By  a  wonderful 
march  of  fifty-eight  miles  in  fifty  hours.  Prince 
Henry,  the  brother  of  Frederick,  prevented  the 
Austrians  from  gaining  the  whole  electorate  of 
Saxony.  The  Russians  and  the  Austrians  quar- 
relled, the  former  complaining  that  they  were 
left  to  do  all  the  fighting,  and  presently  they  with- 
drew into  Poland.  "With  the  departure  of  the 
Russians,  the  campaign  would  probably  have 
jnded,  had  not  Frederick's  desire  to  close  it  with 
a  victory  led  him  into  a  fresh  disaster,  hardly 


less  serious  and  far  more  disgraceful  than  that  of 
Kunersdorf.  .  .  .  With  the  view  of  hastening 
the  retreat  of  the  Austrians,  and  of  driving  them, 
if  possible,  into  the  ditficult  Pirna  country,  he 
ordered  General  Finck  to  take  post  with  his  corps 
at  Maxen,  to  bar  their  direct  line  of  communica- 
tions with  Bohemia."  As  the  result,  Finck,  with 
his  whole  corps,  of  12,000,  were  overwhelmed 
and  taken  prisoners.  ' '  "The  capitulation  of  Maxen 
was  no  less  destructive  of  Frederick's  plans  than 
galling  to  his  pride.  The  Austrians  now  retained 
Dresden,  a  place  of  great  strategical  impor- 
tance, though  the  king,  in  the  hope  of  dislodg- 
ing them,  exposed  the  wrecks  of  his  army  to 
the  ruinous  hardships  of  a  winter  campaign,  in 
weather  of  unusual  severity,  and  borrowed 
12,000  men  of  Ferdinand  of  Brunswick  to  cover 
his  flank  while  so  engaged.  The  new  year  had 
commenced  before  he  allowed  his  harassed  troops 
to  go  into  winter-quarters." — F.  W.  Longman, 
Frederick  the  Great  and  the  Seven  Tears  War, 
ch.  10,  sect.  2. 

Also  in:  T.  Carlyle,  Hist,  of  Friedrich  II., 
bk.  19,  ch.  4-7.— Frederick  II.,  Hist,  of  the  Seven 
Tears  War  (Posth unions  Works,  v.  3),  <■/;.  10. 

A.  D.  1760.— The  Seven  Years  War:  Sax- 
ony reconquered  by  Frederick. — Dresden  bom- 
barded.—  Battles  of  Liegnitz,  Torgau  and 
Warburg. — "The  campaign  of  1759  had  extend- 
ed far  into  the  winter,  and  Frederick  conceived 
the  bold  idea  of  renewing  it  while  the  vigilance 
of  his  enemies  was  relaxed  in  winter  quarters, 
and  of  making  another  effort  to  drive  the  Aus- 
trians from  Saxony.  His  head-quarters  were  at 
Freyberg.  Having  received  reinforcements  from 
Prince  Ferdinand,  and  been  joined  by  12.000 
men  under  the  hereditary  prince,  he  left  the 
latter  to  keep  guard  behind  the  Mulde,  and  in 
January  1760,  at  a  time  when  the  snow  lay  deep 
upon  the  ground,  he  made  a  fierce  spring"  upon 
the  Austrians,  who  were  posted  at  Dippoldis- 
walde;  but  General  Maguire,  who  commanded 
there,  baffled  him  by  the  vigilance  and  skill  with 
which  he  guarded  every  pass,  and  compelled 
him  to  retrace  his  steps  to  Freyberg.  When  the 
winter  had  passed  and  the  regular  campaign  had 
opened,  Laudohn  [Loudon],  one  of  the  most 
active  of  the  Austrian  generals  —  the  same  who 
had  borne  a  great  part  in  the  victories  of  Hoch- 
kirchen  and  Kunersdorf  —  entered  Silesia,  sur- 
prised with  a  greatly  superior  force  the  Prussian 
General  Fouque,  compelled  him,  with  some  thou- 
sands of  soldiers,  to  surrender  [at  Landshut,  June 
22],  and  a  few  days  later  reduced  the  important 
fortress  of  Glatz  [July  26].  Frederick,  at  the 
first  news  of  the  danger  of  Fouque,  marched 
rapidly  towards  Silesia,  Daun  slowly  following, 
while  an  Austrian  corps,  under  General  Lacy, 
Impeded  his  march  by  incessant  skirmishes.  On 
learning  the  surrender  of  Fouque,  Frederick  at 
once  turned  and  hastened  towards  Dresden.  It 
was  July,  and  the  heat  was  so  intense  that  on  a 
single  day  more  than  a  hundred  of  his  soldiers 
dropped  dead  upon  the  march.  He  hoped  to 
gain  some  days  upon  Daun,  who  was  still  pur- 
suing, and  to  become  master  of  Dresden  before 
succours  arrived.  As  he  expected,  he  soon  out- 
stripped the  Austrian  general,  and  the  materials 
for  the  siege  were  collected  with  astonishing 
rapidity,  but  General  Maguire,  who  commanded 
at  Dresden,  defended  it  with  complete  success 
till  the  approach  of  the  Austrian  army  obliged 
Frederick  to  retire.      Baffled  in  his  design,  he 


1534 


GERMANY,  1760. 


Seven  Years  War. 


GERMANY,  1761-1763. 


took  a  characteristic  vengeance  by  bombarding 
that  beautiful  city  with  red-hot  balls,  slaughter- 
ing multitudes  of  its  peaceable  inhabitants,  and 
reducing  whole  quarters  to  ashes;  and  he  then 
darted  again  upon  Silesia,  still  followed  by  the 
Austrian  general.  Laudohn  had  just  met  with 
his  lirst  reverse,  having  failed  in  the  siege  of 
Breslau  [an  attempted  surprise  and  a  brief  bom- 
bardment] ;  on  August  15,  when  Dauu  was  still 
far  off,  Frederick  fell  upon  him  and  beat  him 
in  the  battle  of  Liegnitz.  [The  statement  that 
'  Daun  was  still  far  off '  appears  to  be  erroneous. 
Loudon  and  Daun  had  formed  a  junction  four 
days  before,  and  had  planned  a  concerted  attack 
on  Frederick's  camp ;  Loudon  was  struck  and 
defeated  while  maliing  the  movement  agreed 
upon,  and  Daun  was  only  a  few  miles  away  at 
the  time.]  Soon  after,  however,  this  success 
was  counterbalanced  by  Lacy  and  Totleben,  who, 
at  the  head  of  some  Austrians  and  Russians,  had 
marched  upon  Berlin,  which,  after  a  brave  re- 
sistance, was  once  more  captured  and  ruthlessly 
plundered;  but  on  the  approach  of  Frederick 
the  enemy  speedily  retreated.  Frederick  then 
turned  again  towards  Saxony,  which  was  again 
occupied  by  Daun,  and  on  November  3  he  at- 
tacked his  old  enemy  in  his  strong  entrenchments 
at  Torgau.  Daun,  in  addition  to  the  advantage 
of  position,  had  the  advantage  of  great  numeri- 
cal superiority,  for  his  army  was  reckoned  at 
65,000,  while  that  of  Frederick  was  not  more 
than  44,000.  But  the  generalship  of  Frederick 
gained  the  victory.  General  Ziethen  succeeded 
in  attacking  the  Austrians  in  the  rear,  gaining 
the  lieight,  and  throwing  them  into  confusion. 
Daun  was  wounded  and  disabled,  and  General 
O'Donnell,  who  was  next  in  command,  was  un- 
able to  restore  the  Austrian  line.  The  day  was 
conspicuous  for  its  carnage,  even  among  the 
bloody  battles  of  the  Seven  Years'  War:  30,000 
Austrians  were  killed,  wounded,  or  prisoners, 
while  14,000  Prussians  were  left  on  the  field. 
The  battle  closed  the  campaign  for  the  year, 
leaving  all  Saxony  in  the  possession  of  the  Prus- 
sians, with  the  exception  of  Dresden,  which  was 
still  held  by  Maguire.  The  English  and  German 
army,  under  Prince  Ferdinand,  succeeded  in  the 
meantime  in  keeping  at  bay  a  very  superior 
French  army,  under  Marshal  Broglio ;  and  sev- 
eral slight  skirmishes  took  place,  with  various 
results.  The  battle  of  "Warburg,  which  was  the 
most  important,  was  won  chiefly  by  the  British 
cavalry,  but  Prince  Ferdinand  failed  in  his  at- 
tempts to  take  Wesel  and  Gottingen ;  and  at  the 
close  of  the  year  the  French  took  up  their  quar- 
ters at  Cassel." — W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  Bist.  of  Eng., 
18th  Century,  ch.  8  (c.  2). 

Also  in  :  W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of  Aus- 
tria, ch.  115  {v.  3). — G.  B.  Malleson,  Military 
Life  of  Loudon,  ch.  10.— T.  Carlyle,  Hist,  of 
Pi-iedrich  IL,  hk.  30,  ch.  1-6. 

A.  D.  1761-1762. —  The  Seven  'Years  'War: 
The  closing  campaigns. —  "All  Frederick's  ex- 
ertions produced  him  only  96,000  men  for  defence 
of  Silesia  and  Saxony  this  year  [1761].  Prince 
Henry  had  to  face  Daun  in  Saxony;  the  king 
himself  stood  in  Silesia  against  Loudon  and  the 
Russians  under  Butterlin.  Loudon  opened  the 
campaign  by  advancing  against  Goltz,  near 
Schweidnitz,  in  April.  Goltz  had  only  12,000  to 
his  adversary's  30,000,  but  posted  himself  so 
well  that  Loudon  could  not  attack  him.  Rein- 
forcements came  gradually  to  Loudon,  raising  his 


army  to  73,000,  but  orders  from  Vienna  obliged 
him  to  remain  inactive  till  he  could  be  joined 
near  Neisse  by  the  Russians  with  60,000.  Goltz, 
manceuvring  against  the  Russians,  was  taken 
prisoner.  The  king  himself  delayed  the  junction 
of  his  enemies  for  some  time,  but  could  not  now 
offer  battle.  The  j  unction  took  place  the  18th 
of  August.  He  then  struck  at  Loudon's  commu- 
nications, but  the  thrust  was  well  parried,  and 
on  the  20th  of  August,  Frederick,  for  the  first 
time,  was  reduced  to  an  attitude  of  pure  defence. 
He  formed  an  intrenched  camp  at  Bunzelwitz, 
and  lay  there,  blocking  the  w^y  to  Schweidnitz. 
Loudon's  intreaties  could  not  persuade  the  Rus- 
sians to  join  him  in  full  force  to  attack  the  posi- 
tion, and  on  the  9th  of  September  Butterlin's 
arm}'  fell  back  across  the  Oder,  leaving  30,000 
of  his  men  to  act  under  Loudon.  Frederick  re- 
mained a  fortnight  longer  in  the  camp  of  Bunzel- 
witz, but  was  then  forced  to  go,  as  his  army  was 
eating  up  the  magazines  of  Schweidnitz.  Again 
he  moved  against  Loudon's  magazines,  but  the 
Austrian  general  boldly  marched  for  Schweid- 
nitz, and  captured  the  place  by  assault  on  the 
night  of  the  30th  September- 1st  October.  No 
tight  took  place  between  Loudon  and  the  king. 
They  both  went  into  winter  quarters  in  Decem- 
ber—  Prussians  at  Strehlen,  Austrians  at  Kun- 
zendorf,  and  Russians  about  Glatz.  ...  In  the 
western  theatre  Ferdinand  defeated  Broglio  and 
Soubise  at  Vellinghausen  [or  Wellinghausen,  or 
Kirch-Denkern,  as  the  battle,  fought  July  15,  is 
dift'erently  called],  the  English  contingent  again 
behaving  gloriously.  .  .  .  Prince  Henry  and 
Daun  manoeuvred  skilfully  throughout  the  cam- 
paign, but  never  came  to  serious  blows.  Fred- 
erick is  described  as  being  very  gloomy  in  mind 
this  winter.  The  end  of  the  year  left  him  with 
but  60,000  men  in  Saxony,  Silesia,  and  the  north. 
Eugene  of  Wurtemburg  had  5,000  to  hold  back 
the  Swedes,  Prince  Henry  35,000  in  Saxony,  the 
king  himself  30,000.  But  the  agony  of  France 
was  increasing ;  Maria  Theresa  had  to  discharge 
20,000  men  from  want  of  money,  and  Frederick's 
bitter  enemy,  '  cette  infame  Catin  du  Nord  '  [the 
czarina  Elizabeth],  was  failing  fast  in  health.  A 
worse  blow  to  the  king  than  the  loss  of  a  battle 
had  been  the  fall  of  Pitt,  in  October,  and  with, 
him  all  hope  of  English  subsidies.  Still,  the 
enemies  of  Prussia  were  almost  exhausted.  One 
more  year  of  brave  and  stubborn  resistance,  and 
Prussia  must  be  left  in  peace.  By  extraordinary 
exertions,  and  a  power  of  administrative  organi- 
sation which  was  one  of  his  greatest  qualities, 
Frederick  not  only  kept  up  his  60, 000,  but  doubled 
their  number.  In  the  spring  he  had  70,000  for 
his  Silesian  army,  40,000  for  Prince  Henry  in 
Saxony,  and  10,000  for  the  Swedes  or  other  pur- 
poses. Best  news  of  all,  the  czarina  died  on  the 
5th  of  January,  1762,  and  Peter,  who  succeeded 
her  —  only  for  a  short  time,  poor  boy  —  was  an 
ardent  admirer  of  the  great  king.  Frederick  at 
once  released  and  sent  home  his  Russian  pris- 
oners, an  act  which  brought  back  his  Prussians 
from  Russia.  On  the  33rd  February  Peter  de- 
clared his  intention  to  be  at  peace  and  amity  with 
Frederick,  concluded  peace  on  the  5th  of  May, 
and  a  treaty  of  alliance  a  month  later.  The 
Swedes,  following  suit,  declared  peace  on  the 
22nd  of  May,  and  Frederick  could  now  give  his 
sole  attention  to  the  Austrians."  For  a  few 
weeks,  only,  the  Prussian  king  had  a  Russian 
contingent  of  20,000  in  alliance  with  him,  but 


1535 


GERMANY,   1761-1762.  Peace  and  Progress.  GERMANY,   1763-1790. 


could  make  no  use  of  it.  It  was  recalled  iu  July, 
by  the  revolutiou  at  St.  Petersburg,  which  de- 
posed the  young  czar,  Peter,  in  favour  of  his 
ambitious  consort,  Catherine.  Frederick  suc- 
ceeded in  concealing  the  fact  long  enough  to 
frighten  Daun  by  a  show  of  preparations  for  at- 
tacking him,  with  the  Russian  troops  included 
in  his  army,  and  the  Austrian  general  retired 
to  Glatz  and  Bohemia.  Frederick  then  took 
Schweidnitz,  and  marched  on  Dresden.  "  Daun 
followed  heavil)'.  Like  a  prize-fighter  knocked 
out  of  time,  he  had  no  more  fight  in  him.  Prince 
Henry  had  two  affairs  with  the  Reich's  army 
and  its  Austrian  contingent.  Forced  to  retire 
from  Freyburg  on  the  15th,  he  afterwards  at- 
tacked them  on  the  29th  of  October  and  defeated 
them  by  a  turning  movement.  They  had  40,000, 
he  30, 000.  The  Austrian  contingent  suffered  most. 
In  the  western  theatre  Ferdinand  held  his  own 
and  had  his  usual  successes.  His  part  in  the  war 
was  to  defend  only,  and  he  never  failed  to  show 
high  qualities  as  a  general.  Thus,  nowhere  had 
Frederick's  enemies  succeeded  in  crushing  his 
defences.  For  seven  years  the  little  kingdom  of 
Prussia  had  held  her  ground  against  the  three 
great  military  powers,  France,  Austria,  and  Rus- 
sia. All  were  now  equally  exhausted.  The  con- 
stancy, courage,  and  ability  of  Frederick  were 
rewarded  at  last ;  on  the  15th  of  February,  1763, 
the  treaty  of  Hubertsburg  was  signed,  by  which 
Austria  once  more  agreed  to  the  cession  of  Silesia. 
Prussia  was  now  a  Great  Power  like  the  rest,  her 
greatness  resting  on  no  shams,  as  she  had  proved. " 
—  Col.  C.  B.  Brackenbury,  Fredenck  tlie  Great, 
eh.  18. 

Also  in:  Sir  E.  Cust,  Annals  of  the  Wars  of 
the  18th  Century,  ii.  3,  pp.  57-87.— Frederick  II., 
Hist,  of  the  Seven  Years  War  (Posthumous  Works, 
V.  3),  ch.  14-16. 

A.  D.  1763. — The  end,  results  and  costs  of 
the  Seven  Years  War. — The  Peace  of  Huberts- 
burg and  Peace  of  Paris.  See  Seven  Years 
War. 

A.  D.  1763-1790. — A  period  of  peace  and 
progress. —  Intellectual  cultivation.  —  Acces- 
sion of  the  Emperor  Joseph  II. — His  character 
and  his  reforms. — Accession  of  Leopold  II. — 
"The  peace  of  nearly  thirty  years  which  fol- 
lowed the  Seven- Years'  War  in  Germany  was  a 
time  of  rich  mental  activity  and  growth.  Court 
life  itself,  if  its  vanities  were  not  abolished,  still 
acquired  a  more  enlightened  and  humane  tone. 
The  fierce  passions  of  the  princes  no  longer  ex- 
clusively controlled  it :  there  was  something  of 
regard  for  education,  for  art  and  science,  and  for 
the  public  welfare.  This  is  particularly  true  of 
courts  which  were  intimately  connected  with 
Prussia;  as  that  of  Brunswick,  where  Duke 
Charles,  Frederick  II. 's  brother-in-law,  though 
personally  an  extravagant  prince,  founded  an 
institution  of  learning  which  brought  together 
many  of  the  best  intellects  of  Germany  (1740  to 
1760),  or  that  of  Anhalt- Dessau,  where  the  famous 
'  Philanthropinum '  was  established.  Several 
princes  imitated  Frederick's  military  administra- 
tion, and  that  sometimes  on  a  scale  so  small  as  to 
be  ludicrous.  Prince  William  of  Lippe-Schaum- 
burg  founded  in  his  little  territory  a  fortress 
and  a  school  of  war.  But  this  school  educated 
Scharnhorst,  and  the  prince  himself  won  fame  in 
distant  lands.  He  invited  Herder  to  his  little 
court  at  Bilckeburg.  Weimar,  too,  imitated 
Frederick's  example,  where  the  Duchess  Amalie, 


daughter  of  Charles  of  Brunswick,  and  her  iutel 
lectual  son,  Charles  Augustus,  made  their  little 
cities  Weimar  and  Jena  places  of  gathering  tor 
the  greatest  men  of  genius  of  the  time.  Anioug 
the  petty  Thuringiau  princes  of  this  period,  there 
were  others  of  noble  character.  In  1764  the 
Saxon  throne  was  ascended  by  Frederick  Augus- 
tus, grandson  of  Augustus  III.,  but,  being  a 
minor,  he  could  not  be  elected  king  of  Poland. 
This  put  an  end  to  the  union  of  the  two  titles, 
which  had  been  the  cause  of  immeasurable  evil 
to  Saxony  and  to  Germany.  When  the  young 
elector  attained  his  majorits',  the  government  of 
Saxony  was  greatly  improved,  and  a  period  of 
prosperity  followed.  Duke  Charles  Eugene  of 
Wirtemberg  (1737-1793),  during  his  early  j'ears, 
rivaled  Louis  XV.  in  extravagance  and  immoral- 
ity, but  in  after-days  was  greatly  changed.  He 
founded  the  Charles  School,  at  which  Schiller 
was  educated.  Baden  enjoyed  a  high  degree  of 
prosperity  under  Charles  Frederick  (1746-1811). 
Even  the  spiritual  lords,  on  the  whole,  threw 
their  influence  in  favor  of  enlightenment  and 
progress.  .  .  .  The  prelates  of  Cologne,  Treves, 
Mayence,  and  Salzburg,  strange  to  say,  agreed  at 
Ems  in  1786  to  renounce  the  supremacy  of  Rome, 
and  to  found  an  independent  German  Catholic 
Church ;  but  the  plan  was  broken  down  by  the 
resistance  of  the  inferior  clergy  and  of  the  Em- 
peror Joseph  II.  Some  of  the  German  states 
were  slow  to  take  part  in  the  general  progress. 
Bavaria  was  constantly  retarded  bj^  the  influence 
of  the  Jesuits.  .  .  .  The  Palatinate,  too,  was 
under  luxurious  and  idle  rulers,  mostly  in  the 
pay  of  France.  In  some  territories  the  boundless 
extravagance  of  the  princes  was  a  terrible  burden 
upon  their  subjects.  .  .  .  Men  who  professed 
enlightenment  and  humanity  were  often  shame- 
fully tyrannical.  The  courts  of  Cassel  and  Wir- 
temberg sold  their  people  by  regiments  to  Eng- 
land, to  fight  against  the  independence  of  the 
North  American  Colonies  [see  United  States  op 
Am.  ;  A.  D.  1776  (January — June)  ].  .  .  .  Aus- 
tria shared  in  the  general  intellectual  awakening 
of  Germany.  Maria  Tlieresa  was  a  firm,  strong 
character,  with  a  clear  mind  and  sincere  desire 
for  the  people's  welfare.  She  found  Austria  in 
decay,  and  was  able  to  introduce  many  reforms. 
She  alleviated  the  condition  of  the  peasants,  who 
were  still  mostly  serfs.  The  nobles  had  before 
lived  mainly  for  show,  but  she  provided  institu- 
tions for  their  education.  ...  It  was  a  condition 
of  the  Peace  of  Hubertsburg  that  Frederick  II. 
should  give  his  electoral  vote  for  the  eldest  son 
of  Francis  I.  None  of  the  other  electors  objected 
to  the  choice,  and  on  March  27,  1764,  they  per- 
formed the  ceremony  of  choosing  Joseph  '  King 
of  the  Romans,'  but  without  power  to  interfere 
with  the  government  during  his  father's  life. 
Francis  I.  died  August  18,  1765,  and  his  sou 
Joseph  II.  (1765-1790)  was  then  crowned  em- 
peror iu  the  traditional  fashion.  He  was  also 
associated  with  his  mother  in  the  government  of 
Austria ;  but  she  retained  the  roj'al  power  mainly 
in  her  own  hands,  assigning  to  her  son  the  execu- 
tive control  of  military  affairs.  Joseph  II.  was 
an  Impetuous  and  intellectual  character,  all  aglow 
with  the  new  ideas  of  enlightenment  and  prog- 
ress, and  was  perhaps  more  deeply  impressed 
by  the  example  of  Frederick  II.  than  any  other 
prince  of  the  age.  ...  At  the  same  time,  Joseph 
II.  was  eager  to  aggrandize  Austria,  and  at  least 
to  obtain  an  equivalent  for  Silesia.     For  a  long 


1536 


GERMANY,  1763-1790. 


Joseph  II. 


GERMANY,  1791-1793. 


time  Austria  had  been  longing  to  acquire  Ba- 
varia and  there  now  seemed  to  be  some  reason 
to  hope  for  success.     The  ancient  line  of  electors 
of  the  house  of  Wittelsbach  died  out  m  1777  with 
Maximilian  Joseph  (December  30).    The  next  heir 
was  the  Elector  Pnlatiue,  Charles  Theodore,  also 
Duke  of  Julich  and  Berg,  who  was  not  eager  to  ob- 
tain Bavaria,  since,  by  the  Peace  of  Westphalia, 
he  must  then  forfeit  the  electorate  of  the  Palati- 
nate Under  these  circumstances  Joseph  IL 
made  'an  unfounded  claim  to   Lower  Bavaria, 
under  a  pretended  grant  of  the  Emperor  Sigis- 
mund  in  1436.     A  secret  treaty  was  made  by  him 
with  Charles  Theodore,  by  whicli  he  was  to  pay 
that  prince  a  large  sum  of  money  for  Lower  Ba- 
varia;  and  soon  after  Maximilian  Joseph  s  death, 
Joseph  IL  occupied  the  land  with  troops.    Fred- 
erick II    who  was  ever  jealous  of  the  growth  ot 
Austria  resolved  to  prevent  this  acquisition  [see 
Bavaria:  A.  D.  1777-1779].         .  Thus  the  war 
of  the  Bavarian  Succession  broke  out  (1/  .8-^9). 
By  the  death  of  Maria  Theresa,  November 
29  1780  her  son  Joseph  II.  became  sole  monarch 
of'  Austria.  .  .  .  Joseph  II.  was  a  man  of  large 
mind  and  noble  aims.     Like  Frederick,  he  was 
unwearying  in  labor,  accessible  to  every  one,  and 
eager  to  assume  his  share  of  work  or  responsi- 
bility     The  books  and  the  people's  memory  are 
full  of  anecdotes  of  him,  though  he  was  far  from 
popular  during  his  life.    But  he  lacked  the  strong 
practical  sense  and  calculating  foresight  ot  tlie 
veteran  Prussian  king.     In  his  zeal  for  reforms 
he  hastened  to  heap  one  upon  another  in  con- 
fusion     Torture  was  abolished,  and  for  a  time 
even  the  death  penalty.      Rigid  equality  before 
the  law  was  introduced,  and  slavery  done  away 
fsee  Slavery,  Mediaeval  :  Germany].     His  re- 
forms in  the  Cliurch  were  still  more  sweeping 
He  closed  more  than  half  of  the  monasteries,  and 
devoted  their  estates  to  public  instruction;   he 
introduced  German  hymns  of  praise  and  the  Ger- 
man Bible.     By  his  Edict  of  Toleration,  June  i2, 
1781   he  secured  to  all  Protestants  throughout 
the  Austrian  states  their  civil  rights  and  freedom 
of  worship   '  in  houses  of  prayer  without  bells  or 
towers.'.  .  .  He   zealously   followed  up  Maria 
Theresa's  policy  of  consolidating  Austria  into  one 
state-   and  it  was  this  course  which  made  him 
enemies      He  offended  the  powerful  nobility  of 
Hungary  by  abolishing  serfdom  (November  1, 
1781)  and  the  whole  people  by  the  measures  he 
took  to  promote  the  use  of  the  German  language. 
In  the  Netheriands,  he  alienated  from  him  the 
powerful  clergy  by  his  innovations;   and  they 
stirred  up  against  him  the  people,  already  ag- 
grieved by  tlie  loss  of  some  of  tlieir  ancient  lib- 
erties     A  revolution  broke  out  among  them  m 
1788  and  was  threatening  to  extend  to  Hungary 
and  Bohemia,  when  the  emperor  suddenly  died, 
still  in  the  full  vigor  of  manhood,  at  the  age  of 
forty-nine,    February  20,   1790.  .  .  .  After   his 
death    the  progress  of  reform  was  checked  m 
Austria;  but  he  had  awakened  new  and  strong 
forces  there,  and  a  complete  return  to  the  ancient 
system  was  impossible.   .   .  .  Leopold  IL  (1 '90- 
1792)  who  succeeded  his  brother  Joseph  11.,  both 
in  Austria  and  as  emperor,  was  a  self-indulgent 
but  prudent  ruler."— C.  T.  Lewis,  Hist,  of  Oei-- 
many,  hk.  5,  ch.  34,  sect.  8-18. 

A.  D.  I7'72-I773.— The  first  Partition  of  Po- 
land.    See  Poland;  A.  D.  1763-1773. 

A.  D.  1787.— Prussian  intervention  in  Hol- 
land —  Restoration  of  the  expelled  stadtholder. 

97  1537 


A.  D.    1746- 


See   Netherlands   (Holland): 

1787.  ,    ^     ^     r^- 

A  D  1791.— The  forming  of  the  Coalitjon 
against  French  democracy.  See  France:  A.  D. 

1790-1791 ;  and  1791  (July— September). 

A  D  1791-1792.— The  question  of  war  V7ith 
France,  and  the  question  of  the  Partition  of 
Poland.— Motives  and  action  of  Prussia  and 

Austria —"  After  the  acceptance  of  the  Consti- 
tution bv  Louis  XVI.  [September  — see  France: 
A.  D.   1791   (July— September)],  the  Emperor 
indulged  for  a  time  a  confident  hope,  that  the 
French  question  was  solved,   and  tliat  he  was 
relieved  from  all  fear  of  trouble  from  that  quarter. 
He   had  cares  enough  upon  him  to  make   him 
heartily  congratulate  himself  on  this  result.  .  .  . 
In  foreign  affairs,  the  Polish  question  —  the  ne.xt 
in  importance  to  the  French  —  was  still  unsettled, 
and  daily  presented  fresh  difficulties.   .   .  .  The 
fact  that  Russia  began  to  show  the  greatest  fa- 
vour to  the  Emigres,  and  to  preach  at  Berlin  and 
Vienna  a  crusade  against  the  wicked  Jacobins, 
only  served  to  confirm  the  Emperor  in  his  peace- 
ful sentiments.    He  rightly  concluded  tliat  Cath- 
arine wished  to  entangle  the  German  Powers  m  a 
struggle  with  France,  that  she  might  have  her 
own  way  in  Poland ;  and  he  was  not  at  all  in- 
clined to"  be  the  dupe  of  so  shallow  an  artifice. 
At  the  same  time  he  set  about  bringing  his 
alliance  with  Prussia  to  a  definite  conclusion,  m 
order  to  secure  to  himself  a  firm  support  for 
every  emergency.     On  the  17th  of  November  — 
a  week  after  the   enactment  of   the   first  edict 
against  the  Emigres  — Prince  Reuss  madeacom- 
niunication  on  this  subject  to  the  Prussian  Min- 
istry, and  on  this  occasion  declared  himself  em- 
powered to  commence  at  any  moment  the  formal 
draft  of   an   alliance.    ...  'We   are   now   con- 
vinced '  wrote  the  Ministers  to  their  ambassador 
at  Vienna  '  that  Austria  will  undertake  nothing 
against  France.'   This  persuasion  was  soon  after- 
wards fully  confirmed  by  Kaunitz,  who  descanted 
in  the  severest  terms  on  the  intrigues  of  the  Emi- 
gres on  the  Rhine,  which  it  was  not  in  the  interest 
of  any  Power  to  support.     It  was  ridiculous,  he 
said   in  the  French  Princes,  and  in  Russia  and 
Spain   to  declare  the  acceptance  of  the  constitu- 
tion by  the  King  compulsory,  and  therefore  void ; 
and  still  more  so  to  dispute  the  right  of  Louis 
XVI  to  alter  the  constitution  at  all.     He  said 
that  they  would  vainly  endeavour  to  goad  Aus- 
tria into  a  war,  which  could  only  have  the  very 
worst  consequences  for  Louis  and   the  present 
predominance  of  the  moderate  party  in  France. 
Here  again,  we  see  that  without  the  machi- 
nations of 'the  Girondists,  the  revolutionary  war 
would  never  have  been  commenced.     It  is  true, 
indeed  that  at  this  time  a  very  perceptible  change 
took  place  in  the  opinions  of  the  second  German 
potentate  — the  King  of  Prussia.     Immediately 
after  the  Congress  ot  Pilluitz,  great  numbers  of 
French    Emigres,    who  had   been  driven  from 
Vienna  by  the  coldness  of  Leopold,  had  betaken 
themselves  to  Beriin.    At  the  Prussian  Court  they 
met  with  a  hospitable  reception,  and  aroused  in 
the  King   by  their  graphic  descriptions,  a  warm 
interest  for  the  victims  of  the  Revolution.  .  .  . 
He  loaded  the  Emigres  with  marks  of  favour  of 
every  kind  and  thereby  excited  in  them  the  most 
exaggerated  hopes.     Yet  the  King  was  far  from 
intending  to  risk  any  important  interest  of  the 
State  for  the  sake  of  his  proteges;  he  had  no  idea 
of  pursuing  an  aggressive  policy  towards  France ; 


GERMANY,  1791-1792. 


The  question  of 
War  with  Prance. 


GERMANY,  1791-1792. 


and  the  only  point  in  which  he  differed  from 
Leopold  was  in  the  feeling  with  which  he  regard- 
ed the  developement  of  the  warlike  tendencies 
of  the  French.  His  Ministers,  moreover,  were, 
without  exception,  possessed  by  the  same  idea  as 
Prince  Kaunitz ;  that  a  French  war  would  be  a 
misfortune  to  all  Europe."  As  the  year  1791 
drew  towards  its  close,  "  unfavourable  news  ar- 
rived from  Paris.  The  attempts  of  the  Feuillants 
had  failed ;  Lafayette  had  separated  himself  from 
them  and  from  the  Court ;  and  the  zeal  and  con- 
fidence of  victory  among  the  Democrats  were 
greater  than  ever.  The  Emigres  in  Berlin  were 
jubilant;  they  had  always  declared  that  no  Im- 
pression was  to  be  made  upon  the  Jacobins 
except  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  that  all 
hopes  founded  on  the  stability  of  a  moderate 
middle  party  were  futile.  The  King  of  Prussia 
agreed  with  them,  and  determined  to  begin  the 
unavoidable  struggle  as  quickly  as  possible.  He 
told  his  Ministers  that  war  was  certain,  and  that 
Bischoffswerder  ought  to  go  once  more  to  the 
Emperor.  .  .  .  Bischoffswerder,  having  received 
instructions  from  the  King  himself,  left  Berlin, 
and  arrived  in  Vienna,  after  a  speedy  journey, 
on  the  28th  of  February.  But  he  was  not  des- 
tined again  to  discuss  the  fate  of  Europe  with 
his  Imperial  patron;  for  on  the  29th  the  small- 
pox showed  itself,  of  which  Leopold  died  after 
three  days  sickness.  The  greatest  consternation 
and  confusion  reigned  in  Vienna.  .  .  .  No  one 
knew  to  whom  the  young  King  Francis  —  he  was 
as  yet  only  king  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia  — 
would  give  his  confidence,  or  what  course  he 
would  take;  nay,  his  weakly  and  nervous  con- 
stitution rendered  it  doubtful  whether  he  could 
bear  —  even  for  a  short  period  —  the  burdens  of 
his  office.  For  the  present  he  confirmed  the 
Ministers  in  their  places,  and  expressed  to  them 
his  wish  to  adhere  to  the  political  system  of  his 
father.  .  .  .  He  .  .  .  ordered  one  of  his  most  ex- 
perienced Generals,  Prince  Hohenlohe-Kirchberg, 
to  be  summoned  to  Vienna,  that  he  might  take 
council  with  Bischoffswerder  respecting  the  war- 
like measures  to  be  adopted  by  both  Powers,  in 
case  of  a  French  attack.  At  the  same  time, 
however,  the  Polish  question  was,  if  possible,  to 
be  brought  to  a  decision,  and  Leopold's  plan  in 
all  its  details  was  to  be  categorically  recom- 
mended for  adoption,  both  in  Berlin  and  Peters- 
burg. .  .  .  The  Austrian  Minister,  Spielmann, 
had  prepared  the  memorial  on  Poland,  which 
Prince  Reuss  presented  at  Berlin,  on  the  10th  of 
March.  It  represented  that  Austria  and  Prussia 
had  the  same  interest  in  stopping  a  source  of 
eternal  embarrassment  and  discussion,  by 
strengthening  the  cause  of  peace  and  order  in 
Poland.  That  herein  lay  an  especially  powerful 
motive  to  make  the  crown  of  that  countrj'  he- 
reditary; that  for  both  Powers  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  would  be  the  most  acceptable  wearer  of 
that  crown.  .  .  .  The  important  point,  the  me- 
morial went  on  to  say,  was  this,  that  Poland 
should  no  longer  be  dependent  on  the  predomi- 
nant influence  of  any  one  neighbouring  Power. 
.  .  .  When  the  King  had  read  this  memorial,  in 
which  the  Saxon-Polish  union  was  brought  for- 
ward, not  as  an  idea  of  the  feeble  Elector,  but  as 
a  proposal  of  powerful  Austria,  he  cried  out, 
'  We  must  never  give  our  consent  to  this. '  He 
agreed  with  his  Ministers  in  the  conclusion  that 
nothing  would  be  more  dangerous  to  Prussia, 
than  the  formation  of  such  a  Power  as  would  re- 


sult from  the  proposed  lasting  union  of  Poland 
and  Saxony  —  a  Power,  which,  in  alliance  with 
Austria,  could  immediately  overrun  Silesia,  and 
in  alliance  with  Russia,  might  be  fatal  to  East 
Prussia.  ...  In  the  midst  of  this  angry  and 
anxious  excitement,  which  for  a  moment  alienated 
his  heart  from  Austria,  the  King  received  a  fresh 
and  no  less  important  despatch  from  Petersburg. 
Count  Golz  announced  the  first  direct  communi- 
cation of  Russia  respecting  Poland.  '  Should 
Poland '  [wrote  the  Russian  Vice  Chancellor]  '  be 
firmly  and  lastingly  united  to  Saxony,  a  Power 
of  the  first  rank  will  arise,  and  one  which  will  be 
able  to  exercise  the  most  sensible  pressure  upon 
each  of  its  neighbours.  We  are  greatly  con- 
cerned in  this,  in  consequence  of  the  extension 
of  our  Polish  frontier ;  and  Prussia  is  no  less  so, 
from  the  inevitable  increase  whicli  would  ensue 
of  Saxon  infiuence  in  the  German  Empire.  We 
therefore  suggest,  that  Prussia,  Austria,  and 
Russia,  should  come  to  an  intimate  understand- 
ing with  one  another  on  this  most  important  sub- 
ject. ' .  .  .  This  communication  sounded  differ- 
ently in  the  ears  of  the  King  from  that  which  he 
had  received  from  Austria.  The  fears  which 
agitated  his  own  mind  and  those  of  the  Russian 
chancellor  were  Identical.  While  Austria  called 
upon  him  to  commit  a  political  suicide,  Russia 
offered  her  aid  in  averting  the  most  harassing 
danger,  and  even  opened  a  prospect  of  a  consider- 
able territorial  increase.  The  King  had  no  doubt 
to  which  of  the  two  Powers  he  ought  to  incline. 
He  would  have  come  to  terms  with  Russia  on 
the  spot,  had  not  an  insurmountable  obstacle  ex- 
isted in  the  new  path  which  was  opened  to  the 
aggrandizement  of  Prussia, — viz.,  the  Polish 
treaty  of  1790;  in  which  Prussia  had  expressly 
bound  herself  to  protect  the  independence  and 
Integrity  of  Poland.  ...  He  decided  that  there 
was  no  middle  course  between  the  Russian  and 
Austrian  plans.  On  the  one  side  was  his  Polish 
treaty  of  1790,  the  immediate  consequence  of 
which  would  be  a  new  breach,  and  perhaps  a 
war,  with  Russia,  and  the  final  result  such  a 
strengthening  of  Poland,  as  would  throw  back 
the  Prussian  State  into  that  subordinate  posi- 
tion, both  in  Germany  and  Europe,  which  it  had 
occupied  in  the  seventeenth  century.  On  the 
other  side  there  was,  indeed,  a  manifest  breach 
of  faith,  but  also  the  salvation  of  Prussia  from 
a  perilous  dilemma,  and  perhaps  the  extension 
of  her  boundaries  by  a  goodly  Polish  Province. 
If  he  wavered  at  all  in  this  conflict  of  feeling, 
the  Parisian  complications  soon  put  an  end  to 
his  doubts.  In  quick  succession  came  the  an- 
nouncements that  Delessart's  peaceful  Ministry 
had  fallen;  that  King  Louis  had  suffered  the 
deepest  humiliation;  and  that  the  helm  of  the 
State  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Girondist 
war  party.  A  declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of 
France  against  Francis  II.  might  be  daily  ex- 
pected, and  the  Russian-Polish  contest  would 
then  only  form  the  less  important  moiety  of  the 
European  catastrophe.  Austria  would  now  be 
occupied  for  a  long  time  in  the  AVest;  there 
could  be  no  more  question  of  the  formation  of  a 
Polish-Saxon  State ;  and  Austria  could  no  longer 
be  reckoned  upon  to  protect  the  constitution  of 
1791,  or  even  to  repel  a  Russian  invasion  of 
Poland.  Prussia  was  bound  to  aid  the  Austrians 
against  France,  and  for  man}-  months  the  King  had 
cherished  no  more  ardent  wish  than  to  fulfil  this 
obligation  with  all  his  power.     Simultaneously 


1538 


GERMANY,  1791-1793. 


Peace 
of  LuneviUe. 


GERMANY,  1801-1803. 


to  oppose  the  Empress  Catharine,  was  out 
of  the  question.  .  .  .  The  King  wrote  on  the 
12th  of  March  to  his  Ministers  as  follows :  .  .  . 
'  Russia  is  not  far  removed  from  thoughts  of  a 
new  partition;  and  this  would  indeed  be  the 
most  effectual  means  of  limiting  the  power  of  a 
Polish  King,  whether  hereditary  or  elective.  I 
doubt,  however,  whether  in  this  case  a  suitable 
compensation  could  be  found  for  Asutria;  and 
whether,  after  such  a  curtailment  of  the  power 
of  Poland,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  would  accept 
the  crown.  Yet  if  Austria  could  be  compensated, 
the  Russian  plan  would  be  the  most  advanta- 
geous for  Prussia, — always  provided  that  Prussia 
received  the  whole  left  bank  of  the  Vistula,  by 
the  acquisition  of  which  that  distant  frontier  — 
so  hard  to  be  defended  —  would  be  well  rounded 
off.  This  is  my  judgment  respecting  Polish 
affairs.'  This  was  Poland's  sentence  of  death. 
It  was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  the  result  of  a  long- 
existing  greed,  but  a  suddenly  seized  expedient, 
which  seemed  to  be  accompanied  with  the  least 
evil,  in  the  midst  of  an  unexampled  European 
crisis.  ...  On  the  20th  of  April  the  French 
National  Assembly  proclaimed  war  against  the 
King  of  Hungary  and  Bohemia.  A  fortnight 
later  the  Prince  of  Hohenlohe-Kirchberg  ap- 
peared in  Berlin  to  settle  some  common  plan  for 
the  campaign;  and  at  the  same  time  Kaunitz  di- 
rected Prince  Reuss  to  enter  into  negociations  on 
the  political  question  of  expenditure  and  com- 
pensation. Count  Schulenburg  .  .  .  immediate- 
ly sent  a  reply  to  the  Prince,  to  the  effect  that 
Prussia  —  as  it  had  uniformly  declared  since  the 
previous  summer  —  could  only  engage  in  the  war 
on  condition  of  receiving  an  adequate  compensa- 
tion. .  .  .  Both  statesmen  well  knew  with  what 
secret  mistrust  each  of  these  Powers  contem- 
plated the  aggrandizement  of  the  other;  their 
deliberations  were  therefore  conducted  with  slow 
and  anxious  caution,  and  months  passed  by  be- 
fore their  respective  demands  were  reduced  to 
any  definite  shape." — H.  von  Sybel,  History  of 
the  French  Revolution,  bk.  4,  ch.  1  (».  3). 

A.  D.  1792. —  Accession  of  the  Emperor 
Francis  II. 

A.  D.  1792-1793. — 'War  with  Revolutionary 
France. — The  Coalition.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1791-1793;  1793  (April— Joly),  and  (Septem- 
ber— December)  ;  1793-1793  (December — Feb- 
ruary); 1793  (February  —  April),  (Mabch — 
September),  and  (July — December). 

A.  D.  1792-1796.— The  second  and  third  Par- 
titions of  Poland.  See  Poland:  A.  D.  1791- 
1793;  and  1793-1 796. 

A.  D.  1794. — Withdrawal  of  Prussia  from 
the  Coalition. — French  conquest  of  the  Aus- 
trian Netherlands  and  successes  on  the  Rhine. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1794  (March — .July). 

A.  D.  1795. — Treaty  of  Basle  between  Prus- 
sia and  France. — Crumbling  of  the  Coalition. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1794-1795  (October — May). 

A.  D.  1796-1797. — Expulsion  of  Austria  from 
Italy. —  Bonaparte's  first  campaigns. —  Ad- 
vance of  Moreau  and  Jourdan  beyond  the 
Rhine. — Their  retreat. — Peace  preliminaries  of 
Leoben.  See  France:  A.  D.  1790  (April — Oc- 
tober); and  1796-1797  (October — April). 

A.  D.  1797  (October). — The  Treaty  of  Campo 
Forraio  between  Austria  and  France. — Aus- 
trian cession  of  the  Netherlands  and  Lombardy 
and  acquisition  of  Venice.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1797  (May— October). 


A.  D.  1798. — The  second  Coalition  against 
Revolutionary  France. — Prussia  and  the  Em- 
pire  withheld    from   it.      See  Fr.«<ce:  A.  D. 

1798-1799  (August— April). 

A.  D.  1799. — The  Congress  at  Rastadt. — 
Murder  of  French  envoys.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1799  (April — September). 

A.  D.  1800  (May — December). — The  disas- 
trous campaigns  of  Marengo  and  Hohenlinden. 
See  France:  A.  D.  1800-1801  (May— Febru- 
ary'). 

A.  D.  1801-1803.— The  Peace  of  Luneville. 
— Territorial  cessions  and  changes. — The  set- 
tlement of  indemnities  in  the  Empire. — Con- 
fiscation and  secularization  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal principalities. — Absorption  of  Free  Cities. 
— Re-constitution  of  the  Electoral  College. — 
"  By  the  treaty  of  Luneville,  which  the  Emperor 
Francis  was  obliged  to  subscribe,  '  not  only  as 
Emperor  of  Austria,  but  in  the  name  of  the  Ger- 
man empire,'  Belgium  and  all  the  left  bank  of 
the  Rhine  were  again  formally  ceded  to  France ; 
Lombardy  was  erected  into  an  independent  state, 
and  the  Adige  declared  the  boundary  betwixt  it 
and  the  dominions  of  Austria ;  Venice,  with  all 
its  territorial  possessions  as  far  as  the  Adige,  was 
guaranteed  to  Austria;  the  Duke  of  Modena  re- 
ceived the  Brisgau  in  exchange  for  his  duchy, 
which  was  annexed  to  the  Cisalpine  republic ;  the 
Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany,  the  Emperor's  brother, 
gave  up  his  dominions  to  the  infant  Duke  of 
Parma,  a  branch  of  the  Spanish  family  [who  was 
thereupon  raised  to  royal  rank  by  the  fiat  of 
Bonaparte,  who  transformed  the  grand-duchy  of 
Tuscany  into  the  kingdom  of  Etruria],  on  the 
promise  of  an  indemnity  in  Germany;  France 
abandoned  Kehl,  Cassel,  and  Ehrenbreitstein,  on 
condition  that  these  forts  should  remain  in  the 
situation  in  which  they  were  when  given  up ;  the 
princes  dispossessed  by  the  cession  of  the  left 
ijank  of  the  Rhine  were  promised  an  indemnity 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Empire ;  the  independence  of 
the  Batavian,  Helvetic,  Cisalpine  and  Ligurian 
republics  was  guaranteed,  and  their  inhabitants 
declared  '  to  have  the  power  of  choosing  what- 
ever form  of  government  they  preferred.'  These 
conditions  did  not  differ  materially  from  those 
contained  in  the  treaty  of  Campo  Formio,  or  from 
those  offered  by  Napoleon  previous  to  the  re- 
newal of  the  war.  .  .  .  The  article  which  com- 
pelled the  Emperor  to  subscribe  this  treaty  as 
head  of  the  empire,  as  well  as  Emperor  of  Aus- 
tria, gave  rise  in  the  sequel  ...  to  the  most 
painful  internal  divisions  in  Germany.  By  a  fun- 
damental law  of  the  empire,  the  Emperor  could 
not  bind  the  electors  and  states  of  which  he  was 
the  head,  without  either  their  concurrence  or  ex- 
press powers  to  that  effect  previously  conferred. 
.  .  .  The  emperor  hesitated  long  before  he  sub- 
scribed such  a  condition,  which  left  the  seeds  of 
interminable  discord  in  the  Germanic  body ;  but 
the  conqueror  was  inexorable,  and  no  means  of 
evasion  could  be  found.  He  vindicated  himself 
to  the  electors  in  a  dignified  letter,  dated  8th  Feb- 
ruary 1801,  the  day  before  that  when  the  treaty 
was  signed.  .  .  .  The  electors  and  princes  of  the 
empire  felt  the  force  of  this  touching  appeal; 
they  commiserated  the  situation  of  the  first  mon- 
arch in  Christendom,  compelled  to  throw  him- 
self on  his  subjects  for  forgiveness  of  a  step 
which  he  could  not  avoid ;  and  one  of  the  first 
steps  of  the  Diet  of  the  empire,  assembled  after 
the  treaty  of  Luneville  was  signed,  was  to  give 


1539 


GERMANY,  1801-1803. 


Beconstniciion  of 
Germany. 


GERMANY,  1805-1806. 


it  their  solemn  ratification,  grounded  on  the  ex- 
traordinary situation  in  whicli  the  Emperor  was 
then  placed.  But  the  question  of  indemnities  to 
the  dispossessed  princes  was  long  and  warmly 
agitated.  It  continued  for  above  two  years  to 
distract  the  Germanic  body ;  the  intervention  both 
of  France  and  Russia  was  required  to  prevent  the 
sword  being  drawn  in  these  internal  disputes; 
and  by  the  magnitude  of  the  changes  which  were 
ultimately  made,  and  the  habit  of  looking  to 
foreign  protection  which  was  acquired,  tlie  foun- 
dation was  laid  of  that  league  to  support  sepa- 
rate interests  which  afterwards,  under  the  name 
of  the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine,  so  well  served 
the  purposes  of  French  ambition,  and  broke  up  the 
venerable  fabric  of  the  German  empire." — Sir  A. 
Alison,  Mist,  of  Europe,  1789-1815,  ch.  33  (».  7).— 
"Germany  lost  by  this  treaty  about  24,000  square 
miles  of  its  best  territory  and  3,500,000  of  its 
people ;  while  the  princes  were  indemnified  by  the 
plunder  of  their  peers.  But  the  hardest  task,  the 
satisfactory  distribution  of  this  plunder,  remained. 
While  the  Diet  at  Regensburg,  after  much  com- 
plaint and  management,  assigned  the  arrange- 
ment of  these  affairs  to  a  committee,  the  princely 
bargainers  were  in  Paris,  employing  the  most  dis- 
graceful means  to  obtain  the  favor  of  Talleyrand 
and  other  influential  diplomatists.  On  the  25th 
of  February,  1803,  the  final  decision  of  the  dele- 
gation or  committee  of  the  empire  was  adopted 
by  the  Diet,  and  promulgated  with  the  approval 
of  the  emperor,  Francis  II.,  and  of  Prussia  and 
Bavaria.  It  confiscated  all  the  spiritual  princi- 
palities in  Germany,  except  that  the  Elector  of 
Mayence,  Charles  Theodore  of  Dalberg,  received 
Regensburg,  Aschaifenburg,  and  Wetzlar,  as  an 
indemnity,  and  retained  a  seat  and  a  voice  in  the 
imperial  Diet.  Of  the  48  free  cities  of  the  em- 
pire, six  only  remained  —  Hamburg,  Bremen,  Lu- 
beck,  Frankfort,  Nuremburg,  and  Augsburg. 
Austria  obtained  the  bishoprics  of  Trent  and 
Brixen;  Prussia,  as  a  compensation  for  the  loss 
of  1,018  square  miles  with  123,000  inhabitants 
west  of  the  Rhine,  received  4,875  square  miles, 
with  580,000  inhabitants,  including  the  endow- 
ments of  the  religious  houses  of  Hildesheim  and 
Paderborn,  and  most  of  Miinster;  also  Erfurt  and 
Eichsfeld,  and  the  free  cities  of  Nordhausen, 
Millhausen,  and  Goslar ;  Hanover  obtained  Osna- 
bruck ;  to  Bavaria,  in  exchange  for  the  Palatinate, 
were  assigned  "Wl'irzburg,  Bamberg,  Freisingen, 
Augsburg,  and'Passau,  besides  a  number  of  cities 
of  the  empire,  in  all  about  6,150  square  miles, 
to  compensate  for  4,240,  vastly  increasing  its  po- 
litical importance.  Wirtemberg,  too,  was  riclily 
compensated  for  the  loss  of  the  MOmpelgard  by 
the  confiscation  of  monastery  endowments  and 
free  cities  in  Suabia.  But  Baden  made  the  best 
bargain  of  all,  receiving  about  1,270  square  miles 
of  land,  formerly  belonging  to  bishops  or  lo  the 
Palatinate,  in  exchange  for  170.  After  this  ac- 
quisition, Baden  extended,  though  in  patches, 
from  the  Neckar  to  the  Swiss  border.  By  build- 
ing up  these  three  South  German  states,  Napoleon 
sought  to  erect  a  barrier  for  himself  against  Aus- 
tria and  Prussia.  With  the  same  design,  Hesse- 
Darmstadt  and  Nassau  were  much  enlarged. 
There  were  multitudes  of  smaller  changes,  under 
the  name  of  '  compensations  and  indemnities. ' 
Four  new  lay  electorates  were  establislied  in  the 
place  of  the  three  secularized  prelacies,  and  were 
given  to  Baden,  Wirtemberg,  Hesse-Cassel,  and 
Salzburg.     But  they  never  had  occasion  to  tak« 


part  in  the  election  of  an  emperor. " — C.  T.  Lewis, 
Hist,  of  Oermany,  ch.  25,  sect.  26-37. 

Alsoik:  a.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate  and 
the  Empire,  bk.  7  and  15  (v.  1).— J.  R.  Seeley,  Life 
and  Times  of  Stein,  pt.  1.  ch.  4  {n.  1). 

A.  D.  1803.  —  Bonaparte's  seizure  of  Han- 
over in  his  V7ar  with  England.  See  France: 
A.  D.  1802-1803. 

A.  D.  1805  (January  —  April).  —  The  third 
Coalition  against  France. — Prussian  Neutral- 
ity. See  FR.A.NCE:  A.  D.  1805  (January— 
Aprii,). 

A.  D.  i8o5(September— December).— Napo- 
leon's overwhelming  campaign. — The  catas- 
trophes at  Ulm  and  Austerlitz.  See  Fr.\nce: 
A.  D.  1805  (JIarch— December). 

A.  D.  1805-1806.— The  Peace  of  Presburg.— 
Territorial  losses  of  Austria.  —  Aggrandize- 
ment of  Bavaria  and  Wiirtemberg,  which  be- 
come Icingdoms,  and  Baden  a  grand  duchy.^ 
The  Confederation  of  the  Rhine. — End  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire. —  'On  the  6th  of  Decem- 
ber, hostilities  ceased,  and  the  Russians  retired 
by  way  of  Galicia.  but  in  accordance  with  the 
terms  of  the  armistice,  the  French  troops  con- 
tinued to  occupy  all  the  lands  they  had  invaded, 
Austria,  Tyrol,  Venetia,  Carniola,  Carinthia,  and 
Styria;  within  Bohemia  they  were  to  have  the 
circle  of  Tabor,  together  witjfi  Brno  and  Znoymo 
in  Moravia  and  Pozsony  (Pressburg)  in  Hungary. 
The  Morava  (March)  and  the  Hungarian  frontier 
formed  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  two 
armies.  A  definitive  peace  was  signed  at  Press- 
burg on  the  26th  of  December,  1805.  Austria 
recognized  the  conquests  of  Prance  in  Holland 
and  Switzerland  and  the  annexation  of  Genoa, 
and  ceded  to  the  kingdom  of  Italy  Friuli,  Istria, 
Dalmatia  with  its  islands,  and  the  Bocche  di 
Cattaro.  A  little  later,  by  the  explanatory  Act 
of  Fontainebleau,  she  lost  the  last  of  her  posses- 
sions to  the  west  of  the  Isonzo,  when  she  ex- 
changed those  portions  of  the  counties  of  Gorico 
and  Gradisca  which  are  situated  on  the  right 
bank  of  that  river  for  the  county  of  Montefalcone 
in  Istria.  The  new  kingdoms  of  Bavaria  and 
Wiirtemberg  [brought  into  existence  by  this 
treaty,  through  tlie  recognition  of  them  by  the 
Emperor  Francis]  were  aggrandized  at  the  ex- 
pense of  Austria.  Bavaria  obtained  Vorarlberg, 
the  county  of  Hohenembs,  the  town  of  Lindau, 
and  the  whole  of  Tyrol,  with  Brixen  and  Trent. 
Austrian  Suabia  was  given  to  Wiirtemberg,  while 
Breisgau  and  the  Ortenau  were  bestowed  on  the 
new  grand-duke  of  Baden.  One  compensation 
alone,  the  duchy  of  Salzburg,  fell  to  Austria  for 
all  her  sacrifices,  and  this  has  remained  in  her 
possession  ever  since.  The  old  bishopric  of  Wlirz- 
burg  was  created  an  electorate  and  granted  to 
Ferdinand  III.  of  Tuscany  and  Salzburg.  Alto- 
gether the  monarchy  lost  about  25,400  square 
miles  and  nearly  3,000,000  of  inhabitants.  She 
lost  Tyrol  with  its  brave  and  loyal  inhabitants 
and  the  VOrlande  which  had  assured  Austrian  in- 
fluence in  Germany ;  every  possession  on  the 
Rhine,  in  the  Black  Forest,  and  on  the  Lower 
Danube;  she  no  longer  touched  either  Switzer- 
land or  Italy,  and  she  ceased  to  be  a  maritime 
power.  Besides  all  this,  she  had  to  i>ay  forty 
millions  for  the  expenses  of  the  war,  while  she 
was  exhausted  by  contributions  and  requisitions. 
Vienna  had  suffered  much,  and  the  French  army 
had  carried  off  the  2,000  cannons  and  the  100,000 
guns  which  had  been  contained  in  her  arsenals. 


1540 


GERMANY,  1805-1806. 


End   of  the   Holy 
Roman  Empire, 


GERMANY,  1806. 


On  the  16th  of  January,  1806,  the  emperor  Fran- 
cis returned  to  his  capital.  He  was  enthusiasti- 
cally received,  and  the  Viennese  returned  to  Uie 
luxurious  and  easy  way  of  life  which  has  always 
characterized  them.  .  .  .  Austria  seemed  no  longer 
to  have  any  part  to  play  in  German  politics. 
Bavaria,  Wilrtembergaud  Baden  had  been  formed 
into  a  separate  league  —  the  Confederation  of  the 
Rhine — under  French  protection.  On  the  1st  of 
August,  1806,  these  states  announced  to  the 
Reichstag  at  Ratisbon  that  they  looked  upon  the 
empire  as  at  an  end,  and  on  the  6th,  Francis  II. 
formally  resigned  the  empire  altogether,  and  re- 
leased all  the  imperial  officials  from  their  engage- 
ments to  him.  Thus  the  sceptre  of  Charlemagne 
fell  from  the  hands  of  the  dynasty  which  had 
held  it  without  interruption  from  1438." — L. 
Leger,  Hist,  of  Austm-IIiingitry,  ch.  25.  —  "Every 
bond  of  union  was  dissolved  with  the  diet  of  the 
empire  and  with  the  imperial  chamber.  The 
barons  and  counts  of  the  empire  and  the  petty 
princes  were  mediatised ;  the  princes  of  Hohen- 
lohe, Oettingen,  Schwarzenberg, Thurn,  and  Taxis, 
the  Truchsess  von  Waldburg,  Fiirstenberg,  Fug- 
ger,  Leiniugen,  Lowenstein,  Solms,  Hesse-Hom- 
burg,  Wied-Runkel,  and  Orange-Fulda,  became 
subject  to  the  neighbouring  Rhenish  confeder- 
ated princes.  Of  the  remaining  six  imperial  free 
cities,  Augsburg  and  Nuremberg  fell  to  Bavaria; 
Frankfurt,  under  the  title  of  grand-duchy,  to  the 
ancient  elector  of  Mayence,  who  was  again  trans- 
ferred thither  from  Ratisbon.  The  ancient  Hanse- 
towns,  Hamburg,  Ltlbeck,  and  Bremen,  alone 
retained  their  freedom." — "W.  Menzel,  Hist,  of 
German!/,  ch.  253  {v.  3). — "A  swift  succession  of 
triumphs  had  left  only  one  thing  still  preventing 
the  full  recognition  of  the  Corsican  warrior  as 
sovereign  of  Western  Europe,  and  that  one  was 
the  existence  of  the  old  Romano-Germanic  Em- 
pire. Napoleon  had  not  long  assumed  his  new 
title  when  he  began  to  mark  a  distinction  between 
'la  France'  and  'I'Empire  Fran9aise. '  France 
had,  since  A.  D.  1792,  advanced  to  the  Rhine, 
and,  by  the  annexation  of  Piedmont,  had  over- 
stepped the  Alps ;  the  French  Empire  included, 
besides  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  a  mass  of  depen- 
dent states,  Naples,  Holland,  Switzerland,  and 
many  German  principalities,  the  allies  of  France 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  '  socii  populi  Ro- 
mani'  were  allies  of  Rome.  When  the  last  of 
Pitt's  coalitions  had  been  destroyed  at  Austerlitz, 
and  Austria  had  made  her  submission  by  the 
peace  of  Presburg,  the  conqueror  felt  that  his 
hour  was  come.  He  had  now  overcome  two 
Emperors,  those  of  Austria  and  Russia,  claiming 
to  represent  the  old  and  new  Rome  respectively, 
and  had  in  eighteen  months  created  more  kings 
than  the  occupants  of  the  Germanic  throne  in  as 
many  centuries.  It  was  time,  he  thought,  to 
sweep  away  obsolete  pretensions,  and  claim  the 
sole  inheritance  of  that  Western  Empire,  of  which 
the  titles  and  ceremonies  of  his  court  presented  a 
grotesque  imitation.  The  task  was  an  easy  one 
after  what  had  been  already  accomplished.  Pre- 
vious wars  and  treaties  had  so  redistributed  the 
territories  and  changed  the  constitution  of  the 
Germanic  Empire  that  it  could  hardly  be  said  to 
exist  in  anything  but  name.  .  .  .  The  Emperor 
Francis,  partly  foreboding  the  events  that  were 
at  hand,  partly  in  order  to  meet  Napoleon's  as- 
sumption of  the  imperial  name  by  depriving  that 
name  of  its  peculiar  meaning,  began  in  A.  D. 
1805  to  style  himself  'Hereditary  Emperor  of 


Austria,'  while  retaining  at  the  .same  time  his 
former  title.  The  next  act  of  the  drama  was  one 
in  which  we  may  more  readily  pardon  the  am- 
bition of  a  foreign  conqueror  than  the  traitorous 
selfishness  of  the  German  princes,  who  broke 
every  tie  of  ancient  friendship  and  duty  to  grovel 
at  his  throne.  By  the  Act  of  the  Confedera- 
tion of  the  Rhine,  signed  at  Paris,  July  13th, 
1806,  Bavaria,  Wiirtemberg,  Baden,  and  several 
other  states,  sixteen  in  all,  withdrew  from  the 
body  and  repudiated  the  laws  of  the  Empire, 
while  on  August  1st  the  French  envoy  at  Re- 
gensburg  announced  to  the  Diet  that  his  master, 
who  had  consented  to  become  Protector  of  the 
Confederate  princes,  no  longer  recognized  the 
existence  of  the  Empire.  Francis  II.  resolved  at 
once  to  anticipate  this  new  Odoacer,  and  by  a 
declaration,  dated  August  6th,  1806,  resigned  the 
imperial  dignit}'.  His  deed  states  that  finding 
it  impossible,  in  the  altered  state  of  things,  to 
fulfil  the  obligations  imposed  by  his  capitula- 
tion, he  considers  as  dissolved  the  bonds  which 
attached  him  to  the  Germanic  body,  releases 
from  their  allegiance  the  states  who  formed  it, 
and  retires  to  the  government  of  his  hereditary 
dominions  under  the  title  of  '  Emperor  of  Aus- 
tria.'  Throughout,  the  term  'German  Empire' 
(Deutsches  Reich)  is  employed.  But  it  was  the 
crown  of  Augustus,  of  Constantine,  of  Charles,  of 
Maximilian,  that  Francis  of  Hapsburg  laid  down, 
and  a  new  era  in  the  world's  history  was  marked 
by  the  fall  of  its  most  venerable  institution. 
One  thousand  and  six  years  after  Leo  the  Pope 
had  crowned  the  Prankish  king,  eighteen  hun- 
dred and  fifty-eight  years  after  Cfesar  had  con- 
quered at  Pharsalia,  the  Holy  Roman  Empire 
came  to  its  end." — J.  Bryce,  T!ie  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  ch.  20. 

A.  D.  l8o6  (January— August).— The  Con- 
federation of  the  Rhine. — Cession  of  Hanover 
to  Prussia. — Double  dealing  and  weakness  of 
the  latter. — Her  submission  to  Napoleon's  in- 
sults and  wrongs. — Final  goading  of  the  na- 
tion to  war. — "  The  object  at  which  all  French 
politicians  had  aimed  since  the  outbreak  of  the 
Revolutionary  War,  the,  exclusion  of  both  Aus- 
tria and  Prussia  from  influence  in  Western  Ger- 
many, was  now  completely  attained.  The  tri- 
umph of  Prcuch  statesmanship,  the  consumma- 
tion of  two  centuries  of  German  discord,  was 
seen  in  the  Act  of  Federation  subscribed  by  the 
Western  Gorman  Sovereigns  in  the  summer  of 
1806.  By  this  Act  the  Kings  of  Bavaria  and 
Wi'irtemberg,  the  Elector  of  Baden,  and  13  minor 
princes,  united  themselves,  in  the  League  known 
as  the  Rhenish  Confederacy,  under  the  protection 
of  the  French  Emperor,  and  undertook  to  fur- 
nish contingents,  amounting  to  63,000  men,  in  all 
wars  in  which  the  French  Empire  should  engage. 
Their  connection  with  the  ancient  Germanic 
Body  was  completely  severed ;  the  very  town  in 
which  the  Diet  of  the  Empire  had  held  its  meet- 
ings was  annexed  by  one  of  the  members  of  the 
Confederacy.  The  Confederacy  itself,  with  a 
population  of  8,000,000,  became  for  all  purposes 
of  war  and  foreign  policy  a  part  of  France.  Its 
armies  were  organised  by  French  officers;  its 
frontiers  were  fortified  by  French  engineers ;  its 
treaties  were  made  for  it  at  Paris.  In  the  domes- 
tic changes  which  took  place  within  these  States 
the  work  of  consolidation  begun  in  1801  was  car- 
ried forward  with  increased  vigour.  Scores  of 
tiny  principalities  which  had  escaped  dissolution 


3541 


GERMANY,  1806. 


Napoleon's 

insolence. 


GERMANY,  1806. 


in  the  earlier  movement  were  now  absorbed  by 
their  stronger  neighbours.  .  .  .  With  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Rlienish  Confederacy  and  tlie 
conquest  of  Naples,  Napoleon's  empire  reached, 
but  did  not  overpass,  the  limits  within  which  the 
sovereignty  of  France  might  probably  have  been 
long  maintained.  ...  If  we  may  judge  from 
the  feeling  with  which  Napoleon  was  regarded 
in  Germany  down  to  the  middle  of  the  year  1806, 
and  in  Italy  down  to  a  much  later  date,  the  Em- 
pire then  founded  might  have  been  permanently 
upheld,  if  Napoleon  had  abstained  from  attack- 
ing other  States."  During  the  winter  of  1806, 
Count  Haugwitz,  the  Prussian  minister,  had  vis- 
ited Paris  "for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  some 
modification  in  the  treaty  which  he  had  signed 
[at  the  palace  of  SchOnbrunn,  near  Vienna]  on  be- 
half of  Prussia  after  the  battle  of  Austerlitz. 
The  principal  feature  in  that  treaty  had  been  the 
grant  of  Hanover  to  Prussia  by  the  French  Em- 
peror in  return  for  its  alliance.  This  was  the 
point  which  above  all  others  excited  King  Fred- 
erick "William's  fears  and  scruples.  He  desired 
to  acquire  Hanover,  but  he  also  desired  to  derive 
his  title  rather  from  its  English  owner  [King 
George  III.,  who  was  also  Elector  of  Hanover] 
than  from  its  French  invader.  It  was  the  object 
of  Haugwitz'  visit  to  Paris  to  obtain  an  altera- 
tion in  the  terms  of  the  treaty  which  should 
make  the  Prussian  occupation  of  Hanover  ap- 
pear to  be  merely  provisional,  and  reserve  to  the 
King  of  England  at  least  a  nominal  voice  in  its 
ultimate  transfer.  In  full  confidence  that  Napo- 
leon would  agree  to  such  a  change,  the  King  of 
Prussia,  on  taking  possession  of  Hanover  in  Jan- 
uary, 1806,  concealed  the  fact  of  its  cession  to 
himself  by  Napoleon,  and  published  an  untruth- 
ful proclamation.  .  .  .  The  bitter  truth  that  the 
treaty  between  France  and  Prussia  contained  no 
single  word  reserving  the  rights  of  the  Elector, 
and  that  the  very  idea  of  qualifying  the  abso- 
lute cession  of  Hanover  was  an  afterthought, 
lay  hidden  in  the  conscience  of  the  Prussian 
Government.  Never  had  a  Government  more 
completely  placed  itself  at  the  mercy  of  a  pitiless 
enemy.  Count  Haugwitz,  on  reaching  Paris, 
was  received  by  Napoleon  with  a  storm  of  indig- 
nation and  contempt.  Napoleon  declared  that 
the  ill-faith  of  Prussia  had  made  an  end  even  of 
that  miserable  pact  which  had  been  extorted 
after  Austerlitz,  and  insisted  that  Prussia  should 
openly  defy  Great  Britain  by  closing  the  ports  of 
Northern  Germany  to  British  vessels,  and  by  de- 
claring itself  endowed  by  Napoleon  with  Han- 
over in  virtue  of  Napoleon's  own  right  of  con- 
quest. Haugwitz  signed  a  second  and  more 
humiliating  treaty  [February  15]  embodying 
these  conditions ;  and  the  Prussian  Government, 
now  brought  into  the  depths  of  contempt,  but 
unready  for  immediate  war,  executed  the  orders 
of  its  master.  ...  A  decree  was  published  ex- 
cluding the  ships  of  England  from  the  ports  of 
Prussia  and  from  those  of  Hanover  itself  (March 
28,  1806).  It  was  promptly  followed  by  the  seiz- 
ure of  400  Prussian  vessels  in  British  harbours, 
and  by  the  total  extinction  of  Prussian  maritime 
commerce  by  British  privateers.  Scarcely  was 
Prussia  committed  to  this  ruinous  conflict  with 
Great  Britain  when  Napoleon  opened  negotia- 
tions for  peace  with  Mr.  Fox's  Government.  The 
first  condition  required  by  Great  Britain  was  the 
restitution  of  Hanover  to  King  George  III.  It 
was  unhesitatingly  granted  by  Napoleon.     Thus 


was  Prussia  to  be  mocked  of  its  prey,  after  it  had 
been  robbed  of  all  its  honour.  .  .  .  There  was 
scarcely  a  courtier  in  Berlin  who  did  not  feel  that 
the  yoke  of  the  French  had  become  past  endur- 
ance ;  even  Haugwitz  himself  now  considered 
war  as  a  question  of  time.  The  patriotic  party 
in  the  capital  and  the  younger  officers  of  the 
army  bitterly  denounced  the  dishonoured  Gov- 
ernment, and  urged  the  King  to  strike  for  the 
credit  of  his  country.  .  .  .  Brunswick  was  sum- 
moned to  the  King's  council  to  form  plans  of  a 
campaign;  and  appeals  for  help  were  sent  to 
Vienna,  to  St.  Petersburg,  and  even  to  the  hostile 
Court  of  London.  The  condition  of  Prussia  at 
this  critical  moment  was  one  which  filled  with 
the  deepest  alarm  those  few  patriotic  statesmen 
who  were  not  blinded  by  national  vanity  or  by  a 
slavery  to  routine.  .  .  .  Early  in  the  year  1806  a 
paper  was  drawn  up  by  Stein,  exposing,  in  lan- 
guage seldom  used  by  a  statesman,  the  character 
of  the  men  by  whom  Frederick  William  was  sur- 
rounded, and  declaring  that  nothing  but  a  speedy 
change  of  system  could  save  the  Prussian  State 
from  utter  downfall  and  ruin.  Two  measures  of 
immediate  necessity  were  specified  by  Stein,  the 
establishment  of  a  responsible  council  of  Minis- 
ters, and  the  removal  of  Haugwitz  and  all  his 
friends  from  power.  .  .  .  The  army  of  Prussia 
.  .  .  was  nothing  but  the  army  of  Frederick  the 
Great  grown  twenty  years  older.  .  .  .  All  South- 
ern Germany  was  still  in  Napoleon's  hands.  The 
appearance  of  a  Russian  force  in  Dalmatia,  after 
tliat  country  had  been  ceded  by  Austria  to  the 
French  Emperor,  had  given  Napoleon  an  excuse 
for  maintaining  his  troops  in  their  positions  be- 
yond the  Rhine.  As  the  probability  of  a  war 
with  Prussia  became  greater  and  greater,  Napo- 
leon tightened  his  grasp  upon  the  Confederate 
States.  Publications  originating  among  the  pa- 
triotic circles  of  Austria  were  beginning  to  ap- 
peal to  the  German  people  to  unite  against  a 
foreign  oppressor.  An  anonymous  pamphlet, 
entitled  '  Germany  in  its  Deep  Humiliation,'  was 
sold  by  various  booksellers  in  Bavaria,  among 
others  by  Palm,  a  citizen  of  Nuremberg.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  Palm  was  even  acquainted 
with  the  contents  of  the  pamphlet;  but  .  .  .  Na- 
poleon .  .  .  required  a  victim  to  terrify  those 
who,  among  the  German  people,  might  be  in- 
clined to  listen  to  the  call  of  patriotism.  Palm 
was  not  too  obscure  for  the  new  Charlemagne. 
The  innocent  and  unoffending  man,  innocent 
even  of  the  honourable  crime  of  attempting  to 
save  his  country,  was  dragged  before  a  tribunal 
of  French  soldiers,  and  executed  within  twenty- 
four  hours  of  his  trial,  in  pursuance  of  the  im- 
perative orders  of  Napoleon  (August  26).  .  .  . 
Several  years  later,  .  .  .  the  story  of  Palm's 
death  was  one  of  those  that  kindled  the  bitterest 
sense  of  wrong ;  at  the  time,  it  exercised  no  in- 
fluence upon  the  course  of  political  events. 
Prussia  had  already  resolved  upon  war." — C.  A. 
Fyffe,  Hist,  of  Modern  Eiirope,  v.  1,  ch.  6-7. 

Also  in  :  Sir  W.  Scott,  Life  of  Kapoleon,  ch. 
51-52. — J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein,  pt. 
2,  ch.  4-5  (v.  1). — P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon, 
V.  2,  ch.  15. 

A.  D.  i8o6  (October).  —  Napoleon's  sudden 
invasion  of  Prussia. — The  decisive  battle  of 
Jena. — Prostration  of  the  Prussian  Kingdom. 
— "The  Emperor  of  Russia  .  .  .  visited  Berlin, 
when  the  feelings  of  Prussia,  and  indeed  of  all 
the  neighbouring  states,  were  in  this  fever  of 


1542 


GERMANY,  1806. 


Jena  and 
its  consequences. 


GERMANY,  180e. 


excitement.  He  again  urged  Fredericlf  William 
to  take  up  arms  in  the  common  cause,  and  offered 
to  back  him  with  all  the  forces  of  his  own  great 
empire.  The  Bnglisli  government,  taking  ad- 
vantage of  the  same  crisis,  sent  Lord  Morpeth  to 
Berlin,  with  offers  of  pecuniary  supplies  —  about 
the  acceptance  of  which,  however,  the  anxiety 
of  Prussia  on  the  subject  of  Hanover  created 
some  difficulty.  Lastly,  Buonaparte,  well  in- 
formed of  what  was  passing  in  Berlin,  and  de- 
sirous, since  war  must  be,  to  hurry  Frederick 
into  the  field  ere  the  armies  of  the  Czar  could  be 
joined  with  his,  now  poured  out  in  the  '  Moni- 
teur' such  abuse  on  the  persons  and  characters 
of  the  Queen,  Prince  Louis,  and  every  illustrious 
patriot  throughout  Prussia,  that  the  general 
wrath  could  no  longer  be  held  in  check.  War- 
like preparations  of  every  kind  filled  the  king- 
dom during  August  and  September.  On  the  1st 
of  October  the  Prussian  minister  at  Paris  pre- 
sented a  note  to  Talleyrand,  demanding,  among 
other  things,  that  the  formation  of  a  confederacy 
in  the  nortli  of  Germany  should  no  longer  be 
thwarted  by  French  interference,  and  that  the 
French  troops  within  tlie  territories  of  the  Rhen- 
ish League  should  recross  the  Rhine  into  France, 
by  the  8th  of  the  same  month  of  October.  But 
Napoleon  was  already  in  person  on  the  German 
side  of  the  Rhine;  and  his  answer  to  the  Prus- 
sian note  was  a  general  order  to  liis  own  troops, 
in  which  he  called  on  them  to  observe  in  what 
manner  a  German  sovereign  still  dared  to  insult 
the  soldiers  of  Austerlitz.  The  conduct  of  Prus- 
sia, in  thus  rushing  into  hostilities  without  wait- 
ing for  the  advance  of  the  Russians,  was  as  rash 
as  her  holding  back  from  Austria  during  the 
campaign  of  Austerlitz  had  been  cowardly.  As 
if  determined  to  profit  by  no  lesson,  the  Prussian 
council  also  directed  their  army  to  advance  to- 
wards the  French,  instead  of  lying  on  their  own 
frontier  —  a  repetition  of  the  great  leading  blun- 
der of  the  Austrians  in  the  preceding  year.  The 
Prussian  army  accordingly  invaded  the  Saxon 
provinces,  and  the  Elector  .  .  .  was  compelled 
to  accept  the  alliance  which  the  cabinet  of  Ber- 
lin urged  on  him,  and  to  join  his  troops  with 
those  of  the  power  by  which  he  had  been  thus 
insulted  and  wronged.  No  sooner  did  Napoleon 
know  that  the  Prussians  had  advanced  into  the 
heart  of  Saxony,  than  he  formed  the  plan  of  his 
campaign ;  and  the}',  persisting  in  their  advance, 
and  taking  up  their  position  finally  on  the  Saale, 
afforded  him,  as  if  studiously,  the  means  of  re- 
peating, at  their  expense,  the  very  manoeuvres 
which  had  ruined  the  Austrians  in  the  preceding 
campaign."  The  flank  of  the  Prussian  position 
was  turned, — the  bridge  across  the  Saale,  at  Saal- 
field,  having  been  secured,  after  a  hot  engage- 
ment with  the  corps  of  Prince  Louis  of  Prussia 
who  fell  in  the  fight, — "  the  French  army  passed 
entirely  round  them ;  Napoleon  seized  Naum- 
burg  and  blew  up  the  magazines  there, —  an- 
nouncing, for  the  first  time,  by  this  explosion,  to 
the  King  of  Prussia  and  his  generalissimo  the 
Duke  of  Brunswick,  that  he  was  in  their  rear. 
From  this  moment  the  Prussians  were  isolated, 
and  cut  off  from  all  their  resources,  as  completely 
as  the  army  of  Mack  was  at  Ulm,  when  the 
French  had  passed  the  Danube  and  overrun 
Suabia.  The  Duke  of  Brunswick  hastily  en- 
deavoured to  concentrate  his  forces  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cutting  his  way  back  again  to  the  frontier 
which  he  had  so  rashly  abandoned.     Napoleon, 


meantime,  had  posted  his  divisions  so  as  to  watch 
the  chief  passages  of  the  Saale,  and  expected,  in 
confidence,  the  assault  of  his  outwitted  opponent. 
It  was  now  that  he  found  leisure  to  answer  the 
manifesto  of  Frederick  William.  .  .  .  His  letter, 
dated  at  Gera,  is  written  in  the  most  elaborate 
style  of  insult.  .  .  .  The  Prussian  King  under- 
stood well,  on  learning  the  fall  of  Naumburg. 
the  imminent  danger  of  his  position;  and  his 
army  was  forthwith  set  in  motion,  in  two  great 
masses;  the  former, where  he  was  in  person  pres- 
ent, advancing  towards  Naumburg;  the  latter 
attempting,  in  like  manner,  to  force  their  pas- 
sage through  the  French  line  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Jena.  The  King's  march  was  arrested 
at  Auerstadt  by  Davoust,  who,  after  a  severely 
contested  action,  at  length  repelled  the  assailant. 
Napoleon  himself,  meanwhile,  was  engaged  with 
the  other  great  body  of  the  Prussians.  Arriving 
on  the  evening  of  the  13th  October  at  Jena,  he 
perceived  that  the  enemy  were  ready  to  attempt 
the  advance  next  morning,  while  his  own  heavy 
train  was  still  six-and-thirty  hours'  march  in  his 
rear.  Not  discouraged  with  this  adverse  circum- 
stance, the  Emperor  laboured  all  night  in  directing 
and  encouraging  his  soldiery  to  cut  a  road  through 
the  rocks,  and  draw  up  by  that  means  such  light 
guns  as  he  had  at  command  to  a  position  on  a 
lofty  plateau  in  front  of  Jena,  where  no  man 
could  have  expected  beforehand  that  any  artil- 
lery whatever  should  be  planted.  .  .  .  Lannes 
commanded  the  centre,  Augereau  the  right,  Soult 
the  left,  and  Murat  the  reserve  and  cavalry. 
Soult  had  to  sustain  the  first  assault  of  the  Prus- 
sians, which  was  violent  —  and  sudden;  for  the 
mist  lay  so  thick  on  the  field  that  the  armies 
were  within  half-gunshot  of  each  other  ere  the 
sun  and  wind  rose  and  discovered  them,  and  on 
that  instant  Mollendorf  charged.  The  battle  was 
contested  well  for  some  time  on  this  point ;  but 
at  length  Ney  appeared  in  the  rear  of  the  Em- 
peror with  a  fresh  division;  and  then  the  French 
centre  advanced  to  a  general  charge,  before 
which  the  Prussians  were  forced  to  retire.  They 
moved  for  some  space  in  good  order;  but  Murat 
now  poured  his  masses  of  cavalry  on  them, 
storm  after  storm,  with  such  rapidity  and  vehe- 
mence that  their  rout  became  inevitable.  It 
ended  in  the  complete  breaking  up  of  the  army 
—  horse  and  foot  all  flying  together,  in  the  con- 
fusion of  panic,  upon  the  road  to  Weimar.  At 
that  point  the  fugitives  met  and  mingled  with 
their  brethren  flying,  as  confusedly  as  themselves, 
from  Auerstadt.  In  the  course  of  this  disastrous 
day  20,000  Prussians  were  killed  or  taken,  300 
guns,  20  generals,  and  60  standards.  The  Com- 
mander-in-Chief, the  Duke  of  Brunswick,  being 
wounded  in  the  face  with  a  grape-shot,  was 
carried  early  off  the  field,  never  to  recover.  .  .  . 
The  various  routed  divisions  roamed  about  the 
country,  seeking  separately  the  means  of  escape : 
they  were  in  consequence  destined  to  fall  an 
easy  prej'.  .  .  .  The  Prince  of  Hohenlohe  at 
length  drew  together  not  less  than  50,000  of 
these  wandering  soldiers,"  and  retreated  towards 
the  Oder;  but  was  forced,  in  the  end,  to  lay 
down  his  arms  at  Prentzlow.  "His  rear,  con- 
sisting of  about  10,000,  under  the  command  of 
the  celebrated  General  Blucher,  was  so  far  be- 
hind as  to  render  it  possible  for  them  to  attempt 
escape.  Their  heroic  leader  traversed  the  coun- 
try with  them  for  some  time  unbroken,  and 
sustained  a  variety  of  assaults,  from  far  superior 


1543 


GERMANY,  1806. 


NapoleorVs  oppression 
of  Prussia, 


GERMANY,  1806. 


numbers,  with  the  most  obstinate  resolution. 
By  degrees,  however,  the  French,  under  Soult, 
hemmed  him  in  on  one  side,  Murat  on  the  otlier, 
and  Bernadotte  appeared  close  behind  him.  He 
was  thus  forced  to  throw  himself  into  Lubeck, 
where  a  severe  action  was  fought  in  the  streets 
of  the  town,  on  the  6th  of  November.  The  Prus- 
sian, in  this  battle,  lost  4,000  prisoners,  besides 
the  slain  and  wounded :  he  retreated  to  Schwerta, 
and  there,  it  being  impossible  for  him  to  go  far- 
ther without  violating  the  neutrality  of  Denmark, 
on  the  morning  of  the  7th,  Blucher  at  length 
laid  down  his  arms.  .  .  .  The  strong  fortresses 
of  the  Prussian  monarchy  made  as  ineffectual 
resistance  as  the  armies  in  the  field.  .  .  .  Buona- 
parte, in  person,  entered  Berlin  on  the  85th  of 
October;  and  before  the  end  of  November,  ex- 
cept Konigsberg —  where  the  King  himself  had 
found  refuge,  and  gathered  roimd  him  a  few 
thousand  troops  .  .  .  — and  a  few  less  impor- 
tant fortresses,  the  whole  of  the  German  posses- 
sions of  the  house  of  Brandenburg  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  conqueror.  Louis  Buonaparte,  King 
of  Holland,  meanwhile  had  advanced  into  West- 
phalia and  occupied  that  territory  also,  with 
great  part  of  Hanover,  East  Friesland,  Embden, 
and  the  dominions  of  Hesse-Cassel. " — J.  G.  Lock- 
hart,  Life  of  Napoleon,  ch.  20. 

Also  in:  C.  Adams,  Great  Campaigns  in 
Europe  from  1796  to  1870,  ch.  4. — Baron  Jomini, 
Life  of  Napoleon,  ch.  9  (y.  3). — Memoirs  of  Napo- 
leon dictated  at  St.  Helena,  v.  6,  pp.  60-72. — Sir 
A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  1789-1815,  ch.  43  (v. 
10). — Duke  of  Rovigo,  Memoirs,  v.  1,  pt.  2,  ch. 
21-23. 

A.  D.  i8o6  (October — December). —  Napo- 
leon's ungenerous  use  of  his  victory. — His  in- 
sults to  the  Queen  of  Prussia. — The  kingdom 
governed  as  conquered  territory. — The  French 
advance  into  Poland,  to  meet  the  Russians. — 
Saxony  made  a  kingdom. —  "Napoleon  made  a 
severe  and  ungenerous  use  of  his  victory.  Tlie 
old  Duke  of  Brunswick,  respectable  from  his  age, 
his  achievements  under  the  Great  Frederick,  and 
the  honourable  wounds  he  had  recently  received 
on  the  field  of  battle,  and  who  had  written  a 
letter  to  Napoleon,  after  the  battle  of  Jena, 
recommending  his  subjects  to  his  generosity, 
was  in  an  especial  manner  the  object  of  invec- 
tive. His  states  were  overrun,  and  the  official 
bulletins  disgraced  by  a  puerile  tirade  against  a 
general  who  liad  done  nothing  but  discharge  his 
duty  to  his  sovereign.  For  this  he  was  punished 
by  the  total  confiscation  of  his  dominions.  So 
virulent  was  the  language  employed,  and  such 
the  apprelicnsions  in  consequence  inspired,  that 
the  wounded  general  was  compelled,  with  great 
personal  suffering,  to  take  refuge  in  Altona, 
where  he  soon  after  died.  The  Queen,  whose 
spirit  in  prosperous  and  constancy  in  adverse  for- 
tune had  justly  endeared  her  to  her  subjects, 
and  rendered  her  the  admiration  of  all  Europe, 
was  pursued  in  successive  bulletins  with  un- 
manly sarcasms;  and  a  heroic  princess,  whose 
only  fault,  if  fault  it  was,  had  been  an  excess  of 
patriotic  ardour,  was  compared  to  Helen,  whose 
faithless  vices  had  involved  her  country  in  the 
calamities  consequent  on  the  siege  of  Troy.  The 
whole  dominions  of  the  Elector  of  Hesse  Cassel 
were  ne.\t  seized ;  and  that  prince,  who  had  not 
even  combated  at  Jena,  but  merely  permitted, 
when  he  could  not  prevent,  the  entry  of  the 
Prussians  into  his  dominions,  was  dethroned  and 


deprived  of  all  his  possessions.  .  .  .  The  Prince 
of  Orange,  brother-in-law  to  the  King  of  Prussia, 
.  .  .  shared  the  same  fate :  while  to  the  nobles 
of  Berlin  he  used  publicly  the  cruel  expression, 
more  withering  to  his  own  reputation  tlian  theirs, 
— 'I  will  render  that  noblesse  so  poor  that  they 
shall  be  obliged  to  beg  their  bread.' .  .  .  Mean- 
while the  French  armies,  without  any  further  re- 
sistance, took  possession  of  tlie  wliole  country 
between  the  Rhine  and  the  Oder ;  and  in  the  rear 
of  the  victorious  bands  appeared,  in  severity  un- 
precedented even  in  the  revolutionary  armies, 
the  dismal  scourge  of  contributions.  Resolved 
to  maintain  tlie  war  exclusively  on  the  provinces 
which  were  to  be  its  theatre.  Napoleon  had  taken 
only  24,000  francs  in  specie  across  the  Rliine  in 
the  military  clicst  of  the  army.  It  soon  appeared 
from  whom  the  deficiency  was  to  be  supplied. 
On  the  day  after  the  battle  of  Jena  appeared  a 
proclamation,  directing  the  levy  of  an  extraor- 
dinary war  contribution  of  1.59,000,000  francs 
(£6,300,000)  on  the  countries  at  war  witli  France, 
of  which  100,000,000  was  to  be  borne  by  the 
Prussian  states  to  the  west  of  the  Vistula, 
25,000,000  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony  [who  had 
already  detaclicd  himself  from  his  alliance  with 
Prussia],  and  the  remainder  by  the  lesser  states 
in  tlie  Prussian  confederacy.  This  enormous 
burden  .  .  .  was  levied  with  unrelenting  sever- 
ity. .  .  .  Nor  was  this  all.  The  whole  civil  au- 
thorities who  remained  in  the  abandoned  prov- 
inces were  compelled  to  take  an  oath  of  fidelity 
to  the  French  Emperor, —  an  unprecedented  step, 
which  clearly  indicated  the  intention  of  annex- 
ing the  Prussian  dominions  to  the  great  nation. 
.  .  .  Early  in* November  tliere  appeared  an  elab- 
orate ordinance,  which  provided  for  the  complete 
civil  organisation  and  military  occupation  of  the 
whole  country  from  tlie  Rhine  to  the  Vistula. 
By  this  decree  the  conquered  states  were  divided 
into  four  departments ;  those  of  Berlin,  of  Mag- 
deburg, of  Stettin,  and  of  Custrin ;  the  military 
and  civil  government  of  the  wliole  conquered 
territory  was  intrusted  to  a  governor-general  at 
Berlin,  having  under  him  eight  commanders  of 
provinces  into  which  it  was  divided.  .  .  .  The 
same  system  of  government  was  extended  to  the 
duchy  of  Brunswick,  the  states  of  Hesse  and 
Hanover,  the  duchy  of  Mecklenburg,  and  the 
Hanse  towns,  including  Hamburg,  whicli  was 
speedily  oppressed  by  grievous  contributions. 
.  .  .  The  Emperor  openly  announcecl  liis  deter- 
mination to  retain  possession  of  all  these  states 
till  England  consented  to  his  demands  on  the 
subject  of  the  liberty  of  the  seas.  .  .  .  Mean- 
while the  negotiations  for  the  conclusion  of  a 
separate  peace  between  France  and  Prussia  were 
resumed.  .  .  .  The  severity  of  the  terms  de- 
manded, as  well  as  .  .  .  express  assurances  that 
no  concessions,  how  great  soever,  could  lead  to  a 
separate  accommodation,  as  Napoleon  was  re- 
solved to  retain  all  his  conquests  until  a  general 
peace,  led,  as  might  have  been  expected,  to  the 
rupture  of  the  negotiations.  Desperate  as  the 
fortunes  of  Prussia  were,  .  .  .  the  King  .  .  . 
declared  his  resolution  to  stand  or  fall  with  the 
Emperor  of  Russia  [wlio  was  vigorously  pre- 
paring to  fulfil  his  promise  of  help  to  the  stricken 
nation].  This  refusal  was  anticipated  by  Napo- 
leon. It  readied  him  at  Posen,  whither  he  had 
advanced  on  his  road  to  the  Vistula ;  and  notliing 
remained  but  to  enter  vigorously  on  the  prose- 
cution of  the  war  in  Poland.     To  this  period  of 


1544 


GERMANY,  1806. 


Napoleon  and 
Russia. 


GERMANY,  1806-1807. 


the  war  belongs  the  famous  Berlin  decree  [see 
France-  A.  D.  1806-1810]  of  the  21st  Novem- 
ber against  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain.      .  . 
Napoleon  .--.  .  at   Posen,    in   Prussian   Poland, 
gave  audience  to  the  deputies  of  that  unhappy 
kinffdom,  who  came  to  implore  his  support  to 
the  remains  of  its  once  mighty  domimon_.     His 
words  were  calculated  to  excite  hopes  which  his 
subsequent  conduct  never  realised.   .  .  .    While 
the  main  bodv  of  the  French  army  was  advanc- 
ino-  by  rapid 'strides  from  the  Oder  to  the  Vis- 
tula Napoleon,  ever  anxious  to  secure  his  com- 
munications, and  clear  his  rear  of  hostile  bodies 
caused  two  different  armies  to  advance  to  support 
the  flanksof  the  invading  force.  .   .  .  The  whole 
of  the  north  of  Germany  was  overrun  by  French 
troops,  while  100,000  were  assembling  to  meet 
the  formidable  legions  of  Russia  in  the  heart  ot 
Poland      Vast  as  the  forces  of  Napoleon  were, 
such  prodigious  eflforts,  over  so  great  an  extent 
of  surface,  rendered  fresh  supplies  indispensable. 
The  senate  at  Paris  was  ready  to  furnish  them ; 
and  on  the  requisition  of  the  Emperor  80,000 
were  voted  from  the  youth  who  were  to  arrive 
at  the  military  age  in  1807.  .  .  .  A  treaty  offen- 
sive and  defensive,  between  Saxony  and  France, 
was  the  natural  result  of  these  successes.     Ihis 
convention,  arranged  by  Talleyrand   was  signed 
at  Posen  on  the  12th  December.     It  stipulated 
that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  should  be  elevated  to 
the  dignity  of  king;   he  was  admitted  into  the 
Confederation  of  the  Rhine,  and  his  contingent 
fixed  at  20,000  men.     By  a  separate  article,  it 
was  provided  that  the  passage  of  foreign  troops 
across  the  kingdom  of  Saxony  should  take  place 
without  the  consent  of  the  sovereign ;  a  provision 
which  sufficiently  pointed  it  out  as  a  inihtary 
outpost  of  the  great  nation  — while,  by  a  subsid- 
iary treaty,  signed  at  Posen  three  days  after _ 
wards   the  whole  minor  princes  of  the  House  of 
Saxonv  were  also  admitted  into  the  Confederacy. 
—Sir  A   Alison,  Hist,  of  Earape,  1789-1815,  ch. 
43,  sect.  87-99  (».  10).  .  ,r      7  o 

Also  in:  P.  Lanfrey,  Hist  of  Napoleon,  ■».  3, 
cji  16  —Mrs  S.  Austin,  Germany  from  1760  to 
1814  p  394,  and  after.— E.  H.  Hudson,  Life 
and  'Times  of  Louisa,  Queen  of  Prussia,  v.  3,  ch. 

A    D.  1806-1807.— Opening   of  Napoleons 
campaign  against  the  Russians.— The  de  ud- 
ing  of  the  Poles.— Indecisive  battle  of  Eylau. 
—The  campaign  against  the  Russians  "opened 
early  in  the  winter.     The  1st  of  November,  the 
Russians  and  French  inarched  towards  the  Vis- 
tula  the  former  from  the  Memel,  the  latter  from 
the  Oder      Fifty  thousand  Russians  pressed  for- 
ward under  General  Benningsen;   a  second  and 
equal  army  followed  at  a  distance  with  a  reserve 
force      Some  of  the  Russian  forces  on  the  Turk- 
ish frontier  were  recalled,  but  were  still  remote. 
The  first  two  Russian  armies,  with  the  remaining 
Prussians,   numbered  about  120,000.      England 
made  many   promises  and  kept  few  of  them 
thinking  more  of  conquering  Spanish  and  Dutch 
colonies   than  of   helping   her  allies.      Her  aid 
was  limited    to  a  small  reinforcement  of    the 
Swedes  guarding  Swedish  Pomerania,  the  only 
portion  of  Northern  Germany  not  yet  in  French 
power.     Gustavus  II.,  the  young  King  of  Swe- 
den weak  and  impulsive,  rushed  headlong,  with- 
out' a  motive,  into   the   .    .    .   alliance   [against 
Napoleon],  destined  to  be  so  fatal  to  Sweden. 
Eighty  thousand  men  under  Murat  crossed 


the  Oder  and  entered  Prussian  Poland,  and  an 
equal    number    stood    ready   to    sustain   them. 
November  9,  Davoufs  division  entered  Posen 
the  principal  town  of  the  Polish  provinces  still 
preserving   the   national   sentiment,   and   whose 
people  detested   Prussian  rule  and  resented  the 
treachery  with  which  Prussia  dismembered  Po- 
land after  swearing  alliance  with  her.     All  along 
the  road,   the   peasants  hastened    to  meet   the 
French;  and  at  Posen,  Davout  was  hailed  with 
an  enthusiasm  which  moved  even  him,  cold  and 
severe  as  he  was,  and  he  urged  Napo  eon  to  ]us- 
tify  the  hopes  of  Poland,  who  looked  to  1"'"  aj 
her    savior.      The    Russian    vanguard    reached 
Warsaw  before  the  French,  but  made  no  effort  to 
remain  there,  and  recrossed  the  Vistula.     Novem- 
ber 28  Davout  and  Murat  entered  the  town,  and 
public  delight  knew  no  bounds.     It  would  be  a 
mere  illusion  to  fancy  that  sentiments  of  right 
and  iustice  had  any  share  in  Napoleon  s  resolve, 
and  that  he  was  stirred  by  a  desire  to  repair 
great  wrongs.     His  only  question  was  whether 
the  resurrection  of  Poland   would  increase   his 
greatness  or  not;  and  if  he  told  the  Sultan  that 
he  meant  to  restore  Poland,  it  was  because  he 
thought  Turkey  would  assist  him  the  more  will- 
ingly against  Russia.      He  also  offered  part  ot 
Silesia  to  Austria,  if  she  would  aid  him  in  the 
restoration  of  Poland  by  the  cession  of  her  Polish 
provinces;  but  it  was  not  a  sufficient  offer,  and 
therefore  not  serious.     The  truth  was  that  he 
wanted  promises  from  the  Poles  before  he  made 
any  to  them.  .  .  .  Thousands  of  Poles  enlisted 
under   the  French  flag  and  joined  the  Pohsh 
legions  left  from  the  Italian  war.     Napoleon  es- 
tablished a  provisional  government  of  well-known 
Poles  in  Warsaw,  and  required  nothing  but  vol- 
unteers of  the  country.     He  had  seized  without 
a  blow  that  line  of  the  Vistula  which  the  Prus- 
sian king  would  not  barter  for  a  truce,  and  might 
have   gone  into  winter-quarters  there;   but   tne 
Russians  were   close  at  hand  on  the  opposite 
shore   iu  two  great  divisions  100,000  strong,  in  a 
wooded  and  marshy  country  forming  a  sort  ot 
triangle,  whose  point  touches  the  union  ot  the 
Narew  and  Ukra  rivers  with  the  Vistula,  a  few 
leagues  below  Warsaw.     The  Russians  communi- 
cated with  the  sea  by  a  Prussian  corps  stationed 
between  them  and  Dantzic.     Napoleon  would  not 
permit  them  to  hold  this  post,  and  resolved  to 
strike  a  blow,  before  going  into  winter-quarters 
which  should  cut  them  off  from  the   sea  and 
drive  them  back  towards  the  Memel  and  Lithu- 
ania.    He  crossed  the  Vistula,  December  23  and 
attacked  the  Russians  between  the  Narew  and  the 
Ukra      A  series  of  bloody  battles  followed  [the 
most  important  being  at  Pultusk  and  Golymin 
Dec   36]  in  the  dense  forests  and  deep  bogs  ot 
the  thawing  land.     Napoleon  said  that  he  had 
discovered  a    fifth  element  in    Poland,— mud. 
Men  and  horses  stuck  in  the  swamp  and  the  can- 
nons could  not  be  extricated.     Luckily  the  Rus- 
sians were  in  the  incompetent  hands  of  General 
Kamenski,  and  both  parties  fought  m  the  dark, 
the  labyrinth  of  swamps  and  woods  preventing 
either  army  from  guessing  the  other's  movements. 
The  Russians  were  finally  driven,  with  great  loss, 
beyond  the  Narew  towards  the  forests  of  Bel- 
ostok,   and  a  Prussian  corps   striving  to  assist 
them  was  driven  back  to  the  sea.  .  .  .  The  grand 
army  did  not   long  enjoy  the  rest  it   so  much 
needed  ■  for  the  Russians,  whose  losses  were  more 
than  made  up  by  the  arrival  of  their  reserves. 


1545 


GERMANY,  1806-1807. 


Eylav 
and  Friedland. 


GERMANY,  1807. 


suddenly  resumed  the  offensive.  General  Ben- 
ningsen,  who  gave  a  fearful  proof  of  his  sinister 
energy  by  the  murder  of  Paul  I. ,  had  been  put  in 
command  in  Kamenski's  place.  Marching  round 
the  forests  and  traversing  the  line  of  lakes  which 
divide  the  basin  of  the  Narew  from  those  water- 
courses flowing  directly  to  the  sea,  he  reached 
the  maritime  part  of  old  Prussia,  intending  to 
cross  the  Vistula  and  drive  the  French  from  their 
position  in  Poland.  He  had  hoped  to  surprise 
the  French  left  wing,  lying  between  the  Passarge 
and  Lower  Vistula,  but  arrived  too  late.  Ney 
and  Bernadotte  rapidly  concentrated  their  forces 
and  fought  with  a  bravery  wliich  arrested  the 
Russians  (January  25  and  "27).  Napoleon  came 
to  the  rescue,  and  having  once  driven  the  enemy 
into  the  woods  and  marshes  of  the  interior,  now 
strove  to  turn  those  who  meant  to  turn  him,  by 
an  inverse  action  forcing  them  to  the  sea-coast. 
.  .  .  Benningsen  then  halted  beyond  Eylau,  and 
massed  his  forces  to  receive  battle  next  day  [Feb- 
ruary 8].  He  had  about  70,000  men,  tw'ice  the 
artillery  of  Napoleon  (400  guns  against  200),  and 
hoped  to  be  joined  betimes  by  a  Prussian  corps. 
Napoleon  could  only  dispose  of  60,000  out  of  his 
300,000  men, —  Ney  being  some  leagues  away 
and  Bernadotte  out  of  reach.  .  .  .  The  battle- 
field was  a  fearful  sight  next  day.  Twelve  thou- 
sand Russians  and  10,000  French  lay  dying  and 
dead  on  the  vast  fields  of  snow  reddened  with 
blood.  The  Russians,  besides,  carried  off  15,000 
wounded.  '  What  an  ineffectual  massacre !'  cried 
Ney,  as  he  traversed  the  scene  of  carnage.  This 
was  too  true ;  for  although  Napoleon  drove  the 
Russians  to  the  sea,  it  was  not  in  the  way  he 
desired.  Benningsen  succeeded  in  reaching  Kon- 
igsberg,  where  he  could  rest  and  reinforce  his 
army,  and  Napoleon  was  not  strong  enough  to 
drive  him  from  this  last  shelter." — H.  Martin, 
Popular  Hist,  of  Fi-an.ce  from  1789,   e.  2,  ch.  11. 

Also  in:  Baron  Jomini,  Life  of  Napoleon,  ch, 
10  (v.  2). — C.  Joyneville,  Life  and  Times  of  Alex- 
ander /.,  V.  1,  eh.  8. — J.  C.  Ropes,  The  First  Na- 
poleon, lect.  3. — Baron  de  Marbot,  Memoirs,  v.  1, 
ch.  39-30, 

A.  D.  1806-1810. — Commercial  blockade  by 
the  English  Orders  in  Council  and  Napoleon's 
Decrees.     See  France:  A.  D.  1806-1810. 

A.  D.  1807  (February — June). —  Closer  alli- 
ance of  Prussia  and  Russia. — Treaty  of  Bar- 
tenstein. — Napoleon's  victory  at  Friedland. — 
End  of  the  campaign. —  The  effect  produced  in 
Europe  by  the  doubtful  battle  of  Eylau  "  was 
unlucky  for  France;  iu  Paris  the  Funds  fell. 
Bennigsen  boldly  ordered  the  Te  Deum  to  be 
sung.  In  order  to  confirm  his  victory,  re-organise 
his  army,  reassure  France,  re-establish  the  opin- 
ion of  Europe,  encourage  the  Polish  insurrection, 
and  to  curb  the  ill-will  of  Germany  and  Austria, 
Napoleon  remained  a  week  at  Eylau,  He  ne- 
gotiated: on  one  side  he  caused  Talleyrand  to 
write  to  Zastrow,  the  Prussian  foreign  minister, 
to  propose  peace  and  his  alliance ;  he  sent  Ber- 
trand  to  Memel  to  offer  to  re-establish  the  King 
of  Prussia,  on  the  condition  of  no  foreign  inter- 
vention. He  also  tried  to  negotiate  with  Ben- 
nigsen ;  to  which  the  latter  made  answer,  '  that 
his  master  had  charged  him  to  tight,  and  not  ne- 
gotiate.' After  some  hesitation,  Prussia  ended 
by  joining  her  fortunes  to  those  of  Russia.  By 
the  convention  of  Bartenstein  (25th  April,  1807) 
the  two  sovereigns  came  to  terms  on  the  follow- 
ing points: — 1.  The  re-establishment  of  Prussia 


within  the  limits  of  1805.  2.  The  dissolution  of 
the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine.  3.  The  restitu- 
tion to  Austria  of  the  Tyrol  and  Venice.  4.  The 
accession  of  England  to  the  coalition,  and  the 
aggrandisement  of  Hanover.  5,  The  co-opera- 
tion of  Sweden.  6,  The  restoration  of  the  house 
of  Orange,  and  indemnities  to  the  kings  of  Naples 
and  Sardinia.  This  document  is  important;  it 
nearly  reproduces  the  conditions  offered  to  Na- 
poleon at  the  Congress  of  Prague,  in  1813.  Rus- 
sia and  Prussia  proposed  then  to  make  a  more 
pressing  appeal  to  Austria,  Sweden,  and  Eng- 
land; but  the  Emperor  Francis  was  naturally 
undecided,  and  the  Archduke  Charles,  alleging 
the  state  of  the  finances  and  the  army,  strongly 
advised  him  against  any  new  intervention.  Swe- 
den was  too  weak ;  and  notwithstanding  his  fury 
against  Napoleon,  Gustavus  IU.  had  just  been 
forced  to  treat  with  Mortier.  The  English  min- 
ister showed  a  remarkable  inability  to  conceive 
the  situation ;  he  refused  to  guarantee  the  new 
Russian  loan  of  a  hundred  and  fifty  millions,  and 
would  lend  himself  to  no  maritime  diversion. 
Napoleon  showed  the  greatest  diplomatic  activ- 
ity. The  Sultan  Selim  HI.  declared  war  against 
Russia ;  General  Sebastiani,  the  envoy  at  Con- 
stantinople, put  the  Bosphorus  in  a  state  of  de- 
fence, and  repulsed  the  English  fleet  [see  Turks: 
A.  D.  1806-1807]  ;  General  Gardane  left  for  Ispa- 
han, with  a  mission  to  cause  a  Persian  outbreak 
iu  the  Caucasus.  Dautzig  had  capitulated  [May 
24,  after  a  long  siege],  and  Lefibvre's  40,000 
men  were  therefore  ready  for  service.  Massena 
took  36,000  of  them  into  Italy.  In  the  spring, 
Bennigsen,  who  had  been  reinforced  by  10,000 
regular  troops,  6,000  Cossacks,  and  the  Imperial 
Guard,  being  now  at  the  head  of  100,000  men, 
took  the  offensive ;  Gortchakof  commanding  the 
right  and  Bagration  the  left.  He  tried,  as  in  the 
preceding  year,  to  seize  Ney's  division;  but  the 
latter  fought,  as  he  retired,  two  bloody  fights, 
at  Gutstadt  and  Ankendorff.  Bennigsen,  again 
in  danger  of  being  surrounded,  retired  on  Heils- 
berg.  He  defended  himself  bravely  (June  10); 
but  the  French,  extending  their  line  on  his  right, 
marched  on  Eylau,  so  as  to  cut  him  off  from 
Konigsberg.  The  Russian  generalissimo  re- 
treated ;  but  being  pressed,  he  had  to  draw  up  at 
Friedland,  on  the  Alle.  The  position  he  had 
taken  up  was  most  dangerous.  AH  his  army  was 
enclosed  in  an  angle  of  the  Alle,  with  the  steep  bed 
of  the  river  at  their  backs,  which  in  case  of  mis- 
fortune left  them  only  one  means  of  retreat,  over 
the  three  bridges  of  Friedland.  .  .  .  '  AVhcre  are 
the  Russians  concealed?'  asked  Napoleon  when 
he  came  up.  When  he  had  noted  their  situation, 
he  exclaimed,  '  It  is  not  every  day  that  one  sur- 
prises the  enemy  in  such  a  fault.'  He  put  Lannes 
and  Victor  in  reserve,  ordered  Mortier  to  oppose 
Gortchakof  on  the  left  and  to  remain  still,  as  the 
movement  which  '  would  be  made  by  the  right 
would  pivot  on  the  left. '  As  to  Ney,  he  was  to 
cope  on  the  right  with  Bagration,  who  was  shut 
in  by  the  angle  of  the  river ;  he  was  to  meet  them 
'with  his  head  down,'  without  taking  any  care 
of  his  own  safety.  Ney  led  the  charge  with  irre- 
sistible fury ;  the  Russians  were  riddled  by  his 
artillery  at  150  paces:  he  successively  crushed  the 
chasseurs  of  the  Russian  Guard,  the  Ismal'lovski, 
and  the  Horse  Guards,  burnt  Friedland  by  shells, 
and  cannonaded  the  bridges  which  were  the 
only  means  of  retreat.  .  .  .  The  Russian  left  wing 
was  almost  thrown  into  the  river;   Bagration, 


1546 


GERMANY,  1807. 


D  eatii  of 
Tilsit. 


GERMANY,  1807. 


■with  the  Semenovski  and  other  troops,  was  hardly 
able  to  cover  the  defeat.     On  the  Russian  right, 
Gortchakof,  who  had  advanced   to  attack  the 
^movable  Mortier,  had  only  time    o  ford  t^he 
Alle      Count  Lambert  retired  with  29  guns  by 
the  left  bank;  the  rest  fled  by  the  right  bank, 
closely   pursued  by   the    cavalry.      Meanwhile 
Murat    Davoust,  and  Soult,  who  had  taken  no 
part  to  the   battle,  arrived  before  K6nigsberg 
Lestocq,  with  2.5,000  men  tried  to  defend  it  but 
on  learning  the  disaster  of  Fnedland  he  hastily 
evacuated  it.     Only  one  fortress  now  remained 
to  Frederick  William  -  the  little  town  ot  :\Iemc 
The  Russians  had  lost  at  Fnedland  from  15  000 
to  20  000  men,  besides  80  guns  (June  U,  1800- 
Alexander  had  no  longer  an  army.    Only  one 
man,  Barclay  de  Tolly,  proposed  to  contmue  the 
war  •  but  in  order  to  do  this  it  would  be  necessary 
to  re-enter  Russia,  to  penetrate   into  the  very 
heart  of  the  empire,  to  burn  everything  on  the 
way,  and  only  present  a  desert  to  the  enemy. 
Alexander  hoped  to  get  off  more  cheaply.     He 
wrote  a  severe  letter  to  Bennigsen,  and  gave  him 
powers  to  treat."— A.  Rambaud,  Hist,  oj  Rimui, 

v.  2,  ch.  12.  .        ,,       .  o      / 

Also  in  :  Duke  de  Rovigo,  Memoirs,  v.  3,  pt. 

1,  ch.  4-6.  _.     -,.      1      r-T-i 

A   D.  1807  {June—July).-The  Treaty  of  Til- 
sit —Its  known  and  its  unknown  agreements. 

—•"'Alexander  I.  now  determined  to  negotiate  111 
person  with  the  rival  emperor,  and  on  the  2oth 
ot  June  the  two  sovereigns  met  at  Tilsit,  on  a 
raft  which  was  moored  in  the  middle  ot  the  JNie- 
men      The  details  of  the  conference  are  a  secret, 
as  Napoleons  subsequent  account  of  it  is  un- 
trustworthy, and  no  witnesses  were  present.    All 
that  is  certain  is  that  Alexander  I    whose  char- 
acter was  a  curious  mixture  of  nobility  and  weak- 
ness was  completely  won  over  by  his  conqueror. 
Napoleon    .  .  .  instead   of   attempting   to 
impose  extreme  terms  upon  a  country  which  it 
was  impossible  to  conquer,  .  .  .  offered  te.  share 
with  Russia  the  supremacy  in  Europe  which  had 
been  won  by  French  arms.     The  only  conditions 
were  the  abandonment  of  the  cause  of  the  old 
monarchies,  which  seemed  hopeless,  and  an  al- 
liance with  France  against  England.^  Alexander 
had  several  grievances  against  the  English  gov- 
ernment, especially  the  lukewarm  support  that 
had  been  given  in  recent  operations,  and  macle 
no  objection  to  resume  the  policy  of  his  prede- 
cessors in  this  respect.     Two  interviews  sufficed 
to   arrange   the  basis   of  an  agreement.     Both 
sovereigns  abandoned  their  aUies  without  scruple. 
Alexander  gave  up  Prussia  and  Sweden,  while 
Napoleon  deserted  the  cause  of  the  Poles,  who 
had  trusted  to  his  zeal  for  their  independence  and 
of  the  Turks,  whom  his  envoy  had  recently  in- 
duced to  make  war  upon  Russia.    The  Treaty  of 
Tilsit  was  speedily  drawn  up;  on  the  -Ui  of  July 
peace  was  signed  between  France  and  Russia,  on 
the  9th  between  France  and  Prussia.     Frederick 
William  III.  had  to  resign  the  whole  of  his  king- 
dom west  of  the  Elbe,  together  with  a  1  the  ac- 
quisitions which  Prussia  had  made  m  the  second 
and  third  partitions  of  Poland,     The  provinces 
that  were  left,  amounting  to  barely  half  of  what 
he  had  inherited,  were  burthened  with  the  pay- 
ment of  an  enormous  sum  as  compensation  to 
France    The  district  west  of  the  Elbe  was  united 
with  Hesse-Cassel,  Brunswick,    and  ultimately 
with  Hanover,  to  form  the  kmgdom  of  West- 
phalia which  was  given  to  Napoleon  s  youngest 

1547 


brother,  Jerome.     Of  Polish  Prussia,  one  prov- 
ince, Bialy stock,  was  added  to  Russia,  and  the 
rest  was  made  into  the  grand  duchy  of  Warsaw, 
and  transferred   to  Saxony.      Danzig,  with  the 
surrounding  territory,  was  declared  a  free  state 
under  Prussian  and  Saxon  protection,  but  it  was 
really  subject  to  France,  and  remained  a  centre 
of  French  power  on  the  Baltic.     All  trade  be- 
tween Prussia  and  England  was  cut  off.     Alex- 
ander I.,  on  his  side,  recognised  all  Napoleons 
new  creations  in  Europe  —  the  Confederation  of 
the  Rhine,  the  kingdoms  of  Italy,  Naples,  Hol- 
land  and  AVestphalia,  and  undertook  to  mediate 
between  France  and  England.     But  the  really 
important  agreement  between  France  and  Russia 
was  to  be  found,  not  in  the  formal  treaties,  but 
in  the  secret  conventions  which  were  arranged 
by  the  two  emperors.     The  exact  text  of  these 
has  never  been  made  public,  and  it  is  probable 
that  some  of  the  terms  rested  upon  verbal  rather 
than  on  written  understandings,  buJt  the  general 
drift  of  them  is  unquestionable.     The  bribe  ot- 
tered to  Alexander  was  the  aggrandisement  ot 
Russia  in  the  East.     To  make   him  an  accom- 
plice in  the  acts  of  Napoleon,  he  was  to  be  al- 
lowed to  annex  Finland  from  Sweden   and  Mol- 
davia and  Wallachia  from  Turkey.  With  regard 
to  Enffland,  Russia  undertook  to  adopt  Napo- 
leon's blockade-system,  and  to  obtain  the  adhesion 
of  those  states  which  still  remained  open  to  Eng- 
lish trade  — Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Portugal.  — 
R.  Lodge,  Hist,  of  Modem  Europe,  eh.  2i  sect,  ip 
_"  'I  thought,'  said  Napoleon  at  St.  Helena,    it 
would  benefit  the  worid  to  drive  these  brutes 
the  Turks,  out  of  Europe.     But  when  I  reflected 
what  power  it  would  give  to  Russia,  from  the 
number  of  Greeks  in  the  Turkish  dominions  who 
maybe  considered  Russians,  I  refused  to  consent 
to  It  especially  as  Alexander  wanted  Constanti- 
nople which  would  have  destroyed  the  equilib- 
rium of  power  in  Europe.     France  would  gam 
EevDt    Syria,  and  the  islands;  but  those  were 
nothin'g  to  what  Russia  would  have  obtained 
This  coincides  with  Savary's  [Duke  de  Rovigo  sj 
statement,  that  Alexander  told  him  Napoleon 
said  he  was  under  no  engagements  to  the  new 
Sultan   and  that  changes  in  the  worid  inevitably 
changed  the  relations  of  states  to  one  another; 
and  again,  Alexander  said  that,  in  their  conver- 
sations at  Tilsit,  Napoleon  often  told  him  he  did 
not  require  the  evacuation  of  Moldavia  and  Wal- 
lachiaT  he  would  place  things  in  a  train  to  dis- 
pense with  it,  and  it  was  not  possible  to  sufler 
loneer  the  presence  of  the  Turks  in  Europe.      He 
eve^left  me,' said  Alexander,  'to  entertain  the 
proiect  of  driving  them  back  into  Asia._     it  13 
only  since  that  he  has  returned  to  the  idea  of 
leaving  Constantinople  to  them,  and  some  sur- 
rounding provinces.'     One  day,  when  Napoleon 
was  talking  to  Alexander,  he  asked  his  secretary, 
M   Meneval,  for  the  map  of  Turkey,  opened  it 
then  renewed  the  conversation ;  and  placing  his 
finsrer  on  Constantinople  said  several  times  to  the 
secl'etary,  though  not  loud  enough  to  be  heard 
by  Alexander, "'  Constantinople,  Constantinople, 
never.     It  is  the  capital  of  the  world.'  .  .  .  It  is 
very  evident  in  their  conversations  that  Napoleon 
agred  to  his  [Alexander's]  possessing  himself  of 
the  Turkish  Empire  up  to  the  Balkan,  if  not  be- 
yond; though  Bignon  denies  that  any  plan  lor 
the  actual  partition  of  Turkey  was  embodied  in 
the  treaty  of  Tilsit.      Hardenberg,  not  always 
well  informed,  asserts  that  it  was.    Savary  says 


GERMANY,  1807. 


Tlie  Pntssian 
collapse  and  recovery. 


GERMANY,  1807-1808. 


he  could  not  believe  that  Napoleon  would  have 
abandoned  the  Turks  without  a  compensation  in 
some  other  quarter;  and  he  felt  certain  Alexan- 
der had  agreed  in  return  to  Napoleon's  project 
for  the  conquest  of  Spain,  '  which  the  Emperor 
had  very  much  at  heart.'" — C.  Joyneville,  Life 
and  Times  of  Alexander  I.,  i>.  1,  cli.  8. 

Also  IN:  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  VIBQ- 
1815,  eh.  46  (v.  10).— Count  Miot  de  Melito,  Mem- 
oirs, cJi.  34. — P.  Lanfrey,  Hist,  of  Napoleon,  ch.  3- 
4. — Prince  de  Talleyrand,  Memoirs,  pt.  3  {v.  1). — 
A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate  and  the  Empire, 
bk.  27  (i\  2). 

A.  D.  1807  (July). — The  collapse  of  Prussia 
and  its  Causes. — "For  the  live  years  that  fol- 
lowed, Prussia  is  to  be  conceived,  iu  addition  to 
all  her  other  humiliations,  as  in  the  hands  of  a 
remorseless  creditor  whose  claims  are  decided  by 
himself  without  appeal,  and  who  wants  more 
than  all  he  can  get.  She  is  to  be  thought  of  as 
supporting  for  more  than  a  year  after  the  con- 
clusion of  the  Treaty  a  French  army  of  more 
than  150,000  men,  then  as  supporting  a  French 
garrison  in  three  principal  fortresses,  and  finally, 
just  before  the  period  ends,  as  having  to  support 
the  huge  Russian  expedition  in  its  passage 
through  the  country.  ...  It  was  not  in  fact 
from  the  Treaty  of  Tilsit,  but  from  the  system- 
atic breach  of  it,  that  the  sufferings  of  Prussia 
between  1807  and  1813  arose.  It  is  indeed  hardly 
too  much  to  say  that  the  advantage  of  the  Treaty 
was  received  only  by  France,  and  that  the  only 
object  Napoleon  can  have  had  in  signing  it  was 
to  inflict  more  harm  on  Prussia  than  he  could  in- 
flict by  simply  continuing  the  war.  Such  was 
the  downfall  of  Prussia.  The  tremendousness  of 
the  catastrophe  strikes  us  less  because  we  know 
that  it  was  soon  retrieved,  and  that  Prussia  rose 
again  and  became  greater  than  ever.  But  could 
this  recovery  be  anticipated  ?  A  great  nation, 
we  say,  cannot  be  dissolved  by  a  few  disasters; 
patriotism  and  energy  will  retrieve  everything. 
But  precisely  these  seemed  wanting.  The  State 
seemed  to  have  fallen  in  pieces  because  it  had  no 
principle  of  cohesion,  and  was  only  held  together 
by  an  artificial  bureaucracy.  It  had  been  cre- 
ated by  the  energy  of  its  government  and  the 
efficiency  of  its  soldiers,  and  now  it  appeared  to 
come  to  an  end  because  its  government  had 
ceased  to  be  energetic  and  its  soldiers  to  be  effi- 
cient. The  catastrophe  could  not  but  seem  as 
irremediable  as  it  was  sudden  and  complete." 
There  may  be  discerned  "three  distinct  causes 
for  it.  First,  tlie  undecided  and  pusillanimous 
policy  pursued  by  the  Prussian  government  since 
1803  had  an  evident  influence  upon  the  result  by 
making  the  great  Powers,  particularly  England 
and  Austria,  slow  to  render  it  assistance,  and  also 
by  making  the  commanders,  especially  Bruns- 
wick, irresolute  in  action  because  they  could  not, 
even  at  the  last  moment,  believe  the  war  to  be 
serious.  This  indecision  we  have  observed  to 
have  been  connected  with  a  mal-organisation  of 
the  Foreign  Department.  Secondly,  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  military  system,  which  led  to  the  sur- 
render of  the  fortresses.  Tliirdly,  a  misfortune 
for  which  Prussia  was  not  responsible,  its  deser- 
tion by  Russia  at  a  critical  moment,  and  tlie  for- 
mation of  a  close  alliance  between  Russia  and 
France." — J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Time^  of  Stein, 
pt.  2,  ch.  5  (e.  1). 

A.  D.  1807-1808.— The  great  Revolutionary 
Reforms  of  Hardenberg,  Stein  and   Scharn- 


horst. — Edict  of  Emancipation. — Military  re- 
organization.— Beginning  of  local  self-govern- 
ment.— Seeds  of  a  nev?  national  life. — "The 
work  of  those  who  resisted  Napoleon  —  even  if 
no  one  of  them  should  ever  be  placed  in  the  high- 
est class  of  the  benefactors  of  mankind  —  has  in 
some  cases  proved  enduring,  and  nowhere  so 
much  as  iu  Germany.  They  began  two  great 
works  —  the  reorganisation  of  Prussia  and  the 
revival  of  the  German  nationality,  and  time  has 
deliberately  ratified  their  views.  Without  retro- 
gression, without  mistake,  e.xcept  the  mistake 
which  in  such  matters  is  the  most  venial  that  can 
be  committed,  that,  namely,  of  over-caution,  of 
excessive  hesitation,  the  edifice  which  was  then 
founded  has  been  raised  higher  and  higher  till 
it  is  near  completion.  .  .  .  Because  Frederick- 
William  III.  remains  quietly  seated  on  the  throne 
through  the  whole  period,  we  remain  totally  un- 
aware that  a  Prussian  revolution  took  place  then 
—  a  revolution  so  comprehensive  that  the  old 
reign  and  glories  of  Frederick  may  fairly  be  said 
to  belong  to  another  world  —  to  an  '  ancien  re- 
gime '  that  has  utterly  passed  away.  It  was  a 
revolution  which,  though  it  did  not  touch  the 
actual  framework  of  government  in  such  a  way 
as  to  substitute  one  of  Aristotle's  forms  of  gov- 
ernment for  another,  yet  went  so  far  beyond  gov- 
ernment, and  made  such  a  transformation  both  in 
Industry  and  culture,  that  it  deserves  the  name 
of  revolution  far  more,  for  instance,  than  our 
English  Revolution  of  the  17th  century.  ...  In 
Prussia  few  of  the  most  distinguished  statesmen, 
few  even  of  those  wlio  took  the  lead  in  her  libera- 
tion from  Napoleon,  were  Prussians.  Bllicher 
himself  began  life  in  the  service  of  Sweden, 
Scharnhorst  was  a  Hanoverian,  so  was  Harden- 
berg, and  Stein  came  from  Nassau.  Niebuhr 
was  enticed  to  Berlin  from  the  Bank  of  Copen- 
hagen. Hardenberg  served  George  III.  and 
afterwards  the  Duke  of  Brunswick  before  he  en- 
tered the  service  of  Frederick- William  II. ;  and 
when  Stein  was  dismissed  by  Frederick- William 
III.  in  the  midst  of  the  war  of  1806,  though  he 
was  a  man  of  property  and  rank,  he  took  meas- 
ures to  ascertain  whether  they  were  in  want  of 
a  Finance  Minister  at  St.  Petersburg.  .  .  .  We 
misapprehend  the  nature  of  what  took  place 
when  we  say,  as  we  usually  do,  that  some  im- 
portant and  useful  reforms  were  introduced  by 
Stein,  Hardenberg,  and  Scharnhorst.  In  the  first 
place,  such  a  word  as  reform  is  not  properly  ap- 
plied to  changes  so  vast,  and  in  the  second  place, 
the  changes  then  made  or  at  least  commenced, 
went  far  be3'ond  legislation.  We  want  some 
word  stronger  than  reform  which  shall  convey 
that  one  of  the  greatest  events  of  modern  history 
now  took  place  in  Prussia.  Revolution  would 
convey  this,  but  unfortunately  we  appropriate 
that  word  to  changes  in  the  form  of  government, 
or  even  mere  changes  of  dynast}',  provided  they 
are  violent,  though  such  changes  are  commonly 
quite  insignificant  compared  to  what  now  took 
place  in  Prussia.  .  .  .  The  form  of  government 
indeed  was  not  changed.  Not  merely  did  the 
king  continue  to  reign,  but  no  Parliament  was 
created  even  with  powers  ever  so  restricted. 
Another  generation  had  to  pass  away  before  this 
innovation,  which  to  us  seems  tlie  beginning  of 
political  life,  took  place.  But  a  nation  must  be 
made  before  it  can  be  made  free,  and,  as  we  have 
said,  in  Prussia  there  was  an  administration  (in 
great  disorder)  and  an  army,  but  no  nation.    AVlien 


1548 


GERMANY,  1807-1808. 


The  Prussian 
awakening. 


GERMANY,  1808. 


Stein  was  placed  at  the  head  of  affairs  in  the 
autumn  of  1807,  he  seems,  at  first,  hardly  to  have 
been  aware  that  anything  was  called  for  beyond 
the  reform  of  the  administration,  and  the  removal 
of  some  abuses  in  the  army.  Accordingly  ho  did 
reform  the  administration  from  the  top  to  the 
bottom,  remodelling  the  whole  machinery  both 
of  central  and  local  government  which  had  come 
down  from  the  father  of  Frederick  the  Great. 
But  the  other  work  also  was  forced  ujion  him, 
and  he  began  to  create  the  nation  by  emancipat- 
ing the  peasantry,  while  Scharnhorst  and  Gneise- 
nau  were  brooding  over  the  ideas  which,  five 
years  later,  took  shape  in  the  Landwehr  of  East 
Prussia.  Besitles  emaucipating  the  peasant  he 
emancipated  industry,^  everywhere  abolishing 
that  strange  caste  system  which  divided  the  popu- 
lation rigidly  into  nobles,  citizens,  and  peasants, 
and  even  stamped  every  acre  of  land  in  the 
country  with  its  own  unalterable  rank  as  noble, 
or  citizen,  or  peasant  laud.  Emancipation,  so  to 
speak,  had  to  be  given  before  enfranchisement. 
The  peasant  must  have  something  to  live  for; 
freewill  must  be  awakened  in  the  citizen ;  and  he 
must  be  taught  to  fight  for  something  before  he 
could  receive  political  liberty.  Of  such  liberty 
Stein  only  provided  one  modest  germ.  By  his 
Stadteordnung  he  introduced  popular  election 
into  the  towns.  Thus  Prussia  and  France  set 
out  towards  political  liberty  by  different  roads. 
Prussia  began  modestly  with  local  liberties,  but 
did  not  for  a  long  time  attem])t  a  Parliament. 
France  with  her  charte,  and  in  imitation  of  France 
many  of  the  small  German  States,  had  grand  popu- 
lar Parliaments,  but  no  local  liberties.  And  so 
for  a  long  time  Prussia  was  regarded  as  a  back- 
ward State.  ...  It  was  only  by  accident  that 
Stein  stopped  short  at  municipal  liberties  and 
created  no  Parliament.  He  would  have  gone 
further,  and  in  the  last  years  of  the  wartime 
Hardenberg  did  summon  deliberative  assemblies, 
which,  however,  fell  into  disuse  again  after  the 
peace.  ...  In  spite  however  of  all  reaction,  the 
change  irrevocably  made  by  the  legislation  of 
that  time  was  similar  to  that  made  in  France  by 
the  Revolution,  and  caused  the  age  before  Jena 
to  be  regarded  as  an  '  ancien  regime. '  But  in 
addition  to  this,  a  change  had  been  made  in  men's 
minds  and  thoughts  by  the  shocks  of  the  time, 
which  prepared  tlie  way  for  legislative  changes 
which  have  taken  place  since.  How  unprece- 
dented in  Prussia,  for  instance,  was  the  dicta- 
torial authority  wielded  by  Hardenberg  early  in 
1807,  by  Stein  in  the  latter  part  of  that  year  and 
in  1808,  and  by  Hardenberg  again  from  1810 
onwards!  Before  that  time  in  the  history  of 
Prussia  we  find  no  subject  eclipsing  or  even  ap- 
proaching the  King  in  importance.  Prussia  had 
been  made  what  she  was  almost  entirely  by  her 
electors  and  kings.  In  war  and  organisation 
alike  all  had  been  done  by  the  Great  Elector  or 
Frederick-William  I.,  or  Frederick  the  Great. 
But  now  this  is  suddenly  changed.  Everything 
now  turns  on  the  minister.  Weak  ministers  are 
expelled  by  pressure  put  upon  the  king,  strong 
ones  are  forced  upon  him.  He  is  compelled  to 
create  a  new  ministerial  power  much  greater  than 
that  of  an  English  Prime  Minister,  and  more  like 
that  of  a  Grand  Vizier,  and  by  these  dictators 
the  most  comprehensive  innovations  are  made. 
The  loyalty  of  the  people  was  not  impaired  by 
this ;  on  the  contrary,  Stein  and  Hardenberg  saved 
the  Monarchy;   but  it  evidently  transferred  the 


Monarchy,  though  safely,  to  a  lower  pedestal." — 
J.  R.  Seeley,  Prussian  History  (Maomillan's  Mag., 
V.  36,  pp.  342-351). 

Also  in  :  The  same,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein, 
pt.  3-5  {v.  1-2). — R.  B.  D.  Morier,  Agrarian 
Legislation  of  Prussia  {Systems  of  Land  Tenure: 
Cohden  Club  Essays,  ch.  5), 

A.  D.  i8o8. — The  Awakening  of  the  national 
spirit. — Effects  of  the  Spanish  rising,  and  of 
Fichte's  Addresses. — The  beginnings  of  the 
great  rising  in  Spain  against  Napoleon  (see 
Spain:  A.  D.  1808,  and  after)  "were  watched 
by  Stein  from  Berlin  while  he  was  engaged 
in  negotiating  with  Daru ;  we  can  imagine  with 
what  feehngs!  His  cause  had  been,  since  his 
ministry  began,  substantially  the  same  as  that 
of  Spain;  but  he  had  perhaps  understood  it 
himself  but  dimly,  at  any  rate  hoped  but 
faintly  to  see  it  prosper.  But  now  he  ripens  at 
once  into  a  great  nationality  statesman;  the 
reforms  of  Prussia  begin  at  once  to  take  a  more 
military  stamp,  and  to  point  more  decisively  to 
a  great  uprising  of  the  German  race  against  the 
foreign  oppressor.  The  change  of  feeling  which 
took  place  in  Prussia  after  the  beginning  of  the 
Spanish  troubles  is  very  clearly  marked  in  Stein's 
autobiography.  After  describing  the  negotia- 
tions at  Paris  and  Berlin,  ...  he  begins  a  new 
paragraph  thus:  'The  popular  war  which  had 
broken  out  in  Spain  and  was  attended  with  good 
success,  had  heightened  the  irritation  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Prussian  State  caused  by  the 
humiliation  they  had  suffered.  All  thirsted  for 
revenge ;  plans  of  insurrection,  which  aimed  at 
exterminating  the  French  scattered  about  the 
country,  were  arranged ;  among  others,  one  was 
to  be  carried  out  at  Berlin,  and  I  had  the  greatest 
trouble  to  keep  the  leaders,  who  confided  their 
intentions  to  me,  from  a  premature  outbreak. 
We  all  watched  the  progress  of  the  Spanish  war 
and  the  commencement  of  the  Austrian,  for  the 
preparations  of  that  Power  had  not  remained 
a  secret;  expectation  was  strained  to  the  highest 
point ;  pains  were  necessary  to  moderate  the  ex- 
cited eagerness  for  resistance  in  order  to  profit  by 
it  in  more  favourable  circumstances.  .  .  .  Fichte's 
Addresses  to  the  Germans,  delivered  during  the 
French  occupation  of  Berlin  and  printed  under 
the  censorship  of  M.  Bignon,  the  Intendant,  had 
a  great  effect  upon  the  feelings  of  the  cultivated 
class.'  .  .  .  That  iu  the  midst  of  such  weighty 
matters  be  should  remember  to  mention  Fichte's 
Addresses  is  a  remarkable  testimony  to  the  effect 
produced  by  them  on  the  public  mind,  and  at 
the  same  time  it  leads  us  to  conjecture  that  they 
must  have  strongly  influenced  his  own.  They 
had  been  delivered  in  the  winter  at  Berlin  and 
of  course  could  not  be  heard  by  Stein,  who  was 
then  with  the  King,  but  they  were  not  published 
till  April.  As  affecting  public  opinion  there- 
fore, and  also  as  known  to  Stein,  the  book  was 
almost  exactly  of  the  same  date  as  the  Spanish 
Rebellion,  and  it  is  not  unnatural  that  he  should 
mention  the  two  influences  together.  .  .  .  When 
the  lectures  were  delivered  at  Berlin  a  rising  in 
Spain  was  not  dreamed  of,  and  even  when  they 
were  published  it  had  not  taken  place,  nor  could 
clearly  be  foreseen.  And  yet  they  teach  the 
same  lesson.  That  doctrine  of  nationality  which 
was  taught  affirmatively  by  Spain  had  been 
suggested  to  Fichte's  mind  by  the  reductio  ad 
absurdum  which  events  had  given  to  the 
negation  of  it  in  Germany.     Nothing  could  be 


1549 


GERMANY,  1808. 


stein  and 
the  Tugendbund. 


GERMANY,  1808. 


more  convincing  than  the  concurrence  of  the 
two  methods  of  proof  at  the  same  moment,  and 
the  prophetic  elevation  of  these  discourses 
(which  may  have  furnished  a  model  to  Carlyle) 
was  well  fitted  to  drive  the  lesson  home,  par- 
ticularly to  a  mind  like  Stein's,  which  was  quite 
capable  of  being  impressed  by  large  principles. 
.  .  .  Fichte's  Addresses  do  not  profess  to  have 
in  the  first  instance  nationality  for  their  subject. 
They  profess  to  inquire  whether  there  exists 
any  grand  comprehensive  remedy  for  the  evils 
with  which  Germany  is  afflicted.  They  find 
such  a  remedy  where  Turgot  long  before  had 
looked  for  deliverance  from  the  selfishness  to 
which  he  traced  all  the  abuses  of  the  old  regime, 
that  is,  in  a  grand  system  of  national  education. 
Fichte  reiterates  the  favourite  doctrine  of 
modern  Liberalism,  that  education  as  hitherto 
conducted  by  the  Church  has  aimed  only  at 
securing  for  men  happiness  in  another  life,  and 
that  this  is  not  enough,  inasmuch  as  they  need 
also  to  be  taught  how  to  bear  themselves  in  the 
present  life  so  as  to  do  their  duty  to  the  state,  to 
others  and  themselves.  He  is  as  sure  as  Turgot 
that  a  system  of  national  education  will  work  so 
powerfully  upon  the  nation  that  in  a  few  years 
they  will  not  be  recognisable,  and  he  explains  at 
great  length  what  should  be  the  nature  of  this 
system,  dwelling  principally  upon  the  impor- 
tance of  instilling  a  love  of  duty  for  its  own 
sake  rather  than  for  reward.  Tlie  method  to  be 
adopted  is  that  of  Pestalozzi.  Out  of  fourteen 
lectures  the  first  three  are  entirely  occupied  with 
this.  But  then  the  subject  is  changed,  and  we 
find  ourselves  plunged  into  a  long  discussion  of 
the  peculiar  characteristics  which  distinguish 
Germany  from  other  nations  and  particularly 
other  nations  of  German  origin.  At  the  present 
day  this  discussion,  which  occupies  four  lectures, 
seems  hardly  satisfactory ;  but  it  is  a  striking 
deviation  from  the  fashion  of  that  age.  .  .  .  But 
up  to  this  point  we  perceive  only  that  the  sub- 
ject of  German  nationality  occupies  Fichte's  mind 
very  much,  and  that  there  was  more  significance 
than  we  first  remarked  in  the  title.  Addresses  to 
the  German  Nation ;  otherwise  we  have  met  with 
nothing  likely  to  seem  of  great  importance  to  a 
statesman.  But  the  eightTi  Lecture  propounds 
the  question,  What  is  a  Nation  in  the  higher 
signification  of  the  word,  and  what  is  patriot- 
ism? It  is  here  that  he  delivers  what  might 
seem  a  commentary  on  the  Spanish  Revolution, 
which  had  not  yet  taken  place.  .  .  .  Fichte 
proclaims  the  Nation  not  only  to  be  different 
from  the  State,  but  to  be  something  far  higher 
and  greater.  .  .  .  Applied  to  Germany  this 
doctrine  would  lead  to  the  practical  conclusion 
that  a  united  German  State  ought  to  be  set  up 
in  which  the  separate  German  States  should  be 
absorbed.  ...  In  the  lecture  before  us  he  con- 
tents himself  with  advising  that  patriotism  as 
distinguished  from  loyalty  to  the  State  should  be 
carefully  inculcated  in  the  new  education,  and 
should  influence  the  individual  German  Govern- 
ments. It  would  not  indeed  have  been  safe  for 
Fichte  to  propose  a  political  reform,  but  it 
rather  appears  that  he  thought  it  an  advantage 
rather  than  a  disadvantage  that  the  Nation  and 
the  State  should  be  distinct.  ...  I  should  not 
have  lingered  so  long  over  this  book  if  it  did  not 
strike  me  as  the  prophetical  or  canonical  book 
which  announces  and  explains  a  great  tran- 
sition in  modern  Europe,  and  the  prophecies  of 


which  began  to  be  fulfilled  immediately  after  its 
publication  by  the  rising  in  Spain.  ...  It  is 
this  Spanish  Revolution  which  when  it  has 
extended  to  the  other  countries  we  call  the  Anti- 
Napoleonic  Revolution  of  Europe.  It  gave 
Europe  years  of  unparalleled  bloodshed,  but  at 
the  same  time  years  over  which  there  broods  a 
light  of  poetry ;  for  no  conception  can  be  more 
profoundly  poetical  than  that  which  now  woke 
up  in  every  part  of  Europe,  the  conception  of 
the  Nation.  Those  years  also  led  the  way  to  the 
great  movements  which  have  filled  so  much  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  and  have  rearranged  the 
whole  central  part  of  the  map  of  Europe  on  a 
more  nattu-al  system." — J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and 
Tim^3  of  Stein,  pt.  4,  ch.  1  (c.  3). 

A.  D.  i8o8  (January). — Kehl,  Cassel  and 
Wesel  annexed  to  France.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1807-1808  (November — February). 

A.  D.  i8o8  (April  — December).— The  Tu- 
gendbund, and  Stein's  relations  to  it. — "Eng- 
lish people  think  of  Stein  almost  exclusively  in 
connexion  with  land  laws.  But  the  second  and 
more  warlike  period  of  his  Ministry  has  also  left 
a  faint  impression  in  the  minds  of  many  among 
us,  who  are  in  the  habit  of  regarding  him  as  the 
founder  of  the  Tugendbund.  In  August  and  Sep- 
tember [1808],  the  very  months  in  which  Stein 
was  taking  up  his  new  position,  this  society  was 
attracting  general  attention,  and  accordingly  this 
is  the  place  to  consider  Stein's  relation  to  it. 
That  he  was  secretly  animating  and  urging  it  on 
must  have  seemed  at  the  time  more  than  prob- 
able, almost  self-evident.  It  aimed  at  the  very 
objects  which  he  had  at  heart,  it  spoke  of  him 
with  warm  admiration,  and  in  general  it  used 
language  which  seemed  an  echo  of  his  own.  .  .  . 
Whatever  his  connexion  with  the  Tugendbund 
may  have  been,  it  cannot  have  commenced  till 
April,  1808,  for  it  was  in  that  month  that  the 
Tugendbund  began  its  existence,  and  therefore 
nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  represent 
Stein  as  beginning  to  revolutionise  the  country 
with  the  help  of  the  Tugendbund,  for  his  revolu- 
tionary edict  had  been  promulgated  in  the  Octo- 
ber before.  ...  In  his  autobiography  .  .  .  Stein 
[says] :  '  An  effect  and  not  the  cause  of  this  pas- 
sionate national  indignation  at  the  despotism  of 
Napoleon  was  the  Tugendbund,  of  which  I  was 
no  more  the  founder  than  I  was  a  member,  as  I 
can  assert  on  my  honour  and  as  is  well  known  to 
its  originators.  About  July,  1808,  there  was 
formed  at  Konigsberg  a  society  consisting  of 
several  officers,  for  example.  Col.  Gneisenau, 
Grolmann,  &c. ,  and  learned  men,  such  as  Pro- 
fessor Krug,  in  order  to  combat  selfishness  and 
to  rouse  the  nobler  moral  feelings ;  and  according 
to  the  requirements  of  the  existing  laws  they 
communicated  their  statutes  and  the  list  of  their 
members  to  the  King's  Majesty,  who  sanctioned 
the  former  without  any  action  on  my  part,  it 
being  my  belief  in  general  that  there  was  no 
need  of  any  other  institute  but  to  put  new  life 
into  the  spirit  of  Christian  patriotism,  the  germ 
of  which  lay  already  in  the  existing  institutions 
of  State  and  Church.  The  new  Society  held  its 
meetings,  but  of  the  proceedings  I  knew  nothing, 
and  wlien  lat«r  it  proposed  to  exert  an  indirect 
influence  upon  educational  and  military  institu- 
tions I  rejected  the  proposal  as  encroaching  on 
the  department  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
governing  bodies.  As  I  was  driven  soon  after- 
wards out  of  the  public  service,  I  know  nothing 


1550 


GERMANY,  1808. 


NapoleotCs  attack 
on  Austria, 


GERMANY,  1809. 


of  the  further  operations  of  this  Society.'  .  .  . 
He  certainly  seems  to  intend  his  readers  to  un- 
derstand that  he  had  not  even  any  indirect  or  un- 
derhand connexion  with  it,  but  from  first  to  last 
stood  entirely  aloof,  except  in  one  case  when  he 
interfered  to  restrain  its  action.  It  is  even  pos- 
sible that  by  telling  us  that  he  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  step  taken  by  the  King  wlien  he  sanc- 
tioned the  statutes  of  the  society  he  means  to  hint 
that,  liad  his  advice  been  taken,  the  society  would 
not  have  been  even  allowed  to  exist.  .  .  .  The 
principal  fact  affirmed  by  Stein  is  indeed  now  be- 
yond controversy ;  Stein  was  certainly  not  either 
the  founder  or  a  member  of  the  Tugendbund. 
The  society  commonly  known  by  that  name, 
which  however  designated  itself  as  the  Moral  and 
Scientific  Union,  was  founded  by  a  number  of 
persons,  of  whom  many  were  Freemasons,  at 
KOnigsberg  in  the  month  of  April.  Professor 
Krug,  mentioned  by  Stein,  was  one  of  them; 
Gneisenau  and  Grolmann,  whom  he  also  men- 
tions, were  not  among  the  first  members,  and 
Gneisenau,  it  seems,  was  never  a  member.  The 
statutes  were  drawn  b}'  Krug,  Bardeleben  and 
Baersch,  and  if  any  one  person  can  be  called  the 
Founder  of  the  Tugendbund,  the  second  of  these, 
Bardeleben,  seems  best  to  deserve  the  title.  The 
Order  of  Cabinet  by  which  the  society  was 
licensed  is  dated  KOnigsberg,  June  30th,  and 
runs  as  follows :  '  The  revival  of  morality,  reli- 
gion, serious  taste  and  public  spirit,  is  assuredly 
most  commendable ;  and,  so  far  as  the  society 
now  being  formed  under  the  name  of  a  Virtue 
Union  (Tugendverein)  is  occupied  with  this  within 
the  limits  of  the  laws  of  the  country  and  without 
any  interference  in  politics  or  public  administra- 
tion, His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  approves 
the  object  and  constitution  of  the  society. '  .  .  . 
From  KOnigsberg  missionaries  went  forth  who 
established  branch  associations,  called  Chambers, 
in  other  towns,  first  those  of  the  Province  of 
Prussia,  Braunsberg,  Elbing,  Graudenz,  Eylau, 
Hohenstein,  Memel,  StallupOhnen;  then  in  August 
and  September  Bardeleben  spread  the  movement 
with  great  success  through  Silesia.  The  spirit 
which  animated  the  new  society  could  not  but  be 
approved  by  every  patriot.  They  had  been  deeply 
struck  with  the  decay  of  the  nation,  as  shown  in 
the  occurrences  of  the  war,  and  their  views  of 
the  way  in  which  it  might  be  revived  were  much 
the  same  as  those  of  Stein  and  Fichte.  The  only 
question  was  whether  they  were  wise  in  organis- 
ing a  society  in  order  to  promulgate  these  views, 
whether  such  a  society  was  likely  to  do  much 
good,  and  also  whether  it  might  not  by  possibil- 
ity do  much  harm.  Stein's  view,  as  he  has  given 
it,  was  that  it  was  not  likely  to  do  much  good, 
and  that  such  an  organisation  was  unnecessary. 
...  It  did  not  follow  because  he  desired  Estates 
or  Parliaments  that  he  was  prepared  to  sanction 
a  political  club.  ...  It  may  well  have  seemed 
to  him  that  to  suffer  a  political  club  to  come 
into  existence  was  to  allow  the  guidance  of  the 
Revolution  which  he  had  begun  to  pass  out  of 
his  hands.  There  appears,  then,  when  we  con- 
sider it  closely,  nothing  unnatural  in  the  course 
which  Stein  declares  himself  to  have  taken. " — J. 
R.  Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein,  pt.  4,  ch.  3  (v.  2). 

Also  in  ;  T.  Frost,  Secret  Societies  of  the  Euro- 
pean Remlution,  v.  1,  ch.  4. 

A.  D.  i8o8  (September— October).— Imperial 
conference  and  Treaty  of  Erfurt.  See  France  : 
A.  D.  1808  (September — October). 


A.  D.  1809  (January —  June). — Outburst  of 
Austrian  feeling  against  France. — Reopening 
of  war. — Napoleon's  advance  to  Vienna. — His 
defeat  at  Aspern  and  perilous  situation. — Aus- 
trian reverses  in  Italy  and  Hungary. —  "The 
one  man  of  all  the  Austrians  who  felt  the  least 
amount  of  hatred  against  France,  was,  perhaps, 
the  Emperor.  All  his  family  and  all  his  people 
—  nobles  and  priests,  the  middle  classes  and  the 
peasantry  —  evinced  a  feeling  full  of  anger 
against  the  nation  which  had  upset  Europe.  .  .  . 
By  reason  of  the  French,  the  disturbers  and 
spoilers,  the  enemies  of  the  human  race,  despisers 
of  morality  and  religion  alike.  Princes  were  suffer- 
ing in  their  palaces,  workmen  in  their  shops, 
business  men  in  their  offices,  priests  in  their 
churches,  soldiers  in  their  camps,  peasants  in 
their  huts.  The  movement  of  exasperation  was 
irresistible.  Every  one  said  that  it  was  a  mistake 
to  have  laid  down  their  arms ;  that  they  ought 
against  France  to  have  fought  on  to  the  bitter 
end,  and  to  have  sacrificed  the  last  man  and  the 
last  florin ;  that  they  had  been  wrong  in  not  hav- 
ing gone  to  the  assistance  of  Prussia  after  the 
Jena  Campaign;  and  that  the  moment  had  ar- 
rived for  all  the  Powers  to  coalesce  against  the  com- 
mon enemy  and  crush  him.  .  .  .  All  Europe  had 
arrived  at  a  paroxysm  of  indignation.  What  was 
she  waiting  for  before  rising  ?  A  signal.  That 
signal  Austria  was  about  to  give.  And  this  time 
with  what  chances  of  success  I  The  motto  was  to 
be  '  victory  or  death. '  But  they  were  sure  of  vic- 
tory. The  French  army,  scattered  from  the  Oder 
to  the  Tagus,  from  the  mountains  of  Bohemia  to 
the  Sierra  Morena,  would  not  be  able  to  resist  the 
onslaught  of  so  many  nations  eager  to  break  their 
bonds.  .  .  .  Vienna,  in  1809,  indulged  in  the 
same  language,  and  felt  the  same  passions,  that 
Beriin  did  in  1806.  .  .  .  The  Landwehr,  then 
only  organized  a  few  months,  were  impatiently 
awaiting  the  hour  when  they  should  measure 
themselves  against  the  Veterans  of  the  French 
army.  Volunteers  flocked  in  crowds  to  the  col- 
ours. Patriotic  subscriptions  flowed  in.  .  .  . 
Boys  wanted  to  leave  school  to  fight.  All  classes 
of  society  vied  with  each  other  in  zeal,  courage, 
and  a  spirit  of  sacrifice.  When  the  news  was 
made  public  that  the  Archduke  Charles  had,  on 
the  20th  of  February,  1809,  been  appointed  Gen- 
eralissimo, there  was  an  outburst  of  joy  and  con- 
fidence from  one  end  of  the  Empire  to  the  other." 
■ — Imbert  de  Saint- Amand,  Memoirs  of  the  Empress 
Marie  Louise,  pt.  1,  ch.  2. — "  On  receiving  decisive 
intelligence  of  these  hostile  preparations,  Napo- 
leon returned  with  extraordinary  expedition  from 
Spain  to  Paris,  in  January,  1809,  and  gave  orders 
to  concentrate  his  forces  in  Germany,  and  call 
out  the  full  contingents  of  the  Confederation  of 
the  Rhine.  Some  further  time  was  consumed  by 
the  preparations  on  either  side.  At  last,  on  the 
8th  of  April,  the  Austrian  troops  crossed  the  fron- 
tiers at  once  on  the  Inn,  in  Bohemia,  in  the  Tyrol 
and  in  Italy.  The  whole  burthen  of  the  war 
rested  on  Austria  alone,  for  Prussia  remained  neu- 
tral, and  Russia,  now  allied  to  France,  was  even 
bound  to  make  a  show  at  least,  though  it  were  no 
more,  of  hostility  to  Austria.  On  the  same  day 
on  which  the  Austrian  forces  crossed  the  frontiers, 
the  Tyrol  rose  in  insurrection  [see  below :  A.  D. 
1809-1810  (April  —  February)],  and  was  swept 
clear  of  the  enemy  in  four  days,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  Bavarian  garrison,  that  still  held  out  in 
Kufstein.     The  French  army  was  at  this  time 


1551 


GERMANY,   1809. 


Ifapoleon  in 
Vienna. 


GERMANY,  1809. 


dispersed  over  a  line  of  forty  leagues  in  exteut, 
with  numerous  undefended  apertures  between  the 
corps ;  80  that  the  fairest  possible  opportunity  pre- 
sented itself  to  the  Austrians  for  cutting  to  pieces 
the  scattered  forces  of  the  French,  and  marching 
in  triumph  to  the  Rhine.  As  usual,  however, 
the  archduke's  early  movements  were  subject- 
ed to  most  impolitic  delays  by  the  Aulic  Coun- 
cil; and  time  was  allowed  Napoleon  to  arrive  on 
the  theatre  of  war  (April  17),  and  repair  the  faults 
committed  by  his  adjutant-general,  Berthier.  lie 
instantly  extricated  his  army  from  its  perilous 
position  —  almost  cut  in  two  by  the  advance  of 
the  Austrians  —  and,  beginning  on  the  19th,  he 
beat  the  latter  in  five  battles  on  five  successive 
days,  at  Thaun,  Abensberg,  Landshut,  Eckmilhl, 
and  Ratisbon.  The  Archduke  Charles  retired 
into  Bohemia  to  collect  reinforcements,  but  Gen- 
eral Hiller  was,  in  consequence  of  the  delay  in  re- 
pairing the  fortifications  of  Linz,  unable  to  main- 
tain that  place,  the  possession  of  which  was 
important,  on  account  of  its  forming  a  connecting 
point  between  Bohemia  and  the  Austrian  Ober- 
land.  Hiller,  however,  at  least  saved  his  honour 
by  pushing  forward  to  the  Traun,  and  in  a  fear- 
fully bloody  encounter  at  Ebersberg,  captured 
three  Frencli  eagles,  one  of  his  colours  alone  fall- 
ing into  the  enemy's  hands.  He  was,  neverthe- 
less, compelled  to  retire  before  the  superior  forces 
of  the  French,  and  crossing  over  at  Krems  to  the 
Igft  bank  of  the  Danube,  he  formed  a  junction 
with  the  Archduke  Charles.  The  way  was  now 
clear  to  Vienna,  which,  after  a  slight  show  of  de- 
fence, capitulated  to  Napoleon  on  the  12th  of 
May.  The  Archduke  Charles  had  hoped  to  reach 
the  capital  before  the  Frencli,  and  to  give  battle 
to  them  beneath  its  walls ;  but  as  he  had  to  make 
a  circuit  whilst  the  French  pushed  forward  in  a 
direct  line,  his  plan  was  frustrated,  and  he  ar- 
rived, when  too  late,  fromBohemia.  Both  armies, 
separated  by  the  Danube,  stood  opposed  to  one 
another  tn  the  vicinity  of  the  imperial  city.  Both 
commanders  were  desirous  of  coming  to  a  decisive 
engagement.  The  French  had  secured  the  island 
of  Lobau,  to  serve  as  a  mustering  place,  and  point 
of  transit  across  the  Danube.  The  archduke  al- 
lowed them  to  establish  a  bridge  of  boats,  being 
resolved  to  await  them  on  the  Marchfeld.  There 
it  was  that  Rudolph  of  Habsburg,  in  the  battle 
against  Ottakar,  had  laid  the  foundation  of  the 
greatness  of  the  house  of  Austria ;  and  there  the 
political  existence  of  that  house  and  the  fate  of 
the  monarchy  were  now  to  be  decided.  Having 
crossed  the  river,  Napoleon  was  received  on  the 
opposite  bank,  near  Aspern  and  Esslingen,  by  his 
opponent,  and,  after  a  dreadful  battle  [in  which 
Marshal  Lanues  was  killed],  that  was  carried  on 
with  unwearied  animosity  for  two  days.  May  21st 
and  22nd,  1809,  he  was  completely  beaten,  and 
compelled  to  fly  for  refuge  to  the  island  of  Lobau. 
The  rising  stream  had,  meanwhile,  carried  away 
the  bridge,  Napoleon's  sole  chance  of  escape  to 
the  opposite  bank.  For  two  days  he  remained  on 
the  island  with  his  defeated  troops,  without  pro- 
visions, and  in  hourly  expectation  of  being  cut  to 
pieces ;  the  Austrians,  however,  neglected  to  turn 
the  opportunity  to  advantage,  and  allowed  the 
French  leisure  to  rebuild  the  bridge,  a  work  of 
extreme  difficulty.  During  six  weeks  afterwards, 
the  two  armies  continued  to  occupy  their  former 
positions  under  the  walls  of  Vienna,  on  the  right 
and  left  banks  of  the  Danube,  narrowdj'  watching 
each  other's  movements,  and  preparing  for  a  final 


struggle.  Whilst  these  events  were  in  progress, 
the  Archduke  John  had  successfully  penetrated 
into  Italy,  where  he  had  totally  defeated  the  Vice- 
roy Eugene  at  Salice,  on  the  16th  of  April.  Fa- 
voured by  tlio  simultaneous  revolt  of  the  Tyro- 
lese,  he  might  have  obtained  the  most  decisive 
results  from  this  victory,  but  the  extraordinary 
progress  of  Napoleon  down  the  valley  of  the  Dan- 
ube rendered  necessary  the  concentration  of  the 
whole  forces  of  the  monarchy  for  the  defence  of  the 
capital.  Having  begun  a  retreat,  he  was  pursued 
by  Eugene,  and  defeated  on  the  Piave,  with 
great  loss,  on  the  8th  of  May.  Escaping  thence, 
without  further  molestation,  to  Villach,  in  Carin- 
thia,  he  received  intelligence  of  the  fall  of  Vienna, 
together  with  a  letter  from  the  Archduke  Charles, 
of  the  15th  of  May,  directing  him  to  move  with 
all  his  forces  upon  Lintz,  to  act  on  the  rear  and 
communications  of  Napoleon.  Instead  of  obey- 
ing these  orders,  he  thought  proper  to  march  into 
Hungary,  abandoning  the  Tyrol  and  the  whole 
projected  operations  on  the  Upper  Danube  to 
their  fate.  His  disobedience  was  disastrous 
to  the  fortunes  of  his  house,  for  it  caused  the 
fruits  of  the  victorj-  at  Aspern  to  be  lost.  He 
might  have  arrived,  with  50,000  men,  on  the  24th 
or  25th,  at  Lintz,  where  no  one  remained  but 
Bernadottc  and  tlie  Saxons,  who  were  incapable 
of  offering  any  serious  resistance.  Such  a  force, 
concentrated  on  the  direct  line  of  Napoleon's  com- 
munications, iramediatelj'  after  his  defeat  at  As- 
pern, on  the  22nd,  would  have  deprived  him  of 
all  means  of  extricating  himself  from  the  most 
perilous  situation  in  which  ho  had  yet  been  placed 
since  ascending  the  consular  throne.  After  totally 
defeating  Jellachich  in  the  valley  of  the  Muhr, 
Eugene  desisted  from  his  pursuit  of  the  army  of 
Italy,  and  joi-ied  Napoleon  at  Vienna.  The  Arch- 
duke John  united  his  forces  at  Raal)  with  those 
of  the  Hungarian  insurrection,  under  his  brother, 
tlie  Palatine.  The  viceroy  again  marched  against 
him,  and  defeated  him  at  fiaab  on  the  14th  of 
June.  The  Palatine  remained  with  the  Hunga- 
rian insurrection  in  Komorn ;  Archduke  John 
moved  on  to  Presburg.  In  the  north,  the  Arch- 
duke Ferdinand,  who  had  advanced  as  far  as 
Warsaw,  had  been  driven  back  by  the  Poles 
under  Poniatowsky,  and  by  a  Russian  force  sent 
by  the  Emperor  Alexander  to  their  aid,  which,  on 
this  success,  invaded  Galicia." — W.  K.  Kelly, 
Hist,  of  the  House  of  Austria  (Continuation  of 
Coxe),  ch.  4. 

Also  in:  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  1789- 
1815,  ch.  56-57(0.  13).— Duke  de  Rovigo,  Memoirs, 
v.  2,  pt.  2,  ch.  3-12. — Baron  Jomini,  Life  of  Napo- 
leon, ch.  14  {i\  3). — Baron  de  Marbot,  Memoirs, 
i\  1,  eh.  43-48. 

A.  D.  1809  (April — July). — Risings  against 
the  French  in  the  North. — "  A  general  revolt 
against  the  French  had  nearly  taken  place  in 
Saxonj'  and  AVestphalia,  where  the  enormous 
burdens  imposed  on  the  people,  and  the  insolence 
of  the  French  troops,  had  kindled  a  deadly  spirit 
of  hostility  against  the  oppressors.  Everywhere 
the  Tugendbund  were  in  activity;  and  the  ad- 
vance of  the  Austriaus  towards  Franconia  and 
Saxony,  at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  blew  up 
the  flame.  The  two  first  attempts  at  insurrec- 
tion, headed  respectively  by  Katt,  a  Prussian 
oflicer  (April  3),  and  Dornberg,  a  Westphalian 
colonel  (April  33),  proved  abortive ;  but  the  en- 
terprise of  the  celebrated  Schill  was  of  a  more 
formidable  character.     This  enthusiastic  patriot. 


1552 


GERMANY,  1809. 


Wagram,  and  the 
Peace  of  Schonbrunn. 


GERMANY,  1809. 


then  a  colonel  in  the  Prussian  army,  had  been 
compromised   in   the   revolt   of  Dornberg;   and 
finding  himself  discovered,  he  boldly  raised  the 
standard  (April  29)  at  the  head  of  600  soldiers. 
His  force  speedily  received  accessions,  but  failing 
in  his  attempts  on  Wittenberg  and  Magdeburg, 
he  moved  towards  the  Baltic,  in  hope  of  succour 
from  the  British  cruisers,  and  at  last  threw  him- 
self into  Stralsund.      Here  he  was  speedily  in- 
vested; the  place  was  stormed  (j\Iay  31),  and  the 
gallant  Schill  slain  in  the  assault,  a  few  hours 
only  before  the  appearance  of  the  British  vessels 
—  the  timely  arrival  of  which  might  have  secured 
the  place,  and  spread  the  rising  over  all  Northern 
Germany.     The   Duke  of  Brunswick-Oels,  with 
his  '  black  band  '  of  volunteers,  had  at  the  same 
time  invaded  Saxony  from  Bohemia;  and  though 
then  obliged  to  retreat,  he  made  a  second  incur- 
sion in  June,  occupied  Dresden  and  Leipsic,  and 
drove  the  King  of  AVestphalia  into  France.    After 
the  battle  of  Wagram  he  made  his  way  across 
all  Northern  Germany,  and  was  eventually  con- 
veyed,   with    his  gallant   followers,    still   2,000 
strong,  to  England."— Epitome  of  Alisons  Hist, 
of  Europe,  sect.  .52.5-526. 

A.  D.  1809  (July— September).— Napoleon  s 
victory  at   Wagram.— The   Peace  of  Schon- 
brunn.—Immense  surrender  of  Austrian  terri- 
tory.—" The  operation  of  establishing  the  bridges 
between  the  French  camp  and  the  left  bank  of 
the  Danube  commenced  on  the  night  of  the  30th 
of  June ;  and  during  the  night  of  the  4th  of  July 
the  whole  French  army,  passing  between  the  vil- 
lages of  Enzersdorf  and  ISIuhlleuten,  debouched 
on  the  Marchfeld,  wheeling  to  their  left.     Napo- 
leon was  on  horseback  in  the  midst  of  them  by 
daylight ;  all  the  Austrian  fortifications  erected 
to  defend  the  former  bridge  were  turned,  the  vil- 
lages occupied  by  their  army  taken,  and  the 
Archduke  Charles  was  menaced  both  in  flank  and 
rear,  the  French  line  of  battle  appuyed  on  En- 
zersdorf being  at  a  right  angle  to  his  left  wing. 
Under  these  circumstances  the  Archduke,  retiring 
his  left,  attempted  to  outflank  the  French  right, 
while  Napoleon  bore  down  upon  his  centre  at 
Wagram.     This  village  became  the  scene  of  a 
sanguinary  struggle,  and  one  house  only  remained 
standing  when  night  closed  in.     The  Archduke 
sent  courier  after  courier  to  hasten  the  advance 
of  his  brother,  between  whom  and  himself  was 
Napoleon,  whose  line  on  the  night  of  the  5th  ex- 
tended from  Loibersdorf  on  the  right  to  some  two 
miles  beyond  Wagram  on  the  left.     Napoleon 
passed  the  night  in  massing  his  centre,  still  de- 
termining to  manceuvre  by  his  left  in  order  to 
throw  back  the  Archduke  Charles  on  that  side 
before  the  Archduke  John  could  come  up  on  the 
other.     At  six  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  6th 
of  July  he   commanded   the   attack  in   person. 
Disregarding  all  risk,  he  appeared  throughout 
the  day  in  the  hottest  of  the  fire,  mounted  on  a 
snow-white  charger,  Euphrates,  a  present  from 
the  Shah  of  Persia.     The  Archduke  Charles  as 
usual  committed  the  error  which  Napoleon's  ene- 
mies had  not  even  yet  learned  was  invariably 
fatal  to  them ;  extending  his  line  too  greatly  he 
weakened  his  centre,  at  the  same  time  opening 
tremendous  assaults  on  the  French  wings,  which 
suffered  dreadfully.    Napoleon  ordered  Lauriston 
to  advance  upon  the  Austrian  centre  with  a  hun- 
dred guns,  supported  by  two  whole  divisions  of 
infantry  in  column.     The  artillery,  when  within 
balf  cannon-shot,  opened  a  terrific  fire:  nothing 


could  withstand  such  a  shock.     The  infantry, 
led  by  Macdonald,  charged;  the  Austrian  line 
was  broken  and  the  centre  driven  back  in  con- 
fusion.    The  right,  in  a  panic,  retrograded ;  the 
French  cavalry  then  bore  down  upon  them  and 
decided  the  battle,  the  Archduke  still  fighting  to 
secure  his  retreat,  which  he  at  length  eft'ected  in 
tolerably  good  order.     By  noon  the  whole  Aus- 
trian army  was  abandoning  the  contest.     Their 
defeat  so  demoralized  them  that  the  Archduke 
John,  who  came  up  on  Napoleon's  right  before 
the  battle  was  over,  was  glad  to  retire  with  the 
rest,  unnoticed  by  the  enemy.     That  evening  the 
Marchfeld  and  Wagram  were  in  possession  ot  the 
French.     The  population  of  Vienna  had  watched 
the  battle  from  the  roofs  and  ramparts  of  the 
city  and  saw  the  retreat  of  their  army  with  fear 
and  gloom.     Between  300,000  and  400,000  men 
were  engaged,  and  the  loss  on  both  sides  was 
nearly  equal.      About  20,000  dead  and  30,000 
wounded  strewed  the  ground ;   the  latter  were 
conveyed  to  the  hospitals  of  Vienna.  .  .  .  Twenty 
thousand  Austrians  were  taken  prisoners,  but  the 
number  would  have  been  greater  had  the  French 
cavalry  acted  with  their  usual  spirit.    Bernadotte, 
issuing  a  bulletin,  almost  assuming  to  himself 
the  sole  merit  of  the. victory,  was  removed  from 
his  command.    Macdonald  was  created  a  marshal 
of  the  empire  on  the  morning  after  the  battle. 
.  The  battle  of  Wagram  was  won  more  by 
good  fortune  than  skill.      Napoleon's  strategy 
was  at  fault,  and  had  the  Austrians  fought  as 
stoutly  as  they  did  at  Aspern,  Napoleon  would 
have  been  signally  defeated.     Had  the  Archduke 
John  acted  promptly  and  vigorously,  he  might 
have  united  with  his  brother's  left— which  was 
intact  — and  overwhelmed  the  French.  .  .  .  The 
defeated  army  retired  to  Znaim,  followed  by  the 
French ;  but  further  resistance  was  abandoned  by 
the  Emperor  of  Austria.     The  Archduke  Charles 
solicited    an    armistice    on   the   9th;    hostilities 
ceased,  and  Napoleon  returned  to  the  palace  of 
Schiinbrunn  while  the  plenipotentiaries  settled 
the  terms  of  peace.  .  .  .  English  Ministers  dis- 
played another  instance  of  their  customary  spint 
of  procrastination.     Exactly  eight  days  after  the 
armistice  of  Znaim,  which  assured  tliem^  that 
Austria  was  no  longer  in  a  position  to  profit  by 
or  co-operate  with  their  proceedings,  they  sent 
more  than  80,000  fighting  men,  under  the  com- 
mand of  Lord  Chatham,  to  besiege  Antwerp  [see 
England:  A.  D.  1809 (July— December)].  .  .  . 
Operations  against  Naples  proved  equally  abor- 
tive. ...  In  Spain  alone  English  arms  were  suc- 
cessful     Sir  Arthur  Wellesley  won  the  battle  of 
Talavera  on  the  28th  of  July  [see  Spain  :  A.  D. 
1809  (February— July)].  .  .  .  A  treaty  of  peace 
between  France  and  Austria  was  signed  on  the 
14th  of  October  at  Vienna  [sometimes  called  the 
Treaty  of  Vienna,  but  more  commonly  the  Peace 
of  Schonbrunn].     The  Emperor  of  Austria  ceded 
Salzburg  and  a  part  of  Upper  Austria  to  the  Con- 
federation of  the  Rhine ;  ixirt  of  Bohemia,  Cra- 
cow, and  Western  Galicia  to  the  King  of  Saxony 
as  Grand  Duke  of  Warsaw;    part  of    Eastern 
Galicia  to  the  Emperor  of  Russia ;  and  Trieste, 
Carniola,  Friuli,  Villach,  and  some  part  of  Croatia 
and  Dalmatia  to  France:   thus  connecting  the 
kingdom  of  Italy  with  Napoleon's  lUyrian  pos- 
sessions, making  him  master  of  the  entire  coast 
of  the  Adriatic,  and  depriving  Austria  of  its  last 
seaport.      It  was  computed  that  the  Emperor 
Francis   gave   up    territory  to   the   amount  of 


1553 


GERMANY,  1809-1810. 


Revolt  in  the 
Tyrol. 


GERMANY,  1809-1810. 


45,000  square  miles,  with  a  population  of  nearly 
4,000,000.  He  also  paid  a  large  contribution  in 
money. " — R.  H.  Home,  Life  of  Napoleon,  ch.  33. 
— "The  cessions  made  directly  to  Napoleon  were 
the  county  of  GOrtz,  or  Goricia,  and  tliat  of  Mon- 
tefalcone,  forming  the  Austrian  Friuli ;  the  town 
and  government  of  Trieste,  Carniola,  the  circle 
of  Villach  in  Carinthia,  part  of  Croatia  and  Dal- 
matia,  and  the  lordship  of  Razuns  in  the  Grison 
territory.  All  these  provinces,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Razuns,  were  incorporated  by  a  decree  of 
Napoleon,  with  Dalmatia  and  its  islands,  into  a 
single  state  with  the  name  of  the  Illyrian  Prov- 
inces. They  were  never  united  with  France,  but 
always  governed  by  Napoleon  as  an  independent 
state.  A  few  districts  before  possessed  by  Napo- 
leon were  also  incorporated  with  them:  as  Vene- 
tian Istria  :uid  Dalmatia  with  the  Bocca  di  Cat- 
taro,  Ragusa,  and  part  of  the  Tyrol.  .  .  .  The 
only  other  articles  of  the  treaty  of  much  impor- 
tance are  the  recognition  by  Austria  of  any 
changes  made,  or  to  be  made,  in  Spain,  Portugal, 
and  Italy ;  the  adherence  of  the  Emperor  to  the 
prohibitive  system  adopted  by  France  and  Rus- 
sia, and  his  engaging  to  cease  all  correspondence 
and  relationship  with  Great  Britain.  By  a  de- 
cree made  at  Ratisbon,  April  34th,  1809,  Napoleon 
had  suppressed  the  Teutonic  Order  in  all  the 
States  belonging  to  the  Rhenish  Confederation, 
reannexed  its  possessions  to  the  domains  of  the 
prince  in  which  they  were  situated,  and  incorpo- 
rated Mergentheim,  with  the  rights,  domains, 
and  revenues  attached  to  the  Grand  jMastership 
of  the  Order,  with  the  Kingdom  of  Wiirtemberg. 
These  dispositions  were  confirmed  by  the  Treaty 
of  SchOnbrunn.  The  effect  aimed  at  by  the 
Treaty  of  Schonbrunn  was  to  surround  Austria 
with  powerful  states,  and  thus  to  paralyse  all  her 
military  efforts.  .  .  .  The  Emperor  of  Russia 
.  .  .  was  very  ill  satisfied  with  the  small  portion 
of  the  spoils  assigned  to  him,  and  the  augmenta- 
tion awarded  to  the  duchy  of  Warsaw.  Hence 
the  first  occasion  of  coldness  between  him  and 
Napoleon,  whom  he  suspected  of  a  design  to  re- 
establish the  Kingdom  of  Poland. " — T.  H.  Dyer, 
Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  bk.  7,  eh.  14  («.  4). 

Also  in  :  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  1789- 
1815,  ch.  59-60  (o.  13).— Gen.  Count  M.  Dumas, 
Memoirs,  ch.  13  (».  2). — E.  Baines,  Hist,  of  tlis 
Wars  of  the  French  Bet.,  bk.  4,  ch.  9  {i\  3).— J.  C. 
Ropes,  The  First  Napoleon,  lect.  4. 

A.  D.  1809-1810. — Humboldt's  reform  of  Pub- 
lic Instruction  in  Prussia.  See  Education, 
MoDEUN :  European  Countries.  —  Prussia  : 
A.  D.  1809. 

A.  D.  1809-1810  (April— February).— The  re- 
volt in  the  Tyrol. — Heroic  struggle  of  Andrew 
Hofer  and  his  countrymen. — "The  Tyrol,  for 
centuries  a  possession  of  Austria,  was  ceded  to 
Bavaria  by  the  Peace  of  Presburg  in  1805.  The 
Bavarians  made  many  innovations,  in  the  French 
style,  some  good  and  some  bad ;  but  the  moun- 
taineers, clinging  to  their  ancient  ways,  resisted 
them  all  alike.  They  hated  the  Bavarians  as 
foreign  masters  forced  upon  them ;  and  especially 
detested  the  military  conscription,  to  which 
Austria  had  never  subjected  them.  The  priests 
had  an  almost  unlimited  influence  over  these 
faithful  Catholics,  and  the  Bavarians,  who  treated 
them  rudely,  were  regarded  as  innovators  and 
allies  of  revolutionary  France.  Thus  the  coun- 
try submitted  restlessly  to  the  yoke  of  the  Rhine 
League  until  the  spring  of  1809.     A  secret  un- 


derstanding was  maintained  with  Austria  and  the 
Archduke  John,  and  the  people  never  abandoned 
the  hope  of  returning  to  their  Austrian  allegiance. 
When  the  great  war  of  1809  began,  the  Emperor 
Francis  summoned  all  his  people  to  arms.  The 
Tyrolese  answered  the  call.  .  .  .  They  are  a  peo- 
ple trained  in  early  life  to  the  use  of  arms,  and  to 
activity,  courage,  and  ready  devices  in  hunting, 
and  in  traveling  on  their  mountain  paths.  Aus- 
tria could  be  sure  of  the  faithfulness  of  the  Tyrol, 
and  made  haste  to  occupy  the  country.  When 
the  first  troops  were  seen  entering  the  passes,  the 
people  arose  and  drove  away  the  Bavarian  gar- 
risons. The  alarm  was  soon  sounded  through 
the  deepest  ravines  of  the  land.  Never  was  there 
a  more  united  people,  and  each  troop  or  company 
chose  its  own  officers,  in  the  ancient  German 
style,  from  among  their  strongest  and  best  men. 
Their  commanders  were  hunters,  shepherds, 
priests:  the  former  gamekeeper,  Speckbacher; 
the  innkeeper,  Martin  Teimer;  the  fiery  Capu- 
chin monk,  Haspiuger,  whose  sole  weapon  in  the 
field  was  a  huge  ebony  crucifix,  and  many  more 
of  like  peaceful  occupations.  At  the  head  of  the 
whole  army  was  a  man  who,  like  Saul,  towered 
by  a  head  above  all  others,  while  his  handsome 
black  beard  fell  to  his  girdle  — Andrew  Hofer, 
formerly  an  innkeeper  at  Passeyr  —  a  man  of 
humble  piety  and  simple  faithfulness,  who  fairly 
represented  the  people  he  led.  He  regarded  the 
war  as  dutiful  service  to  his  religion,  his  emperor, 
and  his  country.  The  whole  land  soon  swarmed 
with  little  bands  of  men,  making  their  way  to 
luuspriick  (April,  1809),  whence  the  Bavarian 
garrison  fled.  Meanwhile  a  small  French  corps 
came  from  Italy  to  relieve  them.  Though  fired 
upon  by  the  peasants  from  every  ravine  and  hill, 
they  passed  the  Brenner,  and  reached  the  Isel- 
berg,  near  Innspriick.  But  here  they  were  sur- 
rounded on  every  side,  and  forced  to  surrender. 
The  first  Austrian  soldiers,  under  General  Chas- 
teler,  then  reached  the  capital,  and  their  welcome 
was  a  popular  festival.  The  liberators,  as  the 
Tyrolese  soldiers  regarded  themselves,  committed 
no  cruelties,  but  carried  on  their  enterprise  in  the 
spirit  of  a  national  jubilee.  The  tidings  of  the 
disasters  at  Regensburg  [Ratisbon]  now  came 
upon  them  like  a  thunderbolt.  The  withdrawal 
of  the  Austrian  army  then  left  the  Tyrol  without 
protection.  Napoleon  treated  the  war  as  a  mu- 
tiny, and  set  a  price  upon  Chasteler's  head. 
Neither  Chasteler  nor  any  of  the  Austrian  ofli- 
cers  with  him  understood  the  warfare  of  the 
peasantry.  The  Tyrolese  were  left  almost  wholly 
to  themselves,  but  they  resolved  to  defend  their 
mountains.  On  May  11  the  Bavarians  under 
Wrede  again  set  out  from  Salzburg,  captured 
the  pass  of  the  Strub  after  a  bloody  fight,  and 
then  climbed  into  the  valley  of  the  Inn.  They 
practiced  frightful  cruelties  in  their  way.  A 
fierce  struggle  took  place  at  the  little  village  of 
Schwatz;  the  Bavarians  burned  the  place,  and 
marched  to  Innspriick.  Chasteler  withdrew, 
and  the  Bavarians  and  French,  under  Wrede  and 
Lefevre,  entered  the  capital.  The  country  again 
appeared  to  be  subdued.  But  cruelty  had  em- 
bittered the  people.  Wrede  was  recalled,  with 
his  corps,  by  Napoleon;  and  now  Hofer,  with 
his  South  Tyrolese,  recrossed  the  Brenner  Pass. 
Again  the  general  alarm  was  given,  the  leaders 
called  to  arms,  and  again  every  pass,  every  wall 
of  rock,  every  narrow  road  was  seized.  The 
struggle  took  place  at  the  Iselberg.     The  Bava- 


1554 


GERMANY.  1809-1810. 


The  Rising  against 
)ole( 


Napoleon. 


GERMANY,  1812-1813. 


rians  7  000  in  number,  were  defeated  with  heavy 
loss  '  The  Tyrol  now  remained  for  several  months 
undisturbed,  during  the  campaign  around  Vienna. 
After  the  battle  of  Aspern,  an  impena    procla- 
mation formally  assured  the  Tyrolese  that  they 
should  never  be  severed  from  the  Austrian  hm- 
nire  ■  and  that  no  peace  should  be  signed  unless 
their  indissoluble  union  with  the  monarchy  were 
recognized.     The   Tyrolese  quietly  trusted   the 
emperor's  promise,  until  the  armistice  of  Znaira. 
But  in  this  the  Tyrol  was  not  mentioned,  and  the 
French  and  their  allies  prepared  to  chastise  the 
loval  and   abandoned  country.  — C.    i.   ^e'W's 
Hist    of  Germany,  ch.  28.-"  In  the  month  of 
July   an  army  of  40,000  French  and  Bavarians 
attacked  the  Tyrol  from  the  German  side;  while 
from  Italy,  General  Rusca,  with  18,000  men   en_ 
tered  from  Clagenfurth,  on  the  southern  side  of 
the  Tyrolese  Alps.     Undismayed  by   his  double 
and   formidable   invasion,  they  assailed   the  in- 
vadevs  as  they  penetrated  into  their  fastnesses 
defeated  and   destroyed   them      The  fate  of  a 
division  of  10,000  men,  belonging  to  the  French 
and  Bavarian  army,  which  entered  the  Upper 
Innthal,  or  Valley  of  the   Inn,  will  explam  m 
part  th2  means  by  which  these  victories  were  ob- 
tained    The  invading  troops  advanced  in  a  long 
column  up  a  road  bordered  on  the  one  side  by 
the  river  Inn,  there  a  deep  and   rapid   torrent 
where  cliffs  of  immense  height  overhang  both 
road  and  river.     The  vanguard  was  permitted 
to  advance  unopposed  as  far  as  Prutz,  the  object 
of  their  expedition.     The  rest  of  the  army  were 
therefore  induced  to  trust  themselves  still  deeper 
in   this  tremendous  pass,  wliere  the  precipices, 
becoming   more   and  more   narrow  as  they  ad- 
vanced, seemed  about  to  close  above  their  heads. 
No  sound  but  of  the  screaming  of  the  eagles  dis- 
turbed  from  their  eyries,  and  the  roar  of  the 
river  reached  the  ears  of  the  soldier,  and  on  the 
precipices,  partly  enveloped  in  a  hazy  mist,  no 
human  forms  showed  themselves.     At  length  the 
voice  of  a  man  was  heard  calling  across  the 
ravine    'Shall  we  begin?'— 'No,'  was  returned 
in  an  authoritative  tone  of  voice,  by  one  who 
like  the  first  speaker,  seemed  the  inhabitant  ot 
some  upper  region.     The  Bavarian  detachment 
halted,  and  sent  to  the  general  for  orders;  when 
presently  was  heard  the  terrible  signal,     In  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  cut  all  loose !      Huge 
rocks    and  trunks  of  trees,   long  prepared  and 
laid  i'n  heaps  for  the  purpose,  began  now  to  de- 
scend rapidly  in  every  direction,  while  the  deadly 
fire  of  the  Tyrolese,  who  never  throw  away  a 
shot  opened  from  every  bush,  crag,  or  corner  of 
rock   which  would  aflEord  the  shooter  cover.     As 
this  dreadful  attack  was  made  on  the  whole  line 
at  once   two-thirds  of  the  enemy  were  instantly 
destroyed;    while  the    Tyrolese,   rushing    from 
their  shelter,  with  swords,  spears,  axes,  scythes 
clubs   and    all   other  rustic   instruments   which 
could  be  converted  into  weapons,  beat  down  and 
routed  the  shattered  remainder.      As  the  van- 
guard  which  liad  reached  Prutz,  was  obliged  to 
surrender,  very  few  of  the  10,000  invaders  are 
computed  to  have  extricated  themselves  from  the 
fatal  pass.     But  not  all  the  courage  of  the  Tyro- 
lese  not  all  the  strength  of  their  country,  could 
possibly  enable  them  to  defend  themselves,  when 
the  peace  with  Austria  had  permitted  Buonaparte 
to  engage  his  whole  immense  means  for  the  ac- 
quisition  of  these   mountains.      Austria   too  — 
Austria  herself,  in  whose  cause  they  had  incurred 


all  the  dangers  of  war,  instead  of  securing  their 
indemnity  by  some  stipulations  in  the  treaty,  sent 
them  a  cold  exhortation  to  lay  down  their  arms. 
Resistance,  therefore,  was  abandoned  as  fruitless; 
Hofer  chief  commander  of  the  Tyrolese,  resigned 
his  command,  and  the  Bavarians  regained  the 
possession  of  a  country  which  they  could  never 
have  won  back  by  their  own  efforts.  Holer 
and  about  thirty  chiefs  of  these  valiant  defenders 
of  their  country,  were  put  to  deatli  [February 
18101  in  poor  revenge  for  the  loss  their  bravery 
had  occasioned.  But  their  fame,  as  their  immor- 
tal spirit,  was  beyond  the  power  of  the  judge 
alike  and  executioner;  and  the  place  where  their 
blood  was  shed,  becomes  sacred  to  the  thoughts 
of  freedom,  as  the  precincts  of  a  temple  to  those 
of  religion.  "-Sir  W.  Scott,  Life  of  Napoleon,  v. 

^'  Also  in;  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hut  of  Europe  1789- 
1815,  cJi.  58  (V.  n).-Hut.  o/W'^'- (^^'^«">f^,' 
July,  1817). -C.  H.  Hall,  Life  of  Ai^re'J^  Hofeu 
A  D  i8io.  —  Annexation  of  the  Hanse 
Towns  and  territory  on  the  North  Sea  to 
France.     See  France  ;  A.  D.  1810  (February- 

December).  ,    .  u     a  ,^v. 

A  D  1810-1812.— Marriage  of  the  Arcn- 
duchess  Marie  Louise  of  Austria  to  Napoleon 
-Alliance  of  German  powers  with  Napoleon 
against  Russia.  See  France;  A.  D-. 1810-181^. 
A  D  1812.— The  Russian  campaign  of  Na- 
poleon and  its  disastrous  ending.  See  Russia; 
A.  D.  1812  (JiiNE— September),  (September), 
and  (October— December).  . 

AD.   i8i2-i8i3.-The   Teutomc    up"smg 
against  Napoleon.-Beginning  of  the  War  of 
Liberation.-Alliance  of  Prussia  and  Russia 
—"During   Napoleon's   march  on  Moscow  ana 
his    fatal    return,  Macdonald  remained  on  the 
Lower  Dwina,  before  Riga,  with  an  observation 
corps  of  Prussians  and   Poles,  nor  had  he  ever 
received   an  order  to  retreat    from    Napoleon. 
Learning  of  the  misfortunes  of  the  grand  army, 
he  went  from  the  Dwina  towards  the  Niemen. 
As  he  passed  through  Couriand,  General  York, 
commander  of  the  Prussian  troops  allowed  him 
to  lead  the  way  with  the  Poles,  and  then  signed 
an  agreement  of   neutrality  with   the  Russians 
(December  30,  1812).     The  Prussian  troops,  from 
a  military  spirit  of  honor,  had  fought  the  Rus- 
sians bravely ;  they  retained  some  scruples  rela- 
tive to  the  worthy  marshal  under  whom  they 
served  and  forsook  without  betraying  him,  that 
is  they  left  him  time  to  escape.     This  was  a 
most  important  event  and  the  beginning  of  the 
inevitable  defection  of  Germany.     The  attitude 
of  Czar  Alexander  decided  General  \ork;    the 
former  was  completely  dazzled  by  his  triumphs, 
and  aspired  to  nothing  less  than  to  destroy  Na- 
poleon and  liberate  Europe,  even  France !     With 
mingled  enthusiasm  and  calculation,  he  promised 
all  things  to  all  men ;  on  returning  to  Wilna,  he 
D-ranted  an  amnesty  for  all  acts  committed  in  Po- 
Tand  against  Russian  authority.     On   the  one 
hand  he  circulated  a  rumor  that  he  was  about 
to  make  himself  King  of  Poland,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  announced  to  the  Prussians  that 
he  was  ready  to  restore   the  Polish   provinces 
taken  from  them  by  Napoleon.     He  authorized 
ex-Minister  Stein  to  take  possession,  as  we  may 
say    of    Old    Prussia,    just    evacuated    by    the 
French   and  to  promise  the  speedy  enfranchise- 
ment of  Germany,  protesting,  at  the  same  time, 
that  he  would  not  dispute  '  the  legitimate  great- 


1555 


GERMANY,  1813-1813. 


The  War 
of  Liberation. 


GERMANY,  1813-1813. 


ness '  of  France.  The  French  army,  on  hearing 
of  York's  defection,  left  KOnigsberg  with  ten  or 
twelve  thousand  sick  men  and  eight  or  ten 
thousand  armed  troops,  withdrawing  to  the  Vis- 
tula and  thence  to  Warta  and  Posen.  General 
Rapp  had  succeeded  in  gathering  at  Dantzic, 
the  great  French  depot  of  stores  and  reserves, 
25,000  men,  few  of  whom  had  gone  througli  the 
Russian  campaign,  and  a  division  of  almost 
equal  numbers  occupied  Berlin.  The  French 
had  in  all  barely  80,000  men,  from  Dantzic  to 
the  Rhine,  not  inchiding  their  Austrian  and 
Saxon  allies,  who  had  fallen  back  on  Warsaw 
and  seemed  disposed  to  fight  no  more.  Jlurat, 
to  whom  Napoleon  confided  the  remains  of  the 
grand  army,  followed  the  Emperor's  example 
and  set  out  to  defend  his  Neapolitan  kingdom, 
leaving  the  chief  command  to  Prince  Eugene. 
Great  agitation  prevailed  around  the  feeble 
French  forces  still  occupying  Germany.  The 
Russians  themselves,  worn  out,  did  not  press  the 
French  very  hotly ;  but  York  and  Stein,  masters 
of  KOnigsberg,  organized  and  armed  Old  Prussia 
without  awaiting  authorization  from  the  king, 
who  was  not  considered  as  a  free  agent,  being 
under  foreign  rule.  Pamphlets,  proclamations, 
and  popular  songs  were  circulated  everywhere, 
provoking  the  people  to  rebellion.  The  idea  of 
German  union  ran  like  wildfire  from  the  Niemen 
to  the  Rhine ;  federal  union,  not  unity  in  a 
single  body  or  state,  which  was  not  thought  of 
then." — H.  Martin,  Popular  Hist,  of  France  from 
1780,  V.  3,  ch.  16.  — "The  king  of  Prussia  had 
suddenly  abandoned  Berlin  [January,  1813], 
which  was  still  in  the  hands  of  the  French,  for 
Breslau,  whence  he  declared  war  against  France. 
A  conference  also  took  place  between  him  and 
the  emperor  Alexander  at  Calisch  [Kalisch],  and, 
on  the  28th  of  Februar}',  1813,  an  offensive  and 
defensive  alliance  was  concluded  between  them. 
The  hour  for  vengeance  had  at  length  arrived. 
The  whole  Prussian  nation,  eager  to  throw  off 
the  hated  yoke  of  the  foreigner,  to  obliterate 
their  disgrace  in  1806,  to  regain  their  ancient 
name,  cheerfully  hastened  to  place  their  lives 
and  property  at  the  service  of  the  impoverished 
government.  The  whole  of  the  able-bodied  pop- 
ulation was  put  under  arras.  The  standing 
army  was  increased :  to  each  regiment  were  ap- 
pended troops  of  volunteers,  Jaegers,  composed 
of  young  men  belonging  to  the  higher  classes, 
who  furnished  their  own  equipments :  a  numer- 
ous Landwehr,  a  sort  of  militia,  was,  as  in  Aus- 
tria, raised  besides  the  standing  army,  and 
measures  were  even  taken  to  call  out,  in  case  of 
necessity,  the  heads  of  families  and  elderly  men 
remaining  at  home,  under  the  name  of  the  Land- 
sturm.  The  enthusiastic  people,  besides  fur- 
nishing the  customary  supplies  and  paying  the 
taxes,  contributed  to  the  full  extent  of  their 
means  towards  defraying  the  immense  expense 
of  this  general  arming.  Every  heart  throbbed 
high  with  pride  and  hope.  .  .  .  More  loudly 
than  even  in  1809  in  Austria  was  the  German 
cause  now  discussed,  the  great  name  of  the  Ger- 
man empire  now  invoked  in  Prussia,  for  in  that 
name  alone  could  all  the  races  of  Germany  be 
united  against  their  hereditary  foe.  The  cele- 
brated proclamation,  promising  external  and  in- 
ternal liberty  to  Germany,  was,  with  this  view, 
published  at  Calisch  by  Prussia  and  Russia.  Nor 
was  the  appeal  vain.  It  found  an  echo  in  every 
German  heart,  and  such  plain  demonstrations  of 


the  state  of  the  popular  feeling  on  this  side  the 
Rhine  were  made,  that  Davoust  sent  serious 
warning  to  Napoleon,  who  contemptuously  re- 
plied, 'Pahl  Germans  never  can  become  Span- 
iards ! '  With  his  customary  rapidity  he  levied 
in  France  a  fresh  army  300,000  strong,  with 
which  he  so  completely  awed  the  Rhenish  con- 
federation as  to  compel  it  once  more  to  take  the 
field  with  thousands  of  Germans  against  their 
brother  Germans.  The  troops,  however,  re- 
luctantly obeyed,  and  even  the  traitors  were  but 
lukewarm,  for  they  doubted  of  success.  ]Meck- 
lenburg  alone  sided  with  Prussia.  Austria  re- 
mained neutral.  A  Russian  corps  under  General 
Tettenborn  had  preceded  the  rest  of  the  troops 
and  reached  the  coasts  of  the  Baltic.  As  early 
as  the  24th  of  March,  1813,  it  appeared  in  Ham- 
burg and  expelled  the  French  authorities  from 
the  city.  The  heavily  oppressed  people  of  Ham- 
burg, whose  commerce  had  been  totally  annihi- 
lated by  the  continental  system,  gave  way  to  the 
utmost  demonstrations  of  delight,  received  their 
deliverers  with  open  arms,  revived  their  ancient 
rights,  and  immediately  raised  a  Hanseatic  corps 
destined  to  take  the  field  against  Napoleon. 
DOrnberg,  the  ancient  foe  to  France,  with  an- 
other flj'ing  squadron  took  the  French  division 
under  Morand  prisoner,  and  the  Prussian,  Major 
Hellwig  (the  same  who,  in  1806,  liberated  the 
garrison  of  Erfurt),  dispersed,  with  merely  120 
hussars,  a  Bavarian  regiment  1,300  strong  and 
captured  five  pieces  of  artillery.  In  January, 
the  peasantry  of  the  upper  country  had  already 
revolted  against  the  conscription,  and,  in  Febru- 
ary, patriotic  proclamations  had  been  dissemi- 
nated throughout  Westphalia  under  the  signature 
of  the  Baron  von  Stein.  In  this  month,  also. 
Captain  Maas  and  two  other  patriots,  who  had 
attempted  to  raise  a  rebellion,  were  executed. 
As  the  army  advanced.  Stein  was  nominated 
chief  of  the  provisional  government  of  the  still 
unconquered  provinces  of  Western  Germany. 
The  first  Russian  army,  17,000  strong,  under 
Wittgenstein,  pushed  forward  to  Magdeburg, 
and,  at  MOkern,  repulsed  40,000  French  who 
were  advancing  upon  Berlin.  The  PrussianSj 
under  their  veteran  general,  BlUcher,  entered 
Saxony  and  garrisoned  Dresden,  on  the  27th  of 
March,  1813,  after  an  arch  of  the  fine  bridge 
across  the  Elbe  [had]  been  uselessly  blown  up  by 
the  French.  Bliicher,  whose  gallantry  in  the 
former  wars  had  gained  for  him  the  general  es- 
teem and  whose  kind  and  generous  disposition 
had  won  the  affection  of  the  soldiery,  was  nomi- 
nated generalissimo  of  the  Prussian  forces,  but 
subordinate  in  command  to  Wittgenstein,  who 
replaced  Kutusow  as  generalissimo  of  the  united 
forces  of  Russia  and  Prussia.  The  Emperor  of 
Russia  and  the  King  of  Prussia  accompanied  the 
army  and  were  received  with  loud  acclamations 
by  the  people  of  Dresden  and  Leipzig." — W. 
Menzel,  Hist,  of  Germany,  ch.  260  {v.  3). — Berna- 
dotte,  the  adopted  Crown  Prince  and  expectant 
King  of  Sweden,  had  been  finally  thrown  into 
the  arms  of  the  new  Coalition  against  Napoleon, 
by  the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  take  Norway  from 
Denmark  and  give  it  to  Sweden.  ' '  The  disastrous 
retreat  of  the  French  from  Moscow  .  .  .  led  to  the 
signature  of  the  Treaty  of  Stockholm  on  the  2d 
of  March,  1813,  by  which  England  acceded  to 
the  union  of  Norway  to  Sweden,  and  a  Swedish 
force  was  sent  to  Pomerania  under  General  San- 
dels.      On  the  18th  of  May,   1813,   Bernadotte 


1556 


GERMANY,  1812-1813. 


Saxony  humbled. 


GERMANY,  1813. 


landed  at  Stralsund."-Lady  Bloomfield,  Mog 
Sketch  ofSernadotte  (Memoir  of  Lord  Bloomfield, 

"■  Aifso^iN :  J.  R.  Secley,  Life  and  Tijnss  of  Stein 
pt.  7  (v.  3).— A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  CoimUate  and 
the  Empire,  hk.  47  (r.  4).  . 

A  D.  1813  (April-May).-Battle  of  Lutzen. 
—Humiliation  of  the  King  of  Saxony.—    On 
the  14th  April,  Napoleon  left  Pans  to  assume  the 
command  of  the  army.     Previous  to  his  depar- 
ture with  a  view,  perhaps,  of  paymg  a  compli- 
ment to  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  the  Empress 
Marie  Louise  was  appointed  regent  in  his  absence ; 
but  Prince  Schwarzenberg,  who  had  arrived  on  a 
special  mission  from  Vienna   was  treated  only  as 
the  commander  of  an  au.xiliary  corps  to  which 
orders  would  immediately  be  transmitted.     On 
the  16th  he   reached  Mayence,  where,  for  the 
last  time,  vassal  princes  assembled  courtier-like 
around  him;  and  on  the  20th  he^as. already  at 
Erfurt  in  the  midst  of  his  newly-raised  army. 
The  roads  were  everywhere  cro^^;ded  with  troops 
and  artillery,  closing  in  towards  the  b?n.ks  of  the 
Saale.    From  Italy,  Marshal  Bertrand  joined  with 
40  000  men,  old  trained   soldiers;   the  Viceroy 
brought  an  equal  number  from  the  vicinity  of 
Magdeburg;  and  Marshal  Macdonald  having   on 
the  29th  tiken  Merseburg  by  assault,  the  who  e 
armv   which  Bade,  the  ablest  and  most  accurate 
of  the  authors  who  have  written  on  this  campaign, 
estimates  at  140,000  men,  was  assembled  for  ac- 
«on     With  this  mighty  force  Napoleon  deter- 
mined to  seek  out  the  enemy,  and  bring  them 
ouickly  to  battle.     The  Russian   and   Prussian 
armies  were  no  sooner  united,  after  the  alliance 
concluded  between  the  sovereigns,   than    they 
crossed  the  Elbe,  occupied  Dresden,  which  the 
Kine  of  Saxony  had  abandoned,  and  advanced  to 
the  banks  of  the  Saale.     General  Bllicher  com- 
manded the  Prussians,  and  Count  Wittgenstein 
the  Russian  corps;  and,  death  having  closed  the 
career  of  old  Marshal  KutusofE,  .  .      the  com- 
mand of  both  armies  devolved  upon  the  last  men- 
tioned officer.     Informed  of  the  rapid  advance  of 
the  French    the   allied  monarchs    joined   their 
forces   which  were  drawn  together  in  the  plains 
between  the  Saale  and  the  Elbe;  their  numerous 
cavalrv  giving  them  perfect    command   of   this 
wide  and  open  country.     Napoleon,  always  anx- 
ious for  battle,  determined  to  press  on  towards 
Leipzig   behind  which  he  expected   to  hnd  the 
Allied  army,   who,   as  it  proved    were   much 
nearer  than  he  anticipated.     At  the  passage  of 
the  Rippach,  a  small  stream  that  borders  the  wide 
plain  of  Latzen,  he  already  encountered  a  body 
of  Russian  cavalry  and  artillery  under  Count 
Winzingerode;  and  as  the  French  were  weak  in 
horse,  they  had  to  bring  the  whole  of  Marshal 
Ney's  corps  into  action  before  they  could  oblige 
the  Russians  to  retire.     Marshal  Bessieres.  the 
commander  of  the  Imperial  Guard,  was  killed. 
On  the  evening  of  the  1st  of  Jlay,  Napoleon 
established  his  quarters  in  the  small  town  of  Lut- 
zen     The  Allies,  conscious  of  the  vast  numerical 
suneriority  of  the  French,  did  not  intend  to  risk 
a  general  action  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Elbe ;  but 
the  length  of  the  hostile  column  of  march,  which 
extended  from  beyond  Naumberg  almost  to  the 
eates  of  Leipzig,  induced  Scharnhorst  to  propose 
In  advance   from  the  direction  of   Borna  and 
Pegau  against  the  right  flank  of  the  enemy,  and 
a  sudden  attack  on  the  centre  of  their  line  in 
the  plain  of  Lutzen.     It  was  expected  that  a  de- 


cisive blow  might  be  struck  against  tbib  centre 
and  the  hostile  army  broken  before  the  distant 
wings  could  close  up  and  take  an  effective  part 
in  the  battle.     The  open  nature  of  the  country 
well  adapted  to   the  action  of  cava  ry,  which 
formed  the  principal  strength  "J,  *e^  ^J^^vf P°^^ 
in  favour  of  the   plan.  .  .  .  The  bo  d  attempt 
was  immediately  resolved  upon,  and  the  onset 
fixed  for  the  following  morning.     The  annals  ot 
war  can  hardly  offer  a  plan  of  battle  more  skil- 
fully conceived  than  the  one  of  which  we  have 
here  spoken ;  but  unfortunately  the  execution  fell 
far  short  of  the  admirable  conception.    Napoleon, 
with  his  Guards  and  the  corps  of  Launston   was 
already  at  the  gates  of  Leipzig,  preparing  for  an 
attack  on  the  city,  when  about  one  o  clock  [May 
21  the  roar  of  artillery  burst  suddenly  on  the  ear 
and  gathering  thicker  and  thicker  as  it  rolled 
alonl,  proclaimed  that  a  general  action  was  en- 
gaged in  the  plain  of  Liitzen,-  proclaimed  that 
the   army  was  taken  completely  at  fault    and 
placed  in  the  most  imminent  peril.  .  .  .    1  he  Al- 
lies who,  by  means  of  their  numerous  cavabry, 
could  easily  mask  their  movement,  had  advanced 
unobserved  into  the  plain  of  Lutzen     a,nd  the 
action  was  begun  by  a  brigade  of  Blilcher  s  corps 
attacking   the   French   in   the  viUage  of  Great- 
GarscheS    (Gross-G5rschen).       "Reinforcements 
poured  in  from  both  sides,  and  the  narrow 
and  intersected  ground  between  the  villages  be- 
came the  scene  of  a  most  murderous  and  closely- 
contested  combat  of  infantry.   ...  But  no  at- 
tempt was  made  to  employ  the  numerous  and 
splendid  cavalry,  that  stood  idly  exposed,  on  open 
plain,  to  the  shot  of  the  French  artillery       .  . 
When  night  put  an  end  to  the  combat,  Great- 
G&rschen  was  the  sole  trophy  of  the  murderous 
fight  that  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Allies 
On  the  side  of  the  Allies,  3, 000  Russians  and 
8  boo  Prussians  had  been  killed  or  wounded: 
among  the  slain  was  Prince  Leopold  of  Hessen- 
Homburg;  among  the  wounded  was  the  admir- 
able Scharnhorst,  who  died  a  few  weeks  after- 
wards The  loss  sustained  by  the  French  is 
not  exactly  known;  but  .  .   .  Jomini  tells  us  that 
the  3d  corps,  to  which  he  was  attached  as  chief 
of  the  staff,  had  alone  500  officers  and  12,000  men 
•  hors  de  combat. '    Both  parties  laid  claim  to  the 
victory  •  the  French,  because  the  Allies  retired  on 
the  day  after  the  action;  the  Allies,  because  they 
remained  masters  of  part  of  the  captured  battle^ 
field  had  taken  two  pieces  of  artillery,  and  HOW 
nrisoners.   ...  The  Allies  alleged,  or  pretended 
perhaps,  that  it  was  their  intention  to  renew  the 
action  on  the  following  morning :  in  the  Prussian 
army  every  man,  from  the  king  to  the  humblest 
soldier   was  anxious  indeed  to  continue  the  tray ; 
and  the  wrath  of  BUtcher,  who  deemed  victory 
certain  was  altogether  boundless  when  he  tound 
the  retreat  determined  upon.     But      .   .  opinion 
has    by  de"Tees,   justified  Count  AVittgenstem  s 
resolution  to  recross  the  Elbe  and  fall  back  on 
the  reinforcements  advancing  to  join  the  armjr. 
On  the  8th  of  May,  Napoleon  held  his  tri- 
umphal entrance  into  Dresden.  ...  On  the  ad- 
vance of  the  Allies,  the  Saxon  monarch  had  re- 
tired to  Ratisbon,  and  from  thence  to  Prague, 
intending,  as  he  informed  Napoleon,  to  join  his 
efforts  to  the  mediation  of  Austria.     Orders  had, 
at  the  same  time,  been  given  to  General   Ihiei- 
man  commanding  the  Saxon  troops  at  Torgau,  to 
maintain  the  most  perfect  neutrality,  and  to  ad- 
mit neither  of  the  contending  parties  \nthln  the 


1557 


GERMANY,   1813, 


Napoleon's 
infatuation. 


GERMANY,   1813. 


walls  of  the  fortress.  Exasperated  by  this  show 
of  independence,  Napoleon  caused  the  following 
demands  to  be  submitted  to  the  King,  allowing 
him  only  six  hours  to  determine  on  their  accept- 
ance or  refusal : — 1.  '  General  Thielnian  and  the 
Saxon  troops  instantly  evacuate  Torgau,  and 
form  the  7th  corps  under  General  Iteynier ;  and 
all  the  resources  of  the  country  to  be  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  Emperor,  in  conformity  with  the 
principles  of  the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine. '  3. 
'  The  Saxon  Cavalry  ' —  some  regiments  had  ac- 
companied the  King — 'return  immediately  to 
Dresden.'  3.  ' The  King  declares,  in  a  letter  to 
the  Emperor,  that  he  is  still  a  member  of  the  Con- 
federation of  the  Rhine,  and  read}'  to  fulfil  all  the 
obligations  which  it  imposes  upon  him. '  '  If 
these  conditions  are  not  immediately  complied 
vpith,'  says  Napoleon  in  the  instructions  to  his 
messenger,  'you  will  cause  his  Majesty  to  be  in- 
formed that  he  is  guilty  of  felony,  has  forfeited 
the  Imperial  protection,  and  has  ceased  to  reign. ' 
.  .  .  Frederick  Augustus,  finding  himself  threat- 
ened with  the  loss  of  his  crown  by  an  overbearing 
conqueror  already  in  possession  of  his  capital, 
.  .  .  yielded  in  an  evil  hour  to  those  imperious 
demands,  and  returned  to  Dresden.  .  .  .  Fortune 
appeared  again  to  smile  upon  her  spoiled  and 
favoured  child;  and  he  resolved,  on  his  part,  to 
leave  no  expedient  untried  to  make  the  most  of 
her  returning  aid.  The  mediation  of  Austria, 
which  from  the  first  had  been  galling  to  his  pride, 
became  more  hateful  every  day,  as  it  gradually 
assumed  the  appearance  of  an  armed  interference, 
ready  to  enforce  its  demands  by  military  means. 
.  .  .  Tidings  having  arrived  that  the  allied  army, 
instead  of  continuing  their  retreat,  had  halted  and 
taken  post  at  Bautzen,  he  immediately  resolved 
to  strike  a  decisive  blow  in  the  field,  as  the 
best  means  of  thwarting  the  pacific  efforts  of  his 
father-in-law."— Lt. -Col.  J.  Mitchell,  The  Fall  of 
Napoleon,  bk.  3,  ch.  1  (».  3). 

Also  in:  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  1789- 
1815,  ch.  75  (i\  13). — Duchess  d'  Abrantes,  Mem- 
oirs of  Napoleon,  i\  3,  ch.  44, 

A.  D.  1813  (May— August).— Battle  of  Baut- 
zen.—  Armistice  of  Pleswitz. —  Accession  of 
Austria  and  Great  Britain  to  the  Coalition 
against  Napoleon. — "  While  the  Emperor  paused 
at  Dresden,  Ney  made  various  demonstrations  in 
the  direction  of  Berlin,  with  the  view  of  inducing 
the  Allies  to  quit  Bautzen ;  but  it  soon  became 
manifest  that  they  had  resolved  to  sacrifice  the 
Prussian  capital,  if  it  were  necessary,  rather  than 
forego  their  position.  .  .  .  Having  replaced  by 
■wood-work  some  arches  of  the  magnificent  bridge 
over  the  Elbe  at  Dresden,  which  the  Allies  had 
blown  up  on  their  retreat,  Napoleon  now  moved 
towards  Bautzen,  and  came  in  sight  of  the  posi- 
tion on  the  morning  of  the  31st  of  May,  Its 
strength  was  obviously  great.  In  their  front 
was  the  river  Spree:  wooded  hills  supported 
tlieir  right,  and  eminences  well  fortified  their 
left.  The  action  began  with  an  attempt  to  turn 
tlieir  right,  but  Barclay  de  Tolly  anticipated  this 
movement,  and  repelled  it  with  such  vigour  that 
a  whole  column  of  7,000  dispersed  and  fled  into 
the  hills  of  Bohemia  for  safety.  The  Emperor 
then  determined  to  pass  the  Spree  in  front  of  the 
■enemy,  and  they  permitted  him  to  do  so,  rather 
than  come  down  from  their  position.  He  took 
up  his  quarters  in  the  town  of  Bautzen,  and  his 
■whole  army  bivouacked  in  presence  of  the  Allies, 
The  battle  was  resumed  at  daybreak  on  the  33d; 


when  Ney  on  the  right,  and  Oudinot  on  the  left, 
attempted  simultaneously  to  turn  the  flanks  of 
the  position ;  while  Soult  and  Napoleon  himself 
directed  charge  after  charge  on  the  centre.  Dur- 
ing four  hours  the  struggle  ■was  maintained  with 
unflinching  obstinacy ;  the  wooded  heights,  where 
Blucher  commanded,  had  been  taken  and  retaken 
several  times  —  the  bloodshed  on  either  side  had 
been  terrible  —  ere  .  .  .  the  Allies  perceived  the 
necessity  either  of  retiring,  or  of  continuing  the 
fight  against  superior  numbers  on  disadvanta- 
geous ground.  "They  withdrew  accordingly ;  but 
still  with  all  the  deliberate  coolness  of  a  parade, 
halting  at  every  favourable  spot  and  renewing 
their  cannonade.  '  What,' exclaimed  Napoleon, 
'no  results!  not  a  gun!  not  a  prisoner!  —  these 
people  will  not  leave  me  so  much  as  a  nail.' 
During  the  whole  day  he  urged  the  pursuit  with 
impetuous  rage,  reproacliing  even  his  chosen 
generals  as  'creeping  scoundrels,'  and  exposing 
his  own  person  in  the  very  hottest  of  the  fire." 
His  closest  friend,  Duroc,  Grand  Master  of  the 
Palace,  was  mortally  wounded  by  his  side,  be- 
fore he  gave  up  the  pursuit.  "The  Allies, 
being  strongly  posted  during  most  of  the  day, 
had  suffered  less  than  the  French ;  the  latter  had 
lost  15,000,  the  former  10,000  men.  They  con- 
tinued their  retreat  into  Upper  Silesia;  and  Buo- 
naparte advanced  to  Breslau,  and  released  the 
garrison  of  Glogau.  Meanwhile  the  Austrian, 
having  watched  these  indecisive  though  bloody 
fields,  once  more  renewed  his  offers  of  mediation. 
The  sovereigns  of  Russia  and  Prussia  expressed 
great  willingness  to  accept  it;  and  Napoleon 
also  appears  to  have  been  sincerely  desirous  for 
the  moment  of  bringing  his  disputes  to  a  peace- 
ful termination.  He  agreed  to  an  armistice  [of 
six  weeks],  and  in  arranging  Its  conditions  agreed 
to  fall  back  out  of  Silesia;  thus  enabling  the 
allied  princes  to  reopen  communications  with 
Berlin.  The  lines  of  country  to  be  occupied  by 
the  armies,  respectively,  during  the  truce,  were 
at  length  settled,  and  it  was  signed  on  the  1st  of 
June  [at  Poischwitz,  though  the  negotiations 
were  mostly  carried  on  at  Pleswitz,  whence  the 
Armistice  is  usualh'  named].  The  French  Em- 
peror then  returned  to  Dresden,  and  a  general 
congress  of  diplomatists  prepared  to  meet  at 
Prague.  England  alone  refused  to  send  any  rep- 
resentative to  Prague,  alleging  that  Buonaparte 
had  as  yet  signified  no  disposition  to  recede  from 
his  pretensions  on  Spain,  and  that  he  had  con- 
sented to  the  armistice  with  the  sole  view  of 
gaining  time  for  political  intrigue  and  further 
military  preparation.  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
any  of  the  allied  powers  who  took  part  in  the 
Congress  did  so  with  much  hope  that  the  disputes 
with  Napoleon  could  find  a  peaceful  end.  .  ,  , 
But  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance  to  gain  time 
for  the  advance  of  Bernadotte;  for  the  arrival  of 
new  reinforcements  from  Russia ;  for  the  comple- 
tion of  the  Prussian  organization ;  and,  above  all, 
for  determining  the  policy  of  Vienna,  Metter- 
nich,  the  Austrian  minister,  repaired  in  person  to 
Dresden,  and  while  inferior  diplomatists  wasted 
time  in  endless  discussions  at  Prague,  one  inter- 
view between  him  and  Napoleon  brought  the 
whole  question  to  a  definite  issue.  The  Emperor 
.  .  .  assumed  at  once  that  Austria  had  no  wish 
but  to  drive  a  good  bargain  for  herself,  and  asked 
broadly,  '  What  is  your  price  ?  Will  lUyria  sat- 
isfy you  ?  I  only  wish  you  to  be  neutral  —  I  can 
deal  with  these  Russians  and  Prussians  single- 


1558 


GERMANY,  1813. 


The  new  Coalition. 


GERMANY,  1813. 


handed. '  Metternlch  stated  plainly  that  the  time 
in  which  Austria  could  be  neutral  was  past ;  that 
the  situation  of  Europe  at  large  must  be  consid- 
ered ;  .  .  .  that  events  had  proved  the  impossi- 
bility of  a  steadfast  peace  unless  the  sovereigns 
of  the  Continent  were  restored  to  the  ranii  of  in- 
dependence; in  a  word,  tliat  the  Rlienish  Con- 
federacy must  be  broken  up ;  tliat  France  must 
be  contented  with  the  boundary  of  the  Rhine, 
and  pretend  no  longer  to  maintain  her  usurped 
and  unnatural  influence  in  Germany.  Napoleon 
replied  by  a  gross  personal  insult:  'Come,  Met- 
ternlch, '  said  he,  '  tell  me  honestly  how  much 
the  English  have  given  you  to  talie  their  part 
against  me. '  The  Austrian  court  at  length  sent 
a  formal  document,  containing  its  ultimatum,  the 
tenor  of  which  Metternlch  had  sufficiently  indi- 
cated in  this  conversation.  Talleyrand  and  Fou- 
che,  who  had  now  arrived  from  Paris,  urged  the 
Emperor  to  accede  to  the  proffered  terms.  They 
represented  to  him  the  madness  of  rousing  all 
Europe  to  conspire  for  his  destruction,  and  in- 
sinuated that  the  progress  of  discontent  was 
rapid  in  France  itself.  Their  arguments  were 
backed  by  intelligence  of  the  most  disastrous 
character  from  Spain  [see  Spain:  A.  D.  1812- 
1814].  .  .  .  Napoleon  was  urged  by  his  military 
as  well  as  political  advisers,  to  appreciate  duly 
the  crisis  which  his  affairs  had  reached.  ...  He 
proceeded  to  insult  both  ministers  and  generals 
.  .  .  and  ended  by  announcing  that  he  did  not 
wish  for  any  plans  of  theirs,  but  their  service  in 
the  execution  of  his.  Thus  blinded  by  arro- 
gance and  self-confidence,  and  incapable  of  weigh- 
ing any  other  considerations  against  what  he 
considered  as  the  essence  of  his  personal  glory, 
Napoleon  refused  to  abate  one  iota  of  his  preten- 
sions—  until  it  was  too  late.  Then,  indeed,  .  .  . 
he  did  show  some  symptoms  of  concession.  A 
courier  arrived  at  Prague  with  a  note,  in  which 
he  signified  his  willingness  to  accede  to  a  consid- 
erable number  of  the  Austrian  stipulations.  But 
this  was  on  the  11th  of  August.  The  day  pre- 
ceding was  that  on  which,  by  the  agreement,  the 
armistice  was  to  end.  On  that  day  Austria  had 
to  sign  ah  alliance,  offensive  and  defensive,  with 
Russia  and  Prussia.  On  the  night  between  the 
10th  and  11th,  rockets  answering  rockets,  from 
height  to  heiglit  along  the  frontiers  of  Bohemia 
and  Silesia,  had  announced  to  all  the  armies  of 
the  Allies  this  accession  of  strength,  and  the  im- 
mediate recommencement  of  hostilities." — J.  G. 
Lockhart,  Life  of  Napoleon  Buonaparte,  ch.  33- 
33.^"  On  the  14th  of  June  Great  Britain  had  be- 
come a  party  to  the  treaty  concluded  between 
Russia  and  Prussia.  She  had  promised  assis- 
tance in  this  great  struggle;  but  no  aid  could 
have  been  more  effectual  than  that  which  she 
was  rendering  in  the  Peninsula." — C.  Knight, 
Popular  Hint,  of  Eng. ,  ch.  33  («.  7). 

Also  in  :  G.  R.  Gleig,  The  Leipsic  Campaign, 
eh.  7-16. — A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  tlie  Consulate  and 
the  Empire,  bk.  48-49  (v.  4). — Prince  Metternich, 
Memoirs,  1773-1815,  bk.  1,  ch.  8  (v.  1).— J.  R. 
Seeley,  Life  and  Times  of  Stein,  pt.  7,  ch.  ir-5  (v. 
3). — J.  Philippart,  Northern  Campaigns,  1813- 
1813.  V.  3. 

A.  D.  1813  (August).— Great  battle  and  vic- 
tory of  Napoleon  at  Dresden. — French  defeats 
at  Kulm,  Gross-Beeren  and  the  Katzbach. — 
"Dresden,  during  the  armistice,  had  been  con- 
verted by  Napoleon  into  such  a  place  of  strength 
that  it  might  be  called  one  citadel.     All  the  trees 


in  Uie  neighbourhood,  as  well  as  those  which  had 
formed  the  ornament  of  the  public  gardens  and 
walks  of  that  beautiful  capital,  were  cut  down 
and  converted  into  abattis  and  palisades;  re- 
doubts, field-works,  and  fosses  had  been  con- 
structed. The  chain  of  fortresses  garrisoned  by 
French  troops  secured  to  Napoleon  the  rich  val- 
ley of  the  Elbe.  Hamburg,  Dantzic,  and  many 
strong  places  on  the  Oder  and  Vistula  were  in  his 
possession.  .  .  .  His  army  assembled  at  the  seat 
of  war  amounted  to  nearly  300,000  men,  including 
the  Bavarian  reserve  of  35,000  under  General 
Wrede,  and  he  had  greatly  increased  his  cavalry. 
This  powerful  force  was  divided  into  eleven 
army  corps,  commanded  by  Vandamme,  Victor, 
Bertrand,  Ney,  Lauriston,  Marmont,  Reynier, 
Poniatowski,  Macdonald,  Oudiuot,  and  St.  Cyr. 
Murat,  who,  roused  by  the  news  of  the  victories 
of  Lutzen  and  Bautzen,  had  left  his  capital,  was 
made  commander-in-chief  of  all  the  cavalry.  .  .  . 
Davoust  held  Hamburg  with  20,000  men.  Au- 
gereau  with  24, 000  occupietl  Bavaria.  Tlie  armies 
of  the  allies  were  computed  at  nearly  400,000 
men,  including  the  divisions  destined  to  invade 
Italy.  Those  ready  for  action  at  the  seat  of  war 
in  Germany  were  divided  into  three  great  masses, 
—  the  army  of  Bohemia,  consisting  mainly  of 
Austrians  commanded  by  Prince  Schwartzen- 
burg ;  the  army  of  Silesia,  commanded  by  Blu- 
cher ;  and  the  troops  under  the  command  of  Ber- 
nadotte,  stationed  near  Berlin.  These  immense 
hosts  were  strong  la  cavalry  and  artillery,  and  in 
discipline  and  experience  far  exceeded  the  French 
soldiers,  who  were  nearly  all  young  conscripts. 
Two  Frenchmen  of  eminence  were  leaders  in  the 
ranks  of  the  enemies  of  France,  —  Bernadotte 
and  Moreau;  Jomini,  late  chief  of  the  engineer 
department  in  Napoleon's  army,  was  a  Swiss. 
These  three  men,  well  instructed  by  the  great 
master  of  the  art  of  war,  directed  the  coimsels  of 
the  allied  Sovereigns  and  taught  them  how  to 
conquer.  Bernadotte  pointed  out  that  Napoleon 
lay  in  Dresden  with  his  guard  of  five-and-twenty 
thousand  men,  while  his  marshals  were  stationed 
in  various  strong  positions  on  the  frontiers  of 
Saxony.  The  moment  a  French  corps  d'armee 
was  attacked  Napoleon  would  spring  from  his 
central  point  upon  the  flank  of  the  assailants, 
and  as  such  a  blow  would  be  irresistible  he  would 
thus  beat  the  allied  armies  in  detail.  To  obviate 
this  danger  Bernadotte  recommended  that  the 
first  general  who  attacked  a  French  division  and 
brought  Napoleon  into  the  field  should  retreat, 
luring  the  Emperor  onward  in  pursuit,  when  the 
other  bodies  of  allied  troops,  simultaneously 
closing  upon  his  rear,  should  surround  him  and 
cut  him  off  from  his  base.  This  plan  was  fol- 
lowed: Blucher  advanced  from  Silesia,  menacing 
the  armies  of  Macdonald  and  Ney,  and  Napoleon, 
with  the  activity  expected,  issued  from  Dresden 
on  the  15th  of  August,  rapidly  reached  the  point 
of  danger,  and  assumed  the  offensive.  But  he 
was  unable  to  bring  the  Prussian  general  to  a  de- 
cisive action,  for  Blucher,  continuing  to  retreat 
before  him,  the  pursuit  was  only  arrested  by  an 
estafette  reporting  on  the  23rd  that  the  main 
body  of  the  allies  threatened  Dresden.  On  the 
25th,  at  4  in  the  afternoon,  200,000  allied  troops 
led  by  Schwartzenburg  appeared  before  that  city. 
St.  Cyr,  who  had  been  left  to  observe  the  passes 
of  the  Bohemian  mountains  with  20,000  men,  re- 
treated before  the  irresistible  torrent  and  threw 
himself  into  the  Saxon  capital,  which  he  prepared 


1559 


GERMANY,  1813. 


Prench  Victory 
and  Defeats. 


GERMANY,  1813. 


to  defend  with  his  own  forces  and  the  garrison 
left  by  the  Emperor.  It  was  a  service  of  the  last 
importance.  With  Dresden  Napoleon  would  lose 
liis  recruiting  depot  and  supplies  of  every  kind. 
.  .  .  The  Austrian  commander-in-chief  deferred 
the  attack  till  the  following  day,  replying  to  the 
expostulations  of  Jomini  that  Napoleon  was  en- 
gaged in  the  Silesian  passes.  Early  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  36th  the  allies  advanced  to  the  assault 
in  six  columns,  under  cover  of  a  tremendous  ar- 
tillery tire.  They  carried  one  great  redoubt,  then 
another,  and  closed  with  the  defenders  of  the 
city  at  every  point,  shells  and  balls  falling  thick 
on  the  houses,  many  of  which  were  on  fire.  St. 
Cyr  conducted  the  defence  with  heroism ;  but  be- 
fore midday  a  surrender  was  talked  of.  .  .  . 
Suddenly,  from  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Elbe 
columns  of  soldiers  were  seen  hastening  towards 
the  city.  They  pressed  across  the  bridges,  swept 
through  the  streets,  and  with  loud  shouts  de- 
manded to  be  led  into  battle,  although  they  had 
made  forced  marches  from  the  frontiers  of  Silesia. 
Napoleon,  with  the  Old  Guard  and  cuirassiers, 
was  in  the  midst  of  them.  His  enemies  had  cal- 
culated on  only  half  his  energy  and  rapidity,  and 
had  forgotten  that  he  could  return  as  quickly  as 
he  left.  The  Prussians  had  penetrated  the  Grosse 
Garten  on  the  French  left,  and  so  close  was  the 
Russian  fire  that  Witgenstein's  guns  enfiladed  the 
road  by  which  Napoleon  had  to  pass ;  consequent- 
ly, to  reach  the  city  in  safety,  he  was  compelled  to 
dismount  at  the  most  exposed  part,  and,  accord- 
ing to  Baron  Odeleben  (one  of  his  aides-de-camp), 
creep  along  on  his  hands  and  knees  (ventre  &, 
terre).  Napoleon  halted  at  the  palace  to  reassure 
the  King  of  Saxony,  and  then  joined  his  troops 
who  were  already  at  the  gates.  Sallies  were 
made  by  Ney  and  Mortier  under  his  direction. 
The  astonished  assailants  were  driven  back.  The 
Young  Guard  recaptured  the  redoubts,  and  the 
French  army  deployed  on  the  plateau  lately  in 
possession  of  their  enemies.  .  .  .  The  fury  of  the 
fight  gradually  slackened,  and  the  armies  took  up 
their  positions  for  the  night.  The  French  wings 
bivouacked  to  the  right  and  left  of  the  city, 
which  itself  formed  Napoleon's  centre.  The 
allies  were  ranged  in  a  semicircle  cresting  the 
heights.  .  .  .  They  had  not  greatly  the  advan- 
tage in  numbers,  for  Klenau's  division  never 
came  up ;  and  Napoleon,  now  that  Victor  and 
Marraont's  corps  had  arrived,  concentrated  nearly 
200,000  men.  .  .  .  The  next  day  broke  in  a  tem- 
pest of  wind  and  rain.  At  six  o'clock  Napoleon 
was  on  horseback,  and  ordered  his  columns  to 
advance.  Their  order  of  battle  has  been  aptly 
compared  to  'a  fan  when  it  expands.'  Their 
position  could  scarcely  have  been  worse.  .  .  . 
Knowing  that  in  case  of  disaster  retreat  would 
be  almost  an  impossibility,  Napoleon  began  an 
attack  on  both  flanks  of  the  allied  army,  certain 
that  their  defeat  would  demoralize  the  centre, 
which  he  could  overwhelm  by  a  simultaneous 
concentric  attack,  supported  by  the  fire  of  100 
guns.  The  stormy  weather  which  concealed 
their  movements  favoured  them;  and  Murat 
turning  and  breaking  the  Austrian  left,  and  Ney 
completely  rolling  up  the  Austrian  right,  the  re- 
sult was  a  decisive  victory.  By  three  in  the 
afternoon  of  the  27th  the  battle  was  concluded, 
and  the  allies  were  in  full  retreat,  pursued  by 
the  French.  The  roads  to  Bohemia  and  those  to 
the  south  were  barred  by  Murat's  and  Van- 
damme's  corps,  and  tie  allied  Sovereigns  were 


obliged  to  take  such  country  paths  and  byways 
as  they  could  find — which  had  been  rendered 
almost  impassable  by  the  heavy  rain.  They  lost 
25,000  prisoners,  40  standards,  60  pieces  of  can- 
non, and  many  waggons.  The  killed  and  wound- 
ed amounted  on  each  side  to  seven  or  eight  thou- 
sand. The  first  cannon-shot  fired  by  the  guard 
under  the  direction  of  Napoleon  mortally  wound- 
ed Moreau  while  talking  to  the  Emperor  Alexan- 
der. .  .  .  The  French  left  wing,  composed  of 
the  three  corps  of  Vandamme,  St.  Cyr,  and  Mar- 
mont,  were  ordered  to  march  by  their  left  along 
the  Pirna  road  in  pursuit  of  the  foe,  who  was  re- 
treating into  Bohemia  in  three  columns,  and  had 
traversed  the  gorges  of  the  Hartz  Mountains  in 
safety,  though  much  baggage,  several  ammuni- 
tion waggons,  and  2,000  prisoners,  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  French.  The  Russians,  under  Os- 
termann,  halted  on  the  plain  of  Culm  [or  Kulm] 
for  the  arrival  of  Kleist's  Prussians;  the  Austri- 
ans  hurried  along  the  Prague  route.  Vandamme 
marched  boldly  on,  neglecting  even  the  precau- 
tion of  guarding  the  defile  of  Peterswald  in  his 
rear.  Trusting  to  the  rapid  advance  of  the  other 
French  corps,  he  was  lured  on  by  the  hope  of 
capturing  the  allied  Sovereigns  in  their  head- 
quarters at  Toplitz.  Barclay  de  Tolly,  having 
executed  a  rapid  detour  from  left  to  right, 
brought  the  bulk  of  his  Russian  forces  to  bear  oa 
Vandamme,  who,  on  reaching  Culm,  was  attacked 
in  front  and  rear  [August  29-30],  surprised  and 
taken,  losing  the  whole  of  his  artillery  and  be- 
tween 7,000  and  8,000  prisoners;  the  rest  of  his 
corps  escaped  and  rejoined  the  army.  This  dis- 
aster totally  deranged  Napoleon's  plans,  which 
would  have  led  him  to  follow  up  the  pursuit  to- 
wards Bohemia  in  person.  Oudiuot  was  ordered 
to  march  against  Billow's  corps  at  Berlin  and  the 
Swedes  commanded  by  Bernadotte,  taking  with 
him  the  divisions  of  Bertraud  and  Reynier  —  a 
force  of  80,000  men.  Reynier,  who  marched  In 
advance,  fell  in  with  the  allies  at  Gross-Beeren, 
attacked  them  precipitately  and  suffered  severely, 
his  division,  chiefly  composed  of  Saxons,  taking 
flight.  Oudinot  also  sustained  considerable  losses, 
and  retreated  to  Torgau  on  the  Elbe.  Girard, 
sallying  out  of  Magdeburg  with  5,000  or  6,006 
men,  was  defeated  near  Leibnitz,  with  the  loss 
of  1,000  men,  and  some  cannon  and  baggage. 
Macdonald  encountered  Blucher  in  the  plains  be- 
tween Wahlstadt  and  the  Katzbach  under  disad- 
vantageous circumstances  [August  26],  and  was 
obliged  to  retire  in  disorder." — R.  H.  Home, 
Hist,  of  Napoleon,  ch.  37. — "  The  great  battle  of 
the  Katzbach,  the  counterpart  to  that  of  Hohen- 
linden,  [was]  one  of  the  most  glorious  ever  gained 
in  the  annals  of  European  fame.  Its  trophies 
were  immense.  .  .  .  Eighteen  thousand  prison- 
ers, 103  pieces  of  cannon,  and  230  caissons,  be- 
sides 7,000  killed  and  wounded,  presented  a  total 
loss  to  the  French  of  25,000  men."— Sir  A.  Ali- 
son, Hist,  of  Europe,  ch.  80,  sect.  68  {v.  17).— "Of 
the  battle  of  Kulm  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
it  was  the  most  critical  in  the  whole  war  of  Ger- 
man liberation.  The  fate  of  the  coalition  was 
determined  absolutely  by  its  results.  Had  Van- 
damme been  strong  enough  to  keep  his  hold  of 
Bohemia,  and  to  block  up  ^rom  them  the  mouths 
of  the  passes,  the  allied  columns,  forced  back 
into  the  exhausted  mountain  district  through 
which  they  were  retreating,  must  have  perished 
for  lack  of  food,  or  dissolved  themselves." — G. 
R.  Gleig,  The  Leipzig  Campaign,  ch.  27. 


1560 


GERMANY,  1813. 


The  Allies  at 
Leipsic. 


GERMANY,  1813. 


Also  in  :  Baron  Jomini,  Life  of  Napoleon,  eh. 
20  (b.  4). — Major  C.  Adams,  Oreat  Campaigns  in 
Europe,  1796  to  1870,  ch.  5. 

A.  D.  1813  (September— October). — French 
reverse  at  Dennewitz. — Napoleon's  evacuation 
of  Dresden. — Allied  concentration  at  Leipsic. 
— Preparations  for  the  decisive  battle. — "The 
[allied]  Armj'  of  the  North  had  been  nearly  idle 
since  the  battle  of  Grossbeeren.  The  Prussian 
generals  were  extremely  indignant  against  Berna- 
dotte,  whose  slowness  and  inaction  were  intoler- 
able to  them.  It  took  them,  under  his  orders,  a 
fortnight  to  advance  as  far  as  a  good  footman 
could  march  in  a  day.  They  then  unexpectedly 
met  a  new  French  army  advancing  against  them 
from  a  fortified  camp  at  Wittenberg.  Napoleon 
had  now  assigned  to  Marshal  Ney — ■'  the  bravest 
of  the  brave  ' —  the  work  of  beating  '  the  Cossack 
hordes  and  the  poor  militia,' and  taking  Berlin. 
Under  him  were  Oudiuot,  Regnier,  Bertrand, 
and  Arrighi,  with  70,000  men.  On  September  6 
Tauenzien  met  their  superior  forces  at  Jilterbogk, 
but  sustained  himself  valiantly  through  a  peril- 
ous fight.  Bernadotte  was  but  two  hours'  march 
away,  but  as  usual  disregarded  Billow's  request 
to  bring  aid.  But  Billow  himself  brought  up  his 
corps  on  the  right,  and  took  the  brunt  of  the 
battle,  extending  it  through  the  villages  south  of 
Jilterbogk,  of  which  Dennewitz  was  the  centre. 
The  Prussians  took  these  villages  by  storm,  and 
when  evening  came  their  victory  was  complete, 
though  Bernadotte  had  not  stretched  out  a  hand 
to  help  them.  .  .  .  Billow  bore  the  name  of 
Dennewitz  afterward  in  honor  of  his  victory. 
Ney  reported  to  his  master  that  he  was  entirely 
defeated.  Napoleon  unwisely  ascribed  his  defeat 
entirely  to  the  Saxons,  who  fought  well  that  day 
for  him,  but  for  the  last  time.  By  his  reproaches 
he  entirely  alienated  the  people  froni  him.  The 
French  loss  in  this  battle  was  10,000  killed  and 
•wounded,  and  10,000  prisoners,  besides  80  guns. 
The  Prussians  lost  in  killed  and  wounded  more 
than  5,000.  Thus  five  victories  had  been  won 
by  the  Allies  in  a  fortnight,  compensating  fully 
for  the  loss  of  the  battle  of  Dresden.  The  way 
to  the  Elbe  lay  open  to  the  Army  of  the  North. 
But  Bernadotte  continued  to  move  with  extreme 
slowness.  Billow  and  Tauenzien  seriously  pro- 
posed to  Blucher  to  leave  the  Swedish  prince, 
whom  they  openly  denounced  as  a  traitor.  Blii- 
cher  approached  the  Elbe  across  the  Lausitz  from 
Bohemia,  and  it  would  have  been  easy  to  cross 
the  river  and  unite  the  two  armies,  threatening 
Napoleon's  rear,  and  making  Dresden  untenable 
for  him.  Napoleon  advanced  in  vain  against 
Blucher  to  Bausitz.  The  Prussian  general  wisely 
avoided  a  battle.  Then  the  emperor  turned 
against  the  Army  of  Bohemia,  but  it  was  too 
strong  in  its  position  in  the  valley  of  Teplitz, 
with  the  mountains  in  its  rear,  to  be  attacked. 
Then  again  he  moved  toward  Bliicher,  but  again 
failed  to  bring  about  an  action.  At  this  time 
public  opinion  throughout  Europe  was  undergo- 
ing a  rapid  change,  and  Napoleon's  name  was 
losing  its  magic.  The  near  prospect  of  his  fall 
made  the  nations  he  had  oppressed  eager  and  im- 
patient for  it,  and  his  German  allies  and  subjects 
lost  all  regard  and  hgpe  for  his  cause.  On  Oc- 
tober 8  the  Bavarian  plenipotentiary.  General 
Wrede,  concluded  a  treaty  with  Austria  at  Ried, 
by  the  terms  of  which  Bavaria  left  Napoleon  and 
joined  the  allies.  This  important  defection, 
though  it  had  been  for  some  weeks  expected,  was 


felt  by  the  French  emperor  as  a  severe  blow  to 
his  prospects.  Napoleon's  circle  of  movement 
around  Dresden  began  to  be  narrowed.  The 
Russian  reserves  under  Beuningsen,  57, 000  strong, 
were  also  advancing  through  Silesia  toward  Bo- 
hemia. Blucher  was  therefore  not  needed  in 
Bohemia,  and  he  pressed  forward  vigorously  to 
cross  the  Elbe.  His  army  advanced  along  the 
right  bank  of  the  Black  Elster  to  its  mouth  above 
Wittenberg.  On  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Elbe, 
in  the  bend  of  the  stream,  stands  the  village  of 
AVartenburg,  and  just  at  the  bend  Bliicher  built 
two  bridges  of  boats  without  opposition.  On 
October  3  York's  corps  crossed  the  river.  But 
now  on  the  west  side,  among  the  thickets  and 
swamps  before  the  village,  arose  a  furious  strug- 
gle with  a  body  of  20,000  French,  Italians,  and 
Germans  of  the  Rhine  League  under  Bertrand. 
York  displayed  eminent  patience,  coolness,  and 
judgment,  and  won  a  decided  victor}'  out  of  a 
great  danger.  Bernadotte,  though  with  much 
hesitation,  also  crossed  the  Elbe  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Mulde,  and  the  army  of  the  North  and  of 
Silesia  were  thus  united  in  Napoleon's  rear.  It 
was  now  evident  that  the  successes  of  these  armies 
had  brought  the  French  into  extreme  danger, 
and  the  allied  sovereigns  resolved  upon  a  con- 
certed attack.  Leipsic  was  designated  as  the 
point  at  which  the  armies  should  combine.  Na- 
poleon could  no  longer  hold  Dresden,  lest  he 
should  be  cut  off  from  France  by  a  vastly  su- 
perior force.  The  partisan  corps  of  the  allies  were 
also  growing  bolder  and  more  active  far  in  Na- 
poleon's rear,  and  on  October  1  Czernichefl  drove 
Jerome  out  of  Cassel  and  proclaimed  the  king- 
dom of  Westphalia  dissolved.  This  was  the 
work  of  a  handful  of  Cossacks,  without  infantry 
and  artillery ;  but  though  Jerome  soon  returned, 
the  moral  effect  of  this  sudden  and  easy  over- 
throw of  one  of  Napoleon's  military  kingdoms 
was  immense.  On  October  7  Napoleon  left  Dres- 
den, and  marched  to  the  Mulde.  Bliicher's  forces 
were  arrayed  along  both  sides  of  this  stream, 
below  Dliben.  But  he  quietly  and  successfully 
retired,  on  perceiving  Napoleon's  purpose  to  at- 
tack him,  and  moved  westward  to  the  Saale,  in 
order  to  draw  after  him  Bernadotte  and  the 
Northern  army.  The  plan  was  successful,  and 
the  united  armies  took  up  a  position  behind  the 
Saale,  extending  from  Merseburg  to  Alsleben, 
Bernadotte  occupying  the.  northern  end  of  the 
line  next  to  the  Elbe.  Napoleon,  disappointed 
in  his  first  effort,  now  formed  a  plan  whose  bold- 
ness astonished  both  friend  and  foe.  He  resolved 
to  cross  the  Elbe,  to  seize  Berlin  and  the  Marches, 
now  uncovered,  and  thus,  supported  by  his  for- 
tresses of  Jlagdeburg,  Stettin,  Dantzic,  and  Ham- 
burg, where  he  still  had  bodies  of  troops  and 
magazines,  to  give  the  war  an  entirely  new 
aspect.  But  the  murmurs  of  his  worn-out  troops, 
and  even  of  his  generals,  compelled  him  to  aban- 
don this  plan,  which  was  desperate,  but  might 
have  been  effectual.  The  suggestion  of  it  terri- 
fied Bernadotte,  whose  province  of  Lower  Pome- 
rania  would  be  threatened,  and  he  would  have 
withdrawn  in  headlong  haste  across  the  Elbe  had 
not  Bliicher  persisted  in  detaining  him.  Napo- 
leon now  resolved  to  march  against  the  Bohe- 
mian army  at  Leipsic.  On  October  14,  on  ap- 
proaching the  city  from  the  north,  he  heard 
cannon-shots  on  the  opposite  side.  It  was  the 
advanced  guard  of  the  main  army,  which  was 
descending  from  the  Erz-Gebirge  range,  after  a 


1561 


GERMANY,  1813. 


Battle  of  the 
Nations. 


GERMANY,  1813. 


sharp  but  indecisive  cavalry  battle  with  Murat 
at  the  village  of  Liebertwolkwitz,  south  of  Dres- 
den. In  the  broad,  thickly  settled  plains  around 
Leipsic,  the  armies  of  Europe  now  assembled  for 
the  tinal  and  decisive  conflict.  Napoleon's  com- 
mand included  Portuguese,  Spaniards,  Neapoli- 
tans, and  large  contingents  of  Germans  from  the 
Rhine  League,  as  well  as  the  flower  of  the  French 
youth;  while  the  allies  brought  against  him 
Cossacks  and  Calmucks,  Swedes  and  Magyars, 
besides  all  the  resources  of  Prussian  patriotism 
and  Austrian  discipline.  Never  since  the  awful 
struggle  at  Chalons,  which  saved  Western  civili- 
zation from  Attila,  liad  there  been  a  strife  so  well 
deserving  the  name  of  '  the  battle  of  the  nations. ' 
West  of  the  city  of  Leipsic  runs  the  Pleisse,  and 
flows  into  the  Elster  on  the  northwest  side. 
Above  their  junction,  the  two  streams  run  for 
some  distance  near  one  another,  inclosing  a  sharp 
angle  of  swampy  land.  The  great  highway  to 
Lindenau  from  Leipsic  crosses  the  Elster,  and 
then  runs  southwesterly  to  Llltzen  and  AYeissen- 
fels.  South  of  the  city  and  east  of  the  Pleisse 
lie  a  number  of  villages,  of  which  Wachau, 
Liebertwolkwitz,  and  Probstlieida,  nearer  the 
city,  were  important  points  during  the  battle. 
The  little  river  Partha  approaches  the  city  on 
the  cast,  and  then  runs  north,  reaching  the  Elster 
at  Gohlis.  Napoleon  occupied  the  villages  north, 
east  and  south  of  the  city,  in  a  small  circle  around 
it." — C.  T.  Lewis,  Hist,  of  Oermany,  ch.  30,  sect. 
7-11. 

Also  w:  E.  Baines,  Sist.  of  tlie  Wars  of  the 
French  Hev. ,  l>k.  4,  ch.  33  {v.  3). 

A.  D.  1813  (October).— "  The  Battle  of  the 
Nations." — "Tlie  town  of  Leipsic  has  four  sides 
and  four  gates.  .  .  .  On  the  south  is  the  rising 
ground  called  the  Swedish  Camp,  and  another 
called  the  Sheep-walk,  bordering  on  the  banks  of 
the  Pleisse.  To  this  quarter  the  Grand  Army  of 
the  Allies  was  seen  advancing  on  the  15th  of 
October.  Buonaparte  made  his  arrangements 
accordingly.  Bertrand  and  Poniatowski  defend- 
ed Lindenau  and  the  east  side  of  the  city,  by 
which  the  French  must  retreat.  Augereau  was 
posted  farther  to  the  left,  on  the  elevated  plain 
of  Wachau,  and  on  the  south,  Victor,  Lauriston, 
and  Macdonald  confronted  the  advance  of  the 
Allies  with  the  Imperial  Guai-ds  placed  as  a 
reserve.  On  the  north,  Marmout  was  placed 
between  Moeckcrn  and  Euterist,  to  make  head 
against  Blucher,  should  he  arrive  in  time  to  take 
part  in  the  battle.  On  the  opposite  quarter,  the 
sentinels  of  the  two  armies  were  within  musket- 
shot  of  each  other,  when  evening  fell.  .  .  .  The 
number  of  men  who  engaged  the  next  morning 
was  estimated  at  136,000  French,  and  330,000  on 
the  part  of  the  Allies.  .  .  .  Napoleon  remained 
all  night  in  the  rear  of  his  own  Guards,  behind 
the  central  position,  facing  a  village  called 
Gossa,  occupied  by  the  Austrians.  At  day- 
break on  the  16tli  of  October  the  battle  began. 
The  French  position  was  assailed  along  all  the 
southern  front  with  the  greatest  fury.  .  .  .  The 
Allies  having  made  si.\  desperate  attempts,  .  .  . 
all  of  them  unsuccessful,  Napoleon  in  turn  as- 
sumed the  offensive.  .  .  .  This  was  about  noon. 
The  village  of  Gossa  was  carried  by  the  bayonet. 
Macdonald  made  himself  master  of  the  Swedish 
Camp ;  and  the  eminence  called  the  Sheep-walk 
was  near  being  taken  in  the  same  maimer.  The 
impetuosity  of  the  French  had  fairly  broken 
through  the  centre  of  the  Allies,  and  Napoleon 


sent  the  tidings  of  his  success  to  the  King  of 
Saxony,  who  ordered  all  the  bells  in  the  city  tO' 
be  rung.  .  .  .  The  King  of  Naples,  with  Latour- 
Maubo'irg  aud  Kellermann,  poured  through  the 
gap  in  'he  enemy's  centre  at  the  head  of  the  whole 
body  of  cavalry,  and  thundered  forward  as  far  as 
Magdeburg,  a  village  in  the  rear  of  the  Allies, 
bearing  down  General  Rayefskoi  with  the  Grena- 
diers of  the  Russian  reserve.  At  this  moment, 
while  the  French  were  disordered  by  their  own 
success,  Alexander,  who  was  ])resent,  ordered 
forward  the  Cossacks  of  his  Guard,  who,  with 
their  long  lances,  bore  back  the  dense  body  of 
cavalry  that  had  so  nearly  carried  the  day. 
Meantime,  as  had  been  apprehended,  Blucher 
arrived  before  the  city,  and  suddenly  came  into 
action-  with  Marmont,  being  three  times  his 
numbers.  He  in  consequence  obtained  great 
and  decided  advantages;  and  before  night-fall 
had  taken  the  village  of  Mceckern,  together 
with  30  pieces  of  artillery  and  3,000  prisoners. 
But  on  the  soutli  side  the  contest  continued 
doubtful.  Gossa  was  still  disputed.  .  .  .  Gen- 
eral Mehrfeldt  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  French. 
The  battle  raged  till  night-fall,  when  it  ceased 
by  mutual  consent.  .  .  .  The  armies  slept  on 
the  ground  they  had  occupied  during  the  day. 
The  French  on  the  southern  side  had  not  relin- 
quished one  foot  of  their  original  position, 
though  attacked  by  such  superior  numbers. 
Marmont  had  indeed  been  forced  back  by  Blu- 
cher, and  com]3elled  to  crowd  his  line  of  defence- 
nearer  the  walls  of  Leipsic.  Thus  pressed  on  all 
sides  with  doubtful  issues,  Buonaparte  availed 
himself  of  the  capture  of  General  Mehrfeldt  tO' 
demand  an  armistice  and  to  signify  his  accept- 
ance of  the  terms  proposed  by  the  Allies,  but 
which  were  now  found  to  be  too  moderate.  .  .  . 
Napoleon  received  no  answer  till  his  troops  had 
recrossed  the  Rhine ;  and  the  reason  assigned  is, 
that  the  Allies  had  pledged  themselves  solemnly 
to  each  other  to  enter  into  no  treaty  with  him 
'while  a  single  individual  of  the  French  army 
remained  in  Germany.' .  .  .  The  17th  was  spent 
in  preparations  on  both  sides,  without  any  actual 
hostilities.  At  eight  o'clock  on  the  morning  of 
the  18th  they  were  renewed  with  tenfold  fury. 
Napoleon  had  considerably  contracted  his  cir- 
cuit of  defence,  and  the  French  were  posted 
on  an  inner  line,  nearer  to  Leipsic,  of  which 
Probtsheyda  was  the  central  point.  .  .  .  Bar- 
clay, Wittgenstein,  and  Kleist  advanced  on 
Probtsheyda,  where  they  were  opposed  by 
Murat,  Victor,  Augereau,  aud  Lauriston,  under 
the  eye  of  Napoleon  himself.  On  the  left  Mac- 
donald had  drawn  back  his  division  to  a  village 
called  Stoetteritz.  Along  this  whole  line  the 
contest  was  maintained  furiously  on  both  sides; 
nor  could  the  terrified  spectators,  from  the  walls 
and  steeples  of  Leipsic,  perceive  that  it  either 
receded  or  advanced.  About  two  o'clock  the 
Allies  forced  their  way  .  .  .  into  Probtsheyda; 
the  camp-followers  began  to  fly ;  the  tumult  was 
excessive.  Napoleon  .  .  .  placed  the  reserve  of 
the  Old  Guard  in  order,  led  tnem  in  person  to 
recover  the  village,  and  saw  them  force  their 
entrance  ere  he  withdrew  to  the  eminence  from 
whence  he  watched  the  battle.  .  .  .  The  Allies, 
at  length,  felt  themselves  obliged  to  desist  from' 
the  murderous  attacks  on  the  villages  wliich 
cost  them  so  dear;  and,  withdrawing  their 
troops,  kept  up  a  dreadful  fire  with  their  artil- 
lery.    The  French  replied  with    equal    spirit^ 


1562 


GERMANY,  1813. 


Battle  of  the 
Nations. 


GERMANY,  1813. 


though  they  had  fewer  guns;  and,  besides,  their 
ammunition  was  falling  short.  Still,  however. 
Napoleon  completely  maintained  the  day  on  the 
south  of  Leipsic,  where  he  commanded  in  per- 
son. On  the  northern  side,  the  yet  greater  su- 
periority of  numbers  placed  Ney  in  a  precarious 
situation;  and,  pressed  hard  both  by  Blucher 
and  the  Crown-Prince,  he  was  compelled  to 
draw  nearer  the  town,  and  had  made  a  stand  on 
an  eminence  called  Heiterblick,  when  on  a  sud- 
den the  Saxons,  who  were  stationed  in  that  part 
of  the  field,  deserted  from  the  French  and  went 
over  to  the  enemy.  In  consequence  of  this  un- 
expected disaster,  Ney  was  unable  any  longer  to 
defend  himself.  It  was  in  vain  that  Buonaparte 
dispatched  his  reserves  of  cavalry  to  fill  up  the 
chasm  that  had  been  made ;  and  Ney  drew  up 
the  remainder  of  his  forces  close  under  the  walls 
of  Leipsic.  The  battle  once  more  ceased  at  all 
points.  .  .  Although  the  French  army  had 
thus  kept  its  ground  up  to  the  last  moment  on 
these  two  days,  yet  there  was  no  prospect  of 
their  being  able  to  hold  out  much  longer  at 
Leipsic.  .  .  .  All  things  counselled  a  retreat, 
which  was  destined  (like  the  rest  of  late)  to  be 
unfortunate.  .  .  .  The  retreat  was  commenced  in 
the  night-time;  and  Napoleon  spent  a  third 
harassing  night  in  giving  the  necessary  orders  for 
the  march.  He  appointed  Macdonald  and  Ponia- 
towski  ...  to  defend  the  rear.  ...  A  tempo- 
rary bridge  which  had  been  erected  had  given 
way,  and  the  old  bridge  on  the  road  to  Linde- 
nau  was  the  only  one  that  remained  for  the  pas- 
sage of  the  whole  French  army.  But  the  de- 
fence of  the  suburbs  had  been  so  gallant  and 
obstinate  that  time  was  allowed  for  this  purpose. 
At  length  the  rear- guard  itself  was  about  to 
retreat,  when,  as  they  approached  the  banks  of 
the  river,  the  bridge  blew  up  by  the  mistake  of 
a  sergeant  of  a  company  of  sappers  who  .  .  . 
set  fire  to  the  mine  of  which  he  had  charge 
before  the  proper  moment.  This  catastrophe 
effectually  barred  the  escape  of  all  those  who 
still  remained  on  the  Leipsic  side  of  the  river, 
except  a  few  who  succeeded  in  swimming  across, 
among  whom  was  Marshal  Macdonald.  Ponia- 
towski  .  .  .  was  drowned  in  making  the  same 
attempt.  In  him,  it  might  be  said,  perished 
the  last  of  the  Poles.  About  25,000  French 
were  made  prisoners  of  war,  with  a  great  quan- 
tity of  artillery  and  baggage." — W.  Hazlitt,  Life 
of  Napoleon,  ch.  50  (».  6). — "The  battle  of  Leip- 
sic was  over.  Already  had  the  allied  sovereigns 
entered  the  town,  and  forcing,  not  without  dif- 
ficulty, their  way  through  the  crowd,  passed  on 
to  the  market-place.  Here,  the  house  in  which 
the  King  of  Saxony  had  lodged  was  at  once  made 
known  to  them  by  the  appearance  of  the  Saxon 
troops  whom  Napoleon  had  left  to  guard  their 
master.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  King  himself  .  .  . 
stood  bare-headed  on  the  steps  of  the  stairs.  But 
the  Emperor  of  Russia,  who  appears  at  once  to 
have  assumed  the  chief  direction  of  affairs,  took  no 
notice  of  the  suppliants.  .  .  .  The  battle  of  Leip- 
sic constitutes  one  of  those  great  hinges  on  which 
the  fortunes  of  the  world  may  be  said  from  time 
to  time  to  turn.  The  importance  of  its  political 
consequence  cannot  be  overestimated.  ...  As 
a  great  military  operation,  the  one  feature  which 
forces  itself  prominently  upon  our  notice  is  the 
eraorraous  extent  of  the  means  employed  on  both 
sides  to  accomplish  an  end.  Never  since  the 
days  when  Persia  poured  her  millions  into  Greece 


had  armies  so  numerous  been  marshalled  against 
each  other.  Nor  does  history  tell  of  trains  of  ar- 
tillery so  vast  having  been  at  any  time  brought 
into  action  with  more  murderous  effect.  .  .  . 
About  1,300  pieces,  on  the  one  side,  were  an- 
swered, during  two  days,  by  little  short  of  1,000 
on  the  other.  .  .  .  We  look  in  vain  for  any  mani- 
festations of  genius  or  military  skill,  either  in  the 
combinations  which  rendered  the  battle  of  Leip- 
sic inevitable,  or  in  the  arrangements  according 
to  which  the  attack  and  defence  of  the  field  were 
conducted.  .  .  .  It  was  the  triumph,  not  of  mili- 
tary skill,  but  of  numbers. " — G.  R.  Gleig,  The 
Leipsic  Campaign,  ch.  41.  —  "No  more  here  than  at 
Moscow  must  we  seek  in  the  failure  of  the  leader's, 
talents  the  cause  of  such  deplorable  results, — 
for  he  was  never  more  fruitful  in  resource,  more 
bold,  more  resolute,  nor  more  a  soldier, — but  in 
the  illusions  of  pride,  in  the  wish  to  regain  at  a 
blow  an  immense  fortune  which  he  had  lost,  in 
the  difficulty  of  acknowledging  to  himself  his  de- 
feat in  time,  in  a  word,  in  all  those  errors  which 
we  may  discern  in  miniature  and  caricature  in  an 
ordinary  gambler,  who  madly  risks  riches  ac- 
quired by  folly  ;  errors  which  are  found  on  a  large 
and  terrible  scale  in  this  gigantic  gambler,  who 
plays  with  human  blood  as  others  play  Avith 
money.  As  gamblers  lose  their  fortunes  twice, — 
once  from  not  knowing  where  to  stop,  and  a 
second  time  from  wishing, to  restore  it  at  a  single 
cast, — so  Napoleon  endangered  his  at  Moscow  by 
wishing  to  make  it  exorbitantly  large,  and  in  the 
Dresden  campaign  by  seeking  to  restore  it  in  its 
full  extent.  The  cause  was  always  the  same,  the 
alteration  not  in  the  genius,  but  in  the  character, 
by  the  deteriorating  influence  of  unlimited  power 
and  success." — A.  Thiers,  Hist,  of  the  Consulate 
and  the  Empire,  bk.  50  (v.  4). 

Also  in  :  Duke  de  Rovigo,  Memoirs,  v.  3,  pt.  3, 
ch.  17. — J.  C.  Ropes,  The  First  Napoleon. — Baron 
de  Marbot,  Ifemoirs,  v.  3,  ch.  38-39. 

A.  D.  1813  (October — December). — Retreat 
of  Napoleon  beyond  the  Rhine. —  Battle  of 
Hanau. — Fall  of  the  kingdom  of  Westphalia. — 
Surrender  of  French  garrisons  and  forces. — 
Liberation  achieved. — "Blucher,  withLangeron 
and  Sacken,  moved  in  pursuit  of  the  French 
army,  which,  disorganised  and  dejected,  was  wend- 
ing its  way  towards  the  Rhine.  At  the  passage 
of  the  Unstrutt,  at  Freyberg,  1,000  prisoners  and 
18  guns  were  captured  by  the  Prussian  hussars; 
but  on  the  23d  the  French  reached  Erfurth,  the 
citadels  and  magazines  of  which  afforded  them  at 
once  security  and  relief  from  their  privations. 
Here  Napoleon  halted  two  days,  employed  in  re- 
organising his  army,  the  thirteen  corps  of  which 
were  now  formed  into  six,  commanded  by  Victor, 
Ney,  Bertrand,  Augereau,  Marmont,  and  Mac- 
donald, and  amounting  in  all  to  less  than  90,000 
men ;  while  twice  that  number  were  left  block- 
aded in  the  fortresses  on  the  Elbe,  the  Oder,  and 
the  Vistula.  On  the  2oth,  after  parting  for  the 
last  time  with  Murat,  who  here  quitted  him  and  re- 
turned to  Naples,  he  resumed  his  march,  retreat- 
ing with  such  rapidity  through  the  Thuringian 
forest,  that  the  Cossacks  alone  of  the  pursuing 
army  could  keep  up  with  the  retiring  columns  — 
while  the  men  dropped,  exhausted  by  fatigue  and 
hunger,  or  deserted  their  ranks  by  hundreds ;  so 
that  when  the  fugitive  host  approached  the  Maine, 
not  more  than  50,000  remained  effective  round 
their  colours  — 10,000  had  fallen  or  been  made 
prisoners,  and  at  least  30,000  were  straggling 


15G3 


GERJIANY,  1813. 


NapoleoTi's 
retreat. 


GERMANY,  1814. 


in  the  rear.  But  here  fresh  dangers  awaited 
thera.  After  the  treaty  of  the  8th  October,  by 
which  Bavaria  had  acceded  to  the  grand  alhance, 
an  Austro-Bavarian  force  under  Jfarshal  Wrede 
had  moved  in  the  direction  of  Frankfort,  and  was 
posted,  to  the  number  of  45,000  men,  in  the  oak 
forest  near  Hanau  across  the  great  road  to  May- 
ence,  and  blocking  up  entirely  the  French  line  of 
retreat.  The  battle  commenced  at  11  A.  M.  on 
the  30th;  but  the  French  van,  under  Victor  and 
Macdonald,  after  fighting  its  way  through  the 
forest,  was  arrested,  when  attempting  to  issue 
from  its  skirts,  by  the  concentric  fire  of  70  pieces 
of  cannon,  and  for  four  hours  the  combat  con- 
tinued, till  the  arrival  of  the  guards  and  main 
body  changed  the  aspect  of  affairs.  Under  cover 
of  the  terrible  fire  of  Drouot's  artillery,  Sebasti- 
ani  and  Nansouty  charged  with  the  cavalry  of  the 
guard,  and  overthrew  everything  opposed  to 
them,  and  Wrede  at  length  drew  off  his  shattered 
army  behind  the  Kinzig.  Hanau  was  bombarded 
and  taken,  and  Mortier  and  Marmont,  with  the 
rear  divisions,  cut  their  way  through  on  the  fol- 
lowing day,  with  considerable  loss  to  their  op- 
ponents. The  total  losses  of  the  Allies  amounted 
to  10,000  men,  of  whom  4,000  were  prisoners; 
and  the  victory  threw  a  parting  ray  of  glory  over 
the  long  career  of  the  revolutionary  arms  in  Ger- 
many. On  the  2d  of  November  the  French 
reached  Ma\'ence,  and  Napoleon,  after  remaining 
there  six  days  to  collect  tlie  remains  of  his  army, 
set  out  for  Paris,  where  he  arrived  on  the  9th; 
and  thus  the  French  eagles  bade  a  final  adieu  to 
the  German  plains.  In  the  mean  time,  the  Al- 
lied troops,  following  closely  on  the  footsteps  of 
the  retreating  French,  poured  in  prodigious 
strength  down  the  valley  of  the  Jlaine.  Ou  the 
5th  of  November  the  Emperor  Alexander  entered 
Frankfort  in  triumph,  at  the  head  of  20,000  horse ; 
and  on  the  9th  the  fortified  post  of  Hochheim,  in 
advance  of  the  tete-du-pont  of  Mayence  at  Cas- 
sel,  was  stormed  by  Giulay.  From  the  heights 
beyond  the  town  the  victorious  armies  of  Germany 
beheld  the  winding  stream  of  the  Rhine ;  a  shout 
of  enthusiasm  ran  from  rank  to  rank  as  they  saw 
the  mighty  river  of  the  Fatherland,  which  their 
arms  had  liberated ;  those  in  the  rear  hurried  to  the 
front,  and  soon  a  hundred  thousand  voices  joined 
in  the  cheers  which  told  the  world  that  the  war  of 
independence  was  ended  and  Germany  delivered. 
Nothing  now  remained  but  to  reap  the  fruits  of 
this  mighty  victory ;  yet  so  vast  was  the  ruin  that 
even  this  was  a  task  of  time  and  difficulty.  The 
rickety  kingdom  of  Westphalia  fell  at  once,  never 
more  to  rise ;  the  revolutionary  d_ynasty  in  Berg 
followed  its  fate ;  and  the  authority  of  the  King 
of  Britain  was  re-established  by  acclamation  in 
Hanover,  at  the  first  appearance  of  Bernadotte 
and  Benningsen.  The  reduction  of  Davoust,  who 
had  been  left  in  Hamburg  with  25,000  French 
and  10,000  Danes,  was  an  undertaking  of  more 
dilflculty ;  and  against  him  Walmodeu  and  Ber- 
nadotte moved  with  40,000  men.  The  French 
marshal  had  taken  up  a  position  ou  the  Stecknitz; 
but,  fearful  of  being  cut  off  from  Hamburg,  he 
retired  behind  the  Bille  on  the  advance  of  the 
Allies,  separating  himself  from  the  Danes,  who 
were  compelled  to  capitulate.  The  operations  of 
the  Crown-Prince  against  Denmark,  the  ancient 
rival  of  Sweden,  were  now  pushed  with  a  vigour 
and  activity  strongly  contrasting  with  his  luke- 
warmness  in  the  general  campaign ;  and  the  court 
of  Copenhagen,  seeing  its  dominions  on  the  point 


of  being  overrun,  signed  an  armistice  on  the  15th 
December,  on  which  was  soon  after  based  a  per- 
manent treaty  [of  Kiel  —  see  .Scandinavian 
Stated  :  A.  D.  1S13-1814].  .  .  .  When  Napoleon 
(Oct.  7)  marched  northwards  from  Dresden,  he 
had  left  St.  Cyr  in  that  city  with  30,000  men,  op- 
posed only  by  a  newly-raised  Russian  corps  under 
Tolstoi ,  which  St.  Cyr,  by  a  sudden  attack,  routed 
with  the  loss  of  3,000  men  and  10  guns.  But  no 
sooner  was  the  battle  of  Leipsic  decided,  than 
Dresden  was  again  blockaded  by  50.000  men  un- 
der Kleuau  and  Tolstoi ;  and  St.  Cyr,  who  was 
encumbered  with  a  vast  number  of  sick  and 
wounded,  and  was  almost  without  jjrovisions, 
was  obliged,  after  a  fruitless  sortie  on  the  6th 
November,  to  surrender  on  the  11th,  on  condition 
of  being  sent  with  his  troops  to  France.  The 
capitulation,  however,  was  disallowed  by  Schwart- 
zenberg,  and  the  whole  were  made  prisoners  of 
war  —  a  proceeding  which  the  French,  not  with- 
out some  justice,  declaim  against  as  a  gross  breach 
of  faith  —  and  thus  no  less  than  33  generals,  1,795 
officers,  and  33,000  rank  and  file,  with  240  pieces 
of  cannon,  fell  into  the  power  of  the  Allies.  The 
fall  of  Dresden  was  soon  followed  by  that  of  the 
other  fortresses  on  the  Vistula  and  the  Oder. 
Stettin,  with  8,000  men  and  350  guns,  surrendered 
on  the  21st  November;  and  Torgau,  which  .on 
tained  the  militarj'  hospitals  and  reserve  parks  of 
artillery  left  by  the  grand  army  on  its  retreat  from 
the  Elbe,  yielded  at  discretion  to  Tauenzein  (Dec. 
26),  after  a  siege  of  two  months.  But  such  was 
the  dreadful  state  of  the  garrison,  from  the  rav- 
ages of  typhus  fever,  that  the  Allies  dared  not 
enter  this  great  pest-house  till  the  10th  January; 
and  the  terrible  epidemic  which  issued  from  its 
walls  made  the  circuit,  during  the  four  following 
years,  of  every  country  in  Europe.  Dantzic,  with 
its  motley  garrison  of  35,000  men,  had  been 
blockaded  ever  since  the  Moscow  retreat ;  but  the 
blockading  corps,  which  was  not  of  greater 
strength,  could  not  confine  the  French  within  the 
walls;  and  Rapp  made  several  sorties  in  force 
during  the  spring  and  summer,  by  which  he  pro- 
cured abundance  of  provisions.  It  was  not  till 
after  the  termination  of  the  armistice  of  Pleswitz 
that  the  siege  was  commenced  in  form ;  and  after 
sustaining  a  severe  bombardment,  Rapp,  deprived 
of  all  hope  by  the  battle  of  Leipsic,  capitulated 
(Nov.  29)  with  his  garrison,  now  reduced  by  the 
sword,  sickness,  and  desertion,  to  16,000  men. 
Zamosc,  with  3,000  men,  surrendered  on  the  22d 
December,  and  Modlin,  with  1,300,  on  the  25th; 
and  at  the  close  of  the  year,  France  retained  be- 
yond the  Rhine  onl}'  Hamburg,  Magdeburg,  and 
Wittenberg,  on  the  Elbe ;  Custrin  and  Glogau  on 
the  Oder;  and  the  citadels  of  Erfurth  and  Wiirtz- 
burg,  which  held  out  after  the  capitulation  of  the 
towns." — Epitome  of  Alison's  Hist,  of  Europe, 
sect.  737-742  (ch.  83,  v.  17,  in  complete  work). — 
"The  princes  of  the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine, 
with  the  exception  of  the  captive  King  of  Sax- 
ony, and  one  or  two  minor  princes,  deserted  Na- 
poleon, and  entered  into  treaties  with  the  Allies." 
— T.  H.  Dyer,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe,  ■».  4,  p. 
538. 

Also  in:  M.  Bourrienne,  Private  Memoirs  of 
Napoleon,  v.  4,  ch.  16. — T/ie  Tear  of  Liberation: 
Journal  of  the  Defence  of  Hamburgh. — J.  Philip- 
part,  Campaign  in  Oermany  and  France,  1813, 
V.  1,  ;;/).  230-278. 

A.  D.  1814.— The  Allies  in  France  and  in 
possession  of  Paris. — Fall  of  Napoleon.     Se« 


1564 


GERMANY,  1814. 


Germanic 
Confederation. 


GERMANY,  1814-1820. 


Prance;  A.  D.  1814  (January — March),  and 
(March— April). 

A.  D.  1814  (May). — Readjustment  of  French 
boundaries  by  the  Treaty  of  Paris.  See 
France;  A.  D.  1814  (April — June). 

A.  D.  1814-1815. — The  Congress  of  Vienna. 
— Its  territorial  and  political  readjustments. 
See  Vienna,  The  Congress  op. 

A.  D.  1814-182Q. — Reconstruction  of  Ger- 
many.— The  Germanic  Confederation  and  its 
constitution. — "Germany  was  now  utterly  dis- 
integrated. The  Holy  Roman  Empire  bad  ceased 
to  exist;  the  Confederation  of  the  Rhine  had  fol- 
lowed it ;  and  from  the  Black  Forest  to  the  Rus- 
sian frontier  there  was  nothing  but  angry  ambi- 
tions, vengeances,  and  fears.  If  there  was  ever 
to  be  peace  again  in  all  these  wide  regions,  it  was 
clearly  necessary  to  create  something  new.  What 
was  to  be  created  was  a  far  more  difficult  ques- 
tion; but  already,  on  the  30th  of  May  1814,  the 
powers  had  come  to  some  sort  of  understanding, 
if  not  with  regard  to  the  means  to  be  pursued,  at 
least  with  regard  to  the  end  to  be  attained.  In 
the  Treaty  of  Paris  we  find  these  words :  '  Les 
etats  de  I'Allemagne  seront  iudependants  et  unis 
par  un  lien  federatif.'  But  how  was  this  to  bo 
effected?  There  were  some  who  wished  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  to  be  restored.  ...  Of  course 
neither  Prussia,  Bavaria,  nor  Wurtemberg,  could 
look  kindly  upon  a  plan  so  obviously  unfavour- 
able to  them ;  but  not  even  Austria  really  wished 
it,  and  indeed  it  had  few  powerful  friends.  Then 
there  was  a  project  of  a  North  and  South  Ger- 
many, with  the  Maine  for  boundary;  but  this 
was  very  much  the  reverse  of  acceptable  to  the 
minor  princes,  who  had  no  idea  of  being  grouped 
like  so  many  satellites,  some  around  Austria  and 
some  around  Prussia.  Next  came  a  plan  of  re- 
construction by  circles,  the  effect  of  which  would 
have  been  to  have  thrown  all  the  power  of  Ger- 
many into  the  hands  of  a  few  of  the  larger  states. 
To  this  all  the  smaller  independent  states  were 
bitterly  opposed,  and  it  broke  down,  although 
supported  by  the  great  authority  of  Stein,  as  well 
as  by  Gagern.  If  Germany  had  been  in  a  later 
phase  of  political  development,  public  opinion 
would  perhaps  have  forced  the  sovereigns  to  con- 
sent to  the  formation  of  a  really  united  Fatherland 
with  a  powerful  executive  and  a  national  parlia- 
ment—  but  the  time  for  that  had  not  arrived. 
What  was  the  opposition  of  a  few  hundred  clear- 
sighted men  with  their  few  thousand  followers, 
that  it  should  prevail  over  the  masters  of  so  many 
legions?  What  these  potentates  cared  most  about 
were  their  sovereign  rights,  and  the  dream  of 
German  unity  was  very  readily  sacrificed  to  the 
determination  of  each  of  them  to  be,  as  far  as  he 
possibly  could,  absolute  master  in  his  own  do- 
minions. Therefore  it  was  that  it  soon  became 
evident  that  the  results  of  the  deliberation  on  the 
future  of  Germany  would  be,  not  a  federative 
state,  but  a  confederation  of  states  —  a  Staaten- 
Bund,  not  a  Bundes-Staat.  There  is  no  doubt, 
however,  that  much  mischief  might  have  been 
avoided  if  all  the  stronger  powers  had  worked 
conscientiously  together  to  give  this  Staaten- 
Bund  as  national  a  character  as  possible.  .  .  . 
Prussia  was  really  honestly  desirous  to  effect 
something  of  this  kind,  and  Stein,  Hardenberg, 
William  von  Humboldt,  Count  Miinster,  and 
other  statesmen,  laboured  hard  to  bring  it  about. 
Austria,  on  the  other  hand,  aided  by  Bavaria, 
Wurtemberg,    and   Baden;   did   all    she  could 


to  oppose  such  projects.  Things  would  per- 
liaps  have  been  settled  better  than  they  ulti- 
mately were,  if  the  return  of  Napoleon  from 
Elba  had  not  frightened  all  Europe  from  its  pro- 
priety, and  turned  the  attention  of  the  sovereigns 
towards  warlike  preparations.  .  .  .  The  docu- 
ment by  which  the  Germanic  Confederation  is 
created  is  of  so  much  importance  that  we  may 
say  a  word  about  the  various  stages  through 
which  it  passed.  First,  then,  it  appears  as  a 
paper  drawn  up  by  Stein  in  March  1814,  and 
submitted  to  Hardenberg,  Count  Miinster,  and 
the  Emperor  Alexander.  Next,  in  the  month  of 
Septemlser,  it  took  the  form  of  an  official  plan, 
handed  by  Hardenberg  to  Metternich,  and  con- 
sisting of  forty-one  articles.  This  plan  contem- 
plated the  creation  of  a  confederation  which  should 
have  the  character  rather  of  a  Bundes-Staat  than 
of  a  Staaten-Bund ;  but  it  went  to  pieces  in  con- 
sequence of  the  difficulties  which  we  have  noticed 
above,  and  out  of  it,  and  of  ten  other  official  pro- 
posals, twelve  articles  were  sublimated  by  the 
rival  chemistry  of  Hardenberg  and  Metternich. 
Upon  these  twelve  articles  the  representatives  of 
Austria,  Prussia,  Hanover,  and  Wurtemberg,  de- 
liberated. Their  sittings  were  cut  short  partly  by 
the  ominous  appearance  which  was  presented  In 
the  autumn  of  1814  by  the  Saxon  and  Polish 
questions,  and  partly  by  the  difficulties  from  the 
side  of  Bavaria  and  Wurtemberg,  which  we  have 
already  noticed.  The  spring  brought  a  project 
of  the  Austrian  statesman  Wessenberg,  who  pro- 
posed a  Staaten-Bund  rather  than  a  Bundes- 
Staat  ;  and  out  of  this  and  a  new  Prussian  project 
drawn  up  by  W.  von  Humboldt,  grew  the  last 
sketch,  which  was  submitted  on  the  23d  of  May 
1815  to  the  general  conference  of  the  plenipoten- 
tiaries of  all  Germany.  They  made  short  work 
of  it  at  the  last,  and  the  Federal-Act  (Bundes- 
Acte)  bears  date  June  8th,  1815.  This  is  the 
document  which  is  incorporated  in  the  principal 
act  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  and  placed  under 
the  guarantee  of  eight  European  powers,  includ- 
ing France  and  England.  Wurtemberg,  Baden, 
and  Hesse-Homburg,  did  not  form  part  of  the 
Confederation  for  some  little  time  —  the  latter 
not  till  1817 ;  but  after  they  were  added  to  the 
powers  at  first  consenting,  the  number  of  the 
sovereign  states  in  the  Confederation  was  alto- 
gether thirty-nine.  .  .  .  The  following  are  the 
chief  stipulations  of  the  Federal  Act.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  Confederation  is  the  external  and  in- 
ternal security  of  Germany,  and  the  independence 
and  inviolability  of  the  confederate  states.  A 
difete  federative  (Bundes-Versammlung)  is  to  be 
created,  and  its  attributions  are  sketched.  The 
Diet  is,  as  soon  as  possible,  to  draw  up  the  funda- 
mental laws  of  the  Confederation.  No  state  is 
to  make  war  with  another,  on  any  pretence. 
All  federal  territories  are  mutually  guaranteed. 
There  is  to  be  in  each  state  a  '  Landstitndische 
Verfassung' — 'il  y  aura  des  assemblees  d'etats 
dans  tous  les  pays  de  la  Confederation.'  Art.  14 
reserves  many  rights  to  the  mediatised  princes. 
Equal  civil  and  political  rights  are  guaranteed  to 
all  Christians  in  all  German  States,  and  stipula- 
tions are  made  in  favour  of  the  Jews.  The  Diet 
did  not  actually  assemble  before  the  5th  of 
November  1816.  Its  first  measures,  and,  above 
all,  its  first  words,  were  not  unpopular.  The 
Holy  Allies,  however,  pressed  with  each  succeed- 
ing month  more  heavily  upon  Germany,  and  got 
at  last  the  control  of  the  Confederation  entirely 


1565 


GERMANY,  1814-1820.         The  Burschcischaft.         GERMANY,  1817-1840. 


into  their  hands.  The  chief  epochs  in  this  sad 
history  were  the  Congress  of  Carlsbad,  1819  —  the 
resolutions  of  which  against  the  freedom  of  the 
press  were  pronounced  by  Gentz  to  be  a  victory 
more  glorious  than  Leipzig ;  the  ministerial  con- 
ferences which  immediately  succeeded  it  at 
Vienna;  and  the  adoption  by  the  Diet  of  the 
Final  Act  (Schluss  Acte)  of  the  Confederation  on 
the  8th  of  June  1830.  The  following  are  the 
chief  stipulations  of  the  Final  Act:  —  The  Con- 
federation is  indissoluble.  No  new  member  can 
be  admitted  without  the  unanimous  consent  of 
all  the  states,  and  no  federal  territory  can  be 
ceded  to  a  foreign  power  without  their  permis- 
sion. The  regulations  for  the  conduct  of  busi- 
ness by  the  Diet  are  amplified  and  more  carefully 
defined.  All  quarrels  between  members  of  the 
Confederation  are  to  be  stopped  before  recourse 
is  had  to  violence.  The  Diet  may  interfere  to 
keep  order  in  a  state  where  the  government  of 
that  state  is  notoriously  incapable  of  doing  so. 
Federal  execution  is  provided  for  in  case  any 
government  resists  the  authority  of  the  Diet. 
Other  articles  declare  the  right  of  the  Confedera- 
tion to  make  war  and  peace  as  a  body,  to  guard 
the  rights  of  each  separate  state  from  injury,  to 
take  into  consideration  the  differences  between  its 
members  and  foreign  nations,  to  mediate  between 
them,  to  maintain  the  neutrality  of  its  territory, 
to  make  war  when  a  state  belonging  to  the  Con- 
federation is  attacked  in  its  non-federal  territory 
if  the  attack  seems  likely  to  endanger  Germany." 
— M.  E.  G.  Dufl,  Studies  in  European  Polities, 
ch.  5. 

Also  m:  J.  R.  Seeley,  Life  and  TYmes  of  Stein, 
pt.  8  (v.  3).— E.  Hertslet,  The  Map  of  Europe  by 
Treaty,  v.  1,  no.  26  {Text  of  Federative  Constitu- 
tion).— See,  also,  Vienna:  Congress  op. 

A.  D.  1815. —Napoleon's  return  from  Elba. 
—  The  Quadruple  Alliance. —  The  Waterloo 
campaign  and  its  results.  See  France:  A.  D. 
1814^1815. 

A.  D.  1815. — Final  Overthrow  of  Napoleon. 
— The  Allies  again  in  Paris. — Second  treaty 
with  France. — Restitutions  and  indemnities. 
— French  frontier  of  1790  re-established.  See 
Fkauce;  a.  D.  1815  (June),  (.July-Novem- 
ber). 

A.  D.  1815.— The  Holy  Alliance.  See  Holt 
Alliance. 

A.  D.  1817-1820.— The  Burschenschaft.— 
Assassination  of  Kotzebue. — The  Karlsbad 
Conference.— "In  1817,  the  students  of  several 
Universities  assembled  at  the  Wartburg  in  order 
to  celebrate  the  tercentenary  of  the  Reformation. 
In  the  evening,  a  small  number  of  them,  the 
majority  having  already  left,  were  carried  away 
by  enthusiastic  zeal,  and,  in  imitation  of  Luther, 
burnt  a  number  of  writings  recently  published 
against  German  freedom,  together  with  other 
emblems  of  wliat  was  considered  hateful  in  the 
institutions  of  some  of  the  German  States.  These 
youthful  excesses  were  viewed  by  the  Govern- 
ments as  symptoms  of  grave  peril.  At  the  same 
time,  a  large  number  of  students  united  to  form 
one  great  German  Burschenschaft  [association  of 
students],  whose  aim  was  the  cultivation  of  a 
love  of  country,  a  love  of  freedom,  and  the  moral 
sense.  Thereupon  increased  anxiety  on  the  part 
of  the  Governments,  followed  by  vexatious  po- 
lice interference.  Matters  grew  worse  in  conse- 
quence of  the  rash  act  of  a  fanatical  student, 
named  Sand.     It  became  known  that  the  Russian 


Government  was  using  all  its  powerful  influence 
to  have  liberal  ideas  suppressed  in  Germany,  and 
that  the  play-wright  Kotzebue  had  secretly  sent 
to  Russia  slanderous  and  libellous  reports  on 
German  patriots.  Sand  travelled  to  Mannheim 
and  thrust  a  dagger  into  Kotzebue's  heart.  The 
consequences  were  most  disastrous  to  the  cause 
of  freedom  in  Germany.  The  distrust  of  the 
Governments  reached  its  height:  it  washeld that 
this  blood}'  deed  must  needs  be  the  result  of  a 
wide-spread  conspiracy :  the  authorities  sus- 
pected demagogues  everywhere.  Ministers,  of 
course  at  the  instigation  of  Metternich,  met  at 
Karlsbad,  and  determined  on  repressive  meas- 
ures. These  were  afterwards  adopted  by  the 
Federal  Diet  at  Frankfort,  which  henceforth  be- 
came an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the  Emperor 
Francis  and  his  Minister  for  guiding  the  internal 
policy  of  the  German  States.  Accordingly,  the 
cession  of  state-constitutions  was  opposed,  and 
prosecutions  were  instituted  throughout  Ger- 
many against  all  who  identified  themselves  with 
the  popular  movement ;  many  young  men  were 
thrown  into  prison  ;  gymnastic  and  other  socie- 
ties were  arbitrarily  suppressed  ;  a  rigid  censor- 
ship of  the  press  was  established,  and  the  free- 
dom of  the  Universities  restrained  ;  various  pro- 
fessors, among  them  Arndt,  whose  songs  had 
helped  to  fire  the  enthusiasm  of  the  Freiheits- 
kiimpfer  —  the  soldiers  of  Freedom  —  in  the  re- 
cent war,  were  deprived  of  their  offices ;  the 
Burschenschaft  was  dissolved,  and  the  wearing  of 
their  colours,  the  future  colours  of  the  German 
Empire, black,  red,  and  gold,  was  forbidden.  .  .  . 
The  Universities  continued  to  uphold  the  national 
idea ;  the  Burschenschaft  soon  secretly  revived 
as  a  private  association,  and  as  early  as  1820  there 
again  existed  at  most  German  Universities, 
Burschenschaften,  which,  though  their  aims 
were  not  sharply  defined,  Isore  a  political  colour- 
ing and  placed  the  demand  for  German  Unity  in 
the  foreground."  — G.  Krause,  The  Crrowth  of 
Oenntin  Unity,  ch.  8. 

A.  D.  1817-1840. — Tendencies  towards  Ger- 
manic union  and  Prussian  leadership. — The 
ZoUverein. — "In  Austria,  in  the  decades  suc- 
ceeding the  wars  of  liberation,  there  reigned 
the  most  immovable  quiet.  The  much-praised 
system  of  government  consisted  in  unthinking 
inactivity.  The  Emperor  Francis,  a  man  with 
the  nature  of  a  subaltern  ofiicial,  hated  anything 
that  approached  to  a  constitution,  and  a  say- 
ing of  his  was  often  quoted  :  '  Totus  mundus 
stultizat  et  vult  habere  constitutiones  novas.' 
Metternich's  power  rested  on  the  '  dead  motion- 
lessness '  of  affairs.  As  far  as  his  German  policy 
was  concerned  his  aim  was  to  hold  fast  to  the 
preponderating  influence  of  Austria  over  the 
German  states,  but  not  to  undertake  any  respon- 
sibilities towards  them.  ...  As  for  Prussia,  in 
spite  of  the  great  sacrifices  which  she  had  made, 
she  emerged  from  the  diplomatic  negotiations 
and  intrigues  of  the  Vienna  Congress  with  the 
most  unfavorable  disposition  of  territory  imag- 
inable. To  the  five  million  inhabitants  that  had 
remained  to  her  five  and  a  half  millions  were 
added  in  districts  that  had  belonged  to  more 
than  a  hundred  different  territories  and  had  stood 
under  the  most  varied  laws.  There  began  now 
for  this  state  a  time  well  filled  with  quiet  work, 
the  aim  and  object  being  to  create  a  whole  out 
of  the  various  parts."— Bruno-Gebhardt.  Lehr- 
buch  derdcutschen  Gesehichte  {trans,  from  the  Ger- 


1566 


GERMANY,  1817-1840. 


The  ZoUverein. 


GERMANY.  1819-1847, 


inati)  V  3,  pp.  501-504.—"  The  German  confedera- 
tion was,  on  the  whole,  provisional  in  its  charac- 
ter •  this  fact  comes  out  more  and  more  plainly 
with  each  thorough  analysis  and  illustration  of 
its  constitution  and  of  its  institutions    .  .  .   lecn- 
nically  the  emperor  of  Austria  had  the  honorary 
direction  of  the  confederation ;    practically   he 
possessed  as  emperor  of  Germany  little  or  no 
power       .  .  In  reality  the  strongest  member  ot 
the  German  confederation  was  the  kingdom  ot 
Prussia.  .  .  .  Only   gradually,    in    the   various 
heads,  did  the  opinion  begin  to  form  of  the  his- 
torical vocation  of  Prussia  to  take  her  place  at 
the  head  of  the  German  confederation  or   possi- 
blv    of  a  new  German  empire.     Gradually  this 
opinion  ripened  into  a  firmer  and  firmer  convic- 
tion and  gained  more  and  more  supporters.      1  he 
more  evidently  impossible  an  actual  guidance  ot 
Germany  by  Austria  became,  the  more  conscious 
did  men'grow  of  the  danger  of  the  whole  situation 
should  the  dualism  be  allowed  to  continue      In 
consequence  of  this  the  idea  of  the  Prussian  hege- 
mony began  to  be  viewed  with  constantly  increas- 
iuo-  favor.     A  great  step  forward  in  this  direction 
was  taken  by  the  Prussian  government  when  it 
called  into  being  the  ZoUverein  [or  customs-unionj. 
The  ZoUverein  laid  iron  binds  around  the  separate 
parts  of  the  German  uation.     It  was  utterly  im- 
possible to  think  of  forming  a  customs- union  with 
Austria  for  all  economic  interests  were  as  widely 
different  as  possible ;  on  purely  material  grounds 
the  division  between  Austria  and  Prussia  showed 
itself  to  be  a  necessity.     On  the  other  hand  the 
economic  bonds  between  Prussia  and  the  rest  ot 
tlie   German  lands  grew  stronger  from  day  to 
dav      This  material  union  was  the   prelude   to 
the  political  one :  the  ZoUverein  was  the  best  and 
most  effectual  preparation  for  the  German  fed- 
eral state   or  for  the   German  empire  of  later 
days"  — W      Maurenbrecher,      Orinidung     des 
deutschen  Reichs,  pp.  4,  5.  -"  Paul  Pfizer  wrote 
in  1831  his  '  Correspondence  of  Two  Germans, 
the   first  writing  in  the   German  language   in 
which  liberation  from  Austria  and  union  with 
Prussia  was  put  down  as  the  solution  of  the  Ger- 
man question,  and  in  which  faith  in  Prussia  was 
made  a  part  of  such  love  to  the  German  father- 
land as  should  be  no  longer  a  mere  dream.  .  .  . 
'  So  little  as  the  dead  shall  rise  again  this  side 
the  grave,  so  little  wiU  Austria,  which  once  held 
the  heritage  of  German  fame  and  German  glory, 
ever  again  become  for  Germany  what  she  has  once 
teen'"  — W.  Oncken,  Das  Zcitalter  des  Kaisers 
Wilhelm  (trans,  from  the  German),  v.  l.pp.  69,  70. 
—The  formation  of    the  ZoUverein    "was  the 
most  important  occurrence  since   the   wars  of 
liberation  :  a  deed  of  peace  of  more  far-reaching 
consequences  and  productive  of  more  lasting  re- 
sults than  many  a  battle  won.     The  economic 
blessings  of  the  ZoUverein  soon  began  to  show 
themselves  in  the  increasing  sum  total  of  the 
amount  of  commerce  and  in  the  regularly  grow- 
ing customs  revenues  of  the  individual  states. 
These  revenues,  for  example,  increased  between 
1884  and  1842  from  13   to  21   million  thalers. 
Forei.n-n   countries   began  to  look  with  respect 
and  in  part  also  with  envy  on  this  commercial 
unity  of  Germany  and  on  the  results  which  could 
not  fail  to  come.  ...  A  second  event  happened 
in  Germany  in  1834,  less  marked  in  its  begin- 
nings and  "yet  scarcely  less  important  m  its  re- 
sults than  tiie  ZoUverein.     Between  Leipzig  and 
Dresden  the  first  large  raihroad  in  Germany  was 


started,  the  first  mesh  in  that  network  of  roada 
that  was  soon  to  branch  out  in  all  directions  and 
spread  itself  over  aU    Germany.  ...  A  direct 
poUtical  occurrence,  independent  of  the  ZoUver- 
ein and  the  raihoads,  was,  in  the  course  of  the 
thirties,  to  assist  in  awakening  and  strengthening 
the  idea  of  unity  in  the  German  people  by  mak- 
in"  evident  and  "plain  the  lack  of  such  unity  and 
its°disastrous  consequences.      This  was  the  Han- 
overian 'coup  d'etat'  of  the  year  1837.  .  _  .  In 
that  year  William  IV.  of  England  died  without 
direct  successors.  .  .  .  Hanover  came  into   the 
hands  of  the  Duke  of  Cumberland.  Ernest  Au- 
eustus.  .  .  .  The  new  king,  soon  after  his  in- 
Su"-uration,  refused  to  recognize  the  constitution 
that  had  been  given  to  Hanover  in  1833,  on  the 
ground  that  his  ratification  as  next  heir  to  the 
throne  had  not  been  asked  at  that  time.  .  ._. 
By  persistmit   efforts  Ernest  Augustus  .  .  .  m 
1840  brou"-ht  about   a   constitution  that  suited 
him      Still  more  than  this  constitutional  strug- 
gle itself  did  a  single  incident  connected  with  it 
Sccupy  and  excite  public  opinion  far  and  wide. 
Seven   professors   of  the   Gottingen    university 
protested  against  the  abrogation  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  1833.  .  .  .  Without  more  ado  they  were 
dismissed  from  their  positions.  .  .  .  The  brave 
deed  of  the  Gottingen  professors  and   the  new 
act  of  violence  committed  against  them  caused 
intense    excitement    throughout   all   Germany. 
In    the  course   of  the   forties  the  idea  ot 
nationality  penetrated  more   and  more  all   the 
pores  of   German  opinion  and  gave  to  it  more 
and  more,  by  pressure  from  all  sides,  the  direc- 
tion of  a  great  and  common  goal.     At  first  there 
were  only  isolated  attempts  at  reform  ...  but 
soon  the  "national  needs  outgrew  such  single  ex- 
pressions of  good  will.  ...  A  tendency  began 
to    show    itself  in   the  public   opinion  of  Ger 
many  to  accept  the  plan  of  a  Prussian  leader 
ship  of  aU  iin- Austrian  Germany."— K.  Bieder 
maun,  Dreissig  Jahre  deutscher  Oeschiehte,  v.  1, 

»n.  9-91.  ,  ... 

AD    1819-1847.— Arbitrary  rulers  and  dis- 
contented subjects.— The  ferment  before  rev- 
olution.—Formation  ol  the  ZoUverein.— "The 
history   of  Germany  during  the  thirty  years  of 
peace  which  followed  [the  Congress  of  Carlsbadj 
is  marked  by  very  few  events  of  importance.    It 
was  a  season  of  gradual  reaction  on  the  part  of 
the  rulers,  and  of  increasing  impatience  and  en 
mity  on  the  part  of  the  people.     Instead  of  be- 
coming loving  famOies,  as  the  Holy  AUiance  de- 
si  n-ned    the  states  (except    some    of  the   iittle 
principalities)   were    divided    into    two    hostile 
classes     There  was  material  growth  everywhere ; 
the  wounds  left  by  war  and  foreign  occupation 
\Yere  gradually  healed  ;  there  was  order,  security 
for  all  who  abstained  from  politics,  and  a  com- 
fortable repose  for  such  as  were  indifferent  to  the 
future     But  it  was  a   sad  and    disheartening 
period  for  the  men  who  were  able  to  see  clearly 
how  Germany,  with  all  the  elements  of  a  freer 
and  strono;er"lite  existing  in  her  people,  was  fall- 
ing behind  the  political  development  of  other 
countries.     The  three  days'  Revolution  of  1830 
which   placed   Louis  Philippe  on  the  throne  of 
France  was  followed  by  popular  uprisings  in 
some  parts  of  Germany.     Prussia  and   -A-Ustria 
were  too  strong,   and  their  people  too  well  held 
in  check,  to  be  affected  ;  but  in  Brunswick  the 
despotic  Duke,  Karl,  was  deposed.  Saxony  and 
Hesse-Cassel   were   obliged  to  accept  co-rulers 


1567 


GERMANY,  1819-1847. 


Arbitrary 
Government. 


GERMANY,  1848. 


(out  of  their  reigning  families)  and  tlie  English 
Duke,  Ernest  Augustus,  was  made  viceroy  of 
Hannover.  These  four  States  also  adopted  a 
constitutional  form  of  government.  The  Ger- 
man Diet,  as  a  matter  of  course,  used  what  power 
it  possessed  to  counteract  these  movements,  but 
its  influence  was  limited  by  its  own  laws  of 
action.  The  hopes  and  aspirations  of  the  people 
were  kept  alive,  in  spite  of  the  system  of  repres- 
sion, and  some  of  the  smaller  States  took  advan- 
tage of  their  independence  to  introduce  various 
measures  of  reform.  As  industry,  commerce  and 
travel  increased,  the  existence  of  so  many  boini- 
daries,  with  their  custom-houses,  taxes  and  other 
hindrances,  became  an  unendurable  burden.  Ba- 
varia and  Wlirtemberg  formed  a  customs  union 
in  1838,  Prussia  followed,  and  by  1836  all  of  Ger- 
many except  Austria  was  united  in  the  Zoll- 
verein  (Tariff  Union)  [see  Tariff  Legislation 
(Germany):  A.  D.  1833],  which  was  not  only  a 
great  material  advantage,  but  helped  to  inculcate 
the  idea  of  a  closer  political  union.  On  the  other 
hand,  however,  the  monarchical  reaction  against 
liberal  government  was  stronger  than  ever. 
Ernest  Augustus  of  Hannover  arbitrarily  over- 
threw the  constitution  he  had  accepted,  and  Lud- 
wig  I.  of  Bavaria,  renouncing  all  his  former  pro- 
fessions, made  his  land  a  very  nest  of  absolutism 
and  Jesuitism.  In  Prussia,  such  men  as  Stein, 
Gueisenau,  and  Wilhelm  von  Humboldt  had  long 
lost  their  influence,  while  others  of  less  personal 
renown,  but  of  similar  political  sentiments,  were 
subjected  to  contemptible  forms  of  persecution. 
In  March,  1835,  Francis  II.  of  Austria  died,  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Ferdinand  I.,  a  man  of 
such  weak  intellect  that  he  was  in  some  respects 
idiotic.  On  the  7th  of  June,  1840,  Frederick 
William  III.  of  Prussia  died,  and  was  also  suc- 
ceeded by  his  son,  Frederick  William  IV.,  a  man 
of  great  wit  and  intelligence,  who  had  made  him- 
self popular  as  Crown-prince,  and  whose  acces- 
sion the  people  hailed  with  joy,  in  the  enthu.si- 
astic  belief  that  better  days  were  coming.  The 
two  dead  monarchs,  each  of  whom  had  reigned 
43  years,  left  behind  them  a  better  memory 
among  their  people  than  they  actually  deserved. 
They  were  both  weak,  unstable  and  narrow- 
minded  ;  had  they  not  been  controlled  by  others, 
they  would  have  ruined  Germany ;  but  they  were 
alike  of  excellent  personal  character,  amiable, 
and  very  kindly  disposed  towards  their  subjects 
so  long  as  the  latter  were  perfectly  obedient  and 
reverential.  There  was  no  change  in  the  condi- 
tion of  Austria,  for  Metternich  remained  the  real 
ruler,  as  before.  In  Prussia  a  few  unimportant 
concessions  were  made,  an  amnesty  for  political 
offences  was  declared,  Alexander  von  Humboldt 
became  the  king's  chosen  associate,  and  much 
was  done  for  science  and  art ;  but  in  their  main 
hope  of  a  liberal  reorganization  of  the  govern- 
ment, the  people  were  bitterly  deceived.  Fred- 
erick William  IV.  took  no  steps  towards  the 
adoption  of  a  Constitution ;  he  made  the  censor- 
ship and  the  supervision  of  the  police  more 
severe ;  he  Interfered  in  the  most  arbitrary  and 
bigoted  manner  in  the  system  of  religious  in- 
struction in  the  schools ;  and  all  his  acts  showed 
that  his  policy  was  to  strengthen  his  throne  by 
the  support  of  the  nobility  and  the  civil  service, 
without  regard  to  the  just  claims  of  the  people. 
Thus,  in  spite  of  the  external  quiet  and  order,  the 
political  atmosphere  gradually  became  more  sul- 
try and  disturbed.  .  .  .  There  were  signs  of  im- 


patience in  all  quarters ;  various  local  outbreaks 
occurred,  and  the  aspects  were  so  threatening 
that  in  February,  1847,  Fi-ederick  William  IV. 
endeavored  to  silence  the  growing  opposition 
by  ordering  the  formation  of  a  Legislative  As- 
sembly. But  the  provinces  were  represented, 
not  the  people,  and  the  measure  only  emboldened 
the  latter  to  clamor  for  a  direct  representation. 
Thereupon,  the  king  closed  the  Assembly,  after 
a  short  session,  and  the  attempt  was  probably 
productive  of  more  harm  than  good.  In  most 
of  the  other  German  States,  the  situation  was 
very  similar ;  everywhere  there  were  elements  of 
opposition,  all  the  more  violent  and  dangerous, 
because  they  had  been  kept  down  with  a  strong 
hand  for  so  many  years." — B.  Taylor,  Bist.  of 
Germany,  ch.  37. 

Also  in  :  C.  A.  Fyffe,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
V.  2,  ch.  Sandl. — See,  also,  Austria:  A.  D.  1815- 
1835. 

A.  D.  1820-1822. — The  Congresses  of  Trop- 
pau,  Laybach  and  Verona.  See  Verona,  The 
Congress  op. 

A.  D.  1835-1846.— Death  of  the  Emperor 
Francis  I.  of  Austria. — Accession  of  Ferdi- 
nand I. — Extinction  of  the  Polish  republic  of 
Cracow. — Its  annexation  to  Austria.  See 
Austria:  A.  D.  1815-1846. 

A.  D.  1839-1840.  —  The  Turko-Egyptian 
question  and  its  settlement. — Quadruple  Al- 
liance.    See  Titrks:  A.  D.  1831-1^40. 

A.  D.  1848  (March).  —  Revolutionary  out- 
breaks.— The  King  of  Prussia  heads  a  national 
movement. — Mistaken  battle  of  soldiers  and 
citizens  at  Berlin. — "The  French  revolution  of 
February,  the  flight  of  Louis  Philippe  and  the 
fall  of  the  throne  of  the  barricades,  and  the  proc- 
lamation of  a  republic,  had  kindled  from  one 
end  to  the  other  of  Europe  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
republican  party.  The  conflagration  rapidly  ex- 
tended itself.  The  Rhenish  provinces  of  Prussia, 
whose  near  neighbourhood  and  former  connexion 
with  France  made  them  more  peculiarly  combus- 
tible, broke  out  with  a  cry  for  the  most  extensive 
reforms ;  that  is  to  say,  for  representative  insti- 
tutions, the  passion  for  which  had  spread  over 
the  whole  of  Germany.  .  .  .  The  reform  fever 
which  had  attacked  the  Rhenish  provinces 
quickly  spread  to  the  rest  of  the  body  politic. 
The  urban  populace  —  a  class  in  all  countries 
rarely  incited  to  agitation  —  took  the  lead.  They 
were  headed  by  the  students.  Breslau,  Kbnigs- 
berg,  and  Berlin, were  in  violent  commotion.  In 
the  month  of  JMarch,  a  great  open  air  meeting 
was  held  at  Berlin :  it  ended  in  a  riot.  The  troops 
were  called  out  to  act  against  the  mob.  For 
near  a  week,  Berlin  was  in  a  state  of  chronic  dis- 
turbance. The  troops  acted  with  great  firmness. 
The  mob  gathered  together,  but  did  not  show 
much  fight;  but  they  were  dispersed  with  difB- 
culty,  and  continued  to  offer  a  passive  resistance 
to  the  soldiers.  On  the  15th,  ten  persons  were 
said  to  have  been  killed,  and  over  100  wounded. 
At  the  same  time,  similar  scenes  were  being  en- 
acted at  Breslau  and  Konigsberg,  where  several 
persons  lost  their  lives.  A  deputation  from  the 
Rhenish  provinces  arrived  at  Berlin  on  the  18th, 
bearing  a  petition  from  Cologne  to  the  king  for 
reform.  He  promised  to  grant  it.  .  .  .  Finding 
he  could  not  keep  the  movement  in  check,  he  re- 
solved to  put  himself  at  the  head  of  it.  It  was 
probably  the  only  course  open  to  him,  if  he 
would  preserve  his  crown.  .  .  .  The  lung  must 


1568 


GERMANY,  1848. 


Revolutionary 
Movements. 


GERMANY,  1848. 


have  previously  had  the  questions  which  were 
agitating  Germany  under  careful  consideration ; 
for  he  at  once  published  a  proclamation  embody- 
ing the  whole  of  them :  the  unity  of  Germany, 
by  forming  it  into  a  federal  state,  with  a  fed";al 
representation ;  representative  institutions  for  the 
separate  states ;  a  general  military  system  for  all 
Germany,  under  one  federal  banner;  a  German 
fleet;  a  tribunal  for  settling  disputes  between 
the  states,  and  a  right  for  all  Germans  to  settle 
and  trade  in  any  part  of  Germany  they  thought 
fit ;  the  whole  of  Germany  formed  into  one  cus- 
toms union,  and  included  in  the  ZoUvereln ;  one 
system  of  money,  weights,  and  measures;  and 
the  freedom  of  the  press.  These  were  the  sub- 
jects touched  upon.  .  .  .  The  popularity  of  the 
proclamation  with  the  mob-leaders  was  un- 
bounded, and  the  mob  shouted.  Every  line  of  it 
contained  their  own  ideas,  vigorously  expressed. 
Their  delight  was  proportionate  to  their  astonish- 
ment. A  crowd  got  together  at  the  palace  to  ex- 
press their  gratitude ;  the  king  came  out  of  a 
window,  and  was  loudly  cheered.  Two  regi- 
ments of  dragoons  unluckily  mistook  the  cheer- 
ing for  an  attack,  and  began  pushing  them  back 
by  forcing  their  horses  forward.  .  .  .  Unfor- 
tunately, as  the  conflict  (if  conflict  it  could  be 
called,  which  was  only  a  bout  of  which  could 
push  hardest)  was  going  forward,  two  musket- 
shots  were  fired  by  a  regiment  of  infantry.  It 
appears  that  the  muskets  went  off  accidentally. 
No  one  was  injured  by  them.  It  is  not  clear 
they  were  not  blank  cartridges;  but  the  people 
took  fright.  They  imagined  that  there  was  a 
design  to  slaughter  them.  At  once  they  rushed 
to  arms;  barricades  were  thrown  up  in  every 
street.  .  .  .  Sharpshooters  placed  themselves  in 
-the  windows  and  behind  the  barricades,  and 
opened  a  fire  on  the  soldiery.  These,  exasper- 
ated by  what  they  thought  an  unfair  species  of 
fighting,  were  by  no  means  unwilling  for  the 
fray.  .  .  .  The  troops  carried  barricade  after  bar- 
ricade, and  gave  no  quarter  even  to  the  unresist- 
ing. As  they  took  the  houses,  they  slaughtered 
all  the  sharpshooters  they  found  in  them,  not 
very  accurately  discriminating  those  engaged  in 
hostilities  from  those  who  were  not.  Horrible 
cruelties  were  committed  on  both  sides.  .  .  .  The 
fight  raged  for  fifteen  hours.  Either  the  king 
lost  his  head  when  it  began,  or  the  troops,  hav- 
ing their  blood  up,  would  not  stop.  .  .  .  The 
firing  began  at  two  o'clock  on  the  18th  of  March, 
and  the  authorities  succeeded  in  withdrawing  the 
troops  and  stopping  it  the  next  morning  at  five 
o'clock,  they  having  been  during  that  time  suc- 
cessful at  all  points.  .  .  .  The  king  put  out  a 
manifesto  at  seven  o'clock,  declaring  that  the 
whole  business  arose  from  an  unlucky  misunder- 
standing between  the  troops  and  the  people,  as 
it  unquestionably  did,  and  the  people  appear  to 
have  been  aware  of  the  fact  and  ashamed  of 
themselves.  ...  A  general  amnesty  was  pro- 
claimed for  all  parties  concerned,  and  orders 
were  given  to  form  at  once  a  burgher  guard  to 
supply  the  place  of  the  military,  who  were  to  be 
witlidrawn.  A  new  ministry  was  appointed,  of 
a  liberal  character.  .  .  .  The  troops  were  marched 
out  of  the  town,  and  were  cheered  by  the  people. 
...  It  is  estimated  that,  of  the  populace,  about 
200  were  killed ;  187  received  a  public  funeral. 
No  accurate  account  of  the  wounded  can  be  ob- 
tained. ...  Of  the  troops,  accox'ding  to  the  of- 
ficial returns,  there  fell  3  officers  and  17  non- 


commissioned officers  and  privates ;  of  wounded 
there  were  14  officers,  14  non-commissioned  offi- 
cers, and  235  privates,  and  1  surgeon.  .  .  .  Tlie 
king's  object  was  to  divert  popular  enthusiasm 
into  another  channel ;  he  therefore  assumed  the 
lead  in  the  regeneration  of  Germany.  On  the 
21st  he  issued  a  proclamation,  enlarging  on  these 
views,  and  rode  through  the  streets  with  the 
proscribed  German  tricolor  on  his  helmet,  and 
was  vociferously  cheered  as  he  passed  along. 
Prussia  was  not  tlie  first  of  the  German  states 
where  the  old  order  of  things  was  overturned. 
During  the  whole  of  the  month  of  March,  Ger- 
many underwent  the  process  of  revolution.  .  .  . 
On  the  3d  of  March  .  .  .  the  new  order  of  things 
.  .  .  began  at  Wurtemberg.  The  Duke  of  Hesse- 
Darmstadt  abdicated.  In  Bavaria,  things  took  a 
more  practical  turn.  The  people  insisted  on  the 
dismissal  of  the  king's  mistress,  Lola  Montez: 
she  was  sent  away,  but,  trusting  to  the  king's 
dotage,  she  came  back,  police  or  no  police  —  was 
received  by  the  king  —  he  created  her  Countess 
of  Lansfeldt.  This  was  a  climax  to  which  the 
people  were  not  prepared  to  submit.  .  .  .  The 
king  was  compelled  to  expel  her,  to  annul  her 
patent  of  naturalization,  and  resume  the  grant 
he  had  made  of  property  in  her  favour.  This 
was  more  than  he  could  stand,  and  he  shortly 
after  abdicated  in  favour  of  his  heir.  In  Saxony 
the  king  gave  way,  after  his  troops  had  refused 
to  act,  and  the  freedom  of  the  press  was  estab- 
lished, and  other  popular  demands  granted.  In 
Vienna,  the  old  system  of  Metternich  was  abol- 
ished, after  a  revolution  which  was  little  more 
than  a  street  row.  The  king  of  Hanover  refused 
to  move,  but  was  eventually  induced  to  receive 
Stube  as  one  of  his  ministers,  who  had  been  pre- 
viously in  prison  for  his  opinions.  However,  he 
was  firmer  than  most  of  his  brother  monarchs, 
and  his  country  suffered  less  than  the  rest  of 
Germany  in  consequence." — E.  S.  Cayley,  The 
European  Revolutions  of  1848,  v.  2:  Germany, 
ch.  2. 

Also  IN:  C.  E.  Maurice,  The  Revolutionary 
Movement  of  1848-9,  ch.  7. 

A.  D.  1848  (March— September).— Election 
and  meeting  of  the  National  Assembly  at 
Frankfort. — Resignation  of  the  Diet. — Elec- 
tion of  Archduke  John  to  be  Administrator  of 
Germany. — Powerlessness  of  the  new  govern- 
ment.— Troubles  rising  from  the  Schleswig- 
Holstein  question. — Outbreak  at  Frankfort. — 
The  setting  in  of  Reaction. — "In  south-western 
Germany  the  liberal  party  set  itself  at  the  head 
of  the  movement.  .  .  .  The  Heidelberg  assem- 
bly of  March  5th,  consisting  of  the  former  oppo- 
sition leaders  in  the  various  Chambers,  issued  a 
call  to  the  German  nation,  and  chose  a  commis- 
sion of  seven  men,  who  were  to  make  proposi- 
tions with  regard  to  a  permanent  parliament  and 
to  summon  a  preliminary  parliament  at  Frank- 
fort. This  preliminary  parliament  assembled  in 
St.  Paul's  church,  March  31st.  .  .  .  The  ma- 
jority, consisting  of  constitutional  monarchists, 
resolved  that  an  assembly  chosen  by  direct  vote 
of  the  people  .  .  .  should  meet  in  the  month  of 
May,  with  full  and  sovereign  power  to  frame  a 
constitution  for  all  Germany.  .  .  .  These  meas- 
ures did  not  satisfy  the  radical  party,  whose 
leaders  were  Hecker  and  Struve.  As  their  propo- 
sition to  set  up  a  sovereign  assembly,  and  repub- 
licanize  Germany,  was  rejected,  they  left  Frank- 
fort, and  held  in  the  higlUands  of  Baden  popular 


99 


L569 


GERMANY,   1848. 


The  National 


GERMANY,  1848. 


meetings  at.  which  they  demanded  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  republic.  A  Hesse- Darmstadt  corps 
under  Frederic  von  Gagern  .  .  .  was  sent  to 
disperse  them.  An  engagement  took  place  at 
Kandern,  in  which  Gagern  was  shot,  but  Hecker 
and  his  followers  were  put  to  flight.  .  .  .  The 
disturbances  in  Odenwald,  and  in  the  Main  and 
Tauber  districts,  once  the  home  of  the  peasant 
war,  were  of  a  different  description.  There  the 
country  people  rose  against  the  landed  proprie- 
tors, destroyed  the  archives,  with  the  odious 
tithe  and  rental  books,  and  demolished  a  few 
castles.  The  Diet,  which  in  the  meantime  con- 
tinued its  illusory  existence,  thought  to  extricate 
itself  from  the  present  difficulties  by  a  few  con- 
cessions. It  .  .  .  invited  the  governments  to 
send  confidential  delegates  to  undertake,  along 
with  its  members,  a  revision  of  the  constitution 
of  the  confederation.  .  .  .  These  confidential 
delegates,  among  them  the  poet  Uhland,  from 
WUrtemberg,  began  their  work  on  the  30th  of 
March.  The  elections  for  the  National  Assembly 
stirred  to  their  innermost  fibres  the  German  peo- 
ple, dreaming  of  the  restoration  of  their  former 
greatness.  May  18th  about  320  delegates  assem- 
bled in  the  Imperial  Hall,  in  the  Romer  (the 
Rathhaus),  at  Frankfort.  .  .  .  Never  has  a  po- 
litical assembly  contained  a  greater  number  of 
Intellectual  and  scholarly  men  —  men  of  charac- 
ter and  capable  of  self-sacrifice ;  but  it  certainly 
was  not  the  forte  of  these  numerous  professors 
and  jurists  to  conduct  practical  politics.  The 
moderate  party  was  decidedly  in  the  majorit)'. 
...  It  was  decided  .  .  .  that  a  provisional  cen- 
tral executive  should  be  created  in  the  place  of 
the  Diet,  and  created,  not  by  the  National  As- 
sembly in  concert  with  the  princes,  but  by  the 
National  Assembly  alone.  June  37th,  following 
out  the  bold  conception  of  its  president,  the  as- 
sembly decided  to  appoint  an  irresponsible  ad- 
ministrator, with  a  responsible  ministry;  and 
June  39th,  Archduke  John  of  Austria  was  chosen 
Administrator  of  Germany  by  436  votes  out  of 
546.  He  made  his  entry  into  Frankfort  July 
11th,  and  entered  upon  his  office  on  the  following 
day.  The  hour  of  the  Diet  had  struck,  appar- 
ently for  the  last  time.  It  resigned  its  authority 
into  the  hands  of  the  Administrator,  and,  after 
an  existence  of  33  years,  left  the  stage  un- 
mourned.  Archduke  John  was  a  popular  prince, 
who  found  more  pleasure  in  the  mountain  air  of 
Tyrol  and  Styria  than  in  the  perfumed  atmos- 
phere of  the  Vienna  court.  But,  as  a  novice  66 
years  of  age,  he  was  not  equal  to  the  task  of 
governing,  and  as  a  thorough  Austrian  he  lacked 
a  heart  for  all  Germany.  The  main  question  for 
him  and  for  the  National  Assembly  was,  what 
force  they  could  apply  in  case  the  individual 
governments  refused  obedience  to  the  decrees 
issued  in  the  name  of  the  National  Assembly. 
This  was  the  Achilles's  heel  of  the  German  revo- 
lution. .  .  .  Orders  were  issued  by  the  federal 
minister  of  war  that  all  the  troops  of  the  Con- 
federation should  swear  allegiance  to  the  federal 
administrator  on  the  6th  of  August ;  but  Prussia 
and  Austria,  with  the  exception  of  the  Vienna 
garrison,  paid  no  attention  to  these  orders ;  Ernest 
Augustus,  in  Hanover,  successfully  set  his  hard 
head  against  them,  and  only  the  lesser  states 
obeyed.  .  .  .  There  certainly  was  no  other  way 
out  of  the  difficulty  than  by  the  formation  of  a 
parliamentary  army.  .  .  .  Instead  of  meeting 
these  dangers  resolutely,  and  in  a  common-sense 


way,  the  Assembly  left  matters  to  go  as  they 
would,  outside  of  Frankfort.  One  humiliation 
was  submitted  to  after  another,  while  the  Assem- 
bly, busying  itself  for  months  with  a  theoretical 
question,  as  if  it  were  a  juristic  faculty,  entered 
into  a  detailed  consideration  of  the  fundamental 
rights  of  the  German  people.  The  Schleswig- 
Holstein  question,  which  had  just  entered  upon 
a  new  phase  of  its  existence,  was  the  first  matter 
of  any  importance  to  manifest  the  disagreement 
between  the  central  administration  and  the  sepa- 
rate governments ;  and  it  opened,  as  well,  a  dan- 
gerous gulf  in  the  Assembly  itself.  The  question 
at  issue  was  one  of  succession  [see  ScANDiKAVTAir 
States  (Denmark)  :  A.  D.  1848-1862].  .  .  .  The 
Estates  of  the  duchies  [Schleswig  and  Holstein] 
established  a  provisional  government,  applied  at 
Frankfort  for  the  admission  of  Schleswig  into 
the  German  confederation,  and  besought  armed 
assistance  both  there  and  at  Berlin.  The  prelim- 
inary parliament  [tliis  having  occurred  in  April, 
before  the  meeting  of  the  National  Assembly] 
approved  the  application  of  Schleswig  for  ad- 
mission, and  commissioned  Prussia,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  10th  army  corps  of  the  Confedera- 
tion, to  occupy  Schleswig  and  Holstein.  On  the 
21st  of  April,  1848,  General  Wrangel  crossed  the 
Eider  as  commander  of  the  forces  of  the  Confed- 
eration; and  on  the  33d,  in  conjunction  with  the 
Schleswig-Holstein  troops,  he  drove  the  Danes 
out  of  the  Danewerk.  On  the  following  day  the 
Danes  were  defeated  at  Oeversee  by  the  10th 
army  corps,  and  all  Schleswig-Holstein  was  free. 
Wrangel  entered  Jutland  and  imposed  a  war  tax 
of  3,000,000  thalers  (about  $3, 250, 000).  He 
meant  to  occupy  this  province  until  the  Danes  — 
who,  owing  to  the  inexcusable  smallness  of  the 
Prussian  navy,  were  in  a  position  unhindered  to 
injure  the  commerce  of  the  Baltic  —  had  indem- 
nified Prussia  for  her  losses ;  but  Prussia,  touched 
to  the  quick  by  the  destruction  of  her  commerce, 
and  intimidated  by  the  threatening  attitude  of 
Russia,  Sweden,  and  England,  recalled  her 
troops,  and  concluded  an  armistice  at  Malmo,  in 
Sweden,  on  the  36th  of  August.  All  measures 
of  the  provisional  government  were  pronounced 
invalid ;  a  common  government  for  the  duchies 
was  to  be  appointed,  one  half  by  Denmark,  and 
the  other  by  the  German  confederation;  the 
Schleswig  troops  were  to  be  separated  from  those 
of  Holstein ;  and  the  war  was  not  to  be  renewed 
before  the  1st  of  April,  1849  —  i.  e. ,  not  in  the 
winter,  a  time  unfavorable  for  the  Danes.  This 
treaty  was  unquestionably  no  masterpiece  on  the 
part  of  the  Prussians.  All  the  advantage  was 
on  the  side  of  the  conquered  Danes.  ...  It  was 
not  merely  the  radicals  who  urged,  if  not  the 
final  rejection,  at  least  a  provisional  cessation  of 
tlie  arvnistice,  and  the  countermanding  of  the 
order  to  retreat.  ...  A  bill  to  that  effect,  de- 
manded by  the  honor  of  Germany,  had  scarcely 
been  passed  by  the  majority,  on  the  5th  of  Sep- 
tember, when  the  moderate  party  reflected  that 
such  action,  involving  a  breach  with  Prussia, 
must  lead  to  civil  war  and  revolution,  and  call 
into  play  the  wildest  passions  of  the  already  ex- 
cited people.  In  consequence  of  this  the  previ- 
ous vote  was  rescinded,  and  the  armistice  of 
Malmo  accepted  by  the  Assembly,  after  the  most 
excited  debates,  September  16th."  This  gave  the 
radicals  a  welcome  opportunity  to  appeal  to  the 
fists  of  the  lower  classes,  and  imitate  the  June 
outbreak  of  the  social  democrats  In  Paris.  .  .  . 


1570 


GERMANY,  1848. 


The  FriLSsian 
National  Assembly. 


GERMANY,  1848-1850. 


A  collision  ensued  [September  18] ;  barricades 
were  erected,  but  were  carried  by  the  troops 
without  much  bloodshed.  .  .  .  General  Auers- 
wald  and  Prince  Lichnowsky,  riding  on  horse- 
back near  the  city,  were  followed  by  a  mob. 
They  took  refuse  in  a  gardener  s  house  on  tne 
Bornheimer-heidc,  but  were  dragged  out  and 
murdered  witli  tlie  most  disgraceful  atrocities 
Thereupon  the  city  was  declared  in  a  state  ot 
siege  all  societies  were  forbidden,  and  strong 
measures  were  taken  for  the  maintenance  ot 
order  The  March  revolution  had  passed  its 
season,  and  reaction  was  again  beginning  to 
bloom  .  Reaction  drew  moderate  men  to  its 

side,  and  then  used  them  as  stepping-stones  to 
Immoderation.  "-W.  Miiller,  Political  Hut.  of 
Becent  Tim£s,  sect.  n. 

Also  k;  Sir  A.  Alison,  Hist,  of  Europe,  1815- 

1853,  ch.  53.  .  .  .  .„ 

A  D.  1848-1849.— Revolutionary  risings  in 
Austria  and  Hungary.-Bombardment  of  Vi- 
enna.-The  war  in  Hungary.-Abdication  of 
the  Emperor  Ferdinand.-Accession  of  Fi-a"- 
cis  Joseph.    See  AusTRLV.  A.  D.  1848-lb49. 

A  D  1848-1850.— The  Prussian  National 
Assembly,  and  its  dissolution.-The  work  and 
the  failure  of  the  National  Assembly  of  Frank- 
fort —  Refusal  of  the  imperial  crown  by  the 
King-  of  Prussia.—  End  of  the  movement  for 
Germanic  unity.-"  The  elections  for  the  new 
Prussian  Constituent  Assembly,  as  well  as  tor 
the  Frankfort  Parliament,  were  to  take  place 
(May  1)  The  Prussian  National  Assembly  was 
to  meet  May  23.  The  Prussian  people,  under 
the  new  election  law,  if  left  to  themselves,  would 
have  quietly  chosen  a  body  of  competent  repre- 
sentatives; but  the  revolutionary  party  thought 
nothing  could  be  done  without  the  as  and  the 
musket.  ...  The  people  of  Berlin,  from  March 
to  October,  were  .  .  .  really  in  the  hands  of  the 
mob  .  The  newly-elected  Prussian  National 

Assembly  was  opened  by  the  king.  May  31.      .  . 
One  of  the  first  resolutions  proceeded  from  Beh- 
rend  of  the  Extreme  Left.     '  The  Assembly  rec- 
o-^nizes  the  revolution,  and  declares  that  the  com- 
batants who  fought  at  the  barricades,  on  March 
18  and  19,  merit  the  thanks  of  the  country.  .  .  . 
The  motion  was  rejected.     On  issuing  from  the 
building  into  the   street,  after  the   sitting,   the 
members  who  had  voted  against  it,  were  received 
by  the  mob  with  threats  and  insults.  •  •  •  la  the 
evening  of  the  same  day,  in  consequence  ot  the 
reiection  of  the  Behrend  resolution   the  arsenal 
was  attacked  by  a  large  body  of    aborers.     The 
burgher-guard  were  not  prepared,  and  macle  a 
feeble  defense.     There  was  a  great  riot.     The 
building  was  stormed  and  partially  plundered. 
The  sketch  of  a  constitution  proposed  by 
the  kino-  was  now  laid  before  the  Assembly.     It 
provided  two  Chambers  —  a  House  of  Lords,  and 
a  House  of  Commons.     The  last  to  be  elected  by 
the  democratic  electoral  law  ;  the  first  to  consist 
of  all  the  princes  of  the  royal  house  m  their  own 
rin-ht    and,   in  addition,   60   members  from  the 
wealthiest  of  the  kingdom  to  be  selected  by  the 
king    their  office  hereditary.     This  constitution 
was  immediately  reiected.     On  the  rejection  of 
the  constitution   the   ministry  Camphausen  re- 
signed ■  The  Assembly,  elected  exclusively 
to  frame  a  constitution,  instead  of  performing  its 
duty         .  attempted  to  legislate,  with  despotic 
power,  on  subjects  over  which  it  had  no  juris- 
diction    As  the  drama  drew  nearer  its  close,  the 


Assembly  became  more  open  in  its  intention  to 
overthrow  the  monarchy.     On   October  13  dis- 
cussions began  upon  a  resolution  to  strike  trom 
the  king's  tftle  the  words,  'By  the  grace  of  God. 
and  to  tbolish  all  titles  of  nobility  and  distinc- 
tions of  rank.     The  Assembly  building,  during 
the  sitting,  was  generally  surrounded  by  threat- 
ening crowds.  .   .   .  Of  course,  during  this  period 
busiSess  was  suspended,  and  want,  beggary,  and 
drunkenness,   as   well   as  lawless   disorder,   in- 
creased .  The  writer  was  one  day  alone  in  the 
diplomatic  box,  following  an  excited  debate.     A 
speaker  in  the  tribune  was  urging  the  overthrow 
of  the  monarchy,  when  suddenly  the  entire  As- 
sembly was  struck  mute  with  stupefaction,     ine 
Prince  of  Prussia,  the  late  Emperor  WiUiaml., 
supposed  to  be  in  England,  in  terror  for  his  lite, 
appeared  at  the  door,  accompanied  by  two  offi- 
cers  all  Ihree  in  full  uniform,  and  marched  di- 
rectly up  to  the  tribune.     The  Assembly  could 
not  have  been  more  astounded  had  old  Barbarossa 
himself,  with  his  seven-hundred-years-long  beard, 
marched  into  the  hall  out  of  his  mountain  cave. 
After  a  slight  delay,  the  President,  Mr.  von 
Grabow,  accorded  the  tribune  to  the  prince      He 
ascended  and  made  a  short  address,  which  was 
listened  to    with  breathless  attention,  by  every 
individual  present.    He  spoke  with  the  assurance 
of   an  heir  to  a  throne  which   was  not  m  the 
slightest  danger  of  being  abolished ;  but  he  spoke 
with  the  modesty  and  good  sense  of  a  pnnce  who 
frankly  accepted  the  vast  transformation  which 
the   government  had   undergone,    and   who  in- 
tended honestly  to  endeavor  to  carry  out  the  wiU 
of  the  whole  nation.  .  .  .  This  was  one  of  many 
occasions  on  which  the  honesty  and  superiority 
of  the  prince's  character  made  itself  felt  even  by 
his  enemies.  .  .  .  Berlin  was  now  thoroughly 
tired   of   street  tumults  and    the    horn   of    the 
burgher-guard.  .   .  .  The  Prussian  troops  which 
had  been  engaged  in  the  Schleswig-Holstein  war, 
were  now  placed  under  General  Wrange  ,  .  _.  . 
He  proceeded  without  delay  to  encircle  the  city 
with  the  35,000  troops.     At  the  same  time,  a 
cabinet  order  of  the  king  (September  31    named 
a  new  ministry.  ...  At  this  moment,  the  revo- 
lution over  all  Europe  was  nearly  exhausted. 
Cavaignac  had  put  down  the  June  insurrection. 
The  Prussian  flag  waved  above  the  flag  ot  Ger- 
manv      The  Frankfort  Parliament  was  rapidly 
dvin'r  out.   ...  On  November  2,  Count  Bran- 
denburg stated  to  the  Assembly  that  the  king 
had  requested  him  to  form  a  new  ministry       .  _. 
On  the  same  day.  Count  Brandenburg,  with  his 
colleagues,  appeared  in  the  hall  of  the  Prussian 
National  Assembly,  and  announced  his  desire  to 
read  a  message  from  his  Majesty  the  King.  .  .  . 
'  As  the  debates  are  no  longer  free  in  Berlin,  the 
Assembly  is  hereby  adjourned  to  November  27. 
It  will  then  meet,  and  thereafter  hold  its  meet- 
ino-s   not  in  Berlin,  but  in  Brandenburg    (fitty 
mfle's  from  Berlin).     After  reading  the  message 
Count  Brandenburg,  his  colleagues,  and  all  tne 
members  of  the  Right  retired.  .,  . ..  The  Assem- 
blv          adjourned,  and  met  again  m  the  evening. 
"  On  November  10,  the  Assembly  met  again. 
Their    debates    were    interrupted    by    General 
Wrann-el   who  had  entered  Berhn  by  the  Bran- 
denburg gate,  at  the  head  of  25,000  troops    .  .  . 
An  officer  from  General  Wrangel  entered  thehaU 
and   politely  announced  tliat  he  had  received 
orders  to  disperse  the  Assembly.     The  members 
submitted,  and  left  the  hall.  ...  An  order  was 


]571 


GERMANY,  1848-1850. 


End  of 
the  Revolution, 


GERMANY,  1861-1866. 


now  issued  dissolving  the  burgher-guard.  On 
the  12th,  Berlin  was  declared  in  a  state  of  siege. 
.  .  .  During  the  state  of  siege,  the  Assembly 
met  again  under  the  presidency  of  Mr.  von 
Unruh.  A  body  of  troops  entered  the  hall,  and 
commanded  the  persons  present  to  leave  it.  Pres- 
ident von  Unruh  declared  he  could  not  consis- 
tently obey  the  order.  There  was,  he  said,  no 
power  higher  than  the  Assembly.  The  soldiers 
did  not  fire  on  him,  or  cut  him  down  with  their 
sabers ;  but  good-naturedly  lifted  his  chair  with 
him  in  it,  and  gently  deposited  both  in  tlie  street. 
.  .  .  On  November  27,  Count  Brandenburg  went 
to  Brandenburg  to  open  the  Assembly;  but  he 
could  not  find  any.  It  had  split  into  two  parts. 
.  .  .  There  was  no  longer  a  quorum.  Thus  the 
Prussian  National  Assembly  disappeared.  On 
December  5,  appeared  a  royal  decree,  dissolving 
the  National  Assembly.  .  .  .  Then  appeared  a 
provisional  octroyirte  electoral  law,  for  the  elec- 
tion of  two  Chambers.  .  .  .  The  new  Chambers 
met  February  26,  1849.  .  .  .  Prussia  had  thus 
closed  the  revolution  of  1848,  as  far  as  she  was 
concerned.  Bismarck  was  elected  member  of 
the  Second  Chamber."  Meantime,  in  the  Frank- 
fort Parliament,  "the  great  question,  Austria's 
position  with  regard  to  the  new  Germany,  came 
up  in  the  early  part  of  November,  1848.  Among 
many  propositions,  we  mention  three:  I.  Aus- 
tria should  abandon  her  German  provinces.  .   .   . 

II.  Austria  should  remain  as  a  separate  whole, 
with  all  her  provinces.  .  .  .  III.  The  Austrian 
plan.  All  the  German  States,  and  all  the  Austrian 
provinces  (German  and  non-German),  should  be 
united  into  one  gigantic  empire  .  .  .  with  Aus- 
tria at  the  head.  .  .  .  Meanwhile,  the  debates 
went  on  upon  the  questions:  What  shall  be  the 
form,  and  who  shall  be  the  chief  of  what  may  be 
called  the  Prussian-Germany  ?  Among  the  va- 
rious propositions  (all  rejected)  were  the  follow- 
ing :  I.  A  Directorj',  consisting  of  Austria.  Prus- 
sia, Bavaria,  Wlirtemberg,  and  Sa.xony.  II.  The 
King  of  Prussia  and  Emperor  of  Austria  to  alter- 
nate in  succession  every  six  years,  as  Emperor. 

III.  A  chief  magistracy,  to  which  every  German 
citizen  might  aspire.  IV.  Revival  of  the  old 
Bundestag,  with  certain  improvements.  On  Janu- 
ary 23,  1849,  the  resolution  that  one  of  the  reign- 
ing German  princes  should  be  elected,  with  the 
title  of  Emperor  of  Germany,  was  adopted  (258 
against  211).  As  it  was  plain  the  throne  could  be 
offered  to  no  one  but  Prussia,  this  was  a  breach 
between  the  Parliament  and  Austria.  .  .  .  The 
first  reading  of  the  constitution  was  completed, 
February  3,  1849.  The  middle  and  smaller  Ger- 
man States  declared  themselves  ready  to  accept  it, 
but  the  kingdoms  remained  silent.  .  .  .  The  real 
question  before  the  Parliament  was,  whether 
Prussia  or  Austria  should  be  leader  of  Germany. 
...  On  March  37,  the  hereditability  passed  by  a 
majority  of  four.  On  JIarch  28,  the  constitution, 
with  the  democratic  electoral  law,  universal  suf- 
frage, the  ballot,  and  the  suspensive  veto,  was 
voted  and  accepted.  .  .  .  President  Simson  then 
called  the  name  of  each  member  to  vote  upon  the 
question  of  the  Emperor.  There  were  290  votes 
for  Frederic  William  IV.  .  .  .  A  deputation,  con- 
sisting of  30  of  the  most  distinguished  members, 
was  immediately  sent  to  Berlin  to  communicate  to 
the  king  his  election  as  Emperor.  ...  To  the  offer 
of  the  crown,  his  Majesty  replied  he  'could  not  ac- 
cept without  the  consent  of  all  the  governments, 
and  without  having  more  carefully  examined  the 


constitution.'.  .  .  Austria  instantly  rejected  the 
constitution,  protested  against  the  authority  of 
the  Parliament,  and  recalled  all  her  representa- 
tives from  Frankfort.  The  King  of  Wllrtemberg 
accepted ;  but  rejected  the  House  of  Hohenzollern 
as  head  of  the  Empire.  Bavaria,  Hanover,  Sax- 
onjr,  rejected ;  28  of  the  smaller  German  States 
accepted.  In  these  were  included  the  free-cities 
Hamburg,  Bremen,  Lubeck.  ...  On  April  28, 
Prussia  addressed  a  circular  note  to  the  govern- 
ments, inviting  them  to  send  representatives  to 
Berlin,  for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  new  constitu- 
tion. The  note  added :  In  case  of  any  attempt  to 
force  the  Fi-ankf  ort  constitution  upon  the  country, 
Prussia  was  read  j'  to  render  to  the  governments  all 
necessary  assistance.  .  .  .  On  May  3,  an  insurrec- 
tion broke  out  in  Saxony.  .  .  .  On  May  6,  Prussian 
troops  appeared,  called  by  the  Saxon  government, 
and  attacked  the  barricades.  The  battle  lasted 
three  days.  .  .  .  The  insurgents  abandoned  the 
city.  Dresden  was  declared  in  a  state  of  siege. 
.  .  .  The  King  of  Prussia  now  recalled  [from  the 
Frankfort  Parliament]  all  the  Prussian  represen- 
tatives. .  .  .  By  the  gradual  disappearance  of 
most  of  the  moderate  members  .  .  .  the  Parlia- 
ment, now  a  mere  revolutionary  committee,  dwin- 
dled down  to  about  100  members.  A  resolution, 
proposed  by  Carl  Vogt,  was  passed  to  transfer 
the  sittings  to  Stuttgart.  .  .  .  On  June  6,  the 
Rump  Parliament  in  Stuttgart  elected  a  central 
government  of  its  own.  .  .  .  The  Assembly  was 
then  dispersed.  .  .  .  The  German  revolutions 
commenced  and  ended  in  the  Grand  Duchy  of 
Baden.  .  .  .  By  a  mutiny  in  the  regular  army, 
it  intrenched  itself  in  the  first-class  fortress,  Ras- 
tadt.  There  were,  in  all,  three  attempts  at  revolu- 
tion in  Baden  [and  one  in  the  Palatinate].  ...  A 
large  number  of  the  leaders  were  tried  and  shot. 
...  It  was  for  taking  part  in  this  insurrection 
that  Gottfried  Kinkel  was  sentenced  to  impris- 
onment for  life  in  the  fortress  of  Spandau.  Carl 
Schurz  aided  him  in  escaping." — T.  S.  Fay,  TAe 
Three  Germanys,  ch.  35-26  (w.  2). 

Also  in  :  C.  A.  Fyffe,  Hist,  of  Modern  Europe, 
i\  3,  cli.  2. — H.  von  Sybel,  The  Founding  of  the 
German  Empire,  bk.  2-5  (v.  1-3). — See,  also,  Con- 
stitution OF  Prussi.\. 

A.  D.  1848-1862. — Opening  of  the  Schleswig- 
Holstein  question. — War  ■with  Denmark.  See 
Scandinavian  States  (Denmabk)  :  A.  D.  1848- 
1863. 

A.  D.  1853-1875. — Commercial  treatieswith 
Austria  and  France. — Progress  towards  free 
trade.  See  Tariff  Legislation  (Germany): 
A.  D.  1853-1893. 

A.  D.  1861-1866.— Advent  of  King  William 
I.  and  Prince  Bismarck  in  Prussia. — The 
"Blood  and  Iron  Speech." — Reopening  of 
the  Schleswig-Holstein  question. — Conquest 
of  the  duchies  by  Prussia  and  Austria.  —  Con- 
sequent quarrel  and  war. — King  Frederick  Wil- 
liam IV.  [of  Prussia],  never  a  man  of  strong 
head,  had  for  years  been  growing  weaker  and 
more  eccentric.  In  1857,  symptoms  of  softening 
of  the  brain  began  to  show  themselves.  That 
disorder  so  developed  itself  that  in  October,  1857, 
he  gave  a  delegation  to  the  Prince  of  Prussia  [his 
brother]  to  act  as  regent ;  but  the  first  commis- 
sion was  only  for  three  months.  The  Prince's 
commission  was  renewed  from  time  to  time ;  but 
it  soon  became  apparent  that  Frederick  William's 
case  was  hopeless,  and  his  brother  was  formally 
installed  as  Regent  in  October,  1858.     Ultimately 


1572 


GERMANY,  1861-1866. 


Bismarck. 


GERMANY,  1861-1866. 


the  King  died  iu  January,  1861,  and  his  brother 
succeeded  to  the  throne  as  William  I.  In  Sep- 
tember, 1863,  Otto  von  Bismarck  became  the  new 
King's  chief  minister,  witli  General  Roon  for 
Minister  of  War,  appointed  to  carry  out  a  reor- 
ganization of  the  Prussian  army  which  King 
William  had  determined  to  effect.  "  Otto  von 
Bismarck- Schoenhauseu,  born  April,  1,  181.5, 
was  a  Junker  [squire,  aristocrat]  from  top  to  toe, 
but  from  the  very  first,  as  was  the  case  with  all 
the  Junkers  of  Prussia,  Pomeraniaand  the  Mark, 
his  lite  had  been  thoroughly  merged  in  that  of 
the  Prussian  state.  He  had  first  called  attention 
to  himself  in  1847  at  tlie  general  diet  [Vereinigter 
Landtag].  In  1849  he  came  forward  in  the 
chamber  of  deputies,  in  18.50  in  the  Union  Parlia- 
ment at  Frankfort  —  always  as  the  goad  of  the 
extreme  right,  and  each  time  his  appearance 
gave  the  signal  for  a  violent  conflict.  Perfectly 
unsparing  of  all  his  opponents,  very  anti-liberal 
but  very  Prussian,  very  national-minded,  in  spite 
of  being  such  a  Junker,  Bismarck  flared  up  with 
especial  violence  against  the  democratic  attacks 
on  the  army  and  the  monarchy.  ...  To  Frank- 
fort Bismarck  came  as  the  sworn  defender  of 
the  policy  of  reaction.  ...  In  Frankfort,  too, 
he  learned  thoroughly  to  know  German  affairs  ; 
the  utter  weakness  of  the  Confederation  and  the 
misery  of  having  so  many  petty  states.  ...  To 
Ills  mind  the  goal  of  Prussian  policy  was  to  drive 
Austria  out  of  Germany  and  then  to  bring  about 
a  subordination  of  the  other  German  states  to 
Prussia.  .  .  .  Nor  did  he  make  the  least  secret 
of  his  warlike  attitude  towards  Austria.  When 
an  Austrian  arch-duke,  who  was  passing  through, 
once  asked  him  maliciously  whether  all  the  many 
decorations  which  he  wore  on  his  breast  had  been 
won  by  bravery  in  battle  :  '  All  gained  before 
the  enemy,  all  gained  here  in  Frankfort,'  was  the 
ready  answer.  In  the  year  1859  came  the  com- 
plications between  Austria  and  Italy,  the  latter 
being  joined  by  France.  This  Italian  war  be- 
tween Austria  and  France  thoroughly  roused  the 
German  nation.  .  .  .  Many  wanted  to  protect 
Austria,  others  showed  a  disinclination  to  enter 
the  lists  for  Austria's  rule  over  Italy.  .  .  .  Bis- 
marck's advice  at  this  time  was  that  Prussia 
should  side  against  Austria  and  should  join 
Italy.  In  the  spring  of  1859,  however,  he  was 
transferred  from  Frankfort  on  the  Main  to  St. 
Petersburg  :  '  put  on  ice  on  the  Neva,'  as  he  said 
himself,  'like  champagne  for  future  use.' .  .  .  In 
June,  1859,  in  view  of  the  Italian  war,  it  had 
been  decreed  in  Prussia  that  the  army  should  be 
mobilized  and  kept  iu  readiness  to  fight.  .  .  . 
Wlien,  later,  in  the  summer  of  this  year,  the 
probability  of  war  had  gone  by,  the  Landwehr 
was  not  dismissed  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  begin- 
ning was  made  with  a  new  formation  of  regi- 
ments which  had  already  been  planned  and  talked 
over.  ...  On  February  10,  1860,  the  question 
of  the  military  reorganization  was  laid  before  the 
diet,  where  doubts  and  objections  were  raised 
against  it.  .  .  .  On  the  4th  of  May,  at  the  same 
time  when  the  law  about  civil  marriages  was  re- 
jected, the  land-tax,  by  which  the  cost  of  the 
army-reorganization  was  to  have  been  covered, 
was  refused  by  the  Upper  House.  The  liberals 
were  disappointed  and  angered.  The  ministry 
was  soon  in  a  bad  dilemma ;  should  it  give  way 
to  the  liberal  opposition  and  dissolve  the  newly 
formed  regiments  ?  The  expedient  that  was 
thought  of  seemed  clever  enough  but  it  led  in 

15' 


reality  to  a  blind  alley  and  was  productive  of  the 
most  baneful  consequences.  The  ministry  moved 
a  single  grant  of  9,000,000  thalers  for  the  pur- 
pose of  completing  the  army  and  maintaining 
its  efficiency  on  the  former  footing.  The  mo- 
tion was  carried  on  May  15,  1860,  by  a  vote  of 
315  against  3.  .  .  .  The  new  elections  for  the 
house  of  deputies  iu  December,  1861,  produced  a 
diet  of  an  entirely  different  stamp  from  that  of 
18.58.  .  .  .  The  moderate  majority  was  now  to 
atone  for  the  sin  of  not  having  come  to  any  real 
arrangement  with  the  ministry  on  the  army 
question;  for  the  new  majority  came  to  Berlin 
with  the  full  intention  of  crushing  the  army- 
reform.  .  .  .  The  chief  task  of  the  newly  formed 
ministry  of  1863  was  to  solve  the  military  ques- 
tion, for  the  longer  it  had  remained  in  abeyance 
the  more  complicated  had  the  matter  become. 
The  newly-elected  diet  had  been  in  session  since 
the  19th  of  May.  .  .  .  The  battle  cry  of  the  ma- 
jority of  the  diet  was  that  all  further  demands  of 
the  government  for  the  military  reform  were  to 
be  refused.  .  .  .  By  September,  1863,  the  belli- 
gerent and  uncompromising  attitude  of  the  lib- 
eral majority  had  induced  King  William  to  lay 
aside  his  earlier  distrust  of  Bismarck.  He  al- 
lowed him  to  be  summoned  and  placed  him  at 
the  head  of  the  ministry.  Most  stirring  was  the 
first  audience  which  Bismarck  had  with  his  king 
in  the  Park  of  Babelsberg  on  September  33.  The 
king  first  of  all  laid  before  Bismarck  the  decla- 
ration of  his  abdication.  Very  much  startled, 
Bismarck  said  ;  '  To  that  it  should  never  be  al- 
lowed to  come  ! '  The  king  replied  that  he  had 
tried  everything  and  knew  no  other  alternative. 
His  convictions,  contrary  to  which  he  could  not 
act,  contrary  to  which  he  could  not  reign,  for- 
bade him  to  relinquish  the  army-reorganization. 
Thereupon  Bismarck  explained  to  the  king  his 
own  different  view  of  the  matter  and  closed  with 
the  request  that  his  Majesty  might  abandon  all 
thoughts  of  abdication.  'The  king  than  asked 
the  minister  if  he  woidd  undertake  to  carry  on 
the  government  without  a  majority  and  without 
a  budget,  Bismarck  answered  both  questions 
iu  the  affirmative  and  with  the  utmost  decision. 
.  .  .  The  alliance  between  the  king  and  his  min- 
ister was  closed  and  cemented  on  that  33rd  of 
September  in  Babelsberg  to  endure  tor  all  time." 
— W.  Maurenbrecher,  Grundinig  des  deutschen 
liciehs  (trans,  from  the  German),  p.  13. — A 
week  later,  Bismarck  made  his  famous  "Blood 
and  Iron  "  speech  in  the  Prussian  Diet,  when  he 
said  ;  "  It  is  a  fact,  the  great  self-assertion  of 
individuality  among  us  makes  constitutional 
government  very  iiard  in  Prussia.  .  .  .  We  are 
perhaps  too  '  cultured '  to  tolerate  a  constitution  ; 
we  are  too  critical  ;  the  ability  to  pass  judgment 
on  measures  of  the  government  or  acts  of  the 
legislature  is  too  universal;  there  is  a  large  num- 
ber of  '  C'atilinarian  Characters  '  [existences  in 
the  original]  in  the  land  whose  chief  interest  is 
in  revolutions.  All  this  may  sound  paradoxical; 
yet  it  proves  how  hard  constitutional  life  is  in 
Prussia.  The  people  are  too  sensitive  about  the 
faults  of  the  government ;  as  if  the  whole  did 
not  suffer  when  this  or  that  individual  minister 
blunders.  Public  opinion  is  changeable,  the  press 
is  not  public  opinion  ;  every  one  knows  how  tlie 
pre.ss  originates ;  the  representatives  have  the 
higher  task  of  directing  opinion,  of  being  above 
it.  To  return  once  more  to  our  people :  our 
blood  is  too  hot,  we  are  fond  of  bearing  an  armor 

73 


GERMANY,   1861-1866.       Prussia  ayainst  Austria.       GERMANY,    1861-1866. 


too  large  for  our  small  body  ;  now  let  us  utilize 
it.  Germany  does  not  look  at  Prussia's  liberalism 
but  at  its  power.  Let  Bavaria,  Wiirtemberg, 
Baden  indulge  in  liberalism,  yet  no  one  will  as- 
sign to  them  the  role  of  Prussia ;  Prussia  must 
consolidate  its  might  and  hold  it  together  for 
the  favorable  moment,  which  has  been  allowed 
to  pass  unheeded  several  times.  Prussia's  boun- 
daries, as  determined  by  the  Congress  of  Vienna, 
are  not  conducive  to  its  wholesome  existence 
as  a  sovereign  state.  Not  by  speeches  and  res- 
olutions of  majorities  the  mighty  problems  of 
the  age  are  solved  —  that  was  the  mistake  of 
1848  and  1849  — but  by  Blood  and  Ima."— Die 
Politiselun  Reden  des  Filrsten,  Bismarck  (trans, 
from  tlie  German)  v.  3,  pp.  20,  28-30. — Bismarck 
found  his  first  opportunity  for  the  aggrandize- 
ment of  Prussia  in  a  reopening  of  the  Sleswig- 
Holsteiu  question,  which  came  about  in  Novem- 
ber, 1863,  when  "Frederic  of  Denmark  died, 
and  Prince  Christian  succeeded  to  the  throne  of 
that  kingdom.  Already  before  his  accession,  the 
duchies  were  possessions  of  the  Danish  mon- 
archy, but  had  in  certain  respects  a  separate  ad- 
ministrative existence.  This  Denmark,  in  the 
year  of  Christian's  accession,  had  materially  in- 
fringed in  the  case  of  Sleswig,  by  a  law  which 
virtually  incorporated  that  duchy  with  the  Danish 
monarchy.  The  German  Confederation  protested 
against  this  '  Danification '  of  Sleswig,  and 
having  pronounced  a  decree  of  Federal  execution 
against  the  aev/  King  of  Denmark  as  Duke  of 
Holsteiu  and,  in  virtue  of  that  duchy,  a  member 
of  the  German  Confederation,  sent  into  Holstein 
Federal  troops  belonging  to  the  smaller  States  of 
the  Confederation.  The  Confederation,  as  a  col- 
lective body,  favoured  the  establishment  of  the 
independence  of  the  duchies,  and  had  with  it  the 
wishes  probably  of  the  great  mass  of  the  German 
nation.  But  the  independence  of  Sleswig  and 
Holstein  scarcely  suited  the  views  of  Bismarck. 
He  desired  the  annexation  to  Prussia  of  at  all 
events  Holstein,  because  in  Holstein  is  the  great 
harbour  of  Kiel,  all  important  in  view  of  the  new 
fleet  with  which  he  purposed  equipping  Prussia ; 
if  Sleswig  could  be  cwnpassed  along  with  Hol- 
stein, so  much  the  better.  But  there  were  two 
difliculties  in  Bismarck's  way.  Prussia  was  a 
co-signatory  of  the  Treaty  of  London.  If  he 
were  to  grasp  at  the  duchies  single-handed,  a 
host  of  enemies  might  confront  him.  England 
was  burning  to  take  up  arms  in 'the  cau.se  of  the 
father  of  the  beautiful  princess  she  had  adopted 
as  her  own.  The  German  Confederation  would 
oppose  Prussia's  naked  effort  to  aggrandise  her- 
self ;  and  Austria,  in  the  double  character  of  a 
party  to  the  Treaty  of  London  and  of  a  member 
of  the  Confederation,  would  rejoice  in  the  oppor 
tunity  to  strike  a  blow  at  a  power  of  whose  rising 
pretensions  she  had  begun  to  be  jealous.  The 
wily  Bismarck  had  to  dissemble.  He  made  the 
proposal  to  Austria  that  the  two  states  should 
ignore  their  participation  as  individual  States  in 
the  Treaty  of  London,  and  that  as  corporate 
members  of  the  German  Confederation  they 
should  constitute  themselves  the  executors  of  the 
Federal  decree,  and  put  aside  the  minor  states 
whose  troops  had  been  charged  with  that  office. 
Austria  acceded.  It  was  a  bad  hour  for  her 
when  she  did,  yet  she  moves  no  compassion  for 
the  misfortunes  which  befell  her  as  the  issue. 
.  .  .  The  Diet  had  to  s\ibmit.  The  Austro-Prus- 
siau  troops  marched  through  Holstein  into  Sles- 


wig, and  on  the  2nd  of  February,  1864,  struck  at 
the  Danes  occupying  the  Dannewerke.  .  .  .  The 
venerable  Marshal  Wrangel  was  commander-in- 
chief  of  the  combined  forces  until  after  the  fall 
of  Diippel,  when  Prince  Frederic  Charles  suc- 
ceeded him  in  that  position  ;  but  throughout  the 
campaign  the  control  of  the  dispositions  was 
mainly  exercised  by  the  Red  Prince.  But  neither 
strategy  nor  tactics  were  very  strenuously 
brought  into  use  for  the  discomfiture  of  the  un- 
fortunate Danes.  Their  ruin  was  wrought  partly 
because  of  the  overwhelmingly  superior  force  of 
their  allied  opponents,  partly  because  of  their 
own  unpreparedness  for  war  in  almost  everj'thing 
save  the  possession  of  heroic  bravery  ;  but  most 
of  all  by  the  flre  of  the  needle-gun  and  the  Prus- 
sian advantage  in  the  possession  of  rifled  artillery. 
Only  part  of  the  Prussian  infantry  had  used  the 
needle-gun  in  the  reduction  of  the  Baden  insur- 
rection in  1848 ;  now,  however,  the  whole  army 
was  equipped  with  it.  .  .  .  In  their  retreat  from 
the  Dannewerke  into  the  Dt'ippel  position,  the 
Danes  suffered  severely  from  the  inclemency  of 
the  weather,  and  fought  a  desperate  rear-guard 
engagement  with  the  Austrians.  .  .  .  The  Prus- 
sians undertook  the  task  of  reducing  Diippel  ; 
the  Austrians  marched  northward  into  Jutland, 
and  driving  back  the  Danish  troops  they  en- 
countered in  their  march,  sat  down  before  the 
fortress  of  Fredericia,  and  swept  the  Little  Belt 
with  their  cannon.  The  sieges,  both  of  Di'ippel 
and  of  Fredericia,  were  conducted  with  extreme 
inertness."  But  the  former  was  taken  and  the 
latter  abandoned.  "  The  Danish  war  was  termi- 
nated by  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  on  the  30th  Octo- 
ber, 1864,  under  which  the  duchies  of  Sleswig, 
Holstein,  and  Lauenburg  were  handed  over  to 
the  sovereigns  of  Austria  and  Prussia.  .  .  .  Out 
of  the  Danish  war  of  1864  grew  almost  inevita- 
bly the  war  of  1866,  between  Prussia  and  Aus- 
tria. The  wolves  quite  naturally  wrangled  over 
the  carcase.  .  .  .  'The  condominium  of  the  two 
Powers  in  the  duchies  produced  constant  fric- 
tion, which  was  probably  Bismarck's  intention, 
especially  as  Prussia  had  taken  care  to  keep 
stationed  in  them  twice  as  many  troops  as  Aus- 
tria had  left  there.  Relations  were  becoming 
very  strained  when  in  August,  1865,  the  Em- 
peror Francis  Joseph  and  King  William  met  at 
the  little  watering-place  of  Gastein,  and  from 
their  interview  originated  the  short-lived  ar- 
rangement known  as  the  Convention  of  Gastein. 
By  that  compact,  while  the  two  Powers  pre- 
served the  common  sovereignty  over  the  duchies, 
Austria  accepted  the  administration  of  Holstein, 
Prussia  undertaking  that  of  Sleswig.  Prussia 
was  to  have  rights  of  way  through  Holstein  to 
Sleswig,  was  given  over  the  right  of  construc- 
tion of  a  North  Sea  and  Baltic  Canal ;  and  while 
Kiel  was  constituted  a  Federal  harbour,  Prussia 
was  authorised  to  construct  there  the  requisite 
fortifications  and  marine  establishments,  and  to 
maintain  an  adequate  force  for  the  protection  of 
these.  Assuming  the  arrangement  to  be  pro- 
visional, as  on  all  hands  it  was  regarded,  Prussia 
clearly  had  the  advantage  under  it,  .  .  ,  But 
the  Gastein  Convention  contained  another  pro- 
vision —  that  Austria  should  sell  to  Prussia  all 
her  rights  in  the  duchy  of  Lauenburg  (an  out- 
lying appanage  of  Holstein)  for  the  sum  of 
2,500,000  thalers:  thus  making  market  of  rights 
of  which  she  was  but  a  trustee  for  the  Ger- 
man Confederation.     The  Convention  of  Gastein 


1574 


GERMANY,  1861-1866. 


Seven  Weeks  War. 


GERJVIANY,  1866. 


pleased  nobody,  but  that  mattered  little  to  Bis- 
marck. .  .  .  Bickerings  recommenced  before  the 
year  1865  was  out,  and  early  in  1866  Austria  began 
to  arm.  ...  In  M;>rch,  1866,  a  secret  treaty  was 
formed  between  Italy  and  Prussia.  .  .  .  Prussia 
threw  the  Convention  of  Gastein  to  the  winds  by 
civilly  but  masterfully  turning  the  Austrian  bri- 
gade of  occupation  out  of  Holstein.  Then  Austria 
in  the  Federal  Diet,  complaining  that  by  this  act 
Prussia  had  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  German 
Confederation,  moved  for  a  decree  of  Federal 
execution  against  that  state,  to  be  enforced  by 
the  Confederation's  armed  strength.  On  the 
14th  June,  Austria's  motion  was  carried  by  the 
Diet,  its  last  act ;  for  Prussia  next  day  wrecked 
the  flimsy  organisation  of  the  German  Confedera- 
tion, by  declaring  war  against  three  of  its  com- 
ponent members,  Hanover,  Hesse,  and  Saxony. 
There  was  no  formal  declaration  of  war  between 
Austria  and  Prussia,  only  a  notification  of  in- 
tended hostile  action  sent  by  the  Prussian  com- 
manders to  the  Austrian  foreposts.  On  the  17th 
the  Emperor  Francis  Joseph  published  his  war 
manifesto ;  King  William  on  the  18th  emitted 
his  to  '  My  People  ; '  on  the  20th,  Italy  declared 
war  against  Austria  and  Bavaria." — A.  Forbes, 
William  of  Oermani/,  c/i.  7-8. — See,  also,  Scan- 
dinavian States  (Denmark):  A.  D.  1848-1863. 

Also  in  :  H.  von  Sybel,  T/ie  Fonnding  of  the 
German  Empire,  bk.  9-16  {v.  3-4). — C.  Lowe, 
Prince  Bismarck,  ch.  5-7  (?'.  1),  and  app.  A,  B, 
C{i\  S).— J.  G.  L.  Hesekiel,  Life  of  Bismnrck. 
bk.  5,  ch.  3. — Count  von  Beust,  Memoirs,  v.  1,  ch. 
22-28. 

A.  D.  1863.— First  Socialist  Party.  See 
Social  Movements  :  A.  D.  1863-1864. 

A.  D.  1866.— The  Seven  "Weeks  War.— 
Defeat  of  Austria. — Victory  and  Supremacy 
of  Prussia. — Her  Absorption  of  Hanover, 
Hesse,  Nassau,  Frankfort  and  Schleswig- 
Holstein. — Formation  of  the  North  German 
Confederation. — Exclusion  of  Austria  from 
the  Germanic  organization. — "Prussia  had 
built  excellent  railroads  throughout  the  country, 
and  quietly  placed  her  troops  on  the  frontier; 
within  14  days  she  had  500,000  men  under  arms. 
By  the  end  of  May  they  were  on  the  frontiers 
ready  for  action,  while  Austria  was  only  half 
prepared,  and  her  allies  only  beginning  to  arm. 
On  the  14th  of  June  the  diet,  by  a  vote  of  nine 
to  six,  had  ordered  the  immediate  mobilization 
of  a  federal  army ;  whereupon  Prussia  declared 
the  federal  compact  dissolved  and  extinguished. 
In  Vienna  and  the  petty  courts  men  said, 
'  Within  fourteen  days  after  the  outbreak  of 
hostilities  the  allied  armies  will  enter  Berlin  in 
triumph  and  dictate  peace ;  the  power  of  Prussia 
will  be  broken  by  two  blows. '  The  Legitimists 
were  exultant;  even  the  majority  of  the 
democracy  in  South  Germany  joined  with  the 
Ultramontane  party  in  sliouting  for  Austria.  On 
the  10th  of  June,  Bismark  laid  before  the  Ger- 
man governments  the  outlines  of  a  new  federal 
constitution,  but  was  not  listened  to;  onthel5tli 
he  made  proposals  to  the  states  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  Prussia  for  a  peace  on  these 
foundations,  and  demanded  their  neutrality,  add- 
ing that  if  they  declined  his  peaceful  offers  he 
would  treat  them  as  enemies.  The  cabinets  of 
Dresden  and  Hanover,  of  Cassel  and  Wiesbaden, 
declined  them.  Immediately,  on  the  night  of 
the  15th  and  16th  of  June,  Prussian  troops 
entered  Hanover,  Hesse  and  Saxony.     In  four 


or  five  days  Prussia  had  disarmed  all  North 
Germany,  and  broken  all  resistance  from  tlie 
North  Sea  to  the  Main.  On  the  18th  of  June, 
the  Prussian  general  Bayer  entered  Cassel ;  the 
Elector  was  surprised  at  Wilhelmshohe.  As  he 
still  refused  all  terms  he  was  arrested  by  the 
direct  order  of  the  king  of  Prussia  and  sent  as 
a  prisoner  to  Stettin.  On  the  17th,  General 
Vogel  von  Falkenstein  entered  Hanover.  King 
George  with  his  army  of  18,000  men  sought  to 
escape  to  South  Germany.  After  a  gallant 
struggle  at  Langensalza  on  the  37th,  his  brave 
troops  were  surrounded.  Tlie  King  capitulated 
on  the  39th.  His  army  was  disbanded,  he  him- 
self allowed  to  go  to  Vienna.  On  the  18tli  the 
Prussians  were  in  Dresden ;  on  the  19th,  in 
Leipzig;  by  the  20th,  all  Saxony  except  the 
fortress  of  Konigstein  was  in  their  hands.  The 
king  and  army  of  Saxony,  on  the  approach  of 
the  Prussians,  had  left  the  country  by  the  rail- 
roads to  Bohemia  to  form  a  junction  with  the 
Austrians.  The  Saxon  army  consisted  of  33,000 
men  and  60  cannon.  Every  one  had  expected 
Austria  to  occupy  a  country  of  such  strategic 
value  as  Saxony  before  the  Prussians  could 
touch  it.  The  Austrian  army  consisted  of  seven 
corps,  180,000  infantry,  24,000  cavalry,  763 
guns.  The  popular  opinion  had  forced  the 
emperor  to  make  Benedek  the  commander-in- 
chief  in  Bohemia.  Everything  there  was  new 
to  him.  The  Prussians  were  divided  into  three 
armies;  the  army  of  the  Elbe,  40,000  men,  under 
Herwarth  von  Bittenfeld;  the  first  army,  100,000 
men,  under  Prince  Frederick  Charles ;  the  second 
or  Silesian  army  under  the  Crown  Prince, 
116,000  strong.  The  reserve  consisted  of  24,000 
Laudwehr.  The  whole  force  in  this  quarter 
numbered  380,000  men  and  800  guns.  .  .  .  The 
Prussians  knew  what  they  were  fighting  for. 
To  the  Austrians  the  idea  of  this  war  was  some- 
thing strange.  At  Vienna,  Benedek  had  spoken 
against  war;  after  the  first  Prussian  successes, 
he  had  in  confidence  advised  the  emperor  to 
make  peace  as  soon  as  possible.  As  he  was  un- 
able, from  want  of  means,  to  attack,  he  con- 
centrated his  army  between  Josephstadt  and  the 
county  of  Glatz.  He  thought  only  of  defence. 
.  .  .  On  the  33rd  of  .lune  the  great  Prussian 
army  commenced  contemporaneously  its  march 
to  Bohemia  from  the  Riesengebirge,  from 
Lusatia,  from  Dresden.  It  advanced  from  four 
points  to  Josephstadt-Koniggriltz,  where  the 
junction  was  to  take  place.  Bismarck  had 
ordered,  from  financial  as  well  as  political 
reasons,  that  the  war  must  be  short.  The 
Prussian  armies  had  at  all  points  debouched 
from  the  passes  and  entered  iJohemia  before  a 
single  Austrian  corps  had  come  near  these 
passes.  ...  In  a  couple  of  days  Benedek  lost 
in  a  series  of  fights  against  the  three  Prussian 
advancing  armies  nearly  35,000  men;  five  of  his 
seven  corps  had  been  beaten.  He  concentrated 
these  seven  corps  at  Koniggratz  in  the  ground 
before  this  fortress;  he  determined  to  accept 
battle  between  the  Elbe  and  the  Bistritz.  He 
had,  however,  previously  reported  to  the 
emperor  that  his  army  after  its  losses  was  not  in 
a  condition  for  a  pitched  battle.  He  wished  to 
retire  to  Moravia  and  avoid  a  battle  till  he  had 
received  reinforcements.  This  telegram  of 
Benedek  arrived  in  the  middle  of  the  exultation 
which  filled  the  court  of  Vicuna  after  hearing  of 
the  victory  over  the  Italians  at   Custozza   [see 


1575 


GERJVIANY,  1866. 


The  Seven  Weeks 
War. 


GERMANY,  1866. 


Italy:  A.  D.  1863-1866].  The  emperor  replied 
by  ordering  liim  briefly  to  give  battle  im- 
mediately. Beuedek,  on  the  1st  of  July,  again 
sent  word  to  the  emperor,  'Your  majesty  must 
conclude  peace.'  Yet  on  these  repeated  warn- 
ings came  tlie  order  to  fight  at  once.  Benedek 
had  provided  for  such  an  answer  by  his  arrange- 
ments for  July  the  2nd.  He  had  placed  his  500 
guns  in  the  most  favorable  positions,  and  occu- 
pied tlie  country  between  the  Elbe  and  the  little 
river  Bistritz  for  the  extent  of  a  league.  As 
soon  as  the  Prussians  heard  of  this  movement 
they  resolved  to  attacli  the  Austrians  on  tlie  3d. 
On  the  2d  the  king,  accompanied  by  Count 
Bismarck,  Von  Roon  and  Von  Moltke,  had  joined 
the  army.  He  assumed  command  of  the  three 
armies.  The  Crown  Prince  and  Herwarth  were 
ordered  to  advance  against  KOniggratz.  Part  of 
the  Crown  Prince's  army  were  still  five  German 
miles  from  the  intended  battle  ground.  Prince 
Frederick  Charles  and  Herwartli  had  alone 
sustained  the  whole  force  of  Austria  in  the 
struggle  around  Sadowa,  which  began  at 
8  o'clock  in  the  morning.  Frederick  Charles 
attacked  in  the  centre  over  against  Sadowa ;  Her- 
warth on  the  riglit  at  Nechanitz ;  the  Crown 
Prince  was  to  advance  on  the  left  from  Konigin- 
hof.  The  Crown  Prince  received  orders  at 
four  o'clock  in  the  morning ;  he  could  not  in  all 
probability  reach  the  field  before  one  or  two 
o'clock  after  noon.  All  depended  on  his  arrival 
in  good  time.  Prince  Frederick  Charles  forced 
the  passage  of  the  Bistritz  and  took  Sadowa  and 
other  places,  but  could  not  take  the  heights. 
His  troops  suffered  terribly  from  the  awful  fire 
of  the  Austrian  batteries.  The  King  himself 
and  his  staff  came  under  fire,  from  which  the 
earnest  entreaties  of  Bismarck  induced  him  to 
retire.  About  one  o'clock  the  danger  in  the 
Prussitin  centre  was  great.  After  five  hours  of 
fighting  they  could  not  advance,  and  began  to 
talk  of  retreat.  On  the  right,  things  were  better. 
Herwarth  had  defeated  the  Sa.xons,  and  threat- 
ened the  Austrian  left.  Yet,  if  the  army  of  the 
Crown  Prince  did  not  arrive,  the  battle  was  lost, 
for  the  Prussian  centre  was  broken.  But  the 
Crown  Prince  brought  the  expected  succor. 
About  two  o'clock  came  the  news  that  a  part  of 
the  Crown  Prince's  army  had  been  engaged  since 
one  o'clock.  The  Austrians,  attacked  on  their 
right  flank  and  rear,  had  to  give  way  in  front. 
Under  loud  shouts  of  'Forward,'  Prince  Fred- 
erick Charles  took  the  Wood  of  Sadowa  at  three, 
and  the  heights  of  Lipa  at  four  o'clock.  At  this 
very  time,  four  o'clock,  Benedek  had  already 
given  orders  to  retreat.  .  .  .  From  the  .  .  . 
first  the  Prussians  were  superior  to  the  Austrians 
in  ammunition,  provisions  and  supplies.  They 
had  a  better  organization,  better  preparation, 
and  the  needle-gun,  which  proved  very  destruc- 
tive to  the  Austrians.  The  Austrian  troops 
fought  with  thorough  gallantry.  .  .  .  Respect- 
ing this  campaign,  an  Austrian  writes:  'Given 
in  Vienna  a  powerful  coterie  which  reserves  to 
itself  all  the  high  commands  and  regards  the 
army  as  its  private  estate  for  its  own  private 
benefit,  and  defeat  is  inevitable.'  The  Austrians 
lost  at  Sadowa,  according  to  the  official  accounts 
at  Vienna,  174  cannon,  18,000  prisoners,  11  colors, 
4,190  killed,  11,900  wounded,  21,400  missing,  in- 
cluding the  prisoners.  The  Prussians  acknow- 
ledged a  loss  of  only  10,000  men.  The  result  of 
the  battle  was  heavier  for  Austria  than  the  loss 


in  the  action  and  the  retreat.  The  armistice 
which  Benedek  asked  for  on  the  4th  of  July  was 
refused  by  the  Prussians:  a  second  request  on 
the  10th  was  also  rejected.  On  the  5th  of  July 
the  emperor  of  Austria  sought  the  mediation  of 
France  to  restore  peace.  .  .  .  All  further  move- 
ments were  put  a  stop  to  by  the  five  days' 
armistice,  which  began  on  the  32d  of  July  at 
noon,  and  was  followed  by  an  armistice  for  four 
weeks.  .  .  .  Hostilities  were  at  an  end  on 
Austrian  territory  when  the  war  began  on  the 
Main  against  the  allies  of  Austria.  The  Bavarian 
army,  under  the  aged  Prince  Charles,  dis- 
tinguished itself  by  being  driven  by  the  less 
numerous  forces  of  Prussia  under  General 
Falkenstein  across  the  Saale  and  the  Main.  .  .  . 
The  eighth  federal  army  corps  of  50,000  men, 
composed  of  contingents  from  Baden,  Wilrtera- 
berg.  Electoral  Hesse,  Hesse-Darmstadt,  Nassau, 
and  12,000  Austrians  under  Prince  Alexander  of 
Hesse,  was  so  mismanaged  that  the  Wiirtemberg 
contingent  believed  itself  sold  and  betrayed. 
...  On  the  16th  of  July,  in  the  evening, 
Falkenstein  entered  Frankfort,  and  in  the  name 
of  the  king  of  Prussia  took  possession  of  this 
Free  City,  of  Upper  Hesse  and  Nassau.  Frank- 
fort, on  account  of  its  Austrian  sympathies,  had 
to  pay  a  contribution  of  six  millions  of  gulden 
to  Falkenstein,  and  on  the  19th  of  July  a  further 
sum  of  nineteen  millions  to  Manteuffel,  the  suc- 
cessor of  Falkenstein.  The  latter  sum  was  re- 
mitted when  the  hitherto  Free  City  became  a 
Prussian  city.  Manteuffel,  in  several  actions 
from  the  23d  to  the  26th  of  July,  drove  the 
federal  army  back  to  Wurzburg;  GSben  de- 
feated the  army  of  Baden  at  Werbach,  and  that 
of  Wiirtemberg  at  Tauberbischofsheim ;  before 
this  the  eighth  federal  army  corps  joimed  the 
Bavarian  army,  and  on  the  25tli  and  26th  of  July 
the  united  forces  were  defeated  at  Gerschheim 
and  Rossbrunn,  and  on  the  27th,  the  citadel  of 
Wurzburg  was  invested.  The  court  of  Vienna 
had  abandoned  its  South  German  allies  when  it 
concluded  the  armistice ;  it  had  not  included  its 
allies  either  in  the  armistice  or  the  truce.  .  .  . 
On  the  29th  of  July,  the  Baden  troops  marched 
off  homewards  in  the  night,  the  Austrians 
marched  to  Bohemia,  the  Bavarians  purchased 
an  armistice  by  surrendering  Wurzburg  to  the 
Prussians.  Thus  of  the  eighth  army  corps,  the 
Wiirtembergers  and  Hessians  alone  kept  the 
field.  On  the  2d  of  August  these  remains  of  the 
eighth  army  corps  were  included  in  the  armistice 
of  Nicholsburg.  ...  On  the  23d  of  August 
peace  was  signed  between  Austria  and  Prussia 
at  Prague.  Bismarck  treated  Austria  with  great 
consideration,  and  demanded  only  twenty  millions 
of  thalers  as  war  indemnity ;  Wiirtemberg  had 
to  pay  eight  millions  of  gulden,  Baden  six 
millions,  Hesse-Darmstadt  three  millions,  Bavaria 
thirty  millions  of  gulden.  The  Wiirtemberg 
minister,  Varnbiller,  and  the  Baden  minister, 
Freydorf,  offered  to  form  an  offensive  and  de- 
fensive alliance  with  Priissia  for  the  purpose  of 
saving  the  ruling  families,  and  in  alarm  lest 
Bavaria  and  Hesse-Darmstadt  might  seek  in 
their  territories  compensation  for  cessions  to 
Prussia.  Bavaria  also  formed  an  alliance  with 
Prussia,  and  ceded  a  smull  district  in  the 
north.  Hesse-Darmstadt  ceded  Hesse-Hom- 
burg  and  some  pieces  of  territory,  and  entered 
the  North  German  Confederation,  giving  to 
Prussia    the    right  of    keeping    a    garrison    in 


1576 


GERMANY" 

rtmn  THE  coNGRUs  or 

VIENNA 

1815. 


:> 


GKRMANY,  1866. 


Hegemony  of 
Prussia. 


GERMANY,  1866-1870. 


Maiuz.  Austria  renounced  her  claims  on 
Sclileswig  and  Holstein,  acknowledged  the  dis- 
solution of  the  German  Confederation  and  a 
modification  of  Germany  by  which  Austria  was 
excluded.  It  recognized  the  creation  of  the 
North  German  Confederation,  the  union  of 
Venetia  to  Italy,  the  territorial  alterations  in 
North  Germany.  Prussia  acknowledged  the 
territorial  possessions  of  Austria  with  the  sole 
exception  of  Venetia ;  and  also  of  Saxony ;  and 
undertook  to  obtain  the  assent  of  the  King  of 
Italy  to  the  peace.  Prussia  announced  the  in- 
corporation of  Scbleswig-Holstein,  the  Free  City 
of  Frankfort,  the  Kingdom  of  Hanover,  the 
Electorate  of  Hesse,  and  the  Duchy  of  Nassau, 
subject  to  the  payment  of  annual  incomes  to  the 
deposed  princes.  The  Kingdom  of  Saxony,  the 
twoMecklenburgs,  the  Hanse-towns,  Oldenburg. 
Brunswick,  and  the  Thuringian  states  entered 
the  North  German  Confederation.  Prussia  now 
contained  twenty-four  millions  of  inhabitants, 
or  including  the  Northern  Confederation,  twenty- 
nine  millions.  The  military  forces  of  the  Con- 
federation were  placed  under  the  command  of 
Prussia.  The  states  north  of  the  Main  were  at 
liberty  to  form  a  Southern  Confederation,  the 
connection  of  which  with  the  Northern  Con- 
federation was  to  be  a  subject  of  future  discus- 
sion. Moreover,  Bavaria,  Baden  and  Wilrtera- 
berg  had  engaged  '  in  case  of  war  to  place  their 
whole  military  force  at  the  disposal  of  Prussia,' 
and  Prussia  guaranteed  their  sovereignty  and 
the  integrity  of  their  territory.  Saxony  paid 
ten  millions  of  thalers  as  a  war  indemnity. 
Prussia  received  on  the  whole,  as  war  indemni- 
ties, eighty-two  millions  of  gulden.  Thus  ended 
in  the  year  18G6  the  struggle  [known  as  the 
Seven  Weeks  War]  between  Austria  and  Prussia 
for  the  leadership  of  Germany." — W.  Zimmer- 
mann,  Popular  Hist,  of  Oerinany,  bk.  6,  c/i.  3 
(».  4). 

Also  in  :  H.  von  Sybel,  77i^  Founding  of  the 
German  Empire,  bk.  17-30  (».  5). — Major  C. 
Adams,  O-reat  Campaigns  in  Europe  from  1796  to 
1870,  ch.  10. — Count  von  Beust,  Memoirs,  v.  1, 
ch.  29-34.-6.  B.  Malleson,  The  Mefomiding 
of  the  Oerman  Empire,  ch.  6-10. 

A.  D.  1866-1867. —  Foreshadowings  of  the 
ne-w  Empire. — "We  may  make  the  statement 
that  in  the  autumn  of  1866  the  German  Empire 
was  founded.  .  .  .  The  Southern  States  were 
not  yet  members  of  the  Confederation,  but  were 
already,  to  use  an  old  expression,  relatives  of  the 
Confederation  (Bundesverwandte)  in  virtue  of 
the  offensive  and  defensive  alliances  with  Prus- 
sia and  of  the  new  organization  of  the  Tariff- 
Union.  .  .  .  The  natural  and  inevitable  course  of 
events  must  here  irresistibly  break  its  way,  luiless 
some  circumstance  not  to  be  foreseen  should  throw 
down  the  barriers  beforehand.  How  soon  such  a 
crisis  might  take  place  no  one  could  at  that  time 
estimate.  But  in  regard  to  the  certainty  of  the 
final  result  there  was  in  Germany  no  longer  any 
doubt.  .  .  .  Three-fourths  of  the  territory  of  this 
Empire  was  dominated  by  a  Government  that  was 
in  the  first  place  eflicieut  in  military  organization, 
guided  by  the  firm  hand  of  King  William,  coun- 
selled by  the  representatives  of  the  North  Ger- 
man Sovereigns,  and  recognized  by  all  the  Powers 
of  Europe.  The  opening  of  that  Parliament  was 
near  at  hand,  that  should  in  common  with  this 
Government  determine  the  limitations  to  be  placed 
upon  the  powers  of  the  Confederation  in  its  rela- 


tion to  the  individual  states  and  also  the  functions 
of  the  new  Reichstag  in  the  legislation  and  in  the 
control  of  the  finances  of  the  Confederation.  .  .  . 
It  was,  in  the  first  place,  certain  that  the  functions 
of  tlie  future  supreme  Confederate  authority 
would  be  in  general  the  same  as  those  specified 
in  the  Imperial  Constitution  of  1849.  .  .  .  The 
most  radical  difference  between  1849  and  1866 
consisted  in  the  form  of  the  Confederate  Govern- 
ment. The  former  period  aimed  at  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  Constitutional  and  hereditary  emperor, 
with  respon.sible  ministers,  to  the  utter  exclusion 
of  the  German  sovereigns:  whereas  now  the  plan 
included  all  of  these  sovereigns  in  a  Confederate 
Council  (Bundesrath)  organized  after  the  fashion 
of  the  old  Confederate  Diet,  with  committees  for 
the  various  branches  of  the  administration,  and 
under  the  presidency  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  who 
should  occupy  a  superior  position  in  virtue  of 
the  conduct,  placed  in  his  hands  once  for  all,  of 
the  foreign  policy,  the  army  and  the  navy,  but 
who  otherwise  in  the  Confederate  Council,  in  spite 
of  the  increase  of  his  votes,  could  be  outvoted 
like  every  other  prince  by  a  decree  of  the  Majority. 
.  .  .  Before  the  time  of  the  peace-conferences, 
when  all  definite  arrangements  of  Germany's 
future  seemed  suspended  in  the  balance  and  un- 
decided, the  Crown  Prince  Frederick  William, 
who  ill  general  had  in  mind  for  the  supreme  head 
of  the  Confederation  a  higher  rank  and  position 
of  power  than  did  the  King,  maintained  that  his 
father  should  bear  the  title  of  King  of  Germany. 
Bismarck  reminded  him  that  there  were  other 
Kings  in  Germany:  the  Kings  of  Hanover,  of 
Saxony,  etc.  'The.se,'  was  the  reply,  '  will  then 
take  the  title  of  Dukes.'  'But  they  will  not 
agree  to  that. '  '  They  will  have  to  ! '  cried  His 
Royal  Highness.  After  the  further  course  of 
events,  the  Crown  Prince  indeed  gave  up  his  proj- 
ect; but  in  the  early  part  of  1867  he  asserted 
that  the  King  should  assume  the  title  of  German 
Emperor,  arguing  that  the  people  would  connect 
no  tangible  idea  with  the  title  of  President  of  the 
Confederation,  whereas  the  renewal  of  the  im- 
perial dignity  would  represent  to  them  the  actual 
incorporation  of  the  unity  finally  attained,  and 
the  remembrance  of  the  old  glory  and  power  of 
the  Empire  would  kindle  all  hearts.  This  Idea, 
as  we  have  experienced  and  continue  to  experience 
its  realization,  was  in  itself  perfectly  correct. 
But  it  was  evidently  at  that  time  premature:  a 
North  German  empire  would  have  aroused  no 
enthusiasm  in  the  north,  and  would  have  seriously 
hindered  the  accomplishment  of  the  national  aim 
in  the  south.  King  William  rejected  this  propo- 
sition very  decidedly :  in  his  own  simple  way  he 
wished  to  be  nothing  more  than  Confederate 
Commander-in-chief  and  the  first  among  his 
peers." — H.  von  Sybel,  The  Founding  of  the 
German  Emjnre  by  William  I.,  bk.  20,  ch.  4  {v. 
5). 

A.  D.  1866-1870. — Territorial  concessions 
demanded  by  France. — Rapid  progress  of 
German  unification. — The  Zollparlament. — 
The  Luxemburg  question. — French  determina- 
tion for  war. — "The  conditions  of  peace  .  .  . 
left  it  open  to  the  Southern  States  to  choose  what 
relationship  they  would  form  with  the  Northern 
Confederation.  This  was  a  compromise  between 
Bismarck  and  Napoleon,  the  latter  fearing  a 
United  Germany,  the  former  preferring  to  restrict 
himself  to  what  was  attainable  at  the  time,  and 
taking  care  not  to  humiliate  or  seriously  to  injure 


1577 


GERMANY,  1866-1870. 


lYussia 
and  France. 


GERMANY,  1866-1870. 


Austria,  whose  friendship  he  foresaw  that 
Germany  would  need.  Meanwhile  Napoleon's 
interference  continiied.  Scarcely  had  Benedetti, 
who  had  followed  Bismarck  to  the  battle-fields, 
returned  to  Berlin,  when  he  received  orders  from 
his  Government  to  demand  not  less  than  the  left 
bank  of  the  Rhine  as  a  compensation  for 
Prussia's  increase  of  territory.  For  this  purpose 
he  submitted  the  draft  of  a  treaty  by  which 
Prussia  was  even  to  bind  herself  to  lend  an 
active  support  to  the  cession  of  the  Bavarian  and 
Hessian  possessions  west  of  the  Rhine!  .  .  . 
Bismarck  would  listen  to  no  mention  of  ceding 
German  territory.  'Si  vous  refusez,' said  the 
conceited  Corsican,  '  c'est  la  guerre. ' — 'Ehbien, 
la  guerre,'  replied  Bismarck  calmly.  Just  as 
little  success  had  Benedetti  with  King  William. 
'  Not  a  clod  of  German  soil,  not  a  chimney  of  a 
German  village,'  was  William's  kingly  reply. 
Napoleon  was  not  disposed  at  the  time  to  carry 
out  his  threat.  He  disavowed  Benedetti's  action, 
declaring  that  the  instructions  had  been  obtained 
from  him  during  his  illness  and  that  he  wished 
to  live  in  peace  and  friendship  with  Prussia. 
Napoleon's  covetousness  had  at  least  one  good 
effect :  it  furthered  the  work  of  German  union. 
Bavaria  and  Wilrtemberg,  who  during  the  war 
had  sided  with  Austria,  had  at  first  appealed  to 
Napoleon  to  mediate  between  them  and  Prussia. 
But  when  the  Ministers  of  the  four  South  Ger- 
man States  appeared  at  Berlin  to  negotiate  with 
Bismarck,  and  Benedetti's  draft-treaty  was  com- 
municated to  them,  there  was  a  complete  change 
of  disposition.  They  then  wished  to  go  much 
further  than  the  Prussian  Statesman  was  pre- 
pared to  go:  they  asked,  in  order  to  be  protected 
from  French  encroachments,  to  be  admitted  into 
the  North  German  Confederation.  But  Bismarck 
would  not  depart  from  the  stipulations  of  the 
Treaty  of  Nikolsburg.  The  most  important  re- 
sult of  the  negotiations  was  that  secret  treaties 
were  concluded  by  which  the  Southern  States 
bound  themselves  to  an  alliance  with  the 
Northern  Confederation  for  the  defence  of 
Germany,  and  engaged  to  place  their  troops 
under  the  supreme  command  of  the  Prussian 
King  in  the  event  of  any  attack  by  a  foreign 
Power.  In  a  military  sense  Klein- Deutschland 
was  now  one,  though  not  yet  politically.  .  .  . 
That  Prussia  was  the  truly  representative  Ger- 
man State  had  been  obvious  to  the  thoughtful 
long  before :  the  fact  now  stood  out  in  clear  light 
to  all  who  would  open  their  eyes  to  see.  Prog- 
ress had  meanwhile  been  made  with  the  con- 
struction of  the  North  German  Confederation, 
which  embraced  all  the  States  to  the  north  of  the 
river  Main.  Its  affairs  were  to  be  regulated  by 
a  Reichstag  elected  by  universal  suffrage  and 
by  a  Federal  Council  formed  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  North  German  Governments.  In  a 
military  sense  it  was  a  Single  State,  politically  a 
Confederate  State,  with  the  King  of  Prussia  as 
President.  This  arrangement  was  not  of  course 
regarded  as  final:  and  in  his  speech  from  the 
throne  to  the  North  German  Reichstag,  King 
William  emphasized  the  declaration  that  Ger- 
many, so  long  torn,  so  long  powerless,  so  long 
the  theatre  of  war  for  foreign  nations,  would 
henceforth  strive  to  recover  the  greatness  of  her 
past.  ...  A  first  step  towards  '  bridging  over 
the  Main,'  i.  e.,  causing  South  and  North  to  join 
hands  again,  was  taken  by  the  creation  of  a 
Zollparlament,    or  Customs    Parliament,  which 


was  elected  by  the  whole  of  Klein-Deutschland, 
and  met  at  Berlin,  henceforth  the  capital  of 
Germany.  It  was  also  a  step  in  advance  that 
Baden  and  Hesse-Darmstadt  signed  conventions, 
by  which  their  military  system  was  put  on  the 
same  footing  as  that  of  the  North  German  Con- 
federation. Baden  indeed  would  willingly  have 
entered  into  political  union  with  the  North,  had 
the  same  disposition  prevailed  at  the  time  in 
the  other  South  German  States.  The  National 
Liberals  however  had  to  contend  with  strong 
opposition  from  the  Democrats  in  Wilrtemberg, 
and  from  the  Ultramontanes  in  Bavaria.  The 
latter  were  hostile  to  Prussia  on  account  of  her 
Protestantism,  the  former  on  account  of  the  stern 
principles  and  severe  discipline  that  pervaded 
her  administration.  ...  In  the  work  of  German 
unification  the  Bonapartes  have  an  important 
share.  .  .  .  By  outraging  the  principle  of 
nationality.  Napoleon  I.  had  re-awakened  the 
feeling  of  nationality  among  Germans :  Napoleon 
III.,  by  attempting  to  prevent  the  unification  of 
Germany,  actually  hastened  it  on.  .  .  .  When 
King  William  had  replied  that  he  would  not 
yield  up  an  inch  of  German  soil,  '  patriotic 
pangs '  at  Prussian  successes  and  the  thirst  for 
'  compensation '  continued  to  disturb  the  sleep 
of  the  French  Emperor,  and  as  he  was  unwilling 
to  appear  baffled  in  his  purpose,  he  returned  to 
the  charge.  On  the  16th  of  August,  1866, 
through  his  Ambassador  Benedetti,  he  demanded 
the  cession  of  Landau,  Saarbrilcken,  Saarlouis, 
and  Luxemburg,  together  with  Prussia's  con- 
sent to  the  annexation  of  Belgium  by  France. 
If  that  could  not  be  obtained,  he  would  be  satis- 
fied with  Luxemburg  and  Belgium;  he  would 
even  exclude  Antwerp  from  the  territory  claimed 
that  it  might  be  created  a  free  town.  Thus  he 
hoped  to  spare  the  susceptibilities  of  England. 
As  a  gracious  return  he  offered  the  alliance  of 
France.  After  his  first  interview  Benedetti  gave 
up  his  demand  for  the  three  German  towns,  and 
submitted  a  new  scheme,  according  to  which 
Germany  should  induce  the  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands to  a  cession  of  Luxemburg,  and  should 
support  France  in  the  conquest  of  Belgium; 
whilst,  on  his  part,  Napoleon  would  permit  the 
formation  of  a  federal  union  between  the 
Northern  Confederation  and  the  South  German 
States,  and  would  enter  into  a  defensive  and 
offensive  alliance  with  Germany.  Count  Bis- 
marck treated  these  propositions,  as  he  himself 
has  stated,  '  in  a  dilatory  manner,'  that  is  to  say, 
he  did  not  reject  them,  but  he  took  good  care 
not  to  make  any  definite  promises.  When  the 
Prussian  Prime  Minister  returned  from  his 
furlough  to  Berlin,  towards  the  end  of  1866, 
Benedetti  resumed  his  negotiations,  but  now 
only  with  regard  to  Luxemburg,  still  garrisoned 
by  Prussian  troops  as  at  the  time  of  the  old 
Germanic  Confederation.  Though  the  Grand- 
Duchy  of  Luxemburg  did  not  belong  to  the 
new  North  German  Confederation,  Bismarck 
was  not  willing  to  allow  it  to  be  annexed  by 
France.  Moltke  moreover  declared  that  the 
fortress  could  only  be  evacuated  by  the  Prussian 
troops  if  the  fortifications  were  razed.  But 
without  its  fortifications  Napoleon  would  not 
have  it.  And  when,  with  regard  to  the  Em- 
peror's intentions  upon  Belgium,  Prussia  offered 
no  active  support,  but  only  promised  observance 
of  neutrality,  France  renounced  the  idea  of  an 
alliance  with  Prussia,  and  entered  into  direct 


1578 


GERMANY,  1866-1870. 


Germanic 
Confederation. 


GERMANY,  1871. 


negotiations  with  the  King  of  Holland,  as 
Grand-Duke  of  Luxemburg.  Great  excitement 
was  thereby  caused  in  Germany,  and,  as  a  time- 
ly warning  to  France,  Bismarcli  surprised  the 
world  with  the  publication  of  the  secret  treaties 
between  Prussia  and  the  South  German  States. 
But  when  it  became  known  that  the  King  of 
Holland  was  actually  consenting  to  the  sale  of 
his  rights  in  Luxemburg  to  Napoleon,  there  was 
so  loud  a  cry  of  indignation  in  all  parts  of  Ger- 
many, there  was  so  powerful  a  protest  in  the 
North  German  Parliament  against  any  sale  of 
German  territory  by  the  King  of  Holland,  that 
Count  Bismarck,  himself  surprised  at  the  vigour 
of  the  patriotic  outburst,  declared  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Hague  that  the  cession  of  Luxem- 
burg would  he  considered  a  casus  belli.  This 
peremptory  declaration  had  the  desired  effect: 
the  cession  did  not  take  place.  This  was  the 
first  success  in  European  politics  of  a  united 
Germany,  united  not  yet  politically,  but  in  spirit. 
That  was  satisfactory.  A  Conference  of  the 
Great  Powers  then  met  in  London  [May,  1867] : 
by  its  decision,  Luxemburg  was  separated  from 
Germany,  and, —  to  give  some  kind  of  satisfac- 
tion to  the  Emperor  of  the  French, —  was  formed 
into  a  neutral  State.  From  a  national  point  of 
view,  that  was  unsatisfactory.  .  .  .  The  danger 
of  an  outbreak  of  war  between  France  and  Ger- 
many had  only  been  warded  off  for  a  time  by 
the  international  settlement  of  the  Luxemburg 
question.  ...  In  the  early  part  of  July,  1870, 
Prince  Leopold  of  Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,  at 
the  request  of  the  Spanish  Government,  became 
a  candidate  for  the  Spanish  throne.  Napoleon 
III.  seized  the  occasion  to  carry  into  effect  his 
hostile  intentions  against  Germany. " —  G.  Krause, 
The  Orowtli  of  Oermaii  Unity,  ch.  13-14. 

Also  in:  E.  Simon,  The  Emperor  William  and 
his  Reign,  ch.  9-10  (v.  1).— C.  A.  Fyffe,  Hist,  of 
Modern  Europe,  v.  3,  ch.  5-6. 

A.  D.  1870  (June— July).— "  The  Hohenzol- 
lern  incident." — French  Declaration  of  War. 
SeeFKAKCE:  A.  D.  1870  (Jlwe— July). 

A.  D.  1870  (September— December).— The 
Germanic  Confederation  completed. —  Feder- 
ative treaties  with  the  states  of  South  Ger- 
many.— Suggestion  of  the  Empire. — "Having 
decided  on  taking  Strasburg  and  Metz  from 
France"  Prussia  "could  only  justify  that  con- 
quest by  considerations  of  the  safety  of  South 
Germany,  and  she  could  only  defend  these  inter- 
ests by  effecting  the  union  of  North  and  South. 
She  found  it  necessary  to  realise  this  union  at  any 
price,  even  by  some  concessions  in  favour  of  the 
autonomy  of  those  States,  and  especially  of 
Bavaria.  Such  was  the  spirit  in  which  negotia- 
tions were  opened,  in  the  middle  of  September, 
1870,  between  Bavaria  and  Prussia,  with  the  par- 
ticipation of  Baden,  Wurtemberg  and  Hesse- 
Darmstadt.  .  .  .  Prussia  asked  at  first  for  entire 
and  unreserved  adhesion  to  the  Northern  Confed- 
eration, a  solution  acceptable  to  Baden,  Wurteni- 
berg  and  Hesse-Darmstadt,  but  not  to  Bavaria, 
who  demanded  for  herself  the  preservation  of 
certain  rights,  and  for  her  King  a  privileged 
position  in  the  future  Confederation  next  to  the 
King  of  Prussia.  The  negotiations  with  Baden 
and  Hesse-Darmstadt  came  to  a  conclusion  on 
the  15th  of  November;  and  on  the  25th,  Wurteni- 
berg  accepted  the  same  arrangement.  These 
three  States  agreed  to  the  constitution,  slightly 
modified,    of  the  Northern   Confederation;   the 


new  treaties  were  completed  by  military  conven- 
tions, establishing  the  fusion  of  the  respective 
Corps  d'Armee  with  the  Federal  Army  of  the 
North,  under  the  command  of  the  King  of  Prus- 
sia. The  Treaty  with  Bavaria  was  signed  at 
Versailles  on  the  23rd  of  November.  The  con- 
cessions obtained  by  the  Cabinet  of  Munich  were 
reduced  to  mere  trifles.  .  .  .  The  King  of  Bavaria 
was  allowed  the  command  of  his  army  in  time  of 
peace.  He  was  granted  the  administration  of 
the  Post-Oflice  and  partial  autonomy  of  indirect 
contributions.  A  committee  was  conceded,  in 
the  Federal  Council,  for  Foreign  Affairs,  under 
the  Presidency  of  Bavaria.  The  right  of  the 
King  of  Prussia,  as  President  of  this  Council, 
to  declare  war,  was  made  conditional  on  its  con- 
sent. Such  were  the  Treaties  submitted  on  the 
24th  of  November  to  the  sanction  of  the  Parlia- 
ment of  the  North,  assembled  in  an  Extraordi- 
nary Session.  Thejf  met  with  intense  opposition 
from  the  National  Liberal  and  from  the  Progres- 
sive Party,"  but  "the  Parliament  sanctioned  the 
treaties  on  the  10th  of  December.  According  to 
the  Treaties,  the  new  association  received  the 
title  of  Germanic  Confederation,  and  the  King  of 
Prussia  that  of  its  President.  These  titles  were 
soon  to  undergo  an  important  alteration.  The 
King  of  Bavaria,  satisfied  with  the  concessions, 
more  apparent  than  real,  made  by  the  Prussian 
Cabinet  to  his  rights  of  sovereignty,  consented  to 
defer  to  the  wishes  of  King  William.  On  the 
4th  of  December,  King  Louis  addressed  him 
[King  William]  a  letter,  informing  him  that  he 
had  invited  the  Confederate  sovereigns  to  revive 
the  German  Empire  and  confer  the  title  of  Em- 
peror on  the  President  of  the  Confederation.  .  .  . 
The  sovereigns  immediately  gave  their  consent,  so 
that  the  Imperial  titles  could  be  introduced  into 
the  new  Constitution  before  the  final  vote  of  the 
Parliament  of  the  North.  ...  To  tell  the  truth, 
King  William  attached  slight  importance  to  the 
votes  of  the  various  Chambers.  He  was  not  de- 
sirous of  receiving  his  new  dignity  from  the 
hands  of  a  Parliament ;  the  assent  of  the  sover- 
eigns was  in  his  eyes  far  more  es.sential." — E. 
Simon,  The  Emperor  William  and  his  Beign,  ch. 
13  (».  2). 

Also  en:  G.  Freytag,  The  Croxcn  Prince  and 
the  Imperial  Crown. 

A.  D.  1870-1871.— Victorious  war  with 
France. — Siege  of  Paris. — Occupation  of  the 
city. — Enormous  indemnity  exacted. — Acqui- 
sition of  Alsace  and  part  of  Lorraine.  See 
Fkance:  a.  D.  1870  (July— August)  to  1871 
(.Jajju.^ry — May). 

A.  D.  1871  (January).  —  Assumption  of  the 
Imperial  dignity  by  King  William,  at  Ver- 
sailles.— "Early  in  December  the  proposition 
came  from  King  Ludwig  of  Bavaria  to  King 
William,  that  the  possession  of  the  presidential 
rights  of  the  Confederacy  vested  in  the  Prussian 
monarch  should  be  coupled  with  the  imperial 
title.  The  King  of  Saxony  spoke  to  the  same 
purport;  and  in  one  day  a  measure  providing  for 
the  amendment  of  the  Constitution  by  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  words  '  Emperor '  and  '  Empire ' 
for  '  President '  and  '  Confederation '  was  passed 
through  the  North  German  Parliament,  which 
voted  also  an  address  to  his  Majesty,  from  which 
the  following  is  an  extract:  'The  North  German 
Parliament,  in  unison  with  the  Princes  of  Ger- 
many, approaches  with  the  prayer  that  your 
Majesty  will  deign  to  consecrate  the  work  of 


1579 


GERMANY,  1871. 


The  neio  Empire. 


GERMANY,  1871-1879. 


unification  by  accepting  the  Imperial  Crown  of 
Germany.  The  Teutonic  Crown  on  the  head  of 
your  Majesty  will  inaugurate,  for  the  re-estab- 
lished Empire  of  the  German  nation,  an  era  of 
power,  of  peace,  of  well-being,  and  of  liberty 
secured  under  the  protection  of  the  laws. '  Tlie 
address  of  the  German  Parliament  was  presented 
to  the  King  at  Versailles  on  Sunday,  the  18th  of 
December,  by  its  speaker,  Herr  Simson,  who,  as 
speaker  of  the  Frankfort  Parliament  in  1848,  had 
made  the  identical  proffer  to  William's  brother 
and  predecessor  [see  above:  A.  D.  1848-1850]. 
.  .  .  The  formal  ratification  of  assent  to  the 
Prussian  King's  assumption  of  the  imperial  dig- 
nity had  yet  to  be  received  from  the  minor  Ger- 
man States;  but  this  was  a  foregone  conclusion, 
and  the  unification  of  Germany  really  dates  from 
that  18th  of  December,  and  from  the  solemn 
ceremonial  in  the  prefecture  of  Versailles. " — A. 
Forbes,  William  of  Oermany,  ch.  13. — King  Wil- 
liam's formal  assumption  of  the  Imperial  dignity 
took  place  on  the  18th  of  January,  1871.  "The 
Crown  Prince  was  entrusted  with  all  the  prepa- 
rations for  the  ceremony.  Every  regiment  in 
the  army  of  investment  was  instructed  to  send 
its  colours  in  charge  of  an  officer  and  two  non- 
commissioned oflicers  to  Versailles,  and  all  tlie 
liigher  officers  who  could  be  spared  from  duty 
were  ordered  to  attend,  for  tlie  army  was  to 
represent  the  German  nation  at  this  memorable 
scene.  The  Crown  Prince  escorted  his  father 
from  the  Prefecture  to  the  palace  of  Versailles, 
where  all  the  German  Princes  or  their  represen- 
tatives were  assembled  in  the  Galerie  des  Glaces. 
A  special  service  was  read  by  the  military  chap- 
lains, and  then  the  Emperor,  mounting  on  the 
dais,  announced  his  a.ssumption  of  Imperial  au- 
thority, and  instructed  his  Chancellor  to  read  the 
Proclamation  issued  to  the  whole  German  nation. 
Then  the  Crown  Prince,  as  the  first  subject  of 
the  Empire,  came  forward  and  performed  the 
solemn  act  of  homage,  kneeling  down  before  liis 
Imperial  Fatlier.  The  Emperor  raised  him  and 
clasped  to  his  arms  the  son  who  had  toiled  and 
fought  and  borne  so  great  a  share  in  achieving 
what  many  generations  had  desired  in  vain." — 
R.  Rodd,  Frederick,  Crown  Prince  and  Umperor, 
ch.  5. 

Also  in:  C.  Lowe,  Prince  Bismarck,  ch.  9 
(V.  1). 

A.  D.  1871  (April).— The  Constitution  of  the 
new  Empire. — By  a  proclamation  dated  April 
16,  1871,  the  German  Emperor  ordered,  "in  the 
name  of  the  German  Empire,  by  and  with  the 
consent  of  the  Council  of  the  Confederation  and 
of  the  Imperial  Diet,"  that  "in  the  place  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  German  Confederation,"  as 
agreed  to  in  November  1870,  tlicre  be  substituted 
a  Constitution  for  the  German  Empire, —  the  text 
of  which  appeared  as  an  appendi.x  to  this  im- 
perial decree.  For  a  full  translation  of  the  te.xt 
see  Constitution  op  Germany. 

Also  in  :  E.  Hertslet,  The  Map  of  Europe  hy 
TreMy,  v.  3,  A'».  442. 

A.  D.  1871-1873.— The  Gold  Standard.  See 
Monet  .\ni)  B.\nking  :  A.  I).  1871-1873. 

A.  D.  1871-1879.— Organization  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  Alsace-Lorraine  as  an  imperial 
province. — "How  to  garner  the  territorial  har- 
vest of  the  war  —  Alsace-Lorraine  —  was  a  ques- 
tion which  greatly  vexed  the  pru'liamentary  mind. 
Several  possible  solutions  had  presented  them- 
selves.    The  conquered  provinces  might  be  made 


neutral  territory,  which,  with  Belgium  on  one 
side,  and  Switzerland  on  the  other,  would  thus 
interpose  a  continuous  barrier  against  French 
aggression  from  the  mouth  of  the  Rhine  to  its 
source.  But  one  fatal  objection,  among  several 
others,  to  the  adoption  of  this  course,  was  the 
utter  lack,  in  the  Alsace-Lorrainers,  of  the  primary 
condition  of  the  existence  of  all  neutral  States  — 
a  determination  on  the  part  of  the  neutralised 
people  themselves  to  be  and  remain  neutral.  And 
none  knew  better  than  Bismarck  that  it  would 
take  3'ears  of  the  most  careful  nursing  to  recon- 
cile the  kidnapped  children  of  France  to  their 
adoptive  parent.  For  him,  the  only  serious  ques- 
tion was  whether  Alsace-Lorraine  should  be  an- 
nexed to  Prussia,  or  be  made  an  immediate 
Reichsland  (Imperial  Province).  '  From  the  very 
first,'  he  said,  '  I  was  most  decidedly  for  the  latter 
alternative,  first  — because  there  is  no  reason  why 
dynastic  questions  should  be  mixed  up  with 
political  ones ;  and,  secondly  ■ — ■  because  I  think 
it  will  be  easier  for  the  Alsatians  to  take  to  the 
name  of  "  German  "  than  to  that  of  "Prussian," 
the  latter  being  detested  in  France  in  comparison 
with  the  other. '  In  its  first  session,  accordingly, 
the  Diet  was  .Tsked  to  pass  a  law  incorporating 
Alsace-Lorraine  with  the  Empire,  and  placing 
the  annexed  provinces  under  a  provisional  dic- 
tatorship till  tlie  1st  January,  1874,  when  they 
would  enter  into  the  enjoyment  of  constitutional 
rights  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  nation. 
But  the  latter  clause  provoked  much  controversy. 
...  A  compromise  was  ultimately  effected  by 
which  the  duration  of  the  dictatorship,  or  jjcriod 
within  which  the  Imperial  Government  alone  was 
to  liavc  the  right  of  making  laws  for  Alsace-Lor- 
raine, was  shortened  till  1st  January,  1873 ;  while 
the  Diet,  on  the  other  hand,  w'as  only  to  have 
supervision  of  such  loans  or  guarantees  as  affected 
the  Empire.  In  the  following  year,  however,  the 
Diet  came  to  the  conclusion  that,  after  all,  the 
original  term  fixed  for  the  dictatorship  was  the 
more  advisable  of  the  two,  and  prolonged  it  ac- 
cordingly. For  the  next  three  years,  therefore, 
the  Reichsland  was  governed  from  the  Wilhelm- 
strasse,  as  India  is  ruled  from  Downing  Street. 
.  .  .  In  the  beginning  of  1874  .  .  .  fifteen  depu- 
ties from  Alsace-Lorraine  —  now  thus  far  ad- 
mitted within  the  pale  of  the  Constitution  —  took 
their  seats  in  the  second  German  Parliament.  Of 
these  fifteen  deputies,  five  were  out-and-out 
French  Protesters,  and  the  rest  Clericals  —  seven 
of  the  latter  being  clergymen,  including  the 
Bishops  of  Metz  and  Strasburg.  They  entered 
the  Diet  in  a  body,  with  much  theatrical  pomp, 
the  clergy  wearing  their  robes ;  and  one  of  the 
French  Protesters — bearingthe  vmfortunatoname 
of  Teutsch  —  immediately  tabled  a  motion  that 
the  inhabitants  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  having  been 
annexed  to  Germany  without  being  themselves 
consulted,  should  now  be  granted  an  opportunity 
of  expressing  their  opinion  on  the  subject  by  a 
plebiscite.  .  .  .  The  motion  of  French  M.  Teutsch, 
who  spoke  fluent  German,  was  of  course  rejected ; 
whereupon  he  and  several  of  his  compatriots 
straightway  returned  home,  and  left  the  Diet  to 
deal  with  the  interests  of  their  constituents  as  it 
liked.  Those  of  his  colleagues  who  remained  be- 
hind only  did  so  to  complain  of  the  '  intolerable 
tyranny  '  under  which  the  provinces  were  groan- 
ing, and  to  move  for  the  repeal  of  the  law  (of 
December,  1871)  which  invested  the  local  Gov- 
ernment with  dictatorial  powers.  .  .  .  Believing 


1580 


GERMANY,  1871-1879. 


The  Culturkampf.  GERiyiANY,   1873-1887. 


home-rule  to  be  one  of  the  best  guarantees  of 
federal  cohesion,  Bismarck  determined  to  try  the 
effect  of  this  cementing  agency  on  the  newest 
Bart  of  the  Imperial  edifice;  and,  m  the  autumn 
of   1874    he  advised  the  Emperor  to  grant  tne 
Alsace-Lorrainers  (not  by  law,  but  by  ordinance, 
which  could  easily  be  revolied)  a  previous  voice 
on  all  bills  to  be  submitted  to  the  Reichstag  on 
the  domestic  and  fiscal  affairs  of  the  Provinces. 
In  the  following  summer  (June,  1875),  there- 
fore there  met  at  Strasburg  the  first  Landesaus- 
schuss    or  Provincial  Committee,  composed  of 
delegates,  thirty  in  number,  from  the  administra- 
?ive^District  Councils.  ...  So  ^vell,  indeed   on 
the  whole,  did  this  arrangement  work  that  witnm 
two  years  of  its  creation  the  Landesausschuss 
was  invested  with  much  broader  powers       .  . 
Thus  it  came  about  that,  while  the  Reichsland 
continued  to  be  governed  from  Berhn,  the  mak- 
ing of  its  laws  was  more  and  more  confined  to 
Stfasbure.  .  .  .  The  party  of  the  Irreconcilables 
had  been  gradually  giving  way  to  the  Autono- 
ndsts,  or  those  who  subordinated  the  question  of 
nationality  to  that  of  home-rule      RaPKUy  gain- 
iuo-  in  strength,  this  latter  party  at  last  (in  the 
sprin-  of  1879)  petitioned  the  Reichstag  for  an 
independent  Government,  with  its  seat  m  Stras- 
burcr  for  the  representation  of  the  Reichsland  in 
tlie  Federal  Council,  and  for  an  enlargement  of 
the  functions  of  the  Provincial  Committee.    Noth- 
ing could  have  been  more  gratifying  to  Bismarck 
thSn  this  request,  amounting,  as  it  did,  to  a  re- 
luctant recognition  of  the  Treaty  of  Frankfort  on 
the  part  of  the  Alsace-Lorrainers.     He  therefore 
replied  that  he  was  quite  willing  to  confer  on 
tlie  provinces  '  the  highest  degree  of  independence 
compatible  with  the  military  secunty  of  the  Em- 
pire '    The  Diet,  without  distinction  of  part} 
applauded  his  words;  and  not  only  that  but  it 
hastened  to  pass  a  bill  embodying  ideas  at  ^^  Inch 
the  Chancellor  himself  had  hinted  in  the  previous 
vear     By  this  bill,  the  government  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine  was  to  centre  in  a  Stattlialter,  or  Im- 
perial Viceroy,  living  at  Strasburg,  it^tead  of,  as 
heretofore,  in  the  chancellor.  .  .  .  Without  be- 
ing a  Sovereign,  this  Statthalter  was  to. exercise 
all  but  sovereign  rights.  .  .  .  For  this  high  office 
the  Emperor  selected  the  brilliant  soldier-states- 
man.  Marshal  Manteuffel Certainly    His 

Maiesty  could  not  possibly  have  chosen  a  better 
man  for  the  responsible  office,  which  the  Marshal 
assumed  on  the  1st  October,  1879.  Heucetorth 
the  conquered  provinces  entered  an  entirely  ne^v 
phase  of  their  existence.  .  .  .  Whether  the  Reichs- 
land will  ever  ripen  into  an  integral  part  ot 
Prussia,  or  into  a  regular  Federal  State  with  a 
Prussian  prince  for  its  Sovereign  the  future 
alone  can  show."-C.  Lowe,  Pnnce  Bismarcl,  ch. 

AD     187V1887.— The  Culturkampf.— The 
"  May  Laws  "  and  their  repeal.-"  The  German 

Culturkampf,  or  civilization-fight,  as  its  illus- 
trious chief  promoter  is  said  to  have  named  it, 
may  equally  well  be  styled  the  religion  combat, 
or  education  strife.  .  .  .  The  arena  of  the  Cul- 
turkampf in  Germany  is,  strictly  speaking  Prus- 
sia and  Hesse  Darmstadt— pre-eminently  the  for- 
mer. According  to  the  last  census,  taken  Decem- 
ber 1  1880,  the  population  of  Prussia  is  27,2/8,911. 
Of  these,  the  Protestants  are  17,645  462  bemg 
64  7  per  cent.,  and  the  Cathohcs  9,305,136  or 
34' 1  per  cent.,  of  the  total  population.  The 
remainder  are  principally  Jews,  amounting  to 


qfiq  7q0   or  1  334  per  cent.     It  was  on  the  9th 
of  January,   1873,^hat  Dr.   Falk,   Minister  of 
Public  Worship,  first  introduced  into  the  Prussian 
Diet  the  bills,   which   were  afterwards    to  be 
known  as  the  May  Laws  [so  called  ^ecause  they 
were  generally  passed  m  the   f oftl^   °f,  J^^,{' 
although  in  different  years,  but  also  called  the 
Falk  Laws,  from  the  Minister  who  framed  them]. 
These  laws,  which,  for  the  future,  were  to  regu- 
late the  relations  of  Church  and  State,  purported 
to  apply  to  the  Evangelical  or  united  Protestant 
State  Church  of  Prussia  .  .      as  well  as  to  the 
Catholic  Church.     Their  professed  mam  fbjerts 
were  •  first,  to  insure  greater  liberty  to  individual 
lay  members  of  those  churches;  secondly,  to  se- 
cure a  German  and  national,  rather  than  an    Ul- 
tramontane '  and  non-national,  training  for  the 
clergy    and,   thirdly,   to   protect    the    infenor 
clerly  against  the  tyranny  of  their  supenors- 
whidi  simply  meant,  as  proved  in  the  ?equel  the 
withdrawal  of   priests  and  people,  in  matters 
Tplritual,  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops 
and  the  separation  of  Cathohc_Pr_ussia  from  the 
Centre  of  Unity;    thus  substituting  a  local  or 
national  Church,  bound  hand  and  foot,  under 
State  regulation,  for  a  flounshmg  branch  of  the 
Universal  Church.     To  promote  these  objects,  it 
was  provided,  that  all  Ecclesiastical  semmanes 
should  be  placed  under  State  control ;  and  that  all 
candidates  for  the  priesthood  shou  d  pass  a  State 
examination  in  the  usual  subjects  of  a  liberal 
education;  and  it  was  further  provided,  that  the 
State  should  have  the  right  to  confirm  or  to  reject 
all  appointments  of  clergy.      These  bills  were 
readily  passed:  and  all  the  religious  orders  and 
congregations  were  suppressed  with  the  provis- 
ional Exception  of  those  which  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  care  of  the  sick;  and  al    Catholic 
seminaries  were  closed.  .  .  .  The   Bishops  re- 
fused to  obey  the  new  laws,  which  in  conscience 
they  could  not  accept;  and  they  subscribed  a  col- 
lective declaration  to  this  effect,  on  the  26th  of 
Mav  1873.     On  the  7th  of  August  following. 
Pope  Pius  IX.  addressed  a  strong  letter  of  remon- 
strance to  the  Emperor  William ;  but  entirely 
without  effect,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Imperial  re- 
ply of  the  5th  of  September.     In  punishrnent  of 
their  opposition,  several  of  the  Bishops  and  great 
numbers  of  their  clergy  were  fined,  imprisoned, 
exiled  and  deprived  of  their  salaries.    Especially 
notable  among  the  victims  of  persecution,  were 
the  venerable  Archbishop  of  Cologne    Prinaate 
of   Prussia,  the  Bishop  of  Munster   the  Pnnce 
Bishop  of  Breslau,  the  Bishop  of  Paderbom,  and 
Cardinal  Ledochowski,   Archbishop  of  Gnesen 
and  Posen,  on  whom,  then  in  prison,  a  Cardmal_s 
hat  was  conferred  by  the  Pope,  in  March  18. 0, 
as  a  mark  of  sympathy,  encouragement,  and  ap- 
proval The  fifteen    Catholic    dioceses  of 
Prussia  comprised,  in  January  1873,  a  Catholic 
aggregate  of  8,711,585  souls.     They  were  admin-  . 
istfred  by  4,627  parish-priests,  and  3,813  coadju^ 
tor-priests,    or  curates,  bemg  a  total  of  8,4d» 
clergy     Eight  years  later,  owing  to  the  opera- 
tion of  the  May  Laws,  there  were  exiled  or  dead, 
without  being  replaced,  1,770  of  these  clergy, 
viz      1  135    parish-priests,    and  645  coadjutor- 
priests;'  and  there  were  601  parishes  comprising 
644  697   souls,  quite  destitute  of  clencal  care, 
and  584  parishes,    or  1,501,994  souls    partialy 
destitute  thereof.     Besides  these  1,770  sewlar 
priests,  dead  or  exiled,  and  not  replaced   there 
were  the  regular  clergy  (the  members  of  rehgious 


1581 


GERMANY,  1873-1887. 


Frederick  HI. 
and  William  XL 


GERMANY,  1888. 


orders),  all  of  whoni  had  been  expelled." — J.  N. 
Murphy,  The  Chair  of  Peter,  ch.  29. — "Why- 
was  the  Kulturkampf  undertaken?  This  is  a 
question  often  asked,  and  answered  in  different 
ways.  That  Ultramontanism  is  a  danger  to  the 
Empire  is  the  usual  explanation;  but  proof  is 
not  producible.  .  .  .  Ultramontanism,  as  it  is 
understood  in  France  and  Belgium,  has  never 
taken  root  in  Germany.  It  was  represented  by 
the  Jesuits,  and  when  they  were  got  rid  of, 
Catholicism  remained  as  a  religion,  but  not  as  a 
political  factor.  .  .  .  The  real  purpose  of  the 
Kulturkampf  has  been,  I  conceive,  centralisation. 
It  has  not  been  waged  against  the  Roman  Church 
only,  for  the  same  process  has  been  followed 
with  the  Protestant  Churches.  It  was  intolerable 
in  a  strong  centralising  Government  to  have  a 
Calvinist  and  a  Lutheran  Church  side  by  side,  and 
both  to  call  themselves  Protestant.  It  interfered 
with  systematic  and  neat  account-keeping  of  pub- 
lic expenditure  for  religious  purposes.  Conse- 
quently, in  1839,  the  King  of  Prussia  suppressed 
Calvinism  and  Lutheranism,  and  established  a 
new  Evangelical  Church  on  their  ruins,  with  con- 
stitution and  liturgy  chiefly  of  his  own  drawing 
up.  The  Protestant  churches  of  Baden,  Nassau, 
Hesse,  and  the  Bavarian  Palatinate  have  also 
been  fused  and  organised  on  the  Prussian  pattern. 
In  Schleswig-Holstein  and  in  Hanover  existed 
pure  Lutherans,  but  they,  for  uniformity's  sake, 
have  been  also  recently  unified  and  melted  into 
the  Landeskirche  of  Prussia.  A  military  govern- 
ment cannot  tolerate  any  sort  of  double  allegiance 
in  its  subjects.  Education  and  religion,  medicine 
and  jurisprudence,  telegraphs  and  post-office, 
must  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State.  .  .  . 
From  the  point  of  view  of  a  military  despotism, 
the  May  laws  are  reasonable  and  necessary.  As 
Germany  is  a  great  camp,  the  clergy,  Protestant 
and  Catholic,  must  be  military  chaplains  amen- 
able to  the  general  in  command.  ...  I  have  no 
doubt  whatever  that  this  is  the  real  explanation 
of  the  Kulturkampf,  and  that  all  other  explana- 
tions are  excuses  and  inventions.  .  .  .  The  Chan- 
cellor, when  he  began  the  crusade,  had  probably 
no  idea  of  the  opposition  he  would  meet  with, 
and  when  the  opposition  manifested  itself,  it 
irritated  him,  and  made  him  more  dogged  in  pur- 
suing his  scheme. " — S.  Baring-Gould,  Oermany, 
Present  and  PaU,  ch.  13  (».  2). — "The  passive 
resistance  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  standing  on 
their  own  ground,  and  acting  together  in  com- 
plete agreement,  succeeded  in  the  end.  The 
laity  had  recognised  their  own  priests,  even  when 
suspended  by  government,  and  had  resolutely  re- 
fused to  receive  others;  and  both  priests  and 
laity  insisted  upon  the  Church  regulating  its  own 
theological  education.  Prussia  and  Baden  be- 
came weary  of  the  contest.  In  1880  and  1881 
the  '  May  Laws '  were  suspended,  and,  after  ne- 
gotiation with  Leo  XIII.,  they  were  to  a  large 
extent  repealed.  By  this  change,  completed  in 
April,  1887,  the  obligations  of  civil  marriage 
and  the  vesting  of  Catholic  property  in  the 
hands  of  lay  trustees  were  retained,  but  the  legis- 
lative interference  with  the  administration  of 
the  Church,  including  the  education  required  for 
the  priesthood,  was  wholly  abandoned.  The 
Prussian  Government  had  entirely  miscalculated 
its  power  with  the  Church." — The  same.  The 
Church  in  Oermany,  ch.  21. — By  the  Bill  passed 
in  1887,  "all  religious  congregations  which  ex- 
isted before  the  passing  of  the  law  of  May  31, 


1875,  were  to  be  allowed  to  re-establish  them- 
selves, i:)rovided  their  objects  were  purely  reli- 
gious, charitable,  or  contemplative.  .  .  .  The 
Society  of  .Jesus,  which  is  a  teaching  order,  was 
not  included  in  this  permission.  But  Prince  Bis- 
marck's determination  never  to  readmit  the  Jesu- 
its is  well  known.  .  .  .  The  Bill  left  very  few 
vestiges  of  the  May  laws  remaining." — Annual 
Register,  1887,  pt.  1,  p.  245.  See  Papacy  :  A.  D. 
1870-1874. 

Also  in  :  C.  Lowe,  Prince  Bisinnrck,  ch.  12-13. 

A.  D.  1878-1879.— Adoption  of  the  Protec- 
tive policy.  See  Tariff  Legislation  (Ger- 
many) :  A.  D.  18.53-1893. 

A.  D.  1878-1893.— The  Socialist  Parties.— 
Socialistic  Measures.  See  Social  Move- 
ments :  A.  D.  187.1-1893 ;  1883-1889. 

A.  D.  1882.— The  Triple  Alliance.  See 
TiiiPLB  Alliance. 

A.  D.  1884-1894. — Colonization  in  Africa.— 
Territorial  seizures. — The  Berlin  Conference. 
See  Afuk-a  :  A.  D.  1883;  1884-1891  ;  and  after. 

A.  D.  1888.— Death  of  the  Emperor  William 
1. — Accession  and  death  of  Frederick  III. — 
Accession  of  William  II. — The  Emperor  Wil- 
liam died  on  the  9th  of  March,  1888.  He  was 
succeeded  by  his  son,  proclaimed  under  the  title 
of  Frederick  III.  The  new  Emperor  was  then  at 
San  Remo,  undergoing  treatment  for  a  mortal 
malady  of  the  throat.  He  returned  at  once  to 
Berlin,  where  an  unfavorable  turn  of  the  disease 
soon  appeared.  "  Consequently  an  Imperial  de- 
cree, dated  the  21st  of  March,  was  addressed  to 
the  Crown  Prince  and  publislied,  expressing  the 
wish  of  the  Emperor  that  the  Prince  should  make 
himself  conversant  with  the  affairs  of  State  by 
immediate  participation  therein.  His  Imperial 
Highness  was  accordingly  entrusted  with  the 
preparation  and  discharge  of  such  State  business 
as  the  Emperor  should  assign  to  him,  and  he  was 
empowered  in  the  performance  of  this  duty  to 
affix  all  necessary  signatures,  as  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Emperor,  without  obtaining  an  es- 
pecial authorisation  on  each  occasion.  .  .  .  The 
insidious  malady  from  which  the  Emperor  suf- 
fered exhibited  many  fluctuations,"  but  the  end 
came  on  the  15th  of  June,  his  reign  having  lasted 
only  three  months.  He  was  succeeded  by  his 
eldest  son,  who  became  Emperor  William  II. — 
Eminent  Persons :  Biographies  reprinted  from  27ie 
Times,  d.  4,  pp.  112-115. 

Also  IN:  R.  Rodd,  Frederick,  Crown,  Prince  and 
Emperor. — G.  Freytag,  The  Crown  Prince. 

A.  D.  1888.— The  end  of  the  Free  Cities.— 
"The  last  two  cities  to  uphold  the  name  and 
traditions  of  the  Hanseatic  League,  Hamburg 
and  Bremen,  have  been  incorporated  into  the 
German  Zoll  Verein,  thus  finally  surrendering 
their  old  historical  privileges  as  free  ports.  Lu- 
beck  took  this  step  some  twenty-two  years  ago 
[1866],  Hamburg  and  Bremen  not  till  October, 
1888  —  so  long  had  they  resisted  Prince  Bis- 
marck's more  or  less  gentle  suasions  to  enter  his 
Protection  League.  .  .  .  They,  and  Hamburg  in 
particular,  held  out  nobly,  jealous,  and  rightly 
jealous,  of  the  curtailment  of  those  privileges 
which  distinguished  them  from  the  other  cities 
of  the  German  Empire.  It  was  after  the  foun- 
dation of  this  empire  that  the  claim  of  the  two 
cities  to  remain  free  ports  was  conceded  and 
ratified  in  the  Imperial  Constitution  of  April, 
1871,  though  the  privilege,  in  the  case  of  Ham- 
burg, was  restricted  to  the  city  and  port,  and 


1582 


GERMANY,  1888. 


Bismarck 
and  William  IJ. 


GERMANY,  1889-1890. 


withdrawn  from  the  rest  of  the  State,  which  ex- 
tends to  the  mouth  of  the  Elbe  and  embraces 
about  160  square  miles,  while  the  free-port  terri- 
tory was  reduced  to  28  square  miles.  This  was 
the  first  serious  interference  with  the  city's  liberty, 
and  others  followed,  perhaps  rather  of  a  petty, 
annoying,  than  of  a  seriously  aggressive,  charac- 
ter, but  enough  to  show  the  direction  in  which 
the  wind  was  blowing.  It  was  in  1880  that  the 
proposal  to  include  Hamburg  in  the  Customs 
Union  was  first  politically  discussed.  ...  In 
May,  1881,  .  .  .  was  drafted  a  proposal  to  the 
effect  that  the  whole  of  the  city  and  port  of 
Hamburg  should  be  included  in  the  Zoll  Verein." 
After  long  and  earnest  discussion  the  proposition 
was  adopted  by  the  Senate  and  the  House  of 
Burgesses.  "The  details  for  carrying  into  effect 
this  conclusion  have  occupied  seven  years,  and 
the  event  was  finally  celebrated  with  great  pomp, 
the  Emperor  William  II.  coming  in  person  to 
enhance  the  solemnity  of  the  sacrifice  brought 
by  the  burghers  of  the  erst  free  city  for  the  com- 
mon weal  of  the  German  Fatherland.  .  .  .  The 
last  and  only  privilege  the  three  once  powerful 
Hanseatic  cities  retain  is  that  of  being  entitled, 
like  the  greatest  States  in  the  empire,  to  send 
their  own  representatives  to  the  Bundesrath  and 
to  the  Reichstag." — H.  Ziramern,  The  Eanaa 
Towns,  period  3,  ch.  8,  note. 

A.  D.  1 888-1 889.  —  Prussian  Free  School 
laws.  See  Education,  Modern:  Europban 
Countries. — Prussia:  1885-1889. 

A.  D.  1889-1890. —  Rupture  between  Em- 
peror William  II.  and  Chancellor  Bismarck. — 
Retirement  of  the  great  Chancellor. — Soon  after 
the  accession  of  William  II. ,  signs  of  discord  be- 
tween the  young  Emperor  and  the  veteran  states- 
man, Chancellor  Bismarck,  began  to  appear. 
"In  March,  1889,  the  Minister  of  Finance  had 
drawn  up  a  Bill  for  the  reform  of  the  income  tax, 
which  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  Emperor ;  sud- 
denly Prince  Bismarck  interfered,  declaring  that 
it  was  against  the  agrarian  interest,  and  the  Land- 
tag, summoned  expressly  to  vote  that  Bill,  was 
dismissed  '  re  inacta. '  Count  Waldersee,  the  Chief 
of  the  General  Staff,  an  eminent  and  independent 
man,  and  standing  high  in  favour,  had  for  years 
been  a  thorn  in  the  Chancellor's  side,  who  looked 
upon  him  as  a  possible  rival ;  he  had  tried  to  over- 
throw him  under  Frederic  III.,  but  had  not  suc- 
ceeded, Moltke  protesting  that  the  general  was 
indispensable  to  the  army.  When  Waldersee,  in 
the  summer  of  1889,  accompanied  the  Emperor  to 
Norway,  a  letter  appeared  in  the  Hamburger 
Nachrichten,  to  the  effect  that  in  a  Memoir  he 
had  directed  his  sovereign's  attention  to  the 
threatening  character  of  the  Russian  armaments, 
and  had  advised,  in  contradiction  to  the  Chancel- 
lor's policy,  the  forcing  of  war  upon  Russia. 
The  Count  from  Trondhjem  addressed  a  tele- 
graphic denial  to  the  paper,  stating  that  he  had 
never  presented  such  a  Memoir ;  but  the  Nach- 
richten registered  this  declaration  in  a  garbled 
form  and  in  small  type,  and  the  Norddeutsche 
Zeitung,  which  at  the  same  time  had  published 
an  article,  to  the  effect  that  according  to  General 
von  Clausewitz,  war  is  only  the  continuation  of 
a  certain  policy,  and  that  therefore  the  Chief  of 
the  General  Staff  must  needs  be  under  the  order 
of  the  Foreign  Minister,  took  no  notice  of  the 
Count's  protest.  ...  In  the  winter  session  of 
the  Reichstag  the  Government  presented  a  Bill 
tending  to  make  the  law  against  Social- Democracy 


a  permanent  one,  but  even  the  pliant  National 
Liberals  objected  to  the  clause  that  the  police 
should  be  entitled  to  expel  Social-Democrats  from 
the  large  towns.  They  would  have  been  ready 
to  grant  that  permission  for  two  years,  but  the 
Government  did  not  accept  this,  and  the  Bill  fell 
to  the  ground.  The  reason,  which  at  that  time 
was  not  generally  understood,  was,  that  there  ex- 
isted already  a  hitch  between  the  policy  of  the 
Chancellor  and  that  of  the  Emperor,  who  had  ar- 
rived at  the  conviction  that  the  law  against  Social 
Democrats  was  not  only  barren,  but  had  increased 
their  power.  This  difference  was  accentuated  by 
the  Imperial  decree  of  February  4  in  favour  of 
the  protection  of  children's  and  women's  labour, 
which  the  Chancellor  had  steadily  resisted,  and 
by  the  invitation  of  an  international  conference  for 
that  end.  Prince  Bismarck  resigned  the  Ministry 
of  Commerce,  and  was  replaced  by  Herr  von 
Berlepsch,  who  was  to  preside  at  the  conference. 
The  elections  for  the  Reichstag  were  now  at  hand, 
a  new  surprise  was  expected  for  maintaining  the 
majority  obtained  by  the  cry  of  1887;  but  it  did 
not  come,  and  the  result  was  a  crushing  defeat  of 
the  Chancellor.  Perhaps  even  then  the  Emperor 
had  discerned  that  he  could  not  go  on  with  Bis- 
marck, and  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  get  rid 
of  him,  if  he  obtained  another  majority  for  five 
years.  At  least  it  seems  certain  that  William  II. 
already  in  the  beginning  of  February  had  asked 
General  von  Caprivi  whether  he  would  be  ready 
to  take  the  Chancellor's  place.  Affairs  were  now 
rapidly  pushing  to  a  crisis.  Bismarck  asked  the 
Emperor  that,  in  virtue  of  a  Cabinet  order  of 
1852,  his  colleagues  should  be  bound  to  submit 
beforehand  to  him  any  proposals  of  political 
importance  before  bringing  it  to  the  cognizance 
of  the  Sovereign.  The  Emperor  refused,  and 
insisted  upon  that  order  being  cancelled.  The 
last  drop  which  made  the  cup  overflow  was  an 
interview  of  the  Chancellor  with  Windthorst. 
The  Emperor,  calling  upon  Bismarck  the  next 
morning,  asked  to  hear  what  had  passed  in 
that  conversation ;  the  Chancellor  declined  to  give 
any  account  of  it,  as  he  could  not  submit  his  in- 
tercourse with  deputies  to  any  control,  and  added 
that  he  was  ready  to  resign." — The  Change  of  Gov- 
ernment in  Germany  (Fortnightly  Review,  Au- 
gust, 1890),  pp.  301-304.— "Early  on  the  17th  of 
March  the  Emperor  sent  word  that  he  was 
waiting  for  Bismarck's  resignation.  The  Prince 
refused  to  resign,  on  grounds  of  conscience  and 
of  self-respect.  .  .  .  The  Emperor  must  dismiss 
him.  A  second  messenger  came,  in  the  course 
of  the  day,  with  a  direct  order  from  the  Emperor 
that  the  Prince  should  send  in  his  resignation 
within  a  given  number  of  hours.  At  the  same 
time  Bismarck  was  informed  that  the  Emperor 
intended  to  make  him  Duke  of  Lauenburg.  The 
Prince  responded  that  he  might  have  had  that 
title  before  if  he  had  wished  it.  He  was  then 
assured  (referring  to  the  grounds  on  which  he 
had  previously  declined  the  title)  that  the  Em- 
peror would  pledge  himself  to  secure  such  a 
legislative  grant  as  would  suffice  for  the  proper 
maintenance  of  the  ducal  dignity.  Bismarck 
declined  this  also,  declaring  that  he  could  not  be 
expected  to  close  such  a  career  as  his  had  been 
'  by  running  after  a  gratuity  such  as  is  given  to 
a  faithful  letter-carrier  at  New  Year's.'  His 
resignation,  of  course,  he  would  send  in  as  soon 
as  possible,  but  he  owed  it  to  himself  and  to  his- 
tory to  draw  up  a  proper  memorial.    This  he 


1583 


GERMANY,  1889-1890. 


The  Modern  Empire 


GERMANY,  1895. 


took  two  days  to  write.  ...  He  has  since  re- 
peatedly demanded  the  publication  of  this  memo- 
rial, but  without  success.  .  .  .  Ou  March  20, 
the  Emperor,  in  a  most  graciously  worded  letter 
(which  was  immediately  published),  accepted 
Bismarck's  'resignation.'.  .  .  The  immediate 
nomination  of  his  successor  [General  von  C'ap- 
rivi]  forced  Bismarck  to  quit  the  Chancellor's 
official  residence  in  such  haste  that  .  .  .  '  Bis- 
marck himself  compared  his  exit  to  the  expul- 
sion of  a  German  family  from  Paris  in  1870.'  " — 
Nation,  March  22,  1894  (reviewing  '  Das  deutscJie 
Reich  zur  Zeit  Bismarcks,'  by  Dr.  lTan.s  Blum). 

A.  D.  1890. — Settlement  of  African  claims 
with  England. — Acquisition  of  Heligoland. 
See  Africa  :  A.  D.  1884-1891. 

A.  D.  1894. — Reconciliation  of  Bismarck 
with  the  Emperor. — In  January,  1894,  the  com- 
plete rupture  of  friendly  relations  between  Prince 
Bismarck  and  the  Emperor,  and  the  Emperor's 
government,  which  had  existed  since  the  dismis- 
sal of  the  former,  was  terminated  by  a  dramatic 
reconciliation.  The  Emperor  made  a  peace-oflfer- 
ing,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Prince's  recovery 
from  an  illness,  by  sending  his  congratulations, 
with  a  gift  of  wine.  Prince  Bismarck  responded 
amiably, "and  was  then  invited  to  Berlin,  to  be 
entertained  as  a  guest  in  the  royal  palace.  The 
invitation  was  accepted,  the  visit  promptly  made 
on  the  26th  of  January,  and  an  enthusiastic  re- 
ception was  accorded  to  the  venerable  ex-chan- 
cellor at  the  capital,  by  court  and  populace  alike. 

A.  D.  1895. — The  present  organization  of 
the  modern  German  Empire. — "The  idea  of 
the  unity  of  the  empire  in  its  purest  and  most 
unadulterated  form  is  most  clearly  typified  by 
the  German  diet.  This  assembly,  resulting  from 
general  elections  of  the  whole  people,  shows  all 
the  clefts  and  schisms  which  partisanship  and 
the  spirit  of  faction  have  simultaneously  brought 
about  among  the  different  classes  of  the  people 
and  among  their  representatives.  But  there 
.  .  .  never  has  been  a  single  case  where  in 
taking  a  vote  North  Germans  have  come  forward 
in  a  body  against  South  Germans  or  vice  versa, 
or  where  small  and  medium  states  have  been 
pitted  against  the  one  large  state.  .  .  .  How  in- 
dispensable a  parliamentary  organ  which  actu- 
ally represents  the  unity  of  the  people  is  to  every 
state  in  a  confederation  is  best  shown  by  the 
energy  with  which  the  Prussian  government 
again  and  again  demanded  a  German  parliament 
at  the  very  time  when  it  fairly  despaired  about 
coming  to  an  understanding  with  its  own  body 
of  representatives.  In  the  middle  between  the 
head  of  the  empire  and  such  a  diet  as  we  have 
described  is  the  place  occupied  by  the  Federal 
Council  (Bundesrath)  :  not  until  we  have  made 
this  clear  to  ourselves  can  we  fully  understand 
the  nature  of  this  latter  institution.  Each  of  its 
members  is  the  plenipotentiary  of  his  sovereign 
just  as  were  the  old  Regensburg  and  Frankfort 
envoys.  It  is  a  duty,  for  instance,  for  Bavaria's 
representative  to  investigate  each  measure  pro- 
posed and  to  see  whether  it  is  advantageous  or 
not  for  the  land  of  Bavaria.  The  Federal  Coun- 
cil is  and  is  meant  to  be  the  speaking-tube  by 
which  the  voice  of  the  separate  interests  shall 
reach  the  ear  of  the  legislator.  But  all  the  same, 
held  together  as  it  is  by  the  firm  stability  of  the 
.seventeen  votes  which"it  holds  itself  and  by  the 
balancing  power  of  the  emperor  and  of  the  diet, 
it  is  the  place  where  daily  habit  educates  the 


representatives  of  the  individual  states  to  see 
that  by  furthering  the  welfare  of  the  common 
fatherland  they  take  the  best  means  of  further- 
ing their  own  local  interests.  Taken  each  by 
himself  the  plenipotentiaries  represent  their  own 
individual  states  ;  taken  as  a  whole  the  assembly 
represents  a  conglomeration  of  all  the  German 
states.  It  is  the  upholder  of  the  sovereignty  of 
the  empire.  If,  then,  the  federal  council  already 
represents  the  whole  empire,  still  more  is  this 
true  of  the  general  body  of  officials,  constituted 
through  appointment  by  the  emperor,- although 
with  a  considerable  amount  of  co-operation  on 
the  part  of  the  federal  council.  The  imperial 
chancellor  is  the  responsible  minister  of  the  em- 
peror for  the  whole  of  the  empire.  At  his  side 
is  the  imperial  chancery,  a  body  of  officials  who, 
in  turn,  have  to  do  in  each  department  with  the 
affairs  of  the  whole  empire  The  imperial  court, 
too,  in  spite  of  all  its  limitations,  is  none  the 
less  a  court  for  the  whole  empire.  Not  less  clearly 
is  the  territorial  unity  expressed  in  the  unity  of 
legislation.  In  the  circumstances  in  which  we 
left  the  old  empire  there  could  scarcely  be  any 
question  any  longer  of  real  imperial  legislation. 
Under  the  confederation  beginnings  were  made, 
nor  were  they  unsuccessful ;  but  once  again 
it  was  primarily  the  struggle  against  the  striv- 
ings for  unity  that  chiefly  impelled  the  princes 
to  united  action.  The  '  Carlsbad  Decrees '  placed 
limits  to  separate  teixitorial  legislation  to  an 
extent  that  even  the  imperial  legislation  of 
to-day  would  not  venture  upon  in  many  ways. 
The  empire  of  the  year  1848  at  once  took  up  the 
idea  of  imperial  legislation  ;  a  'Reichsgesetzblatt' 
[imperial  legislative  gazette]  was  issued.  In  this 
the  imperial  ministry,  after  first  passing  them  in 
the  form  of  a  decree,  published  among  other 
things  a  set  of  rules  regulating  exchange.  The 
plan  was  broached  of  drawing  up  a  code  of  com- 
mercial law  for  all  Germany  for  the  benefit  of 
that  class  of  the  population  to  which  a  uniform 
regulation  of  its  legal  relationships  was  an  actual 
question  of  life  and  death.  So  firmly  rooted  was 
such  legislation  in  the  national  needs  that  even 
the  reaction  of  the  fifties  did  not  venture  to  undo 
what  had  been  done.  Indeed,  the  idea  of  a  uni- 
versal code  of  commercial  law  was  carried  on  by 
most  of  the  governments  with  the  best  will  in  the 
world.  A  number  of  conferences  were  called,  and 
by  the  end  of  the  decade  a  plan  had  been  drawn 
up,  thoroughly  worked  out  and  adopted.  It  has 
remained  up  to  this  very  day  the  legal  basis  for 
commercial  intercourse.  It  is  true  it  was  not  the 
general  decrees  of  these  conferences  that  gave 
legal  authority  to  this  code,  but  rather  its  subse- 
quent acceptance  by  the  governments  of  the  in- 
dividual states.  But  the  practical  result  never- 
theless was  that,  in  one  important  branch  of  law, 
the  same  code  was  in  use  in  all  German  states. 
Never  before,  so  long  as  Germany  had  had  a 
history,  had  a  codification  of  private  law  been 
introduced  by  means  of  legislation  into  the  Ger- 
man states  in  common  :  for  the  first  time  princes 
and  subjects  learned  by  its  fruits  the  blessing  of 
united  legislation.  But  a  few  years  later  they 
were  ready  enough  to  give  over  to  the  newly 
established  empire  an  actual  power  of  legisla- 
tion :  only,  indeed,  for  such  matters  as  were 
adapted  for  common  regulation,  but,  so  far  as 
these  were  concerned,  so  fully  and  freely  that  no 
local  territorial  law  can  in  any  way  interfere. 
What  the  lawgiver  of  the  German  empire  an- 


1584 


GERMANY,  1895. 


The  Modern  Empire. 


GERMANY,  1895. 


nounces  as  his  will  must  be  accepted  from  the 
foot  of  the  Alps  to  the  waves  of  the  German 
Ocean.  Thus  after  long  national  striving  the 
view  had  made  a  way  for  itself  that,  without 
threatening  the  existence  of  the  individual  states, 
the  soil  of  the  empire  nevertheless  formed  a 
united  territorial  whole.  But  not  only  the  soil, 
its  inhabitants  also  had  to  be  welded  together 
into  one  organization.  The  old  empire  had  lost 
all  touch  with  its  subjects  —  a  very  much  graver 
evil  than  the  disintegration  of  its  territory.  So 
formidable  an  array  of  intermediate  powers  had 
thrust  itself  in  between  the  emperor  and  his  sub- 
jects that  at  last  the  citizen  and  the  peasant 
never  by  any  chance  any  more  heard  the  voice 
of  their  imperial  master.  ...  In  three  ways  the 
German  emperor  now  found  the  way  to  his  sub- 
jects. Already  as  king  of  Prussia  the  emperor 
of  the  future  had  been  obeyed  by  19  millions  of 
the  whole  German  population  as  his  immediate 
subjects.  By  tlie  entrance  of  a  further  8  millions 
into  the  same  relationship  on  the  resignation  of 
their  own  territorial  lords  by  far  the  majority  of 
all  Germans  became  immediate  subjects  of  the 
emperor.  The  German  empire,  secondly,  in 
those  branches  of  the  administration  which  it 
created  anew  or  at  least  reorganized,  made  it  a 
rule  to  preserve  from  the  very  beginning  the 
most  immediate  contact  with  fts  subjects:  so  in 
the  army,  so  in  the  department  of  foreign  af- 
fairs. The  empire,  finally,  even  where  it  left  the 
administration  to  the  individual  states,  exercised 
the  wholesome  pressure  of  a  supreme  national 
authoritative  organization  by  setting  up  certain 
general  rules  to  be  observed.  The  empire,  for 
instance,  will  not  allow  any  distinctions  to  be 
made  among  its  subjects  which  would  interfere 
with  national  unity.  If  the  Swabian  comes  to 
Hesse,  the  Hessian  to  Bavaria,  the  Bavarian  to 
Oldenburg,  his  inborn  right  of  citizenship  gives 
him  a  claim  to  all  the  privileges  of  one  born 
within  those  limits.  For  all  Germany  there  is  a 
common  right  of  citizenship  ;  and  this  common 
bond  receives  its  true  significance  through  nu- 
merous actual  migrations  from  one  state  to  an- 
other, the  right  of  choosing  a  domicile  being 
guaranteed.  ...  It  belongs  in  the  nature  of  a 
federative  state  that  it  should  not  claim  for  itself 
all  state-duties  but  should  content  itself  with 
exercising  only  such  functions  as  demand  a  cen- 
tralized organization.  In  consequence  we  see 
the  individual  states  unfolding  great  activity  in 
the  field  of  internal  administration,  in  the  further- 
ance of  education,  art  and  science,  in  the  care 
of  the  poor  :  matters  with  which  the  empire  as  a 
whole  has  practically  nothing  to  do.  All  those 
affairs  of  the  states,  on  the  other  hand,  which  by 
their  nature  demand  a  centralized  administration 
have  been  taken  in  hand  by  the  empire,  and  the 
unity  of  public  interests  to  which  the  activity  of 
the  empire  gives  utterance  is  shown  in  the  most 
different  ways.  There  are  certain  affairs  admin- 
istered by  the  empire  which  it  has  brought  as 
much  under  a  central  organization  as  ever  the 
Prussian  state  did  the  affairs  of  the  amalgamated 
territories  within  its  limits.  With  regard  to 
others  the  empire  has  preserved  for  itself  nothing 
more  than  the  chief  superintendence ;  with  re- 
gard to  others  still  it  is  content  to  set  up  princi- 
ples which  are  to  be  generally  followed  and  to 
exercise  a  right  of  supervision.  It  would  be 
wrong,  however,  to  imagine  that  the  two  last- 
mentioned  prerogatives  are  only  of    secondary 


importance.      The    superintendence    which  the 
German  emperor  exercises  over  the  affairs  of  the 
army,  the  chief  part  of  which,  indeed,  is  under 
his  direction  as  king  of  Prussia,  is  sufficient  in 
its  workings  to  make  the  laud-aiiny,  in  time  of 
war,  as  much  of  a  imit   as  is  the  consolidated 
navy.  .  .  .  Customs  matters  form  a  third  cate- 
gory, with  regard  to  which  the  empire  possesses 
only  the  beginnings  of  an  administrative  appa- 
ratus: all  the  same  we  have  seen  in  the  last  years 
how  the  right  of  general  supervision  was  suffi- 
cient in  this  field  to  bring  about  a  change  in  the 
direction   of    centralization,   the   importance  of 
which  is  recognizable  from  the  loud  expressions 
of  approval  of  its  supporters  and  also  in  equal 
measure  from  the  loud  opposition  of  its  antago- 
nists. ...  In  the  field  of  finance  the  empire  has 
advanced  with  caution  and  consideration  and  at 
the  same  time  with  vigor.     In  general  the  sepa- 
rate states  have  retained  their  systems  of  direct 
and  indirect  taxation.     Only  that  amount  of  con- 
solidation without  which  the  unity  of  the  empire 
as  a  whole  would  have  been  illusory  was  firmly 
decreed  :   '  Germany  forms  one  customs  and  com- 
mercial unit  bounded  by  common  customs  limits.' 
The  internal  inter-state  customs  were  abolished. 
The  finances  that  remained  continued  to  belong 
to  the  individual  states  —  the  direct  taxes  in  their 
entirety,  the  indirect  to  a  great  extent.    The  ad- 
ministration of  the  customs  on  the  borders  even 
remained  in  the  hands  of  the  local  customs-offi- 
cials, only  that  when  collected  they  were  placed 
to  the  general  account.     But  the  unconditional 
right  of  the  empire  to  lay  down  the  principles  of 
customs  legislation  gave  it  more  and  more  of  an 
opportunity  to  create  finances  of  its  own  and  to 
become  more  and  more  independent  of  the  sched- 
uled contributions  from  the  separate  states.  .  .  . 
Judicial  matters  are  the  affair  of  the  individual 
state.     With  his  complaints  and  with  his  accusa- 
tions the  citizen  whose  rights  have  been  infringed 
turns  to  the  court  established  by  his  territorial 
lord.     But  already  it  has  been  found  possible  to 
organize  a  common  mode  of  procedure  for  this 
court  throughout  the  whole  empire  ;  the  rules  of 
court,    the   forms  for  criminal  as  well  as  civil 
suits  are  everywhere  the  same.  .  .  .  The  general 
German  commercial  code  and  the  exchange  reg- 
ulations, which  almost  all   the   states  had   pro- 
claimed  law   on  the  ground  of  the  conferences 
under  the  confederation,  were  proclaimed  again 
in  the  name  of  the  empire  and  were  supplemented 
in  certain  particulars.      As  to  criminal   law  a 
general  German  criminal  code  has  unified   the 
more  important  matters,  and  with  regard  to  those 
of  less  importance,  has  legally  fixed  the  limits  to 
be  observed  by  the  individual  states.     Work  is 
constantly  going  on  at  a  civil  code  which  is  to 
be   drawn   up   much   on   the   same  lines.     The 
German  nation  is  busily  engaged  in  creating  a 
German  legal   system  according  to  which   the 
Prussian    as    well  as  the  Bavarian,    Saxon  or 
Swabian  judge  is  to  render  his  decisions.     Fur- 
thermore,   a   century-long    development  in  our 
civilized  states  has  brought  it  about  that  a  su- 
pervision, itself  in  the  form   of  legal  decisions, 
should  be  exercised  over  the  legality  of  judicial 
sentences.     Here  again   it  was    in    commercial 
matters  that  the  jurisdiction  of  a  supreme  court 
first  showed  Itself  to  be  an  unavoidable   neces- 
sity.    Then  it  was,  however,  that  after  a  slumber 
of  seventy  years  the  old  imperial  court  rose  again 
from  the  dead,  not  entirely  without  limitations. 


1585 


GERMAKY,  1895. 


GERUSIA. 


but  absolutely  without  the  power  to  make  ex- 
ceptions. The  imperial  court  at  Leipzig  is  a 
court  for  the  whole  empire  and  for  one  and  all  of 
its  subjects.  If  we  turn  to  the  internal  adminis- 
tration it  is  chiefly  matters  concerning  traffic  and 
intercommunication  which  call  by  their  very 
nature  for  regulation  under  one  system.  Al- 
though the  management  of  local  and  to  some 
extent  also  of  provincial  postal  affairs  is  left 
as  far  as  possible  to  the  individual  states  them- 
selves, the  German  post  is  nevertheless  imperial, 
all  the  higher  officials  are  appointed  by  the  em- 
peror, the  imperial  post  office  passes  its  rules 
and  regulations  and  sees  that  they  are  carried 
out  witli  reference  to  the  whole  empire.  .  .  . 
What  is  true  of  the  post  is  true  also  of  the  tele- 
graph, which  has  come  again  to  be  one  with  it. 
.  .  .  The  railroads  stand  under  the  direction 
or  supervisory  administration  of  the  individual 
states,  but  unity  with  regard  to  time-tables, 
connections,  fares,  and  forwarding  has  been  in 
so  far  preserved  that  differences  which  might 
interrupt  traffic  are  avoided  as  far  as  possible. 
The  governments  of  the  confederated  states  are 
under  obligations  '  to  allow  the  German  rail- 
roads, iu  the  interests  of  general  communication, 
to  be  administered  as  one  unbroken  network.' 


A  separate  Imperial  Railroad  Bureau  watches 
over  the  fulfillment  of  this  agreement.  Nothing, 
however,  has  given  clearer  expression  to  a  uni- 
fied system  of  intercommunication  in  Germany 
than  the  equalization  of  the  coinage.  .  .  .  Still 
worse  than  with  regard  to  coined  money  .  .  . 
did  the  want  of  unity  show  itself  in  the  mat- 
ter of  paper  money.  Not  only  did  the  various 
states  have  different  principles  on  which  they 
issued  it,  and  a  different  system  of  securities 
in  funding  it,  but  one  and  the  same  state 
would  continue  to  use  its  old  paper  money  even 
when  issuing  new  on  another  principle.  .  .  . 
Pounded  thus  on  a  system  of  firm  finances,  on 
the  uniform  administration  of  justice  in  all  lands, 
on  an  internal  administration  which,  however 
varied,  nevertheless  fulfills  the  necessary  de- 
mands of  unity,  the  German  empire  shows  a 
measure  of  consolidation,  the  best  outward  ex- 
pression to  which  is  given  by  its  army.  Among 
the  two  million  men  of  Teutonic  blood  on  land 
and  on  sea  who  are  ready  to  protect  the  Father- 
land's boundaries  there  is  not  one  who  has  not 
sworn  fidelity  to  his  imperial  master." — I.  Jas- 
trow,  OescMchte  des  deutsehen  EMieitatra'umes 
•und  seiner  Erfullung  {trans,  from  the  Oerman), 
pp.  285-803. 


GERMINAL,  The  month.  See  France  : 
A.  D.  1793  (October). 

GERONA,  Siege  of.  See  Spain  :  A.  D.  1809 
(February — .Tune). 

GERONTES.— Spartan  senators,  or  members 
of  the  Gerusia.  See  Sparta  :  The  Constitu- 
tion, &c. 

GERONTOCRACY.  SeeHAYTi :  A.  D.  1804 
-1880. 

GEROUSIA.     See  Gerusia. 

GERRY,  Elbridge,  and  the  framing  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  See  United  States  of 
Am.:  A.  D.  1787. 

GERRYMANDERING.— "In  the  composi- 
tion of  the  House  of  Representatives  fof  the  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States]  the  state  legislatures 
play  a  very  important  part.  For  the  purposes 
of  the  election  a  state  is  divided  into  districts 
corresponding  to  the  number  of  representatives 
the  state  is  entitled  to  send  to  Congress.  These 
electoral  districts  are  marked  out  by  the  legisla- 
ture, and  the  division  is  apt  to  be  made  by  the 
preponderating  party  with  an  unfairness  that  is 
at  once  shameful  and  ridiculous.  The  aim,  of 
course,  is  so  to  lay  out  the  districts  '  as  to  secure 
in  the  greatest  possible  number  of  them  a  ma- 
jority for  the  party  which  conducts  the  opera- 
tion. This  is  done  sometimes  by  throwing  the 
greatest  possible  number  of  hostile  voters  into  a 
district  which  is  anyhow  certain  tc  be  hostile, 
sometimes  by  adding  to  a  district  where  parties 
are  equally  divided  some  place  in  which  the  ma- 
jority of  friendly  voters  is  sufficient  to  turn  the 
scale.  There  is  a  district  in  Mississippi  (the  so- 
called  Shoe-String  District)  2.50  miles  long  by  30 
broad,  and  another  iu  Pennsylvania  resembling 
adumb-bell.'  .  .  .  This  trick  is  called  gerryman- 
dering, from  Elbridge  Gerry,  of  Massachusetts. 
...  In  1812,  while  Gerry  was  governor  of  that 
state,  the  Republican  legislature  redistributed  the 
districts  in  such  wise  that  the  shapes  of  the  towns 
forming  a  single  district  in  Essex  county  gave  to 
the  district  a  somewhat  dragon-like  contour.  This 
was  indicated  upon  a  map  of  Massachusetts  which 
Benjamin  Russell,  an  ardent  Federalist  and  editor 


of  the  '  Centinel,'  hung  up  over  the  desk  in  his 
office.  The  celebrated  painter,  Gilbert  Stuart, 
coming  into  the  office  one  day  and  observing  the 
uncouth  figure,  added  with  his  pencil  a  head, 
wings  and  claws,  and  exclaimed,  '  That  will  do 
for  a  salamander  ! '  '  Better  say  a  Gerrymander  ! ' 
growled  the  editor ;  and  the  outlandish  name,  thus 
duly  coined,  soon  came  into  general  currency." — 
J.  Fiske,  Civil  Gov't  in  the  U.  8.,  pp.  216-218. 

Also  in  :  J.  W.  Dean,  I%e  Oerryinander  (N- 
Bng.  Hist,  and  Genealogical  Beg.,  Oct.,  1892). 

GERSCHHEIM,  Battle  of.  See  Germany: 
A.  D.  1866. 


GERTRUYDENBERG:  Prince  Maurice's 
siege  and  capture  of.  See  Netherlands  :  A.  D. 
1588-1593. 

Conferences  at.    See  Prance  :  A.  D.  1710. 


GERUSIA,  OR  GEROUSIA,  The.— "There 

is  the  strongest  reason  to  believe  that  among  the 
Dorians,  as  in  all  the  heroic  states,  there  was, 
from  time  immemorial,  a  council  of  elders.  Not 
only  is  it  utterly  incredible  that  the  Spartan 
council  (called  the  gerusia,  or  senate)  was  first 
instituted  by  Lycurgus,  it  is  not  even  clear  that 
he  introduced  any  important  alteration  in  its  con- 
stitution or  functions.  It  was  composed  of  thirty 
members,  corresponding  to  the  number  of  the 
'obes,'  a  division  as  ancient  as  that  of  the  tribes. 
.  .  .  The  mode  of  election  breathes  a  spirit  of 
primitive  simplicity :  the  candidates,  who  were 
required  to  have  reached  the  age  of  sixty,  pre- 
sented themselves  in  succession  to  the  assembly, 
and  were  received  with  applause  proportioned  to 
the  esteem  in  which  they  were  held  by  their  fel- 
low-citizens. These  manifestations  of  popular 
feeling  were  noted  by  persons  appointed  for  the 
purpose,  who  were  shut  up  in  an  adjacent  room, 
where  they  could  hear  the  shouts,  but  could  not 
see  the  competitors.  He  who  in  their  judgment 
had  been  greeted  with  the  loudest  plaudits,  won 
the  prize — the  highest  dignity  in  the  common- 
wealth next  to  the  throne."  — "C.  Thirlwall,  Hist. 
of  Greece,  ch.  8  {v.  1). 


]586 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY,  LOS  ANGELES 

COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


R£C'D  COL  ua. 


Book  Slip-35m-7,'63(D8634s4) 4280 


IMllTlil«'iMNS;n'?~*  ^«RAR,  f,UL,7, 


D     OOO' 457401"' 


u 


ni» 


D 

9 

L32 

1901 

V.2 


